Editorial: Army has not made case for Makua plan

Posted on: Sunday, June 14, 2009

Army has not made case for Makua plan

Forging a military operations plan that adequately balances training needs with environmental and community concerns is a difficult prospect even under ideal circumstances.

There’s no question: Our troops must be allowed to train and as a community, we need to do our part to support that.

Unfortunately, the history of the Army’s use of Makua Military Reservation has yielded circumstances that are anything but ideal, which complicates the matter of striking a balance immeasurably.

Having live-fire training so close to populated areas has drawn its own fire from residents who don’t like the intrusion of flyovers and explosion noise into their enjoyment of home and recreation areas. But in particular the wildfires produced by that weapons training – suspended since 2005 – is what has eroded any trust that existed between Wai’anae Coast residents and the Army.

Acres of vegetation, including endangered species, were destroyed. Indeed, incendiary devices in a region that is prone to brushfires anyway is worrisome for people who live in neighboring housing areas.

It’s in this context that the Army’s final environmental impact statement on Makua training seems to fall short. The analysis does not adequately make the case for the Army’s “preferred alternative,” one that would authorize the maximum use of the valley with the minimum restrictions on the weaponry to be used. Surely the training objectives can be achieved through less destructive proceedings.

The bottom line, according to the EIS, is that the Army needs to train in an area that can accommodate what are called “convoy live-fire training exercises” for an entire company of troops. Makua is one, but the training area at Pohakuloa on the Big Island is also big enough, as well as being more insulated from residential areas and less vulnerable to environmental damage.

The Army favors the most expansive Makua plan, one that would enable up to 50 company-level exercises per year and 200 convoy live-fire exercises annually, events that could involve tube-launched missiles, rockets and illumination munitions.

The rationale is that the Army needs large training sites on O’ahu because time between deployments can be short and moving everything to Pohakuloa would be costlier.

Opponents acknowledge that leaving O’ahu means less time with families, but they argue persuasively that this disadvantage is offset by what Big Island training offers: Packing and heading off to Pohakuloa is more realistic preparation for actual deployments.

Pohakuloa is still being built out for these operations, so the Army could make the case for using the O’ahu valley on a temporary basis. Even so, Makua isn’t quite ready, either; erosion has damaged the essential firefighting access roads, so repair work would push off when such operations could resume in Wai’anae.

And whatever temporary use might be necessary in Makua, there’s no compelling reason for taking the most environmentally damaging route possible.

Before making its final decision on training operations in the next month, Army officials need to carefully consider the concerns of the community and realize that this decision will surely impact that relationship going forward.

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009906140339

Sound off on Army training in Makua

Posted on: Sunday, June 14, 2009

Army training in Makua

Advertiser Staff

The release last week of the Environmental Impact Statement regarding live-fire training in Makua Valley reignited the debate over the valley’s fate and raised some familiar questions. Should the Army be allowed to resume live-fire training in Makua, given its proximity to inhabited areas? Is Pöhakuloa on the Big Island a better option? Tell us what you think and share your views with key decisionmakers.

GET INVOLVED

Contact your elected officials to make your views known:

U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye: Sen. Inouye has been a key supporter of allowing the Army to train in Makua Valley.

Reach him at: http://inouye.senate.gov – click on “contact me” or (202) 224-3934; Honolulu office: 541-2542.

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie: Rep. Abercrombie thinks there are better alternatives for live-fire training than Makua Valley.

Reach him at: neil.abercrombie@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-2726; Honolulu office: 541-2570.

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009906190317

Op Ed: Army doesn't need Makua Valley for live-fire exercises

HonoluluAdvertiser.com

June 19, 2009

Army doesn’t need Makua Valley for live-fire exercises

Troops have trained elsewhere for years; other option needed

By David Henkin

“Let them train!” has been the rallying cry of Sen. Daniel Inouye and others who want the Army to resume live-fire exercises in Makua Valley.

It’s an emotionally compelling plea. Who would want to send our young men and women into battle without adequate preparation?

