Opinion ID: 1191919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Environmental Review of the Mahukona Lodge Project Is Required Under HRS Chapter 343 Because the Project Proposes the Use of State Land.

Text: Citizens argues that the circuit court erred in its determination that, as a matter of law, environmental review was not triggered by HRS chapter 343. Citizens specifically contends that Chalon's proposed construction of two underpasses below the Akoni Pule Highway for golf carts and maintenance vehicles to travel to the portions of Chalon's golf course situated on either side of the highway constitute the use of state lands within the meaning of HRS Chapter 343, thereby requiring environmental review of the project. [8] Chalon contends, on the other hand, that such use does not constitute the use of state lands. In the alternative, it argues that, if the construction of the underpasses under the state highway in fact constitute use of state land, negotiations with the State of Hawai`i for an easement so that such an underpass may eventually be constructed are in the early stages. As such, it maintains that environmental review under HRS chapter 343 is premature. We disagree. In Kahana Sunset Owners Association v. County of Maui, 86 Hawai`i 66, 947 P.2d 378 (1997), this court held that a proposed development to install a 36-inch drainage line beneath Napilihau Street, connecting to an existing 24-inch culvert beneath Lower Honoapi`ilani Highway indisputably constitutes `use of state or county lands,' which is within the class of actions that triggers HEPA. An environmental assessment is therefore mandatory, unless the project falls within an exemption. Id. at 71, 947 P.2d at 383. It is thus clear that construction of two underpasses under a state highway constitutes use of state lands for purposes of HRS 343-5(a)(1) (1993). Chalon maintains, however, that even assuming that the underpasses constitute the use of state land, the issue is one of timing. It argues that, because the underpasses are a mere idea, the earliest practicable time for such an EA would be at the time that Chalon submits detailed plans and applies for approval of the easement and underpass to the State Department of Transportation or Department of Land and Natural Resources.... An EA prepared before that point, it submits, would be devoid of meaningful information and consist of vague generalities. In Kahana Sunset, we held, inter alia, that it was error for the Maui Planning Commission to defer a decision on the preparation of an environmental assessment to the Department of Public Works where installation of a drainage pipe under a public street, as part of a larger project, triggered HRS chapter 343. Id. at 75, 947 P.2d at 387. There, the Maui Planning Commission had concluded that the issue was whether the work that would be required to install whatever drainage under whatever public roadway constitute [sic] a development in [and] of itself or is contained within this entire special management area application.... [T]he determination as to whether or not an environmental assessment is triggered by putting a culvert under a public roadway within public lands is going to be determined by the Department of Public Works[,] not by this commission. Id. at 74, 947 P.2d at 386. Disagreeing with the Commission and citing HRS § 343-5(c) (1993), [9] we held that the action for purposes of HEPA is the proposed Napilihau development, not just the proposed drainage line beneath Napilihau Street. Id. at 75, 947 P.2d at 387. We thus held that the Commission is the agency receiving the request for approval of the action, and it is therefore the agency responsible for preparation of the environmental assessment. Id. In so holding, we recognized that [i]solating only that particular component of the development for environmental assessment would be improper segmentation of the project. Id. In the instant case, the action for purposes of HEPA is the proposed Mahukona Lodge Project development. Indeed, in its numerous permit applications and reports, Chalon consistently proposed the two underpasses as integral parts of its development project. Chalon's golf course use permit application acknowledges that two underpasses will be constructed under the Akoni Pule Highway to provide access for golf carts and maintenance vehicles to the 3 golf holes mauka of the highway and the golf course maintenance facility. Moreover, its Special Management Area use permit application states that [a]bove Akoni Pule Highway will be three of the golf holes. Golf cart underpasses would connect the golf holes on either side of the Akoni Pule Highway. The wastewater treatment facilities would also be located above the highway. [10] Chalon's Traffic Analysis Report asserts that [p]ortions of the golf course will be built mauka of the Akoni Pule Highway and will be reached via two underpasses. Its self-styled FEIR, submitted to the HPC for approval, references [a]n 18-hole golf course (situated both mauka and makai of Akoni Pule Highway) and includes several maps indicating the locations of both underpasses. Its change of zone application refers to an 18-hole championship quality golf course situated both mauka and makai of Akoni Pule Highway. Further, Chalon's golf course use permit application characterizes the golf course as an integral part of the proposed Mahukona Lodge and agricultural lot subdivision being planned on the Mahukona-Kapaanui lands. Its SMA permit petition lists