Board Talk

Board Discussion of Mauna Kea Plan Hints at Controversies Yet to Come

“Mauna Kea is where heaven, earth and stars find union. Not just any heaven, but Wakea, not just any earth, but Papahanaumoku, and not just any constellation of twinkling lights, but Ho`ohokukalani, whose children descend and return to the stars…

“For some Hawaiians, Mauna Kea is so revered that there is no desire to ascend it, no desire to trespass on what is considered sacred space. Simply viewing the tower, the mountain, from afar, both affirms its presence, and reaffirms the sense of connection with both place and personage. For this reason, many Hawaiians feel that activities on Mauna Kea that lead to visible alterations of the landscape not only have a significant effect on the mountain itself, but also have a damaging effect on everything and everyone that is physically, genealogically, spiritually, and culturally tied to Mauna Kea.”

The development of Mauna Kea for astronomy purposes has long been a controversial issue marked by years of enforcement and contested cases and lawsuits involving the University of Hawai`i, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources, and community members concerned about impacts to the natural and cultural resources of what they consider to be one of the most sacred places in all of Hawai`i.

This year, with the release of its draft Comprehensive Management Plan and accompanying environmental assessment, as well as the introduction of four bills in the Legislature regarding management of the mountain, the university is trying to resolve some of the thorny jurisdictional, procedural, social, and cultural issues that have been at the center of the controversies.

If discussion of the CMP at the board’s February 13 meeting is any indication, resolving those issues to everyone’s satisfaction may be impossible.

About a year ago, Dawn Chang of Ku`iwalu, the company hired to prepare the plan by the University of Hawai`i, briefed the Land Board about the university’s intention to develop a CMP for the summit of Mauna Kea, which it leases from the state for astronomy purposes. The university decided to develop a CMP after Third Circuit Court Judge Glenn Hara reversed a 2004 Land Board decision to grant a Conservation District Use Permit to build six telescope components, called outriggers, around the mountain’s W.M. Keck Observatory. Judge Hara had determined that Department of Land and Natural Resources’ rules require the board to adopt a CMP for the summit before any CDUPs are issued.

Although some in the Hawaiian and environmental communities have claimed that the university is only crafting the plan to clear the way for further major telescope developments, the CMP explains that Hara’s decision merely highlighted the need for the university to “re-evaluate its perspectives on management of Mauna Kea, as well as the circumstances and history that led them to the present state. This self-assessment revealed shortcomings in past planning and management efforts and underscored the need to address them during the CMP process.”

On February 13, Chang (a former deputy attorney general who used to advise the Land Board) presented the board with a draft CMP, which she suggested the board adopt at its first meeting in April. Although the university had originally planned to seek board approval last December and legislation this year to establish administrative rules for the university’s Office of Mauna Kea Management, it has instead decided to seek approval of the management plan and legislation for the OMKM simultaneously. In February, the university published a draft environmental assessment for the plan.

The plan addresses the use of three areas on the mountain: the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, facilities at Hale Pohaku, the 9,000-foot-level lodging for astronomers using the telescopes, and the summit access road – altogether about 13,000 acres. More than an inch thick, the plan discusses many things, from the community outreach that led to the plan’s creation, to natural and cultural resources, to jurisdictional management issues. It includes a long section of recommendations on how the mountain should be managed and states that future development will be limited to the 525-acre Astronomy Precinct at the summit and at the 19-acre Hale Pohaku. It adds that the university’s 2000 Master Plan for the mountain sets aside 10,760 acres for preservation of natural and cultural resources. It also suggests that sensitive habitats could be further protected by prohibiting development of any currently undeveloped pu`u (cinder cones) at the summit.

The plan states that over the next 20 years, the Institute for Astronomy (IfA) plans to construct two new antennas and two concrete pads for the Submillimeter Array, redevelop the site of the existing 2.2 meter telescope for a Pan-STARRS Observatory (which can detect killer asteroids), demolish some old facilities and conduct site restoration. Mauna Kea is also in the running as one of two potential sites for the $1 billion Thirty-Meter Telescope, which would be the largest telescope in the world. If Hawai`i is selected (the other site under consideration is in Chile), it would be located on Mauna Kea’s northern plateau below the summit ridge.