Unfortunately, it’s a highly charged, even deceptive, plea that serves to deflect attention from the real issue. It’s not whether the Army should train, but where.

Is a valley sacred to Hawaiians the best place to fire mortars and artillery – activities that have already damaged petroglyphs and other ancient cultural sites there?

Is the home to nearly 50 endangered and threatened species the best place to fire tracers and illumination rounds – the same weapons that have already sparked hundreds of fires, destroying the native forest and threatening rare plants and animals with extinction?

Is an area just three miles from Makaha’s homes and businesses, across the street from a public beach, the best place to stage a mock battle – using very real weapons and live ammunition?

Many don’t think so, which is why Malama Makua and Earthjustice have spent 11 years in court to compel the Army to give an honest accounting of the price we pay when soldiers train at Makua and to explore alternatives that would accomplish the Army’s mission without sacrificing Makua’s cultural and biological treasures.

The Army’s recently released environmental impact statement confirms Makua is not the only option. The Army admits it would be both feasible and reasonable to conduct its training at Pohakuloa on the Big Island, with much less risk of environmental damage. Indeed, the Army has already been using Pohakuloa to train troops for deployment and has emphasized the added benefit of giving soldiers based on O’ahu a realistic opportunity to practice deployment.

The Army has not trained at Makua since June 2004, and has conducted no live-fire training there in eight of the last 11 years. Yet even without Makua, it has successfully prepared its soldiers for battle.

How can Army officials, or Sen. Inouye, validly claim Makua is essential when the military’s own actions over the past decade have proven otherwise?

Quite simply, they can’t, because it isn’t.

Makua, which was pressed into service following the attack on Pearl Harbor, has had its day. As Congressman Neil Abercrombie has pointed out, based on his years of service on the Armed Services Committee, Makua is best suited for training soldiers for the trench warfare characteristic of WWI, not to meet the needs of the 21st century.

Makua was never intended to be a permanent training site. The Army promised to return it upon the cessation of hostilities with Japan, but 64 years later, the people of Hawai’i are still waiting.

Of the options identified under the EIS, Makua Valley and its resources are the most fragile, vulnerable and irreplaceable. Yet the Army has chosen Makua as its preferred alternative for the highest conceivable level of training, employing some of its most destructive weapons.

While we might expect this sort of environmental and cultural insensitivity from the Bush administration, it’s not a good fit with Hawai’i-born President Obama, who has a special understanding of the Islands.

But no matter who occupies the White House, using Makua Valley as a mock battleground doesn’t make sense. Not when Makua is unique – but its training opportunities are not.

Yes, let them train. But there’s no need to sacrifice Makua to do it.

David Henkin is a Honolulu-based Earthjustice attorney who has been involved with the Makua case since 1998. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.

Why We Must Protect Makua Valley

Mahalo nui to Kehau Watson for this positive editorial calling for protection of Makua.

Why We Must Protect Makua Valley

June 14th, 2009 by Trisha Kehaulani Watson

“E mālama i ka makua, he mea laha ‘ole.”

Mary Kawena Pukui explained this ‘ōlelo no‘eau to mean “parents should be cared for, for when they are gone, there are none to replace them.” To Hawaiians, Mākua Valley in Wai‘anae represents our parents; Mākua is a kinolau or physical body form of the parents of all Hawaiians. A particularly sacred place, or wahi pana, the protection of Mākua remains as of vital import to Native Hawaiians as the protection and caring for our human parents. The occupation and desecration of Mākua is both a physical and spiritual offensive against the residing indigenous people of this land.

Mākua’s rich history extends back as many as thirty-five generations, as early as the 8th century. Mākua houses a rich spiritual history that reflects its deep significance to the Hawaiian people. Even today, as one stands in the valley, hō‘ailona appear regularly to those who help mālama Mākua. Whether in the form of clouds, timely and pointed winds (called makani, a Hawaiian word also meaning ghost or spirit), or images that appear in the mountains or valley floor, signs or hō‘ailona serve as telling reminders of the powerful spirituality of Mākua.

