Loading...
2021-08-19 KHPRC Agenda Packet with revisedI1a COUNTY OF KAUA‘I Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board/Commission: Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Meeting Date February 18, 2021 Location Teleconference by Microsoft Teams Start of Meeting: 2:22 p.m. End of Meeting: 7:35 p.m. Present Chair Pro Tem Gerald Ida. Commissioners: James Guerber, Carolyn Larson, Stephen Long, Susan Remoaldo and Aubrey Summers. Deputy County Attorney Laura Barzilai. Planning Department Staff: Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa, Planner Myles Hironaka, Historic Planner Alex Wong, Commission Specialist Shanlee Jimenez and Planner Marisa Valenciano. Office of Boards and Commissions: Administrator Ellen Ching and Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. Excused Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION The Oath of Office was administered on February 12, 2021, by Administrative Assistant to the County Clerk Eddie Topenio to at-large mayoral appointee Gerald K. Ida, serving a 2nd term ending 12/31/23, architecture council appointee Aubrey Summers, serving a 2nd term ending 12/31/23 and Hawaiian culture mayoral appointee Susan C. Remoaldo, serving a 1st term ending 12/31/23. A. Call To Order Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa notified the commission that Victoria Wichman termed out 12/31/2020. Vice Chair Ida called the meeting to order at 2:22 p.m. B. Roll Call Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa verified attendance by roll call and requested a verbal response; Mr. Guerber replied here. Ms. Larson replied present. Mr. Long replied present. Ms. Summers replied present. Ms. Remoaldo replied present. Vice Chair Ida replied present. Quorum was established with six commissioners present. C. Selection of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa opened the floor for nominations for Chair. • Ms. Larson nominated Gerald Ida. Ms. Summers moved to close nominations for Chair and appoint Gerald Ida to serve as Chair for calendar year 2021. Mr. Guerber seconded the DRAFT To Be Approved Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Vice Chair Ida assumed the new position as Chair and opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair. • Mr. Guerber nominated Susan Remoaldo. Commissioner Remoaldo assumed the new position as Vice Chair. motion. Motion carried 6:0. Vice Chair Ida moved to nominate himself to serve as Chair for calendar year 2021. There was no second. Motion carried 6:0. Ms. Larson moved to close nominations and appoint Susan Remoaldo to serve as Vice Chair for calendar year 2021. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried: 5- Ayes and 1-Nay (Ms. Remoaldo) D. Approval of the Agenda Mr. Guerber moved to approve the agenda, as circulated. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. E. Approval of the February 20, 2020 Minutes E. Meeting minutes of February 20, 2020. Vice Chair Remoaldo requested to abstain from voting since she was not present at the meeting. Ms. Larson moved to approve the February 20, 2020, minutes as circulated. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried: 5-Ayes, 0 -Nays and 1- Abstained (Ms. Remoaldo). F. General Business Matters There were no items for the record. G. Communications Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa noted he meeting packets was posted on February 16, 2021 and Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION another testimony was transmitted this morning. Further testimonies should be transmitted to the clerk’s office prior to 24-hours of the meeting. H. Unfinished Business There were no unfinished business. Chair Ida asked if anyone from the public wanted to testify now. Hearing none Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa moved on to the next agenda item I. New Business Chapter 343 & Section 106 Projects: I.1. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Highways Division – Kaua‘i District Kūhiō Highway Traffic Signal Improvements Vicinity of Hanalei Bridge Project No. 560A-01-20 Tax Map Key: (4) 5-4-04 Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Consultation Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Highway Division, Kaua‘i District Engineer Larry Dill presented the project to the commission and with him were Department of Transportation (DOT) Eric Fujikawa, Austin Tsutsumi & Associates consultant Kimo Aiu and Mason’s Architects consultant Barbara Shideler. Mr. Dill shared a power point presentation and proposed the installation of traffic signal lights at the one lane Hanalei Bridge to address vehicular congestion in the area; • State funded project. • In April 2018 repair work due to the floods was being done on Kūhiō Highway Route 560. The Federal aid project had the national historic preservation act consultation section 106 that resulted with a memorandum of agreements with Federal highways, DOT, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), the Advisory Counsel of Historic Preservation, Hanalei Roads Committee and they agreed that one of the mitigating measures for the impacts to the road was to install a traffic signal system at the Hanalei Bridge. • The prime reason was to address congestion in the Hanalei Bridge location. • The project work would be on Kūhiō Highway Route 560 in the vicinity of Hanalei Bridge which encompasses 1.12 to 1.27, less than two tenths of a mile. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION • In the event of an emergency the traffic signals could be remotely managed to allow the safe evacuation of vehicles crossing the bridge. • The traffic signals would use video detection to efficiently manage the flow of vehicles crossing the bridge. • Six traffic signals would be installed. Four on Kūhiō Highway Route 560 and two on Ohiki Road. Of the four on Kūhiō Highway two would be on the Princeville side and two on the Hanalei side of the bridge. • Traffic equipment; an electric service data meter pedestal and traffic controller cabinet would be installed on Kūhiō Highway Route 560 side of the road. Mr. Dill proposed changes to the current road signs along Kūhiō Highway Route 560 in the Hanalei Bridge area; • Install 21 new signs. • Remove 17 of the existing signs, which would result with an increase of four additional signs. Mr. Dill proposed changes to Kūhiō Highway Route 560 leading to and leaving the Hanalei Bridge area; • Place thermoplastic rumble bar strips on the road. • Extend the existing guard rail to protect the traffic equipment and vehicles from veering off the road. Mr. Dill presented two historic properties, Hanalei Bridge and Kūhiō Highway Route 560, within the project limits; • Hanalei Bridge built in 1912. • Warren trusses added in 1967 and reconstructed in 2004. • Hanalei Bridge on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978 as a contributing structure within the Kaua‘i belt road. • Kūhiō Highway Route 560 was on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places in 2003 and then placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION • Construction of Kūhiō Highway Route 560 began in 1900 and completed in 1920 and is a 10 mile stretch from Princeville to Kē‘ē Beach. Mr. Dill presented the following; • Plans and supporting documents submitted last month to SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) for section 360 review and pending a response. • A propose in affect for Kūhiō Highway Route 560 was no historic properties affected. No permanent changes and it’s reversible with minimal impact to the road. Work would not disqualify its position in the National Register of Historic Places. Not proposing a mitigation. • A propose in affect for Hanalei Bridge was an affect with proposed mitigation commitments. o Work would have the potential to affect a significant historic property, the bridge structure, through installation of a conduit that could be visibly seen. o A conduit would be installed on the bridge and concealed with minimal visibility. The conduit is required for the traffic equipment that would be located on both sides of the bridge to communicate with one another. o Mitigation proposed work conforms to the Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of historic properties and will have Secretary of Interior qualified professional to confirm proposed and installed work is in conformance with the standards and submit a memorandum with photographs upon completion of work to SHPD. The proposed conduit concealed and minimally visible from both sides of the bridge, hidden beneath the bridge. The proposed conduit, the supports and traffic equipment are reversible and painted to match the environment. Removal of these proposed features would not damage the integrity of the bridge. Questions and Comments; 1. Mr. Long requested limiting the number of signs to less than 21. Mr. Dill replied MUTCD (Manual Uniform Transportation Control Devices) have certain requirements, but they would review it again to possibly eliminate some of the proposed signs. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 2. Mr. Long asked what the signs were mounted on. Mr. Dill replied two by two inch square galvanized tubes which were the standard with breakaway posts. 3. Ms. Larson asked for the decision process for the proposed installation of traffic lights. Mr. Dill replied the conversation started prior to the April 2018 storms and floods. It became various informal discussions with the community and turned into a project that was discussed with consulting parties through section 106 consultation and asked about improvements and then a memorandum of agreement. 4. Ms. Larson asked if other alternatives were proposed or discussed instead of traffic signals. Mr. Dill replied they discussed with the consultants opportunities to reduce peak time traffic and traffic lights were the only solution to address the congestion. 5. Ms. Larson asked if they discussed how to reduce and control traffic from the top of the hill. Mr. Dill replied that he had no control over volume of traffic and could not stop traffic. 6. Ms. Larson asked if they discussed reducing congestion. Mr. Dill replied he could not reduce congestion at the bridge with equipment or improvements at Princeville. 7. Ms. Larson asked if the addition of another bridge was considered. Mr. Dill replied no, it would deal with the congestion but would be a very expensive and an almost impossible option. Ms. Larson expressed the following concerns; • The project seriously impacts both historic resources and alternative should be sought. • Add an additional bridge across the Hanalei River. • Monitor traffic from the top of the hill at Princeville. • Minimize road signs. Ms. Larson moved that the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Highways Division Larry Dill seek alternatives to the present scope of the project and include creating an additional route across the Hanalei River. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair Ida opened the floor for discussions. 8. Mr. Guerber expressed concern with the increase in road signs and use of rumble strips. He asked if those were absolutely necessary. Mr. Dill replied they follow MUTCD requirements and would take another look if there were flexibility in eliminating some of the 21 recommended signs. 9. Mr. Guerber inquired if construction of a new bridge would be funded by the county or state. Mr. Dill replied it would be federally funded and typically 80% of the project costs were covered. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa commented that an in-house transportation planner had been working on a north shore shuttle since the April 2018 storms and floods. 10. Ms. Larson requested they construct a stone wall instead of metal guardrails. 11. Ms. Summers asked if the project improvements were removable. Mr. Dill said the improvements could be removed with minimal impact to the area but clarified that it was a permanent solution. 12. Mr. Long questioned the need for rumble strips and commented the requirements and recommendations. Mr. Dill said they could review it again but it was being proposed for safety purposes. 13. Mr. Long reiterated Ms. Larson’s request for a stone wall instead of metal guardrails. Mr. Dill replied that based on the close proximity to the travel way and metal guardrails were required. 14. Mr. Long asked if the traffic lights could be moved further away from the bridge to preserve the visual aesthetics of the bridge. Mr. Dill replied that the lights were placed in that location to allow the driver clear visibility of oncoming traffic. 15. Chair Ida requested archaeological monitoring present during all trenching of road beds or on the edge of the stream for installation of the signs and inquired about the conduit that would be installed across the bridge. Mr. Dill concurred on the archaeological monitoring and the conduit would be buried underground and attached to the underside of the bridge. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Vice Chair Remoaldo stated reservations on voting for Ms. Larson’s motion. She asked if the second bridge could be separated into another motion. Ms. Summers concurred with Vice Chair Remoaldo. Chair Ida called for a vote. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa proceeded with a roll call vote and requested a verbal response: Mr. Guerber replied yes. Ms. Larson replied yes. Mr. Long replied yes. Ms. Summers replied no. Vice Chair Remoaldo replied no. Chair Ida replied yes. Deputy County Attorney Laura Barzilai stated that the motion was similar. Motion failed 4:2 Ms. Larson moved that the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Highways Division Larry Dill seek alternatives to the proposed project plan and it may include an additional route across the Hanalei River. (Motion died with no second Ms. Larson moved that Larry Dill of the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Highways Division – Kaua‘i District Kūhiō Highway Traffic Signal Improvements, Vicinity of Hanalei Bridge, Project No. 560A-01-20, Tax Map Key: (4) 5-4-04, Chapter 343, Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION With no second to the motion, Mr. Dill responded to Mr. Longs motion with the following; • Would not be able to report on any analysis of a second crossing of Hanalei River. • There are only two remotely possible locations for the construction of a second crossing of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Consultation project seek alternatives to the proposed project plan. Vice Chair Remoaldo seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Long moved to accept the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Highways Division – Kaua‘i District Kūhiō Highway Traffic Signal Improvements, Vicinity of Hanalei Bridge, Project No. 560A-01-20, Tax Map Key: (4) 5-4-04, Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Consultation report and defer a decision until Larry Dill researched which signs were required versus recommended; include archaeological monitoring in the construction process with a caveat that they review an alternative bridge over the Hanalei River and potential need for shuttle service to Hanalei similar to the Hā‘ena shuttle. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Hanalei River; one would be to extend Weke Road and the other would be right next to the existing bridge. • The public would probably not want a bridge in the vicinity of black pot and the character of the existing bridge would be compromised with the addition of a bridge right next to it. • Upstream of Hanalei River is protected under the United States Fish and Wildlife Sanctuary. • Shuttle service would be a good alternative but that would be better addressed by others. 16. Chair Ida inquired if there was a project timeline. Mr. Dill replied they do not have a confirmed timeline because they are still going through environmental consultation; however, it could start as early as later this year. Ms. Larson asked Mr. Long to restate the motion. Mr. Long moved to accept the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Highways Division – Kaua‘i District Kūhiō Highway Traffic Signal Improvements, Vicinity of Hanalei Bridge, Project No. 560A-01-20, Tax Map Key: (4) 5-4-04, Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Consultation report and defer a decision until Larry Dill provides the commission with additional information on three items; 1. Define requirements versus recommendations for the projects improvements to limit the physical impact. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 2. Reduce the number of proposed road signs. 3. Archaeological monitoring during construction. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. I.2. County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works – Engineering Division Hanapēpē Bridge Rehabilitation Project Federal-Aid Project Number: BR-0545(1) Tax Map Key(s): (4) 1-9-007-013 (4) 1-9-011-012 (4) 1-9-011:999 (ROW) National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. County of Kaua‘i Chief Engineer of Public Works Michael Moule presented the project to the commission and with him were CONSOR Engineers, LLC consultant Ikaika Kincaid. He shared a power point presentation. Project Overview: • Federally funded using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds • Design and permitting consultants; CONSOR Engineers, LLC and WSP USA • Completed section 106 in 2012 and SHPD approved than retracted due to late public comments regarding the elevated pedestrian walkway which the previous project was supposed to remove and replace with a walkway at bridge deck level. History of Hanapēpē Bridge: • 110 year old bridge that was built in 1911, could be the oldest bridge that the county owns. • Pedestrian walkway added in 1927. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Project Objective: • Repair spalls and deterioration. • Repair elevated pedestrian walkway. • Restore load capacity to 20 tons, currently at a 10 ton limit. Proposed Repair Project Scope of Work: • Repair bridge defects: spalls, cracks and paint to match existing color. • Install drainpipes to keep water away. • New structural improvements: remove existing asphalt roadway and replace with reinforced concrete with an AC overlay. • Restore elevated pedestrian walkway. Install precast deck plants and new railings that meet safety standards and resemble original design. • ADA compliant pedestrian sidewalk on the Makai side road. • Unplug existing drain holes in deck to allow water drainage. • Add reinforced concrete deck on top of existing deck and top with asphalt. • Repair railings on elevated pedestrian walkway; add three cable wires at bottom of railing, which was an original design and add a third post between the first and second to comply with safety standards. • Change the double brackets to the original design of single brackets under the elevated pedestrian walkway. Best Management Practices: • Construction debris would be captured to prevent entry into the river. • Construction work would not impact protected species or river water quality. • The levee would not be modified or impacted during this project. • Repairs would begin once the state highway bridge construction was completed due to closure of the bridge during construction. Project Funding Source and Construction Costs: • Federal Highway Administration funding 80% and County funding 20%. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Project Schedule: • Finalize design in 2021, construction to possibly start in 2022 and complete in 2023, but pending on completion of state Hanapēpē Bridge. Questions and Comments 1. Ms. Larson asked when the ADA mitigation was installed. Mr. Moule stated the road ADA access with the bollard barriers were probably installed once the walkway was closed and may have been there for nine years. 2. Ms. Larson inquired how long the spalling and cracking repairs last. Mr. Kincaid replied repairs would have a life span of 25-40 years. 3. Ms. Larson asked what the original bridge road covering was. Mr. Moule replied it was macadam. 4. Ms. Larson asked if the original bridge road was a concrete bottom, a layer of gravel and macadam on top. Mr. Moule replied yes. 5. Ms. Larson asked what the original elevated pedestrian walkway surface was made of. Mr. Moule replied it was reinforced concrete. Mr. Kincaid added that the current surface was the original material. 6. Ms. Larson asked if they thought of alternatives to the current ADA walkway. Mr. Moule replied the original plan was to remove the elevated pedestrian walkway and lower it down to bridge level and that would make it ADA accessible. Other options included installation of ramps attached to both ends of the walkway. 7. Ms. Larson asked if there were other options to the bollards that delineated the ADA walkway across the bridge. Mr. Moule replied that it could be raised to a normal sidewalk height, raised asphalt curb (bump). 8. Vice Chair Remoaldo commented that the bollards were consistently run over by cars and was not a safe barrier, it was also unsightly. 9. Mr. Guerber thanked Mr. Moule and Mr. Kincaid for the sensitivity in preserving the historic bridge. He said the look of the bollards do not belong in that area and detracts from the aesthetics of the bridge. He said another option would be to use the State bridge as the alternative ADA access. Mr. Moule replied that an asphalt curb was permanent and Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION the bollards were temporarily placed to outline the designated ADA area but was not placed as a safety barrier. 10. Ms. Larson commented that the bollards were ugly and asphalt curb (bump) would be better. She appreciated the raised walkway and the improvements to the railings. Mr. Moule replied that another option would be to mark the area with a white stripe. Mr. Kincaid suggested a white stripe with a rumble strip could be another alternative. 11. Mr. Long preferred a white stripe, rumble strip or asphalt curb instead of the bollards. 12. Mr. Guerber commented he preferred the bridge restored back to its original historic look. 13. Ms. Summers commented that if they were using Federal funds it would be mandatory to provide ADA accessibility. Mr. Moule said they probably would need to. 14. Mr. Long commented that the barrier material should be consistent with the secretary of interior standards of rehabilitation for the historic integrity of the bridge Mr. Guerber moved to accept the County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works – Engineering Division Hanapēpē Bridge Rehabilitation Project Federal- Aid Project Number: BR- 0545(1), Tax Map Key(s): (4) 1-9-007-013, (4) 1-9-011- 012, (4) 1-9-011:999 (ROW) National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties project with the requests to mitigate the look of the bollards used to delineate the ADA access across the bridge. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 15 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION I.3. County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works – Engineering Division Po‘ipū Road Multi-Modal Improvements Federal-Aid Project Number: STP-0520(004) Multiple Tax Map Key(s) National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. Chair Ida called for a recess at 4:26 p.m. Chair Ida called the meeting back to order at 4:31 p.m. County of Kaua‘i Chief Engineer of Public Works Michael Moule presented the project to the commission and introduced Engineer and Project Manager Christie Bagley. He shared a power point presentation. Po‘ipū road project: • Improvements encompass Po‘ipū road from Kōloa road ends just before the Hyatt. • The improvements came from design workshops held with the public, large landowners and the surrounding resorts. The meetings and workshops gathered ideas and identified values and priorities and eight overarching improvement ideas. • The improvements would include the addition of two new roundabouts, raised medians, crosswalk flashing beacons, sidewalks, bike lanes and additional parking. Design plan concept: • Add bike lanes designated with one or two white stripes and sidewalks on either side to most of Po‘ipū road. • Po‘ipū road by Waikomo road may eliminate the triangle island, narrow the curb sidewalk, add designated bike lanes on both sides of the road and sidewalks on both sides. • Po‘ipū road by Kiahuna golf course would have a bike lane and sidewalk on the golf course side; there would be no sidewalk or bike lane on the other side, the west side. • Po‘ipū road by Kōloa Landing and Po‘ipū Beach Estates intersection; remove deaccelerate Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 16 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION and acceleration lanes to shorten crosswalk for a safer pedestrian crossing. • Po‘ipū road by the resort areas would be one lane in each direction, raised median or turn lane, bike lanes buffered and eight foot width sidewalks on both sides. • Add a roundabout by Kiahuna Plantation drive by Keoki’s; identified several rock walls that were not historic and built with the develop of the shopping village and would dismantle and place the rock wall further back. Designing roundabout to avoid the large trees and identified a historic rock wall that set back the roundabout to keep away from the area. • Add a roundabout by Ala Kinoiki bypass road. • Po‘ipū road by Hoowili road, identified several rock walls, one definitely historic, another one may be historic and the others were made during development of the area. The Po‘ipū Beach Athletic Club had plans to modify their entrance to avoid driving over part of Hapa Road trail. They are in the process and it may be completed before the start of this project. Questions and comments: 1. Mr. Long asked if there was an archaeological investigation or study done. Mr. Moule replied there was an archaeological review or survey done and they’re aware of several major historic properties which are the Kōloa field system and old railroad that ran from Kōloa mill to Kōloa landing that was probably removed when Po‘ipū road was done. There was also the sloped area by the entrance to Po‘ipū beach park that would have a sidewalk either inland or closer to the road. He said the area had not been disturbed and it may involve excavation work. They are still pending advice and in the consultation process with SHPD. 2. Mr. Long asked if archaeological monitoring would be present during construction. Mr. Moule replied that once section 106 is finalized they would follow SHPD recommendations. 3. Ms. Larson asked for clarification on the bike lanes. Mr. Moule confirmed that the bike lanes were part of the highway and designated with one or two white stripes on the asphalt. 4. Ms. Larson asked about any rehabilitation plans with Hapa Trail Road or the Kōloa Field System. Mr. Moule replied that it was not part of the project. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 17 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 5. Chair Ida expressed concerns of historic remnants along the sloped area by the entrance to Po‘ipū beach. He inquired on the measurements of the setback from the sidewalk to Po‘ipū road. Mr. Moule measured 30 feet. Chair Ida asked that the commission receive copies of the archaeological report or survey or literature review. Mr. Moule said it was an archaeological literature review and he would provide that to the commission. 6. Chair Ida was also concerned that the roundabout would encroach into Kiahuna drive and there may be historic remnants there also. Mr. Moule said the roundabout area was already disturbed by the development of the shopping village and road. Chair Ida said the roundabout was close to the railroad berm. Mr. Moule showed that the roundabout area was outside of the berm. Mr. Long moved to accept the County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works – Engineering Division Po‘ipū Road Multi- Modal Improvements Federal-Aid Project Number: STP-0520(004), Multiple Tax Map Key(s), National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties report and per request from Chair Gerald Ida that the Department of Public Works Michael Moule provide copies to the commission of the Kōloa/Po‘ipū archaeological literature review. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. I.4. County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works – Engineering Division Waimea River Ford Crossing Project Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 18 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Federal-Aid Project Number: BR-0545(1) Tax Map Key(s): (4) 1-6-001:027(por.) (4) 1-6-001:888 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa advised the commission that the consultation 106 process for this project had not officially started and they have the option to defer to the next meeting or hear the presentation now. Mr. Guerber moved to defer the County of Kaua‘i Department of Public Works – Engineering Division Waimea River Ford Crossing Project, Federal-Aid Project Number: BR-0545(1), Tax Map Key(s): (4) 1-6-001:027(por.) and (4) 1-6-001:888, National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties project to the next meeting. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. I.5. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawai‘i Historic Bridge Projects Statewide National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa advised the commission that the consultation 106 process for this project is ongoing and they have the option to defer to the next meeting or hear the presentation now. Ms. Larson moved to defer the Hawai‘i Department of Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 19 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Project Manager Mr. Ikaika Kincaid and Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Planning Department Ms. Pua Aiu were amicable to return and present at the next meeting; however, Mr. Kincaid said it was just a notification and he could run through the presentation swiftly. Mr. Kincaid presented the project and shared a power point presentation. He said it was a statewide project that would include all qualified historic bridges throughout the state. Included in the project were the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation through Planning Department Pua Aiu, CONSOR Engineers, Mason Architects, Hunter Research Inc. and Honua Consulting. Purpose of project: • Develop a programmatic agreement for historic bridges that would streamline the process and repair of minor rehabilitation projects that would not affect or have minor effects on historic properties. Scope of Programmatic Agreement (PA): • Would address ongoing maintenance repairs and minor rehabilitation that would have no effect or minor effects on historic bridges. Transportation and Federal Highways Administration Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawai‘i Historic Bridge Projects Statewide National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties until the next meeting. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Ms. Larson withdrew her motion. