Case Title: Morimoto v. Board of Land and Natural Resources.

Citation: 107 Haw. 296

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
‘***FOR PUBLICATION*#*

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
-000---

—

DANIEL MORIMOTO, N.D.; and KATS YAMADA,
Appellant -Appellants

 

BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI'I
HAWAI'T STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Appellees-Appellees

  

No, 25169

MG HIHd €2.

APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(clV. No. 01-21-0456)

May 23, 2005
MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J.
Appellants-Appellants Daniel Morimoto, M.D. (Morimoto)

and Kats Yamada (Yamada), pro se, (collectively, Appellants),

appeal from the May 28, 2002 judgment of the circuit court of the

third circuit! (the court), affirming an administrative decision

of Appellee-Appellee Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR)
‘The BINR's decision approved the application of Appellees-

| the Honorable Greg K. Nekenora presided.

qa
‘***POR PUBLICATION*+*

 

Appellees Hawai'i State Department of Transportation and the
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highways
Administration (FHA), (collectively, Appellees) for a
conservation district use permit to upgrade Saddle Road in the
County of Hawai'i. We affirm the court’s order.

I.

This appeal concerns BLNR’s decision to grant a
conservation district use permit (COUP) for a project to upgrade
State Highway 200, also known as Saddle Road, to a two-lane
highway that would comply with the design of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials for
rural arterials and accommodate an expected increase in traffic
flow along the highway.? A CDUP was required because the project
proposed @ realignment route, referred to as PIA-1,? that would

traverse 206.70 acres of conservation district lands.‘

 

2 the factual background herein, which 4s derived from BLNR’s
Lindings of fact, conclusions of 1am, and decision end order, 1s uncontested
by the parties, unless so noted

 

® ptm refers to the Fohakulos Training Ares.

‘the Departnent of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) is responsible
for managing conservation districts and issuing pernite for conservation
districts. Hawai'i Revised statutes (HRS) § 18%¢~3 (Supp. 1994) provides, in
Pertinent part, that the DINR shall

 

 

is) Establien categories of uses or activities on
conservation lands, including allowable uses or activities
for which no permit shall be required;

(6) Establish restrictions, requirements, and
conditions consistent with the ctangards set forth in this
chapter on the use of conservation lands: end

(7) Establish and enforce land use regulations on
conservation district lands including the collection of
Hines for violations of land use and terms and conditions of
permits issued by the [OLNR)

 

 

 

 

“6 (2) (Supp. 199¢) provides thet the OLNR “shall

Additionally, BRS § 183)
(comined.)

 

 
‘**#F0R PUBLICATION***
ee

PTA+1 was selected from amongst a list of alternative
routes after Appellees and other government agencies completed an
environmental impact statement (EIS) to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. $§ 4321-4370f, and Hawas's
Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 343. The EIS incorporated a

July 27, 1998 biological opinion (80) issued by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (FMS). The opinion represented a

culmination of inter-agency consultation as required under

 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1536.
Appellees had initiated section 7 consultation by requesting that
FWS provide them with information on any “listed species”* or

critical habitat’ within the project area. Based upon the list

continued)
regulate and use in the conservation district by the issuance of permits.”

Under section 718) (2) of the ESA,
lelach Federa2 agency shall, in consultation with and with
the essistance of the Secretary [of the Interior], insure
that any action authorized, funded, oF carried out by such
agency ss ie net likely to jeopardize the continued
Gristence of any endangered species or threatened specis
Healt in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat
Gf such species which ie detersined by the Secretary, after
Consultation as appropriate with affected states, to be
critical [1

 

 

 

 

26 U.S.C. § 1836(8) (2). This process is referred to as section 7
consuitation.

 

“Listed species” are legally protected species designated by the
FS as endangered, threatened, proposed endangered, and proposed threatenes.

7 section 3(5) (A) of the ESA defines “critical habitat” as

(4) the specific areas within the geographical a
cocupied by the species, st the tine it is listed in
Sccordance with the provisions of [Section ¢ of the ESAl, on
Which ave found these physical or Biological features (1]
Cssential to the conservation of the species and (11) which
hey Tequire special managenent considerations or protection:
and

 

 

 

(continved..)

 
‘***FOR PUBLICATION*#*

 

of species provided by FWS, Appellees then conducted biological

 

inventory surveys. A biological assessment (BA),* which

addressed potential impacts of the realignment project on the

 

Listed species, was prepared by Appellees.
Seven of the endangered/threatened species evaluated in
the BA are relevant to this appeal. Specifically, the BA
established that (1) moderate numbers of the Hawaiian Hoary Bat
(Ope'ape'a) were observed, (2) a single Palila (finch-billed
honeycreeper) was detected, although three other sightings were
previously documented, (3) no ‘Akiapbla‘au were observed, but two
sightings were previously documented, (4) Nen& used the area on a
regular and incidental basis, (5) during breeding season, the

Dark-rumped Petrel ('Ua‘u) was seen flying over the area, (6) tuo

populations of Silene hawaiiensis (a sprawling shrub known to

 

"(consimsed)
(34) apecitic are:

outside the geographical exes
occupied by the species at the tine it ss listed in
accordance with the provisions of [Section ¢ of

jpon a determination by the Secretary that such are:
sSsentisi for the conservation of the species.

 

 

   

Esal,

 

16 U.S.C. § 1832(5) (A) (2004). Section 4 of the ESA, entitled “Determination
of endangered species and threatened species,” authorizes and outlines the
process for determining "whether any species is an endangered or a threatened
Species.” 16 U.5.c. § 1533(a) (1) See aauarally 16 U.s.c. § 1533.

