HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0377.003 2024-2026REBECCA VILLEGAS
Council Member
District 7, Central Kona
HAWAI`I COUNTY COUNCIL
PHONE: (808) 323-4267
FAX: (808) 323-4786
EMAIL: Rebecca.villegas@hawaiicounty.gov
West Hawaii Civic Center, Bldg. A
CD
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.
„
C: CD
Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740
-0
C -\
DATE: August 19, 2025
�.
TO: Holeka Goro Inaba, Council Chair; and
Members of the Hawaii Council
-
j
Rebecca Villegas ,/`/'.
Council Member, District 7
SUBJECT: Supporting Material Related to Resolution No. 234 for today's Policy Committee
on Environmental and Natural Resource Management
Attached for Council members' review is relevant to discussion on Resolution 234.
Please distribute the attachments to the Council members.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
RV/ca
Att
Comm. k-10-
Ref. To:
Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and EmployeAef. Dove U`9 19 2025
STATE OF HAWAI `I
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Land Division
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
May 9, 2025
Board of Land and Natural Resources
State of Hawaii
Honolulu, Hawaii Hawaii
Decision Making Regarding the Acceptance or Non -Acceptance of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Army Training Land Retention at Pohakuloa
Training Area, Island of Hawaii, Tax Map Keys (TMKs) (3): 4-4-015:008; 4-4-016:005;
and 7-1-004:007
The final EIS is available for review through the following links:
https: files.hawaii.gov dbedt err) Doc Library/2025-04-23-HA-FI,:IS-Army-Traininiz-
Land-Retention-at-Pohakuloa-Traininp,-Area-Vol-l.pdf
https: files.hawaii.gov dbedt/erp Doc Library 2025-04-23-HA-FEIS-Army-Training_
Land-Retention-at-Pohakuloa-Training-Area-Vol-2.pdf
https: files.hawaii.gov dbedt/e[p Doc Library 2025-04-23-HA-FEIS-Army-Training_
Land-Retention-at-Pohakuloa-Training;-Area-Vol-3.]2df
Pursuant to Section 92-5(a)(4), Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), the Board may go into
Executive Session in order to consult with its attorney on questions and issues pertaining
to the Board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities.
APPLICANT:
United States (U.S.) Army Garrison -Hawaii (USAG-HI) and U.S. Army Installation
Management Command (IMCOM)
LEGAL REFERENCE:
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Section 343-5(a)
Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 11-200.1, Subchapter 10
LOCATION:
Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA)
p-1
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 2 May 9, 2025
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
AREA:
Ka`ohe, Hamdkua, and Pu`uanahulu, North Kona, Island of Hawaii
Identified by Tax Map Keys (TMKs): (3): 4-4-015:008; 4-4-016:005; and 7-1-004:007
Approximately 22,700 acres, more or less
ZONTN(,r
State Land Use District: Conservation
County of Hawaii Zoning Open District and Forest Reserve
CHARACTER OF USE:
Military purposes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Board is being asked to make a decision regarding the acceptance or non -acceptance
on the Applicant's (herein referred to as USAG-HI) final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) which contemplates a long-term land disposition for the current State -leased lands
portion of PTA.
Determining the acceptance or the non -acceptance of a final EIS is based on the satisfaction
of three (3) criteria as prescribed in HAR 11-200.1-28(b) which are as follows:
(1) The procedures for assessment, consultation process, review, and the preparation
and submission of the EIS, from proposal of the action to publication of the final
EIS, have all been completed satisfactorily as specified in this chapter;
(2) The content requirements described in this chapter have been satisfied; and
(3) Comments submitted during the review process have received responses
satisfactory to the accepting authority, including properly identifying comments
as substantive and responding in a way commensurate to the comment, and have
been appropriately incorporated into the final EIS.
Summary of Staff's analysis is as follows:
1. PROCEDURE:
Staff found an unintentional omission of the inclusion of the "reasons supporting
the determination to prepare and EIS" (HAR Section 11-200.1-23(5)) in the
EISPN. While Staff notes that this could be construed as a procedural error, we
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 3
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
believe that it is not a critical error and all other requirements regarding procedures
for assessment, consultation process, review, and the preparation and submission
of the final EIS appears to have been satisfactorily complied with.
2. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS:
Content requirements fall within two (2) categories; the content requirements of a
draft EIS and the content requirements of a final EIS. The content requirements of
the draft EIS should be reflective in the final EIS and therefore any issues in the
draft that were not properly addressed in the final would still be considered to be
outstanding.
Throughout the EIS process, Staff had and continues to have concerns with the
following:
1. That the contents of the draft/final EIS do not fully declare the environmental
implications of the proposed action and does not discuss all reasonably
foreseeable consequences; and
2. The data and analysis do not commensurate with the importance of the impacts.
Staff's main concerns are as follows:
1. Lack of evaluation of impacts in the Federally owned impact area which is the
main receiving area for live rounds being fired during training activities.
USAG-HI has stated that under the "Under the No Action Alternative ... the
Army would have no land access to the impact area ... which would cease or
severely limit Army activities in those areas. " According to the State Historic
Preservation Division (SHPD) and numerous commenters on the draft EISs, the
impact zone is home to numerous historic and cultural properties, including `iwi
kupuna. USAG-HI also states that the 2018 Section 106 Programmatic
Agreement for PTA determined that "previously military training and related
activities have had adverse impacts on historic properties at PTA, primarily
within the impact area." Thus, by USAG-HI retaining the State lands through a
long-term land disposition, any impacts to the impact area are expected to
continue.
Refer to Volume I, Section 3.4, page 3-71 or page 179 of the electronic file for
USAG-HI's discussion on Historic and Cultural Resources and Cultural
Practices.
2. Staff and SHPD have concerns that the inventory of archaeological sites is
incomplete. It became recently known to the Department that a number of
artifacts were taken from State lands into USAG-HI possession and that USAG-
HI believes NAGPRAto be the controlling authority. The Department disagrees
as historic properties located on State lands are the property of the State and by
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 4 May 9, 2025
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
allowing NAGPRA to prevail, the Department would no longer have rights as
HRS, Chapter 6E would no longer be the controlling authority.
3. Lack of current studies and/or robust summaries to provide data and analysis
regarding endangered biological resources. Most concerning is that USAG-HI
is proposing to conduct studies after the EIS is completed (a 2025 Programmatic
Biological Opinion (BO) and an invertebrate survey) when those studies should
have been done beforehand in order to provide the most current information in
the EIS document. Further the 2025 BO is anticipated to include two species,
the anthracinan yellow -faced bee and the Blackburn's sphinx moth that Staff
had previously noted was lacking data and analysis to determine impacts.
Refer to Volume I, Section 3.3, page 3-27 or page 135 of the electronic file for
USAG-HI's discussion on Biological Resources.
4. That military use is neither consistent with the overall objective nor the
allowable uses in the Conservation District and that a rule amendment to allow
such use may not be a likely scenario. USAG-HI did not include any other
alternatives in which they could comply with the Conservation District, i.e.
applying for a Land Use District Boundary Amendment to move PTA out of the
Conservation District into a more appropriate district designation that would
allow for military use.
Refer to Volume I, Section 5.3.2, page 5-16 or page 482 of the electronic file
for USAG-HI's discussion on the consistency of their proposed action with the
Conservation District.
3. COMENTS AND RESPONSES:
Staff recognizes that the issue of whether comments have been satisfactorily
responded to can be subjective. Nevertheless, Staff's feedback is that our comments
as they related to noise impacts on wildlife and birds, the incompleteness of the
archaeological surveys, and the breadth and appropriateness of those who were
interviewed for Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) received responses that cannot
necessarily be viewed as "satisfactory." Nevertheless, Staff believes the Board
should take into account all testimony before determining whether this criterion has
satisfactorily been met.
The Department's comments can be found in Volume III, Appendix N. Comments
on the first draft EIS begin on page HI-24 under the Draft EIS Comments section
which is page 487 of the electronic file and comments on the second draft EIS begin
on page HI-13 under the Second Draft EIS Comments section which is page 1195
of the electronic file.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 5
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
USAG-HI's responses to our comments on the first draft EIS can be found in
Volume II, Appendix D, Responses to Draft EIS Comments Section, starting on
page D-35 or page 205 of the electronic file.
USAG-HI's responses to our comments on the first draft EIS can be found in
Volume II, Appendix D, Responses to Second Draft EIS Comments Section,
starting on page D-217 or page 391 of the electronic file.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION:
The proposed action contemplated by USAG-HI is to retain use of the current State-owned
leased lands through a long-term land disposition that would allow USAG-HI to continue
military training at PTA.
The subject of this agenda item on the Board's May 9, 2025 meeting agenda is the
sufficiency of the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is available to the
public online at:
https://ftles.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/Doc_Library/2025-04-23-HA-FEIS-Army-Training=
Land-Retention-at-Pohakuloa-Training-Area-Vol- l .pdf
https:Hfiles.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/Doc_LibrM/2025-04-23-HA-FEIS-Army-Training=
Land-Retention-at-P ohakuloa-Training-Area- Vol-2.pdf
https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/Doc_Librga/2025-04-23-HA-FEIS-Aliny-Training=
Land-Retention-at-P ohakuloa-Training-Area- Vol-3 .pdf
STANDARD EVALUATION OF THE FINAL EIS:
Pursuant to HAR Section 11-220.1-28(a), "Acceptability of a final EIS shall be evaluated
on the basis of whether the final EIS in its completed form, represents an informational
instrument that fulfills the intent and provisions of chapter 343, HRS, and adequately
discloses and describes all identifiable environmental impacts and satisfactorily responds
to review comments."
Further, HAR Section 11-200.1-28(b) states that "A final EIS shall be deemed to be an
acceptable document by the accepting authority only if all of the following criteria are
satisfied:
(1) The procedures for assessment, consultation process, review, and the preparation
and submission of the EIS, from proposal of the action to publication of the final
EIS, have all been completed satisfactorily as specified in this chapter;
(2) The content requirements described in this chapter have been satisfied; and
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 6
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
(3) Comments submitted during the review process have received responses
satisfactory to the accepting authority, including properly identifying comments as
substantive and responding in a way commensurate to the comment, and have been
appropriately incorporated into the final EIS.
Pursuant to HAR Sectionll-200.1-2:
"Acceptance means a formal determination that the document required to be filed
pursuant to chapter 343, HRS, fulfills the requirements of an EIS, as prescribed by
section 11-200.1-28. Acceptance does not mean that the action is environmentally
sound or unsound, but only that the document complies with chapter 343, HRS, and
this chapter. "
Accordingly, the Board's decision regarding the acceptability of this final EIS is distinct
from any management decisions that the Board may make in the future regarding the
issuance of any long-term land disposition requested by this final EIS.