as specific actions proposed within the SMA the [c]onstruction of an 18-hole championship quality golf course, clubhouse, and related maintenance facilities. Its FEIR also forecasts that the golf course will be used from 80 rounds per day in 1995 to 150 rounds per day in 2010, with lodge guests, single family residents, golf club members and regional visitors being the four principal demand sources. There is no indication in the record that Chalon ever proposed an alternative route of travel between the parts of its golf course situated on either side of the highway. Accordingly, the HPC is the agency receiving the requests for approval of the Mahukona project and is therefore the agency responsible for preparation of the environmental assessment. Requiring early environmental assessment of the Mahukona project comports with HRS § 343-5(c)'s express mandate that environmental review be undertaken at the earliest practicable time. This result also finds support in the spirit and intent of HEPA to establish a system of environmental review which will ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations ... [and] alert decision makers to significant environmental effects which may result from the implementation of certain actions. HRS § 343-1 (1993). [11] Consonant with these policies, both federal and state courts have recognized that environmental review must occur early enough to function practically as an input into the decision making process. In construing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cautioned that [a]n assessment must be prepared early enough so that it can serve practically as an important contribution to the decision making process and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made. Save the Yaak Committee v. J.R. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.5 (1987)). It further stated that federal agencies are required to `integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values....' Id. (emphasis added) (citing Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 351, 99 S.Ct. 2335, 60 L.Ed.2d 943 (1979) (citations omitted), and California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir.1982)). According to the J.R. Block Court, [t]he rationale behind this rule is that inflexibility may occur if delay in preparing an EIS is allowed: `After major investment of both time and money, it is likely that more environmental harm will be tolerated.' Id. (quoting Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation v. FERC, 746 F.2d 466, 471-72 (9th Cir.1984) (citation omitted)). See also Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1414 (D.C.Cir.1983) (the EIS is a decision-making tool intended to `insure that ... environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking....' Therefore, the appropriate time for preparing an EIS is prior to a decision, when the decisionmaker retains a maximum range of options.) (ellipsis points and emphasis in original) (citation omitted); Rodgers, Environmental Law § 9.7, at 921 (2d. ed. 1994) (NEPA's purpose is to require consideration of environmental factors before project momentum becomes irresistible, before options are closed, and before agency commitments are set in concrete.). Accordingly, decisions reflecting environmental considerations can most easily be made when other basic decisions are also being made, that is, during the early stages of project conceptualization and planning. Here, because the development and general dimensions of the project have been known to Chalon from the start, there should be no difficulty in providing meaningful information for HRS chapter 343 environmental review. Moreover, at this early stage, environmental review under HRS § 343-5 would be an integral part of the decision-making process. Indeed, to require the DOT or DLNR, rather than the County of. Hawai`i, to conduct an EA at some point in the future might call for a burdensome reconsideration of decisions already made and would risk becoming a ` post hoc rationalization[] to support action already taken.' Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany, 56 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1221, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 102, 114 (1997) (brackets in original). In order to achieve the salutary objectives of HEPA, and because Chalon's proposed underpasses have been, from the start, an integral part of the project, we hold that Chalon's proposed construction of two underpasses under the Akoni Pule Highway, constitutes use of State lands within the meaning of HRS § 343-5(a)(1).
Citizens additionally argues that HRS chapter 343 is triggered because Chalon proposes use of the shoreline under HRS § 343-5(a)(2) (1993) and/or conservation land under HRS § 343-5(a)(3) (1993). It argues that the mere impact on nearby shoreline and conservation areas implicates HRS chapter 343. These arguments are without merit. HRS §§ 343-5(a)(2) and (3) provide: (a) Except as otherwise provided, an environmental assessment shall be required for actions which: ... (2) Propose any use within any land classified as conservation district by the state land use commission under chapter 205; (3) Propose any use within the shoreline area as defined in section 205A-41[.] (Emphasis added.) The record reveals that Chalon does not propose use within the shoreline area or conservation district. As such, the trial court did not err in concluding that HRS chapter 343 was not triggered by these actions.