* pursuant to section 7/c) of the ESA,

 

 

‘each Federal agency shall . . . request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or prope
to be listed may be present in the eres of such proposes
If the Secretary advises, based on the best
Hic and commercial data available, that such species
ay be present, such agency shail conduct & Piological
Gesessnent for the purpose of icentifying eny endsngered or
threatened species which is likely to be affected by such

   

 

 

16 U.8.C. § 1836(e)

 
‘***FOR PUBLICATION®#*
eee

exist only on the Island of Hawai"i) were located in the area,

and (7) there was a possibility that the Hawaiian Hawk (‘To)

 

would use the area for nesting, although none was detected.

 

Based upon these findings, the BA concluded that (1) it would be
sunlikely” that the realignment project would have a deleterious
impact on the Hawaiian Hoary Bat and the Nen®, (2) fire posed a
threat to the ‘Akiapola'au, Palila, and Silene hawaiiensis, and
(3) Lighting used in the project might disorient the Dark-rumped
Petrel.

‘The BO issued by FWS, largely based upon the
information in the BA, observed that two of the species, the
Palila and Silene hawaiiensis, required specific attention.

‘Thus, the BO included a detailed plan to offset damage to Palile
critical habitat and minimize effects on the species. To
mitigate the approximately 100 acres of Palila critical habitat
taken up by the construction of PTA-1, the plan called for, inter
alia, the acquisition and managenent of approximately 10,000
acres for Palila hebitat restoration and an attempt to
reintroduce the Palila to areas within their historic range where
they had not resided. Appellees, BINR, and other agencies signed
‘a menorandum of understanding (MoU) to implement the Palila
mitigation plan. With respect to the Silene hawaiiensis, the
proposed alignment path was moved south to avoid 2 population of
seventy plants.

‘The BO also incorporated the following additional

mitigation measures, which FWS considered to be part of the

 
‘***FOR PUBLICATION***

 

proposed project: (1) lighting restrictions to avoid potential
downing of the Dark-rumped Petrels; (2) a plan for minimizing
fixe hazards; and (3) with respect to the Hawaiian Hawk, “nest
searches” by a qualified ornithologist prior to the onset of
construction and, in the event an “active nest” is detected, the
halting of the project within one kiloneter of the nest and the
initiation of consultation with FWS. Ultimately, the BO
concluded as follows:

After reviewing the current status of the (PJalila and its
Critical habitat and the current status of Silene’
haaiieneie, the environnental baseline of the species in
the action ares, snd the effects of the proposed Sede Road
Realignnent and Inprovenent Project, including the
Cunulacive effects, it 1s [FHs"s] biologics! opinion that
the Saddle Road Reslignment and Inprovenent Project 1s not
Likely to Jeopardize the continued existence of the [Plalila
or Silene iaueiiensis and is not likely to adversely modify
[Pjaitia critical habitat, These findings are based in
large part on the conservation Basle snto ehe
project by [FHA]... [FWS] believes that the mitigation
esgures built into the project design by [FHA] will offset
the modifications being mace to (FJalila critical habitat
and enhance the litelinood of survival and recovery of the
TPlaliis.

 

 

 

    

In October 1999, at the close of the EIS process and
section 7 consultation, FHA issued a record of decision (ROD)’
that (1) confirmed PTA-1 as the selected route and (2) legally
bound Appellees to implement the mitigation commitments
delineated in the EIS and the BO. The ROD also required
Appellees to incorporate the mitigation commitments into all
construction contract documents. The mitigation plan in the ROD
received wide support from scientific, regulatory agency, and
environmental communities, and segments of the local community.

+ according to BLNR finding no. 5€, the "ROD is @ legally binding
document that ensures implementation of the Conitnents of the EIS."
***FOR PUBLICATION*#*

ee

I

 

Appellees filed their application for a CDUP on January
21, 2000, The application included a draft EIS as required under
Hawai's Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-5-31(a) (1)" and noted
that a ROD would be issued in November 1999." As mentioned
previously, the 80 was included in the EIS."* On April 24, 2000,
BLNR held a public hearing on the application. At the public
hearing, Yamada orally requested a contested case hearing to
challenge Appellees’ application. Morimoto was permitted to
intervene in the contested case on November 20, 2000. The
contested case hearing was held on February 12, 13, and 14, 2001,
with a hearings officer presiding. On May 8, 2001, the hearings
officer issued his proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and decision and order.

on July 9 and 27, 2001, Yamada filed the following four
motions, in which Morimote joined: (1) a motion to determine
that mitigation for use of a portion of the Palila critical

habitat cannot be used as a justification for the issuance of @

 

© wag § 13-5-31¢

 

(2) (1994) provides, in relevant part, a8 follows:

§ 13-5-32 Permit applications. (a) Applications for
‘all permits proviced for in this chopter shell be submitted
fo the department on the form prescribed by the department.
The application shall contain:

a)"R drage environmental i
Ampact statement, as applicable(.)

 

sment, oF environmental

"the aplication also noted that the realignment project “has been
the subject of an ils) in accordance with the National Envirensentel Policy
het of 1969 as amended (NEPA) and (HRS) Chapter 343 federal Recors
Of peckeien ie scheduled to be issued in Novenber 1999.

 

 

BING established this fact in finding ne. 9€, which is uncontested
by the parties

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION*#*
COUP; (2) a motion to determination the existence of nine

 

endangered and threatened species in or near PTA~1; (3) a motion
to determine that a sixty-meter-wide survey is not legally
sufficient; and (4) a motion to comply with HAR § 13-1-40(c).””

