Opinion ID: 871437
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rail project

Text: The following facts are undisputed. The rail project -6- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER involves the construction of an approximately 20-mile fixed guideway rail system from West O#ahu to Ala Moana Center. Construction on the rail project is planned to take place in four phases: Phase 1 (East Kapolei to Pearl Highlands), Phase 2 (Pearl Highlands to Aloha Stadium), Phase 3 (Aloha Stadium to Middle Street), and Phase 4 (Middle Street to Ala Moana Center). The rail project’s final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed in June 2010. The EIS indicates that four alternatives for the rail project were considered: (1) the No Build Alternative; (2) the Transportation System Management Alternative; (3) the Managed Lane Alternative;5 and (4) the Fixed Guideway Alternative. The EIS concluded that the Fixed Guideway Alternative “performed better at meeting the Project’s Purpose and Need than any of the other alternatives” and “would improve transit performance and reliability[.]” The EIS noted that three fixed guideway alternatives were considered: the Salt Lake Alternative, the Airport Alternative, and the Airport & Salt Lake Alternative. All three alternatives would involve the same route through Dillingham, Downtown, and Kaka#ako. The Airport Alternative was ultimately chosen as the preferred alternative. 5 The EIS stated that the No Build Alternative “remains under consideration as a viable option.” The EIS concluded that the Transportation System Management Alternative, which involved a bus-based alternative, involved fewer benefits than the other alternatives and raised concerns regarding financial feasibility. The EIS further concluded that the Managed Lane Alternative, which involved a two-lane elevated toll facility between Waipahu and Downtown, would provide very little transit benefit at a high cost. -7- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The EIS indicated that the rail project has a “[h]igh” likelihood of having a potential effect on archeological resources in certain areas of Phase 4, including Dillingham, Downtown, and Kaka#ako. With regard to the need for an archaeological inventory survey (AIS), the EIS stated: The City will develop an [AIS] plan for the [area of potential effects] for each construction phase in accordance with [36 C.F.R. § 800.4 6] which allows for phased identification of archaeological resources to limit disturbance of potential resources during the investigation. . . . The AIS plans will follow the requirements of [Hawai#i Administrative Rules (HAR) 6 36 C.F.R. § 800.4 (2010) concerns the identification of historic properties under federal law, and provides, in pertinent part: Phased identification and evaluation. Where alternatives under consideration consist of corridors or large land areas, or where access to properties is restricted, the agency official may use a phased process to conduct identification and evaluation efforts. The agency official may also defer final identification and evaluation of historic properties if it is specifically provided for in a memorandum of agreement executed pursuant to § 800.6, a programmatic agreement executed pursuant to § 800.14(b), or the documents used by an agency official to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act pursuant to § 800.8. The process should establish the likely presence of historic properties within the area of potential effects for each alternative or inaccessible area through background research, consultation and an appropriate level of field investigation, taking into account the number of alternatives under consideration, the magnitude of the undertaking and its likely effects, and the views of the [State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer] and any other consulting parties. As specific aspects or locations of an alternative are refined or access is gained, the agency official shall proceed with the identification and evaluation of historic properties in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section. 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(b)(2) (emphasis added). As discussed more fully below, the rules implementing Hawaii’s historic preservation law do not include a similar provision. -8- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER chapter 13-276. 7] The City will conduct the archaeological fieldwork as presented in the AIS plan for each construction phase. The archaeological fieldwork will be completed in advance of the completion of the final design so that measures to avoid and/or minimize adverse effects to the historic properties can be incorporated into the design. The City has consulted and continues to consult with SHPD and OIBC on burial issues. . . . To balance the current level of project design, the desire to limit disturbance of native Hawaiian burials and residences in Phase [4] of the project area, and the potential transportation benefits that would accrue from the proposed project, FTA, in consultation with the parties, decided to develop a detailed approach in the . . . draft PA for conducting archaeological investigations for Phase [4] of the project. The City has committed to conducting archaeological investigations in locations where foundations will be placed. This would limit the area disturbed for archaeological investigations and construction to potentially less than 10 percent of what would be disturbed if archaeological investigations were conducted for 100 percent of the alignment. The City’s proposed schedule for the