Blog

We’re liking this thought-proving post from journalist Anne Minard, on the “next great telescope race”–Day 14 of her “100 Days of Science.” She asks some great questions about the fundamental purpose of the two U.S. proposals for “next generation” giant land-based telescopes being proposed for construction within the next 10 years. Do we really need THIS much telescope, guys?

Charles Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, acknowledged that the two telescopes are headed toward redundancy. The main differences, he said, are in the engineering.

He said the next generation of telescopes is crucial for forward progress in 21st Century astronomy.

“The goal is to start discovering and characterizing planets that might harbor life,” he said. “It’s very clear that we’re going to need the next generation of telescopes to do that.”

And far from being a competition, the real race is to contribute to science, said Charles Blue, a TMT spokesman.

“All next generation observatories would really like to be up and running as soon as possible to meet the scientific demand,” he said.

But when I asked him why the United States teams haven’t pooled their expertise to build a single next-generation telescope, Blue declined to comment.

In all, there are actually three teams (two from the U.S., and one from Europe) racing to build the first of these giant land-based telescopes: Extremely Large Telescope (Europe), TMT (U.S.), and Giant Magellan Telescope (U.S.). (And no, we’re not making these names up… in almost every description we could find, these bad boys are characterized first and foremost by their massive size.) The total estimated price tag for all this summit development? $2.6 billion dollars.

In the midst of this competition to build the first and the largest,  the worldwide community of those who share aloha for sacred summits are humbly asking:  for time and real consideration for native ecosystems, threatened endemic species, the cultural meaning of sacred space, cultural practice, and the natural and cultural heritage we have to pass forward to next generations… all in short supply on earth today. Can we not rationally slow down this latest race for space, in the interest of the future of life on our own planet?

Many of you followed the sonar lawsuit from 2008, in which KAHEA, in partnership with Earthjustice and other local, national and international NGOs, sued the U.S. Navy over its proposed expansion of military exercises around Hawai’i, including the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The State of Hawai’i, at our urging, also asked the Navy to comply with laws protecting endangered species in Hawai’i. Not surprising, the Navy refused.

Now, there’s another round of public scoping hearings for more sonar and more detonations. But don’t worry about those whales. According to the U.S. Navy, the deafness caused by underwater explosions and sonar is only temporary.

An update on U.S. Navy training in Hawaiian waters, from the Hawaii Independent:

The U.S. Navy announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Overseas EIS (OEIS) relating to military training and research, including sonar and detonating explosives, within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) study area.

Public scoping meetings throughout Hawaii have been scheduled to hear comments. Last year, the federal government issued authorization to the U.S. Navy to impact whales and dolphins while conducting sonar training exercises around the main Hawaiian Islands for five years, Environmental News reported.

The letter of authorization and accompanying rules allow for injury or death of up to 10 animals of each of 11 species over the five years covered by the regulations. The Navy requested authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act because the mid-frequency sound generated by tactical active sonar, and the sound and pressure generated by detonating explosives, may affect the behavior of some marine mammals or cause what the Navy calls “a temporary loss of their hearing.”

Mid-frequency sonar can emit continuous sound well above 235 decibels, an intensity roughly comparable to a rocket at blastoff, according to Environmental News.

The sonar blasts travel across hundreds of miles of ocean to reveal objects, such as submarines, underwater. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be a cooperating agency in preparation of this EIS and OEIS. In January 2009, the NMFS’s ruling stated: “After reviewing the current status of the endangered blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, sperm whale, Hawaiian monk seal, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and Pacific ridley sea turtle, … [Navy training activity in the Hawaii Range Complex] each year for a five-year period beginning in January, 2009, are likely to adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these threatened and endangered species under NMFS’s jurisdiction.”

While Earth Justice wants the Navy to stop using sonar until it can avoid serious injury to marine mammals, the environmental group recommends several things the Navy can do to minimize the harm to marine life: Impose seasonal and geographical limitations, avoid nursing areas, ramp sonar up slowly, avoid areas that were created specifically to protect endangered marine life, create a 25-mile safe haven distance from shorelines, avoid steep-sloping seamounts that provide important habitat for many marine species, prohibit testing at night or other times of low visibility, and adopt protocols similar to those of other naval forces to minimize the impact on marine wildlife.

The Navy’s latest proposed action is to conduct training and testing activities within the at-sea portions of existing Navy training range complexes around the Hawaiian Islands and off the coast of Southern California. Training activities, such as sonar maintenance, explosives, and gunnery exercises, may occur outside of Navy operating and warning areas. In 2009, the Navy instituted mitigation measures relating to sonar that include stationing lookouts, adjusting sonar decibel levels when marine animals are detected within 200 to 1,000 yards, and increased visual and aerial surveillance for marine life. The HSTT study area combines the at-sea portions of the following range complexes: Hawaii Range Complex, Southern California Range Complex, and Silver Strand Training Complex. The existing western boundary of the Hawaii Range Complex is being expanded 60 miles to the west to the International Dateline.