On October 4, 2001, BLNR issued its findings of fact
(findings), conclusions of law (conclusions), and decision and
order granting the COUP to Appellees subject to fifteen
conditions. In conclusion no. 2, BLNR determined that Appellees’
application “satisfie(d] the requirements set forth in HAR
Section 13-5-30(c)." Its decision and order provided in part
that

a1 Jeation
Yor this project, including but not. Limited to:
implonentation of the fire and other

gnvironsentel commitments identified in the
Record of Decision;
Palila mitigation at the Ka ‘che lease area:
Palila mitigetion ae Puy alli):
Palila mitigation at Kipoke ‘Alela; and

a continuing stody of the (Slilene pawaiiensis [be]
hereby incorporated as conditions of the perait.

 

(Emphasis added.) BLNR also denied Yamada’s four motions in

conclusion no. 7."

BAR § 13-1-40(c) (1962) states as follows
§ 13-1-40 Decisions and orders.

ic} “Every dectaton and order adverse to a party to

the proceeding, rencerea by the beara in a contested case,
shall be in writing or stated in the record and shall be

companied by seperate fingings of fact and conclusions of
low. Tf any party to the proceeding has filed proposed
Findings of fact, the board shall incorporate in its
decision ruling upon each proposed Findings [sic) s0
presented!

 

 

Conclusion no. 7 stated as follows:

(coniaued.)

 
 

‘***FOR PUBLICATION!

qr.
on October 23, 2001, Appellants filed an appeal of

BLNR’s decision to the court pursuant to HRS § 91-14 (1993).

 

In its resulting decision and order, the court rule

1, The BINR's mixed finding of fact and conclusion of
law that the use of the lang as 2 roadway will aot cause
substantial adverse inpact_uoon endangered and threatened
‘besiege is not clearly erroneous.
3.) ing 8

. ene Paula ((sic})
Sh determining chat. there will not be o substantial adverse
Ampact to existing natural resourees within the surrounding
area, community oF region

 

 

131.” The BLNR’s denial of Appellant Yamada’s motions:
does not warrant reversal of the BLNR decision

 

i4].” The BLWR decision does not violate Article TX,
S'Conatitution and Public Trost

 

Doctrine. {*)

 

.comtinged)

‘The motions of (Yamada) are denied. [His] motion to
Gctermine that mitigation for use of a portion of the Pallla
critical habitet cannot be used as 2 justification for the
Geeuance of the COU(D], a motion to determine the existence
of nine endangered and threatened species in or near PTA-L,
Sno motion to determine that a 60 meter survey ie not
legally suftictent largely represent argunents set out in
(Yanada’ s} proposed fingings of fact ana conclusions of law
and [his] objections to the Hearing Officer's Did.” While

, (BLAR] allowed (him) to make arguments on
the motions st oral argument. [Yanada’s) notion eo comply
leith Role i3-1-¢0(c}, HAR, i denied. Zhe format of [his],

ronosed findings of" tact’ and conclusions of lax in’
inushered textual parearaphe ede it-aifficult for the
To the

Hearing Officer and (plaRl to address-{niel concern.
extent not sddrested by the Hearing Officer or this Decision

fang Order, (BLNR] finds that the proposed findings of fact
fand eonelusions of law are denied.

 

 

 

(Emphases added.)

% RS § Si-14(a) provides that “falny person aggrieved by # final

decision and order ins contested case... ig entitled fo judicial review
thereof uncer this chapter{.]"

 

“in this jurisdiction, the Public Trust Dectrine has been adopted

“fundamental principle of constitutional law, "dn re Mater Use Perm
Jicetions (waiaholel, 9 Havsi'i 97, 132, 9 P.36 409, 4e4 (2000), and 5

Serived from Article #1, section 1 of ‘the Nawal Constitution, Article X1,
Section 1 provises that

  

 

 

(continued.

 
‘***POR PUBLICATION*#*

 

(Emphases added.) With respect to ruling (2), the court observed

as follow:

 

Firet, in Stop isd Association ws state, 68 Hawai's
154 (1985), the Hawal't Supreme Court stated that the BLNR
could allow a use within « concervation district by
Senditioning approval “on compliance with Reasure:
nnitigatine the environmental consequences to the area.”
Ta, (sic) 68 await et 163, Therefore, there is a

by the Hawai's ‘Soprene Court that the grant of @
Conservation district use permit may be based upon
conditions requiring mitigation measures.

 

 

(Emphasis added.)

The court issued its final judgment affirming the
BLNR's decision on May 28, 2002. On June 17, 2002, Appellants
filed a notice of appeal.

Ww.

on appeal, we list the separate arguments raised by
Appellants in related order, nunbered consecutively for
convenience. Yamada argues that (1) “mitigation cannot be used
to quality the applicant for a CDUA permit since it is a new rule
requiring adoption pursuant to HRS 91-3"; (2) “the lower court's
determination that mitigation is permitted is in error” because

(2) “the inclusion of the standard conditions in HAR 13-5-42 does

contin)

For the benefit of present and future gene:
State and its political subdivisions shail conse,
protect Hewaii's netural beauty ang all natural resources,
Including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and
shall promote the development and utilization of these
Fesources in a manner consistent with their conservation and
In furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the Seate

All public naturel resources ave held in trust by the
state for the benefit of the people:

     

 

 

-10-
‘***POR PUBLICATION*#*
—_—_—__—_ SSS
not permit the Board to mitigate the impact of the proposed land
use to qualify the applicant for the CDUA permit,”