In 1977, renowned anthropologist Marion Kelly would lead a study on Mākua for the Bishop Museum that collected extensive interviews and documents on Mākua that served as one of the first studies to respectfully include the spiritual history of a place. Kelly’s study now serves as a vital repository for the cultural and social history of Mākua. In her study, she places strong emphasis upon folklore and spiritual knowledges.

References of this second and spiritual form of knowledge or being can be commonly found in certain parts of our language. Specifically, in concepts like ‘ike pāpālua, or second sight or knowledge. Mary Kawena Pukui defines this term as “To see double; to have the gift of second sight and commune with the spirits; supernatural knowedge.” This references the idea that knowledge or understanding for Hawaiians came in part from a spiritual realm or from akua, the gods. Another similar concept is ‘ike pāpālua, or second form. Pukui explains this term: “to have a dual form, as the demigod Kama-pua‘a, who could change from man to hog.” Mākua served as home to a similar figure, the mo‘o of Mākua.

In heavy rains, the mo‘o come down the stream from Ko‘iahi to meet her boyfriend, the shark from Kāneana Cave. When the stream flows strong, it breaks through the sand beach and flows into the sea. The mo‘o goes into the sea and goes on the big rock next to the blow hole at the Wai‘anae end of the beach. The rock is called Pōhaku-kū-la‘i-la‘i. On this rock, she would turn herself into a beautiful princess and call to him. The shark would come out of Kāneana Cave through the undersea channel and swim out to the blow-hole. He would then turn into a man, and he and the princess would make love. When they were ready they would go to live in the stream. And when the water is green the mo‘o is in the stream. When it is clear she is not. No swimming is allowed when the mo‘o is in the stream.

Another important part of Mākua was the cave, known to local residents as “Kaneana Cave.” One woman recollects: “And my father was there to oversee when they opened the cave. And my father said, ‘His human form of [Kaneana] is still up on that hill, and he watches for you when you go to the beach to go swimming, or to try and catch fish. He can change himself to a shark and come and get you and bring you in that cave and eat you.'” Mākua remains particularly alive with traditions that speak to the natural resource management of the area. Yet, mo`olelo were also used to teach proper behavior.

A resident recollects about the lessons she learned at the cave in Mākua.

The entrance of that cave is out by the long reef they call Papaloa. And she has an opening underneath. If you go way out to the end, and you just stand like that, you will see a big opening. And he enters through there, and he can have anyone that treats him mean. That is where he takes them, down below. If you ever entered that cave, you will see the water. Down below, there’s a pool. We were made to crawl into that cave, and we didn’t want to go. Just to teach us a lesson we went. And when we went, and the time he took his captives all in there, and then he killed them, the blood. And it [the cave] is a beautiful thing. And the only thing that got me scared was the sharks (sic) head. It was a big sharks (sic) head right on the stone. I don’t know if ______. [Dad said,] “Pretty soon you’ll be one of them, lady, because of your big mouth.” I have a bad temper, and in that cave I kept my mouth shut. Now you crawl out. That is how he gets out and changes into a man. Lot of the old folks and the children named him if we disobeyed. We were not as fussy then. No, no, we do it, we do it.

The lessons present in traditional folklore also contained social values and community norms. Mākua teaches us about our culture and our history, as a parent does its child.

Story-telling and cultural narratives speak to history, contemporary norms, resource management, essentially every aspect of life. When those narratives are silenced, entire histories can be effectively wiped away.

The military can no longer deny Mākua’s critical cultural and ecological importance. An alternative site for military activities and live-free training, which the Army is currently attempting to resume in the valley, must be found.

Source: http://hehawaiiau.honadvblogs.com/2009/06/14/why-we-must-protect-makua-valley/

Army lists 22 Makua cleanup areas

Posted on: Saturday, June 13, 2009

Army lists Makua cleanup areas

Ordnance removal at 22 cultural sites will increase access
By Will Hoover
Advertiser Staff Writer

The Army yesterday released a final list of 22 cultural sites on Makua Military Reservation deemed “high priority” for clearance of unexploded ordnance.

The purpose of removing potentially dangerous explosives from those sites is to increase access to those cultural areas, an Army media release said.

