1. Noa Emmett Aluli
2. Emma De Fries
3. Paul Fujishiro
4. Warren Mills Haynes Jr
5. George Helrn
6. Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell, Sr.
7. Karl Anthony Mowat
8. Adrian Nacua
9. Kathryn B. Ochwat
10. Walter S. Ritte
11. Loretta Ritte
12. Herbert F. Santos
13. Richard W. Sawyer
14. Protect Kaho‘olawe Association

1. Joel E. August, Legal Aid of Maui
2. Michael A. Town, Legal Aid of Maui
3. Ronald A. Albu, Legal Aid of Honolulu
4. Melvin M.M. Masuda
5. Thomas R. Cole

1. Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense
2. W. Graham Claytor, Secretary of Navy
3. James L. Holloway, Chief of Naval Operations
4. Ralph S. Wentworth, Jr.,
   Commandant of 14th Naval District
5. Thomas B. Hayward,
   Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, U.S. Navy

1. Lt. James W. Rude, Naval Legal Svc. Office
2. L. Mark Wine, Land and Natural Resources Division, Dept. of Justice

• N/A

N/A

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), § 102, 42 U.S.C. § 4332

1. Since 1941, the Navy had used Kaho‘olawe as a site for aerial and surface bombing. In 1977, 92 archeological sites were discovered after a study and survey was performed on 34% of Kaho‘olawe, which includes 90% of the target zone. Eighty-nine of those sites were believed to be under the National Register criteria. The plaintiffs brought a claim under NEPA to enjoin the Navy from continuing with the its bombing activity.
2. In 1972, the Navy filed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Kaho‘olawe Island Target Complex. However, since the 1977 discovery of the 92 archeological sites, the Navy had not filed an additional EIS. Because NEPA requires agencies to reassess continuing projects, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.
3. Executive Order No. 11953 required Federal agencies to implement procedures that ensured the preservation of non-federally owned sites of historical or archeological importance. Although the Navy had made good faith efforts to ensure the safety of the discovered archeological sites, it was uncertain whether the Navy could succeed in its objective. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment.
4. The court determined that injunctive relief was inappropriate because the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable harm if defendants were not enjoined, and the defendants would suffer a large loss if they were enjoined. Instead, the court required that a new EIS be submitted even though the island survey was incomplete, requiring the Navy to file an annual EIS as long as it continued with its bombing activity, compliance with the applicable provisions of Executive Order No. 11593 and 36 C.F.R. Part 800, and continued cooperation with the Hawai‘i Office of Historic Preservation in identifying and preserving historical and archeological sites.