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 20 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION • Would not address major bridge rehabilitation or replacement and projects with an effect to archaeological resources and previously undisturbed areas where archaeological resources may be present. Historic Bridge Inventory: • The statewide inventory was completed in 2013 and stored in an electronic file. Next step: • In process of completing a best practices manual draft of the PA and using the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Historic Bridge Preservation Guide manual as reference in the development of the draft. • Complete first draft and present to commission July to September • Present draft at a public meeting in September Other Information: • Consultation protocol to register and participate in the historic bridge PA: http://HawaiiHistoricBridgePA.com/4ABL access to review and comment • Project is in process and timeline is another year to complete PA guidance manual • Leveraging Federal funds to complete small historic bridge repairs Mr. Guerber moved to receive the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawai‘i Historic Bridge Projects Statewide, National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties report and requested the consultants return with a Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 21 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION progress report and draft of the Programmatic Agreement manual for the commission to review. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. I.6. 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 80 foot tall, 60 foot wide (turning radius), 25-kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF) antennas at the Hanapēpē Readiness Center (RC), and the finding of “no adverse effects” to historic properties. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa advised that in the supplemental packet the commission received communication from the air national guard dated February 12, 2021 from Mr. Heath Conkle requesting to defer the presentation to the next meeting. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa advised the commission that the applicant for I.7. temporarily left the meeting and the commission could either take a recess or have I.8., present now. Chair Ida requested I.8. present next and I.7. could present after. Ms. Larson moved to defer the 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 presentation to the next meeting. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 22 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION I. New Business Zoning Permit Reviews: I.8. Aloha Theatre Restoration 3795 Hanapēpē Road Tax Map Key: (4) 1-9-004-013 Hanapēpē, Hawai‘i Applicant’s status update of the proposed project, KHPRC review of the revised design plans, and request for an updated letter of support from the KHPRC. Owner Lynn Danaher presented the project and shared a power point presentation. Update on the project: 1. Completed Phase 1 of demolition, stabilization and clean up in September 2019. 2. Due to COVID19, Phase 1 costs and dramatic increase in construction material took action to seek funding from SBA and USDA to complete reconstruction and received advice to revise plans and eliminate theatre, restaurant and 12 unit additional building. 3. Seeking approval for a modified permit to move forward with Phase 2. The revised plans eliminated the restaurant, beer and wine balcony, theatre and 12 unit additional building. The revised plans on the ground floor added a café, spa/salon, flex space, gallery/hotel office and ADA rooms. Phase 2: 1. Original permit is still open, but she now needs to obtain a modified permit to complete the façade portion of the building which is only 25% of the revised plan. 2. Modified permit would include: complete ground floor façade with café, gallery and office and second floor two hotel suites with balcony in the area originally designated for the beer and wine bar. Questions and comments: 1. Mr. Long asked for photos of the façade; the original and new one. Ms. Danaher showed an artist rendering and architect drawing. 2. Mr. Long asked for the difference in the façade elevation from the new to the original. Ms. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 23 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Danaher replied they were similar. 3. Mr. Long asked why the original Aloha Sweet Shop entry door did not meet current code. Ms. Danaher said there were two doors at two feet wide each and the new code for a commercial building was a minimum two doors at three feet wide each. Mr. Long commented that the original two feet wide doors could be made into one door and that would meet code. He said you do not need to have two doors it could be one four foot wide door. 4. Mr. Long inquired why alternatives were not used to keep the large plate glass windows like the original façade. He said you could possibly mitigate the problem by use of glaze over the plate glass window for structure and safety. Ms. Danaher said she referred to the international building code. 5. Mr. Long requested further research on the door and window of the façade. 6. Mr. Long questioned the second floor. Ms. Danaher said during demolition they discovered a large gap between the ground floor ceiling and second floor, which served no purpose in the new plans. They dropped the ceiling and gained additional height on the second floor that provided a balcony on the façade. 7. Mr. Long commented that it was difficult to judge existing and proposed changes to the elevation and requested plans of existing front elevation. 8. Mr. Long asked if her architect expressed any issues with the changes to the size of the plate glass windows. Ms. Danaher said the architect agreed with her and did not have any issues with the changes. 9. Ms. Larson agreed with Mr. Long and also wanted to see more details of the façade. She hoped alternatives could be used to keep the original facade. 10. Ms. Remoaldo asked if the new FEMA flood zone map affected the theatre flood zone area. Ms. Danaher said no, but she was eligible for flood insurance and advise to purchase. Planner Alex Wong said the applicant requested a letter of support to take to a lender. He said the request was to support proposed changes to the original presentation that she brought before the commission over a year ago or suggest potential changes to her presentation today or to not. Ms. Danaher said its approval of a modified permit. Mr. Wong reiterated to clarify approval of a modified permit to complete the façade and rooms in the façade. Mr. Wong Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 24 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION commented the additional rooms regarding the West Kaua‘i Community Plan Update allowed for motel use and development and highly recommended speaking with Planning Department once she was ready to add the additional 19 hotel rooms. There was a lengthy discussion between the commission, Ms. Danaher and the staff as to what they should motion, what they could request and what was approved in 2019. Ms. Danaher came before the commission in 2019 and the commission approved her request. Chair Ida experienced internet problems and repeatedly disconnected and regained access back into the meeting between 6:20 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Mr. Long moved to defer the Aloha Theatre Restoration at 3795 Hanapēpē Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 1-9-004-013 Hanapēpē, Hawai‘i project until the applicant provides the commission with floor plans and elevations that are not artist renderings of the historic building and proposed new building that include detailed specifications on the plate glass windows, door design and how the proposed new elevation would look like next to the historical features. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. Mr. Long withdrew his motion. Mr. Long moved to defer the Aloha Theatre Restoration 3795 Hanapēpē Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 1-9-004-013 Hanapēpē, Hawai‘i project until the next meeting until the applicant provides the commission floor plans and front exterior elevations of the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 25 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION The commission requested to view the documents that were included in the 2019 presentation that was approved by the commission. Mr. Wong shared documents the commission reviewed from their 2019 meeting that confirmed the same documents were used and approved by the commission. Mr. Long said the proposed elevations were substantially different from the 2019 documents they reviewed and approved in comparison to the current documents they reviewed. historic building façade and proposed new building facade. Mr. Long withdrew his motion. Mr. Guerber moved to approve the Aloha Theatre Restoration 3795 Hanapēpē Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 1-9-004-013 Hanapēpē, Hawai‘i project and allow the applicant to complete the façade. Mr. Long seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. I.7. Gulick Rowell House Restoration 9567 Huakai Road Tax Map Key: (4) 1-2-006:034 Waimea, Hawai‘i Consideration of the subject parcel and existing historic building for proposed repair of the roof and other structural improvements to the lanai that would enable effective fumigation of the structure. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Wong read portions of the Director’s Report dated February 18, 2021 for the record. He reminded the commission that this property was on both the national and state register of historic places. (Document on file) Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 26 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mason Architects, Glen Mason presented the project and shared documents. He reviewed the history of Gulick Rowell House. Findings: 1. Displayed a site plan 2. Huge tree next to the house was probably there from 1897 3. Oldest building on Kaua‘i and probably the top 4-5 in the Hawai‘i 4. Lanai was originally constructed of wood and changed in 1927 5. Home would be reconstructed to its 1927 period Propose: 1. Make necessary repairs to roof and lanai to secure and stabilize the building so it could be tented for termite fumigation. Mr. Mason reviewed the history of Gulick Rowell House and said immediate urgent action was required to repair the roof and lanai so the house could be termite treated. Within a year he documented extensive termite damage and highlighted significant areas in the home that were original and in danger of being lost due to termites. He said once termite treated they would be able to return and begin to prevent it from collapsing and reconstruct it historically and accurately to the 1927 period. Mr. Wong said the commission could support, support with specific conditions or recommendations or to not support the proposed roof and structural repair and renovation as presented. Mr. Mason asked the commission to the permit was to make the necessary repairs to the roof and lanai structure to get the building stabilized to take care of the termite issue. There would be another permit and presentation once interior work is ready. Chair Ida experienced internet problems and disconnected from the meeting around 7:03 p.m. With Chair Ida absent Chair Pro Tem Remoaldo led the meeting. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 27 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Guerber moved to strongly support and approve the Gulick Rowell House Restoration, 9567 Huakai Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 1-2-006:034, Waimea, Hawai‘i, Consideration of the subject parcel and existing historic building for proposed repair of the roof and other structural improvements to the lanai that would enable effective fumigation of the structure. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. I. New Business Nominations: I.9. Nomination to the State Historic Register Princeville Ranch Manager House and Caretaker Cottage 5470 Weke Rd. Tax Map Key: (4) 5-5-004:006 Hanalei, Hawai‘i Consideration of historic buildings on the subject property for nomination to the State Historic Register. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Commissioner Steven Long recused himself from the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and Chair Ida had not reconnected back into the meeting; the commission did not have quorum from 7:06 p.m. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa stated with only four commissioners in the meeting they did not have quorum and advised they could listen to the presentation; however they would not be able to Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 28 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION make a decision. Chair Pro Tem Remoaldo agreed to continue the presentation. Planner Marisa Valenciano said the action for the commission was to support the nomination or to not support the nomination by either not supporting or receiving the nomination for the record and read portions of the Director’s Report for the record. The Department recommended support for the nomination based on Criteria A and C. (Document on file) Owner, Robert Trent Jones, Jr. presented information of the property with a power point presentation. Chair Ida experienced internet problems regained access back into the meeting around 7:10 p.m. but disconnected again and regained access back into the meeting. He and his family have been owners of the property for 50 years and gave a history. In 1992, Hurricane Iniki caused some roof and window damages to the main home that were repaired and have since been mainly untouched. The cottage had more damage and was rebuilt and enlarged with a lanai added. Ms. Larson moved to support the Princeville Ranch Manager House and Caretaker Cottage, 5470 Weke Rd. Tax Map Key: (4) 5-5-004:006, Hanalei, Hawai‘i nomination to the Hawai‘i State Historic Register. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried: 5-Ayes, 0-Nays and 1- Recused (Mr. Long). J. Announcements J.1. Waimea 400 Update Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa said the master plan was currently being worked on and more updates would be shared later. K. Selection of Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa announced the next meeting would be March 18, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session February 18, 2021 Page 29 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Next Meeting Date and Agenda Topics (DATE) Commissioner Steven Long returned back to the meeting 7:32 p.m. Mr. Long requested the following agenda items; 1. Status on PLG funds 2. West Side Historic Inventory PIG (Permitted Interaction Group) needs to be completed with Myles Hironaka L. Adjournment With no further business to conduct, Chair Ida called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Larson moved to adjourn the meeting. Vice Chair Remoaldo seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Chair Ida adjourned the meeting at 7:35pm Submitted by: _______________________________________ Reviewed and Approved by: _________________________________________ Sandra M. Muragin, Commission Support Clerk Gerald Ida, Chair ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of _____ meeting. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board/Commission: Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Meeting Date March 18, 2021 Location Teleconference by Microsoft Teams Start of Meeting: 1:34 p.m. End of Meeting: 3:53 p.m. Present Chair Gerald Ida. Vice Chair Susan Remoaldo. Commissioners: James Guerber, Carolyn Larson, Stephen Long and Aubrey Summers. Deputy County Attorney Laura Barzilai. Planning Department Staff: Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa, Planner Myles Hironaka, Commission Specialist Shanlee Jimenez and Planner Marisa Valenciano. Office of Boards and Commissions: Administrator Ellen Ching and Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. Excused Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION A. Call To Order Chair Ida called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. B. Roll Call Deputy Planning Director Higuchi-Sayegusa verified attendance by roll call and requested a verbal response; Commissioner Guerber replied here. Commissioner Larson replied present. Commissioner Long replied here. Commissioner Summers replied present. Vice Chair Remoaldo replied here. Chair Ida replied here. Quorum was established with six commissioners present. C. Approval of the Agenda Ms. Larson inquired why the Waimea River Ford Crossing Project was not placed on the agenda. Planner Marisa Valenciano replied that it would be placed on a future agenda. Ms. Larson moved to approve the agenda, as circulated. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. D. Approval of the Minutes Chair Ida stated the minutes are not available. E. Communications There were none. DRAFT To Be Approved Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION F. Public Comment Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa announced that any member of the public could testify on any agenda item now. Hearing none, she moved on to the next agenda item. G. General Business Matters There were none. H. Unfinished Business H.1. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawai‘i Historic Bridge Projects Statewide National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. a. Draft Statement of Purpose, Approach, and Abbreviated Outline b. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter Ms. Valenciano shared the following: • This agenda item was a continuation from the last meeting. • Involved development of a Programmatic Agreement to assist Federal Highways Administration and streamline minor repairs and rehabilitation on historic bridges. • The consultant provided the Minor Historic Bridge Projects Programmatic Agreeement Outline to review. • The project was on-going and in its early stages. • The department recommended to withhold comments until a future draft became available. Consultant and Project Manager Mr. Ikaika Kincaid was available to answer questions and with him was Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Planning Department Project Manager Ms. Pua Aiu. Mr. Kincaid said he brought an outline of the programmatic agreement and welcomed any questions from the commission. Questions: 1. Ms. Larson asked how many Kaua‘i bridges were on the list. Mr. Kincaid replied 400 Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION statewide bridges qualify but didn’t have a specific number for Kaua‘i. He said the inventory list was from 2013 and would be revised soon. 2. Vice Chair Remoaldo requested more information on emergency repairs. Mr. Kincaid replied that the outline highlighted areas that would be developed and refined once a draft was completed. He said the activity would be defined by tiers and basically bring the bridge back to how it was originally. 3. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if the tiers would once emergency repairs theres an opportunity to review in order to comply with section 106 would the tiers address that. Mr. Kincaid said depending on how activities are defined it may be covered by multiple tiers. 4. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked where she could find the HDOT comprehensive exemption list. Mr. Kincaid it’s the 343 exemption list from HDOT. 5. Mr. Long requested to add another chapter for safety and signage that would study and evaluate signage placed in the areas around historic bridges. Mr. Kincaid stated it would be added. 6. Chair Ida asked who was updating the inventory list. Mr. Kincaid replied that another consultant would update the 2013 inventory list. Mr. Kincaid said the outline the commission was given did not contain a lot of information; however, a draft should become available within a couple of months to review and submit comments on. If needed, he could be present at that meeting. He then shared that Kaua‘i had 38 historic bridges on the inventory list. With no further questions from the commission Chair Ida called for a motion. Mr. Guerber moved to receive the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration Programmatic Agreement for Minor Hawai‘i Historic Bridge Projects Statewide National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties, Draft Statement of Purpose, Approach, and Abbreviated Outline. Mr. Long seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. H.2. 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 80 foot tall, 60 foot wide (turning radius), 25-kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF) antennas at the Hanapēpē Readiness Center (HRC), and the finding of “no adverse effects” to historic properties. a. HING PowerPoint Presentation. b. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Valenciano shared a brief overview and recommendation from portions of the Director’s Report dated March 19, 2020, on file: • Action was a section 106 requests for consultation and comments of the applicant’s findings of no adverse effects on historic properties. • The departments findings was the project contradicted with the goals and objectives of the West Kaua‘i Community Plan and the General Plan and would impact the visual quality of the surrounding nearby historic properties. • The department recommended to not concur with the applicants findings of no adverse effects to historic properties. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION State of Hawai‘i (SOH) Department of Defense, Director of Public Affairs Jeffrey Hickman shared a power point presentation and with him were National Guard Bureau representative Heath Conkle and Hawai‘i National Guard representative Karl Brimwell. Mr. Jeffrey Hickman shared a power point presentation and proposed the installation of two 80 foot tall antennas at the Hanapēpē Readiness Center (HRC); • Purpose of antennas was to provide emergency communication during disasters with interisland, American Samoa, Guam and mainland through voice or text messages. • Antennas would be used to save Kaua‘i lives. • Communication for assistance after a disaster is crucial for the county to receive assistance from the state and federal. Mr. Hickman shared a project overview: • Hurricane Iniki initiated the Late Senator Daniel K. Inouye to request improvements in communication during and after disasters. • The Defense Information Systems Agency did a island-wide site survey with the need to meet strict guidelines to operate the system, open line of sight and minimize impact to the community. • No cost to the county or state of Hawai‘i. The National Guard Bureau is funding the project. • Support the HING and there will be a full-time HING member employed to operate the system. • State Historic Preservation Division provided concurrence to the project. • The area where the antennas would be secured have been disturbed in the past and there would be a low percentage of iwi or historical remnants. • Visual impacts would be minimal and the antenna base would be hidden underground. • No guide wires and no lights. • Outside of flood zone area. Affected and in zone of 100 and 500 year floods. • No risk of radio frequency and no harmful rays. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION • Located entirely on property. • Regulatory guidelines would be followed. Mr. Hickman showed graphic representations of the antennas is the area: • Birds eye view of HRC from Puolo Road and Kaumuali‘i Highway. o Located in safe area on property from category one and two hurricane storm surges. o Category four hurricane would flood area. Antennas are generator operated and would recover quickly and allow emergency communication. • View #1 – from Puolo Road, the antennas are aluminum anodized which was the same color as the light poles at Vidinha Statdium, Līhu‘e. • View #2 – looking mauka across two fields – antennas on left side of street light poles • View #3 – along makai Puolu Road looking mauka directly back at Kaumuali‘i Highway across the HRC • View #4 & #5 – looking across the ball field and seeing back of HRC o Two antennas – one for receiving and one for transmitting, which can be done at the same time. Antennas blend in with the other light poles in the area with no extreme height difference. • View #6 – from Kaumuali‘i Highway across the street • Posted notice in the Garden Island newspaper and sent out notifications to 30 Hawaiian organizations. Did not receive any responses. • No cost to the state or county. • Updated architectural drawings and information are available. Questions: 1. Vice Chair Remoaldo shared the Hanapēpē/‘Ele‘ele community association spent over two years to better understand and learn how to prepare themselves and community to cover all disasters and wanted to become a HARP (Hawai‘i Hazard Awareness and Resilience Program) community. Discovered the importance and difficulty in communicating after a disaster to get resources and assistance. Current equipment would not meet the needs now Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION and in the future. 2. Mr. Long asked for the height of the antennas. Mr. Hickman replied 80 feet tall. Mr. Long commented it would be the tallest on island. 3. Mr. Long asked for a copy of the SHPD letter. Ms. Valenciano replied it was provided in the packet and dated 4/2/2020. Mr. Long located the letter. 4. Mr. Guerber inquired the type of data the antennas communicated. Mr. Hickman replied voice and text messages could be communicated and reach the mainland, American Samoa and Guam. 5. Mr. Long commented that he was not in agreement with the applicant’s assessment of no affect to surrounding properties and would deny the project. 6. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked what the rotating antenna looked like. Mr. Hickman replied it would look like the old television antennas. The antennas could operate 24/7 or just during testing periods during non-disaster times. 7. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if the rotating antenna made noise once it was activated to turn and rotate. National Guard Bureau representative Heath Conkle replied the noise was very minimal and sounded like a ham (amateur) radio. 8. Ms. Summers asked for the height of the light stanches. Mr. Hickman replied he wasn’t sure and would get an answer back to the commission. He said the lights at Vidinha Stadium were 70 feet tall and the telephone poles were 40 feet tall. 9. Ms. Larson asked if the flood data included the new projected sea level rise. Hawai‘i National Guard Representative Karl Bromwell replied he wasn’t sure and would get an answer back to the commission. 10. Ms. Larson asked to see the list of potential sites for the antennas and wanted to know the comparison data and why the other sites were not chosen. Mr. Hickman replied the Hanapēpē site checked off three big factors; it was not blocked by mountains, area was safe and it was on their property. 11. Mr. Long commented that with advancements in technology he found it difficult to understand why an 80 foot antenna was the only option available. 12. Mr. Long commented that he found the presentation deceptive with antennas not to scale and colored light. He stated architect drawings should be a minimum requirement and included in the commissions packets. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa inquired on the projects time frame. Mr. Conkle replied that they are pending completion of the environmental documentation in August or September and would be able to start. 13. Ms. Larson inquired on the visual sight line from across Kaumuali‘i Highway looking at the temple and wanted a picture of how the antennas would look like. Mr. Hickman said he would work on providing a picture of that specific view. 14. Mr. Long commented that it would affect historic properties and suggested they research additional technologies and provide pictures that represent an accurate view. Mr. Hickman replied they could research other communication equipment instead of antennas. 15. Ms. Larson proposed they choose another site for the antenna. 16. Chair Ida concluded that the view would be impacted and could not accept the conclusion letter. 17. Mr. Bromwell replied that the consultant prepared the pictures and they were accurately scaled. DCA Barzilai advised the commission that they could motion to defer, motion to adopt recommendations or motion to defer to next meeting for additional information. Ms. Larson asked if they could agree with the findings of no significant visual impact and ask that they look at other potential sites and other communication equipment. DCA Barzilai advised that commission that if they received it may prevent the applicant from returning to another meeting with the requested additional information. Taking DCA Barzilai’s advice Mr. Guerber rephrased his motion. Mr. Guerber moved to receive the communication and submit with comments and questions and look forward to another presentation with the additional information. Ms. Summers seconded. (motion dissolved and restated below with recommendations) Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Guerber moved to defer the proposed installation of two new 80 foot tall, 60 foot wide (turning radius), 25- kilowatt rotatable high frequency (HF) antennas at the 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 , and the finding of “no adverse effects” to historic properties and request findings of another site for the antennas and other communication equipment that would not have a visual impact on the surrounding historical sites. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. I. New Business I.1. Gay & Robinson – Kaumakani Village Design Review of the Rebuild of 8 Plantation Camp Housing Units Tax Map Key: (4) 1-7-006:001 Kaumakani, Hawaii Consideration of the design review standards for the rebuild of eight (8) plantation camp housing units in Kaumakani Village. a. Applicant’s second letter providing information about the plantation history and project details Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION b. Plantation Camp (PC) Zoning Ordinance c. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa shared the following: 1. Plantation Camp Ordinance 1086 was enacted as part of the West Kaua‘i Plan and included in CZO as article 8A 2. Kaua‘i County Code prohibits non-conforming structures from being significantly reconstructed or substantially repaired and all repairs must be completed within a year. 3. The plantation camp ordinance 1086; a. Created to provide flexibility to non-conforming existing structures in an agricultural district within several plantation camps including Kaumakani village. b. Allows structures to be rebuilt to what existed previously c. Structures cannot be enlarged and must comply with building codes and environmental hazards d. Allows structures to be moved around the property e. Does not require the one-year repair deadline allows non-conforming homes to be rebuilt to previous character and size. 4. Project allows families or descendants of plantation workers to continue to live in the homes and preserves a historic district. Ms. Valenciano shared a brief overview and recommendation from portions of the Director’s Report dated March 18, 2021, on file. 1. The commission was to consider the design review standards of eight structures. 