The URL can be used to link to this page

June 17, 2021 KHPRC Meeting Agenda PacketPAGE 2 KAUAI HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION – June 17, 2021 G. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Hanapēpē Readiness Center (Hawai‘i Army National Guard) 1-3460 Kaumuali‘i Hwy Tax Map Key: (4) 1-8-008:029 and 078, Hanapēpē, Kaua‘i National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation for the proposed installation of two new rotatable high frequency (HF) antennas at the Hanapēpē Readiness Center (RC). a. Email (5/26/2021) from MAJ (RET) Jeff Hickman transmitting slides. b. Email (5/28/2021) from MAJ (RET) Jeffrey D. Hickman transmitting pictures and architectural drawings of antenna. c. Supplemental #1 to the Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. 2. County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works – Engineering Division Improvements to Collector Roads, Portions of Olohena Road, Kukui Street, and Ulu Street, Federal –Aid Project STP 0700(085), TMK: (4) 4-3-003:999, (4) 4-4-005:999, (4) 4-4-006:999, (4) 4-5-008:999, (4) 4-5-009:999, (4) 4-5-010:999, & (4) 4-5-015:003 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. a. Letter (5/27/2021) from Michael Moule, P.E., Chief, Engineering Division transmitting the final construction plans. b. Archeological Inventory Survey for Proposed Improvements to Collector Roads – Portion of Olohena Road, Kukui Street, and Ulu Street. c. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. I. NEW BUSINESS J. ANNOUNCEMENTS K. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS (August 19, 2021) HEADQUARTERS HAWAI'I ARMY NATIONAL QUARD 91-1227 ENTERPRISE AVENUE KAPOLEI,HAWAI'I 36707-2160 February25,2020 Dr.Atan Downer '-"f".~~'^ State Historic Presen/ation Officer Department ofLand and Natural Resources Kakuhihewa Building r:- 601 Kamokila Boulevard,Suite 555 Kapotei,Hl 96707 SUBJECT:Section 106 (NHPA)/HRS 6E-8 Consultation -Proposed High Frequency Antennas,1-3460 Kaumuali'i Hwy,Hanapepe,Kauai County,Hawaii TMK:[4]1-8- 008:029 and 078. Dear Dr.Downer: The Hawaii Army National Guard (HIARNG)is proposing to construct two (2)25- kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF)antennas at the Hanapepe Readiness Center (RC),located at 1-3460 Kaumuali'i Hwy,Hanapepe,Kauai County,Hawaii (Figure 1). The proposed construction will be located at the southern portion of the Readiness Center,adjacent to the county sports field (Figure 2).The HF antennas will be approximately 80 feet tall and have a turning radius of approximately 60 feet. Hanapepe RC is a 3.28-acre site located on the southwest coast of Kauai,on the west end of Ihe town of Hanapepe.The site is near the convergence on Hanapepe Valley River and Hanapepe Bay on the coastal plain.The area has been extensively graded and filled,as evidenced by the adjacent park and cemetery,however;the RC sits on arable land.The Hanapepe RC includes seven (7)buildings consisting ofthe RC,maintenance shop,and storage facilities. The RC land was acquired in 1937 from the US Navy as part ofthe HIARNG build-up on Kauai.The original RC was constructed in 1939 to house the 298th and the 299th Infantry Regiments of the National Guard that protected Burns Field (the only paved landing field on Kauai in 1941)and PortAllen.The regjments were also assigned at Hanapepe to protect the new field at Lihue under the command of LTC Eugene Fitzgerald.The original RC was a warehouse constructed in 1930 and was used several times as part ofevacuation efforts for Kauai residents.In 1968 the RC was federally activated in response to the Vietnam War.The original RC was replaced with a one-unif RC,which replaced the original RC in 1988. The Hanapepe RC was recently sun/eyed for an Archaeological Assessment Report,no historic or archaeological properties were identified on the parcel.No buildings on the parcel or adjacent parcels over 50 years in age are eligible or regisfered for National Register for Historic Places (Hammatt 2019). ^.1. JW ?7 ^o^ 'H4. MAj^8s?021 SUBJECT:Section 106 (NHPA)/HRS 6E-8 Consultation -Proposed High Frequency Antennas,1-3460 Kaumuali'i Hwy,Hanapepe,Kauai County,Hawaii TMK:[4]1-8- 008:029 and 078. The proposed HF Antenna project is a joint effort between the HIARNG and National Guard Bureau.The antenna instaltation is needed for operational support. Please see the attached Area of Potential Effect (APE)for project location.We have included the construction plans for your reference as well.The installation of the HF antennas will require ground disturbance for the following items: 1.Foundations a.The proposed HF antenna project will require ground disturbance for the installation of two concrete foundation pads approximately 28 feet and 6 inches long by 28 feet and 6 inches wide and 6 feet deep (please see construction drawing No. 252569), b.A concrete pad for an associated container building will be approximately 30 feet long by 14 feet wide and be approximately 1 foot deep (Figure 2). c.Trenching for underground utilities will be approximately 275 llnear feet,two (2) feet wide by four (4)feet deep (Figure 2). In accordance with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act and their implementing regulations 36 CFR 800,the HIARNG is providing information for your review and concurrence regarding the above referenced project. Determination:The HIARNG has defined the Area of Potential Effect (APE)as the southern portion ofthe Hanapepe RC parcel,which includes the location of the utility excavation trenches,foundations and the swing arm radius ofthe antennas,and including an 8ft buffer around the project areas (Figure 2). The HIARNG has determined that there are no adverse effects to historic properties by the proposed action.We base our determination on the following considerations: All the ground disturbing activities will be located in areas of previous disturbance,in a maintained grassyarea (Figure 2). Archaeological research shows extensive ground djsturbance due to long- term intensive commercial agricultural activities associated with the Olokele Plantation. No historic or archaeological resources have been identified within the proposed APE. An inventory level survey,completed at the project site in 2019,revealed no 2 SUBJECT:Section 106 (NHPA)/HRS 6E-8 Consultation -Proposed High Frequency Antennas,1-3460 Kaumuali'i Hwy,Hanapepe,Kauai County,Hawaii TMK:[4]1-8- 008:029 and 078. archaeological or historic sites on the parcel (Hammatt,2019). Based on the recent inventory level survey,we have determined that there are no historic properties affected within the proposed APE.However,Historic and Archaeological resources have been identified in the relative proximity to the project area (see attached map of historic resources).While this project could have a potential visual effect on these properties,there are already numerous visual impediments in the vicinity,such as the sports field lighting and the utility poles and towers located within the PortAllen industrial area (please see map ofexisting visual impediments).We propose that is project will not have a significant detrimental vtsual effect on the surrounding historic resources. Due to the existing visual impediments we have determined that the proj'ect will have no adverse effect.However,if at any time during the ground disturbing actlvities, there is an inadvertent discovery of cultural materials,all activity will cease,and the State Historic Presen/ation Division will be contacted immediately. If we do not hear from you within thirty (30)days as per 36 CFR 800.3(c)(4),we will assume that you concur with our finding and will proceed with our project.If you have any question about this project,please contact Mr.Kekapala Dye,Cultural Resources Specialist,at (808)672-1274. Sincerely, Encl Cf: Office of Hawaiian Affairs Kauai [sland Burial Council Historic Hawaii Foundation Kauai Historical Society Kauai County Planning Department MOTOYAMA.KAR °w»i>"«••<"»_ L.K.1 392708606 o.it&Mio.oi-is la^.w-io'oo' Karl K.Motoyama Hawaii Army National Guard Environmental Protection Specialist HEADQUARTERS HAWAI'I ARMY NATIONAL OUARD 91.1227 ENTERPRISE AVENUE KAPOLEI,HAWAI'I 96707.2150 February 25,2020 TO:All Interested Parties SUBJECT:Section 106 (NHPA)/HRS 6E-8 Consultation -Proposed High Frequency Antennas,1-3460 Kaumuali'i Hwy,Hanapepe,Kauai County,Hawaii TMK:[4]1-8- 008:029 and 078. Aloha, The Hawaii Army National Guard (HIARNG)is identifying organizations with an interest in the aforementioned project and its potential to affect hlstoric properties.The purpose of this letter is to determine if you and/or your organization wish to become a consulting party for this project.Consulting parties have certain rights and obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Part 800.The review process is known as a Section 106 review.In becoming a consulting party,you will be actively informed of steps in the Section 106 process,including publjc meetings,and yourviews will be actively sought. In order to become a consulting party,you/your organization must respond within (30)days to request consulting party status.If you/your organization do not respond within this time frame,you/your organization may request consulting party status in the future;however,the proj'ect may advance without your Input and you will not have an opportunity to comment on current steps.If you/your organization request consulting party status,HIARNG requests that your organization nominate one (1)represenlative and an alternate to participate on behalf of the group.People may also participate in the Section 106 process as members ofthe public, Attached for your review are copies of relevant documents supporting our determination ofthe no adverse effec(finding within the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE),including archaeological and historic building surveys and maps showing the location of the proposed project. To request consulting party status on this project or if you have any questions about this project,please contact Mr.Kekapala Dye,Cultural Resources Specialist,at (808)672-1274 or kekapala.p.dve.nfafSmail.mil.Ifwe do not hear from you within thirty (30)days as per 36 CFR 800.3(c)(4),we will assume that you concur with our findings and will proceed with our project. SUBJECT:Section 106 (NHPA)/HRS 6E-8 Consultation -Proposed High Frequency Antennas,1-3460 Kaumuali'i Hwy,Hanapepe,Kauai County,Hawaii TMK:[4]1-8- 008:029 and 078. Encl Cf: Office of Hawaiian Affairs Kauai Island Burial Council Historic Hawaii Foundation Kauai Historical Society Kauai County Planning Department Sincerely, MOTOYAMA.KARL.Di(iun»iisned b, K.1 392708606 Date:2020.02.2612;56:46-10W Karl K.Motoyama Hawaii Army National Guard Environmental Protection Specialist 20T3 ^atlonal Geographic Socrely,i-cuSe Fi9"re 1.Vicinity Map Hanapepe Readiness Center. Proposed HF Antennas Hanapepe,Hawaii 96716 TMK:[A]1A<08:C29&07E Hanapepe,Crty &County of Kauai Scale 1:24.000 0.23 0.45 [Miles HIARNG Sites L.,3 HIARNG Site -Hanapepe Armory Date Published-. Image Date:Towili,January 2019 Coordinate System: Rsferesce mai? Tlln ittutraln*ObnceptuFi ?tM i5 noTnlfflOBd JB fl wsuji oucu'Tlefl' ta aaaxUincs to Ami]'fiegulaton 11&-13.tisaunu)Gxwwtf 'ihnnition mc Ssnnua. [3-11;Osa Oudity ...»nw iniuBnaa a s ahBtd.Fnnmiiin tUnctrc ixrfiti by ne re^ieaive pidfXMuil »»d<tawncnM h a QAP -(i-t£)UaB Su g fflakmE wniiftatiC flfflTTp*h^i d£&avaNabift io ittunafl ua^Nflli •nn«Mirt(ncw.mui ttu;<ix=spton i^!It u.$.c.^TOtih -Corfkwun)'0'ntaftoaOM ^rtatnng futuw *<]locaNijn of ffcNieoioycaJ r«iouia=(3-16)Dat»SncuilJ .u iflluidut u ht tiitteatB;anil honsf.n*k)ititii o uncwlW *ntcf FOX-Uidtsaaeil ^wwt-msf av esusw;iwn piituc AHIauc ui auontonce *itti ln«FOIA Scale:1:4,500 100 200 Feet I'.'Z;HIARNG Sifce —*Uti!ities S...6 Antenns_sweep Foundation_slab Figure 2:Area of Potential Effect Antenna Instatlation l5A05-Hanapepe County:Kauai State:Hl Address:1-3460 Kaumualii HwyZip Code:96716 1 inch is 375 Feet •-4-E Published:Hawaii Anmy Nationai Guard, Environmental Office, Image Date:Towill,January 2019 Coordinate System:NAD 1983 UTM Zone 4N This inap is (cr nriomiational ?ufp05e&and ttie daa ^cirt-ayed &as aeutfate »s possible and ewty wasonaUe eflflfl has been maae to assura Ite accuiacy of tw roaps snd oUier hbrmabon rontaned,bui i!maf conlan edors o'1 be Oittfaled,aod is not suitable tor legsl or surrty inierp^tation Viewere stiouM tieiitylhe dalsresresCTted.ss ttere are nogLiaBrtees,expressed or nFliBd 420J Ftice $1. U)'uy.^aual9878e. p'hons 8082463936 Fax 80a?183936^" IIAWAII ARW NATIONAL GUARO_ ANTENNA TOWERS 1-3060 KAUMUALII HIGHWAV.'HANAPEPE KAUAI 98716 TMKI'tl 1-08-008 078 .1^..AERtAL Ifi/lAGE 1 -MODEL SCALE UWCVEIffUtlA <0 n! ®AERtALlhflAGEZ -MODEL SCALE @ AERtAL IMAGE 1 SHOWING ANTENNA TOWERS ,/^AERIALIMAGE^HOWINGANTENNATOWERS eS="S 2=§§i S° ^^Li]S :[:'?3-£lia-|l A2.2 ^"li^l^iincy-i II;)\v;ii'i JutiCiide:IIANAI)I-:I»!L 10 BackgrouDil Reseaicli Leaend (s=|ProJectArea A Burial Slle •Benne»(1931)Sile (_]Historic Propefty BaseMap.'Googls Earth Imagery (2013)Data Sources;CSH C."^»l^^lil\^iia/"/^trjf'f,//i^. •igure 24,Jreyiously identif-ietl liistoric properties witliiii Ihe viciiiity oftlie study area (Gooal(Earth2013) Ai\t'or l]ic 1 l,inapc]ic/\r]iioiy I'mjccl.llaiupcpi,Wuillica,Kulia-i TMKs:1411-7-008:029aild 078 43 AA for tlie I-lajiapepe Ai'moiy Project,J4anapepe,Waimea,Kaua'i TMKs:[4]l-7-008:029and078 44 llllural Survcys I lawai'i lob Code;1IANAPEPE 10 llackgroiiiid Researcb Fable 2.Previously identified archaeological sites near the shidy area ISIHP #50-30-09 Site Typc Reference 1-00053 Sand burials Bennett 1931;McMalion 1993;Kennedy &t,atinis 1996;Winieski et al.1996 1-00497 iubsurface cultural layer Spear 1992 1-00585 Railroad Tracts Viguie &Cordle 2008 |-00600,B001 Port AIIen Cemetery Kikuchi &Remoalclo 1992 1-00603,B004 ^atholic/Chinese Cemetery Kikuchi &Remoaldo 1992 1-00604,B005 Veterans Cemeteiy Kikuchi &Remoaldo 1992 -00607,B008 ^anapepe FIeights Japanese ^emetery Kikuchi &Remoalclo 1992 -00608,B003 ''ilipiiio Cemetei-y <ikuchi &Remoaldo 1992 -00651 Tlanapepe Cemetei-y Kikuchi &Remoaldo 1992 -00704 3urial ^reedetal.1994 -00705 Surial ^reedetal.1994 -00706 ^ultural deposits ^reedetal.1994 -01710 jurial 3owell &Dega 2002 -01987 'rimary coffin burial Winieski et al.1996 -02280 lanapepe River Bridge 3elluomini etal.2016 -02281 <etaining Wall 3elluomini etal.2016 -02282 i.etaining Wall 3elluomini etal.2016 -02283 ^evee 3elluomiiii etal.2016 -02284 tetaiiiing Wall 3clluomini et al.2016 -02314 ^anapepe Road Bridge lawai'i Register ol'IIistoric Places -09389 (Lots I1B, 18,21 A,49) vlultiple Buildings in older irea of Hanapepe Tovvii 4awai'i Historic Foundation;Powell & 3ega 2002 •»^*w Labris Feature Mcasurcd Hughtl HAZWastc FuturaStone Portable |Hcight2 Strect light on Puoto/Beach ftoad'Hci^it3 LightpoleMafcaiofFoothalIRcy Height 4 Street light on Kaiimualii Hwy HeightS Smoltcstacits alongAfca Ula St Heigtit 6 Smokestacks aiong Aka Uta SL Height7 Snoltwtadu alongAka Ub St ;HeiBhtS.Smotestacks atoneAka UlaSL Ani&luesfFert)Acttw Valuw(Feet) 9.5 25.6 65^ 4S.1 70.8 91.7 71.6 100^ 2S.6) fis.ai 45.il 70.81 91.71 7L6| 100.21 •!'•^SA-!''^^:i-•-.-' !?j |''"f'-r;-., HEADQUARTERS HAWAI'I ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 91-1227 ENTERPRISE AVENUE KAPOLEI,HAWAI'I 96707-2150 November 6,2020 Dear Potential Consulting Party: SUBJECT:Section 106 (NHPA)/HRS 6E-8 Additional Consulting Parties-Proposed High Frequency Antennas,1-3460 Kaumualii Hwy,t-1anapepe,Kauai County,hlawaii TMK:[4]1-8-008:029 and 078. The Hawaii Army National Guard (HIARNG)is identifying additional organizations with an interest in the proposed High Frequency Antenna Project and its potential to affect historic properties.The aforementioned project is in a conceptual design phase,the HIARNG is seeking consulting parties to be included in the Section 106 process.The purpose of this letter is to find out whether you and/or your organization wish to become a consulting party for this project.Consulting parties have certain rights and obligations under the National hlistoric Preservation Act and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Part 800.The review process is known as a Section 106 review.By becoming a consulting party,you will be actively informed of steps in the Section 106 process,including public meetings, and your views will be actively sought. In order to become a consulting party,you/your organization must respond within (30)days to request consulting party status.If you/your organization does not respond within this time frame,you/your organization may request consulting party status in the future;however,the project may advance without your input and you won't have an opportunity to comment on the current steps.If you/your organization is requesting consulting party status,HIARNG asks that your organization nominate one representative and an alternate to participate on behalf of the group.People may also participate in the Section 106 process as members of the public. Attached for your review are copies of relevant documents supporting our determination of the no adverse effecffinding,including archaeological and historic building surveys and maps showing the location of the project. If you/your organization would like to request consulting party status on this project or if you have any question about this project,please contact Mr.Kekapala Dye, Cultural Resources Specialist,at (808)672-1274 or kekaDala.D.dve.nfafSlmail.mil,. SUBJECT:Section 106 (NHPA)/HRS 6E-8 Consultation -Proposed High Frequency Antennas,1-3460 Kaumualii Hwy,hlanapepe,Kauai County,Hawaii TMK:[4]1-8- 008:029 and 078. Ifwe do not hearfrom you within thirty (30)days as per 36 CFR 800.3(c)(4),we will assume that you concur with our findings and will proceed with our project. Sincerely, Karl K.Motoyama Hawaii Army National Guard Environmental Protection Specialist Enclosures (3),CD Distribution List Encl3 Mr.Hailama Farden Association of Hawaii Civlc Clubs Ms.KanoeAhuna EAO Hawaii Inc. Ms.Blossom Feiteira Association of Hawaiians for Homestead Lands Mr.Samson L.Brown Au Puni O Hawaii Mr.Joseph Kuhio Lewis Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement Mr.Abraham Cortes-Kaleopaa Hawaiian Kingdom Task Force Ms.Paula Akana Friends of 'lolani Palace Ms.Lehela Williams Hawaiian CommunityAssets,Inc. Mr.Adrian Nakea Silva Hui Huliau Inc. Ms.Dreanalee Kalili Imua Hawaii Ms.Piilani Hanohano Kamehameha Schools -Community Relations and Communications Group,Government Relations Sylvia M.Hussey Ed.D. Office of Hawaiian Affairs AHN:OHA Compliance Ms.Carol N.Johnson Kauwahi 'Anaina Hawai'i Hawaiian Civic Club Mr.Dennis W.Ragsdale Kingdom of Hawai'i Dr.Alan Downer State Historic Preservation Division Department of Land and Natural Resources Ms.Charlene Lui Mainland Council Assodation of Hawaiian Civic Clubs Ms.Mililani Trask Na Koa Ikaika Ka Lahui Hawaii Ms.H.Kanoeokalani Cheek Na Ku'auhau 'o Kahiwakaneikopolei Ms.Donna Kaliko Santos Na Kuleana o Kanaka 'Oiwi Ms.Paige Kapiolani Barber Nanakuli Housing Corporation Erika Vincent Native Hawaiian Education Council Ms.Taffi Wise Kanu o ka 'Aina Learning 'Ohana Mr.Dennis W.Ragsdale Order of Kamehameha 1 Ms.Mahealani Cypher Ko'olau Foundation Ms.Sheri-Ann Daniels Ed.D Papa Ola Lokahi Mr.Jan E.Hanohano Dill Partners in Development Foundation Mr.La'akea Suganuma The Mary Kawena Puku'i Cultural Preservation Society Ms.Robin Puanani Danner Sovereign Councll ofHawaiian Homestead Associations Mr.L.La'akea Suganuma Royal Hawaiian Academy ofTraditional Arts Lance Kamuela Gomes Wahiawa Ahupuaa LCA 7714B Apana 6 RP 7813 Mr.Melvin Soong The 1 Mua Group Mr.Eugene O'Connell The Makua Group DAVID Y.IGE GOVERNOROT HAWAn irfAK STATE OF HAWAII bEPARTMENT OF LANB AMD NATIIKAL OESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DFVISION KAKUHfflBWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD.,STE 555 KAPOLEI,HI 96707 SUZANNK O.CASE CHUEFERSON BQUtDOFLANDANnNATURAi.it^OUSCES COMMSSKMONWAIBIRESOURCEMANAOEMEXI ROBEKTK..MASUDA FBUTDEPlTPf M.KALEO MAMUEL OEPUTY [aiECTOIt.WATCTi AQUATiC RESOUBCES BCbMIMO AM)OCE*N RECR£*TI(») BUREAU Of CQNVEYANCES COMMISSKS*ON WATER RE30URCE MANAOEME^n CONSSRVAnOH AND COASUi LtNDS C(»ISE]lVATIO»IAKD>ESOURCESEWOitCEMENT EKGMEERJNO PCTtESTilV ANB WILDLIFE HISIOBIC HlESBtVATION KAHOOLAWE BUW RESERVE COhBtOSSICM LJWD STATE PARKS April 2,2020 INREPLYREFERTO: LogNo.:2020.00436 Doc.No.:2004SH02 Archaeology Karl K.Motoyama Environmental Protection Specialist Hawai'i Nfltional Guard 91-1227 Enterprise Avcnue 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kapolei,Hawai'i 96707-2150 EmaiJ reply to:Kekapala.p.dye.nfg@mail.mil Dear Karl K.Motoyama: SUBJECT:National Hlstoric Preservaliun Act (NHPA)Section 106 »adChapter CE-8 Review - Initiation ofConsidtation and Request for Coacurrence with the Effect Determinatioa Draft Archaeological Asscssnnent Report Proposed High Frequency Antennas at 1-3460 Kaumuali'i Highway Hanapepi Ahupua'a,Waimea District,Island ofKaua*i TMK:(4)l-8-008:029 and 078 The State Historic Preservdon Division (SHPD)reccived a letter dated February 25,2020 &om the State of Hawai'i Army National Guard (HtARNG)to iaitiate Section 106 and Chapter 6E-8 historic preservation review and to request the State Historic Preservation Officer's (SFIPO's)concurrence with the efifect determinalion for a project to install High Frequency Antennas at 1-3460 Kaumuali'i Highway on the island of Kaua'i.Accompanying HIARNG*s letter is a draft report tftJed,Archaeological Assessmenl Keport for the Hanapepe Armory HIARNG Instatlalion,Site No.:15A05,HanapSpe Ahupua'a,Waimea Distrlcl,Kaua't TMKs:[4]l-7-098:029 amt 078 (Spangler et al.,June 2019)and a 2009 document titled,Historic Buildings Svrvey and Evaluation Report ofTen Facilities Hawai'i Army National Guard.The SHPD received this submittal on February 26,2020. The proposed high frequency (HF)Antenna project is a Joint effort between the HIARNG and National Guard Bureau.The HIARNG is proposing to construct two (2)25-kilowatt rotatable high fi^quency (MF)antennas at the Hanapepe Readiness Center (RC),located at l-3460 Kaumuali'i Hwy,Hanapepe,Kauai County,Hawaii.The proposed construction will be located at the southem portion of the Readiness Center,adjacent to the county sports field.The HF antennas will be approxunately 80 feet taU and have a tuming radius of approximately 60 feet.The proposed undertaking is subject to compliance with Section 106 ofthe NHPA and historic preservation review under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)§6E-8. According to HIARNG's letter,Haaapepe RC is a 3.28-acre site located on the southwest coast ofKaua'i,on the west end of the town of Hanapepe.The site is near the convergence on Haaapepe Valley River and Hanapepe Bay on the coastal plain.The area has been extensively graded and filled,as evidenced by the adjacent park and cemetery.The Hanapepe RC includes seven (7)buildings consisting of the RC,maintenance shop,and storage facilities.The RC land was acquired in 1937 from the US Navy as part of the HIARNG build-up on Kauai.The original RC was constmcted in 1939 to house the 298th and the 299th Infantry Regiments ofthe National Guard that protected Burns Field (the only paved landing field on Kaua'i in 1941)and Port AJlen.The regiments were also assigned at Hanapepe to protect the new field at Lihue under the conunand ofLTC Eugene Fitzgerald.The original RC was a warehouse constructed in 1930 and was used several times as part of evacuation efforts for Kauali Karl K.Motoyama April 3,2020 Fage2 residents.In 1968 the RC was federally activated in response to thc Vietnam War.The original RC was replaced with a one-unit RC,which replaced the original RC m 1988. The HIARNG has defined the Area ofPotential Effect (APE)as the southem portion ofthe Hanapepe RC parcel, which includes the location ofthe utility excavation trenches,foundations and the swing arm radius ofthe antennas, including an 8 ft buflfer around tiie project areas. The installation ofthe HF antennas will require ground disturbance forthe following portion ofthe scope ofwork; 1.Foundations a.The proposed HF antenna project will require ground disturbance for the installation of two ooncrete foundation pads approximately 28 feet and 6 inches long by 28 feet and 6 ioches wide and 6 feet deep; b.A concrete pad for an associated container building will be appro?cimately 30 feet loag by 14 feet wide and be approximately 1 foot deep;and c.Trenching for underground utilities will be approximately 275 linear feet,2 feet wide by 4 feet deep. Cultural Surveys Hawai*i,Inc.(CSH)rccently conducfed an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS),which defines the study area as the endre 4.9-acre (1.98-hectare)HIARNG Site No.15A05 installarion.The report notes that the archaeological survey is part ofa project that inctudes ten installations across five ofthe Hawaiian Islands,totaling approximately 157.72 acres;the Hanapepe Armory mstallatioa,designated as HIARNG Site No.15A05,is one of the ten installations included in this project. According to die Spangler et al.(2019)report>fieldwork mcluded 100%coverage pedestrian survey ofthe study area and subsurface testing consisting of 30 shovel test pits (STPs)(the report contains contradicting numbers of either 24 or 30 STPs).Tbe pedestrian survey was accomplished through sysfeaiaric sweeps spaced 5 m apart on all portions ofthe study parcel lacking structural development.Explor^oiy shovel testmg occurred principally in open green spaces on the mauka side ofthe Armoiy building aloug Kaumuali'i Highway and Puolo Road and in the extreme makai (seaward)areas ofthe study area.Pits generally had a diameter of 0.5 m and terminated around 0.5 to 0.6 m deep.No cultural materials were observed nor collected during the study and no labora<»ry work was conducted.When an AIS results in negative findings,the outcome is reported in archaeotogical assessment (AA)per Hawaii Admuustrative Rules (HAR)§13-275-5.The AA reconunends no further archaeological work for the proposed project. SHPD notes placement of the STPs ^ppears random.The testing did not reach the depth of excavatioa that will be required to cany out the proposed project.According..to what was recefved,letters from HIARNG to initiate oonsultatioo for this project were dated Februaiy 25,2020.The SHPD has not been notified whether any consulting parties requested to participate in consultatioa and whether any infonnation firom consulting parties was received. The HIARNG asserts no historical or archaeological resources have been identified within the proposed APE and all the ground disturbing activities will be located in areas ofprevious disturbance,in a maintained grassy area. The HIARNG states that "while this project could have a potential visual efifect on these properties,there Eu-e already numerous visual impediments in the vicinity,such as the sports field lighting and the utility poles and towers located within the Port Allen mdustriat area...we propose that is project will not have a significant detrimental visual effect on the surrounding historic resources.Due to the existing visual impediments we have determined that the project will have no adverse effect." The SHPO concurs with HIARNG's detemiination of no adverse effect per 36 CFR 800.5.The SHPD Inoks forward to receiving HIARNG's Chapter 6E effect determination per HAR §13-275-7 for the proposed project. Additionally,the SHPO requests all future Section 106 efifect determinations inciude the documentation required per36CFR800.Il. Karl K.Motoyama April 3,2020 Page3 The Spangler et al,(2019)report meets the requirements stipulated in HAR §13-276-5(a)and (c).Pfease send two hard copies ofthe document,cleariy marked FINAL,along with a copy ofthis revlew letter and a text-searchable PDF version on CD to the Kapolei SHPD office,attention SHPD Library.Please also send a PDF version to Lehua.k.Soares(@hawaii.eQv. The HIARNG is the ofGce of record for this undertaking.Please maintain a copy of this letter with your envu-onmental review record for this undertaking. Please contact Stephanie Hacker,Historic Preservation Archaeologlst IV,at Stepbanie.Hacker(fl),hawaii.^ov or at (808)692-8046 for matters regarding archaeological resources or this letter. Aloha, ^la/tSffK/wf Alan S.Downer,PhD Administrator,State Historic Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Ka'aina S.Hull Director ofPlanning Jodi A.Higuchi Sayegusa Deputy Director ofPlanning COUNTY OF KAUA'I PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Kaua'i County Historic Preservation Review Commission I.SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC:Section 106 consultation for the proposed installation of two new 80 foot tall,60 foot wide (tuming radius),25-kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF)antennas at the Hanapepe Readiness Center (RC),and the finding of'no adverse effects"to historic properties. II.PROJECT DATA III.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE BACKOROUND The subject lot ofrecord is located at Puolo Road in Hanapepe.The subject lot ofrecord is approximately 1.7590 acres in size,and it is located in Hanapepe Ahupuaa,Kona Moku, Kaua'i Island,Hawai'i.It is located within the County ofKaua'i's Open Zoning District, State Land Use Urban District,and General Plan Designation Natural. The Applicant is seeking a permit to construct two new 80 foot tall,60 foot wide (tuming radius),25-kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF)antennas at the Hanapepe Readmess Center (RC). IV.ADDITIONAL FINDINGS t4.1. JUN 1 7 2021 ^.k». n/1^021 Parcel Location:Hanapepe Tax Map Key(s):(4)1-8-008:078 &:029 Area:1.7590 ac&10.5320ac LAND USE DESIGNATIONS &VALUES Zoning:Open State Land Use District:Urban General Plan Designation:Natural Owner(s):State ofHawai'i TMK:(4)1-8-008:078 &:029 Marchl9,2020 Page 2 of4 Per the Hanapepe-'Ele 'ele Commumiy Development Plan (1 974),"Building Design Criteria Height Limits": "There is presently a 35-foot height limit allowed for the commercial area. However,any new structures along Hanapepe Road should be limited to two stories or less,rather than 35 feet as such,to be compatible with existing structures. Allowance of over two stories or 20 feet,should be by special permit or variance only,and subject to review." Per the County ofKaua 'i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (1972),as amended,there is currently no height limitation for the Open District.However,specific height limitations for the Commercial District,the most liberal zomng district with regards to height limitations,does set forth clear restrictions: (1)No building within a General Commercial District shall exceed fifty (50) feet in height measured from the ground level ofthe primary building entrance. (2)No building within the Neighborhood Commercial District shall exceed thirty-five (35)feet in height measured from the ground level ofthe primary building entiance nor shall the building contain more than two (2)stories." Although subject to federal preemption,the following regulations and policies may not apply under a County permit,they are relevant considerations wheii considering the effects on view planes from the Historic Hanapepe Town. V.AGENCY COMMENTS None. VI.EVALUATION Based on the design criteria set forth in the existing Hanapepe-'Ele 'ele Commumty Development Plan (1974)and the County ofKaua 'i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (1972),and based on the clear absence ofexisting buildings and stmctures standing over 50 feet tall within the Hanapepe Town area,this proposed project will most Ukely have a negative impact on the view planes,character,and feeling ofthis historic and unique West Kaua'i town. VII.CONCLUSION Based on the information contained in the Report's Findings and Evaluation,the Planning Department concludes that the proposed installation ofthe two 80 foot antenna,will have an adverse impact on the feeling,setting,association,and location ofthe subject property, TMK:(4)1-8-008:078 &:029 March 19,2020 Page3of4 as well as adverse impact affecting the signature,unobstructed view planes of several other historic properties in Hanapepe Town. VIII,RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion,the Planning Department recommends that the Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission NOT CONCUR with the Hawai'i Army National Guard's finding ofno adverse effect,provided that: 1.Applicant shall ensure that the architectural form,style,and material used for the proposed renovation is consistent with the U.S.Secretary oflnterior Standards & Guidelines,and does not detract from or significantly alter the historic integrity ofthe existing property. 