Makua study debate
Full impact study right thing to do
By William J. Aila Jr.
Two and a half years, almost half a million dollars and countless public meetings have failed to convince the Wai'anae community and many others beyond our community that the Army's environmental assessment on the impact of live-fire training at Makua is adequate.
Advertiser library photo
The assessment is neither comprehensive or objective. To be comprehensive the assessment would have to look beyond the narrow scope of the only question it investigates, that is: "What are the impacts of conducting company-level, maneuver, combined-arms, live-fire exercise (CALFEX) training at Makua?"
Nelson Kanui of Waianae, along with about 20 others, held signs to protest the Army's use of Makua valley.
Before any analysis of this question can begin, one must know the extent of effects of past military uses and abuses of this valley. In other words, one must develop a baseline from which to compare.
An environmental impact statement, as requested by the Wai'anae community, would establish this baseline. The preconceived outcome environmental assessment does not.
The Army emphasizes over and over in its presentations and in the assessment that training has suffered and that training and the mission of the 25th Division would be jeopardized if it had to do an EIS. It's not our fault that the Army commanders made a mistake 2 1/2 years ago and decided to conduct the more limited assessment.
They could have chosen the right thing to do: an EIS on Makua and ongoing training at Schofield. Instead, they are in court.
The Army boasts that its decision to go back to live-fire training is based on comprehensive study and is supported by information and analysis from outside agencies. The only thing that's comprehensive about the assessment is the overbearing public relations spin put on it by the Army.
Take its conclusion on geology, soils and climate. The Army relies on a 1994 study done by Halliburton Nus Corp., in which a limited number of soil and ground water samples were analyzed to characterize potential impacts associated with open burn/open detonation operations in a four-acre site at Makua.
The authors of the report further state, "A complete characterization of environmental conditions within the entire installation evaluating potential impacts associated with other past and present military activities is beyond the scope of this study."
Simply put, the analysis and conclusion of this "comprehensive" study with its finding of "no significant impacts," is based on a study in which the authors disclaim the use of its results to characterize overall environmental conditions.
The concern we have for the land, groundwater, flora and fauna of Makua goes beyond our own families. We share a genuine kuleana for the soldiers and their 'ohana who are asked to make great sacrifices.
In the assessment, there is no mention of impact training itself has on soldiers who can be exposed to any number of toxic or dangerous chemicals and explosive materials in possible violation of OSHA regulations.
Wait a minute, though: The Army is exempt from OSHA requirements and even some EPA requirements regarding operations on training ranges.
Excuse me and my fellow community members if we don't buy into the comprehensive and objective description of the environmental impact assessment.
In its discussion of the alternatives, especially pertaining to Schofield, the Army borrows a Navy analysis procedure, a WAG (which translates to a "wild-ass guess") in compiling inflated figures to transform platoon sized training areas into company-sized training areas.
It doesn't even consider a simpler suggestion: moving a road which would convert a platoon training area into a company-sized training area.
The Army's highly touted Programmatic Agreement with the state's Historic Preservation Office is incomplete. The Traditional Cultural Places Survey is not done, the Subsurface Surveys within the training area haven't even started yet.
Therefore how can the Army state that its resumption of training will not impact cultural resources? It hasn't even completed the baseline studies yet.
We in the Wai'anae community have observed a disturbing pattern developing within this assessment. Despite nonexistent baseline data and/or very poorly done studies with disclaimers attached, the Army continues to ignore that its assessment has no clothes on.
Despite overwhelming pleas to do the right thing — an EIS — the Army displays its deafness. So much for the rhetoric about being "Our Army."
They refuse to obey our desire for an EIS, which would identify any area of concern and allow for our protection and the protection of "our" soldiers.
Two and a half years ago, the Army leadership in Hawai'i took a shot and missed. It should have done an EIS. Now with the pressure to train bearing down on them, they take another shot, which misses: the inadequate environmental impact assessment.
Finally, the Army misses a third shot. It doesn't reveal to the public in Hawai'i that two years from now we will be going through this whole mess again as the Army has to do an EIS for all its training ranges in Hawai'i because of the transformation of the 25th Infantry Light into a division that focuses around the New Light Armored Vehicle III.
Once again, the Army misses the mark.
William Aila lives and works on the Leeward Coast. His family once lived in Makua.
