Loading...
2022-05-10 Subdivision Agenda PacketPLANNING COMMISSION KAAINA S. HULL, CLERK OF COMMISSION RECF.T 1 EO '22 MAY -3 P 1 :31 _. .. 1 li" ·-0- ! 1 ::· · , ·_:'.1 I Y 1 :r1~ GERALD AKO, CHAIR MELVIN CHIBA, VICE CHAIR FRANCIS DEGRACIA, MEMBER Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes Section 92-3.7, V{.n¼J] '½opifj~q-<ft,:C:1)2_2,0, SLH 2021, the meetings of the County of Kaua 'i Planning Commission will be conducted as follows: • The meeting location that will be open to the public with audiovisual connection is: o Lihu'e Civic Center, Moikeha Building o Meeting Room 2A-2B o 4444 Rice Street, Lihu'e, Kaua'i, Hawai'i • In addition to attendance in-person, the public may also attend the meeting by phone using the "join by phone" telephone number provided on the agenda. • The public may also attend the meeting through Zoom using link provided on the agenda. • Also, the meeting will be live streamed and available as an archived meeting after completion at www .kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings. Please note that the livestream broadcast does not allow interaction between the viewer and Planning Commission . Also, video production services or enhancements of the recorded video will not be available. • Written testimony may be submitted on any agenda item and submitted to planningdepartment@kauai.gov or mailed to the Kauai County Planning Department 4444 Rice Street., Ste A473, Lihue, Hawaii 96766 . Written testimony received by the Planning Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be distributed to all Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting. Any testimony received after this time and up to the start of the meeting will be summarized by the Clerk of the Commission during the meeting and added to the record thereafter. • Oral testimony will be taken during the public comment portions of the meeting in-person at the public meeting location, by using the 'join by phone' number, or via Zoom link as an additional accommodation listed on the agenda. o All testifier audio and video will be disabled until it is your turn to testify. o Per the Planning Commission's and Chairs practice, there is three-minute time limit per testifier, per agenda item. o If there are temporary technical glitches during your turn to testify, we may have to move on to the next person due to time constraints; we appreciate your understanding . • If the remote telephone connection is lost and cannot be restored within 30 minutes during the meetings, the Planning Commission will continue all matters and reconvene at the next scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • LThu 'e, Hawai'i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA Tuesday, May 10, 2022 8:30 a.m. or shortly thereafter To Join by Phone: US : +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 720 707 2699 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656 Webinar ID: 898 7197 1718 Participant ID :# To Join by ZOOM Link: https:// us0Gweb.zoom.us/j/89871971718 Webcast Link: https://www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVALOFAGENDA D. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Subdivision Committee E. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD F. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission will accept written testimony for any agenda item herein. Written testimony indicating your 1) name, and if applicable, your position/title and organization you are representing, and 2) the agenda item that you are providing comment on, may be submitted in writing to planningdepartment@kauai.gov or mailed to the County of Kaua'i Planning Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 473, Lihu'e, Hawai'i 96766. Written testimony received by the Planning Department before 9:00 a.m. on Monday, May 9, 2022, will be distributed to all Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting. Written testimony received after 9:00 a.m. on Monday, May 9, 2022, will be summarized by the Clerk of the Commission during the meeting and added to the record thereafter. Oral testimony will be taken at the beginning of the meeting on any agenda item via the Zoom remote technology platform. Once you register for the meeting, you will receive the meeting link that is unique to each registrant that cannot be shared. It shall be the responsibility of the testifier to register for the Zoom meeting and ensure that the Zoom software is downloaded prior to the meeting. After oral testimony has been taken, members of the public should continue watching the meeting via the live stream link found at www.kauai.gov/webcastmeetings. G. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE-May 10, 2022 PAGE 2 I. NEW BUSINESS (For Action) 1. Preliminary Subdivision Map Approval a. Subdivision Application No. S-2022-9 (Tower Kaua'i Lagoons Sub 1, LLC.) Hokuala Resort Subdivision 1 Proposed 10-lot consolidation TMK: (4) 3-5-004: 100 -109 Kalapaki, Lihu'e, Kaua'i 1) Subdivision Report pertaining to this matter. b. Subdivision Application No. S-2022-10 (2014 Tower Kaua'i Lagoons Golf, LLC., Tower Kaua'i Lagoons Land, LLC., and Tower Kaua'i Lagoons Sub 7, LLC.) Hokuala Resort Subdivision lA Proposed 2-lot consolidation and resubdivision into 3-lots TMK: (4) 3-5-001: 027 & 168 Kalapaki, Lihu'e, Kaua'i 1) Subdivision Report pertaining to this matter. c. Subdivision Application No. S-2022-11 (Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity, Inc.) Proposed 6-lot consolidation TMK: (4) 4-3-009: 051 & 071 Waipouli, Kawaihau, Kaua'i 1) Subdivision Report pertaining to this matter. J. EXECUTIVE SESSION EXECUTIVE SESSION : The Commission may go into executive session on an agenda item for one of the permitted purposes listed in Section 92-S(a) Hawai'i Revised Statutes ("H .R.S."), without noticing the executive session on the agenda where the executive session was not anticipated in advance . HRS Section 92-7(a). The executive session may only be held , however, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present, which must also be the majority of the members to which the board is entitled . HRS Section 92-4 . The reason for holding the executive session shall be publicly announced. K. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: IF YOU NEED AN AUXILIARY AID/SERVICE, OTHER ACCOMMODATION DUE TO A DISABILITY, OR AN INTERPRETER FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF BOARDS & COMMISSIONS AT (808) 241-4917 OR ASEGRETl@KAUAI.GOV AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. REQUESTS MADE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME TO FULFILL YOUR REQUEST. UPON REQUEST, THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATE FORMATS SUCH AS LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE, OR ELECTRONIC COPY. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE -May 10, 2022 PAGE 3 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR JOOI A.HIGUCHI SAYECUSA,DEPUTY DIRECTOR OeREK S.K.KAWAKAMI.MA70R MtCHAELA.DAH1L1G,MANAGlNG DlRECTOR SUBDIVISION REPORT SUMMARY Action Reqiiired by P!anning Commission: Subdivision Permit No. Name ofApplicant(s) Consideration ofSubdivision Application No.S-2022-9 that involves a consolidation of ten (10)lots into one (1)lot. Application No.S-2022-9 TOWER KAUAI LAGOONS SUB 1,LLC. PROJECT INFORMATION MapTitle Consolidation of Lots 100 to 109,Inclusive as shown on Kaua'i County Subdivision Mumber S-2008-24 into Lot 110 being a portion of RoyalPatent 4480 Land Commission Award 7713,Apana 2,Part 1 to V.Kamamalu includin^ Designation of Easements KW-1 to KW-4,Inclusive affecting Lot 110 and Cancellatlon ofthe following Easements E-l to E-6,Inclusive;also C,D,F,and G,as shown on Kaua'i Subdivision File Number S-2008-24 and Portions of Easement UE-1 as shown on Kaua'i Subdivision File Mumber S-2010-11 at KalapakT,Lihue,Kaua'i,Hawaii. Tax Map Key(s)3-5-004:100 -109 Area:1 6.2 acres Zoning:Residential District (R-4) State Land Use District(s): Urban General Plan Designation: Resort/GolfCourse AGENCYCOMMENTS <|COKPublicWorks ^COK Water: a Other(s) 04.21.2022 Q State DOT-Highways: pending 1X1 State Health: DLNR-SHPD: pending pending EXISTING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY(S) Road Name Existing Width Required Width Pavement YES N0 Reserve Kahilipulu Way (Private Roadway)44 feet 44 feet a Ho olaule'a Way (Private Roadway)56 feet 56 feet a a a APPLICA8LE FEES Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Park Dedication M/A N/A Appraisal Report Sequired N/A MAY 1 O 2022 III.EVALUATION The proposed subdivision consolidates ten (10)existing lots into one (1)lot within the County Residential (R-4)zoningdistrict.The projectwas originallya partofthe Kaua'i Lagoons Resort Single-Family Subdivisions 1 and 4,previously processed through Subdivision Application No. S-2008-24 that was approved by the County of Kaua'i Planning Commission on December 9, 2008. Itshould be noted that the subject subdivision was part ofa recentzoningamendmentfZA- 2021-3)that involved reclassifying approximately 14.2 acres of land that was situated within the County Residential (R-2)zoning district into the Residential (R-4)zoning district.The legislation was adopted by the Kaua'i County Council on December 15,2021 and is referenced as Ordinance PM-2021-416. The overall intent ofthe zoning amendment and proposed consolidation is to amend existing property boundaries to accommodate a proposed development involving 24 single-family residential units that will be further partitioned through the Condominium Property Regime (CPR)process.The proposed development is part of an overall project to provide a total of 42 single-family residential units in accordance with the Kaua'i Lagoons Resort Affordable Housing Agreement.The remaining 18 single-family residential units will be located on Subdivision 1A of Hokuala Resort that is being processed through Subdivision Application No. S-2022-10.It should be noted that the overall boundary of Subdivision 1 will not be affected. The Applicant should be aware that the approved construction plans for Subdivision 1 will need to be amended to accommodate the revised site layout.This indudes any water, drainage,electrical and telephone utilities and facilities.In addition,since the application does not create additional lots,there will be no assessment of an Environmental Impact Assessment Fee and Park Dedication Fee. In further evaluating the project,it will be subject to the requirements that were imposed through the Planning Commission's action on August 11,2009,involving SMA Use Permit SMA (U)-2005-OS,Project Development Use Permit U-2005-26,Use Permit U-2005-25,Variance Permit V-2005-7,and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30. Native Hawaiian Tra^ditional an^_Cultyral Rights,Practicss,and Resources The Applicant has submitted an updated "Cultural Impact Assessment for Hokuala Petition Area,KalapakTAhupua'a,LThu'e District,Kaua'i TMKs:[4]3-5-001:027 por.,168 por.and 177 and [4]3-5-004:100-109,"dated September 2021. Cultural Surveys Hawaii,Inc.(CSH),contacted 29 Hawaiian organizations,agencies,and community members as well as cultural and lineal descendants in orderto identify individuals with cultural expertise and/or knowledge ofthe project area and vicinity.Four parties responded and three parties met with CSH for a more in-depth interview.The concerns that were raised include:1)protecting access for gathering,fishing,and cultural sites along the shoreline;2)continuing to allow Kama'aina to traverse the shoreline;3)traffic congestion on roads in the immediate vicinity of the project area;4)establishing a walking and/or biking 2 1 Page S-2022-9;Subdivision Report Tower Kaua'i Lagoons Sub 1,LLC. 05.10.2022 path out of the lane of traffic on one or both sides of the road that bisects the project;5) access to waiking paths in the vicinity of the project area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to walking paths for exercising;and 6)concerns with the need for the LThu'e Water Treatment Plant to be upgraded to accommodate a higher-density subdivision. In evaluating the concerns noted above,gathering,fishing,and access rights will be minimally affected by this subdivision as access throughout the Hokuala Resort Development will remain open to the public through its network roadway and public accesses. As represented,no culturally significant resources were identified in the project area and presently,there is no documentation or testimony indicating traditional and customary rights practiced in the immediate vidnity.There are no records of major trails running through the project area. Based on the Applicant's consultation with kama'aina and community members,and evaluating historical information that was available to the department,the department finds that the proposed development should have no impact on any known Hawaiian traditional or customary practices forthe following reasons: o There are no known traditional or customary practices of native Hawaiians that are presently occurring within the Project Site. o There are no known special gathering practices taking place within any portion ofthe Project Site. o The Project will not detrimentally affect access to any streams;access to the shoreline or other adjacent shoreline areas;or gathering along any streams,the shoreline or in the ocean. o There are no known religious practices taking place within the Project Site. o There are no known pre-contact cultural or historic sites or resources located within the Project Site. o There are no known burials within the Project Area. Any unforeseen impacts to traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights,practices,and resources in the project area should be mitigated. IV.RECOMMENDATION 3 1 Pa ge S-2022-g;Subdivision Report Tower Kaua'i Lagoons Sub 1,LLC. 05.10.2022 H kpproval D Denied D Approval D Denied Tentative Approval subject to all requirements as noted on the follow pages: All conditions have been complied with &^^^^^Director of Planning Date V.AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 1.Requirements of the Planning Department: a.An updated preliminary title report for the existing lot shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. b.All existing and proposed easements,if any,shall be identified in the deed descriptions ofthe affected lots,draft copies ofwhich shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. c.Pursuant to Section 9-3.8fb)of the Subdivision Ordinance,Kaua'i County Code (1987),the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department an electronic record (digitized format)ofthe final subdivision map(s)on disk for record keeping purposes prior to final subdivision approval. d.The Applicant shall revise and update the approved construction plans for Subdivision 1 (S-2008-24)and prepare and obtain construction plan approvals for the revised subdivision layout to accommodate the proposed residential development.This includes any water,drainage,elertrical and telephone utilities and facilities,and either construct the same or post a surety bond for completion, e.Prior to final subdivision approval,the Applicant shall comply with the applicable conditions/requirements of SMA Use Permit SMA (U)-2005-08,Project Development Use Permit U-2005-26,Use Permit U-2005-25,Variance Permit V- 2005-7,and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2005-30.The Applicant shall provide the department an updated status report on the compliance ofthe conditions. f.The proposed subdivision is situated in close proximity to the LThu'e Airport and will be impacted by the aircraft noise nuisances from this facility.As such,the subdivider shall establish covenants or disclosure documents to inform potential buyers within the project area that the proposedlots are subject to aircraft noise nuisances.Draft copies ofthe documents shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 2.Requirements of the Department of Public Works (DPW): a.The portion of Kapule Highway shown on the location map has been renamed to "Kaua'i Veterans Memorial Highway."Please change this label on the map. 4 1 Pa ge S-2022-9;Subdivision Report Tower Kaua'i Lagoons Sub 1,LLC. 05.10.2022 3.Requirementsofthe Department ofWater (DOW): a.The subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the Department of Water,if any,prior to final subdivision approval.The subdivider shall be notified upon receipt oftheirreport. 4.Requirements of the Department of Health (DOH): a.The subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the State Department of Health,if any,prior to final subdivision approval.The subdivider shall be notified upon receipt oftheir report. 5.The Applicant is advised the should any archaeological or historical resources be discovered during ground disturbing/construction work,all work in the area ofthe archaeological/historical findings shall immediately cease and the applicant shall contact the State Department of Land and Natural Resources,Historic Preservation Division and the Planning Department to determine mitigation measures. 6.The Applicant is advised that prior to and/or during construction and use additional conditions may be imposed by government agencies.Should this occur,the applicant shall resolve these conditions with the respective agency(ies). The Planning Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department's final recommendation in view ofthe forthcoming public hearing process scheduled for May 10,2022 whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision-making.The entire record should include but not be limited to: a.Pending government agency comments; b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and c.The Applicant's response to stafPs report and recommendation as provided herein. /4-^XL (ENNETH A.ESTES Planner 5 1 Page S-2022-9;Subdivision Report TowerKaua'i LagoonsSub 1,LLC. 05.10.2022 COLlNTYOFKALiA-I PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4444 R1CE STREET.SUITE A473 LIHU'E.HAWAI-1 16766 (808)241-4050 SLL8DI V1LSION AFPL_LCATI_ON RQUTIiNCL roitM OATE:M.1rch22,2022 Subdivision IVlap Review ;in<i Approviil I'i.EQLJEST: K|Preliminarv a Prr-Final Q 1-inal I1 Extt'nsion SL:D[VIS10N AI'PLICATION N0:Subdivision Permir N0.S-2022-", Owner(s)/Applicant(s):"I'ower Kauai Lagoons Sub I,LLC Name ofSurveyor/^ngineer/Authorized Agent:|Rebecci'i Candiliisa Tnx Map Key:"I'ax Map key:(4)3-5-00-1:100 to 109 |Assigned to:Keiinv Improvements: Route To: COMMENTS IC'uff»H,-n/DM Du/t';4 21 ':022 ): COMMENTS t'rom DPW Enaineerine:PW#03.22.09; The portion ofKapule Highvvay shovvn on the location map has been renamed to be "K-auai V'eterans Memorial Highwav."Please change this Eabel on the map. Sincerelv. Digitally signed by Michael Moule Date:3022.04.2]10:07:57-lO'OO' Michael Moule.P.E. Chief.En^ineering Division ~s DP\\-Eniiinferinii ~a [)epartment ol'T rjnsportation -STP~0 DPU'-Solid Wasle ~D DOT-High\\y\.Kauui~w DP\Vr-WastL*wat^r ~w Stjtt;DtfpartnitfntofHejlth"D Fire-Departmtfnt ~w State Historic Preser^alion Divi^ion v Depanment ot'Parks &Rricreatiun ~0 V'H Sra Gnini~w Counh'Kousiny-Agencv ~w ['.S.Pustal Department"D' laipRC -a (-)ther:~w C'oiinl}Water Departmrint~w Count\Transportation Agcncv 7y t.A U t /.-- "^-°"v"+ :::'^ PI-W SHOWIWC CONSOUDAT10N 0-- LOTS 100 TO 109,il-JCLUSIVE AS SHOWN ON KMM cowTf sueoMsiow NUMBI:R 3-2008.24 (MTO LOT nt; ^' DESIGNATfON OF-'EASEMEMIi KW-1 TO KW-4.[NCLUSWE AFFECTING 1.0T 110 AHU CANCELLftTION OF THE FOLLOWtl'IG E'ASEMENES £-1 TO E-6,INCLUSIVE;ALSO C.D,F,AND G AS SHOWH ON KAUAI SUBOMSION FILE NUMSER S-^UUB-r+ ANU POffl'IONS OF EASEME^T UE-1 AS SHOWN CIN KAUAI SUBUIVISIOH flLE WUM8ER S.-^OlU-ll -^—.u^ /'',?-:aE5-^.,l. L'^3!iT^»<!p- itfK—J—^—1—^l—iiU—i-.. '"'•^.. tZ:U^JL'^=rJ O‘ahu Office P.O. Box 1114 Kailua, Hawai‘i 96734 Ph.: (808) 262-9972 Fax: (808) 262-4950 www.culturalsurveys.com Maui Office 1860 Main St. Wailuku, Hawai‘i 96793 Ph.: (808) 242-9882 Fax: (808) 244-1994 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 Prepared for Hōkūala Prepared by Kellen Tanaka, B.A. David W. Shideler, M.A. and Hallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. Kailua, Hawai‘i (Job Code: KALAPAKI 7) September 2021 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. i Management Summary Reference Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 (Tanaka, Shideler, and Hammatt 2021) Date September 2021 Project Number(s) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. (CSH) Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Agencies County of Kaua‘i Land Jurisdiction Private, Hōkūala Project Proponent Private, Hōkūala Project Location The project area is in the southeast portion of the Hōkūala Resort lands approximately 500 m (1/4 mile) inland (north) of Nāwiliwili Bay, about midway between Kūki‘i Point and Ninini Point and approximately 300 m west of the south end of the coastal runway of Līhu‘e Airport. The project area is depicted on a portion of the 1996 Lihue quadrangle U.S. Geological map (Figure 1) and several other figures. Project Description The proposed project is a Petition for County Zoning Amendment to amend the zoning designation from R-2 to R-4 for an inland portion of the Hōkūala Resort property to allow for higher density development at the proposed Subdivisions 1 and 1A (14.2 acres in the aggregate) while significantly reducing the allowable density of a RR-10 parcel (approximately 2.6 acres) in the vicinity to R-2. As a result of this petition, there is no increase to the entitlement cap of 772 units for the Hōkūala Resort. Project Acreage The project area is approximately 16.8 acres or 6.80 hectares Document Purpose This cultural impact assessment (CIA) was prepared to comply with the State of Hawai‘i’s environmental review process under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §343, which requires consideration of the proposed project’s potential effect on cultural beliefs, practices, and resources. Through document research and cultural consultation efforts, this report provides information compiled to date pertinent to the assessment of the proposed project’s potential impacts to cultural beliefs, practices, and resources (pursuant to the Office of Environmental Quality Control’s Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts) which may include traditional cultural properties (TCPs). These TCPs may be significant historic properties under State of Hawai‘i significance Criterion e, pursuant to Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-275-6 and §13-284-6. Significance Criterion e refers to historic properties that “have an important value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. ii at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts—these associations being important to the group’s history and cultural identity” (HAR §13-275-6 and §13-284-6). The document may also support the project’s historic preservation review under HRS §6E and HAR §13-275 and §13-284. The document is intended to support the project’s environmental review and may also serve to support the project’s historic preservation review under HRS §6E-8 and HAR §13-284. This Cultural Impact Assessment study was prepared to support the Petition for County Zoning Amendment Results of Background Research Background research for this study yielded the following results, presented in approximate chronological order: 1. The original moku (district) for the study area covered in this report was Puna, which means “spring of water.” Līhu‘e (literally translated as “cold chill;” Pukui et al. 1974:132) became the modern political name for the traditional moku of Puna. According to Ethel Damon (1931:402), the name Līhu‘e was first applied to this area by Kaikio‘ewa, Governor of Kaua‘i in the 1830s, perhaps after Kaikio‘ewa’s upcountry residence on the island. This late derivation of the name has been recently disputed (Griffin 2012:46). 2. The ahupua‘a (traditional land division usually extending from the mountains to the sea) of Kalapakī is described as a land division and a beach in Pukui et al. (1974:75), but no meaning is presented. Pukui and Elbert (1986:122) define the word kalapakī (with a small “k”) as “double-yoked egg, Kaua‘i.” Kalapakī was also the name of a village located along the coast. According to Hammatt and Creed (1993:22), Land Commission documents demonstrate that the “village of Kalapakī” was synonymous with the “‘ili [traditional land division smaller than an ahupua‘a] of Kuuhai.” According to a collection of Kaua‘i place names by Kelsey (n.d.), Kalapakī was also known in traditional times as “Ahukini.” 3. The traditional kaʻao (legends) mention numerous place names associated with the area. The place name Līhu‘e is mentioned in the “Legend of Uweuwelekehau” (Fornander 1918-1919:5:196– 197). In the mo‘olelo (story), “The Goddess Pele,” two place names in the vicinity of the present project area are mentioned, Ninini and Ahukini (Rice 1977:14). In “The Menehunes,” Ninini is also mentioned as a favorite place for the sport of jumping off cliffs into the sea (Rice 1977:44). 4. In pre-Contact and early historic times, the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī was permanently inhabited and intensively used. At the coastal areas were concentrations of permanent house sites Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. iii and temporary shelters, heiau (pre-Contact place of worship), ko‘a and kū‘ula (both types of relatively small shrines dedicated to fishing gods), and numerous trails. The kula (dry inland areas) of these ahupua‘a contained native forests and were cultivated with crops of wauke (paper mulberry, Broussonetia papyrifera), ‘uala (sweet potatoes, Ipomoea batatas), and ipu (bottle gourd). 5. There were three heiau in Kalapakī, Ahukini (sometimes written Ahuhini) near Ahukini Point, Ninini Heiau near Ninini Point, and an unnamed heiau near Kūki‘i Point. Ninini Heiau (SIHP No. 100) and Ahukini Heiau (SIHP No. 101) were both described by Bennett as totally destroyed. Damon (1931:398) lists four heiau, Kalapakī, Ahukini, Ninini, and Pohako‘ele‘ele, so it is possible that the unnamed heiau was called Pohako‘ele‘ele. 6. Traditional fishing villages were once located near the seashore at Kalapakī, east and north (around and up the coast) of Kalapakī Beach (500 m to the west of the present study area). Loko (fishponds) and small drainages were inland of these settlement areas. 7. Land Commission documents indicate a land use pattern that may be unique to this part of the island, or to Kaua‘i in general, in which lo‘i (irrigated taro patch) and kula lands are described in the same ‘āpana (lot), with houselots in a separate portion. In most places, kula lands are defined as drier landscapes, and they do not typically occur next to, and among, wetter lo‘i lands. Also, according to Hammatt and Creed (1993:23), “there are several [LCA] references to other lo‘i next to the beach which indicate wetland cultivation extending right to the shoreline.” This is another type of land use that seems to be fairly unique to Kaua‘i. 8. Victoria Kamāmalu was awarded the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī under Land Commission Award (LCA) 7713:2. The Victoria Kamāmalu award (LCA 7713:2 part 7) includes all the land within the present project area. There were no commoner awards anywhere nearby. The locations of kuleana or commoner land claims of the Māhele (1848-1853) in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a are clumped in two areas, along the floodplain of the north side of Nāwiliwili Stream (just back from the coast, south of Rice Street) and on the shore, back from Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay. 9. There were 13 claims in Kalapakī, of which 12 were awarded. The cultivation of taro (kalo; Colocasia esculenta), the major staple, was along the Nāwiliwili Stream flood plains and along the smaller brooks of Kalapakī and Koenaawa where there were Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. iv springs. The house lots in Kalapakī were at the shore. The only crop other than kalo mentioned specifically in Kalapakī is wauke. Additionally, more than one claim in Kalapakī mentions the fishponds of Koenaawa. Two streams—Koenaawa nui and Koenaawa iki—are identified in the claims but neither is named on current maps. Most Kalapakī claimants lived, however, at the shore in the “kulana kauhale” or village of Kalapakī, located behind Kalapakī Beach on Nāwiliwili Bay. Several of the claimants describe their village house lots in relation to the fishponds of Koenaawa (Koenaawainui and Koenaawaiki). There is also a description of the muliwai or estuary of Koenaawanui. 10. Following the death of Victoria Kamāmalu in 1866, her lands were inherited by Princess Ruth Ke‘elikōlani. In 1870, Ke‘elikōlani sold large portions of her Kalapakī and Līhu‘e lands to William Hyde Rice of Lihue Plantation. William Hyde Rice made subsequent land purchases from Princess Ruth in 1879 including a large makai (seaward) section of the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī and there conducted the Lihue Ranch. In later years he sold most of this land to the plantation (Damon 1931:747). 11. A State Archives document listed only as Land Matters, Document 11 mentioned that the konohiki (headman of an ahupuaʻa land division under the chief) had proprietary rights to fish caught in the bay. Document No. 11 lists ana‘e (mullet; Mugil cephalus) as the protected fish of Hanamā‘ulu, and uhu (parrot fish; Scarus perspicillatus) for Kalapakī. These protected fish are part of the konohiki resources, which he or she would use to meet his/her obligations to superior chiefs, governors/ governesses and the King or Queen. 12. Pigs, sweet potatoes, and salt, among other items, were traded to the earliest sailing vessels arriving in Hawai‘i (post 1794) and it is likely that in Līhu‘e District, as elsewhere, the production of these items increased beyond the needs of the immediate family and their expected contributions to their chiefs during this period of early visiting voyagers. 13. The plantation at Līhu‘e was first established in 1849 by Henry A. Pierce; Judge Wm. Little Lee, the chairman of the Land Commission; and Charles Reed Bishop. It became Lihue Plantation in 1850. A steam-powered mill was built in 1853 at Lihue Plantation, the first use of steam power on a Hawaiian sugar plantation. Another important innovation at Līhu‘e was created in 1856, when William H. Rice completed the 10-mile- long Hanamā‘ulu Ditch, the first large-scale irrigation project for any of the sugar plantations (Moffatt and Fitzpatrick 1995:103). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. v 14. Plantation labor was brought in from many countries and these new laborers brought some of their own cash crops. Rice production was an off-shoot industry of the sugar plantation in the 1870s, since many of the new Chinese plantation workers began to grow rice for themselves and then for trade with California. Japanese immigrants, by the end of the nineteenth century did the same and took over many of the Chinese rice paddies. In general, rice planters used abandoned taro fields, but made the patches larger than the traditional taro lo‘i. This is probably true of the Kalapakī floodplain. 15. A series of maps and aerial photographs indicate the project area was a sea of commercial sugar cane between 1910 and 1965 16. During the second half of the twentieth century the project area was a portion of Kalapakī lands transformed by resort development on Kaua‘i. The Kauai Surf Hotel on Kalapakī Bay was developed by Inter-Island Resorts in 1960. Then in 1970, the adjacent Kauai Surf Golf Course opened. Subsequently, in the mid-1980s, these Kalapakī properties were sold or leased to Hemmeter-VMS Kauai Company, which began development of the Westin Kauai Lagoons Resort on approximately 850 acres. In 1991, the Kauai Lagoons Resort was sold to Shinwa Golf Kabushiki Kaisha, which operated the resort and golf courses under Kauai Lagoons Resort Company, Ltd. The approximately 700-acre property, including the present project area, was acquired by Kauai Development LLC and KD Golf Ownership LLC in 2004 and the resort prospers into the twenty-first century as “Hōkūala.” Results of Community Consultation CSH attempted to contact 29 Hawaiian organizations, agencies, and community members by mail, e-mail and telephone. To date CSH has received four responses. Consultation was received from community members as follows: 1. Jan TenBruggencate, President, Mālama Hule‘ia 2. Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos, President of Na Kuleana O Kanaka Oiwi & Puna Moku representative of the Aha Moku O Manokalanipo 3. Dr. Carl Berg, ecologist and owner of Hawaiian Wildlife Tours 4. Anonymous Kama‘āina of Līhu‘e As a standard practice it is recommended that: 1. Project construction workers and all other personnel involved in the construction and related activities of the project should be informed of the possibility of inadvertent cultural finds, including human remains. In the event that any potential historic properties are identified during construction activities, all activities should Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. vi cease in that area and the SHPD should be notified pursuant to HAR §13-280-3. In the event that iwi kūpuna (Native Hawaiian skeletal remains) are identified, all earth moving activities in the area should stop, the area cordoned off, and the SHPD notified pursuant to HAR §13-300. 2. In the event that iwi kūpuna and/or cultural finds are encountered during construction, cultural and lineal descendants of the area should be consulted to develop a reinterment plan and cultural preservation plan for proper cultural protocol, curation, and long- term maintenance. Analysis The following analysis is a summary of Section 9.4. Based on information gathered from the cultural and historical background, and community consultation for this project, no culturally significant resources were identified within the project area. At present, there is no documentation or testimony indicating traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights are currently being exercised “for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778” (Hawai‘i State Constitution, Article XII, Section 7) within the project area. While no cultural resources, practices, or beliefs were identified as currently existing within the project area, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a maintains a rich cultural history in the exercise of traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights within the project ahupua‘a. The archaeological record in Līhu‘e District indicates a date range of ca. AD 1100 to 1650 for early Hawaiian occupation (Walker, Kajima and Goodfellow 1991). As pointed out by Franklin and Walker (1994), important ahupua‘a with large rivers lie north and south of Kalapakī (Franklin and Walker 1994:17). Adjacent to the north, Hanamā‘ulu offered an extraordinary bay and an extensive and broad river flood plain. To the south are located the broad Hulē‘ia River Valley and the ahupua‘a of Ha‘ikū. Kalapakī Ahupua‘a thus may have had less varied pre-Contact resources than the larger neighboring ahupua‘a. In pre-Contact Hawai‘i, the coastal zone of Kalapakī and Hanamā‘ulu was the locus for permanent habitation, heiau, and numerous major cross-ahupua‘a and inter-ahupua‘a trails. There were fishponds at Kalapakī, and major garden activities were within the valley floodplain on the north side of Nāwiliwili River. In the dryland areas (kula) crops of wauke, sweet potatoes, gourds and trees were likely but no traces of these crops have been documented to date. The Māhele records, archeological surveys and ethno-historical accounts confirm that in traditional Hawaiian times, habitation was tightly focused just back from the shoreline of Kalapakī Beach at Nāwiliwili Bay with intensive irrigated agriculture focused on the north Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. vii side of the Nāwiliwili stream valley. At the shoreline, activities included the farming of fishponds and homes. Mauka, the Nāwiliwili stream valley contained the ahupua‘a lo‘i kalo and some wauke gardens. During the mid-nineteenth century, the Māhele claims describe small villages just back from the shore at both Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay and neighboring Hanamā‘ulu Bay. The claims report a fishpond at the shore in Kalapakī. The total number of lo‘i mentioned in Kalapakī was 56, the number of houses was 9, and there were 5 kula lands mentioned (Mitchell et al. 2005:26). All known heiau for Kalapakī Ahupua‘a (there is evidence of four: Ninini, Ahukini, Pohakoelele, and one at Kūki‘i Point) were immediately coastal. The coastal zone distribution of heiau seems quite normative for Kaua‘i ahupua‘a other than those of Wailua and Waimea. There are several references to kapa (bark cloth) in the legends, one in particular where the tapa is being made to give as a wedding gift. There may well have been additional wauke plantations on the plains in the pre-Contact period in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. Archaeological remains of a terrace and midden along the Kalapakī coast (Hammatt 1998) indicate other, at least intermittently used, shoreline habitations existed that were not included in the Māhele records. Shorelines are also traditional burial areas. Inland, in areas of Kaua‘i like Kilohana Crater, birds were caught for food (Damon 1931, story of Lauhaka). Typically, kuleana holders would have had access to wood and herbs in the uplands and in the mountains the bird catchers and canoe makers would have had temporary shelters but the present records are silent on these activities for Kalapakī. The coastal plains, back from the coast and away from potable water, like the present project area, were typically less intensively utilized in traditional Hawaiian times. Utilization likely focused on dryland cultigens – such as sweet potatoes, dryland taro, wauke, ti leaf, and possibly banana, particularly in more mauka areas. Timber and medicinal plants may also have been available for gathering. Annual rainfall at the neighboring Līhu‘e Airport station is 997 mm (39.25 inches) (Giambelluca et al. 2013) which is suggested to be marginal for non-irrigated agriculture. The rainfall gradient is substantial; with Kilohana (the Kukaua Station, Giambelluca et al. 2013) receiving annual rainfall of 2,490 mm. Thus dry land planting areas further mauka were almost certainly more attractive. We have little detail on the environment before Lihue Plantation activities, but the Lt. George G. Jackson (RM 902) description of the immediate vicinity as “Level grass Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. viii land with volcanic boulders” seems likely. The inland coastal plains may have been savannah lands where grasses like pili were harvested for construction purposes. There are no records of major trails running through the project area. Such trails within Kalapakī would likely have been located more mauka or makai quite close to the shoreline. An Archaeological Assessment (Hammatt 1990), identified no archaeological resources in the project area. Historical records, maps and photographs, and archaeological fieldwork support that sugarcane cultivation and development of plantation infrastructure was the dominant land use within the project area and surrounding lands. The documented pattern in the vicinity (Shideler and Hammatt 2021:30) is that historic properties are immediately coastal. It is certainly possible that there was traditional Hawaiian and early historic period land use further inland and that the traces of this were simply lost as a result of decades of intensive sugar cane cultivation but it seems that the pattern of traditional Hawaiian land use was very much in the Hanamā‘ulu stream valley (well to the northwest) and Nāwiliwili stream valley (well to the west) where the LCAs overwhelmingly were, and immediately along the coast particularly back of Kalapakī Beach at Nāwiliwili Bay. Ms. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake, kama‘āina of Kalapakī and cultural specialist, was interviewed by CSH on October 20, 2005. When Ms. Lovell-Obatake spoke of archaeological sites she spoke of “the coast and Kalapakī Point” (Mitchell et al. 2005:23) Seemingly no burials have been previously documented within a kilometer of the project area (Shideler and Hammatt 2021:33). Wendell C. Bennett briefly references burials in his “Site 103. Dune burials. In the sand dunes that run along the shore halfway between Hanamaulu and Wailua River are many burials.” (1931:125). This locus of burials is well to the north. At least some burials would be expected at Kalapakī but these would be expected to be almost exclusively in the Jaucus sands immediately adjacent to the coast. Both the distance from the coast and the Lihue silty clay (LhB) and Lihue gravelly silt clay (LIB) soils of the project area (Foote et al. 1972:) would not have encouraged burial there. Ms. Lovell-Obatake specifically noted that she “never heard of any burials in the vicinity of the present area of study” (Mitchell et al. 2005: 23). An anonymous kama‘āina of Līhu‘e who spoke with CSH stated that in traditional times, the beaches around Kaua‘i were “fighting grounds.” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. ix They noted that the “old ancient Hawaiian bones of warriors” have been encountered on the beaches by fishermen who will cover them back up. Activities associated with faunal resources have and continue to be focused on marine resources. Ms. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake expressed her concern for marine resources and Ms. Sabra Kauka for fisherman using the coast (Mitchell et al. 2005: 24-25). Ms. Kauka also expressed her concern for Shearwater birds: Fourthly, I go to mālama the rare Shearwater birds that lay their eggs in the rock walls, boulders and bushes along the coast. I have been taking my 3rd and 4th grade students from Island School to count, capture, weigh, measure, and return the chicks to their nesting sites for the past two years. We have a special permit from the Department of Land & Natural Resources, State Forestry Division, to do this work. Last year we counted 38 chicks there. This year, unfortunately, a predator has eliminated them. We don’t know what predator it is but we couldn’t find any chinks. This bird is very important to me and my students because it teaches them the connection between the kai and the ‘aina. It teaches them that what humans do at sea and on the land affect other life on earth. If the birds have nowhere to nest, their species will die. If they have not fish and squid to eat, if man overharvests the ocean, the birds will have nothing to eat. They are an indicator that there is still fish in the sea for them and for us. There is still land for them and for us. [Mitchell et al. 2005: 24] The Shearwater nesting is understood as immediately coastal. No evidence of sea bird nesting has been reported for the project area. No accounts of hunting have been identified in association with this project area. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also expressed their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. They noted that the beaches were more accessible in the “old days,” and they would visit the shoreline with their ‘ohana to camp and fish. They also recalled that their grandfather, who was a fisherman, could “fish all over” in the “old days.” They pointed out that access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes that have been built along the shoreline in areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu.” These areas have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They also noted that presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. x the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. The project area is maintained in a mowed lawn of exotic grasses with some landscaping with coconut trees, naupaka and loulu palm. Virtually no native vegetation is believed to be present (other than planted for landscaping purposes). In his written testimony, Dr. Carl Berg stated, “I doubt that there is any original native vegetation.” In traditional times, trails were well used for travel within the ahupua‘a between mauka and makai and laterally between ahupua‘a. A historical trail system existed on Kaua‘i which often ran well inland (approximating modern Kaumuali‘i Highway and Kūhiō Highway effectively acting as a short cut for travel between ahupua‘a. A coastal trail would have been used for access to marine resources and recreation, but this would have been quite close to the coast. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake spoke of “sacred trails that run from Nāwiliwili side coming from Kalapakī Point along the coast.” But these were understood to be quite close to the coast (Mitchell et al. 2005:23). Doubtlessly there were major mauka / makai trails but these would have been anticipated to be focused on connecting centers of habitation, like inland of Kalapakī Beach to the uplands. There are no records of trails running through the vicinity of the project area (Mitchell et al. 2005:27). The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also noted there are walking paths in the vicinity of the project area which people use for exercising. They expressed their concern that access to the area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. They mentioned that their friend has observed “No Trespassing” signs along the golf cart path in the vicinity of the project area. They also shared a story about their friend who experienced “strange occurrences—tragic deaths; and a brush fire in the subdivision” at the home they bought. A kahuna that was brought in to bless the home observed spirits on the roof and explained that the strange occurrences occurred because homes were “built in the ancient walking path. They noted, “some badly burned and partially burned but no other homes in the subdivision got damaged.” The kahuna told their friend, “this ancient walking path was for the Hawaiian villagers to walk to the beach ocean shoreline for their fishing (food).” Storied places in the vicinity would have included the four Kalapakī heiau: Ninini, Ahukini, Pohakoelele, and one at Kūki‘i Point) as well as the cove of Kalapakī Beach and Nāwiliwili Stream. Further inland, Kilohana was a storied landform. The vicinity of the present project Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xi area was relatively featureless and no wahi pana in the immediate vicinity are known. The project area was a sea of sugar cane of the Lihue Plantation for many decades. Since the end of sugar cane cultivation the land has pretty much part of the resort development and has largely been maintained in a lawn of exotic grasses as part of the active resort. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xii Ka Pa‘akai Analysis In Ka Pa‘akai vs Land Use Commission, 94 Hawai‘i (2000) the Court held the following analysis also be conducted: 1. The identity and scope of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the project area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the project area; 2. The extent to which those resources—including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights—will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and 3. The feasible action, if any, to be taken to reasonably protect native Hawaiian Rights if they are found to exist. Based on information gathered from the cultural and historical background, and community consultation for this project, no culturally significant resources were identified within the project area. At present, there is no documentation or testimony indicating traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights are currently being exercised “for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778” (Hawai‘i State Constitution, Article XII, Section 7) within the project area. While no cultural resources, practices, or beliefs were identified as currently existing within the project area, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a maintains a rich cultural history in the exercise of traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights within the project ahupua‘a. Given the location well-back from the coast, with no notable landforms in the vicinity, the relatively low rainfall, the absence of potable water, the prior land history of intensive sugar cane cultivation with frequent plowing of the entire project area and the prevailing vegetation regime dominated by the maintained lawn of a resort it is concluded that no traditional and customary native Hawaiian Resources will be affected by the proposed action. No adverse impact on cultural resources or practices is anticipated. No other customary resource has come to light in the historic background research, fieldwork or in the consultation outreach. The consideration of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices in this study does document some of the resources and practices on coastal lands, and across the airport runway to the northeast and emphasizes the import of consideration of these practices for any development activities that may be proposed there. Cultural informants Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos, Mr. Jan TenBruggencate, Carl Berg, and an anonymous kama‘āina from Līhu‘e stressed the importance of public access both to access the coast for fishing and Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xiii gathering of marine resources and simply for recreation (walking, biking). It is recommended that public access not be impeded by the proposed petition area changes. This issue of access was not directly related to traditional Hawaiian trail alignments per se but does reflect a traditional pattern of access to the coast across what was traditionally a relatively open “level grass land with volcanic boulders here and there” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xiv Table of Contents Management Summary ............................................................................................................ i Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Document Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Ka Makani (Winds) ................................................................................................................ 8 1.4.3 Ka Ua (Rains) ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.4 Nā Kahawai (Streams) .......................................................................................................... 10 1.4.5 Lihikai ame ka Moana (Seashore and Ocean) ...................................................................... 10 Section 2 Methods .................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Archival Research ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Community Consultation ............................................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Scoping for Participants ........................................................................................................ 13 2.2.2 “Talk Story” Sessions ........................