MAUNA KEA ANAINA HOU & KAHEA NOMINATE MAUNA KEA AS A TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTY

KAHEA, in partnership with Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, has formally nominated Mauna Kea as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and historic district to the Hawaiʻi Register of Historic Places (HRHP) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In the current historic preservation & environmental review system, recognizing the cultural significance of places is often perversely compliance-driven, meaning that there is commonly lots of box checking triggered by a permitting requirement for a proposed project. Official designation is something proactive we have chosen to pursue in hopes of having our voice and perspective describing the cultural connections Native Hawaiians have to Mauna Kea in a government acknowledged document.

To do this, we called on the research and process expertise of Huliauapa‘a, a non-profit specializing in Wahi Kūpuna Stewardship, to synthesize the brilliance of our lāhui that has been captured in the public record of countless hearings, court cases, written comments, plans, reports, as well as oral traditions, vessels of ‘ike kūpuna through centuries and generations, gathered from historical records, the works of nineteenth century Hawaiian scholars, and countless other sources.

A page from Hawaii’s degradation playbook:

[Scene: A public hearing in a room in a beige state building with no windows.]

Developer: I wanna build condos on this TMK parcel.

Government agency: Sure, just pay someone to do studies and turn them in with these forms.

Paid consultant: Here’s the studies. It kinda looks like a mound and a stone wall here, but those are probably ranching features, so if you can just build around them?

Aloha ‘Āina: Wait, no, that’s an ahu and the traditional moku boundary wall. This WHOLE AREA is culturally important – we huaka‘i through here, gather medicines, hunt.

Paid consultant: . . . .

Developer: I have a lot of money on the line and I’m going to sue if you don’t give me my permit.

Government agency: Permit approved. Just make sure the mound is in the landscaping area, and do data recovery for the wall before you dynamite it, ok?

Aloha ‘Āina: NO, THE WHOLE AREA IS –

Government agency: Meeting adjourned.

How can historic preservation law help protect our places?

There are limits to what the law can do, but a TCP designation may have helped our hoa in the scene above. TCPs are “places associated with the cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are both rooted in a community’s history and important in maintaining its continued cultural identity.”¹

Including Mauna Kea on the HRHP/ NRHP does not prevent destruction of culturally significant lands. However, TCP designation means those seeking state or federal permits, funding, or having to conduct Section 106 consultation are supposed to address the impacts of their proposals affect not just individual historic “properties” or “sites” but how these properties and sites are culturally important to living communities. So, this would make it more difficult for developer or agency consultants to resort to the usual playbook of whittling down entire cultural landscapes into individual archaeological features. It is important to note that a TCP designation alone, doesnʻt provide enhanced protection for a place. Instead, it grants enhanced recognition of the cultural significance of a specific place. Hopefully this will help lift the burden of debating the cultural significance of Mauna Kea every time a new project is proposed.The TCP designation will NOT transfer the title, authority or management of any lands to the state or federal government.

Examples of TCPs include:

• Avi Kwa Ame in Nevada, which is among the most sacred places on Earth by the Mojave, Chemehuevi, and some Southern Paiute people.
• Kuchamaa (Tecate Peak) in California is a mountain sacred to the Kumeyaay Indians.
• Bassett Grove Ceremonial Grounds in Oklahoma, which has been the site of specific ceremonies conducted by the Seneca and Cayuga Indians since 1832.
• Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts harbors landscape features central to events associated with the Wampanoag stories, as well as archeological and historic sites associated with the ongoing practices and traditions.

Even the State Historic Preservation Division’s (SHPD) knows it needs to nominate more TCPs. SHPD’s 2012-2017 Statewide Historic Preservation Plan recognized “[t]he need for ongoing efforts to add sites to the state inventory especially . . . traditional cultural properties[.]” Id. at 20. Objective and action No. 3.3 was to “[c]onduct a pilot project to submit a [TCP] to the State Register and the National Register of Historic Place [sic].” Id. at 28. The 2012 Plan identified as TCP designatioit n to the National Register under “[o]pportunities for historic preservation in Hawai‘i” but noted “it is unclear how best to move forward.” Id. at 45. We can and will pressure SHPD to designate more TCPs in Hawai‘i, including Mauna Kea. TCP designations are one of the best tools communities have to protect their places.