2.Applicant shall consider design altematives that will be less intrusive and offensive to the Hanapepe community,its view planes,and its landscape.Alternatives should include:implementing the minimum required height limitation for the fimctional antennas to reduce the negative impact and visual obstruction caused by the excessive massing that greatly exceeds the structural height limitations set forth by the County of Kaua i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (1972)and the Hanapepe-'Ele 'ele Community Devetopment Plan (1974),using appropriate camouflage and color schemes to best mitigate for the massing and visual obstruction caused,and consideration for the relocation ofthe two 80 foot tall antennas to a less intrusive site further away from Hanapepe Town. 3.Applicant shall incorporate design strategies to mitigate for the height and obtrusiveness ofthe two massive antennas tbat greatly exceed the lieight limits ofall other buildings and structures (including the stadium lights and utility poles mentioned in the Section 106 correspondence)in Hanapepe Town. The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department s final recommendation in view ofthe forthcoming public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making,The entire record includes but is not be limited to: a.Govermnent agency comments; b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and c.The land owner's response. ALEX WONG Planner TMK:(4)1-8-008:078 &:029 Marchl9,2020 Page 4 of4 Approved &Recommended to Commission: Date :A.filGtjCHYSAYEGU( Deputy Director of PIanning :3//2/a<5-%) Hanapepe Antenna Project Mission and Purpose Project Overview Regulatory Guidance Site Overview Weather Impaets Site Viewsheds Conclusion ti.l. JUN 1 7 2021 1992 -Hurricane 'lniki The Hawai'i National Guard and Kaua'i Hurricane Iniki Emergency Response State of Hawaii Department of Defense A.^.JL;^*September n-30.1992 iS^^^s'/-''""•• 2018-Flash Floods and Landslides 2020 -COVID19 Pandemic Support Mission and Purpose Federal Mission The Hawai'i National Guard provides fully-manned,operationally- ready,and well-equipped units that can respond to any national contingency ranging from war and peacekeeping missions to nation-building operations State Mission The Hawai'i National Guard provides organized,trained units to protect h-lawaii's citizens and property,preserve peace,and ensure public safety in response to natural or human-caused disasters Purpose The purpose of this project is to provide emergency communications for all-hazard domestic emergencies and disasters;provide non-commercial communications;provide inter-island emergency communications;communicate with the National Guard Bureau (NGB)and inter-agency partners for all-hazard domestic preparedness,response,and recovery communications Project Overview Project is the direct result ofthe impacts of Hurricane 'lniki and Senator Inouye's calls for better systems of communications and the need for a technology center to improve disaster safety in Hawai'i in suppori:of Hawai'i State Civil Defense and to "use the high-technology we have set aside to prevent wars.-.to prevent disasters." Based on the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)site surveys and internal assessments,the Hanapepe Armory site met the most operational requirements and wasthe preferred alternative chosen The safety and security of the people of Hawai'i is a primary concern and this project will provide the residents of not only Kaua'i,but of all the Hawaiian islands,a communications asset capable of communicating in an all-hazards environment The island of Kaua'i will benefit by having a no cost,long-range communication system available before,during or after natural or manmade disasters Enhances the Hawai'i National Guard (HING)role in support of the community during times of crisis Provides additional full-time HING members to the community Project Overview Continued Hawai'i State Historic Preservation Office has provided concurrence •Visual assessments conducted show impacts are minimal from a historical,cultural and viewshed analysis due to the location,surrounding area light and power poles and actual antenna material •Antenna bases will be buried,providing a more aesthetic view near the site No guyed (guy)wires or lights on the antenna,reducing the likelihood of strike impacts and fallouts ofthe Newell's Shearwater ('A'o),Hawaiian Petrel ('Ua'u),and Band-rumped Storm Petrel ('Ake 'Ake) •The site is located outside of the 100 year flood zone and protected by Hanapepe Bay There is extremely low risk of radio frequency exposure due to the location,height,power output and frequency range (2.0 -30.0 MHz)ofthe system 1 Regulatory Guidance Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)5:Manaaement of Domestic Incidents •Mandates a resilient and redundant communications capability to support all levels of government to prevent,prepare for,respond to,and recover from terrorist attacks,major disasters,and other emergencies Presidential Policy^Directiye (PPD)8:National Preparedness Goal Recognizes that preparedness and Operational Coordination requires resilient and redundant communications capabilities Department of Defense Directiye (DO^D)5105.77:National Guard Bureau (NGB) •Mandates that the Chief,NGB,supervises the NGB's functions as the channel of communications on National Guard matters with the States,in accordance with section 10501 ofTitle 10 United States Code Mandates that the Chief,NGB,provides liaison,coordination,assistance,and support to the National Guard Joint Force Headquarters-State,pursuant to DODD 5105.83 Department of Defense Directiye (DODD)51p5.83:JMationa^lGuard Joint Forces Headauarters (JFHQ)- State •Establishes a JFHQ-State in each of the 54 states and territories of the United States composed of the NG leadership of that State,to support Federal missions and State missions when appropriate Requires the maintenance of capabilities to extend interoperable communications for command and control,shared situational awareness,and unity of effort to a domestic incident site Site Overview Weather Impacts ;.""•""^"s'*•>«•»,? tlanapnp*^,,^_^ H-flhtt ""t"^ "^rf'"—1*' Ak.inl^..•\. \ V. CAT1 Storm Surge Msp (Hawaii) CAT1 Storm Surge Map [Hawait) 00 to 07 feet above ground 01 to 02 feet above ground 02to03feetdboveground 03 to 04 feet above grounct 04 to 06 feetabaveground OS to 06 feet above ground 06 to 07 feet above ground 07 to 06 feet above ground 08 to 09 feet aboveground 09 to 10 feet abovegfound 10 feet and gre-aterabove grou.nd E'.lPDCI IS===|Tfcategory 1 Hurricane Storm Surge Map 8 akanl\ '^l •\ Weather Impacts Continued *.•-^?i »""'"»'"^" s""^"sv "•:"i °..-•' [i .l±i IPDCI Category4 Hurricane Storm Surge Map CAT4 Stc..r--i Surae Map [Haw; CAT4 Storm SurgeMap fHawaii] 00 to 01 feet above ground 01 to 02 feet above ground 02 to 03feetabovieground 03 to 04 feet above ground 04 to 05 feet above ground 05 to 06 feet aboive ground 06 to 07 feet above ground 07 to 08 feet above ground 08to09feetaboveground 09 to lOfeetabovegrou.nd 10 ta 11 feet above ground 11 feetandgnsater Weather Impacts Continued OSD Screenlng Map Project IffSUW Sif:Hanapapa SEiEi^EillSlffigaBfeS-'Ei.eiSg^ 100YearFlood Zone (Blue)and 500 Year Flood Zone (Tg ) 10 Site Viewshed Overview 11 Cs) m t0 CD Conclusion The hlawai'i National Guard and the National Guard Bureau request the Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)provide preliminary comments pursuant to the Section 106 process based on the information provided to add an emergency communications capability to support the island of Kaua'i and state of hlawai'i in an all-hazard environment The project is no cost to the State -All equipment,manning and maintenance will be the responsibilityofthe National Guard The HING and NGB will ensure all natural and cultural resource compliance requirements are completed (Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA),National hlistoric Preservation Act (NHPA)and State hlistoric Preservation Office) The Hawai'i National Guard and the National Guard Bureau look forward to continuing to foster the relationship ofworking with the people of Kaua'i and providing the support and security that the National Guard has excelled at providing in the past,present and the future Updated architectural drawings and further information are available upon request 18 Shanlee Jimenez From: Sent: To: Subj'ect: Attachments: Marisa Valenciano Friday,June04,2021 3:10 PM Shanlee Jimenez FW:KHPRC Meeting HING_Presentation_to_KHPR_17June21.pdf FYI From:Hickman,Jeffrey D <jeffrey.d.hickman@hawaii.gov> Sent:Wednesday,May 26,2021 5:19 PM To:Marisa Valenciano <mvalenciano@kauai.gov> Cc:Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa <jhiguchi@kauai.gov>;Conkle,Heath CIV NG NG J3-4-7 (USA)<heath.conkle.civ@mail.mil> Subject;RE:KHPRC Meeting CAUTION:Thisemail originated from outsidethe CountyofKauai.Do notclick linksoropen attachments even ifthe sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. Aloha Marisa, Here are our slides for 17 June.Thank you for letting me send to you this week.We look forward to presenting and speaking to the Commission. Mahalo, Jeff MAJ (RET)Jeff Hickman Director,Public Affairs State of Hl,Dept of Defense Email:.^"'^.::-.:.r^;;'-i,',=<^. Office:808-441-7000 Cell:808-779-8008 '^/ \\-\^'m \^^ HanaoeDe Antenna Proiect Missionand Purpose Project Review Last Meeting Review Questions Review and Answers Site Viewsheds Additional Architectural Drawings Conclusion UUN1 7 2021 Proiect Review Project is the direct result ofthe impacts of Hurricane 'lniki and Senator Inouye's calls for better systems of communications and the need for a technology center to improve disaster safety in Hawai'i in support of Hawai'i State Civil Defense and to "use the high-technology we have set aside to prevent wars...to prevent disasters." Based on the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)site surveys and internal assessments,the Hanapepe Armory site met the most operational requirements and was the preferred site chosen The safety and security of the people of Hawai'i is a primary concern and this project will provide the residents of not only Kaua'i,but of all the hlawaiian islands,a communications asset capable of communicating in an all-hazards environment The island of Kaua'i will benefit by having a no cost,long-range communication system available before,during or after natural or manmade disasters Enhances the hlawai'i National Guard (HING)role in support ofthe community during times of crisis Provides additional full-time HING members to the community Proiect Review Continued State Historic Preservation Office has provided concurrence Visual assessments conducted show impacts are minimal from a historical, cultural and viewshed analysis due to the location,surrounding area light and power poles and actual antenna material Antenna bases will be buried,providing a more aesthetic view near the site No guyed (guy)wires or lights on the antenna,reducing the likelihood of strike impacts and fallouts ofthe Newell's Shearwater ('A'o),Hawaiian Petret ('Ua'u),and Band-rumped Storm Petrel ('Ake 'Ake) The site is located outside of the 100 year flood zone and protected by Hanapepe Bay The antennas meet all health and safety requirements Last Meetina Review Mission and Purpose Project Overview Regulatory Guidance Site Overview Weather Impacts Site Viewsheds Conclusion Questions Review &Answers •Sea Level Rise Other Sites Considered and Reasoning why not chosen Other Designs Considered Photos of the area (actual on the ground photos -see slide 6) Disagreement of the "no significant effect /impact..."from SHPD letter Other sites on Kaua'i that are taller/higherthan these antennas Alternate Communications types Include new (other)graphics and drawings (slide 7) 10 Additional Architectural Drawinas DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.STATE OF HAWAII HAWAII ARMY NATfONAL GUARO (H1ARNG1 HF ANTENNA TOWER PROJECT HANAPEPE,KAUA'I,HAWAI'I v'""> II lillll'ii'ji i.iii !1 !ll3jl liili'ii •s" '•^e- ,85B iiil^as M^y. '^5 l4^= yr^lVyyWSSlXWL- x JBPEW -^•1"i,'s'/'7 ii'w iS5i ". IISIEH Note:All Architectural drawings have been submitted as a 7 separate document to the Committee The Hawai'i National Guard and the National Guard Bureau request the Kaua'i hlistoric Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC)provide comments based on the information provided to add an emergency communications capability to support the island of Kaua'i and state of Hawai'i in an all-hazard environment The project is no cost to the State -All equipment,manning and maintenance will be the responsibility ofthe National Guard The hllNG and NGB will ensure all natural and cultural resource compliance requirements are completed (Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA),National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)) The Hawai'i National Guard and the National Guard Bureau look forward to continuing to foster the relationship of working with the people of Kaua'i and providing the support and security that the National Guard has excelled at providing in the past,present and the future 8 From:Hickman.Jeffrev D To:Marisa Valenciano Cc:Conkle.Heath CIV NG NG J3-4-7 (USA1 Subject:Hawaii National Guard Hanapepe Antennae Projed Date:Fnday,May 28,2021 1:52:37 PM Attachments:imaaeOOl.DrK] imaae002.Dna imaae003.Dna imaae004.Dna Architectural Drawfnas Final.pdf CAUTION:This email originated from outside the County ofKauai.Do not click links or open attachments even ifthe sender is known to you unless it is something you were expectmg. Aloha Marisa, Below is a picture of the antenna.The lower one,with no guyed wires is the style that we are using, but the top pic has a better close up view of what the top looks like. Also attached are the architectural drawings. \\\.h. tJUN 1^2021 UNITED STATES ANTENNA PRODUCTS.LLC 25 KW LPloniCA on 3002FA Guyed Tuwer LPlaniCA on 3U12FS Fm'standing Tower Mahalo, Jeff MAJ(RET)JeffHickman Director,PublicAffairs State of Hl,Dept of Defense Email:Jeffrey.d.hickmaniahawaii.gov Office:808-441-7000 Cell;808-779-8008 (/«^.l'<®'^^^^ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,STATE OF HAWAII HAWAII ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (HIARNG) HF ANTENNA TOWER PROJECT HANAPEPE,KAUA'I,HAWAI'I KAUAI f NIIHAU HAWAIIAN ISLANDS OAHU MOLOKA1 C^7_ PAC1FIC OCEAN LANAI^^-VMAUI C3.1 KAHOOLAWE "'L'LV"J1_ ADU <0sss;fc "ai;silIsSa j2S| ^(U'(U .. oS lsls!|3g Siii^O^ !SP@ I <c IriliMli£^s §i<s AO.O ^gg PUOLO ROAD HAWAII ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ANTENNA TOWERS 1-3460 KAUMUALII HIGHWAY. HANAPEPE,KAUAI,Hl TMK(4)1-08-008:078 MARC VENTURA,AIA,LLC 4202 Rice St. Lihue,Kaua'i 96766 Phone:8082463936 Fax:8082463936 i'i' PUOLOROAD, > M HAWAII ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ANTENNA TOWERS 1-3460 KAUMUALII HIGHWAY, HANAPEPE,KAUAI 96716 TMK(4)1-08-008:078 OEECfiJPTIOK MARC VENTURA,AIA.LLC 4202 Rice St. Lihue,Kaua'i 96766 Phone-8082463936 Fax:8082463936 s 1DWLR D^SluN COhiaKMS 10 5IANDARD \\h--~^^'^-u UIILIZINIj A^I .iU UP^J-SJL(J CUSI BA^Il;rtlND ^^LLD •yiTH A SIHUC1URE CLAS5 W 1 i. UTtGONr 01 1 tHO EiPOiUllt C [•RlftRu WITH hU Itl FOWHi DE51CN COHFUtiMS FO STANi^Rl/11i-?;;J .1^UTILIZINC ^N lij^UPn i-SEC ^USI RA&K'.fllND ^PF?D WITH A ^TffUr.TUHE CLA^S OF 1 ;, IClPuGRdl'Hli:C.lllliOBf 01'I *KU •.iPdSURf C CBIILWA IBIIH .i"BAlilni ICE. 2.NC^TWL^I ^hli ^WAT LitillAI'OH^5PEClfl£:D DH USFI)FOfi IhlS l^^^fi. J MtrtHUl.i*)SOLID BCUS FO nSH.l A572 (.KAnE i0 (B>nWt.l.tS TU tSIH Aj6.(f PIPE ID nST[.4 kSOO (,K*L1E B.|D)STCtL PLdlt^10 nSH*n.16.(L)L'onnECTiON uOi.l'i 1U Uiu iiu'i uu fi'u id41 ((u.^l .iD hSi IND I'./sS.'kSII nW ANl.HOR BOITS TO ASIU FIS'i^(fii=15[)KSI Wll t,=1[i5 KSI). EA3[REaCIlOF-tS f'ER Tu-2?2-l;FOU 1 M UF'"BhSlf W1ND SPEED WlTf N0 |C£(«[M:tlOhS INCLUO[nt.;;2-C LO<C FtCTORS): [UI*!.Wtl[;»1=311.0 hlH<i. COuPBESilON -i0/O KIPS PtN LLt..MBUtNT -^c(]-i [)Klp-.fl.unXIUUM UPLIft -.'!i3.0 nl-S P[(t LEG.MWIMUW i.BaSf BE1CT111NS PEN 1]1-.'-;;-G ;W Idi MFH 3f,ll;WIND SPFIll WIFH D.SC"liADML ICE (nEtt'IIONS INCLUDC T11~;;2-G LOtD FtCIORiil IfllkL WLir,H!=0 Kll"i.UOMENI ]s ;;'D.U eiP-H MAilMUU SHEdh -.51.0 hlPi>iflltL. FINISH-ALL EiOLI^AHE GAL^^N12LU IN ^CCOPDANCL W11H ^5TM,l153 (HUF DtfPCD)Oft 4sru 0&9^CLAS^5U (M^CHAMIC/IL}.ALL OTHER STnuCIUBAL UIICRIIL'-aBE titL"ANI;E[i IN M.CaBUtNCF WIIH ASIMliS. BNILNNAS'102'-(II tl'i ilNTENNft LP-IUUS LOC PtFltlDIC W.!M (1;1-S/6"Ll •]•10 1(1;'(I)IC"DI"U£1[B UOlAIOR SHIFT OH CCNIhUIU OF FO^EK (A|[LiftllONS *RE TO THE UOIIOU Clf THE ANIENNaS EICEPI FOn UICftOVIflt D1SHES.WHK.M ilB[TO THE E.[NTERLIN[. ti.l^cwa^E fou^cjAnoN FCMPLATE ^HiOti ro ERCCTII^lOWLh iNSTML flA-aL ^tCKON wiril MiWiMUM OF 2 'L'LLAI^ANCE.AGOVE CONtJHLT^. SEF B^^E ^tCllON PLACCWENT PAGE FDR UOflE INFUf/MAIIOM.PACK NOh-'iHKINK SFRLJCT^AAL UhQUT UN&Cft EsASJ:SrCilO^I AFTER LEV£IIM{/ TDw^fr. WEL'JS ^/Ih'UNL^SS LtIMERwi^L ^f^cl^'IED.ALL ^ELblN^TO COnfOfrM 1U AWS Dl.1 SI^LCEt'I^AriDN^, IU T111S DlitWIHLt BOLS N01 INDII.AIE tHL METHCDOr CaNSINUCHON ]H[':UNtR*[IOB SHiLL SUPEItulSt nNDDIRECT THL WOSK Wb Ht fiOLIS AND NUTS MU^T 6E IM PLACE:QEFORF 1HE ADJOIH'NG ^CTIUI-l^ARC INS^AIIE.D. SIBUCFUIiU BOL1S jNE TO lli lll.HILNIU TO I,SNU1,'II-HI COKBIIION AS i>[FIMEO Bl t^t:•iPECIFICBTION UNLtSS OIHCBWIiE ArTCR riN^L nUriTNLNINO II/L..;^;'c ^ROUNDI^<±f'Oh ro't'^fi. 5r -B~0\A ROTAT&H BW FUUNDtllON. INSULLED *T 10W(R CENIROID HOIi:FUK INS1ALUITION SFECIflfTION AUDinOMAL INFOBuniQN SEE TOWEK MANUFACIUBS.5P£CS ,,TOWER FOUNDATION LAYOUT"ti8"=r-o" MWC VENTURft.AIA.1 LC 0 U -B 5ECTION u -a SECTION P:?TIrf^i' a.;A- i'l \1/;'t—-"ANTEHNA TOWtK i./^.'<(SEE','..'';'\'.'!, M*HUr*CTunE ^;—i^i 3fE(:s) \1^—.—— ^../'ax•'< f./1\3IT1!J :iiM-t'"'irl/lg-'i\li8- ""'°"s x Si.'21LO\?'l;'l^^'*.l[~.'<1 U -14 |i';;;"""T":;:'-J| SECTION §'•-<§l/-"'rl"^.i •^..._1^^. A1.1-BEB*B5 BEUUIRE 3'CBVtfi iO'-O" PIEB roonHt;Wl 3TBUCTUB*l PLBNS) BOTATOa BOt rOOTIHt; (S[E STRUCTUBAI- PUMS) W 50.FOUNDAIiflN (SEE S7RU[:TUIiAL PUHS) TOWER ELEVATION 1f8"^T'-il" 3 SSg5-1s!s 1111Q w ill |3glliOZ ^^ l^co=ss 1>:~§S253°ilss^l^iu?1 iu Trrii A2.1 SITE INFORMATION PHOJECI srtE TMK LOTAREn COVEREC LOT ANEA. ZOWNG FLOODTONE: (ifi^iBcn n.ais s F (4n)3<',8»SF OPENZONE MARC VENTURA.AIA.LLC 3 s':<^.K_',wg<"c^ tD Q ilKg !^00 tD N. 01 O IIII "=£5 ^ i~5S 2 co<5 £"° ^±uUJ T:- IFIt$-|S A1.1 12"BREAKDOWN LEG 5ECTIONS SEE PAGE 2 ROTOR MOUNT AND SUPPORT ASSEMBLY NOT SHOW FOR CLARITY. AOO ANGLE PART NUMBER ADDED ROTATOR BOX FOUNOATIOMS u^s 03/0</2014 02/1fi/2014 UNITED STATES TOWER SERVICE ANCHORAGE.<K U-14.0 X 95' AODED FOUNDATIOH 02/06/2014 (EIGHT CHANGED FROU 100 FEE7 SKK 01/08/2014 APPROTEDAHO.ISKK13AA014 DESCR1PTION OF REVISJONS APPR&VEO/FOUNO. COPYRICHT 2014 M/A From fiai5aB4.DFT -01/09/2014 13:55 'rlptid from 25256BJ1100.OWC •01/09/2014 15;08 ft 05/01/2014 16:571 ENG.FILE NO.A-238592- ARCHIVE _.F-1015854 valinonf^ STRUCTURE5 DRAWINC N0. 252568 PASE _1 OF 8 TTPtML BREAKDOWN SECTJON ASSEMBLV (12"LES)O'-95'ELEVATION TVPE 1 HOffIZOHTJU.S AS R£0'[>.SEE PACE ABOVE fOB ELEVAT10N *HO PAHT f, DIASOMAL BltACE -SEE TMLE ABOVC FM PART KUUBCR.US£ *LOCK IASKER UWEIt EACK PL*tH UJT FWt OIACOWAL COWECT10H ONLf.MO R.AT tASHER REBUIRED. OIACOHM.ce.wex COWECTIOM is I/A'x a'BOLT. LEO ASSOB4.V -SEE TABLE ABOVE FOfi PAB1 HUUBER, OIABOHAL COHWCTIOW BOLT -SEE SECT10N TABLE ABOVE FOS SIZr.<T LEVELS »1W TYFE t HOniIDNTALS,SEE HOfilZOtlTAI.TWLC ABOVE FOft BOLT Sllt. •usc spACfn p*sr ;10^291 BETIEEN DiAOOfuL AwaLES. LEO CCMHeCriWI -BEC TdBLE ABOVt rCK B01.T SIZE.USE 1 FLAT «AStd ANO 1 LOCK WASHER UNCOt EACH PLAEM HUT FOR LEO COWMCCTION.M.SO USE 1 FLAT WASMeft UNDeB UCH HDLT KAO *KERE BUSHINOS ARE REOUIREB. UNITED STATES TOWER SERVICE ANCHORAGE.AK U-14.0 X 95' ADD ANOLE PART HUMBER KEICHT CHANGED FROM 100 FEET DESCR1PTION W REVISIONS 03/04/2014 01/09/ZOK APPROVED/ENO.|SKK13/4/2014 APPRWEPAOUNO.I COPYR1GH7 2014 N/A From:F1015854.DFT -Ol/Dg/2014 13:55 Prlnt_*d_from 252568 _02 ,DWC *03/04/2014 11:56 9 05/01/20K 16:! ENG.FILE NO.A-238592 ARCHIVE__F-10L5854 valmont^ ORAW1NC N0. 252568 PACE_Z OF 8 BREAKDOWI SECTION DATA (12"LEG)O'-BB'ELEVArlON AMGLE HORIZONTAL OATA (12"LEG) SEC JL- SECTIOI IBiflnL LEO ^IZE L£0 PAflT* rop OIAC ^yiK- WT OIAfl fAnT*UAaiM ^ANCLE 1T1 Bi ^CTION KIfflff LEa^a WECT BflTTOU +-EtUfl.CttCSl HORlZl JtL IN _^c* HOfilZ PART* KOftlZ TWE ua- ^AEL TMKJT liS:LEHSTttj KSiSSS ftf^JEWM BIAU 1LFMOTH u-a.o|is'1-»/•*•ziaioi iaoB;a.10M13 3/1 fl'1 2B34*1 '3-i/n 1 •A-l/<BS u-a.o IOSMB 1 t'X 3-1/2" u-a.o[IQ'1-t/B'ZZ4104 losaia inaaia _a/ia*2W3^1 •3-1-^1 I •2-1/< U-10.01 tff l_i/i »856flT t066M ipwo»s/ie*aia»f 1 •3-1^V|1 •;-./•• U-1Z.01 to'1-3/4-t»SM7 IOOS?i!10M7B a/ta"aiTif 1 "<-1/*1 iizeoi t •a-i/4- U-t4.0|10'i •IflSSBfl tl340tt 113410 a/ia'3fSt{l-1/4-a-3/4* THE WEIBHtS LttTCT E THEOflETICAt..THE ACTUAL WEICHTS IflLL VAftY.ALL 11EICHTS SHOULD Be COWFIRHEB IH TW FIBLO PRIM TO OtECTlON. SEC ANCLE tWnilONTU.DATA TABLE FW OOLT attE AT LCVEI.S NlrH TTM l rtOfttIONTAL^ +WC 1 FLAT •ASHEB UWCT EACH LttCK •ASWH FOK LEO COWCtrtOH WLY.ALSU USIE 1 FLATWMHen UNOEB EACM BOLT WJU)*HERE BUSHtWS S REOUIREO. GENERAL NOTES TONER OeSlW WWWUS TO STANOAftB Tlft-Z;Z-0 UTILIIIHCf AN »0 UPH 3-SEC GVST BASIC »I^D SPEED Iim A STRUC1URE CLASS W tl,TOPOCRAPHIC CMEGOflr OF 1 ANO EXPBSURE C CRITDttA NtTH N0 ICE. TOWU OESI«<CONFO«WS TO STANOASO TtA-ZZZ-0 UTILIIIW *N IOS WH 3-SEC GUST BASIC NIW SPEtll •1 A 5IRUCWRE U.ASS Of 11,TOPOSHAPHIC CATEOOSY Of 1 AND EWBSUne C UtlTCTIA •1TH .S'1A01AL ICE. W T»IST *HO S»AV LIUITAT10NS SPECIF1EO 00 UStD FOU THIS TO»Elt. UArER)AL;<A)SOLIO ftOOS TO ASTU A57Z 6RAOC W.(B)WWLES TO ASIU *3».(C)PIPE TO Mn ASOO GRADE 8,(D]SIEEL PLATCS TO ASTK AM.(E] CONWCTtON BOL7S TO ASIW *3ZB W ASTU M4B (Fu-lM KSI *MD Fy-BZ KSI)AHO ANCMOn BO.T5 10 *sn F1M4 (Pll-ISO KS!AND Fy-IOS KSt). BASE RUCTIONS PCT TtA-ZZZ-0 FGR 1AO ItPK BASIC IIND SPEEO •ITH N0 iCE (REAtTIONS INGt.UUE T[Jl-2Zi-0 LOAO FACTORS):TOTAL 11EJCKT •30.0 KIP5. IUKIUUU COWftESSION -»7.0 KIPS PER L£t.UOUEKT -3ft&5.O KIP-FT.KAX1UUU Uft.lFT -ZB?.O KIPS PEB LEO,KAKIMUU SHEAR -<g.O KIPS TOTAL. •ASE (ICACTIONS PCR TiA-aaa-o fon tos UPH BASIC iiiw SWED »IIM o.so*N«OIAL ice <Rucnwa iiiia-uoE ^lK-s^^~o LOAO FACTons);TOTAL wticm • 57.O KIPS.UOUENT -Z270,O KIP-Tr.tUXIWUM SH&W -31.&KIPS 70TAL. FINISH!*LL BOt.TS WtE CALVAMI1EO IN ACCOROAWCC »nH ABIUAIB3 (HOT BIPPEO)W ASTU 8605 CtASS a0 (UECHANICM.).AU.OTWEn STRUCTUR*L IUTMIU.S AKE B4LVANIIEO IM ACCOflOWtCE NITH A3TN10. ANTEHHAS;10Z'-(l)US ANTENNA LP-100*lOfl fCRICOIC NttH (1)1-S/B*LIHe 4'TO 102'(1)10"oiAuereR HOTATOR SHWT ON CCNIBOIO OF TO*UI UOTE;(*}ELEVATIONS AfC TO THE eOTTOil OF TW AKTENWS EXCepr FOR UICROtlkVE OISttES.•HICH *1!E TO TOE CENTIRL1W,(B)*LL TBANSUISSION LIKES UUST B£PLACCO W PIROO SUPPL1EO 1-INE WtACKETS PAKT f lltaift, neuove F<UHO*IION TCUPLATE PRIOI TO EBecTiNo TO<CB.I>ST*LL B*se secriwi NITH UINIUUU OT z'CIEARWCE ABOW CONWETE.SEE B*S£SECTICN PLACEieNT FA6E Ffln UOftE ItTOWUTIOM PACK NON-SHtIIK SIiWCTURAl.WOUT UNDEB WSE SECTtON AFTER LEVELINC TOIKfl. UtM.WELBS S/t»*UN-ESS OTHeRttSe SPECiriU.ALL tELOtMO TO CONFOftU TO AtS 01.1 SPECIFICAT10KS . TH(S OIWNIHO DOES NOT INOIMTE FHE WETHW W COKSIRUCTION.THE CONTRACIOS SHJU-L SUpeWISE MO OIRECT TKE WW AW HE StULt.BE tOLELT ncapoiuiBLc rw ALL coKSTnucTjox ucws,scQueoces AW PKOCCOUBES. AU.80LTS ANO HUTS UUST B£IN PLACE BEFORE THE WJOIMIMO SECTIWS *RE IHSTALLEO. AU-STRUOTURAt.BOLTS MC TO 86 TtattTEKEO TO A SNUO TIGHT COWOITION M DEFINEO SY AISC SFEC1FIMTION U(t£SS UTKRWISE NOTED. AneHTtOM TO*ER ERECTflfc COAT AL1-BOLT ASSEJinLI£ST*<*T USE PIH LOCK WTS •11*1 IIMC RtCM CW.D eALVAMIIItW CttUPOUU AfT£n FIHAL TICHTNEN1KO. Vl/i-ttt-9 (RttUMDINO FOR TOXER. HEIGHT CHANGED FROM 100 FEET DESCRIPT10N OF REVISIONS SKK 01/09/20t4 DATE FrwK F1015B54.DFT -Ot/Dfl/ZOt4 13:55 Prtntad from 252568_D38A.DWC *03/05/2014 15:4B O 05/01/2014 16:i UNITED STATES TOWER SERVICE ANCHORAGE,*K U-14.O X 95' APPROVEDAKS.|a<K|3/4/20t4 APPROVED/ytUMO.I COPYRIGHT 2014 MVC &iK 3/5/Z01-( ENG.FILE N0.A-23B592- ARCHIVE:F-1015854 valmont^ i-OT-ttt.in)rmfi ni STRUCTUSES OffAWINC N0. 252568 PAC£3 OF 8 FOUNDATION NOTES t.SOIL AS FER REPORT BV MOflTWRH CeOTECHWICAL CKOINEEflINO.OATE&Ot/lfl/l*(PmMECTt3Sa2-lM.1) i.COHCnETE TO BE 3000 PSI •M OATS.ftEINrOftCINC BAR TO WHFBftU TO ASTM AB1»CMOC 80 SMCtFlCATtOMS,CONCftETE 1MCTKLLATIOH 70 COWOflM Ttt ACt-StB (ZOOB)BUILOtNO REOUtnaeKiS FWl REINFOnCCD WWCRETE.*LL CONCRETE TO BE PLACEO AOAIIiW UWISTUtBeO EJUtTH FREE OF •ATER AW>AU.rOnEIBK 6&JCCTS MO UATERIU.S,A UINtUU)BF TMREE IMCHES W COHOtCTE SHALL COVDt AU.REllTOBCEUENr.IELOIHS OF RESAR WOT PERUfTTED. 3.A COLO JBIHT IS PERMISSIBLE UPOM COHSULTATtCM NITH PtlWO.ALl.OOU1 JOIWTS SKALL SE COATED •ITH aOHOINO AtCHTS miOR TO <ECOM>PBlffi. ».ALL FILI-SmUtO 6E FUCEO M LOOSE LCVEI-L1FTS OFVO UOHE TWAN B'THltK.PILL UATEniALS SHOULD BE CLEMK A FnSE OF OtaAMlC ^ FRBZEH UATEniAtS OR ANY OTHER DELETERIOUS UArEKJAl.S.COUPACr FILL 10 •9t OF UUBlFtec PROOTOR XAKIUUU OnY OUSnT IH ACCOROAHCC •ITH MTV Bt557. BOtDINft,STMICHTeNINO OR REM-ICNlNa (KOT W COLO)OF TW ANCHOR B0t.rs BV AHT 1CTHOO IS Pft&HIBnEO. WOW TOF OF FOWOATIOH FOR PROPER OftAlNACE. ftC OM-SITE OE07ECttlIC*L tNOlNEER S1ULL CONFIRU THAT IMC ENStTU SOIL STROM1THS UEET Oft EXCEtO THOSE PAR*UETERS OSVEH IH TW SOtL REPOflT. PMEUWATie HAUfUS,IIIPnWt,WC/W BUSTINO UAV ae ncouiiiEO ro ROWVE NATEOIAL nou Tne EXCAVATIW. MW SWt OK WfSWBLE SUBCRADE SOILS DETECTEO DUH1NO ne EXCAVATIOH SltOUI.0 BE HEUOVEC AHO REPLACEO WITH COWACTCD FILL. SUBOKADC niEPAIlATIWa WB BACKFILLIIW UUST BC COUPLErED PEK TKE SPECIFICATtCN tM TW ItEFCTEHCCO OCOTCCHHIML flEPORT ABOVE, TJNITED STATES TOWER SERVICE ANCHORAGE,AK U-14.0 X 95' ADDED FOUNOA7IOH HEIWT CHANGED FROM 100 FEET DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS 02/06/2014 01/09/2014 APPROVEOANO.ISKK13/4/2014 OATE APPROVEO/rOUNO.1 COPYRIGHT 2014 MVC JAK 3/5/2014 From:F101S864.DFT -02/06/2014 13:22 'rtnttd frorn 252S68_04flB.OWG -02/06/20t4 _t4._2S_9 05/0t/2014 16;! EN6,FILE NO.A-238592- ARCHIVE F-1015854 valmont^ STRUCTURES ORAWING N0. 252568 PACE._4 OF 8 3"ROUNO,CENTERED AROUND THE CIRCUL^R REBAR CAGE -)| 5'-2-1/4" |6'-O-3/4" 12'-1-1/2" 6'-O-3/4" _L 5'-2-1/4" 5'-6"-^ PIER 14' 22'-6' MOTE; THE CENTROID OF THE TOWER ANO THE CENTROID OF THE FOUNDATION AR£NOT AT THE SAME POINTI 5'-6"DIA.ROTATOR BOX FOUNDATION.iNSTALLED AT TOWER CENTROID. CA OF FOUNDATION C/L OF TOWER 2--o-t/4" FOR ANCHOR STEEL 1DENTIFICATION AND PLACEMENT JNFORMATION.SEE PAGE OF THIS DRAWING.SEE PAGE 8 FOR BASE SECTJON INSTALLATJON DETAIL. i 8 VERTICAL RE8AR - SEE ©OM PAGE 6. 15 PIECES REO.PER PIER, EQUALLY SPACED,TO BE PLACED INSIDE T1ES. O'-6"-, ROTATOR BOX FOUNDATION. ijf 9 VERTICAL RE8AR - SEE (D>ON PAGE 6. 35 PIECES REQ.EQUALLY SPACED,TO BE PLACED INSIDE T1ES. 4 TIES -SEE 12 PtECES REO. UttE" ^RAOE ON PAGE 6. #4 TIES -SEE <E)ON PAGE 6. 12 PIECES REQ.PER PIER d)5 RE8AR -49 STANOEES TOTAL. SEE ®ON PAGE 6. TOWER FOUNDATION 48.3 CUBIC YARDS CONCRETE REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION SPECIFICAT]ONS AND ADDITIDNAL INFORMATION.SEE PAGE 4 OF THIS DRAWING. \ tf 8 REBAR -28 BARS EACH WAY. SEE <A)ON PAGE 6. ijf 8 REBAR -28 BARS EACH WAY, SEE <A>ON PAGE 6. NOTE:ALL REBAR REQUIRES MIN,3"CONCRETE:COVERAGE WDC.D fiOTATOR BOX FOUWATIOMS u^02/18/20t4 UNITED^ST»TES TOWER SERVICE ANCHORAGE,AK U-14.O X 95' ADDED FOUNOATION 02/08^014 KEIGHT CHANGED FROM 100 FEET SKK Ol/OS/2014 APPROVEDytNG.|SKKJ3/4^01+ CESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS DATE APPROVEP/FOUND. COPYRIGHL2014 MVC 3/S/2014 Fram.F10158S4.DFT -02/06/2014 13:22 Prfnfd from 252568JJ50C.DWG .02/18/2014 11:12 O 05/&1/2014_16:1 ENG.FILE MO.A-238592- ARCHIV^_F-1015854 valmont^ 1<»U711S1 bhi,STRUCTURES ORAW1N&N0. 252568 PAC£_5 OF 8 ® 22' r-2 r -Q" f 8 REBAR -112 PIECES REO.TOTAL APPROX WT °58.7f)l EACH,6574#TOTAL REBAR SUPPORTS MAY CONSIST OF ANY ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF SECURELY SUPPORTING THE TOP REINFORCEMENT GRID A80VE THE BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT GRID WHILE MAIN- TAINING A SEPARATION OF l'-6" (OUTSIOE REBAR TO OUTSIDE REBAR). ^5 REBAR -49 P1ECES REOUIRED TOTAL TYPE 26 STANDEE PLACED BETWEEN REBAR GRIDS ON NOMINAL 4'SPACING THROUGHOUT APPROX UNBENT LENGTH =6'-0~3/8" APPROX WT =6.3#EACH,309^70TAL 5-3/4'R*D.^J 2'-6' © ij|l 8 REBAR -45 PIECES REOUIRED TOTAL APPROX UNBENT LEMGTH =9'-7-3/8' APPROX WT =25.7^EACH.1157i?TOTAL 2'-O" ^9 REBAR -35 PIECES REQUIREO TOTAL APPROX UNBENT LENGTH -9'-10-1/2" APPROX WT =33.6iii EACH.1176^TOTAL S 4 REBAR -36 PIECES REQUIREO TOTAL WITH 135 DEGREE HOOK ON EACH ENO (SEE DETAIL BELOW) APPROX UNBENT LENGTH -9'-1-3/4" APPROX WT =6.l)jf EACH,220^8 TOTAL PLACE CtRCULAR TIES SO ThlAT HOOKS ON ADJACENT TIES ARE 180 DEGREE5 APART ANO HOOKS ENCIRCLE A VERTICAL BAR. PLACE ONE TIE AT TOP OF PAD AND TWO TIES AT TOP OF PIER RE8AR.EOUALLY SPACE REMAINING-TIES ALONG PIER. (jf 4 REBAR -12 PIECES REQUIREO TOTAL WITH 135 DEGREE HOOK ON EACH END (SEE DETAIL BELOW) APPROX UNBENT LENGTH =17'-O" APPROX WT =11.4#EACH,137;j(TOTAL DETA1L OF 135 DEGREE MOOKS REBAR DETAIL TOTAL APPROX REBAR WEIGHT =9573^ REINFORCING BAR TO CONFORM TO ASTM A615 GRADE 60 SPECIFICATIONS. UNITED STATES TOWER SERVICE ANCHORAGE,AK U-14.O X 95' AOOCD ROTATOR BOX FOUWATtONS ADOEO FOUNDATIOH DEECRIPTtON OF REVISIOHS OZ/J8/2014 02/06^014 APPROVED/ENt;.|SKK[3/4/2014 APPROVEO/FOUND. COPYRIGHT 2014 3/5/201+_ :r<Hn:F1015BS4.DFT -02/0fi/2014 13:22 Intad from 25256B^)6flC.OWG *02/18/201-t 11;14 05/01/aoi4 _16;.5E| ENG.F1LE NO.A-238592- ARCHIVE_F-101585 4 valmont^ OfrMMI!STRUCTURES DRAWING N0. 25256B PAGE 6 OF 8 12'-1-1/2 —C/L C/L 14' TEMPLATE ASSEMBLY P/M 159421 [NCLUDES CORNER PLATE P/N 158387, [S REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION ANO UUST BE PLACED AS SHOWN.SEE DRAWING jjf 159394 FOR TEMPLATE ASSEMBLY DETAILS.SEE PAGE 5 FOR TOWER C/L LOCATION RELATIVE TO THE FOUNOATION LAYOUT.TEMPLATE PLACEMEMT +/-3".EACH LEG MUST BE CENTEREO IN PIER WITHIN +/- IOX OF PIER DIAMETER.TEMPLATE MUST 8E LEVEL +/-1 DEGREE. tNSTALL TEMPLATE WITH SUFFICIENT SPACE BENEATH (2"MINIMUU)TO PERMIT FINISHING OF CONCRETE AND TO FACILITATE TEMPLATE REMOVAL PRIOR TO TOWER ERECT10N. SEE PAGE 8 FOR BASE SECTION [NS7ALLATION DETAIL. TOWER ANCHOR STEEL PLACEMENT -TOP VIEW 8-1/2" 5'-11- -REFEPENCE ANGLE =3.30 DEGREES. TEUPLATE MUST OE UTILIZED TO ASSIST IN PROPER PLACEMENT. TEMPLATE -SEE ABOVE FOR PART NUMBER AND ASSEMBLY DRAWING DATA. TEMPLATE MUST BE SECURED WITH 2 NUTS AS SHOWN, [°P-.J)£_ FOUNDATION ANCHOR BOLT P/M 109881 -6 REQUIRED PER LEG. DIAMETER "l-1/4",LENGTH °6'-8".COLOR CODE = PINK/WHITE.INSTALL WITH 8-1/2"OF THREADS EXPOSEO.BENDING,STRAIGHTENING OR REALIGNING (HOT OR COLD)OF THE ANCHOR 80LTS BY ANY METHOO IS PROHIB1TED. EMBEDMENT PLATE P/N 107974 (1 REQUIRED PER LEG.) PLATE MUST 8E SECURED WITH 2 NUTS AS SHOWN. VIEW A -A -ANCHOR BOLT [NSTALLATION DETAIL (NOT TO SCALE) ATTENT10N CONTRACTOR INSTALLING THE ANCHOR BOLTS! 1-1/4"DIAMETER ANCHOR BOLTS FOR TAPERED TOWER. VERIFY THE PART NUMBERS AND SIZES FOR ALL COMPONENTS ON THIS PAGE AND PAGE 8. IF THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES,PLEASE NOTIFY PIROO,INC.PRJOR TO INSTALLATION!! ADDED FOUNOATION DESCRlPTtON OF REVISIONS JAK 02/08/2014 From;Ftai5aS4.DFT -02/06/2014 13:22 Prtntad froffl 253568^7.09.DWO -_OS^8^014_14:_2S a 05/01/2014 IfcJ UNITED STATES TOWER SERVICE ANCHORACE,AK U-14.0 X 95' APPROVEOAHG.ISKK13/4/2014 APPfiOVE.O/FOUNO.! COPYRIGHT 2014 MVC 3^^fil-(_ ENC.FILE ro.A-238592- ARCHtve F-1015854 valmont^ i-uB.MTiiii s'.h.Tiw"STRUCTUftES DRAWING N0. 252568 PACE 7 OF S ANCMOR BOLT -BENDING,STRAIGHTENING OR REALICNING (HOT OR COLD)OF THE ANCHOR BOLTS BY ANY METHOD IS PROHIBITED. l^ GALVANIZED HEX NUT GALVANIZED LOCK WASHER GALVANIZEO FLAT WASHER BASE SECTION FOOTPAD PACK NON-SHR1NK STRUCTURAL GROUT UNDER FOOTPADS AFTER LEVELING TOWER. GALVAMI2ED FLAT WASHER GALVANIZED HEX NUT BASE SECTION INSTALLATION DETAIL AODED FOUNOATION DESCRlPTtON OF REVISIONS 02/08/2014 Fronu FI01SBB+.DFT -02/&6/Z014 13:22 >rlnt*d from 25258B_Da09,DWG -02/06/20t4 14:26 fl 05/&t/2014 16:! UNITEB'STATES TOWER SERVICE ANCHORAGE,AK U-14.0 X 85' APPROVED^KG.|SKKl3/+/2014 APPROVED/FOUMl. COPYRIGHT 2014 DttAWN &V 3/S/2014 FILE Mo.A-238592- iye__F-1015854 valmont^ i.in^ti^iu ppnm H I-UO.MMIII t^ Ofl STCUCTUftES ORAWING N0. 252568 pAce 8 OF 8 ^^a?-PLANVIEW ttttct nl c| 0| •*^1 nil 3)od *^-1 c[ 01ul flll V)|ra| CDl <ul ?1 (01 c| c| Ul+JIc|<1 1 ml tt! *<1clajls| ^lulro| FRONTVIEW UGHTCKUBS: MATCR1ALB ©JUNCTIONBOX,HOFFMAN,PM.AISKISB 1 SAFETIf 3WITCH.EATON.P.N.DG2Z1URB 1 ROTOR CONTWOL U8W.PM.OffC 111 iWEAHER BOOT.MICROFLECT.P.N.2M674 WITHCUSHION PJd.B1M1 ®CABL^I.T.L.pNIERtll*TIQN*LTO»ER LIBmiNS),P.N.CBL-1XS1+03S. @ PHOTOGB.LAND UGHT,I.TJ-.P.N.LWO t RTO-1R07-Ot!2 NOTES AKINDORF B 1 la'SQUARE,HOT DIP au.vmszEE,WITH *u-STAINLESS HWDWARE. A ROUT GABLE UF TOWER LEG AND ATMCH AGOflDING TO RASH TECWIOUaGY INSmUCTON 8HEET CATED 1ffl04. AuSESUNUQffl'RESISTAKrSEALTrTE n.EXMLEOQNDUn'TO COMPENSATE FOR DtFFERINQ FROST MOVEMENT *hB FOR INTRICATE BEMIBLUBE PVG COfiCUlT FOR NORMALRUNS. ycoMDurr 1-CONDUT L'MTED STATES TOWKR S|.:RVK-I.S.i ri) InveiitivL-Solutiod^Sinile 1970 r»mn«n|anuiNBL TOMR G»SECOWIBUR*"nON| »»Htffl nibofk UWdr [srapOMnaB auMsa. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTi'DIRECTOR DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI.MAYOR MICHAELA.DAHILIG.MANAGING DIRECTOR Kaua'i County Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) Supplemental #1 to the DIRECTOR'S REPORT I.SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC: KHPRC actions may include the following: a.Provide comments and direction to generate a Section 106 response letter: 1)Concurwith the agency's findings of no adverse effect to historic properties; 2)Not concur with the agency's findings of no adverse effect to hisforic properties; 3)Provide any other comments on the project;or b.Decline to comment;or c.Defer comments until more information becomes available. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Hawai'i Army National Guard is proposing to construct two (2)25-kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF)antennas at the Hanapepe Readiness Center, located at 1-3460 Kaumuali'i hlighway,Hanapepe and also identified as TMK:(4) 1-8-008:029and078. The proposed construction will be located at the southern portion of the subject property and the overall height of each tower will be 95 ft. III.ADDITIONAL FINDINGS a.March 18,2021 Meeting Summary At the March 18,2021 meeting,the Department provided updated information to the March 2020 Director's Report and noted the following points: 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 •LThu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer U.i.c. JUN 1 7 2021 Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) June 17,2021 Meeting Section 106-Hawai'i National Guard (HING) Hanapepe Towers Page2 The proposed project would be contrary to the goals of the General Plan and the West Kaua'i Community Plan,specifically relating to scenic corridors and viewsheds. The proposed project will create a visual impact to historic properties that are adjacent and in proximity to the subject property. Following the Department's position,the Hawai'i Army National Guard presented the proposed project to the Commission.The Commission offered the following comments: •Disagreement with the Agency's determination of no significant impact/ effect to historic properties •Concerns about the proposed height,design,and overall impact •Sea Level Rise Analysis/Consideration •Exploring alternative site locations •Exploring alternative technology designs •Providing additional photo sims from different views The final motion was to defer the judgement on this agenda item until the anticipation of future meetings and information about the aspects discussed. b.Project Clariflcations Tower Heiaht In the Department's comparison ofthe March 18,2021 materials and the June 17,2021 materials,the Department asked the applicant to clarify whether the proposed height of the tower was 80 ft.(as represented in the Feb.2020 letter)or 95 ft.(as represented in the June 17,2021 architectural drawings).The applicant has confirmed that the overall height of the tower,which includes the rotating antenna too,is 95 ft. Rotating Antenna The Department also asked the Applicant to provide more details about the rotating antenna piece.In the Feb.2020 letter from Hawai'i National Guard to SHPD,the project description stated that the "HF antennas will be approximately 80 feet tall and have a turning radius of approximately 60 feet."The applicant has clarified that the descriDtion should have been corrected to say a "turnina radius to be aDDroximatelv 60 dearees." Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) June 17,2021 Meeting Section 106-Hawai'i National Guard (HING) Hanapepe Towers Page3 c.Surrounding Historic Properties Atthe March 18,2021 KHPRC meeting,the Department mentioned historic properties in the surrounding area.Some of the neighboring historic properties are noted in the table below: IV.RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends that the Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission submit a Section 106 letter that does not concur with he agency's determination of no effect to historic properties. To effectuate this recommendation,KHPRC could^repare a motion that conveys the followina: "Move to^ubmit a Sectipn 106 comment letter memorializing KHPRC^decision to not concyLwjth the^gencY's determjnatiorLof n&advere^effects to historic properties.The Section 106 comments should also convev concerns about the proposed design of the towers and its visual and scemc impact tojiearby historic properties." The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department's final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making. The entire record includes but is not limited to: a.Government agency comments; b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and c.The land owner's response. HaiBii^^^^^^UBa @BtBB^^^1S®iBBiai.iii.ir^id'/.rain'a MaintroiBulldmg KHPRCInventoryList Across the Street Kaua'i Soto Zen Temple Zenshuji KHPRC Inventory List Adjacent Property Hanapepe Road Bridge StateHistoric Register Proximity Salt Pans State Historic Register Proximity Puolb Point State Historic Register Proximity Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) June 17,2021 Meeting Section 106-Hawai'i National Guard (HING) HanapepeTowers Page4 Marisa By Valenciano Digitally signed by Marisa Valenclano Date:2021.06.03 13;29:10-10'00' MARISA VALENCIANO Planner Approved &Recommended to Commission: By Jodi Higuchi S^.w.m Digitally signed by Jodl Higuchi Date:2021.06.03 14:09:54'IO'OO' Date: JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA Deputy Director of Planning 6/3/21 ENGINEERING DIVISION UEPARTMENT OF PUB 1.1 C VVORKS THE COUNTY OF KAUA'l ' LYLE M.TABATA DEPUT^'COUK'lf ENC[N[i[;R DEIIEK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICIIAt:LA.DAHlUG,MANAGINGD]RECTOK December11,2019 19 l)i;:1 18 P RLMs.Victoria Wichman Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission C/0 County of Kauai Planning Department 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 Lihue,Hl 96766 Subject:National Hlstoric Preservation Act Section 106:Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Party,Historic Property Information and Area of Potential Effect Comment Improvements to Collector Roads,Portions of Olohena Road,Kukui Street,and Ulu Street Island of Kaua'i,District of Kawaihau,Ahupua'a of North Olohena, Waipouli,and Kapa'a Federal-Aid Project STP 0700(085) Tax Map Key(s):(4)4-3-003:999,(4)4-4-005:999,(4)4-4-006:999, (4)4-5-008:999,(4)4-5-009:999,(4)4-5-010:999,and (4)4-5-015:003 Dear Ms.Victoria Wichman, On behalf of the Federal Highway Adminlstration (FHWA),the County of Kaua'i Department of Public Works ("COUNTY")invites you to participate in consultation under Section 106 ofthe National Historic PreservationAct(NHPA)of 1966,as amended (2006),for the proposed roadway rehabilitation and resurfacing project.These improvements are proposed along Olohena Road,Kukui Street,and Ulu Street in the Ahupua'a of North Olohena,Waipouli,and Kapa'a. This proposed federally funded County project is considered a federal action and undertaking,as defined in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Part 800.16(y).Effective May 1,2016,FHWA issued a Programmatic Delegation ofAuthority entitling the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT)and local public agencies (LPA)such as the County to conduct NHPA Section 106 consultations with the State Historic Presen/ation Officer,Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs),and other consulting parties per 36 CFR 800.2 (c)(4).The FHWA will remain responsible for all findings and determinations charged to the agency during the Section 106 process. Overview ofthe Undertaking As stated in our July 30,2019 letter,the purpose ofthe proposed undertaking isto rehabilitate and resurface roadways in two areas in Kapa'a on the Island of Kaua'i.This work is intended to extend and maintain the riding surfaces of Olohena Road,Kukui Street,and Ulu Street,which are County roadways.The project will also evaluate www.kauai.gov 4444 RJceStreetSiiitcI75 •Lihu'c,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b)•(808)24].6^9 (f) An Rqual Opportiinity Bmployer H-^. 11 7 2021 0. 202^8 '.JANf6?020 Ms.VictoriaWlchman December 11,2019 Page2of5 options for improving traffic operations along Kukui and Ulu Streets in the vicinity of Kuhio Highway. Please note,after our July 30,2019 letter,the County tentatively determined that a new roundabout may also be added on Olohena Road at the interssction with Kahau Road and Lehua Street,as partofthis project (see Figure 1). The affected road segments are the following: •Olohena Road -Kamatu Road to 200 feet beyond Ka'apuni Road (2.5 miles); •Olohena Road/Kukui Street -Kapa'a Bypass Road roundabout to KQhio Highway (0.3 miles); •Ulu Street,from Kukui Street to KQhiO Highway (0.3 miles), •Lehua Street:roughly 200 feet along Lehua Street from its intersection with Olohena Road;60-foot-wide ROW;and •Kahau Road:roughly 200 fest along Kahau Road from its intersection with Olohena Road;60-foot-wide ROW. The project will Involve the construction of the following items: •Pavement rehabilitation and resurfacing on Olohena Road,Kukui Strset,and Ulu Street; •Extending pavement shoulders by up to 6 feet in each direction along Olohena Road where it can be reasonably accommodated within the existing roadway rlght-of-way; •Pavement widening along Kukui Street and Ulu Street to support enhanced traffic operations; •Addition of sidewalks for pedestrian access along Otohena Road and Kukui Street between Kapa'a Bypass Road and KQhio Highway; •Reconfiguration and/or addition/deletion oftravel lanes,turn lanes,bike lanes, and parking areas along Olohena Road,Kukui Street and Ulu Street in the vicinity of KuhiS Highway; •Drainage and utility modifications,including relocation and replacement of faclllties,where necessitated by pavement widening/rehabilitation; •Ancillary improvements,including guardrail adjustment and installation,and other safety improvements;and •Improvaments at Olohena Bridge 2 on Olohena Road,which may include bndge railing modification,bridge widening,and/or bridge rsplacement,along with ancillary utility relocations and end treatments/safety rail transitions, •Potential addition of a new roundabout on Olohena Road at the intersection with Kahau Road and Lehua Street,and associated roadwork extending roughly 200 feet along Kahau Road and Lehua Street. Ms.Vjctoria Wichman Decemberl 1.2019 Page 3 of 5 Generally,all affected roadways will retain their existing geometry.Mostwork would be conducted within the roadway right-of-way (ROW),but some proj'ect actions such as utility relocations may extend beyond the ROW.The County of Kaua'i will obtain easements from affected property owners for project etements extending beyond the ROW.No displacements ofexisting uses are anticipated by these relocations and easements. Consultations Entitled consulting parties during the Section 106 process includes the Advlsory Council of Hlstoric Preservation,State Historic Preservation Officers,NHOs,local governments and applicants forfederal assistance,permits,licenses and other approvals. NHO and/or Hawaiian Descendants NHO and Natlve Hawaiian descendants with ancestral,lineal or cultural ties to,cultural and historical property knowledge of and/or concerns for,and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed APE are asked to provide a response to this letter within 30 days of notlflcation. Other Individuals and Oraanizations Individuals and organizations wlth legal,economic or hlstoric preservation Interest are requested to respond within 30 days of notification and demonstrate your interest in the proposed undertaking and provide intent to particlpate in the Section 106 process.Your particlpatlon is subject to FHWA approval. Provide Comment on the Area of Potentlal Effects The proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE)comprises the portions of Olohena Road, Kukui Street,and Ulu Street,including a portion ofthe Kapa'a Bypass Road roundabout,as shown on Figure 1.The APE is a total of approximately 42 acres. Because some work may extend beyond the roadway ROWs,we propose that the APE extend approximately 10 feet on either side of the ROW along the project area.The roadway ROWs are as follows: •Olohena Road,from Kamalu Road to 200 feet beyond Ka'apuni Road (2.5 miles) -variable ROW,ranging from 40-feet to 185-feet; •Olohena Road/Kukui Street,from Kapa'a Bypass Road to KQhiS Highway (0.3 miles)-60-foot ROW; •Ulu Street,from Kukui Street to Kuhio Highway (0.3 miles)-40-foot ROW; However,please note that because the project area may be revised to add a new roundabout at the existing intersection of Lehua Street,Kahau Road,and Olohena Road,the County now proposes that the APE also extend to the following short road segments: •Lehua Street:roughly 200 feet along Lehua Street from its intersection wlth Olohena Road;60-foot-wide ROW;and Ms.Victoria Wichman December 11,2019 Page 4 of 5 «Kahau Road:roughly 200 feet along Kahau Road from its intersection with Olohena Road;60-foot-wide ROW.DHHL owns Kahau Road. In addition,at the Olohena Bridge 2 on Olohena Road (see Figure 1),the APE will extend up to 20 feet beyond the existing bridge deck.The bridge is believed to be in excess ofSO-years old.It is not listed in the 2013 Statewide Historic Bridge Invantory and Evaluation (SHBIE). Cumulatively,the total distance ofthis APE is about 3.1 miles long.Th9 APE also includes a construction staging area which has notyet been specified,butwill be located within the roadway right-of-way. For most of its footprint,the APE extends approximately 1 O feel below the surface of the existing roadway,for not only the roadway resurfacing work but also the installation of guardrails and potential underground utility relocations.However,please note that the APE may be daeper at the Olohena Bridge 2 depending on project elements that will be determined by the project's design at a later date. Identiflcation of Historic Properties within the APE We welcome any information you may have on historical and cultural sites that have been recorded in or which you may have knowledge of within the proposed APE.In addition,if you are acquainted with any persons or organization that is knowledgeable about the proposed APE,or any descendants with ancestral,linaal or cultural ties to or cultural knowledge and/or historical properties information of or concerns for,and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed project area,we would appreciate receiving tlieir names and contact information within 30 days of notice. On behalf of FHWA,the County of Kaua'i,by way of this letter is notifying you of the proposed Improvements to Collector Roads,Portions of Olohena Road,Kukui Street, and Ulu Street project.Should you want to participate In the Sectlon 106 process,we request your written intent.Please also provide your comments on the proposed APE, any Informatlon you may have on cultural and/or hlstorical sites that have been recorded withln the APE,as well as,ths names and contact information of people/organizations who may have cultural affiliations and historical proparties information fn the vicinity ofthe proposed APE. We would appreciate a written response within 30 days from date of receipt to Lyle Tabata via email at Byblicworksfaikauai.aov,or by U.S.Postal Service to County of Kaua'i,Department of Public Works,4444 Rice Street,Suite 175,Llhu'e,Hl 96766- 1340.You may also contact Mr.Joel Bautista,Project Manager,by phone at (808)241- 4153 or via email at ibautistaOkauai.flov. Ms.Victorta Wichman December 11,2019 Page 5 of 5 We look forward to working with you on these needed improvements. Sincerely, LXLE TABATA Deputy County Engineer Enclosures: Figure 1:Section 106 Area of Potential Effects Map -Revised cc:Meesa Otani,FHWA Misako Mimura,HDOT HWY-DE Deona Naboa,HODT HWY-DE Pamela Uyeda,WSP E/)13SS <-E •° a>o£a>Ebtit(L Q:D >ynw"l y,^. i i'.i !' \^-~J ?„:, '^..'^.'"'1 l'^''^NSS8iSSKi^,._..^;.,.._..,,,|-lv^3S^.I-r'^^^N 3 A ''•%ft'?r-.-*"'•••--• _,,'»":"~s.^'ytc:i k'^'^..\ t»Y-;\ ^ .c'^;'-""/;'tew%KtJlohi ""*<*lw-':'./,..f':-••';'••'Kt'llor^^^^^^^g^^j^_- "-";//' r*'ou <>*<"' ^./ .../" .-'v m°"ll t'^^°°•3\iy i-\^r-i I C"d^:(*." o "\ f'f''O / %. f ^:""^l'' ^-^!^!^^\|7 '•l 1 !'[i'"/' w^-./-.-^ ^/"' ^ -c :'^€. f^^/ \ '" \NS.t ,?1 9 ~SIII3sms£& 1 ^^s c §/^i/>^11 y].(.'''°2EK '3 .'<??^.jjil i n n <u ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TROY K.TANIGAWA,P.E.,ACTING COUNTl'ENGINEER BOYD GAYAGAS,DEPUTr COUNPi'ENGINEER DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAEL A.DAHILIG.MANAGING DIRECTOR May 27,2021 Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission c/o County of Kaua'i Planning Department 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 Lihu'e.HI 96766 jhiguchi@kauai.gov mvalenciano@kauai.gov Subject:National Historic Preservation Act,Section 106 Effect Determination Olohena Road Improvements Project Federal-Aid Project No.STP-0700(085) Final Bridge Widening Design Multiple Tax Map Keys DearCommission Members: On Thursday,February 2020,Department of Public Works Engineering staff presented the preliminary bridge widening plans for the subject Olohena Roads Improvement Project.The motion from the commission that passed (5:1)was to,"...recommend the project with the following restrictions:that we retain the wing walls and the cut stone and as much of the old bridge as possible underneath the new bridge and that the new parapets emulate the parapets on the old bridge as much as possible." Kaua'i County would like to notify the KHPRC that the final design of the bridge has been completed and thus present to the commission the fina!construction plans and basis for design for your review and reference. Ifyou have any questions,please contact Joel Bautista at (808)241-4153 or by email at Jbautista@kauaj.gov. Sincerely, Digitatly signed by Michael Michael Moule M;,u.'e Date:2021,05.27 16:21:56 -lO'OO' Michael Moule,P.E. Chief,Engineering Division Attachments:Pages from Construction Plans,Basis of Design Report 4444 Rice Street,Suite 275 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4883 (b)•(808)241 -6609 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer ^./z.a JUN 11 2021 I's'!lisllItilU Waiiua Kapa'a sueer HAV.\STP-07Wf0851\2021 I 77 1.!?! 20'-0" Approach Siati 5Z-0"20'-0" GFRP Channel Water Line Support Corner Reaction BSock STa.38+07.49o/s njy u fiew 8"D.1.TR Flw Pipe (See Profite on ShT.U-3) Scupper,Typ. Corner Fteaction Btock Sta.38+!2.23 0/5 16.77'^.t Precast Prestressed —' PSank with Concrete Topping,Typ. Existing w8 (D.IJ to be Removed, See Clvil Plans LhYOUT PLAN Scate !/9"•!'-0" APPWVED: MANAGER A/VD CHIEF EWSfiiEER DEPARTMENT OF WATER COUf/rY OF KAUA'I DATE OEFARTMENI Of PUBUC;1 LKtOUT PLM OLOHE^A ROAD SRTE 581}I^PfWEUEHTS FAP W.STP-670Q10851 Scale:As fiotei Date:hlarcfi 2021 SHEETNo.S1J OF 3 SHEETS 77 ;B<| ttt HAWA!!|HAW.\ST P-0700f085)\2021 \78 Wailua SSeeper Siab w-o" Appfoact'i 51at> ?0'-0" Guardrail :Ss•^?! g3:<N Is^^ ^t^ Raiting Control -i Joint Top of Concrefe Barrser 6"Cowrete Topplng --»..-J^/'T: Atxjtfmnt Foofing c>::sli!'i(i grti'.ic Bc/nom of Footing Elev.224 c>.i;',!:rr.j !'i:.'(•/(','(; Kapa'a LONGITUDINAL SECTION Scale:!/4"'!'-0"^]S!^ IE^of puuuc wont LOHGITUDIKM.SECriOH OLOHE^IA ROAD (RTE 5Bli IklPfWEMEfiTS FAP W,STP-OTOOVOaSl Scaie:As Noted Date:lilarch 2021 SHEETNo.513 OF j SHSeTS 78 t Approach Stat) Kapa'a Fini$h Grade FED.fUN)I n.»y^1 FEOBW.VB •FSCl PRaj.NO..' '_H^U1 \H/W.^STP-0700<OB5^2021 \79-FtatSing Contro!~-^ l»a»rt i i"'"':r'p'"—SS swiKin.Tw I Ta"l-s"i3:1 ^l8"D.1.TR i-Scupper Through i^s ("""'"» SFRP Ctisml ^suartrafl ^il!rr--t~;TT ,':!K!w:f!.',',v,l!l cxj^l:/i(!ti"rt'ij/;;f !:!ii;^t:s:',!ii\j w Qiwll ;t:iwrirl UPSTREAM ELEVATION Sca/e;!/4"•f-0"s^y Waitua Fmish Grade—i Approach Slati Guardrait 1»I"III "I III —LU!__=»-UL-IJPt^lFIT--FB r--—kr"-. S s- gg:l^K id '•y ^ £<?ua/ 5?'-0" i-gual Rai!ing Cwtroi Joint, Typ^(2 TotaH Concrete Qarrler --—A Eyua! l';•q:03 W) l;XI;,!l!:t.,'t.'.'iii'/i;7 /// Approacti Siab Guardra'it BE 3S-I Kapa'a Finish Grade [^-—^-ULS ^^ :.',!JIKJ •.viai.j Wi.l!! cxi:,':fK;^i'iy s/iiil (JKr,iiiK!!}l'!(i(jf: 'W.sci'Mis!! APPFiOVED.- OOWNSTREAM ELEVATION /-B~\ Sca/e;!/4"•l'-0"%3^" MANAGER AW CHIEF EWSNEER DEPART^ENT OF WATEH COUNTY OF KAUA'l DATE OEPAfiniEHT OF PUBUC WOflltS BRIDGE eLEVATIOHS OLOH^A ROAD (RTE 581)WP/WEMEf/TS FAP N0.STP-0700i085) Scate;As Noted Dale:March 20ZI SHEET·^kl.S1.3 OF 3 SHEETB 79 e i i .] y i Wailua Kapa'a "si"Ww GA^ Existing Wafer Une to be Ftemoved and Replacod, Soe CivS!Dwgs >-A—— \v^\~—-^-——^_^ Mw ^<\ ^ '"iROF^BFA^\\ Existing 'RsactSon -^\\\ B/oct;to £e Remwed Outii'ne of New Bridge Atxve OutSlne of Hew Bridge Abutment Footing /10»- '*^.. "•»-..'.\\\'x-^^iS^ftffS-f-^'^ Ws ~'*———,. •••1.5 UP /64 1REES,'0=?.5 H'20 G>»!GW «]fi£ nsa°' •9~ 0=2 H-JO GW \Extsttng Conc.\ RaiiSng to 6e Removed DEklOLITION PLAN Scate:!/8"•r-0" l!"i1^81 OEf'wnwewT OF PUBUCWORKS DEWLITlOtl PLAM OLOHEfiA ROAD (RTE 58!1 IMPRWEklEWS FAP N(LSTP-0700(085} Scale:As Noled Date:Marcfi 202! SHEETNo.S2J OF SHEETS 80 HN!/A!.L\HAIt'.lsrp^roofo85Jj 202!\__8i__\121 Mauka ^ak^j Concrata EdgQ Beam Future Br/dge Concrefe Barrier ExSsting Conc.Raiting to be Removed f—6"Concrete Topping 14"Prestressed — Procast Piank Existing Conc.Raitsng ta tw Removed •.;1!ICJ ti;: -I-Cwcrete Barrler i.ixi.-'.la'ii!'if.'dyr —For Curt) Reconstriiction, DEMOLITION SECTION Sca/e;1/2"•r-0"sg^S2^ If/rfffi of Curt to Match Width of Existing Railing Concrete Curb to ".•''•lr'y -—-\Match HelgM of !ia:t.!,//,r<:i(;'&l Exi$ting Grade i:xif:!l!-il! C.':ili:!(: -*3 GFRP Bar Cont.EF -Dhti and Epoxy »3 GFRP Bar @ 18"EF RECONSTRUCTION AT CURB ^T Sca/e.-?V/2"•I'-Q"S^^ oePAnmENT of FUBUC;' DEWLITIOH SCCTIOH AHD DETAIL QLOHEI^A ROAD tRTE S8!S IMPROVEIiiEWS~FAP N0.STP-~070a08S) Scale:As fipted Da!e:March 2021 SHECT Nn.SZ2 OF i'SHEETS 8T Wa/'/ua Kapa'a Hf,«f\!S -,H/\«.STP-07001085>203 \^_62 !'X!}f}\i n »"_hn Edge cf Deck /»»/.M / At:"'^., U«L^^^,'_f_^._._" WatQr Line {//.'//,Reaction BSock W-:2.W.^- 1^,'^».W ;l'"iw»?t Wal! ''^-,v'•-•;."y';v. E^of Deck Above•"mi''L ...,i";w yy:i.y^W""' ,)1i)? FOUNDKnON PLAN Scate:J/8"-r-0" OEPAfTTUENT OF PUBUC WOflt FOUHDATIOH PLM OLOHEW ROAD IRTE S8!)IMPROVEMEffTS FAP N0.SrP-0700{0§5)~ Scale:Af A/ofed Datei March 2021 02 W3//U3 Kapa'a ,^1 FEDERALAIO ;FBUL HfWM!\HAW.\STP-OTOOt085!\202t GFRP Channel- ^9"Duatlte Iron Pipe, See Civil Drawings Via'ter Line Reaction Bioci; Concrete Water Um Support ConcrQta Edge Seaffl Scupper,Typ. Edge of Deck Precast Presfressed Piank,Typ.^^^\~3^^ JLJJ-:yr-i.,^j^_L—L^jE Ciosure Pwr F—.'^__^_Approacfi SiSb .-_\ 'f i'"r )•n'i-T^T~1 FRhMING PLfa.N Scate:1/8"•r-0" ^Ss^lllsHSl APPRQVED: ktAHAGER AND CHIEF ENG1NEER DEPARTMENT OF WATER COUIVTY OF KAUA'I DATE DEFAHTUeHT OF PUBUC WOHHS FRAMIHG PUW OLOHEW RQAD (RTE 581)JMPHOVEMEfiTS F/\P f/0.STP-0700(085T Scate As fioteiS Date:Warc/t 2021 SHEeTNo.S4J OF 1 SHEETS~Q3 Waiiua !6'-0"20'-0"W-Q"Kapa'a HAV/A1! Abutment Wait Closure Pour *7 @ W T^B 8"D.1.TR. FSex Plpe 3-»4 a Jx -4-.4Q ^eFwciiyww,-_DECK_REINFQRCJNG PLAN-'.-------—--^..5ca/e://5"'/'-O" Water Une Support LConcrete Edga Beam \\\\\\\\\\\\\\Y\\\^\\'\~^~~ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\^,\\\^\\v-^ \vl>\''•'v '^;''w '^•^7'^ ^^\Y\W^V ^^\\ Typfcai Topping Rwnf. y 3-*5 T^B- Roadwi YV^ APPWVED: RE1NF.KT W/\TER LINE SUPPORT^A-^ Scale:!"'r-0"SSJfy ' MANAGER AND CHIEF ENGINEER OEPARTMENT OF WATER COUNTY OF KAUA'I DWE HA«.\STP-0700i0851\203 \W ,'f?/ 8"DJ.TR Ft6x Pipe Water Une Support GFFtP Channel OEPARTMEm Of PLBUCWDnKS 0£C<REIWORCWe PLAH OLOHEHA ROAD SRTE 5S!}lifPIWEMENTS FAP W.STP-6708(08S7 SCTte;As Hored Date;litarch 20S SHEETNo.S5J OF 1 SHEETS~M Siush Grwt —i 8 -*6 Cont._, 6"Concrete Topping — »8 @ 6" •Concrete End Beam /-Layer Roofing Feif --!-Layer Rooflng Felt Under Approach Siat)Onty Apprwch S!ab *6 @ S2"- 2'-3" ^ Arwnd Every Two Dowels Abutment Footing Aggragate Base Course Compactad ta 95 Percent Retative Compaction ABUTMEHT SECTION ^T Scale:3/4"•r-0" -'S&/J^/ •Concrete Railing !2"—, -6"Concrete Topping M"Prestressed Ptank Closure Pour *5 @ ?2",£/r !2"Back Face Wall Relnf. /2"Fronl Face Wa/!Reinf.*5 ®/z"r^s ^ "^^ *8 @ 12"Back Faw "6 @ /2"/"ronf Face Aggrggate Base Course Compacted to 95 Percent Retaflve Compaction ^; ABUTMENT SECTION ^-S~\ Scaie:!/2"-r-0"S^jS^ FEO RQylD 1 „t,e 1 FEDEHAL. 1 HAWAS!\HAW.\STP-0701X09W 2021 \_W__\121 OEPWmiEhTT OF PLJBUC WOHKS ABUIMESL SECTIWTMD'EXVKnOH OLOHEf/A ROAD WTE 59!i WPRWEMEf/TS F^P HO.STP-0700(085)_ 5cel«s fts ftoted Date:lilarch 2021 SHEETNo.S6J OF f SHEETS 85 E i i ise!illlil Field Bend 2"Clr.from Top of Toppsng,(Typ.) Surface Stiali be Ciean.Free of Laitance cind Shaii be fntentionaliy Roughened fo 1/4"Ampiitude !B Strands 24 Strands Wote; 8ars in Same —' Honz.Plane «4 TU-T-J Stirrups (Typ.) For Spaclng See For Key Detaii Sae^-7- i?- Haiiing reinforcing bar locations vary. TYPE "f\"TYPIChL EXTERIOR PLhNK ^T^-sg@<-Scate:!"-r-0" F/e/d 6end 2"C//-.frpffl Top of Topping,(TypJ Surface Sha!/be Clean,Free of Laitance and Shaii be !ntentiona!ly Roughened to 1/4"Amplitude 4Jt6 Cont. •4 -n-LTT^ Stirrups (Typ.) For Spadng Saa Fw Key Detaii 1 TYPE "B"TYPICAL INTERIOR PLANK ^s- Seale:I"•I'-O"sy^ D£t-*i(n«NTOF PUBUC wonss PRECAST PUUIK SECTIOHS OLOHEtih 80AO_(RTE_5S!}_IMPHOVEMENTS Mf'm STP-0700(085) Scale:As Kofed Dste:ttercri 20Z! SHEETNn.S7.4 OF 89 i i Mauka Makai ?'-G"3^-8 1/2" Concrete Barrier Concrefe Edge Baam E%% 0000 (0000 )0000 —Closure Pwr, See,'Si -6"Concrete Topping 0000 (0000 1 0000 Type "9" Prastressed Plank 6"Dia.Voids,Typ.!4"Prestressed PreDuctiie P/ank Type "A" Prestressed Piank TYPICAL SECTION Sca/e;1/2"•I'-O" Type "B" Prastrassed P!ank APPFiOVED: MAf/AGER AW CHiEF ENGlNEEFt DEPARTMENT OF WATER cout^rr OF KAUA'! H/MASl \HAV.STP-0700<085>\203 3HEETC t?l DATE ^AffTUENT OF PUBUC WOflftS TYPICAL_DEW SECTIOH OLQHENA ROADJRTE 58!)iMPWVEUEtiTS F^P HQ^T P-0700t085) Swfe;As fioted Date:Msrcn WZI SHEETNo.SBJ OF 2 SHEETS~QO i i W3t!ua Kaps'a w ^-^^ '/'/'^.'f ^-€V --j^; '///'/i':!'ONC 1//s' WAI •>(;;.//^ !>!K!yv Temporftry Locatjon of 8",Waf6r Line,v Sw/Civ/i Pians ffy~ •BStaits .' Water Line Support' ''~-~^'^' r.. Bracket.See ^l^"^,""^^''^ TEMPORWY WATER LINE PLAH Scala.-1/4"-f'O" APPROVED; HAWAS!|HAW. FISCW, 2021 exii.iing aiaKrji COllC.tdlO ''i.'liilttf Dntl and £poxy 3-3/4"Di9.Bolts 5/8"Dia. Mln.U-Bolt /Vofes.- /.After retocating water iine to its fina!iocatlon.brackets and alt components including anchor tx>!ts shal!be removed. 2.Any damage fo e portion of the existing bridge that is to remain stial!be repairsd to its original condition. WhTER L1NE SUPPORT BRACKET^T~\ Scsle:!!/2"-!'-(!"5^L©/ MAMAGER AND CHSEF EWINEER DEPARTMEfiiT OF WATER COUPiTY OF KAUA'l DATE DEPWCTMErd OF PUBUC WOHKS TEHFVFIMW WATER LISE PIAH AHD DETAIL OLQHEtiA flOAO fRTE 58!)WPHOVMEHTS FAP W.STP-07001085). Sca/&As Noted Date:^rcn 2021 SHEETNo.SfU Q<-2 SHEETS 99 ii IE1 ^sli !i iil lla IE PHASE 1 FEDWMAID 1 FISCAL 1 SH££JT I T01 pncu.NO.1 iu»|NO.i ai H_AW-[STP-07ua0951\2021 |_/0'_j 121 Mauka Makal i:xi:i!iny h!in(;i.. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE /.Instatl bracket and retocate water iine on makai barner PHhSE 2 Mauka Concrete Barrfer -—— Water Llne GFRP — Cfvannai Water Line Support lA- Abufmenf— Abutment Footing < 4:!Max.Fitl Slope •j/t.i'iii'ii','I'a iclyo 8 Makai Concrete —i Topping Work Zone 0000 )0000 (I 0000 Precast- Plank 18'0"t ?:-0".ff',.W'-Q"Contraflow Lane Positive Protection Barrier t.-xis'iai-j F)f :[!(!<.: ES I6'-0'" Work.Zone Proposed Westbound ^p Proposed Stioulder Westtjound Lane ,!'-0:'_V3rie6 ApproaGti Siab ?',,6".?(?'Contratiow l ane Temporary 2:1 Max. Fiil Slope \-\-~Posit!ve Protection Barrlsr Temporary EP Phast 2.Deimlish existing mauka barner 3.Construct Phase 2 abutmgnts,t>ridge superstrucfure,and raltlngs 4.Relocate water Isne to mauka railing 5.Construct Phasa 2 approsct)siab and sleeper stab NOTE: Hefer fo Civii sheets for Phasing pians. APPROVED: MAft/AGEFt AW CHSEF ENGINEEFt DEPARTMENT OF WATEFi COUNTY OF KAUA'! DA.TE ITWEKT Of PUBUC WOf COHSTMCriOV SEWEHCE OiQHE^A ROAD tRTE 581)IMPROViMEi^TS FAP A/0.STP-:0700(085)_ Scate:As Koted Date:March 2021 SHEET^ta.SIU OF 2 SHEEra 101 j 1 PHhSE 3 Mauka Concrete Barrier — Water Une — Water Line Supporf Abutment — Abutment— Footing Concrete Tapping Work Zane 0000 <i 0000 1 0000 ( Precast— P/ank y.'-O".6",-lO'-O"Contrat'low Lane Positive Profection Barrler :t!Qe \6':_!0'-0"Contriifiow Lane ,,6;'^'-0". ^Q. Positive Protectfon Barrier tfffl-A-Zww ^£|^^»" n Closure Pour Concrete ToppSng |0 O O O(00 O O J 0000 >i. Precast PSank '^vxisiiny ,'y/c't^ ,6';.Ki'-O"Contraflow S sw ..fi':^'-0"_ !'-0'\ 4:!Max.Fitl Stope fiork Zone Proposed Eastbound Proposed Eastbound Lane cr'Sfwuider Ma!ca! Hf,«.\STP-07Q(X0851 2021 |!02 I W CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Ph9se_3 6.DamoSish existing makas railing 7.Constrwt Phase 3 abutfwnts,bridge superstructure,and raiiings 8.ConsTruct Phasa 3 approach siab and steeper stab 9.Pour brfdge ciosure pour a miniiwm 28-days after Phase 3 br'i^gQ concrete fopping pour is completgd W.Pour approach siab closure pour a minimum 28-days affer Phase 3 approach slaS)concrete fwr is compiefe APPWVED: WNhGEFi AND CHSEF ENG1NEER DEPARTMENT OF WhTER COUNTY OF KAUA'I DATE OEFAHTNEWT OF PUBUC WOHKS COHSTWCT10H SEQUEHCE OI.SHENA ROAD (RT£58!)IMPRO\/^Ef/TS FAP W.STP-0700(OS51 Scafe;As fioted Date:^erch 2021 SHEET No.S!22 OF 2 SHEETS 102 c £ ]i 1 1 REPLACEMENT OF OLOHENA BRIDGE N0.2 BASIS OF DESIGN OLOHENA ROAD (ROUTE 581)IMPROVEMENTS DISTRICT OF KAWAIHAU ISLAND OF KAUAI FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0.STP-0700(085) MARCH 2021 PREPARED FOR: COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION LIHUE,Hl PREPARED BY: WSP USA INC. 1001 BISHOP STREET ASB TOWER,SUITE 2400 HONOLULU,Hl 96813 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................1 CONSTRAINTS.............................................................................................................................2 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTSAND BASIS OF DESIGN .....................................................................2 ROADWAYDESIGNCONTROLS....................................................................................................2 PROPOSEDBRIDGE.....................................................................................................................2 PAVEMENTSTRUCTURE ..............................................................................................................3 TRAFFICDATA............................................................................................................................4 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................5 LISTOFFIGURES FIGURE 1 OLOHENA BRIDGE N0.2 ......................................................................................1 FIGURE 2 Tl'PICAL BRIDGE SECTION...................................................................................2 FIGURE 3 LONGITUDINAL BRIDGE SECTION .........................................................................3 LISTOFTABLES TABLE1 TRAFFICDATA-OLOHENAROAD.........................................................................4 Replocement of Olohena Bridge No.2 Morch 2021 BACKGROUND Olohena Bridge No.2 is an early twentieth century single span concrete bridge located on Olohena Road (see Figure 1).The one-lane bridge is approximately 19 feet wide and 15 feet long and spans a tributary of Konohiki Stream. FIGURE 1 OLOHENA BRIDGE N0.2 Olohena Road is not a National HighwaySystem (NHS)route. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed reconstruction of Olohena Bridge No.2 will widen the bridge to accommodate two travel lanes,each 10-feet wide with 5'shoulders on either side (see Figure 2).The existing parapets will also be demolished and replaced with a MASH-compliant safety rail and transition. In order to minimize disruption to motorists,the construction of the bridge will be phased,utilizing precast planks placed over the existing bridge deck.The riding surface will consist of a 6"concrete topping placed over the precast planks.The finish grade of the new bridge will be approximately 26 higher than the existing bridge deck and will require a 200-foot long pavement transition on eitherapproach. Replacement ofOlohena Bridge No.2 March 2021 ES Maufo Wg^erline- 30'Min, 5' Snoutder tp m' Westoound Lane Corcrete Topping r^. w EaEfbound Lane EP 5' Stioulder Makg', Precast Ptank Bridge •Existfng Br!dge Dsck FIGURE 2 TYPICAl BRIDGE SECTION The proposed design meets the Hawaii Department ofTransportation's design requirements. CONSTRAINTS The constraints imposed on the project include the following: •Minimize disruption to motorists during construction •Maintain at least one lane of traffic during non-working hours •Avoid impacts to the stream;and •AvoidworkbelowtheOrdinaryHighWaterMark(OHWM) PROJECTIMPROVEMENTSAND BASIS OF DESIGN Roadway Design Controls •Posted and Design Speed (V):25 mph •Cross Section:Two (2)10-foot wide lanes with 5-foot wide shoulders •Functional Classification:Urban Major Collector •Stopping Sight Distance =155 ft Proposed Bridge The proposed bridge will span over the existing bridge,retaining the existing deck and wingwalls (see Figure 3).The new bridge will be approximately 52 feet long and will be skewed (~32°)to match the existing stream alignment.The bridge cross section will be a total of30-feet wide to accommodate two (2)10-foot wide through lanes and 5-foot wide shoulders on either side (see Figure 2).The proposed roadway cross section was determined by the County of Kauai to match the width of the approach roadway.This cross section is compliant with AASHTO guidelines for low Replacement ofOlohena Bridge No.2 March2021 speed,low volume roadways where bicycles and pedestrians are to be accommodated on the shoulders. 