Overview
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Army Training Land Retention at Pōhakuloa Training Area in Hawai'i (ID #EISX-007-21-001-1734439520)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Army wants to keep using most of a big piece of land in Hawai'i for training, and they wrote a paper to explain how it might affect the environment and people. They looked at different choices and will wait 30 days before deciding what to do.
Summary AI
The Department of the Army has released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about keeping up to 22,750 acres of state-leased land at Pōhakuloa Training Area in Hawai'i. This document is part of a joint compliance with national and local environmental laws and evaluates the impacts of different retention scenarios as well as a no-action alternative. The Army prefers the Modified Retention option, which balances environmental, social, technical, and economic factors. A 30-day waiting period will commence before a final decision is made regarding the land retention.
Abstract
The Department of the Army (Army) announces the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) regarding its proposed action to retain up to approximately 22,750 acres of the 23,000 acres of land the Army currently leases from the State of Hawai[revaps]i ("State-owned land") at P[omacr]hakuloa Training Area (PTA) on the island of Hawai`i. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Hawai`i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), the Final EIS analyzes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a range of reasonable alternatives that meet the purpose of and need for the proposed action. Because the proposed action involves State-owned land, the EIS is a joint NEPA-HEPA document that meets both NEPA and HEPA requirements. The Army will observe a 30- day waiting period before deciding how much land, if any, it will seek to retain.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Department of the Army has published a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning its plans to retain a significant portion of its leased land at the Pōhakuloa Training Area in Hawai'i. This documents the Army's analysis of the environmental and social implications of potentially retaining up to 22,750 acres of the 23,000 acres it currently leases. Complying with both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Hawai'i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), this EIS addresses the effects of various levels of land retention and considers the environmental and community impacts of ceasing the lease entirely.
Summary and Impact
The Army outlines several options, with the "Modified Retention" alternative identified as its preferred choice. This option seeks to balance retaining enough land to meet the Army's mission requirements while addressing public, environmental, and economic concerns. However, the No-Action Alternative, where the Army would terminate its lease, is suggested to have certain significant beneficial impacts on land use and cultural practices, which might hint at restoring some lands to their previous states or uses.
This document can broadly impact the public by influencing the physical and cultural landscape of Hawai'i. The decision on land retention will determine how the land is used and managed for military and possibly civilian purposes. Changes in land use could affect the local economy, conservation efforts, and cultural sites.
Issues and Concerns
One primary issue with the document is its lack of financial transparency. There is no discussion on the potential budgetary impact of land retention, which is crucial for weighing the benefits against costs and ensuring fiscal responsibility. Additionally, there is a notable absence of specific mitigation strategies for potential negative impacts identified in the EIS. This gap makes it difficult for stakeholders to trust that adverse effects will be effectively managed.
Moreover, while the EIS refers to different retention alternatives, such as "Maximum Retention" and "Modified Retention", it lacks clarity on what these entail beyond basic land area descriptions. Such vagueness can cause confusion and hinder public understanding and debate.
Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations is mentioned, yet the document provides scant detail on how these inputs have been integrated into the outcomes. This raises concerns about transparency and whether the perspectives of indigenous groups are genuinely influencing decision-making processes.
The document also evaluates past analyses done under now-rescinded regulations, potentially casting doubt on the current compliance with standards. This issue is compounded by the use of technical terms without clear definitions, which may hinder comprehension by individuals without specialized knowledge.
Stakeholder Implications
For local communities, particularly Native Hawaiian groups, this decision could significantly impact cultural practices and environmental justice. Land use changes could either endanger cultural sites or restore access and stewardship opportunities. The Army's preferred Modified Retention option is supposed to incorporate stakeholder feedback, but the lack of visible integration of community input might lead to suspicion and dissatisfaction among locals.
From an environmental standpoint, impacts on air quality, biological resources, and overall sustainability of the land are critical. The document acknowledges these potential impacts, yet without a concrete action plan, environmental groups may find it difficult to support the proposed plans.
In conclusion, while the Final EIS is a comprehensive step in decision-making for land retention at Pōhakuloa Training Area, it leaves open questions about financial, cultural, and environmental consequences. Clearer communication, transparent integration of feedback, and explicit action plans are needed to ensure informed public discourse and trust in the process.
Issues
• The document does not specify the estimated cost or budget for the land retention, which makes it difficult to determine if there is any potentially wasteful spending.
• The document lacks detailed information about the specific measures to mitigate adverse impacts, which could make it challenging for stakeholders to assess the effectiveness of these measures.
• The language used to describe the alternatives (e.g., Maximum Retention, Modified Retention) is somewhat vague without specific criteria or guidelines on what these entail beyond acreage retention.
• There is insufficient detail on the consultation process with Native Hawaiian Organizations and how their input was incorporated into the decision-making process. This could be a concern for transparency and fairness.
• The impact of the No-Action Alternative on environmental justice is described as having significant beneficial impacts, but there is no explanation or evidence provided to substantiate this claim, which could lead to ambiguity.
• The section on analyses carried out under now-rescinded Executive Orders and regulations might cause confusion over the current validity and compliance of these analyses with current standards.
• The absence of clear definitions for technical terms used in the EIS, such as 'socioeconomics' or 'environmental justice,' might be a barrier to understanding for the general public.