Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Other Views
IN response to your Jan. 19 article on the Army's position on Makua, I wish to comment on a few reasons why the Army must prepare an environmental impact statement about its proposed activities in the valley. Army fails
to assess
Makua plansWhile the community has made progress toward gaining access to Ukanipo Heiau, this does not satisfy the need for a cultural impact analysis that considers effects on cultural practices as well as cultural resources.
Ukanipo Heiau is only one of hundreds of traditional cultural sites in Makua, including other heiau, shrines, agricultural terraces and habitation sites.
For nearly 60 years, native Hawaiian practitioners have been denied access to their religious and cultural sites, as well as resources of the land.
Although state law requires cultural impact analyses for major projects, the Army disregarded impacts on cultural practices. Furthermore, key oral history accounts that testify to the valley's cultural significance were excluded from the environmental assessment (EA) despite repeated requests that they be included.
If the Army is currently conducting its own cultural survey of the valley, as it claims, how then, can it arrive at a finding of no significant impact before the completion of its investigations?
In violation of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Army failed to conduct the required consultations with state officials and cultural resource persons prior to construction of its training course. As a result, a number of important archaeological sites were severely damaged. These sites contained a high concentration of imu (earthen ovens), indicating this was once a thriving community.
The configuration of these sites also indicates that early inhabitants of Makua relied on flowing streams that could support considerable agricultural production. This discovery may overturn assumptions that Makua was always dry and sparsely populated.
All six recently studied sites were deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, a fact omitted from the environmental assessment. In order to prevent future harm to our cultural heritage, a comprehensive cultural impact study must be done.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Army must address the cumulative impacts of its actions.
The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality wrote in 1997 that cumulative impact analysis must consider the present and future impacts added to past impacts and that environmental assessments typically fail to adequately address cumulative impacts.
However, the Army has refused to investigate past impacts on Makua in order to establish reliable environmental baseline data.
The Army's admission that "the environmental assessment is not meant to document the impact of past usage" underscores the need for a comprehensive impact statement for Makua that adequately analyzes the effects of the past 60 years of use.
Finally, the Army's environmental assessment must be rejected as a scientific document because it was written to support a predetermined outcome.
A representative of the Onyx Group, which authored the assessment, admitted that his job was to help the Army return to training.
Furthermore, the Army's Makua public relations campaign plan lists as its top objective "a successful return to training." The enormous political pressure to resume training could not help but prejudice the outcome of the environmental assessment.
The Army's assessment is flawed, incomplete and inadequate. Before any decision about future activities in Makua can be made, the Army must do a rigorous and impartial environmental impact. The residents of Waianae and the people of Hawaii deserve to know.
Kyle Kajihiro is program director of the
American Friends Service Committee Hawaii.