Acceptability of the final EIS is based on the three criteria listed above. An EIS is not
intended to resolve conflicts of opinion on the impacts of a proposed action. Rather, an EIS
only intends to provide the relevant information to the deciding agency.
"[W]hether or not the parties disagree, or even whether there is authority which
conflicts with the agency's decision is not the yardstick by which the sufficiency of an
EIS is to be measured. Rather it is whether the EIS as prepared permitted informed
decision making by the agency."
Price v. Obayashi Hawaii Corp., 81 Haw. 171, 181-182, 914 P.2d 1364, 1375 (1996).
In other words, an EIS need not be exhaustive to the
Point of discussing all possible details bearing on the proposed action but will be
upheld as adequate if it has been compiled in good faith and sets forth sufficient
information to enable the decision -maker to consider fully the environmental factors
involved and to make a reasonable decision after balancing the risks of harm to the
environment against the benefits to be derived from the proposed action, as well as to
make a reasoned choice between alternatives.
Id. at 183 (citing Life of the Land v Ariyoshi, 59 Haw. 156, 164-65, 577 P.2d 1116, 1121
(1978)).
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to HAR Section 11-200.1-28(e)(2)(B), for applicant actions, the accepting
authority shall "Notify the applicant and the office [The Environmental Review Program]
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 7
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
of the acceptance or non -acceptance of the final EIS within thirty days of the final EIS
submission to the agency..."
The Department and the Environmental Review Program (ERP) received the submission
of the final EIS on April 14, 2025. This grants the Board until May 14, 2025 to either accept
or not accept the final EIS.
It should be noted that while HAR Section 11-200.1-28(e)(2)(B) allows the applicant to
request an extension period not to exceed 15 days, it specifically states that an extension
shall not be granted merely for the convenience of the accepting authority.
Further, HAR Section 11-200.1-28(e)(2)(B) states that "If the accepting authority fails to
make a determination of acceptance or non -acceptance of the EIS within thirty days of
receipt of the final EIS, then the statement shall be deemed accepted." Therefore, decision
making on this agenda item cannot be deferred unless a special meeting of the Board is
called on or before the May 14, 2025 deadline.
As stated earlier, HAR Section 11-200.1-28(b), states that "Afinal EIS shall be deemed to
be an acceptable document by the accepting authority only if all of the following criteria
are satisfied.
(1) The procedures for assessment, consultation process, review, and the preparation
and submission of the EIS, from proposal of the action to publication of the final
EIS, have all been completed satisfactorily as specified in this chapter;
(2) The content requirements described in this chapter have been satisfied, and
(3) Comments submitted during the review process have received responses
satisfactory to the accepting authority, including properly identifying comments
as substantive and responding in a way commensurate to the comment, and have
been appropriately incorporated into the final EIS.
Below is Staff's analysis regarding the acceptability of the final EIS:
1. THE PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSMENT, CONSULTATION PROCESS,
REVIEW AND THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE EIS, FROM
PROPOSAL OF THE ACTION TO PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL EIS, HAVE
ALL BEEN COMPLETED SATISFACTORILY AS SPECIFIED IN THIS
CHAPTER.
USAG-HI prepared and submitted an Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice
(EISPN) which was published in the September 8, 2020 edition of the ERP's The
Environmental Notice. An electronic version of the EISPN can be found at:
htlps:Hfiles.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erj2/Doc LibrM/202 0- 09- 0 8 -HA-El SPN-ArMy- Training-
Land-Retention-at-Pohakuloa-Training-Area.pdf
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 8
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
Staff reviewed the EISPN to determine if the document was prepared in accordance with
HAR Section 11-200.1-23. Staff found the following:
(1) Identification of the proposing agency or applicant;
- Refer to Section 1.1 of the EISPN
(2) Identification of the accepting authority;
- Refer to Section 1.1 of the EISPN
(3) List of all required permits and approvals;
- Refer to Table 1-1 of the EISPN
(4) The determination to prepare an EIS;
- Refer to Chapter 5 of the EISPN
(5) Reasons supporting the determination to prepare an EIS;
- Staff could not find supporting reasons
(6) A description of the proposed action and its location;
- Refer to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the EISPN
(7) A description of the affected environment, including regional, location, and site
maps;
- Refer to Chapter 3 and figures found throughout the EISPN
(8) Possible alternatives to the proposed action;
- Refer to Section 2.3 of the EISPN
(9) The proposing agency's or applicant's proposed scoping process, including
when and where any EIS public scoping meeting will be held; and
- Refer to Chapter 6 of the EISPN
Note that the USAG-HI provided a link for scoping meeting dates
https://home.anny.mil/hawaii/index.12hp/PTAEIS)
(10) The name, title, email address, physical address, and phone number of an
individual representative of the proposing agency or applicant who may be
contacted for further information.
- Refer to Section 1.1 of the EISPN. Staff notes that no title was provided for
the contact individual).
Pursuant to HAR Section 11-200.1-5(e)(4), hard copies of the EISPN were distributed to
Hilo Public Library, Kailua-Kona Public Library, Thelma Parker Memorial Public and
School Library, and the Hawaii Documents Center.
The EISPN was circulated for public review and comment and public comments were
accepted during a 40-day period following publication. Approximately 36 verbal
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 9 May 9, 2025
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
comments and 240 written responses were received. Comments received during the
comment period were considered in assessing the impacts of the proposed action.
A draft EIS for the proposed action was published in the April 8, 2022 edition of ERP's
The Environmental Notice. Pursuant to HAR Section 11-200.1-5(e)(5), Staff has confirmed
that:
1. The draft EIS was signed and dated;
2. The required attestation that "the draft EIS and all ancillary documents were
prepared under the signatory's direction or supervision and that the information
submitted, to the best of the signatory's knowledge fully addresses document
content requirements as set forth in [HAR Chapter 11-200.1] subchapter 10"
was included.
Staff notes that in their attestation, USAG-HI references HAR Section 11-
200.1-24 rather than subchapter 10 per the rules;
3. The draft EIS was filed simultaneously with the Department and ERP on April
1, 2022;
4. Hard copies of the draft EIS were distributed to Hilo Public Library, Kailua-
Kona Public Library, Thelma Parker Memorial Public and School Library, and
the Hawaii Documents Center; and
5. USAG-HI submitted a copy of the original audio file of "all oral comments
received at the time designated within any EIS public scoping meeting for
receiving oral comments."
The draft EIS included copies of all written comments received during the 40-day public
comment period following the publication of the EISPN, as well as USAG-HI's written
responses. The draft EIS was circulated for public review and comment and comments
were accepted during a 60-day public comment period following publication.
Approximately 58 verbal comments and 669 written comments were received.
Due to substantive comments received during the draft EIS public comment period, the
Army, at the Department's recommendation, decided to publish a second draft EIS that was
published in the April 23, 2024 edition of The Environmental Notice. Pursuant to HAR
Section 11-200.1-5(e)(5) Staff has confirmed that:
1. The second draft EIS was signed and dated;
2. The required attestation that "the draft EIS and all ancillary documents were
prepared under the signatory's direction or supervision and that the information
submitted, to the best of the signatory's knowledge fully addresses document
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 10
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
content requirements as set forth in [HAR Chapter 11-200.1] subchapter 10"
was included.
Staff notes that in their attestation, USAG-HI referenced HAR Section 11-
200.1-24 rather than subchapter 10 per the rules;
The draft EIS was filed simultaneously with the Department and ERP on April
12, 2024;
4. Hard copies of the draft EIS were distributed to Hilo Public Library, Kailua-
Kona Public Library, Thelma Parker Memorial Public and School Library, and
the Hawaii Documents Center; and
S. USAG-HI submitted a copy of the original audio file of "all oral comments
received at the time designated within any EIS public scoping meeting for
receiving oral comments. "
The second draft EIS included copies of all written comments received during the first draft
EIS public comment period, as well as the Applicant's responses. The second draft EIS was
circulated for public review and comments and comments were accepted during a 45-day
public comment period following publication. Approximately 63 oral comment and 882
written comments were received.
The final EIS for the proposed action was published in the April 23, 2025 edition of ERP's
The Environmental Notice. Pursuant to HAR Section I1-200.1-5(e)(6), Staff has confirmed
that:
The final EIS was signed and dated;
2. The required attestation that "the final EIS and all ancillary documents were
prepared under the signatory's direction or supervision and that the information
submitted, to the best of the signatory's knowledge fully addresses document
content requirements as set forth in [HAR Chapter 11-200.1] subchapter 10"
was included.
Staff notes that Applicant corrected the prior attestation error as noted for the
two draft EIS documents;
The final EIS was filed concurrently with the Department and ERP on April 14,
2025
Volume III, Appendix N of the final EIS includes reproductions of the comments received
during the EIS process including the scoping comments, draft EIS comments, and second
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 11
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
draft EIS comments. The Applicant's responses to the comments can be found in Volume
II, Appendix D.
Based on the above analysis, it appears there was an unintentional omission of the inclusion
of the "reasons supporting the determination to prepare and EIS" (HAR Section 11-200.1-
23(5)) in the EISPN. While Staff notes that this could be construed as a procedural error,
we believe that it is not a critical error and all other requirements regarding procedures for
assessment, consultation process, review, and the preparation and submission of the final
EIS appears to have been satisfactorily complied with.
2. THE CONTENT REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER HAVE
BEEN SATISFIED
The content requirements of an EIS are outlined in two separate sections of HAR Chapter
11-200. 1. The first is HAR Section 11-200.1-24 which establishes the content requirements
for a draft EIS. The second is HAR Section 11-200.1-27 which establishes the content
requirement of a final EIS. Staff has reviewed the final EIS for compliance with these two
sections and offers the following analysis:
Draft EIS Content Requirements:
Pursuant to HAR Section 11-200.1-24:
(a) The draft EIS, at minimum shall contain the information required in this section. The
contents shall fully declare the environmental implications of the proposed action and
shall discuss all reasonable foreseeable consequences of the action. In order that the
public can be fully informed and that the accepting authority can make a sound
decision based upon the full range of responsible opinion on environmental effects, an
EIS shall include responsible opposing views, if any, on significant environmental
issues raised by the proposal.