The action follows a lawsuit filed nearly a decade ago against the Army by Earthjustice in Hawai’i.

That suit resulted in an agreement in October 2001 that the Army would produce such a site list within one year.

After the Army failed to provide the list within the time period, the issue lingered in federal court for more than six years, until U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway clarified the original agreement this year and ordered the Army to comply.

David Henkin, attorney for Earthjustice, yesterday said Earthjustice is happy with the outcome, but said it should not have taken so long.

“It took almost seven years longer than it was supposed to, and it took going back to court twice, but the Army finally did come out with a list of of high-priority sites, and they did provide an opportunity for public input,” Henkin said. “And so we’re pleased.”

Henkin said Earthjustice would monitor the Army’s progress in clearing out the unexploded ordnance and in allowing access to the cultural sites.

The Army’s clearance procedure, made in accordance with a plan adopted by Mollway, requires the military to submit quarterly progress reports.

Copies of the Army’s list are available at the Hawai’i State Library, Wai’anae Public Library, Kapolei Public Library or at www.garrison.hawaii.army.mil/sitelistmmr.

Reach Will Hoover at whoover@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090613/NEWS23/906130325/Army+lists+Makua+cleanup+areas

Sen. Inouye weighs in on Makua

Predictably, Sen. Inouye has penned an editorial supporting the Army’s proposed expanded training in Makua valley. Let’s analyze his argument:

1. Army is a “good neighbor”.

The US military was the force that overthrew the Hawaiian Kingdom and occupied Hawai’i. Capt. Alfred Thayer Mahan to Teddy Roosevelt (1897): “take (Hawaii) first and solve (political questions) afterwards.” I wouldn’t consider anyone who covets and takes over his neighbor’s house a “good neighbor”.

2. Hawaii soldiers will be called to war; they need training.

What are the troops training for? The US is engaged in illegal, imperial wars to invade and occupy other peoples’ countries. Phiippines, Korea, Vietnam, and even WWII, the “good war”, was a struggle between two imperial camps. In the Pacific, Japan lost and the US took the spoils, creating an “American Lake”. Hawai’i’s sacred places should not be used to perpetuate empire.

3. The Army has trained in Makua for more than 60 years, virtually forever.

The US military illegally occupies lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom and seized private lands. The military evicted families from Makua and destroyed their community. They promised to return the lands after WWII, but lied.

4. The Army’s concern for the environment goes beyond Makua; they helped to pay for the purchase of lands to be placed in public land trusts.

Many people saw this coming: The use of military funds to help purchase and protect certain areas as “buffers” for military training would be used as part of the psychological operations to win the hearts and minds of, or at least neutralize resistance from the community, in this case environmentalists.

5. The Army is part of our ‘ohana.

The military is taking our ‘ohana to fight wars for the empire, much like the Romans enlisted subjugated peoples to fight in its legions. Military training in Hawai’i, going back to the earliest JROTC programs at Kamehameha Schools and McKinley High School in the early 1900s were intended to indoctrinate Hawaiian, Japanese and other Local youth into military/American identity and ideology. In 1924 General Charles P. Summerall, commander of the Hawaiian Department for the US Army and one of the more open-minded racists, wrote: “the Japanese students showed themselves to be capable of becoming very efficient military students. There is no better way of securing the loyalty of such people than to incorporate them in our military forces with the environment of obligation to duty that cannot fail to win their allegiance in most if not all cases. Such a course would also tend to remove the resentment that Japanese citizens now feel at the discrimination that is made against them.”  From Senator Inouye’s editorial, you might conclude that the military’s social engineering experiment worked.

+++

June 7, 2009

Let Army resume training at Makua

By Daniel K. Inouye

On Friday, the Army released the final environmental impact statement for military training activities at the Makua Military Reservation. Completion of this EIS culminates a seven-year effort that studied the effects of live-fire training on the cultural and natural resources of the valley. This includes an extensive marine resources study and a subsurface archaeological survey.

I encourage the people of Hawai’i to review all the information. In doing so, I hope you will come to the same conclusion: Let them train.

