Opinion ID: 6316558
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e. ‘Ope‘ape‘a. By providing for LWSC at 5 m/s,

Text: instead of 6.5 m/s, the [Finalized Plan] fails to minimize impacts to ‘ope‘ape‘a to the maximum extent practicable, and, therefore, may not be protecting or maintaining the habitat used by ‘ope‘ape‘a (i.e., the Project area) as required under HRS § 195D-21(b)(1)(A). FOF 197-210. Because of limited knowledge about ‘ope‘ape‘a, it cannot be concluded that the proposed mitigation of improvement of habitat at Poamoho Ridge will protect, maintain, restore, or enhance the ecosystems, natural communities, or habitat types upon which ‘ope‘ape‘a depend. FOF 216. As the [Finalized Plan] does not include an effective adaptive management strategy for revising mitigation measures if future research reveals that different mitigation measures would be more effective in protecting and maintaining habitat used by ‘ope‘ape‘a, FOF 228-238, the [Finalized Plan] does not [satisfy HRS § 195D21(b)(1)(A)-(B)] with respect to ‘ope‘ape‘a. . . . . 5.e. ‘Ope‘ape‘a. . . . . Because very little is known about the population status of ‘ope‘ape‘a (estimates range from a few hundred to a few thousand), and given the fact that take of ‘ope‘ape‘a by wind energy facilities may have been underestimated in the past, a robust analysis of potential take is critical. By relying solely on the Kahuku Wind Project as a surrogate and electing not to consider data from other wind facilities on Oahu or the other islands, and by failing to consider the impact of turbine height on bat mortality, the estimated take set forth in the [Finalized Plan] is not reliable enough for the Board to determine the cumulative impacts on ‘ope‘ape‘a. FOF 194. . . . . 11. In three instances, Applicant failed to use the best scientific and reliable data in assessing impacts and mitigation as required under HRS § 195D-21(c): (i) electing to use LWSC cut-in speed of 5 m/s, instead of 6.5 m/s; (ii) concluding that the height of [wind turbine generators] has no impact on take of ‘ope‘ape‘a; and (iii) by relying solely on data from the Kahuku Wind Project for estimating the Project’s take of ‘ope‘ape‘a. 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  12. Because of the less than robust analysis of anticipated take of ‘ope‘ape‘a by the Project, combined with the limited information available about ‘ope‘ape‘a populations on Oahu and statewide, it cannot be determined with confidence whether the Project will jeopardize the continued existence of ‘ope‘ape‘a. HRS § 195D-21(c)(1). FOF 194. . . . . 14. The [Finalized Plan], by (i) relying solely on data from the Kahuku Wind Project [and] excluding data from other wind projects in the State, and (ii) failing to analyze the impact of the increased height of [wind turbine generators] on ‘ope‘ape‘a, failed to provide sufficient information for the Board to ascertain with reasonable certainty the effect of the plan on ‘ope‘ape‘a in the plan area and throughout its habitat range. HRS § 195D-21(c). FOF 194. . . . . 18. [HRS § 195D-4(g)(1)] requires the applicant to minimize and mitigate impacts of the take to the maximum extent practicable. Increasing cut-in speed to 6.5 m/s, rather than 5 m/s, would minimize impacts to the maximum extent. However, the HCP provides for cut-in speed at 5 m/s and Applicant did not provide evidence that increasing cut-in speed to 6.5 m/s is not practicable. Therefore, the [Finalized Plan] does not satisfy HRS § 195D-4(g)(1). FOF 208-210. . . . . 21. The minimization and mitigation measures proposed in the [Finalized Plan] are aimed at increasing the likelihood of survival and recovery of all of the Covered Species except ‘ope‘ape‘a. HRS § 195D-4(g)(4). See COL 5.a. through 5.e., above. Additionally, not enough information is known about the potential acquisition of property for protection of ‘ope‘ape‘a habitat for the Board to analyze whether it would mitigate the impacts of take. FOF 226. 22. Because Applicant conducted a less than robust analysis of anticipated take of ‘ope‘ape‘a, especially given the higher than anticipated rate of take experienced at other wind energy projects in the state, the Board is unable to adequately assess the cumulative impact of the take of ‘ope‘ape‘a as required by HRS § 195D-4(g)(5). FOF 194. . . . . 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  27. The required public hearing was held on the [Proposed Plan] on June 4, 2015. Additionally, the public had the opportunity to attend [Committee] meetings during which the [Proposed Plan] was discussed. Although the height of the [wind turbine generators] was changed subsequent to the June 4, 2015 public hearing, and there was no active discussion about the change in [wind turbine generator] height at the [Committee] meetings, [HRS § 195D- 4(g)] does not require that additional public hearings be held after changes are made to the [Proposed Plan]. FOF 8- 10. 3. Board of Land and Natural Resources Hearing Proceedings After the hearing officer issued her recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order, Applicant and KNSC submitted further briefing in the form of exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendations. On January 12, 2018, the Board heard arguments from both the Applicant and KNSC. Before the parties made their arguments, Board Chair Suzanne Case disclosed that the Board received a letter from Senator Lorraine Inouye to be distributed to the board in this matter. We did not -- we actually did distribute it accidentally, because I was out sick and our regular board person was out sick, and our protocol is to check with me first, and so we didn’t have that in place. So it went out, but I immediately saw that it had gone out and I followed up in an immediate email to ask the board members not to read the letter. So none of us have read that letter, because we didn’t want to have any ex parte communications in that, but I wanted to make that disclosure that that happened. KNSC did not raise any objections regarding the letter during the hearing.15 KNSC also did not seek the recusal of any Board members based upon the letter. 15 KNSC later requested a copy of the letter on January 24, 2018. 