Why hasn’t Mauna Kea been nominated as a TCP before today?

Great question, especially considering that Mauna Kea has long been recognized as a candidate for TCP nomination. Since at least 1999, the state has recognized the Mauna Kea summit region as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The historic district was initially proposed in the cultural impact assessment for the Mauna Kea Science Reserve Master Plan.² SHPD then designated the Mauna Kea Summit Region Historic District as a state historic site (SIHP Site 50-10-23-26869)³ as part of its draft historic preservation plan for the Science Reserve, but the plan was never finalized. Also in 1999, archaeologists conducted oral histories with Kānaka Maoli kūpuna that supported designation as a TCP.⁴ In 2000, Kepā Maly identified TCPs within the historic district and recommended the entire mauna is eligible.⁵ Even Tom King, who co-wrote the 1992 National Park Service’s guidance on TCPs⁶, testified in a 2003 contested case hearing in support of Mauna Kea being designated as a TCP.⁷ Between 2005-2010, McCoy, Nees,⁸ and Collins, amongst other archaeologists conducted surveys that concluded the Mauna Kea historic district is eligible for listing in the National Register under all five criteria.⁹

After the Mauna Kea Hui won their lawsuit, the Third Circuit court required UH to do a “comprehensive” plan for Mauna Kea, which eventually became the 2009 Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). We challenged that too. One of the small concessions UH made was to include in the CMP Cultural Resource management action No. 2 (CR-2), which provides: “Support application for designation of the summit region of Maunakea as a Traditional Cultural Property [TCP], under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 89- 665, as amended.” Every year UH would go back to the Land Board and report, “If a nomination is submitted, UH will support it.” No one submitted a nomination until now.

In 2018, the Hawai`i supreme court affirmed the TMT’s construction permit approval, partly on the basis that the Land Board found there are no traditional cultural practices conducted in the “relevant area” of the TMT site and access way. After Mehana Kihoi, a party to the Land Board contested case, moved for reconsideration, the court revised its opinion to note the Board also found impacts to cultural practices wouldn’t be harmed in “other areas of Mauna Kea, including the summit region.” The court’s belated revision highlights a weakness in the Board’s position that the TMT can be built in the Mauna’s northern plateau without affecting the entire religious and cultural landscape of Mauna Kea. Every part of it is sacred. Honoring the integrity of Mauna Kea is itself a tradition and customary practice. Designation as a TCP and district only confirms that Mauna Kea must be assessed that way.

It was no secret that we were preparing to nominate Mauna Kea as a TCP. At the January 13, 2022 public hearing on SHPD’s statewide Historic Preservation Plan update, we pointed out their existing plan urged nomination of a TCP as a “pilot project” and that Mauna Kea should be nominated as a TCP

A few months later UHH rolled back their support for Mauna Kea TCP designation to only three specific features on the summit that were already recognized as eligible as TCPs. Whereas the 2009 CMP required UHH to support “the summit region of Maunakea as a [TCP]”, the 2022 version is limited to three features. They are identified on the statewide Inventory of Historic Places as sites 50-10-23-21438 (Kūkahau‘ula), 50-1-23-21439 (Pu’u Līlīnoe), and 50-1-23-21440 (Lake Waiau).

Fig. 3.1 Center for Maunakea Stewardship, UH Draft Comprehensive Management Plan (Mar. 1, 2022) (approved by the Board of Land and Natural Resources, Jul. 7, 2022).

We opposed the Land Board’s approval of UHH’s revised CMP and reduced TCP. It is not enough to say that specific sites on Mauna Kea are culturally significant, because we understand that the mauna in its entirety, as the keiki mauna of Wākea and Papa, is a revered ancestor of Kānaka ʻŌiwi. Longtime aloha ‘āina, Laulani Teale, opposed the Land Boardʻs decision all the way to the supreme court.

