SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatementPhoto 2 (date: July 25, 2006)128. There is no basis for the DEIS’ claim on page 5–27 that the impact of destroying the connectionbetween Native Hawaiians and religious and other cultural sites located in the SRAA andWPAA can be mitigated to less than significant (See Tengan and Abad declarations). Recentexperience at MMR has confirmed that, as long as areas remain within military control, culturalaccess will be severely restricted, if not altogether eliminated, inflicting severe culturalharm. This form of discrimination is unacceptable.Response: As noted in Section 5.2.5.4, the Army will continue to provide Native Hawaiianswith access to traditional religious and cultural properties, in accordancewith AIRFA and executive order 13007, on a case-by-case basis. This accessprogram would be expanded to include SRAA and WPAA. The SBCT PA alsoindicates that the installation will generally look favorably on affording accessto Native Hawaiians to historic sites, subject to military operational requirements,security conditions, and other pertinent circumstances, such as safety.The Army has granted such access on numerous occasions. The experience atMMR has shown that training and access to cultural resources can coexist.129. The claim on page 5–187 that, “[t]o date, all of the [newly documented cultural] sites havebeen avoided” during range construction is inaccurate and misleading. As detailed in Earthjustice’sscoping comments, construction of the Schofield BAX resulted in damage to newlyrediscovered Haleauau Heiau and to several petroglyph rocks. The DEIS’ suggestion that thisirreparable loss of unique cultural resources is “less than significant” is baseless.February 2008 D–43 2/25th SBCT Final EIS