20'-0-52'-0" ;-Top of Conccete Bamer 6"Concrete Topping top of oxfstlng bridge Abutment Footing Bott.of Footing Elev.224 ^^-THW—-Wi'stlng grsde exisHng bridge -<—n"—^T 14"Prestressed Precast Plank Ordlnary H!gh'ffQter ^ark ^EIev.226 FIGURE3 LONGITUDINAL BRIDGE SECTION The new bridge will consist of precast prestressed planks with a concrete topping to create a composite section.The superstructure is connected to the abutments to create an integral fixed connection where the superstructure and substructure meet. The new bridge parapet will be a single-sloped 42-inch high concrete barrier meeting MASH requjrements. The bridge deck will be superelevated towards the westbound lanes.Scuppers will be provided along the westbound parapet to drain surface runoff from the bridge deck. Pedestrians will not have a dedicated walkway,but may utilize the 5-foot wide shoulders to cross the bridge.There are presently no pedestrian facilities along this stretch of Olohena Road. Pavement Structure The pavement section of the approach roadway shall be per recommendations by Geolabs,Inc.as follows: 2.0-inch Asphaltic Concrete Overlay 6.0-inch Asphalt Concrete Base 6.0-inch Aggregate Base Course 14.0-inch Total Pavement Thickness on Reinforcing Grid (Tensar TriAx Geogrid TX7 or equal) over Filter Fabric (Mirafi 180N or equal) Replacement ofOlohena Bridge No.2 March 2021 Traffic Data The design designation for the portion of Olohena Road that includes Olohena Bridge No.2 is as follows: TABLE l TRAFFIC DATA -OLOHENA ROAD Average Daily Traffic,ADT (2015)..................................4,185 AverageDailyTraffic,ADT (2035)..................................5,208 D..................................................................................50/50 T.....................................................................................3.8% V.................................................................................25 mph Replacement ofOlohena Bridge No.2 March 2021 REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets.5th Edition.2004. ASM Affiliates,An Archaeological Inventory Surveyfor Proposed Improvements to Portions of Olohena Road,KukuiStreet,and Ulu Street,November 2019. Geolabs,Inc.,Pavement Justification Report Olohena Road,Kukui Street,and Ulu Street,March 16, 2020 Replaceinent of Olohena Bridge No.2 Marchl021 An Archaeological Inventory Survey for Proposed Improvements to Collector Roads - Portion of Olohena Road, Kukui Street, and Ulu Street TMKs: (4) 4-3-003:999, (4) 4-4-005:999, (4) 4-4-006:999, (4) 4-5- 008:999, (4) 4-5-009:999, (4) 4-5-010:999, and (4) 4-5-015:003 Kapa‘a, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a Kawaihau District Island of Kaua‘i FINAL VERSION Prepared By: Teresa Gotay, M.A. Benjamin Barna, Ph.D. and Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D. Prepared For: Department of Public Works County of Kaua‘i 4444 Rice Street, Suite 275 Līhu‘e, HI 96766 November 2020 ASM Project Number 32860.00 An Archaeological Inventory Survey for Proposed Improvements to Collector Roads - Portion of Olohena Road, Kukui Street, and Ulu Street TMKs: (4) 4-3-003:999, (4) 4-4-005:999, (4) 4-4-006:999, (4) 4-5-008:999, (4) 4-5-009:999, (4) 4-5-010:999, and (4) 4-5-015:003 Kapa‘a, Waipouli, and North Olohena Ahupua‘a Kawaihau District Island of Kaua‘i Executive Summary AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the request WSP USA (WSP), on behalf of the County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works, ASM Affiliates (ASM) conducted an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) for a proposed roadway improvements project over portions of Olohena Road, Kahau Road, Kukui Street, Lehua Street, and Ulu Street in the vicinity of Kapa‘a Town (TMKs: (4) 4-3-003:999, (4) 4-4-005:999, (4) 4-4-006:999, (4) 4-5-008:999, (4) 4-5-009:999, (4) 4-5-010:999, and (4) 4-5-015:003) in Kapa‘a, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau District, Island of Kaua‘i. This project will be conducted in two phases: Phase 1 along Olohena Road between Ka‘apuni Road and Kamalu Road, and Phase 2 to include the makai portion of Olohena Road/Kukui Street, along with Lehua and Ulu Streets in the vicinity of Kapa‘a town (see Figure 3). Currently, only work in Phase 1 of the project area is being proposed. The current document is intended to provide support for the environmental documentation being prepared to comply with Hawai‘i Revised Statues (HRS) Chapter 343 and expected permitting applications in anticipation of the Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division’s (DLNR-SHPD) HRS Chapter 6E-8 review of the proposed project. This study was undertaken in accordance with Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §13–275 and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports as contained in HAR §13–276. On September 6, 2019, a preliminary field inspection was conducted by Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D., who was accompanied by Joel Bautista from the Public Works Department of the County of Kaua‘i, and David Buckley the DLNR-SHPD Kaua‘i Archaeologist. The three drove and visually inspected the entire project corridor and made a preliminary visual inspection of Olohena Bridge 2. It was agreed that both Phase 1 and Phase 2 corridors would be subject to surface survey but given the nature of the project coupled with the extensive historic and modern disturbance of the study area that no subsurface testing would be necessary. Archaeological fieldwork for the current study was conducted on October 15, 2019 by Benjamin Barna, Ph.D. and Robynn Namnama, B.A.; a total of sixteen person- hours was expended during the fieldwork. As a result of the fieldwork for the current study, a single historic property, SIHP Site 50-30-08-2396 (Olohena Bridge 2) was recorded. Site 2396 is an early twentieth century bridge that appears to have been minimally repaired over the years. Although it exhibits deterioration to its deck and parapets, it clearly retains its integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to be evaluated as significant under Criterion a for its association with the patterns of rural development on Kaua‘i, and Criterion d for the historic information it has yielded relative to the development of transportation routes with respect to residential and agricultural land use. It is further argued that as this structure is a common example of a concrete slab bridge without any ornate characteristics it is not eligible under Criterion c. It is the conclusion of the current study that Phase 1 of the County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works roadway improvements project will result in an “effect with proposed mitigation commitments.” The proposed mitigation will be the completion of a HAER short form. It is our further recommendation, based on our background research, that when the County of Kaua‘i engages in Phase 2 of the proposed roadway improvements project that archaeological monitoring take place as a precautionary measure to be able to provide an immediate response if any unanticipated remains are inadvertently discovered. To that end, an archaeological monitoring plan shall be prepared and submitted to SHPD in accordance with HAR §13-279 for review and acceptance prior to commencement of Phase 2 of the roadway improvements project. Table of Contents AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi iii CHAPTERS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 4 2. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 12 CULTURE-HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................. 12 Early Hawaiian Settlement Patterns ............................................................................. 12 Legendary Accounts of the Study Area Vicinity ......................................................... 15 The Legendary Moikeha .............................................................................................. 15 The Study Area Vicinity Prior to European Contact .................................................... 17 Kauaʻi After European Contact .................................................................................... 17 Lihue Plantation Company, Ltd. (1849-2000) ............................................................. 20 The Study Area Vicinity in the Twentieth Century ..................................................... 21 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES ................................................................. 21 3. STUDY AREA EXPECTATIONS ............................................................................. 25 4. FIELDWORK .............................................................................................................. 26 FIELD METHODS ............................................................................................................ 26 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 26 SIHP Site 50-30-08-2396 (Olohena Bridge 2) ............................................................. 27 5. SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION, TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECT................................................................... 37 SIHP SITE 50-30-08-2396 (OLOHENA BRIDGE 2) ....................................................... 37 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT ..................................................................................... 37 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 43 FIGURES Page 1. Study area location. ..................................................................................................................... 2 2. Composite Tax Map Plats showing location of current study area. ........................................... 3 3. Satellite image of the current study area. .................................................................................... 4 4. Olohena Road segment 0.8 miles west of Kaʻapuni Road, view to the west. ............................ 5 5. Olohena Road segment 2.4 miles west of Kaʻapuni Road, view to the southwest. .................... 6 6. Olohena Road segment approaching Kamalu Road, view to the west. ...................................... 6 7. Olohena Road/Kukui Street segment, view to the northeast. ..................................................... 7 8. Olohena Road/Kukui Street segment, view to the northwest. .................................................... 7 9. Olohena Road/Kukui Street segment approaching the roundabout view to the northwest. ....... 8 Table of Contents iv AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Page 10. Ulu Street segment, view to the south. ..................................................................................... 8 11. Kahau Road segment extending northeast from Olohena Road, view to the southwest. ......... 9 12. Lehua Street segment extending east from Olohena Road, view to the east. ........................... 9 13. Geology underlying the current study area. ............................................................................ 10 14. Soils underlying the current study area. .................................................................................. 11 15. Ancient districts and modern districts of Kaua‘i (source: King in Coulter 1935:228). .......... 14 16. Locations of previous archaeological studies and historic properties in the vicinity of the current study area. .............................................................................................................. 24 17. Site location map..................................................................................................................... 26 18. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2, view to the east. ........................................................................ 27 19. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 plan view. .................................................................................. 28 20. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) elevation and wingwalls. ............................... 29 21. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) elevation and wingwalls. .......................... 30 22. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 abutment on west side of bridge, view to the southwest. .......... 31 23. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) side, western wingwall, view to the southwest. ................................................................................................................................. 31 24. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) side, eastern wingwall, view to the southeast. .................................................................................................................................. 32 25. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) side, western wingwall, view to the west. ......................................................................................................................................... 32 26. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) side, eastern wingwall, view to the east............................................................................................................................................ 33 27. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) parapet, view to the northwest. ...................... 33 28. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) parapet, view to the north. ........................ 34 29. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) side, damage to bridge deck and parapet, view to the northwest. ................................................................................................ 35 30. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) side, intrusive mounting for 12-inch waterline, view to the southwest. ............................................................................................. 35 31. Hawai‘i Registered Map 2452 (Wall 1907-8) showing location of Site 2396 (ca. 1912). ..... 36 TABLES Page 1. Kuleana Land Commission Awards (LCAw.) in Kapa‘a and Waipouli. ................................................ 20 2. Previous archaeological studies conducted in the vicinity of the current study area. ............................. 23 3. Historic properties recorded during the current study............................................................................. 26 4. Site significance and treatment recommendation. .................................................................................. 37 1. Introduction AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 1 1. INTRODUCTION At the request of WSP USA (WSP), on behalf of the County of Kaua‘i (landowner and project proponent) Department of Public Works, ASM Affiliates (ASM) conducted an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) for a proposed roadway improvements project over portions of Olohena Road, Kahau Road, Kukui Street, Lehua Street, and Ulu Street in the vicinity of Kapa‘a Town (TMKs: (4) 4-3-003:999, (4) 4-4-005:999, (4) 4-4-006:999, (4) 4-5-008:999, (4) 4-5-009:999, (4) 4-5-010:999, and (4) 4-5-015:003) in Kapa‘a, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau District, Island of Kaua‘i (Figures 1, 2, and 3). Development activities proposed within the roughly 42-acre project area will include the following items: • Pavement rehabilitation and resurfacing on Olohena Road, Kukui Street, and Ulu Street; • Extending pavement shoulders by up to 6 feet in each direction along Olohena Road; • Pavement widening along Kukui Street and Ulu Street to support enhanced traffic operations; • Addition of sidewalks for pedestrian access along Olohena Road and Kukui Street between Kapa‘a Bypass Road and Kūhiō Highway; • Potential addition of a new roundabout on Olohena Road incorporating the intersections and Kahau Road and Lehua Street, and associated roadwork extending roughly 200 feet along Kahau Road and Lehua Street; • Reconfiguration and/or addition/deletion of travel lanes, turn lanes, bike lanes, and parking areas along Olohena Road, Kukui Street and Ulu Street in the vicinity of Kūhiō Highway; • Drainage and utility modifications, including relocation and replacement of facilities, where necessitated by pavement widening/rehabilitation; • Ancillary improvements, including guardrail adjustment and installation, and other safety improvements; and • Improvements at Olohena Bridge 2 on Olohena Road, which may include bridge railing modification, bridge widening, and/or bridge replacement, along with ancillary utility relocations and end treatments/safety rail transitions. The current document, which has been through two rounds of Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) review (Log No. 2019.02618, Doc. 2003DB03; email from Susan Lebo dated 11-25-2020), is intended to provide support for the environmental documentation being prepared to comply with Hawai‘i Revised Statues (HRS) Chapter 343 and expected permitting applications in anticipation of the DLNR-SHPD HRS Chapter 6E-8 review of the proposed project. This study was undertaken in accordance with Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §13–275 and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports as contained in HAR §13–276. Compliance with the above standards is sufficient for meeting the initial historic preservation review process requirements of both the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the County of Kaua‘i Planning Department. This report contains background information describing the location and environment of the study area, a brief culture-historical context for the study area, a summary of the previous archaeological work conducted in the vicinity of the subject parcel, an explanation of the survey methods, a detailed description of the encountered historic property, along with interpretation, significance evaluations, and proposed treatment recommendations for the identified site. Also presented is a determination of the effect that the proposed development will have on that resource. 1. Introduction 2 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 1. Study area location. ULU ST 1. Introduction AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 3 Figure 2. Composite Tax Map Plats showing location of current study area (kauai.gov/Tax Maps accessed 2020). 1. Introduction 4 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 3. Satellite image of the current study area (USDA-NRCS-National Geospatial Center of Excellence, DOD-NGA, accessed 2020). STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The current study area comprises portions of Olohena Road, Kahau Road, Kukui Street, Lehua Street, and Ulu Street, including a portion of the Kapa‘a Bypass Road roundabout, as shown on Figure 1. The study area includes approximately 42 acres covering approximately 10 feet on either side of the right of way (ROW) along the project area. The roadway ROWs are as follows: • Olohena Road (Figures 4, 5, and 6), from Kamalu Road to 200 feet beyond Ka‘apuni Road (2.5 miles) – variable ROW, ranging from 40-feet to 185-feet; • Olohena Road/Kukui Street (Figures 7, 8, and 9), from Kapa‘a Bypass Road to Kūhiō Highway (0.3 miles) – 60-foot ROW; • Ulu Street (Figure 10), from Kukui Street to Kūhiō Highway (0.3 miles) – 40-foot ROW; and • Kahau Road (Figure 11) and Lehua Street (Figure 12), extending 200 feet from Olohena Road, along each roadway. In addition, at Olohena Bridge 2 (located along Olohena Road at a distance of roughly 0.43 miles makai of Kamalu Road), the study area extends up to 20 feet beyond the existing bridge deck. Cumulatively, the total length of this area is about 3.1 miles. The project will also include a construction staging area which has not yet been specified but will be located within the road ROW. The project will also have the potential to affect as much as 10 feet below the surface of the existing roadway to accommodate resurfacing work, the installation of guardrails, and potential underground utility relocations. At Olohena Bridge 2, the bridge will be widened to accommodate two lanes. The new bridge deck will span the existing bridge, and the new abutments will be placed beyond the existing abutments and stream channel. The existing bridge deck, wingwalls, and channel walls will remain. Only the existing bridge parapets will be impacted. This project will be conducted in two phases: Phase 1 along Olohena Road between Ka‘apuni Road and Kamalu Road, and Phase 2 to include the makai portion of Olohena Road/Kukui Street, along with Lehua and Ulu Streets in the vicinity of Kapa‘a town (see Figure 3). Currently, only work in Phase 1 of the project area is being proposed. Phase 1 Phase 2 1. Introduction AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 5 The Olohena Road segment of the current study area (Phase 1) is in a rural setting. The study area crosses geological substrates (Figure 13) that include 12,000 year old Koloa Volcanics (Qtkol), 14,000 year old Waimea Canyon Basalt (Twnl), and Alluvium (QTao) (Sherrod et al. 2007). Soils (Figure 14) include Puhi silty clay loams (PnB, PnC, PnD, PnE), Ioleau silty clay loams (IoB, IoE2), Hanalei silty clays (HnA, HrB), with rough broken land (rRR) within gulches. As this segment extends makai from Kamalu Road, it crosses several small gulches as it descends from 187 feet above sea level onto alluvial plains inland from Kapaʻa town, reaching minimum elevation of 65 feet above sea level before ascending again to 154 feet elevation at Kaʻapuni Road. The gulches crossed by the study area contain small tributary streams that feed into Konohiki Stream, which in turn flows into the Waikaea Canal south of Kapaʻa town. The Olohena Road/Kukui Street segment (Phase 2) passes through a commercially and residentially developed area, with storefronts and residential yards fronting the road ROW. Geology beneath this segment of the study area is mapped as alluvium (Qa in Figure 13). Soils beneath this segment of the study area are mapped as Mokuleia fine sandy loam (Mr in Figure 14) beneath Kukui Street, with Mokuleia clay loam, poorly drained variant (Mta) and Fill land (Fd) beneath Olohena Road to the traffic circle. This area behind Kapaʻa town was formerly marsh lands (Handy et al. 1991). The Lehua and Ulu Street and Kahau Road segments (Phase 2) pass through residential areas as well, with residential yards fronting the road ROW. Geology beneath this segment of the study area is mapped as alluvium (Qa in Figure 13). Soils are mapped as Mokuleia fine sandy loam (Mr in Figure 14). Situated on the windward side of Kaua‘i, the current study area’s climate is largely influenced by the prevailing trade winds, which produce between 42 and 60 inches of rainfall along the length of the current study area (Giambelluca et al. 2014). Vegetation on the unpaved road shoulders includes a variety of introduced grasses (e.g., Guinea grass [Megathyrsus maximus]) and other herbaceous plants. On the banks of the tributary of Konohiki Stream located at Olohena Bridge 2, vegetation includes hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) and African tulip (Spathodea campanulata), with ornamental plantings of ti (Cordyline fruticosa) on the northern side of the bridge. Figure 4. Olohena Road segment 0.8 miles west of Kaʻapuni Road, view to the west. 1. Introduction 6 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 5. Olohena Road segment 2.4 miles west of Kaʻapuni Road, view to the southwest. Figure 6. Olohena Road segment approaching Kamalu Road, view to the west. 1. Introduction AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 7 Figure 7. Olohena Road/Kukui Street segment, view to the northeast. Figure 8. Olohena Road/Kukui Street segment, view to the northwest. 1. Introduction 8 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 9. Olohena Road/Kukui Street segment approaching the roundabout view to the northwest. Figure 10. Ulu Street segment, view to the south. 1. Introduction AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 9 Figure 11. Kahau Road segment extending northeast from Olohena Road, view to the southwest. Figure 12. Lehua Street segment extending east from Olohena Road, view to the east. 1. Introduction 10 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 13. Geology underlying the current study area. 1. Introduction AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 11 Figure 14. Soils underlying the current study area. 2. Background 12 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 2. BACKGROUND To generate a set of expectations regarding the nature of archaeological resources that might be encountered within the current study area, and to establish an environment within which to assess the significance of any such resources, a general culture-historical context for the Kawaihau District that includes specific information regarding the known history of Kapa‘a, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupuaʻa and the study area is presented. This is followed by a discussion of relevant prior archaeological studies conducted in the vicinity of the current study area. CULTURE-HISTORICAL CONTEXT Early Hawaiian Settlement Patterns While the question of the timing of the first settlement of the islands of Hawaiʻi by Polynesians remains unanswered, several theories have been offered that derive from various sources of information (i.e., archaeological, genealogical, mythological, oral-historical, radiometric). However, none of these theories is today universally accepted because there is no archaeological evidence to support the proposed timing for the initial settlement, or colonization stage of island occupation. More recently, with advances in palynology and radiocarbon dating techniques, Kirch (2011) and others (Athens et al. 2014; Wilmshurst et al. 2011) have convincingly argued that Polynesians arrived much later in the Hawaiian Islands, sometime between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1200 and expanded rapidly thereafter (c.f., Kirch 2011). The initial settlement of Hawai‘i is believed to have originated from the southern Marquesas Islands (Emory in Tatar 1982). In these early times, Hawai‘i’s inhabitants were primarily engaged in subsistence level agriculture and fishing (Handy et al. 1991). This was a period of great exploitation and environmental modification, when early Hawaiian farmers developed new subsistence strategies by adapting their familiar patterns and traditional tools to their new environment (Kirch 1985; Pogue 1978). Their ancient and ingrained philosophy of life tied them to their environment and kept order; which was further assured by the conical clan principle of genealogical seniority (Kirch 1984). According to Fornander (1969), the Hawaiians brought from their homeland certain universal Polynesian customs and belief: the major gods Kāne, Kū, and Lono; the kapu system of law and order; cities of refuge; the ‘aumakua concept; and the concept of mana. In 1893, Dr. Nathaniel Emerson made the following observations about the link between Kauaʻi and southern Polynesia: It is a matter of observation that only on the island of Kauai both the special features of its spoken language and the character of its myths and legends indicate a closer relationship to the groups of the southern Pacific, to which the Hawaiian people owe their origin, than do those of the other islands of the Hawaiian group. (Joesting 1984:23) Initial permanent settlements in the islands were established at sheltered bays with access to fresh water and marine resources. Communities shared extended familial relations and there was an occupational focus on the collection of marine resources. Over a period of several centuries the areas with the richest natural resources became populated and perhaps even crowded, and there was an increasing separation of the chiefly class from the common people. As the environment reached its maximum carrying capacity, the result was social stress, hostility, and war between neighboring groups (Kirch 1985). Soon, large areas of Hawai‘i were controlled by a few powerful chiefs. As time passed, a uniquely Hawaiian culture developed. The portable artifacts found in archaeological sites of this period reflect not only an evolution of the traditional tools, but some distinctly Hawaiian inventions. The adze (ko‘i) evolved from the typical Polynesian variations of plano-convex, trapezoidal, and reverse-triangular cross- section to a very standard Hawaiian rectangular quadrangular tanged adze. A few areas in Hawai‘i produced quality basalt for adze production. Mauna Kea, on the island of Hawai‘i, possessed a well-known adze quarry. The two-piece fishhook and the octopus-lure breadloaf sinker are Hawaiian inventions of this period, as are ‘ulu maika stones and lei niho palaoa. The latter was a status item worn by those of high rank, indicating a trend toward greater status differentiation (Kirch 1985). As population continued to expand so did social stratification, which was accompanied by major socioeconomic changes and intensive land modification. Most of the ecologically favorable zones of the windward and coastal regions of all major islands were settled and the more marginal leeward areas were being developed. Additional migrations to Hawai‘i occurred from Tahiti in the Society Islands. Rosendahl (1972) has proposed that settlement at this time was related to seasonal, recurrent occupation in which coastal sites were occupied in the summer to exploit marine resources, and upland sites were occupied during the winter months, with a focus on agriculture. 