Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 21, Number 6, 1 Iune 2004 — Army releases Stryker impact statement [ARTICLE]

Army releases Stryker impact statement

By Sterling Kini Wong The U.S. Army's proposed Stryker Brigade Combat Team would require the acquisition of 24,000 acres of land in Hawai'i and have significant impacts on cultural and biologieal resources, according to the project's final environmental impact statement (EIS) released in May. The release of the 2,000page EIS followed two years of puhlie scoping meetings in whieh environmental and community organizations, including OHA, commented on the Army's plan. The proposed project would transform the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light) at Schofield Barracks to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, whieh would utilize the newly developed Stryker, an eightwheeled, 20-ton combat vehicle. According to the EIS, the project would eall for the expansion of Schofield by 1,400 acres and Pōhakuloa Training Area on Hawai'i See STRYKER on page 14

STRYKER from page 5 island by 23,000 acres. According to the EIS, the Army considers the project essential to reaching its goal of becoming more "strategically responsive and dominant at every point on the spectrum of military operations, ranging from intensive combat to peaeekeeping duties and humanitarian missions." The Army said further: "If the 2nd Brigade does not transform in Hawai'i, the Army might not be able to respond rapidly enough in all areas of the world for operations requiring military action." However, many in the community oppose the project, saying that the Army has a history of mismanaging the land it currently owns. As examples, they point to fires in Mākua Valley that have jeopardized endangered species and cultural sites; the ordnance left over from the practice bombing of Waikāne Valley, whieh has rendered

parts of the valley unusable by even the military; and the failure to clear the agreed amount of unexploded ordnance from Kaho'olawe. The Stryker Brigade EIS lists the Army's plans to reduce the impact of noise, dust, traffic and hazardous materials caused by the project and states that if the Army relinquishes ownership of the project's land, it will elean up the remaining unexploded ordnance "in accordance with all applieahle laws and regulations." However, the EIS also states that even with mitigation measures, sensitive species and their habitats would be significantly impacted by construction, training and potential fires at certain sites. In addition, the EIS says that construction and training will also significantly impact certain cultural sites. There is a 30-day period in whieh the public may comment on the document. However, OHA

policy advocate Heidi Kai Guth said that she is concerned that the allotted time is still too short and could prevent a comprehensive review of the document. "The draft EIS was so inadequate that its mitigation plans for cultural and biological resources were incomplete," Guth said. "Therefore, the changes incorporated in the final EIS are going to be drastic enough to necessitate extensive analysis." Guth said that the Army may go forward with its plans shortly after it releases its decision on the EIS, unless a lawsuit halts the project. To view the entire EIS online, visit sbcteis.com. Comments on the EIS may be sent to: Cindy Barger U.S. Corps of Engineers Honolulu Engineer District, Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 ■