Huge congratulations to the appelants, including Clarence Kukauakahi Ching, who is also a member of this tribe. This court case protects Mauna Kea in important ways! This is fantastic news! Yipeeeeeee!
--------------------
Media Release: The Mauna Kea Outrigger Case Reversed; David wins
Posted by: "kahiwal@cs.com" kahiwal@cs.com clarencec_hi
Mon Aug 7, 2006 7:23 pm (PST)
Mauna Kea Anaina Hou
Royal Order of Kamehameha I
Clarence Ching
Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter

MEDIA RELEASE
For Immediate Release on Contact: Kealoha Pisciotta (MKAH)
808-934-7668
August 5, 2006 Deborah J. Ward (Sierra Club) 808-966-7361
(706-206-1469 c)
Paul Neves (Royal Order) 808-935-9656
Clarence Ching 808-776-1198
Lea Hong (Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing) 441-6178 (w)/783-3653
(cell)

HILO COURT RULES COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
REQUIRED FOR SUMMIT OF MAUNA KEA

Hilo, Hawai‘i. – In a Memorandum of Decision dated August 3, 2006 and
received by the parties on August 4, 2006, Third Circuit Judge Glenn S. Hara
reversed the conservation district use permit (CDUP) granted by the Board of Land and
Natural Resources (BLNR) to the University of Hawaii Institute of Astronomy (“
UHIFA”) for the construction of up to six 1.8 meter Outrigger Telescopes
around the existing Keck telescopes on the summit of Mauna Kea.. Judge Hara
further held that administrative rules governing astronomy facilities required a
comprehensive management plan for the summit of Mauna Kea.

Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, the Sierra Club,
Hawaii Chapter (Moku Loa Group), and Clarence Ching (“the Appellants”) appealed
the BLNR’s CDUP for the Outrigger Project in November 2004 after lengthy
contested case hearings through 2003-2004 in which Native Hawaiian lineal and
cultural descendants, religious practitioners, and cultural experts such as Pua
Kanaka`ole Kanahele, Kepa Maly, and Mililani B.Trask testified in the Appellants'
favor. The Appellants other supporting witnesses included state and national
environmental and resource management experts such as Fred D. Stone, PhD of
Hilo, Brad Finney PhD of California, and Thomas King PhD of Washington D.C.

On appeal, the Appellants argued that the UHIFA’s CDUP and plan to build four
(4) to six (6) more telescopes was inconsistent with the BLNR rules governing
“astronomy facilities” in a conservation district like Mauna Kea.
Appellants pointed out the “management plan” offered by the UHIFA covered only the
Outrigger project. The “management plan” was not comprehensive, and did not
cover the entire summit of Mauna Kea. The Appellants further claimed without a
comprehensive management plan, the rights and resources of the people of Hawai`i
remained at risk, citing the need for protection against hazardous and sewage
waste contamination, candidate endangered species protection, public access
and use, and the protection of Native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights
and resources. Both BLNR and UHIFA argued that a single project “management
plan” was sufficient to meet the requirements of the BLNR rules.

Judge Hara held that: “The resource that needs to be conserved, protected
and preserved is the summit area of Mauna Kea, not just the area of the Project.
Allowing management plans on a project by project basis would result in
foreseeable contradictory management conditions for each project or the imposition
of special conditions on some projects and not others. The result would be
projects within a management area that did not conform to a comprehensive
management plan, and would not be consistent with the purposes of appropriate
management and promoting long term sustainability of the protected resource
espoused by HRS Section 183C-2 [statute governing conservation districts].” The
court further held that “BLNR failed to adhere to the provisions of HAR Chapter
13-5-24 [rules governing astronomy facilities] and appellants substantial rights
have been prejudiced by the Board’s approval of UHIFA’s application for the
Conservation district use permit and for approval of a management plan.

The Outrigger project has faced several setbacks. In 2003, a federal
district court judge held that NASA’s environmental assessment for the project was
inadequate. Thereafter, NASA completed a more detailed environmental impact
statement. In the EIS, NASA concluded that the cumulative impact of thirty years
of astronomy development has had a significant, adverse, and substantial
impact on the natural and cultural resources of Mauna Kea. In 2004, the
Appellants appealed the CDUP granted to UHIFA. In early 2006, NASA announced plans to
withdraw funding for the Outrigger project.

Kealoha Pisciotta, President of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, commented: “I am
thankful, I can only say Mahalo Ke Akua....this decision is a win for the people,
the land and those things that are sacred..., I would like to thank Judge Hara
for his thorough review of this complex case; I'm sure his job was not easy. I
am thankful for all the hundreds of people who, for all these years, attended
meeting after meeting for Mauna Kea. I am thankful for the film team Na Maka o
Ka `Aina--for their PBS film, Mauna Kea:. I am thankful for our brave lawyers
who took our case when no one else would. I am thankful to the many Kupuna
that have passed, such as Uncle Genesis Lee Loy, Aunty Kamakahukilani Von
Oelhoffen and Aunty Leina`ala Apiki McCord, and others, too many to name, for they
give us strength to carry on, and they are here with us always.

Deborah J. Ward, a representative for the Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter, Moku
Loa Group, said:
“The Hawaii court of law has finally reinforced what the people of Hawaii
have been saying about their love for Mauna Kea. Sierra Club is very gratified
that the judge affirms the need for comprehensive planning for its protection.
The club supports the development of a comprehensive management plan that is
community based, incorporating multiple uses. It is time for the Department of
Land and Natural Resources and the University of Hawaii to join community
members in a cooperative spirit to build a plan that reflects the needs and uses of
a broad spectrum of Hawaii’s people.

It is clear that Mauna Kea is treasured by the people of Hawaii as a sacred
place, as a wild landscape and as a natural habitat for unique organisms. Mauna
Kea is beloved by people of the world as a special place to renew the mind
and spirit, gain inspiration, and occasionally to recreate. The mountain, from
sea to summit, must be managed to protect and restore the natural and cultural
resources for generations to come. It is time the people of Hawaii and
agencies with responsibilities for land management begin to develop a common vision
for protection of the ‘ahupua’a of Mauna Kea. “

Clarence Ching: “I'm ecstatic, Mahalo Ke Akua...This is a precedent setting
case; it will help not only Mauna Kea but Haleakala as well, since Haleakala is
also slated for more astronomy development.”

Ali`i `Aimoku, Paul K. Neves of the The Royal Order of Kamehameha I: "We
are grateful for the opportunity to serve the Poe Hawai`i (the people of
Hawai'i). From the beginning we affirmed that the jurisdiction in Hawai`i rests with
the right-holders not stakeholders, meaning Hawaiian Kingdom and its peoples,
not the University of Hawai`i. We will continue to be involved in working with
the people of Hawai`i towards lasting protection and oversight of Mauna Kea
that the people can be proud of. We thank the people from all islands and the
world for their prayers and support. We say deeply, Mahaho Ke Akua, Na Akua, Na
Aumakua."

Lea Hong, one of the pro bono lawyers for the Appellants (along with William
Tam and Dexter Kaiama), stated: “The plain language of the BLNR rules is
clear. Comprehensive means comprehensive. It does not mean piecemeal. It does
not mean project-by -project. I hope that BLNR will take Judge Hara’s decision
to heart and work with the community to protect the precious resource that is
Mauna Kea and develop a long term comprehensive management plan for the
summit of Mauna Kea that can be a model for other special places in Hawai`i and the
nation.”