2. Background AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 13 An increasing reliance on agricultural products may have caused a shift in social networks as well; as Hommon (1976) argues, kinship links between coastal settlements disintegrated as those links within the mauka-makai settlements expanded to accommodate exchange of agricultural products for marine resources. This shift is believed to have resulted in the establishment of the ahupua‘a system sometime during the A.D. 1400s (Kirch 1985), adding another component to an already well-stratified society. The implications of this model include a shift in residential patterns from seasonal, temporary occupation, to permanent dispersed occupation of both coastal and upland areas. By this time (A.D. 1400s) the island of Kauaʻi appears to have been divided into five traditional districts or moku, and the moku were further divided into distinct land units known as ahupua‘a. The ahupua‘a became the equivalent of a local community, with its own social, economic, and political significance. Ahupua‘a were ruled by ali‘i ‘ai ahupua‘a; who, for the most part, had complete autonomy over this generally economically self-supporting piece of land, which was managed by a konohiki. The ali‘i ‘ai ahupua‘a in turn answered to an ali‘i ‘ai moku, a higher chief who ruled over the moku and claimed the abundance of the entire district. Thus, ahupua‘a resources supported not only the maka‘āinana (commoners) and ‘ohana (extended families) who lived on the land, but also provided support to the ruling class of higher chiefs and ultimately the crown. Ahupua‘a were ideally wedge or pie-shaped, incorporating all of the eco-zones from the mountains to the sea and for several hundred yards beyond the shore, assuring a diverse subsistence resource base (Hommon 1986). The ali‘i and the maka‘āinana were not confined to the boundaries of an ahupua‘a; when there was a perceived need, they also shared with their neighbor ahupua‘a ‘ohana (Hono-ko-hau 1974). The ahupua‘a were further divided into smaller sections such as ‘ili, mo‘o‘āina, paukū‘āina, kīhāpai, kōʻele, hakuone, and kuakua (Hommon 1986, Pogue 1978). The chiefs of these land units gave their allegiance to a territorial chief or mō‘ī (king). As religion became more complex and embedded in a sociopolitical climate of territorial competition, heiau building flourished and acted “as visual markers of chiefly dominance” (Kirch 1990:206). As previously mentioned, the current study area extends across portions of Kapa‘a, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a within Kawaihau District to the north and west of Kapa‘a Town near the central eastern coastline of Kaua‘i (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). The literal translation of Kawaihau is “the ice water” and according to Pukui et al. the district name was borrowed from that of a glee club started by King Kalākaua’s brother, Prince Leleiōhoku, who named his club “in honor of an American missionary lady who (unlike the club members) drank only ice water” (1974:98). Further information regarding the origin of Kawaihau District is found in a 1935 publication written by the Principal Engineer (Robert King) of the Survey Department of the Territory of Hawaii, which outlines the evolution of the districts of the Hawaiian Islands. Per King, at the time of the Māhele (ca. 1848), Kaua‘i was divided into five districts: “Kona, Puna, Koolau, Halelea, and Napali” (1935:215). Pukui et al. also mention that Kawaihau District “was sometimes called Puna” (ibid.:193). Then, in 1859, an act of the legislature divided the Hawaiian Islands into districts “for taxation, educational and judicial purposes” and as a result, Kauai was divided as follows: 1. From Nualolo to Hanapepe, inclusive, to be styled the Waimea district; 2. From Wahiawa to Mahaulepu, inclusive, to be styled the Koloa district; 3. From Kipu to Kamalomalo, inclusive, to be styled the Lihue district; 4. From Anahola to Kilauea, inclusive, to be styled the Anahola district; 5. From Kalihiwai to Honopu, inclusive, to be styled the Hanalei district. (King 1935:216) Thus, the traditional district of Puna was renamed Līhuʻe, “a place named borrowed from Oahu and used subsequently for the name of an important town in that district” (ibid.:217). The names and boundaries of the districts remained the same until 1878, at which time the Līhuʻe and Anahola districts were subdivided, “reducing Līhuʻe district about a third, and adding to what was then known as Anahola district the ahupaas of Olohena, Waipouli, Kapaa, Kealia, and Kamalomalo” (ibid.), which resulted in the creation of the Kawaihau district; “From Waipouli to Kilauea, inclusive” (ibid.). King then goes on to mention “an interesting page in the history of the reign of King Kalakaua” and refers the reader to a newspaper article from 1929. The Honolulu Advertiser headline read: Romantic Effort By King Kalakaua To “Rehabilitate” Hawaiians Away Back in 1877 Was Dire Failure: Group of Youthful Court Hangers-on Located on Kauai Lands by King In Effort To Establish Plantation and Back-To-Land Movement; Gentlemen Farmers “Blew Up” After Many Hardships, and Experiment Is Abandoned (October 21, 1929:4) The article goes on to tell the story of the Hui Kawaihau, comprised of men and their families from Honolulu who settled in Kapa‘a under the patronage of Kalakaua beginning in 1887, “for the purpose of establishing an association of congenial and intelligent farmers on the fertile cane lands at Kapahi, above Kapaa” (ibid.). Indeed, Hui Kawaihau began as a choral society founded by Leleiōhoku, and took its name from Ka Wahine o Kawaiahau or the lady of the ice water, who preferred to drink ice water rather than the sprits that the preponderance of the hui members had indulged. 2. Background 14 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 15. Ancient districts and modern districts of Kaua‘i (source: King in Coulter 1935:228). Upon Leleiōhoku’s death in 1877, Kalakaua decided to reorganize Hui Kawaihau to include more of his retinue, and sent “twenty men, with about the same number of women and children” who had “little or no experience in farming” to engage in sugar cultivation under the newly formed Makee Sugar Company on lands set aside by the King: So about the middle of the year 1877 the District of Kawaihau was set apart by the King, who gave that name to the country lying between the Wailua River and Moloaa Valley, near Kilauea, the official boundaries of the district being determined the following year. . . (ibid.) According to King (1935), in 1880 Kalakaua’s established the Kawaihau District as the lands from Wailua to Moloa‘a. Hui Kawaihau settled in the Kapahi neighborhood roughly 2.5 miles inland (Honolulu Advertiser October 21, 1929), located to the north of the current study area. Per the article, “the trained city politicians . . . found it hard to settle down to a quiet farming life” and after about four years of struggling to make their enterprise work, in 1881, the hui dissolved, and its members scattered across the Hawaiian Kingdom. 2. Background AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 15 The districts of Kaua‘i underwent still more minor changes: in 1886, Leeuli, Waipake, and Pilaa of Hanalei District were added to Kawaihau; in 1887, Kawaihau was adjusted to include the lands from Wailua to Kealaakaiole, which more or less restored the district boundaries to how they were in 1880 and remained unchanged until 1921 (King 1935). In 1921, “a slight amendment was made to the boundary between Lihue and Kawaihau districts” (King 1935:221) when the Wailua River was used to mark the southern boundary of the district. Regarding the literal translation of the subject ahupua‘a, Kapa‘a means “the solid or the closing” (Pukui et al. 1974: 86) while Waipouli translates as “dark water” (ibid.:227). Olohena however “has no meaning” in the Hawaiian language, but may be a cognate of Olosenga, which Pukui et al. (1974:170) explain is an island in the Manu‘a group of Samoa. Legendary Accounts of the Study Area Vicinity According to Fornander, the earliest legends of ancient Kaua‘i are few, but paint a picture of independence and separation from the islands of O‘ahu, Moloka‘i, Maui, and Hawai‘i. Until the time when Kaua‘i was under the rule of Kukona, the seventh mōʻī, or ruling chief, “Kauai, its government and chiefs, had been living apart, or not mingled much with the chiefs or events on the other islands” (1996:92). The following legendary account supports this theme and provides a vivid description of the royal court at Kapa‘a under the rule of the ali‘i nui Puna and introduces the legendary ali‘i Moikeha. Per Handy et al.: Kapa‘a is famous as the home the great ali‘i Moikeha who lived here in his later years. . . but, after his death his bones were taken to Kahiki. Near the shore is a place called Lulu-o-Moikeha (Sheltered place pf Moikeha). Before Moikeha’s death his son Kila went to Kahiki seeking his father’s father, and to him identified himself by a chant describing the charms of Kapa‘a: My father enjoys the billowing clouds over Pohaku-pili The sticky and delicious poi, With the fish brought from Puna, The broad-backed shrimp of Kapalua, The dark backed shrimp of Pohaku-hapai, The potent ‘awa root of Mai‘aki‘i The breadfruit laid in the embers at Makialo, The large heavy taros of Keahapana. . . . He enjoys himself on Kauai, All of Kauai is Moikeha’s. (1991:424) The Legendary Moikeha This legend, as recounted by King David Kalakaua begins around the year A.D. 1040 with Maweke, the ali‘i nui of O‘ahu who had three sons: Mulielealii, Keaunui, and Kalehenui (Kalakaua 1888). Upon Maweke’s death, the rule of O‘ahu was divided among the three brothers. Mulielealii ruled over western O‘ahu and had three sons: Kumuhonua, Olopana, and Moikeha, as well as a daughter Hainakolo. Moikeha adopted a son named Laa-mai-kahiki who was a descendent of Paumakua, a fearless explorer from another bloodline; and with his brother Olopana moved from O‘ahu to Waipi‘o on Hawai‘i Island. The brothers and Laa then journeyed to the distant land of Kahiki; there, a woman came between the two brothers and Moikeha chose to return to the Hawaiian Islands, and left Laa behind. Per Kalakaua, after stopping at Hawai‘i, Maui, and O‘ahu, “Moikeha anchored his canoes in a roadstead not far from Kapaa, Kauai, where Puna, the governing alii of the island held his court, surrounded by chiefs of his family and a large number of retainers” (ibid.:124). Kalakaua goes on to describe Puna as a popular ruler, who was tough but fair, “He would pardon the humble laborer who might inadvertently cross his shadow or violate a tabu, but never the chief who deliberately trespassed upon his privileges” (ibid.). Furthermore, His disposition was naturally warlike, but as the condition of the island was peaceful, and military force was seldom required except in repelling occasional plundering raids from the other islands, he kept alive the martial spirit of his chiefs and subjects by frequent sham fights, marine drills, and the encouragement of athletic games and friendly contests at arms, in which he himself sometimes took part. Feasting and dancing usually followed these warlike pastimes, and the result was that the court of Puna became somewhat noted for the chivalry of its chiefs and the splendor of its entertainments. (ibid.:124-125) 2. Background 16 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Puna had a single child, a daughter named Hooipo. When it came time to select a husband for her, Puna devised a contest in which her suitors would race from Kaua‘i to the island of Kaula to recover his palaoa; and whomever got it first would become her husband. As luck would have it, the contest for Hooipo was scheduled for a few days after Moikeha made landfall at Kapa‘a; and upon meeting Hooipo, the two fell in love. Moikeha was allowed to join the other eight chiefs in the contest and surprised everyone in attendance at Kapa‘a before they set off for the race when he announced his genealogy as son of Mulielealii. With the help of Laamaomao the god of the winds from Kahiki, Moikeha won the contest and returned the palaoa to Puna in Kapa‘a, all the while remaining friendly with the rival chiefs. The legend concludes thusly, “In due time Hooipo became the wife of Moikeha, who, on the death of Puna, succeeded him as the alii-nui of Kauai, where he remained to the end of his life” (ibid:131). Moikeha and Hooipo’s daughter is the featured character in the following account. Kaililauokekoa The study area vicinity is mentioned in another legend that tells of a chiefess of Kapa‘a named Kaililauokekoa, which translates as “the leaf-bark of the Koa” (Thrum 1923:123). Per Thrum, Kaililauokekoa was the daughter of Moikeha and Hooipoikamalanai and was so beautiful that “her cheeks vied with the ohelo berries in their coloring, so that it became a saying ‘cooked red is Puna by the fire of the woman’” (ibid.). According to the legend Kaililauokekoa enjoyed playing konane and riding the surf break known as Makaiwa, located outside of Waipouli. One day Heakekoa, a chief from Molokai appeared and challenged her to many games of konane, which she won with ease. He inquired after her father, to which the chiefess replied, “Moikeha is here, alive, indulging in the curving surf of Makaiwa; the enjoyment of the beauty and loving comfort of my mother Hooipoikamalanai, and he will live on Kauai until his death” (ibid.: 124-125). Shortly after, Kaililauokekoa heard music beckoning her from the mountains and she and her attendant went on a journey to seek it out. The singing instrument mentions the subject ahupua‘a of Kapa‘a and the district of Puna played as follows: Sacred indeed is Pahanakalani. Sacred indeed is Pahanakalani, For Kaniaupiookawao. O Kaili! O Kaililauokekoa! Art thou asleep? Art thou asleep in the soft grass of Kapaa, In the broadness of Puna as it lies At the curving surf of Makaiwa, In the dear bosom of your mother Hooipoikamalanai? O Kaili! O Kaililauokekoa! Art thou asleep? (ibid.:134) Her quest brought her to the source of the song, a handsome young chief of upper Pihanakalani named Kauakahialii. Soon they were married and “they became the chiefs of the whole Puna district of Kauai” (ibid.:135). Kapa‘a and Waipouli are both mentioned in the following account, which also includes Laamaoma who was also featured in the Legend of Moikeha above. Legend of Kuapakaa The study area vicinity is mentioned briefly in the “Legend of Kuapakaa,” as published in Fornander’s Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-Lore Volume V which tells of Kuapakaa who was the son of Pakaa, a favorite servant of Keawenuiaumi, the king of Hawaii (Fornander 1918-1919). However, at one point, the king chose to lean on two other men as his most trusted advisors and Kuapakaa left Hawaii and went to Molokai; there, his son Pakaa was born. Once he was old enough, Kuapakaa instructed his son in the mele and knowledge of serving the king in the hopes that someday Keawenuiaumi would ask Kuapakaa to return to his service. Soon after, Pakaa’s spirit met with that of Keawenuiaumi in dreams and Kuapalaa and Pakaa took their canoe out onto the ocean to await the arrival of their king. The king’s canoe arrived along with those of the six district chiefs under him and Kuapakaa chanted a greeting to each of them; however, the boy’s greetings were disrespectful and mocking in tone and angered the chiefs. Then, at his father’s bidding, Kuapakaa chanted words of warning of storms and currents and sharks to Keawenuiaumi in order to get him to make landfall at Kaula and reunite with Pakaa. However, the king and his canoe men did not see any clouds, rain, or wind and decided instead to go on. 2. Background AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 17 In response, Pakaa told Kuapakaa to call out for the winds of Hawai‘i and the king was angered and ordered his men to sail on. Next Pakaa ordered Kuapakaa to call out the winds of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau. In so doing, Kuapakaa mentions two of the subject ahupua‘a as follows: The inuwai is of Waipouli. . . He inuwai ko Waipouli. . . The kehau is of Kapaa. . . He kehau ko Kapaa. . . These were the names of the winds of Kaua‘i, as called out by the boy, and they are known by these names to this day. (Fornander 1918-1919:96-97) The legend continues with Kuapakaa learning that his father’s brother, Lapakahoe, is on the canoe with the king; Lapakahoe recognizes the chants and figures out that Pakaa is on the canoe rather than on the shore at Kaula. Kuapakaa then unleashes a storm by opening the wind calabash known as Laamaomao, which swamps all the canoes and eventually Pakaa is reunited with Keawenuiaumi on land at Moloka‘i. The Study Area Vicinity Prior to European Contact Prior to European contact, the Hawaiian economy was subsistence based with an emphasis on kalo (taro) production. Kalo is most productive when it is planted in cool, fresh, shallow water (Wilcox 1996). In order to create these conditions, early Hawaiians developed terraces or loʻi that contained dikes or pani wai, which were used to divert water from nearby streams. This water was then channeled through a network of irrigation ditches or ʻauwai. As a result of the development of food resources, population concentrations emerged in five distinct areas of Kaua‘i during the Precontact Period (Handy et al. 1991), of which the traditional moku of Puna is one. Puna was made up of “a broad kula, intersected by streams flowing from the eastern slopes of the ride on the east side of Hanalei Valley, until we come to Wailua River [and] was an area of diversified farming: taro, sweet potatoes, breadfruit, coconuts” (Handy et al. 1991:423). Nearby Wailua Ahupua‘a, located to the south of the current study area, was a very important place in ancient times and shared the distinction with Waimea of being the seat of the ruling ali‘i for the entire island. Wailua was also host to at least six significant heiau and boasts the largest river in all the Hawaiian Islands (Handy et al. 1991). Handy et al. (1991) had the following to report from their investigations in Kapa‘a and Waipouli ahupua’a during the 1930s: Kapa‘a is a broad ahupua‘a with wide and deep kula land. . . Below the mountains there are extensive flatlands where there were terraces irrigated from Kapahi, Makaleha, and Malepi Streams; here the upper homesteads are located. Kapa‘a River is formed by the confluence of these three streams. For four miles or more along the river, terraces were built on the pockets of level land along the shores, the flatlands of Waianuenue, another large stream; and much of coastal Kapa‘a would certainly have been terraced for wet taro where sugar cane is now planted. (ibid.) Waipouli was a rather insignificant ahupua‘a south of Kapa‘a watered by Konohiki Stream, in the bed of which there were flats where taro was once planted. There is some level, swampy land by the sea that looks as if it had been terraced. (ibid.:424) Kauaʻi After European Contact The Island of Kaua‘i was the first of the Hawaiian Islands to be reached by Europeans, which occurred in 1778 when Captain James Cook’s ships the Discovery and the Resolution anchored at Waimea. As previously mentioned, in the years leading up to the first contact with Europeans, the Hawaiian Islands were under the control of various mōʻī. These high-ranking chiefs acted as kings or sovereigns of the different moku (districts) and in some cases of entire islands. Interisland and intraisland warfare resulted in tremendous loss of life and power shifts across the island chain. A decade after Hawai‘i’s first contact with the Western world, Hawaiians began to acquire firearms and cannons, which resulted in even greater casualties. In 1790, Kamehameha I was still battling for complete control of Hawai‘i Island. During this time, he invaded Maui, Lāna‘i, and Moloka‘i, wresting control from Kahekili, then king of Maui and Oʻahu. In 1791, Kahekili’s half- brother Kaeo (Kaeokulani) was king of Kauaʻi, and joined Kahekili in successfully reclaiming the islands of Maui, Lāna‘i, and Moloka‘i. Later that same year, Kaeo and Kahekili tried to invade the island of Hawaiʻi and were defeated by Kamehameha in a sea battle known as “the battle of the red-mouthed guns” (Joesting 1984: 55). Shortly thereafter, Kamehameha was able to unite the island of Hawaiʻi under his rule, upon the sacrificial death of his greatest rival Keoua, the high chief of Ka‘ū. Kahekili died on Maui in 1794. Soon after, Kaeo stopped in O‘ahu on his way back to Kaua‘i and was killed at the hands of his own forces and foreign reinforcements as he attempted to suppress a rebellion. With Kaeo and Kahikili gone, Kamehameha was able to conquer Maui, Moloka‘i, Lāna‘i and O‘ahu by October of 1795, and set his sights set on the last holdouts: Kauaʻi and Niʻihau. 2. Background 18 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi At this time, the island of Kauaʻi was host to its own civil war, which had erupted upon the death of Kaeo because his son Keawe “decided to ignore his father’s wishes that Kaumualii become king” (Joesting 1984:58). As a result of this feud, the brothers fought bitterly and by July of 1796, Keawe successfully defeated Kaumualiʻi. Rather than kill Kaumualiʻi, Keawe kept him under house arrest, but Keawe died soon after taking him prisoner. As a result, Kauaʻi and Niʻihau came under the rule of Kaumualiʻi, a mere teenager at the time. In April 1796, while Kaumualiʻi was still his brother’s prisoner, Kamehameha I had mounted a failed invasion of Kauaʻi. Kamehameha I and his troops fell prey to the strong currents and dangerous winds of the Kaieie Waho channel (between Oʻahu and Kauaʻi) and were forced to turn back to Oʻahu before they even reached their target. About eight years later, Kamehameha I prepared for a second invasion of Kauaʻi. However, an epidemic swept through Oʻahu, which depleted his ranks and claimed the lives of his most trusted advisors before they had a chance to set sail across the channel, thereby foiling another invasion attempt (Joesting 1984). Kamehameha I and the young king endured five years of fruitless negotiations and Kaumualii finally agreed to meet Kamehameha face to face in Honolulu in 1810. As a result of this meeting, Kaumualiʻi retained control of the Kaua‘i by pledging his allegiance to Kamehameha I; although Kauaʻi had officially become part of Kamehameha’s kingdom. This arrangement lasted until a few years after the death of Kamehameha I (c. 1819). In 1821, Kamehameha’s son Liholiho (Kamehameha II) kidnapped Kaumualiʻi from Kauaʻi and took him to Oʻahu. Within days, Kaumualiʻi was forced to marry Kamehameha I’s widow Kaʻahumanu. A few days after that, Kaʻahumanu also took Kaumualiʻi’s son Kealiiahonui as her husband, thereby sealing the alliance between the leeward and windward islands (Joesting 1984). Kaumualiʻi, the last independent king of Kauaʻi, died in 1824 in Honolulu, having never returned to Kauaʻi after Liholiho lured him away (Donohugh 2001). According to most accounts, Kaumualiʻi was remembered favorably by kama‘āina and foreigners alike. Upon Kaumualiʻi’s death, Kauaʻi became divided over whether to be loyal to Kamehameha II and the windward chiefs who had taken it upon themselves to fill in for the late king of Kaua‘i; or pursue the independence they had enjoyed in the early days under Kaumualiʻi’s rule (Donohugh 2001). After Kaumualiʻi’s death, Keeaumoku, the first appointed governor, died shortly after his appointment. Keeaumoku was replaced by Kahalaia (Joesting 1984). However, as a result of the mounting tensions throughout Kauaʻi, Kaʻahumanu’s cousin Kalanimoku, the prime minister and treasurer of the kingdom, ventured to Waimea, Kauaʻi on August 1, 1824, to diffuse the situation (Del Piano 2009). In an attempt to reclaim sovereignty for Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau, on August 8, 1824, a small group of rebels that included Kaumualiʻi’s son George (Humehume) mounted a failed uprising against the Hawaiian presence at the Russian Fort at Waimea (Del Piano 2009; Joesting 1984). Prince George and the other insurgents were forced to retreat and sought refuge in Hanapēpē Valley. In response, some Kaua‘i natives armed themselves to fight the rebels and Kalanimoku called in reinforcements from O‘ahu and Maui. On August 20, 1824, experienced troops armed with muskets arrived in Kauaʻi and defeated Humehume and his small group of rebel supporters in the battle of Hanapēpē- Wahiawa. The rebels who survived the battle, fled; however, many of them were later caught and held captive. Humehume was among these men and was brought before Kalanimoku, who spared the prince’s life (Del Piano 2009). The repercussions of this decisive battle resulted in the realization of Kamehameha I’s aspirations for the unification of all the Hawaiian Islands under one rule, albeit five years after his death. Various historic accounts of the battle of Hanapēpē-Wahiawa and its aftermath describe the extreme brutality meted out by the invaders, which included violent acts against unarmed women and children (Joesting 1984). The invaders looted the island, stripped the chiefs of their lands, and deported them to Hawaiʻi, Oʻahu, and Maui. Kaʻahumanu continued to influence Hawaiian history during this time. She had assumed control over the Hawaiian kingdom since 1823 when her son Liholiho had set sail for England, and upon notification of Liholiho’s death in 1825, she became the self-appointed regent of Hawaiʻi. After Kaumualiʻi’s death, Kaʻahumanu redistributed many of the Kauaʻi chiefs’ lands to members of the royal family (descendants of Kamehameha), or gave them out as rewards to favored court advisors and proven warriors, all of whom acted as absentee landlords because they resided on other islands (Joesting 1984). In his history of Kauaʻi, Joesting (1984) opines that the motives for these vengeful attacks upon Kauaʻi after Kaumualiʻi’s death had been building for generations. Some of the windward island rulers resented the power inherent in the birthright of the kings of Kauaʻi and likely held grudges from earlier invasions of the windward islands; while others may have felt that they had unfinished business after Kamehameha I’s two failed invasion attempts. In addition, some of the windward fighters may have gone to Kauaʻi in an effort to root out the missionary presence that Kaumualiʻi had so warmly welcomed there. 2. Background AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 19 Foreign Influences The first missionaries to arrive in Kauaʻi from foreign lands were sent on the Thaddeus by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) in 1820 from Boston Massachusetts. Also on board the Thaddeus were four young Hawaiian men who had been educated at the Foreign Mission School in Cornwall Connecticut. Among these young Hawaiians was Kaumualiʻiʻs son George, who wished to be reunited with his father on Kauaʻi (Joesting 1984). By the time they arrived at the island of Hawaiʻi in April of 1820, Kamehameha I had died and the traditional kapu system had been overthrown. Some of the contingent stayed at Kailua on Hawaiʻi while the rest set up mission headquarters in Honolulu. George Kaumualiʻi and his missionary escorts Ruggles and Whitney anchored at Waimea, Kauaʻi on May 3, 1820. As a result of his joyous reunion with his son and Prince George’s accounts of the missionaries’ kindness, Kaumualiʻi extended an open invitation with full support for his guests and their families to settle in Kauaʻi. Furthermore, Kaumualiʻi pledged to build school houses, meeting houses and observe the Sabbath (Joesting 1984). The first mission in Kauaʻi was located at Waimea and in 1835 the Reverend Peter Gulick and his wife Fanny started another missionary station in Kōloa. Historical accounts written by missionaries and early explorers offer a glimpse into the past. For instance, Vancouver and Townsend who anchored along the dry leeward coast of Kauaʻi reported the presence of complex irrigation networks that supported fields of taro, yams, and sugarcane (Vancouver 1798, Jarves 1838, Townsend 1999). English Missionary James Ellis made the following observations while on Kauaʻi (August 8, 1823) during his tour of the Hawaiian Islands: The population probably amounts to nearly 10,000. The principal settlements are in the neighbourhood of Waimea river, the roads at the entrance of which are the usual resort of vessels touching at Tauai [Kaua‘i]. (2004: 18) During the Postcontact Period, Hawaiʻi shifted from a traditional self-sustaining, subsistence economy based on kalo production to an economy based on the sale of goods and services. This progression affected the society as a whole and caused the population to move away from villages and valleys and settle in towns and seaports (Wilcox 1996). The sandalwood trade with the Orient (ca. 1811-1835), visits from whaling ships (ca. 1819-1861), commercial sugar cultivation (ca. 1835-1935), and the California Gold Rush (ca. 1849-1859) had a profound influence on Hawaiian culture. In particular, the establishment of Lihue Plantation Company, which operated from 1849 until 2000 made an indelible mark on the study area vicinity and is discussed in further detail in a forthcoming section. The Māhele Āina of 1848 The profound religious, socioeconomic, and demographic changes that took place in the early 1800s also resulted in the establishment of a Euro-American style of land tenure, and the Māhele ‘Āina of 1848 or Great Māhele was the vehicle used to divide the land between the crown, government, konohiki, and native tenants. Prior to this land reformation, all the land and natural resources of Hawai‘i were held in trust by the aliʻi who, in concert with konohiki land agents, meted out use rights to the native tenants at will. During the Māhele all lands were placed in one of three categories: Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne), Government Lands, and Konohiki Lands; all three types of land were subject to the rights of the native tenants therein. The aliʻi and konohiki were required to present their claims to the Land Commission to receive a Land Commission Award (LCAw.) for lands provided to them by Kamehameha III. They were also required to provide commutations to the government in order to receive royal patents on their awards. The lands were identified by name only, with the understanding that the ancient boundaries would prevail until the land could be surveyed. This process expedited the work of the Land Commission and subsequent land transfers (Chinen 1961). In 1862, the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission) was established to legally set the boundaries of all the ahupua‘a that had been awarded as a part of the Māhele. However, boundary descriptions were not collected for all ahupua‘a. Native commoners could also register claims for land with the Land Commission, and if substantiated, they would receive awards referred to as kuleana. Upon confirmation of a claim, a survey was required before the Land Commission could issue a kuleana award. 2. Background 20 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Although no records exist of the names of individuals who had their land stripped from them after the conquest of Kauaʻi in 1824, the Māhele records provide data on those who claimed possession of the lands in ca. 1847 (Joesting 1984). As previously mentioned, many lands in Kauaʻi were given to individuals related in some way to the Kamehameha dynasty. In addition, the names of two governors of Kauaʻi, Kaikioewa and Paul Kanoa appear often in the Māhele records; as does the name Kalanimoku, sometimes spelled Kalaimoku, which translates as “Counselor, prime minister, high official” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:121). As a result of the Māhele, the majority of the lands in Kapa‘a were retained as Crown Lands, except for the ‘ili of Paikahawai and Ulakiu, which were retained as Government Lands, and only six kuleana claims primarily for lo‘i and house lots (Table 1) were awarded in the large ahupua‘a (Bushnell et al. 2002). Waipouli Ahupua‘a was awarded to William C. Lunalilo (LCAw. 8559-B:42) and nine kuleana claims were awarded (see Table 1), which included house lots and lo‘i along the coastline (Bushnell et al. 2004). Lastly, Olohena Ahupua‘a was awarded to Kiaimoku, who returned the southern half of the ahupua‘a to the government in lieu of commutation (Soehren 2008), thus establishing a North and South Olohena. Only a single kuleana claim (LCAw. 3831) was awarded in North Olohena to Pahuwai, who claimed four lo‘i and a house lot in the area of the Waialiali marshland above Konohiki Stream near the boundary with Waipouli Ahupua‘a. Following the Māhele, much of the land retained or commuted to the government went into a land granting program. Originally intended to benefit those maka‘āinana that did not receive kuleana awards during the Māhele, the government granting program additionally paved the way for the private ownership and consolidation of large tracts of land that in many cases formed the core of late nineteenth and early twentieth century plantation operations. Table 1. Kuleana Land Commission Awards (LCAw.) in Kapa‘a and Waipouli. LCAw. # Claimant(s) Land Use Award Kapa‘a 3243/3971 Ioane Honolii 6 lo‘i and house lot 2 apana 3554 Keo 15 lo‘i and house lot 2 apana 3638 Huluili 12-15 lo‘i, kula, house lot 2 apana 8247 Ehu 20 lo‘i 1 apana 8837 Kamapaa 9 lo‘i, kula, house lot 1 apana 8843 Kiau 6 lo‘i, kula, house lot 2 apana Waipouli 3622 Kamaholela 3 lo‘i, kula, house lot 2 apana 3624 Kaumiumi 3 lo‘i, kula, house lot 2 apana 3639 Kapalahua 3 lo‘i, kula, house lot 1 apana 7636 Kanaka 3 lo‘i and house lot 2 apana 8836 Kaalihikaua 2 lo‘i, kula, pig pen, house lot 1 apana 8838 Kahukuma 2 lo‘i, kula, house lot 1 apana 8839 Kuaiwa 4 lo‘i, kula, house lot 2 apana 9013 Nawaimaka 3 lo‘i and house lot 2 apana 10146 Mahi 3 lo‘i, kula, house lot 2 apana Lihue Plantation Company, Ltd. (1849-2000) Lihue Plantation Company was originally established on 3,000 acres in 1849 by Charles Reed Bishop, Judge William L. Lee, and Henry A. Peirce under the name Henry A. Peirce & Co. with a mill in Nawiliwili (Saito and Campbell 1987). In 1859, a new partnership resulted in the name change to Lihue Plantation Company and in 1866, 300 acres at Ahukini were added to the cane lands. In 1870, under the management of Paul Isenberg, Lihue Plantation purchased 17,000 acres at Hanamā‘ulu and established Hanamaulu Plantation with its own mill under the management of Albert Spencer Wilcox (Dorrance and Morgan 2000). In 1878, Lihue Plantation leased another 30,000 acres of land located at Wailua, at which time Paul’s brother Carl Isenberg took over management of the plantation and instituted a reforestation program therein (Saito and Campbell 1987). Also, around this time (ca. 1877), the aforementioned Makee Sugar Company was established in Kapa‘a by Captain James Makee by order of the King and ineffectively run by Hui Kawaihau, which included portions of the current study area. Kalakaua and the members of Hui Kawaihau purchased the Ernest Krull sugar estate and by 1889, 1,030 workers at Makee Sugar Company produced 5,000 tons of sugar (Saito and Campbell 1987). Makee’s son-in- law Colonel Z. S. Spalding had purchased lands at Keālia and set up a mill there. Upon his father-in-law’s death, Spalding took over Makee Sugar Company and merged his Makee’s mill equipment with that of Keālia and was the 2. Background AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 21 first manager to institute 24-hour harvesting and milling in Hawai‘i (Saito and Campbell 1987). Both Lihue Plantation Company and Makee Sugar Company developed other innovations and improvements such as the construction of the 10-mile long Lihue Ditch, which was the sugar industry’s first irrigation ditch (built ca. 1857), the use of hydro- electric power at Līhu‘e, and the use of a wire rope tramway to transport cane at Makee (Saito and Campbell 1987). During the 1890s a railway system was constructed and by 1910 Lihue Plantation included “33 miles of ditches, four miles of tunnels, and 9,900 feet of water gearing flumes” (Saito and Campbell 1987:2); that same year, Lihue Plantation bought controlling interest in Makee Sugar Company. In 1922, American Factors (formerly Hackfeld & Co.) bought controlling interest in Lihue Plantation, and in 1933, Lihue Plantation merged with Makee Sugar Company (Sommer 2000). Thus, in 1933, “the properties of Lihue Plantation included Makee Plantation, Ahukini Railway Co., Nawiliwili Transportation Co., East Kauai Water Co., Princeville Ranch, Waiahi Electric Co., and pineapple lands leased to Hawaiian canneries” (Saito and Campbell 1987:2). In 1990, only five of the 31 plantations that formerly existed on Kaua‘i ca. 1877 remained in operation (Dorrance and Morgan 2000) and Lihue Plantation, which was then owned by Amfac/JMB, endured until 2000 (Sommer 2000). In November of 2000, Amfac/JMB put 17,000 acres of former Lihue Plantation land up for sale and the remaining 6,000 acres still planted in cane produced their last harvest after 150 years of operation in east Kaua‘i. The Study Area Vicinity in the Twentieth Century As mentioned in the discussion of Lihue Plantation above, the development of commercial sugar cultivation transformed the study area vicinity with irrigation ditches, access roads, and railway lines crisscrossing Kapa‘a and much of east Kaua‘i. Plantation workers and their families settled the area and government lands in Kapa‘a were auctioned off as town lots during the early 1900s (Bushnell et al. 2004). Per Bushnell et al. (2002), during the early twentieth century Kapa‘a Town was host to a courthouse and jail, a fire station, and a Board of Health dispensary. The introduction of commercial pineapple cultivation and the establishment of the Hawaiian Canneries plant in coastal Kapa‘a, to the east of the study area, led to an influx of laborers to the area. Although most of the sugar and pineapple plantation camps were formerly in Keālia, a handful of small camps were situated in the hills near Olohena Road (Stable Camp, 35 Camp, and 18 Camp); and a large camp known as Pueo Camp was located in the immediate vicinity of the eastern section of the current study area, near the intersection of Olohena Road and the Kapa‘a Bypass road near former railroad tracks. In 1920, the Ahukini Terminal & Railway Company received land grant 7563, which included roughly 40 acres from Anahola to Wailua for a right-of-way for a narrow-gauge railroad (Waihona Aina database). Lihue Plantation acquired the Ahukini Terminal & Railway Company in 1934 and used the railroad until 1959 at which point the Plantation shifted entirely to trucking for transport of their cane and sugar (Bushnell et al. 2002). During the 1940s, nearby Mō‘ikeha Canal (located south of the eastern portion of the study area) was dredged and constructed along with Waika‘ea Canal (to the north of the study area) in response to severe floods in Kapa‘a in 1940 (Fa‘anunu and Hammatt 2010). Per Bushnell et al. (2004) Pueo camp was destroyed at some point during the 1950s. In 1960, 3,400 acres of land in and around Kapa‘a were dedicated to pineapple cultivation; but, by 1962 Hawaiian Canneries succumbed as it could no longer compete with pineapple grown in foreign markets (Bushnell et al. 2004). Since the 1970s, the former royal and sacred center-turned plantation town has undergone much residential, commercial, and tourist-related development. Much of the former sugar and pineapple industry buildings have been replaced by hotels and businesses. Furthermore, the corridor between Wailua and Kapa‘a, including the study area vicinity, is being marketed as a tourist destination and referred to as the Royal Coconut Coast. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES The earliest archaeological study in Kaua‘i appears to be that of Thomas G. Thrum, who created a list of the heiau of ancient Hawai‘i. Thrum published his list of heiau in a series of entries in the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, beginning with the 1907 edition. Of his investigations, Thrum noted the following: This much is being realized, and expressions of regret have been freely made, that we are at least fifty years too late in entering upon these investigations for a complete knowledge of the matter, for there are no natives now living that have more than hear-say information on the subject, not a little of which proves conflicting if not contradictory . . . While these difficulties may delay the result of our study of the subject, there is nevertheless much material of deep interest attending the search and listing of the temples of these islands that warrants a record thereof for reference and preservation. (1906a:49-50) 2. Background 22 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Thrum and his associates compiled information on over 120 heiau on Kaua‘i. One must take into consideration that Thrum included data on heiau that had already been destroyed prior to his data collection efforts in the early 1900s. As previously mentioned, Wailua Ahupua‘a was a former ruling center during the Precontact Period and Thrum recorded four heiau (Malae, Poliahu, Holoholoku, and Hikinaakala) therein. Although no heiau were identified by Thrum as extant or having existed in Kapa‘a or Waipouli, two heiau are listed as being located within Olohena— Kukui and Mahewalu. Per Thrum, Mahewalu was “on Olohena ridge” and “said to be of large size, round, walled and stone paved” and “of pookanaka class” (1906a:42). Of Kukui, Thrum reported: At Olohena, boundary of Lihue District. This heiau of two sections of 85 feet front and 196 feet in length show the largest stones in its construction of any visited. Though in ruins, evidence still exists of it having been paved throughout. It also has the distinction of double walls along the sides of the outer division with a four foot pathway between which led to the inner section. The end wall is entirely gone but the side walls at this point are 11 feet at the shore side in thickness. The passage walls mentioned are 8 feet thick on the outer and 5 feet on the inner side. (ibid.:41) Thrum further elaborated on a connection between legendary warrior Kawelo, a kupua or hero venerated as a demigod from Wailua, and Kukui Heiau in another article in the same volume as follows: The heiau of Kukui is famed traditionally as the place where Kawelo’s body after being slain in battle at Wahiawa was brought and placed on the lele (altar) fore decomposition, which did not set in , and on nearly the tenth Anahulu (ten days [sic] periods) his body was struck by lightning when he came to life. (1906b:68) The earliest formal archaeological survey of Kaua‘i was conducted by Wendell C. Bennett on behalf of the Bishop Museum between June of 1928 and June of 1929, which resulted in the volume titled Archaeology of Kauai (Bennett 1931). Bennett’s purpose was “to locate and describe the remains of all Hawaiian structures, to describe the artefacts of Kauai and to review the literature relating to Kauai” (Bennett 1930: 53). In his paper Kauai Archeology presented to the Hawaiian Historical Society in 1930, Bennett (1930) noted that the population of Kaua‘i was distributed primarily along the coasts, river valleys, and inland as far as irrigable land would reach, while the mountains were only sparsely inhabited. Bennett remarked on the impressive engineering skill involved in the construction of complex irrigation and terrace networks, particularly the Menehune ditch, which “represent probably the most remarkable piece of work of its kind, not only in the Hawaiian Islands but in all Polynesia” (1930: 57). Bennett refers to Thrum’s 1906 list of 124 heiau on Kaua‘i as “a very complete list” and goes on to emphasize that Thrum included sacred places and small heiau in his list (1930:57). Bennett noted a lack of the “great massive forms [of heiau] so characteristic of the later Hawaiian epoch” and an abundance of smaller (less than fifty feet in size) heiau on Kaua‘i (1930:59). He also mentioned the difficulty in distinguishing these small ceremonial structures from house sites, due to their similarities in form, which consisted mainly of simple platforms or enclosures. Bennett recorded twenty “principal large heiau” on his survey of the island, three of which were listed as “destroyed” (1930:58- 59), but none were located in the vicinity of the current study area. Bennett also included a discussion of distinctively Kaua‘i artifacts, namely block grinders and ring-form food rubbing stones/pounders. Other interesting and potentially relevant observations made from his literature review include the presence of polished stone knives, carved stone bowls, the utilization of dressed stone in ditch construction, and that women as well as men made poi on Kaua‘i. During the decades that followed Bennett’s initial survey of Kaua‘i, no archaeological studies of the Kawaihau District were produced. However, beginning in the 1970s, lands within the study ahupua‘a became the subject of multiple archaeological investigations related to the ongoing residential and resort development of the area. Most of these studies were focused within the coastal strip of land makai of the current study area. Beginning in the 1990s, many of these studies were conducted in support of Kūhiō Highway (Elmore and Kennedy 2003; Hammatt et al. 1997; Perzinski and Hammatt 2001) and sewer line improvement projects (Hammatt 1991; Creed et al. 1995) still primarily in the makai portion of Kapa‘a, Waipouli, and Olohena ahupua‘a. In some cases, human remains were encountered during monitoring (Creed et al. 1995; Dega and Powell 2003), which necessitated osteological/burial reports (Calis 2000; Jourdane 1995; Pietrusewsky et al. 1994). Those previous archaeological studies conducted in closest proximity to the current study area (Table 2) are discussed in further detail below, and their locations depicted in Figure 16. 2. Background AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 23 Table 2. Previous archaeological studies conducted in the vicinity of the current study area. Year Author(s) Type of Study Ahupua‘a 1994a Chaffee et al. AIS Kapa‘a 1994b Chaffee et al. AIS Kapa‘a 1995 Creed et al. Monitoring Report Waipouli and Kapa‘a 1996 Hammatt et al. Testing Kapa‘a 2000 Calis Monitoring Kapa‘a 2000 McIntosh and Cleghorn AIS Kapa‘a 2008 Shideler Field Inspection Waipouli 2008 Leibhardt et al. AIS Waipouli 2013 McMahon and Tolleson Assessment Kapa‘a In 1992, Kaua‘i Archaeologist William Kikuchi and Librarian Susan Remoaldo included descriptions of six cemeteries in the vicinity of Kapa‘a Town in their publication titled Cemeteries of Kaua‘i (Kikuchi and Remoaldo 1992). Two of these historic cemeteries are located near the current study area. Cemetery B004 located to the north of the current study area and north of Apopo Road roughly a kilometer mauka of Kūhiō Highway (see Figure 16); and Cemetery B013 located on the mauka side of Kūhiō Highway and makai of Ulu Street (see Figure 16). In 1994, Scientific Consulting Services (SCS) conducted an AIS (Chaffee et al. 1994a) of a house lot to the southwest of the intersection of Ulu Street and Kukui Street, adjacent to the study area (see Figure 16). No cultural resources were identified as a result of their fieldwork. Also, in 1994, SCS conducted an AIS (Chaffee et al. 1994b) of another residential property located at the northwest end of Mamane Street and to the west of the Ulu Street portion of the current study area (see Figure 16). No cultural resources were identified as a result of their fieldwork. In 1995, CSH conducted archaeological monitoring (Creed et al. 1995) of the corridor for the Kapa‘a Sewer line Project, located along a portion of Kūhiō Highway to the east of the eastern portion of the study area (see Figure 16). During the monitoring effort, twenty-six human burials (State Inventory of Historic Places [SIHP] Sites 50-30-80- 867, -868, -871, and -1894) containing the remains of thirty individuals were encountered in sandy deposits associated with former habitation within the corridor. CSH also reported the presence of a cultural layer and subsurface features (SIHP Site 50-30-08-1849) previously recorded by Hammatt (1991), the boundaries of which were expanded to include the burial sites recorded by Creed et al. (1995), as well as SIHP Site 50-30-80-626, which was recorded by Jourdane (1995). In 1996, CSH (Hammatt et al. 1996) conducted test trenching and sediment coring at multiple locations for the then proposed Kūhiō Highway Bypass project inland of present-day Kūhio Highway and makai of the subsequently built bypass road corridor (see Figure 16). While they did encounter a buried organic layer that was radiocarbon dated to A.D.1660-1950, no cultural material was found in association with this layer. In 2000, Pacific Legacy Inc. conducted an AIS (McIntosh and Cleghorn 2000) of a 398.45-acre parcel located to the north of Olohena Road and the western section of the current study area (see Figure 16). McIntosh and Cleghorn noted that their study area had been under sugarcane cultivation for over a century. As a result of their fieldwork, eleven sugar industry-related, Historic Period features were recorded under a single site designation (SIHP Site 50-30-08-989). These features included an irrigation ditch tunnel, a rock wall, a 3.3-acre reservoir, a railroad and concrete bridge remnants, two concrete bridges with curbing, a concrete and wooden irrigation ditch control gate, and a concrete water diversion. No further work was the recommended treatment for these resources. In 2008, CSH conducted an archaeological field inspection (Shideler 2008) of 26-acres in Waipouli Ahupua‘a, located between Hauiki Road and Waipouli Road to the north of Olohena Road and the western section of the current study area (see Figure 16). As a result of their field inspection, CSH identified seven historic properties associated with twentieth century agricultural activities including two earthen irrigation ditches and an irrigation tunnel in basalt, an earthen irrigation tunnel, a wooden water control and gauging structure, and the reservoirs. Later that same year, Archaeological Consultants of Hawai‘i, Inc. (ACH) returned to the Shideler (2008) study area and conducted and AIS (Leibhardt et al. 2008) with subsurface testing. ACH recorded the previously identified irrigation ditch features under the SIHP Site designation 50-30-08-2081, which they interpreted as associated with the reservoir; and recorded another irrigation ditch as Site 50-30-08-5027, which was located further from the reservoir and interpreted to not be associated with it. No further work was the recommended treatment for these resources. 2. Background 24 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 16. Locations of previous archaeological studies and historic properties in the vicinity of the current study area. 3. Study Area Expectations AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 25 In 2012, Exploration Associates, Ltd. conducted an Archaeological Assessment with subsurface testing (McMahon and Tolleson 2013) of a 97-acre parcel for a then-proposed residential subdivision development project, located to the south of Olohena Road and immediately to the southwest of Kukui Street near where it intersects with the Kapa‘a Bypass road and the eastern section of the current study area (see Figure 16). McMahon and Tolleson (2013) noted that their study area comprised former cane lands that had been planted as recently as 1998. As a result of their pedestrian survey and subsurface testing no Precontact or Historic resources were identified, and no further work was the recommended treatment. In sum, although there is scant evidence of Precontact or early Historic surface cultural resources due to over a century and a half of ground-disturbing activities associated with the commercial cultivation of sugar, and later pineapple, in the study area vicinity; the results of prior archaeological investigations indicate that in the extreme coastal areas, intact subsurface cultural resources may be present. Such subsurface resources have been encountered in the vicinity of present-day Kūhiō Highway and include cultural layers that contain postholes, hearth features, and artifacts, as well as human burials. 3. STUDY AREA EXPECTATIONS Based on the historical background information presented above, coupled with a review of historical maps, Historic land use within the study area vicinity included commercial sugar and pineapple cultivation within the mauka portion of the study area with Precontact and Historic habitation occurring in the makai portion of the study area. The Historic land use and the recent urbanization and tourism-related development in coastal Kapa‘a likely destroyed most surface Precontact cultural resources within the study area. However, previous archaeological studies conducted near the makai portion of the study area vicinity did reveal intact subsurface cultural deposits related to Precontact habitation and burial customs. Taking into consideration that the study area comprises the developed Olohena Road right-of- way, the potential for surface features or intact subsurface deposits is low. Potential surface features might include remnants from earlier iterations of the present-day Olohena Road alignment and/or associated transportation-related infrastructure, as well as commercial agriculture-related features such as irrigation features within the mauka portion of the study area. In the makai portion of the study area, it is less likely that intact previously unidentified surface features remain but there is a possibility that buried cultural deposits exist. 4. Fieldwork 26 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 4. FIELDWORK On September 6, 2019, a preliminary field inspection was conducted by Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D., who was accompanied by Joel Bautista from the Public Works Department of the County of Kaua‘i, and David Buckley the DLNR-SHPD Kaua‘i Archaeologist. The three drove and visually inspected the entire project corridor and made a preliminary visual inspection of Olohena Bridge 2. It was agreed that given the nature of the project coupled with the extensive historic and modern disturbance of the study area that no subsurface testing would be necessary. Archaeological fieldwork for the current study was conducted on October 15, 2019 by Benjamin Barna, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator) and Robynn Namnama, B.A.; a total of 16 person-hours was expended during the fieldwork. FIELD METHODS During the fieldwork, the entire (100%) ground surface of study area (both Phase 1 and Phase 2) was visually inspected by the field crew walking transects oriented parallel to the roadways, with one archaeologist on either side. When historic properties were encountered, their positions were plotted on a map of the current study area using a Garmin GPSMap 64 handheld GPS unit (set to the WGS 84 Zone 4 North datum, with ± 3-meter accuracy). The one identified feature located within the current study area was cleared of vegetation, photographed (both with and without a meter stick for scale), depicted on a scaled drafted plan map, and described using a standardized feature record form. As discussed above, no subsurface testing was conducted. FINDINGS As a result of the fieldwork for the current study, a single historic property, SIHP Site 50- 30-08-2396 (Olohena Bridge 2) was recorded (Table 3). The location of this property relative to the current study area is presented in Figure 17, and the property is described below, and in Appendix A. Table 3. Historic properties recorded during the current study. SIHP Site Number Type Function Age 50-30-08-2396 Concrete slab bridge Transportation Historic Figure 17. Site location map. 4. Fieldwork AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 27 SIHP Site 50-30-08-2396 (Olohena Bridge 2) SIHP Site 50-30-08-2396 (Olohena Bridge 2) is a single-span concrete bridge (Figure 18) located on Olohena Road approximately three miles west of Kapaʻa town. The one-lane bridge carries Olohena Road across a tributary of Konohiki Stream. The bridge has a reinforced concrete deck measuring 19.5 feet wide by 15 feet long (Figures 19, 20, and 21). At the time of the current fieldwork, the bridge deck stood 72 inches above the water level in the stream. The concrete deck bears impressions from the wooden form that was used to cast it. The deck sits on mortared cut stone (basalt) abutments (Figure 22) with integrated wingwalls. The average dimensions of the cut basalt stones are approximately 2 feet long by 1 foot tall by 1 foot wide. The four wingwalls are of similar mortared cut stone construction extend along the east and west banks of the stream, two on each side of the bridge. The wing walls vary in length and direction (see Figures 20 and 21). On the upstream (north) side of the bridge, the western wingwall (Figure 23) extends roughly west for 14.75 feet, and the eastern wingwall (Figure 24) extends roughly north for 7 feet. On the downstream (south) side of the bridge, the western wingwall (Figure 25) extends almost due south for 13 feet, and the eastern wingwall (Figure 26) extends slightly southeast for 20 feet. The bridge has solid concrete parapets (Figures 27 and 28) with shallowly peaked caps. Impressions from the wooden boards used to form the concrete measured 7 1/2 inches wide. Figure 18. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2, view to the east. 4. Fieldwork 28 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 19. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 plan view. 4. Fieldwork AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 29 Figure 20. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) elevation and wingwalls. 4. Fieldwork 30 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 21. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) elevation and wingwalls. 4. Fieldwork AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 31 Figure 22. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 abutment on west side of bridge, view to the southwest. Figure 23. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) side, western wingwall, view to the southwest. 4. Fieldwork 32 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 24. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) side, eastern wingwall, view to the southeast. Figure 25. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) side, western wingwall, view to the west. 4. Fieldwork AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 33 Figure 26. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) side, eastern wingwall, view to the east. Figure 27. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) parapet, view to the northwest. 4. Fieldwork 34 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 28. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) parapet, view to the north. The bridge exhibits damage to its parapets (see Figures 27 and 28), deck, and wingwalls. The concrete caps on the parapets are battered on their outer edges and corners. The underside of the deck is exfoliating and has exposed rebar (Figure 29). The eastern wingwall on the upstream (north) side of the bridge is missing two to three stones from its top course. In the western wingwall on the downstream (south) side of the bridge, one stone in the top course has been dislodged. A 12-inch water pipe (Figure 30) has been installed parallel to the upstream (north) side of the bridge, approximately 2 feet north of the parapet. The pipe is attached to a steel I-beam mounted on formed concrete piers that are behind the wingwalls. A portion of the I-beam also rests on the eastern wingwall. The mortar on all four wingwalls appear to have been partially repointed. Olohena Bridge 2 was not included in the 2013 State Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation (MKE and Fung 2013). No inscribed dates were observed on the bridge, and so its age must be inferred from its construction materials and techniques, as well as from archival sources. Writing generally about simple concrete slab bridges, MKE and Fung (2013:1-32) note that they were constructed in Hawaiʻi from 1908 until about 1937, when they were replaced by “moment-resisting concrete rigid-frame bridges.” An examination of Hawai‘i Registered Map 2452 (dated 1907- 08 with annotations from 1912) indicates that Olohena Road (seemingly a part of the later annotations) was present by 1912 (Figure 31), but perhaps not completed to match its current configuration; the eastern end of the section of Olohena Road comprising a portion of the current study area was either not yet completed or followed a different alignment than the road does today. In either case, it appears that some version of Olohena Bridge 2 was in place by 1912 or shortly thereafter. Additionally, an analysis of the impressions of the wooden form used to cast the concrete bridge indicates that the current Olohena Bridge 2 was likely constructed after 1906, when milled lumber began to be uniformly sized less than the nominal dimension (Smith and Wood 1964); 8 inch width lumber would measure 7 1/2 inches due to 1/4 inch planing when surfaced on 2 sides. These sizes would become national standards and persist until 1969, when 8 inch nominal limber would be reduced to an actual size of 7 1/4 inches (NIST 2010). The board impressions on the underside of bridge deck and parapet are consistent with the1906-1969 size standards. 4. Fieldwork AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 35 Figure 29. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 downstream (south) side, damage to bridge deck and parapet, view to the northwest. Figure 30. Site 2396 Olohena Bridge 2 upstream (north) side, intrusive mounting for 12-inch waterline, view to the southwest. 4. Fieldwork 36 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Figure 31. Hawai‘i Registered Map 2452 (Wall 1907-8) showing location of Site 2396 (ca. 1912). 5. Significance Evaluation, Treatment Recommendations, and Determination of Effect AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 37 5. SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION, TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECT SIHP Site 2396 is assessed for its significance based on criteria contained in the Hawai‘i Administrative Rules 13§13- 275-6. For a resource to be considered significant it must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the following criteria: a Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; b Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; d Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or history; e Have an important traditional cultural value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with traditional cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts—these associations being important to the group’s history and cultural identity. The significance and recommended treatment for Olohena Bridge 2 (SIHP Site 2396) is presented in Table 4 and discussed below. Table 4. Site significance and treatment recommendation. Site # Site Type Temporal Affiliation Significance Recommended Treatment 50-30-08-2396 Concrete slab bridge Historic (built by 1912) a, d Data recovery SIHP SITE 50-30-08-2396 (OLOHENA BRIDGE 2) Site 2396 is an early twentieth century bridge that appears to have been minimally repaired over the years. Although it exhibits deterioration as discussed above, it clearly retains its integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to be evaluated as significant under Criterion a for its association with the patterns of rural development on Kaua‘i, and Criterion d for the historic information it has yielded relative to the development of transportation routes with respect to residential and agricultural land use. It is further argued that as this structure is a common example of a concrete slab bridge without any ornate characteristics it is not eligible under Criterion c. DETERMINATION OF EFFECT Based on the above information, and given that a portion (deck and parapets) of Olohena Bridge 2 will be impacted, it is our conclusion that Phase 1 of the County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works roadway improvements project will result in an “effect with proposed mitigation commitments.” The proposed mitigation will be the completion of a Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) short form. It is our further recommendation, based on our background research, that when the County of Kaua‘i engages in Phase 2 of the proposed roadway improvements project that archaeological monitoring take place as a precautionary measure to be able to provide an immediate response if any unanticipated remains are inadvertently discovered. To that end, an archaeological monitoring plan shall be prepared and submitted to SHPD in accordance with HAR §13- 279 for review and acceptance prior to commencement of Phase 2 of the roadway improvements project. References Cited 38 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi REFERENCES CITED Athens, J., T. Reith, and T. Dye 2014 A Paleoenvironmental and Archaeological Model-based Age Estimate for the Colonization of Hawaiʻi. American Antiquity 79(1):144-155. Bennett, W. 1930 “Kauai Archeology”. Read before Kauai Historical Society, May 20, 1929. Papers of the Hawaiian Historical Society, Number 17. The Printshop Co, Ltd., Honolulu. 1931 Archaeology of Kauai. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 80. Published by the Museum, Honolulu. Bushnell, K., D. Shideler, and H. Hammatt 2002 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kapa‘a-Keālia Bike and Pedestrian Path. Kapaa and Kealia, Kawaihau District, Kaua‘i Island, Hawai‘i. (TMK:4-5, 4-6-16, 4-7-03 & 04). Volume I. Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. 2004 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Kapa‘a Relief Route; Kapa‘a, Waipouli, Olohena, Wailuam and Hanamā‘ulu, Kawaihau District, Kaua‘i Island, Hawai‘i. Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Calis, I. 2000 End of Field Work Report: Human Burial Removal and Archaeological Monitoring, Kapa‘a Beach Park Public Bathroom Installation, Kapa‘a, Kaua‘i. Prepared by Scientific Consultant Services, Kāne‘ohe, Hawai‘i. Chafee, D., B. Burgett, and R. Spear 1994a An Inventory Survey of a Māmane Street Houselot, Kapa‘a Ahupua‘a, Kawaihau District, Puna, Island of Kaua‘i (TMK: 4-5-09:51). Prepared by Scientific Consultant Services, Kāne‘ohe, Hawai‘i. 1994b An Inventory Survey of a Kukui Street Houselot, Kapa‘a Ahupua‘a, Kawaihau District, Puna, Island of Kaua‘i (TMK: 4-5-09:10). Prepared by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc., Kāne‘ohe, Hawai‘i. Chinen, J. 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Privately published, Honolulu. Coulter, J. 1935 A Gazetteer of the Territory of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Research Publication Number 11. Honolulu, University of Hawaii. Creed, V., H. Hammatt, G. Ida, I. Masterson, and J. Winieski 1995 A Summary of the Archaeological Monitoring for the Kapa‘a Sewerline Project, Waipouli and Kapa‘a Ahupua‘a, Puna District, Kaua‘i (TMK: 4-3-09 and 4-5-03 to 11). Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Dega, M., and J. Powell 2003 Archaeological Monitoring During Phase I of the Kaua‘i Rural Fiber Optic Duct Lines Project, Kaua‘i Island, Hawai‘i. Prepared by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc., Kāne‘ohe, Hawai‘i. Del Piano, B. 2009 “Kalanimoku: Iron Cable of the Hawaiian Kingdom 1769-1827”. The Hawaiian Journal of History, vol. 43: 1-28. References Cited AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 39 Donohugh, D. 2001 The Story of Koloa, A Kauai Plantation Town. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Dorrance, W. and F. Morgan 2000 Sugar Islands: The 165-Year Story of Sugar in Hawaiʻi. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Ellis, W. 2004 Journal of William Ellis, A Narrative of an 1823 Tour Through Hawai‘i. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Elmore, M., and J. Kennedy 2003 An Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Proposed Kūhiō Drainage Improvements Kapa‘a and Anahola (Project # 56AC-01-01) located in Kawaihau District, Island of Kaua‘i. Prepared by Archaeological Consultants Pacific, Inc. Fa‘anunu, A., and H. Hammatt 2010 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Moanakai Seawall Repair Project, Kapa‘a Ahupua‘a, Kwaihau District, Kaua‘i Island TMK: [4] 4-5-002:023 (por.). Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Fornander, A. 1918-1919 Legend of Kuapakaa in Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-Lore Volume V pp. 78-108 1969 An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origin and Migrations. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc. 1996 Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha I. Mutual Publishing, Australia. Giambelluca, T. W., X. Shuai, M. L. Barnes, R. J. Alliss, R. J. Longman, T. Miura, Q. Chen, A. G. Frazier, et al. 2014 Evapotranspiration of Hawaiʻi. Prepared for Water Resource Management, State of Hawaiʻi. Hammatt, H. 1991 Archaeological Subsurface Testing for the Proposed Kapa‛a Sewerline, Wailua, Olohena, Waipouli and Kapa‘a, Kaua‘i. Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Hammatt, H., R. Chiogioji, G. Ida, and V. Creed 1996 An Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Kūhiō Highway Widening and Bypass Options within the Ahupua‘a of Wailua, South Olohena, North Olohena, Waipouli and Kapa‘a, Island of Kaua‘i, Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Handy, E.S.C., E.G. Handy, and M. Pukui. 1991 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore and Environment (Revised Edition). Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Hommon, R. 1976 The Formation of Primitive States in Pre-Contact Hawaii. Ph.D. Dissertation (Anthropology), University of Arizona, Tucson. University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawai‘i. IN Kirch, P. (editor), Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation:55–88. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hono-ko-hau Study Advisory Commission 1974 The Spirit of Ka-Loko Hono-Ko-Hau. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. References Cited 40 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Honolulu Advertiser 1929 Romantic Effort by King Kalakaua to “Rehabilitate” Hawaiians Away Back in 1877 Was Dire Failure. Honolulu Advertiser, October 21, 1929:4 Jarves, J. 1838 “Sketches of Kauai”, as published in The Hawaii Spectator Vol. 2, no. 1, Honolulu. Joesting, E. 1984 Kauai, the Separate Kingdom. University of Hawaii Press and Kauai Museum Association, Ltd., Honolulu. Jourdane, E. 1995 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains at 1382-A Inia Street, Kapa‘a, Kaua‘i (Kapa‘a Sewerline Project Laterals) Site 626. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei, Hawai‘i. Kalakaua, D. 1888 The Legends and Myths of Hawaii. The Fables and Folk-Lore of a Strange People. Charles L. Webster & Company, New York. Kikuchi, W. and S. Remoaldo 1992 Cemeteries of Kaua‘i, Vol. 1. Kaua‘i Community College and University of Hawai‘i, Puhi, Kaua‘i. King, R. 1935 Districts in the Hawaiian Islands. IN Coulter, J. 1935 A Gazetteer of the Territory of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Research Publication Number 11. University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Kirch, P. 1984 The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge University Press, New York. 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 1990 The Evolution of Sociopolitical Complexity in Prehistoric Hawaii: An Assessment of the Archaeological Evidence. Journal of World Prehistory 4(3):311–345. 2011 When did the Polynesians Settle Hawai‘i? A Review of 150 Years of Scholarly Inquiry and a Tentative Answer. Hawaiian Archaeology Vol. 12:3-26. Leibhardt, C., J. Moore, and J. Kennedy 2008 Final: An Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for a Property Located at TMK:(4) 4-3-003:004 in Waipouli Ahupua‘a, Kawaihau District, Island of Kaua‘i. Revised Dec 2008. Prepared by Archaeological Consultants of Hawaii, Inc., Haleiwa, Hawai‘i. McIntosh, J., and P. Cleghorn 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey at a 398 Acre Parcel in Kapa‘a, District, Kawaihau, Island of Kaua'i, Hawaii. (TMK 4-03-03: 5). Prepared by Pacific Legacy, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. McMahon, N. and W. Tolleson 2013 An Archaeological Assessment with Subsurface Testing for the Proposed Highlands Phase II Project, Kapa‘a Ahupua’a, Kawaihau, Kaua‘i TMK (4) 4-3-3:1. Prepared by Exploration Associates, Ltd. MKE and Fung (M. K. E. Associates LLC and Fung Associates, Inc.) 2013 Hawaii State Historic Bridge Inventory And Evaluation. Prepared for State of Hawaiʻi, Department of Transportation, Highway Division, Honolulu. References Cited AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 41 NIST (National Institute of Standards & Technology) 2010 American Softwood Lumber Standard. Voluntary Product Standard PS 20-10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Perzinski, M., and H. Hammatt 2001 A Summary of Archaeological Monitoring for the Kūhiō Highway, Waikaea Bridge Widening Project Kapa‘a Ahupua‘a, Kawaihau District, Kaua‘i Island (TMK: 4-3-06 to 4-3-08). Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Pietrusewsky, M., R. Ikehara-Quebral, M. Douglas 1994 Human Skeletal Remains from the Kapa‘a Sewer Line Project, Wailua, Olohena, Waipouli and Kapa‘a, Kaua‘i. Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Pogue, J. 1978 Mooleo Hawaii (Revised Edition). Hale Paipalapala Aupuni, Honolulu.. Pukui, M., and S. Elbert 1986 Hawaiian Dictionary (Revised and Enlarged Edition). University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Pukui, M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. Moʻokini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. Revised and Expanded ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Rosendahl, P. 1972 Archaeological Salvage of the Hapuna-Anaehoomalu Section of the Kailua-Kawaihae Road (Queen Kaahumanu Highway), Island of Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 72-5. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Saito, D. and S. Campbell 1987 Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association Plantation Archives Register of the Lihue Plantation Company Lihue, Kauai 1850-1968. Sherrod, D., J. Sinton, S. Watkins, and K. Brunt 2007 Geologic Map of the State of Hawaiʻi. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Map. Open-File Report 2007-1089. Electronic document, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1089, accessed Oct 17, 2019. Shideler, D. 2008 Letter Report for an Archaeological Field Inspection for an approximately 26.08-Acre Project Area, Waipouli Ahupua‘a, Puna District, Kaua‘i Island, TMK: [4] 4-3-003:004. Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Smith, L., and L. Wood 1964 History of Yard Lumber Size Standards. Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Madison, WI. Soehren, L. 2008 A Catalog of Oʻahu Place Names. Self-published. Sommer, A. 2000 Sugar was King for more than 100 Years. Honolulu Star Bulletin November 16, 2000. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/11/16/news/story3.html. Internet resource, last accessed October 17, 2019. References Cited 42 AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi Tatar, E. 1982 Nineteenth Century Hawaiian Chant. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 33. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Thrum, T. 1906a “Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands”, as published in Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1907. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. 1906b “Tales from the Temples (with plans)” as published in Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1907, Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. 1923 More Hawaiian Folk tales: A Collection of Native Legends and Traditions. A. C. McClurg & Co., Chicago. Townsend, J. 1999 Narrative of a Journey across the Rocky Mountains, to the Columbia River, and a Visit to the Sandwich Islands, Chile, &c. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Vancouver, G. 1798 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World Performed in the Years 1790-95. Volumes 1-3 Robinsons and Edwards, London. Waihona Aina 2019 https://waihona.com/previewDoc.asp?type=LG&docId=32119. Internet resource, last accessed October 17, 2019. Wall, W. 1907-8 Waipouli, North & South Olohena, Puna Kauai. Hawaii Registered Map 2452. Scale 1 inch=400 feet, Survey and Map by F.E. Harvey. Electronic document, http://ags.hawaii.gov/survey/map- search. Wilcox C. 1996 Sugar Water, Hawaii’s Plantation Ditches. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Wilmshurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011 High-Precision Radiocarbon Dating Shows Recent and Rapid Colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:1815-1820. APPENDIX A AIS for County Roadway Improvements Project, Kapaʻa, Waipouli, and North Olohena ahupua‘a, Kawaihau, Kauaʻi 43 APPENDIX A Reconnaissance Level Survey – Survey Form RLS Form 2/2018 State Historic Preservation Division Reconnaissance Level Survey – Survey Form Instructions: Submit this completed form with the completed SIHP request form and 6E Filing Fee Form electronically to: dlnr.intake.shpd@hawaii.gov For additionally guidance on completing this form, please see the Architecture Branch Survey Guidelines available on the SHPD website. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.Review Type: Indicate which review process this survey was requested under HRS 6E-08, HAR 13-275 HRS 6E-42, HAR 13-284 2.Project Information: Indicate the document in which this survey was requested 2.1) Log No. [e.g. 2017.1234] 2.2) Doc No. [e.g. 1708MB27] 2.3) Other: 3.Contact Information: 3.1) Name: 3.2) Company: 3.3) Street Address: 3.4) County: 3.5) State: 3.6) Zip Code: 3.7) Phone: 3.8) Email: 4.Property Location: 4.1) TMK [e.g. (3) 1-2-003:004]: 4.2) Street Address: 4.3) County: 4.4) State: 4.5) Zip Code: 5.Property Classification: 5.1) Ownership: Private Public 5.2) Classification Building District Site Structure Object 6.Property Function: 6.1) Current: 6.2) Historic: RLS Form 2/2018 7.Property Description: 7.1) Date of Construction: 7.2) Provide a description of the property, including the character defining features, summarize alterations to the property, and provide an evaluation of the property’s integrity of materials, design, feeling, location, association, workmanship, and setting. RLS Form 2/2018 8.Eligibility Recommendation: 8.1) Provide a recommendation of eligibility to the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places including applicable criteria and areas of significance. RLS Form 2/2018 9.Attach Photographs: provide sufficient photographs to illustrate the property’s main features. At a minimum provide the following: Quantity Description 1-2 Street view(s) of the resource and setting 1-2 Main Facades 1-2 interior photos(s) if applicable 10. Attach Map showing the location of the property CHECKLIST Reconnaissance Level Survey Form (this form) Photographs Map Filing Fee Form SIHP Request Form 9.Photographs View to the east. West side abutment. 9. Photographs View to the north of southern parapet and wingwalls. Detail of the deterioration of deck and parapet. 10.Location Map and Drawn Plan. Location map . Drawn Plan. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTl'DIRECTOR DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI.MAYOR MICHAEL A.DAHILIG.MANAGING DIRECTOR Kaua'i County Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) DIRECTOR'S REPORT I.SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC: KHPRC actions may include the following: a.Provide comments and direction to generate a Section 106 response letter: 1)Concur with the agency's findings of no adverse effect to historic properties; 2)Not concur with the agency's findings of no adverse effect to historic properties; 3)Provide any other comments on the project;or b.Decline to comment;or c.Defer comments until more information becomes available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The County of Kaua'i Public Works division has initiated the Section 106 consultation process for the resurfacing and road widening of Olohena Road from Kamalu Road to Kahau Road.A portion ofthis project involves improvements to Olohena Bridge No.2-a historic bridge that is over 50 years old. As represented by the agency,the proposed project for the bridge involves the placement of a new,wider deck to sit on top of the old bridge and will convert the lanes of travel from a single-lane to a double-lane bridge.To accommodate the new deck,the existing parapets will be removed and demolished and new parapets will be installed.Guardrails will be placed on either side of the new bridge,but on the new bridge there will be a new 3.5 foot concrete barrier. The only historical elements from the old bridge that will be preserved include the old deck (underneath the new deck),the rock wing walls,and the channel walls. 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 •LThu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer ti ft .0. JUN 1 1 2021 Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) June 17,2021 Meeting Section 106-COK Public Works Olohena Road Bridge Page2 III.FINDINGS a.February 2020 Meeting Summary At the February 2020 meeting,Public Works presented the proposed project and answered clarifying questions from the Commission.During the meeting,the general discussion centered around what historical elements of the bridge would remain and be preserved.Some of the clarifying questions focused on the rock wing walls,parapets,the old bridge deck,exposed abutments,and the proposed guardrails.The Commission also requested a copy of any archeological studies and surveys that were conducted for this project or this area (See attached KHPRC Meeting Minutes for February 2020). The final motion was to "recommend the project with the following restrictions:that we retain the wing walls and the cut stone and as much of the old bridge as possible underneath the new bridge and that the new parapets emulate the parapets on the old bridge as much as possible." b.Project Clarifications Public Works is presenting its final design plans that incorporates some of the Commission's recommendations from the February 2020 meeting. As represented by the applicant,the June 2021 final design preserves the old deck,rock cut wing walls,and the channel walls.However,the proposed design will remove the old parapets and replace with new parapets.In addition,the final design continues to reflect a conversion from a single-lane to a double-lane bridge,which was one point of concern that was brought up at the February 2020 meeting. IV.RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends that the Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission submit a Section 106 comment letter that either concurs or does not concur with the agency's findings of no effect to historic properties. The comment letter should also address any other comments or concerns that the Commission has regarding the final design plans,which may include but not be limited to whether the conversion of a single-lane to a Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) June 17,2021 Meeting Section 106-COK Public Works Olohena Road Bridge Page3 double lane bridge is appropriate and in keeping with the historic character of the area. The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department's final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making. The entire record includes but is not limited to: a.Government agency comments; b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and c.The land owner's response. Digitally signed by Marisa Varndano D«te^2021.06.07 13:40:36-lO'OO' MARISA VALENCIANO Planner Approved &Recommended to Commission: By Digitally signed by Jodi II HlgucN^ Date:2021.06.07 13:52:21 -lO'OO' Date: JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA Deputy Director of Planning 6/7/21 E.APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 16.2020 MINUTES Ms.Summers:Motion to approve the minutes. Mr.Guerber:I second. Chair Wichman:All in favor.(Unanimous voice vote).Any nays.(Hearing none).Okay motion passes.Motion carried 6:0. F.HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Ms.Hieuchi-Saveeusa:This is the agenda matter,where anymemberofthepublic can...is free to testify on any item on the agenda at this point.You can also choose to testify on the agenda item when that item,is called.Anyone in the audience wishing to testify at this time?Okay, seemg none. G.GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Ms.Higuchi-Saveeusa:There are,none here. H.COMMUNICATIONS Ms.Hieuchi-Saveausa:None. I.UNFINISHED BUSINESS I.County of Kaua'i,Department of Public Works -Engineering Division improvements to Collector Roads,Portions of OIohena Road,Kukui Street,and Ulu Street,Federal- Aid Project STF 0700(085) TMK:(4)4-3-003:999,(4)4-4-005:999,(4)4-4-006:999,(4)4-5-008:999,(4)4-5-009:999, (4)4-5-010:999,&(4)4-5-015:003 National Historic Preservation Act,Section 106:Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. Ms.Higuchi-Saveeusa:I believe we have the engineering division head,Michael Moule for presentation.Shall we disburse?Dim the lights. ChiefEneineer Michael Moule:Yes.Good aftemoon Chair and the Commission. Chair Wichman:Good aftemoon. Febmary 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutcs Page 3 of58 Mr.Moule:My name is Michael Moule Chief of Engineering. Set up projectorforpowerpointpresentation. Mr.Moule:Okay.So first thing,I should say,is that it does say Olohena Road,Kukui Street, and Umi Street.That's the fiill project but we split (that)into two phases which means it's only the Olohena Road.We went through (the Section)106 process.So,with the full project and as far as APE (Area ofPotential Effect),we're going through (the)106 process.I should say,the APE (was)approved by (and)concurred with by SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) (and)included the full project.Which included this section here,all of Olohena Road,from Kamalu Road down to Kahau Road whicb is just above Kapa'a Middle School.And then we also have a gap here,its been paved recently.And then we had originally scoped this part Olohena Road,from here to here.Anyway from the roundabout in Kapa'a down to Kukui Street and Kukui Street over the highway.Then also this piece ofUmi Street.But these parts are not part ofthis current phase,(it)will be addressed in (a)fiiture project.So,the action right now that we're lookingatis really just the portion,mostlyruralportionofOlohenaRoadbetweenKahau Road and Kamaka Road.And I don't know that I'll go into a whole lot of detail on most ofthe project plans.(I want to)just let you know what we're doing mainly.Maybe I should cover this andjustdescribeit. Covered projector. Mr.Moule:Mainly what we're doing is move and resurfacing and shoulder widening along the portions ofthe road where there's room to widen shoulders without any significant earthwork. We're not planning to do any cuts and fills and that sort of stuff.And... Ms.Higuchi-Savegusa:We're done with this portion? Mr.Moule:No.leave it.I am going to probably show something in a minute.lamjusttrying to get there.And there are two bridges in this segment.One ofwhich is the Olohena Bridge number two which was replaced about 15 years ago and that's after you tum offof...your coming up Olohena Road and you pass Kapa'a Middle School,you make that left tum and kind of go domi the hill and you come down,go across that bridge.(That)two lane bridge with peg shoulders.And there's Olohena Bridge number one (which)is the bridge near the top ofKamalu Road.It's the one lane bridge on Olohena Road.And that (is the)bridge we are planning to make some changes too.And so I was -unless you want to see the entire length oftbe project and kind of go through page by page...(also)then showing you what kind of shoulder widening we're doing...I can do that.But,since that was relatively minor work ofjust shoulder widening within the existing grass shoulders (and)adding paved shoulders to the grass shoulders,I wasn't going to walk through that because it's a whole lot ofsheets.But (as I said before)I can do that ifyou want to see it.But,I was reallyjust going to move to the area ofthe one bridge because that is the one item that's there,that's more thanjust a little bit ofearthwork and paving within existing grass shoulder areas.Does that sound reasonable?Okay. Delay ...Open file on laptop computer for projector display. Februiay 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Pagc4of58 Mr.Moule:So this is the location ofthe one lane bridge,trying to zoom in...it's really slow today.So the area sort ofbetween the dash lines and this white color.Here is the existing pavement and the existing bridge is right here.It's relatively small...kind of see these dash lines here.I'll come a little closer,right there,existing structure.And the proposed -in this area we're widening significantly because this is the one area ofthe road that's not (inaudible).So, this area here,is the proposed widening and this is the proposed new structure on the bridge for replacement structure for the bridge.This is a -existing stmcture (which is)actually relatively short.It's something like 17 feet long or something like that,it's less than 20 because it's not, it's not a Federal aid bridge.In other words,less than 20 feet wide or long,I should say.The (inaudible)stmcture is a lot bigger than the old structure and this has not been identified as a registered historic structure although it is older than 50 years old.And our proposal is to replace the structure with a new structure,a wider structure.And I will say that ifwe find that it would have an effect from historic property by replacing this bridge,we would take this out ofthe project andjust not touch it with this project given the time frame ofthe project.So,we would keep tbe one lane road in place ifwe fmd that's the case through our work with you all and or with SHPD or any other people that we're consulting with because we don't have the time to go through the process ofdoing that.So,we might move this to a later phase and go through that process as part ofa fiiture effort.So our plan is to replace the bridge or not touch the structure at all at this point. Vice Chair Ida:How wide is this...over here? Mr.Moule:So... Vice Chair Ida:And what is this? Mr.Moule:So that little dasb there to here,this thing you asked about,that's a driveway to a private property tbat we're actually trying to eliminate.We don t think it's -it wasn't a pennitted driveway.People have to get driveway pennits from us to comiect to our roads and it's not permitted on this property.This parcel has several other -at least one other major driveway,which is the one they're supposed to use.So we're actually -possibly not going to be putting that in at all andjust leaving that as unsurfaced area.But this is proposed as a paved driveway in this plan,but we're looking to take that out.The width ofthe...it's a good 10 plus feet wider,that widened area ofthe road,there is ten to twelve feet wider than (the)existing road. Vice Chair Ida:So is that going to be cut or filled. Mr.Moule:Well,that area,that whole area is relatively flat through there.There's a big wide - from the existing pavement here out toward this.This is a -someone built their gravel driveway like I said here.It's relatively flat,there'll be fill actually,not cut.So,the new structure is proposed to be a couple feet higher than the existing structure,I believe at this end.And I can show you that sheet as well,it shows that these are the structure,later in the plan set.And so I can do that.But tbat's...this area here would be some fill,it diminishes as you go this way with pavement on top.That's pavement.Andthenhere.If I recall correctly the most fill was at the east,the east end ofthe structure. Febmaiy 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page5of58 Mr.Guerber:So,Michael,did I hear right,that you're going to replace the single bridge that's there now with this structure. Mr.Moule:That's the proposal,it's either replace it or to not touch the bridge at all. Mr.Guerber:And you're going to leave it as one,as a single bridge for now. Mr.Moule:Well,our goal is to replace it with a two-lane bridge. Mr.Guerber:Yes. Mr.Moule:And,but ifwe find that the,that that there would be an effect on historic property by doing so we would defer that replacement to a fiiture project and take it out ofthis project. Because we don't have tbe time with this project to go through the fiill process ofdoing that given our timeframe with the funds for this project.So we're -the main purpose ofthe overall project is to resurface the road,which is m pretty bad shape.And leaving this piece out while certainly some residences want to have (a)two-lane bridge here.Leaving this piece out doesn't detract from the main purpose,which is paving and providing the improvement ofthe two lane bridge is certainly what we'd like to do.But we would defer that,ifwe needed to do that in order to go through a proper process and all the necessary consultation for -going through consultation now but all the details as far what we might need to change the design to do a two lane bridge.We would delay. Mr.Guerber:Is there any possible historic impact? Mr.Moule:Well,that's why I am here,I guess. Mr.Guerber:Well,I don't know. Mr.Moule:I mean,I think the bridge is certainly older than 50 years.It's not a listed bridge but it's older than 50 years and you know through this process and tbrough our work with SHPD and other consulting parties we may find that people say there's impact and we got to go through more steps.And ifthat's the case then we'll probably pull it out ofthe project.Ijust want to make that clear to you guys upfront because I don't want,you know,bait and switch or something like that.I amjust saying this is where we are given the project is. Ms.Larson:It's a distinct change going from a single lane bridge on a road to a double lane bridge. Mr.Moule:Yes. Mr.Lone:Do you have photographs ofthe existing bridge and details as well as rendering and drawing ofthe proposed two-lane bridge. Mr.Moule:Not sure if I have that all here.Ihavethedrawings ofthebridge.And then they'll be a sort ofan image ofthe existing bridge within that and I can pull that up here. February 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page6of58 Delay...0penfile on laptop computerforprojector display. Mr.Moule:So this is the archaeology inventory survey for this project.I wasn't sure that I had them with me on this file but thank (inaudible)put them on there for me,so we do have it.So here's some pictures ofthis (inaudible)structure.So (a)one lane bridge,small concrete parapets,(and)waterline onthe side ofthe structure.Seeabitofa...there's still workhead. Wall there.This is a drawing ofthe bridge,are there anymore?Here's an upstream elevation. Sorry I guess I have the bridge numbers wrong,this is number two,I guess.So,the wing walls. I can slow down ifyou want. Ms.Summers:Are there any safety concems with how its currently constructed. Mr.Moule:Absolutely. Ms.Summers:Well and that... Mr.Moule:Yes,we want to replace this bridge for that,safety andjust usability reasons. Becausethis being in a curve,(the)onelanebridge...there'sno guardrails.All ofthatarethings that we don t like to have on roads that carry over 5,000 cars a day. Ms.Summers:And it has gained more popularity or that particular road,as people have moved... Mr.Moule:Yes,this is one ofthe two main accesses to Wailua Homesteads.You have Olohena Road and Ku'umoo Road and that's pretty much it,to get up to the homesteads.Well Kuamoo Road is a busier way in because it's closer to Lihu'e.This is one ofour busier roads on the east side.Probably is -1 guess Kawaihau and Ka'apuni might be as busy,but they're right up there as far as (the)county's busiest roads in that area.Kuamoo Road is actually... Mr.Guerber:Kuamoo Road is a one-lane bridge on a curve. Mr.Moule:It s a one-lane bridge on a curve on what's othenvise a two-lane road that's carrying about 5,000 cars per day. Mr.Guerber:Five thousand cars. Ms.Summers:And the proposal is to widen the road on each side ofit to... Mr.Moule:Yes. Ms.Summers:Make that a safer approach. Mr.Moule:Yes,that's right.So here's again some more pictures ofthe structure. Ms.Summers:Do we know ifthe rock wall was built at the same time as the bridge or does it predate the bridge. February 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of58 Mr.Moule:We don't have any plans for the stmcture. Talked to audience,awayfrom microphone. Mr.Moule:So,we don't know exactly when this one was built.That s true for some ofthe bridges that we have and not others.This one (is)relatively small as I mentioned it's not long enough to officially be a Federal aid bridge,a Federal aid route,not a Federal aid bridge.So it's kind ofconfusing because we are using Federal funds for this (inaudible)which is why we're goingthrough Section 106.Again,more pictures.And I thmk that's it for pictures.So.iflcan show you now on the plan set sort ofwhat's proposed.So again,you can see the existing stmcture here that you saw on those pictures,the rock (inaudible)walls,the small stmcture here. Mr.Guerber:Are you going to build a new bridge above the old bridge? Mr.Moule:Yes. Mr.Guerber:So than the old bridge will still be there... Mr.Moule:So I think...I am not entirely sure how much the old structure would stay.I know we're building it above the old bridge and I believe that the wing walls at least would stay.I think that the deck... Talked to audience,awayfrom microphone. Mr.Moule:It wasn't clear to me looking at the plans honestly.Just reading the plans and I wasn't sure what the full plans was on that. Ms.Summers:Yes,it's not showing that they're being removed... Mr.Moule:No,it's not... Ms.Summers:Its showing them as staying. Mr.Moule:Yes,so Ibelievethattheyare...theyare staying in place.Butpartofthereasonfor that is just from a constmctability point ofview.We don't have -we're building and the drawmgs show this as well.But,the (inaudible)bridge is here and we're putting a new bridge, halfofit,above the left of,depending which way you look at the bridge.And we put traffic on that and then we'll build the other halfon top ofthe old structure is one ofthe reasons for that,is build and preserve.I think preserve the structure and also make it easier to construct while keeping traffic on the existing bridge. Ms.Summers:It appears,sorry,that you're also putting a barricade on each side ofthe bridge that is much taller than what is existing right now... Mr.Moule:Yes... Febmary 20,2020 KHPRC Mecting Minutes Page8of58 Ms.Summers:It's like 1 8 inches.That looks to be 42 or something... Mr.Moule:Yes,so yes... Ms.Summers:So the safety aspects of it are... Mr.Moule:Yes,here you can see a longer section ofthe bridge. Ms.Summers:And then it's showing the side step... Mr.Moule:Yes,sorry Ijust changed it.This is the elevation showing that,concrete barrier on either side (inaudible)section.There is the section you're talking about with the,yes 42 inch concrete.