The Army is a good neighbor and longtime member of our community. It has taken its responsibility very seriously, and has come to the conclusion that it can sufficiently mitigate the risks inherent in conducting live-fire training exercises in the valley. Rather than continuing to nitpick at one thing or another, and force a return yet again to court, serving only to delay critical training that could provide the difference between life and death, I respectfully suggest that we, as a community, stand up and say, “We’ve had enough of these delay tactics – let them train.”

Today, there are about 6,200 Hawai’i Army, Marine and National Guard warriors deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. With an increased military presence planned for Afghanistan, we should expect continued deployments in the foreseeable future. North Korea’s irresponsible taunting, as evidenced by its recent missile launches and its provocative future launch plans, have heightened already soaring tensions in the Pacific region. No doubt if there were an incident, our Hawai’i-based units could be among the first to respond. They must be able to train.

Our warriors should not be penalized and placed in harm’s way in faraway places without receiving the training they need to protect themselves, get the job done and return home safely. We also should not extend their time away from their families by forcing them to train in another state. Keep in mind that less than 1 percent of Americans are willing to make the sacrifice to wear our nation’s uniform. They deserve our support, as they serve to preserve our way of life. Let them train.

Makua Valley is a critical training asset for the Army, Marines and National Guard. It has been used as a live-fire training area for more than 60 years. In 1998, training was halted as a result of a lawsuit. Training was then allowed on a negotiated, limited basis following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, while the EIS was being prepared. As the memory of Sept. 11 faded, training was again halted in the summer of 2004, pending completion of the EIS. So, here we are today, with the final EIS in front of us.

The Army has maintained Makua Valley as a training area, while at the same time steadfastly continuing its efforts to protect the endangered species and cultural sites, including removing ordnance to allow reasonable access for cultural practitioners. About $4 million annually is spent for this purpose. In addition, more than $6 million to date has been set aside for the removal of ordnance in Makua Valley, and in near-ocean waters opposite the valley.

More than 30 technically-trained field biologists manage the natural resources in Makua Valley. They have planted about 4,000 endangered plants, controlled the weeds, and built fences to protect endangered species. Another $1 million is spent annually to preserve archeological sites in the valley. To date, 121 sites have been identified for study and protection. I would venture that very few other entities have the resources and the commitment to take as good care of Makua Valley as the Army.

The Hawai’i Army’s environmental stewardship goes beyond the valley. It is a willing public partner in conserving special lands, and has invested more than $10 million in recent years alone to support the acquisition of Waimea Valley, Pupukea-Paumalu, Moanalua Valley and, very shortly, the Honouliuli preserve along the Wai’anae mountain range.

Each year, the Army spends about $365 million for its support in Hawai’i. Estimated spending for privatized Army housing construction and maintenance already tops $736 million. Add another $598 million for military construction provided just in the past two years including stimulus funds. All of this supports our economy during these difficult times.

Most important to me, however, the Hawai’i Army is a part of our ‘ohana. It’s not about “us and them,” but rather a much larger “we and our.” We volunteer together at the Food Bank and Special Olympics. Our children are learning side-by-side with one another. Our moms and dads are coaching young athletes together on the soccer and baseball fields.

Our soldiers deserve our support. They deserve the best training we can provide to prepare them for battle in faraway lands. The Army has done their part. It’s time to do ours – let them train.

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090607/OPINION03/906070342/Let+Army+resume+training+at+Makua

Makua EIS rejected by Malama Makua

Hawaiian group says EIS on Makua is not complete

By Mary Adamski

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 06, 2009

The Army said it will decide by early July to what extent it will resume live-fire military training exercises in Makua Valley. The training plan was part of an environmental impact statement released yesterday.

But Malama Makua, the nonprofit organization whose lawsuit forced the Army to halt exercises in the 4,190-acre Leeward valley, said it will be back in court to stop the Army again from resuming training because the environmental assessment is flawed and incomplete.

“We don’t share the Army view that this is a final copy,” said Earthjustice attorney David Henkin, who represents Malama Makua. “They don’t provide the legally required information,” Henkin said.

