Opinion ID: 1219081
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: MKPC's Burden of Proof

Text: Finally, MKPC contends that the BLNR imposed an improper burden of proof on MKPC to demonstrate that its application met the requisite conservation district guidelines. Specifically, MKPC asserts that the BLNR conclusion that there is an uncertainty regarding the impact of the proposed project on surfing conditions [at] Honoli'i beach and this uncertainty cannot be answered with complete assurance by any study demonstrates that MKPC was required to meet a higher standard of proof than the statutorily authorized preponderance of evidence standard. The BLNR concluded in relevant part that [MKPC] bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposal meets the guidelines and conditions set out in § 13-2-21, Hawai`i Administrative Rules [HAR]. HAR § 13-2-21(b) pertaining to conservation districts, states, in part, that in reviewing applications the following guidelines shall apply: (1) All applications shall be reviewed in such a manner that the objectives of the subzone or subzones are given primary consideration.       (4) All applications shall meet the purpose and intent of the State's conservation district. The conservation district lands in the instant case are contained within limited and resource subzones. The objective of a limited subzone is to limit uses where natural conditions suggest constraints on human behavior. See HAR § 13-2-12(a). The objective of a resource subzone is to develop, with proper management, areas to ensure sustained use of the natural resources of those areas. See HAR § 13-2-13(a). The term conservation means a practice, by both government and private landowners, of protecting and preserving, by judicious development and utilization, the natural and scenic reserves attendant to land, including territorial waters within the State, to ensure optimum long-term benefits for the inhabitants of the State. See HAR § 13-2-1. MKPC contends that it met its burden of proof and established by a preponderance of evidence that no detrimental impact on Honoli'i beach was likely to occur. To support its position, MKPC asserts that the BLNR's acceptance of MKPC's final EIS established a prima facie case of no negative impact on the surf area. Regardless, the EIS is merely an informational document whose acceptance neither implies nor presumes approval of the conservation district use application. See Department of Health, Environmental Impact Statement Rules § 11-200-2 (1993). See also HRS § 343-2 (1985 & Supp.1992). Moreover, the Contestants submitted substantial evidence to rebut MKPC's prima facie case. The BLNR's determination that the project would alter the transfer of sediment to the ocean and would consequently affect Honoli'i beach as an invaluable recreational resource in derogation of the objectives of the limited and resource subzones is supported by substantial evidence. For instance, the BLNR found that the proposed weir would change the stream's natural flow regime and total sedimentation discharge rate. The BLNR also found that the amount of bedload sediment that would accumulate behind the weir was unknown. This issue was addressed by an engineering expert, Dr. Alexander Tseng, who testified that a study should be conducted to determine the amount of sediment that would collect behind the weir. In addition, the BLNR concluded that the assertion in the EIS that there would be no effect on the surf shoal at Honoli'i beach was unsupported. Therefore, the BLNR did not hold MKPC to an improper burden of proof. For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.