Discussion:
Staff has concerns that the second draft EIS did not, and therefore the final EIS does
not, 'fully declare the environmental implications of the proposed action" and that the
Board has not been given the 'full range of responsible opinion on environmental
effects." It should be noted that this issue has been consistently raised since the
publication of the first draft EIS. Please refer to Volume III of the final EIS for Staff's
and the Department's comments on the first and second draft EISs. Comments on the
first draft EIS begin on page HI-24 under the Draft EIS Comments section which is
page 487 of the electronic file and comments on the second draft EIS begin on page
HI-13 under the Second Draft EIS Comments section which is page 1195 of the
electronic file. We have included the link to Volume III here for ease of reference:
https:Hfiles.hawaii. )4ov/dbedt/erp/Doc_Library/2025-04-23-HA-FEIS-Army-
Trainin�z-Land-Retention-at-Pohakuloa-Training-Area- Vol-3.pdf
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 12
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
One main concern that Staff has is the lack of the evaluation of impacts due to activities
that occur outside of the State-owned lands but would be allowed to continue because
of the retention of the State-owned lands'. One area of particular concern is the impact
area which located on Federally owned lands.
The impact area is approximately 51,000 acres extending from central PTA to the
southern boundary of the installation and is the main receiving area for live rounds
being fired during training activities at the live -fire ranges and firing points (FPs), as
well as from aviation live -fire training.
It should be noted that the USAG-HI has stated that "Under the No Action Alternative,
the Army would have... (2) limited to no ability to train in or access the impact area and
training ranges south of the State owned land... and (5) no ability to fire indirect -fire
weapons from three FPs within U.S. Government -owned portions of PTA northwest of
the State-owned land into the impact area."
USAG-HI was directed early on in this process that the expectation of the EIS, at least
from the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) perspective, would require the
analysis of impacts of those uses that would continue as a result of the retention of the
State-owned lands, even if occurring outside the State lease area on lands owned by the
Federal government, i.e. the impact area.
Staff is particularly concerned with impacts within the impact area as both the State
Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) as well as numerous comments from the general
public during the draft EIS review periods have acknowledged the presence of historic
and cultural properties, including `iwi kupuna, within the impact area. Moreso, the
Army states in Section 3.4.4.4 of their final EIS that "The 2018 Section 106 PA
[Programmatic Agreement] for PTA determined that previous military training and
related activities had adverse impacts on historic properties at PTA, primarily within
the impact area on U.S. Government -owned land."
Nevertheless, the USAG-HI believes that the impact area is outside of the region of
influence (ROI) for the proposed action. This sentiment is confirmed both within their
response to Land Division comments on the second draft EIS and the final EIS in
Section 3.4.3 where USAG-HI states that "The ROI for historic and cultural resources
includes the State-owned lands within PTA." Staff continues to disagree with this
perspective as impacts within the impact area would either cease to exist or diminish
greatly if a long-term land disposition is not granted. Further, the true range of impacts
cannot be known without the proper surveys.
' The Board should also be aware that on March 27, 2025, Maunakea was listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and is now identified as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and District by the federal government. PTA is
located between Maunakea, Mauna Loa, and Hualalai.
Source: https://mauinow.com/2025/04/10/maunakea-listed-on-national-register-of-historic-places/
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 13
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
There are also additional concerns regarding impacts to historic and cultural resources
as it relates directly to the State-owned leased lands. As pointed out in Staff's comment
letter, as well as SHPD's comment letter on the second draft EIS, the inventory of
archaeological sites still appears to be incomplete. The Archaeological Literature
Review was updated since the first draft EIS to give explanation on why certain areas
could not be surveyed (i.e. areas being inaccessible due to recent lava flows which
create hazardous conditions), but there are still other areas that were indicated as not
being surveyed (refer to Figure 3-8 of the final EIS). The reasons for not doing surveys
included not utilizing an area for training and an area being fenced off for the protection
of natural resources. Staff disagrees that these reasons preclude the USAG-HI from
doing proper due diligence on lands they are requesting a long-term land disposition
for.
Moreso, SHPD's comments on the second draft EIS noted that
"As expressed in comments previously provided by SHPD in consultation meetings
with the U.S. Army, SHPD requested that archaeological inventory surveys be
completed for the entirety, of the State-owned portion of PTA in accordance with the
[HRS Chapter 6E] historic preservation review process as part of the development
of a draft EIS. The draft as proposed fails to set forth sufficient information to
enable SHPD, DLNR, and the public to fully consider the potential impacts of the
proposed action and preferred alternative, as required per HRS Chapter 343.
SHPD notified the U.S. Army in consultation meetings that the process proposed in
the draft EIS, which would involve conduction of cultural inventory surveys
following the EIS process, would result in a draft deficient per Chapter 343
standards and Chapter 6E standards. As a result of this lack of sufficient
information,, SHPD is unable to adequately assess the potential environmental
impacts to cultural resources within each of the proposed retention areas. "
Staff notes that Section 3.4 of the final EIS which discusses Historic and Cultural
Resources and Cultural Practices does not reflect any effort to address SHPD's
concerns nor provide any additional data and/or analysis. Rather, the final EIS includes
the following:
"This EIS complies with the requirements of NEPA and HEPA. Because the
Proposed Action of this EIS is an administrative action, which is not the type of
undertaking that has the potential to cause an effect on historic properties, Section
106 consultation regarding the Proposed Action is not required."
Staff disagrees with USAG-HI's characterization of the proposed action as merely "an
administrative action". The Department and Board are tasked with the protection of
natural and cultural resources on behalf of the State of Hawaii. Notwithstanding
USAG-HI's view of the proposed action as an administrative action of a real estate
transaction that may not impact historic properties and thus would not require Section
106 consultation (which is a Federal process of complying with the National Historic
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 14
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
Preservation Act), it does not preclude them from providing data and analysis on the
impacts of historic properties as the issuance of a new long-term land disposition,
regardless of the method of retention (i.e. by fee or lease), allows impacts to historic
properties and other archaeological and cultural resources to continue. Such data and
analysis should be as robust as possible to satisfy the purpose and intent of HRS
Chapter 343 and HAR Chapter 11.200-1, Subchapter 10.
Moreso, Staff recently learned that when historic and cultural artifacts are discovered
on the State-owned lands at PTA, the procedures followed by USAG-HI may
compromise the State's ownership interests in such artifacts as defined in statute.
It should be noted that pursuant to HRS Section 6E-7, "All historic property located on
lands or under waters owned or controlled by the State shall be the property of the
State. The control and management of the historic property shall be vested in the
department." Further, according to HRS Section 171-36.1 "The board of land and
natural resources shall, in leases ofpublic lands retain the rights to all prehistoric and
historic remains found on such lands."
From what Staff has learned, dating as far back as 1997, USAG-HI has been removing
artifacts found on the State -leased lands and storing them in the PTA curation facility.
According to the final EIS, on -going best management practices and mitigation for
archaeological and cultural artifacts are guided by an Integrated Cultural Resources
Management Plan (ICRMP) and a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA), both
which were finalized in 2018. Staff notes that the 2018 PA was signed off by
Chairperson of the Department at time of completion.
Staff is concerned that, 1. Removing the artifacts may in and of itself cause damage to
the artifacts, and 2. By removing the artifacts and placing them within the PTA curation
facility, the State's rights to the artifacts are impacted as USAG-HI believes that the
National American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
Chapter 32 and the implementing regulations provided in 43 CFR Part 10 is the
controlling authority over those artifacts not HRS Chapter 6E. This impact, nor the
inventory of artifacts found on State lands that are in USAG-HI's possession have been
disclosed to the Board in this final EIS document.
Staff, along with SHPD (per their comments on the second draft EIS), also believes
that the final EIS should have disclosed that there was a significant incident regarding
the removal of artifacts/cultural items from State-owned land that occurred in 2022.
Cultural Resources Staff at PTA found significant traditional Hawaiian artifacts in a
lava tube located on TMK (3) 7-1-004:007 and at the request of Native Hawaiian
Consulting parties, removed them as there was concern that the items were subjected
to potential damage. Native Hawaiian Consulting parties identified the artifacts as
moepu (funerary objects) and SHPD staff further clarified that the artifacts appeared to
be wooden ki`i. According to SHPD Staff, this find could be one of the most significant
finds in the last 100 years. However, because the artifacts were taken into USAG-HI
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 15
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
possession, USAG-HI has begun the NAGPRA process for repatriation. This is a
concern for the Department because if NAGPRA prevails, the State may no longer have
any rights to these artifacts/cultural items and thus there exists an impact to historic and
cultural resources that should rightfully belong to the State.
Staff is also concerned that not all the impacts to biological resources have been fully
declared/disclosed. This is another issue that Staff had previously flagged during the
draft EIS phase.
Particularly, Staff finds it unusual that the Army is anticipating completing a
Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) by the end of 2025. Staff feels that this
Programmatic BO would most likely have addressed concerns that the Department had
during the draft EIS phase and would have provided current data, including take limits
for protected species, thus providing better infonnation for the Board to understand the
full breadth of impacts to biological resources. Moreso, Staff believes that having
access to, or at least a well written summary of this Programmatic BO is important as
it is supposed to cover "all protected species analyzed under previous BOs as well as
Schiedea hawaiiensis (md `oli `oli), Exocarpos menziesii (Menzie' ballart, heau),
Festuca hawaiiensis (Hawaiian fescue), Portulaca villosa (hairy purslane, `ihi),. Sicyos
macrophyllus (Alpine bur cucumber, `dnunu), Hydrobates Castro (band-rumped storm
petrel, `ake `ake), Hylaeus anthracinus (anthracinan yellow faced bee), and Manduca
blackburni (Blackburn's sphinx moth)."
The biological resource information provided in the final EIS relies on information
from BOs completed in 2003, 2008, and 2013. Staff notes that the Land Division had
requested that the BOs be provided so that the Department (DOFAW specifically) could
properly review the effects of the proposed action on protected species, especially as
both the 2003 and 2008 BOs contained incidental take statements for the Hawaiian
hoary bat and the nene (Hawaiian goose).
It should be noted that a summary of the BOs is provided in Appendix E and links to
the documents were provided in Chapter 6, but the links provided were either broken
(error message) or inaccessible for some unknown reason (internet browser session
times out). In consultation with DOFAW, Staff confirmed that DOFAW was able to
obtain the documents either from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or by doing a deep
dive Google search. DOFAW confirmed that the additional information and data found
within the BOs would have been helpful/more informative especially as it provided
more specificities about the take provisions for the nene and the Hawaiian hoary bat.