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Completion of Interview ....................................................................................................... 14 Section 3 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo ................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Ka‘ao ........................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Legend of Uweuwelekehau .................................................................................................. 15 3.1.2 The Goddess Pele.................................................................................................................. 16 3.1.3 The Menehunes ..................................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Wahi Pana ................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2.1 Place Names .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Heiau (Pre-Christian Place of Worship) ............................................................................... 18 3.3 ʻŌlelo Noʻeau .............................................................................................................................. 18 3.3.1 Ōlelo No‘eau # 838 ............................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Ōlelo No‘eau # 2467 ............................................................................................................. 19 3.4 Oli (Chants) ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.4.1 Pele ....................................................................................................................................... 20 3.5 Mele (Songs) ................................................................................................................................ 21 3.5.1 Lihu‘e .................................................................................................................................... 22 3.5.2 Maikaʻi Kauaʻi ...................................................................................................................... 23 Section 4 Traditional and Historical Background .............................................................. 24 4.1 Pre-Contact Settlement Patterns .................................................................................................. 24 4.2 Early Historic Period ................................................................................................................... 24 4.3 The Māhele and the Kuleana Act ................................................................................................ 26 4.4 Late 1800s .................................................................................................................................... 26 4.5 1900s ............................................................................................................................................ 29 4.6 Contemporary Land Use .............................................................................................................. 32 Section 5 Previous Archaeological Research ....................................................................... 41 5.1 Early References to Kalapakī Archaeology ................................................................................. 41 5.2 Modern Archaeological Studies................................................................................................... 41 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xv Section 6 Field Inspection Results ........................................................................................ 49 Section 7 Community Consultation ...................................................................................... 58 7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 58 7.2 Community Contact Letter .......................................................................................................... 58 7.3 Community Responses (received to date).................................................................................... 64 7.3.1 Donna Kaliko Santos ............................................................................................................ 64 7.3.2 Jan TenBruggencate .............................................................................................................. 64 7.3.3 Carl Berg ............................................................................................................................... 65 7.3.4 Anonymous Kama‘āina of Līhu‘e ........................................................................................ 65 Section 8 Traditional Cultural Practices.............................................................................. 67 8.1 Habitation and Subsistence .......................................................................................................... 67 8.2 Marine Resources ........................................................................................................................ 69 8.3 Mo‘olelo and Wahi Pana ............................................................................................................. 70 Section 9 Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................ 72 9.1 Results of Background Research ................................................................................................. 72 9.2 Results of Community Consultations .......................................................................................... 74 9.3 Impacts and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 74 9.4 Ka Pa‘akai Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 76 9.4.1 Kalapakī Ahupua‘a ............................................................................................................... 76 9.4.2 The Project Area Vicinity ..................................................................................................... 77 9.4.3 The Extent to which Traditional and Customary Native Hawaiian Resources will be Affected by the Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 80 9.4.4 Feasible Action, if any, to be Taken to Reasonably Protect Native Hawaiian Rights .......... 80 Section 10 References Cited .................................................................................................. 81 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xvi List of Figures Figure 1. Portion of the 1996 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle showing the location of the project area .......................................................................................2 Figure 2. Tax Map Key (TMK) [4] 3-5-001 showing the project area (Hawai‘i TMK 2014) ......3 Figure 3. Tax Map Key (TMK) [4] 3-5-004 showing the project area (Hawai‘i TMK 2014) ......4 Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the project area (ESRI Aerial Photograph 2016) .........................5 Figure 5. Portion of a 1996 Lihue USGS topographic quadrangle map, with overlay of Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii (Foote et al. 1972; USDA SSURGO 2001), indicating soil types within and surrounding the study area ......................................................................................7 Figure 6. Kalapakī Bay, showing location of two streams and their outlets (red Xs) to Kalapakī Bay; Koena‘awa stream is on the left (undated photograph in Kaua‘i Museum files, see http:www.hawaii.edu/environment.ainakumuwai.htm) .................11 Figure 7. Location of LCA claims in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a relative to the present project area (base map: 1996 USGS Lihue quadrangle topographic map) ..............................27 Figure 8. Portion of 1881 map of Nāwiliwili Harbor by Lt. George G. Jackson (RM 902) showing the area of Kuki‘i Point to Ninini Point with the project area depicted in an area of “Level grass land with volcanic boulders here and there” ......................30 Figure 9. 1910 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map showing the project area .................31 Figure 10. 1939 Map of Lihue Plantation showing the project area as at a confluence of fields 30A, 30B, 31 and 32 ..........................................................................................33 Figure 11. 1941 Lihue Plantation field map showing the project area as at a confluence of fields 30A, 30B, 31 and 32 (Condé and Best 1973:168) .............................................34 Figure 12. 1950 USGS Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) .......................................................35 Figure 13. 1959 USGS Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) .......................................................36 Figure 14. Portion of 1963 Lihue USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project area ........37 Figure 15. 1965 USDA Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) .......................................................38 Figure 16. Undated “Map of Lihue Plantation with Lessees” produced by the Lihue Plantation Company showing a lot configuration (the present project area is partially in “Lot 4”) not reflected on other maps (the map references “Stadium Vidinha” and it is understood Lihue Stadium was not so named until after 1976) .....39 Figure 17. 1978 USGS orthophotoquad aerial photograph, Lihue Quadrangle showing the project area as within former sugarcane fields on the northeast but mostly in a new golf course development ......................................................................................40 Figure 18. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area (Base map: 1996 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map) .......................................................42 Figure 19. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area (Base map: 1996 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map) ..............................................45 Figure 20. View of the west end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to northeast ....................50 Figure 21. View of the west end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southeast ....................50 Figure 22. View from the central portion of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southwest .....51 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xvii Figure 23. View from the central portion of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to NNE ............51 Figure 24. View of the east end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to northwest ....................52 Figure 25. View of the east end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southwest....................52 Figure 26. View of the west end of the central Subdivision 1, view to northeast .........................53 Figure 27. View of the west end of the central Subdivision 1, view to southeast .........................53 Figure 28. View from the central portion of the central Subdivision 1, view to west ...................54 Figure 29. View from the central portion of the central Subdivision 1, view to east ....................54 Figure 30. View of the east end of the central Subdivision 1, view to west ..................................55 Figure 31. View of the east end of the central Subdivision 1, view to southeast ..........................55 Figure 32. View of southern Parcel 10C, view from southern causeway to large eastern island, view to northeast ..............................................................................................56 Figure 33. View of southern Parcel 10C, view from large eastern island to west .........................56 Figure 34. View of southern Parcel 10C, from southwest side of the large eastern island, view to northeast ..........................................................................................................57 Figure 35. View of southern Parcel 10C, from north side of the large eastern island, view to south .............................................................................................................................57 Figure 36. Community contact letter page one ..............................................................................61 Figure 37. Community contact letter page two ..............................................................................62 Figure 38. Community contact letter page three ............................................................................63 List of Tables Table 1. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area ..................................43 Table 2. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area .....................46 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 1 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background At the request of Hōkūala, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. (CSH) has prepared this Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for the Hōkūala redevelopment of Subdivision 1, Subdivision 1A and Lot 10C project within the Hōkūala Resort area in Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, southeast Kauaʻi (TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109). The project area is in the southeast portion of the Hōkūala Resort lands approximately 500 m (1/4 mile) inland (north) of Nāwiliwili Bay, about midway between Kūki‘i Point and Ninini Point and approximately 300 m west of the south end of the coastal runway of Līhu‘e Airport. The project area is depicted on a portion of the 1996 Lihue U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1), tax map key (TMK) plats (Figure 2 and Figure 3), and a 2016 aerial photograph (Figure 4). The proposed project is a Petition for County Zoning Amendment to amend the zoning designation from R-2 to R-4 for an inland portion of the Hōkūala Resort property to allow for higher density development at the proposed Subdivisions 1 and 1A (14.2 acres in the aggregate) while significantly reducing the allowable density of a RR-10 parcel (approximately 2.6 acres) in the vicinity to R-2. As a result of this petition, there is no increase to the entitlement cap of 772 units for the Hōkūala Resort. 1.2 Document Purpose This CIA was prepared to comply with the State of Hawai‘i’s environmental review process under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §343, which requires consideration of the proposed project’s potential effect on cultural beliefs, practices, and resources. Through document research, this report provides information compiled to date pertinent to the assessment of the proposed project’s potential impacts to cultural beliefs, practices, and resources (pursuant to the Office of Environmental Quality Control’s Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts) which may include traditional cultural properties (TCPs). These TCPs may be significant historic properties under State of Hawai‘i significance Criterion e, pursuant to Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §13- 275-6 and §13-284-6. Significance Criterion e refers to historic properties that have an important value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts—these associations being important to the group’s history and cultural identity. [HAR §13-275-6 and §13-284-6] The document may also support the project’s historic preservation review under HRS §6E and HAR §13-275 and §13-284. This Cultural Impact Assessment study was prepared to support the Petition for County Zoning Amendment Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 2 Figure 1. Portion of the 1996 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle showing the location of the project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 3 Figure 2. Tax Map Key (TMK) [4] 3-5-001 showing the project area (Hawai‘i TMK 2014) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 4 Figure 3. Tax Map Key (TMK) [4] 3-5-004 showing the project area (Hawai‘i TMK 2014) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 5 Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the project area (ESRI Aerial Photograph 2016) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 6 1.3 Scope of Work The scope of work for this cultural impact assessment includes the following: 1. Examination of cultural and historical resources, including Land Commission documents, historic maps, and previous research reports, with the specific purpose of identifying traditional Hawaiian activities including gathering of plant, animal, and other resources or agricultural pursuits as may be indicated in the historic record. 2. Review of previous archaeological work at and near the subject parcel that may be relevant to reconstructions of traditional land use activities; and to the identification and description of cultural resources, practices, and beliefs associated with the parcel. 3. Outreach to potentially knowledgeable parties with a request to share any concerns regarding cultural and natural resources and practices at or near the project area; present and past uses of the project area; and/or other practices, uses, or traditions associated with the parcel and environs. 4. Preparation of a report that summarizes the results of these research activities and provides recommendations based on findings. 1.4 Environmental Setting The project area—lying between 80-feet and 120-feet amsl—lies within the Līhu‘e depression or basin. Of the area’s volcanic history, Macdonald, Abbot, and Peterson note, Lava flows of the Koloa Series cover about half the surface of the eastern part of the island. They form the entire floor of the Lihue basin except for two small kipukas of Waimea Canyon rocks (Aaohoaka hill and Puu Pilo) that protrude through them west of the gap through which the Wailua River crosses the Kālepa Nounou Ridge […] The greatest exposed thickness of Koloa lavas is 650 meters, in the east wall of Hanalei Valley; but they may be even thicker in the Lihue basin and along the southern edge of the island, where their base is not exposed. [Macdonald et al. 1983:460–461] The project area is situated on the southeast coast of Kaua‘i and is exposed to the prevailing northeast trade winds generally from 10-20 miles per hour. Annual rainfall at the neighboring Līhu‘e Airport station is 997 mm (39.25 inches) (Giambelluca et al. 2013) which is suggested to be marginal for non-irrigated agriculture. 1.4.1 Ka Lepo (Soils) According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database (2001) and soil survey data gathered by Foote et al. (1972), the project area’s soils consist of Lihue silty clay (LhB) and Lihue gravelly silt clay (LIB) (Foote et al. 1972: Sheets 30 &31; Figure 5). Lihue Series soils are described as follows: consists of well-drained soils on uplands on the island of Kauai. These soils developed in material weathered from basic igneous rock. They are gently sloping to steep. Elevations range from nearly sea level to 800 feet. […] These soils are used for irrigated sugarcane, pineapple, pasture, truck crops, orchards, wildlife Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 7 Figure 5. Portion of a 1996 Lihue USGS topographic quadrangle map, with overlay of Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii (Foote et al. 1972; USDA SSURGO 2001), indicating soil types within and surrounding the study area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 8 habitat, woodland, and homesites. The natural vegetation consists of lantana, guava, koa haole, joee, kikuyugrass, molassesgrass, guineagrass, bermudagrass, and Java plum. [Foote et al. 1972:82] Lihue silty clay (LhB) soils are further described as “on the tops of broad interfluves in the uplands” and “Permeability is moderately rapid. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is no more than slight” (Foote et al. 1972:82). Lihue gravelly silt clay (LIB) soils are further described as “contain[ing] ironstone-gibbsite pebbles and has brighter colors in the B horizon” (Foote et al. 1972:83). 1.4.2 Ka Makani (Winds) Makani is the general Hawaiian term for the wind. A‘e loa is another of the Hawaiian names given to the prevailing northeasterly trade winds (Nakuina 1992:138) along with Aʻe (Pukui and Elbert 1986:3), Moa‘e, and Moaʻe Lehua (Pukui and Elbert 1986:249). In the traditional story The Wind Gourd of La‘amaomao, Pāka‘a and his son Kūapāka‘a are descendants of the wind goddess La‘amaomao whose traditional home was in a wooden calabash (bowl), a gourd that also contained all of the sacred winds of Hawaiʻi. Laʻamaomao controlled and called forth the winds by chanting their names (Nakuina 1992). Kūapāka‘a’s chant traces the winds of Kaua‘i. He calls upon the wind named called Waikai of the ahupua‘a (traditional land division usually extending from the mountains to the sea) of Kalapakī (Nakuina 1992:53). Pukui & Elbert (1986:350) define wai kai as “brackish water, salty water.” The portion of Kūapākaʻa’s chant mentioning winds of the moku (district) of Līhu‘e is presented below: Paupua is of Kipu, Ala‘oli is of Hule‘ia, Waikai is of Kalapaki, Ka‘ao is of Hanama‘ulu, Waipua‘a‘ala is the wind That knocks down hale of Konolea, Wai‘opua is of Wailua, [Nakuina 1992:53] 1.4.3 Ka Ua (Rains) Precipitation is a major component of the water cycle, and is responsible for depositing wai (fresh water) on local flora. Pre-Contact kānaka (Native Hawaiians) recognized two distinct annual seasons. The first, known as kau (period of time, especially summer) lasts typically from May to October and is a season marked by a high-sun period corresponding to warmer temperatures and steady trade winds. The second season, hoʻoilo (winter, rainy season) continues through the end of the year from November to April and is a much cooler period when trade winds are less frequent, and widespread storms and rainfall become more common (Giambelluca et al. 1986:17). Each small geographic area on O‘ahu had a Hawaiian name for its own rains. According to Akana and Gonzalez (2015), Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 9 Rain names are a precious legacy from our kūpuna [elders] who were keen observers of the world around them and who had a nuanced understanding of the forces of nature. They knew that one place could have several types of rain, each distinct from the other. They knew when a particular rain would fall, its color, its duration, its intensity, its path, its sound, its scent, and its effect on the land and their lives […] Rain names are a treasure of cultural, historical, and environmental information. [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:n.p.] The moku of Līhu‘e was no exception to the practice. Two rains were associated with Līhu‘e: the Pa‘upili and the Kenikeni. Other rain names associated with the area include the ‘Ala and the Lihau. 1.4.3.1 Pa‘upili In a textbook on Hawaiian language, E Kama‘ilio Hawai‘i Kakou: Let’s Speak Hawaiian, Kahananui and Anthony describe the Pa‘upili rain as “pili [grass] soaking.” They noted that “Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i, has a Pa‘upili rain.” 20. He ua Pa‘upili (pili soaking) ko Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i. Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i, has a Pa‘upili rain. [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:226] The Pa‘upili rain is also mentioned in the mele (song) “Wailua alo lahilahi,” also known as “Nani wale Līhu‘e.” The mele which is “credited by Lili‘uokalani and Kapoli and by others to Leleiohoku and Mrs. Kamakua,” describes Līhu‘e as “calm […] In the mist of the Pa‘upili rain.” 21. Nani wale Līhu‘e i ka la‘i I ka noe a ka ua Pa‘upiliī So beautiful is Līhu‘e in the calm In the mist of the Pa‘upili rain [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:226] In the mele “Maika‘i Kaua‘i,” the Pa‘upili rain is described as “drenching rain that clings to the house.” 22. Ua nani wale ‘o Līhu‘e I ka ua Pa‘upili hale I ka wai hu‘ihu‘i anu Kahi wai a‘o Kemamo So very beautiful is Līhu‘e In the drenching [Pa‘upili] rain that clings to the house With the cold, refreshing waters From the springs of Kemamo [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:226] Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 10 1.4.3.2 Kenikeni The Kenikeni rain of Līh‘ue is mentioned in an obituary for Eda Kawaikauomaunahina Kalua. 1. E ka ua Kenikeni o Līhu‘e, ua pau kou ho‘opulu pē ‘ana i ka ‘ili o ku‘u aloha. O Kenikeni rain of Līhu‘e, your drenching of my love’s skin has ended. From an obituary for Eda Kawaikauomaunahina Kalua. Hawaiian source: Kalua. English trans. by author. [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:77] The Kenikeni rain is also mentioned in a kanikau (lament) which was also written in honor of Eda Kawaikauomaunahina Kalua. 2 . Me ka ua Kenikeni o Līhu‘e E uē helu mai ‘o Kaapuwai With the Kenikeni rain of Līhu‘e Kaapuwai wails, recounting your deeds [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:77] 1.4.4 Nā Kahawai (Streams) The Līhu‘e District is well-watered by the Hulē‘ia River, Nāwiliwili Stream, and the Hanamā‘ulu River. The attractiveness of this region to the early Kaua‘i residents is preserved in the following ‘ōlelo no‘eau (proverb): He nani wale no o Puna mai ‘o a ‘o. There is only beauty from one end of Puna to the other. There is nothing to complain about–refers to Puna, Kaua‘i [Pukui 1983:91]. Two smaller streams, Koena‘awa nui and Koena‘awa iki, are identified in Land Commission documents, although neither of these is named on any extant maps. Given the gently-sloping character of the natural lay of the land from Līhu‘e to the coast, it is possible that there were once other smaller drainages traversing what is now the airport, resort and golf course area; and, that Native Hawaiian planters made use of this water (Figure 6). 1.4.5 Lihikai ame ka Moana (Seashore and Ocean) Southeast of the project area is Nāwiliwili Harbor, a commercial deep-water port which accommodates “a wide range of vessels including passenger liners, interisland barges, freighters, and tankers” (Clark 1990:3). In The Beaches of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau, John R.K. Clark translates Nawiliwili as “the wiliwili [Erythrina sandwicensis] trees” (Clark 1990:2). He noted that, “These trees provided the Hawaiians with orange-to-red seeds that were strung into leis [garlands] and a very light wood that was used to make surfboards, canoe outriggers, and fishnet floats” (Clark 1990:2). On the southern side of the Nāwiliwili Harbor is the Nāwiliwili Small Boat Harbor which includes a boat ramp, restrooms, and parking for automobiles and trailers. The Nawiliwili Small Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 11 Figure 6. Kalapakī Bay, showing location of two streams and their outlets (red Xs) to Kalapakī Bay; Koena‘awa stream is on the left (undated photograph in Kaua‘i Museum files, see http:www.hawaii.edu/environment.ainakumuwai.htm) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 12 Boat Harbor is utilized by both recreational and commercial vessels. It is also a favorite spot for shoreline fishermen (Clark 1990:3). On the northern side of the Nāwiliwili Harbor is Nawiliwili Park, a long, narrow park whose entire seaward edge is formed by a concrete sea wall (Clark 1990:3). The park is primarily used for picnicking, fishing, and surfing. A surfing site known as Ammonias is located directly offshore the wall. The northern end of Nāwiliwili Park is adjoining to Kalapakī Beach (Clark 1990:3). Kalapakī Beach is the closest white sand beach to Līhu‘e. The beach is a popular place for many types of recreational activities. The sandy and gently sloping ocean bottom provides favorable conditions for swimming (Clark 1990:3-4). Clark (1990:4-5) stated that, “The surfing site known as Kalapakī offshore the beach is an ideal beginner’s surfing break with gentle waves that roll across a shallow sand bar.” He noted that, “Kalapakī is one of Kaua‘i’s historic surfing sites. The break was surfed and bodysurfed by ancient Hawaiians and later by non-Hawaiians who took up the sports.” He added, “Today the waves at Kalapakī continue to attract surfers, bodysurfers, and a large number of bodyboarders.” Other types of ocean recreation are also popular at Kalapakī including “canoe surfing, fishing, snorkeling, windsurfing, and twin-hull sailing” (Clark 1990:5). Located near the northern point of Nawiliwili Harbor, Ninini Beach consists of “two large pockets of white sand, separated by lava rock at the base of a low sea cliff” (Clark 1990:5). Clark noted that the beach is “subject at all times of the year to high surf and kona (southerly) storms, both of which may generate dangerous water conditions” (Clark 1990:5). The larger beach consists of a “gentle, rock-free slope leading into a sandy ocean bottom” (Clark 1990:5). Conditions are good for snorkeling and the shorebreak is frequented by bodysurfers during periods of high surf (Clark 1990:5). The smaller beach is “rocky at the water’s edge with pockets of sand and rock immediately offshore” (Clark 1990:5). Conditions at the smaller beach are also good for swimming and snorkeling (Clark 1990:5). The smaller pocket beach is located approximately one-quarter mile from Ninini Point which is “marked by the Nawiliwili Light Station and the foundations of the former lighthouse keeper’s quarters” (Clark 1990:5). Ninini Point is also a fishing spot which is very popular with shoreline fishermen (Clark 1990:5). 1.4.6 Built Environment The project area lies between the south ends of the two main runways of Līhu‘e Airport and is bounded on the south by the built-up portion of the Hōkūala Resort and other resort infrastructure. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Methods Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 13 Section 2 Methods 2.1 Archival Research Research centers on Hawaiian activities including ka‘ao (legends), wahi pana (storied places), ‘ōlelo no‘eau (proverbs), oli (chants), mele (songs), traditional mo‘olelo (stories), traditional subsistence and gathering methods, ritual and ceremonial practices, and more. Background research focuses on land transformation, development, and population changes beginning with the early post-Contact era to the present day. Cultural documents, primary and secondary cultural and historical sources, historic maps, and photographs were reviewed for information pertaining to the study area. Research was primarily conducted at the CSH library. Other archives and libraries including the Hawai‘i State Archives, the Bishop Museum Archives, the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa’s Hamilton Library, Ulukau, The Hawaiian Electronic Library (Ulukau 2014), the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) Library, the State of Hawai‘i Land Survey Division, the Hawaiian Historical Society, and the Hawaiian Mission Houses Historic Site and Archives are also repositories where CSH cultural researchers gather information. Information on Land Commission Awards (LCAs) were accessed via Waihona ‘Aina Corporation’s Māhele database (Waihona ‘Aina 2000), the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Papakilo Database (Office of Hawaiian Affairs 2015), and the Ava Konohiki Ancestral Visions of ‘Āina website (Ava Konohiki 2015). 2.2 Community Consultation 2.2.1 Scoping for Participants We begin our consultation efforts with utilizing our previous contact list to facilitate the interview process. We then review an in-house database of kūpuna (elders), kama‘āina, cultural practitioners, lineal and cultural descendants, Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs; includes Hawaiian Civic Clubs and those listed on the Department of Interior’s NHO list), and community groups. We also contact agencies such as SHPD, OHA, and the appropriate Island Burial Council where the proposed project is located for their response on the project and to identify lineal and cultural descendants, individuals and/or NHO with cultural expertise and/or knowledge of the study area. CSH is also open to referrals and new contacts. 2.2.2 “Talk Story” Sessions Prior to the interview, CSH cultural researchers explain the role of a CIA, how the consent process works, the project purpose, the intent of the study, and how their ‘ike (knowledge) and mana‘o (thought, opinion) will be used in the report. The interviewee is given an Authorization and Release Form to read and sign. “Talk Story” sessions range from the formal (e.g., sit down and kūkākūkā [consultation, discussion] in participants choice of place over set interview questions) to the informal (e.g., hiking to cultural sites near the study area and asking questions based on findings during the field outing). In some cases, interviews are recorded and transcribed later. CSH also conducts group interviews, which range in size. Group interviews usually begin with set, formal questions. As the group interview progresses, questions are based on interviewee’s Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Methods Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 14 answers. Group interviews are always transcribed and notes are taken. Recorded interviews assist the cultural researcher in 1) conveying accurate information for interview summaries, 2) reducing misinterpretation, and 3) missing details to mo‘olelo. CSH seeks kōkua (assistance) and guidance on identifying past and current traditional cultural practices of the study area. Those aspects include general history of the ahupua‘a; past and present land use of the study area; knowledge of cultural sites (for example, wahi pana, archaeological sites, and burials); knowledge of traditional gathering practices (past and present) within the study area; cultural associations (ka‘ao and mo‘olelo); referrals; and any other cultural concerns the community might have related to Hawaiian cultural practices within or in the vicinity of the study area. 2.2.3 Completion of Interview After an interview, CSH cultural researchers transcribe and create an interview summary based on information provided by the interviewee. Cultural researchers give a copy of the transcription and interview summary to the interviewee for review and ask to make any necessary edits. Once the interviewee has made those edits, we incorporate their ‘ike and mana‘o into the report. When the draft report is submitted to the client, cultural researchers then prepare a finalized packet of the participant’s transcription, interview summary, and any photos that were taken during the interview. We also include a thank you card and honoraria. This is for the interviewee’s records. It is important to CSH cultural researchers to cultivate and maintain community relationships. The CIA report may be completed, but CSH researchers continuously keep in touch with the community and interviewees throughout the year—such as checking in to say hello via email or by phone, volunteering with past interviewees on community service projects, and sending holiday cards to them and their ‘ohana (family). CSH researchers feel this is an important component to building relationships and being part of an ‘ohana and community. “I ulu no ka lālā i ke kumu—the branches grow because of the trunk,” an ‘ōlelo no‘eau (#1261) shared by Mary Kawena Pukui with the simple explanation: “Without our ancestors we would not be here” (Pukui 1983:137). As cultural researchers, we often lose our kūpuna but we do not lose their wisdom and words. We routinely check obituaries and gather information from other informants if we have lost our kūpuna. CSH makes it a point to reach out to the ‘ohana of our fallen kūpuna and pay our respects including sending all past transcriptions, interview summaries, and photos for families to have on file for genealogical and historical reference. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 15 Section 3 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Hawaiian storytellers of old were greatly honored; they were a major source of entertainment and their stories contained lessons while interweaving elements of Hawaiian lifestyles, genealogy, history, relationships, arts, and the natural environment (Pukui and Green 1995:IX). According to Pukui and Green (1995), storytelling is better heard than read for much becomes lost in the transfer from the spoken to the written word and ka‘ao are often full of kaona or double meanings. Ka‘ao are defined by Pukui and Elbert (1986:108) as a “legend, tale […], romance, [and/or], fiction.” Ka‘ao may be thought of as oral literature or legends, often fictional or mythic in origin, and have been “consciously composed to tickle the fancy rather than to inform the mind as to supposed events” (Beckwith 1970:1). Conversely, Pukui and Elbert (1986:254) define mo‘olelo as a “story, tale, myth, history, [and/or] tradition.” The mo‘olelo are generally traditional stories about the gods, historic figures or stories which cover historic events and locate the events with known places. Mo‘olelo are often intimately connected to a tangible place or space (wahi pana). In differentiating ka‘ao and mo‘olelo it may be useful to think of ka‘ao as expressly delving into the wao akua (realm of the gods), discussing the exploits of akua (gods) in a primordial time. Mo‘olelo on the other hand, reference a host of characters from ali‘i (royalty) to akua; kupua (supernatural beings) to maka‘āinana (commoners); and discuss their varied and complex interactions within the wao kānaka (realm of man). Beckwith elaborates, “In reality, the distinction between kaʻao as fiction and moʻolelo as fact cannot be pressed too closely. It is rather in the intention than in the fact” (Beckwith 1970:1). Thus a so-called moʻolelo, which may be enlivened by fantastic adventures of kupua, “nevertheless corresponds with the Hawaiian view of the relation between nature and man” (Beckwith 1970:1). Both ka‘ao and mo‘olelo provide important insight into a specific geographical area, adding to a rich fabric of traditional knowledge. The preservation and passing on of these stories through oration remains a highly-valued tradition. Additionally, oral traditions associated with the study area communicate the intrinsic value and meaning of a place, specifically its meaning to both kama‘āina as well as others who also value that place. The following section presents traditional accounts of ancient Hawaiians living in the vicinity of the project area. Many relate an age of mythical characters whose epic adventures inadvertently lead to the Hawaiian race of aliʻi and makaʻāinana. The kaʻao in and around the project area shared below are some of the oldest Hawaiian stories that have survived; they still speak to the characteristics and environment of the area and its people. 3.1 Ka‘ao 3.1.1 Legend of Uweuwelekehau In Fornander’s Hawaiian Antiquities and Folklore, a pioneering collection of Hawaiian lore, references are made to Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, and to Līhu‘e. One of the named Kaua‘i winds, “He waikai ko Kalapakī” refers to the salty fresh water of Kalapakī (Fornander 1918-1919:5:96–97). The place name Līhu‘e appears in the “Legend of Uweuwelekehau.” Uweuwelekehau and his wife Luukia are being punished: they are stripped of their clothing and sent to Manā (at the west end of the island). When they reach the plains of Līhu‘e, Luukia complains of her nakedness. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 16 Uweuwelekehau tells her they will find on a nearby hill a pa‘u (skirt) and all manner of kapa (bark cloth), which they do (Fornander 1918-1919:5:196–197). 3.1.2 The Goddess Pele During the 1920s, William Hyde Rice, a life-long resident of Kaua‘i, recorded and collected Hawaiian lore of the island in Hawaiian Legends (1977). In that volume two place names in the vicinity of the present project area—Ninini and Ahukini—are mentioned once each. In “The Goddess Pele:” Two brothers of Pele who had come from foreign lands, saw Lohiau’s body lying as a stone where the lava flow had overtaken him. Pity welled up […] and they brought Lohiau to life again. One of these brothers made his own body into a canoe and carried the unfortunate Lohiau to Kauai, where he was put ashore at Ahukini. [Rice 1977:14] Ahukini in the above quote probably refers to the heiau (pre-Christian place of worship), which formerly stood in Kalapakī near Ahukini Point on the bluff overlooking the sea, since the name “Ahukini” means “altar of many blessings.” 3.1.3 The Menehunes In “The Menehunes,” a favorite place for their sport of jumping off cliffs into the sea is Ninini: “A […] little beach surrounded by cliffs, just inside the point where the larger Nāwiliwili lighthouse now stands;” the tale also mentions that part of a large rock from Kīpūkai is at Ninini (Rice 1977:44). 3.2 Wahi Pana Wahi pana are legendary or storied places of an area. These legendary or storied places may include a variety of natural or human-made structures. Oftentimes dating to the pre-Contact period, most wahi pana are in some way connected to a particular mo‘olelo, however, a wahi pana may exist without a connection to any particular story. Davianna McGregor outlines the types of natural and human-made structures that may constitute wahi pana: Natural places have mana [spiritual power], and are sacred because of the presence of the gods, the akua, and the ancestral guardian spirits, the ‘aumakua. Human- made structures for the Hawaiian religion and family religious practices are also sacred. These structures and places include temples, and shrines, or heiau, for war, peace, agriculture, fishing, healing, and the like; pu‘uhonua, places of refuge and sanctuaries for healing and rebirth; agricultural sites and sites of food production such as the lo‘i pond fields and terraces slopes, ‘auwai irrigation ditches, and the fishponds; and special function sites such as trails, salt pans, holua slides, quarries, petroglyphs, gaming sites, and canoe landings. [McGregor 1996:22] As McGregor makes clear, wahi pana can refer to natural geographic locations such as streams, peaks, rock formations, ridges, offshore islands and reefs, or they can refer to Hawaiian land divisions such as ahupua‘a or ‘ili (land division smaller than an ahupua‘a), and man-made structures such as fishponds. In this way, the wahi pana of Kalapakī tangibly link the kama‘āina of Kalapakī to their past. It is common for places and landscape features to have multiple names, some of which may only be known to certain ‘ohana or even certain individuals within an ‘ohana, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 17 and many have been lost, forgotten or kept secret through time. Place names also convey kaona (hidden meanings) and huna (secret) information that may even have political or subversive undertones. Before the introduction of writing to the Hawaiian Islands, cultural information was exclusively preserved and perpetuated orally. Hawaiians gave names to literally everything in their environment, including individual garden plots and ‘auwai (water courses), house sites, intangible phenomena such as meteorological and atmospheric effects, pōhaku (stone), pūnāwai (freshwater springs), and many others. According to Landgraf (1994), Hawaiian wahi pana “physically and poetically describes an area while revealing its historical or legendary significance” (Landgraf 1994:v). 3.2.1 Place Names Place name translations presented in this subsection are from Place Names of Hawai‘i (Pukui et al. 1974), unless indicated otherwise. Lloyd Soehren (2013) has lately compiled all of the place names from mid-nineteenth century land documents into an online database. He presents spelling and meanings of names from Pukui et al.’s book (1974). When no meaning from this book is given, he often suggests meanings for simple names based on meanings from Pukui and Elberts’ (1986) Hawaiian Dictionary. The original moku for the study area covered in this report was Puna, which means “spring of water.” Līhu‘e (literally translated as “cold chill;” Pukui et al. 1974:132) became the modern political name for the traditional moku of Puna. According to Ethel Damon (1931:402), the name Līhu‘e was first applied to this area by Kaikio‘ewa, Governor of Kaua‘i in the 1830s, perhaps after Kaikio‘ewa’s upcountry residence on the island. This late derivation of the name has been recently disputed (Griffin 2012:46). Kalapakī Ahupua‘a is described as a land division and a beach in Pukui et al. (1974:75), but no meaning is presented. Pukui and Elbert (1986:122) define the word kalapakī (with a small “k”) as “double-yolked egg, Kaua‘i.” Kalapakī was also the name of a village located along the coast. According to Hammatt and Creed (1993:22), Land Commission documents demonstrate that the “village of Kalapakī” was synonymous with the “‘ili of Kuuhai.” Kalapakī is separated from Hanamā‘ulu Ahupua‘a to the north at the shore by a boundary point called Opoi. Along the Kalapakī shore, going south, are Ahukini [Ahuhini] Point, Kamilo Point, Ninini Point, Kūki‘i Point, and Kalapakī Beach. The boundary line inland between Kalapakī and Hanamā‘ulu extended due west to a wetland at the end of Kapaia Ditch, then along another straight line to the junction of the ditch with Hanamā‘ulu Stream, then along a straight line to a hill called Kamoanakukaua, on the eastern edge of Kilohana Crater. From there the boundary extended back to the shore along the boundary with Nāwiliwili Ahupua‘a, to a point on a ravine called Palauohi, then extending down Nāwiliwili Stream to its mouth at the shore. As noted, Kalapakī had several noted coastal points, Opoi, Ahukini, “altar for many blessings”), Kamilo (“probably, the milo [Thespesia populnea] tree”), Ninini (“pour”), and Kūki‘i, (“standing image”). According to a collection of Kaua‘i place names by Kelsey (n.d.), Kalapakī was also known in traditional times as “Ahukini,” as in the following ‘ōlelo no‘eau: Ahukini, oia ka inoa nui o ka‘aina a hiki Hanamā‘ulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 18 Ahukini is the overall name of the land next to Hanamā‘ulu. Claims for houselots or agricultural patches were made in ten ‘ili ‘āina (small land divisions) within Kalapakī Ahupua‘a: Ka‘ahakea (named for a native tree, Bobea spp.; Soehren 2013); Keahua (“the mound”); Kena (“quenched of thirst, or weary from heavy toil;” Soehren 2013); Ki‘olepo (“swamp or a mud puddle;” Soehren 2013); Koena‘awaiki; Koena‘awanui; Nu‘uhai; Palauohi; Pau; and Pūhaulū‘au. 3.2.2 Heiau (Pre-Christian Place of Worship) Heiau were pre-Christian places of worship. Construction of some heiau were elaborate, consisting of large communal structures, while others were simple earth terraces or shrines (McAllister 1933:8). Heiau are most commonly associated with important religious ceremony; large structures with platforms or altars of one or more terraces were indicative of such function (McAllister 1933:8). Thomas Thrum (1906) lists three heiau in Kalapakī: Ninini, Ahukini, and Pohakoelele. Wendell Bennett (1931:124-125) documented two heiau in Kalapakī: Ninini and Ahuhini (Ahukini) Heiau. He noted that Ninini Heiau, which he identified as Site 100, is located “near the site of the Nawiliwili lighthouse” (Bennett 1931:124), and Ahuhini Heiau, which he identified as Site 101, is located “near Ahukini Point on the bluff overlooking the sea” (Bennett 1931:125). Ninini Heiau (SIHP No. 100) and Ahukini Heiau (SIHP No. 101) were both described by Bennett as totally destroyed. According to Thrum (Bennett 1931:125), Ahukini was “[a] heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain.” Ahukini has been translated as “altar [for] many [blessings],” and this was also the name of a heiau in Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. The heiau, located near Ahukini Point, was likely named for Ahukini- a-la‘a, one of the three sons of La‘a-mai-kahiki, an ancestor of the Kaua‘i chiefly lines. Ahukini lived about AD 1250 (Wichman 1998:61) and became the ali‘i nui (supreme chief) of the Puna district (Wichman 2003:39). Ninini has been translated as “pour,” as in ninini wai, to pour water. In her book, Koamalu, Ethel Damon (1931) mentions “three small heiaus” in Kalapakī: “Ninini, Ahukini and Pohako-eleele.” She noted that, “little more than the names survive” (Damon 1931:397–398). A fourth heiau was identified by Lt. George E.G. Jackson, Navy cartographer for the Hawaii Government Survey Office in 1881 at Kūki‘i Point. The Kaua‘i Community College newsletter, Archaeology on Kauai, notes that these “remains of ancient heiau” noted by Jackson are “where the cottages of the Kauai Surf now stand” (Kaua‘i Community College Volume 2; 4 October 1973: 4). 3.3 ʻŌlelo Noʻeau Hawaiian knowledge was shared by way of oral histories. Indeed, one’s leo (voice) is oftentimes presented as ho‘okupu (“a tribute or gift” given to convey appreciation, to strengthen bonds, and to show honor and respect); the high valuation of the spoken word underscores the importance of the oral tradition (in this case, Hawaiian sayings or expressions), and its ability to impart traditional Hawaiian “aesthetic, historic, and educational values” (Pukui 1983:vii). Thus, in many ways these expressions may be understood as inspiring growth within reader or between speaker and listener: Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 19 They reveal with each new reading ever deeper layers of meaning, giving understanding not only of Hawai‘i and its people but of all humanity. Since the sayings carry the immediacy of the spoken word, considered to be the highest form of cultural expression in old Hawai‘i, they bring us closer to the everyday thoughts and lives of the Hawaiians who created them. Taken together, the sayings offer a basis for an understanding of the essence and origins of traditional Hawaiian values. The sayings may be categorized, in Western terms, as proverbs, aphorisms, didactic adages, jokes, riddles, epithets, lines from chants, etc., and they present a variety of literary techniques such as metaphor, analogy, allegory, personification, irony, pun, and repetition. It is worth noting, however, that the sayings were spoken, and that their meanings and purposes should not be assessed by the Western concepts of literary types and techniques. [Pukui 1983:vii] Simply, ‘ōlelo no‘eau may be understood as proverbs. The Webster dictionary notes it as “a phrase which is often repeated; especially, a sentence which briefly and forcibly expresses some practical truth, or the result of experience and observation.” It is a pithy or short form of folk wisdom. Pukui equates proverbs as a treasury of Hawaiian expressions (Pukui 1995:xii). Oftentimes within these Hawaiian expressions or proverbs are references to places. This section draws from the collection of author and historian Mary Kawena Pukui and her knowledge of Hawaiian proverbs describing ‘āina (land), chiefs, plants, and places. 