Complaints

At the board’s February meeting, several native Hawaiian cultural practitioners associated with a group called the Kanaka Council testified against the plan and called on the university to prepare an environmental impact statement to better address cultural issues and the psychological impact development of the summit has on native Hawaiians. While the plan addresses cultural issues in sections on cultural orientation and resources, as well as a “cultural anchor,” which was prepared by The Edith Kanaka`ole Foundation and provides some background on the cultural significance of Mauna Kea, Pele Defense Fund co-founder Palikapu Dedman told the board that the plan does not address any of the major issues of contention – the use of ceded land, the $1-a-year lease rent, new development, cultural impacts – and merely “tells us how we should pray between garbage cans.”

Jim Medeiros testified that unless the underlying issues are addressed, “It’s gonna go on and on in circles.” He added that he was afraid that the “managed access” proposed in the plan would somehow affect his cultural access to the mountain. Hawaiian artist Rocky Jensen asked the board, “How do you let us wither on the vine, morally?”

Marti Townsend, program director for KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, also testified against the plan. “Who’s the university to dictate when a practitioner can come?” she asked. She also asked the board to delay its decision on the plan until after the end of the legislative session, in which four bills have been introduced seeking to transfer authority over portions of Mauna Kea from the Department of Land and Natural Resources to the university.

Board chair Laura Thielen added that although “we need a plan to guide the mountaintop and someone who is going to take responsibility for implementation,” the draft plan was unclear on who would do this. The plan does include a “responsibility matrix” that lists the various entities – the university, the state burial council, the county of Hawai`i, and the DLNR – responsible for the wide range of activities on Mauna Kea. While it appeared that the OMKM would oversee day-to-day management, Thielen said she wasn’t sure who would be responsible for things like decommissioning telescopes.

While Chang suggested that a new entity, similar to the state’s Kaho`olawe Island Reserve Commission, could be created to join the various jurisdictions, she said that, ultimately, that is a policy question going beyond the scope of the plan. “That’s a very complicated question for us,” she said.

Thielen said she was still confused about who would be responsible for making many of the decisions required by the plan. “I’m not here today to tell you what those answers should be,” she said, adding that because the state is facing several years of fiscal decline, she did not expect any new entities to be established in the near term.

“Your point is well taken,” Chang said.

The Land Board is expected to take up the Mauna Kea matter at its first April meeting, tentatively scheduled to be held on Hawai`i island.

“It’s probably good this didn’t come up when the Mauna Kea people were in the room. There seems to be a pattern with the university and land use,” Land Board member Tim Johns told George Atta, a Group 70 consultant representing the University of Hawai`i.

Nearly a decade after the Land Board found the University of Hawai`i’s Institute of Marine Biology had violated its Conservation District Use Permit for Moku o Lo`e (Coconut Island) by adding a slew of new structures without permission, the university is finally getting around to obtaining an after-the-fact Conservation District Use Permit.

At the Land Board’s February 13 meeting, the DLNR’s Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands recommended approval of an after-the-fact CDUP for various unauthorized structures. Atta explained that problems obtaining Special Management Area permit approvals from the City and County of Honolulu, and shoreline certifications from the state contributed to the long delay.

Grant Arnold of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs testified that access issues were still “quite messy,” noting that while HIMB says it provides public access at the island’s Maili Point, “there’s a big KAPU sign … where the public is supposed to access.”

When Johns asked OCCL’s Dawn Hegger whether there were any current violations, since HIMB could not receive a permit if there were, Hegger answered, “I would say in general they’re in compliance with past CDUAs [Conservation District Use Applications].” She added that a condition in the proposed after-the-fact CDUP requiring HIMB to provide lists of its past and planned projects will help bring the institute into compliance.

The board approved OCCL’s recommendation with a few minor amendments.