(b) “mitigation of the criteria for the issuance of the CDUA was
not permitted by Stop H=3 [Ass'n v, State Dept. of Transp, 60
Haw. 154, 706 P.2d 446 (1985),],” (c) the Board cannot interpre
its own rules in a way that it includes provisions not otherwise
permitted by its rules,” and (d) “the proposed land use of the
Palila critical habitat which also houses eight other endangered
and thr

ened species is not consistent with the legislative

   

purpose of conserving and protecting those lands"; Morimoto
argues that (3) “the BLNR committed an error of law when it

considered mitigation measures relating to the Palila in

 

determining that there will not be a substantial adverse impact
to existing natural resources within the surrounding area,
conmunity or region”; Yamada further argues that (4) “the
presence of nine endangered and threatened species found in and
adjacent to the PTA-1 Corridor requires that the entire area be
protected from the proposed use”; (5) “Applicants only conducted
2 60 meter roadway corridor survey and as 2 result failed to
Genonstrate that they have met criteria required of HAR 13-5-
30(c)(4)"7 Morimoto further argues that (6) “the BLNR mixed
finding of fact and conclusion of law that the proposed roadway
will not cause @ substantial adverse impact upon endangered and
threatened species is clearly erroneous”; (7) “the BLNR's denial
of (Yamada‘s} motions warrants reversal of the BLNR decision,”
and (8) “the BLNR decision violates Article XI, section 1 of the

ene
‘***FOR PUBLICATION*#*

 

Hawai'i Constitution and the public trust doctrine.” Ultimately,
Appellants seek reversal of the court's decision and denial of
the coup.
v
“Review of @ decision made by @ court upon its review
of an adninistrative decision is a secondary appeal. The
standard of review is one in which thie court must determine

whether the court under review was right or wrong in its

 

decision.’”
07, 97 P.3d 372, 382-83 (2004) (quoting Soderlund v. Admin. Dir.
of the Courts, 96 Hawai'i 114, 118, 26 P.3d 1214, 1218 (2001)).

HRS § 91-14(g) sets forth the appropriate standards for
reviewing agency decisions. It provides that a court may reverse
or modify a decision and order of an agency if the order is:

(2) In violation of constitutional or etetutory
provisions? or

(2) Tnvexcese of the
of the ase

(3) Made upon undaweat pr:

(4) Affected by other error of le

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the relsable, probative,
‘and substantial evidence on the whole record) oF

(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of
Giseretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
Siscretion.

‘This court noted in Braga v, State Farm Mut, Auto, Ins, Co., 81
Hawai'i 302, 304-05, 916 P.2d 1203, 1205-06 (1996), that “[u)nder

 

atutory authority or jurisdiction

  

 

 

HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under
subsections (1), (2), and (4) . . . findings of fact are
reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency's exercise of

discretion is reviewable under subsection (6).” Morimoto cites

ni
‘***POR PUBLICATION*#*
ee
to the foregoing sections and Yamada cites to the aforesaid

right/wrong standard.

In an appeal from a circuit court's review of an
administrative decision, “the clearly erroneous standard governs
an agency’s findings of fact(.]” Lanai Co., 105 Hawai'i at 307,
97 P.3d at 383 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Aan agency's findings are not clearly erroneous and will be
upheld if supported by reliable, probative and substantial
evidence unless the reviewing court is left with firm and
definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Poe vs
Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd., 105 Hawai'i 97, 100, 94 P.34 652, 655
(2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) .
“substantial evidence is credible evidence which is of sufficient
quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable
caution to support a conclusion.” Lanai Co., 105 Hawai'i at 308:
09, 97 P.3d at 384-85 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “(T]he courts may freely review an[] agency's
conclusions of law.” Id. at 307, 97 P.3d at 383 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).

vr.
AL

In Argument 1, Yamada maintains, in effect, that

mitigation measures cannot be considered in reviewing the

application for a CDUP, unless a new rule concerning mitigation

 

is adopted pursuant to HRS § 91-3. He points out thet no rule
exists giving BLNR authority to consider mitigation measures

ae
 

FOR PUBLICATION*#+

 

because HAR § 13-5-30(c) (4) refers to the impact on “existing
natural resources.” (Emphasis added.) Hence he maintains that
“HAR 13-5-30(c) (4) only commands the (BLNR] to determine if the

proposed land use will cause [such] substantial impact” without

 

consideration of palliative measur

 

It may be noted, first, that while HAR § 13-5-30(c) (4)
does not refer to mitigation, mitigation is contemplated in
another rule within the same subchapter.!” HAR § 13-5-42(a) (9)
states that “[a]1l representations relative to mitigation set
forth in the accepted environmental assessment [(EA)] or impact
statement [(BIS)] for the proposed use are incorporated as
conditions of the permit{.]” (Emphases added.) As stated
previously, HAR § 13-S-31(a) (1) required Appellees to submit an
EIS as part of their COUP application. Included in the EIS was
the BO prepared by Fws."*

In that regard, the BO made clear that FWS’s finding of
“no jeopardy” to the Palila and Silene hawaiiensis and “no
adverse modification” to Palila critical habitat was “based in
large part on the conservation measures built into the project by

[fHA].” By requiring that mitigation measures set forth in the

 

mitle 13 chapter 5 of the HAR, entitled “Conservation District,”

governs the regulation ef “land use in the conservation district for the
Burpose of conserving, protecting, and preserving the important natural’
Fesources cf the State through appropriste management and ose to provect thesr
Jong-term sustainability and the public health, safety, and welfare.” BAR §
15:5-2' (1954), Subchapter of chapter 5, titie 13, delineates the procedures
for permits, site pian approvals, and management plans. NAR § 25-5-30(c)y
establishing the COUP criteria, and HAR § 13-s-«2(a), establishing stancard
Conditiens for COUPs, both fali within subchapter 4

 

 

   

  
  

 

‘See sumza note 12
14
‘***FOR PUBLICATION®#*

EIS be made part of the conditions of the permit, HAR 13-5-
42(a) (9) not only authorized, but legally mandated the BINR to
consider such measures in reviewing the application.