3.3.1 Ōlelo No‘eau # 838 The following ōlelo no‘eau describes the beauty of the moku of Puna. In traditional times, the moku of Līhu‘e was known as Puna. He nani wale no o Puna mai ‘o a ‘o. There is only beauty from one end of Puna to the other. There is nothing to complain about. Refers to Puna, Kaua‘i. [Pukui 1983:91] 3.3.2 Ōlelo No‘eau # 2467 The following ōlelo no‘eau describes Kilohana, a crater located mauka (toward the mountain) of Līhu‘e, and mentions that robbers hid and preyed on travelers along the old trail leading from Kona to Ko‘olau. O Kilohana ia, he ‘awe‘awe moku. That is the Kilohana of the broken bundle cords. Said of Kilohana above Līhu‘e on Kaua‘i. An old trail went by here, leading from Kona to Ko‘olau. Robbers hid there and waylaid lone travelers or those in small companies and robbed them of their bundles. [Pukui 1983:269] 3.4 Oli (Chants) Oli, according to Mary Kawena Pukui (Pukui 1995:xvi–xvii) are often grouped according to content. Chants often were imbued with mana (divine power); such mana was made manifest through the use of themes and kaona. According to Pukui, chants for the gods (pule; prayers) came Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 20 first, and chants for the ali‘i, “the descendants of the gods,” came second in significance. Chants “concerning the activities of the earth peopled by common humans,” were last in this hierarchy (Pukui 1995:xvi–xvii). Emerson conversely states: In its most familiar form the Hawaiians–many of whom [were lyrical masters]– used the oli not only for the songful expression of joy and affection, but as the vehicle of humorous or sarcastic narrative in the entertainment of their comrades. The dividing line, then, between the oli and those other weightier forms of the mele, the inoa, the kanikau (threnody), the pule, and that unnamed variety of mele in which the poet dealt with historic or mythologic subjects, is to be found almost wholly in the mood of the singer. [Emerson 1965:254] While oli may vary thematically, subject to the perspective of the ho‘opa‘a (chanter), it was undoubtedly a valued art form used to preserve oral histories, genealogies, and traditions, to recall special places and events, and to offer prayers to akua and ‘aumākua (family gods) alike. Perhaps most importantly, as Alameida (1993:26) writes, “chants […] created a mystic beauty […] confirming the special feeling for the environment among Hawaiians: their one hānau (birthplace), their kula iwi (land of their ancestors).” 3.4.1 Pele On a visit to Kaua‘i, the Hawaiian volcano goddess, Pele, met the handsome Kaua‘i chief, Lohi‘ahu. When he requested a dance, Pele instead said that she would chant all the wind guardians for Nihoa and Kaua‘i. Going from west to east, she chanted the names of the winds, including those for Kīpū Kai, Kīpū, Ha‘ikū Niumalu, Nāwiliwili, and Kalapakī: He Puapua‘apano‘o ko Kīpū Kai… He Puapua‘a ke makani o Kīpū Uka… He Hāpuku me Ala‘oli nā makani kuehu lepo o Helē‘ia, He Lawekiupua‘i‘i ka makani o Alekoko Nahā ka mākāhā, lele ka ‘upena a nā akua, Kāne a me Kanaloa He Kāhuilipi‘i ka makani o Niumalu He Waiohue ka makani o Pāpālinahoa He Hu‘eone ka makani o Nāwiliwili He Wāmua ka makani o Kalapakī He ‘Ehukai ka makani o Ahukini He Pāhola ke kiu holo ki‘i makani lele kula o Līhu‘e [Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006a:17-18]. Kīpū Kai has a Puapua‘apano‘o wind… The wind of Kīpū Uka is a Puapua‘a… The dust stirring winds of Hulē‘ia [Ha‘ikū] are a Hāpuku and an Ala‘oli The wind of ‘Alekoko [fishpond in Niumalu] is a Lawekiupua‘i‘i Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 21 The sluice-gate breaks [reference to fishpond], the net of the gods, Kāne and Kanaloa, flies The wind of Niumalu is a Kāhilipi‘i The wind of Pāpālinahoa [‘ili of Nāwiliwili] is a Waiohue The wind of Nāwiliwili is a Hu‘eone The wind of Kalapakī is a Wāmua The wind of Ahukini is an ‘Ehukai A Pāhola wind is the scout that fetches the winds sweeping the Līhu‘e plains [Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006b:17]. A similar chant of the winds of Kaua‘i was called by the boy Kūapāka‘a, who controlled the magical wind gourd of La‘amaomao (Nakuina 1992:53): Paupua is of Kīpū, Ala‘oli is of Hulēia, Waikai is of Kalapakī, Kā‘ao is of Hanamā‘ulu, Waipua‘a‘ala is the wind That knocks down hale of Konolea, Wai‘ōpua is of Wailua. The wind of Kalapakī is thus named “Wāmua” according to Ho‘oulumāhiehie (2006b:17) and “Waikai” according to Nakuina (1992:53) 3.5 Mele (Songs) The following section draws from the Hawaiian art of mele, poetic song intended to create two styles of meaning. Words and word combinations were studied to see whether they were auspicious or not. There were always two things to consider the literal meaning and the kaona, or ‘inner meaning.’ The inner meaning was sometimes so veiled that only the people to whom the chant belonged understood it, and sometimes so obvious that anyone who knew the figurative speech of old Hawai‘i could see it very plainly. There are but two meanings: the literal and the kaona, or inner meaning. The literal is like the body and the inner meaning is like the spirit of the poem. [Pukui 1949:247] The Hawaiians were lovers of poetry and keen observers of nature. Every phase of nature was noted and expressions of this love and observation woven into poems of praise, of satire, of resentment, of love and of celebration for any occasion that might arise. The ancient poets carefully selected men worthy of carrying on their art. These young men were taught the old meles and the technique of fashioning new ones. [Pukui 1949:247] Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 22 There exist a few mele that concern or mention Kalapakī or Līhu‘e. These particular mele may also be classified as mele wahi pana (songs for legendary or historic places). Mele wahi pana such as those presented here may or may not be accompanied by hula (dance) or hula wahi pana (dance for legendary or historic places). As the Hula Preservation Society notes, Hula Wahi Pana comprise a large class of dances that honor places of such emotional, spiritual, historical, or cultural significance that chants were composed for them. Only the composers of the chants could know the deepest meanings, as they would be reflections of their feelings and experiences […] Since the subjects of Wahi Pana compositions are extremely varied, their implementation through hula are as well. Coupled with the differences from one hula style and tradition to the next, Hula Wahi Pana can be exceptionally diverse. They can be done sitting or standing, with limited body movement or wide free movement; with or without the use of implements or instruments; with the dancers themselves chanting and/or playing an implement or being accompanied by the ho‘opa‘a [drummer and hula chanter (memorizer)]. Beyond the particular hula tradition, what ultimately determines the manner in which a Hula Wahi Pana is performed are the specific place involved, why it is significant, the story being shared about it, and its importance in the composer’s view. [Hula Preservation Society 2014] 3.5.1 Lihu‘e The following mele was composed by Annie Koulukou for the town of Līhu‘e. The mele describes Līhu‘e as “beloved” and mentions the Paupili rain (Huapala n.d.a). The mele also mentions Niumalu Beach and Hauola Ridge which are located near Līhu‘e (Huapala n.d.a). Aloha ʻia no aʻo Lihuʻe Beloved is Lihuʻe I ka neʻe mai a ka ua Paupili In the moving of the Paupili rain Ua pili no au me kuʻu aloha I am close with my love Me ke kai nehe mai aʻo Niumalu By the murmuring sea at Niumalu Ua malu ko kino naʻu hoʻokahi Your body is reserved for me alone Na ka nani pua rose aʻo Hauola By the beautiful rose blossom of Hauola Ua ola no au me kuʻu aloha My very life is my love A kau i ka pua o ka lanakila Worn as the flower of victory Kilakila Haʻupu aʻe ku nei Majestic is Haʻupu standing there Kahiko i ka maka aʻo ka opua Adorned in the mist of the clouds A he pua lei momi na kuʻu aloha A lei of pearls from my love Ua sila paʻa ia i ka puʻuwai Was sealed in my heart A he waiwai nui naʻu ko aloha Great riches is your love to me Kaulana no ka ʻāina malihini Famous indeed the new land Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 23 Hea aku no wau o mai ʻoe I call, you answer Na ka pua lei momi poina ʻole For the unforgettable person, precious as a rare shell lei [Huapala n.d.a] 3.5.2 Maikaʻi Kauaʻi The following mele was based on an oli by Kapa‘akea, father of David Kalākaua, which was composed in honor of Keolaokalani, Bernice Pauahi Bishop’s hānai (adopted) child who passed away at the age of seven months. The oli may have been originally composed in honor of chief of Kaua‘i, Kaumuali‘i. Henry Waiau, choir director of the Līhu‘e Hawaiian Congregational Church composed the accompanying music titled Lei I Ka Mokihana (Huapala n.d.b). The mele describes Līhu‘e as “beautiful” and also describes the Pa‘upili rain as “the drenching rain that clings to the house” (Huapala n.d.b). Maikaʻi nō Kauaʻi So fine is Kauaʻi Hemolele i ka mālie So perfect in the calm Kuahiwi Waiʻaleʻale Beautiful Mount Waiʻaleʻale Lei ana i ka mokihana Wears the mokihana lei Hanohano wale lei ʻo Hanalei So glorious is Hanalei I ka ua nui hōʻeha ʻili Rain that hurts the skin I ka wai ʻuʻinakolo The rustling water I ka poli o Nāmolokama In the bosom of Nāmolokama Ua nani wale ʻo Līhuʻe So beautiful is Līhuʻe I ka ua paʻū pili hale In the drenching rain that clings to the house I ka wai huʻihuʻi anu With the cold refreshing waters Kahi wai aʻo Kēmano From the springs of Kēmano Kaulana wale ʻo Waimea Renowned is Waimea I ke one kani o Nohii With the roaring sands of Nohili I ka wai ʻula ʻiliahi Amisst the red tinged waters A he wai na ka malihini Water that visitors enjoy Maikaʻi wale nō Kauaʻi So beautiful is Kauaʻi Hemolele wale i ka mālie So perfect in the calm Kuahiwi nani Waiʻaleʻale Beautiful Mount Waiʻaleʻale Lei ana i ka mokihana Wears the mokihana lei [Huapala n.d.b] Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 24 Section 4 Traditional and Historical Background 4.1 Pre-Contact Settlement Patterns The ahupua‘a of Kalapakī was permanently inhabited and intensively used in pre-Contact and early historic times. At the coastal areas were concentrations of permanent house sites and temporary shelters, heiau, ko‘a and kū‘ula (both types of relatively small shrines dedicated to fishing gods), and numerous trails. The kula (dry inland areas) of these ahupua‘a contained native forests and were cultivated with crops of wauke (paper mulberry, Broussonetia papyrifera), ‘uala (sweet potatoes, Ipomoea batatas), and ipu (bottle gourd). Legends and historic documentation (especially Land Commission records) elaborate on many of these important natural resources. Traditional fishing villages were once located near the seashore at Kalapakī, east and north (around and up the coast) of Kalapakī Beach. Loko (fishponds) and small drainages were inland of these settlement areas. Land Commission documents indicate a land use pattern that may be unique to this part of the island, or to Kaua‘i in general, in which lo‘i (irrigated taro patch) and kula lands are described in the same ‘āpana (lot), with houselots in a separate portion. In most places, kula lands are defined as drier landscapes, and they do not typically occur next to, and among, wetter lo‘i lands. Also, according to Hammatt and Creed (1993:23), “there are several [LCA] references to other lo‘i next to the beach which indicate wetland cultivation extending right to the shoreline.” This is another type of land use that seems to be fairly unique to Kaua‘i. Nāwiliwili Stream has formed extensive natural (alluvial) terraces along its length. Two smaller streams (Koena‘awa nui and Koena‘awa iki) are identified in Land Commission documents as draining into Kalapakī Bay. 4.2 Early Historic Period The first written accounts of the lifestyle on Kaua‘i are from travelers, missionaries, and surveying expeditions. Missionary accounts from the first half of the nineteenth century provide the majority of the early written records for this portion of Kaua‘i. Ethel Damon, in Koamalu, repeats the scenic description of Līhu‘e given by Reverend Hiram Brigham in his book, A Residence of Twenty-One Years in the Sandwich Islands, published in 1847: In 1824, when walking around the island from Waimea to counsel the people after the wreck of The Cleopatra’s Barge, Rev. Hiram Bingham crossed from Hanapepe, as has been seen, over the old upland trail back of Kilohana, and wrote of it as “a country of good land, mostly open, unoccupied and covered with grass, sprinkled with trees, and watered with lively streams that descend from the forest-covered mountains and wind their way along ravines to the sea, —a much finer country than the western part of the island. [Damon 1931:401] In the Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition (1845), Lt. Commander G.E.G. Wilkes describes the “Lihui” District: At noon they reached Lihui, a settlement lately undertaken by the Rev. Mr. Lafon, for the purpose of inducing the natives to remove from the sea-coast, thus Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 25 abandoning their poor lands to cultivate the rich plains above. Mr. Lafon has the charge of the mission district lying between those of Koloa and Waioli. This district was a short time ago formed out of the other two. [...] The temperature of Lihui has much the same range as that of Koloa, and the climate is pleasant: the trade-winds sweep over it uninterruptedly, and sufficient rain falls to keep the vegetation green throughout the year. As yet there is little appearance of increase in industry, or improvement in the dwellings of the natives. There are no more than about seventy pupils in this district, who are taught by natives. There are two houses of worship, and about forty communicants. No decrease is apparent in the population within a few years. On the fertile places, although the pasture was good, yet no cattle were to be seen. From Lihui, they pursued their way to Hanawale, which is a small fishing village at the mouth of a little stream. The country on this route was uninteresting, until they reached Wailua [...] [Wilkes 1845:67–68] Cutting and shipping sandalwood to China was probably the first real “industry” seen from a western perspective. We have only one indirect reference to the sandalwood trade in the Līhu‘e area. Ethel Damon records that early settler Richard Isenberg had been told by Chief Forester C.S. Judd that Mount Kālepa had formerly been covered with sandalwood (Damon 1931:913). The sandalwood trade or industry was soon replaced by the whaling trade. Between the 1840s and 1860s, whaling ships would come to Hawai‘i to spend the winter, repair their ships, recruit sailors, leave sick sailors behind, and stock up supplies for the next season. Early historical accounts relate that Kōloa, on the south side of Kaua‘i, was a major port or roadstead for the victualing trade for whalers, fur traders, and merchant ships plying their trades between Asia and the west and back and forth to the Arctic. Though there is no specific evidence that crops raised in the Līhu‘e area were for trade in Kōloa, the roadstead would have provided residents of Līhu‘e with a market for their produce: The principal village is Nawiliwili, ten miles east of Koloa. This district contains about forty square miles, being twenty miles long by two broad. The soil is rich: it produces sugar-cane, taro, sweet-potatoes, beans, &c. The only market is that of Koloa. The cane suffers somewhat from the high winds on the plains. [Wilkes 1845:67–68] While sweet potatoes, gourds, sugarcane, and wauke were important commodities in pre- Contact days, they supplemented the basic traditional diet of fish and taro. Thus, early foreign ideas of fertility and industry, backed by the needs of traders and whalers for supplies, mark the beginning of the shift to cash crops as the new landscape of inland “fertile plains.” Missionaries came to preach and teach western religion and culture. Missionary-sponsored schools of Līhu‘e are also documented by Damon: 1842: Number of schools in Lihue district 5: teachers 7: scholars 185; of whom readers 123, writers 28, those in arithmetic 64, and in geography 8. The Catholics have succeeded in getting away 12 children from one of these schools. [Damon 1931:407] Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 26 4.3 The Māhele and the Kuleana Act Paulo Kanoa, Governor of Kaua‘i at the time of the Māhele claimed both the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī but was awarded neither. Victoria Kamāmalu was awarded both ahupua‘a under Land Commission Award (LCA) 7713:2. The Victoria Kamāmalu award (LCA 7713:2 part 7) includes all the land within the present project area. There were no commoner awards anywhere nearby. The locations of kuleana or commoner land claims of the Māhele (1848-1853) in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a are clumped in two areas, along the floodplain of the north side of Nāwiliwili Stream (just back from the coast, south of Rice Street) and on the shore, back from Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay (Figure 7). There were 13 claims in Kalapakī, of which 12 were awarded. The cultivation of taro (kalo; Colocasia esculenta), the major staple, was along the Nāwiliwili Stream flood plains and along the smaller brooks of Kalapakī and Koenaawa where there were springs. The house lots in Kalapakī were at the shore. The only crop other than kalo (taro) mentioned specifically in Kalapakī is wauke. Additionally, more than one claim in Kalapakī mentions the fishponds of Koenaawa. Two streams—Koenaawa nui and Koenaawa iki—are identified in the claims but neither is named on current maps. Most Kalapakī claimants lived, however, at the shore in the “kulana kauhale” or village of Kalapakī, located behind Kalapakī Beach on Nāwiliwili Bay. Several of the claimants describe their village house lots in relation to the fishponds of Koenaawa (Koenaawainui and Koenaawaiki). There is also a description of the muliwai or estuary of Koenaawanui. The large tracts of inland areas (kula), not in the river valleys or at the shore, are not described in the claims but were probably in use. This kula land at the time of the Māhele belonged to Victoria Kamāmalu. Land use is not elaborated in her claims for Hanamā‘ulu or Kalapakī. Traditional kula resources for all claimants would have been medicines, herbs, construction materials such as pili (Heteropogon contortus) grass and trees for building houses, canoes, and perhaps lithic materials for tools. Sweet potatoes and other dryland crops, such as wauke, probably were cultivated in patches throughout the area at one time or another. Cattle, introduced by Vancouver, had at first been under a royal kapu (taboo) and were allowed to roam freely and reproduce. Within a few decades, cattle had begun to wreak havoc on village gardens and taro lands and homes. Residents either abandoned the land destroyed by roaming cattle or else started building walls to keep the cattle out of their homes and gardens. Hulē‘ia, an ahupua‘a to the west of the project area, was claimed by Victoria Kamāmalu during the Māhele as a preserve for cattle (Māhele information). Apparently, as the report by Wilkes suggests, the people of Līhu‘e had so far been safe from such depredation (ca. 1840s). 4.4 Late 1800s Following the death of Victoria Kamāmalu in 1866, her lands were inherited by Princess Ruth Ke‘elikōlani. In 1870, Ke‘elikōlani sold large portions of her Kalapakī and Līhu‘e lands to William Hyde Rice of Lihue Plantation. Also in 1870, Paul Isenberg purchased the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu from J.O. Dominis which includes the present airport area. William Hyde Rice made subsequent land purchases from Princess Ruth in 1879. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 27 Figure 7. Location of LCA claims in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a relative to the present project area (base map: 1996 USGS Lihue quadrangle topographic map) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 28 William Hyde Rice, who already had his own home on the hill east of the mill, bought a large makai (seaward) section of the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī from Princess Ruth in 1879 and there conducted the Lihue Ranch. In later years he sold most of this land to the plantation (Damon 1931:747). In William Hyde Rice’s Hawaiian Legends (discussed above), Rice’s granddaughter Edith Rice Pleus notes that Kalapakī in the 1920s comprised fertile lands. She probably referred to the extensive plains or kula lands existing prior to use for commercial sugarcane. The cultivation of sweet potatoes, gourds and wauke, and other dryland crops would have dominated land use in these kula lands. A State Archives document listed only as Land Matters, Document 11 with no date refers to konohiki rights (either prior to or contemporary with Land Commission claims since the konohiki received their claims after the ali‘i and before the kuleana awards). The konohiki (headman of an ahupuaʻa land division under the chief) had proprietary rights to fish caught in the bay. Document No. 11 lists ana‘e (mullet; Mugil cephalus) as the protected fish of Hanamā‘ulu, and uhu (parrot fish; Scarus perspicillatus) for Kalapakī. These protected fish are part of the konohiki resources, which he or she would use to meet his/her obligations to superior chiefs, governors/governesses and the King or Queen. Wikolia is listed as the konohiki for Wailua, Hanamā‘ulu, Kalapakī, Nāwiliwili, Niumalu, Ha‘iku, Kīpū, and a few other places. The procedure for fishing in the bay would be when “the proper fishing season arrives all the people may take fish, and when the fish are collected, they shall be divided—one third to the fishermen, and two thirds to the landlord. […] And the protected fish might all be for the konohiki” (Kosaki, 1954:14). One of the last vestiges of the pre-cash crop landscape is depicted in the diary entry for the Rice family’s arrival on Kaua‘i in 1854. During the second half of the nineteenth century, western settlers and entrepreneurs set their sights on southeast Kaua‘i. Ethel Damon, in Koamalu, her history of the Rice family of Kaua‘i, describes the Līhu‘e landscape at the time of the family’s arrival at Nāwiliwili Bay: From the deck of their river craft in 1854 Mrs. Rice and the children could plainly see above the rocky shore and ruins of Kuhiau, the old heiau, or temple, and nearby on the bluff the flaming blossoms of a great wili-wili tree among koa trees which often grew almost down to the water's edge [Damon 1931:17–18] These early written documents describe a good land with a nice climate and plentiful provisions for the traveler. Residents of the land live near the ocean and fishing villages are scattered along the shore; and at that time at Kalapakī many trees grew right down to the water’s edge (e.g., koa [Acacia koa] and wiliwili). While foreigners may have seen the shoreline as unproductive, Hawaiians would have disagreed. The indigenous settlement pattern indicates the shoreline was the locus for villages like Kalapakī at the mouth of Nāwiliwili River and “Hanawale,” perhaps a village near Hanamā‘ulu Bay. Shoreline areas were certainly favored for fishing, swimming, surfing, and residence. Depending on the distances, they may have had temporary residences among their agricultural lands and even in the uplands while gathering materials for house or canoe building. Others resided inland near their fields, but would have traveled around to acquire needed or desirable resources. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 29 In the earlier journals, lack of industry is noted and this refers specifically to production of goods beyond the needs of those producing them. Pigs, sweet potatoes, and salt, among other items, were traded to the earliest sailing vessels arriving in Hawai‘i (post 1794) and it is likely that in Līhu‘e District, as elsewhere, the production of these items increased beyond the needs of the immediate family and their expected contributions to their chiefs during this period of early visiting voyagers. The new settlers and entrepreneurs brought new activity to southeast Kaua‘i. Cotton was among the crops grown in Hanamā‘ulu, adjacent to Kalapakī: Later Mr. August Dreier was engineer in the mill. He had come out about 1869 for Hoffschlaeger and Stapenhorst to install a cotton mill in upper Hanamaulu land. The combination of a cool temperature with rain and red dust proved too much for successful cotton growing, but many wild bushes of it are still found in Kapaia valley. [Damon 1931:586] Paramount, however, among the new cash crops was sugar. The plantation at Līhu‘e was first established in 1849 by Henry A. Pierce; Judge Wm. Little Lee, the chairman of the Land Commission; and Charles Reed Bishop. It became Lihue Plantation in 1850. It was probably the best-capitalized and most-modern plantation at that time in all Hawai‘i. The mill was north and west of the present airport. A steam-powered mill was built in 1853 at Lihue Plantation, the first use of steam power on a Hawaiian sugar plantation. Another important innovation at Līhu‘e was created in 1856, when William H. Rice completed the 10-mile-long Hanamā‘ulu Ditch, the first large-scale irrigation project for any of the sugar plantations (Moffatt and Fitzpatrick 1995:103). Plantation labor was brought in from many countries and these new laborers brought some of their own cash crops. Rice production was an off-shoot industry of the sugar plantation in the 1870s, since many of the new Chinese plantation workers began to grow rice for themselves and then for trade with California. Japanese immigrants, by the end of the nineteenth century did the same and took over many of the Chinese rice paddies. Growing and milling rice also became a means for immigrants to leave the plantations after their indenture period. An 1881 map of the Kalapakī Beach area a kilometer south of the project area by Lt. Geo. G.E. Jackson (Figure 8) shows rice fields at the mouth of Nāwiliwili River in the estuary 500 m west of the present project area and depicts a few houses left in Kalapakī Village. In general, rice planters used abandoned taro fields, but made the patches larger than the traditional taro lo‘i. This is probably true of the Kalapakī floodplain. Jackson’s drawing (Figure 8) indicates the Kalapakī land north of Kuki‘i Point, where the project area and airport now lie, as a “level grassy land with volcanic boulders,” showing no cane cultivation in 1881. 4.5 1900s The 1910 USGS map (Figure 9) shows railroad tracks crossing the flat land near the coast (with a spur seemingly crossing the extreme east side of the present Subdivision 1A project area) and indicate cane cultivation reaching toward the shore. The cane fields have expanded toward the ocean into the area of the present airport. The expansion of Lihue Plantation’s sugarcane cultivation would accelerate throughout the entire coastal area in the early decades of the twentieth century. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 30 Figure 8. Portion of 1881 map of Nāwiliwili Harbor by Lt. George G. Jackson (RM 902) showing the area of Kuki‘i Point to Ninini Point with the project area depicted in an area of “Level grass land with volcanic boulders here and there” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 31 Figure 9. 1910 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map showing the project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 32 In 1929, the Territorial government began construction of a new harbor facility at Nawiliwili (Garden Island 24 December 1929:1:3). Sugarcane cultivation transformed the traditional landscape of Kalapakī into plantation landscape. By 1931, Lihue Plantation had 6,712 acres in cane. The plantation’s field map of 1939 (Figure 10) and 1941 (Figure 11) show sugarcane covering the entire coast and the present project area. Lihue Plantation “developed a water collection system second only to East Maui Irrigation Company [...] Altogether there are 51 miles of ditch and eighteen intakes” (Wilcox 1996:68). Railroads extended across the plantation to and from the shipping facilities and beyond the plantation itself to other plantations. The plantation landscape in Līhu‘e began in the mid-nineteenth century and continued to expand for a century. Maps and aerial photographs from 1939 through 1978 (Figure 10 through Figure 17) indicate the project area in a sea of sugarcane of the Lihue Plantation Company. In the 1950s, about the time of the advent of the new airport (Garden Island 10 January 1950:1:3, 11:1) and after Statehood in 1959, Līhu‘e’s plantation landscape began to give way to the present urban center. The sugar plantation infrastructure included ditch systems, railroads and engine houses, bridges, interisland shipping storage facilities, and housing. Today, the remnants of this commercial sugarcane landscape can still be seen around or near the airport. 4.6 Contemporary Land Use During the second half of the twentieth century the project area was a portion of Kalapakī lands transformed by resort development on Kaua‘i. The transition from sugar cane fields to resort development is apparent in the 1978 aerial photograph (Figure 17). The Kauai Surf Hotel on Kalapakī Bay was developed by Inter-Island Resorts in 1960. Then in 1970, the adjacent Kauai Surf Golf Course opened. Subsequently, in the mid-1980s, these Kalapakī properties were sold or leased to Hemmeter-VMS Kauai Company, which began development of the Westin Kauai Lagoons Resort on approximately 850 acres. In 1991, the Kauai Lagoons Resort was sold to Shinwa Golf Kabushiki Kaisha, which operated the resort and golf courses under Kauai Lagoons Resort Company, Ltd. The approximately 700- acre property, including the present project area, was acquired by Kauai Development LLC and KD Golf Ownership LLC in 2004 and the resort prospers into the twenty-first century as “Hōkūala.” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 33 Figure 10. 1939 Map of Lihue Plantation showing the project area as at a confluence of fields 30A, 30B, 31 and 32 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 34 Figure 11. 1941 Lihue Plantation field map showing the project area as at a confluence of fields 30A, 30B, 31 and 32 (Condé and Best 1973:168) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 35 Figure 12. 1950 USGS Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 36 Figure 13. 1959 USGS Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 37 Figure 14. Portion of 1963 Lihue USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 38 Figure 15. 1965 USDA Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 39 Figure 16. Undated “Map of Lihue Plantation with Lessees” produced by the Lihue Plantation Company showing a lot configuration (the present project area is partially in “Lot 4”) not reflected on other maps (the map references “Stadium Vidinha” and it is understood Lihue Stadium was not so named until after 1976) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 40 Figure 17. 1978 USGS orthophotoquad aerial photograph, Lihue Quadrangle showing the project area as within former sugarcane fields on the northeast but mostly in a new golf course development Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 41 Section 5 Previous Archaeological Research 5.1 Early References to Kalapakī Archaeology Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area (within approximately 1.0 km) are depicted in Figure 18 and summarized in Table 1. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area (within approximately 1.0 km) are depicted in Figure 19 and summarized in Table 2. Thomas Thrum, the publisher of an annual Hawaiian almanac, gathered lists of heiau on all islands. From the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī we begin with his list of three: 1. Ninini, Kalapakī, near site of Nawiliwili light house. All destroyed (Thrum 1906:40) 2. Ahukini, Kalapakī. A heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain (Thrum 1906:40) 3. Pohakoelele, Kalapakī. A medium sized heiau; all destroyed (Thrum 1906) The first comprehensive archaeological survey on the island of Kaua‘i was undertaken by Wendell Bennett in 1930 and published in 1931. Bennett used Thrum’s list for reference and added additional sites he documented. For Kalapakī he lists only two heiau following Thrum: • Site 100. Ninini heiau, in Kalapaki near the site of the Nawiliwili lighthouse. It is now all destroyed. [Bennett 1931:124] • Site 101. Ahuhini heiau, in Kalapaki near Ahukini Point on the bluff overlooking the sea. This is now entirely destroyed. Thrum says, ‘A heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain.’ [Bennett 1931:125] Bennett does not mention the Pohakoelele heiau. Ethel Damon in her book about Kaua‘i history (Koamalu 1931) mentions “the three small heiaus in the neighboring ahupua‘a of Kalapakī, those of Ninini, Ahukini and Pohako-eleele, little more than the names survive” (Damon 1931:397–398). Neither Thrum nor Bennett mention a heiau noted by Lt. George E.G. Jackson, Navy cartographer for the Hawaii Government Survey Office in 1881 at Kūki‘i Point (on Nāwiliwili Bay, 600 m southwest of the present project area, see Figure 8). The Kaua‘i Community College newsletter, Archaeology on Kauai, notes that these “remains of ancient heiau” noted by Jackson are “where the cottages of the Kauai Surf now stand” (Kaua‘i Community College Volume 2; 4 October 1973: 4). 5.2 Modern Archaeological Studies The Archaeological Research Center Hawaii (1980) carried out an archaeological reconnaissance of two parcels at the Kauai Surf Hotel (present day Hōkūala) as close as 200 m to the west and south of the present study area but no historic properties were identified. In 1988 CSH (Hammatt 1988) carried out an archaeological reconnaissance survey of 150-acres of coastal land on the coastal strip east of the north/south airport runway at Kalapaki (location of a proposed 3rd Golf Course at the Kauai Lagoons Resort). The study identified five archaeological sites along the east shoreline, 800 m east of the present project area including: Site 1 wall remnant Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 42 Figure 18. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area (Base map: 1996 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 43 Table 1. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area Reference Type of Study Location Results Thrum 1906 Heiau study Kaua‘i-wide Listing of three heiau at Kalapakī, Ahukini Heiau: “ heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain,” Ninini, and Pohakoelele, “all destroyed.” Bennett 1931 Archaeological reconnaissance Kaua‘i-wide Lists two sites at Kalapakī, Site 100 Ninini Heiau by the Nāwiliwili lighthouse well to south (destroyed by 1931) and Site 101 “Ahuhini heiau” “now entirely destroyed [by 1931]” Handy 1940 Reconnaissance of agricultural lands Kaua‘i-wide Discusses planting localities along Nāwiliwili River and Hanamā‘ulu River, located quite far away ARCH 1980 Archaeological Reconnaissance Two parcels of Kauai Surf Hotel (present day Hōkūala) No historic properties identified Hammatt 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance 150 acres of coastal land, Kauai Lagoons Resort (present day Hōkūala) Kalapakī Identified five archaeological sites along the east shoreline, 800 m east of the present project area including: Site 1 wall remnant (SIHP # 50-30- 11-422), Site 2 wall remnant (SIHP # 50-30-11-423), Site 3 shell midden scatter (SIHP # 50-30-11-421), Site 4 oval terrace alignment (SIHP # 50- 30-11-424), and Site 5, a large wall at Aninini Point. Hammatt 1990 Archaeological reconnaissance survey Kauai Lagoons Resort (present day Hōkūala) Kalapakī The present project area appears to have been entirely within Phase III of the project area where no historic properties were identified. The study identified five archaeological sites in the Phase V area, east of the N/S runway along shoreline. McMahon 1990 Archaeological field check Three locations for new Kaua‘i judiciary building, Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu; Kalapakī, Hanamā‘ulu Three previously identified historic residential sites (SIHP #s 50-30-11 -9390, -9401, -9402) none near present project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 44 Reference Type of Study Location Results Gonzales 1992 Archaeological literature review and field inspection Proposed 138 by 138 ft Federal Aviation Administration Radar Installation Facility on coast east of Līhu‘e Airport No historic properties identified (notes “vegetative conditions at the proposed site precluded a complete inspection of the ground surface”) Hammatt 2005 Archaeological inventory survey (termed archaeological assessment in the absence of finds) Approx. 71-acre portion of Kauai Lagoons Resort property, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, (incl. entirety of present project area) No historic properties identified Bell et al. 2006 Archaeological inventory survey Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī Identified SIHP # 50-30-08-3958, plantation-era concrete enclosures and foundation remnants that likely functioned as a piggery Creed et al. 2006 Archaeological field inspection and literature review Eleven discrete areas for proposed Līhu‘e Airport Expansion, Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a; TMKs: [4] 3-5 001:005, 006, 008, 009, 109, 111, and 158 and 3-7-002:por. 1 Reports fieldwork conducted in 1998 and 1999; most of present project area addressed as “Area 2”; only historic properties identified (SIHP # 50-30-08-9000) in vicinity of Ahukini Landing (designated “Area 10”) well northeast of present project area Monahan and Hammatt 2008 Archaeological literature review and field inspection Nawiliwili-Ahukini Bike Path project, Nāwiliwili; TMKs: [4] 3-2-004; 3-5-001, 002 and 3-6-002, 019, 020 Summarizes seven previously identified historic properties—all along coast as well as a historic cemetery and two bridges Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Archaeological inventory survey Nawiliwili-Ahukini Bike Path project, Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu Ahupua‘a; TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:004, 008, 027, 060, 083, 085, 102, 118, 128, 159, and 160 por. Identified 15 historic properties including five relatively close to present project area: • 50-30-11-423, Plantation era agricultural field divider • 50-30-11-2086, Habitation terrace • 50-30-11-2093, Plantation era drainage ditch • 50-30-11-2094, Habitation terrace • 50-30-11-2095, Pre-contact activity area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 45 Figure 19. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area (Base map: 1996 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 46 Table 2. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area SIHP # 50-30-11 Site Type Reference Comments -100 Ninini Heiau Thrum 1906 Bennett 1931 Hammatt 1990 “all destroyed.” -101 Ahukini Heiau Thrum 1906 Bennett 1931 A heiau of medium size; Bennett writes: “now entirely destroyed [by 1931]” -421 Midden Scatter Hammatt 1990: Scatter of marine shells on shoreline (Hammatt 1990 Site 3) -422 Plantation era agricultural field divider Hammatt 1990, Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remnants of a plantation-era wall measuring 13 m northeast/southwest on shoreline (Hammatt 1990 Site 1) -423 Plantation era agricultural field divider Hammatt 1990, Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remnants of a plantation-era wall measuring 24.5 m long, northeast- southwest on shoreline (Hammatt 1990 Site 2) -424 Oval terrace alignment Hammatt 1990 On Bluff - possible prehistoric habitation structure -2086 Habitation terrace Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remnants of two terraces on shoreline. Coral and marine midden fragments were observed scattered about the area -2087 Nāwiliwili Harbor Light and associated features Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Lighthouse (built in 1933) and associated remnants of caretaker’s quarters -2088 Foundation of an historic communications tower Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Possibly the same as depicted on the 1910 USGS topographic map -2089 Mounds (2) Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Possible historic burial mound -2090 Historic artillery gun emplacement Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Likely related to World War II military infrastructure -2091 Historic building foundation Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remains of a small, one-bedroom house. -2092 Historic outhouse and cesspool Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remains of an outhouse and cesspool connected by a shallow ditch -2093 Plantation era drainage ditch Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Plantation-era, earthen drainage ditch measuring 61.7 m long and running roughly east-west on shoreline Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 47 SIHP # 50-30-11 Site Type Reference Comments -2094 Habitation terrace Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Pre-Contact habitation site consisting of a terrace measuring 6.2 northeast- southwest by 5.0 m northwest-southeast. The terrace is constructed of basalt cobbles and boulders stacked one-to-two courses high to a maximum height of 0.35 m; on shoreline -2095 Pre-contact activity area Altizer and Hammatt 2010 A scatter of cultural material measuring 5.1 m north-south by 2.6 m east-west marine including shell midden, basalt cobbles and pebbles and charcoal. The cultural layer contained a strong ash lens, along with a substantial amount of marine shell midden; on shoreline No SIHP # assigned Railroad bridge Monahan and Hammatt 2008 Nāwiliwili Stream railroad bridge Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 48 (SIHP # 50-30-11-422), Site 2 wall remnant (SIHP # 50-30-11-423), Site 3 shell midden scatter (SIHP # 50-30-11-421), Site 4 oval terrace alignment (SIHP # 50-30-11-424), and Site 5, a large wall at Aninini Point regarded as a possible remnant of the former Ninini Heiau. Two years later, CSH (Hammatt 1990) carried out an archaeological reconnaissance survey for the Kauai Lagoons Resort addressing three “phase” areas; a central Phase III area understood to have included the entirety of the present study area, a Phase IV area along the south coast at an existing Westin Kaua‘i Hotel, and a Phase V area along the coast east of the N/S runway (the eastern portion of the Hammatt 1988 study area). The same five sites described in the Hammatt 1988 study (in the Phase V area) are again described. No additional sites were reported (no historic properties were reported from the present study area and vicinity). Nancy McMahon (1990), then of the SHPD, carried out an archaeological fieldcheck of three possible Locations for a New Kauai Judiciary Building, one each in Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu. At the Kalapakī location (Location 2, TMK: 4-3-6-02:01) one historic building (SIHP 50-30-11-9402, radio station KTOH)) was identified well away from the present study area. Tirzo Gonzales (1992) carried out an archaeological literature review and field inspection of a proposed 138 by 138 ft Federal Aviation Administration radar installation facility on the coast east of Līhu‘e Airport but no historic properties were identified (they noted vegetative conditions at the proposed site precluded a complete inspection of the ground surface). CSH carried out fieldwork in 2005 for an archaeological inventory survey-level study (Hammatt 2005) of a 71-acre project area 700 m north of the present study area bounded on the northeast and northwest by runways of Līhu‘e Airport. The study documented no historic properties and noted The entire project area has been extensively modified as a result of its former use as cane fields. The land surface shows abundant evidence of plantation-era land use, including plastic mulch, plow marks, and some typical vegetation associated with feral cane fields. [Hammatt 2005:25] CSH (Monahan and Hammatt 2008) carried out an archaeological literature review and field inspection study for approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) of a Nāwiliwili-Ahukini Bike Path project. Previously described historic properties along the coast from Ninini Point to Ahukini are discussed but no new historic properties are designated anywhere near the present study area. A railroad bridge crossing Nāwiliwili Stream 800 m to the west of the present project area is discussed. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 49 Section 6 Field Inspection Results An archaeological field inspection was undertaken by CSH archaeologist Nancine “Missy” Kamai on 28 June 2021 The following photograph record addresses the three portions of the project area, the northern Subdivision 1A, the central area adjacent to the south of Subdivision 1A designated Subdivision 1 and the southern Lot 10c which is largely within a water feature and includes a relatively flat island with a mowed lawn in the eastern portion. Representative views are presented of the northern Subdivision 1A starting at the west end looking to the northeast (Figure 20) and southeast (Figure 21) followed by views from the central portion of Subdivision 1A to the southwest (Figure 22) and NNE (Figure 23), and then with views from the east end of Subdivision 1A to the northwest (Figure 24) and southwest (Figure 25). The relatively central area adjacent to the south of Subdivision 1A designated Subdivision 1 was then inspected with representative views provided from the west end of Subdivision 1 to the northeast (Figure 26) and southeast (Figure 27), from the central portion of Subdivision 1 to the west (Figure 28) and east (Figure 29), and from the east end of Subdivision 1 to the west (Figure 30) and southeast (Figure 31). The southern Lot 10C project area is largely a water feature that was visited from a causeway on the south side of a large flat island with a mowed lawn that dominates the east side of the lot. Representative photographs are presented of southern Parcel 10C, from the southern causeway to the northeast showing the large flat island (Figure 32), of Parcel 10C from the large eastern island to the west (Figure 33), of Parcel 10C from the southwest side of the large eastern island looking to the northeast (Figure 34), and of southern Parcel 10C from the north side of the large eastern island looking to the south (Figure 35). All portions of the project area appeared to have been previously graded and reworked for the present Hōkūala Resort. No historic properties were observed. It was evaluated that historic properties are unlikely to be present. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 50 Figure 20. View of the west end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to northeast Figure 21. View of the west end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southeast Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 51 Figure 22. View from the central portion of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southwest Figure 23. View from the central portion of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to NNE Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 52 Figure 24. View of the east end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to northwest Figure 25. View of the east end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southwest Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 53 Figure 26. View of the west end of the central Subdivision 1, view to northeast Figure 27. View of the west end of the central Subdivision 1, view to southeast Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 54 Figure 28. View from the central portion of the central Subdivision 1, view to west Figure 29. View from the central portion of the central Subdivision 1, view to east Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 55 Figure 30. View of the east end of the central Subdivision 1, view to west Figure 31. View of the east end of the central Subdivision 1, view to southeast Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 56 Figure 32. View of southern Parcel 10C, view from southern causeway to large eastern island, view to northeast Figure 33. View of southern Parcel 10C, view from large eastern island to west Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 57 Figure 34. View of southern Parcel 10C, from southwest side of the large eastern island, view to northeast Figure 35. View of southern Parcel 10C, from north side of the large eastern island, view to south Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 58 Section 7 Community Consultation 7.1 Introduction An effort was made to contact and consult with 29 Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO), agencies, and community members including descendants of the area, in order to identify any cultural concerns regarding the project area. CSH initiated its outreach effort in July 2021 through letters, email and telephone calls. As of September 2021, four parties had responded and agreed to release of their responses. 7.2 Community Contact Letter Letters (Figure 36, Figure 37 and Figure 38) along with a map and an aerial photograph of the project were mailed with the following text: Aloha mai kākou [Name of Recipient], With this letter, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i (CSH) humbly requests your mana‘o and ‘ike (experience, insights, and perspectives) regarding past and ongoing cultural, practices, beliefs, and resources within Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. Consultation with traditional cultural practitioners, kūpuna, kama‘āina, and Hawai‘i’s diverse ethnic communities is an important and deeply valued part of our work and the environmental review process for proposed projects in Hawai‘i. Your contributions will revitalize and keep alive knowledge of cultural practices, storied places, and life experiences that will remind Hawai‘i’s children of their history for generations to come. Project Description At the request of Hōkūala, CSH is conducting a Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala redevelopment of Subdivision 1, Subdivision 1A and Lot 10C project within the Hōkūala Resort area in Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, southeast Kauaʻi (TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109). The project area is bounded on the northwest and northeast by runways of Līhu‘e Airport and is bounded on the south by golf courses of the Hōkūala Resort and other resort infrastructure. The project area is bounded on the north by the golf course of the Hōkūala Resort and is bounded on the south by resort lagoons and other resort infrastructure of Hōkūala. The project area is depicted on a portion of the 1996 Lihue U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1) and 2016 aerial photograph (Figure 2). The proposed project is a Petition for County Zoning Amendment to amend the zoning designation from R-2 to R-4 for an inland portion of the Hōkūala Resort property to allow for higher density development at the proposed Subdivisions 1 and 1A (14.2 acres in the aggregate) while significantly reducing the allowable density of a RR-10 parcel (approximately 2.6 acres) in the vicinity to R-2. As a result of this petition, there is no increase to the entitlement cap of 772 units for the Hōkūala Resort. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 59 Purpose of Cultural Consultation The purpose of cultural consultation is to gather information on Hawai‘i’s cultural resources, practices, or beliefs that have occurred or still occur within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. This is accomplished through consultation and background research using previously written documents, studies, and interviews. This information is used to assess potential impacts by the proposed project to the specific identified resources, practices, and beliefs in the project area and throughout Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. As a traditional cultural practitioner and holder of long-term knowledge, your insight, input, and perspective provide a valuable contribution to the assessment of potential effects of this project and an understanding of how to protect these resources and practices. Insights focused on the following topics in the project area (shown on the attached Figures 1 and 2) are especially helpful and appreciated: • Your knowledge of traditional cultural practices of the past within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Your specific traditional cultural practice and its connection to the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • The different natural resources associated with your specific traditional cultural practice • Legends, stories, or chants associated with your specific traditional cultural practices and their relationships to the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Referrals to other kūpuna, kama‘āīna, and traditional cultural practitioners knowledgeable about the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Your comments or thoughts on the potential impacts the proposed project may have on your ongoing traditional cultural practices and natural resources within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Your knowledge of cultural sites and wahi pana (storied places) within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Your comments or thoughts on the potential impacts the proposed project may have on cultural sites and wahi pana within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a Consultation Information Consultation is an important and deeply valued part of the environmental review process. Your contributions will revitalize and keep alive our combined knowledge of past and ongoing cultural practices, historic places, and experiences, reminding our children of their history generation after generation. With your agreement to participate in this study, your contributions will become part of the comprehensive understanding of traditions of the area; and potentially Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 60 will be part of the public record. The Cultural Impact Assessment study may be included within a Petition for County Zoning Amendment. As a part of this process, your knowledge may be used to inform future heritage studies of cultural practices and resources that need protection from impacts of proposed future projects. If you engage in consultation, and the mana‘o and ‘ike you provide appears in the study, we would like to recognize your contribution by including your name. If you prefer not to allow your name to be included, your information can be attributed to an anonymous source. The consultation interview structure and format are flexible. We will accommodate your preference on how to get together; talk story, over the phone, by email correspondence, remotely via Zoom, MS Teams, Google Chat or other remote meeting platforms. Your knowledge of the resources and potential effect of the project on traditional practices in the project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a focusing on the topics in the bullet points above can also be submitted in a written statement. CSH will provide return postage of your written statement on request. CSH is happy to provide a list of topics for discussion, a more structured questionnaire of interview questions, or any other assistance that might be helpful. If you have questions regarding consultation, or are interested in participating in this study, please contact CSH Cultural Researcher Kellen Tanaka by email at ktanaka@culturalsurveys.com or phone at (808) 262-9972. Mahalo nui loa for your time and attention to this request for consultation. Yours with much aloha and appreciation, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 61 Figure 36. Community contact letter page one Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 62 Figure 37. Community contact letter page two Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 63 Figure 38. Community contact letter page three Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 64 In most cases, two or three attempts are being made to contact individuals, organizations, and agencies. Community outreach letters were sent to a total of 29 individuals or groups and as of September 2021, four had responded and agreed to release of their responses, and three of these kama‘āina and/or kupuna met with CSH for more interviews. The results of the community consultation responses received are presented below: 7.3 Community Responses (received to date) 7.3.1 Donna Kaliko Santos On 8 July 2021, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i (CSH) spoke with Donna Kaliko Santos, (President of Na Kuleana O Kanaka Oiwi & Puna Moku representative of the Aha Moku O Manokalanipo) over the telephone to discuss the cultural impact assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area. Ms. Santos stated that her main concern is protecting access for gathering, fishing, and cultural sites along the shoreline. In past community meetings regarding this coastline area, she recalled that ‘ohana (families) from Nāwiliwili and Niumalu gather and fish along the coast. She mentioned that the area was mainly used by kama‘āina (native born) to traverse to the shoreline. She also asked if the project proponents put in a road, will people be allowed to use the road to access the shoreline? Ms. Santos noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, people have been dependent on subsistence including fishing. She also mentioned that during the COVID-19 pandemic, area users noted that homeless who have been living in the area along the shore have been leaving their ʻōpala (rubbish). Ms. Santos recommended that CSH reach out to Leonard (Lenny) Rapozo, Facility Manager at County of Kaua‘iʻs War Memorial Convention Hall. She noted that Mr. Rapozo’s mother’s ‘ohana are from the area and he grew up fishing in the area. 7.3.2 Jan TenBruggencate On 9 July 2021, Jan TenBruggencate shared his mana‘o (opinion) with Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i (CSH) regarding the Hōkūala Petition Area via email. Mr. TenBruggencate is the President of Mālama Hule‘ia, a non-profit corporation which “advocates, educates, and leads community efforts to remove red mangrove along the Hule‘ia river, re‐ establishes native wetland ecosystems and creates an environmental stewardship program honoring Hawaiian values” (Mālama Hule‘ia 2021). Mr. TenBruggencate expressed his concern regarding “increased traffic congestion on the roads in the immediate vicinity of the area of increased density.” He stated that the “the pavement on the east-west road that bisects this area” is popular for people who walk and ride bicycles recreationally and for exercise. He stated that the “project could avoid conflicts by establishing a walking and/or biking path out of the lane of traffic on one or both sides of that road.” He expressed his belief that “offering that amenity could reduce community concerns about the increased density.” Mr. TenBruggencate’s entire statement is provided below: One issue of concern to the community is likely the increased traffic congestion on the roads in the immediate vicinity of the area of increased density. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 65 This is a popular area for people walking for exercise. Currently dozens to perhaps hundreds of people daily walk recreationally on the pavement on the east-west road that bisects this area. That is a valued and appreciated activity for our community. People walk individually, with families, with young children on bicycles, with baby strollers. Many walk while listening to music and podcasts, making them potentially less aware of traffic. Bicycle riders also frequently use this area. The project could avoid conflicts by establishing a walking and/or biking path out of the lane of traffic on one or both sides of that road. I believe offering that amenity could reduce community concerns about the increased density. 7.3.3 Carl Berg On 30 July 2021, Dr. Carl Berg, ecologist and owner of Hawaiian Wildlife Tours, provided Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i with written testimony regarding the cultural impact assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area. Dr. Berg’s testimony is provided below: I am not a Hawaiian cultural practitioner. I am an ecologist, kama‘aina, and frequent jogger through Hokuala’s property in Lihue. The land in question was historically destroyed by growing sugar. Then the airport came in, then the resort hotel complex. Then the ponds and islands were created by massive excavations. Although I have been familiar with the area for over 30 years, I have never heard of any place there as being culturally significant. I doubt that there is any original native vegetation. 7.3.4 Anonymous Kama‘āina of Līhu‘e On 13 July 2021, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i (CSH) spoke with a kama‘āina (native born) of Līhu‘e over the telephone regarding the cultural impact assessment (CIA) for the Hōkūala Petition Area. The kama‘āina, who wished to remain anonymous, shared their knowledge of the project area and their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. Born and raised on Kaua‘i, the kama‘āina learned about “old Hawaiian history” in school. They learned that in traditional times, the beaches around Kaua‘i were “fighting grounds,” and periodically the “old ancient Hawaiian bones of warriors” have been encountered on the beaches. They mentioned fishermen have encountered these bones and will cover them up. They were also taught that villages were built on higher grounds. They recalled being shown the remnants of “old Hawaiian settlements” by a member of their ‘ohana (family) who encountered the remnants while hunting. They also stated, “Old traditions have been bulldozed over.” They mentioned Kaua‘i has many heiau (traditional place of worship) that have not been preserved but their locations can be found on old maps. The kama‘āina noted there are walking paths in the vicinity of the project area which people use for exercising. They expressed their concern that access to the area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. They mentioned that their friend has observed “No Trespassing” signs along the golf cart path in the vicinity of the project area. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 66 They also shared a story about their friend who bought a home in a subdivision and began experiencing strange occurrences. When the friend brought a kahuna (priest) to bless the home, the kahuna observed spirits on the roof of the home and explained that the “strange occurrences— tragic deaths; and a brush fire in the subdivision” occurred because homes were “built in the ancient walking path. They noted, “some badly burned and partially burned but no other homes in the subdivision got damaged.” The kahuna told their friend, “this ancient walking path was for the Hawaiian villagers to walk to the beach ocean shoreline for their fishing (food).” They also expressed their concern that the proposed project may impact access to the shoreline for people who use the area for activities such as fishing or picnics. They recalled the “old days” when the beaches were more accessible; they would visit the shoreline with their ‘ohana to camp and fish. However, they noted access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes built along the shoreline. They pointed out areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu” have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They also recalled that in the “old days” their grandfather, who was a fisherman, could “fish all over.” However, presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. They also wondered if the Lihue Wastewater Treatment Plant would need to be upgraded to accommodate a higher-density subdivision? They expressed their concerns that odors from the wastewater treatment plant could be carried by the wind and spread throughout the area. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 67 Section 8 Traditional Cultural Practices Timothy R. Pauketat succinctly describes the importance of traditions, especially in regards to the active manifestation of one’s culture or aspects thereof. According to Pauketat, People have always had traditions, practiced traditions, resisted traditions, or created traditions […] Power, plurality, and human agency are all a part of how traditions come about. Traditions do not simply exist without people and their struggles involved every step of the way. [Pauketat 2001:1] It is understood that traditional practices are developed within the group, in this case, within the Hawaiian culture. These traditions are meant to mark or represent aspects of Hawaiian culture that have been practiced since ancient times. As with most human constructs, traditions are evolving and prone to change resulting from multiple influences, including modernization as well as other cultures. It is well known that within Hawai‘i, a “broader “local” multicultural perspective exists” (Kawelu 2015:3) While this “local” multicultural culture is deservedly celebrated, it must be noted that it has often come into contact with “traditional Hawaiian culture.” This contact between cultures and traditions has undoubtedly resulted in numerous cultural entanglements. These cultural entanglements have prompted questions regarding the legitimacy of newly evolved traditional practices. The influences of “local” culture are well noted throughout this section, and understood to represent survivance or “the active sense of presence, the continuance of native stories, not a mere reaction, or a survivable name. Native survivance stories are renunciations of dominance, tragedy and victimry” (Vizenor 1999:vii). Acknowledgement of these “local” influences help to inform nuanced understandings of entanglement and of a “living [Hawaiian] contemporary culture” (Kawelu 2015:3). This section strives to articulate traditional Hawaiian cultural practices as were practiced within the ahupua‘a in ancient times, and the aspects of these traditional practices that continue to be practiced today; however, this section also challenges “tropes of authenticity,” (Cipolla 2013) and acknowledges the multicultural influences and entanglements that may “change” or “create” a tradition. This section integrates information from Sections 3-6 in examining cultural resources and practices identified within or in proximity of the project area in the broader context of the encompassing Kalapaki landscape. Excerpts from informant comments are incorporated throughout this section where applicable. 8.1 Habitation and Subsistence In pre-Contact and early historic times, the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī was permanently inhabited and intensively used. Traditional fishing villages were once located near the seashore at Kalapakī, east and north (around and up the coast) of Kalapakī Beach. Loko and small drainages were inland of these settlement areas. Concentrations of permanent house sites and temporary shelters, heiau, ko‘a and kū‘ula, and numerous trails were also located in these coastal areas. Land Commission documents indicate a land use pattern that may be unique to this part of the island, or to Kaua‘i in general, in which lo‘i and kula lands are described in the same ‘āpana, with houselots in a separate portion. In most places, kula lands are defined as drier landscapes, and they do not typically occur next to, and among, wetter lo‘i lands. The kula area contained native forests and were cultivated with crops of wauke, ‘uala, and ipu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 68 Hammatt and Creed (1993:23) also note that, “there are several [LCA] references to other lo‘i next to the beach which indicate wetland cultivation extending right to the shoreline.” This is another type of land use that seems to be fairly unique to Kaua‘i. Historical accounts also describe Kalapakī and Līhu‘e’s natural resources. Edith Rice Pleus, granddaughter William Hyde Rice, noted that Kalapakī in the 1920s comprised fertile lands. She probably referred to the extensive plains or kula lands existing prior to use for commercial sugarcane. The cultivation of sweet potatoes, gourds and wauke, and other dryland crops would have dominated land use in these kula lands. At the time of the Māhele, Victoria Kamāmalu was awarded both the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī under Land Commission Award (LCA) 7713:2 which includes all the land within the present project area. The locations of kuleana land claims in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a are clumped in two areas, along the floodplain of the north side of Nāwiliwili Stream (just back from the coast, south of Rice Street) and on the shore, back from Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay. There were 13 claims in Kalapakī, of which 12 were awarded. The cultivation of taro, the major staple, was along the Nāwiliwili Stream flood plains and along the smaller brooks of Kalapakī and Koenaawa where there were springs. The only crop other than kalo (taro) mentioned specifically in Kalapakī is wauke. Most Kalapakī claimants lived, however, at the shore in the “kulana kauhale” or village of Kalapakī, located behind Kalapakī Beach on Nāwiliwili Bay. The house lots in Kalapakī were at the shore and more than one claim in Kalapakī mentions the fishponds of Koenaawa. Two streams—Koenaawa nui and Koenaawa iki—are identified in the claims but neither is named on current maps. The large tracts of inland areas (kula), not in the river valleys or at the shore, are not described in the claims but were probably in use. Traditional kula resources for all claimants would have been medicines, herbs, construction materials such as pili grass and trees for building houses, canoes, and perhaps lithic materials for tools. Sweet potatoes and other dryland crops, such as wauke, probably were cultivated in patches throughout the area at one time or another. Dr. Berg, ecologist and owner of Hawaiian Wildlife Tours, noted, “The land in question was historically destroyed by growing sugar. Then the airport came in, then the resort hotel complex. Then the ponds and islands were created by massive excavations.” He added, “I have never heard of any place there as being culturally significant. I doubt that there is any original native vegetation.” The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e recalled learning “old Hawaiian history” in school. They were taught that villages were built on higher grounds. They recalled being shown the remnants of “old Hawaiian settlements” by a member of their ‘ohana who encountered the remnants while hunting. They also stated, “Old traditions have been bulldozed over.” They also noted there are many heiau on Kaua‘i that have not been preserved but their locations can be found on old maps. They also stated that in traditional times, the beaches around Kaua‘i were “fighting grounds.” They noted that the “old ancient Hawaiian bones of warriors” have been encountered on the beaches by fishermen who will cover them back up. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 69 The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also noted there are walking paths in the vicinity of the project area which people use for exercising. They expressed their concern that access to the area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. They mentioned that their friend has observed “No Trespassing” signs along the golf cart path in the vicinity of the project area. They also shared a story about their friend who experienced “strange occurrences—tragic deaths; and a brush fire in the subdivision” at the home they bought. A kahuna that was brought in to bless the home observed spirits on the roof and explained that the strange occurrences occurred because homes were “built in the ancient walking path. They noted, “some badly burned and partially burned but no other homes in the subdivision got damaged.” The kahuna told their friend, “this ancient walking path was for the Hawaiian villagers to walk to the beach ocean shoreline for their fishing (food).” They also wondered if the Lihue Wastewater Treatment Plant would need to be upgraded to accommodate a higher-density subdivision? They expressed their concerns that odors from the wastewater treatment plant could be carried by the wind and spread throughout the area. 8.2 Marine Resources The Līhu‘e District is fed by four main water sources, the Hulē‘ia River, the Hanamā‘ulu River, Keālia River, and the Wailua River. Two smaller streams, Koena‘awa nui and Koena‘awa iki, are identified in Land Commission documents, although neither of these is named on any extant maps. Given the gently-sloping character of the natural lay of the land from Līhu‘e to the coast, it is possible that there were once a few other smaller drainages traversing what is now the airport, resort and golf course area; and, that Native Hawaiian planters made use of this water. Southwest of the project area is Nāwiliwili Harbor, a commercial deep-water port which accommodates “a wide range of vessels including passenger liners, interisland barges, freighters, and tankers” (Clark 1990:3). John R.K. Clark translates Nawiliwili as “the wiliwili trees” and noted that, “These trees provided the Hawaiians with orange-to-red seeds that were strung into leis [garlands] and a very light wood that was used to make surfboards, canoe outriggers, and fishnet floats” (Clark 1990:2). Nawiliwili Small Boat Harbor, which includes a boat ramp, restrooms, and parking for automobiles and trailers, is utilized by both recreational and commercial vessels. It is also a favorite spot for shoreline fishermen (Clark 1990:3). Nawiliwili Park, a long, narrow park whose entire seaward edge is formed by a concrete sea wall, is located on the northern side of the Nawiliwili Harbor (Clark 1990:3). The park is primarily used for picnicking, fishing, and surfing. A surfing site known as Ammonias is located directly offshore the wall. Kalapakī Beach is a popular place for many types of recreational activities including “canoe surfing, fishing, snorkeling, windsurfing, and twin-hull sailing” (Clark 1990:5). Clark (1990:4-5) stated that, “The surfing site known as Kalapakī offshore the beach is an ideal beginner’s surfing break with gentle waves that roll across a shallow sand bar.” He also noted that, “Kalapakī is one of Kaua‘i’s historic surfing sites. The break was surfed and bodysurfed by ancient Hawaiians and later by non-Hawaiians who took up the sports.” Ninini Beach consists of “two large pockets of white sand, separated by lava rock at the base of a low sea cliff” (Clark 1990:5). Conditions at the Ninini Beach are good for recreational activities including swimming and snorkeling (Clark 1990:5). Clark also noted that the beach is Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 70 “subject at all times of the year to high surf and kona (southerly) storms, both of which may generate dangerous water conditions” (Clark 1990:5). Clark also noted that Ninini Point which is “marked by the Nawiliwili Light Station and the foundations of the former lighthouse keeper’s quarters” is also a fishing spot which is very popular with shoreline fishermen (Clark 1990:5). A State Archives document listed only as Land Matters, Document 11 with no date refers to konohiki rights. The konohiki had proprietary rights to fish caught in the bay. According to Document No. 11, ana‘e (mature mullet) was the protected fish of Hanamā‘ulu, and uhu (parrot fish) for Kalapakī. These protected fish are part of the konohiki resources, which he or she would use to meet his/her obligations to superior chiefs, governors/governesses and the King or Queen. The proper procedure for fishing in the bay would be when “the proper fishing season arrives all the people may take fish, and when the fish are collected, they shall be divided—one third to the fishermen, and two thirds to the landlord. […] And the protected fish might all be for the konohiki” (Kosaki, 1954:14). Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos (see Section 7.3) spoke to the importance of access to marine resources noting that that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, people have been even more dependent on subsistence including fishing. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e expressed their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. They noted that the beaches were more accessible in the “old days,” and they would visit the shoreline with their ‘ohana to camp and fish. They also recalled that their grandfather, who was a fisherman, could “fish all over” in the “old days.” They pointed out that access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes that have been built along the shoreline in areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu.” These areas have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They also noted that presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. 8.3 Mo‘olelo and Wahi Pana The traditional place name for the moku of Līhu‘e was Puna, which means “spring of water.” Līhu‘e (literally translated as “cold chill;” Pukui et al. 1974:132) became the modern political name for the traditional moku of Puna. According to Ethel Damon (1931:402), the name Līhu‘e was first applied to this area by Kaikio‘ewa, Governor of Kaua‘i in the 1830s, perhaps after Kaikio‘ewa’s upcountry residence on the island. This late derivation of the name has been recently disputed (Griffin 2012:46). Pukui et al. (1974:75) describe Kalapakī Ahupua‘a as a land division and a beach, but no meaning is presented. Pukui and Elbert (1986:122) define the word kalapakī (with a small “k”) as “double-yolked egg, Kaua‘i.” Kalapakī was also the name of a village located along the coast. According to Hammatt and Creed (1993:22), Land Commission documents demonstrate that the “village of Kalapakī” was synonymous with the “‘ili of Kuuhai.” According to a collection of Kaua‘i place names by Kelsey (n.d.), Kalapakī was also known in traditional times as “Ahukini.” The traditional kaʻao mention numerous place names associated with the area. The place name Līhu‘e is mentioned in the “Legend of Uweuwelekehau” (Fornander 1918-1919:5:196–197). In Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 71 the mo‘olelo, “The Goddess Pele,” two place names in the vicinity of the present project area are mentioned, Ninini and Ahukini (Rice 1977:14). In “The Menehunes,” Ninini is also mentioned as a favorite place for the sport of jumping off cliffs into the sea (Rice 1977:44). There were three heiau in Kalapakī, Ahukini (sometimes written Ahuhini) near Ahukini Point, Ninini Heiau near Ninini Point, and an unnamed heiau near Kūki‘i Point. Ahukini has been translated as “altar [for] many [blessings],” and this was also the name of a heiau in Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. The heiau was likely named for Ahukini-a-la‘a, one of the three sons of La‘a-mai-kahiki, an ancestor of the Kaua‘i chiefly lines. Ahukini lived about AD 1250 (Wichman 1998:61) and became the ali‘i nui (supreme chief) of the Puna district (Wichman 2003:39). Ninini has been translated as “pour,” as in ninini wai, to pour water. Ninini Heiau (SIHP No. 100) and Ahukini Heiau (SIHP No. 101) were both described by Bennett as totally destroyed. According to Thrum (Bennett 1931:125), Ahukini was “[a] heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain.” Damon (1931:398) lists four heiau, Kalapakī, Ahukini, Ninini, and Pohako‘ele‘ele, so it is possible that the unnamed heiau was called Pohako‘ele‘ele. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 72 Section 9 Summary and Recommendations CSH undertook this cultural impact evaluation and consultation at the request of Hōkūala. The research broadly covered the entire ahupua‘a of Kalapakī, including the current project area. 9.1 Results of Background Research Background research for this study yielded the following results, presented in approximate chronological order: 1. The original moku for the study area covered in this report was Puna, which means “spring of water.” Līhu‘e (literally translated as “cold chill;” Pukui et al. 1974:132) became the modern political name for the traditional moku of Puna. According to Ethel Damon (1931:402), the name Līhu‘e was first applied to this area by Kaiki‘oewa, Governor of Kaua‘i in the 1830s, perhaps after Kaiki‘oewa’s upcountry residence on the island. This late derivation of the name has been recently disputed (Griffin 2012:46). 2. The ahupua‘a of Kalapakī is described as a land division and a beach in Pukui et al. (1974:75), but no meaning is presented. Pukui and Elbert (1986:122) define the word kalapakī (with a small “k”) as “double-yolked egg, Kaua‘i.” Kalapakī was also the name of a village located along the coast. According to Hammatt and Creed (1993:22), Land Commission documents demonstrate that the “village of Kalapakī” was synonymous with the “‘ili of Kuuhai.” According to a collection of Kaua‘i place names by Kelsey (n.d.), Kalapakī was also known in traditional times as “Ahukini.” 3. The traditional kaʻao mention numerous place names associated with the area. The place name Līhu‘e is mentioned in the “Legend of Uweuwelekehau” (Fornander 1918- 1919:5:196–197). In the mo‘olelo, “The Goddess Pele,” two place names in the vicinity of the present project area are mentioned, Ninini and Ahukini (Rice 1977:14). In “The Menehunes,” Ninini is also mentioned as a favorite place for the sport of jumping off cliffs into the sea (Rice 1977:44). 4. In pre-Contact and early historic times, the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī was permanently inhabited and intensively used. At the coastal areas were concentrations of permanent house sites and temporary shelters, heiau, ko‘a and kū‘ula, and numerous trails. The kula of these ahupua‘a contained native forests and were cultivated with crops of wauke, ‘uala, and ipu. 5. There were three heiau in Kalapakī, Ahukini (sometimes written Ahuhini) near Ahukini Point, Ninini Heiau near Ninini Point, and an unnamed heiau near Kūki‘i Point. Ninini Heiau (SIHP No. 100) and Ahukini Heiau (SIHP No. 101) were both described by Bennett as totally destroyed. Damon (1931:398) lists four heiau, Kalapakī, Ahukini, Ninini, and Pohako‘ele‘ele, so it is possible that the unnamed heiau was called Pohako‘ele‘ele. 6. Traditional fishing villages were once located near the seashore at Kalapakī, east and north (around and up the coast) of Kalapakī Beach. Loko and small drainages were inland of these settlement areas. 7. Land Commission documents indicate a land use pattern that may be unique to this part of the island, or to Kaua‘i in general, in which lo‘i and kula lands are described in the same ‘āpana, with houselots in a separate portion. In most places, kula lands are defined as drier landscapes, and they do not typically occur next to, and among, wetter lo‘i lands. Also, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 73 according to Hammatt and Creed (1993:23), “there are several [LCA] references to other lo‘i next to the beach which indicate wetland cultivation extending right to the shoreline.” This is another type of land use that seems to be fairly unique to Kaua‘i. 8. Victoria Kamāmalu was awarded the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī under Land Commission Award (LCA) 7713:2. The Victoria Kamāmalu award (LCA 7713:2 part 7) includes all the land within the present project area. There were no commoner awards anywhere nearby. The locations of kuleana or commoner land claims of the Māhele (1848- 1853) in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a are clumped in two areas, along the floodplain of the north side of Nāwiliwili Stream (just back from the coast, south of Rice Street) and on the shore, back from Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay. 9. There were 13 claims in Kalapakī, of which 12 were awarded. The cultivation of taro (kalo), the major staple, was along the Nāwiliwili Stream flood plains and along the smaller brooks of Kalapakī and Koenaawa where there were springs. The house lots in Kalapakī were at the shore. The only crop other than kalo mentioned specifically in Kalapakī is wauke. Additionally, more than one claim in Kalapakī mentions the fishponds of Koenaawa. Two streams—Koenaawa nui and Koenaawa iki—are identified in the claims but neither is named on current maps. Most Kalapakī claimants lived, however, at the shore in the “kulana kauhale” or village of Kalapakī, located behind Kalapakī Beach on Nāwiliwili Bay. Several of the claimants describe their village house lots in relation to the fishponds of Koenaawa (Koenaawainui and Koenaawaiki). There is also a description of the muliwai or estuary of Koenaawanui. 10. Following the death of Victoria Kamāmalu in 1866, her lands were inherited by Princess Ruth Ke‘elikōlani. In 1870, Ke‘elikōlani sold large portions of her Kalapakī and Līhu‘e lands to William Hyde Rice of Lihue Plantation. William Hyde Rice made subsequent land purchases from Princess Ruth in 1879 including a large makai section of the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī and there conducted the Lihue Ranch. In later years he sold most of this land to the plantation (Damon 1931:747). 11. A State Archives document listed only as Land Matters, Document 11 mentioned that the konohiki had proprietary rights to fish caught in the bay. Document No. 11 lists ana‘e (mature mullet) as the protected fish of Hanamā‘ulu, and uhu (parrot fish) for Kalapakī. These protected fish are part of the konohiki resources, which he or she would use to meet his/her obligations to superior chiefs, governors/governesses and the King or Queen. 12. Pigs, sweet potatoes, and salt, among other items, were traded to the earliest sailing vessels arriving in Hawai‘i (post 1794) and it is likely that in Līhu‘e District, as elsewhere, the production of these items increased beyond the needs of the immediate family and their expected contributions to their chiefs during this period of early visiting voyagers. 13. The plantation at Līhu‘e was first established in 1849 by Henry A. Pierce; Judge Wm. Little Lee, the chairman of the Land Commission; and Charles Reed Bishop. It became Lihue Plantation in 1850. A steam-powered mill was built in 1853 at Lihue Plantation, the first use of steam power on a Hawaiian sugar plantation. Another important innovation at Līhu‘e was created in 1856, when William H. Rice completed the 10-mile-long Hanamā‘ulu Ditch, the first large-scale irrigation project for any of the sugar plantations (Moffatt and Fitzpatrick 1995:103). 14. Plantation labor was brought in from many countries and these new laborers brought some of their own cash crops. Rice production was an off-shoot industry of the sugar plantation Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 74 in the 1870s, since many of the new Chinese plantation workers began to grow rice for themselves and then for trade with California. Japanese immigrants, by the end of the nineteenth century did the same and took over many of the Chinese rice paddies. In general, rice planters used abandoned taro fields, but made the patches larger than the traditional taro lo‘i. This is probably true of the Kalapakī floodplain. 15. A series of maps and aerial photographs indicate the project area was a sea of commercial sugar cane between 1910 (see Figure 9) and 1965 (see Figure 15). 16. During the second half of the twentieth century the project area was a portion of Kalapakī lands transformed by resort development on Kaua‘i. The Kauai Surf Hotel on Kalapakī Bay was developed by Inter-Island Resorts in 1960. Then in 1970, the adjacent Kauai Surf Golf Course opened. Subsequently, in the mid-1980s, these Kalapakī properties were sold or leased to Hemmeter-VMS Kauai Company, which began development of the Westin Kauai Lagoons Resort on approximately 850 acres. In 1991, the Kauai Lagoons Resort was sold to Shinwa Golf Kabushiki Kaisha, which operated the resort and golf courses under Kauai Lagoons Resort Company, Ltd. The approximately 700-acre property, including the present project area, was acquired by Kauai Development LLC and KD Golf Ownership LLC in 2004 and the resort prospers into the twenty-first century as “Hōkūala.” 9.2 Results of Community Consultations CSH attempted to contact Hawaiian organizations, agencies, and community members as well as cultural and lineal descendants in order to identify individuals with cultural expertise and/or knowledge of the project area and vicinity. Community outreach letters were sent to a total of 29 individuals or groups; four responded (see Section 7.3) and three of these kama‘āina and/or kūpuna met with CSH for more in-depth interview. 9.3 Impacts and Recommendations Based on information gathered from the community consultation, participants voiced and framed their concerns in a cultural context. 1. Both Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos, (President of Na Kuleana O Kanaka Oiwi & Puna Moku representative of the Aha Moku O Manokalanipo) and Mr. Jan TenBruggencate, President, Mālama Hule‘ia, stressed the importance of public access both to access the coast for fishing and gathering of marine resources and simply for recreation (walking, biking). It is recommended that public access not be impeded by the proposed petition area changes. 2. Dr. Berg, ecologist and owner of Hawaiian Wildlife Tours, noted, “The land in question was historically destroyed by growing sugar. Then the airport came in, then the resort hotel complex. Then the ponds and islands were created by massive excavations.” He added, “I have never heard of any place there as being culturally significant. I doubt that there is any original native vegetation.” 3. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e expressed concern that access to walking paths in the vicinity of the project area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. 4. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e expressed their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. They noted that access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes that have been built Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 75 along the shoreline in areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu.” These areas have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They noted that presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. 5. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also wondered if the Lihue Wastewater Treatment Plant would need to be upgraded to accommodate a higher-density subdivision? They expressed their concerns that odors from the wastewater treatment plant could be carried by the wind and spread throughout the area. 6. Project construction workers and all other personnel involved in the construction and related activities of the project should be informed of the possibility of inadvertent cultural finds, including human remains. In the event that any potential historic properties are identified during construction activities, all activities should cease in that area and the SHPD should be notified pursuant to HAR §13-280-3. In the event that iwi kūpuna (Native Hawaiian skeletal remains) are identified, all earth moving activities in the area should stop, the area cordoned off, and the SHPD notified pursuant to HAR §13-300. 7. In the event that iwi kūpuna and/or cultural finds are encountered during construction, cultural and lineal descendants of the area should be consulted to develop a reinterment plan and cultural preservation plan for proper cultural protocol, curation, and long-term maintenance. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 76 9.4 Ka Pa‘akai Analysis In Ka Pa‘akai vs Land Use Commission, 94 Hawai‘i (2000) the Court held the following analysis also be conducted: 1. The identity and scope of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the project area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the project area; 2. The extent to which those resources—including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights—will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and 3. The feasible action, if any, to be taken by the LUC to reasonably protect native Hawaiian Rights if they are found to exist. Based on information gathered from the cultural and historical background, and community consultation for this project, no culturally significant resources were identified within the project area. At present, there is no documentation or testimony indicating traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights are currently being exercised “for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778” (Hawai‘i State Constitution, Article XII, Section 7) within the project area. While no cultural resources, practices, or beliefs were identified as currently existing within the project area, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a maintains a rich cultural history in the exercise of traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights within the project ahupua‘a. 9.4.1 Kalapakī Ahupua‘a The archaeological record in Līhu‘e District indicates a date range of ca. AD 1100 to 1650 for early Hawaiian occupation (Walker, Kajima and Goodfellow 1991). As pointed out by Franklin and Walker (1994), important ahupua‘a with large rivers lie north and south of Kalapakī (Franklin and Walker 1994:17). Adjacent to the north, Hanamā‘ulu offered an extraordinary bay and an extensive and broad river flood plain. To the south are located the broad Hulē‘ia River Valley and the ahupua‘a of Ha‘ikū. Kalapakī Ahupua‘a thus would have had less varied pre-Contact resources than the larger neighboring ahupua‘a. In pre-Contact Hawai‘i, the coastal zone of Kalapakī and Hanamā‘ulu was the locus for permanent habitation, heiau, and numerous major cross-ahupua‘a and inter-ahupua‘a trails. There were fishponds at Kalapakī, and major garden activities were within the valley floodplain on the north side of Nāwiliwili River. In the dryland areas (kula) crops of wauke, sweet potatoes, gourds and trees were likely but no traces of these crops have been documented to date. The Māhele records, archeological surveys and ethno-historical accounts confirm that in traditional Hawaiian times, habitation was tightly focused just back from the shoreline of Kalapakī Beach at Nāwiliwili Bay with intensive irrigated agriculture focused on the north side of the Nāwiliwili stream valley. At the shoreline, activities included the farming of fishponds and homes. Mauka, the Nāwiliwili stream valley contained the ahupua‘a lo‘i kalo and some wauke gardens. During the mid-19th century, the Māhele claims describe small villages just back from the shore at both Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay and neighboring Hanamā‘ulu Bay. The claims report a fishpond at the shore in Kalapakī. The total number of lo‘i mentioned in Kalapakī was 56, the number of houses was 9, and there were 5 kula lands mentioned (Mitchell et al. 2005:26). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 77 All known heiau for Kalapakī Ahupua‘a (there is evidence of four: Ninini, Ahukini, Pohakoelele, and one at Kūki‘i Point) were immediately coastal. The coastal zone distribution of heiau seems quite normative for Kaua‘i ahupua‘a other than those of Wailua and Waimea. There are several references to kapa (bark cloth) in the legends, one in particular where the tapa is being made to give as a wedding gift. There may well have been additional wauke plantations on the plains in the pre-Contact period in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. Archaeological remains of a terrace and midden along the Kalapakī coast (Hammatt 1998) indicate other, at least intermittently used, shoreline habitations existed that were not included in the Māhele records. Shorelines are also traditional burial areas. Inland, in areas of Kaua‘i like Kilohana Crater, birds were caught for food (Damon 1931, story of Lauhaka). Typically, kuleana holders would have had access to wood and herbs in the uplands and in the mountains the bird catchers and canoe makers would have had temporary shelters but the present records are silent on these activities for Kalapakī. 9.4.2 The Project Area Vicinity The coastal plains, back from the coast and away from potable water, like the present project area, were typically less intensively utilized in traditional Hawaiian times. Utilization likely focused on dryland cultigens – such as sweet potatoes, dryland taro, wauke, ti leaf, and possibly banana, particularly in more mauka areas. Timber and medicinal plants may also have been available for gathering. Annual rainfall at the neighboring Līhu‘e Airport station is 997 mm (39.25 inches) (Giambelluca et al. 2013) which is suggested to be marginal for non-irrigated agriculture. The rainfall gradient is substantial; with Kilohana (the Kukaua Station, Giambelluca et al. 2013) receiving annual rainfall of 2,490 mm. Thus dry land planting areas further mauka were almost certainly more attractive. We have little detail on the environment before Lihue Plantation activities, but the Lt. George G. Jackson (RM 902) description of the vicinity as “Level grass land with volcanic boulders” seems likely. The inland coastal plains may have been savannah lands where grasses like pili were harvested for construction purposes. There are no records of major trails running through the project area. Such trails within Kalapakī would likely have been located more mauka or makai quite close to the shoreline. 9.4.2.1 Archaeological Resources An Archaeological Assessment study (Hammatt 1990) and follow-up archaeological field inspection (present study)) have identified no archaeological resources in the project area and none are believed as likely to be present.. Historical records, maps and photographs, and archaeological fieldwork support that sugarcane cultivation and development of plantation infrastructure was the dominant land use within the project area and surrounding lands. The documented pattern (Shideler and Hammatt 2021:30) is that historic properties are immediately coastal. It is certainly possible that there was traditional Hawaiian and early historic period land use further inland and that the traces of this were simply lost as a result of decades of intensive sugar cane cultivation but it seems that the pattern of traditional Hawaiian land use was very much in the Hanamā‘ulu stream valley (well to the northwest) and Nāwiliwili stream valley (well to the southwest) where the LCAs overwhelmingly were, and immediately along the coast particularly back of Kalapakī Beach at Nāwiliwili Bay. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 78 Ms. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake, kama‘āina of Kalapakī and cultural specialist, was interviewed by CSH on October 20, 2005: When Ms. Lovell-Obatake spoke of archaeological sites she spoke of “the coast and Kalapakī Point” (Mitchell et al. 2005:23) 9.4.2.2 Burials Seemingly no burials have been previously documented within a kilometer of the project area (Shideler and Hammatt 2021:33). Wendell C. Bennett briefly references burials in his “Site 103. Dune burials. In the sand dunes that run along the shore halfway between Hanamaulu and Wailua River are many burials.” (1931:125). This locus of burials is well to the north. At least some burials would be expected at Kalapakī but these would be expected to be almost exclusively in the Jaucus sands immediately adjacent to the coast. Both the distance from the coast and the Lihue silty clay (LhB) and Lihue gravelly silt clay (LIB) soils of the project area (Foote et al. 1972:). Would not have encouraged burial there. Ms. Lovell-Obatake specifically noted that she “never heard of any burials in the area of study.” (Mitchell et al. 2005: 23). An anonymous kama‘āina of Līhu‘e who spoke with CSH stated that in traditional times, the beaches around Kaua‘i were “fighting grounds.” They noted that the “old ancient Hawaiian bones of warriors” have been encountered on the beaches by fishermen who will cover them back up. 9.4.2.3 Faunal Resources Activities associated with faunal resources have and continue to be focused on marine resources. Ms. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake expressed her concern for marine resources and Ms. Sabra Kauka for fisherman using the coast (Mitchell et al. 2005: 24-25). Ms. Kauka also expressed her concern for Shearwater birds: Fourthly, I go to mālama the rare Shearwater birds that lay their eggs in the rock walls, boulders and bushes along the coast. I have been taking my 3rd and 4th grade students from Island School to count, capture, weigh, measure, and return the chicks to their nesting sites for the past two years. We have a special permit from the Department of Land & Natural Resources, State Forestry Division, to do this work. Last year we counted 38 chicks there. This year, unfortunately, a predator has eliminated them. We don’t know what predator it is but we couldn’t find any chinks. This bird is very important to me and my students because it teaches them the connection between the kai and the ‘aina. It teaches them that what humans do at sea and on the land affect other life on earth. If the birds have nowhere to nest, their species will die. If they have not fish and squid to eat, if man overharvests the ocean, the birds will have nothing to eat. They are an indicator that there is still fish in the sea for them and for us. There is still land for them and for us. [Mitchell et al. 2005: 24] The Shearwater nesting is understood as immediately coastal. No evidence of sea bird nesting has been reported for the project area. No accounts of hunting have been identified in association with this project area. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also expressed their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. They noted that the beaches were more accessible Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 79 in the “old days,” and they would visit the shoreline with their ‘ohana to camp and fish. They also recalled that their grandfather, who was a fisherman, could “fish all over” in the “old days.” They pointed out that access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes that have been built along the shoreline in areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu.” These areas have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They also noted that presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. 