TMT - Contested Case Hearing Status - Hilo

[Eric1600]

Obviously developed sites are planned for reuse if there is a need and funding, then EIS and permit process again. So far nothing else is planned except decommissioning. From whom are you quoting in regards to land transfer? The summit of Maunakea is under a different type of management than the lands the rail development on O'ahu. No land is being transfered on Maunakea.

[TomK]

"I will try and find out about the decommissioning of five telescopes. I learned this today in a meeting with the other observatories in Waimea and it came as a complete surprise to me. The meeting continues on Friday so as soon as I get more info I can share, I'll let people here know."

I did find out more. The number of five telescopes comes from a combination of the last OMKM Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) and the recent BLNR decision. The CMP envisioned the removal of four observatories by the end of the current lease and the addition of one (the TMT) making a total of 10 operational observatories. The BLNR, for a reason I haven't determined yet, added a further observatory to be removed, which makes the total five.

Link to the CMP: http://www.malamamaunakea.org/uploads/ma...n_2010.pdf

Page 34 summarises the decommissioning plan.

[TomK]

Eric1600,

"Obviously developed sites are planned for reuse if there is a need and funding, then EIS and permit process again. So far nothing else is planned except decommissioning. From whom are you quoting in regards to land transfer? The summit of Maunakea is under a different type of management than the lands the rail development on O'ahu. No land is being transfered on Maunakea."

I'm not aware of any plans to reuse any site of a decommissioned and removed telescope to build another observatory. I'm not sure what you mean by "obviously" so if I'm missing something, let me know.

As for transferring land, I'm no expert on real estate terms, but 10,000 acres of land on Mauna Kea will be returned to the state by UH. Maybe that doesn't mean transferring in the reference frame you're using, but I've now been working about 18 hours and don't have the mental energy to figure out what you mean. I hope you can clarify. Thanks!

PS. Forgot to include this link:

http://www.hawaii.edu/news/2017/08/23/re...-maunakea/

[Kapoho Joe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gypsy69

I for one am very disappointed that the land board approved the TMT permit.

---

Guffaw, chortle, snicker, etc.

[Eric1600]

Originally posted by TomK

I'm not aware of any plans to reuse any site of a decommissioned and removed telescope to build another observatory. I'm not sure what you mean by "obviously" so if I'm missing something, let me know.

As for transferring land, I'm no expert on real estate terms, but 10,000 acres of land on Mauna Kea will be returned to the state by UH. Maybe that doesn't mean transferring in the reference frame you're using, but I've now been working about 18 hours and don't have the mental energy to figure out what you mean. I hope you can clarify. Thanks!

I just mean those sites will either be restored or reused. Most likely the sites that are not on the ridge line will be repurposed at some point for a IR or radio scope. There's no plans now, one thing at at time, but it seems unlikely that all 4 sites will never see another telescope.

The transfer of land in the context of the rail example is from private land holders to public. That's what causes a lot of legal delays, cost increases, etc. In the case of Maunakea, there is no real land transfer, just who manages it.

[TomK]

Thanks for the clarification, Eric, I get it.

There is a general understanding amongst the astronomical community that if an observatory is removed, it won't be replaced. I don't think this is written in stone. However, the current lease runs out in 2033. Unless it is extended then all the telescopes/observatories have to be removed at that point. Planning to re-use a site just isn't an issue right now.

As you can imagine, this is a complicated situation. The TMT have said they are willing to take on the risk of the lease ending in 2033 but their hope is it'll be extended at some point. Even if the TMT doesn't get built here, UH and the current observatories are thinking about the 2033 deadline and how to make a case for extending the lease - even if it's without the TMT.

The current observatories combined bring in more money to the island than the TMT on its own will. They're a pretty important part of the Big Island's economy.

