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

Heading: An individual project is a necessary precedent

Text: for a larger project; C. An individual project represents a commitment to a larger project; or D. The actions in question are essentially identical and a single statement will adequately address the impacts of each individual action and those of the group of actions as a whole. HAR § 11-200-7. The City and State argue that, because the historic preservation law does not contain a provision similar to HAR -58- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER § 11-200-7, phasing is permissible. We recognize that there is no similar provision in HRS chapter 6E or its implementing rules that specifically addresses whether and when multiple phases of a project must be considered to be a single project. However, the broad definition of “project area” is, in itself, inconsistent with phasing. Thus, while we agree with the City and State that the historic preservation laws and the environmental protection laws involve differing goals, policy considerations, and protections, we do not find these distinctions to be dispositive. Rather, our analysis is based on the plain language of the respective rules and, specifically, the definition of “project area.” The City and State also assert that the SHPD has discretion to determine what comprises a “project” under HRS chapter 6E, and that its determination that a project can be phased is entitled to deference. We note initially that the question of “whether or not an agency has followed proper procedures . . . in making its determination is a question of law, and will be reviewed de novo.” Superferry I, 115 Hawai#i at 315, 167 P.3d at 308. In the instant case, we are asked to determine whether the SHPD followed proper procedures in concurring in the rail project. Under Superferry I, this is a question of law, for which the agency is not entitled to deference. Moreover, where a rule is unambiguous and consistent with the policies of the statute, and its application will not -59- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER produce an absurd or unjust result, we enforce the rule’s plain meaning. In re Wai#ola O Moloka#i, Inc., 103 Hawai#i at 425, 83 P.3d at 688. Here, no ambiguity is created by the absence of an express phasing provision from HAR chapters 13-275 and 13-278. Under the plain meaning of the rules, the review process for the entire project area must be completed prior to the SHPD giving its concurrence in a project. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that our review of this issue is deferential to the agency, we note that we are not being asked to defer to any express conclusion of the SHPD. Although Aiu suggested in her declaration that the SHPD views the PA as satisfying the requirements of HRS chapter 6E, the PA itself does not reflect any express consideration of whether phasing is permissible under state law. To the contrary, the provisions of the PA, and the phased process it sets forth, focus on compliance with federal law. The PA begins by noting that the rail project is a federal undertaking subject to section 106 and its implementing regulations, and the EIS refers to the PA as a “Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Draft Programmatic Agreement.” The PA also notes that the Federal Transit Administration consulted with the SHPD as a requirement under the federal regulations. See 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(1). It states that the Federal Transit Administration and the SHPD “have agreed that a phased approach to identification and evaluation of archaeological sites is appropriate, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § -60- FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER 800.4(b)(2)[.]” (Emphasis added). Notably absent is any reference to the phased approach fulfilling the requirements of HRS chapter 6E. Although the SHPD ultimately agreed to the phased approach, we are unconvinced that the SHPD’s concurrence in the PA constitutes a discretionary decision as to the requirements of HRS chapter 6E, to which we might otherwise give deference.