Last December, a soldier became lost during training maneuvers on the East Range of Schofield Barracks, in central O`ahu. His body was later recovered from a 10-foot-deep natural pond, into which he had apparently fallen.
By January 9, 1993, the Army had decided that, to make the area safe for future training purposes, the pond would have to go. In a memo bearing that date, one Captain Kirk C. Benson of the 65th Engineer Battalion (Light) based at Schofield Barracks discusses the “poor drainage” and “excess water” that had caused the soldier’s death by drowning. The option of marking the area with tape and signs was not acceptable, Benson wrote. “Range control already briefs all soldiers on the danger of east range terrain. This measure” — taping and signage — “would be easy to accomplish; yet it would probably have little effect in diverting movement through these areas.”
Draining the pond by means of backhoe equipment also was dismissed as a viable alternative: “Existing terrain (trees, excessive slope) would require extensive equipment time and work to gain access into this area. Second, moving a piece of equipment into this area would cause excessive damage to the environment.”
Benson then described the third, preferred alternative: “Executing a directional detonation to remove this water hazard” — that is, blasting an 8-by-30-by-4-foot channel through the natural blockage on a tributary to the south fork of Kaukohonua Stream. This, Benson stated, “will reduce the water level in this area by 4 feet.” Three 40-pound shape charges and three 40-pound cratering charges would be needed to remove the “drainage problem.”
The charges are not to be used within 300 meters of any structures. According to Benson’s memo, “the nearest structure to this area is 400 meters” (about 1,300 feet) distant. The structure is a house, one of many in a subdivision of Wahiawa that backs up against the East Range of Schofield Barracks.
“Demolition materials will be drawn by B/65” — 65th Engineer Battalion — “on 25 Jan. 93. B/65 Sappers are available to execute this mission,” Benson wrote.
‘Some Loss’
To blast the channel, the Army must get approval from the state Commission on Water Resource Management. Any work that affects the flow of streams requires a Stream Channel Alteration Permit, issued by the commission. In early February, the Army made its application for a SCAP.
To obtain a permit, applicants are supposed to submit a narrative description of the project, its impacts on the stream and aquatic life, its impacts on other environmental considerations, and, usually, some discussion of the reasons for dismissing possible alternative courses of action.
The Army’s narrative project description can best be described as brief. The purpose of the project “is to reduce the safety hazards associated with a small pond… The 25th Infantry Division (Light) has determined that the pond is a safety hazard as evidenced by the recent drowning of a soldier in the pond.”
Plants and animals in the area are described merely as “introduced species,” although there is no survey cited or listing of exactly what species are present. While there would be “some loss of aquatic habitat… However, the loss of habitat is considered minor,” according to the project description.
Discussion of the alternatives follows the lines of Captain Benson’s January 9 memo: “The no-action alternative is not acceptable due to the recent fatality and the probability that other accidents might occur in the future.” As to better instruction of soldiers as to the hazards, this “would not be as effective as the proposed action.”
‘Pool Renovation’
Standard practice at the DLNR is to seek comment on applications for stream work from agencies that have knowledge or special interest in the activity. Most of the agencies (the Division of State Parks, Historic Sites, Conservation Office, and the like) had no comment.
But the Division of Aquatic Resources weighed in with a scathing critique of the Army’s action. The comments were made in a memo dated March 8, 1993, from the DAR administrator, Henry M. Sakuda, to DLNR Deputy Director Rae Loui.
“The Army proposes to demolish a natural rock dam and pool,” Sakuda wrote. “The Division of Aquatic Resources is opposed to the issuance of such a permit as a matter of principle. The area is natural and presents no special physical risk. DAR staff biologists and technicians routinely survey streams that present similar physical risk. Even recreational fishermen and hikers follow streams into the mountains under far more rigorous conditions.”
Sakuda continued: “The proposed action seems to be especially incongruous for a military organization that is supposed to be able to function under a variety of difficult conditions. The incident suggests that improvements in training and troop control are in order, not pool renovation.
“Physical risk cannot be eliminated from watersheds, and natural stream beds have already been disrupted on a massive scale on O`ahu with resultant loss of habitat for aquatic species. That habitat which remains therefore needs to be protected.”
Volume 3, Number 10 April 1993