He said one example of insufficient assessment came in a “shellfish study” portion released by the Army Corps of Engineers in January. Intended to determine whether marine life that is consumed by people would be contaminated by minerals from military weaponry, the study only looked at two of the four marine categories required, and examined areas affected by sewage outfall pollution and urban runoff. “We hired experts to look at their study,” Henkin said. “I wrote a letter that they ought to withdraw this document.”

The Army favors using the Makua Military Reservation up to 50 days over a 242-day training year for infantry squad- and platoon-level exercises using multiple weaponry including missiles, rockets and illumination munitions. That is the highest usage among five alternatives assessed in the EIS. It would also allow up to 200 convoy live-fire exercises. “This alternative would allow the Army to train its units with maximum realistic training using critical weapons systems,” according to the EIS report.

“It will be Army leadership in Hawaii, in conjunction with leadership in Washington, D.C., who make the decision about how Makua is going to be used, if used at all,” said Loren Doane, public affairs officer for U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii.

Doane said the Army prepared a list of all cultural sites within the valley as required by the federal court.

Relocating targets away from known cultural features is one of the “mitigation measures” listed in the EIS. Other public concerns about the damage and disturbance to natural resources and cultural sites, which came out in public hearings after the draft EIS was released in September, show up as “mitigation measures” to protect native plants, prevent soil erosion, deter brush fires and even minimize Army convoy effects on traffic.

The federal court ordered the Army to prepare an environmental impact assessment after Makua Malama filed suit in 1998 claiming that military use was harming natural and cultural resources. The Army agreed to halt live-fire training but was allowed to resume after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was halted again in 2005 until the EIS was completed.

“It is important for people to remember that … in all that time, soldiers have been trained, they have performed their tasks while receiving training elsewhere,” Henkin said. “Training at Makua is not the only place the Army has said it can accomplish its mission. People of Hawaii need to ask why the Army is pursuing the most destructive course of action.”

Source: http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090606_Hawaiian_group_says_EIS_on_Makua_is_not_complete.html

Makua Military training: "wasting lives, land, money, energy and resources"

Joan Conrow wrote on her blog about the Army’s recently released final EIS for live fire training in Makua valley:

Now if only the military would pack up and leave, too, instead of pressing ahead with its controversial, and contested, plans to conduct live fire training exercises among the endangered species and archeological sites of Makua Valley. And as The Advertiser reports, good old Sen. Dan – surprise! – is solidly on board, albeit shaky in his facts:

Inouye, a World War II combat veteran who lost his arm in battle, said the Army is a good neighbor and longtime member of the community.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie sees things a little differently:

“Makua as a training site was acquired in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack in WW II and never intended to be permanent,” Abercrombie said. “Alternatives which match the training needs of a 21st-century Army are available.”

Sort of like how Kahoolawe, similarly acquired in WWII, was never intended to be a permanent bombing target. And some 50 years later, following intense public pressure, the Navy did finally beat it – leaving its devastation and unexploded ordnance behind.

What a waste. But then, that’s what the military is all about: wasting lives, land, money, energy and resources.

Right on!

Hawaiians not happy with Army training plans

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/06/ap_army_makua_training_report_060609/

Hawaiians not happy with Army training plans

By Audrey McAvoy – The Associated Press

Posted : Saturday Jun 6, 2009 12:42:12 EDT

HONOLULU – The Army wants to conduct about 50 company level live-fire training drills each year in Makua, a valley many Native Hawaiians consider sacred but that the Army views as vital to maintaining combat readiness.

It also wants to fire inert missiles and rockets, including those that carry a greater risk of igniting wildfire than other weapons.

The Army outlined its preferred training plan for Makua in a court-mandated environmental impact statement released Friday.

The proposal is designed to “enable the military in Hawaii to achieve and maintain readiness for immediate deployment,” the report said.

Maj. Gen. Raymond V. Mason, the commanding general of the 8th Theater Sustainment Command, is expected to pick a course of action based on the results in 30 days.