Understanding the incidental take of the Hawaiian hoary bat is important as wildfires
in 2018 and 2022 exceeded the annual take limit (118.5 acres per year) of potential
available tree land roosting habitat. The 2022 fire also exceeded the cumulative
allowance of 3,324 acres. However, Staff is unable to determine what is the equivalent
take of the species on a per acre basis and if mitigation credits (or something similar)
are required to offset the incidental take of the species.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 16
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
This also holds true for the nene as USAG-HI has an incidental take statement for the
species, but Staff could not find the take limit, regardless of the fact that USAG-HI
states that no take was documented for the 2022-2023 reporting period. Staff does note
that Appendix E included a statement that "The Army may benefit the Hawaiian goose
by funding an off -site project at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, as
recommended in the 2013 Biological Opinion, in a phased approach as the Refuge
allows/permits work to progress. The project may include the construction and
maintenance of two 20-acre predator proof fences as well as personnel (one full-time
equivalent) to maintain the fences, control predators, improve vegetation, and
encourage the use of the fenced areas by the Hawaiian goose both passively and
aggressively. The goal is to produce 21 adults from 26 fledglings per year over a 20-
year period starting by year five." However, it is unclear what the status or success rate
of the project is.
Staff further notes that unlike other projects (non -Federal projects) involving the take
of endangered species (i.e. Kaheawa Wind Farm), PTA does not have State issued
incidental take license (ITL) or habitat conservation plan (HCP) that would normally
help to inform the Board of impacts to endangered species as well as provide
appropriate mitigation measures that have been vetted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and DOFAW through the HCP. Staff does wish to mention that in our comments
on the second draft EIS, we had requested that USAG-HI provide how they are/will
comply with HRS Chapter 195D in an effort to verify if USAG-HI would indicate any
willingness to apply for a State ITL and HCP. However, the response from USAG-HI
did not provide any indication that they have intentions to pursue such approvals.
Staff is also confused as to why one of the mitigation measures proposed by the USAG-
HI is to "conduct an installation invertebrate study to identify the presence and types
of invertebrates located within PTA. " For context, Section 3.3.4.4 discusses
invertebrates and the last survey done of terrestrial arthropods was conducted between
1996 and 1998. In Staffs comments on the second draft EIS, we noted that the survey
could be considered stale (over 10 years old) and should be updated as appropriate. In
addition, Staff had concerns that surveys to determine the presence of the anthracinan
yellow -faced bee or the Blackburn's sphinx moth were not prepared as there have been
documented occurrences at PTA (though supposedly not on the State-owned leased
lands). Moreso, the Army is now preparing a programmatic BO that will cover these
two species.
Without complete information/data/analysis, the Board may find they do not have
enough information to make "a sound decision based upon the full range of responsible
opinion on environmental effects" when a long-term land disposition is brought before
them for decision making.
(b) The scope of the draft EIS may vary with the scope of the proposed action and its
impact, taking into consideration whether the action is a project or a program. Data
and analyses in a draft EIS shall commensurate with the importance of the impact, and
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 17
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
less important material may be summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. A draft
EIS shall indicate at appropriate points in the text any underlying studies, reports, and
other information obtained and considered in preparing the draft EIS, including cost -
benefit analyses and reports required under other legal authorities.
Ili conccinn
Staff notes that the EIS does not distinguish the proposed action as either a "project"
or a "program."
Pursuant to HAR §11-200.1-2, a "project' is defined as "a discrete, planned
undertaking that is site and time specific, has a specific goal or purpose and has
potential impact to the environment."
A "program" is defined as "a series of one or more projects to be carried out
concurrently or in phases within a general timeline, that may include multiple sites or
geographic areas, and is undertaken for a broad goal or purpose. A program may
include: a number of separate projects in a given geographical area which, if
considered singly, may have minor impacts, but if considered together, may have
significant impacts; separate projects having generic or common impacts; an entire
plan having wide application or restricting the range of future alternative policies or
actions, including new significant changes to existing land use plans, development
plans, zoning regulations, or agency comprehensive resource management plans;
implementation of multiple projects over a long time frame; or implementation of a
single project over a large geographic area."
Staff also has concerns that the data and analyses as presented in the final EIS does not
commensurate with the importance of the impacts as it relates to biological, historical,
and cultural resources for the reasons that are discussed in the above section.
(c) The level of detail in a draft EIS may be more broad for programs or components of a
program for which site -specific impacts are not discernable, and shall be more specific
for components of the program for which site -specific, project level impacts are
discernable. A draft EIS for a program may, where necessary, omit evaluating issues
that are not yet ready for decision at the project level. Analysis of the program may
discuss in general terms the constraints and sequences of events likely to result in any
narrowing of future options. It may present and analyze in general terms hypothetical
scenarios that are liketv to occur:
Discussion:
Staff notes that there are two issues in which distinguishing the proposed action as
either a "program" versus as "project" may be important (please refer to the above
discussion regarding the definitions of a "program" and "project.")
The first issue is the use of Conservation District lands for military training. The final
EIS uses the "hypothetical scenario' that the `BLNR would establish a new subzone
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 18
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
through a rule amendment that would allow military uses in the conservation
district..." OCCL, however, disagrees that this scenario could be contemplated as
"likely to occur" as military use is not consistent with the overall purpose of the
Conservation District. In addition, another option would be for USAG-HI to apply for
a Land Use District Boundary Amendment with the State Land Use Commission to
remove PTA from the State Conservation District to a more appropriate district
designation that would allow for military use. Nevertheless, should the Board take the
position that the proposed action is a program, then the Board could find that this
content requirement is satisfactorily complied with given that this requirement allows
for the analysis of hypothetical scenarios.
The second issue is that comments from agencies and the public have requested that
the Army provide more information and analyses regarding clean-up activities should
the State -leased lands be returned to the State public trust. The final EIS states that
"...after expiration of the current lease, the Army would follow federal law and
regulations to determine how and when cleanup and restoration activities for
hazardous substances and munitions and explosives of concern (MEC), within the
State-owned land not retained would occur under the Comprehensive Environmental
Responses, Compensations, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which is outside of this EIS
process. " If the Board should take the position that the proposed action is considered a
program, then this content requirement could be considered satisfactorily complied
with as it allows for omission of "evaluating issues that are not yet ready for decision
at the project level. "
(d) The draft EIS shall contain a summary that concisely discusses the following:
(1) Brief description of the action (see ES.6)
(2) Significant beneficial and adverse impacts (see ES.9);
(3) Proposed mitigation measures (see ES.11);
(4) Alternatives considered (see ES.8);
(5) Unresolved issues (see ES.12);
(6) Compatibility with land use plans and policies (see ES.13); and
(7) A list of relevant EAs and EISs considered in the analysis of the preparation
of the EIS (see Table ES-2).
Discussion:
The required summary can be found in Volume 1 of the final EIS as the Executive
Summary which starts on page ES-1 and the specific section references have been
provided above.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 19 May 9, 2025
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
(e) The draft EIS shall contain a separate table of contents.
Discussion:
The table of contents can be found starting on page i of Volume I of the final EIS.
0 The draft EIS shall contain a separate and distinct section that includes the purpose
and need for the proposed action.
Tli crnccinn
The purpose and need for the proposed action can be found in Chapter 1 of the final
EIS.
(g) The draft EIS shall contain a description of the action that shall include the following
information, but need not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation
and review of the environmental impact:
(1) A detailed map (such as a United States Geological Survey topographic
map, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Floodway Boundary Maps, or state sea
level rise exposure area maps, as applicable) and a related regional map;
(2) Objectives of the proposed action;
(3) General description ofthe action's technical economic, social, cultural, and
environmental characteristics;
(4) Use of state or county funds or lands for the action;
(5) Phasing and timing of the action;
(6) Summary of technical data, diagrams, and other information necessary to
enable an evaluation of potential environmental impact by commenting
agencies and the public; and
(7) Historic perspective.
Discussion:
1. Detailed maps can be found throughout the document. A list of figures can be found
starting on page x as a part of the Table of Contents in Volume I.
2. Objectives of the proposed action can be found in Sections 13.2 and 1.3.3.
3. Chapter 3 provides the general description of the action's technical economic,
social, cultural and environmental characteristics.
4. Section 1.1 states that "the Army's Proposed Action involves retention of State-
owned land" which indicates the use of state lands for the action.
5. Section 2.1 includes a discussion on the phasing and timing of the proposed action.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 20
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
6. Summary of technical data, diagrams, and other information is found throughout
the final EIS though as noted earlier, Staff has concerns regarding the quality of the
data provided.
(h) The draft EIS shall describe in a separate and distinct section discussion of the
alternative of no action as well as reasonable alternatives that could attain the
objectives of the action. The section shall include a rigorous exploration and objective
evaluation of the environmental impacts of all such alternative actions. Particular
attention shall be given to alternatives that might enhance environmental quality or
avoid, reduce, or minimize some or all of the adverse environmental effects, costs, and
risks of the action. Examples of alternatives include:
(1) Alternatives requiring actions of a significantly different nature that would
provide similar benefits with different environmental impacts;
(2) Alternatives related to different designs or details of the proposed action that
would present different environmental impacts; and
(3) Alternative locations for the proposed action.
In each case, the analysis shall be sufficiently detailed to allow the comparative
evaluation of the environmental benefits, costs, and risks of the proposed action and
each reasonable alternative. For alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study,
the section shall contain a brief discussion of the reasons for not studying those
alternatives in detail. For any agency actions the discussion of alternatives shall
include, where relevant, those alternatives not within the existing authority of the
agency.
Discussion:
Section 2.2 of the final EIS discusses the alternatives for the proposed action.
Alternatives considered included:
1. Maximum retention: USAG-HI would retain approximately 22,750 acres of
the State-owned lands;
2. Modified retention: USAG-HI would retain approximately 19,700 acres of
the State-owned lands;
3. Minimum retention: USAG-HI would retain approximately 10,100 acres of
the State-owned lands; and
4. The no action alternative.
In all scenarios, USAG-HI has stated that the 250 acres of State lands under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands will not be retained.
Alternatives that were considered, but ultimately dismissed as they did not meet the
objectives of the proposed action are discussed in Section 2.2.5.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 21
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
Chapter 3 of the final EIS includes analyses and evaluation of the environmental
impacts for each of the above listed alternatives.
(i) The draft EIS shall include a description of the environment setting including a
description of the environment in the vicinity of the action, as it exists before
commencement of the action, from both a local and regional perspective. Special
emphasis shall be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the
region and the action site (including natural or human -made resources of historic,
cultural, archaeological, or aesthetic significance); specific refence to related actions,
public and private, existent or planned in the region shall also be included for purposes
of examining the possible overall cumulative impacts of such actions. Proposing
agencies and applicants shall also identify, where appropriate, population and growth
characteristics of the affected area, any population and growth assumptions used to
justify the proposed action, and any secondary population and growth impacts resulting
from the proposed action and its alternatives. The draft EIS shall expressly note the
sources of data used to identify, qualify, or evaluate any and all environmental
consequences.
Discussion:
Please refer to the discussion starting on page 8 of this submittal regarding Staff's
concerns.
