Opinion ID: 6494573
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application for Conservation District Use Permit

Text: The ATST requires a conservation district use permit (CDUP) because the HO is located in a conservation district. On March 1, 2010, UHIfA submitted a conservation district use application (CDUA) to BLNR pursuant to HAR § 13-5-31(a) 3 and HAR § 13-5-39(a) 4 . The CDUA provided a range of detailed information about the ATST, including a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and a management plan (MP).
The FEIS 5 was completed in July 2009 and addressed the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed ATST Project. 6 The impacts were “analyzed under three alternatives, two action alternatives located within HO: the Mees Alternative (the Preferred Alternative) and the Reber Circle Alternative, and a No-Action Alternative.” The FEIS analyzed the environmental impacts from the ATST in the following categories: (1) land use and existing activities, (2) cultural, historic, and archeological resources, (3) biological resources, (4) topography, geology, and soils, (5) visual resources and view planes, (6) visitor use and experience, (7) water resources, (8) hazardous materials and solid waste, (9) infrastructure and utilities, (10) noise, (11) climatology and air quality, (12) socioeconomics and environmental justice, (13) public services and facilities, and (14) natural hazards. 7 Most relevant to this appeal are the FEIS’s conclusions about the impacts on cultural and visual resources from the construction and operation of the ATST. Regarding the cultural resources category, the FEIS determined: Construction and operation of the proposed ATST Project at either the Preferred Mees or Reber Circle sites would result in major, adverse, short- and long-term, direct impacts on the traditional cultural resources within the ROI [Region of Influence 8 ]. No indirect impacts are expected. Mitigation measures would be implemented; however, those measures would not reduce the impact intensity: impacts would remain major, adverse, long-term and direct. In addition, the FEIS found that “under the No-Action Alternative, there would continue to be major, adverse, long-term, direct impacts to traditional cultural resources.” In the visual resources and view planes category, the FEIS analyzed the impacts from two general viewpoint areas: (1) land within Haleakalá National Park and (2) various areas on the island of Maui, where the current HO facilities are visible. The FEIS determined that from either the preferred Mees site or the Reber Circle site, the direct impact on visual resources within the Park would be moderate, adverse, and long-term: No mitigation would adequately reduce this impact. The new structure would be visible to the point of co-dominance with other nearby structures. It would intensify the already developed appearance in its immediate surroundings, and would also appear to increase slightly the amount of horizontal space occupied by structures in views from within the Park. The new structure would not substantially alter the existing visual character visible in any view. Further, the FEIS concluded that from outside the Park, the impact of building the ATST at either the Mees site or the Reber Circle site “would result in minor, adverse and long-term impact to visual resources[,]” and therefore “[n]o mitigation would be necessary.” The FEIS also analyzed each category for cumulative impacts, defined as “impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI ... combined with the potential impacts from the proposed ATST Project.” In the cultural resources category, the FEIS found that the cumulative impacts would be major, adverse, and long-term at either site and that implementation of mitigation measures would not reduce these impacts. In the visual resources category, the FEIS found that the cumulative impacts would be major, adverse, and long-term from areas within the Haleakalá National Park, and negligible, adverse, and long-term from other areas on Maui.
UHIfA submitted a draft MP with its CDUA on March 1, 2010, and submitted the final MP to BLNR on June 8, 2010. 9 The MP “is the governing document used for existing and future development at HO.” It “specifies the design and environmental criteria that would be followed when implementing development, and presents strategies for managing, monitoring, and protecting the various natural and cultural resources[.]” The Executive Summary section of the MP summarized the strategies offered by UHIfA to protect cultural, historic, and archeological resources: Monitoring strategies are presented to ensure the protection of cultural, historic, and archeological resources through policies, practices, and procedures developed in consultation with Native Hawaiian practitioners, agencies, interested individuals, and the Maui community, to ensure that historic preservation concerns are met. Monitoring strategies are also presented to prevent introduction of alien invasive species (AIS), to protect endangered species, and to educate all workers and contractors as to the potential impacts of construction and operations on the cultural and biological resources. Monitoring for construction practices to protect all resources at the site is described. Finally, the MP imposes certain design criteria on new facilities to minimize inappropriate design elements within the natural environment at the summit. A final environmental assessment (FEA) was completed on October 25, 2010. The FEA examined the anticipated impacts from the MP’s implementation. The purpose of the FEA was to “inform the relevant state agencies and the public of the likely environmental consequences of the MP on ongoing and future actions at HO in support of astronomical research.” The FEA concluded that the MP would “either have beneficial, less than significant, or no impacts on the environment.” 10