Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 26, Number 9, 1 May 2009 — Six parties petition Mauna Kea plan decision [ARTICLE]

Six parties petition Mauna Kea plan decision

Filing effectively bars new construction pending outcome By ī. Ilihia Giunsun Publicatinns Editar In response to the state land board's April acceptance of the controversial Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan, six parties have filed petitions for a contested case hearing. Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, the Sierra Club Hawai'i Chapter, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, KAHEA, Dwight I. Vicente and Clarence Kūkauakahi Ching filed their contested-case hearing petitions with the Department of Land and Natural Resources on April 20. If the state attorney general finds that the parties have sufficient legal

standing to contest the decision - likely, as four of the parties were been determined to have standing in an earlier Mauna Kea case - the fate of the plan may not be decided for years, effectively barring any new construction on the sacred summit until a decision is made. "It's unfortunate that the university made a half-baked plan," said Kealoha Pisciotta, president of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou. "There's no other ehoiee but for us to contest it and go back to court. We spent 10 years fighting for it, and it's unfortunate that we're gonna have to repeat the whole thing again. "Having the university decide what is culturally appropriate and not appropriate is inappropriate." Paul Neves, ali'i 'ai moku of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, said his group is "absolutely comfortable" about going to court. "We gave them their opportunity to do the pono thing; they seem to think that they don't have to." After two days of strong public testimony on both sides, the Board of Land and Natural Resources on April 9 voted to accept the plan to manage Mauna Kea, with a few conditions. The

University of Hawai'i, whieh holds the lease to the summit of Mauna Kea, submitted the Comprehensive Management Plan to the board in accordance with a 2006 ruling that a plan must be in plaee before any new development is considered on the summit, whieh is sacred to Native Hawaiians. The BLNR accepted the plan under the condition that within one year or before any permit applications are presented to the board, UH must submit four sub-plans to address specifics in the areas of public access, natural and cultural resources, and observatory decommissioning. The BLNR also changed some language in the plan to clarify that the board has not delegated any authority to the university with respect to land-use approval and public access. "We apologize for our management prior of 2000 falling short," said UH President David McClain. "UH is fully supportive of the CMP to best manage Mauna Kea in a culturally appropriate way." "Any new development would need a community benefit package that goes beyond telescope time, and those

benefits would be very Big Islandfocused," McClain said. "I think the old days of the $1 a year rent with some telescope time are gone." Public testimony was split between supporting and opposing the aeeeptance of the CMP. Supporters cited a need to protect Mauna Kea saying the CMP was a good start, flaws and non-specifics notwithstanding. Many supporters also expressed an underlying message that astronomy on Mauna Kea is a positive thing for the island and that futiue astronomy development is vital to the economy. Many opponents, meanwhile, expressed concerns over the shortcomings of the plan, whieh they said was rushed. Many representatives of the environmental and Native Hawaiian communities oppose the plan. Abel Simeona of Kāwā, Ka'ū, said the eventual resolution of the issues surrounding Mauna Kea hes in decommissioning telescopes. "The answer is to take down all that stuff on the mountain," he said. "Everybody get their stuff up there, they no feel da kine? Mālama means full time, not part time, not sometimes. The land, she cry . . ■ _