(j) The draft EIS shall include a description of the relationship of the proposed action to
land use and natural or cultural resource plans, policies, and controls for the affected
area. Discussion of how the proposed action may conform or conflict with objectives
and specific terms of the approved or proposed land use and resource plans, policies,
and controls, if any, for the affected area shall be included. Where a conflict or
inconsistency exists, the draft EIS shall describe the extent to which the agency or
applicant has reconciled its proposed action with the plan, policy, or control, and the
reasons why the agency or applicant has decided to proceed, notwithstanding the
absence offull reconciliation.
Discussion:
Section 5.3 of the final EIS discusses the proposed action's consistency with Federal,
State, and County land use plans, policies, and controls.
As discussed earlier, OCCL would disagree that a rule amendment to allow for military
use in the Conservation District would be a likely scenario. Therefore, a more robust
discussion regarding other options including, but not limited to a State Land Use
Boundary Amendment, could have been included in the analysis to make for a more
well rounded discussion.
(k) The draft EIS shall also contain a list of necessary approvals required for the action
from governmental agencies, boards, or commissions or other similar groups having
jurisdiction. The status of each identified approval shall also be described.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 22
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
Discussion:
Table 1-1 of the final EIS contains a list of necessary approvals as well as their status.
q) The draft EIS shall include an analysis of the probable impact of the proposed action
on the environment, and impacts of the natural or human environment on the action.
This analysis shall include consideration of all consequences on the environment,
including direct and indirect effects. The interrelationships and cumulative
environmental impacts of the proposed action and other related actions shall be
discussed in the draft EIS. The draft EIS should recognize that several actions, in
particular those that involve the construction of public facilities or structures (e.g.,
highways, airports, sewer systems, water resource actions, etc.) may well stimulate or
induce secondary effects. These secondary effects maybe equally important as, or more
important than,, primary effects, and shall be thoroughly discussed to fully describe the
probable impact of the proposed action on the environment. The population and growth
impacts of an action shall be estimated if expected to be significant, and an evaluation
shall be made of the effects of any possible change in population patterns or growth
upon the resource base, including but not limited to land use, water, and public services,
of the area in question. Also, if the proposed action constitutes a direct or indirect
source of pollution as determined by any governmental agency, necessary data
regarding these impacts shall be incorporated into the EIS. The significance of the
impacts shall be discussed in terms of subsections (m), (n), (o), and (p).
Discussion:
Cumulative impacts are discussed in Volume I, Chapter 4 of the final EIS.
Please see discussion sections below regarding subsections (m), (n), (o), and (p)
respectively.
(m) The draft EIS shall include in a separate and distinct section a description of the
relationship between local short-term uses of humanity's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The extent to which the
proposed action involves trade-offs among short-term and long-term gains and losses
shall be discussed. The discussion shall include the extent to which the proposed action
forecloses future options, narrows the range of beneficial uses of the environment, or
poses long-term risks to health and safety. In this context, short-term and long-term do
not necessarily refer to any fixed time periods, but shall be viewed in terms of the
environmentally significant consequences of the proposed action.
Discussion:
The relationship between short-term use of the environment and long-term productivity
is discussed in Section 5.6 of the final EIS.
While this section discusses the fact that fee ownership by USAG-HI would foreclose
on any future use of the lands, Staff believes that this is also true for a lease scenario as
a lease would foreclose on any future uses for the term of the lease. While a lease may
allow for provisions to ensure that the range of beneficial uses of the environment is
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 23
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
preserved, without including a discussion of what beneficial uses of the environment
would be narrowed otherwise, does not provide any helpful information that could be
used to craft any potential lease.
In addition, an EIS is supposed to include opposing views. Staff believes that this
section should have included a discussion that the issuance of a long-term land
disposition, whether via lease or fee ownership, would foreclose on the use of public
trust lands for uses that would benefit the public such as for recreation and cultural
practice purposes.
(n) The draft EIS shall include in a separate and distinct section a description of all
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the
proposed action should it be implemented. Identification of unavoidable impacts and
the extent to which the action makes use of non-renewable resources during the phases
of the action, or irreversibly curtails the range of potential uses of the environment,
shall also be included. The possibility of environmental accidents resulting from any
phase of the action shall also be considered
niernecinn-
Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are discussed in Section 5.5,
of the final EIS.
The final EIS states that while the proposed action does not involve non-renewable
resources, the analysis of irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources does
pertain to historic and cultural resources, as well as cultural practices. However,
USAG-HI claims that existing CRM programs and actions would continue to preserve
and protect historic cultural resources.
For reasons discussed earlier (refer back to the discussion starting on page 8 of this
submittal), Staff disagrees that the current CRM programs and actions protects State-
owned archaeological and cultural resources. Further, while wildfires and their impacts
are discussed within Chapter 3, it would have been prudent for the Applicant to include
it in this section as it could be classified as a possible "environmental accident"
resulting from the proposed action.
(o) The draft EIS shall address all probable adverse environmental effects that cannot be
avoided. Any adverse effects such as water or air pollution, urban congestion, threats
to public health, or other consequences adverse to environmental goals and guidelines
established by environmental response law, coastal zone management laws, pollution
control and abatement laws, and environmental policy including those found in
chapters 128D (Environmental Response Law), 205A (Coastal Zone Management),
342E (Air Pollution Control), 342C (Ozone Layer Protection), 342D (Water Pollution),
342E (Nonpoint Source Pollution Management and Control), 342F (Noise Pollution),
342G (Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan), 342H (Solid Waste Recycling), 3421
(Special Wastes Recycling), 342J (Hazardous Waste, including Used Oil), 342L
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 24
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
(Underground Storage Tanks), 342P (Asbestos and Lead), and 344 (State
Environmental Policy), HRS, and those effects discussed in this section that are adverse
and unavoidable under the proposed action must be addressed in the draft EIS. Also,
the rationale for proceeding with a proposed action, notwithstanding unavoidable
effects, shall be clearly set forth in this section. The draft EIS shall indicate what other
interests and considerations of governmental policies are thought to offset the adverse
environmental effects of the proposed action. The draft EIS shall also indicate the extent
to which these stated countervailing benefits could be realized by following reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid some or all of the adverse
environmental effects.
Discussion:
Section 5.4 of the draft EIS discusses unavoidable significant impacts.
The adverse impacts determined are as follows:
I. Adverse impacts to land use as it relates to the fact that the land in
question should be held in the public trust for the use and benefit to
Native Hawaiians and the public;
2. Continued adverse impacts to Hawaiian hoary bat habitat due to the
potential of training -related wildland fires;
3. Continued adverse impacts to access for cultural practices; and
4. Continued adverse impacts to communities with environmental justice
concerns as a long-term land disposition would alienate these ceded
lands from the public trust that is intended to benefit Native Hawaiians,
limit access for cultural practices, and impact biological resources that
are important to the cultural practices of Native Hawaiians.
USAG-HI provides the rationale that land retention at PTA supports the Army's mission
and thus national defense. Continued use of these lands is "paramount to the Army's
readiness in Hawai `i; the maneuver area and training and support facilities and
features on the State-owned lands at PTA are need for USARHAW to fulfill its mission."
Staff notes that this content requirement states that "the draft EIS shall also indicate
the extent to which these stated countervailing benefits could be realized by following
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid some or all of the
adverse environmental effects. " Per Appendix A of the final EIS, the Applicant
indicates that the references back to specific sections in Chapter 3 is meant to fulfill
this particular requirement.
(p) The draft EIS shall consider mitigation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
or reduce impacts including provisions for compensation for losses of cultural,
community, historical, archaeological, and fish and wildlife resources, including the
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 25
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
acquisition of land, waters, and interests therein. Description of any mitigation
measures included in the action plan to reduce significant, unavoidable, adverse
impacts to insignificant levels, and the basis for considering these levels acceptable
shall be included. Where a particular mitigation measure has been chosen from among
several alternatives, the measures shall be discussed and reasons given for the choice
made. The draft EIS shall include, where possible, specific reference to the timing of
each step to be taken in any mitigation process, what performance bonds, if any, may
be posted, and what other provisions are proposed to ensure that the mitigation
measures will infract be taken in the event the action is implemented.
T)i erniecinn
Mitigation measures are discussed throughout Chapter 3 of the final EIS. A summary
of mitigation measures is provided in Section 3.17.2 as Table 3-39 and the timing for
the mitigation measures is provided in Table ES-4.
(q) The draft EIS shall include a separate and distinct section that summarizes unresolved
issues and contains either a discussion of how such issues will be resolved prior to
commencement of the action, or what overriding reasons there are for proceeding
without resolving the issue.
Discussion:
Section 5.2 discusses unresolved issues. Issues include:
• Land retention estates and methods (i.e. lease vs fee (which could include a land
exchange));
• Conditions of a new lease and/or easement:
• Lease compliance actions and cleanup and restoration activities; and
• Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) — Staff notes that USAG-HI states that they
do not have emission data specifically for ongoing activities on the State-owned
land and cannot reasonably estimated such data.
Given that as OCCL believes that military use within the Conservation District is not
consistent with the overall purposed of the Conservation District, Staff believes that
this topic should have been included as an unresolved issue.
In addition, the statements regarding GHGs are questionable as they could have been
analyzed as a cumulative impact as the retention of the State-owned lands allows for
much of the military training to occur at PTA.
(r) The draft EIS shall include a separate and distinct section that contains a list
identifying all governmental agencies, other organizations and private individuals
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 26 May 9, 2025
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
consulted in preparing the draft EIS, and shall disclose the identity of the persons,
firms, or agency preparing the draft EIS, by contract or other authorization.
Tli crnccinn
Chapter 7 of the final EIS provides "the identity of the persons, firms, or agency
preparing the draft EIS, by contract or other authorization."
Table 8-1 contains the list of "all governmental agencies, other organizations and
private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIS." This list is inclusive of those
who were consulted on the initial draft EIS as well as the second draft EIS.
(s) The draft EIS shall include a separate and distinct section that contains:
(1) Reproductions of all written comments submitted during the consultation
period required in section 11-200.1-23;
Discussion:
Reproductions of all comments can be found in Volume III of the final EIS.
(2) Responses to all substantive written comments made during the
consultation period required in section 11-200.1-23. Proposing agencies
and applicants shall respond in the draft EIS to all substantive written
comments in one of two ways, or a combination of both, so long as each
substantive comment has clearly received a response:
(A) By grouping comment responses under topic headings and
addressing each substantive comment raised by an individual
commenter under that topic heading by issue. When grouping
comments by topic and issue, the names of commenters who
raised an issue under a topic heading shall be clearly identified
in a distinctly labeled section with that topic heading. All
substantive comments within a single comment letter must be
addressed, but may be addressed throughout the applicable
different topic area with the commenter identified in each
applicable topic area. All comments, except those described in
paragraph (3), must be appended in full to the final document;
or
(B) By providing a separate and distinct response to each comment
clearly identifying the commenter and the comment receiving a
response being responded to for each comment letter submitted.