2. Applicant provided a packet with plans and improvement details and would also be used for future repairs and projects within the district. 3. Applicant intends to rebuild eight structures to what previously existed with the same size and scale. 4. The difference was to improve the interior and changes to the foundation structure. 5. The action before the commission; a. Support for project b. Recommendation to approve with conditions Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION c. Recommendation to deny permits d. Recommendation to defer action on the permits Gay & Robinson, Inc. Project Manager Howard Greene gave the following presentation and was available to answer questions; • Homes were built in 1946 as a planned community. • Homes have the same layout and floor plans. • Homes built on concrete foundations with all pipes and plumbing imbedded in concrete. Soil was highly expansive and caused major damage to the foundation. • Homes concrete foundation would be replaced with post-pier. • Repairs needed to provide affordable homes to west Kaua‘i families. • 350 homes and a waiting list with 1000 families. • Future repairs would include homes in Pākalā, Kaumakani Avenue and Kaawanui camp. Questions: 1. Ms. Larson asked how the post-pier would change the look of the homes. Mr. Greene said the homes would be elevated 18 inches higher than the rest of the homes. 2. Vice Chair Remoaldo commented that vinyl double hung windows were drastically different from the original wooden double hung windows and asked if other homes were replaced with vinyl. Mr. Greene replied that a few homes wer installed vinyl slider windows by the maintenance crew or tenants. To meet code the windows would be four inches higher. Chair Ida experienced internet problems and disconnected from the meeting around 3:07 p.m. With Chair Ida absent Chair Pro Tem Remoaldo led the meeting and asked for a motion. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa advised that the Director’s Report listed recommendations and asked if Ms. Larson moved to accept the proposal as presented. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. (motion dissolved and restated below with recommendations) Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION that would be included in the motion. Ms. Larson agreed and repeated her motion. Ms. Larson moved to accept the Gay & Robinson – Kaumakani Village, Design Review of the Rebuild of 8 Plantation Camp Housing Units, Tax Map Key: (4) 1-7- 006:001, Kaumakani, Hawai‘i, Consideration of the design review standards for the rebuild of eight (8) plantation camp housing units in Kaumakani Village as presented with the proposed recommendations form the Planning Department; 1. Any repairs, rehabilitation, and/or reconstruction shall preserve and utilize the design elements of the original historical structure including but not limited to the roof, fenestration, trim and exterior siding. 2. The Applicant shall be cognizant that KHPRC review and approval shall not obviate the Applicant or permit application submittal from the standard regulatory permitting review process and the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION permitting requirements set forth in the applicable State and County lases, including but not limited to the County of Kaua‘i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. I.2. 3 Palms, LLC Douglas Baldwin Beach House Improvements 5242 Weke Road Tax Map Key: (4) 5-5-002:107 Hanalei, Hawai‘i Consideration of a Class I Zoning Permit to renovate the existing single-family dwelling unit and to construct a covered lanai extension. 1. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Valenciano shared a brief overview and recommendation from portions of the Director’s Report dated March 18, 2021, on file. • The applicant came before the commission in November 2018 to convert a dwelling into an accessary structure to build a new house. The commission approved the project and permits were pulled. Since COVID-19 the applicant changed their minds and was now requesting to restore the original home with a covered lanai and replace windows and doors with like items. • The action before the commission a. Support the project b. Recommendation to approve with conditions c. Recommendation to deny permits d. Recommendation to defer action on the permits Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION The deck was not part of the original request back in November 2018. The department recommends supporting the covered lanai with conditions. Ian Jung shared a power point presentation and showed plans of the covered deck with sliding glass doors and replacement of windows. • The current Trek decking would be removed and replaced with Ipe wood. • Extend the Ipe wood deck walkway to one side of the home. • The covered lanai roof would batch the existing roof. • The door to the lanai would be replaced with three sliding doors. • Jalousie windows would be replaced with wooden double hung windows Chair Ida logged back into the meeting at 3:23 p.m. Ms. Larson commented concerns regarding the new sliding doors and divided doors might be more consistent with the style and era of the home. Mr. Jung replied that he would consult with the architect. Ms. Higuchi Sayegusa advised that the Director’s Report listed recommendations and asked if that would be included in the motion. Mr. Long agreed and repeated his motion. Mr. Long moved to approve the proposal and application. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. (motion dissolved and restated below with recommendations) Mr. Long moved to approve the 3 Palms, LLC Douglas Baldwin Beach House Improvements at 5242 Weke Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 5-5- 002:107, Hanalei, Hawai‘i a Class I Zoning Permit to renovate the existing single- Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 15 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION family dwelling unit and to construct a covered lanai extension and include the following recommendations from the Planning Department; 1. Applicant shall ensure the architectural form, style, and material used for the proposed improvements is consistent with the U.S. Secretary of Standards & Guideline, and does not detract from or significantly alter the historic integrity of the existing property and the historic beach house. 2. The Applicant shall be cognizant that KHPRC review and approval shall not obviate the Applicant or permit application submittal from the standard regulatory permitting review process and the permitting requirements set forth in the applicable State and County lases, including but not limited to the County of Kaua‘i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 3. Applicant shall be cognizant of the HRS 6E-10 review Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 16 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION process as it pertains to privately owned properties listed on the Hawai‘i or National Registers of Historic Places. The Applicant shall formally contact SHPD and comply with any conditions or agency comments. 4. Prior to issuance of the new permit, the applicant shall submit a letter to the Department to confirm compliance with any EIS/EA requirement pursuant to HRS 343. 5. Prior to issuance of the new permit, the applicant shall do the following: a. Formally withdraw all zoning and building permits that are no longer relevant to the revised scope of work. b. Formally amend or withdraw the existing Z-74- 2019 zoning permit. c. Apply for all necessary shoreline or SMA permits based on the revised scope of work. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 17 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION I.3. ‘Ele‘ele Baptist Church Expansion and Renovation of the Church Building 339 Mehana Rd Tax Map Key: (4) 2-1-001:041 ‘Ele‘ele, Hawai‘i Consideration of a Class IV Zoning Permit and use Permit to expand and renovate a portion of the existing church building. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Valenciano shared a brief overview and recommendation from portions of the Director’s Report dated March 18, 2020, on file. • The action before the commission e. Support the project f. Recommendation to approve with conditions g. Recommendation to deny permits h. Recommendation to defer action on the permits • The applicant provided construction plans to expand both sides of the building for storage, meeting rooms and pantry and roof improvements. • The department recommends supporting the project Architect, Edwin Santa Maria shared the following information; • Adding a lanai with columns and roof covering to support overflow of church functions • Addition on the Port Allen side would expand the church ministry pantry, meeting space, storage and support community needs • A new housing was being developed in ‘Ele‘ele and the church realizes it would need to expand the space to support the community. Chair Ida experienced internet problems and disconnected from the meeting around 3:34 p.m. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 18 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION With Chair Ida absent Chair Pro Tem Remoaldo led the meeting. Ms. Larson requested for a short history of the building and congregation. Mr. Santa Maria shared the following; • Built in 1968 • Building was designed similar to a Baptist Church Questions: 1. Ms. Larson asked if the congregation was expanding. Mr. Santa Maria replied that the ‘Ele‘ele population was increasing. 2. Mr. Long asked about the materials for the new siding and roof, what was the existing material and what material were they planning to use. Mr. Santa Maria replied the roof was asphalt shingles and they plan to replace the entire existing roof and addition with the same asphalt shingle. The exterior siding would be T1-11. 3. Mr. Long commented that modern buildings use T1-11 and a more historic typical westside plantation siding would use board and batten. He said it was not a requirement but for their consideration. 4. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if the original existing siding was cmu (concrete masonry unit) blocks. Mr. Santa Maria replied that the walls are cmu blocks and the Kaumuali‘i side of the church was chicken wire with plaster. 5. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if cost was the reason they were using siding and not cmu blocks. Mr. Santa Maria replied yes. 6. Mr. Long commented that in keeping with the historic part they should use board and batten. Ms. Summers replied that the commission approved T1-11 for the Gay & Robinson rebuilt of eight units. Ms. Valenciano clarified by age the building was considered historic but the departments analysis didn’t determine it significant under the criteria of historic register or based on integrity points. Ms. Larson moved to accept the ‘Ele‘ele Baptist Church Expansion and Renovation of the Church Building, 339 Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 19 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair Ida logged back into the meeting at 3:44 p.m. Mehana Rd, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-1-001:041, ‘Ele‘ele, Hawai‘i Class IV Zoning Permit and use Permit to expand and renovate a portion of the existing church building and include Planning Department’s recommendations to support the proposed project involving the expansion and renovation to the church sanctuary building. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 J. Announcements J.1. Historic Hawai‘i Foundation Virtual Seminar – March 2021 Topic: Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 Time: 10:00am – 11:30am K. Selection of Next Meeting Date and Agenda Topics (DATE) Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa announced the next meeting would be April 22, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa said there would be an update on the CLG (Certified Local Government) at the next meeting but asked if the commission could hold off on updates on continuing the PIG’S (Permitted Action Group) work on the historic resource inventory until pandemic duties wind down. Mr. Long stated that his request from October 2019 to have a standardized minimum requirement met before KHPRC reviews an application be placed back on the agenda. He said all applications should include existing and proposed site plans, floor plans, exterior elevations, color, finishes and material schedule. L. Adjournment With no further business to conduct, Chair Ida called for a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Remoaldo moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session March 18, 2021 Page 20 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Larson seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Chair Ida adjourned the meeting at 3:53pm Submitted by: _______________________________________ Reviewed and Approved by: _________________________________________ Sandra M. Muragin, Commission Support Clerk Gerald Ida, Chair ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of _____ meeting. COUNTY OF KAUA‘I Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board/Commission: Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Meeting Date April 15, 2021 Location Teleconference by Microsoft Teams Start of Meeting: 1:43 p.m. End of Meeting: 3:50 p.m. Present Chair Gerald Ida. Vice Chair Susan Remoaldo. Commissioners: James Guerber, Carolyn Larson, Stephen Long and Aubrey Summers. Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall. Planning Department Staff: Planning Director Ka‘aina Hull, Planner Marisa Valenciano and Commission Specialist Shanlee Jimenez. Office of Boards and Commissions: Administrator Ellen Ching and Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. Excused Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION The meeting was delayed due to Boards and Commissions computer audio problems. A. Call To Order Chair Ida called the meeting to order at 1:43 p.m. B. Roll Call Planning Director Ka‘aina Hull verified attendance by roll call and requested a verbal response; Commissioner Guerber replied here. Commissioner Larson replied present. Commissioner Long replied here. Commissioner Summers replied present. Vice Chair Remoaldo replied here. Chair Ida replied here. Quorum was established with six commissioners present. C. Approval of the Agenda Ms. Summers moved to approve the agenda, as circulated. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. D. Approval of the Minutes Mr. Hull announced there were no minutes to approve. He explained that Boards and Commissions staff were also assigned to Kaua‘i Emergency Management Agency two days a week and behind in their work. DRAFT To Be Approved Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION E. Communications There were none. F. Public Comment Mr. Hull announced that any member of the public could testify on any agenda item now. Hearing none, he moved on to the next agenda item. G. General Business Matters There were none. H. Unfinished Business H.1. County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works – Engineering Division Waimea River Ford Crossing Project Tax Map Key(s): (4) 1-6-001:027 (por.) and (4) 1-6-001:888 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Initial Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties. • Archeological Literature Review and Field Inspection Report for the Waimea River Ford Crossing Project. • Director’s Report pertaining to this matter Ms. Valenciano shared portions of the Director’s Report dated April 15, 2021; • This agenda item was deferred by the commission at the February 18, 2021 meeting. • The action before the commission was to respond to the applicants Section 106 request for consultation; o Recommendation to provide additional comments o Defer comments to a future meeting • The department’s recommendation was for the commission to provide comments to the applicant’s findings. County of Kaua‘i Chief Engineer of Public Works Michael Moule presented the project to the commission and introduced Engineer and Project Manager Christie Bagley. He shared a power point presentation. • The scope of the project was to replace the existing crossing with another underwater crossing that would provide a reliable access for residents and farmers who needed to cross the Waimea River. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION • Displayed a concept plan view of where and how they plan to construct the crossing. • Presented two options for the underwater crossing; o Option one was a submerged concrete foundation. Concrete sections would be embedded deep below the surface to prevent erosion. o Option two was a rock and gabion foundation. Wire baskets filled with rocks would form the floor for the crossing. • Reported findings of no significant impact (FONSI) and no further archaeological work proposed. • Held a public meeting in October. The farmers and residents who access the crossing wanted the project. The public against the project cited the crossing could easily wash away during floods and heavy rain, allow unwanted traffic and suggested a gate be installed. • Option one would provide a longer life span of the crossing, but no final decision was made on which option they would select. • Both options would be engineered and constructed to withstand the flow of the river and prevent it from being easily washed away. Questions: 1. Mr. Guerber asked if a structure currently existed in the area now or if it was a mud/dirt path. Mr. Mole responded no structure just mud and rocks. 2. Ms. Larson asked why a ford river crossing was needed and to explain the problem. Mr. Mole responded the crossing was washed away and in a condition that not even a four- wheeled truck could cross. 3. Ms. Larson asked if the reason for the trucks not being able to cross the river was because the water was too high or if the surface of the crossing was uneven. Mr. Mole responded the surface was damaged and under normal conditions if the crossing was not damaged trucks would only be able to cross when the water level was low. 4. Ms. Larson inquired about the pile of dirt on the riverbank and if it was from maintaining the crossing. Mr. Mole was not sure how or where the dirt came from. 5. Ms. Larson asked if the dirt approach into and out of the river was too slippery. Mr. Mole replied that the east side bank was steep and washed out. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 6. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked if rock and gabion crossing existed on Kaua‘i or anywhere in the state. Mr. Mole was not aware of any on island. 7. Mr. Guerber questioned why the commission was reviewing the project since it contained no historic structure. Mr. Mole responded that they were following Section 106 process that required consultation and review by this commission. With no further questions from the commission Chair Ida called for a motion. Mr. Guerber moved to support the County of Kaua‘i, Department of Public Works – Engineering Division-Waimea River Ford Crossing Project, Tax Map Key(s): (4) 1-6- 001:027 (por.) and (4) 1-6- 001:888, National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations and Potential Consulting Parties project. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. H.2. Discussion regarding minimum requirements for project presentations before the Kaua‘i Historic Review Preservation Commission. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Ms. Valenciano stated this agenda item was at the request of the commission and shared the following; • February 2020 the commission discussed ideas to develop a checklist of minimum requirements for all KHPRC applicants to complete before presenting their project to the commission. • Provided copies of the original checklist dated February 20, 2020 and the revised checklist dated April 2, 2021. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION • The action before the commission was to review the revised checklist and recommend comments. Questions: 1. Ms. Larson was concerned that the additional requirements would place a burden on the applicant and asked how much more information was the revised checklist requesting in comparison to what was normally accepted. Mr. Hull said a zoning and building permit required site plans, floor plans and elevation plans. He said additional requests could become costly to the applicant and may discourage them from pulling the required permits. 2. Mr. Long commented that the commission was responsible for reviewing proposed changes to existing historical structures and the request for existing and proposed site plans, floor plans and exterior elevations would be appropriate. Mr. Hull agreed, that would be the minimum requirement for a zoning permit. 3. Mr. Long commented that exterior elevations always identify material, color and finishes which were required. Mr. Hull replied that not all historic assets would require exterior elevations if only interior work was going to be done. Mr. Hull stated the minimum requirements needed were site plans, floor plans and elevations. Should additional information be necessary for the commission to review they would ask for photo documentation to get the feel for the form character and integrity of the structure. 4. Ms. Valenciano said she acts as the gatekeeper and reviews each applicant and has had to ask for clarification and additional information when necessary. 5. Ms. Larson concurred with Mr. Long and emphasized that materials and finishes were important for the commission to get the historic feel of the site. Referring to the checklist, she felt a photo of the existing structure, historical background and archaeological information were all important not only to the commission but to the applicant. 6. Vice Chair Remoaldo suggested an addendum to the checklist to add references, resources, publication and websites that applicants could access for information and templates of what was needed. She was concerned for the average public applicant that might not be aware of what the documents looked like and how it should be completed. 7. Ms. Larson liked Vice Chair Remoaldo’s idea and felt a sample would benefit the applicant. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION 8. Mr. Long also thought it was a great idea and said there were great websites the public could access for information like the secretary of interior. 9. Mr. Hull said the staff would work on establishing a resource library on the website and asked the commission to feel free to directly contact himself, Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa or Marisa Valenciano with any ideas to add to the checklist. They could combine and present a report to the commission. Mr. Long moved to defer discussion regarding minimum requirements for project presentations before the Kaua‘i Historic Review Preservation Commission to another meeting. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. I. New Business I.1. Mucho Aloha Kōloa Brewhouse Lot 4A, Kōloa Road Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8-007:016 Kōloa, Hawai‘i a. Letter (3/31/21) from Ian Jung transmitting revised renovation plans. b. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter Ms. Valenciano shared a brief overview and recommendation from portions of the Director’s Report dated April 15, 2021, on file. • The action before the commission was a proposal for renovation to an existing structure; o Support for project o Recommendation to approve with conditions o Recommendation to deny permits o Recommendation to defer action on the permits • The structure was not on the KHPRC inventory list; however, it was brought before the commission because it’s surrounded by other buildings that are either on the register, meet Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION the criteria to be on the register and improvements could impact the surroundings which had the potential to be nominated as a historic district. • The department recommends the proposed improvements blend with the existing historic structure of the other buildings. Mr. Guerber disclosed a potential conflict of interest because he owned a brewery in Lihue. Representing the applicant Attorney Ian Jung responded that there were no conflicts with Mr. Guerber’s disclosure. DCA Hall responded that if there were any financial interest or potential interest in the business you would need to recuse yourself and based on the two locations there would be no conflict of possible competition. Attorney Ian Jung presented the project to the commission with a power point presentation and introduced applicant Gabriel Tennberg. • Brief history overview of the Old Kōloa Town shops • Shared renovation process that included options that were eliminated and added to conform with planning departments concerns. • Approximately 90% of the renovation would be concentrated on the exterior front courtyard area of the building and included the following changes; o Remove trellis over deck and replace with an extended shed roof o Change balusters to diamond shaped instead of horizontal slats o Remove existing ramp o Remove existing French doors and replace with a single double door o Remove both lava rock planters o Remove decking material o Remove existing front windows and replace with double hung • Shared that planning department addressed concerns with how they planned to attach the shed roof to the building. The shed roof would extend in length on both sides and attach onto the same place that the original trellis roof was attached to on the building. • There were no pending permit’s and the project was presented to the commission for review and comment before submitting building permits. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Questions: 1. Vice Chair Remoaldo was concerned that the extension would affect the large trees nearby. Mr. Jung showed pictures and locations of the nearby avocado and wiliwili trees that were not in the area and would not be affected. 2. Vice Chair Remoaldo asked for the location of the handicap access. Mr. Jung showed plans of the area and Mr. Tennberg replied that ADA access was located on the north side of the building through double doors. 3. Ms. Larson expressed concern about the width of the deck and asked if it was 12 feet wide from the existing building. Mr. Jung showed plans of the area and confirmed it would be 13 feet wide. Ms. Larson said the large deck would decrease the sidewalk area and impede on the planting area in front of the building. Mr. Jung showed plans of the walkway area between the deck and circle planter. Mr. Tennberg said there would be sufficient walkway access and his architect confirmed that it was within code. 4. Ms. Larson commented that the courtyard view would be hampered by the large deck and eliminate the historic feel. Mr. Tennberg replied that the deck may appear larger on the plans; however, it fits the building and within code. Mr. Jung said the new deck would conform to the historic style of the area. 5. Ms. Larson expressed concern about removing the rock wall and eliminating that feature from the proposed deck. She said the rock wall was a significant feature in the area. Mr. Jung showed pictures of the rock wall located on the south side and in front of the building. He replied they planned to reuse the rock for the ramp deck and would work with the planning department to address her concerns. Ms. Larson was unsure if the planters were historic or not, but it represented the style within the courtyard and other places in Kōloa. 6. Ms. Larson stated that the attachment of the proposed new shed roof to the building could damage the woodwork in the area. Mr. Jung showed pictures and plans of the area and where it would be attached to. Mr. Tennberg replied that the shed roof would attach to the building along the beams. 7. Ms. Summers remarked that the front portion of the building was not historical and that was the area that the deck and shed roof would be attached to. She also questioned the proximity of the circle planter in front of the deck, it appeared too close. Mr. Jung showed plans of the entire building and replied that they were adding to the newer part of the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION building. 8. Ms. Larson shared her concerns about all the additions the building sustained throughout the years and the addition of a larger deck could compromise the view and historic character of the area. 9. Ms. Larson stated the louvered windows located on the back, gas station side, originally opened but was painted over so it appeared to be a one-piece glass window pane but it was not. She requested they attempt to restore those louvres. Mr. Jung showed plans of the area and Mr. Tennberg replied that the windows were caulked and painted and could not be fixed to reopen again. Ms. Larson asked if they could consider replacing with like windows. Mr. Tennberg replied that they would take another look at the windows and assess if it was fixable. 10.Mr. Long supported the departments recommendations noted in the director’s report. Mr. Tennberg replied that if they were able to fix the louvers it would not provide the ventilation needed for the kitchen which would be placed in that area. 11.Mr. Long requested that the lava rock planters be brought back into the design of the building. Mr. Tennberg replied that they plan to repurpose the lava rocks. 