07-13-2015, 12:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by opihikao
I give not two hairballs about the actual legal arguments forthcoming, as the outcome won't really matter to some. Line is drawn "in the sand", as it were, by both sides. "106" will rear it's ugly head at some point, and perhaps OHA will be part of that effort. (My "sources" tell me...lol
Opihikao, first you didn't answer my question why do you think the Advisory Council for Historical Preservation is a joke? (your words, not mine)
Secondly, I reviewed Vol. 2 of the TMT FEIS from 2010. There was several comments stating a Federal Section 106 consultation should be conducted. However, the TMT responded by stating it isn't necessary because 1) The TMT project isn't receiving Federal funds, 2) Isn't being built on Federal land, and 3) Doesn't require a Federal permit, license, or any other approval.
Bear in mind the TMT FEIS was accepted by Governor Lingle in 2010 and is a binding document. It cannot be contested unlike the CDUP.
The follow- up letter from ACHP to the TMT dated June 2014 reaffirms this position. The Federal funds the NSF has given the TMT is to create a master plan for the United State's astronomy program, which includes the TMT. These grants are not being used for construction purposes. The latter would trigger a Federal Section 106 consultation.