9.4.2.4 Earth Resources No traditional use of the stones (or soft sediments) within the project area has been documented. 9.4.2.5 Plant Resources The project area is basically maintained lawns of the Hōkūala Resort with some landscaping (mostly resort-planted coconut palms and naupaka). In his written testimony, Dr. Carl Berg stated, “I doubt that there is any original native vegetation.” 9.4.2.6 Trails In traditional times, trails were well used for travel within the ahupua‘a between mauka and makai and laterally between ahupua‘a. A historical trail system existed on Kaua‘i which often ran well inland (approximating modern Kaumuali‘i Highway and Kūhiō Highway effectively acting as a short cut for travel between ahupua‘a. A coastal trail would have been used for access to marine resources and recreation, but this would have been quite close to the coast. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake spoke of “sacred trails that run from Nāwiliwili side coming from Kalapakī Point along the coast.” But these were understood to be quite close to the coast (Mitchell et al. 2005:23). Doubtlessly there were major mauka / makai trails but these would have been anticipated to be focused on connecting centers of habitation, like inland of Kalapakī Beach to the uplands. There are no records of trails running through the Hōkūala resort area (Mitchell et al. 2005:27). The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also noted there are walking paths in the vicinity of the project area which people use for exercising. They expressed their concern that access to the area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. They mentioned that their friend has observed “No Trespassing” signs along the golf cart path in the vicinity of the project area. They also shared a story about their friend who experienced “strange occurrences—tragic deaths; and a brush fire in the subdivision” at the home they bought. A kahuna that was brought in to bless the home observed spirits on the roof and explained that the strange occurrences occurred because homes were “built in the ancient walking path. They noted, “some badly burned and partially burned but no other homes in the subdivision got damaged.” The kahuna told their friend, “this ancient walking path was for the Hawaiian villagers to walk to the beach ocean shoreline for their fishing (food).” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 80 Cultural informants Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos, (President of Na Kuleana O Kanaka Oiwi & Puna Moku representative of the Aha Moku O Manokalanipo), Mr. Jan TenBruggencate, President, Mālama Hule‘ia, Dr. Carl Berg, and an anonymous kama‘āina from Līhu‘e stressed the importance of public access both to access the coast for fishing and gathering of marine resources and simply for recreation (walking, biking). It is recommended that public access not be impeded by the proposed petition area changes. This issue of access was not directly related to traditional Hawaiian trail alignments per se but does reflect a traditional pattern of access to the coast across a relatively open “level grass land with volcanic boulders here and there” (see Figure 8). 9.4.2.7 Wahi Pana Storied places in the vicinity would have included the four (possibly just three) Kalapakī heiau: Ninini, Ahukini, Pohakoelele, and one at Kūki‘i Point as well as the cove of Kalapakī Beach and Nāwiliwili Stream. Further inland, Kilohana was a storied landform. The vicinity of the present project area was relatively featureless and no wahi pana in the immediate vicinity are known. 9.4.2.8 Valued Cultural, Historical, or Natural Resources in the Project Area The project area was a sea of sugar cane of the Lihue Plantation for many decades. Since the end of sugar cane cultivation the land has pretty much been maintained as lawns with modest landscaping by the resort. 9.4.3 The Extent to which Traditional and Customary Native Hawaiian Resources will be Affected by the Proposed Action Given the location well-back from the coast, with no notable landforms in the vicinity, the relatively low rainfall, the absence of natural potable surface water, the prior land history of intensive sugar cane cultivation with frequent plowing of the entire project area and the prevailing vegetation regime dominated by lawns and modest resort landscaping. 9.4.4 Feasible Action, if any, to be Taken to Reasonably Protect Native Hawaiian Rights No adverse impact on cultural resources or practices is anticipated. No other customary resource has come to light in the historic background research, fieldwork or in the consultation outreach. The consideration of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices in this study does document some of the resources and practices on coastal lands, and across the airport runway to the east and emphasizes the import of consideration of these practices for any development activities that may be proposed there. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 81 Section 10 References Cited Akana, Collette Leimomi and Kiele Gonzalez 2015 Hānau Ka Ua: Hawaiian Rain Names. Kamehameha Publishing, Honolulu. Alameida, Roy Kakulu 1993 Land Tenure and Land Use in Kawaihapai, O‘ahu. Master’s thesis in History. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu. Altizer, Kendy and Hallett H. Hammatt 2010 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Nāwiliwili-Ahukini Bike Path Project Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu Ahupua‘a Līhu‘e District, Kaua‘i Island TMK: [4] 3-5-01:4, 8, 27, 60, 83, 85, 102, 118, 128, 159, and 160 por.and various rights-of-way between various plats. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. ARCH (Archaeological Research Center Hawai‘i) 1980 Letter Report, Archaeological Reconnaissance of Ninini Point Area, Kalapaki, Puna, Kauai Island, ARCH 14-176. Archaeological Research Center Hawai‘i, Inc., Lāwa‘i, Hawai‘i. Beckwith, M.W. 1970 Hawaiian Mythology. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Bell, Matthew J., Constance R. O'Hare, Matthew McDermott, and Shawn Barnes 2006 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Lihue Airport Improvements, Hanamaulu and Kalapaki Ahupua‘a, Līhu‘e District (Puna Moku), Island of Kaua‘i TMK [4] 3-5-001: Por. 005, 008, 102, 160, and 3-7-002: Por 001. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Bennett, Wendell C. 1931 Archaeology of Kauai. Bishop Museum Bulletin 80. Kraus Reprint Company, Millwood, New York. Cipolla, Craig N. 2013 Native American Historical Archaeology and the Trope of Authenticity. Historical Archaeology. Vol. 47, ed. 3:12-22. Clark, John R. K. 1990 Beaches of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Condé, Jesse C. and Gerald M. Best 1973 Sugar Trains, Narrow Gauge Rails of Hawaii, Glenwood Publishers, Felton, California. Creed, Victoria, Loren Zulick, Gerald K. Ida, David W. Shideler, and Hallett H. Hammatt 1999 Draft Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Līhu‘e Airport Expansion Area, Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, Līhu‘e District, Island of Kaua‘i (TMK 3-5- 01: 5, 6, 8, 9, 109, 111, and 158 and 3-7-02: Por. 1). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 82 2006 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Līhu‘e Airport Expansion Area, Hanama‘ulu and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, Līhu‘e District, Island of Kaua‘i (TMK 3-5- 01: 5,6,8,9,109,111, and 158 and 3-7-02:Por 1). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Damon, Ethel M. 1931 Koamalu. Two volumes. Privately printed at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin Press, Honolulu. Emerson, N.B. 1965 The Unwritten Literature of Hawaii: The Sacred Songs of the Hula. Collected by Nathaniel B. Emerson. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, Vermont and Tokyo. ESRI Aerial Imagery 2016 ESRI Aerial Photograph, Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i. Foote, Donald E., Elmer L. Hill, Sakuichi Nakamura, and Floyd Stephens 1972 Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of Hawai‘i Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Fornander, Abraham 1918-1919 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folklore: The Hawaiians' Account of the Formation of Their Islands and Origin of Their Race, with the Traditions of Their Migrations, etc., as Gathered from Original Sources. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Franklin, Leta J. and Alan T. Walker 1994 Additional Archaeological Inventory Survey, Molokoa Lands Project Area, Lands of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī, Līhu‘e District, Island of Kaua‘i. Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Garden Island (Newspaper) 1929 Nawiliwili Harbor. Garden Island, 14 December:1:3. 1950 Lihue Airport. Garden Island, 10 January:1:3, 11:1. Giambelluca, Thomas W., Michael A. Nullet, and Thomas A. Schroeder 1986 Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y.-L. Chen, P.-S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and D.M. Delparte 2013 Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society volume 94, pp. 313-316, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1. Electronic document, http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu (accessed 10 April 2014). Gonzales, Tirzo 1992 Memo Report on Proposed Federal Aviation Administration Radar Installation Facility Lihue, Kauai. Advanced Sciences, Inc., San Diego, California. Griffin, Pat L. 2012 The Līhu‘e Place Name on Kaua‘i. Hawaiian Journal of History 46:61-113, Honolulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 83 Hammatt, Hallett H. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of 150 acres of Coastal Land, Kalapakī, Kauai Island (Site of a proposal third Gold Course, Kauai Lagoons Resort). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. 1990 Archaeological Assessment of Phase III, IV, V Kauai Lagoons Resort Kalapaki, Kaua‘i. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. 2005 Archaeological Assessment of an Approximately 71-Acre Portion of the Kauai Lagoons Resort Property, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, Līhu‘e District, Kaua‘i Island. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. Kailua, Hawai‘i. Hammatt, Hallett H., and Victoria S. Creed 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey of 61.6 Acres in Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i (TMK: 3-2- 06:5 and 3-2-07:16, 18). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Handy, E.S. Craighill 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, Volume 1. Bishop Museum Bulletin 161. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Hawai‘i State Archives n.d. Land Matters, Document No. 11; List of Konohiki, Prohibited Fish and Prohibited wood. Hawai‘i State Archives, Honolulu. Hawai‘i TMK Service 2014 TMK: [4] 3-5-001. Hawai‘i TMK Service, Honolulu. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2008a Ka Mo‘olelo o Hi‘iakaikapoliopele. Original Hawaiian text taken from series of articles in Ka Na‘i Aupuni 1905-1906. Awaiaulu Press, Honolulu. 2008b The Epic Tale of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele. As told by Ho‘oulumāhiehie. M. Puakea Nogelmeier, translator. Awaiaulu Press, Honolulu. Huapala n.d.a Lihu‘e. Electronic document. http://www.huapala.org/Li/Lihue.html. n.d.b Maika‘i Kaua‘i. Electronic document. http://www.huapala.org/Mai/Maikai_Kauai.html. Hula Preservation Society 2014 Hula Preservation Society website. Available online at http://hulapreservation.org. Jackson George G. 1881 Map of Nāwiliwili Harbor . Registered Map 902. Hawai‘i Land Survey Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, Honolulu. Available online at http://dags.hawaii.gov/survey/search.php Kaua‘i Community College 1973 Archaeology on Kaua‘i: A Collection of Newsletters (AOK). Kaua‘i Community College News Letter, Volume 2; 4 October 1973:4. Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 84 Kaua‘i Museum n.d. Undated photograph depicting Kalapakī Bay, showing location of two streams and their outlets (red Xs) to Kalapakī Bay; Koena‘awa stream is on the left. Available at http:www.hawaii.edu/environment.ainakumuwai.htm Kawelu, Kathleen L. 2015 Kuleana and Commitment: Working Toward a Collaborative Hawiian Archaeology. Univeristy of Hawai‘i Press: Honolulu. Kelsey, Theodore n.d. “Kaua‘i Place Names.” Unpublished manuscript, Kelsey Collection, Hawai‘i State Archives. Kikuchi, William A. and Susan Remoaldo 1992 Cemeteries of Kauai. Two volumes. Kaua‘i Community College and University of Hawai‘i, Puhi, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Kosaki, Richard 1954 Konohiki Fishing Rights. Report No. 1, 1954, Legislative Reference Bureau. University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. Landgraf, Anne Kapulani 1994 Nā Wahi Pana ‘o Ko‘olau Poko. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Lihue Plantation 1939 Map of Lihue Plantation, Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i. n.d. Undated Map of Lihue Plantation with Lessees. Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i. Macdonald, Gordon A., Agatin T. Abbott, and Frank L. Peterson 1983 Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geology of Hawaii. Second edition. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. McAllister, Gilbert J. 1933 Archaeology of Oahu. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu. McGregor, Davianna Pōmaika‘i 1996 An Introduction to the Hoa‘aina and Their Rights. The Hawaiian Journal of History 30:1–28. McMahon, Nancy 1990 Archaeological Fieldcheck of Three Parcels in Lihue Judiciary District: Possible Locations for a New Kaua‘i Judiciary Building, Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu, Kaua‘i. Historic Preservation Program, State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. Moffat, Riley M. and Gary L. Fitzpatrick 1995 Survey the Mahele, Mapping the Hawaiian Land Revolution. Palapala‘aina, Volume 2. Editions, Ltd., Honolulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 85 Monahan, Christopher M. and Hallett H. Hammatt 2008 Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection Report for the Nāwiliwili- Ahukini Bike Path Project Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī and Hanamā‘ulu Ahupua‘a Līhu‘e District, Kaua‘i Island TMK: (4) 3-2-004; 3-5-001, 002 & 3-6-002, 019, 020, and various rights-of-way between various plats. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Nakuina, Moses K. 1992 The Wind Gourd of La‘amaomao. Second edition. Esther T. Mookini and Sarah Nākoa, translators. Kalamakū Press, Honolulu. Pauketat, Timothy R. 2001 The Archaeology of Traditions. University Press of Florida: Florida. Pukui, Mary Kawena 1949 Songs (meles) of Old Ka‘u Hawai‘i. In Journal of American Folklore, Volume 26, No. 245 July to September 1949:247–258. 1983 ‘Ōlelo No‘eau. Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings. Bishop Museum Special Publication 71. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1995 Na Mele Welo: Songs of Our Heritage. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Pukui, Mary K. and Samuel H. Elbert 1984 Hawaiian Dictionary. First edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 1986 Hawaiian Dictionary. Second edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Pukui, Mary K. and Laura C. S. Green 1995 Folktales of Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Esther Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Rice, William Hyde 1977 Hawaiian Legends. Originally published 1923. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Shideler, David and Hallett H. Hammatt 2021 Draft Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection Report for the Hokuala Solar Photovoltaic Facilities Project, Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, Kauaʻi TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por., Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kailua, HI. Soehren, Lloyd J. 2013 Hawaiian Place Names, Ulukau: The Hawaiian Electronic Library. Electronic document, http://ulukau.org, accessed May, 2013 Thrum, Thomas G. 1906 Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands…Island of Kauai. Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual for 1907. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 1965 USDA Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī, Kaua‘i (UH MAGIS) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 86 2001 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Fort Worth, Texas. http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo/ (accessed March 2005). USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 1910 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. 1950 USGS aerial photograph of Kalapakī, Kaua‘i (UH MAGIS) 1959 USGS aerial photograph of Kalapakī, Kaua‘i (UH MAGIS) 1963 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. 1978 Lihue quadrangle USGS orthophotoquad aerial photograph. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. 1996 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. Vizenor, Gerald 1999 Manifest Manners: Narratives on Postindian Survivance. University of Oklahoma Press, Lincoln, Oklahoma. Waihona ‘Aina 2021 The Māhele Database. Electronic document, http://waihona.com (accessed 10 April 2014). Walker, Alan T. and Paul H. Rosendahl 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Hanamaulu Affordable Housing Project Area, Land of Hanamaulu, Lihue District, Island of Kauai (TMK: 3-7-03:Por. 20). Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Walker, Alan T., Lehua Kajima, and Susan T. Goodfellow 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Lihue/Puhi/Hanamā‘ulu Master Plan, Lands of Hanamā‘ulu, Kalapakī, Nāwiliwili, Niumalu, and Wailua, Līhue District, Island of Kaua‘i. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Wichman, Frederick B. 1998 Kaua‘i. Ancient Place-Names and Their Stories. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Wilcox, Carol 1996 Sugar Water: Hawaiis Plantation Ditches. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Wilkes, Charles 1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition. During the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia. Ka'aina S.Hull Director of Planning COUNTY OF KAUA'I PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Jodi A.Higuchi Sayegusa Deputy Director of Planning I.SUMMARY Action Required by Planning Commission; Consideration of Class IV Zoning Permit,Use Permit,Variance, Permit and a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the constmction and installation of telecommunication facility. Permit Application Nos.Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2022-10 UsePermit U-2022-10 Variance Permit V-2022-2 Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2022-6 Name of Applicant(s)CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS II.PERMIT INFORMATION PERMETS REQUIRED Use Pennit Pursuant to Section 8-2.4 of the KCC,1987 as amended,a Use Permit is required for developments involving a public utility within the Resort (RR)Zoning District. Project Development Use Permit Variance Permit A Variance Permit is necessary to deviate from the maximum building height requirement within the Resort zoning district. Special Permit Zoning Permit Class K]IV a"i Pursuant to Section 8-3.1 ofthe KCC,1987,as amended,a Class IV Zoning Permit is a procedural requirement in applying for a Use &Variance Permits. Special Management Area Permit ^]Use Minor Pursuant to Section 205A of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)and the Special Management Area Rules and Regulations of the County of Kaua'i,a SMA Use Permit is required as defined in Section 7.3(C)of the SMA Rules and Regulations where the Director finds that the proposal: (1)is a "Development"as defined in Section 1.4F;and ^F:^.^.i V:\2022 Master FiIes\Regulatory\Zoning PermitsVCIass IV\Z-IV-2022-10\CorTespondence\Report.I_4.25.22_Z-IV-2022-10_U4022-10_V-2022- 2_SMA(U)-2022-6_Verizon Coconut Beach.docx M/Y 1 O 2022 Date ofReceipt of Completed Application:April 4,2022 Date of Director's Report:April 25,2022 Date of Public Hearing:May 10,2022 Deadline Date for PC to Take Action (60 Day):June 3,2022 III.PROJECTDATA Z-IV-2022-IO,U^2022-2,V-2022^10,SMA(U)^2022-6;Director's Repon Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless ApriI25,2022 2|Pag e (3)Change in the density or intensity of use of land, including but not limited to division of subdivision of land. AMENDMENTS I1 Zoning Amendment Q General Plan Amendment State Land Use District Amendment PROJECT INFORMATION Parcel Location:The project site is located along the makai side of AIeka Loop in Waipouli,situated approximately 400 feet south of its intersection with Kuhio Highway,Kapa'a,Hawai'i Tax Map Key(s):(4)4-3-007:028 Area:10.377 acres ZONING &DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Zoning:Resort (RR-20)/Open (0)Districts State Land Use District:Urban General Plan Designation:Resort Height Limit:No multiple family buildings,hotel or motel,shall be more than ten (10)feet higher than any residential building located within thirty (30)feet of the building,or shall not exceed four (4)stories nor exceed forty (40)feet from finished grade at each point along the building to the highest wall plate line.Gables and roofheight shall not exceed one-half (1/2)the wall height or fifteen (15)feet, whichever is less.The limits contained in this Section shall not apply to spaces containing mechanical equipment,such as elevator machinery and air conditioning units,but the spaces shall not exceed fifteen (15)feet above the highest wall plate line. IV.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Section 8-3.KR,KCC:This report is being transmitted to the Applicant and Planning Commission in order to satisfy the requirements ofSection 8-3.l(f),relating to the provision ofthe Planning Director's report and recommendation on the subject proposal within sixty (60)days of the filing of a completed application.The application was received on April 4,2022 and the Applicant,through its authorized agent,was notified accordingly of the Planning Department's intent to commence permit processmg. Public Hearing Date:May 10,2022 V.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE The Sheraton Kaua'i Coconut Beach Resort located at 650 Aleka Loop is classified as a "capacity site"that's designed to address a significant gap in cellular coverage in the Kapa'a-Wailua area.Also,the current Verizon wireless coverage is almost non-existent at the resort site. In addressing this concem,the proposed development involves the installation of nine (9) antennas,six (6)remote radio units,and one (1)raycap surge protector.This equipment will be visually screened through a proposed stealth extension on the existing stairwell situated at the rooftop of the hotel (see sheets A01 thru A05).As proposed,the twenty-nine (29)foot seven (7)inch by nine (9)foot (29'-7"x 9'-0")Fiberglass Reinforced Panels (FRP)screening will be constructed to blend in with the existing stairwell.Other ancillary equipment will be located on ground/grade level within a thirty (30)x ten (10)feet leased area nearthe shipping area ofthehotel grounds (see sheets Spl and EqOl ofthe application).A six (6)foot high chain link fence along with an eight (8)foot wide access 3|Page Z-1V-2022-10,U-2022-2,V-2022-10,SMA(U)-2022-6;Dircctor's Report Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless April 25.2022 Max.Land Coverage:50%in Resort (RR-20) 10%in Open (0) Front Setback:10 feet Rear Setback:Five (5)feet or '/2 the wall plate height whichever is greater Side Setback:Five (5)feet or 'A the wall plate height whichever is greater Community PIan Area:Kapa'a-Wailua Development Plan Community Plan Land Use Designation:Resort Deviations or Variances Requested:N/A gate will be installed around the perimeter of the leased equipment area and a total of ten (10)steel bollards will be installed outside ofthe fenced area(see sheet EqOl).Power and fiber optics will be pulled from the westerly comer of the property facing Aleka Loop via three (3)feet wide by approximately 650 linear feet trench running along the southeast portion of the property to the leased area.An additional three (3)foot wide by sixty-five (65)linear foot trench will continue from the leased equipment area,going vertical along the side of the existing hotel to the roof top antennas (see sheet Spl). VI.APPLICANT'S REASONS/JUSTIFICATION As represented,the project would provide higher data transfer rates and enhance the LTE 40 coverage significantly to those inside the hotel as well as the surrounding area. VII.ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 1.The project site is located along the makai side of Aleka Loop in Waipouli,situated approximately 400 feet south of its intersection with Kuhio Highway,Kapa'a.The project is also taking place within the Coconut Grove area which is recognized as site K-12 under Kaua'i County Code (KCC)Section 22-5.4,as amended.The hotel was initially developed in 1977. 2.The State Land Use District (SLUD)designation for this parcel is "Urban",which allows for urban growth in a specified are. 3.The property is situated within the Kapa'a-Wailua Development Plan (KWDP), however the KWDP development standards only apply to those parcels that are located within Special Planning Areas 'A','B',and 'C'(KCC Section 10-l.l(c)(2)).The subject parcel is not located within those designations. 4.The subject site is a stable shoreline property with no accretion or erosion.All proposed improvements or developments are not located within the shoreline setback area.Per KCC Section 8-27.3,the required setback for all structures and developments pertaining to the subject site requires a 100-foot setback from the certified shoreline. The proposed antennas,screen wall,and equipment area are approximately 300 feet or more away from the approximate shoreline.A certified shoreline was done for the property back on August 16,2018. 5.The General PIan designation (GP)is "Resort".This development is not expanding the Visitor Designation Area or increasing hotel units. 6.The property is located in both Zone X (an area determined to be outside of the 500- year floodplain)and VE (which is designated as coastal high hazard)zones in the FEMA Flood Hazard Maps.The proposed improvements are within Flood Zone X. Z-rV-2022-IO,U-2022-2.V-2022-10,SMA(U)-2022-6;Director's Repon Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless April 25.2022 4|Page 7.The property is generally flat with elevations ranging from 5 to 12 feet.The proposed development involves a new cellular service facility that includes trenching for power and fiber optics that is necessary for the operations locations at roof top stairwell of the existing hotel. 8.Special Management Area (SMA) In addressing the issues of the Special Management Area and its objectives and policies,the following aspects will be considered and evaluated: a.Recreational Resources b.Cultural/Historic Resources c.Scenic resources d.Coastal Hazard e.Coastal Ecosystem Furthermore,the proposal does not: •Involve dredging,filling or otherwise altering any bay,salt marsh,river mouth,slough or lagoon; •Reduce the size of any beach or other area usable for public recreation; •Reduce or impose restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged lands,beaches,rivers,and streams within the SMA;and •Adversely affect water quality,existing areas of open water free of visible structures,existing and potential fisheries and fishing grounds,wildlife habitats,estuarine sanctuaries,potential or existing agriculture uses of land. 9.CZO Development Standard^ The proposed development is subjected to standards prescribed in Sections 8-4.3 and 8- 5.23: a.Setback Requirements:Front property line setbacks are ten feet (10 -O")with a side and rear property line setback of five feet (5'-0")or half the distance of the plate height whichever is greater.As specified in the application,this proposal is the cellular antennas and ancillary equipment installation.Setback requirements for this development are applicable to the proposed chain-link fence construction,Per Section 8-4.3(4). b.Setback between buildings:The distance between buildings shall be ten (10)feet minimum.No buildings are associated with this proposal and not applicable to this project. Z^IV-2022-10,U-2022-2,V^2022-10,SMA(U)-2022^6;Director's Report Cellco Partnership dba Vcrizon Wireless April 25,2022 5|Page c.Lot Coverage:The subject property is within the Resort County zone area. Allowable lot coverage is 50%of the parcel or lot area.No increase of lot coverage is anticipated for this development. d.Building Height:Multiple family buildings,hotel or motel,shall not exceed four (4)stories nor exceed forty (40)feet from finished grade at each point along the building to the highest wall plate line.Gables and roofheight shall not exceed one-half (1/2)the wall height or fifteen (15)feet,whichever is less.The limits contained in Section 8-4.3 shall not apply to spaces containing mechanical equipment,such as elevator machinery and air conditioning units, but the spaces shall not exceed fifteen (15)feet above the highest wall plate line. A variance is required for the proposed screen wall that is used to conceal the cellular antennas.The proposed screen wall deviates three (3)feet from the height limits set in Section 8-4.3 for Resort County zone areas. 10.Use Permit a.Pursuant to Article 3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO),Chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code (1987),the purpose of the Use Permit Procedure is to assure the proper integration into the community of uses which may be suitable only in specific locations of a district,or only under certain conditions,or only if the uses are designed,arranged or conducted in a particular manner,and to prohibit the uses if proper integration cannot be assured.Section 8-3.2 of the CZO specifies a Use Pennit may be granted only if the Planning Commission finds that the use meets the following criteria: 1)The use must be a compatible use; 2)The use must not be detrimental to persons or property in the area; 3)The use must not cause substantial environmental consequences;and 4)The use must not be inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO)and General Plan. 11.Variance Permit In accordance with Section 8-3.3 of the Kaua'i County Code (KCC),a Variance shall be granted only if it is found that because of special circumstances applicable to the property,such as size,shape,topography,location or surroundings,the strict application ofthe regulations deprives the property ofprivileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and within the same District,and precludes the property from reasonable use if the regulations are applied. The Applicant is seeking to deviate from the height restriction within the County Resort designation area.The proposal involves a three (3)foot deviation to accommodate the installation of proposed FRP screen wall to conceal the cellular antennas (refer to Sht.A02 to A05 of application). 6 1 Pag e Z-IV-2022-10,U-2022-2,V-2022-10,SMA(U)-2022-6:Direclor's Repon CelJco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless April 25,2022 VIII.AGENCY COMMENTS See attached Exhibit "A" IX.PRELIMINARY EVALUATION In evaluating the Applicant's request to allow the construction of the proposed development,the following are being considered. 1.General Plan The proposed development satisfies the following policies of the General Plan,as taken from Section 1.3 and 1.4: a.1.3,entitled "VISIONS AND GOALS" 1)Goal #1 Sustainable Island -The proposed development is not expanding the Visitor Designation Area (VDA)or increasing hotel units.The proposed development provides cellular and intemet services in the hotel and surrounding areas. 2)Goal #2 "Unique and Beautiful Place -The proposed development will be constructed on the rooftop of a stairwell of an existing hotel that has been in operation since thel977.The hotel is in the Coconut Grove area which is recognized as site K-12 under Kaua'i County Code Section 22-5.4.The proposal will not involve any cutting oftrees.Also,the development will not have any impact to the natural features of the surrounding area. 3)Goal #3 "A Healthy and Resilient People"-Telecommunication systems are important in areas without adequate cellular coverage n alerting visitors and kama'aina's ofnatural disasters within the shoreline area.Also alerting first responders such as Kaua'i's Police,Fire,and emergency services will be more reliable. 4)Goal #4 "An Equitable PIace,with Opportunity for All"-The proposed project will improve telecommunications within the hotel and the surrounding area.This will provide improved cellular coverage for people who live and work within the surrounding area. b.Section 1.4,entitled "POLICIES TO GUIDE GROWTH" 1)Policy #5 "Make Strategic Infrastructure Investments"-The proposed development will help with cellular coverage at the resort and the beach area in front of the resort.Telecommunications and emergency waming systems are critical in addressing first response efforts to alert the community of natural disasters and other hazards. 7|Page Z-IV^2022.10,U^2022-2,V-2022-10,SMA(U)-2022-6;Direclor's Report Ceilco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless April 25,2022 2)Policy #10 "Help Business Thrive"-The project will provide higher data transfer rates and enhance coverage.The reliance of adequate cellular coverage has become almost a necessity in business and everyday life. 2.Native Hawaiian Traditional and Cultural Rights The subject site has been previously developed and in operation since the late 1970's. The applicant has reached out to eight (8)non-govemmental organizations and individuals via email,mailed letters,and or phone.The inquiry requests if they had any knowledge of on-going Native Hawaiian and Traditional Cultural Rights practices or activities.One (1)written response was received by the applicant from Kumu Hula Beverly Muraoka on March 19,2021 and two (2)emails was received by applicant from Kamealoha Smith ofMahamoku 'Ohana Council,on March 3,2021 and Kauanoe Ho'omanwanui ofSHPD Kaua'i Ni'ihau Burial Sites Specialist,on March 9,2021. Based on the available information,traditional agriculture and aquaculture practices will not be affected or impaired by the proposed development. After the Applicant consulted with eight (8)non-govemmental organizations and individuals,three (3)in total responded.The organizations who are familiar with the area and evaluating historical information that was available to the department,the department finds that the proposed Project involving a developed parcel should have no impact on any known Hawaiian traditional or customary practices for the following reasons: a.There are no known traditional or customary practices of native Hawaiians that are presently occurring within the Project Site area. b.There are no special gathering practices taking place within any portion of the Project Site area. c.The Project will not detrimentally affect access to any streams;access to the shoreline or other adjacent shoreline areas;or gathering along any streams,the shoreline or in the ocean. d.There are known religious practices taking place within the project site. e.There are no known pre-contact cultural or historic sites or resources located within the project site area. f.There are no known burials within the petition area. Since there has been archaeology found in the vicinity of the project area and the project involves some ground disturbance,there should be protocols in place in the event of any inadvertent discovery.As such,the following mitigation measures should be implemented to protect Native Hawaiian Traditional and Customary Practices: Z.IV-2022-IO,U-2022-2.V-2022-10,SMA(U)-2022-6;Director's Rcpon Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless April 25,2022 8|Page a.Cultural awareness and sensitivity briefing for all constniction personnel prior to the commencement of any construction activities.If any skeletal remains are encountered,descendants (DLNR-SHPD list)of the area should be consulted regarding the handling and treatment ofany invertedly discovered human remains,associated moepu,and artifacts in accordance with HAR §13-13-300 and HRS §6E-43. b.Archeological monitoring and Cultural Monitoring would be required during all ground-disturbing activities. SMA Rules and Regulations The COK SMA Rules and Regulations contain objectives,policies and guidelines designed to protect coastal resources.Within the SMA,special consideration is given to recreational opportunities,cultural and historic resources,scenic qualities and open space,coastal ecosystems,and coastal hazards.In evaluating the proposed development relative to the goals and objectives ofthe SMA Rules and Regulations,the following aspects are taken into consideration: a.Public Access and Coastal Recreation -The property includes a vertical public shoreline access pathway on the south side of the property from the public parking area to the shoreline,a vertical pathway form Aleka Loop to the shoreline on the north side ofthe property,and a lateral pathway along the shoreline.This project shall not prohibit public access to the shoreline during or post construction. b.Cultural/Historical Resources -The Ka Pa'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis submitted by the applicant's consultant,ASM Affiliates provided a summary of studies conducted along coastal Waipouli and the adjacent lots in South Olohena. Collectively,these studies provide a general understanding of the cultural resources and historic properties that may be present within the project area. Figure 15 and 16 in the Ka Pa'akai O Ka 'Aina notes State Inventory Historic Places (SIHP),documented sites-subsurface cultural deposits containing human burials. An Archeological Inventory Survey (AIS)in 2018 (Monahan and Condit 2018) did not encompass the entire area of the subject parcel,but rather focused on 0.9 acre portion on the Makai side ofthe property (see figure 16).It was determined that the development activities was restricted to a smaller 0.5 acre area within the overall 0.9 acre project area.Six (6)test trenches were performed,one (1)of the six (6)trenches,one historic property (SIHP Site 50-30-08-2384;Figure 15 and 16)described as organic rich,buried A horizon was identified below the ground surface in Trench #6.Screening to the excavated material did not reveal any cultural evidence (i.e.artifacts,bones,midden,or charcoal).Given the results for which exposed introduced fill sediment down to the water table (Trench #3,4,5 )and down to 210 centimeters below surface (cmbs)for Trench #1 and 235 cmbs for Trench #2 the buried A horizon in Trench #6 was Z-IV-2022-IO,U-2022-2,V-2022-IO,SMA(U)-2022-6;Director's Repon Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless April 25.2022 9 1 Page determined to what is to be believed a a remnant portion of an extensive burial ground.Although with limited certainty,Monahan and Condit (2018)proposed the buried A horizon may have once been connected to Site 1801 to the northeast and Site 1800 to the southwest (see figure 15).Site 2384 was deemed significant under Criterion d for its informational value to understanding Precontact and early Historic Period land use in coastal Waipouli. The applicant's consultant ASM Affiliates noted that after reviewing Department of Land and Natural Resources,State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SI-IPD)correspondence dated May 28,2019 that during ground disturbances activities,unidentified human skeletal remains were inadvertently discovered in a previously disturbed area (SIHP Site 50-30-08- 0238).August 9,2019,a second inadvertent was discovery made during an excavation ofa drainage trench (SIHP Site 05-30-08-02399).August 12,2019, a third discovery of isolated human skeletal fragments were exposed in the fill of the excavated trench.In consulting with recognized descendants and the landowner,DLNR-SHPD determined to relocate on site the first and third inadvertent discovery and to preserve in place the second inadvertent discovery. An 1840 account of Charles Wilkes indicated that from Kapa'a extending north towards Moloa'a were full of villages that engaged in traditional farming practices.The Puna District,specifically the Wailua area further south of the project area,was home to Kawelo and Mo'Tkeha two ofthe more prominent of many Ali'i to have lived in the moku.The story of Paka'a whose special gord was named after his mother La'amaomoa who developed a special relationship with the various winds.Two landscape features in the Kapa'a/Wailua area include a coastal plain with sand dunes and a large marsh.The marsh located northwest of the subject site has been mostly filled.However,the project area lies within the coastal plain and sand dunes,being the preferred sediment for traditional reinterment. There is a concem ofpotentially encountering iwi kupuna during any ground- disturbing activities.Mitigation measures such as archeological monitoring, cultural monitoring,and cultural awareness and sensitivity briefing for all construction personnel prior to any construction activities is recommended. c.Scenic and Open Space Resources -The proposed wireless facility will have minimal negative visual impacts from the street and the shoreline.The proposed FRP screen wall is designed to conceal the antennas from public view.The equipment leased area located on the ground level is near the resorts shipping area. The use itselfdoes not generate traffic or cause any significant physical changes to the property and surrounding areas. d.Coastal Hazards -The subject property is an abutting shoreline property with a stable shoreline.The leased equipment area is located on the mauka side of the property and designated in Zone X of the FEMA Flood Hazard Maps.The proposed Z-IV-2022-10,U-2022-2.V-2022-10,SMA(U)-2022-6;Director's Report Ceitco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless April 25.2022 io|Page cellular antennas are located on top ofthe existing hotel rooftop stairwell.Based on the Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PacIOOS)State ofHawai'i sea level rise viewer website the subject parcel was analyzed using the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area (SLRXA)at the 3.2 feet range for potential impacts of passive flooding,annual high wave flooding,and coastal erosion.Although the parcel is within the extreme tsunami evacuation zone,the proposed development is out of any Coastal High Hazard areas. e.Coastal Ecosvstems -The proposed location of the leased area is located on ground level which has been disturbed by the installation of the AC paved parking lot.The existing hotel has been in operation since the late 1970's.No flora or fauna will be disturbed or negatively impacted. 4.UsePermit In considering the proposed height deviation,the following criteria is noted: a.Pursuant to Article 3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO),Chapter 8 of the Kauai county Code (1987),the purpose of the Use Permit Procedure is to assure the proper integration into the community of uses which may be suitable only in specific locations of a district,or only under certain conditions,or only if the uses are designed,arranged or conducted in a particular manner,and to prohibit the uses if proper integration cannot be assured.Section 8-3.2 of the CZO specifies a Use Permit may be granted only if the Planning Commission finds that the use meets the following criteria: 1)The use must be a compatible use; 2)The use must not be detrimental to persons or property in the area; 3)The use must not cause substantial environmental consequences;and 4)The use must not be inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO)and General Plan. b.Based on the foregoing,the following aspects are considered: 1)Compatible Use -The proposed development is designed to be integrated with the existing hotel.As noted in the Director's Report,the project site is directly adjacent to commercial projects on all three sides of the project site.As such, the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses and is not expected to impact urban activities in the area. 5.Variance Permit In considering the proposed height deviation,the following criteria is noted: a.Pursuant to Section 8-3.3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO),KCC (1987)as amended,a Variance may be granted because of special circumstances applicable to the property (including size,shape,topography, ii|P a ge Z-IV-2022-10,U-2022-2,V-2022-IO,SMA(U)-2022-6;Director's Rcport Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Apri]25,2022 location or surroundings),the strict application of the regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the applicant shows that he cannot make reasonable use of the property if the regulations are applied;granting the variance shall be the minimum departure from existing regulations necessary to avoid the deprivation of privileges enjoyed by other property and to facilitate a reasonable use,and which will not create significant probabilities ofharm to property and improvements in the neighborhood or of substantial harmful environmental consequences.Financial hardship to the applicant is not a permissible basis for granting of a variance. b.Based on the foregoing,the following aspect is contemplated : 1)Special Circumstances -The Applicant is seeking a deviation from the height restriction in order to acconimodate the FRP screen wall to conceal the cellular antennas.The wall involves a three (3)foot departure from the height standard established in section 8-4.3 CZO,KCC (1987)as amended. As represented by the applicant,in consideration of the topography of the surrounding area,they have determined the operational height (55 feet)of the antennas will improve cellular signal strength.The public interest will be served by granting of the variance in that it provides greater improvement of cellular coverage within the hotel as well as the surrounding area,and eliminates the need for a free-standing tower (mitigates visual impacts to the coastline area).Furthermore,the 3-feet deviation is considered a minimal departure from the existing standards within the Resort zoning district. X.PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing,it is concluded that through proper mitigative measures,the proposed development can be considered,and it complies with the policies and guidelines of the Special Management Area Rules and Regulations in that: 1.The development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect. 2.The development is consistent with the objectives/goals/policies ofthe County General Plan,the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,and other applicable ordinances. Furthermore,the proposal DOES NOT: a.involve dredging,filling,or otherwise altering any bay,estuary,salt marsh,river mouth,slough or lagoon; b.reduce the size of any beach or other area usable for public recreation; c.reduce or impose restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged lands, ia|P ag e Z-IV-2022-10,U-2022-2,V-2022-IO.SMA(U)-2022-6;Dinictor's Repon Ceilco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless April 25,2022 beaches,rivers or streams within the special management area;and d.adversely affect water quality,existing areas of open water free of visible structures,existing and potential fisheries and fishing grounds,wildlife habitats, estuarine sanctuaries or existing agricultural uses of land. Through proper mitigation measures,the proposed development should not have any detrimental impact to the environment or the surrounding area,and in compliance with the criteria outlined for the granting of a Special Management Area Use Permit.The Applicant should institute the "Best Management Practices"to ensure that the operation ofthis facility does not generate impacts that may affect the health,safety,and welfare of those in the surrounding area of the proposal.Based on the information contained in the Director's Report Findings and Evaluation,the Planning Department concludes that through proper mitigation measures the proposed development would not have any detrimental impact to the environment or the surrounding area. The proposal follows the criteria outlined for the granting of a Class Iv Zoning Permit,Use Permit,Special Management Area Use Permit,and Variance Permit. XI.PRELMINARY RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion,it is hereby recommended Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2022-10,Use Permit U-2022-10,Variance Permit V-2022-2,and Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2022-6,to be APPROVED.If approved, the following conditions shall be implemented: 2.The proposed improvements shall be constructed as represented.Any changes to said development shall be reviewed by the Planning Director to determine whether PIanning Commission review and approval is warranted. 3.The Applicant shall develop and utilize Best Management Practices (B.M.P's) during all phases of development in order to minimize erosion,dust,and sedimentation impacts of the project to abutting properties. 4.In order to ensure that the project is compatible with its surroundings and to minimize the visual impact of the structures,the extemal color of the proposed FRP screen shall be similar a color scheme to the existing hotel.The proposed color scheme and a landscape plan (if applicable)should be submitted to the PIanning Department for review and acceptance prior to building permit application. 5.In order to minimize adverse impacts on the Federally Listed Threatened Species,Newell's Shearwater and other seabirds,ifextemal lighting is to be used in connection with the proposed project,all extemal lighting shall be only Z-IV-2022-10.U-2022-2,V-2022-10.SMA(U)-2022-6;Director's Repon Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless April25,2022 13 |P ag e of the following types:downward-facing,shielded lights.Spotlights aimed upward or spotlighting of structures shall be prohibited. 6.The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to protect Native Hawaiian Traditional and Customary Practices: a.Cultural awareness and sensitivity briefing for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any construction activities.If any skeletal remains are encountered,descendants (DLNR-SHPD list)of the area should be consulted regarding the handling and treatment of any invertedly discovered human remains,associated moepii,and artifacts in accordance with HAR §13-13-300 and HRS §6E-43. b.Archeological monitoring and Cultural Monitoring is required during all ground-disturbing activities. 7.The Applicant is advised that should any archaeological or historical resources be discovered during ground disturbing/construction work,all work in the area of the archaeological/historical findings shall immediately cease and the Applicant shall contact the State Department of Land and Natural Resources,Historic Preservation Division at (808)692-8015 and the Planning Department at (808)241-4050 to determine mitigation measures. 