[Eric1600]

Astronomy ranks #5 right now in terms of contributors to this island, which is huge. There is a chance that the marijuana industry could creep up, but it seems unlikely with this group of fools running the legislature. Anyway, after reading the BLNR decision, it seemed clear to me with "no new sites", that means reuse. In addition their focus on visual aesthetics means no building on the ridge line. So the Hokukea site will probably never be built on again, but I think there's possibility for others to be reused. I'm sure there will be a large spike of legal fees around 2033, but I'm hopeful the end result is just a rent hike.

[randomq]

Seeing those telescopes on the ridge from Puna fills me with pride, and reminds me of our connection to the stars, and our destiny one day to travel the universe. A triumph of science over superstition! Even more so now after the TMT debate.

[Aaron S]

This was copied from the University of Hawaii's EIS preparation notice for a new master lease issued in January 2015. Yes, they are in the process of redoing the EIS to extend the lease, but this gives a good snapshot of which telescopes plans to decommission, or continue operating after 2033.

• TMT would remain in service through the end of the new master lease;

• CSO is expected to decommission on or about 2018;

• For the other two submillimeter facilities, James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) and SMA, current plans foresee only one continuing after 2033;

• Current plans do not foresee either a major modification of the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) or redevelopment of the UKIRT site. So, in view of its age, it seems quite possible that UKIRT will decommission within 20 years.

• Current plans assume that the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) Antenna will not continue beyond the end of its current sublease (2033).

• If the new master lease is approved, and the funding and necessary permits are secured, CFHT is likely to proceed with the Maunakea Spectroscopic Explorer (MSE) project, placing a 10-meter Keck-type telescope on the existing CFHT pier under a new dome. If this occurs, the facility would suspend operation sometime in the next 5-8 years and reopen about 3 years later, operating through the end of 2079.

• If the new master lease is approved, the UH Hilo Hokukea Telescope would be expected to continue more or less in its current concept for 30-40 years. The UH 2.2-m Telescope is likely to continue for that period as well, but there would be a concerted effort to recycle this site with a more modern telescope of approximately the same overall size. Whether or not the recycling can actually occur will depend upon whether UH is able to raise the necessary funds.

• Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) may continue for 10-20 years in its current form, but after that will either decommission or will have a major renovation to install a more modern telescope in a facility with similar characteristics. Whether this happens will depend on what priority National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) gives to having a ground-based O/IR facility to support its space mission, particularly after Hubble is gone.

• Keck I and II, Gemini, and Subaru, which are now in the prime of life, have indicated a strong interest in extending their subleases if a new master lease is granted. In all likelihood they would continue operating without major change for 30-40 years. After that (i.e., in the latter part of the period covered by a new master lease) they could be modified or they might be decommissioned.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

I found the article (linked below) an interesting read. It interviews some Hawaiian musicians and hula performers who describe the necessity of performing in Japan and on the mainland in order to make a living. Or from another point of view, it could be said the Hawaiian people are not able to sufficiently support their own artists with enough work right here in Hawaii.

So while gypsy and "The Protectors" ceaselessly rail and threaten consequences if they don't get what they want, a pure Hawaiian nation, the reality is in direct contradiction to many of the claims they make. Hawaiian music and hula, as well as other aspects of their culture are not fully supported by an emerging Hawaiian Nation, it is to some extent dependent upon the people they denounce and vilify.

The presence of the TMT in Hawaii provides some of the support from which they benefit. $1 million in yearly scholarships for the keiki, $1 million yearly for the protection of Mauna Kea. If "The Protectors" engage in future protests they might consider hiring Hawaiian musicians and hula halaus to raise cultural awareness, instead of rolling nondenominational rocks.

At some point they may wish to look a little closer at the state money provided to OHA, the grants, the people who support Hawaiian culture, scholarships, federal and state health, food, and retirement benefits, and maybe see we're all better off when we work together.

Many local kumu hula and musicians get most of their income from performing and teaching in Japan. They say it’s the only way they can do what they love full time and provide for their families.
http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/smallbiz-h...the-bills/

The Donner Party really wasn't that great of a party, was it?