A federal judge last week again criticized the Army for how it is interpreting terms of a settlement agreement that required an environmental impact statement on the effects of training at the Mäkua Military Reservation.

U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway denied a motion by the Army to dismiss a complaint by Mälama Mäkua, a nonprofit organization based on the Wai'anae Coast. The organization alleged that the Army has failed to follow the terms of a 2007 settlement that required a comprehensive study to determine the potential for training activities to contaminate fish, shellfish, limu and other marine resources that residents gather for subsistence at Mäkua.

The complaint also accused the Army of failing to prepare subsurface archaeological surveys to identify cultural sites that could be damaged or destroyed by military training.

The Army argued that it has met all of its obligations under terms of the settlement.

In her ruling, Mollway rejected that contention. The judge wrote that she was not satisfied with the Army's interpretation of what a comprehensive study was.

"The Army argues that, because it had already completed surface (not subsurface) surveys of the ... area before signing the 2007 agreement, it did not have to perform any more surveys," Mollway wrote.

She added, "Taken to its logical conclusion, the Army's argument would allow the Army to satisfy its burden by poking a stick into the ground and calling that action a 'survey.' This court is not persuaded that the plain language of the settlement agreement contemplated such a 'survey.' "

This was not the first time Mollway has had harsh words for the Army. In January, she criticized the Army for an "extraordinary and inexcusable delay" in taking the steps needed to allow more cultural access to Mäkua Valley.

The Army declined to comment on Mollway's latest ruling because of the ongoing litigation. But the Army did issue a statement that read:

"The Army has conducted both a survey of cultural sites and several scientific studies on possible water and soil contamination and has met all the terms of an October 2001 settlement agreement with Mälama Mäkua. ... We will abide with the dictates of the court ."

Sparky Rodrigues, Mälama Mäkua president, said he was pleased with Mollway's decision.

"For years, we've been insisting that the Army tell the community the truth about the threats that training at Mäkua poses to irreplaceable subsistence and cultural resources," he said. "Now the court has told the Army that it can't get away with junk science."

Mollway did rule in favor of the Army in its motion to dismiss on Mälama Mäkua's claims that the Army failed to seek public input on archaeological and marine surveys, and that the Army failed to incorporate the surveys in an environmental impact statement.

The 2007 settlement stems from a 2001 settlement of a lawsuit filed by Mälama Mäkua, which accused the Army of failing to prepare an environmental impact statement for training in the 4,190-acre valley, a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. The Army agreed to do the EIS, but Mälama Mäkua has maintained over the years that the military has failed to live up to its end of the bargain.

Mälama Mäkua is represented by Earthjustice and its attorney, David Henkin.