Plagued by omissions and outdated data that fell short of utmost due diligence, the Army’s final environmental impact statement (FEIS) toward retaining use of state land at the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) on Hawaii island deserved to be rejected. And gratifyingly, that’s just what the state Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) decided on Friday, after a long day of impassioned public testimony that mostly opposed acceptance of the report.
The Land Board received more than 1,500 written comments and heard from more than 140 people. So yes, the passion was profound, but it is important to know that facts — or more accurately, lack thereof — carried the proper outcome. What’s critical now will be how the Army responds: While it could appeal the BLNR’s decision, the hope is that it will provide the necessary comprehensive information to fill the considerable gaps. More good-faith cooperation is needed, in recognition of the balancing act between Hawaii’s imperative for environmental stewardship, and the training of U.S. troops for an Asia-Pacific theater becoming more fraught with China’s current flex.
The military’s 65-year lease of 22,750 state acres — for a ridiculous rate of $1 — is set to expire in 2029. Because the acreage is between two federally owned parcels that collectively total 132,000 acres, Army officials call it “the connective tissue” of PTA.
State Department of Land and Natural Resources staffers who vetted the FEIS stopped short of recommending rejection or acceptance of the report, but pointedly raised numerous concerns. These include an incomplete inventory of archaeological sites, including surveys of traditional Native Hawaiian burial grounds; inadequate consultation on the cultural impact statement; potential threats to groundwater; and significant gaps in data and analysis about endangered species and other biological resources.
One deficiency cited: the Army’s most recent biological survey was from 2013, though it was noted that a new one was underway and expected to be completed this year.
The Army is open to leasing a smaller footprint — as well it should, at a much higher lease rent — but even that would not be palatable to critics who want the Pohakuloa site reverted back to the state, for uses true to its “conservation” designation. The Army’s FEIS, which outlines possible land-retention options to pursue as the 2029 deadline nears, was unveiled on April 18, launching a monthlong period that included BLNR’s review. To its credit, the Army had revised previous draft EISes based on copious public comments — but even so, the final EIS fell short.
In a statement right after BLNR’s rejection of its FEIS, the Army said it “is currently observing a 30-day waiting period, after which (it) will determine how much land it will seek to retain in its Record of Decision (ROD). The method of retention, or real estate transaction (lease, fee simple), would be negotiated with the State of Hawaii after the ROD is confirmed.”
Indeed, Gov. Josh Green and Hawaii’s congressional delegation all stressed the desire for “collaboration” toward a balanced and mutually acceptable result.
BLNR Chairwoman Dawn Chang, too, was careful to parse that Friday’s rejection “was based upon the inadequacy of the FEIS; this decision was not about the merits of whether the Army should not conduct training in Hawaii.”
Several lawsuits have been filed over PTA, including: In 1989, the Sierra Club sued the Army after a University of Hawaii-Hilo botanist found Army bulldozers leveling native trees for a new training range; and in 2019, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled against the state for failing to ensure the military upheld its duties to clean up Pohakuloa.
Amid such context, the state Land Board rejection of the Army’s FEIS is significant — for citing the environmental and cultural concerns still to be addressed if the Army is to pursue post-2029 use of state lands at Pohakuloa; and for staking out a firm position on the public’s behalf.
Said Maxx Phillips, Hawaii and Pacific Islands director for the Center for Biological Diversity: ”This vote is a powerful affirmation that the future of these lands must be decided with integrity, not rubber-stamped based on incomplete and misleading information.”
She’s not wrong. For too long, Hawaii has been too passive when it comes to the military’s use — sometimes, misuse — of the aina. It’s time to broker better pacts, and benefits, for the sake of this state and its people.
