Pōhakuloa at a Crossroads: What Happened, and What’s Next?
By Kayli Ann Yoshioka, Chapter Extern and Wayne Tanaka, Chapter Director | Reading time: 7.5 minutes
Immediate-action drills at Pōhakuloa Training Area. Photo: US Marines.
On May 9, 2025, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) rejected the Army’s final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for its proposed “retention” and use of just under 23,000 acres of state-held “ceded” lands (i.e. stolen Hawaiian Kingdom government and crown lands) in the 133,0000 acre Pōhakuloa Training Area on Hawaiʻi Island.
The BLNR’s acceptance of the FEIS - which is supposed to document the environmental impacts of the Army’s proposed “retention” action, including “secondary” and cumulative impacts wherever they may occur—is required before the state can take any action to allow the Army to continue occupying the lands at issue, beyond the end date of a current state land lease set to expire in 2029.
Curiously, the Army decided to submit its FEIS to the BLNR in mid-April, despite a litany of shortcomings that had been repeatedly identified by Department of Land and Natural Resources staff. These included a lack of an analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts on federal lands, the lack of needed cultural surveys and biological opinions, a failure to consult with cultural experts including the ‘Aha Moku Advisory Council, a lack of a meaningful consideration of the benefits of relinquishing these lands, and a failure to consider the fact that military training is not consistent with applicable conservation district regulations, among other issues.
Under Hawaiʻi’s Environmental Protection Act, the BLNR had 30 days from receipt to accept or reject the FEIS, or it would have been deemed automatically accepted - making the May 9 meeting its one opportunity to render such a decision.
Fortunately, after receiving over 1,300 written testimonies and hours of verbal comments, the BLNR voted 5-2 to reject the EIS. The motion rejecting the FEIS included a long list of deficiencies the Army would need to address in any revised FEIS, should it choose to continue pursuing the retention of the state lands at Pōhakuloa.
BLNR member Riley Smith from Hawaiʻi Island voted against the motion to reject the FEIS, and member Vernon Char abstained.
Many celebrated the BLNR’s common sense but still unexpected decision to uphold our environmental impact statement law, notwithstanding the tremendous political influence of the US military on local decision makers. However, questions were immediately raised regarding what the decision actually meant, and what the Army would now need to do to accomplish its goal of “retaining” Pōhakuloa.
Accordingly, the Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi, Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Center for Biological Diversity, and Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi hosted a “Pōhakuloa: What’s Next?” webinar on May 22, 2025, featuring a panel of legal experts who helped to unpack the BLNR’s decision and the Army’s anticipated next moves.
Panelists included Ashley Obrey, an attorney with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation; David Kimo Frankel, the attorney in the Ching v Case court case affirming the state’s failure to uphold its public trust obligations relating to Pōhakuloa; and Leinā‘ala Ley, Chief Advocate for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation attorney Ashley Obrey kicked off the panelist discussion by discussing the BLNR’s reasons for rejecting the Army’s FEIS. BLNR seemed initially set to accept the FEIS after a motion was made by BLNR member Smith. However, the majority instead decided to reject the FEIS due to its deficiencies and the outpouring of testimony in opposition to the proposed action.
In its rejection, the BLNR found that the FEIS did not adequately disclose the impacts of the Army’s proposed use of the land, specifically citing the need for:
A Ka Paʻakai analysis of impacts to Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices;
A codified record of consultation;
A complete biological opinion, to assess impacts to endangered species;
An accurate weapon, unexploded ordnance (UXO), and depleted uranium inventory;
A complete greenhouse gas data inventory;
A cumulative analysis of impacts;
A detailed inventory of the disposition of iwi kūpuna and moepū;
A clarification of whether Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act is required;
A justification of why the area of potential effects was narrowed to just state lands, when federal lands would also be impacted - or an assessment of all impacts to all affected areas as required under Hawaiʻi law;
A fuller consideration of the “no action” alternative; and
An assessment of the incompatibility of military training with conservation district rules applicable to the Pōhakuloa lands, which are in the conservation district.