12.Ms. Larson suggested a field trip to see the existing building and get a perspective on the size of the proposed deck. Mr. Jung replied that a field trip would setback getting the building permits. There was a lengthy discussion on the size and scale of the deck and the walkway between the planter and deck steps between the commission and applicant. Mr. Tennberg asked that the commission not hold it up the permit processing if it was only on a perceived opinion on the deck size and walkway between the planter and deck step. Mr. Hull suggested that no more than two commissioner’s pair up with staff from planning to look at the area. Or if they wanted to plan for the whole commission, it would need to be agendized and the field trip scheduled in May, since no meeting was planned. He suggested the commission take action; 1. Take action on the project 2. Defer to May meeting 3. Plan a commission site visit Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION DCA Hall stated that he reviewed their rules again and Mr. Guerber’s disclosure of a potential conflict of interest would have no effect on this project; however, at this time the commission could now address their concerns with Mr. Guerbers disclosure. No commissioner raised issue on the disclosure and DCA Hall ruled no conflict. Mr. Guerber queried Ms. Larson and the commission if they wanted to plan a field trip. Mr. Hull requested that the site visit meeting be planned before the May meeting and suggested April 29, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., the Commission unanimously agreed. Mr. Jung thanked the commission and announced that permits would be submitted and if necessary would update the permits after the April 29 special meeting. Ms. Larson motioned to defer to the May meeting. (motion died with no second) Ms. Larson motioned to defer this agenda item to a special meeting on Thursday, April 29, 1:30 p.m. at the proposed site of Mucho Aloha Kōloa Brewhouse, Lot 4A, Kōloa Road, Tax Map Key: (4) 2-8- 007:016, Kōloa, Hawai‘i. Mr. Guerber seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. J. Announcements Mr. Hull announced that planning department received an unprecedented amount of requests, from OIP (Office of Information Practices) and record request for plans which could result in a large volume of applications within a couple of month that could impact the fall agenda. Ms. Valenciano announced that the next scheduled meeting would be June 17 and Historic Hawai‘i Foundation had a quarterly online training scheduled May 26, on burials. She encouraged the commissioners to attend. K. Selection of Next Meeting Date and Agenda Topics (DATE) Ms. Larson inquired about a fund. Mr. Hull said Ms. Larson could contact Jodi Higuchi- Sayegusa after the meeting on the Certified Local Grant fund or it could be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Long asked that the department prepare a report on the fund at the next meeting. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission Open Session April 15, 2021 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION L. Adjournment With no further business to conduct, Chair Ida called for a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Remoaldo moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Chair Ida adjourned the meeting at 3:50pm Submitted by: _______________________________________ Reviewed and Approved by: _________________________________________ Sandra M. Muragin, Commission Support Clerk Gerald Ida, Chair ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of _____ meeting. Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission August 19, 2021 Meeting Minimum Requirements Website Language Website: Historic Preservation Commission - Kauai.gov Addition: In June 2021, the Department posted the contents highlighted in the red text below to the KHPRC website for public accessibility. The new content incorporates ideas that emerged from the minimum requirements discussion at the February 2020 meeting, April 15, 2021 meeting, and discussions with individual commissioners that provided additional content. The website content language below can be amended and updated at any time. The Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission The County of Kauai became a Certified Local Government (CLG) under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The U.S. Department of Interior- National Park Service via the State Dept. of Land & Nat. Resources administers the CLG program which assists local governments in promoting historic preservation endeavors. To qualify as a CLG, local government preservation activities must include: public participation and use of a qualified local review commission (Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission), survey and inventory of historic resources and participation in State/Federal preservation activities. The Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission, which consists of nine members, meets on a monthly basis and is staffed by the Planning Department. Meetings usually entail project reviews at which time the KHPRC provides recommendations on various aspects of archaeological and building design review of historic resources and in-fill development. Other issues relating to the promotion of historic preservation on Kauai are also discussed. Meeting Time/Location: 3:00pm, Meeting Room 2A/2B, 3rd Thursday of each month Pre-Consultation Meetings are Strongly Recommended  To determine if a property is historic and/ or proposed Improvements involving historic properties should contact planner Marisa Valenciano at (808) 241-4050 or by email at mvalenciano@kauai.gov to schedule a pre-consultation meeting. Minimum Requirements for Historic Property Applications Required Plans showing Existing and Proposed Improvements: 1. Site Plan 2. Floor Plans 3. (4) Exterior Elevations with finishes, color, materials, and window and door schedules Optional: 1. Photographs of the existing areas to be affected. 2. Narrative on historical architectural elements and historical significance Historical Resources:  Kaua‘i Historical Society  Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines  Historic Hawai‘i Foundation  Public Libraries  State Historic Preservation Division KAUA'I COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY (-Q^ry np KAU ADAM ROVERSI,DIRECTOR ---. DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR'21 JUN 28 P1 :3^CHAELA-DAHiuG'MANAG'NGDIRECTOR June 24,2021 PLANNING DEPT. Geratd Ida Chair Kaua'l Historical Preservation Commission Pi'ikoi Building 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766 RE:Lima Ola Workforce Housing Development TMK No.(4)2-1-001:054 'Ele'ele,Kaua'i,Hawaii Dear Mr.Ida, In June of 2016,the County of Kaua'i published the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Lima Ola Workforce Housing Development situated at TMK (4)2-1-001:054,in 'Ele'ele on the island of Kaua'i.As we near the completion of Phase I infrastructure work and prepare to commence vertical construction ofthe first 150 housing units at Lima Ola,the County is conducting a reevaluation of the Chapter 343 Hawai'i Revised Statutes Environmental Assessment (EA)for the project.The reevaluation of the EA is also compliant with the National Environmental Protection Act and 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Part 58 (specifically 24 CFR 58.47).The proposed project site is located in the town of 'Ele'ele on the Island of Kaua'i (please see the enclosed Location Map and Site Plan).The reevaluation of the EA is being prepared to confirm that there are no changes to the published Final EA including the potential environmental,social,and economic consequences associated with the proposed project. The purpose of the proposed project is to help the County of Kaua i and the State of Hawai i meet its goal to provide much needed affordable housing to its elderly residents and workforce housing for families.The proposed project site comprises approximately 75 acres and will include approximately 550 housing units that will be built-in phases over many years. Planned housing types include single family detached units,as well as multi-family attached units and elderly housing.A community center/park,bike and pedestrian paths and vegetation buffers are also included in the plan for the proposed project. Per 24 CFR 58.47fa)the County of Kauai can confirm the following: •There are no substantial changes in the nature,magnitude,or extent of the project,including no new activities anticipated in the original scope of the project. •There are no new circumstances and environmental conditions which may affect the project or have a bearing on its impact,such as concealed or unexpected conditions discovered during the implementation ofthe project oractivitywhich is proposed to be continued;or •The selection of an alternative not in the original finding is not being proposed. 4444 Rice Street,Suite 330 •Lihu'e,Hawai'i 96766-(808)241-4444 (b)•(808)241-5118 |f) An Equal Opportunity Employer We are seeking your input and concurrence that there are no changes to your original review and comments on the EA regarding potential environmental and/or social and economic impacts associated with the proposed project. To view the FINAL EA,please visit www.kauai.Eov\housing . We request that written comments and/or information be submitted to the address below no later than July24,2021. Kauai County Housing Agency 4444 Rice Street,Suite 330 Lihue,Hl 96766 Attention:Steve Franco Sincerely, Adam P.Roversi Housing Director SITE PLAN 4 ..^•.^•JW 1l;A. M ^EW 1 L!,;O A O LWA OLA SUBUVISION PHAS1NG MAP LEGEND -"?';??-?.••;\t --;cWV.'' \I '.('•";.7"..•.•fflufht UMA OLA WORXFORCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UMA OLA SUBD1VIS10N PHASING MAP KAUA'I COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY ADAM ROVERSI,DIRECTOR COUNTY ~1['1</.IJAI Julyl2,2021 "21 JIJL 16 P1 :18 PLANNING DEPT. DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAELA.DAHILIG.MANAGING DIRECTOR Victoria Wichman Kaua'i Historic Preservation Review Commission:c/o County of Kaua'i Planning Department 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 Lihue,Hl 96766 Subject:National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)Section 106 Consultation with Native Hawaii Organization and Potential Consulting Party,Historic Property Information and Area of Potential Effects Comment for Lima Ola Workforce Housing Project Hanapepe Ahupuaa,District of Kona,Island of Kauai TMK (4)2-1-001:054 On behalf of the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),the Kauai County Housing Agency (KCHA)invites you to participate in consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),forthe proposed subject project located in Eleele,Kauai. The proposed project is a federal undertaking as defined in Section 106 and 36 CFR 800.16(y).KCHA is authorized to act on behalf of HUD to conduct NHPA Section 106 consultations with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),Native Hawaii Organizations (NHOs),and other consulting parties per 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4).KCHA will remain responsible for all findings and determinations charged to the agency during the Section 106 process. OVERVIEW OF UNDERTAKING KCHA is proposing to construct approximately 550 affordable housing residential single and multi-family units,which include apartments and homes to be constructed in multiple phases.(See Attachment 1: Project Location &Area of Potential Effect (APE)map and Attachment 2:Conceptual Site Plan). CONSULTATIONS Entitled consulting parties during the Section 106 process includes the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation,State Historic Preservation Officers,Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs),local governments and applicants for federal assistance,permits,licenses and other approvals. 4444 Rice Street,Suite 330 •L;hu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241 -4444 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer 241^5118(f) Section 106 Consultation Juiy 12,2021 Page 2 of 3 NHOs and/or Native Hawaiian Descendants NHOs and Native Hawaiian descendants with ancestral,lineal or cultural ties to,cultural and historical property knowledge of and/or concerns for,and cultural religious attachment to the proposed APE are asked to provide a response to the letter within 30 days of notification. Other Individuals and OrBanizations Individuals and organizations with legal,economic,or historic preservation interest are requested to respond within 30 days of notification and demonstrate your interest in the proposed undertaking and provide intent to participate in the Section 106 process.Your participation is subject to KHCA approval. PROVIDE COMMENT ON THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS The proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE)comprises ofTax Map Key (TMK)(4)2-1-001:054 and totals 75 acres.The parcel is bound to the west by an existing residential subdivision,and to the north,east, and south by land under active coffee cultivation. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITHIN THE APE An archaeological inventory survey (AIS)was previously conducted for the APE.The AIS identified a single surface historic property,a segment of a former plantation irrigation ditch,site 50-30-09-2219. On April 16,2020,SHPD accepted the County's Revised Mitigation Plan Comprising Archaeological Date Recovery for Selected Features ofSite 50-30-09-2219 and Archaeological Monitoringforthe project.The plan permits the removal of this segment of a former plantation ditch subject to specified monitoring procedures and data collection during the process. We welcome any additional information you may have on historical and cultural sites that have been recorded in or which you may have knowledge of within proposed APE,Should you want to participate in the Section 106 process,we request your written intent.Please also provide your comments on the proposed APE,any information you may have on cultural and/or historical sites. We would appreciate a written response within 30 days from the date of receipt to Steve Franco via email at sfranco@kauai.gov,or by U.S.Postal Service to Kauai County Housing Agency,4444 Rice Street, Suite 330,Lihue,Hl 96766.You may also contact Mr.Franco,Housing Development Coordinator,by phone at (808)241-4419.Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ^ Adam P.Roversi Housing Director ATTACHMENT "1" PROJECT LOCATION AND AREA OF POTENIAL EFFECT (APE) SCALE: 1" = 2,000 FEET 2;000 FEET � Community Planningand Engineering, Inc. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE LIMA OLA WORK FORCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATION MAP 'ELE'ELE, KAUA'I, HAWAl'I FIGURE 1 ATTACHMENT "2" CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Conceptual Master Plan LIMA OLA DRAFT 07/15/14 EXHIBIT “A” (Archeological Inventory Survey) SCS Project Number 1455-3 AIS AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY OF A 78-ACRE PARCEL IN HANAPĒPĒ AHUPUA`A, DISTRICT OF KONA, KAUA`I ISLAND, HAWAI`I [TMK: (4)–2-1-001:054] Prepared by: Jim Powell B.A. and Michael Dega, Ph.D. REVISED July 2014 Prepared for: Community Planning and Engineering, Inc. 1286 Queen Emma Street Honolulu, HI 96813 ii ABSTRACT At the request of Ms. Collette M. Sakoda of Community Planning and Engineering, Inc., Scientific Consultant Services (SCS), Inc. conducted Archaeological Inventory Survey on 78 acres of land in preparation for the Lima Ola Work Force Housing Development Project in Hanapēpē Ahupua`a, Kona District, Island of Kaua`i, Hawai`i [TMK:(4)–2-1-001:054]. The project consists of two survey locations located within the Ahupua`a of Hanapēpē: a 75-acre site for proposed housing and a 3-acre adjacent area to the south for a proposed detention basin. The proposed detention basin has an existing basin (c. 1-acre), but is being expanded for this project. A single, historic plantation era site, designated as State Site Number 50-30-09-2219, was identified during the current survey. The parcel has been active for sugar cane production since the late 1800s and at present, industrial-level coffee cultivation occurs on the parcel. No further work is recommended for the study area. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................iii  TABLES ........................................................................................................................................iii  LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................iv  INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1  ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING....................................................................................................1  SOILS ................................................................................................................................. 6  VEGETATION...................................................................................................................6  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................................... 9  PRE-CONTACT HISTORY...............................................................................................9  POST-CONTACT HISTORY..........................................................................................10  THE MĀHELE .................................................................................................................. 11  MCBRYDE SUGAR COMPANY...................................................................................12  PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY.................................................................................................... 15  EXPECTED FINDINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA........................................................ 22  METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................22  FIELD METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 22  LABORATORY METHODOLOGY............................................................................... 23  RESULTS..................................................................................................................................... 23  STATE SITE 50-30-09-2219: PUMP #1 DITCH ...........................................................23  TEST EXCAVATIONS AND STRATIGRAPHY ..........................................................26  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION...........................................................................................37  SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................38  REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 39  APPENDIX A: LCA DATA.........................................................................................................A  TABLES Table 1: Bennett (1931:49-60) Sites in the Hanapēpē Area, Kaua`i............................................17  Table 2: Trench Descriptive Data................................................................................................. 28  iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: USGS 1983 Hanapepe Quadrangle Showing Project Area Location..............................2  Figure 2: Tax Map Key (4)-2-1-001:054 Showing Project Area Location. ...................................3  Figure 3: Lima Ola Vicinity Map with ̀Ele ̀ele and Wahiawa Boundary........................................4  Figure 4: Lima Ola Topographic Map Showing Project Area in relation to Kaumuali ̀ i Highway and Halewili Road .......................................................................................................... 5  Figure 5: Overview Photograph Showing the Project Area from Kapa Reservoir (Trees are mature coffee). View to the South.................................................................................. 7  Figure 6: Photograph of Western Edge of the Project Area. View to the South............................8  Figure 7: McBryde Plantation 1903 (Kaua`i Historical Society)................................................. 14  Figure 8: Previously Identified Archaeological Sites in the Ahupua`a of Hanapēpē, Wahiawa and Kalāheo.................................................................................................................. 20  Figure 9: Google Earth Map showing the location of State Site 50-30-09-2219 (Pump 1 Ditch). ...................................................................................................................................... 24  Figure 10: Site - 2219 Pump 1 Ditch. View to Northeast............................................................25  Figure 11: Location of Stratigraphic Trenches. Note: Trench 5 was placed in the proposed detention basin location................................................................................................27  Figure 12: Photograph of Trench #1 Stratigraphy. View to East. ...............................................29  Figure 13: Photograph of Trench #2 Stratigraphy. View to Northwest........................................30  Figure 14: Photograph of Trench #3 Stratigraphy. View to Northeast........................................31  Figure 15: Photograph of Trench #4 Stratigraphy. View to West............................................... 32  Figure 16: Photograph showing Location of Trench #3, Pre-Excavation. View to North...........33  Figure 17: Photograph of Trench #4, Pre-Excavation Location, Western Side of Coffee Fields. View to South............................................................................................................... 34  Figure 18: Photography of Trench # 5, Pre-Excavation, near Existing Detention Basin. Note: Existing coffee trees are on the right side of the machine, in the proposed basin area.35  Figure 19: Photograph of Trench #5 Stratigraphy. View to North..............................................36  1 INTRODUCTION At the request of Community Planning and Engineering, Inc., Scientific Consultant Services (SCS), Inc. conducted Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) of approximately 78- acres of land in preparation for ground altering activities associated with the proposed Lima Ola Work Force Housing Development project within the ahupua`a of Hanapēpē, Kona District, Kaua`i Island, Hawai`i [TMK: (4): 2-1-01:054] (Figures 1 through 4). The land is owned by the County of Kaua`i. Federal funds are not being utilized for this development. Fieldwork for this project was conducted over a three-day period in September 2013 and during one day in April, 2014 by SCS archaeologists Jim Powell, B.A. and Milton Ching, under the direction of Principal Investigator Michael Dega, Ph.D. The Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) consisted primarily of pedestrian survey, site recording, and testing a small, representative portion of the project area. Survey was conducted to determine the presence or absence of significant archaeological sites and features on the surface and cultural deposits in subsurface contexts. Five trenches were placed in the 75-acre area and within the proposed detention basin, all in April, 2014. The overall purpose of the study was to identify and document historical properties, to assess their historical significance for eligibility for listing on the Hawaii and/or National Register of Historic Places, to make project effect recommendations, and to make mitigation recommendations. The current project area had not previously undergone any formal archaeological investigations. Given archival research and review of the project area, the likelihood of finding traditional-period archaeological sites within the existing coffee fields was considered minimal while the chances of finding historic period sites associated with agriculture, primarily sugar cane, and ranching was higher. One site was identified during the current survey and has been designated as State Site Number (Site 50-30-09-2219, Pump 1 Ditch). Subsurface testing in the project area was kept at a minimum due to the on-going, intensive agricultural activities occurring within the project area (coffee cultivation). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Lima Ola Project occurs on the southern side of Kaua`i between Hanapēpē and Kalāheo, near the southern intersection of Kaumuali ̀i Highway, State Road 50, and Halewili Road, State Road 540. This area is the beginning of the drier, southwestern side of Kaua`i. The project occurs on the south sloping plain between the drainages of the Hanapēpē River and Wahiawa Stream. The slope is moderate and falls in a north south direction from an elevation of 2 Figure 1: USGS 1983 Hanapepe Quadrangle Showing Project Area Location. 3 Figure 2: Tax Map Key (4)-2-1-001:054 Showing Project Area Location. 4 Figure 3: Lima Ola Vicinity Map with ̀Ele ̀ele and Wahiawa Boundary 5 Figure 4: Lima Ola Topographic Map Showing Project Area in relation to Kaumuali ̀ i Highway and Halewili Road 6 290 feet near Kapa Reservoir to 160 feet at Halewili Road (Figures 5 and 6). The 78-acre parcel is bounded by Kaumuali`i Highway to the northwest and west, Halewili Road to the south, and agricultural lands to the east and northeast. SOILS The land between Hanapēpē and Kalāheo, including Wahiawa, is part of the Kōloa Volcanic Series (McDonald and Abbott 1970). The base of the formation was formed 1.5 million years after the primary shield-building stage had ceased. The Kōloa Volcanic Series covered two thirds of the eastern side of the island. Numerous vents, along with cinder and spatter cones and a small shield volcano, exist within Kalāheo and Wahiawa Ahupua`a. Soil formation occurs rapidly upon volcanic ash deposits in the warm humid climates of the Kaua`i lowlands. Long periods without volcanic activity allowed streams on the surface to form gullies and to weather away rock to form ravines (McDonald and Abbott 1970). Numerous intermittent and perennial streams bisect the environs of Kalāheo, Wahiawa, and Hanapēpē Ahupua`a. According to Foote et al. (1972:90; Map Sheet Number 14), project area soil is associated with two soil types of Makaweli silty clay loam: Makaweli silty clay loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (MgB) and Makaweli silty clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes (MgC). The Makaweli soil series consist of well-drained soils on gently sloping to steep uplands, with elevations ranging from nearly sea level to 500 feet. Annual rainfall amounts to 20-35 inches, where three-fourths accumulates between October and March. Makaweli silty clay loam (0%-6% slopes) is found on the tops of broad interfluves, with a surface layer consisting of dusky-red silty clay loam and a subsoil of dusky-red, friable silt loam and silty clay loam that has prismatic and sub angular blocky structure. The substratum is soft, weathered basic igneous rock. Permeability is moderate, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Makaweli silty clay loam on 6%-12% slopes is similar to the former soil type but has medium runoff and moderate erosion hazard. Both soils are typically used for irrigated sugarcane, pasture, and woodlands. VEGETATION The project area has had a history of ranching and agricultural use that began with cattle ranching in the mid 1800’s and transitioned to sugar cane cultivation in the late 1800’s. Sugar production was prominent for the next one hundred years. Currently, the Lima Ola parcel is being used to grow coffee for Kauai Coffee. The coffee plants are mature and have been yielding coffee beans for a several decades. During the time of survey for this project, the coffee harvest 7 Figure 5: Overview Photograph Showing the Project Area from Kapa Reservoir (Trees are mature coffee). View to the South. 8 Figure 6: Photograph of Western Edge of the Project Area. View to the South. 