The environmental impact statement is the final version of a study prepared in response to a lawsuit filed by a Waianae Coast community group, Hui Malama O Makua, in 1998. The group demanded, and a judge agreed, that the Army must conduct an environmental impact statement if it wanted to continue using the valley for live-fire training.

The Army released an earlier version of the report in 2005. Friday’s report incorporates issues since raised by the public, including examining Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island as an alternate live-fire training site to Makua.

The risk of wildfire is a major concern in part because the valley is home to dozens of Native Hawaiian cultural sites and several dozen endangered plant species that could burn in a blaze.

Fire broke out in Makua during Marine training in 1998. In 2003, a planned burn of brush by the Army raged out of control, scorching more than half of the more than 7-square-mile valley and destroying endangered plants.

The study analyzes five options, including not holding any live-fire training. Three of the options include training at Makua with varying degrees of weapons use and restrictions. The final alternative has the Army using Pohakuloa for live-fire training.

The option the Army has identified as its preferred alternative is the one that allows for the greatest use of weapons. It calls for soldiers to use TOW missiles – inert, tube-launched wire guided missiles – at Makua. These projectiles, along with 2.75 rockets and munitions, carry a greater risk of wildfire compared to weapons used in other alternative scenarios, the report said.

That’s because the missile or rocket propellant may not be fully consumed before the weapon reaches the ground.

David Henkin, an Earthjustice lawyer representing the Waianae community group, criticized the study for expressing preference for an alternative that would “lead to the destruction of irreplaceable cultural sites” and the “killing of endangered species.”

He noted the Army could still conduct training using less harmful training routines.

“The Army appears to be leaning toward the most destructive of the options it considered,” Henkin said. “That’s unacceptable.”

He also charged the Army failed to carry out all the analysis required under their settlement agreement. Moreover, Henkin said he has questions about whether the study complies with demands of the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Army holds a lease from the state to use Makua until 2029.

Army wants to resume destructive training in Makua

HonoluluAdvertiser.com

June 6, 2009

Army may restart live-ammo use in Hawaii’s Makua Valley

EIS that clears way for ‘full-capacity’ training may face court challenge

By William Cole
Advertiser Military Writer

After eight years of efforts, numerous setbacks and court filings, and millions of dollars spent on studies and legal fees, the Army yesterday released a nearly 6,000-page environmental impact statement seeking a return to “full capacity” live-fire training in Makua Valley.

The study’s completion could mean a return to live fire in the 4,190-acre Wai’anae Coast valley in the not-too-distant future. Live fire hasn’t occurred there since the summer of 2004, when the Army was supposed to have completed the environmental study.

A final record of decision is expected after 30 days. The Army could schedule training after that.

The Army’s “preferred alternative” out of five examined would include 50 combat-arms live-five exercises per year; 200 convoy live-fire exercises a year; the use of Humvees, trucks, Stryker armored and unmanned aerial vehicles and helicopters; the use of tube-launched TOW missiles and rockets; and use of a ridge between the north and south training areas.

The Army agreed under a 2001 court settlement with environmental law firm Earthjustice and the community group Malama Makua to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement analysis of the more than 75 years of military training in Makua Valley.

The EIS was supposed to be completed by October 2004, but one of many delays in its completion was a fire that was intentionally set by the Army in 2003 to manage grasses but which got out of control and charred half the valley.

Because the Army did not complete the EIS by the agreed-upon time, the military has been prevented in court from a return to live-fire training in Makua, although some blank-fire and vehicle training has been conducted there.

‘Problems’ with EIS

Earthjustice attorney David Henkin, who has represented Malama Makua for the duration of the case, yesterday said deficiencies in the study remain.

“We have some serious problems here – the first problem has to do with violating the court order in terms of what the required contents of this EIS are,” Henkin said.

Henkin said the impact of training on the marine environment has not been adequately addressed. He added that on Thursday, he sent the Army notice that if it does not withdraw the EIS and include the required information, “we’ll see them back in court.”

An Army environmental report released in January found little difference in ocean contaminants near Makua compared to “background” test sites at Nanakuli and Sandy Beach.

