Legal Analysis
Detailed examination of federal law violations in the AMOS STAR project
NEPA Violation: Failure to Analyze Alternatives
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" to proposed actions. This requirement is the "heart of the environmental impact statement."
The Air Force's alternatives analysis for AMOS STAR fails this standard. While the Environmental Assessment mentions continental U.S. sites, it dismisses them with cursory statements about "operational requirements" without providing the rigorous analysis NEPA demands.
Key Legal Failures:
- No technical analysis of alternative site capabilities
- No cost-benefit comparison between locations
- No environmental comparison showing Haleakalā is environmentally preferable
- Predetermined conclusion without genuine consideration
What NEPA Requires
When a proposed action will cause significant environmental impacts to unique resources like sacred sites, NEPA requires agencies to thoroughly evaluate whether alternative locations could achieve the project's purpose while avoiding or minimizing those impacts. The Air Force has not met this obligation.
Section 106 Violation: Inadequate Consideration of Avoidance
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties like Haleakalā.
Crucially, Section 106 requires agencies to "seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate" adverse effects. The regulations explicitly state that the agency must consider alternatives that would avoid adverse effects entirely.
The Air Force's Failure:
- Acknowledged "adverse effects" to Haleakalā's cultural significance
- Failed to genuinely evaluate avoidance alternatives (other locations)
- Proceeded to mitigation without properly exploring avoidance
- Inadequate consultation with Native Hawaiian organizations
The Section 106 Hierarchy
Section 106 creates a hierarchy: first avoid, then minimize, then mitigate. By failing to rigorously explore avoidance through alternative locations, the Air Force has violated this fundamental requirement of federal historic preservation law.
Legal Precedents
Federal courts have consistently held that agencies must provide detailed analysis of alternatives, particularly when proposed actions would harm unique cultural or environmental resources.
Cases involving sacred sites and Traditional Cultural Properties have emphasized that cursory dismissal of alternatives is insufficient. The Air Force's approach to AMOS STAR follows a pattern that courts have repeatedly rejected.