8.The Applicant is advised that prior to construction and/or use,additional govemment agency conditions may be imposed.It shall be the Applicant's responsibility to resolve those conditions with the respective agency(ies). 9.The Applicant shall resolve and comply with the applicable standards and requirements set forth by the State Health Department,State Historic Preservation Division-DLNR, and the County Departments of Public Works,Fire,Transportation,and Water. 10.To the extent possible within the confines ofunion requirements and applicable legal prohibitions against discrimination in employment,the Applicant shall seek to hire Kauai contractors as long as they are qualified and reasonably competitive with other contractors and shall seek to employ residents of Kauai in temporary construction and permanent resort-relatedjobs.It is recognized that the Applicant may have to employ non-Kauai residents for particular skilledjobs where no qualified Kauai residents possesses such skills.For the purposes of this condition, the Commission shall relieve the Applicant of this requirement if the Applicant is subjected to anti-competitive restraints on trade or other monopolistic practices. 11.The Planning Commission reserves the right to revise,add,or delete conditions of approval in order to address or mitigate unforeseen impacts the project may,create, or to revoke the permits through the proper procedures should conditions of approval not be complied with or be violated. Z-IV-2022-10,U-2022-2,V-2022-10.SMA(U)-2022-6;Director's Repon Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wlreless Apri]25,2022 i4|P ag e 12.Unless otherwise stated in the permit,once permit is issued,the Applicant must make substantial progress,as determincd by the Director,regarding the development or activity within two (2)years,or the permit shall be deemed to have lapsed and be no longer in effect. The Planning Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department's final recommendation in view ofthe forthcoming public hearing process scheduled for MAY 10,2022 whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision-making.The entire record should include but not be limited to: a.Pending govemment agency comments; b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and c.The Applicant's response to staff's report and recommendation as provided herein. By ROMIO IDICA Planner Approved &Recommended to Commission: KA'AINA S.HULL Direytor of Planning Date:^^1 Z-IV-2022-10.U-2022-2,V-2022-10.SMA(U)-2022-6;Director's Repon Cellco Parmership dba Verizon Wireless April 25,2022 i5l P ag e EXHIBIT"A" (Agency Comments) For reference COUNTY OF KAUA'I PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4444 RICE STREET,SUITE A473 LIHU'E,HAWAI'I 96766 (808)241-4050 FROM:Kaaina S.Hull,Director (Romio)April 4,2022 SUBJECT: TO: Class FV Zoning Pennit Z-IV-2022-10,Variance Permit V-2022-2,Special Management Are Use Pemiit SMA(U)-2022-6,Public Or Private Utility Facilty Tax Map Key:(4)4-3-007:028,Cellco Partnership (dba Verizon Wireless), Applicant D Department of Transportation -STP DPW-Engineering D DOT-Highway,Kauai(info only)DPW-WastewateruDOT-Airports,Kauai (info only)D DPW-Building D DOT-Harbors,Kauai (info only)D DPW-SolidWaste State Department of Health Department of Parks &Recreation D State Department of Agriculture Fjre-Department D State Office of Planning County Housing-AgencynStateDept.ofBus.&Econ.Dev.Tourism D County Economic Development D State Land Use Commission D KHPRC State Historic Preservation Division Water Depanment D DLNR-Land Management D Kaua'i Civil Defense DLNR-Foresty &Wildlife a U.S.Postal Depanment D DLNR-Aquatic Resources UH_Sea_Grant DLNR-OCCL D County Transportation Agency D Other: FOR YOUR COMMENTS (pertaining to your department): No comments or concerns from Fire This matter is scheduled for a public hearing before the County of Kauai Planning Commission on 5/10/2022 at the Lihue Civic Center,Moikeha Building,Meeting Room 2A-2B,4444 Rice Street, Lihue,Kauai,at 9:00 am or soon thereafter.If we do not receive your agency comments within one (1) month from the date of this request,we will assume that there are no objections to this permit request. Mahalo! O‘ahu Office P.O. Box 1114 Kailua, Hawai‘i 96734 Ph.: (808) 262-9972 Fax: (808) 262-4950 www.culturalsurveys.com Maui Office 1860 Main St. Wailuku, Hawai‘i 96793 Ph.: (808) 242-9882 Fax: (808) 244-1994 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 Prepared for Hōkūala Prepared by Kellen Tanaka, B.A. David W. Shideler, M.A. and Hallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. Kailua, Hawai‘i (Job Code: KALAPAKI 7) September 2021 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. i Management Summary Reference Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 (Tanaka, Shideler, and Hammatt 2021) Date September 2021 Project Number(s) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. (CSH) Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Agencies County of Kaua‘i Land Jurisdiction Private, Hōkūala Project Proponent Private, Hōkūala Project Location The project area is in the southeast portion of the Hōkūala Resort lands approximately 500 m (1/4 mile) inland (north) of Nāwiliwili Bay, about midway between Kūki‘i Point and Ninini Point and approximately 300 m west of the south end of the coastal runway of Līhu‘e Airport. The project area is depicted on a portion of the 1996 Lihue quadrangle U.S. Geological map (Figure 1) and several other figures. Project Description The proposed project is a Petition for County Zoning Amendment to amend the zoning designation from R-2 to R-4 for an inland portion of the Hōkūala Resort property to allow for higher density development at the proposed Subdivisions 1 and 1A (14.2 acres in the aggregate) while significantly reducing the allowable density of a RR-10 parcel (approximately 2.6 acres) in the vicinity to R-2. As a result of this petition, there is no increase to the entitlement cap of 772 units for the Hōkūala Resort. Project Acreage The project area is approximately 16.8 acres or 6.80 hectares Document Purpose This cultural impact assessment (CIA) was prepared to comply with the State of Hawai‘i’s environmental review process under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §343, which requires consideration of the proposed project’s potential effect on cultural beliefs, practices, and resources. Through document research and cultural consultation efforts, this report provides information compiled to date pertinent to the assessment of the proposed project’s potential impacts to cultural beliefs, practices, and resources (pursuant to the Office of Environmental Quality Control’s Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts) which may include traditional cultural properties (TCPs). These TCPs may be significant historic properties under State of Hawai‘i significance Criterion e, pursuant to Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-275-6 and §13-284-6. Significance Criterion e refers to historic properties that “have an important value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. ii at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts—these associations being important to the group’s history and cultural identity” (HAR §13-275-6 and §13-284-6). The document may also support the project’s historic preservation review under HRS §6E and HAR §13-275 and §13-284. The document is intended to support the project’s environmental review and may also serve to support the project’s historic preservation review under HRS §6E-8 and HAR §13-284. This Cultural Impact Assessment study was prepared to support the Petition for County Zoning Amendment Results of Background Research Background research for this study yielded the following results, presented in approximate chronological order: 1. The original moku (district) for the study area covered in this report was Puna, which means “spring of water.” Līhu‘e (literally translated as “cold chill;” Pukui et al. 1974:132) became the modern political name for the traditional moku of Puna. According to Ethel Damon (1931:402), the name Līhu‘e was first applied to this area by Kaikio‘ewa, Governor of Kaua‘i in the 1830s, perhaps after Kaikio‘ewa’s upcountry residence on the island. This late derivation of the name has been recently disputed (Griffin 2012:46). 2. The ahupua‘a (traditional land division usually extending from the mountains to the sea) of Kalapakī is described as a land division and a beach in Pukui et al. (1974:75), but no meaning is presented. Pukui and Elbert (1986:122) define the word kalapakī (with a small “k”) as “double-yoked egg, Kaua‘i.” Kalapakī was also the name of a village located along the coast. According to Hammatt and Creed (1993:22), Land Commission documents demonstrate that the “village of Kalapakī” was synonymous with the “‘ili [traditional land division smaller than an ahupua‘a] of Kuuhai.” According to a collection of Kaua‘i place names by Kelsey (n.d.), Kalapakī was also known in traditional times as “Ahukini.” 3. The traditional kaʻao (legends) mention numerous place names associated with the area. The place name Līhu‘e is mentioned in the “Legend of Uweuwelekehau” (Fornander 1918-1919:5:196– 197). In the mo‘olelo (story), “The Goddess Pele,” two place names in the vicinity of the present project area are mentioned, Ninini and Ahukini (Rice 1977:14). In “The Menehunes,” Ninini is also mentioned as a favorite place for the sport of jumping off cliffs into the sea (Rice 1977:44). 4. In pre-Contact and early historic times, the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī was permanently inhabited and intensively used. At the coastal areas were concentrations of permanent house sites Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. iii and temporary shelters, heiau (pre-Contact place of worship), ko‘a and kū‘ula (both types of relatively small shrines dedicated to fishing gods), and numerous trails. The kula (dry inland areas) of these ahupua‘a contained native forests and were cultivated with crops of wauke (paper mulberry, Broussonetia papyrifera), ‘uala (sweet potatoes, Ipomoea batatas), and ipu (bottle gourd). 5. There were three heiau in Kalapakī, Ahukini (sometimes written Ahuhini) near Ahukini Point, Ninini Heiau near Ninini Point, and an unnamed heiau near Kūki‘i Point. Ninini Heiau (SIHP No. 100) and Ahukini Heiau (SIHP No. 101) were both described by Bennett as totally destroyed. Damon (1931:398) lists four heiau, Kalapakī, Ahukini, Ninini, and Pohako‘ele‘ele, so it is possible that the unnamed heiau was called Pohako‘ele‘ele. 6. Traditional fishing villages were once located near the seashore at Kalapakī, east and north (around and up the coast) of Kalapakī Beach (500 m to the west of the present study area). Loko (fishponds) and small drainages were inland of these settlement areas. 7. Land Commission documents indicate a land use pattern that may be unique to this part of the island, or to Kaua‘i in general, in which lo‘i (irrigated taro patch) and kula lands are described in the same ‘āpana (lot), with houselots in a separate portion. In most places, kula lands are defined as drier landscapes, and they do not typically occur next to, and among, wetter lo‘i lands. Also, according to Hammatt and Creed (1993:23), “there are several [LCA] references to other lo‘i next to the beach which indicate wetland cultivation extending right to the shoreline.” This is another type of land use that seems to be fairly unique to Kaua‘i. 8. Victoria Kamāmalu was awarded the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī under Land Commission Award (LCA) 7713:2. The Victoria Kamāmalu award (LCA 7713:2 part 7) includes all the land within the present project area. There were no commoner awards anywhere nearby. The locations of kuleana or commoner land claims of the Māhele (1848-1853) in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a are clumped in two areas, along the floodplain of the north side of Nāwiliwili Stream (just back from the coast, south of Rice Street) and on the shore, back from Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay. 9. There were 13 claims in Kalapakī, of which 12 were awarded. The cultivation of taro (kalo; Colocasia esculenta), the major staple, was along the Nāwiliwili Stream flood plains and along the smaller brooks of Kalapakī and Koenaawa where there were Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. iv springs. The house lots in Kalapakī were at the shore. The only crop other than kalo mentioned specifically in Kalapakī is wauke. Additionally, more than one claim in Kalapakī mentions the fishponds of Koenaawa. Two streams—Koenaawa nui and Koenaawa iki—are identified in the claims but neither is named on current maps. Most Kalapakī claimants lived, however, at the shore in the “kulana kauhale” or village of Kalapakī, located behind Kalapakī Beach on Nāwiliwili Bay. Several of the claimants describe their village house lots in relation to the fishponds of Koenaawa (Koenaawainui and Koenaawaiki). There is also a description of the muliwai or estuary of Koenaawanui. 10. Following the death of Victoria Kamāmalu in 1866, her lands were inherited by Princess Ruth Ke‘elikōlani. In 1870, Ke‘elikōlani sold large portions of her Kalapakī and Līhu‘e lands to William Hyde Rice of Lihue Plantation. William Hyde Rice made subsequent land purchases from Princess Ruth in 1879 including a large makai (seaward) section of the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī and there conducted the Lihue Ranch. In later years he sold most of this land to the plantation (Damon 1931:747). 11. A State Archives document listed only as Land Matters, Document 11 mentioned that the konohiki (headman of an ahupuaʻa land division under the chief) had proprietary rights to fish caught in the bay. Document No. 11 lists ana‘e (mullet; Mugil cephalus) as the protected fish of Hanamā‘ulu, and uhu (parrot fish; Scarus perspicillatus) for Kalapakī. These protected fish are part of the konohiki resources, which he or she would use to meet his/her obligations to superior chiefs, governors/ governesses and the King or Queen. 12. Pigs, sweet potatoes, and salt, among other items, were traded to the earliest sailing vessels arriving in Hawai‘i (post 1794) and it is likely that in Līhu‘e District, as elsewhere, the production of these items increased beyond the needs of the immediate family and their expected contributions to their chiefs during this period of early visiting voyagers. 13. The plantation at Līhu‘e was first established in 1849 by Henry A. Pierce; Judge Wm. Little Lee, the chairman of the Land Commission; and Charles Reed Bishop. It became Lihue Plantation in 1850. A steam-powered mill was built in 1853 at Lihue Plantation, the first use of steam power on a Hawaiian sugar plantation. Another important innovation at Līhu‘e was created in 1856, when William H. Rice completed the 10-mile- long Hanamā‘ulu Ditch, the first large-scale irrigation project for any of the sugar plantations (Moffatt and Fitzpatrick 1995:103). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. v 14. Plantation labor was brought in from many countries and these new laborers brought some of their own cash crops. Rice production was an off-shoot industry of the sugar plantation in the 1870s, since many of the new Chinese plantation workers began to grow rice for themselves and then for trade with California. Japanese immigrants, by the end of the nineteenth century did the same and took over many of the Chinese rice paddies. In general, rice planters used abandoned taro fields, but made the patches larger than the traditional taro lo‘i. This is probably true of the Kalapakī floodplain. 15. A series of maps and aerial photographs indicate the project area was a sea of commercial sugar cane between 1910 and 1965 16. During the second half of the twentieth century the project area was a portion of Kalapakī lands transformed by resort development on Kaua‘i. The Kauai Surf Hotel on Kalapakī Bay was developed by Inter-Island Resorts in 1960. Then in 1970, the adjacent Kauai Surf Golf Course opened. Subsequently, in the mid-1980s, these Kalapakī properties were sold or leased to Hemmeter-VMS Kauai Company, which began development of the Westin Kauai Lagoons Resort on approximately 850 acres. In 1991, the Kauai Lagoons Resort was sold to Shinwa Golf Kabushiki Kaisha, which operated the resort and golf courses under Kauai Lagoons Resort Company, Ltd. The approximately 700-acre property, including the present project area, was acquired by Kauai Development LLC and KD Golf Ownership LLC in 2004 and the resort prospers into the twenty-first century as “Hōkūala.” Results of Community Consultation CSH attempted to contact 29 Hawaiian organizations, agencies, and community members by mail, e-mail and telephone. To date CSH has received four responses. Consultation was received from community members as follows: 1. Jan TenBruggencate, President, Mālama Hule‘ia 2. Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos, President of Na Kuleana O Kanaka Oiwi & Puna Moku representative of the Aha Moku O Manokalanipo 3. Dr. Carl Berg, ecologist and owner of Hawaiian Wildlife Tours 4. Anonymous Kama‘āina of Līhu‘e As a standard practice it is recommended that: 1. Project construction workers and all other personnel involved in the construction and related activities of the project should be informed of the possibility of inadvertent cultural finds, including human remains. In the event that any potential historic properties are identified during construction activities, all activities should Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. vi cease in that area and the SHPD should be notified pursuant to HAR §13-280-3. In the event that iwi kūpuna (Native Hawaiian skeletal remains) are identified, all earth moving activities in the area should stop, the area cordoned off, and the SHPD notified pursuant to HAR §13-300. 2. In the event that iwi kūpuna and/or cultural finds are encountered during construction, cultural and lineal descendants of the area should be consulted to develop a reinterment plan and cultural preservation plan for proper cultural protocol, curation, and long- term maintenance. Analysis The following analysis is a summary of Section 9.4. Based on information gathered from the cultural and historical background, and community consultation for this project, no culturally significant resources were identified within the project area. At present, there is no documentation or testimony indicating traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights are currently being exercised “for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778” (Hawai‘i State Constitution, Article XII, Section 7) within the project area. While no cultural resources, practices, or beliefs were identified as currently existing within the project area, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a maintains a rich cultural history in the exercise of traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights within the project ahupua‘a. The archaeological record in Līhu‘e District indicates a date range of ca. AD 1100 to 1650 for early Hawaiian occupation (Walker, Kajima and Goodfellow 1991). As pointed out by Franklin and Walker (1994), important ahupua‘a with large rivers lie north and south of Kalapakī (Franklin and Walker 1994:17). Adjacent to the north, Hanamā‘ulu offered an extraordinary bay and an extensive and broad river flood plain. To the south are located the broad Hulē‘ia River Valley and the ahupua‘a of Ha‘ikū. Kalapakī Ahupua‘a thus may have had less varied pre-Contact resources than the larger neighboring ahupua‘a. In pre-Contact Hawai‘i, the coastal zone of Kalapakī and Hanamā‘ulu was the locus for permanent habitation, heiau, and numerous major cross-ahupua‘a and inter-ahupua‘a trails. There were fishponds at Kalapakī, and major garden activities were within the valley floodplain on the north side of Nāwiliwili River. In the dryland areas (kula) crops of wauke, sweet potatoes, gourds and trees were likely but no traces of these crops have been documented to date. The Māhele records, archeological surveys and ethno-historical accounts confirm that in traditional Hawaiian times, habitation was tightly focused just back from the shoreline of Kalapakī Beach at Nāwiliwili Bay with intensive irrigated agriculture focused on the north Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. vii side of the Nāwiliwili stream valley. At the shoreline, activities included the farming of fishponds and homes. Mauka, the Nāwiliwili stream valley contained the ahupua‘a lo‘i kalo and some wauke gardens. During the mid-nineteenth century, the Māhele claims describe small villages just back from the shore at both Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay and neighboring Hanamā‘ulu Bay. The claims report a fishpond at the shore in Kalapakī. The total number of lo‘i mentioned in Kalapakī was 56, the number of houses was 9, and there were 5 kula lands mentioned (Mitchell et al. 2005:26). All known heiau for Kalapakī Ahupua‘a (there is evidence of four: Ninini, Ahukini, Pohakoelele, and one at Kūki‘i Point) were immediately coastal. The coastal zone distribution of heiau seems quite normative for Kaua‘i ahupua‘a other than those of Wailua and Waimea. There are several references to kapa (bark cloth) in the legends, one in particular where the tapa is being made to give as a wedding gift. There may well have been additional wauke plantations on the plains in the pre-Contact period in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. Archaeological remains of a terrace and midden along the Kalapakī coast (Hammatt 1998) indicate other, at least intermittently used, shoreline habitations existed that were not included in the Māhele records. Shorelines are also traditional burial areas. Inland, in areas of Kaua‘i like Kilohana Crater, birds were caught for food (Damon 1931, story of Lauhaka). Typically, kuleana holders would have had access to wood and herbs in the uplands and in the mountains the bird catchers and canoe makers would have had temporary shelters but the present records are silent on these activities for Kalapakī. The coastal plains, back from the coast and away from potable water, like the present project area, were typically less intensively utilized in traditional Hawaiian times. Utilization likely focused on dryland cultigens – such as sweet potatoes, dryland taro, wauke, ti leaf, and possibly banana, particularly in more mauka areas. Timber and medicinal plants may also have been available for gathering. Annual rainfall at the neighboring Līhu‘e Airport station is 997 mm (39.25 inches) (Giambelluca et al. 2013) which is suggested to be marginal for non-irrigated agriculture. The rainfall gradient is substantial; with Kilohana (the Kukaua Station, Giambelluca et al. 2013) receiving annual rainfall of 2,490 mm. Thus dry land planting areas further mauka were almost certainly more attractive. We have little detail on the environment before Lihue Plantation activities, but the Lt. George G. Jackson (RM 902) description of the immediate vicinity as “Level grass Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. viii land with volcanic boulders” seems likely. The inland coastal plains may have been savannah lands where grasses like pili were harvested for construction purposes. There are no records of major trails running through the project area. Such trails within Kalapakī would likely have been located more mauka or makai quite close to the shoreline. An Archaeological Assessment (Hammatt 1990), identified no archaeological resources in the project area. Historical records, maps and photographs, and archaeological fieldwork support that sugarcane cultivation and development of plantation infrastructure was the dominant land use within the project area and surrounding lands. The documented pattern in the vicinity (Shideler and Hammatt 2021:30) is that historic properties are immediately coastal. It is certainly possible that there was traditional Hawaiian and early historic period land use further inland and that the traces of this were simply lost as a result of decades of intensive sugar cane cultivation but it seems that the pattern of traditional Hawaiian land use was very much in the Hanamā‘ulu stream valley (well to the northwest) and Nāwiliwili stream valley (well to the west) where the LCAs overwhelmingly were, and immediately along the coast particularly back of Kalapakī Beach at Nāwiliwili Bay. Ms. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake, kama‘āina of Kalapakī and cultural specialist, was interviewed by CSH on October 20, 2005. When Ms. Lovell-Obatake spoke of archaeological sites she spoke of “the coast and Kalapakī Point” (Mitchell et al. 2005:23) Seemingly no burials have been previously documented within a kilometer of the project area (Shideler and Hammatt 2021:33). Wendell C. Bennett briefly references burials in his “Site 103. Dune burials. In the sand dunes that run along the shore halfway between Hanamaulu and Wailua River are many burials.” (1931:125). This locus of burials is well to the north. At least some burials would be expected at Kalapakī but these would be expected to be almost exclusively in the Jaucus sands immediately adjacent to the coast. Both the distance from the coast and the Lihue silty clay (LhB) and Lihue gravelly silt clay (LIB) soils of the project area (Foote et al. 1972:) would not have encouraged burial there. Ms. Lovell-Obatake specifically noted that she “never heard of any burials in the vicinity of the present area of study” (Mitchell et al. 2005: 23). An anonymous kama‘āina of Līhu‘e who spoke with CSH stated that in traditional times, the beaches around Kaua‘i were “fighting grounds.” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. ix They noted that the “old ancient Hawaiian bones of warriors” have been encountered on the beaches by fishermen who will cover them back up. Activities associated with faunal resources have and continue to be focused on marine resources. Ms. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake expressed her concern for marine resources and Ms. Sabra Kauka for fisherman using the coast (Mitchell et al. 2005: 24-25). Ms. Kauka also expressed her concern for Shearwater birds: Fourthly, I go to mālama the rare Shearwater birds that lay their eggs in the rock walls, boulders and bushes along the coast. I have been taking my 3rd and 4th grade students from Island School to count, capture, weigh, measure, and return the chicks to their nesting sites for the past two years. We have a special permit from the Department of Land & Natural Resources, State Forestry Division, to do this work. Last year we counted 38 chicks there. This year, unfortunately, a predator has eliminated them. We don’t know what predator it is but we couldn’t find any chinks. This bird is very important to me and my students because it teaches them the connection between the kai and the ‘aina. It teaches them that what humans do at sea and on the land affect other life on earth. If the birds have nowhere to nest, their species will die. If they have not fish and squid to eat, if man overharvests the ocean, the birds will have nothing to eat. They are an indicator that there is still fish in the sea for them and for us. There is still land for them and for us. [Mitchell et al. 2005: 24] The Shearwater nesting is understood as immediately coastal. No evidence of sea bird nesting has been reported for the project area. No accounts of hunting have been identified in association with this project area. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also expressed their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. They noted that the beaches were more accessible in the “old days,” and they would visit the shoreline with their ‘ohana to camp and fish. They also recalled that their grandfather, who was a fisherman, could “fish all over” in the “old days.” They pointed out that access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes that have been built along the shoreline in areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu.” These areas have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They also noted that presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. x the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. The project area is maintained in a mowed lawn of exotic grasses with some landscaping with coconut trees, naupaka and loulu palm. Virtually no native vegetation is believed to be present (other than planted for landscaping purposes). In his written testimony, Dr. Carl Berg stated, “I doubt that there is any original native vegetation.” In traditional times, trails were well used for travel within the ahupua‘a between mauka and makai and laterally between ahupua‘a. A historical trail system existed on Kaua‘i which often ran well inland (approximating modern Kaumuali‘i Highway and Kūhiō Highway effectively acting as a short cut for travel between ahupua‘a. A coastal trail would have been used for access to marine resources and recreation, but this would have been quite close to the coast. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake spoke of “sacred trails that run from Nāwiliwili side coming from Kalapakī Point along the coast.” But these were understood to be quite close to the coast (Mitchell et al. 2005:23). Doubtlessly there were major mauka / makai trails but these would have been anticipated to be focused on connecting centers of habitation, like inland of Kalapakī Beach to the uplands. There are no records of trails running through the vicinity of the project area (Mitchell et al. 2005:27). The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also noted there are walking paths in the vicinity of the project area which people use for exercising. They expressed their concern that access to the area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. They mentioned that their friend has observed “No Trespassing” signs along the golf cart path in the vicinity of the project area. They also shared a story about their friend who experienced “strange occurrences—tragic deaths; and a brush fire in the subdivision” at the home they bought. A kahuna that was brought in to bless the home observed spirits on the roof and explained that the strange occurrences occurred because homes were “built in the ancient walking path. They noted, “some badly burned and partially burned but no other homes in the subdivision got damaged.” The kahuna told their friend, “this ancient walking path was for the Hawaiian villagers to walk to the beach ocean shoreline for their fishing (food).” Storied places in the vicinity would have included the four Kalapakī heiau: Ninini, Ahukini, Pohakoelele, and one at Kūki‘i Point) as well as the cove of Kalapakī Beach and Nāwiliwili Stream. Further inland, Kilohana was a storied landform. The vicinity of the present project Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xi area was relatively featureless and no wahi pana in the immediate vicinity are known. The project area was a sea of sugar cane of the Lihue Plantation for many decades. Since the end of sugar cane cultivation the land has pretty much part of the resort development and has largely been maintained in a lawn of exotic grasses as part of the active resort. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xii Ka Pa‘akai Analysis In Ka Pa‘akai vs Land Use Commission, 94 Hawai‘i (2000) the Court held the following analysis also be conducted: 1. The identity and scope of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the project area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the project area; 2. The extent to which those resources—including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights—will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and 3. The feasible action, if any, to be taken to reasonably protect native Hawaiian Rights if they are found to exist. Based on information gathered from the cultural and historical background, and community consultation for this project, no culturally significant resources were identified within the project area. At present, there is no documentation or testimony indicating traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights are currently being exercised “for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778” (Hawai‘i State Constitution, Article XII, Section 7) within the project area. While no cultural resources, practices, or beliefs were identified as currently existing within the project area, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a maintains a rich cultural history in the exercise of traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights within the project ahupua‘a. Given the location well-back from the coast, with no notable landforms in the vicinity, the relatively low rainfall, the absence of potable water, the prior land history of intensive sugar cane cultivation with frequent plowing of the entire project area and the prevailing vegetation regime dominated by the maintained lawn of a resort it is concluded that no traditional and customary native Hawaiian Resources will be affected by the proposed action. No adverse impact on cultural resources or practices is anticipated. No other customary resource has come to light in the historic background research, fieldwork or in the consultation outreach. The consideration of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices in this study does document some of the resources and practices on coastal lands, and across the airport runway to the northeast and emphasizes the import of consideration of these practices for any development activities that may be proposed there. Cultural informants Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos, Mr. Jan TenBruggencate, Carl Berg, and an anonymous kama‘āina from Līhu‘e stressed the importance of public access both to access the coast for fishing and Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xiii gathering of marine resources and simply for recreation (walking, biking). It is recommended that public access not be impeded by the proposed petition area changes. This issue of access was not directly related to traditional Hawaiian trail alignments per se but does reflect a traditional pattern of access to the coast across what was traditionally a relatively open “level grass land with volcanic boulders here and there” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xiv Table of Contents Management Summary ............................................................................................................ i Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Document Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Ka Makani (Winds) ................................................................................................................ 8 1.4.3 Ka Ua (Rains) ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.4 Nā Kahawai (Streams) .......................................................................................................... 10 1.4.5 Lihikai ame ka Moana (Seashore and Ocean) ...................................................................... 10 Section 2 Methods .................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Archival Research ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Community Consultation ............................................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Scoping for Participants ........................................................................................................ 13 2.2.2 “Talk Story” Sessions ........................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Completion of Interview ....................................................................................................... 14 Section 3 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo ................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Ka‘ao ........................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Legend of Uweuwelekehau .................................................................................................. 15 3.1.2 The Goddess Pele.................................................................................................................. 16 3.1.3 The Menehunes ..................................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Wahi Pana ................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2.1 Place Names .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Heiau (Pre-Christian Place of Worship) ............................................................................... 18 3.3 ʻŌlelo Noʻeau .............................................................................................................................. 18 3.3.1 Ōlelo No‘eau # 838 ............................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Ōlelo No‘eau # 2467 ............................................................................................................. 19 3.4 Oli (Chants) ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.4.1 Pele ....................................................................................................................................... 20 3.5 Mele (Songs) ................................................................................................................................ 21 3.5.1 Lihu‘e .................................................................................................................................... 22 3.5.2 Maikaʻi Kauaʻi ...................................................................................................................... 23 Section 4 Traditional and Historical Background .............................................................. 24 4.1 Pre-Contact Settlement Patterns .................................................................................................. 24 4.2 Early Historic Period ................................................................................................................... 24 4.3 The Māhele and the Kuleana Act ................................................................................................ 26 4.4 Late 1800s .................................................................................................................................... 26 4.5 1900s ............................................................................................................................................ 29 4.6 Contemporary Land Use .............................................................................................................. 32 Section 5 Previous Archaeological Research ....................................................................... 41 5.1 Early References to Kalapakī Archaeology ................................................................................. 41 5.2 Modern Archaeological Studies................................................................................................... 41 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xv Section 6 Field Inspection Results ........................................................................................ 49 Section 7 Community Consultation ...................................................................................... 58 7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 58 7.2 Community Contact Letter .......................................................................................................... 58 7.3 Community Responses (received to date).................................................................................... 64 7.3.1 Donna Kaliko Santos ............................................................................................................ 64 7.3.2 Jan TenBruggencate .............................................................................................................. 64 7.3.3 Carl Berg ............................................................................................................................... 65 7.3.4 Anonymous Kama‘āina of Līhu‘e ........................................................................................ 65 Section 8 Traditional Cultural Practices.............................................................................. 67 8.1 Habitation and Subsistence .......................................................................................................... 67 8.2 Marine Resources ........................................................................................................................ 69 8.3 Mo‘olelo and Wahi Pana ............................................................................................................. 70 Section 9 Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................ 72 9.1 Results of Background Research ................................................................................................. 72 9.2 Results of Community Consultations .......................................................................................... 74 9.3 Impacts and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 74 9.4 Ka Pa‘akai Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 76 9.4.1 Kalapakī Ahupua‘a ............................................................................................................... 76 9.4.2 The Project Area Vicinity ..................................................................................................... 77 9.4.3 The Extent to which Traditional and Customary Native Hawaiian Resources will be Affected by the Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 80 9.4.4 Feasible Action, if any, to be Taken to Reasonably Protect Native Hawaiian Rights .......... 80 Section 10 References Cited .................................................................................................. 81 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xvi List of Figures Figure 1. Portion of the 1996 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle showing the location of the project area .......................................................................................2 Figure 2. Tax Map Key (TMK) [4] 3-5-001 showing the project area (Hawai‘i TMK 2014) ......3 Figure 3. Tax Map Key (TMK) [4] 3-5-004 showing the project area (Hawai‘i TMK 2014) ......4 Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the project area (ESRI Aerial Photograph 2016) .........................5 Figure 5. Portion of a 1996 Lihue USGS topographic quadrangle map, with overlay of Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii (Foote et al. 1972; USDA SSURGO 2001), indicating soil types within and surrounding the study area ......................................................................................7 Figure 6. Kalapakī Bay, showing location of two streams and their outlets (red Xs) to Kalapakī Bay; Koena‘awa stream is on the left (undated photograph in Kaua‘i Museum files, see http:www.hawaii.edu/environment.ainakumuwai.htm) .................11 Figure 7. Location of LCA claims in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a relative to the present project area (base map: 1996 USGS Lihue quadrangle topographic map) ..............................27 Figure 8. Portion of 1881 map of Nāwiliwili Harbor by Lt. George G. Jackson (RM 902) showing the area of Kuki‘i Point to Ninini Point with the project area depicted in an area of “Level grass land with volcanic boulders here and there” ......................30 Figure 9. 1910 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map showing the project area .................31 Figure 10. 1939 Map of Lihue Plantation showing the project area as at a confluence of fields 30A, 30B, 31 and 32 ..........................................................................................33 Figure 11. 1941 Lihue Plantation field map showing the project area as at a confluence of fields 30A, 30B, 31 and 32 (Condé and Best 1973:168) .............................................34 Figure 12. 1950 USGS Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) .......................................................35 Figure 13. 1959 USGS Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) .......................................................36 Figure 14. Portion of 1963 Lihue USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project area ........37 Figure 15. 1965 USDA Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) .......................................................38 Figure 16. Undated “Map of Lihue Plantation with Lessees” produced by the Lihue Plantation Company showing a lot configuration (the present project area is partially in “Lot 4”) not reflected on other maps (the map references “Stadium Vidinha” and it is understood Lihue Stadium was not so named until after 1976) .....39 Figure 17. 1978 USGS orthophotoquad aerial photograph, Lihue Quadrangle showing the project area as within former sugarcane fields on the northeast but mostly in a new golf course development ......................................................................................40 Figure 18. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area (Base map: 1996 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map) .......................................................42 Figure 19. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area (Base map: 1996 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map) ..............................................45 Figure 20. View of the west end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to northeast ....................50 Figure 21. View of the west end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southeast ....................50 Figure 22. View from the central portion of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southwest .....51 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. xvii Figure 23. View from the central portion of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to NNE ............51 Figure 24. View of the east end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to northwest ....................52 Figure 25. View of the east end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southwest....................52 Figure 26. View of the west end of the central Subdivision 1, view to northeast .........................53 Figure 27. View of the west end of the central Subdivision 1, view to southeast .........................53 Figure 28. View from the central portion of the central Subdivision 1, view to west ...................54 Figure 29. View from the central portion of the central Subdivision 1, view to east ....................54 Figure 30. View of the east end of the central Subdivision 1, view to west ..................................55 Figure 31. View of the east end of the central Subdivision 1, view to southeast ..........................55 Figure 32. View of southern Parcel 10C, view from southern causeway to large eastern island, view to northeast ..............................................................................................56 Figure 33. View of southern Parcel 10C, view from large eastern island to west .........................56 Figure 34. View of southern Parcel 10C, from southwest side of the large eastern island, view to northeast ..........................................................................................................57 Figure 35. View of southern Parcel 10C, from north side of the large eastern island, view to south .............................................................................................................................57 Figure 36. Community contact letter page one ..............................................................................61 Figure 37. Community contact letter page two ..............................................................................62 Figure 38. Community contact letter page three ............................................................................63 List of Tables Table 1. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area ..................................43 Table 2. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area .....................46 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 1 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background At the request of Hōkūala, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. (CSH) has prepared this Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for the Hōkūala redevelopment of Subdivision 1, Subdivision 1A and Lot 10C project within the Hōkūala Resort area in Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, southeast Kauaʻi (TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109). The project area is in the southeast portion of the Hōkūala Resort lands approximately 500 m (1/4 mile) inland (north) of Nāwiliwili Bay, about midway between Kūki‘i Point and Ninini Point and approximately 300 m west of the south end of the coastal runway of Līhu‘e Airport. The project area is depicted on a portion of the 1996 Lihue U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1), tax map key (TMK) plats (Figure 2 and Figure 3), and a 2016 aerial photograph (Figure 4). The proposed project is a Petition for County Zoning Amendment to amend the zoning designation from R-2 to R-4 for an inland portion of the Hōkūala Resort property to allow for higher density development at the proposed Subdivisions 1 and 1A (14.2 acres in the aggregate) while significantly reducing the allowable density of a RR-10 parcel (approximately 2.6 acres) in the vicinity to R-2. As a result of this petition, there is no increase to the entitlement cap of 772 units for the Hōkūala Resort. 