The HSTT study area also includes the transit route between Hawaii and Southern California as well as Navy and commercial piers at Pearl Harbor and in San Diego, CA where sonar may also be tested.

Public scoping meetings will be held between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.

- Tuesday, August 24, 2010, Kauai Community College Cafeteria, 3-1901 Kaumualii Highway, Lihue, HI.
- Wednesday, August 25, 2010, Disabled American Veterans Hall, Weinberg Hall, 2685 North Nimitz Highway, Honolulu, HI.
- Thursday, August 26, 2010, Hilo High School Cafeteria, 556 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI. 6. Friday, August 27, 2010
- Maui Waena Intermediate School Cafeteria, 795 Onehee Avenue, Kahului, HI.

The meetings will consist of an informal, open house session with informational stations staffed by Navy representatives. Additional information concerning meeting times is available on the EIS and OEIS website at http://www.HawaiiSOCALEIS.com. The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues to be addressed in the EIS and OEIS. All comments provided orally or in writing at the scoping meetings, will receive the same consideration during EIS and OEIS preparation. Written comments must be postmarked no later than September 14 and should be mailed to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, 2730 McKean Street, Building 291, San Diego, CA 92136-5198, Attention: Mr. Kent Randall—HSTT EIS/OEIS.

Generally, under today’s environmental laws, certain kinds of projects have to do an environmental review (Like an EIS). Other kinds of projects can be exempted. The BP oil spill at Deepwater Horizon has been a sobering reminder of why these kinds of environmental reviews and exemptions are so critical. (Can you believe THIS was exempted from EIS?)

Today, DLNR is proposing a “wild laundry list” of EIS exemptions for DLNR-managed lands, from building new roads to chemical herbicides. That’s 57 pages (fifty-seven!) of exemptions. Yeesh. We are asking the Office of Environmental Quality and Control (OEQC) to send DLNR back to the drawing board. If you or your organization is interested in participating in a group letter to OEQC or just want to know more about this issue, please contact Marti at marti@kahea.org by Friday morning.

The UH Board of Regents made big “TAH-DAH!” over approving their giant Thirty Meter Telescope project for Mauna Kea this summer. Plenty press releases, plenty press. KAHEA staff tend to kind of shrug over this kind of “approval”, but after hearing so many comments and questions from all of you, we decided we should address it. Fundamental question: WHY is the Board of Regents approving TMT?

The term “manufacturing consent” comes to mind. Hmm.

Okay, let’s say for example, that Kanoe and Tyler want to build a parking lot in your front yard. Kanoe writes the proposal. Tyler votes to approve her proposal, and sends out a press release saying “Parking lot approved!” And your neighbors think, “”My, my. There’s going to be a parking lot over there.” Now, did you get any say about this parking lot? Nope! Does it matter? Of course it does.

A little tutorial on developing conservation lands, and looking good while doing it:

Mauna Kea is public trust “ceded lands” and a conservation district. This means that the mountain is to be managed “in trust” for the people of Hawai’i, and that its natural and cultural resources are to be protected and sustained. Under state law, the responsibility for managing these lands falls to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). DLNR does not financially benefit directly from development of Mauna Kea, and it is the agency with the mandate under state law to protect and conserve these lands.

Yet.

Today, the University Board of Regents appoints 100% of members to the Office of Mauna Kea Management. The Regents appoint 100% of the members of Kahu Ku Mauna. The University paid the consultant who wrote the management plan for Mauna Kea. At the end of the day, we have to ask: Who’s interests are being represented? Who is being left out?

So many have worked so hard and sacrificed so much, to get us to where we are today. Twenty years ago, the University and the UH Institute for Astronomy could not and would not even acknowledge the existence of clear problems. Two lawsuits and two state audits later, we can finally openly acknowledge past wrongs, and talk about impacts of astronomy development on cultural and natural resources. Not just on Mauna Kea, but Hawai’i's other sacred summits as well.

But without true change in management (!), it’s just that: talk.

If you support true community management of Hawai’i's sacred summits, you can join with the thousands of others around Hawai’i who are saying “Enough already” and demand a truly pono future for some of Hawai’i's most sacred places. Sign the petition today!

On August 26, the BLNR will hear public testimony on the 14-story telescope proposed for Haleakala. We really need community members to show up early, sign up to speak, and give testimony on this giant telescope proposal. You can read the flyer here.

From Kilakila Haleakala:

All studies done for the proposed project indicate that in addition to the misuse of conservation lands, there will be major, adverse, short- and long-term direct impacts on traditional and cultural resources. We must let them know know that our summit will not be furuther desecrated.