Obrey further explained that despite the BLNR’s rejection of the FEIS, the Army still has options that they could pursue. The Army could appeal the non-acceptance decision or draft a new environmental impact statement (EIS), addressing the inadequacies of the rejected FEIS by incorporating the suggestions made by the BLNR. In the latter situation, the public may provide testimony on the newly published EIS draft.
Ching v. Case attorney David Kimo Frankel explained that while possible, it would be unlikely that the Army would appeal the non-acceptance decision. In his opinion, the Army will most likely complete a new EIS and go through the process again. If the BLNR accepts a revised FEIS, there would be three major options that the Army could try to pursue:
Get a lease from the state;
Attempt to do a land exchange; or
Get the federal government to condemn the land.
Frankel did not foresee the first option being pursued, because the Army’s planned live-fire training is not compatible with the conservation district in which the Pōhakuloa lands are found, and any lease to allow for live-fire training would therefore be in violation of state law. The third option - condemnation - also seemed doubtful, in that it would also severely damage or “poison the relationship” between the federal government and the local population.
Accordingly, the Army would most likely pursue the second option, and seek to exchange federal lands elsewhere for the state lands in Pōhakuloa. Both the legislature and the BLNR would need to approve such an exchange, providing opportunities for public engagement.
One of the BLNR’s overarching concerns was the need for more information regarding the inventory of and impacts to iwi kūpuna and moepū. Chief Advocate for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Leināʻala Ley explained that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs had early on and repeatedly urged the Army to fulfill its obligations under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Chapter 6E (the Hawaiʻi Historic Preservation Law), including the completion of intensive archaeological surveys, as a good faith means of ensuring a more complete and meaningful assessment of impacts to historic “properties” including iwi kūpuna. This was not done.
Ley also noted that the Army’s proposal would also appear to require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which similarly acts to identify and protect historic sites. This has also not been completed.
Notably, both Section 106 as well as the Hawaiʻi Historic Preservation Law would require consultation with the Native Hawaiian community.
With regards to the larger discussions around land retention, Ley noted that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs had also repeatedly asked for a “seat at the table,” given the fact that the lands at issue were in fact “ceded” (stolen) Hawaiian lands and subject to the public land trust, to be held for the benefit of native Hawaiians and the general public. These requests have been rejected.
The panel also touched upon the Army’s release of an FEIS for the “retention” of certain lands it leases on Oʻahu–including lands at Kahuku, Mākua, and Kawailoa-Poamoho. Frankel explained that the Army’s preferred proposed action would significantly reduce the Army’s retention of state lands on Oʻahu, but they would still occupy adjacent federal lands. For example, the Army proposed to stop using the state lands at Mākua, but it still planned to retain the large swath of federal lands deeper in the valley. The Army would stop using some of the state lands it currently leases in Kahuku. At Kawailoa-Poamoho, the Army would stop using the state lands there entirely. Frankel noted that it would be important for people to show up to the BLNR when it renders its decision to accept or reject this Oʻahu FEIS, and that the North Shore community in particular may want to pay attention to the FEIS sections concerning the Army’s proposed retention of the lands at the Kahuku Training Area.
In the panelist’s closing remarks, they emphasized the importance of public engagement. They specifically recommended that Office of Hawaiian Affairs beneficiaries reach out to the agency’s Board of Trustees and participating in its meetings; that individuals apply to fill upcoming vacancies in the BLNR; that people monitor the governor’s appointments to the BLNR as they are made and transmitted to the Senate for confirmation; and that people share their perspective on military land retention proposals with candidates running for office.
For more of this discussion, you can watch the full “Pōhakuloa: What’s Next?” panel here.
For more background information on Pōhakuloa, see:
Ka Wai Ola: “Pōhakuloa, A Land Besieged”
Kamakakoʻi (video): “Pōhakuloa: Now that you know, do you care?”
Al Jazeera: “How the Army Got to Bomb Hawaiʻi for $1”
The recently published FEIS for Oʻahu can also be reviewed here.