Project would have construction starting in 2013 for Phase [4] (in the Kaka#ako neighborhood). Although, the development of more detailed design and, therefore, archeological investigations for the last construction phase would have typically been delayed until closer to the anticipated construction start date, the City has committed to starting the process much earlier. A draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) was appended to the final EIS, which described the “archaeological historic property and resource identification and evaluation effort, as well as the mitigation procedures for identified archaeological resources.” The EIS indicated that the draft PA was developed to conform with “Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.” The PA was developed in consultation with, inter alia, the SHPD. The final PA was executed on or before January 18, 2011. Aila, as Hawai#i State Historic Preservation Officer, was a signatory to the final PA. OIBC declined to sign the PA. The 7 HAR chapter 13-276 contains the rules governing standards for AISs and AIS reports. -9- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER PA provides for a “phased approach to identification and evaluation of archaeological resources, under which an AIS must be completed, and the results approved by the SHPD, for each construction Phase before ground-disturbing activity in that Phase can commence.” Accordingly, a single AIS for the whole project will not be performed. Once an AIS for a given phase is completed and the results approved by the SHPD and, where necessary, the OIBC, construction on that phase may begin, even if the AISs for the remaining phases are not yet complete. The PA provides that archeological fieldwork will be completed for each phase prior to the final design and construction of that phase. The fieldwork shall include, but is not limited to, reconnaissance surveys by way of archival research and visual inspection, a sample survey of subsurface conditions with ground-penetrating radar, subsurface inspection as warranted, and subsurface testing. Any native Hawaiian burials, or “iwi kupuna,” discovered during the AIS for each phase will be treated as “previously identified” burials, and the OIBC will therefore have jurisdiction to determine the treatment of these burials pursuant to HAR chapter 13-300.8 8 HAR § 13-300-31(b) (1996) provides that “[b]urial sites discovered during archaeological inventory surveys that appear to be over fifty years old shall be classified as previously identified for which the [island burial council] or [DLNR], whichever is applicable, shall determine appropriate treatment.” HAR § 13-300-3(b) (1996) provides that the “[a]uthority to determine treatment of any burial site belongs to the [DLNR], following appropriate consultations, except that where a burial site is Native Hawaiian and previously identified, authority to determine treatment belongs to the appropriate [island burial] council.” (Emphasis added). -10- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The PA requires the City to develop a plan for the AIS process prior to archaeological fieldwork being performed. With regard to Phase 4, the PA provides that the City must consult with the OIBC, lineal and cultural descendants, native Hawaiian organizations, and other interested parties within sixty days of the execution of the PA regarding the scope of the investigation for the AIS plan. “The AIS Plan will provide for investigation of the entire Phase 4 area” and will “evaluate all areas that will be disturbed by the Project.” The final PA provides that the AIS plan is to be submitted to the SHPD for comment, and then returned to the City to revise the AIS plan. “Archaeological investigation will begin following approval of the AIS Plan by the SHPD.” In addition, the final PA required that the City (1) complete the AIS for Phase 4 prior to beginning final design for that area; (2) inform the OIBC of the status of the AIS and continue to meet regularly with the OIBC; and (3) in coordination with the OIBC, lineal and cultural descendants, native Hawaiian organizations, and other interested persons, complete a draft protocol for consultation regarding treatment of any iwi kupuna identified during the AIS. With regard to treatment plans, the final PA provided: Based on the results of the AIS fieldwork and in consultation with the SHPD, the City shall develop a specific treatment plan to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties including archaeological sites and burials pursuant to applicable state laws . . . for each construction phase. Treatment plans shall be submitted to the SHPD for approval. Upon approval by the SHPD, the City shall implement the treatment plan. -11- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Additionally, The City confirms that guideway columns may be relocated a limited distance along the guideway at most column locations, straddle-bent supports may be used, or special sections developed to modify span length allowing for preservation in-place to be viable in those locations. If the OIBC determines that a burial is to be relocated, the City will consult with the OIBC to determine appropriate reinterment, which may include relocation to Project property in the vicinity of the discovery. An AIS for Phase 1 has been completed and was approved by the SHPD on April 19, 2010. The final PA required that the AIS process for Phase 4 begin within sixty days of the execution of the PA. However, the circuit court record does not contain further information with regard to the progress or completion of any other AIS.9