Yamada’s position that BLNR could not consider
mitigation measures set forth in an EA or EIS would negate HAR
§ 13-5-42(a) (9), which makes mitigation in an EA or EIS an

automatic condition of a COUP. We must give effect to both

 

rules. Topliss v. Planning Comm'n, 9 Haw. App. 377, 391 n.11,
842 P.2d 646, 657 n.11 (1993) (*{A]dninistrative rules must be
read so as to give them effect.” (Citing State v. Tom, 69 Haw.

602, 752 P.2d 597 (1988) In that light, Appellants’ narrow

 

interpretation of HAR § 13-5-30(c) (4) must be rejected. Hence,
Yemada’s Arguments 2(a), stating that “the inclusion of the
standard conditions in HAR 13-5-42 does not permit the Board to
mitigate the impact of the proposed land use to qualify the
applicant for  CDUA permit,” and 2(c), stating that “the Board
cannot interpret its own rules in a way that includes provisions
not otherwise permitted by its rules,” must be likewise rejected.
Moreover, as BLNR noted in its findings nos. 56, 58,

and 121 and conclusion no. 43,* Appellees were legally bound to

 

% this opinicn does not address whether the rules authorize BLAR to

consider mitigation measures independent of an EA or EIS in issuing COUPs, oF
to, in Yenasa’s words, “mitigat(e] the criterie.”

* appellants do not challenge BLNR's findings nos. $6, 58, and 121,
wnich esteblish thet the “ROD is 8 legsily Binding docunent that ensures
Implementation of the commitments of the EIS(,]" thet the "ROD describes the
environmental mitigation ccamitnents that must be implenented by [FHA], in
{li cooperation with ell effected regulatory agencies,” that FAA “will
incorperste these commitments inte the construction contract documents es

(cominued.)

 

 

 

nis
***FOR PUBLICATION*#*
implement the mitigation measures in the BO and EIS. Hence,

these measures were already part of the realignment project when
At came before BLNR. The application thus was inclusive of the

mitigation measures as it was presented to the Board.

 

Consequently, the proposal with the incorporated measures
required by HAR 13-5-42(a) (9) would cone within the meaning of
the phrase “proposed land use” in HAR § 13-5-30(c) (4). Under
these circumstances, BLNR had the authority to consider the
mitigation measures in the BO, E18, and ROD in evaluating
Appellees’ COUP application without undertaking further
rulemaking.
B.

le observe that the policies underlying rulenaking, as

announced in Aluli v. Lewin, 73 Haw. 56, 628 P.2d 602 (1992), and

wads Prin ki Cox f Hono!

 

89 Hawai'i 301, 974 P.2d 21 (1999), axe not implicated in this
case. In those cases, this court sought to ensure that permit
applications “be reviewed fairly and consistently,” Aluli, 73
Haw. at 61, 628 P.2d at 805, and that agency discretion be

exercised “fairly and uniformly,” Hawaii Prince Hotel, 89 Hewai'i

 

> continues)
reguiresente of the contractor and subcontractors,” that these “commitments
will be enforeed by the [PHA] Eroject Engineer[,)* end that FHA "hae mace
Tegaily binding commitments in the AOD te undertake significant mitigative
steps to offset any potential ispacts on Falils critical habitet.” Appellants
aise do not contest BLNR’s conclusien no. 43, which states that the
Scomprenensive conditions to the inplenentation of the project imposed by the
Ob, which are legally binding upon [FHA] in order for the project to proceed,
protect ang enhance the natural envizonmentel, cultural, historical and other

 

 

 

 

“16
‘***FOR PUBLICATION***

at 393, 974 P.2d at 33. Both decisions observed that without

rulemaking,

tthe affected public cannot fairly anticipate or addre
Procedure as there is no specific provision in the sti
Er regulations which describe the determination process.
he publ es

  

‘The public hes
been afforded no meaningful opportunity to shape these
Criteria that affect their interest,

 

Ida (quoting Aluli, 73 Haw. at 60, 828 P.2d at G04) (emphasis
added) «

Here, when an applicant submits its application for a
COUP, the public and interested parties know that BLNR will
evaluate the application in accordance with the eight criteria in
HAR § 13-5-30(c), that BLNR will look to any draft EIS or EA that
must be submitted as part of the application, and that BLNR will
incorporate any representations in the BIS or EA (relevant to
mitigation) as a condition of the CDUP. ‘These rules provide
sufficient guidance te CDUP applicants and the public, offsetting
the threat of “unbridled discretion.” Aluli, 73 Haw. at 61, 628
P.2d at 805.

c.

As noted in Argument 2(b), Yamada asserts that the
court erred because “mitigation . . . for the issuance of the
cDU[P] was not permitted by Stop H-3{.]” In its decision and
order, the court made reference to Stop H=3. Although similar to
this case in some respects, Stop H=3 is not germane. The
appellants in Stop H-3 argued that BLNR “exceeded its authority”
in approving the H-3 North Helawa Valley realignment. 68 Haw. at

“17
 

‘**4FOR PUBLICATION!
158, 706 P.2d at 450. The appellants there claimed that “H-3

will so drastically compromise the integrity of the conservation
district that use of the regulation [at issue, HAR § 13-2-

12(c) (8) (1984),] . . . [was) absolutely precluded under the
enabling statute.” Id, at 161, 706 P.2d at 451 (emphasis added).
‘Thus, this court restricted its inguiry to whether the applicable
statute, HRS § 183-41, authorized the issuance of the CDUP.