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  During the hearing, Applicant argued the hearing officer’s conclusions were flawed because There was virtually no analysis or evaluation in the recommendations provided by the hearing officer about why the agencies or the specific experts for the agencies were wrong in their recommendation for approval. There was no finding of fact or conclusion of law that explains how [or] why [DOFAW] or the ESRC failed to properly analyze the statute or not use the best available science. Applicant added KNSC did not provide any additional studies or data that contravened the agencies’ conclusions. Nevertheless, Applicant volunteered two conditions to the Board’s approval of the Finalized Plan to address the “inherent uncertainty” of the studies and science the agencies relied upon regarding the impact of wind turbine height on ‘ōpe‘ape‘a take. First, Applicant would limit the maximum turbine height to 173 meters. Second, Applicant would further reduce the total number of turbines from nine to eight. KNSC responded that the hearing officer was correct to recommend that the Board disapprove of the Finalized Plan because (1) Applicant relied solely on data from the Kahuku Wind Farm, (2) Applicant did not study the impacts of wind turbine height on ‘ōpe‘ape‘a take, and (3) there is no evidence in the record that a LWSC rate of 6.5 m/s is impracticable. 4. KNSC’s Motion to Recuse Gon During the hearing, KNSC orally requested that Gon recuse himself “due to prior decision making in his capacity on 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  the Endangered Species Recovery Committee on this exact Habitat Conservation Plan.” After the parties made their arguments, Gon spoke on KNSC’s recusal request. I don’t have a question, but I should point out in response to the request for -- for my recusal. This was -- we discussed this with the attorney general’s office and also with the ethics -- ethics commission and the opinion is that -- is that my serving on the Endangered Species Recovery Committee is via my expertise as a conservation biologist. I have in fact published on Hawaiian bats. . . . . So, you know, the -- the idea of turning this [Finalized Plan] back [to] the ESRC at this stage, mere months after its issuance and approval, is not going to result in any -- in any significant change in the information that has already been considered by the ESRC and by the state and federal agencies. And yet I’m very interested in hearing and in fact have looked over the -- this contested case record. The idea of my ability to take in fresh information and provide for an opinion on this particular case is not in question. I enjoy looking at new information, considering whether or not it provides a significant deviation from what has already been known at the time. I’m actually in a really good position to determine whether or not what I hear today, what I’ve read in the contested case information does represent relatively new information. So the decision was made in consultation with the [attorney general] for me to remain in this deliberation. And then continuing on now, the idea that the ESRC did not consider other turbine projects and other bats and the ramifications of that on this particular case is probably erroneous. I mean, the fact that it doesn’t show up in the [Finalized Plan] record kind of flies in the face of the fact that the ESRC went to visit as many of these projects in person to look at the areas that were being surveyed, to consider the records for each of those places, the different conditions and habitat, the -- everything from the vegetation, to the wind, typical wind, behavior, and the like in order to assess what was most appropriate to apply to this particular [habitat conservation plan]. So I just wanted to point out that the decision by the ESRC to follow the guidance of the state and federal representatives there to utilize the Kahuku -- the adjacent Kahuku information was not lightly made, nor was it meant 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  to try to fudge the data or in other ways influence or minimize the potential impact of this. In fact they considered, with a great deal of concern, the fact that the take of ‘ope‘ape‘a were higher than anticipated in almost all of the sites, actually. So that’s another consideration to take as we consider -- continue in this deliberation. On January 24, 2018, KNSC submitted written briefing to elaborate on its request for Gon’s recusal. KNSC specified that Gon’s “participation would have provided him very specific information about this habitat conservation plan that is not in the record.” As evidence of Gon’s alleged extra-record considerations, KNSC pointed to Gon’s statement during the Board hearing that The fact that it does not show up in the [Finalized Plan] record, kind of flies in the face of the fact that the ESRC went to visit as many of these projects in person to look at the areas that were being surveyed, to consider the records for each of those places, the different conditions and habitat, everything from the vegetation, to typical wind behavior and the like, in order to assess what was most appropriate to apply to this particular [Finalized Plan]. KNSC also argued Gon’s vote for the Board to approve of the Finalized Plan meant that he prejudged the issues before the Board. Gon submitted a supplemental written disclosure on February 21, 2018. Gon noted, inter alia, that “I was invited to serve on the ESRC of the DLNR, where, with other experts and agency managers of endangered species, we considered the impacts and mitigation recommendations for various projects of relevance to the DLNR. While on the ESRC, I considered the [habitat conservation plan] at issue currently.” 21  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  On March 23, 2018, the Board denied KNSC’s request for Gon’s recusal. The Board observed that “[n]othing in the record shows that Member Gon has not complied or will not comply with HRS §§ 91-9(g) and 91-13.” The Board also reasoned that the fact that HRS § 195D-25 authorizes the Board chair to also serve on the Committee means there is no inherent conflict from Gon sitting on both the Committee and the Board. The Board noted that this court’s decision in Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii, LLC v. Rainbow Dialysis, LLC, 130 Hawaiʻi 95, 306 P.3d 140 (2013) supports its conclusion because, there, this court held that an administrator could participate in both an initial decision and a subsequent reconsideration. Additionally, the Board stated that “KNSC has not shown that Member Gon’s participation on the ESRC during the ESRC’s review and deliberation on the habitat conservation plan prejudices his views in this contested case.”