All comments, except those described in paragraph (3), must
either be included with the response, or appended in full to the
final document;
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 27 May 9, 2025
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
T)iePiiccinn-
Responses to comments can be found in Appendix D of final EIS (see
Volume II).
(3) For comments that are form letters or petitions, that contain identical or
near -identical language, and that raise the same issues on the same topic:
(A) The response may be grouped under paragraph (2)(A) with the
response to other comments under the same topic and issue with
all commenters identified in the distinctly labeled section
identifying commenters by topic; or
(B) A single response may be provided that addresses all substantive
comments within the form letter or petition and that includes a
distinct section listing the individual commenters who submitted
the form letter or petition. At least one representative sample of
the form letter or petition shall be appended to the final
document; and
(C) Provided that, if a commenter adds a distinct substantive
comment to a form letter or petition, then that comment must be
responded to pursuant to paragraph (2);
Discussion:
Form letters and responses were reproduced pursuant to 11-200.1-
24(s)(3)(B) in Appendix D of the final EIS.
(4) A summary of any EIS public scoping meetings, including a written general
summary of the oral comments made, and a representative sample of any
handoutprovided by the proposing agency or applicant related to the action
provided at any EIS public scoping meeting;
Discussion:
Summary and samples of handouts at the EIS public scoping meeting are
included as Appendix C in Volume II of the final EIS.
(5) A list of those persons or agencies who were consulted and had no comment
in a manner indicating that no comment was provided; and
Discussion:
Table 8-1 provides the list of consulted persons or agencies and indicates
whether or not comments were received accordingly.
(6) A representative sample of the consultation request letter
Discussion:
Applicant indicated that this can be found in Appendix C. Staff believes it
is the Direct Mail Postcard.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 28
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
(t) An addendum to a draft EIS shall reference the original draft EIS to which it attaches
and comply with all applicable filing, public review, and comment requirements set
forth in subchapter 10.
Discussion:
Not Applicable.
Final EIS Content Requirements
HAR Section 11-200.1-27 establishes the content requirements of a final EIS. The content
requirements are as follows:
(a) The final EIS, at a minimum, shall contain the information required in this section. The
contents shall fully declare the environmental implications of the proposed action and
shall discuss all reasonably foreseeable consequences of the action. In order that the
public can be fully informed and the accepting authority can make a sound decision
based upon the full range of responsible opinion of environmental effects, an EIS shall
include reasonable opposing; views, if any, on significant environmental issues raised
by the proposal.
(b) The final EIS shall consist of-
(1) The draft EIS prepared in compliance with this subchapter, as revised to
incorporate substantive comments received during the review process in
conformity with section 11-200.1-26, including reproduction of all comments
and responses to substantive written comments;
Discussion:
Please refer to the discussion on the contents of the draft EIS regarding's Staff's
concern on whether the draft EIS was prepared in compliance with HAR
Chapter 11-200.1, Subchapter 10.
'- HAR § 1 1-200.1-2 provides in relevant part:
"Effects" or "impacts" as used in this chapter are synonymous. Effects may include ecological effects (such as the
effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic
effects, historic effects, cultural effects, economic effects, social effects, or health effects, whether primary, secondary,
or cumulative. Effects may also include those effects resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and
detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.
"Environment" means humanitv's surroundings, inclusive of all the physical, economic, cultural, and social
conditions that exist within the area affected by a proposed action, including land, human and animal communities,
air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of 'historic or aesthetic significance.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 29
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
Staff acknowledges that substantive comments received during the review
process were incorporated into the final EIS and reproductions of all comments
and responses are provided in Appendix N and D, respectively.
(2) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft
EIS;
Discussion:
Appendix N contains a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies
commenting on both the initial and second draft EIS.
(3) A list of those persons or agencies who were consulted in preparing the final
EIS and those who had no comment shall be included in a manner indicating
that no comment was provided;
T�i cnnsci nn
Table 8-1 provides the list of consulted persons or agencies and indicates
whether or not comments were received accordingly.
(4) A written general summary of oral comments made at any EIS public scoping
meeting; and
Discussion:
The summary of oral comments can be found in Appendix C of the final EIS
(see Volume II)
(5) The text of the final EIS written in a format that allows the reader to easily
distinguish changes made to the text of the draft EIS.
Discussion:
Applicant uses redline format which allows the reader to easily distinguish
changes.
3. Comments submitted during the review process have received responses
satisfactory to the accepting authority, including properly identifying comments
as substantive and responding in a way commensurate to the comment, and have
been appropriately incorporated into the final EIS.
Given that there are hundreds of comments on the first and second draft EIS, Staff does
not feel that it is appropriate that they alone determine whether or not the responses are
"satisfactory." Rather, Staff believes that the individual divisions, agencies,
organizations, and members of the public who commented on the draft EIS and second
draft EIS and have attended this May 9, 2025, Board meeting can attest to whether they
feel their comments have received satisfactory responses.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 30
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
Staff, however, provides the following feedback and insight regarding examples of the
responses given to some of our more significant comments on the second draft EIS:
• Staff had concerns regarding how USAG-HI came to certain conclusions as they
related to impacts to biological resources as Staff felt that necessary data and robust
summaries of studies were not properly included.
Specifically, there was a concern regarding the impacts to birds and other wildlife
as a result of the noise levels from military training. In the second draft EIS, USAG-
HI states that they have reviewed "multiple studies" including a monarch flycatcher
study done on Schofield Barracks and Makua Military Reservation to draw the
conclusion that "most wildlife in vicinity are expected to be habituated to noise
associated with training activities. " Given that the study was not included nor was
summary data provided, Staff questioned the validity of the statement.
The Applicant's response was to refer to Section 3.3.4.4, 3.3.6, 3.7.4. and 3.7.6 of
the final EIS where additional wildlife and noise study information was added.
Upon review of these sections, Staff was appreciative that the Army included the
opposing view that there have been documented impacts to birds and wildlife and
that "multiple studies have documented that birds and other wildlife are bothered
by traffic and human generated noises and may not become habituated to external
noise stimuli, impacting foraging, normal behaviors, and responses. " Staff also
notes that USAG-HI provided additional references to studies and sources of data
as it pertained to impacts of military training on surrogate species as "very little
noise impact research has been done of PTA species."
Nevertheless, the conclusion on impacts from noise is that "Limited research has
been conducted to ascertain noise impacts on invertebrates; however, there is
evidence that anthropogenic noise may impact invertebrate communication and
increase heartrates (Raboin & Elias, 2019; Davis et al., 2018). The Army natural
resources staff have documented wildlife habituation over time to noise associated
with training activities."
Overall, the additional information presented in the final EIS on noise impacts to
wildlife and birds appears to be disjointed and unclear. Staff questions how the
statement that "The Army natural resources staff have documented wildlife
habituation over time to noise associated with training activities" reflects data and
analysis being commensurate with the importance of an impact.
Staff notes that the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club Hawaii Island
Group had similar comments regarding the noise impacts and provided many study
references in their letter indicating potential impacts to wildlife from noise.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 31
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
Staff had continued concerns that the inventory of archaeological sites appeared to
be incomplete. This was a concern that was expressed on the first draft EIS. Staff
noted that note utilizing an area for training or because it is a part of a fenced are
for protection of a natural resource does not preclude the Army from doing proper
due diligence, especially as they are requesting a long-term land disposition on
State-owned lands regardless of being done be fee or lease methods.
The response from the Applicant was to refer us to review Section 3.4.4.3 which
was not updated to provide any further explanation as to justify why areas were not
studied nor was it updated to include a supplemental survey to close the data gaps.
As mentioned in the discussion beginning on page 8 of this submittal, SHPD has
similar and greater concerns regarding the data gaps and received a similar
response.
Staff expressed concerns regarding the individuals that were consulted with on the
Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA). Staff reviewed the CIA participant list with the
Executive Director of the State Aha Moku in which she noted that there were
several kupuna from Waimea that are active practitioners at PTA that should have
been consulted. In addition, the Executive Director herself holds knowledge of the
area and would have a been a valuable resource for the CIA. We noted that the
Army was strongly encouraged numerous times to reach out to the Aha Moku at
the direction of the Department's Chairperson.
The response from the Applicant was to reference Section 2.2 of the CIA which
included the outreach methods used to "identify those with expertise and knowledge
of cultural resources, practices, and beliefs relevant to the project area and broad
geographical area." In other words, by omission, it appears that no effort was made
to consult with the State Aha Moku Council. Staff further notes that one of the
outreach methods included direct outreach to specific organizations and individuals
as shown in Appendix A of the CIA. Staff reviewed the list and neither the State
Aha Moku nor the Executive Director by name was listed.
Staff also wishes to note that SHPD had a similar comment on the CIA in which
they found the CIA to be insufficient and encouraged USAG-HI to "undertake an
effort to individually interview a larger number of knowledgeable persons with
strong cultural connections to PTA. " USAG-HI's response to SHPD was along the
same lines of those provided to Land Division's comment.
Based on this discussion, Staff is hesitant to consider the responses to our comments as
being "satisfactory." Thus, Staff asks the Board take into account all testimony on this
matter prior to determining whether this particular criteria on whether comments were
responded to "satisfactorily" has been satisfied.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 32
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
May 9, 2025
Staff notes that the final EIS was shared with other divisions of the Department for
assistance with the analysis regarding the acceptability of the final EIS. Comments received
from the other divisions are attached as Exhibit A.
Staff acknowledges that the Board will ultimately determine whether the final EIS
satisfactorily meets the criteria for acceptance. Given the high level of public interest and
involvement in this matter, Staff defers on a formal recommendation and instead
recommends that the Board consider all testimony on this matter in addition to Staff s
analysis prior to determining whether the criteria for acceptance has been satisfied. Staff
instead presents two options to the Board as noted below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recognizing that no decision or recommendation on a long-term land disposition is being
made at this time3, the Land Division recommends that the Board either:
1. Determines that the final EIS complies with applicable law and adequately discloses
the environmental impacts of the proposed action, and thus accepts the final EIS as
submitted by USAG-HI and IMCOM.
2. Determines that the final EIS does not comply with applicable law and does not
adequately disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed action, and thus rejects
the final EIS as submitted by USAG-HI and IMCOM.