1.2 Document Purpose This CIA was prepared to comply with the State of Hawai‘i’s environmental review process under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §343, which requires consideration of the proposed project’s potential effect on cultural beliefs, practices, and resources. Through document research, this report provides information compiled to date pertinent to the assessment of the proposed project’s potential impacts to cultural beliefs, practices, and resources (pursuant to the Office of Environmental Quality Control’s Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts) which may include traditional cultural properties (TCPs). These TCPs may be significant historic properties under State of Hawai‘i significance Criterion e, pursuant to Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §13- 275-6 and §13-284-6. Significance Criterion e refers to historic properties that have an important value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts—these associations being important to the group’s history and cultural identity. [HAR §13-275-6 and §13-284-6] The document may also support the project’s historic preservation review under HRS §6E and HAR §13-275 and §13-284. This Cultural Impact Assessment study was prepared to support the Petition for County Zoning Amendment Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 2 Figure 1. Portion of the 1996 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle showing the location of the project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 3 Figure 2. Tax Map Key (TMK) [4] 3-5-001 showing the project area (Hawai‘i TMK 2014) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 4 Figure 3. Tax Map Key (TMK) [4] 3-5-004 showing the project area (Hawai‘i TMK 2014) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 5 Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the project area (ESRI Aerial Photograph 2016) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 6 1.3 Scope of Work The scope of work for this cultural impact assessment includes the following: 1. Examination of cultural and historical resources, including Land Commission documents, historic maps, and previous research reports, with the specific purpose of identifying traditional Hawaiian activities including gathering of plant, animal, and other resources or agricultural pursuits as may be indicated in the historic record. 2. Review of previous archaeological work at and near the subject parcel that may be relevant to reconstructions of traditional land use activities; and to the identification and description of cultural resources, practices, and beliefs associated with the parcel. 3. Outreach to potentially knowledgeable parties with a request to share any concerns regarding cultural and natural resources and practices at or near the project area; present and past uses of the project area; and/or other practices, uses, or traditions associated with the parcel and environs. 4. Preparation of a report that summarizes the results of these research activities and provides recommendations based on findings. 1.4 Environmental Setting The project area—lying between 80-feet and 120-feet amsl—lies within the Līhu‘e depression or basin. Of the area’s volcanic history, Macdonald, Abbot, and Peterson note, Lava flows of the Koloa Series cover about half the surface of the eastern part of the island. They form the entire floor of the Lihue basin except for two small kipukas of Waimea Canyon rocks (Aaohoaka hill and Puu Pilo) that protrude through them west of the gap through which the Wailua River crosses the Kālepa Nounou Ridge […] The greatest exposed thickness of Koloa lavas is 650 meters, in the east wall of Hanalei Valley; but they may be even thicker in the Lihue basin and along the southern edge of the island, where their base is not exposed. [Macdonald et al. 1983:460–461] The project area is situated on the southeast coast of Kaua‘i and is exposed to the prevailing northeast trade winds generally from 10-20 miles per hour. Annual rainfall at the neighboring Līhu‘e Airport station is 997 mm (39.25 inches) (Giambelluca et al. 2013) which is suggested to be marginal for non-irrigated agriculture. 1.4.1 Ka Lepo (Soils) According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database (2001) and soil survey data gathered by Foote et al. (1972), the project area’s soils consist of Lihue silty clay (LhB) and Lihue gravelly silt clay (LIB) (Foote et al. 1972: Sheets 30 &31; Figure 5). Lihue Series soils are described as follows: consists of well-drained soils on uplands on the island of Kauai. These soils developed in material weathered from basic igneous rock. They are gently sloping to steep. Elevations range from nearly sea level to 800 feet. […] These soils are used for irrigated sugarcane, pineapple, pasture, truck crops, orchards, wildlife Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 7 Figure 5. Portion of a 1996 Lihue USGS topographic quadrangle map, with overlay of Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii (Foote et al. 1972; USDA SSURGO 2001), indicating soil types within and surrounding the study area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 8 habitat, woodland, and homesites. The natural vegetation consists of lantana, guava, koa haole, joee, kikuyugrass, molassesgrass, guineagrass, bermudagrass, and Java plum. [Foote et al. 1972:82] Lihue silty clay (LhB) soils are further described as “on the tops of broad interfluves in the uplands” and “Permeability is moderately rapid. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is no more than slight” (Foote et al. 1972:82). Lihue gravelly silt clay (LIB) soils are further described as “contain[ing] ironstone-gibbsite pebbles and has brighter colors in the B horizon” (Foote et al. 1972:83). 1.4.2 Ka Makani (Winds) Makani is the general Hawaiian term for the wind. A‘e loa is another of the Hawaiian names given to the prevailing northeasterly trade winds (Nakuina 1992:138) along with Aʻe (Pukui and Elbert 1986:3), Moa‘e, and Moaʻe Lehua (Pukui and Elbert 1986:249). In the traditional story The Wind Gourd of La‘amaomao, Pāka‘a and his son Kūapāka‘a are descendants of the wind goddess La‘amaomao whose traditional home was in a wooden calabash (bowl), a gourd that also contained all of the sacred winds of Hawaiʻi. Laʻamaomao controlled and called forth the winds by chanting their names (Nakuina 1992). Kūapāka‘a’s chant traces the winds of Kaua‘i. He calls upon the wind named called Waikai of the ahupua‘a (traditional land division usually extending from the mountains to the sea) of Kalapakī (Nakuina 1992:53). Pukui & Elbert (1986:350) define wai kai as “brackish water, salty water.” The portion of Kūapākaʻa’s chant mentioning winds of the moku (district) of Līhu‘e is presented below: Paupua is of Kipu, Ala‘oli is of Hule‘ia, Waikai is of Kalapaki, Ka‘ao is of Hanama‘ulu, Waipua‘a‘ala is the wind That knocks down hale of Konolea, Wai‘opua is of Wailua, [Nakuina 1992:53] 1.4.3 Ka Ua (Rains) Precipitation is a major component of the water cycle, and is responsible for depositing wai (fresh water) on local flora. Pre-Contact kānaka (Native Hawaiians) recognized two distinct annual seasons. The first, known as kau (period of time, especially summer) lasts typically from May to October and is a season marked by a high-sun period corresponding to warmer temperatures and steady trade winds. The second season, hoʻoilo (winter, rainy season) continues through the end of the year from November to April and is a much cooler period when trade winds are less frequent, and widespread storms and rainfall become more common (Giambelluca et al. 1986:17). Each small geographic area on O‘ahu had a Hawaiian name for its own rains. According to Akana and Gonzalez (2015), Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 9 Rain names are a precious legacy from our kūpuna [elders] who were keen observers of the world around them and who had a nuanced understanding of the forces of nature. They knew that one place could have several types of rain, each distinct from the other. They knew when a particular rain would fall, its color, its duration, its intensity, its path, its sound, its scent, and its effect on the land and their lives […] Rain names are a treasure of cultural, historical, and environmental information. [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:n.p.] The moku of Līhu‘e was no exception to the practice. Two rains were associated with Līhu‘e: the Pa‘upili and the Kenikeni. Other rain names associated with the area include the ‘Ala and the Lihau. 1.4.3.1 Pa‘upili In a textbook on Hawaiian language, E Kama‘ilio Hawai‘i Kakou: Let’s Speak Hawaiian, Kahananui and Anthony describe the Pa‘upili rain as “pili [grass] soaking.” They noted that “Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i, has a Pa‘upili rain.” 20. He ua Pa‘upili (pili soaking) ko Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i. Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i, has a Pa‘upili rain. [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:226] The Pa‘upili rain is also mentioned in the mele (song) “Wailua alo lahilahi,” also known as “Nani wale Līhu‘e.” The mele which is “credited by Lili‘uokalani and Kapoli and by others to Leleiohoku and Mrs. Kamakua,” describes Līhu‘e as “calm […] In the mist of the Pa‘upili rain.” 21. Nani wale Līhu‘e i ka la‘i I ka noe a ka ua Pa‘upiliī So beautiful is Līhu‘e in the calm In the mist of the Pa‘upili rain [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:226] In the mele “Maika‘i Kaua‘i,” the Pa‘upili rain is described as “drenching rain that clings to the house.” 22. Ua nani wale ‘o Līhu‘e I ka ua Pa‘upili hale I ka wai hu‘ihu‘i anu Kahi wai a‘o Kemamo So very beautiful is Līhu‘e In the drenching [Pa‘upili] rain that clings to the house With the cold, refreshing waters From the springs of Kemamo [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:226] Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 10 1.4.3.2 Kenikeni The Kenikeni rain of Līh‘ue is mentioned in an obituary for Eda Kawaikauomaunahina Kalua. 1. E ka ua Kenikeni o Līhu‘e, ua pau kou ho‘opulu pē ‘ana i ka ‘ili o ku‘u aloha. O Kenikeni rain of Līhu‘e, your drenching of my love’s skin has ended. From an obituary for Eda Kawaikauomaunahina Kalua. Hawaiian source: Kalua. English trans. by author. [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:77] The Kenikeni rain is also mentioned in a kanikau (lament) which was also written in honor of Eda Kawaikauomaunahina Kalua. 2 . Me ka ua Kenikeni o Līhu‘e E uē helu mai ‘o Kaapuwai With the Kenikeni rain of Līhu‘e Kaapuwai wails, recounting your deeds [Akana and Gonzalez 2015:77] 1.4.4 Nā Kahawai (Streams) The Līhu‘e District is well-watered by the Hulē‘ia River, Nāwiliwili Stream, and the Hanamā‘ulu River. The attractiveness of this region to the early Kaua‘i residents is preserved in the following ‘ōlelo no‘eau (proverb): He nani wale no o Puna mai ‘o a ‘o. There is only beauty from one end of Puna to the other. There is nothing to complain about–refers to Puna, Kaua‘i [Pukui 1983:91]. Two smaller streams, Koena‘awa nui and Koena‘awa iki, are identified in Land Commission documents, although neither of these is named on any extant maps. Given the gently-sloping character of the natural lay of the land from Līhu‘e to the coast, it is possible that there were once other smaller drainages traversing what is now the airport, resort and golf course area; and, that Native Hawaiian planters made use of this water (Figure 6). 1.4.5 Lihikai ame ka Moana (Seashore and Ocean) Southeast of the project area is Nāwiliwili Harbor, a commercial deep-water port which accommodates “a wide range of vessels including passenger liners, interisland barges, freighters, and tankers” (Clark 1990:3). In The Beaches of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau, John R.K. Clark translates Nawiliwili as “the wiliwili [Erythrina sandwicensis] trees” (Clark 1990:2). He noted that, “These trees provided the Hawaiians with orange-to-red seeds that were strung into leis [garlands] and a very light wood that was used to make surfboards, canoe outriggers, and fishnet floats” (Clark 1990:2). On the southern side of the Nāwiliwili Harbor is the Nāwiliwili Small Boat Harbor which includes a boat ramp, restrooms, and parking for automobiles and trailers. The Nawiliwili Small Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 11 Figure 6. Kalapakī Bay, showing location of two streams and their outlets (red Xs) to Kalapakī Bay; Koena‘awa stream is on the left (undated photograph in Kaua‘i Museum files, see http:www.hawaii.edu/environment.ainakumuwai.htm) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 12 Boat Harbor is utilized by both recreational and commercial vessels. It is also a favorite spot for shoreline fishermen (Clark 1990:3). On the northern side of the Nāwiliwili Harbor is Nawiliwili Park, a long, narrow park whose entire seaward edge is formed by a concrete sea wall (Clark 1990:3). The park is primarily used for picnicking, fishing, and surfing. A surfing site known as Ammonias is located directly offshore the wall. The northern end of Nāwiliwili Park is adjoining to Kalapakī Beach (Clark 1990:3). Kalapakī Beach is the closest white sand beach to Līhu‘e. The beach is a popular place for many types of recreational activities. The sandy and gently sloping ocean bottom provides favorable conditions for swimming (Clark 1990:3-4). Clark (1990:4-5) stated that, “The surfing site known as Kalapakī offshore the beach is an ideal beginner’s surfing break with gentle waves that roll across a shallow sand bar.” He noted that, “Kalapakī is one of Kaua‘i’s historic surfing sites. The break was surfed and bodysurfed by ancient Hawaiians and later by non-Hawaiians who took up the sports.” He added, “Today the waves at Kalapakī continue to attract surfers, bodysurfers, and a large number of bodyboarders.” Other types of ocean recreation are also popular at Kalapakī including “canoe surfing, fishing, snorkeling, windsurfing, and twin-hull sailing” (Clark 1990:5). Located near the northern point of Nawiliwili Harbor, Ninini Beach consists of “two large pockets of white sand, separated by lava rock at the base of a low sea cliff” (Clark 1990:5). Clark noted that the beach is “subject at all times of the year to high surf and kona (southerly) storms, both of which may generate dangerous water conditions” (Clark 1990:5). The larger beach consists of a “gentle, rock-free slope leading into a sandy ocean bottom” (Clark 1990:5). Conditions are good for snorkeling and the shorebreak is frequented by bodysurfers during periods of high surf (Clark 1990:5). The smaller beach is “rocky at the water’s edge with pockets of sand and rock immediately offshore” (Clark 1990:5). Conditions at the smaller beach are also good for swimming and snorkeling (Clark 1990:5). The smaller pocket beach is located approximately one-quarter mile from Ninini Point which is “marked by the Nawiliwili Light Station and the foundations of the former lighthouse keeper’s quarters” (Clark 1990:5). Ninini Point is also a fishing spot which is very popular with shoreline fishermen (Clark 1990:5). 1.4.6 Built Environment The project area lies between the south ends of the two main runways of Līhu‘e Airport and is bounded on the south by the built-up portion of the Hōkūala Resort and other resort infrastructure. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Methods Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 13 Section 2 Methods 2.1 Archival Research Research centers on Hawaiian activities including ka‘ao (legends), wahi pana (storied places), ‘ōlelo no‘eau (proverbs), oli (chants), mele (songs), traditional mo‘olelo (stories), traditional subsistence and gathering methods, ritual and ceremonial practices, and more. Background research focuses on land transformation, development, and population changes beginning with the early post-Contact era to the present day. Cultural documents, primary and secondary cultural and historical sources, historic maps, and photographs were reviewed for information pertaining to the study area. Research was primarily conducted at the CSH library. Other archives and libraries including the Hawai‘i State Archives, the Bishop Museum Archives, the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa’s Hamilton Library, Ulukau, The Hawaiian Electronic Library (Ulukau 2014), the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) Library, the State of Hawai‘i Land Survey Division, the Hawaiian Historical Society, and the Hawaiian Mission Houses Historic Site and Archives are also repositories where CSH cultural researchers gather information. Information on Land Commission Awards (LCAs) were accessed via Waihona ‘Aina Corporation’s Māhele database (Waihona ‘Aina 2000), the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Papakilo Database (Office of Hawaiian Affairs 2015), and the Ava Konohiki Ancestral Visions of ‘Āina website (Ava Konohiki 2015). 2.2 Community Consultation 2.2.1 Scoping for Participants We begin our consultation efforts with utilizing our previous contact list to facilitate the interview process. We then review an in-house database of kūpuna (elders), kama‘āina, cultural practitioners, lineal and cultural descendants, Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs; includes Hawaiian Civic Clubs and those listed on the Department of Interior’s NHO list), and community groups. We also contact agencies such as SHPD, OHA, and the appropriate Island Burial Council where the proposed project is located for their response on the project and to identify lineal and cultural descendants, individuals and/or NHO with cultural expertise and/or knowledge of the study area. CSH is also open to referrals and new contacts. 2.2.2 “Talk Story” Sessions Prior to the interview, CSH cultural researchers explain the role of a CIA, how the consent process works, the project purpose, the intent of the study, and how their ‘ike (knowledge) and mana‘o (thought, opinion) will be used in the report. The interviewee is given an Authorization and Release Form to read and sign. “Talk Story” sessions range from the formal (e.g., sit down and kūkākūkā [consultation, discussion] in participants choice of place over set interview questions) to the informal (e.g., hiking to cultural sites near the study area and asking questions based on findings during the field outing). In some cases, interviews are recorded and transcribed later. CSH also conducts group interviews, which range in size. Group interviews usually begin with set, formal questions. As the group interview progresses, questions are based on interviewee’s Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Methods Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 14 answers. Group interviews are always transcribed and notes are taken. Recorded interviews assist the cultural researcher in 1) conveying accurate information for interview summaries, 2) reducing misinterpretation, and 3) missing details to mo‘olelo. CSH seeks kōkua (assistance) and guidance on identifying past and current traditional cultural practices of the study area. Those aspects include general history of the ahupua‘a; past and present land use of the study area; knowledge of cultural sites (for example, wahi pana, archaeological sites, and burials); knowledge of traditional gathering practices (past and present) within the study area; cultural associations (ka‘ao and mo‘olelo); referrals; and any other cultural concerns the community might have related to Hawaiian cultural practices within or in the vicinity of the study area. 2.2.3 Completion of Interview After an interview, CSH cultural researchers transcribe and create an interview summary based on information provided by the interviewee. Cultural researchers give a copy of the transcription and interview summary to the interviewee for review and ask to make any necessary edits. Once the interviewee has made those edits, we incorporate their ‘ike and mana‘o into the report. When the draft report is submitted to the client, cultural researchers then prepare a finalized packet of the participant’s transcription, interview summary, and any photos that were taken during the interview. We also include a thank you card and honoraria. This is for the interviewee’s records. It is important to CSH cultural researchers to cultivate and maintain community relationships. The CIA report may be completed, but CSH researchers continuously keep in touch with the community and interviewees throughout the year—such as checking in to say hello via email or by phone, volunteering with past interviewees on community service projects, and sending holiday cards to them and their ‘ohana (family). CSH researchers feel this is an important component to building relationships and being part of an ‘ohana and community. “I ulu no ka lālā i ke kumu—the branches grow because of the trunk,” an ‘ōlelo no‘eau (#1261) shared by Mary Kawena Pukui with the simple explanation: “Without our ancestors we would not be here” (Pukui 1983:137). As cultural researchers, we often lose our kūpuna but we do not lose their wisdom and words. We routinely check obituaries and gather information from other informants if we have lost our kūpuna. CSH makes it a point to reach out to the ‘ohana of our fallen kūpuna and pay our respects including sending all past transcriptions, interview summaries, and photos for families to have on file for genealogical and historical reference. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 15 Section 3 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Hawaiian storytellers of old were greatly honored; they were a major source of entertainment and their stories contained lessons while interweaving elements of Hawaiian lifestyles, genealogy, history, relationships, arts, and the natural environment (Pukui and Green 1995:IX). According to Pukui and Green (1995), storytelling is better heard than read for much becomes lost in the transfer from the spoken to the written word and ka‘ao are often full of kaona or double meanings. Ka‘ao are defined by Pukui and Elbert (1986:108) as a “legend, tale […], romance, [and/or], fiction.” Ka‘ao may be thought of as oral literature or legends, often fictional or mythic in origin, and have been “consciously composed to tickle the fancy rather than to inform the mind as to supposed events” (Beckwith 1970:1). Conversely, Pukui and Elbert (1986:254) define mo‘olelo as a “story, tale, myth, history, [and/or] tradition.” The mo‘olelo are generally traditional stories about the gods, historic figures or stories which cover historic events and locate the events with known places. Mo‘olelo are often intimately connected to a tangible place or space (wahi pana). In differentiating ka‘ao and mo‘olelo it may be useful to think of ka‘ao as expressly delving into the wao akua (realm of the gods), discussing the exploits of akua (gods) in a primordial time. Mo‘olelo on the other hand, reference a host of characters from ali‘i (royalty) to akua; kupua (supernatural beings) to maka‘āinana (commoners); and discuss their varied and complex interactions within the wao kānaka (realm of man). Beckwith elaborates, “In reality, the distinction between kaʻao as fiction and moʻolelo as fact cannot be pressed too closely. It is rather in the intention than in the fact” (Beckwith 1970:1). Thus a so-called moʻolelo, which may be enlivened by fantastic adventures of kupua, “nevertheless corresponds with the Hawaiian view of the relation between nature and man” (Beckwith 1970:1). Both ka‘ao and mo‘olelo provide important insight into a specific geographical area, adding to a rich fabric of traditional knowledge. The preservation and passing on of these stories through oration remains a highly-valued tradition. Additionally, oral traditions associated with the study area communicate the intrinsic value and meaning of a place, specifically its meaning to both kama‘āina as well as others who also value that place. The following section presents traditional accounts of ancient Hawaiians living in the vicinity of the project area. Many relate an age of mythical characters whose epic adventures inadvertently lead to the Hawaiian race of aliʻi and makaʻāinana. The kaʻao in and around the project area shared below are some of the oldest Hawaiian stories that have survived; they still speak to the characteristics and environment of the area and its people. 3.1 Ka‘ao 3.1.1 Legend of Uweuwelekehau In Fornander’s Hawaiian Antiquities and Folklore, a pioneering collection of Hawaiian lore, references are made to Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, and to Līhu‘e. One of the named Kaua‘i winds, “He waikai ko Kalapakī” refers to the salty fresh water of Kalapakī (Fornander 1918-1919:5:96–97). The place name Līhu‘e appears in the “Legend of Uweuwelekehau.” Uweuwelekehau and his wife Luukia are being punished: they are stripped of their clothing and sent to Manā (at the west end of the island). When they reach the plains of Līhu‘e, Luukia complains of her nakedness. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 16 Uweuwelekehau tells her they will find on a nearby hill a pa‘u (skirt) and all manner of kapa (bark cloth), which they do (Fornander 1918-1919:5:196–197). 3.1.2 The Goddess Pele During the 1920s, William Hyde Rice, a life-long resident of Kaua‘i, recorded and collected Hawaiian lore of the island in Hawaiian Legends (1977). In that volume two place names in the vicinity of the present project area—Ninini and Ahukini—are mentioned once each. In “The Goddess Pele:” Two brothers of Pele who had come from foreign lands, saw Lohiau’s body lying as a stone where the lava flow had overtaken him. Pity welled up […] and they brought Lohiau to life again. One of these brothers made his own body into a canoe and carried the unfortunate Lohiau to Kauai, where he was put ashore at Ahukini. [Rice 1977:14] Ahukini in the above quote probably refers to the heiau (pre-Christian place of worship), which formerly stood in Kalapakī near Ahukini Point on the bluff overlooking the sea, since the name “Ahukini” means “altar of many blessings.” 3.1.3 The Menehunes In “The Menehunes,” a favorite place for their sport of jumping off cliffs into the sea is Ninini: “A […] little beach surrounded by cliffs, just inside the point where the larger Nāwiliwili lighthouse now stands;” the tale also mentions that part of a large rock from Kīpūkai is at Ninini (Rice 1977:44). 3.2 Wahi Pana Wahi pana are legendary or storied places of an area. These legendary or storied places may include a variety of natural or human-made structures. Oftentimes dating to the pre-Contact period, most wahi pana are in some way connected to a particular mo‘olelo, however, a wahi pana may exist without a connection to any particular story. Davianna McGregor outlines the types of natural and human-made structures that may constitute wahi pana: Natural places have mana [spiritual power], and are sacred because of the presence of the gods, the akua, and the ancestral guardian spirits, the ‘aumakua. Human- made structures for the Hawaiian religion and family religious practices are also sacred. These structures and places include temples, and shrines, or heiau, for war, peace, agriculture, fishing, healing, and the like; pu‘uhonua, places of refuge and sanctuaries for healing and rebirth; agricultural sites and sites of food production such as the lo‘i pond fields and terraces slopes, ‘auwai irrigation ditches, and the fishponds; and special function sites such as trails, salt pans, holua slides, quarries, petroglyphs, gaming sites, and canoe landings. [McGregor 1996:22] As McGregor makes clear, wahi pana can refer to natural geographic locations such as streams, peaks, rock formations, ridges, offshore islands and reefs, or they can refer to Hawaiian land divisions such as ahupua‘a or ‘ili (land division smaller than an ahupua‘a), and man-made structures such as fishponds. In this way, the wahi pana of Kalapakī tangibly link the kama‘āina of Kalapakī to their past. It is common for places and landscape features to have multiple names, some of which may only be known to certain ‘ohana or even certain individuals within an ‘ohana, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 17 and many have been lost, forgotten or kept secret through time. Place names also convey kaona (hidden meanings) and huna (secret) information that may even have political or subversive undertones. Before the introduction of writing to the Hawaiian Islands, cultural information was exclusively preserved and perpetuated orally. Hawaiians gave names to literally everything in their environment, including individual garden plots and ‘auwai (water courses), house sites, intangible phenomena such as meteorological and atmospheric effects, pōhaku (stone), pūnāwai (freshwater springs), and many others. According to Landgraf (1994), Hawaiian wahi pana “physically and poetically describes an area while revealing its historical or legendary significance” (Landgraf 1994:v). 3.2.1 Place Names Place name translations presented in this subsection are from Place Names of Hawai‘i (Pukui et al. 1974), unless indicated otherwise. Lloyd Soehren (2013) has lately compiled all of the place names from mid-nineteenth century land documents into an online database. He presents spelling and meanings of names from Pukui et al.’s book (1974). When no meaning from this book is given, he often suggests meanings for simple names based on meanings from Pukui and Elberts’ (1986) Hawaiian Dictionary. The original moku for the study area covered in this report was Puna, which means “spring of water.” Līhu‘e (literally translated as “cold chill;” Pukui et al. 1974:132) became the modern political name for the traditional moku of Puna. According to Ethel Damon (1931:402), the name Līhu‘e was first applied to this area by Kaikio‘ewa, Governor of Kaua‘i in the 1830s, perhaps after Kaikio‘ewa’s upcountry residence on the island. This late derivation of the name has been recently disputed (Griffin 2012:46). Kalapakī Ahupua‘a is described as a land division and a beach in Pukui et al. (1974:75), but no meaning is presented. Pukui and Elbert (1986:122) define the word kalapakī (with a small “k”) as “double-yolked egg, Kaua‘i.” Kalapakī was also the name of a village located along the coast. According to Hammatt and Creed (1993:22), Land Commission documents demonstrate that the “village of Kalapakī” was synonymous with the “‘ili of Kuuhai.” Kalapakī is separated from Hanamā‘ulu Ahupua‘a to the north at the shore by a boundary point called Opoi. Along the Kalapakī shore, going south, are Ahukini [Ahuhini] Point, Kamilo Point, Ninini Point, Kūki‘i Point, and Kalapakī Beach. The boundary line inland between Kalapakī and Hanamā‘ulu extended due west to a wetland at the end of Kapaia Ditch, then along another straight line to the junction of the ditch with Hanamā‘ulu Stream, then along a straight line to a hill called Kamoanakukaua, on the eastern edge of Kilohana Crater. From there the boundary extended back to the shore along the boundary with Nāwiliwili Ahupua‘a, to a point on a ravine called Palauohi, then extending down Nāwiliwili Stream to its mouth at the shore. As noted, Kalapakī had several noted coastal points, Opoi, Ahukini, “altar for many blessings”), Kamilo (“probably, the milo [Thespesia populnea] tree”), Ninini (“pour”), and Kūki‘i, (“standing image”). According to a collection of Kaua‘i place names by Kelsey (n.d.), Kalapakī was also known in traditional times as “Ahukini,” as in the following ‘ōlelo no‘eau: Ahukini, oia ka inoa nui o ka‘aina a hiki Hanamā‘ulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 18 Ahukini is the overall name of the land next to Hanamā‘ulu. Claims for houselots or agricultural patches were made in ten ‘ili ‘āina (small land divisions) within Kalapakī Ahupua‘a: Ka‘ahakea (named for a native tree, Bobea spp.; Soehren 2013); Keahua (“the mound”); Kena (“quenched of thirst, or weary from heavy toil;” Soehren 2013); Ki‘olepo (“swamp or a mud puddle;” Soehren 2013); Koena‘awaiki; Koena‘awanui; Nu‘uhai; Palauohi; Pau; and Pūhaulū‘au. 3.2.2 Heiau (Pre-Christian Place of Worship) Heiau were pre-Christian places of worship. Construction of some heiau were elaborate, consisting of large communal structures, while others were simple earth terraces or shrines (McAllister 1933:8). Heiau are most commonly associated with important religious ceremony; large structures with platforms or altars of one or more terraces were indicative of such function (McAllister 1933:8). Thomas Thrum (1906) lists three heiau in Kalapakī: Ninini, Ahukini, and Pohakoelele. Wendell Bennett (1931:124-125) documented two heiau in Kalapakī: Ninini and Ahuhini (Ahukini) Heiau. He noted that Ninini Heiau, which he identified as Site 100, is located “near the site of the Nawiliwili lighthouse” (Bennett 1931:124), and Ahuhini Heiau, which he identified as Site 101, is located “near Ahukini Point on the bluff overlooking the sea” (Bennett 1931:125). Ninini Heiau (SIHP No. 100) and Ahukini Heiau (SIHP No. 101) were both described by Bennett as totally destroyed. According to Thrum (Bennett 1931:125), Ahukini was “[a] heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain.” Ahukini has been translated as “altar [for] many [blessings],” and this was also the name of a heiau in Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. The heiau, located near Ahukini Point, was likely named for Ahukini- a-la‘a, one of the three sons of La‘a-mai-kahiki, an ancestor of the Kaua‘i chiefly lines. Ahukini lived about AD 1250 (Wichman 1998:61) and became the ali‘i nui (supreme chief) of the Puna district (Wichman 2003:39). Ninini has been translated as “pour,” as in ninini wai, to pour water. In her book, Koamalu, Ethel Damon (1931) mentions “three small heiaus” in Kalapakī: “Ninini, Ahukini and Pohako-eleele.” She noted that, “little more than the names survive” (Damon 1931:397–398). A fourth heiau was identified by Lt. George E.G. Jackson, Navy cartographer for the Hawaii Government Survey Office in 1881 at Kūki‘i Point. The Kaua‘i Community College newsletter, Archaeology on Kauai, notes that these “remains of ancient heiau” noted by Jackson are “where the cottages of the Kauai Surf now stand” (Kaua‘i Community College Volume 2; 4 October 1973: 4). 3.3 ʻŌlelo Noʻeau Hawaiian knowledge was shared by way of oral histories. Indeed, one’s leo (voice) is oftentimes presented as ho‘okupu (“a tribute or gift” given to convey appreciation, to strengthen bonds, and to show honor and respect); the high valuation of the spoken word underscores the importance of the oral tradition (in this case, Hawaiian sayings or expressions), and its ability to impart traditional Hawaiian “aesthetic, historic, and educational values” (Pukui 1983:vii). Thus, in many ways these expressions may be understood as inspiring growth within reader or between speaker and listener: Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 19 They reveal with each new reading ever deeper layers of meaning, giving understanding not only of Hawai‘i and its people but of all humanity. Since the sayings carry the immediacy of the spoken word, considered to be the highest form of cultural expression in old Hawai‘i, they bring us closer to the everyday thoughts and lives of the Hawaiians who created them. Taken together, the sayings offer a basis for an understanding of the essence and origins of traditional Hawaiian values. The sayings may be categorized, in Western terms, as proverbs, aphorisms, didactic adages, jokes, riddles, epithets, lines from chants, etc., and they present a variety of literary techniques such as metaphor, analogy, allegory, personification, irony, pun, and repetition. It is worth noting, however, that the sayings were spoken, and that their meanings and purposes should not be assessed by the Western concepts of literary types and techniques. [Pukui 1983:vii] Simply, ‘ōlelo no‘eau may be understood as proverbs. The Webster dictionary notes it as “a phrase which is often repeated; especially, a sentence which briefly and forcibly expresses some practical truth, or the result of experience and observation.” It is a pithy or short form of folk wisdom. Pukui equates proverbs as a treasury of Hawaiian expressions (Pukui 1995:xii). Oftentimes within these Hawaiian expressions or proverbs are references to places. This section draws from the collection of author and historian Mary Kawena Pukui and her knowledge of Hawaiian proverbs describing ‘āina (land), chiefs, plants, and places. 3.3.1 Ōlelo No‘eau # 838 The following ōlelo no‘eau describes the beauty of the moku of Puna. In traditional times, the moku of Līhu‘e was known as Puna. He nani wale no o Puna mai ‘o a ‘o. There is only beauty from one end of Puna to the other. There is nothing to complain about. Refers to Puna, Kaua‘i. [Pukui 1983:91] 3.3.2 Ōlelo No‘eau # 2467 The following ōlelo no‘eau describes Kilohana, a crater located mauka (toward the mountain) of Līhu‘e, and mentions that robbers hid and preyed on travelers along the old trail leading from Kona to Ko‘olau. O Kilohana ia, he ‘awe‘awe moku. That is the Kilohana of the broken bundle cords. Said of Kilohana above Līhu‘e on Kaua‘i. An old trail went by here, leading from Kona to Ko‘olau. Robbers hid there and waylaid lone travelers or those in small companies and robbed them of their bundles. [Pukui 1983:269] 3.4 Oli (Chants) Oli, according to Mary Kawena Pukui (Pukui 1995:xvi–xvii) are often grouped according to content. Chants often were imbued with mana (divine power); such mana was made manifest through the use of themes and kaona. According to Pukui, chants for the gods (pule; prayers) came Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 20 first, and chants for the ali‘i, “the descendants of the gods,” came second in significance. Chants “concerning the activities of the earth peopled by common humans,” were last in this hierarchy (Pukui 1995:xvi–xvii). Emerson conversely states: In its most familiar form the Hawaiians–many of whom [were lyrical masters]– used the oli not only for the songful expression of joy and affection, but as the vehicle of humorous or sarcastic narrative in the entertainment of their comrades. The dividing line, then, between the oli and those other weightier forms of the mele, the inoa, the kanikau (threnody), the pule, and that unnamed variety of mele in which the poet dealt with historic or mythologic subjects, is to be found almost wholly in the mood of the singer. [Emerson 1965:254] While oli may vary thematically, subject to the perspective of the ho‘opa‘a (chanter), it was undoubtedly a valued art form used to preserve oral histories, genealogies, and traditions, to recall special places and events, and to offer prayers to akua and ‘aumākua (family gods) alike. Perhaps most importantly, as Alameida (1993:26) writes, “chants […] created a mystic beauty […] confirming the special feeling for the environment among Hawaiians: their one hānau (birthplace), their kula iwi (land of their ancestors).” 3.4.1 Pele On a visit to Kaua‘i, the Hawaiian volcano goddess, Pele, met the handsome Kaua‘i chief, Lohi‘ahu. When he requested a dance, Pele instead said that she would chant all the wind guardians for Nihoa and Kaua‘i. Going from west to east, she chanted the names of the winds, including those for Kīpū Kai, Kīpū, Ha‘ikū Niumalu, Nāwiliwili, and Kalapakī: He Puapua‘apano‘o ko Kīpū Kai… He Puapua‘a ke makani o Kīpū Uka… He Hāpuku me Ala‘oli nā makani kuehu lepo o Helē‘ia, He Lawekiupua‘i‘i ka makani o Alekoko Nahā ka mākāhā, lele ka ‘upena a nā akua, Kāne a me Kanaloa He Kāhuilipi‘i ka makani o Niumalu He Waiohue ka makani o Pāpālinahoa He Hu‘eone ka makani o Nāwiliwili He Wāmua ka makani o Kalapakī He ‘Ehukai ka makani o Ahukini He Pāhola ke kiu holo ki‘i makani lele kula o Līhu‘e [Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006a:17-18]. Kīpū Kai has a Puapua‘apano‘o wind… The wind of Kīpū Uka is a Puapua‘a… The dust stirring winds of Hulē‘ia [Ha‘ikū] are a Hāpuku and an Ala‘oli The wind of ‘Alekoko [fishpond in Niumalu] is a Lawekiupua‘i‘i Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 21 The sluice-gate breaks [reference to fishpond], the net of the gods, Kāne and Kanaloa, flies The wind of Niumalu is a Kāhilipi‘i The wind of Pāpālinahoa [‘ili of Nāwiliwili] is a Waiohue The wind of Nāwiliwili is a Hu‘eone The wind of Kalapakī is a Wāmua The wind of Ahukini is an ‘Ehukai A Pāhola wind is the scout that fetches the winds sweeping the Līhu‘e plains [Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006b:17]. A similar chant of the winds of Kaua‘i was called by the boy Kūapāka‘a, who controlled the magical wind gourd of La‘amaomao (Nakuina 1992:53): Paupua is of Kīpū, Ala‘oli is of Hulēia, Waikai is of Kalapakī, Kā‘ao is of Hanamā‘ulu, Waipua‘a‘ala is the wind That knocks down hale of Konolea, Wai‘ōpua is of Wailua. The wind of Kalapakī is thus named “Wāmua” according to Ho‘oulumāhiehie (2006b:17) and “Waikai” according to Nakuina (1992:53) 3.5 Mele (Songs) The following section draws from the Hawaiian art of mele, poetic song intended to create two styles of meaning. Words and word combinations were studied to see whether they were auspicious or not. There were always two things to consider the literal meaning and the kaona, or ‘inner meaning.’ The inner meaning was sometimes so veiled that only the people to whom the chant belonged understood it, and sometimes so obvious that anyone who knew the figurative speech of old Hawai‘i could see it very plainly. There are but two meanings: the literal and the kaona, or inner meaning. The literal is like the body and the inner meaning is like the spirit of the poem. [Pukui 1949:247] The Hawaiians were lovers of poetry and keen observers of nature. Every phase of nature was noted and expressions of this love and observation woven into poems of praise, of satire, of resentment, of love and of celebration for any occasion that might arise. The ancient poets carefully selected men worthy of carrying on their art. These young men were taught the old meles and the technique of fashioning new ones. [Pukui 1949:247] Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 22 There exist a few mele that concern or mention Kalapakī or Līhu‘e. These particular mele may also be classified as mele wahi pana (songs for legendary or historic places). Mele wahi pana such as those presented here may or may not be accompanied by hula (dance) or hula wahi pana (dance for legendary or historic places). As the Hula Preservation Society notes, Hula Wahi Pana comprise a large class of dances that honor places of such emotional, spiritual, historical, or cultural significance that chants were composed for them. Only the composers of the chants could know the deepest meanings, as they would be reflections of their feelings and experiences […] Since the subjects of Wahi Pana compositions are extremely varied, their implementation through hula are as well. Coupled with the differences from one hula style and tradition to the next, Hula Wahi Pana can be exceptionally diverse. They can be done sitting or standing, with limited body movement or wide free movement; with or without the use of implements or instruments; with the dancers themselves chanting and/or playing an implement or being accompanied by the ho‘opa‘a [drummer and hula chanter (memorizer)]. Beyond the particular hula tradition, what ultimately determines the manner in which a Hula Wahi Pana is performed are the specific place involved, why it is significant, the story being shared about it, and its importance in the composer’s view. [Hula Preservation Society 2014] 3.5.1 Lihu‘e The following mele was composed by Annie Koulukou for the town of Līhu‘e. The mele describes Līhu‘e as “beloved” and mentions the Paupili rain (Huapala n.d.a). The mele also mentions Niumalu Beach and Hauola Ridge which are located near Līhu‘e (Huapala n.d.a). Aloha ʻia no aʻo Lihuʻe Beloved is Lihuʻe I ka neʻe mai a ka ua Paupili In the moving of the Paupili rain Ua pili no au me kuʻu aloha I am close with my love Me ke kai nehe mai aʻo Niumalu By the murmuring sea at Niumalu Ua malu ko kino naʻu hoʻokahi Your body is reserved for me alone Na ka nani pua rose aʻo Hauola By the beautiful rose blossom of Hauola Ua ola no au me kuʻu aloha My very life is my love A kau i ka pua o ka lanakila Worn as the flower of victory Kilakila Haʻupu aʻe ku nei Majestic is Haʻupu standing there Kahiko i ka maka aʻo ka opua Adorned in the mist of the clouds A he pua lei momi na kuʻu aloha A lei of pearls from my love Ua sila paʻa ia i ka puʻuwai Was sealed in my heart A he waiwai nui naʻu ko aloha Great riches is your love to me Kaulana no ka ʻāina malihini Famous indeed the new land Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Ka‘ao and Mo‘olelo Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 23 Hea aku no wau o mai ʻoe I call, you answer Na ka pua lei momi poina ʻole For the unforgettable person, precious as a rare shell lei [Huapala n.d.a] 3.5.2 Maikaʻi Kauaʻi The following mele was based on an oli by Kapa‘akea, father of David Kalākaua, which was composed in honor of Keolaokalani, Bernice Pauahi Bishop’s hānai (adopted) child who passed away at the age of seven months. The oli may have been originally composed in honor of chief of Kaua‘i, Kaumuali‘i. Henry Waiau, choir director of the Līhu‘e Hawaiian Congregational Church composed the accompanying music titled Lei I Ka Mokihana (Huapala n.d.b). The mele describes Līhu‘e as “beautiful” and also describes the Pa‘upili rain as “the drenching rain that clings to the house” (Huapala n.d.b). Maikaʻi nō Kauaʻi So fine is Kauaʻi Hemolele i ka mālie So perfect in the calm Kuahiwi Waiʻaleʻale Beautiful Mount Waiʻaleʻale Lei ana i ka mokihana Wears the mokihana lei Hanohano wale lei ʻo Hanalei So glorious is Hanalei I ka ua nui hōʻeha ʻili Rain that hurts the skin I ka wai ʻuʻinakolo The rustling water I ka poli o Nāmolokama In the bosom of Nāmolokama Ua nani wale ʻo Līhuʻe So beautiful is Līhuʻe I ka ua paʻū pili hale In the drenching rain that clings to the house I ka wai huʻihuʻi anu With the cold refreshing waters Kahi wai aʻo Kēmano From the springs of Kēmano Kaulana wale ʻo Waimea Renowned is Waimea I ke one kani o Nohii With the roaring sands of Nohili I ka wai ʻula ʻiliahi Amisst the red tinged waters A he wai na ka malihini Water that visitors enjoy Maikaʻi wale nō Kauaʻi So beautiful is Kauaʻi Hemolele wale i ka mālie So perfect in the calm Kuahiwi nani Waiʻaleʻale Beautiful Mount Waiʻaleʻale Lei ana i ka mokihana Wears the mokihana lei [Huapala n.d.b] Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 24 Section 4 Traditional and Historical Background 4.1 Pre-Contact Settlement Patterns The ahupua‘a of Kalapakī was permanently inhabited and intensively used in pre-Contact and early historic times. At the coastal areas were concentrations of permanent house sites and temporary shelters, heiau, ko‘a and kū‘ula (both types of relatively small shrines dedicated to fishing gods), and numerous trails. The kula (dry inland areas) of these ahupua‘a contained native forests and were cultivated with crops of wauke (paper mulberry, Broussonetia papyrifera), ‘uala (sweet potatoes, Ipomoea batatas), and ipu (bottle gourd). Legends and historic documentation (especially Land Commission records) elaborate on many of these important natural resources. Traditional fishing villages were once located near the seashore at Kalapakī, east and north (around and up the coast) of Kalapakī Beach. Loko (fishponds) and small drainages were inland of these settlement areas. Land Commission documents indicate a land use pattern that may be unique to this part of the island, or to Kaua‘i in general, in which lo‘i (irrigated taro patch) and kula lands are described in the same ‘āpana (lot), with houselots in a separate portion. In most places, kula lands are defined as drier landscapes, and they do not typically occur next to, and among, wetter lo‘i lands. Also, according to Hammatt and Creed (1993:23), “there are several [LCA] references to other lo‘i next to the beach which indicate wetland cultivation extending right to the shoreline.” This is another type of land use that seems to be fairly unique to Kaua‘i. Nāwiliwili Stream has formed extensive natural (alluvial) terraces along its length. Two smaller streams (Koena‘awa nui and Koena‘awa iki) are identified in Land Commission documents as draining into Kalapakī Bay. 4.2 Early Historic Period The first written accounts of the lifestyle on Kaua‘i are from travelers, missionaries, and surveying expeditions. Missionary accounts from the first half of the nineteenth century provide the majority of the early written records for this portion of Kaua‘i. Ethel Damon, in Koamalu, repeats the scenic description of Līhu‘e given by Reverend Hiram Brigham in his book, A Residence of Twenty-One Years in the Sandwich Islands, published in 1847: In 1824, when walking around the island from Waimea to counsel the people after the wreck of The Cleopatra’s Barge, Rev. Hiram Bingham crossed from Hanapepe, as has been seen, over the old upland trail back of Kilohana, and wrote of it as “a country of good land, mostly open, unoccupied and covered with grass, sprinkled with trees, and watered with lively streams that descend from the forest-covered mountains and wind their way along ravines to the sea, —a much finer country than the western part of the island. [Damon 1931:401] In the Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition (1845), Lt. Commander G.E.G. Wilkes describes the “Lihui” District: At noon they reached Lihui, a settlement lately undertaken by the Rev. Mr. Lafon, for the purpose of inducing the natives to remove from the sea-coast, thus Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 25 abandoning their poor lands to cultivate the rich plains above. Mr. Lafon has the charge of the mission district lying between those of Koloa and Waioli. This district was a short time ago formed out of the other two. [...] The temperature of Lihui has much the same range as that of Koloa, and the climate is pleasant: the trade-winds sweep over it uninterruptedly, and sufficient rain falls to keep the vegetation green throughout the year. As yet there is little appearance of increase in industry, or improvement in the dwellings of the natives. There are no more than about seventy pupils in this district, who are taught by natives. There are two houses of worship, and about forty communicants. No decrease is apparent in the population within a few years. On the fertile places, although the pasture was good, yet no cattle were to be seen. From Lihui, they pursued their way to Hanawale, which is a small fishing village at the mouth of a little stream. The country on this route was uninteresting, until they reached Wailua [...] [Wilkes 1845:67–68] Cutting and shipping sandalwood to China was probably the first real “industry” seen from a western perspective. We have only one indirect reference to the sandalwood trade in the Līhu‘e area. Ethel Damon records that early settler Richard Isenberg had been told by Chief Forester C.S. Judd that Mount Kālepa had formerly been covered with sandalwood (Damon 1931:913). The sandalwood trade or industry was soon replaced by the whaling trade. Between the 1840s and 1860s, whaling ships would come to Hawai‘i to spend the winter, repair their ships, recruit sailors, leave sick sailors behind, and stock up supplies for the next season. Early historical accounts relate that Kōloa, on the south side of Kaua‘i, was a major port or roadstead for the victualing trade for whalers, fur traders, and merchant ships plying their trades between Asia and the west and back and forth to the Arctic. Though there is no specific evidence that crops raised in the Līhu‘e area were for trade in Kōloa, the roadstead would have provided residents of Līhu‘e with a market for their produce: The principal village is Nawiliwili, ten miles east of Koloa. This district contains about forty square miles, being twenty miles long by two broad. The soil is rich: it produces sugar-cane, taro, sweet-potatoes, beans, &c. The only market is that of Koloa. The cane suffers somewhat from the high winds on the plains. [Wilkes 1845:67–68] While sweet potatoes, gourds, sugarcane, and wauke were important commodities in pre- Contact days, they supplemented the basic traditional diet of fish and taro. Thus, early foreign ideas of fertility and industry, backed by the needs of traders and whalers for supplies, mark the beginning of the shift to cash crops as the new landscape of inland “fertile plains.” Missionaries came to preach and teach western religion and culture. Missionary-sponsored schools of Līhu‘e are also documented by Damon: 1842: Number of schools in Lihue district 5: teachers 7: scholars 185; of whom readers 123, writers 28, those in arithmetic 64, and in geography 8. The Catholics have succeeded in getting away 12 children from one of these schools. [Damon 1931:407] Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 26 4.3 The Māhele and the Kuleana Act Paulo Kanoa, Governor of Kaua‘i at the time of the Māhele claimed both the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī but was awarded neither. Victoria Kamāmalu was awarded both ahupua‘a under Land Commission Award (LCA) 7713:2. The Victoria Kamāmalu award (LCA 7713:2 part 7) includes all the land within the present project area. There were no commoner awards anywhere nearby. The locations of kuleana or commoner land claims of the Māhele (1848-1853) in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a are clumped in two areas, along the floodplain of the north side of Nāwiliwili Stream (just back from the coast, south of Rice Street) and on the shore, back from Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay (Figure 7). There were 13 claims in Kalapakī, of which 12 were awarded. The cultivation of taro (kalo; Colocasia esculenta), the major staple, was along the Nāwiliwili Stream flood plains and along the smaller brooks of Kalapakī and Koenaawa where there were springs. The house lots in Kalapakī were at the shore. The only crop other than kalo (taro) mentioned specifically in Kalapakī is wauke. Additionally, more than one claim in Kalapakī mentions the fishponds of Koenaawa. Two streams—Koenaawa nui and Koenaawa iki—are identified in the claims but neither is named on current maps. Most Kalapakī claimants lived, however, at the shore in the “kulana kauhale” or village of Kalapakī, located behind Kalapakī Beach on Nāwiliwili Bay. Several of the claimants describe their village house lots in relation to the fishponds of Koenaawa (Koenaawainui and Koenaawaiki). There is also a description of the muliwai or estuary of Koenaawanui. The large tracts of inland areas (kula), not in the river valleys or at the shore, are not described in the claims but were probably in use. This kula land at the time of the Māhele belonged to Victoria Kamāmalu. Land use is not elaborated in her claims for Hanamā‘ulu or Kalapakī. Traditional kula resources for all claimants would have been medicines, herbs, construction materials such as pili (Heteropogon contortus) grass and trees for building houses, canoes, and perhaps lithic materials for tools. Sweet potatoes and other dryland crops, such as wauke, probably were cultivated in patches throughout the area at one time or another. Cattle, introduced by Vancouver, had at first been under a royal kapu (taboo) and were allowed to roam freely and reproduce. Within a few decades, cattle had begun to wreak havoc on village gardens and taro lands and homes. Residents either abandoned the land destroyed by roaming cattle or else started building walls to keep the cattle out of their homes and gardens. Hulē‘ia, an ahupua‘a to the west of the project area, was claimed by Victoria Kamāmalu during the Māhele as a preserve for cattle (Māhele information). Apparently, as the report by Wilkes suggests, the people of Līhu‘e had so far been safe from such depredation (ca. 1840s). 