In 2022, the legislature formed the Maunakea Stewardship and Oversight Authority. Beginning on July 1, 2023, UHH and MKSOA will “jointly manage” Mauna Kea lands for five years, after which MKSOA takes over management and leasing of Mauna Kea lands. It is unclear whether MKSOA would adopt UHH’s revised 2022 CMP and its limited support for a Mauna Kea TCP.

In July 2023, we submitted our own TCP and historic district nomination of Mauna Kea to the HRHP and NRHP. Though the cultural community of Mauna Kea is boundless in its reach, for purposes of the nomination the TCP and historic district would extend down to 6,500 elevation above mean sea level. This encompasses the Wao Akua and the upper reaches of the Wao Kānaka (see below). UHH’s three TCPs would be little yellow dots at the center of our much larger TCP and district we’re proposing.

"Fig. 11 Map of wahi kūpuna (ancestral places) on Mauna Kea. This is not an exhaustive list of the culturally significant places that comprise the landscape of Mauna Kea." (Huliauapa'a, Mauna Kea HRHP and NRHP Nomination (Jul 2023.))"

Next Steps

We’ve been notifying agencies and community groups about the nomination so we can identify any issues. Right now, it’s going through an internal review at SHPD, which may result in revisions. We are anticipating that the Hawai`i Historic Places Review Board will review our Mauna Kea TCP nomination at a meeting scheduled in November 2023.

Questions? Catch us on KAHEA facebook, KAHEA Alliance (instagram), or send email to info@kahea.org.

____________________

• ¹ Parker, Patricia, and Thomas King 1992 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division.
• ² PHRI, Inc. Cultural Impact Assessment Study (Aug. 1999), Appendix “N” to the University of Hawai‘i Mauna Kea Science Reserve Plan (2000).
• ³ Inclusion in the state inventory of historic places merely recognizes sites are “significant” but does not necessarily protect against destruction or alteration of the site.
• ⁴ C. Langlas et. al, The Saddle Road Corridor: An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Traditional Cultural Property Study for the Hawai‘i Defense Access Road A-AD-6(1) and Saddle Road (SR200) Project, Districts of South Kōhala, Hāmākua, North Hilo, and South Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph. D., Inc. Report 1939-043099. Prepared for Okahara and Associates, Inc. Kailua-Kona (1999).
• ⁵ Kepā Maly, Mauna Kea Science Reserve and Hale Pōhaku Complex Development Plan update: Oral History and Consultation Study and Archival Literature Research, Report No. HiMK.21 (020199) (March 2000), Appendix I to the University of Hawai‘i, Mauna Kea Science Reserve Master Plan (2000). Maly is also a consultant for the KAHEA/Mauna Kea Anaina Hou TCP nomination.
• ⁶ Parker, Patricia, and Thomas King, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38, U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Nat’l Park Service, Interagency Resources Division (1992).
• ⁷ King, Thomas F., “Declaration of Thomas F King, Ph.D,” Exhibits A-B in Office of Hawaiian Affairs vs. NASA and University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, (D. Haw. 2003).
• ⁸ Nees testified in favor of the TMT CDUP before the BLNR.
• ⁹ McCoy, P. and R. Nees, Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, Kaʻohe Ahupuaʻa, Hāmākua District, Island of Hawai`i TMK: (3) 4‐4‐015:09 (por.). Pacific Consulting Services, Inc. report. Prepared for Office of Mauna Kea Management (2010) available at: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/01/B.62-FAIS-MKSR-Vol.1.pdf
• <sup>10</sup> Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Board of Land and Nat. Resources, No. 30397, (Haw. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2012).
• <sup>11</sup> See e.g. University of Hawai‘i, Maunakea Comprehensive Management Plan Draft Outcome Analysis Report (draft), Comprehensive Management Action MEU-1, Apr. 30, 2021.
• <sup>12</sup> In re Conservation Dist. Use Application (CDUA) HA-3568, 143 Hawai`i 379, 380 n.17 430 P.3d 425, 426 n. 17 (2018).