“You’ve heard the saying, ‘Take the money and run,’” Maui Land Board member Jerry Edlao told Molly Schmidt of the DLNR’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife. At its February meeting, the Land Board was faced with a choice: either wait until the city’s new land conservation program decides on a request by the Trust for Public Land for funds to purchase 3,582 acres at Honouliuli, or grant about $450,000 of additional state Legacy Land funds to toward the purchase now.

The DOFAW had initially recommended that the board wait, although Schmidt said either choice was fine with her. The TPL’s Lea Hong, however, urged the board to act now since she had been very discouraged by the county process, which required two years to publish its first applications for grants.

“I don’t think you want $400,000 hanging out there. We need the money,” Hong said.

The TPL is assisting the state in purchasing the Honouliuli Preserve, formerly managed by The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i, from the James Campbell Company. On February 13, DOFAW recommended that the Land Board approve eight Legacy Land acquisitions totaling $4.7 million. In order of priority, they include the following:

• $537,500 for the Honouliuli preserve, which will be cooperatively managed by the DLNR and the U.S. Army;

• $450,000 for the state’s acquisition of 65.56 acres adjacent to the Hamakua Marsh in Kailua, O`ahu, from Kane`ohe Ranch;

• $7,000 for the state’s acquisition of seven acres in North Kohala from Chalon International of Hawai`i, Inc., to protect scenic, cultural and historic values;

• $750,000 to the Kaua`i Public Land Trust to buy three-quarters of an acre near Black Pot beach park in Hanalei to protect recreational and open space;

• $201,787 to the Center for Non-Violent Education and Action (Malu `Aina) for 11.14 acres in Puna, Hawai`i;

• $1,250,000 for the state’s acquisition of 17.05 acres in Lapakahi, Hawai`i,

• $448,831 for the Kona Historical Society’s purchase of 2.11 acres in Kona Mauka; and

• $609,425 for the Maui Coastal Land Trust’s acquisition of an agricultural conservation easement over 27.44 acres in Pupukea, O`ahu, to be held by the North Shore Community Land Trust.

The DOFAW report notes that the Legacy Land Conservation Commission, which provides recommendations to the Land Board, had recommended that any additional funds under $470,000 be provided to the applicants in order ranked, which would result in an increase in the award for the Honouliuli project from $537,500 to $982,956.

Given the state’s current financial situation and the likelihood that Legacy Land funds could be raided this legislative session, the board unanimously voted to approve all of the projects, including the additional $450,000 for the Honouliuli Preserve.

There was a method to Mike Lee’s madness – but it may have backfired. On February 13, Lee told the Land Board that his December 2008 request for a contested case hearing regarding Haseko Inc.’s proposal to reduce the size of its planned `Ewa Marina was driven less by his worries over creating anoxic conditions in the marine environment, and more by his wish to have his “day in court,” where he hoped to resolve what he sees as serious mismanagement of important archaeological resources, including the unearthed bones of an ali`i.

At the board’s meeting, the DLNR’s Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands recommended, at Haseko’s request, rescinding an amendment to Haseko’s Conservation District Use Permit regarding the size of the marina.

“As Mr. Lee’s petition appears to contest the amendment regarding the reduction of the size of the marina, if the Board rescinds the granted amendment…the issues raised in Mr. Lee’s petition would be moot,” OCCL’s report to the Land Board states. The report adds that mitigation for archaeological, cultural, and historical features was addressed in the CDUP.

Lee admitted that by rescinding its request to shrink the marina, “They [Haseko] took the air out of my balloon.” Still, he said that his concerns about cultural resources remained because while the DLNR had concluded in 1993 that there were no significant burials in the area, “an ali`i was dug up (in 2001) and there has been no effort to reconcile this.” Lee said that he wanted the ali`i to be buried with its accoutrements somewhere nearby under concrete with a plaque.

In the end, the board unanimously approved the OCCL’s recommendation.

— Teresa Dawson

Volume 19, Number 9 March 2009