In the instant case, Appellants do not challenge BLNR’s
statutory authority to grant the COUP. Rather, Appellants
maintain that BLNR had to comply with HRS § 91-3 rulemaking
procedures before it could consider mitigation in evaluating the
DUP application. Thus, Stop H-3 is not applicable.
Nevertheless, for the reasons stated herein, the court was
ultimately correct in affirming the BLNR’s October 4, 2001 order.
See Lanai Co., 105 Hawai'i at 306, 97 P.3d at 382 (affirming the
court’s order but on alternate grounds (citing Tavlor-Rice v.
State, 91 Hawai'i 60, 73, 979 P.2d 1086, 1099 (1999) (“(T]his
court may affirm a judgment of the trial court on any ground in
the record which supports affirmance.")).

vit.

As to Argument 2(d), Yamada maintains that “(t]he
proposed land use of the [PJalils critical habitat is not
consistent with . . . legislative purpose[.)" For this
proposition, Yamada cites to (1) HAR § 13-S-1 which states, inter

alia, that “the purpose of this chapter is to require land use in

n18-
 

‘***POR PUBLICATION
ee

the conservation district for the purpose of conserving,

protecting, and preserving the important natural resources of the

 

State”; (2) HRS § 195D-2, which defines “conserving”;*

(3) Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land ¢ Natural Res., 649 F. Supp.

1070, 1076 (D. Haw. 1986) (Thus, one of the main purposes of the
[endangered species Act] was conservation and preservation of the
ecosystens upon which endangered species depend.”); and (4) HRS
§ 195D-5(b) (1993) (stating that “the office of the governor
shall review other programs administered by the [Department of
Land and Natural Resources}, and to the extent practicable,
utitize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this
section”).

Yamada argues that “to the extent that there are
conflicts in the rules and statutes, the latter must prevail,”
but does not set out the specific way in which the foregoing
authorities were violated. Thus, we do not decide this
contention. Norton in. Dir. wet, 80 Hawai'i 197,
200, 908 P.2d 545, 548 (1995) (noting that a point of error may

be disregarded if the eppellant fails to present 2 discernible

 

argument (citing Hall v. State, 10 Haw. App. 210, 218, 863 F.2d
% RS § 1950-2 (1993) states that

“[clonserve", “conserving”, and “conservation” mean to use
and the use Of sll methods end procedures for the purpose of
Increasing and maintaining populstions of aquatic Life
wilelife, end Lend planta, “Such methods and procedur
Ynelude, bot are not limited to, activities such as
Tesearch, census, habitat acquisition, protection,
haintenshee, propagetion, live trapping, regulated taking,
Tow enfercenent and traneplantation «J

 

        

 

a9
‘***FOR PUBLICATION*#*

 

344, 348, cart, denied, 76 Hawai'i 246, 868 P.24 464 (1993),
recon. denied, 60 Hawai'i 357, 910 P.2¢ 128 (1996).
vin.

As to Argument 3, Morimoto contends that consideration
of mitigation measures was error because the BLNR failed “to
specify the impact{,] . . . to specify the diminution{,] . . . to
address other endangered species{, and} . . . engaged in new
rule-making.” Relatedly, Yanada asserts as to Argument 4, that
the entire area must be protected from the project. He
remonstrates that (1) Appellees were not aware of Asplenium
fzagile, (2) findings 115-141 only deal with the Palila
mitigation plan and “the criteria (of the HAR] requires examining
the mpact to the existing natural resources(,]" (3) there was no
demonstrative evidence presented that the use met the criteria in
HAR 13-5-20(c), (4) the survey was Limited to the PTA-1 corridor
and not to the surrounding area, ($) one-hundred acres of
habitat lands are being removed from the other eight endangered
and threatened species but there are no mitigation land being

proposed for those species.

 

‘As to Morimoto’s first and second and Yamada’s second

concerns, we have said, supra, that, in the circumstances of this

addressed in the

 

= —_Appellante’ argunents as to rulemaking wert
preceding section and, thus, are not discussed further.

 

 

® _ this contention is treated in Part IX, in the discussion of the

fifth Argurent
-20-
‘+**FOR PUBLICATION***
ee

case, BLNR must consider proposed ameliorative steps in
evaluating the substantial adverse impact criterion. Contrary to
Morimoto’ s argument, the findings regarding Palila mitigation are

responsive to the perceived impact of the realignment project

 

upon the species. BLNR found, in finding no. 117, that “a small

 

portion of Palila critical habitat . . . must be used” for the
project. Finding no. 120 noted that “[nJo Palila have resided in
the portion of the Palila critical habitat located in the
environs of PTA+1 (PTA Training Areas 1-4) for decades.”
Finally, finding no. 121, expressly referencing impacts,
recognized that Appellees have “nade legally binding commitments
in the ROD to undertake significant mitigative steps to offset
any potential impacts on Palila critical habitat.” These
findings, in addition to other findings that explain Appellees’
mitigation commitments, dispel Appellants’ argument that BLNR did
not consider the impact or the effect of measures to “dimin{ish]”

the impact of the project upon the Palila.

