BLNR upholds Mauna Kea plan
by Peter Sur
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:40 AM HST
The state land board has voted against reconsidering its approval of the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan, and denied granting standing to individuals and groups who were opposed to the plan.
Meeting Friday in Honolulu, the Board of Land and Natural Resources heard testimony from the Sierra Club Hawaii Chapter, KAHEA and Kealoha Pisciotta, president of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou. All had requested a contested case hearing on the board's approval of the management plan last April.
The Royal Order of Kamehameha I, Dwight Vicente and Clarence "Ku" Ching, a former Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee, also requested a contested case hearing but did not testify.
The denial of the hearing sets up an appeal to the Third Circuit Court, where the petitioners have already claimed victory once. A lawsuit brought by the petitioners, minus KAHEA and Vicente, led to the revoking of a conservation district use permit for the Keck "outrigger" telescopes and the order by Judge Glenn Hara to develop a comprehensive management plan for Mauna Kea.
The latest challenge is based on the assertion that the current management plan is fatally flawed, incomplete and should have been prepared by the Department of Land and Natural Resources instead of the University of Hawaii.
DLNR staff had recommended that there was no legal requirement for a contested case hearing and the plan was legally not "ripe" for review. The board vote came shortly after an executive session to discuss the matter.
"Of course it's disappointing," said Nelson Ho, who was not at Friday's meeting. "What they're saying is Sierra Club has no standing to speak on issues involving Mauna Kea, and in this case, it's the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Mangement Plan."
Ho said a timely appeal in court will follow.
Pisciotta has said the CMP is not comprehensive because it does not touch on the sensitive issue of telescope development within the Mauna Kea Science Reserve. If it isn't comprehensive, then it fails to comply with Hara's order. If it is a comprehensive plan, then it would be a land use change affecting traditional Hawaiian rights, Pisciotta said.
________
Sierra Club might appeal Land Board's denial of hearing on Mauna Kea management plan
By Rob Shikina
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Aug 29, 2009
The Sierra Club-Hawaii Chapter is considering an appeal of a state agency's decision to deny a courtlike administrative hearing on the quality of the Mauna Kea comprehensive management plan, a guide for future activity such as building the $1 billion Thirty Meter Telescope.
"We're very disappointed," said Robert Harris, director of the state Sierra Club chapter. "It's essentially eliminated the public's ability to participate in this process in a meaningful way."
The Board of Land and Natural Resources denied the request yesterday for a contested case, which would have allowed interested parties to flesh out issues and raise questions about the plan.
Approved by the Land Board in April, the plan is meant to ensure the protection of Mauna Kea's cultural and natural resources.
Three universities on the mainland and Canada have selected Mauna Kea for the Thirty Meter Telescope, which would be the world's largest if built. Native Hawaiian groups, who believe the extinct volcano is sacred, argue the telescope would defile it.
The board rejected the special hearing request because the plan is only a guide and not a proposal for specific activity, said Chairwoman Laura Thielen.
"It's premature to be filing a complaint," Thielen said. "There's nothing that triggers a contested case at this point."
Once an application for development is received, individuals or groups can argue for standing in a contested case, she said.
Besides the Sierra Club, three native Hawaiian groups and two men sought the special hearing.
Harris said the plan fails to protect resources, and argued the public has right to intervene in the case because the area is used for cultural and recreational activities. The decision seems "contrary to law," he said.
Opponents have 30 days to appeal, one option the group might pursue, Harris said.
"It's kind of a mystery to me," said Stephanie Nagata, interim director of the Office of Mauna Kea Management, "why they would be opposed to a plan that would protect the resources."
"For the BLNR to say we have no standing not only contradicts themselves (in the earlier kerfluffle, when the petitioners were granted standing) but they're insulting the court," Pisciotta said.
E-mail Peter Sur at psur@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
Replies