The court saga over the use of Makua Valley for training has generated conflicting views even among Hawai’i’s congressional delegation.

Hawai’i’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Daniel K. Inouye, weighed in with an opinion piece running in tomorrow’s Advertiser.

“I encourage the people of Hawai’i to review all the information. In doing so, I hope you will come to the same conclusion: Let them train,” Inouye said.

Inouye, a World War II combat veteran who lost his arm in battle, said the Army is a good neighbor and longtime member of the community.

“It has taken its responsibility very seriously, and has come to the conclusion that it can sufficiently mitigate the risks inherent in conducting live-fire training exercises in the valley,” Inouye said. “Rather than continuing to nitpick at one thing or another, and force a return yet again to court, serving only to delay critical training that could provide the difference between life and death, I respectfully suggest that we, as a community, stand up and say, ‘We’ve had enough of these delay tactics. Let them train.’ ”

sacred sites

In 2007, the Army in a report to Congress called a return to company-size live-fire training at Makua Valley “absolutely critical,” a stand that drew a sharp rebuke from U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai’i.

Abercrombie said the Army has spent millions to unsuccessfully defend in court the use of a training range that can be replaced.

The Army said at the time that the only theoretically possible alternative would be to spend up to $600 million to build up similar training capabilities at the 133,000-acre Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island, an effort it said would take seven to 12 years.

Abercrombie called the cost estimate ridiculously high.

“I am deeply concerned about the Army’s final Environmental Impact Statement regarding the continued use of the Makua Military Reservation,” Abercrombie said yesterday.

The land contains Native Hawaiian sacred sites, as well as endangered plants and species, he said.

“Makua as a training site was acquired in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack in WW II and never intended to be permanent,” Abercrombie said. “Alternatives which match the training needs of a 21st-century Army are available.”

Return of the Makua land would be an “expression of good will and faith by the Army,” he said. “Its constrained use is not a matter of military necessity, but of legal convenience.”

No Decision yet

The Army yesterday said its EIS incorporates detailed studies, as well as more than 180 public comments received during numerous public meetings.

“No decision has been made regarding what type of training will be conducted at … (Makua) in the future,” said Col. Matthew T. Margotta, the commander of U.S. Army Garrison Hawai’i. “A decision will be made by senior Army leadership in Hawai’i in coordination with Department of the Army no less than 30 days from release of (the) EIS.”

The Army completed a company combined-arms assault course at Makua Military Reservation in 1988 and used it for 10 years, but suspended training temporarily in 1998 because of several fires.

The EIS defines some training as “core mission essential,” such as the company-size exercises that used to be held at Makua, but said that sort of operation is not occurring in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Makua training exposes a company of about 150 soldiers to multiple aspects of battle, including small-arms fire, artillery whistling overhead and helicopters swooping by firing machine guns.

Alternatives

The warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan requires “directed mission essential” training such as convoy live fire, but the Army said it needs to conduct both types of training at Makua.

Without the use of Makua, Schofield soldiers have traveled more to Pohakuloa on the Big Island and to the Mainland for training, keeping them away from their families longer and incurring a greater expense for the government.

The Army examined five options, including no action. The others are: reduced capacity at Makua with some weapons restrictions; full-capacity use of Makua with some weapons restrictions; the preferred alternative; and full-capacity use of Pohakuloa.

Fires from training in Makua Valley, with more than 50 endangered plant and animal species in the area, and more than 100 archeological features there, have always been a big concern.

Henkin, the Earthjustice attorney, said the proposed training represents a potentially significant increase in military usage of the valley.

“As people start processing this information, it’s important to bear in mind that all of the alternatives explored in the EIS provide for soldiers to be trained,” Henkin said.

Wai’anae Coast resident William Aila Jr. said he is disappointed the Army chose to take “the most destructive option” for training in Makua.

“They don’t need Makua,” Aila said. “What it is, is they don’t want to give up another inch of land in Hawai’i,”

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090606/NEWS08/906060334/Army+may+restart+live-ammo+use+in+Hawaii+s+Makua+Valley

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY

false