9 had just commenced, thus negating impacting the lands vis backhoe test trenches. Aside from coffee, the current vegetation on the parcel consists of invasive weeds, grasses and koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala). HISTORICAL BACKGROUND PRE-CONTACT HISTORY While the project area is not specifically noted in common historical texts for the area (Handy and Handy 1972; Wichman 1998), in the two ahupuà a to the east, Kalāheo and Wahiawa, and Hanapēpē to the west, traditional stories and histories abound in the afore mentioned titles. This is to be somewhat expected as these three ahupua`a contained drainages, freshwater streams, and landforms which more readily supported the traditional population, their culture, and thus, their mo`olelo. Kalāheo has surviving oral histories and several myths that suggest the importance of the area to its traditional occupants. Wichman (1998) writes that Kalāheo literally translates as “proud day” and begins at Kāhili Peak and extends across the plains between Wahiawa and Lāwa`i, and has a proportionally higher rainfall then Wahiawa. The ahupua` a was renown for the huge cinder cone that dominates the region and could be seen from all points within Kona District, from Māhā`ulepū to Kekaha (Wichman 1998). This cinder cone, named Kukuiolono or the light of Lono, was a regionally recognized beacon for navigators within the near and offshore waters of Kona District (Ibid.). A signal fire was kept alight on top of the cone to act as a guide for canoe voyagers and fisherman (Wichman 1998). Three heiau are reported at this location, including Kukuiolono Heiau, which contained an `anu`u (terrace) that was reported to be three stories tall and covered with white kapa (Ibid.). This particular heiau is reported to be one of the largest on Kaua`i and was traditionally used as a navigational landmark for the local occupants, if not possibly part of a larger system of known navigational points throughout Polynesia. Nōmilu fishpond and its surrounding environs are also associated with numerous legends. Salt gathered from its saltpans was the finest and most desired salt on Kaua`i (Wichman 1998). A notorious battle between Pele and her sister Nāmakaokaha`i at Nōmilu is credited with the creation of the fishpond. The legend is that while Pele was searching for a home on Kaua`i, Nāmakaokaha`i caught up with her at the spot that became Nōmilu. During the battle, Pele kicked up dirt, which became the hill Kāpeku. She then caused this hill to erupt, which covered the plains of Wahiawa with rocks. Nāmakaokaha`i flooded the crater with water causing the 10 pond Nōmilu to be formed (Wichman 1998). As Pele departed, she turned two large he`ehe`e (eels)—Puhi`ula (red eel) and Puhipakapaka (scaly eel)—into stone to guard the pond (Wichman 1998). Handy and Handy mention that Kukuiolono was a famous place in Kalāheo for sweet potato (1972). Wichman (1998) also mentions that bird catching and feather collecting was practiced in the uplands. Between Kalāheo and the Lima Ola 75-acre parcel is the Ahupua`a of Wahiawa. It is described in greater detail then neighboring Kalāheo. In 1935, according to kama`aina Keahi Luahine, who grew up in the valley, taro terraces extended all the way down the valley to the muliwai [(inlet) Handy and Handy 1972:428]. They describe Wahiawa as having adequate fresh water resources and wet land taro was planted more extensively in this region. Further description in Handy and Handy (1972) speaks of several springs which watered terraces and wauke (paper mulberry) plantations. Houses and sweet potato plantations were found above the terraces. Wahiawa was renowned for a particular variety of taro. Handy and Handy (1972) observed terraces and houses above and below the present highway and abandoned terraces below the bridge, on what is now ranchland. Bennett (1931) described upper Wahiawa as well, remarking on the extensive number of terraces for such a small area of land. See the table below for Bennett’s site numbers and descriptions. As for Hanapēpē, Bingham in 1824 (Bingham 1848) describes the valley as appearing , “…like an extensive, well watered plantation, interspersed with kalo beds and one hundred and forty cottages, and furnishes employment and sustenance to some seven hundred inhabitants.” Handy and Handy (1972) paint a similar picture of the valley some one hundred and twenty years later when they explored the length of the valley. They observed mostly abandoned house sites and lo ̀i watered by abandoned auwai, and stated that “taro terraces are everywhere that the land is irrigable.” POST-CONTACT HISTORY During the early 1800’s, the islands of Kaua ̀i and Ni ̀ihau were the last islands that remained outside the control of King Kamehameha. In 1810, King Kaumuali ̀i ceded his 11 kingdom to Kamehameha the Great. This was done after Kamehameha had twice failed in his attempts to invade Kaua ̀i from Oahu. In 1821 Kaumuali ̀i was taken prisoner by Kamehameha’s son, Liholiho (Kamehameha II), and placed in exile on O ̀ahu. The following year ali‘i from O ̀ahu and other islands arrived to rule Kaua ̀i. Kaumuali ̀i died in Honolulu in 1824 and Kauai’s lands were given to these newcomer ali‘i. In May of 1824, on the plains of ̀Ele`ele in the general area of the Lima Ola Project, George Humehume, son of King Kaumuali ̀i, led supporters of King Kaumuali ̀i, in a revolt to regain control of Kaua`i from Kamehameha II. The attempt failed after a prolonged and lopsided battle on these plains. Kamehameha II destroyed the Kaua`i army. Then for two weeks they attempted kill all Kaua`i ali ̀i, and their family members: men, women and children. This event marked the end of Kaua ̀i as an independent kingdom uniting all the islands under Kamehameha II, effectively suppressing the idea of Kaua`i as a “separate kingdom”. THE MĀHELE The Great Māhele, the division of Hawaiian lands, introduced the concept of private property into Hawaiian society. The Māhele was initiated by The Organic Acts of 1845 and 1846. In 1848, commissioners of the Great Māhele instigated an extreme modification to traditional land tenure on all islands that resulted in a division of lands and a system of private ownership. The Māhele was based upon the principles of Western law. While a complex issue, many scholars believe that in order to protect Hawaiian sovereignty from foreign powers, Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III) was forced to establish laws changing the traditional Hawaiian society into that of a market economy (Kuykendall Vol. I 1938:145, footnote 47, et passim; Daws 1968:111; Kame`eleihiwa 1992:169–170, 176). The dramatic shift from a redistributive economy to a market economy resulted in drastic changes to land tenure, among other things. As a result, foreigners demanded private ownership of land to ensure their investments (Kuykendall Vol. I, 1938:145, et passim; Kame`eleihiwa 1992:178; Kelly 1998:4). Once lands were made available and private ownership was instituted, native Hawaiians, including the maka`ainana (people of the land), were able to claim land plots upon which they had been cultivating and living. Oftentimes, foreigners were simply just given lands by the ali`i. However, commoners would often only make claims if they had first been made aware of the foreign procedures (kuleana lands, or land commission awards). These claims could not include any previously cultivated or currently fallow land, okipu, stream fisheries, or many other natural resources necessary for traditional survival (Kame`eleihiwa 1992:295; Kirch and Sahlins 1992). Awarded parcels were labeled Land Commission Awards (LCAs). If occupation could be 12 established through the testimony of witnesses, the petitioners were issued a Royal Patent number and could then take possession of the property. Commoners claiming house lots in Honolulu, Hilo, and Lāhaina were required to pay commutation to the government before obtaining a Royal Patent for their awards (Chinen 1961:16). Based on the map for TMK (4) 2-1-01, the project area composes a portion of a larger acreage that was awarded to M. Kekuanaoa under the LCA 7712, Apana 5. To summarize the LCA (see Appendix A for the full award record) in terms of archaeological resources across this vast LCA (only a small portion which composes the project area), empirical sites include auwai, fishpond, rice fields, stone walls or "stone fences", piles of stones, a cave, and cultivation areas. The large LCA extends from the coastline to the mountain tops and incorporates most, if not all, of the ahupua`a. The LCA lands were chiefly for grazing purposes as the lands were classified as "very stony,", with some rice agricultural occurring in valleys in limited breadth (see Appendix A). Currently, the property owner and developer is the County of Kaua`i Housing Agency. MCBRYDE SUGAR COMPANY The namesake of the McBryde Sugar Co. was Duncan McBryde. In the mid 1800s, Duncan McBryde arrived from Dunoon, Argyleshire, Scotland and acquired land in Wahiawa and began to develop an extensive ranch. McBryde leased the Wahiawa lands that extended from Kōloa to Ele`ele, from Kauikeaouli (Kamahameha III) in 1857. In 1874 he purchased the land from the estate of Kamahameha V. He built his home at Brydeswood with his wife Elizabeth Amelia Moxley, in the upper end of Wahiawa District, and had six children. Duncan McBryde died at the age of 52 (1878) leaving Elizabeth a widow with six young children and the ranch. In 1886 Elizabeth acquired the Ahupua`̀a of Lawai from the estate of Queen Emma. Elizabeth McBryde managed and operated the ranch that stretched from Ele ̀ele to Kōloa, until the founding of the McBryde Sugar Co. (Sandison 1956). Walter McBryde, the second son of Duncan and Elizabeth McBryde, held various positions within the Hawai’i kingdom and local Kaua`i business communities, including being a representative to the legislature of the provisional government (Sandison 1956). He was involved in the initial organization of the McBryde Sugar and became the manager of Kaua`i Pineapple Co. in 1906, a subsidiary company of McBryde Sugar. 13 McBryde Sugar formed in 1889 and was promoted by a group headed by B.F. Dillingham, who also created plantations at Olaa and Kīhei. The company was created by the merger of three families: the Smith family of Kōloa Agricultural Co., the Dreiers of Ele`ele Plantation (begun in 1884), and the McBrydes, who owned the vast Wahiawa Ranch. Kōloa Agricultural originated in c. 1870 in the western portion of the ahupua`a of Kōloa, on land leased from the Knudsens. The Smiths grew cane on this land. The land was later conveyed by Mrs. Knudsen to the heirs of J.W. Smith. In 1896, said heirs conveyed their interests in the land to Kōloa Agricultural Co. The Smiths also owned 750 acres of land in Omao, Ele`ele, the Dreier's plantation,. In 1884 Bernice Pauahi Bishop sold the `ili of Ele`ele to Elizabeth McBryde and August Dreier. The plantation at Ele`ele had profited, and a mill was constructed at the village. The area now known as Port Allen was the original landing for the plantation. Dreier bought out Elizabeth McBryde’s interest in the land in 1895. In 1899, Dillingham then bought out August Dreier for 500,000 dollars in cash for the Ele`ele plantation. Dillingham then issued 55,000 shares of stock to the McBryde family in consideration of the conveyance of nearly all of their Wahiawa land holdings and all the stock of Kōloa Agricultural, which they had come to acquire. Stocks were offered to the public and were quickly taken up. Once the establishment of McBryde Sugar was completed, plans quickly moved ahead to develop the lands into a large plantation, with the required infrastructure to create a successful and profitable plantation. Immediate plans to clear the land and create an irrigation system ensued. Development costs were high as the land needed extensive clearing and water had to be brought from great distances. It was during this early phase of development in 1909, that McBryde Sugar was acquired by Alexander and Baldwin Corp. During this initial phase of development, and later, between 1929 and 1933, an improvement program was implemented and vast changes occurred on the landscape. Changes were made to the natural stream flow, due to the creation of a reservoir system and a series of pipelines with associated ditches and dikes to distribute water across the landscape, for large-scale commercial agriculture. Tunnels and wells were excavated within the floor of Hanapepe Valley and stream pumping plants were installed. These plants immediately proved inefficient and costly, putting the plantation in debt in direct relation to high costs associated with pumping water from underground sources as the salt water lens was higher than predicted and fuel costs were high to operate the pumps. 14 Figure 7: McBryde Plantation 1903 (Kaua`i Historical Society) 15 In 1903, a fifty-year license for hydroelectric power from Wainiha Stream was acquired by W.E. Rowell, an associate of McBryde Sugar (Figure 7). At this time Kaua`i Electric Co. was formed as a subsidiary of McBryde Sugar. The Wainiha Plant was built and established with a power line to the plantation in Eleele. Pumps were converted to electricity and fuel related costs dropped immediately. A vast system of reservoirs was created at this time with a combined holding capacity of 800 million gallons (Wilcox 1996). However, expenditure related to creating this infrastructure caused such financial burdens into the late 1920s that the plantation would not be able to operate and be profitable until a complete renovation occurred. These financial challenges led to the creation of the improvement program carried out from 1929 to 1933. These improvements consisted of the construction of Alexander Reservoir with a storage capability of 810,000,000 gallons, the concrete lining of miles of the principle irrigation ditches on the plantation, replacement of inefficient machinery, and the construction of a hydroelectric plant. Due to the efficiency created by these improvements, the plantation was released of its debt obligations in 1932. McBryde Sugar obtained additional subsidiary companies such as the Kaua`i Railway Co. and Kaua`i Pineapple. The development of these companies brought additional land use changes to the area including the creation of a rail system connecting various points on the plantation to Port Allen and the development of truck farming on portions of the land. Infrastructure and remnants related to these modifications exist throughout the landscape. McBryde Sugar was also instrumental in development of Port Allan as a harbor with shipping facilities (Star Bulletin November 2, 1935). McBryde Sugar acquired a large portion of the Grove Farms sugar fields in 1974. During this last twenty years, sugar was supplemented with coffee. McBryde Sugar continued to operate until 1995 when it fell to economic pressures involved in growing sugar in Hawai`i. McBryde stopped producing sugar officially on July 1996 when the Kōloa Mill was shut down for good. McBryde Sugar was terminated and replaced by Kaua`i Coffee Co., which continues to grow coffee to the present day. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY No formal or recent archaeological work has been conducted in the project area. Besides the Hammatt (1990) study, the environs of the project area have also not been studied recently, but for the Hanapepe Valley area to the northwest. Given the dearth of previous work in the project area, a general regional view is presented below. 16 Early, formal documentation of archaeological sites on Kaua`i was conducted by Wendall C. Bennett in his "Archaeology of Kaua`i" (1931) (Figure 8). Eleven sites (pp. 49 – 60) were found in the ahupua`a of Hanapēpē, slightly to the west of the project area. The sites are of various types and include sand dune burials, heiau, house sites, terraced lo`i, and a fishing shrine. Table 1 below provides some descriptive information for these sites. William K. Kikuchi (1963) conducted an extensive archaeological survey of the Kona District of Kaua`i in 1963. Twenty-three sites were identified in the Ahupua`a of Kalāheo, many of which were individual components previously recorded as complexes by Bennett (1931). Along the coast, a shelter cave (Site 25) near the western border of the ahupua’a at Lokoawa was identified. Five sites (Sites 26–30) were identified at Kawaihaka Stream Valley. These consisted of a shelter cave, stone walls, house sites, a spring, and an historic tunnel. Five sites (Sites 31–35) were recorded along the coast between Nōmilu and Kawaihaka and included a fishing shrine, house sites, and shelter caves. Kikuchi recorded seven sites (Sites 36–42) at Nōmilu, which included Nōmilu Fishpond, walls, saltpans, a historic tunnel, and Kapoho Heiau. Three sites (Sites 43–45) were recorded at the eastern ahupua`a boundary and included an enclosure, walls, and a fishing shrine. In the uplands, within the present day Kukuiolono Park, Kikuchi (1963) recorded the locations of Kukuiolono Heiau (Site 66) and Kahaleki`i Heiau (Site 65), although no physical remnants of the sites exist. Other archaeological studies conducted in the area include a study by Folk and Hammatt (1991), who conducted Inventory Survey and testing of LCA 6647 in Kalāheo. The study produced negative results. The absence of cultural deposits was posited to be the result of modifications related to a proposed reservoir system that included the entire perimeter of LCA 6647. Additionally, Nancy McMahon conducted a survey within TMK 2-4-01:12. This study revealed the presence of historic earthen terraces related to pineapple cultivation (1991). Bennett’s (1931) work in the area includes the ahupua`a of Wahiawa, immediately east of the project area, and Kalāheo, which borders Wahiawa Ahupua`a to the east. Those sites are listed below. 17 Table 1: Bennett (1931:49-60) Sites in the Hanapēpē Area, Kaua`i Site # Name / Type Location Bennett’s Description Condition 49 Salt Pan Near Puolo Point “…natural flat area on which sea water could evaporate” NA Still in use 50 House sites At Puolo Point “…many house sites on the flat land near the salt pans, (Site 49)” NA 51 Kauakahiunu Heiau At Puolo Point “A wall heiau of medium size at the shore, part of thewalls still standing.” 80 x 60 feet. “Kane and Kanaloa are its deities” “ site is now slightly marked by crumbled stones.” 52 House site or fishing shrine At Puolo Point Just east of Site 51. “…front part of this structure rests on beach stones.” Composed of three sections two paved with small beach pebbles and one with larger stones. Size approximately 35 by 27 feet irregular shape. NA He was able to measure it so it must have been in fair condition. 53 Sand Burials “ In the sand on the northwest side of Hanapepe bay.” Burials in the sand Today it is the Site of modern cemetery 54 Makole Heiau “on Makole bluff” Thrum describes it as “A small heiau of platform character on the side of the bluff destroyed in the sixties.” Thrum, “None of the walls could be found” 55 Pualu Heiau East side of Kapahili Gulch, a quarter mile from the road. “…a single platform, 142 by 50 feet built up in the front 6 feet and backed by a wall 3 to 4 feet wide.” “… whole structure paved with 3 to 4 inch stones but very much disturbed…” NA 56 Akowai Heiau “…at a place called Akowai on the steeply sloping side of a bluff.” Described by Thrum as, “a small paved heiau of about 50 feet square, in bad condition …. Destroyed about 1865.” “The site today includes a number of well-built house sites (Site 57) and a jumbled mass of walls said to have been the heiau.” 57 House sites at Akowai Near Site 56 “… three well paved house sites.” Unknown 58 Taro terraces Manuahi Valley “Like Site 60 this site is completely terraced for taro and contains similar house sites.” Unknown 59 Moloku Heiau “… near the peak of Kuopoo ridge at its junction with Kahalau.” Described by Thrum as, “An open platform heiau in fair condition.” Fair 60 Taro terraces and house sites “In Hanapepe Valley the taro terraces are everywhere that the land is irrigable.” “House types are of the usual type.” Taro is still being grown in the valley probably using many of the old lo`i. 18 Wahiawa Ahupua`a Site # Name / Type Location Bennett’s Description Condition 61 Taro Terraces Wahiawa Valley “the remains of terraces are remarkable in places for there number.’ “There are platform house sites in the valley; burial caves and petroglyphs are also reported.” Unknown 62 Waipopili Heiau “… on the bluff on the east side , a short on the distance seaward side of the government road.” Described by Thrum as “An oblong heiau of good size walls still standing.” Thrum continues, “… in clearing the fields of stone the heiau has been obscured so far as any plan is concerned.” 63 Huhuakai Heiau Wahulua Bay Described by Thrum “ A medium sized heiau; a portion of its walls may yet be seen. Class unknown.” Thrum, “ Nothing that would identify it as a heiau now remains 64 House sites “in Kalaheo Gulch at the sea.” Most of the house sites are stone platforms 15 feet square. Some hae low walls on three sides. There are fire places on some…” Unknown. 65 Kahalekii Heiau “on the western slope of Kukuiolono hill.” “The heiau is now completely destroyed, but Thrum describes it as “A square three terraced heiau of large size, with several divisions: was high walled and paved; class unknown.” Unknown 66 Kukuiolono Heiau “…on Kukuiolono Hill…” “…now destroyed.” Thrums Description: “ A large three terraced heiau, east section being 95 by 112 feet, mid-section 105 by83 feet and west division 105 by 51 feet…” Unknown 67 Fishpond salt pans, and taro terraces Nomilu “…large, natural, salt water pond with no artificial work done to it.” There were salt pans, terraces, walls and perhaps a burial cave. Most of these structures are probably still in tact as the area is off limits to the general public. 68 Kapoho Heiau “…inland of from the fishpond at Nomilu, Kalaheo “Thrum speaks of this structure as “a large heiau mauka of the fish-pond; destroyed some years ago. Portions of its division walls yet to be seen.” “So much changing has gone on in this region it is hard to say which of the rough stone walls remaining are the ones mentioned by Thrum. 19 Kalaheo Ahupua`a Site # Name / Type Location Bennett’s Description Condition 64 House sites “in Kalaheo Gulch at the sea.” Most of the house sites are stone platforms 15 feet square. Some hae low walls on three sides. There are fire places on some…” Unknown. 65 Kahalekii Heiau “on the western slope of Kukuiolono hill.” “The heiau is now completely destroyed, but Thrum describes it as ”A square three terraced heiau of large size, with several divisions: was high walled and paved; class unknown.” Unknown 66 Kukuiolono Heiau “…on Kukuiolono Hill…” “…now destroyed.” Thrums Description: “ A large three terraced heiau, east section being 95 by 112 feet, mid-section 105 by83 feet and west division 105 by 51 feet…” Unknown 67 Fishpond salt pans, and taro terraces Nomilu “…large, natural, salt water pond with no artificial work done to it.” There were salt pans, terraces, walls and perhaps a burial cave. Most of these structures are probably still in tact as the area is off limits to the general public. 68 Kapoho Heiau “…inland of from the fishpond at Nomilu, Kalaheo “Thrum speaks of this structure as “a large heiau mauka of the fish-pond; destroyed some years ago. Portions of its division walls yet to be seen.” “So much changing has gone on in this region it is hard to say which of the rough stone walls remaining are the ones mentioned by Thrum. 20 Figure 8: Previously Identified Archaeological Sites in the Ahupua`a of Hanapēpē, Wahiawa and Kalāheo 21 Kukuiolono Park, to the south and on the makai side of Kamuali`i Highway, contains an artifact display of broad diversity, collected throughout the region during the plantation era by Walter McBryde, descendant of Duncan McBryde (founder of McBryde Sugar Co.). This collection includes a phallic stone, Pohakuhunaahuula Stone, Pohakuawa Stone, and the Kaua`i Iki Stone. The large upright phallic stone was considered to be reverent to the fish god, Pohakuloa. This stone, revered by the ancients, was collected from its original location, at the junction of trails to the beach above McBryde Mill (Sandison 1956). Pohakuhunaahuula, the feather cloak stone, is reputed to be associated with the ali`i, Ola. This artifact was relocated to the park from its original location near Brydeswood. During times of war, the ali`i hid the cloak under the rock and covered it with `uala lau as a form of camouflage (Sandison 1956). Pohakuawa is a very large boulder with a large carved concave basin depression that holds a substantial volume of water. The density of the basalt slows the percolation process and allows for the water to remain in the basin for long periods of time. The stone artifact was brought to the park from its original location, reportedly a mile west of Brydeswood, on the trail to upper reaches of Wahiawa lands. The legend associated with the stone state that a fisherman stopped for the night at Pohakuawa and stored his catch of live awa in the cool waters of the stone draped with `uala lua to keep the stone cool and to prevent the fish from jumping out. The following day, the awa was supposed to be transported mauka and released in large, freshwater fish ponds in the spring-fed Wahiawa Stream. Kaua`i Iki is a large, boulder-shaped stone like the island of Kaua`i. This stone was relocated to the park from its original location in Wahiawa. The legend of the stone is that a Hawaiian family was clearing their loi of rocks when they came across this rock. Noticing its resemblance to the island of Kaua`i, they decided to leave it in place and gave it its name (Sandison 1956). Additional artifacts in this collection include Lono’s Spoon, a basalt boulder exhibiting a carved depression in the center and a carved notch on the rim of the depression as well. Currently there is no information as to how the stone received its name or its importance to the traditional occupants of the area. A saltpan, a stone bowl, a lamp, a game stone, and several unnamed stones exist in this collection as well. To the west of the project area lies Hanapēpē, as mentioned, a well-watered valley and population center for this area. While a few burials have been documented in the valley and along the shore, it is assumed from Bennett’s (1931) and Handy and Handy’s (1972) historic reports that the upper valleys contained numerous undocumented sites including agricultural, domestic and religious sites. 22 Finally, Hammatt (1990) conducted Archeological Reconnaissance of 72-acres in Hanapepe (TMK: 2-1-001, 003, and 027), the project area slightly overlapping with lands along the current southwestern boundary. No archaeological sites were identified during the reconnaissance; Hammatt (1990:10) stating that 50-75 years of cultivation would have destroyed traces of former cultural sites in the area. No further work was recommended, given the landscape use over time. EXPECTED FINDINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Prior to the current survey, only the Hammatt (1990) reconnaissance survey, with negative results, came close to the project area. Based on archival work, a review of previous archaeology in the area, and current use of the property, it was expected prior to survey that the ground surface of the parcel would have been massively impacted from sugar cane and now coffee production. As such, the potential for surface sites was limited to perhaps historic-era signatures associated with plantation days, as well as possible cattle ranching, interceding the time between former sugar cane and current coffee production. It is likely that subsurface contexts were also modified, but testing was not completed herein to confirm this notion. METHODOLOGY FIELD METHODOLOGY Multiple field tasks were completed during the current Archaeological Inventory Survey. Fieldwork consisted of 100% systematic survey of the entire 78 acre parcel. This survey was conducted by two persons walking 3-5 m transects, with visibility determining spacing. Vehicle survey was also conducted along the access roads of the fields. Low growing coffee trees separated by high growing weeds generally prevented access between the individual rows of coffee trees. This somewhat restricted the view plane. During the survey, digital photographs were taken of the project area. One historic property was identified in the field and designated as State Site No. -2219. The site was subject to GPS and recordation, and plotted on a field map provided by Kauai Coffee Company, as well as Google Earth map. In April, 2014, a total of five trenches were excavated on the parcel, four placed in the 75-acre area and one trench having been placed in the proposed detention basin location. The limited number of trenches completed was due to the active nature of the coffee plantation. Managers of Kauai Coffee stated that any trenching on the parcel would create hazards for the 23 large machinery used during the harvest season. Also, given the industrial nature of use on the parcel for over the last 100 years, and the location of the parcel, subsurface deposits appeared to have a low probability of occurring. Historic and archival research was conducted at various repositories including both The Pacific Collections and the Map Collections at University of Hawai`i Hamilton Library, The Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Plantation Archives, University of Hawaii at Manoa Library and the Hawai`i State Library. Research was also conducted at the SHPD library in Kapolei. All materials relating to the McBryde Sugar Co., and its involvement in the sugar industry along the southeast shore of Kaua`i were reviewed at the Kaua`i Historical Society in Lihue. LABORATORY METHODOLOGY Laboratory work involved cataloguing and curating all field notes and photographs during the project. Reporting was also conducted during this phase of work, as well as drafting maps for the project. All materials curated during this project (notes, photos only) are being stored at the SCS laboratory in Honolulu. RESULTS Archaeological Inventory Survey was conducted on approximately 78-acres of land in Hanapēpē Ahupua`a, Kona District, Island of Kaua`i, Hawai`i [TMK:(4)–2-1-001:054]. One newly identified historic property was identified and documented on the parcel. The newly identified site, a single historic feature (irrigation ditch), has been designated as State Site No. 50-30-09-2219. The location of the ditch is plotted on a modern map from the McBryde Sugar Co. called Drip Irrigation Design, Field No. 106, dated 6/14/90. The location is also visible on Google Earth (Figures 9 and 10). STATE SITE 50-30-09-2219: PUMP #1 DITCH Feature Count: 1 Feature Type: Irrigation Ditch Feature Function: Water Diversion Feature Structural Integrity: Fair Feature Age Association: Historic, 1908 Mitigation Recommendations: Intermittent Monitoring Site Description: State Site 50-30-09-2219 consists of an irrigation ditch, known as the Pump 1 24 Figure 9: Google Earth Map showing the location of State Site 50-30-09-2219 (Pump 1 Ditch). Pump 1 Ditch 25 Figure 10: Site - 2219 Pump 1 Ditch. View to Northeast. 26 Ditch. Located in the northern portion of the project area, Pump 1 Ditch was created in 1908 as part of the McBryde’s irrigation system that provided water for cane land between ̀Ele-̀ele and Lāwa ̀i (McBryde Sugar Company). Water for Pump 1 and 2 Ditches came from wells along the banks of the Hanapēpē River. Pumps moved water up to the Kapa Reservoir at the 300 foot elevation line, approximately 280 feet above the river. From the reservoir, the water was moved easterly across the fields, in the open ditches. These ditches are no longer used for irrigation. The current coffee fields are irrigated by a system of underground pipes and drip irrigation tape. These modern irrigation methods conserve water formerly lost through evaporation in the open ditches. Only Pump 1 Ditch, which lies across the northern quarter of the project area, is within the project area. It has been left in place as a means to control surface runoff in times of heavy rains but is not functionally utilized, as has not for some time. Some of its concrete linings, thought to have been installed in the late 1920’s, are still intact. However, most of the ditch is earthen. The irrigation ditch measures approximately 3,300 feet long, 9 feet wide, by 2 feet deep. As shown in the Figure 9 image, the site is demarcated by an irregular line of vegetation running from the top of the photo to the bottom. The wider brown lines are access roads used to access the fields, while the smaller lines represent the cultigens. Kapa Reservoir is outside the project area. The Pump 1 Ditch continues outside the project area, into another set of cultivated fields. TEST EXCAVATIONS AND STRATIGRAPHY Five trenches were mechanically excavated in the project area (Figure 11). Table 2 provides descriptive data for the trenches. As shown in Figures 12 through 19, only one predominant layer was present in subsurface contexts. Layer I, excavated to a maximum depth of 0.90 m below surface (mbs), consisted of red (10R 4/8) silty clay to silty clay loam. Roots were present in upper levels and clastics were few throughout. The soil series is the same identified previously by Foote et al. (1972) and has been utilized for intensive sugar cane cultivation and more recently, as a coffee plantation. 27 Figure 11: Location of Stratigraphic Trenches. Note: Trench 5 was placed in the proposed detention basin location. 28 Table 2: Trench Descriptive Data Trench # Length and Depth (in meters) Azimuth Magnetic GPS at trench ends Comments 1 L - 9 D - .82 A 150 x B 330° A – 0440678 2442932 B - 0440678 2422936 NCMO 2 L - 13 D - .90 A 120 x B 300° A – 0440609 2442190 B - 0440600 2423199 NCMO 3 L – 16 D - .85 A 75 x B 255° A – 0440517 2423134 B - 0440529 2423314 NCMO 4 L - 11 D - .80 A 165 x B 345° A – 0440391 2442754 B - 0440391 2442760 NCMO Detention Basin Trench 5 L - 11 D - .54 A 80 x B 260° A – 0440341 2442586 B - 0440334 2442584 NCMO *NCMO=No Cultural Materials Observed 29 Figure 12: Photograph of Trench #1 Stratigraphy. View to East. 30 Figure 13: Photograph of Trench #2 Stratigraphy. View to Northwest. 31 Figure 14: Photograph of Trench #3 Stratigraphy. View to Northeast. 32 Figure 15: Photograph of Trench #4 Stratigraphy. View to West. 33 Figure 16: Photograph showing Location of Trench #3, Pre-Excavation. View to North. 34 Figure 17: Photograph of Trench #4, Pre-Excavation Location, Western Side of Coffee Fields. View to South. 35 Figure 18: Photography of Trench # 5, Pre-Excavation, near Existing Detention Basin. Note: Existing coffee trees are on the right side of the machine, in the proposed basin area. Edges of existing basin, with chain link fence covered in vines. 36 Figure 19: Photograph of Trench #5 Stratigraphy. View to North. 