 

As to other endangered or threatened species,
Morimoto’s third and Yamada’s first, second, third, and fifth
concerns, the court determined that “although some listed species

were not specifically mentioned in the BLNR findings of fact,

 

% ——Yonada argues that finding no. 120 is erroneous because the draft
EIS and the finel EIS note 2 Palils sighting close to the eastern boundary of
Prac] as well ce other documented sightings in the general areas of PTAT
Guring the past five yeors. However, these sightings were few and not
inconsistent wish the finding that no Falile have gguided within FPA-t for
decades

 

 

  

aot
‘**4F0R PUBLICATION*#*

 

evidence presented would support specific findings that they will

 

not suffer a substantial adverse impact as a result of the
construction of PTA-1." Based upon a review of the record,

including the BA, BO, and ROD, the court was ultimately correct

 

in concluding that substantial evidence existed to support the
finding that these species would not suffer substantial adverse
impact.

In finding no. 102, BLNR stated that, “[iJn general,
the extensive mitigation commitments enumerated in the ROD will
ensure that the Saddle Road improvenent project, including the
construction of PTA-1, will have no substantial adverse impacts
on any rare or listed species, and in fact will improve the
current environnental situation.” Thus, even though BLNR did not
render specific findings as to each species, it did examine the
initigation commitments in the ROD to arrive at the conclusion
that the project would not have a substantial adverse impact on
listed or rare species.

1

We note, in that regard, that the BA and BO expressly
addressed seven of the nine species identified by Appellants
according to the List provided to them by FNS. Specifically,

the BA noted the detection of moderate numbers of the Hawaiian

 

* ks previously noted, FHA initiated section 7 consultation by
Sending a letter to Fis requesting inforsation on the known presence of
“listes species” or critical habitat within the general project sre. On
December 27, 1990, WS responded by providing a list of species potentially
impacted by'the project. These facts were established in SLNR’s fincinge
net. 81 and 83 and are uncontested by the parti

   

 

22"
‘***FOR PUBLICATION*#*
ee
Hoary Bat, the detection of a lone Palila and three other

documented sightings, two documented sightings of ‘Akiapola‘au,
regular incidental usage of the PTA-1 area by Néné, the
overflying of the Dark-rumped Petrel during breeding season, two
populations of Silene havaiiensis, and the possible nesting of
the Hawaiian Hawk, although none were detected. The BA concluded

it would be “unlikely” that the realignment project would have a

 

deleterious impact on the Hawaiian Hoary Bat and the Nene, but

that fire posed a threat to the ‘Akiap0ls'au, Palila, and Silene

 

hawaiiensis. In response, the ROD requires that a fire ecologist
be contracted to develop a comprehensive fire management plan to
reduce the risk of fire in the vicinity of PTA-1. To avoid harm
to a population of seventy Silene hawaiiensis plants within PTA-
1, the proposed path was moved south of the population. As for
the Dark-rumped Petrel, which returns to its nesting colony after
dark, the BA noted that the major threat to these birds would be
disorientation by light. Thus, the 80 required that no
construction or unshielded equipment maintenance be permitted
after dark during breeding season and that this prohibition be
incorporated into the construction contract documents.

With respect to the Hawaiian Hawk, even though none of
these birds were detected during the surveys, the BA noted a
potential impact upon the species if a nest was located near the
construction corridor. Thus, the BA called for @ “nest search”
by a qualified ornithologist prior to the onset of construction
and, in the event an active nest was detected during

236
***FOR PUBLICATION*#*
construction, the BO mandated that construction halt within one

kilometer of the nest until consultation with FWS could take

place.

 

 

Appellees identified two species -~ the Aspleniun

fragile and the Pueo -- as not being surveyed or addressed in the

do

BA and BO. However, the record suggests that these speci

 

not exist in PTA-1. Reginald David, who prepared the BA,

 

testified that Asplenium fragile, an endangered plant speci
was not found within PTA-1 and was not addressed in the BO.
Yamada relied on Rare Plants of Fohakuloa Training Area by Robert
B. Shaw to establish the existence of the Aspleniun fragile in
the project area. Lena Schnell, a natural resources specialist
at Pohakuloa Training Area, testified that the species exists in
the area, but that she was “not exactly certain where.” she also
stated that she did not use Shaw's maps to conduct botanical
surveys. The only evidence of a Pueo sighting came from the
testimonies of Yamada and Or. Harvey Chan, who, while on a
hunting excursion, saw an owl cross the road in front of their
truck. Thus, the fact that the BA or BO did not report on the
Asplenium fragile or Pueo would not effect BLNR’s ultimate
decision regarding substantial adverse impact of the project.
Based on the record, substantial evidence existed to support a
finding that the species concerned would not suffer substantial

adverse impact.

24
‘**4FOR PUBLICATION*#*
OO
mx.

As to Argument 5, Yamada declares that an adequate
survey for endangered species was not conducted. Appellants
point to the testimony of David and a representation made in the
EIS, david did testify that his survey of the avian and
mammalian species was limited to the corridor “where the road
goes.” The final EIS stated that “Species inventories were
conducted by means of 100-percent pedestrian surveys within the
60-m wide corridor.”

However, as Appellees point out, David also testified
that the surveys on which the BA, 80, and ROD are based

considered the entire area of the project, not just the roadway.

For instance, David testified that his survey team “went outside
1 nd se: al of likely habitat, rocky

outcroppings, rain cuts in valleys and any promising looking
areas that given their many years of experience they would expect
to find remnant endangered species in.” Upon examination of the
BA, BO, and ROD, it does not appear that the surveys were limited
to a sixty-meter wide area where the road would traverse but,
rather, that the area surrounding PTA-1 was surveyed. As BLNR
noted in findings 86 and 87, which were not disputed, “(t]he bulk
of the listed species” were found in “the area surrounding PTA-1"
and the survey covered PTA Training Areas 22 and 23, which are
“located on the western and southern portions of PTA, distant
fromthe route selected for the proposed PTA-] realignment.”
(Emphases added.)

