KULA – Haleakala National Park Superintendent Marilyn Parris said the park opposes a proposed solar telescope on the sensitive Haleakala summit and called a draft environmental impact statement on the project inadequate.
She was joined during a series of three public comment meetings held last week by residents, cultural specialists and environmental advocates objecting to the plan to develop the $175 million Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) on Maui.“It is the National Parks Service’s contention that this draft (impact statement) falls far short in adequately evaluating the numerous cumulative adverse impacts to our resources, our visitor experiences and our overall operation with the construction of this ATST,” Parris said.
There also were supporters for the project that is seen as supporting a clean, academic industry providing jobs and new opportunities that aren’t tied to the visitor industry.
Retired teacher Verna Nahulu said she represented the children of Maui.
“I feel that our children today should own their future and speed on ahead with the knowledge that the ATST can provide. I don’t think we should negate their contribution,” she said.
Kalama Intermediate School Vice Principal Penrod Vladyka, who said he is an amateur astronomer, said the telescope will provide a benefit for education.
“This very important instrument is an opportunity for children to learn and discover,” he said.
Strong opposition to the telescope, which would be housed in a massive 145-foot-tall observatory, has continued since the announcement in October 2004 by the National Solar Observatory and National Science Foundation that Haleakala was selected from among sites around the globe.
The meetings held Wednesday, Thursday and Friday on Maui were to accept comments on the draft environmental impact statement released on Sept. 8 to kick off a 45-day comment period. The public meetings included project scientists and consultants from around the country, who discussed the benefits they saw in the project.
But opponents such as Mary Evanson, vice president of the Friends of Haleakala National Park, were adamant in urging project representatives to “find another place for this project.”
Referring to a section in the draft statement that suggested there would be a “less than significant impact” on the native uau (Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel) nesting sites, Evanson argued that there is no evidence guaranteeing that construction noise, vibration or human proximity would not impact the uau, which is an endangered species.
“I understand why Haleakala was chosen, and I understand why the university wants it bad, but what is the cost to our small island and what is the cost to future generations?” she said.
Proponents of the project argued that the telescope would benefit future generations.
“If we are unable to build the ATST on Haleakala, the loss to solar physics would be substantial . . the way that the sun works would be lost to our children, the students now and the community of science,” said Jeremy Wagner, ATST project director at the National Solar Observatory in Tuscon, Ariz.
He said the project would create approximately 25 additional jobs, some of which could be filled by Maui residents.
The first meeting held at the Cameron Center in Wailuku was attended by many residents saying they are Hawaiian or “Hawaiians at heart.” Those who spoke gave emotional testimony, and most asked that the Haleakala summit be left alone for environmental and cultural reasons.
“Haleakala is precious, and it is an integral part to our identity as Hawaiians and to our culture,” said Maui Community College counselor and cultural advocate, Mikahala Helm. “The price to our Hawaiian people and the impact on our culture and our personal identity would be devastating.”
Former Big Island resident Haumea Hanakahi said she is tired of “scientists behaving badly, whether it is Mauna Kea or Haleakala.”
“To arrogantly go and build upon a land that has always been considered sacred is a desecration. To build upon land and destroy life in a name of searching for life out there makes no sense at all,” she said.
She also questioned whether the observatories would involve the use of mercury or other hazardous chemicals.
“With Mauna Kea, when we asked if there was mercury being used, we were told no, no, no over again . . .in court documents it came out that yes, mercury was being used,” she said.
A number of people complained that the disposal of hazardous materials is not clearly explained in the draft impact statement and worried that the matter is being overlooked.
Consultant Charlie Fein, vice president of KC Environmental, promised that the issues will be discussed in further detail in the final environmental impact statement.
A two-year study of more than 70 possible observatory locations listed Big Bear Lake, Calif.; La Palma, Spain; and Haleakala among the top choices.
Foster Ampong said he supports scientific research and education but thinks the telescope should be built where there would be “less adverse affects to area residents.”
“It seems that scientific objectives can still be met at Bear Lake or La Palma . . to imply that Haleakala is the only location to achieve your objective is misleading,” Ampong said.
“What I don’t appreciate is the selection of Haleakala to build another telescope,” said Daniel Kanahele. “I think that we’ve been very generous to the community of astronomers throughout the world by opening up our places to telescopes.”
The ATST would join a cluster of observatories on Haleakala, including the Air Force Maui Space Surveillance System, which has three telescopes on the summit; the Faulkes Telescope linked to schools on Maui and Great Britain; the MAGNUM and Subaru observatories operated by Japanese astronomers; and the University of Hawaii’s Mees Solar Observatory. But it would be the largest at 14 stories high.
Project representatives said Haleakala is preferred because the clear, dry air at the summit provides the best viewing conditions in the world. According to Wagner, in order for the solar telescope to work at optimum capacity, it must be located at Haleakala.
If Haleakala is not chosen, he said, the loss to all types of science would be substantial.
“The telescope and the site work as a system. Taking the ATST and putting it at a site that doesn’t support it would be a loss for students now, future generations and the entire scientific community,” Wagner said.
The draft impact statement was prepared for the National Science Foundation and the National Solar Observatory by KC Environmental Inc. According to Fein, all feedback from the comment period will be recorded and addressed in the final environmental impact statement and become part of the administrative record for the public.
Funding for the telescope, proposed by the National Solar Observatory, has not yet been approved. That will be a decision made later by the National Science Board, the federal Office of Management and Budget and, ultimately, Congress, which would appropriate the estimated $175 million cost of constructing the telescope and observatory.
If the telescope is approved for Haleakala and funded, initial construction is planned for early 2009, with a target operation date in 2014.
Lehia Apana can be reached at lehia@mauinews.com.