37 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION SCS conducted Archaeological Inventory Survey of approximately 78-acres of land in advance of the proposed Lima Ola Work Force Housing Development Project. A single archaeological site was identified during the current work and designated as State Site No. 50- 30-09-2219. The site is formally known as the "Pump 1 Ditch" and runs east-west through the project area. The ditch is an early 20th century historic site, constructed in 1908, to feed the sugar cane fields (see Figures 9 and 10). This identification of this historic-era, plantation-related site conforms to project area expectations, which predicted historic sites related to the long history of plantation and ranching activities in these environs. The absence of pre-Contact archaeological sites in the project area was somewhat expected, given the location of the project area on table lands (not in a valley near water resources, etc.) and also due to historic-era landscape modifications. The advent of mechanized farming in the late 1890’s required relatively smooth fields with little obstruction for wheel, track, and plough machines. The plantations thus heavily modified the surface (and near surface) of these areas. The records of the McBryde Sugar Co. at The Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Plantation Archives at the University of Hawaii at Manoa Library provide this insight: “…but the terrain was extremely rocky and, as common for the leeward side of the island, there was a clear lack of water. As evidenced by early financial records, "Rock Removal" was a rather large expenditure and many extra laborers were needed to clear the fields.” The result of this rock removal is still in evidence today across former McBryde Sugar Company lands from ̀Ele ̀ele to Lawa ̀i. There are large mounds of rock collected from the fields and, in at least one instance, a mound east of Lawa ̀i Valley on the Kukuilua Golf Course obscures a substantial traditional Hawaiian site, complete with multi level terraces (J. Powell- pers. comm 2013). SCS has also viewed the large amounts of field stone used by the plantation to fill two side gulches in Lawa ̀i Valley that allowed a rail system to be built from Port Allan to Kōloa. It is assumed these rocks came from the “rock removal” efforts of McBryde Sugar Co. It is also possible that the rocks were also acquired from traditional sites near the project area. 38 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A total of one newly identified site, State Site 50-30-09-2219, was documented during the current Archaeological Inventory Survey. The site has been assessed for significance as outlined in Hawai‘i Administrative Rules §13-275-6, per the five criteria below: (A) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or be considered a traditional cultural property. (B) Associated with the lives of persons significant in the past. (C) Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. (D) Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (E) Have important value to native Hawaiian people or other ethnicities in the state, due to associations with cultural practices and traditional beliefs that were, or still are, carried out. The single site identified within the project area, State Site State Site 50-30-09-2219, is significant under Criteria d, and represents historic-era, plantation use of the landscape. To date, the site has herein been documented, plotted on maps, photographed, and traced via photograph from Google Earth. The site has also been described in historic pamphlets and books (McBryde Sugar Co, etc.). Additionally, Pump 2 Ditch, which occurs less then a mile to the north of the current project area, may serve as an example of Plantation-era architecture. This second site, occurring outside the project area, also no longer serves its original purpose and is now maintained solely to control runoff from the coffee fields during heavy rains. Given the fact that this landscape has been so extensively modified over the past 100+ years, and there appears limited possibility that historic properties exist in subsurface contexts, no further work is recommended. 39 REFERENCES Bennett, Wendell C. 1931 The Archaeology of Kaua`i, Bishop Museum Bulletin 80, Honolulu. Bingham, H. 1848 Residence of Twenty-One Years in the Sandwich Islands. Univ of Michigan. Chinen, J.J. 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Copyright 1961 Jon Jitsuzo Chinen. Conde, Jesse C. and Gerald M. Best 1973 Sugar Trains, Narrow Gauge Rails of Hawai`i. Glenwood Publishers, Felton, CA. Cook, Christopher Leland 2000 Kaua`i in History, A Guide to the Resources, The History and Humanities Program of The State Foundation on Culture and the Arts in cooperation with The Kaua‘i Historical Society, Honolulu. Daws, G. 1968 Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Dorrance, W.H., and F.S. Morgan 2000 Sugar Islands: The 165-Year Story of Sugar in Hawaii, Mutual Publishing Co., Honolulu. Folk, W.H. and H.H. Hammatt 1991 Archaeological Survey and Subsurface Testing of Land Commission Award 6647 at Kalaheo, Kaua`i, Hawai`i (TMK:4-2-3-02:22). Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kaneohe. Foote, D.E., E.L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens 1972 Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Science and University of Hawai`i Agricultural Experimentation Station. Washington D.C., U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Hammatt, H.H. 1990 Archaeological Reconnaissance of 72 Acres, Hanapepe, Kauai (TMK:2-1- 001, 003, and 027). Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kaneohe. Handy, E.S. and E.G. Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bishop Museum, Bulletin 233. Honolulu. 40 Kamakau, S. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii, Revised Edition, Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. Kame`eleihiwa, L. 1992 Native Lands and Foreign Desires: Pahea La E Pono Ai? Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu. Kikuchi, William K 1963 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on the Island Kaua`i, Kona District Hawaiian Islands. Kirch, P.V. 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Kirch, P.V., and M. Sahlins 1992 Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii,Volume 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kuykendall, R.S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom.. Vol.I. University of Hawai`i Press. Honolulu. McBryde Sugar Company 1899-1949 The Story of McBryde Sugar Co. Ltd 1899-1949. Macdonald, G.A. and Abbott, A.T. 1970 Volcanoes in the Sea. University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu. McMahon, Nancy 1988 State of Hawai`i, Department of Land and Natural Resources Letter to File from Nancy McMahon Job # 87-9, TMK 2-4-04:5. Price, S. 1983 Climate. In Atlas of Hawaii, ed. By Warwick Armstrong. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. Pukui, M.K., and S.H. Elbert 1992 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Sandison, John 1956 Walter Duncan McBryde and Kukuiolono Park. Hamilton Library, Pacific Collections, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa. 41 Star Bulletin 1935 Hawaiian Sugar Plantation History, No 36—McBryde Island of Kaua`i, November 2, 1935 The Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Plantation Archives University of Hawaii at Manoa Library, Hawaiian Collection / Special Collections Waihona `Aina Corporation 2013 Māhele Database, www.waihona.com. Kaneohe, HI. Wichman, Frederick B. 1998 Kaua`i Ancient Place Names and Their Stories, University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu, HI. Wilcox, C. 1996 Sugar Water: Hawai`i’s Plantation Ditches. University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu. EXHIBIT “B” (Final Mitigation Plan 2020) i SCS Project Number 2149-MP-3 MITIGATION PLAN COMPRISING HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY FOR SELECTED FEATURES OF SITE 50-30-09-2219 AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND DURING CONSTRUCTION ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING FOR THE LIMA OLA WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT, HANAPĒPĒ AHUPUA`A, DISTRICT OF KONA, KAUA`I ISLAND, HAWAI`I [TMK: (4) 2-1-001:054] Prepared by: Alexander D. Hazlett, Ph.D. and Michael F. Dega, Ph.D. REVISED DRAFT April 2020 Prepared for: Kaua‘i County Housing Agency County of Kaua‘i, State of Hawai‘i Pi‘ikoi Building, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 330 Līhu‘e, HI 96766 FINAL ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ii  LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iii  INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1  ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................. 8  PROJECT AREA SOILS ............................................................................................... 10  PROJECT AREA VEGETATION ............................................................................... 10  TRADITIONAL AND HISTORIC SETTING ........................................................................ 14  TRADITIONAL PERIOD ............................................................................................. 14  HISTORIC PERIOD ...................................................................................................... 17  THE GREAT MĀHELE ................................................................................................ 17  MCBRYDE SUGAR COMPANY ................................................................................. 18  PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY ................................................................................................. 22  EXPECTED FINDINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA .................................................. 26  METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 26  ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING CONVENTIONS AND METHODS ..................... 26  FIELD DOCUMENTATION METHODS ............................................................................... 28  HISTORIC DATA RECOVERY METHODS ......................................................................... 29  LABORATORY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 29  CURATION ................................................................................................................................. 30  REPORTING .............................................................................................................................. 30  REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 32  APPENDIX A: LCA DATA ....................................................................................................... A  APPENDIX B: SHPD CORRESPONDENCE........................................................................... B  iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Portion of USGS 1983 Hanapepe Quadrangle Showing Project Area Location. ... 2  Figure 2: Tax Map Key (4) 2-1-001 Showing Project Area Location. ..................................... 3  Figure 3: Portion of Client-Provided Map (Esaki 2013) Showing the Location of Lima Ola in Proximity with ̀Ele ̀ele and Wahiawa Boundary. .................................................. 4  Figure 4: Portion of Client-Provided Map (Esaki Surveying & Mapping, Inc. 2013) Showing the Lima Ola Project Area in Relation to Kaumuali ̀i Highway and Halewili Road. ............................................................................................................... 5   Figure 5: Client-provided Drawing Showing the Limits of Grading as Depicted on the General Grading Plan Overlaid on the 78-acre Project Area. ................................. 6  Figure 6: Construction Plan Map (Provided by KCHA Subcontractor CPE), Overlaid with the Project Area, Archaeological Inventory Survey Testing Locations, and recorded Site. ................................................................................................................. 9  Figure 7: Google Map Showing the Soils in the Project Area (Source: UC Davis/USDA NRCS Soilweb tool). ................................................................................................... 11  Figure 8: Overview Photograph Showing the Project Area from Kapa Reservoir (trees are mature coffee), View to South. ................................................................................... 12  Figure 9: Photograph of Western Edge of the Project Area, View to South. ........................ 13  Figure 10: 1903 Map of McBryde Plantation Sugar Lands Overlayed with Project Area (Kaua`i Historical Society) . ....................................................................................... 21  Figure 11: Portion of USGS 1998 Hanapepe Quadrangle Map ShowingArchaeological Studies in the Vicinity of the Project Area . ............................................................. 23  Figure 12: Client-provided Map Marked with the AIS Project Area, the Surveyed Roads, the 5 Test Trenches, and Site -2219. .......................................................................... 24  1 INTRODUCTION Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) prepared this Mitigation Plan for the Lima Ola Workforce Housing Project. The 78-acre project area is located in Hanapēpē Ahupua`a, Kona District, Island of Kaua`i [TMK: (4) 2-1-001:054] (Figures 1-4). The subject property is owned by the County of Kaua‘i, and the Kaua‘i County Housing Agency (KCHA) proposes to construct the Lima Ola Affordable Housing Development on this project area, which would include approximately 550 residential single- and multi-family units distributed across a 75-acre proposed housing area, and a 3-acre detention basin expansion area. Consideration of the current grading plans for the project area show that approximately 50.2 acres of the 78-acre project area will be disturbed by construction-related ground disturbance (Figure 5). This government project is subject to historic preservation review in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 6E-8. When originally initiated, and at the time the Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) was conducted, the project was also determined to be a federal undertaking as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y) due the planned use of federal funding. Subsequently, the decision was made that the project would occur without federal funding and, thus NHPA Section 106 consultation is no longer required. The current project area was previously the subject of an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) by Powell and Dega (2017). According to the State Historic Preservation Division’s (SHPD) Review Letter for the Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Lima Ola Workforce Housing Project, dated June 5, 2017, Log No. 2014.03107, Doc. No. 1706SL01 (see Appendix B), SHPD stated: “…In a letter dated December 3, 2014, Community Planning and Engineering, Inc. indicated that, on behalf of the Kauai County Housing Agency, they were initiating NHPA Section 106 consultation with the SHPD. They stated that the project may receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and that the County of Kauai represents HUD as the responsible federal agency requesting consultation. This letter was included in a submittal packet from the Kauai County Housing Agency requesting SHPD review of the project Environmental Assessment which SHPD received on September 14, 2016 (Log No. 2016.02182). This packet included a draft Cultural Impact Assessment (Dagher and Spear, June 2014) and the draft AIS report (Powell and Dega, July 2014). The SHPD received several requests for comments from the Office of Planning (December 30, 2016, Log No. 2016.03012; May 23, 2017, Log No. 2017.00729) and from the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Land Division (January 13, 2017 and May 19, 2017; Log No. 2017.00049).” 2Figure 1: Portion of USGS 1983 Hanapepe Quadrangle Showing Project Area Location. 3Figure 2: Tax Map Key (4) 2-1-001 Showing Project Area Location. 4Figure 3: Portion of Client-Provided Map (Esaki 2013) Showing the Location of Lima Ola in Proximity with ‘Ele‘̀ele and Wahiawa Boundary. 5 Figure 4: Portion of Client-Provided Map (Esaki Surveying & Mapping, Inc. 2013) Showing the Lima Ola Project Area in Relation to Kaumuali ̀i Highway and Halewili Road. 6 Figure 5: Client-provided Drawing Showing the Limits of Grading as Depicted on the General Grading Plan Overlaid on the 78-acre Project Area. 7 The 2017 AIS identified a single surface historic property, a segment of a former plantation irrigation ditch (Pump 1 Ditch) system. The Pump 1 Ditch was designated as State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) Site 50-30-09-2219. This ditch system was constructed in 1908 as part of the McBryde Sugar Company’s irrigation system that provided water for sugarcane cultivation between ‘Ele‘ele and Lāwa‘i. Water for the Pump 1 Ditch, and associated Pump 2 Ditch (located outside of the Lima Ola project area) came from wells along the banks of the Hanapēpē River that was pumped up to the Kapa Reservoir (near but also outside project area); from the reservoir the water flowed in open ditches to irrigate the fields. Much of this abandoned ditch is earthen, but sections with concrete linings dating to the 1920s remain. Pursuant to Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-275-6, Site 50-30-09-2219 was assessed significant under Criterion d for its potential to provide information on the McBryde Sugar Company’s extensive irrigation system and the development and successful plantation agriculture that dominated the area’s landscape. The KCHA’s Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 6E-8 project effect determination for the site is, “Effect, with proposed mitigation commitments,” [pursuant to HAR §13-275-7(a)(2)]; the proposed project will affect Site 50-30-09-2219 which was assessed to be a significant historic property, but which was not adequately documented during the AIS. SHPD stated in their review of the 2017 AIS (June 5, 2017, Log No. 2014:03107, Doc No. 1706SL01), that the survey and testing had not provided 100 percent coverage of the project area and that the single surface historic property identified during the survey had not been adequately documented during the AIS. Two mitigation commitments were proposed: (1) archaeological data recovery [HAR §13-275-8(a)(1)(C)] in the form of archaeological monitoring and (2) historical data recovery [HAR §13-275-8(a)(1)(D)] in the form of researching historic resource materials. Archaeological monitoring is recommended as (1) only limited data were recorded for Site 50-30-09- 2219 during the AIS field work, and (2) the pedestrian survey and subsurface testing was limited in scope and coverage. Archaeological monitoring would allow for additional field documentation (description, mapping, photographing) to be completed for Site 50-30-09-2219, and to identify and document any roads that may be historic, particularly any related to the former plantation. It would also allow for completion of a survey across the entirety of the project area, and the documentation of stratigraphy during construction in areas not subjected to AIS testing. Historical data recovery would allow for examining Site 50-30-09-2219 as part of a larger irrigation system (which includes Pump 2 Ditch). This broader historic context would include presentation of historical maps and photographs of this system, including construction design and materials (e.g., concrete lining, metal sluice gates, culvert/bridges across the ditches). All of this mitigation work would be conducted in accordance with a Mitigation Plan which included both the archaeological data recovery and historical 8 data recovery with scope determined based on consultation between the project proponent, the archaeological firm, and SHPD. In a letter dated June 28, 2018 (see Appendix B), SHPD reviewed a County of Kaua‘i Application titled Preliminary Subdivision Map Review (S-2018-13) for the Lima Ola Subdivision, and requested to be consulted regarding the scope of the Mitigation Plan prior to the development and submittal of the Mitigation Plan for SHPD review and acceptance. Additionally, SHPD requested that (1) Site 50-30-09- 2219 should be evaluated, pursuant to NHPA Section 106 requirements, for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance (with historical context documentation of this ditch as part of the overall plantation irrigation system), and that (2) KCHA submit a request to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the SHPO’s concurrence with the Agency’s project effect determination; the county’s request for SHPO concurrence should have provided the documentation specified in 36 CFR 800.11. As previously noted, the project will now proceed without federal funding and, thus item (2) no longer applied. SCS prepared this Mitigation Plan (MP) to address the requirements for historical and archaeological data recovery for Site 50-30-09-2219 as well as field documentation to identify and document any roads that may be historic in the project area, survey of the portions of the project area not surveyed during the AIS, and documentation of stratigraphy in portions of the project area not tested during the AIS. In addition, archaeological monitoring will ensure that identified significant historic properties are adequately documented, and evaluated for their historical significance in accordance with HAR §13-275-6 Criteria a through e. This monitoring program will also ensure that if human skeletal remains are inadvertently identified during subsurface work, their treatment shall comply with HRS 43.6 and HAR §13-300-40, and all SHPD directives. The following text provides more detailed information on the reasons for monitoring, potential site types to be encountered during excavation, monitoring conventions and methodology for both field and laboratory work, and curation and reporting. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Lima Ola Project is located on the southern side of Kaua`i between Hanapēpē and Kalāheo, near the southern intersection of Kaumuali ̀i Highway, State Road 50, and Halewili Road, State Road 540. This area is the beginning of the drier, southwestern side of Kaua`i. The project lies on the south sloping plain between the drainages of the Hanapēpē River and Wahiawa Stream. The slope is moderate and falls in a north south direction from an elevation of 290 feet near Kapa Reservoir to 160 feet at Halewili Road (Figures 5 and 6). The 78-acre parcel is bounded by Kaumuali`i Highway to the northwest and west, Halewili Road to the south, and agricultural lands to the east and northeast (see Figure 4). 9 Figure 6: Construction Plan Map (Provided by KCHA Subcontractor CPE), Overlaid with the Project Area, Archaeological Inventory Survey Testing Locations, and recorded Site. 10 PROJECT AREA SOILS The land between Hanapēpē and Kalāheo, including Wahiawa, is part of the Kōloa Volcanic Series (Macdonald and Abbott 1970). The base of the formation was formed 1.5 million years after the primary shield-building stage had ceased. The Kōloa Volcanic Series covered two thirds of the eastern side of the island. Numerous vents, along with cinder and spatter cones and a small shield volcano, exist within Kalāheo and Wahiawa Ahupua`a. Soil formation occurs rapidly upon volcanic ash deposits in the warm humid climates of the Kaua`i lowlands. Long periods without volcanic activity allowed streams on the surface to form gullies and to weather away rock to form ravines (Macdonald and Abbott 1970). Numerous intermittent and perennial streams bisect the environs of Kalāheo, Wahiawa, and Hanapēpē Ahupua`a. According to USDA-NCSS SSURGO and STATSGO (Ca Soil Resource Lab. 2008), project area soil is associated with two soil types of Makaweli silty clay loam: Makaweli silty clay loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (MgB) and Makaweli silty clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes (MgC). The Makaweli soil series consist of well-drained soils on gently sloping to steep uplands, with elevations ranging from nearly sea level to 500 feet. Annual rainfall amounts to 20-35 inches, where three-fourths accumulates between October and March. Makaweli silty clay loam (0%-6% slopes) is found on the tops of broad interfluves, with a surface layer consisting of dusky-red silty clay loam and a subsoil of dusky-red, friable silt loam and silty clay loam that has prismatic and sub angular blocky structure. The substratum is soft, weathered basic igneous rock. Permeability is moderate, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Makaweli silty clay loam on 6%-12% slopes are similar to the former soil type but has medium runoff and moderate erosion hazard. Both soils are typically used for irrigated sugarcane, pasture, and woodlands. Figure 7 shows the soil survey information for the project area from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service as depicted on the California Soil Resource Lab at the University of California at Davis’s Soilweb webtool (https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/, accessed on September 3, 2019) PROJECT AREA VEGETATION The Lima Ola project area is currently being used to grow coffee for the Kauai Coffee Company. The coffee plants are mature and have been yielding coffee beans for a several decades (Figure 8). Aside from coffee plants, the current vegetation on the parcel consists of invasive weeds, grasses and koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala) (Figure 9). 11 Figure 7: Google Map Showing the Soils in the Project Area (Source: UC Davis/USDA NRCS Soilweb tool). 12 Figure 8: Overview Photograph Showing the Project Area from Kapa Reservoir (trees are mature coffee), View to South. 13 Figure 9: Photograph of Western Edge of the Project Area, View to South. 14 TRADITIONAL AND HISTORIC SETTING Kaua`i, the oldest and fourth largest of the eight main Hawaiian Islands (with land area equaling approximately 1,432 square kilometers), was formed from one great shield volcano (Macdonald et al. 1983:458-461). At one time, this vast volcano supported the largest caldera in the islands, horizontally extending 15 to 20 kilometers across. Mt. Wai`ale`ale, forming the central hub of the island, extends 1,598 meters (above mean sea level) amsl. Topographically, Kaua`i is a product of heavy erosion with broad, deep valleys and large alluvial plains. Until very recently, the island has survived primarily on an agricultural economy, with commercial sugarcane, rice, and other crops supplanting the traditional taro in historic times. A concomitant influx of many diverse ethnic groups (including Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, and Euro-American) has also added to the modern character of the island. Much of the knowledge of traditional land use patterns is based on what was recorded at the time of, and shortly after, western Contact, in 1778. Early records, such as journals kept by travelers and missionaries, documented Hawaiian traditions that had survived long enough to be written down. Archaeological investigations have also assisted in understanding the past, written records and the archaeological record being necessarily utilized together when studying the past of the Hawaiian Islands. TRADITIONAL PERIOD Approximately 600 years ago (from the time of Mο`ilikukahi on O`ahu and based on a 25 year per-generation count), the native population had expanded throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Land was considered the property of the king or ali`i `ai moku (the ali`i who eats the island/district), which he held in trust for the gods. The title of ali`i `ai moku ensured rights and responsibilities to the land, but did not confer absolute ownership. The king kept the parcels he wanted, his higher chiefs received large parcels from him and, in turn, distributed smaller parcels to lesser chiefs. The maka`āinana (commoners) worked the individual plots of land. In general, several terms, such as moku, ahupua`a, `ili or `ili` āina were used to delineate various land sections. A district, or moku, appeared approximately B.P. 600 years, as the native population had expanded to a point where large political districts could be formed (Lyons 1875:29, Kamakau 1961:54, 55; Moffat and Fitzpatrick 1995:28). 15 Kaua`i consisted of six moku; Kona, Puna, Ko`olau, Halele`a, Napali, and Waimea (Moffat and Fitzpatrick 1995:23). These districts contained smaller land divisions (ahupua`a) which customarily continued inland from the ocean and upland into the mountains. Extended household groups living within the ahupua`a were therefore, able to harvest from both the land and the sea. Ideally, this situation allowed each ahupua`a to be self-sufficient by supplying needed resources from different environmental zones (Lyons 1875:111). The `ili `āina, or `ili, were smaller land divisions and were next to importance to the ahupua`a. They were administered by the chief who controlled the ahupua`a in which it was located (ibid: 33; Lucas 1995:40). The mo`o`āina were narrow strips of land within an `ili. The land holding of a tenant or hoa `āina residing in an ahupua`a was called a kuleana (Lucas 1995:61). While the project area is not specifically noted in common historical texts for the area (Handy and Handy 1972; Wichman 1998), in the two ahupua’a to the east, Kalāheo and Wahiawa, and Hanapēpē to the west, traditional stories and histories abound in the afore mentioned titles. This is to be somewhat expected as these three ahupua`a contained drainages, freshwater streams, and landforms which more readily supported the traditional population, their culture, and thus, their mo`olelo. Kalāheo has surviving oral histories and several myths that suggest the importance of the area to its traditional occupants. Wichman (1998) writes that Kalāheo literally translates as “proud day,” the ahupua‘a begins at Kāhili Peak and extends across the plains between Wahiawa and Lāwa`i and has a proportionally higher rainfall then Wahiawa. The ahupua`a was renowned for the huge cinder cone that dominates the region and could be seen from all points within Kona District, from Māhā`ulepū to Kekaha (Wichman 1998). This cinder cone, named Kukuiolono or the light of Lono, was a regionally recognized beacon for navigators within the near and offshore waters of Kona District (Ibid.). A signal fire was kept alight on top of the cone to act as a guide for canoe voyagers and fisherman (Wichman 1998). Three heiau are reported at this location, including Kukuiolono Heiau, which contained an `anu`u (terrace) that was reported to be three stories tall and covered with white kapa (Ibid.). This particular heiau is reported to be one of the largest on Kaua`i and was traditionally used as a navigational landmark for the local occupants, if not possibly part of a larger system of known navigational points throughout Polynesia. Handy and Handy mention that Kukuiolono was a famous place in Kalāheo for sweet potato (1972). Wichman (1998) also mentions that bird catching and feather collecting was practiced in the uplands. Nōmilu fishpond and its surrounding environs are also associated with numerous legends. Salt gathered from its saltpans was the finest and most desired salt on Kaua`i (Wichman 1998). A 16 notorious battle between Pele and her sister Nāmakaokaha`i at Nōmilu is credited with the creation of the fishpond. The legend is that while Pele was searching for a home on Kaua`i, Nāmakaokaha`i caught up with her at the spot that became Nōmilu. During the battle, Pele kicked up dirt, which became the hill Kāpeku. She then caused this hill to erupt, which covered the plains of Wahiawa with rocks. Nāmakaokaha`i flooded the crater with water causing the pond Nōmilu to be formed (Wichman 1998). As Pele departed, she turned two large he`ehe`e (eels)—Puhi`ula (red eel) and Puhipakapaka (scaly eel)—into stone to guard the pond (Wichman 1998). Between Kalāheo and the Lima Ola 75-acre parcel is the Ahupua`a of Wahiawa. It is described in greater detail then neighboring Kalāheo. In 1935, according to kama`aina Keahi Luahine, who grew up in the valley, taro terraces extended all the way down the valley to the muliwai [(inlet) Handy and Handy 1972:428]. They describe Wahiawa as having adequate fresh water resources and wet land taro was planted more extensively in this region. Further description in Handy and Handy (1972) speaks of several springs which watered terraces and wauke (paper mulberry) plantations. Houses and sweet potato plantations were found above the terraces. Wahiawa was renowned for a particular variety of taro. Handy and Handy (1972) observed terraces and houses above and below the present highway and abandoned terraces below the bridge, on what is now ranchland. Bennett (1931) described upper Wahiawa as well, remarking on the extensive number of terraces for such a small area of land. As for Hanapēpē, Bingham in 1824 (Bingham 1848) describes the valley as appearing , “…like an extensive, well watered plantation, interspersed with kalo beds and one hundred and forty cottages, and furnishes employment and sustenance to some seven hundred inhabitants.” Handy and Handy (1972) paint a similar picture of the valley some one hundred and twenty years later when they explored the length of the valley. They observed mostly abandoned house sites and lo ̀i watered by abandoned auwai, and stated that “taro terraces are everywhere that the land is irrigable.” 