Respectfully submitted,
Lauren Yasaka, Staff Planner
And
Ian Hirokawa, Acting Administrator
3 The Board will need to make a separate determination at a later date regarding whether to approve a long-term land disposition
and any terms and conditions that may be appropriate.
Acceptance or Non -Acceptance Page 33 May 9, 2025
of the Draft EIS for the
Army Training Land Retention at PTA
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
Dawn N.S. Chang, Chairperson
Department Comments on Final EIS
EXHIBIT A
Yasaka, Lauren E
From:
Gomes, Noah J
Sent:
Monday, April 28, 2025 10:46 AM
To:
Yasaka, Lauren E
Cc:
Calpito, Jordan V; Puff, Jessica L
Subject:
SHPD Comments Regarding the FEIS for the Army Training Land Retention at Pohakuloa Training
Area
Aloha Lauren,
On April 11, 2025 a memorandum was distributed to the administrators of the divisions of Department of
Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) from DLNR Chair Dawn Chang requesting comments on the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Army Training Land Retention at Pohakuloa Training Area
( PTA).
Comments from the History and Culture Branch of the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) regarding
the FEIS are as follows:
1. SHPD requests that PTA develop formal mitigation protocols for possible inadvertent impacts to native
Hawaiian cultural sites through routine military training activities, such as wildfires.
In the CIA of the FEIS (Appendix 1), community members expressed concerns about wildfires in PTA. The
Army has also proposed increased mitigation measures for wildfire control under Alternative 1, and it
would be appropriate to also include mitigation of wildfire impacts to cultural and historic sites as a
part of this effort. Additionally, live -fire training activities carry an inherent risk of negative impacts on
cultural and historic sites. Page 3-76 of the FEIS notes that previous military training and activities have
had negative impacts on historic properties at PTA. Careful consideration of possible impacts and plans
to mitigate those potential impacts is pertinent.
2. SHPD requests that formal access for both cultural and lineal descendants of native Hawaiian burials
located in PTA are included under the formalized access plan proposed as a mitigation measure for
Alternative 1.
In section 3.4.6.1 of the FEIS, potential mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts to cultural
practices are listed. The Army has proposed developing a formalized access plan for "Native Hawaiian
organizations, individuals, consulting parties, 'ohana, lineal descendants, and cultural practitioners."
Both lineal and cultural descendants of native Hawaiian burials should also be included in this
formalized access plan.
3. SHPD requests an archaeological survey of the unsurveyed state lands that may be retained by the
army under a renewed lease to better understand the potential impacts to cultural and archaeological
sites in those areas of PTA.
In section 3.4.4.3 (page 3-75) of the FEIS, it is noted that there are unsurveyed portions of state-owned
land currently leased by the Army. While the Army does continue to assess and document historic
properties at PTA, it is difficult to estimate the potential impact of the renewal of this lease without
sufficient information on any potential historic or cultural sites in these unsurveyed areas.
4. SHPD requests the development of regular communication procedures between SHPD and the army to
better monitor impacts, discoveries, and documentation of cultural and historic sites in PTA.
While this comment is not directly related to the FEIS, there have been previous issues with timely
communication between the Army and SHPD regarding impacts to cultural and historic properties. We
would like to address these concerns by creating a better standard of communication between the
Army and SHPD.
Mahalo for the opportunity to comment on this FEIS. If there are any questions regarding these comments,
please contact Noah Gomes, SHPD Ethnographer.
Noah J. Gomes
Ethnographer
Department of Land and Natural Resources
State Historic Preservation Division
40 Po'okela Street I Hilo, HI 96720
(808) 93 3 -765 3
noah.gomes@hawaii.gov
www.dlnr.hawaii.gov/shpd
`oE�and and Ndt4
r mod/
Q
v N0
rite 7
JOSH GREEN, M.D. ,�6, w•�q DAWN N.S. CHANG
GOVERNOR I KE KIA'AINA 4P•''• %959 9� CHAIRPERSON
,. �. • BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SYLVIA LU KE x." S COMMISStooION ON WATER RESOURCE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS KA HOPE KIA'AINA i MANAGEMENT
t =® RYAN K.P. KANAKA'OLE
oE�'a�d and Ndr } FIRST DEPUTY
�� �d� •'•uMe CIARA W.K. KAHAHANE
Vic°' m �B ••••••••'•'••• •V DEPUTY DIRECTOR- WATER
AQUATIC RESOURCES
BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION
STATE OF HAWAH I KA MOKU`AINA `O HAWAI`I BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Srd[e OfNSNa0 _ CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS
KA `OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI 'AINA CONSERVATIORCEM RESOURCES
ENFORCEMENT
ENGINEERING
FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE
P.O. BOX 621 HISTORIC PRESERVATION
HONOLULU, HAWA1196809 KAHOOLAWEISLAND RnESERVECOMMISSION D
STATE PARKS
April 29, 2025
Memorandum
To: Ian Hirokawa, Acting Administrator
Land Division
From: David G. Smith. Administrator kiA
Division of Forestry and Wildlife
Subject: Comments on P6hakuloa Training Area Final Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Acting Administrator Hirokawa,
The Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) provides the following comments to the
Land Division regarding the P6hakuloa Training Area Final Environmental Impact
Statement (PTA FEIS). The PTA FEIS is necessary for compliance with Chapter 343,
Hawaii Revised Statutes, for the leasing of up to 22,750 acres of state-owned land by the
United States Army (Army) for continued military training activities for at least 25 years.
Army's current lease of PTA expires in 2029. PTA is located on Hawaii Island within tax
map keys (TMKs) (3) 4-4-015-.008, (3) 4-4-016-.005, and (3) 7-1-004..007. Army does not
propose any new construction or changes to ongoing activities.
Proposed Action
Army proposes retaining up to 22,750 acres of the 23,000 acres of state-owned land at
PTA to support continued military training. DOFAW prefers support for Alternative 2, the
exclusion of 3,300 acres north of Daniel K. Inouye Highway (DKI) from the lease renewal,
because those lands would be returned to DLNR and managed by DOFAW as part of the
Mauna Kea Forest Reserve and Ka`ohe Game Management Area. This alternative meets
all five screening criteria for the Army. Excluding this area from the lease would allow the
public access to these areas for cultural use, hunting, recreation, and sheep and goat
removal to protect Palila's critical habitat (required under federal court mandate). This
would also allow DOFAW to mitigate fire fuels between DKI Highway and Palila Critical
Habitat to help protect it from wildfire caused by roadside ignitions.
DOFAW Comments on Pohakuloa Training Area Final Environmental Impact Statement
DOFAW also supports a modified version of Alternative 3, which means all of Training
Areas 1, 2, and 21 on the Eastern side of PTA are returned to DLNR. This area still has
remaining native forest/Palila Critical Habitat that can be better managed by opening it up
to public hunting to reduce feral ungulate numbers. Additional staff trapping and fencing
will occur to reduce ungulate populations and collisions on DKI Highway in cooperation
with the State Department of Transportation.
Public Access and Natural Resource Management Access
According to the PTA FEIS, the PTA 2019-2023 Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan allows for recreational activities consistent with the use of the land and
subject to military training schedules to occur on PTA, including hunting game animals and
game birds. Public hunting is allowed in Units A, E, and G. Public hunting in Unit A is not
subject to the PTA training schedule. DOFAW recommends adding this unit to the PTA
FEIS.
PTA hunting is open to the public within Training Areas (TAs) 1 through 4, and 9 through
16, on weekends and national holidays when the PTA Commander opens it for hunting.
DOFAW requests that the Army provide increased hunting days and bag limits for game
mammals due to high ungulate populations, overgrazing of native vegetation, and
increased recreational game bird hunting when there is no training. DOFAW and
DOCARE are willing to assist in staffing the hunts to alleviate PTA's limited staffing
concerns. Details for coordination should be more clearly defined. Lease terms now leave
it to the PTA Commander, and there's a need for more available open hunting days in the
unit E lease land area.
DOFAW requests access to the quarry's rock and gravel in TAs 5, 9, 13, and 21 for
DOFAW projects on adjoining managed lands to maintain roads and firebreaks.
PTA and its contractors should not use roads, including Old Saddle Road, within the
Mauna Kea Forest Reserve South of DKI.
DOFAW would like public and management access to Pu'u Anahulu Game Management
Area from DKI through the Army's fee simple land (Keamuku) in two locations.
Historic Trails
DOFAW requests Army coordinate with Na Ala Hele program.
Signage
The PTA FEIS did not include language about adding boundary trespass signs (see page
ES-14, 3-24, 3-320). DOFAW requests that this language be added back in.
Fire Sul2pression
2
DOFAW Comments on Pohakuloa Training Area Final Environmental Impact Statement
PTA has 13 dip tanks, 7 of which are on state -leased land. The PTA FEIS does not discuss
the locations of dip tanks. DOFAW requests the maintenance/filling schedule of the dip
tanks and their shared use during fire response. DOFAW suggests adding four additional
tanks below Pu`u Ke`ekee, near the bottom of DKI in Keamuku, near Kilohana Girl Scout
Camp, and on the eastern side of TA 1.
Threatened and Endanaered Plants and Wildlife
In 2003, 2008, and 2013, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service issued Biological
Opinions (BOs) to the Army assessing the impacts of the Army's activities on the property
on federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act. DOFAW found these BOs
through Google searches and contact with the USFWS. The links provided in the PTA
FEIS did not work.
In the 2013 BO, the Army formally consulted with USFWS about impacts from proposed
actions on the property to five federally listed plants (Asplenium peruvanium var. Insulare,
Kadua coriacea, Silene hawaiiensis, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense); and Hawaiian goose, or nene; and informally consulted with the Army about
impacts to Hawaiian hoary bats, or `ope`ape`a, and Hawaiian petrels, or `u`au. Through
formal consultation, the USFWS required the Army to undertake conservation measures
for the five federally listed plant species and nene. Take avoidance measures for plants
include controlling the introduction of invasive plants, surveys for plants before and after
any construction activities, creating buffer zones around listed plants, fencing to reduce
damage from construction, ungulate control, and education for personnel and contractors
on avoiding fenced plant exclosures. USFWS also provided take -avoidance measures
for nene, including best management practices for driving and live fire training on the
property. The Army may haze nene to reduce the risk of mortality or injury. To benefit
nene offsite of the property, the Army funded the construction and maintenance of two
20-acre predator -proof fences at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. The goal is to
produce 21 adult nene per year over the 20-year term of the 2013 BO (until 2033), to
offset the potential loss of 20 adult nene per year. Refuge personnel funded by the Army
may move and attract nene into these enclosures to enhance survivorship. Through
informal consultation, USFWS provided best management practices to avoid incidental
take of `ope`ape`a and `u`au and concurred with the Army that activities are not likely to
adversely impact `ope`ape`a or `u`au.
