Editorial: Kaula bombings need fuller review

Some activities call out more loudly for careful environmental review than others. A Navy proposal to double down on bombing and strafing a small island designated a seabird sanctuary by the state of Hawaii is certainly one of them.

The Navy wants to increase its yearly aerial bombing runs, from 12 to as many as 31, on Kaula, a small island in the extended Hawaiian chain that’s about 23 miles southwest of Niihau and 72 miles from Kauai. Its draft environmental assessment concludes that impacts on wildlife would be “less than significant.” But the study doesn’t adequately back up that conclusion.

A full environmental impact statement (EIS) and thorough assessment of bombing’s effects must be completed. That will ensure that additional assaults on the island don’t do irreparable harm to the island, which provides a critical source of habitat for about 18 species of birds — 10,000 or so altogether — and shelters endangered species and more wildlife found only in the Hawaiian islands or the Pacific.

The Navy has been using Kaula for target practice for more than 70 years, and for about 30 years, beginning in 1953, planes dropped destructive, fully explosive bombs on the small island. In the 1980s, the switch was made to nonexplosives. Throughout, birds persisted in nesting, and monk seals and turtles continued to haul up on shore — but there’s not enough solid data available to know to what effect the ending of explosive bombing improved survival, much less to accurately assess the damage from more training.

Hawaii’s congressional delegation is united — and rightly so — in calling for an EIS be done before the Navy bombs more frequently. “The public deserves a clear, comprehensive, and evidence- based EIS to demonstrate that the Navy has done its due diligence on the environmental impacts of these trainings,” declared U.S. Sens. Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono and U.S. Reps. Ed Case and Jill Tokuda, in a May 27 missive to Navy Secretary John Phelan.

A thorough assessment is necessary to bring military appraisal of Kaula up to date with current science — and into alignment with the conclusions of the Fifth U.S. National Climate Assessment, released by the feds in 2023. It cites Hawaii- and Pacific-based scientists and experts who warn that island ecosystems, and with them the continued survival of wildlife found only in the Pacific, are threatened by climate change, and also reports that environmental data for Pacific islands is and has historically been insufficient.

The island is only about 130 acres in size — about one-fifth of a square mile — with high cliffs rising from the shoreline. Already shrinking from erosion, its small size makes it only more vulnerable to the effects of attack planes dropping heavy bombs, explosive or not, strafing the island and barraging it with bombs. Recognizing the lethality of its practice, the Navy bars access to the island or its surrounding waters within a 3-nautical-mile radius.

Hawaiian monk seals and green sea turtles frequenting the island are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Laysan and Black-footed albatross are classified as “near-threatened” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, a globally recognized authority.

Given all this — plus disputes between Hawaii and the Navy over control of the island reaching back to the 1970s — some critics question whether military training is needed on Kaula at all. The congressional delegates call for a formal assessment of this need within the EIS, stating, “Due diligence by Navy should include a national security justification for this expansion and explanation to the public how this training is reasonable given the impacts.”

Should the Navy meet these serious concerns about Kaula with a quality report meeting EIS standards, military exercises could continue, even expand. But if environmental concerns outweigh the value of continued simulated warfare on the little island, the Navy must stand down.