17 HISTORIC PERIOD During the early 1800’s, the islands of Kaua ̀i and Ni ̀ihau were the last islands that remained outside the control of King Kamehameha. In 1810, King Kaumuali ̀i ceded his kingdom to Kamehameha the Great, after Kamehameha had twice failed in his attempts to invade Kaua ̀i from Oahu. In 1821 Kaumuali ̀i was taken prisoner by Kamehameha’s son, Liholiho (Kamehameha II), and placed in exile on O ̀ahu. The following year ali‘i from O ̀ahu and other islands arrived to rule Kaua ̀i. Kaumuali ̀i died in Honolulu in 1824 and Kauai’s lands were given to these newcomer ali‘i. In May of 1824, on the plains of ̀Ele`ele, in the general area of the Lima Ola Project, George Humehume, son of King Kaumuali ̀i, led supporters of King Kaumuali ̀i, in a revolt to regain control of Kaua`i from Kamehameha II. The attempt failed after a prolonged and lopsided battle on these plains. Kamehameha II’s forces destroyed the Kaua`i army. Then for two weeks they attempted to kill all Kaua`i ali ̀i and their family members: men, women and children. This event marked the end of Kaua ̀i as an independent kingdom, uniting all the islands under Kamehameha II and effectively suppressing the idea of Kaua`i as a “separate kingdom.” THE GREAT MĀHELE During the mid-1800s, extreme modification to traditional land tenure occurred throughout all of the Hawaiian Islands. (Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:209). The transition from traditional Hawaiian communal land use to private ownership and division was commonly referred to as the Māhele (division). The Māhele of 1848 set the stage for vast changes to land holdings within the islands as it introduced the foreign (western) concept of land ownership to the Islands. The Māhele was a division of the lands by the government, in which the king was to retain all-of his private lands as his own individual property, subject only to the rights of tenants (the commoners, the actual cultivators of the soil) and then one third of the remaining lands was to be for the Hawaiian Government; one third for the chiefs and konohiki (who acted as agents for absent chiefs), and one third set aside for the commoners as kuleana lands. The chiefs and konohiki were authorized to satisfy the commutation by either the setting aside of one third of their lands to the government or by the payment of one third of the unimproved value of their lands (Chinen 1958:15-16). The Kuleana Act of 1850 allowed commoners to make their own claims for kuleana lands, the lands upon which they had been cultivating and living. These land claims had to be filed within two years. Claims could not include any previously cultivated, now fallow land, okipu‘u (cleared forest land), stream fisheries, or the other resources necessary for communal subsistence (Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:295; Kirch and Sahlins 1992). If occupation could be established through the testimony of two witnesses, the petitioners were awarded the claimed LCA and issued a Royal 18 Patent after which they could take possession of the property (Chinen 1961:16). 1850 was also the year foreigners were allowed to acquire title to land under the Alien Land Ownership Act. According to Chinen (1958:27-29), “ Following the division of the lands into Crown, Government. and Konohiki Lands, from time to time portions of the Government Lands were sold as a means of obtaining revenue to meet the increasing costs of the Government. Purchasers of these lands were issued documents called "Grants" or " Royal Patent Grants." These differed from the Royal Patents issued upon Land Commission Awards. It was not necessary for the recipients of the Royal Patent Grants to obtain an award for their land from the Land Commission. Based on the map for TMK (4) 2-1-01, the project area composes a portion of a larger acreage that was awarded to M. Kekuanaoa under the LCA 7712, Apana 5. To summarize the LCA (see Appendix A for the full award record) in terms of archaeological resources across this vast LCA (only a small portion which composes the project area), empirical sites include auwai, fishpond, rice fields, stone walls or "stone fences", piles of stones, a cave, and cultivation areas. The large LCA extends from the coastline to the mountain tops and incorporates most, if not all, of the ahupua`a. The LCA lands were chiefly for grazing purposes as the lands were classified as "very stony,", with some rice agricultural occurring in valleys in limited breadth (see Appendix A). Currently, the property owner and developer is the County of Kaua`i Housing Agency. MCBRYDE SUGAR COMPANY The namesake of the McBryde Sugar Co. was Duncan McBryde. In the mid-1800s, Duncan McBryde arrived from Dunoon, Argyleshire, Scotland and acquired land in Wahiawa and began to develop an extensive ranch. McBryde leased the Wahiawa lands that extended from Kōloa to Ele`ele, from Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III) in 1857. In 1874 he purchased the land from the estate of Kamehameha V. He built his home at Brydeswood with his wife Elizabeth Amelia Moxley, in the upper end of Wahiawa District, and had six children. Duncan McBryde died at the age of 52 (1878) leaving Elizabeth a widow with six young children and the ranch. In 1886 Elizabeth acquired the ahupua‘a of Lāwa’i from the estate of Queen Emma. Elizabeth McBryde managed and operated the ranch that stretched from Ele ̀ele to Kōloa, until the founding of the McBryde Sugar Co. (Sandison 1956). Walter McBryde, the second son of Duncan and Elizabeth McBryde, held various positions within the Hawai’i kingdom and local Kaua`i business communities, including being a representative to the legislature of the provisional government (Sandison 1956). He was involved in the initial organization of the McBryde Sugar and became the manager of Kauai Pineapple Co. in 1906, a subsidiary company of McBryde Sugar. 19 McBryde Sugar formed in 1889 and was promoted by a group headed by B.F. Dillingham, who also created plantations at Olaa and Kīhei. The company was created by the merger of three families: the Smith family of Koloa Agricultural Co., the Dreiers of Eleele Plantation (begun in 1884), and the McBrydes, who owned the vast Wahiawa Ranch. Kōloa Agricultural Company originated in c. 1870 in the western portion of the ahupua`a of Kōloa, on land leased from the Knudsens. The Smiths grew cane on this land. The land was later conveyed by Mrs. Knudsen to the heirs of J.W. Smith. In 1896, said heirs conveyed their interests in the land to Kōloa Agricultural Co. The Smiths also owned 750 acres of land in Omao, Ele`ele, the Dreier's plantation. In 1884 Bernice Pauahi Bishop sold the `ili of Ele`ele to Elizabeth McBryde and August Dreier. The plantation at Ele`ele had profited, and a mill was constructed at the village. The area now known as Port Allen was the original landing for the plantation. Dreier bought out Elizabeth McBryde’s interest in the land in 1895. In 1899, Dillingham then bought out August Dreier for 500,000 dollars in cash for the Ele`ele plantation. Dillingham then issued 55,000 shares of stock to the McBryde family in consideration of the conveyance of nearly all of their Wahiawa land holdings and all the stock of Koloa Agricultural, which they had come to acquire. Stocks were offered to the public and were quickly taken up. Once the establishment of McBryde Sugar was completed, plans quickly moved ahead to develop the lands into a large plantation, with the required infrastructure to create a successful and profitable plantation. Immediate plans to clear the land and create an irrigation system ensued. Development costs were high as the land needed extensive clearing and water had to be brought from great distances. It was during this early phase of development in 1909, that McBryde Sugar was acquired by Alexander and Baldwin Corp. During this initial phase of development, and later, between 1929 and 1933, an improvement program was implemented and vast changes occurred on the landscape. Changes were made to the natural stream flow, due to the creation of a reservoir system and a series of pipelines with associated ditches and dikes to distribute water across the landscape, for large-scale commercial agriculture. Tunnels and wells were excavated within the floor of Hanapepe Valley and stream pumping plants were installed. These plants immediately proved inefficient and costly, putting the plantation in debt in direct relation to high costs associated with pumping water from underground sources as the salt water lens was higher than predicted and fuel costs were high to operate the pumps. 20 In 1903, a fifty-year license for hydroelectric power from Wainiha Stream was acquired by W.E. Rowell, an associate of McBryde Sugar (Figure 10). At this time Kauai Electric Co. was formed as a subsidiary of McBryde Sugar. The Wainiha Plant was built and established with a power line to the plantation in Eleele. Pumps were converted to electricity and fuel related costs dropped immediately. A vast system of reservoirs was created at this time with a combined holding capacity of 800 million gallons (Wilcox 1996). However, expenditure related to creating this infrastructure caused such financial burdens into the late 1920s that the plantation would not be able to operate and be profitable until a complete renovation occurred. These financial challenges led to the creation of the improvement program carried out from 1929 to 1933. These improvements consisted of the construction of Alexander Reservoir with a storage capability of 810,000,000 gallons, the concrete lining of miles of the principle irrigation ditches on the plantation, replacement of inefficient machinery, and the construction of a hydroelectric plant. Due to the efficiency created by these improvements, the plantation was released of its debt obligations in 1932. McBryde Sugar obtained additional subsidiary companies such as the Kaua` Railway Co. and Kauai Pineapple. The development of these companies brought additional land use changes to the area including the creation of a rail system connecting various points on the plantation to Port Allen and the development of truck farming on portions of the land. Infrastructure and remnants related to these modifications exist throughout the landscape. McBryde Sugar was also instrumental in development of Port Allan as a harbor with shipping facilities (Star Bulletin November 2, 1935). McBryde Sugar acquired a large portion of the Grove Farms sugar fields in 1974. During this last twenty years, sugar was supplemented with coffee. McBryde Sugar continued to operate until 1995 when it fell to economic pressures involved in growing sugar in Hawai`i. McBryde stopped producing sugar officially on July 1996 when the Koloa Mill was shut down for good. McBryde Sugar was terminated and replaced by Kaua`i Coffee Co., which continues to grow coffee to the present day. 21 Figure 10: 1903 Map of McBryde Plantation Sugar Lands Overlayed with Project Area (Kaua`i Historical Society) . 22 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY Until SCS completed an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) (Powell and Dega 2017) in preparation for ground altering activities associated with the proposed Lima Ola Work Force Housing Development project, no formal or recent archaeological work had been conducted in the project area. Besides the Hammatt (1990) study, the environs of the project area have also not been studied recently, except a few sites on the floor of Hanapepe Valley, to the northwest, and no sites had been identified on the dry Wahiawa plain where the project area is located. Given the dearth of previous work in the project area, the AIS for the current project area (Powell and Dega 2017) took a more general and regional view including sites in the ahupua‘a of Hanapēpē, Wahiawa and Kalāheo, and the reader is directed to that report for a description of sites outside the vicinity of the project area. Figure 11, below, shows the location of the Hammatt (1990) and Powell and Dega 2017) studies (note that the current project area is the same as the 2017 study). Hammatt (1990) conducted Archeological Reconnaissance of 72-acres in Hanapepe (TMK: [4] 2-1-001, 003, and 027), the project area slightly overlapping with lands along the current southwestern boundary. No archaeological sites were identified during the reconnaissance; Hammatt (1990:10) stating that 50-75 years of cultivation would have destroyed traces of former cultural sites in the area. No further work was recommended, given the landscape use over time. Powell and Dega (2017) conducted an AIS of approximately 78-acres of land in advance of the proposed Lima Ola Work Force Housing Development Project. The AIS involved a pedestrian survey, a vehicle windshield survey, and excavation of five backhoe trenches. The surveys were conducted during a 3-day period in September 2013, while the trench excavations occurred on a single day in April 2014. The survey and testing did not provide 100% coverage of the project area. Because the project area was covered by a portion of the actively worked coffee plantation, the actual ground survey was limited to the ditch and to roads through the project area. In addition, the presence of a network of buried plastic irrigation pipe spread across the fields precluded large-scale subsurface testing in the project area. Four trenches were excavated within the 75-acre proposed housing development, and one trench was excavated within a 3-acre area detention basin expansion southwest of the main project area. A single archaeological site was identified during the current work and designated as State Site No. 50-30-09-2219. The site is formally known as the "Pump 1 Ditch" and runs east-west through the project area. The ditch is an early 20th century historic site, constructed in 1908, to feed the sugar cane fields. Figure 12, below, depicts the AIS project area, the roadways that were surveyed, the location of the five test trenches, and the location of Site -2219 (the Pump 1 Ditch). 23 Figure 11: Portion of USGS 1998 Hanapepe Quadrangle Map ShowingArchaeological Studies in the Vicinity of the Project Area . 24Figure 12: Client-provided Map Marked with the AIS Project Area, the Surveyed Roads, the 5 Test Trenches, and Site -2219. 25 Pursuant to Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-275-6, Site 50-30-09-2219 was assessed significant under Criterion d for its potential to provide information on the extensive McBryde Sugar Company’s irrigation system and the development and successful plantation agriculture that dominated the area’s landscape. The KCHA’s HRS 6E-8 project effect determination is Effect, with proposed mitigation commitments (pursuant to HAR §13-275- 7(a)(2)); the proposed project will affect Site 50-30-09-2219 which was assessed to be a significant historic property, but which was not been adequately documented during the AIS. SHPD and KCHA concurred on the following mitigation commitments: (1) archaeological data recovery [HAR §13-275-8(a)(1)(C)] in the form of archaeological monitoring and historical data recovery in the form of archival research of historic maps, reports, plantation records, and other resource materials, pursuant to [HAR §13-275-8(a)(1)(D)]. Archaeological monitoring was proposed as a mitigation commitment because (1) only limited data were recorded for Site 50-30-09-2219 during the AIS field work, and (2) the pedestrian survey and subsurface testing was limited in scope and coverage. Archaeological monitoring would be conducted in two phases, one before construction and one during construction. The pre-construction portion of the archaeological monitoring program would involve: (1) a 100% surface pedestrian survey of the entirety of the project area and the identification and recording of any historic properties not previously recorded, including but not limited to plantation roads and other plantation features; and (2) additional documentation of the Site 50-30-09-2219 Pump 1 Ditch, which would include further description, mapping, and photographic documentation. The during construction portion of the archaeological monitoring program would involve: (1) archaeological monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities, recordation of stratigraphic data and any subsurface historic properties encountered, photographic documentation of construction activities, and archaeological deposits, features, and profiles (with N arrow and 1-m photo stick), GPS mapping data including GPS locations for all stratigraphic profiles; and (2) cross-section profiles and other appropriate documentation of the Site 50-30-09-2219 and other sites or features during construction impact. The GPS data will be collected using a hand-held GPS unit capable of sub-meter accuracy and the locations of all GPS data points will be recorded on a project site plan. The historical data recovery will be conducted to further identify and document Site 50- 30-09-2219 as part of a larger irrigation system (which includes Pump 2 Ditch). This broader historic context will include locating, reviewing, and providing a visual and synthetic discussion using archival records, historical maps and photographs of this system, as well as construction drawings and examination of construction design, methods, and materials (e.g., concrete lining, metal sluice gates, culvert/bridges across the ditches). The historical data recovery mitigation will be initiated prior to construction and, when completed, will be integrated into a single Mitigation Report, with the archaeological monitoring mitigation. 26 EXPECTED FINDINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA SCS’s review of previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the current project area identified only a single reconnaissance survey (Hammatt 1900). Based on archival work, a review of previous archaeology in the area, and current use of the property, it was expected prior to initiation of the AIS that the ground surface of the parcel likely had been massively impacted by both earlier sugarcane cultivation of the area and by on-going modern coffee cultivation. As such, the potential for surface sites was assessed to be limited to features associated with historic plantation agriculture, as well as possible signs of cattle ranching during the time between the former sugarcane production and the current coffee production. It was also anticipated that subsurface contexts had been extensively modified and low potential existed for encountering intact subsurface historic properties. The AIS results confirmed these expectations. Thus, it is anticipated that the archaeological monitoring will result in possible documentation of surface historic properties (plantation roads, ditches), but limited or no evidence of intact subsurface historic properties. METHODS Fieldwork for this project will be split between archaeological data recovery in the form of archaeological monitoring (including field documentation of Site 50-30-09-2219 as well as any roads that may be historic, particularly those related to the former plantation) and historical data recovery in the form of researching historic resource materials. Methods for each part of the mitigation are described below. ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING CONVENTIONS AND METHODS 1. Archaeological monitors will adhere to the following guidelines during monitoring: All subsurface construction activities on the parcel will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. 2. If significant deposits or features or human remains are identified and additional field personnel are required, the archaeological consultants conducting the monitoring will notify the on-site construction designated Point of Contact (POC) and the SHPD before additional personnel are brought to the site. 3. One archaeological monitor will be assigned to each piece of machinery conducting ground altering activities within the project area at all times while in operation. 4. If non-burial cultural deposits and/or features are identified during monitoring, the on-site archaeologist has the authority to temporarily suspend construction activities at the find location so the deposits or features may be identified, documented, and assessed for significance. SHPD will be immediately consulted regarding appropriate documentation and assessment. Documentation will include GPS plotting of the find location, recording location on site map, photographing with scale and north arrow and illustrating the deposits or features in plan view and/or profile view (depending on nature of exposure), recording stratigraphy using USDA soil survey manual terminology and attributes and Munsell soil colors, and plotting and collection of artifacts and soil samples; stratigraphic profiles will measure a 27 minimum of 2 m across. Construction work and/or backfilling of the area will occur in the location of find only after all archaeological documentation has been completed and approved by the SHPD. 5. Stratigraphy will also be recorded and photographed with north arrow and scale at selected locations to provide representative stratigraphic data across the project area. Again, the profiles will measure a minimum of 2 m across. Both vertical and horizontal scales will be recorded. 6. All GPS data will be collected using a hand-held unit capable of sub-meter accuracy and will be recorded on a project plan view. GPS data will be collected for each stratigraphic profile location, for all sites or features (e.g., entire length of a plantation road, ditch, subsurface pit). 7. In the event that human remains (burial or isolated, displaced skeletal elements) are inadvertently encountered, all work in the immediate area of the find will cease, the area and human remains will be secured, and the archaeologist will immediately notify the Police, SHPD (archaeologist and burial sites specialist staff), and the island burial council. Treatment of the human remains (including archaeological documentation) shall be in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes §6E-43.6, Hawaii Administrative Rules §13-300-40, and SHPD directives. Work will resume in the area of the inadvertent find only following SHPD’s written approval. 8. The archaeological monitor is responsible for conducting a pre-construction briefing with all construction and archaeological personnel prior to initiation of the project. During this briefing, the archaeological monitor will provide a copy of the Mitgation Plan to the on-site construction Point of Contact and ensure that the Mitigation Plan is maintained on site and accessible for all personnel at all times. 9. The archaeological monitor, during the pre-construction briefing, will inform all personnel about the purpose of the archaeological monitoring, the responsibilities and authority of the archaeological monitoring, the responsibilities of the construction personnel regarding their compliance with the stipulations detailed in the Mitigation Plan, the types of historic properties (non-burial and burial) that might be countered, and how each will be handled. The archaeological shall also inform all personnel that SHPD must be informed of any non-compliance with the provisions of the Mitigation Plan and, that non- compliance may result in a request for a Stop Work Order. 10. The archaeological monitor will maintain a record of the date, time, location, and personnel who attended the pre-construction briefing. They also will conduct a similar briefing and maintain a similar record for any construction or archaeological personnel who join the project after the initial pre- construction briefing. Additionally, the archaeological monitor is responsible for communicating/coordinating with the designated on-site construction Point of Contact (POC) to ensure they are appropriately notified regarding all scheduling of ground-disturbing work. 11. The archaeologist will provide all coordination with the contractor, SHPD, and any other groups involved in the project. The archaeologist will coordinate all monitoring and sampling activities with the safety officers for the contractors to ensure that proper safety regulations and protective measures meet compliance. Close coordination will also be maintained with construction representatives in order to adequately inform personnel of the possibility that open areas or hazardous areas may occur in the project area and, if so, where added caution is needed. 12. As necessary, verbal and/or written reports will be made to SHPD and any other agencies as requested. As part of the general conditions of any County permit, the SHPD maintains the right to inspect the project area at any time to ensure the provisions of this AMP are being met. The archaeological monitor is responsible for ensuring all construction and archaeological personnel are aware of this inspection stipulation. 28 FIELD DOCUMENTATION METHODS As stated earlier, the archaeological fieldwork to be completed as part of the pre- construction portion of the data recovery archaeological monitoring program would involve: (1) a 100% surface pedestrian survey of the entirety of the project area and the identification and recording of any historic properties not previously recorded, including but not limited to plantation roads and other plantation features; and (2) additional documentation of the Site 50-30-09-2219 Pump 1 Ditch, which would include further description, mapping, and photographic documentation. The pedestrian survey will be accomplished using transects spaced no greater than 5 m apart in vegetated areas and no greater than 10 m apart in open areas. All possible sites or surface features will be flagged and inspected and, if assessed to be a historic property, as defined in HRS 6E-2, they will be documented, assessed for integrity and site significance per HAR 13-275-6 Criteria a through e, and for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance. All sites will be assigned an State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) site number, and their location and site limits will be documented using GPS and completion of a site plan. They also will be added to the project map. Field documentation of Site 50-30-09-2219 will consist of a pedestrian survey of the entirety of the ditch corridor across the 78-acre Lima Ola Affordable Housing Development project parcel. This survey will be conducted to: 1) access where vegetation clearing is needed to provide adequate visibility to complete field documentation in the form of detailed scaled drawings and photographs with appropriately proportioned N arrow and 1-m photo stick; 2) to acquire GPS data in the form of a line (center of ditch) or a polygon (outer limits of ditch) along the entirety of the ditch within the project parcel; 3) to subdivide the ditch into sections based on changes in construction materials and/or methods, each of which will be labeled, measured (L x W x D), described, and photographed (e.g., Section A, 4m x 1m x 1m, open, earthen ditch, no architectural features (e.g., grates, gates, pumps); 4) to provide similar descriptions and documentation for each architectural feature, including GPS location, photographs, and depiction on the site plan; and 5) to generate a site plan for Site 50-30-09-2219 with each section clearly labeled and associated descriptive text to be included in report. If vegetation removal is needed to facilitate documentation of any newly identified sites or to further document Site 50-30-09-2219, all clearing will be accomplished using hand tools (e.g., saws, machetes, weed whackers, rakes). 