25
‘***FOR PUBLICATION®#*

 

As to Argument 6, Norinoto contends that (1) there is
no mention of HRS §§ 195D-1, 1950-2, 344-4(3), and HAR § 13-5-30
in the BLNR’s decision, (2) “a complete survey . . . cannot be
accomplished by simply doing a walk-through survey,” (3)
“disturbance would not be limited to construction events, but
also includes the use of the proposed roadway,” (4) “nine
endangered species . . . were not surveyed,” (5) “[t]he Applicant
has not demonstrated a benefit to the Palila in the proposed
Mitigation,” and (6) “the [mitigation] plan [is] illusory” since
“felffort alone can never become the standard for the proper care
and preservation of our conservation land and endangered species”
and “‘other approaches’ are nowhere specified.”

Only the fifth and sixth concerns need be discussed.**
Morimoto takes issue with finding no. 137, which states that “the
Palila Mitigation Plan does not require that Palila actually be
reintroduced/translocated into areas where they do not presently
reside. The Mitigation Plan merely requires that the effort be
made." Morimoto argues that “[e]ffort alone can never become the
standard for the proper care and preservation of our conservation
land and endangered species. with mere effort alone, the

applicant cannot demonstrate benefit to the Palila.”

‘eviously noted with respect to (1), specific violations of
not identified and WAR 13-5-30 hab been discussed sbove?
‘and (3) and (4) were incorporated in

     

he
(2) has been disposed of with Argument 5
the discussion on Argunents 3 and 4

 

 

-26-
‘*sFOR PUBLICATION***
eee

However, despite the fact that translocation may not be
successful, BLNR found, in finding no. 137, that if the effort to

translocate “does not ultimately appear successful, other

 

approaches will be tried.” (Emphasis added.) Morimoto does
argue that the approaches are not defined. But the mitigation
plan involves more than translocation. In finding no. 138, BLNR
found that the “project will not harm, and in fact will benefit
the Palila, by restoring degraded areas of Palila habitat(,)

. « (and) re-establishing mamane forest on parts of its former

rani (Emphasis added.) The plan calls for the re-vegetation
of approximately 10,000 acres of mamane forest. Thus, even
though translocation of the Pelila may not succeed, there is
substantial evidence that the Palila will benefit in other ways,
supporting BINR’s finding that the project will not harm the
species. The finding, therefore, that the Saddle Road
realignment would not cause substantial adverse impact to any
rare or listed species was not clearly erroneous.

xr.

As to Argument 7, Morimoto asserts that BLNR erred when
it denied Yanada’s notions (1) to determine that Palila
mitigation cannot be used as justification for the issuance of
the CDUP, (2) to establish the existence of nine endangered and
threatened species in or near PTA-1, (3) to determine that @

sixty-meter survey was not legally sufficient, and (4) for

21
**4FOR PUBLICATION*#*
compliance with HAR § 13-1-40(c), see supra note 13.” The court

stated that “the denial of the motions were in the nature of
decisions not to adopt certain substantive arguments raised by
Appellant Yamada, Since the BLNR decison is being affirmed

"For the

 

herein, the denial of these motions were prop.

 

reasons noted above, we also affirm BLNR’s denial of Yamada’
motions.
xi.

As to argument 6, Morimoto maintains that BLNR’s
decision violates Article XI, § 1 of the Hawai'i Constitution and
the Public Trust Doctrine. Article XI, § 1 pronounces that “the
State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect
Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources.” Appellants
assert that “the Public Trust Doctrine requires, at a minimum,
recognition that the State must affirmatively protect public
resources, including natural resources.” But as support,
Morimoto only refers to (1) “contradictions of the factual
conclusions in the record, including the finding of no
substantial impact upon the Palila” and (2) “the court’s failure
to ensure that BLNR followed proper legal requirements, including

rule-making.”

% — Yorimate challenges BLNR's denial of all four motions, but he does
not present an argunent ae to why the fourth motion should have been grented.
In conclusion ne. 1, BLUR explained that his vse of onnuabered textual
Paragrephs sade it difiscult for the hearing officer ene BLNR to acdress his

 

-2e-
‘**FOR PUBLICATION*#*

 

Hence Appellants present no new arguments. In answer

 

to Appellants’ point one, there is substantial evidence
supporting the BLNR’s determination as set forth supra.
Similarly, as to point two, the argunent that “the court)
fail{ed] to ensure that BLNR followed proper legal requirements,
including rule-making” has been addressed supra. Therefore, this
claim does not implicate any error on the part of BLNR.

xu.

For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the court
correctly ruled that mitigation as provided in the EIS could be
considered in the CDUP application. Also, there is substantial
evidence to support the BLNR’s conclusion that the project will
not cause substantial adverse impact upon the natural resources
of the project area.

Accordingly, the court's May 28, 2002 judgment is

affirmed.

on the briefs: D

ShcA Larenerm

Daniel Morimoto, M.D.,

appellant-appeliant,
Pro se. Reet O reecoeepann
Kats Yamada, appellant~

appellant, pro se.

Edsel M. Yamada, Deputy Frew «. Duets Sr

Attorney General, for
Appellee-Appeliee Board
of Land and Natural
Resources.

29
***FOR PUBLICATION*#*

Rosemary T. Fazio and
Francis P. Hogan

(Ashford & Wriston),

Special Deputy Attorneys
General, and Wayne A.
Matsuura, Deputy Attorney
General, for Appellee~
Appellee State of Hawai'i,
Department of Transportation.

Michael Chun, Assistant
United States Attorney,
for Appellee-Appellee
United States Department
of Transportation.

=30-