The Board of Land and Natural Resources on Friday denied a request for the state to begin negotiating a land-swap agreement with Haleakala Ranch Co. that would exchange ownership of a portion of a historic Haleakala summit trail for access to nature reserves on the upper slopes of the volcano.

"People can literally walk the same trail that Hawaiians walked for hundreds of years, and to me that’s an important thing that we don’t want to give up in this kind of quick decision," attorney Tom Pierce, who represents the nonprofit group Public Access Trails Hawaii, said during Friday’s hearing. "We’re very happy that they made that decision, and it really will engender an enormous amount of trust in the public to see that the BLNR is carefully weighing these important decisions on historic trails in Hawaii."

Opponents testifying on the request cautioned the board against prematurely entering into negotiations with the ranch prior to obtaining an archaeological inventory survey and environmental review.

"You don’t need to (pass) anything to say, ‘Let’s have a discussion,’" David Kimo Frankel of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. told the board. "The way (the measure) is worded … you’re suggesting you’ve already reached a decision, everything after that’s a post-hoc rationalization, which the courts have condemned."

The board voted only to allow the Department of Land and Natural Resources to begin the archaeological survey and environmental review process. It also denied a request made by PATH to lease the trail from the state.

"The department supports the further study needed to consider fully this proposed land exchange," board and department Chairman William Aila Jr. said Friday in a news release. "We are looking for the solution with the greatest public benefit."

DLNR issued a statement earlier this week that the proposal was crafted to avoid costly litigation while ensuring public access to the Haleakala Bridle Trail and creating a new access route to Kahikinui Forest Reserve and Nakula Natural Area Reserve.

Ownership of the trail that crosses Haleakala Ranch Co. land has been in dispute, and PATH, along with the state, is currently suing the ranch for unrestricted access.

Attorney Michael Gibson, who represents the ranch in the lawsuit, told the board he hopes to settle with the state to avoid a jury trial slated for March.

Pierce delivered extensive testimony before the board outlining the importance of maintaining public access to what many say is an ancient Hawaiian trail. He noted several reasons why the deal would not be in the best interest of the state or the public, including that the road to the nature reserves would be costly to build and not easily accessed by the public, and that the state wouldn’t actually own the land it would need to develop.

"(The) major problem is the fact that we’re trading away cultural heritage just for an access point, and that’s just not what we think should be happening in the state," Pierce said.

According to background information provided in DLNR’s proposal to the board, the department determined, and the state attorney general agreed, in May 2000 that the historic route is likely a public trail that falls under the state’s Highways Act of 1892, which provides for public ownership of certain roads and pathways.

Three years later the ranch disagreed with the department’s conclusion, and the dispute ended with the state and the ranch entering into a memorandum of agreement in 2012 stating that the two parties would provide the public with at least two guided hikes along the trail per year. DLNR said nine hiking groups went out on the trail from August 2012 to December 2013.

"Right now what DLNR is saying is that guided hikes are meeting demand," Pierce told the board. "Well, they’re meeting demand for what’s a horrible logistical situation."

Under the proposed land-swap agreement, DLNR would renegotiate access terms with the ranch.

Pierce reminded the board that the state entered into a joint agreement with PATH, and reaching a settlement with the ranch would deny the group its day in court. He also said the ranch has not reached out to PATH, which is the lead defendant in the case.

"What’s particularly bizarre in this case is that we’re the plaintiff in this case, and the ranch is going to go back to the court and tell the judge that we’re not entitled to our day in court because the two defendants are wanting to make a settlement agreement between them," he told the board. "It’s kind of like two people in a car accident where there’s one very clear plaintiff — a pedestrian gets hurt — (but) the two people who were driving the cars who both hurt the pedestrian say, ‘We’re going to reach a settlement together, and therefore you can continue (postpone) the trial.’"

Board members expressed concern that there is no quantifiable way to measure the historical and cultural value of the trail, which is problematic given that the land exchange would be based on fair market value.

"I’m hopeful that somehow there can be a settlement at some point in the future because sometimes when it’s litigated we end up with something we all don’t want," member-at-large David Goode said during the discussion. "So I’m hopeful the department can get there somehow, someday."