TMT Work to Resume Says Ige!

[Aaron S]

quote:

---

Originally posted by opihikao

TMT cannot provide "reparation", nor should they (not their fight), and has permits to proceed. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise (which is quite possible; reference US Federal law. "106" will be presented as case history with regard to funding of TMT; oral arguments set for August) it could be a problem for all of us. TMT will appeal, sue the State, etc., etc., etc. Hot freaking mess.

---

I have a letter from the Advisory Council for Historical Preservation that says otherwise. The letter was dated June 25, 2014. It states the cooperative agreement between the National Science Foundation and the Thirty Meter Telescopes doesn't require a Federal Section 106 consultation. The NSF grant isn't being used for construction of the telescope, but to create a national partnership plan that involves the TMT.

The Advisory Council for Historical Preservation is the Federal government entity that oversees all Federal agencies compliance with historical preservation laws.

The current appeal that will be heard by the Hawaii Supreme Court details with these four points, and only these four points.

http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/ora...edule.html

No. SCAP-14-0000873, Thursday, August 27, 2015 , 8:45 a.m

(1) the trial court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the BLNR's approval of CDUP HA-3568 prior to the contested case hearing did not warrant reversal;

(2) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred by affirming the BLNR's approval of UHH's CDUA and the reliable, probative and substantial evidence failed to support the findings and conclusions that the eight criteria of HAR [Hawai`i Administrative Rules] ' 13-5-30© were met and such conclusions were wrong;

(3) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the CDUP was subject to a sufficient management plan; and

(4) the circuit court was wrong and the Board of Land and Natural Resources failed to meet its legal and constitutional obligations in properly identifying and determining the scope of the valued, cultural, historical and natural resources in the petition area; in determining the impact on these resources by the proposed land use in the conservation district; and in failing to take feasible actions to protect such resources by improperly delegating its duties and obligations.