Kilakila 'O Haleakala v. University of Hawaii.
138 Haw. 364
| Haw. | 2016Background
- Haleakalā Observatory Site (18.166 acres) is a conservation-district area used for long‑standing astronomical research and culturally significant Native Hawaiian practices; UH prepared a Management Plan governing site operations.
- HEPA required an environmental assessment (EA) for the Management Plan; UH concluded the Plan would have no significant environmental impact (negative declaration) and published the final EA in 2010. BLNR later approved the Plan.
- Kilakila ʻO Haleakalā sued under HEPA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the EA improperly segmented review and failed to treat the proposed Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (Telescope Project) as a component, secondary, or cumulative impact of the Management Plan.
- UH/DLNR moved for a protective order limiting discovery to the administrative record and moved for summary judgment; the circuit court issued a protective order (without prejudice) and granted summary judgment for UH/DLNR. The ICA affirmed.
- The Supreme Court reviewed (1) whether HEPA declaratory actions are limited to the administrative record and (2) whether the EA adequately addressed component, secondary, and cumulative impacts (including the Telescope Project).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of judicial review in HEPA declaratory action | Kilakila: court may consider extra‑record evidence; declaratory HEPA suits are not confined to agency record | UH/DLNR: review limited to administrative record; HEPA challenges are legal issues needing no extra evidence | Court: Declaratory HEPA actions are not restricted to the administrative record; extra‑record evidence may be considered, though here parties had submitted extra‑record materials and discovery was not foreclosed |
| Single‑action/component test (HAR §11‑200‑7) | Kilakila: Telescope Project is a component of the Management Plan so segmentation is improper | UH: Management Plan has independent utility; it is a site‑management tool distinct from discrete project approvals | Court: Management Plan has independent utility and is not a single action with the Telescope Project; no improper segmentation |
| Secondary (indirect) impacts | Kilakila: Management Plan facilitates/ is necessary for Telescope Project, so Telescope is a reasonably foreseeable secondary impact | UH: Management Plan imposes restrictions and conditions (not facilitation); it does not cause or induce the Telescope Project | Court: Management Plan does not facilitate the Telescope Project and thus the Telescope is not a secondary impact of the Plan |
| Cumulative impacts | Kilakila: Telescope EIS shows major adverse cultural impacts, so adding the Plan makes cumulative impacts significant | UH: EA considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (including Telescope) and concluded the Plan’s incremental contribution is less than significant | Court: EA evaluated cumulative impacts (including Telescope) and reasonably concluded the Plan’s incremental impacts were less than significant; negative declaration not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 115 Hawaiʻi 299, 167 P.3d 292 (Haw. 2007) (agencies must consider direct, secondary, and cumulative effects under HEPA)
- Unite Here! Local 5 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 123 Hawaiʻi 150, 231 P.3d 423 (Haw. 2010) (courts may consider extra‑record evidence in HEPA declaratory actions where necessary)
- Kahana Sunset Owners Ass’n v. County of Maui, 86 Hawaiʻi 66, 947 P.2d 378 (Haw. 1997) (component/single‑action test—independent utility analysis)
- Sierra Club v. Peterson, 185 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 1999) (NEPA jurisprudence permitting extra‑record evidence where record omissions frustrate meaningful review)
- Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006) (independent utility test for connected actions under NEPA)