You can read more at http://www.kilakilahaleakala.org

Wanting another perspective? We’re also liking this thoughtful take on the Haleakala proposal by blogger and astronomer Salman Hameed.

From Marti:

Like a glove across the face, KAHEA and the Center for Biological Diversity sent a Notice of Intent to Sue yesterday warning federal regulators to expedite the critical habitat designation for Hawaiian monk seals… or else.  Critical habitat is the backbone of the Endangered Species Act.  It is the mechanism for shepherding species back from the verge of extinction. Over two years ago, we petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service to expand the critical habitat designation for the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal.  And NMFS agreed the seal needed more habitat to thrive.  Yet, more than a year since they agreed with us, NMFS is not any closer to protecting vitally important nearshore areas and deepwater foraging grounds for the seal.

Not surprising, in that year, Hawaiian monk seals have only slipped closer to extinction with a 4% annual decline. In 2009, monk seals had the lowest pupping rate in the past 10 years, with every location in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands experiencing declines. In 2009, only 119 seal pups were born in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, compared with 138 in 2008.  But in the Main Hawaiian Islands, birth rates seem more promising with 15 monk seal pups born including six pups on Moloka’i, five on Kaua’i, and two each on O’ahu and Maui.  The federal government must act now to update the current protections for Hawaiian monk seals to ensure deepwater foraging areas of the NWHI are protected, as well as the areas being re-populated in the main islands.

Protecting this habitat for monk seals will also protect these areas for humans, too.  Subsistence fishers and monk seals benefit from the same protections — where monk seals are protected, shoreline and nearshore non-commercial fishers are also protected.  By expanding critical habitat for monk seals, we can ensure subsistence fishing grounds are not built over by hotels, highways, and industrial fish farms.

From Marti:

Yesterday, the Mauna Kea hui (Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Royal Order of Kamehameha I, Sierra Club, KAHEA, and Clarence Kukauakahi Ching) filed the opening brief in our appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals challenging the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for Mauna Kea.  The Circuit Court had denied our case on the theory that the CMP didn’t actually do anything to affect the summit.

If the CMP doesn’t do anything to affect the summit, then how can the University of Hawaii proceed with its proposal to build the Thirty Meter Telescope?  Answer: they can’t.

The University of Hawaii — the sole creator, proponent and implementer of the CMP — simply can’t have it both ways. Either the CMP meets the legal requirements for construction in a conservation district and therefore does “something”… a “something” for which rightholders like the Mauna Kea hui can ask a court review.  OR… the CMP doesn’t actually do anything, and therefore doesn’t meet the pre-requisite that a conservation district have comprehensive management before anything is built there … thus prohibiting the construction of a new massive telescope.

Here is the introduction to the hui’s opening brief:

This case is about the Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (“BLNR”) preferential treatment of the University of Hawai‘i’s astronomy program and its complete disregard for the protected rights of Native Hawaiian and other users of the summit of Mauna Kea.  On its face, the University of Hawai‘i’s Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan (“CMP”) purports to broadly and actively regulate all uses of the Conservation District of Mauna Kea’s summit, including the religious, cultural, and recreational activities of the Mauna Kea Appellants.  But the BLNR chose to completely ignore the CMP’s impact on Mauna Kea Appellants’ rights, duties and privileges.  Contrary to its obligations under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) Chapter 91 and Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”) regulations, (Hawai‘i Administration Rules (“H.A.R.”) §§ 13-1-28 – 13-1-40), the BLNR issued its final decision to approve the CMP without holding a full and formal contested case proceeding. Record on Appeal, 2009 (“ROA-2009″) at 20-27.

The Mauna Kea Appellants appealed the BLNR’s final decisions to the Third Circuit Court of Hawai‘i (“Circuit Court”).  ROA-2009 at 1-15.  Appellees BLNR and the UH entities refused to transmit the administrative record to the Circuit Court and instead filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal.  ROA-2009 at 254-265, 268-282.  Incredibly, the Circuit Court determined, without ever reviewing the CMP or the rest of the administrative record, that the CMP was a harmless “unimplemented” document and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  ROA-2009 at 369-372; Record on Appeal, 2010 (“ROA-2010″)  at 1-9.

The Mauna Kea Appellants respectfully request that this Court reverse the Circuit Court’s order and remand this case to the Circuit Court: (1) with a finding that the Circuit Court has jurisdiction, under HRS § 91-14 and/or H.A.R. § 13-5-3 to review Appellants’ appeal from the BLNR’s final decisions; or, alternatively, (2) with a finding that the Circuit Court misapplied the standard of review for a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, particularly where the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is intertwined with the merits of the Appellants’ appeal.

In other words, please give the Mauna Kea hui its day in court.  Here is a link to the full opening brief.

Big mahalo to our attorneys, Colin Yost and Elizabeth Dunne, for working so hard on our behalf.