(It's a)pretty traditional concrete bridge rail and then they'll be guardrails offthe end ofthat for safety purposes.So that's pretty much what we have proposed.I can go back to any ofthese images on the proposed stmcture or the picturss ofthe existing structure for your information. Mr.Long:Michael,they do appear be a couple ofhistorical elements.The stone wing wall and even the poured concrete parapet.Will either,ofthose two elements,be carried into the new structure. Mr.Moule:Like I said a moment ago,I believe that the wing walls are not being removed as part ofthis project.But I would want to confirm that with our consultant ifthat is going to work. The parapets would need to be removed in order to put the new structure on.You would not be putting the new stmcture that much higher than the old structure.And the new parapets or railings would be a more official concrete barrier as opposed to the concrete parapets that are there today. Mr.Long:On the new structure that will be built,(will it be)on to the side and over the existing stmcture where the existing wing walls will not be touched.Will the new structure have wing walls in some way that can carry that rock element through? Mr.Moule:Oh,I don t think so because ofthe way this is designed to span over the old structure.I don't think there's going to be wing walls on the new structure,because it's well above the waterway.The waterways down with the old one. Ms.Summers:You can see the footings are buried in the grade... Mr.Moule:Right. Ms.Summers:Actuallyjust comes up,but it looks like it goes to the existing wing walls,which appear to be staying. Mr.Moule:Right.That's right and as I understand it,that's correct.So,you can see here these are all the existing wing walls.Undemeath the structure and no proposal to take those out Fcbmaiy 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page9of58 because they'll still be there to carry the water through the channel at the road crossing.And I think that's the reason why we don't need new wing walls is because they're standing in place. Mr.Long:Is this Kainahola Stream. Mr.Moule:This is not.This is Waiakea Stream,I guess. Mr.Lona:Oh,okay. Mr.Moule:Waikaea.No,its Konohiki Stream,sorry,Konohiki Stream. Ms.Larson:So the new structure is built on post. Ms.Summers:Footings that are in the ground.You can,kind ofsee where they're showing the grade. Mr.Moule:So these would be concrete footings... Ms.Larson:Where is the grade? Mr.Moule:So this is sort ofthe new road grade here,yes.And the existing grade is right there, see on the right side ofthe bridge. Ms.Larson:So the entire footing would be buried. Ms.Summers:Almost completely. Mr.Moule:Yes,this footing would be -and we would fill around this footing too,probably, actually.So yes,both ofthese abutments.And footings that the abutments sit on would be visible with the new structure. Ms.Larson:What happens to the -when there's a lot ofwater at this place.What happens when it floods? Mr.Moule:You mean after this is built?You mean... Mr,Guerber No. Mr.Moule:Currently. Ms.Larson:What happens now when it floods? Mr.Moule:I have not heard of any situations where this bridge has been over topped.The other old Olohena Bridge has been over topped.It was last year during the storm,two years ago (inaudible)the storm in April 2018.It did not took place at this stmcture but it doesn't mean it didn't happen,Ijust didn't hear about that happening.I will say that this new proposal was - February 20,2020 KHPRC Mceting Minutes Page 10of58 would leave the existing channel as is and then have more (inaudible)under the new structure for the overtopping effect (if it)did take place.But I did not,not aware that was (inaudible)... Ms.Larson:But you're leaving the structure in there. Mr.Moule:Yes,we're leaving the wing wall portion ofthe structure in... Ms.Larson:So,there's no more room for water than the original... Mr.Moule:Well there is,because we're not taking,I think we are taking the deck off,we re just leaving the wing walls.If you look here,I think that these,the deck portion is coming off, but the wing walls are staying in place. Ms.Larson:So,the only thing that's remaining is the wing walls,ofthe original bridge. Mr.Moule:Yes,that's correct.You can kind ofsee the plan view ofhow that would work. These would stay in place,the wing walls and I guess would be the abutment (also).The wing walls and the abutment,I believe ofthe old bridge here would stay in place to retain the soil behind you as that one has. Ms.Higuchi-Savegusa:Perhaps we can phase into more ofa discussion phase.Unless there's other... Mr.Moule:I can cover this and bring it back up if you want.So it's not in your eyes at least. Mr.Long:Michael,are there any elements ofthe new structure that will be exposed visually that could have some lava/rock wall facing. Mr.Moule:I think it's possible that the concrete barricade...there's examples you've probably seen them on the north shore.(Like the)Lumaha'i area where the state has put some of the walls with the lava facing.Fake lava rock facing.Yes,make an actual lava rock that you can pull from the stmcture point ofview... Mr.Long:Right. Mr.Moule:But what they've done up there is a face that would be that way that's something... Ms.Summers:I've driven on this bridge many times and never saw the lava rock before so I was really surprised when you showed this photo,because I had no idea that was there.You don't see it as you're driving across it,at all. Mr.Long:How about if you're walking or riding a bike? Ms.Summers:I haven't walked or ridden a bike across;I ve driven across it many times. Februaiy 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Pagellof58 Mr.Moule:I biked across the bridge a few times (and)don't recall looking at the bridge though,so I can't say one way or the other.Going down (inaudible)fast (inaudible)the side of the road m front ofyou which is the way you want to go on that road because it's so narrow with traffic.So,I haven't rode up that road very much,maybe once or twice. Chair Wichman:Any more discussion. Ms.Summers:I want you to talk. Chair Wichman:Me? Ms.Summers:Gerald. Chair Wichman:Oh,Gerald,sorry. Ms.Smnmers:I want to hear what his take is. Vice Chair Ida:You know,this is kind ofa general comment ofthings,but I can remember back in the day when I was on this commission before,in the '80's.Now I realize from your presentation there's been an archaeological survey done on this project.How come we don't get to see this stuff?You know,in the old days we used to have archaeologist in here defending their findings and stuffin front ofus and you're concentration seems to be on structural things but that's not all this commission deals with.I mean can you tell me who did the survey.When it was done and a summary ofthe findings.Were there sights found?Was there subsurface testing?Youknow... Mr.Moule:So,the survey was completed last year as part ofthis project.Let me go to the summary.So there was a field inspection done by... Talked to audience,awayfrom microphone. Mr.Moule:So,Joel Bautista is our project manager and was out there last September with Robert Becking,Ph...Robert Reckart Phd and David Buckley the DLNR (Department ofLand and Natural Resources)SHPD archaeologist. Chair Wichman:May I excuse you for a minute.Could you please state your name and what your title is for the record.Thank you. Civil Engineer,Joel Bautista:Joel Bautista,Civil Engineer. Chair Wichman:Thank you. Mr.Moule:So maybe Joel,can you do a quick summary ofwhat you guys did on that field. Mr.Bautista:Okay,so in September of 2019 we met with DLNR and I think it was Bob Breckman from 'Aiea (inaudible)and we drove to the sight.And Bob and David (Buckley)they Febmaiy 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Pagel2of58 kind of were discussing the work and they kind of agreed that because the work was going to be done already,paved already,that no subsurface testing be done over there.And we did identify that the bridge was historic.We talked about how it was that there was probably an earlier version ofthe bridge they weren't sure though but then the bridge as it was not they weren t sure when it was built but they were thinking anywhere from 1906 to 1912,something around there. Mr.Moule:So,specific summary from the summary of the study that states that the;"it retains its integrity,location,design setting,materials,and workmanship feeling and association to be valued as significant under Criterion D for the historical bridge has yielded relative to the development oftransportation routes with respect to residential and agriculture land use on the island.This ftirther argued that as this structure is a coimnon example ofconcrete slab bridge without any omate characteristics and thus not eligible under Criterion C.No fiirther historic preservation work is needed to supplement the documentation that is presented in this study." That was the summary,there's more details in the actual report,of course but that... Chair Wichman:That's from SHPD from David Buckley... Mr.Moule:I am sorry that... Chair Wichman:That's from SHPD? Mr.Moule:That's from the authors of the report that were... Chair Wichman:Oh,from Robert... Mr.Moule:Mr.Reckman.But the field it was done by... Chair Wichman:With the three,right... Mr.Moule:Three authors,Mr.Reckman,Mr.Bamer and Ms.Goutay from ASA Affiliates. Chair Wichman:Yes. Ms.Higuchi-Saveeusa:So,did the study also accomplish,I mean surveying for archaeological deposits or important items throughout the project area. Mr.Moule:Yes.I think we should have provided (inaudible)so you could look at,I agree. Ms.HJRuchi-Saveeusa:But were there any items identified through the study. Mr.Bautista:No,so what was identified was that on the makai side,on the roadside that over there they wanted to have an archaeological monitoring plan,because they're assuming that there could be some remains that could be unearthed... Ms.Hieuchi-Savegusa:Thisis... Februaiy 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutcs Pagcl3of58 Mr.Moule:That's on the makai portion,the part we are not doing as part ofthis phase.That's actually one ofthe reasons we're not doing it because we felt the potential for discovering remains during that work and another challenge working in Kapa'a Town.We decided let's put this into two phases,we don't really have enough money to do all at once anyway,so let's put it out and handle the part that's the most significant... Chair Wichman:Not sensitive. Mr.Moule:From their point ofview and be sensitive and do that now and come back to the other piece later. Ms.Suinmers:So,did David Buckley give a synopsis or report or has SHPD come through with a thing or... Mr.Moule:So we are in the 106 process.We have their concurrence on the APE,but we still haven't asked for their concurrence in the historic properties affected yet.This is part ofthe process before we -we are in the consultation process still and we get to that stage after this meeting.And after we finish our other consultation to ask them to concur with the no historic properties affected. Chair Wichman:Any other discussion.Stephen. Mr.Long:On the existing exposed wing wall the rock facing.Is it structural or facing? Mr.Moule:I don't know for sure but based on my knowledge of similar structures I believe it is structural.But,that is the stmcture ofthose walls it's the... Mr.Long:Right. Mr.Moule:The CRM type (inaudible). Mr.Long:But I feel that the rock facing,the structural rock wing wall are an historic element. And I feel that,that should be carried through into the new construction in a similar construction methodology which means that I understand that maybe the lava rocks aren't as stmctural as the concrete,but I would prefer to see some kind of cut rock facing even ifit's not structural.And you have to do the concrete on the new wing walls as opposed to the you know the Disneyland concrete walls that are being done going out to Ha'ena.So,I guess my feeling is that (as a) commissioner on this commission is that there is a historic element.The rock walls on the wing walls and that element should be carried through esthetically into (the)new construction (with) similar structure and not necessarily structural... Ms.Summers:I would argue because they're stained... Mr.Long:What? Febmary 20,2020 KHPRC Mecting Minutes Page 14 of 58 Ms.Summers:Well you're putting that onto -so they're wing walls right now.There are no new wing walls.Ifthere were new wing walls,I could see replicating that.But you're talking about replicating it on the barricade or where would you replicate it? Mr.Long:There's a new concrete piers.Correct. Ms.Summers:Those are covered in dirt. Mr.Guerber:They're totally buried. Mr.Long:They're what. Mr.Moule:Yes. Ms.Summers:They're buried. Mr.Moule:Concrete barricades on the side ofthe bridge. Mr.Long:Right,so it's difficult for me to ascertain from the drawings that we were shown if there are any specific areas where the new constmction is exposed and ifit is I'd like to see the architectural elements carried out throughout the new construction. Ms.Summers:And I can see in the drawings that...well,we could go back to the drawings because it shows it pretty clearly that those post are buried. Mr.Long:So my question is,are there any ofthe new stmcture that's going to be exposed visually. Mr.Moule:The portions ofthe new structure that will be visually exposed from the road would be the concrete barrier on the side.\Vhich is replacing the concrete -the shorter end more vertically concrete parapets that were on the old bridge.I can show you the difference ifyou want to see the pictures,again.And then the...on the outside ofthe bridge you'd see the concrete barrier and you would see the concrete deck planks.So,it would be a deeper concrete section,probably.Let me see what that deck toll is here.Total of42 and 62 inches. Ms.Larson:The guardrails that lead into the bridge... Mr.Moule:Yes,that will (be)metal guard leading onto... Ms.Summers:Which are there now.I saw in your photo. Ms.Larson:Which are not there now. Ms.Summers:I thought I saw some m the photo. Mr.Moule:There's not... Febmary 20,2020 KHPRC Mccting Minutes Page 15 of58 Ms.Larson:The guardrails does not complete the new bridge as I saw it.The guardrails come uptowhere... Mr.Moule:Yes. Ms.Larson:The concrete part of that bridge would be... Mr.Moule:That's right. Ms.Larson:Visually those pieces are somewhat like the rock walls that are on the old bridge because you have the rock and then you have the concrete. Mr.Moule:Well they're in a different -1 guess the wing walls sort of-the purpose ofthe wing walls is to separate the water channel from the embankment that supports the structure.And therefore,located in different place than guardrails which are to separate the road from (inaudible)side of the road,like drop offs into the stream with trees and things like that.So, they're not in the same spot but again the proposed was to leave the wing walls in place.And to get to your point I think that there s no concrete elements in a similar placement as the existing wing walls.We could put a rock face or rock structure to the only thing -the concrete elements it'll be there will be the actual super structure ofthe bridge will be visible,right the bridge deck itselfand railings on top ofthat.The bridge abutments that support the bridge are going to be entirely,mostly,buried in soil... Mr.Lone:Entirely or mostly. Mr.Moule:You might see... Mr.Long:I mean... Ms.Summers:The drawing showed a few inches. Mr.Long:I see that.I amjust saying is there an opportunity to express the rock wall historic element on anyofthenewstructure.Andits either completely buried or mostly buried.Ifit's mostly buried than there is an opportunity.You know the drawings better than I do. Ms.Summers:So you wouldn't see it because of-well if you looked at that section you could see that it was about maybe six inches and that would be buried under the bridge decking.So you wouldn t —ifyou put it there no one would see it unless they crawled under... Mr.Moule:Let me go back to that... Ms.Hieuchi-Saveeusa:Sojusttomaybegettowards...Ibelievethe engineering division atthis point is going through a Section 106 review.And so,at this point it sounds like it's more ofan information gathering (and)seeking input from you foUcs on what type of features might be incorporated with the project and specifically sounds like we're honing in on the bridges or the bridge.This particular bridge,Olohena Bridge.And so,perhaps at this point,ifyou want to Fcbmary 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 58 make a motion for a recommendation and then we can move through.Ifthere is a design feature that you folks may want to suggest that they incorporate into the design going fonvard or whether it's come back with an archaeological survey so you folks can take anotber look at that and help you direct recommendation back to -on the project.So perhaps,that may be a way to move the discussion forward.It does sound like they're still in the mformation gathering phase, it would be appropriate at this time to make those types of suggestions. Chair Wichman:Commissioners.Yes,Gerald. Vice Chaii Ida:So,the County owns this bridge. Mr.Moule:Yes. Vice Chair Ida:Did the County build this bridge. Mr.Moule:It's hard to say.We don't have plans for it and we do bave plans for the bridge in similar age that say County ofKaua'i construction.I think that it's likely this bridge was built by the County or was built by a sugar cane company or pineapple company and taken over by the County later.If I had to estimate,I'd say it's more likely not the County built the bridge,but I think it's also possible that a cane company built the bridge or similar company.It's based on my knowledge and other structures that we have in plans.I've seen other structures that are similar. Vice Chair Ida:So,the construction ofthe new bridge will not affect the stone wing walls in any way. Mr.Moule:That is my understanding. Vice Chair Ida:Those walls,when I look at the photos (they are)pretty incredible. Chair Wichman:Yes,they are. Mr.Moule:Definitely. Vice Chair Ida:Looks to me like typical ofplantation construction with all the cut rock but I would very much like to see that survey report. Ms.Summers:And clarification about whether the intentions is that those rock walls are maintained,not touched,not damaged,not moved. Chair Wichman:So,at this point ifwe can make...oh go ahead Carolyn. Ms.Larson:Isn't taking the concrete... Ms.Hieuchi-Saveeusa:Maybe speak in the mic,sorry.I know we're getting away from our mics. Febmary 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Pagel7of58 Ms.Larson:Isn't taking the concrete part,I am sorry I don't know the temiinology,but the top part that you drive on... Mr.Guerber:The deck.The deck. Ms.Larson:Isn't taking that offgoing to destabilize those walls. Ms.Summers:Not necessarily. Ms.Larson:Not necessarily,but possibly. Mr.Guerber:Michael,it looked like there was a beam going across that's going to stay. Mr.Moule:Let me show you.There s the image ofthe elevation view ofthe down stream and the bridge and you can see the walls with the bridge spanning.You know I think,that these are gravity walls that would stand up on their own,without this beam tied together.I think that -it's a little bit hard this is also the parapet that goes above the structure as well the old bridge.But,I think that that's -1 don't think that taking them offwould result in the wallsjust falling down,I think that they dojust stand up on their own.And as you can see offthe end ofthe stmcture the walls are standing on their own.In fact,ifyou look you can find an image showing a view. There's more wall offthe bridge at least in this comer than there is under the bridge.There's a free standing ones,so I believe that the entirewall is...wouldfree stand,sorry I guess the wall undemeath is here,sorry I had that wrong.The wall is undemeath here,the abutment portion of thewall... Ms.Summers:And how much would remain visible.Where is it?Is it widening on the right hand side or the left. Mr.Moule:Yes,the widening is on the,which way is up,I can't tell.Yes,on the widening,on this side so these two wing walls would be more visible than the ones.These would be mostly covered by the new structure.But these would be more visible without going under the bridge to see them.I can go back to the sheet,find the sheet that shows that best.This is the old structure here,the bridge itselfis this parallelogram.These are the wing walls.These two wing walls would be mostly covered by the new structure.These two wing walls would stay in place and be visible pretty similar to where they are now that they 11 be further down from the road structure, the road elevation than they are today because we're raising the bridge (a)fair amount on top of the old. Ms.Summers:So,that does not look like its showing (that)the wing wall extends,that are shown... Mr.Moule:The wall in the other picture. Ms.Summers:Yes. Febraaiy 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 58 Mr.Moule:Yes,that's a good point.I don't know ifthat'sjust a drawing error on this part or not.This is from the plans.The other was from the inventory survey.This is from the archaeological inventory survey... Ms.Summers:Yes,they look pretty different. Mr.Moule:So,Idon'tknowiftheydidnt finishthis fallwall inthis image orwhat,but... Mr.Guerber:Can you go back to the elevation. Mr.Moule:Yes.The picture. Mr.Guerber:There.With the new bridge on top. Mr.Moule:Oh,you mean the design. Mr.Guerber:Right,now. Mr.Moule:Yes,right here.Upstream elevation,downstream.Downthere,ifl cangetto it. There we go.This shows a longer wing wall I think than the last (inaudible). Mr.Guerber:It looks to me like the old bridge is still undemeath it and (has)not been removed at all. Mr.Moule:Again,I am not clear on that.You know the design point ofview. Mr.Bautista:No,because remember the fmal design ofthe bridge has not been completed.We just proof it for them. Mr.Moule:So yes,I don't know for sure,it maybe -we don't know for sure if it's entirely over the top ofthe structure and the whole thing will stay there or ifthe deck and the parapets have to go... Mr.Guerber:Oh,I would recommend it stays there. Mr.Moule:The entire thing. Mr.Guerber:Yes. Chair Wichman:Yes,I would like to ask,are these wing walls considered like retaining walls like for erosion.I mean was that their initial purpose or it was not just to hold up the bridge, right. Mr.Guerber:No,it's for the streambed weed out erosion.The stream goes down so it wouldn't eat away the side ofthe bank. February 20,2020 KHPRC Mecting Minutes Page 19 of 58 Chair Wichman:Yes,erosion. Mr.Moule:Yes,that's right.It's a dual purpose.Supports the abutment. Ms.Larson:There s indications on the concrete the existing bridge that its had damage from flooding. Mr.Moule:You're looking at the pictures. Ms.Larson:Yes. Mr.Guerber:Yes,the bottom edge is chipped. Mr.Moule:Here. Mr.Guerber:There. Ms.Larson:Yes.So evidently it floods. Mr.Moule:That could be damage from flooding or couldjust be spalling that occurs from the concrete being old. Ms.Larson:Okay. Mr.Moule:But,I wouldn't be surprised ifthe water does get to this elevation at times. Although,I do know that Konohiki Stream is a much smaller drainage basin travel to it at this point than what's often called Kainahola Stream that we actually,we've been actually called Waikaea Stream.For the other Olohena bridge number one,the project that was recently replaced that gets a lot more water because it catches water from way up higher in the Wailua Homestead Kapaia Homestead general area.This stream is sort ofbetween the Waikaea Stream and Kalama Stream,which is a tributary like Makaha Stream so it's catching a relatively small, small area so it doesn't carry as much water at this point then the other stream does.Waikaea Stream does where it crosses Olohena Road a couple miles from here. Chair Whichman:Any more discussion. Ms.Larson:I also have a basic question do we have any sense ofwhat the community feels about the one lane bridge.Is there,do people want it small so that traffic is slower.Do people want it widened so that traffic is faster?Is that any part ofthis discussion? Ms.Higuchi-Savegusa:I think that might be a separate process though,not necessarily through 106,but public outreach for the scope ofthe project. Mr.Moule:Yes,we will do some public outreach for this project on that,at this time.Just based on other projects we get a mixed bag with respect to whether they want bridges to be one lane or two lanes.There arecertainlypeopleonboth sides.Isuspect... Februaiy 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutcs Page20of58 Ms.Larson:I recommend that we... Mr.Moule:That we would see more support for two lanes in this location than otherwise but we will definitely have people saying leave it as one lane.There will be some people probably minority but some people will say that. Ms.Hieuchi-Saveeusa:Can we cap that sorry and come back to a discussion. Chair Wichman:Any more discussion. Ms.Hieuchi-Saveeusa:So again,I think at this point what the applicant maybe looking for you taiow,is any input from this body on any methods or features that you folks feel is important to carry through the project.Whether it's -sounds like we're talking about the bridge,so any features that should be carried through on the look ofthe bridge.Any other archaeological type ofissues to take into account.And again,it sounds as ifthey're in information gathering phase ofthe 106 process.Any input that you provide will be folded into the decisions that they have to incorporate in the project itself. Chair Wichman:Yes,Steve. Mr.Long:I believe I made my feelings really clear about the rock wall and exposed new structure and those feelings will also extend to the section profile ofthe parapet wall.Ifthere was going to be a new parapet wall that that same section profile be carried throughout. Ms.Hieuchi-Saveeusa:Perhaps yes,that could be incorporate as a motion. Mr.Guerber:So do we craft a motion with recommendations. Chair WLchman:We can. Ms.Hieuchi-Saveeusa:Yes. Mr.Guerber:Would you like to do that?I will do it.I move that we accept this project.We recommend this project with the following recommendations that we keep the walls,the rock walls (and)that you attempt to have the same profile ofthe sides that were there before... Mr.Moule:The parapets. Mr.Guerber:The parapets.Anything else to add. Mr.Moule:As we said before I don't really think there would be much ofthe abutment exposed but ifthere is much ofit exposed ifyou want to recommend that any exposed abutment ofthe bridge include a similar rock look I thinlc that would be okay.I think (inaudible)to not be much exposed when done,but there might be a little bit at the top.That design hasn't been done yet. February 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutcs Page21of58 Ms.HiBuchi-Savegusa:Would you like to incorporate that sentiment in your motion. Mr.Guerber:Yes,we got to craft the words.So we should add to it that ifthere's an opportunity... Ms.Larson:Can I but in? Mr.Guerber:Sure. Ms.Larson:I think it's more thanjust...to me carrying on the character ofthis historic bridge is a little broader tban the details tbat we're talking about.Carrying the design element ofjust the parapet rock work into something comparable.The character ofthe bridge is much more than that because it's a one lane bridge because it's minimalistic and going from what we see today to what we see in the proposal particularly with a long stretch of guardrail leading up to a much larger bridge plus the fact that it's a two lane bridge,so it'll be faster.I think there's questions there on what the community wants to see in that neighborhood.I don't pretend to know how bad the need is to have that be a faster road (and)to have it be a double lane bridge.I don't pretend to know what the community feels overall ifthere is one,ifthey swing one way or the other.Do we want...do we care about this bridge?Do we care that its one lane or do we hate it or love it?But in terms ofkeeping the historic character ofthe bridge I think there's other things that could be done in a new bridge that reflect that character and as I said carrying the stone work into some other element like part ofthe guardrails instead ofjust having the guardrails.I see you cnnge. Ms.Summers:Yes,sorry,because when I think ofthe north shore and like what Stephen was saying that kind ofDisney Land stone,that's what I am picturing that would get carried through and to me then its not good,because then you have this absolutely beautifiil cut stone work that's atready there.So sometimes when you try to bring that into the new it kind of... Ms.Larson:I understand God is in the details.Yes,so it's important that we see the phases,and see the details and we have answers to the questions ofhow much is exposed what could we actually do here.But I think in terms ofa motion to move us forward ifour motion could be little bit more broad to say that the character ofthat bridge be more evident in the design ofthe new bridge. Mr.Guerber:So that would be our recommendation. Ms.Summers:And you mean design as in the details or do you mean design as in the size (or) shape.I guess I am trying to understand what... Ms.Larson:I mean both things,right now.Given I don't have any other information (on)the size ofthe bridge. Ms.Summers:Okay,well we have drawings so we can look at that.We can scale them.We can get a pretty good sense ofit is,I think.So then the question is are you..,is it the historic sense ofthe size that you're trying to emulate.I guess I don't get it. February 20,2020 KHPRC Mceting Minutes Page22of58 Ms.Larson:That's part ofit. Ms.Summers:Trying to understand. Ms.Larson:And the character ofthe bridge is simplistic... Ms.Summers:Very. Ms.Larson:It has a -it's the guardrail.The effect ofthe guardrail has on the visual... Ms.Summers:The guardrails on the side ofthe bridge or the guards to the side ofthe deck. Ms.Larson:From what I looked at it's a basic concrete side to the bridge.I don't know how higb that concrete is... Ms.Summers:Forty-two inches per the drawings. Ms.Larson:Forty-two inches is what you can see from the road.From the surface ofthe road. Ms.Summers:Yes.And that's a code,that you know,obviously. Ms.Larson:That's a current code.And what is the top?What is the edging on the top? Mr.Moule:So right now -again we have not (gotten)final design on this bridge but the design... Ms.Larson:Okayso... Mr.Moule:Looks like a typical direct highway bridge... Ms.Larson:It's just a... Mr.Moule:But there's certainly potential for us to use something more decorative.There's limitations on that because it has to be (a)crash tested designs but ifyou wanted to recommend thatwe ifpossible... Ms.Larson:Well the current bridge just has -it's just concrete but has a little lip on it.Right. Itjust goes up.Am I remembering that right? Mr.Moule:(Inaudible talked over Ms.Larson could not decipher) Ms.Summers:And I think that was part ofthe motion that we were crafting is that it should emulate that particular look. Mr.Guerber:And I think that's the parapet.The guardrail is the metal pieces on the roadside leading to the bridge. Fcbroaiy 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page23of58 Ms.Larson:To the bridge.And how long are those. Mr.Moule:Fifty feet. Mr.Guerber:It looks pretty long. Mr.Moule:Right now,the one that has that driveway is shorter.Its unattended anyway we're probably...we're going to either relocate that driveway and remove it and put in a 50 foot section there.So 50 feet each comer will be a metal guardrail,visually. Ms.Larson:And the guardrail would go in regardless whether a new bridge is put in or the old bridge stays. Mr.Moule:Well ifwe choose not to touch the bridge as part ofthis project,we won't touch it at all.We'll just leave it alone and deal with it in another project. Ms.Larson:So you would pave up to a certain point... Mr.Moule:Yes,we wouldjust stop paving at the bridge. Ms.Larson:And no new guardrails for safety. Mr.Moule:Because that would require going through a similar process. Ms.Larson:Got it. Ms.Higuchi-Saveeusa:So we do have a motion on the floor.It didn't carry forward,so it failed.I didn't hear a second. Mr.Guerber:No seconds. Ms.Summers:I am not clear on the end ofthe motion,sorry. Ms.Larson:Can you try your motion again. Mr.Guerber:I can try.I move that we...I move to recommend the project with the following restrictions;that we retain the wing walls and the cut stone and as much of the old bridge as possible undemeath the new bridge and that the new parapets emulate the parapets on the old bridge as much as possible.That's it. Chair Wichman:Do I hear a second. Ms.Summers:I second. Chair Wichman:Discussion.Hearing no discussion and come to a vote so,all in favor.(Partial voice vote).Any opposed. February 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Pagc24of58 Ms.Larson:Opposed. Ms.Hieuchi-Sayesusa:Okay.Motion carried. Chair Wichman:Motioncarries.Thankyou.Motion carried 5:1. J.NEWBUSINESS 1.Kaumakani School (Kamehameha Schools) Exterior and interior buUding renovations include in-kind replacement of existing materials that have been damaged either by wood rot or termite,removal of hazardous materials (i.e.Canec and lead paint),renovation of restrooms to meet ADA compliance, construction of new stairs and landing,construction of a new CMU wall structure,ADA ramp and parking stalls,and grading along with a concrete swale to mitigate for erosion. TMK:(4)1-7-006:008 a.Director's Report pertaining to this matter. Commissioners received a 13-page (A01,A02,A03,A04,A05,A07,A08,A09,A10,A12,A13,A14,A15) set ofrenovationplans/drawmgs by YFH Architects,Inc.dated 4/30/20. Ms.Higuchi-Saveeusa:We do have a representative from the applicant here. Historic Planner Alex Wong:Do I read my directors report? Chair Wichman:Aloha,thank you. Unidentified Speaker:Want to thank Chairperson Wichman and Planning Director Sayegusa for having me here today.I want to thank Alex and Ka'aina for putting me on the agenda,as I've waited for couple ofmonths,actually. Ms.Higuchi-Saveeusa:What was your name,sorry. YFH Architects.Inc.Proiect Architect Lance Kaneshiro^My name is Lance Kaneshiro.I am witb YFH Architects.I am here to present to you our proposal to the renovation at the Kaumakani preschool.I just wanted to go over some historical background about this building and then I'll continue on to describe what our proposal for this renovation would be.So,this Kaumakani preschool is located at 2301 Kaumakani Road.It sits on about 7.5 acre parcel the building itself,the preschool,is about 12,500 square feet.There's also a community center on that same parcel as well.This parcel is owned by the Robinson family and it was constmcted in 1922.And first started out being Makaweli school and then...this school was generally used for the education ofthe plantation families until 1986 where -from 1986,to present there's a various number of agencies that,you know,took over the place and used it for educational Fcbroaiy 20,2020 KHPRC Meeting Minutcs Page25of58