Telescope case in judge’s hands

More than a year after she gaveled open the first pre-conference meeting of the Thirty Meter Telescope contested case hearing, former Circuit Judge Riki May Amano must weigh the facts and make her recommendation to the state Board of Land and Natural Resources.

Tuesday was the deadline for responses to the final arguments submitted two weeks ago by the hearing’s parties.

That leaves the hearings officer to consider some 800 exhibits, more than 700 documents and 50 volumes of transcripts with nearly 12,000 pages featuring oral testimony over four months of the Hilo hearing.

There is no deadline for when Amano must submit her recommendation to the board. TMT officials hope it’s sooner rather than later because they aim to start construction by April, and the case is almost certain to be appealed to the state Supreme Court no matter how the BLNR rules.

Meanwhile, Canadian scientists have issued a report critical of the TMT’s alternative site in the Canary Islands and are urging the TMT International Observatory board not to give up on Mauna Kea prematurely.

The report, discussed at a meeting of Canadian astronomers last week, says Mauna Kea’s taller summit and superior viewing characteristics give the $1.4 billion project the best opportunity to be scientifically competitive with the other next-generation telescopes under development.

Canada has committed $243 million to the TMT project as a partner with Japan, China and India plus a U.S.-based consortium made up of the University of California and the California Institute of Technology.

“We are all hopeful that construction can occur on Mauna Kea and that the project is welcomed and respectful of the various interests on the mountain,” Michael Balogh, professor of physics and astronomy at Canada’s University of Waterloo, said in an email.

Balogh is chairman of a joint committee of the Canadian Astronomical Society and the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy that formed to take a closer look at the issues surrounding TMT’s location.

According to the report, Mauna Kea offers “significant competitive advantages” to TMT’s strongest astronomical challenger, the 39-meter European Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) planned for a towering mountain in Chile.

“Therefore the site on Mauna Kea should not be given up prematurely,” the report said. “The decision to move to (La Palma in Spain’s Canary Islands) should only be made once it is clear that construction on Mauna Kea will delay the project significantly relative to ELT, or fail to attract the necessary funding. As both the realistic timeline for ELT and the funding opportunities for TMT remain uncertain, we should proceed with caution.”

Asked to respond to the Canadian report, TMT Executive Director Ed Stone issued the following statement:

“Canada remains a strong member of our TMT project team and agrees that Maunakea in Hawaii is still the preferred site to build the Thirty Meter Telescope. The report recommended building in the Canary Islands only if the Hawaii option does not prove feasible on a timely basis.”

Mauna Kea astronomer Thayne Currie said he wasn’t surprised by the report’s findings. He said uncertainties remain about the quality of science that can be produced in various specialized areas of astronomy at the lower-elevation La Palma site.

“It’s not quite as good as advertised,” Currie said of the La Palma site.

But Balogh said that while the report indicated TMT’s Plan B would be “a disappointing de-scope,” it would still be a scientifically powerful facility that could serve the Canadian and international community well, as long as “certain choices” are made to compensate for the site’s disadvantages.

After Amano makes her recommendation, the contested case parties will get the opportunity to agree or disagree with her findings and file any argument with the board, which will hold a hearing and make the ultimate decision on the project’s conservation district use permit.

But that might not be the final word. In addition to a likely court challenge, the project could face another delay because a judge’s ruling in December indicated that BLNR should have granted a separate contested case hearing for the project’s Mauna Kea sublease. The state is appealing the ruling.