A. Threatened and Endangered Plants
Section 3.3.4.3 of the PTA FEIS discusses annual monitoring of federally listed plant
species. DOFAW requests that all state -listed plants or plant clusters have a 50-foot
managed fuel break maintained for the lease and include signs so that active -duty
personnel, contractors, and anyone else can avoid those areas. DOFAW requests access
to all state -listed plants on state lease land for propagule collection. DOFAW requests the
Army maintain ungulate -free conservation units within PTA and on federal land.
9
DOFAW Comments on Pohakuloa Training Area Final Environmental Impact Statement
B. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife
DOFAW provides the following comments for state -listed threatened and endangered
wildlife:
1. DOFAW recommends consultation with DOFAW for any unavoidable take of state -
listed species.
2. `Ope`ape`a
a. The 2008 Biological Opinion assessed `ope`ape`a best management
practices based on the finding of one `ope`ape`a on a barbed wire fence.
The Army promised to upgrade all existing Natural Resource Program
fences with barbed wire and replace those fences with two -meter fences
without barbed wire. The expected completion of the project was by 2018.
Approximately 8.6 km (5.4 miles) of security fences would still have barbed
wire, which would be checked for `ope`ape`a quarterly. DOFAW
recommends that checks increase to monthly.
b. DOFAW requests updates to `ope`ape`a studies completed as required in
2013 Biological Opinion.
3. Nene
a. 2008 Biological Opinion requires USFWS to be notified of nest or nest
failures within 48 hours. DOFAW requests contact as well.
b. 2008 Biological Opinion requires the USFWS to know who will translocate
hatched broods. DOFAW requests contact as well.
c. DOFAW requests a briefing on current avoidance and minimization
measures to avoid nene take and requests no hazing of nene that are
nesting. If nesting nene are found, a 100-ft buffer should be kept around the
nest to prevent disturbance until the nene have vacated the area.
d. DOFAW requests an update on the two 20-acre predator -proof fences and
annual reports on the reproductive success of nene within these predator -
proof fences at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, discussed in the
2013 BO.
4. `lo (Hawaiian hawk)
a. DOFAW recommends vegetation clearing activities in areas with trees over
five meters to be cleared by surveying for active `io nests 10 days before the
start of vegetation clearing from March to September (breeding season).
Contact DOFAW if active nests are found and follow DOFAW's best
management practices provided in the comments on the Draft EIS.
b. DOFAW notes that although the USFWS delisted `io, this species is still
listed as endangered by the State of Hawaii and is protected by state laws.
Therefore, it requests consultation on the impacts on this species.
5. Palila
a. Humu`ula section is in palilia critical habitat and needs ungulate
management. Returning TAs 1,2 and 21 to DLNR will allow DOFAW to
reduce the ungulate population to allow the forest to recover.
6. `Ak&ake (Band-rumped storm petrel)
4
DOFAW Comments on Pohakuloa Training Area Final Environmental Impact Statement
a. DOFAW requests consultation on `ake`ake. The Army is currently
consulting with the USFWS on a programmatic biological opinion that would
include this species.
7. `U`au
a. DOFAW requests consultation and updates to studies completed as
required in the 2013 Biological Opinion.
8. Invertebrates
a. Starting in 2028, the Army proposes to conduct an invertebrate survey to
determine the presence and types of invertebrates within PTA at three
locations within five habitat types. DOFAW requests that this type of survey
occur more than once over the life of the lease and requests the report
findings from these surveys.
JOSH GREEN, M.D. or Hew
GOVERNOR I KE KIA'AINA ,fir T989 7
A `\���y�y
SYLVIA LUKE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR I KA HOPE KIA'AINA S
m
d Mand 11
,o-
STATE OF HAWAH
KA MOKU`AINA `O HAWAH
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
KA `OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI ,AINA
OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS
P.O. BOX 621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809
REF:OCCL:TM
TO: Lauren Yasaka, Staff Planner
Land Division
FROM: K. Tiger Mills, Staff Plannerct,�
Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
DAWN N.S. CHANG
CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
RYAN K.P. KANAKA'OLE
FIRST DEPUTY
CIARA W.K. KAHAHANE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER
AQUATIC RESOURCES
BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION
BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS
CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES
ENFORCEMENT
ENGINEERING
FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION
LAND
STATE PARKS
Correspondence: HA 25-173
APR 3 0 2025
SUBJECT: Comments on the Final EIS for the Army Training Land Retention at Pohakuloa
Training Area, Ka`ohe, Hamakua, and Pu`uanahulu, North Kona, Hawaii, Tax
Map Keys: (3): 4-4-015:008; 4-4-016:005; and 7-1-004:007
The subject EIS most likely is the final document for an evaluation of the land and the natural
and cultural resources, should the military proposal to retain the majority of the existing lease
lands move forward based upon statements made in the EIS.
"The Army anticipates the EIS and ROD to cover the range of impacts that would
occur under any selected land retention estate and method, and any associated
State terms would only decrease adverse impacts or increase beneficial impacts."
"Selection of the land retention estate(s) and method(s) and any associated State
terms, would occur after completion of the Record of Decision and would not be
subject to public involvement."
The EIS does not establish a baseline for evaluation of what existed previously. "Military
training is discussed only in the context of ongoing activities and their impacts because of land
retention, and no changes in training are proposed" and "The proposed action is an
administrative action that does not propose new land uses. Therefore, the EIS relies on
existing studies."
The current land uses of Pohakuloa were never reviewed or regulated by the State therefore
to state that "no changes in training are proposed," and not disclosing how the land was
previously used leaves a large gap as to what was the true baseline to make evaluations on
what the existing impact of training was to the land and resources; and what future impacts
there shall be. Especially when alternative 1 and 2 and 3 are expected to result in unavoidable
significant adverse impacts regarding land use, biological resources, cultural practices, and
environmental justice.
In addition, comments from communities affected by the noise, vibrations, and tremors caused
by warfare training, a potential health hazard must be discussed more fully. More information
PTA FEIS Correspondence: HA 25-173
should be disclosed about blast exposure and the effects of the training on nearby
communities. While training may be temporary for military staff as soldiers train and leave; the
residents (Waimea, Waikaloa, Humu'ula, Waiki'i) are permanent and are subject to these
sensations. Recent studies have shown repeated low-level blast exposure can lead to brain
injuries and other psychological disorders. The response to comments were: "Because the
proposed action does not include construction, modernization, or changes to ongoing
activities... noise modeling is beyond the scope of the EIS."
The speculation in the EIS regarding the proposed subzone amendment, "For analysis
purposes, this EIS assumes that the BLNR would approve a rule amendment for a new
subzone that allows military uses in the conservation district per HAR Chapter 13-5 under a
new lease or easement." The assumption that the BLNR would approve a rule amendment is
inappropriate as the use is not consistent with the Conservation District. The EIS is to retain
the military leasing of State lands to continue the bombing of Hawaii that shall result in
unavoidable significant adverse impacts to land use, biological resources, cultural practices,
and environmental justice.
As previously stated, "The incompatibility of military training with the cultural and traditional
practices of the Hawaiian people, the incompatibility of military training with the cultural beliefs
of the Hawaiian people, malama 'aina, and potentially with Hawai'i State law are unresolved
issues and should be stated in the EIS with a broader discussion and information regarding
resolution prior to commencement or what overriding reasons there are for proceeding without
resolution.
Additional information the EIS should include are:
• The draft Programmatic Biological Opinion that was recently commissioned as existing
information used for the EIS is over 10 years old
• A complete inventory of archeological sites that have been or may be impacted by
training
• A discussion of the NAGPRA process vs. HRS 6E regarding artifacts
• A response to the Hawaii County Council regarding Resolution 639-08 based upon
comments
• Additional discussion of the rare environmental setting as a high -elevation sub -alpine
tropical dryland ecosystem
• Wastewater compliance and cesspool closure information as the document notes
incompliance
-The retention of the leased land appears to defer land clean-up.
An EIS is a disclosure document that discloses the environmental setting of a proposed action,
analyzes the effects of the proposed action on the environment in terms of direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts, discusses alternative methods, modes or designs of the proposed action,
and formulates mitigation to eliminate, reduce, rectify adverse impacts of the proposed action.
Public consultation must be sought and incorporated into the document. An EIS must provide
sufficient information for decision makers in considering the environmental effects of a
proposed action. The subject document appears to be insufficient based upon the comments
above.
K
Yasaka, Lauren E
From: Okano, Ryan LY
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 12:42 PM
To: Yasaka, Lauren E
Cc: Neilson, Brian J; Teague, Christopher H
Subject: Pohakuloa Comments
Dear Lauren
Belowyou willfind Pohakuloa comments from the Division of Aquatic Resources.
Aloha
Ryan
Although Pohakuloa is land locked with no shoreline aspect, many in Hawaii believe what happens on land does
have an influence on the nearshore resources. The connecter in this case being groundwater. It is highly likely
that waters contained in aquifers residing under Pohakuloa eventually make its way down to the shoreline and
often presents itself as shoreline springs. A common phenomenon on the Hawaiian islands. While we at the
Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) do not have jurisdiction over groundwater resources, some of the species
that we do manage are highly dependent on shoreline springs. These places are know as groundwater dependent
ecosystems, estuaries, a place of mixing and productivity, and key ecological hotspots to the overall nearshore
environment contributingto total biodiversity. There are a number of culturally significant algae that often persist
in these estuarine habitats. These include palahalaha (Ulva lactuca), `ele`ele (Ulva prolifera), huluhuluwaena
(Grateloupia filicina), and others. Additionally, there is a number of cultural significant fish connected to these
groundwater dependent systems. These include `ama`ama (Mugil cephalus), aholehole (Kuhlia xenura), moi
(Polydactylus sexfilis), and others. Any deterioration of the quality and quantity of the groundwater that feeds such
systems may influence the abundance of these species. Which would not only alter the nearshore ecosystem, but
threaten cultural practices associated with these places and species. Due to the uncertainties that comes with
groundwater management relative to surface water management, DAR asks the military to be vigilant in managing
the groundwater resources associated with Pohakuloa. Best management practices should be adhered
to. Activities that posse a threat to the quality of groundwater should be avoided. If those activities are deem
necessary, threats of polluting the groundwater should be mitigated to the fullest extent possible. Additionally,
the taking of water from aquafers associated with Pohakuloa should be curtailed or limited, until the influence that
this take has on aquatic resources such as algae and fish is better understood. In the mean time water
conservation best practices should be reviewed, updated, and adhered to in an effort to limit detrimental impacts
to nearshore groundwater dependent ecosystems.