29 The archaeological fieldwork to be completed during construction portion of the archaeological monitoring program would involve: (1) archaeological monitoring of all ground- disturbing activities, recordation of stratigraphic data and any subsurface historic properties encountered, photographic documentation of construction activities, and archaeological deposits, features, and profiles (with N arrow and 1-m photo stick), GPS mapping data including GPS locations for all stratigraphic profiles; and (2) cross-section profiles and other appropriate documentation of the Site 50-30-09-2219 and other sites or features during construction impact. The GPS data will be collected using a hand-held GPS unit capable of sub-meter accuracy and the locations of all GPS data points will be recorded on a project site plan. Documentation of all field work activities will be accomplished through standardized forms, detailed scaled drawings, an ongoing logbook, and a photographic record. Upon the completion of field work activities, all field work documentation will be organized and compiled in a file system curated at SCS facilities in Honolulu. HISTORIC DATA RECOVERY METHODS Historic data recovery related to Site 50-30-09-2219 and the McBryde Sugar Company’s extensive irrigation system and the development and successful plantation agriculture that dominated the area’s landscape will include review of published and unpublished research materials, with an emphasis on primary sources, including archaeological reports, historic photographs, maps, and documents related to the McBryde Sugar Company’s holdings, and with historical land use both within the boundaries of the plantation and the current project area. All effort will be made to locate McBryde Sugar Company records in repositories on Kaua‘i and O‘ahu. Collections to be consulted will include, but not be limited to, the SHPD library, the SCS library, the Kauai Historical Society, the Kauai Community College library, the Bishop Museum Library and Archives, the Hawaii State Archives, the Historical Society Library, the Hamilton Library (Hawaii and Pacific Collections), and online sources including the State Land Survey Division Map collection, Waihona ‘Ᾱina Corporation’s Mahele Database (waihona.com) and Ulukau: The Hawaiian Electronic Library (ulukau.org). LABORATORY ANALYSIS All non-burial artifacts and samples collected during the project will undergo analysis at the SCS Honolulu laboratory. Photographs, illustrations, and all paper and electronic documents accumulated during the project will be curated in the SCS Honolulu Office. All collected artifacts and midden samples will be cleaned, sorted, counted, weighed (metric), and analyzed (both qualitative and quantitative data), with all data recorded on standard laboratory forms. Midden samples will be minimally identified to major class (e.g., bivalve, gastropod mollusk, echinoderm, 30 fish, bird, and mammal). Digital photographs with scales will be taken of a representative sample (to be determined in consultation with SHPD) of the diagnostic artifacts. Tables and text discussing the artifact and sample results will be provided in the report, along with appropriate digital photographs. Samples (wood charcoal, shell, non-human bone, kukui nut) identified as potentially suitable for dating from an undisturbed context (e.g., cultural layer, pit feature) shall be considered for radiocarbon dating in consultation with SHPD and the landowner. Prior to submittal, potential wood charcoal samples shall first be submitted to International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. (IARII) for wood taxa identification. Only samples identified as short-lived endemic or Polynesian- introduced species will be selected for dating purposes. All stratigraphic profiles and plan view maps of identified historic properties (e.g., sites, cultural layers, features) shall be drafted for presentation in the final report. Photographs of project work, including overviews, and of individual profiles, cultural layers, and features shall also be included in the final report. CURATION The County of Kauai will be responsible for curation of all project-related materials and the final curation location shall be determined in consultation with the SHPD. REPORTING SCS shall submit for SHPD review and acceptance the following three reports: 1) an End- of-Fieldwork report summarizing the pre-construction fieldwork, 2) an End-of-Fieldwork report summarizing the construction archaeological monitoring fieldwork, and 3) a Mitigation report. If archaeological monitoring extends beyond 6 months, SCS shall provide SHPD a written letter report, with appropriate maps and photographs, summarizing the archaeological monitoring for that 6-month period. A similar report will be provided to SHPD for each subsequent 6-month period until completion. An End-of-Fieldwork Report meeting the requirements of HAR §13-279-5 shall be submitted to SHPD for review and acceptance prior to initiation of project construction. Pursuant to HAR §13-275-9(d), projects involving archaeological data recovery, the agency has the option to request an accelerated, two-step verification process, and per HAR §13-275-9(d)(1) Step 1, the agency shall submit documentation to SHPD indicating that the data recovery fieldwork has been successfully completed and, when SHPD indicates that the work has been adequately completed, SHPD shall send a letter to the agency stating that construction may proceed, with a written agreement specifying a date for submittal of the data recovery report [Mitigation Report]. 31 For this project, the Mitigation Report shall include: 1) the historical data recovery and 2) both components of the archaeological monitoring program, (a) pre-construction pedestrian survey and the further documentation of Site 50-30-09-2219, and (b) during construction archaeological monitoring. This report shall meet the requirements of HAR §13-279-5 and shall address with research questions and comply with all monitoring stipulations and documentation specified in the Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Report shall be submitted to submitted to SHPD for review and acceptance within 60 days of completion of archaeological monitoring fieldwork. This report shall also include a historic property description for each historic property (non-burial and burial) identified and/or further documented during archaeological monitoring (e.g., plantation roads, ditches, cultural layer, pit features, buried walls). The historic property description shall meet the criteria specified in HAR §13-276-5 (AIS reports), including an assessment of site integrity and site significance per HAR §13-275-6, Criteria a through e. In addition to the above, HAR §13-275-8(a)(3)(h)(3), historical data recovery plans shall conform to SHPD guidelines for historic documentation, and the qualifications for the historian directing this work shall comply with chapter 13-281. In the case of archaeological data recovery plans, they must meet the minimum standards as provided in chapter 13-278 and the qualifications of the principal investigator must comply with chapter 13-281. Further, a SHPD-issued archaeological permit is required to undertake this work, as provided in chapter 13-282, and the report must meet the minimum standards for monitoring and the report shall comply with HAR §13-279. 32 REFERENCES Bingham, H. 1848 Residence of Twenty-One Years in the Sandwich Islands. University of Michigan. California Soil Resource Lab 2008 Soilweb: An Online Soil Survey Browser, https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/, accessed September 3,2019, University of California at Davis. Chinen, Jon J. 1958 The Great Mahele, Hawaii's Land Division of 1848. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Copyright 1961 Jon Jitsuzo Chinen. Esaki Surveying & Mapping, Inc. 2013 Preliminary Topographic Map Showing Lot A Being Portions of Royal Patent 44685, Land Commission Award 7712, Apana 5 to M. Kekuanaoa, ‘ELE‘ELE, KŌLOA, KAUA‘I, HAWAI‘I, TMK: (4) 2-1-001: 054, prepared for :Community Planning & Engineering, Inc., Date of Survey: August 15, 2013. Folk, W.H. and H.H. Hammatt 1991 Archaeological Survey and Subsurface Testing of Land Commission Award 6647 at Kalaheo, Kaua`i, Hawai`i (TMK:4-2-3-02:22). Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kaneohe. Foote, D.E., E.L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens 1972 Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Science and University of Hawai`i Agricultural Experimentation Station. Washington D.C., U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Hammatt, H.H. 1990 Archaeological Reconnaissance of 72 Acres, Hanapepe, Kauai (TMK:2-1- 001, 003, and 027). Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kaneohe. Handy, E.S. and E.G. Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bishop Museum, Bulletin 233. Honolulu. Kamakau, S. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii, Revised Edition, Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. 33 Kame`eleihiwa, L. 1992 Native Lands and Foreign Desires: Pahea La E Pono Ai? Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu. Kirch, P.V., and M. Sahlins 1992 Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. McBryde Sugar Company 1899-1949 The Story of McBryde Sugar Co. Ltd 1899-1949. 1903 Map of McBryde Sugar Lands, Eleele, Kauai, H.T. 1903. On file at the Kaua‘i Historical Society. Macdonald, G.A. and Abbott, A.T. 1970 Volcanoes in the Sea. University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu. Macdonald, G.A., Abbot, A.T., Peterson, F.L. 1983 Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geology of Hawai‘i. University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu. McMahon, Nancy 1988 State of Hawai`i, Department of Land and Natural Resources Letter to File from Nancy McMahon Job # 87-9, TMK 2-4-04:5. Price, S. 1983 Climate. In Atlas of Hawaii, ed. By Warwick Armstrong. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. Pukui, M.K., and S.H. Elbert 1992 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Sandison, John 1956 Walter Duncan McBryde and Kukuiolono Park. Hamilton Library, Pacific Collections, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa. Star Bulletin 1935 Hawaiian Sugar Plantation History, No 36—McBryde Island of Kaua`i, November 2, 1935 The Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Plantation Archives University of Hawaii at Mānoa Library, Hawaiian Collection / Special Collections U.S. Geological Survey. 1998 Hanapepe Quadrangle, Hawaii [map]. U.S. Geological Survey. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Reston, Va: United States Department of the Interior, USGS, 1998. 34 Waihona `Aina Corporation 2013 Māhele Database, www.waihona.com. Kaneohe, HI. Wichman, Frederick B. 1998 Kaua`i Ancient Place Names and Their Stories, University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu, HI. Wilcox, C. 1996 Sugar Water: Hawai`i’s Plantation Ditches. University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu. A APPENDIX A: LCA DATA A2 *Eleele ili, Hanapepe Ahupua`a, District of Kona, Island of Kauai, Boundary Commission, Kauai, Volume 1, Pages 76-80* No. 16 1873, Boundary of the Ili of Eleele July 14, Received the following petition, Honolulu July 8th 1873 (No. 16) Honorable Duncan McBryde, Commissioner of Boundaries for the Island of Kauai Sir: In accordance with an act passed and approved on the 22 June 1868 relating to the settlement of boundaries I now make application to you to define and settle the boundaries of the Ili of Eleele belonging to the Estate of his late Majesty Kamehameha V situated in the Ahupuaa of Hanapepe on the Island of Kauai. I am. Sincerely, your Obedient Servant Jn O. Dominis, Administrator of Estate of his late Majesty, Kamehameha V. Thereupon appointed the 23 day of November A D 1873 for the hearing of said petition, and notified the leasee [sic] together with the leasee [sic] of Hanapepe and James Gay acting for the Crown of the time and plan of hearing. Opai, sworn, The boundary commences at a rocky point on the sea shore at the junction of the Kuiloa boundary and called Kupuhili and thence mauka along the river & boundary of Kuiloa to a place on river bank called Palemo thence to an auwai leading to a fishpond, Kualoau thence through rice fields to a hole in pali, Nihoawa thence up ridge to top and along top to Kanehoia thence along top of pali and down face to hole, Heana thence to old Heau juncture with Kuiloa at its mauka Northeast. corner, at a Pride of India tree, Kaluea thence across river to Kailiili thence up along old bed of river to Puuhau thence to Kuhumu thence to ridge stones crossing river, Waipa [page 77] Thence to head of auwai of Eleele at Akeahi thence up face of cliff to top of high rock and thence along pali to Rowell's stone wall and along stone wall to junction with the boundary of Wahiawa, thence along the Wahiawa boundary to the sea and round to place of commencement. The following natives were also sworn and gave similar testimony: Helela, Kaia, Kalepa A3 Decision Commences at a rocky point on the sea shore at the junction of the Kuiloa boundary and called Kupuhili and thence mauka along the Hanapepe river and boundary of Kuiloa to a place on river bank called Palemo, thence turning East to an old Auwai, that formerly led to a fishpond, Kualoau. Thence through rice fields to a hole in the side of the pali called Nihouawa. Thence up in a straight line to top of ridge and Mauka along ridge to Kaneohia. Thence continuing along top of ridge and pali to opposite and down to a large hole in side of cliff called Heana. Thence to an old Heau [heiau] when the boundaries again joins the Mauka or Northeast corner of Kuiloa at a place called Kaluea where there is a large Pride of India tree. Thence across the Hanapepe river to Kailiili. Thence up along the old bed of river to loi Puuhau. Thence to Kuhumu. Thence to ridge of stones across river called Waipa. Thence to head of auwai of Eleele at a place called Akeahi. Thence up face of high cliff to top of ridge and along ridge and pali to Rowell's stone wall, and following said stone wall to junction with the boundary of Wahiawa. Thence Makai along the Wahiawa boundary in all its windings and turnings to a rocky point on the sea shore called Kenakua and thence West along sea shore to Kupuhili the place of commencement. Duncan McBryde, Commissioner of Boundaries, Island of Kauai [page 78] Boundary of the Ili of Eleele Notes of Survey of the Land of Eleele on the Southeast Corner of the Ahupuaa of Hanapepe. The Southeast corner of this land commences at the Southwest corner of Wahiawa at a placed called Kenakua on the sea shore where the rock forms an arch through which the sea rushes. The boundary runs thence North 27? 48' East 2375 links to the centre of a pile of stones under which there is a kind of cave or tunnel at 95 links on this line from the top of the cliff there is a flat and a long stone let into the ground, and from whence the following places bear North 4? 43' East Ahuaeliku Peak [triangle] on the boundary of Hanapepe and Makawele North 32? 25' West on Puuhapele North 16? 12' West on Puualau's Peak [triangle] North 27? 52' East on Pohakea peak [triangle] on the boundary of Wahiawa and Hanapepe. The boundary continued from 2375 North 16? 39' East 1847 links to centre of large pile of stones, at 890 links on this line close to Makai side of road there are three stones let into the ground thus [3 dashes] on the line, North 30? 36' East 1410 links to place about 1650 links from the top of the pali (3) stones let into the ground thus [point of triangle marked] A4 North 36? 53' East 9035 links to three stones let into the ground thus [point of triangle marked] outside of old stone wall forming a kind of circle and an area about 1/4 acre, there is to the East a clump of Cactus or Papipi bushes, thence North 47? 23' East 5676 links to mauka side of Government road adjoining Mr. Rowell's land at stone fence which forms the Northeast corner of this land. Thence following along stone wall South 87? 34' West 470 links. Thence South 77? 32' West 323 links. Thence South 74? 32' West 567 links South 73? 40' West 1232 links. [margin note "repetition] Thence (South 74? 32' West 567 links South 72? 40' West 1232 links.) Thence North 77? 32' West 1118 links to the top of pali or terrace which is the Northwest corner of this land and Southwest corner of Mr Rowell's and from whence the following places bear Ahuailehu Peak [triangle] North 26? 56' West Puualani Peak [triangle] North 52? 27' West Pohaka peak [triangle] North 27? 42' E. The boundary runs thence South 50? 0' West 628 links along top of terrace South 22? 57' West 368 links. thence South 57? 49' West 1085 links. Thence South 70? 33' West 1946 links North 33? 25' West 620 links over on to the top of Keahi point. The last five courses are along the top of the pali or terrace which is the boundary. Returning to the place of commencement the boundary runs along the sea shore in a Northwest direction to a point on the [page 79] East side of the Hanapepe stream, at south corner of a land called Kuiloa, the property of her Majesty Queen Kapiolani, from thence the boundary runs along the land of Kuiloa North 65? 41' West 826 links along Kuiloa. Thence North 25? 52' West 800 links along Kuiloa to side of Kuleana owned by Keawe and called Kualoau, stones let into the ground here. Thence North 48? 21' East 288 links along to corner of Keawe Kuleana, Thence North 81? 20' East 2500 links crossing through rice plantation and up the face of pali and passing through cave called Nihouawa to the top of the terrace thence along top of terrace North 9? 47' East 700 links. Thence North 16? 52' East 776 links. Thence North 0? 3' West 690 links at 427 links on this line passes close to two (2) tall stones. Thence [North?] 21? 30' West 791 links to the top of Kaneohia pali. Thence North 82? 12' East 1115 links. Thence North 58? East 563 links. Thence [North?] 42? 30' East 1300 links along the top of pali. Thence North 2? 14' West 1050 links passing down the face of pali and through A5 cave called Heana and across flat to the North corner of Kuiloa. Thence North 29? 29' West 462 links crossing Hanapepe stream to its western bank and mauka side of Government road (where three stones thus [points of triangle])Thence North 57? East 407 links crossing an auwai thence North 70? 24' East 636 links crossing Hanapepe stream to its eastern bank. Thence North 60? 53' East 439 links. Thence South 84? 46' East 485 links North 62? 86' East 870 links crossing Hanapepe stream to a point where a small stream joins the main one. Thence North 61? 19' East 369 links crossing small stream and on to bank. Thence North 59? 14' East 418 links along bank and past place called Puuhau where a Tamarind and Mango tree are growing. Thence North 32? 21' East 62 links Along Kuaauna [?]. Thence North 51? 8' East 161 links along Kuauna. North 56? 2' East 210 links along Kuaauna. Thence South 77? 33' East 24 links along Kuaauna. Thence North 41? 38' East 412 links along Kuauna. Thence North 16? 23' East 175 links to bank of Auwai and called Kuhumu. Thence North 60? 37' East 538 links along bank of Auwai. Thence North 49? 25' East 447 links. Thence North 40? 58' East 269 links along bank of auwai to Hanapepe stream and called Waipaa. Thence North 49? 10' East 706 links crossing stream to its east bank. Thence North 65? 50' East 384 links along bank of stream. Thence North 82? 55' East 156 links along old bank of stream. [page 80] Thence South 85? 12' East 835 links along old water course to foot of Keahi Pali and containing an area of Ten Hundred and Seventy one acres more or less. This land is chiefly adapted for grazing purposes. It is very stony. There are in the valley a few acres here and there adapted and suitable for raising rice but to no great extent. There is somewhere in this land in this land [sic] a block owned by a native, but as the boundary has never been defined it is not possible to say to what extent. I hereby certify that this is a correct survey of Eleele as shown by the Crown Commissioner of Boundaries. James Gay, Surveyor Duncan McBryde, Commissioner of Boundaries, Island of Kauai [No. 16, Eleele ili, Hanapepe Ahupua`a, District of Kona, Island of Kauai, Boundary Commission, 1071 acres, 1873] B APPENDIX B: SHPD LETTERS B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 EXHIBIT “C” (Ditch Map) EXHIBIT “D” (2020 SHPD Approval Letter) DAvm y.IGE OOVEBNOROF EIAWAD STATE OF HAWAH DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOCRCES STATE mSTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDTOG 601 KAMOKILA BLVD.,STE 555 KAFOLEI,HI 96707 SUZANNE D.CASE CHABU'ERSON BOARD OF LANB AND NATURALRESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RBSOUBCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K.MASUDA FmsTDEFunr M.KALEO MANUEL DB'UTY OBECIOR -WATE& AQUATIC RESOURCES BOAHNO AND OCEAN BECBEATION BURHAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMKSION ON WATER BESOURCE MANAGEMEfW COWSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSBRVAT10N AND RESOURCES ENFORCHMEOT ENGINEBtING FORESTRY AND WILDUFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE OOMMISSION LAND STAIEFARKS April 16,2020 INREPLYREFERTO: LogNo.2020.00748 Doc.No.2004SL07 Archaeology Kanani Fu,Development Manager Kaua'i County Housing Agency CountyofKaua'i,StateofHawai*i Pi'ikoi Building,4444 Rice Street,Suite 330 LIhu'e,Hawai'i 96766 kananifu(%kauai.eov Dear Ms.Fu: SUBJECT:HRS Chapter 6E-8 mstoric Preservation Revlew - Request for Two-Step Verification Process Mitigation Plan Comprising Archaeological Data Recovery for Selected Feahires ofSite SO-30-09-2219 and Archaeologlcal Monltoring for the Lima OIa Workforce Housing Project Hanapepe Ahupua'a,District ofKona,Island ofKaua*i TMK (4)2-1-001:054 This letter provides the State Historic Preservation Division's (SHPD's)review of the revised draft plan titled, Mitigation Plan Comprising Archaeological Data Recovery for Selected Features of Site 50-30-09-2239 and ArchaeologicalMonitoringfortheLima Ola Workforce Housing Project,in Hanapepe Ahupua'a,District ofKona, Island ofKaua 'i,Hawai 'i [TMK:(4)2-1-001:054](Hazlett and Dega,Mmch 2020),and details the proposed two- step verification process under which fhe project will proceed in accordance with HAR §13-275-3(b)Step 6 and HAR§13-275-9(d). The Kaua'i County Housing Agency (KCHA)proposes to construct the Lima Ola Affordable Housing Development on County-owned land.The project area totals 78 acres,consisting ofa 75-acre housing area and a 3-acre detention basin expansion area.Previously KCHA determined fhe project to be a federal undertaking,as defined m 36 CFR 800.16(y)due to the anticipated use offederal fimding.Now,the project will proceed without federal funding and, fhus,is no longer subject to NHPA Section 106 consultatioa.However,as a County project mvolving County-owned land,the project is subject to historic preservation review under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)§6E-8. Because the County needs to be able to initiate construction prior to completion of some of fhe mitigation commitments,KCHA is requesting fhe project proceed under an accelerated,two-step verification process,that wouldatlowconsfructiontobegmfollowmg(l)coaq)letionof(a)a 100%surfacepedestriansiu-veyoffheentiretyof the project area and the ideiitification aad recording of any historic properdes not previously recorded diiring fhe archaeological mventory survey (AIS),mcluding but not limited to plantation roads and other plantation features;and (b)additional documentation offhe Site 50-30-09-2219 Pump 1 Ditch,which would include further description, mapping,and photographic documentation;and (2)SHPD's review and approval of aa End-of-Fieldwork Report meeting the requirements of HAR §13-279-5 which adequately summarizes these identification/documentation efforts in compliance with the revised (Hazlett and Dega,April 2020)mitigation plan. Ms.Kanaiii Fu April 16,2020 Page2 Pursuant to HRS §6E-8 md HAR §13-275-3(b)(l-5),KCHA has conducted the followmg five ofthe six historic preservation review procedural steps: (1)Identification and inventory to determine ifhistoric properties are present and,ifso,to identify and document (hem; (2)Evaluation of significance; (3)Effect detemunation; (4)Mitigation commitments;and (5)Detailed mitigation plan(s). The archaeological inventory survey (AIS),conducted in support of the project involved a pedestrian survey,a vehicle windshield survey,and excavation offive backhoe trenches.The AIS (Powell and Dega 2017)identified a siagle surface historic property,a segment of a former plantation irrigation ditch (Pump 1 Ditch)system.The Pump 1 Ditch was designated as State Inventory of Historic Places [SIHP]Site 50-30-09-2219.The ditch was assessed significant under Hawaii Admimstrative Rules (HAR)§13-275-6 Criterion d for its potential to provide mformation on fhe extensive McBryde Sugar Company's irrigation system and fhe development and successful plantation agriculture that dommated the area's landscape.The HRS 6E-8 project effect detemunation is Effect,withproposed mitigation commitments;the project will affect SIHP Site 50-30-09-2219 which was assessed to be a significant historic property,but which was not adequately documented during the AIS. SHPD accepted the AIS and concurred with the site sigmficance assessment,fhe project effect detenmnation,and the proposed mitigation committnents directed at addressing deficiencies in the AIS field documentation (June 5,2017; LogNo.2014.03107,Doc.No.1706SL01).The mitigation commitments are: (1)Archaeological datarecovery [HAR §13-275-8(a)(l)(C)]in the form of archaeological momtormg, and (2)Historical data recovery [HAR §13-275-8(a)(l)(D)] In a letter dated August 15,2019 (LogNo.2019.00798,Doc.No.1909DB02),SHPD requested that a single nritigation plan be submitted for review and acceptance.The revised mitigation plan (Hazlett aad Dega 2020)adequately sdpulates fhe mitigation measures tfaat will be implemented for Ae project,the documentation that wiU be produced,and the schedule for implementation and reporting.The revised mitigation plan is accepted as meeting the requirements ofHAR §13-279-4. Please send two haid copies of fhe documeDt,clearly marked FINAL,aloag wifh a copy of fhis review letter and a text-searchable PDF version to fhe Kapolei SHPD office,attention SHPD Library and to lehua.k.soares(%hawaii.gov. The mitigation plan stipulates fhe followmg: •SHPD and KCHA concurred oa the following mitigation commitmeats:(1)archaeological data recovery in the form of archaeological monitoring,pursuant to HAR §l3-275-8(a)(l)(C),and (2)historical data recovery in the form ofarchival research ofhistoric maps,reports,plantation records,and other resource materials,pursuant to [HAR §13-275-8(a)(l)(D)].Archaeological monitonng was proposed as a mitigation commitment because (1)only limited data were recorded for Site 50-30-09-2219 during the AIS field work,and (2)fhe AIS pedestrian survey and subsurface testing was limited in scope aiid coverage. •Archaeological momtormg will be conducted in two phases,one before construction and one during constmction. •The pre-construction portion offhe archaeological monitormg program will involve:(1)a 100%surface pedestnan survey ofthe entirety ofthe project area and the identification and recording ofany histonc properties not previously recorded,includmg but not linuted to plantation roads and ofher plantation features;and (2)additional documentation of the Site 50-30-09-2219 Pump 1 Ditch,which would include further description,mappmg,afld photographic documentation.Additional details regaidmg field methods are provided on page 33 offhe plan. Ms.Kanani Fu Aprill6,2020 Page3 •The durme consti'uction portion of the archaeological momtoring program will involve:(1) archaeological momtoring of all ground-dishM'bing activities,recordation of sta-atigraphic data and any subsurface historic properties encountered,photographic documentation of constmction activities,and archaeological deposits,features,and profiles (with N arrow and 1-m photo stick),GPS raapping data includmg GPS locations for all stratigraphic profiles;and (2)cross-section profiles and ofher appropriate documentation ofthe Site 50-30-09-2219 and other sites or features during constmction impact.The GPS data will be collected using a hand-held GPS unit capable of sub-meter accuracy and the locations ofall GPS data points will be recorded on a project site plan.Additional details regarding field methods are provided on pages 33 and 34. •The historical data recovery will be conducted to further identify aiid document Site 50-30-09-2219 as part of a larger irrigation system (which includes Pump 2 Ditch).This broader historic context will include locatmg,reviewing,and providing a visual and synthetic discussion using archival records, historical maps and pbotographs of this system,as well as constmction drawings and exammation of constmction design,methods,and materials (e.g.,concrete licmg,metal sluice gates,culvert/bridges across the ditches).The historical data recovery mitigation will be mitiated prior to construction and, when completed,will be integrated iato a single mitigation report,with the aichaeological monitoring mittgation. •The contracted archaeological fcm shall submit for SHPD review and acceptance (he following three reports;1)an End-of-FieIdwork report summarizmg the pre-constmction fieldwork,2)an End-of- Fieldwork report summarizing the archaeological monitoring fieldwork during construction,and 3)a Mitigation report. •The first End-of-Fieldwork Report shall meet the requirements ofHAR §13-279-5 for SHPD review and acceptance prior to mitiation ofproiect construction and fhe second shall be submitted within 30 days of completion ofthe archaeological monitormg conducted during constoruction. •The End-of-Fieldwork reports shall document compliance with the SHPD-accepted AMP and present the findings as specified in HAR §13-282-3(f)(l). •The Final Mitigation Report shall include:1)the historical data recovery and 2)bofh coniponents of fhe archaeological monitoring program,(a)pre-constmction pedestrian survey and the further documentation ofSite 50-30-09-2219,and (b)during archaeological momtormg of consta'uction.This report shall comply with HAR §13-275-8(h)(l)and meet the requirements of HAR §13-279-5,shaU address research questions,and comply with all monitoriug stipulations and documentation specified m fhe Mitigation Plan,The Mitigation Report shall be submitted to SHPD for review and acceptance within 60 days of completion of fhe archaeological momtoring fieldwork.This report shall also include a historic property description for each historic property (non-burial and burial)identified and/or further documeated durmg aichaeological monitoring (e.g.,plantation roads,ditches,cultural layer,pit features, buried walls).The historic property description shall meet the criteria specified in HAR §13-276-5 (AIS reports),mcluding an assessment of site integrity and site significance per HAR §13-275-6,Criteria a through e. Pursuant to HAR §13-275-9(d)(l),involves the following two steps: •Step 1,KCHA shaU submit the first End-of-Fieldwork Report to SHPD for review and acceptance followmg com.pletion oftihe pre-consta'uction portion ofthe momtorinjs field work.SHPD has 30 days to review the report and provide a response to KCHA.When SHPD determmes the report to be adeqiiate, SHPD shall notify of the report's adequacy and that constmction may proceed,with the understanding that Step 2 niust be completed to conclude the HRS 6E-8 historic preservation process. •Step 2,KCHA shall submit the Final Mitigation Report witiun 60 days following completion of the archaeological momtormg fieldwork.SHPD has 30 days to review the report and provide a response to KCHA.When SHPD determines the report to be adequate,SHPD shall notify offhe report's adequacy and that the HRS 6E-8 historic preservation process is concluded. Ms.Kanani Fu April 16,2020 Page4 SHPD looks forward to receiving written notification of initiation of the pre-constmction archaeological monitoring fieldwork. The KCHA is the office ofrecord for this project.Please maintam a copy ofthis letter with your environmental review records for this project. PIease contact Susaa A.Lebo,Aichaeology Branch Chief,at Susan.A.Lebo(%hawaii.gov for any questions or concems regarding this letter. Mahalo, /{IM Dciif/w^ Alan S.Downer,PhD Admimstrator,State Historic Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer cc:Suzanne D.Case,DLNR Chairperson,suzaime.case^hawaii.gov Robert K.Masuda,DLNR Deputy,robert.k.masuda(%hawaii.gov Kylan Dela Cruz,Kaua'i County Housing Agency,kdelacruz@kauai.gov Frank Camacho,Community Plannmg and Engiaeering,fcamacho(%cpe-hawaii.com Mike Dega,SCS,Inc.,mike(%scshawau.com Alex Hazlett,SCS,Inc.,alex@-scshawaii.com