4.4 Late 1800s Following the death of Victoria Kamāmalu in 1866, her lands were inherited by Princess Ruth Ke‘elikōlani. In 1870, Ke‘elikōlani sold large portions of her Kalapakī and Līhu‘e lands to William Hyde Rice of Lihue Plantation. Also in 1870, Paul Isenberg purchased the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu from J.O. Dominis which includes the present airport area. William Hyde Rice made subsequent land purchases from Princess Ruth in 1879. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 27 Figure 7. Location of LCA claims in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a relative to the present project area (base map: 1996 USGS Lihue quadrangle topographic map) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 28 William Hyde Rice, who already had his own home on the hill east of the mill, bought a large makai (seaward) section of the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī from Princess Ruth in 1879 and there conducted the Lihue Ranch. In later years he sold most of this land to the plantation (Damon 1931:747). In William Hyde Rice’s Hawaiian Legends (discussed above), Rice’s granddaughter Edith Rice Pleus notes that Kalapakī in the 1920s comprised fertile lands. She probably referred to the extensive plains or kula lands existing prior to use for commercial sugarcane. The cultivation of sweet potatoes, gourds and wauke, and other dryland crops would have dominated land use in these kula lands. A State Archives document listed only as Land Matters, Document 11 with no date refers to konohiki rights (either prior to or contemporary with Land Commission claims since the konohiki received their claims after the ali‘i and before the kuleana awards). The konohiki (headman of an ahupuaʻa land division under the chief) had proprietary rights to fish caught in the bay. Document No. 11 lists ana‘e (mullet; Mugil cephalus) as the protected fish of Hanamā‘ulu, and uhu (parrot fish; Scarus perspicillatus) for Kalapakī. These protected fish are part of the konohiki resources, which he or she would use to meet his/her obligations to superior chiefs, governors/governesses and the King or Queen. Wikolia is listed as the konohiki for Wailua, Hanamā‘ulu, Kalapakī, Nāwiliwili, Niumalu, Ha‘iku, Kīpū, and a few other places. The procedure for fishing in the bay would be when “the proper fishing season arrives all the people may take fish, and when the fish are collected, they shall be divided—one third to the fishermen, and two thirds to the landlord. […] And the protected fish might all be for the konohiki” (Kosaki, 1954:14). One of the last vestiges of the pre-cash crop landscape is depicted in the diary entry for the Rice family’s arrival on Kaua‘i in 1854. During the second half of the nineteenth century, western settlers and entrepreneurs set their sights on southeast Kaua‘i. Ethel Damon, in Koamalu, her history of the Rice family of Kaua‘i, describes the Līhu‘e landscape at the time of the family’s arrival at Nāwiliwili Bay: From the deck of their river craft in 1854 Mrs. Rice and the children could plainly see above the rocky shore and ruins of Kuhiau, the old heiau, or temple, and nearby on the bluff the flaming blossoms of a great wili-wili tree among koa trees which often grew almost down to the water's edge [Damon 1931:17–18] These early written documents describe a good land with a nice climate and plentiful provisions for the traveler. Residents of the land live near the ocean and fishing villages are scattered along the shore; and at that time at Kalapakī many trees grew right down to the water’s edge (e.g., koa [Acacia koa] and wiliwili). While foreigners may have seen the shoreline as unproductive, Hawaiians would have disagreed. The indigenous settlement pattern indicates the shoreline was the locus for villages like Kalapakī at the mouth of Nāwiliwili River and “Hanawale,” perhaps a village near Hanamā‘ulu Bay. Shoreline areas were certainly favored for fishing, swimming, surfing, and residence. Depending on the distances, they may have had temporary residences among their agricultural lands and even in the uplands while gathering materials for house or canoe building. Others resided inland near their fields, but would have traveled around to acquire needed or desirable resources. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 29 In the earlier journals, lack of industry is noted and this refers specifically to production of goods beyond the needs of those producing them. Pigs, sweet potatoes, and salt, among other items, were traded to the earliest sailing vessels arriving in Hawai‘i (post 1794) and it is likely that in Līhu‘e District, as elsewhere, the production of these items increased beyond the needs of the immediate family and their expected contributions to their chiefs during this period of early visiting voyagers. The new settlers and entrepreneurs brought new activity to southeast Kaua‘i. Cotton was among the crops grown in Hanamā‘ulu, adjacent to Kalapakī: Later Mr. August Dreier was engineer in the mill. He had come out about 1869 for Hoffschlaeger and Stapenhorst to install a cotton mill in upper Hanamaulu land. The combination of a cool temperature with rain and red dust proved too much for successful cotton growing, but many wild bushes of it are still found in Kapaia valley. [Damon 1931:586] Paramount, however, among the new cash crops was sugar. The plantation at Līhu‘e was first established in 1849 by Henry A. Pierce; Judge Wm. Little Lee, the chairman of the Land Commission; and Charles Reed Bishop. It became Lihue Plantation in 1850. It was probably the best-capitalized and most-modern plantation at that time in all Hawai‘i. The mill was north and west of the present airport. A steam-powered mill was built in 1853 at Lihue Plantation, the first use of steam power on a Hawaiian sugar plantation. Another important innovation at Līhu‘e was created in 1856, when William H. Rice completed the 10-mile-long Hanamā‘ulu Ditch, the first large-scale irrigation project for any of the sugar plantations (Moffatt and Fitzpatrick 1995:103). Plantation labor was brought in from many countries and these new laborers brought some of their own cash crops. Rice production was an off-shoot industry of the sugar plantation in the 1870s, since many of the new Chinese plantation workers began to grow rice for themselves and then for trade with California. Japanese immigrants, by the end of the nineteenth century did the same and took over many of the Chinese rice paddies. Growing and milling rice also became a means for immigrants to leave the plantations after their indenture period. An 1881 map of the Kalapakī Beach area a kilometer south of the project area by Lt. Geo. G.E. Jackson (Figure 8) shows rice fields at the mouth of Nāwiliwili River in the estuary 500 m west of the present project area and depicts a few houses left in Kalapakī Village. In general, rice planters used abandoned taro fields, but made the patches larger than the traditional taro lo‘i. This is probably true of the Kalapakī floodplain. Jackson’s drawing (Figure 8) indicates the Kalapakī land north of Kuki‘i Point, where the project area and airport now lie, as a “level grassy land with volcanic boulders,” showing no cane cultivation in 1881. 4.5 1900s The 1910 USGS map (Figure 9) shows railroad tracks crossing the flat land near the coast (with a spur seemingly crossing the extreme east side of the present Subdivision 1A project area) and indicate cane cultivation reaching toward the shore. The cane fields have expanded toward the ocean into the area of the present airport. The expansion of Lihue Plantation’s sugarcane cultivation would accelerate throughout the entire coastal area in the early decades of the twentieth century. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 30 Figure 8. Portion of 1881 map of Nāwiliwili Harbor by Lt. George G. Jackson (RM 902) showing the area of Kuki‘i Point to Ninini Point with the project area depicted in an area of “Level grass land with volcanic boulders here and there” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 31 Figure 9. 1910 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map showing the project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 32 In 1929, the Territorial government began construction of a new harbor facility at Nawiliwili (Garden Island 24 December 1929:1:3). Sugarcane cultivation transformed the traditional landscape of Kalapakī into plantation landscape. By 1931, Lihue Plantation had 6,712 acres in cane. The plantation’s field map of 1939 (Figure 10) and 1941 (Figure 11) show sugarcane covering the entire coast and the present project area. Lihue Plantation “developed a water collection system second only to East Maui Irrigation Company [...] Altogether there are 51 miles of ditch and eighteen intakes” (Wilcox 1996:68). Railroads extended across the plantation to and from the shipping facilities and beyond the plantation itself to other plantations. The plantation landscape in Līhu‘e began in the mid-nineteenth century and continued to expand for a century. Maps and aerial photographs from 1939 through 1978 (Figure 10 through Figure 17) indicate the project area in a sea of sugarcane of the Lihue Plantation Company. In the 1950s, about the time of the advent of the new airport (Garden Island 10 January 1950:1:3, 11:1) and after Statehood in 1959, Līhu‘e’s plantation landscape began to give way to the present urban center. The sugar plantation infrastructure included ditch systems, railroads and engine houses, bridges, interisland shipping storage facilities, and housing. Today, the remnants of this commercial sugarcane landscape can still be seen around or near the airport. 4.6 Contemporary Land Use During the second half of the twentieth century the project area was a portion of Kalapakī lands transformed by resort development on Kaua‘i. The transition from sugar cane fields to resort development is apparent in the 1978 aerial photograph (Figure 17). The Kauai Surf Hotel on Kalapakī Bay was developed by Inter-Island Resorts in 1960. Then in 1970, the adjacent Kauai Surf Golf Course opened. Subsequently, in the mid-1980s, these Kalapakī properties were sold or leased to Hemmeter-VMS Kauai Company, which began development of the Westin Kauai Lagoons Resort on approximately 850 acres. In 1991, the Kauai Lagoons Resort was sold to Shinwa Golf Kabushiki Kaisha, which operated the resort and golf courses under Kauai Lagoons Resort Company, Ltd. The approximately 700- acre property, including the present project area, was acquired by Kauai Development LLC and KD Golf Ownership LLC in 2004 and the resort prospers into the twenty-first century as “Hōkūala.” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 33 Figure 10. 1939 Map of Lihue Plantation showing the project area as at a confluence of fields 30A, 30B, 31 and 32 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 34 Figure 11. 1941 Lihue Plantation field map showing the project area as at a confluence of fields 30A, 30B, 31 and 32 (Condé and Best 1973:168) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 35 Figure 12. 1950 USGS Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 36 Figure 13. 1959 USGS Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 37 Figure 14. Portion of 1963 Lihue USGS topographic quadrangle showing the project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 38 Figure 15. 1965 USDA Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī showing the project area as under commercial sugar cane cultivation (UH MAGIS) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 39 Figure 16. Undated “Map of Lihue Plantation with Lessees” produced by the Lihue Plantation Company showing a lot configuration (the present project area is partially in “Lot 4”) not reflected on other maps (the map references “Stadium Vidinha” and it is understood Lihue Stadium was not so named until after 1976) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional and Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 40 Figure 17. 1978 USGS orthophotoquad aerial photograph, Lihue Quadrangle showing the project area as within former sugarcane fields on the northeast but mostly in a new golf course development Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 41 Section 5 Previous Archaeological Research 5.1 Early References to Kalapakī Archaeology Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area (within approximately 1.0 km) are depicted in Figure 18 and summarized in Table 1. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area (within approximately 1.0 km) are depicted in Figure 19 and summarized in Table 2. Thomas Thrum, the publisher of an annual Hawaiian almanac, gathered lists of heiau on all islands. From the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī we begin with his list of three: 1. Ninini, Kalapakī, near site of Nawiliwili light house. All destroyed (Thrum 1906:40) 2. Ahukini, Kalapakī. A heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain (Thrum 1906:40) 3. Pohakoelele, Kalapakī. A medium sized heiau; all destroyed (Thrum 1906) The first comprehensive archaeological survey on the island of Kaua‘i was undertaken by Wendell Bennett in 1930 and published in 1931. Bennett used Thrum’s list for reference and added additional sites he documented. For Kalapakī he lists only two heiau following Thrum: • Site 100. Ninini heiau, in Kalapaki near the site of the Nawiliwili lighthouse. It is now all destroyed. [Bennett 1931:124] • Site 101. Ahuhini heiau, in Kalapaki near Ahukini Point on the bluff overlooking the sea. This is now entirely destroyed. Thrum says, ‘A heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain.’ [Bennett 1931:125] Bennett does not mention the Pohakoelele heiau. Ethel Damon in her book about Kaua‘i history (Koamalu 1931) mentions “the three small heiaus in the neighboring ahupua‘a of Kalapakī, those of Ninini, Ahukini and Pohako-eleele, little more than the names survive” (Damon 1931:397–398). Neither Thrum nor Bennett mention a heiau noted by Lt. George E.G. Jackson, Navy cartographer for the Hawaii Government Survey Office in 1881 at Kūki‘i Point (on Nāwiliwili Bay, 600 m southwest of the present project area, see Figure 8). The Kaua‘i Community College newsletter, Archaeology on Kauai, notes that these “remains of ancient heiau” noted by Jackson are “where the cottages of the Kauai Surf now stand” (Kaua‘i Community College Volume 2; 4 October 1973: 4). 5.2 Modern Archaeological Studies The Archaeological Research Center Hawaii (1980) carried out an archaeological reconnaissance of two parcels at the Kauai Surf Hotel (present day Hōkūala) as close as 200 m to the west and south of the present study area but no historic properties were identified. In 1988 CSH (Hammatt 1988) carried out an archaeological reconnaissance survey of 150-acres of coastal land on the coastal strip east of the north/south airport runway at Kalapaki (location of a proposed 3rd Golf Course at the Kauai Lagoons Resort). The study identified five archaeological sites along the east shoreline, 800 m east of the present project area including: Site 1 wall remnant Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 42 Figure 18. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area (Base map: 1996 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 43 Table 1. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area Reference Type of Study Location Results Thrum 1906 Heiau study Kaua‘i-wide Listing of three heiau at Kalapakī, Ahukini Heiau: “ heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain,” Ninini, and Pohakoelele, “all destroyed.” Bennett 1931 Archaeological reconnaissance Kaua‘i-wide Lists two sites at Kalapakī, Site 100 Ninini Heiau by the Nāwiliwili lighthouse well to south (destroyed by 1931) and Site 101 “Ahuhini heiau” “now entirely destroyed [by 1931]” Handy 1940 Reconnaissance of agricultural lands Kaua‘i-wide Discusses planting localities along Nāwiliwili River and Hanamā‘ulu River, located quite far away ARCH 1980 Archaeological Reconnaissance Two parcels of Kauai Surf Hotel (present day Hōkūala) No historic properties identified Hammatt 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance 150 acres of coastal land, Kauai Lagoons Resort (present day Hōkūala) Kalapakī Identified five archaeological sites along the east shoreline, 800 m east of the present project area including: Site 1 wall remnant (SIHP # 50-30- 11-422), Site 2 wall remnant (SIHP # 50-30-11-423), Site 3 shell midden scatter (SIHP # 50-30-11-421), Site 4 oval terrace alignment (SIHP # 50- 30-11-424), and Site 5, a large wall at Aninini Point. Hammatt 1990 Archaeological reconnaissance survey Kauai Lagoons Resort (present day Hōkūala) Kalapakī The present project area appears to have been entirely within Phase III of the project area where no historic properties were identified. The study identified five archaeological sites in the Phase V area, east of the N/S runway along shoreline. McMahon 1990 Archaeological field check Three locations for new Kaua‘i judiciary building, Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu; Kalapakī, Hanamā‘ulu Three previously identified historic residential sites (SIHP #s 50-30-11 -9390, -9401, -9402) none near present project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 44 Reference Type of Study Location Results Gonzales 1992 Archaeological literature review and field inspection Proposed 138 by 138 ft Federal Aviation Administration Radar Installation Facility on coast east of Līhu‘e Airport No historic properties identified (notes “vegetative conditions at the proposed site precluded a complete inspection of the ground surface”) Hammatt 2005 Archaeological inventory survey (termed archaeological assessment in the absence of finds) Approx. 71-acre portion of Kauai Lagoons Resort property, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, (incl. entirety of present project area) No historic properties identified Bell et al. 2006 Archaeological inventory survey Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī Identified SIHP # 50-30-08-3958, plantation-era concrete enclosures and foundation remnants that likely functioned as a piggery Creed et al. 2006 Archaeological field inspection and literature review Eleven discrete areas for proposed Līhu‘e Airport Expansion, Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a; TMKs: [4] 3-5 001:005, 006, 008, 009, 109, 111, and 158 and 3-7-002:por. 1 Reports fieldwork conducted in 1998 and 1999; most of present project area addressed as “Area 2”; only historic properties identified (SIHP # 50-30-08-9000) in vicinity of Ahukini Landing (designated “Area 10”) well northeast of present project area Monahan and Hammatt 2008 Archaeological literature review and field inspection Nawiliwili-Ahukini Bike Path project, Nāwiliwili; TMKs: [4] 3-2-004; 3-5-001, 002 and 3-6-002, 019, 020 Summarizes seven previously identified historic properties—all along coast as well as a historic cemetery and two bridges Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Archaeological inventory survey Nawiliwili-Ahukini Bike Path project, Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu Ahupua‘a; TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:004, 008, 027, 060, 083, 085, 102, 118, 128, 159, and 160 por. Identified 15 historic properties including five relatively close to present project area: • 50-30-11-423, Plantation era agricultural field divider • 50-30-11-2086, Habitation terrace • 50-30-11-2093, Plantation era drainage ditch • 50-30-11-2094, Habitation terrace • 50-30-11-2095, Pre-contact activity area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 45 Figure 19. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area (Base map: 1996 Lihue Quadrangle USGS topographic map) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 46 Table 2. Previously identified historic properties in the vicinity of the project area SIHP # 50-30-11 Site Type Reference Comments -100 Ninini Heiau Thrum 1906 Bennett 1931 Hammatt 1990 “all destroyed.” -101 Ahukini Heiau Thrum 1906 Bennett 1931 A heiau of medium size; Bennett writes: “now entirely destroyed [by 1931]” -421 Midden Scatter Hammatt 1990: Scatter of marine shells on shoreline (Hammatt 1990 Site 3) -422 Plantation era agricultural field divider Hammatt 1990, Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remnants of a plantation-era wall measuring 13 m northeast/southwest on shoreline (Hammatt 1990 Site 1) -423 Plantation era agricultural field divider Hammatt 1990, Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remnants of a plantation-era wall measuring 24.5 m long, northeast- southwest on shoreline (Hammatt 1990 Site 2) -424 Oval terrace alignment Hammatt 1990 On Bluff - possible prehistoric habitation structure -2086 Habitation terrace Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remnants of two terraces on shoreline. Coral and marine midden fragments were observed scattered about the area -2087 Nāwiliwili Harbor Light and associated features Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Lighthouse (built in 1933) and associated remnants of caretaker’s quarters -2088 Foundation of an historic communications tower Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Possibly the same as depicted on the 1910 USGS topographic map -2089 Mounds (2) Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Possible historic burial mound -2090 Historic artillery gun emplacement Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Likely related to World War II military infrastructure -2091 Historic building foundation Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remains of a small, one-bedroom house. -2092 Historic outhouse and cesspool Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Remains of an outhouse and cesspool connected by a shallow ditch -2093 Plantation era drainage ditch Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Plantation-era, earthen drainage ditch measuring 61.7 m long and running roughly east-west on shoreline Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 47 SIHP # 50-30-11 Site Type Reference Comments -2094 Habitation terrace Altizer and Hammatt 2010 Pre-Contact habitation site consisting of a terrace measuring 6.2 northeast- southwest by 5.0 m northwest-southeast. The terrace is constructed of basalt cobbles and boulders stacked one-to-two courses high to a maximum height of 0.35 m; on shoreline -2095 Pre-contact activity area Altizer and Hammatt 2010 A scatter of cultural material measuring 5.1 m north-south by 2.6 m east-west marine including shell midden, basalt cobbles and pebbles and charcoal. The cultural layer contained a strong ash lens, along with a substantial amount of marine shell midden; on shoreline No SIHP # assigned Railroad bridge Monahan and Hammatt 2008 Nāwiliwili Stream railroad bridge Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Previous Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 48 (SIHP # 50-30-11-422), Site 2 wall remnant (SIHP # 50-30-11-423), Site 3 shell midden scatter (SIHP # 50-30-11-421), Site 4 oval terrace alignment (SIHP # 50-30-11-424), and Site 5, a large wall at Aninini Point regarded as a possible remnant of the former Ninini Heiau. Two years later, CSH (Hammatt 1990) carried out an archaeological reconnaissance survey for the Kauai Lagoons Resort addressing three “phase” areas; a central Phase III area understood to have included the entirety of the present study area, a Phase IV area along the south coast at an existing Westin Kaua‘i Hotel, and a Phase V area along the coast east of the N/S runway (the eastern portion of the Hammatt 1988 study area). The same five sites described in the Hammatt 1988 study (in the Phase V area) are again described. No additional sites were reported (no historic properties were reported from the present study area and vicinity). Nancy McMahon (1990), then of the SHPD, carried out an archaeological fieldcheck of three possible Locations for a New Kauai Judiciary Building, one each in Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu. At the Kalapakī location (Location 2, TMK: 4-3-6-02:01) one historic building (SIHP 50-30-11-9402, radio station KTOH)) was identified well away from the present study area. Tirzo Gonzales (1992) carried out an archaeological literature review and field inspection of a proposed 138 by 138 ft Federal Aviation Administration radar installation facility on the coast east of Līhu‘e Airport but no historic properties were identified (they noted vegetative conditions at the proposed site precluded a complete inspection of the ground surface). CSH carried out fieldwork in 2005 for an archaeological inventory survey-level study (Hammatt 2005) of a 71-acre project area 700 m north of the present study area bounded on the northeast and northwest by runways of Līhu‘e Airport. The study documented no historic properties and noted The entire project area has been extensively modified as a result of its former use as cane fields. The land surface shows abundant evidence of plantation-era land use, including plastic mulch, plow marks, and some typical vegetation associated with feral cane fields. [Hammatt 2005:25] CSH (Monahan and Hammatt 2008) carried out an archaeological literature review and field inspection study for approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) of a Nāwiliwili-Ahukini Bike Path project. Previously described historic properties along the coast from Ninini Point to Ahukini are discussed but no new historic properties are designated anywhere near the present study area. A railroad bridge crossing Nāwiliwili Stream 800 m to the west of the present project area is discussed. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 49 Section 6 Field Inspection Results An archaeological field inspection was undertaken by CSH archaeologist Nancine “Missy” Kamai on 28 June 2021 The following photograph record addresses the three portions of the project area, the northern Subdivision 1A, the central area adjacent to the south of Subdivision 1A designated Subdivision 1 and the southern Lot 10c which is largely within a water feature and includes a relatively flat island with a mowed lawn in the eastern portion. Representative views are presented of the northern Subdivision 1A starting at the west end looking to the northeast (Figure 20) and southeast (Figure 21) followed by views from the central portion of Subdivision 1A to the southwest (Figure 22) and NNE (Figure 23), and then with views from the east end of Subdivision 1A to the northwest (Figure 24) and southwest (Figure 25). The relatively central area adjacent to the south of Subdivision 1A designated Subdivision 1 was then inspected with representative views provided from the west end of Subdivision 1 to the northeast (Figure 26) and southeast (Figure 27), from the central portion of Subdivision 1 to the west (Figure 28) and east (Figure 29), and from the east end of Subdivision 1 to the west (Figure 30) and southeast (Figure 31). The southern Lot 10C project area is largely a water feature that was visited from a causeway on the south side of a large flat island with a mowed lawn that dominates the east side of the lot. Representative photographs are presented of southern Parcel 10C, from the southern causeway to the northeast showing the large flat island (Figure 32), of Parcel 10C from the large eastern island to the west (Figure 33), of Parcel 10C from the southwest side of the large eastern island looking to the northeast (Figure 34), and of southern Parcel 10C from the north side of the large eastern island looking to the south (Figure 35). All portions of the project area appeared to have been previously graded and reworked for the present Hōkūala Resort. No historic properties were observed. It was evaluated that historic properties are unlikely to be present. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 50 Figure 20. View of the west end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to northeast Figure 21. View of the west end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southeast Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 51 Figure 22. View from the central portion of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southwest Figure 23. View from the central portion of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to NNE Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 52 Figure 24. View of the east end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to northwest Figure 25. View of the east end of the northern Subdivision 1A, view to southwest Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 53 Figure 26. View of the west end of the central Subdivision 1, view to northeast Figure 27. View of the west end of the central Subdivision 1, view to southeast Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 54 Figure 28. View from the central portion of the central Subdivision 1, view to west Figure 29. View from the central portion of the central Subdivision 1, view to east Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 55 Figure 30. View of the east end of the central Subdivision 1, view to west Figure 31. View of the east end of the central Subdivision 1, view to southeast Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 56 Figure 32. View of southern Parcel 10C, view from southern causeway to large eastern island, view to northeast Figure 33. View of southern Parcel 10C, view from large eastern island to west Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Field Inspection Results Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 57 Figure 34. View of southern Parcel 10C, from southwest side of the large eastern island, view to northeast Figure 35. View of southern Parcel 10C, from north side of the large eastern island, view to south Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 58 Section 7 Community Consultation 7.1 Introduction An effort was made to contact and consult with 29 Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO), agencies, and community members including descendants of the area, in order to identify any cultural concerns regarding the project area. CSH initiated its outreach effort in July 2021 through letters, email and telephone calls. As of September 2021, four parties had responded and agreed to release of their responses. 7.2 Community Contact Letter Letters (Figure 36, Figure 37 and Figure 38) along with a map and an aerial photograph of the project were mailed with the following text: Aloha mai kākou [Name of Recipient], With this letter, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i (CSH) humbly requests your mana‘o and ‘ike (experience, insights, and perspectives) regarding past and ongoing cultural, practices, beliefs, and resources within Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. Consultation with traditional cultural practitioners, kūpuna, kama‘āina, and Hawai‘i’s diverse ethnic communities is an important and deeply valued part of our work and the environmental review process for proposed projects in Hawai‘i. Your contributions will revitalize and keep alive knowledge of cultural practices, storied places, and life experiences that will remind Hawai‘i’s children of their history for generations to come. Project Description At the request of Hōkūala, CSH is conducting a Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala redevelopment of Subdivision 1, Subdivision 1A and Lot 10C project within the Hōkūala Resort area in Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, southeast Kauaʻi (TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109). The project area is bounded on the northwest and northeast by runways of Līhu‘e Airport and is bounded on the south by golf courses of the Hōkūala Resort and other resort infrastructure. The project area is bounded on the north by the golf course of the Hōkūala Resort and is bounded on the south by resort lagoons and other resort infrastructure of Hōkūala. The project area is depicted on a portion of the 1996 Lihue U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1) and 2016 aerial photograph (Figure 2). The proposed project is a Petition for County Zoning Amendment to amend the zoning designation from R-2 to R-4 for an inland portion of the Hōkūala Resort property to allow for higher density development at the proposed Subdivisions 1 and 1A (14.2 acres in the aggregate) while significantly reducing the allowable density of a RR-10 parcel (approximately 2.6 acres) in the vicinity to R-2. As a result of this petition, there is no increase to the entitlement cap of 772 units for the Hōkūala Resort. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 59 Purpose of Cultural Consultation The purpose of cultural consultation is to gather information on Hawai‘i’s cultural resources, practices, or beliefs that have occurred or still occur within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. This is accomplished through consultation and background research using previously written documents, studies, and interviews. This information is used to assess potential impacts by the proposed project to the specific identified resources, practices, and beliefs in the project area and throughout Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. As a traditional cultural practitioner and holder of long-term knowledge, your insight, input, and perspective provide a valuable contribution to the assessment of potential effects of this project and an understanding of how to protect these resources and practices. Insights focused on the following topics in the project area (shown on the attached Figures 1 and 2) are especially helpful and appreciated: • Your knowledge of traditional cultural practices of the past within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Your specific traditional cultural practice and its connection to the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • The different natural resources associated with your specific traditional cultural practice • Legends, stories, or chants associated with your specific traditional cultural practices and their relationships to the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Referrals to other kūpuna, kama‘āīna, and traditional cultural practitioners knowledgeable about the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Your comments or thoughts on the potential impacts the proposed project may have on your ongoing traditional cultural practices and natural resources within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Your knowledge of cultural sites and wahi pana (storied places) within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a • Your comments or thoughts on the potential impacts the proposed project may have on cultural sites and wahi pana within the proposed project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a Consultation Information Consultation is an important and deeply valued part of the environmental review process. Your contributions will revitalize and keep alive our combined knowledge of past and ongoing cultural practices, historic places, and experiences, reminding our children of their history generation after generation. With your agreement to participate in this study, your contributions will become part of the comprehensive understanding of traditions of the area; and potentially Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 60 will be part of the public record. The Cultural Impact Assessment study may be included within a Petition for County Zoning Amendment. As a part of this process, your knowledge may be used to inform future heritage studies of cultural practices and resources that need protection from impacts of proposed future projects. If you engage in consultation, and the mana‘o and ‘ike you provide appears in the study, we would like to recognize your contribution by including your name. If you prefer not to allow your name to be included, your information can be attributed to an anonymous source. The consultation interview structure and format are flexible. We will accommodate your preference on how to get together; talk story, over the phone, by email correspondence, remotely via Zoom, MS Teams, Google Chat or other remote meeting platforms. Your knowledge of the resources and potential effect of the project on traditional practices in the project area and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a focusing on the topics in the bullet points above can also be submitted in a written statement. CSH will provide return postage of your written statement on request. CSH is happy to provide a list of topics for discussion, a more structured questionnaire of interview questions, or any other assistance that might be helpful. If you have questions regarding consultation, or are interested in participating in this study, please contact CSH Cultural Researcher Kellen Tanaka by email at ktanaka@culturalsurveys.com or phone at (808) 262-9972. Mahalo nui loa for your time and attention to this request for consultation. Yours with much aloha and appreciation, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 61 Figure 36. Community contact letter page one Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 62 Figure 37. Community contact letter page two Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 63 Figure 38. Community contact letter page three Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 64 In most cases, two or three attempts are being made to contact individuals, organizations, and agencies. Community outreach letters were sent to a total of 29 individuals or groups and as of September 2021, four had responded and agreed to release of their responses, and three of these kama‘āina and/or kupuna met with CSH for more interviews. The results of the community consultation responses received are presented below: 7.3 Community Responses (received to date) 7.3.1 Donna Kaliko Santos On 8 July 2021, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i (CSH) spoke with Donna Kaliko Santos, (President of Na Kuleana O Kanaka Oiwi & Puna Moku representative of the Aha Moku O Manokalanipo) over the telephone to discuss the cultural impact assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area. Ms. Santos stated that her main concern is protecting access for gathering, fishing, and cultural sites along the shoreline. In past community meetings regarding this coastline area, she recalled that ‘ohana (families) from Nāwiliwili and Niumalu gather and fish along the coast. She mentioned that the area was mainly used by kama‘āina (native born) to traverse to the shoreline. She also asked if the project proponents put in a road, will people be allowed to use the road to access the shoreline? Ms. Santos noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, people have been dependent on subsistence including fishing. She also mentioned that during the COVID-19 pandemic, area users noted that homeless who have been living in the area along the shore have been leaving their ʻōpala (rubbish). Ms. Santos recommended that CSH reach out to Leonard (Lenny) Rapozo, Facility Manager at County of Kaua‘iʻs War Memorial Convention Hall. She noted that Mr. Rapozo’s mother’s ‘ohana are from the area and he grew up fishing in the area. 7.3.2 Jan TenBruggencate On 9 July 2021, Jan TenBruggencate shared his mana‘o (opinion) with Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i (CSH) regarding the Hōkūala Petition Area via email. Mr. TenBruggencate is the President of Mālama Hule‘ia, a non-profit corporation which “advocates, educates, and leads community efforts to remove red mangrove along the Hule‘ia river, re‐ establishes native wetland ecosystems and creates an environmental stewardship program honoring Hawaiian values” (Mālama Hule‘ia 2021). Mr. TenBruggencate expressed his concern regarding “increased traffic congestion on the roads in the immediate vicinity of the area of increased density.” He stated that the “the pavement on the east-west road that bisects this area” is popular for people who walk and ride bicycles recreationally and for exercise. He stated that the “project could avoid conflicts by establishing a walking and/or biking path out of the lane of traffic on one or both sides of that road.” He expressed his belief that “offering that amenity could reduce community concerns about the increased density.” Mr. TenBruggencate’s entire statement is provided below: One issue of concern to the community is likely the increased traffic congestion on the roads in the immediate vicinity of the area of increased density. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 65 This is a popular area for people walking for exercise. Currently dozens to perhaps hundreds of people daily walk recreationally on the pavement on the east-west road that bisects this area. That is a valued and appreciated activity for our community. People walk individually, with families, with young children on bicycles, with baby strollers. Many walk while listening to music and podcasts, making them potentially less aware of traffic. Bicycle riders also frequently use this area. The project could avoid conflicts by establishing a walking and/or biking path out of the lane of traffic on one or both sides of that road. I believe offering that amenity could reduce community concerns about the increased density. 7.3.3 Carl Berg On 30 July 2021, Dr. Carl Berg, ecologist and owner of Hawaiian Wildlife Tours, provided Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i with written testimony regarding the cultural impact assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area. Dr. Berg’s testimony is provided below: I am not a Hawaiian cultural practitioner. I am an ecologist, kama‘aina, and frequent jogger through Hokuala’s property in Lihue. The land in question was historically destroyed by growing sugar. Then the airport came in, then the resort hotel complex. Then the ponds and islands were created by massive excavations. Although I have been familiar with the area for over 30 years, I have never heard of any place there as being culturally significant. I doubt that there is any original native vegetation. 7.3.4 Anonymous Kama‘āina of Līhu‘e On 13 July 2021, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i (CSH) spoke with a kama‘āina (native born) of Līhu‘e over the telephone regarding the cultural impact assessment (CIA) for the Hōkūala Petition Area. The kama‘āina, who wished to remain anonymous, shared their knowledge of the project area and their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. Born and raised on Kaua‘i, the kama‘āina learned about “old Hawaiian history” in school. They learned that in traditional times, the beaches around Kaua‘i were “fighting grounds,” and periodically the “old ancient Hawaiian bones of warriors” have been encountered on the beaches. They mentioned fishermen have encountered these bones and will cover them up. They were also taught that villages were built on higher grounds. They recalled being shown the remnants of “old Hawaiian settlements” by a member of their ‘ohana (family) who encountered the remnants while hunting. They also stated, “Old traditions have been bulldozed over.” They mentioned Kaua‘i has many heiau (traditional place of worship) that have not been preserved but their locations can be found on old maps. The kama‘āina noted there are walking paths in the vicinity of the project area which people use for exercising. They expressed their concern that access to the area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. They mentioned that their friend has observed “No Trespassing” signs along the golf cart path in the vicinity of the project area. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 66 They also shared a story about their friend who bought a home in a subdivision and began experiencing strange occurrences. When the friend brought a kahuna (priest) to bless the home, the kahuna observed spirits on the roof of the home and explained that the “strange occurrences— tragic deaths; and a brush fire in the subdivision” occurred because homes were “built in the ancient walking path. They noted, “some badly burned and partially burned but no other homes in the subdivision got damaged.” The kahuna told their friend, “this ancient walking path was for the Hawaiian villagers to walk to the beach ocean shoreline for their fishing (food).” They also expressed their concern that the proposed project may impact access to the shoreline for people who use the area for activities such as fishing or picnics. They recalled the “old days” when the beaches were more accessible; they would visit the shoreline with their ‘ohana to camp and fish. However, they noted access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes built along the shoreline. They pointed out areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu” have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They also recalled that in the “old days” their grandfather, who was a fisherman, could “fish all over.” However, presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. They also wondered if the Lihue Wastewater Treatment Plant would need to be upgraded to accommodate a higher-density subdivision? They expressed their concerns that odors from the wastewater treatment plant could be carried by the wind and spread throughout the area. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 67 Section 8 Traditional Cultural Practices Timothy R. Pauketat succinctly describes the importance of traditions, especially in regards to the active manifestation of one’s culture or aspects thereof. According to Pauketat, People have always had traditions, practiced traditions, resisted traditions, or created traditions […] Power, plurality, and human agency are all a part of how traditions come about. Traditions do not simply exist without people and their struggles involved every step of the way. [Pauketat 2001:1] It is understood that traditional practices are developed within the group, in this case, within the Hawaiian culture. These traditions are meant to mark or represent aspects of Hawaiian culture that have been practiced since ancient times. As with most human constructs, traditions are evolving and prone to change resulting from multiple influences, including modernization as well as other cultures. It is well known that within Hawai‘i, a “broader “local” multicultural perspective exists” (Kawelu 2015:3) While this “local” multicultural culture is deservedly celebrated, it must be noted that it has often come into contact with “traditional Hawaiian culture.” This contact between cultures and traditions has undoubtedly resulted in numerous cultural entanglements. These cultural entanglements have prompted questions regarding the legitimacy of newly evolved traditional practices. The influences of “local” culture are well noted throughout this section, and understood to represent survivance or “the active sense of presence, the continuance of native stories, not a mere reaction, or a survivable name. Native survivance stories are renunciations of dominance, tragedy and victimry” (Vizenor 1999:vii). Acknowledgement of these “local” influences help to inform nuanced understandings of entanglement and of a “living [Hawaiian] contemporary culture” (Kawelu 2015:3). This section strives to articulate traditional Hawaiian cultural practices as were practiced within the ahupua‘a in ancient times, and the aspects of these traditional practices that continue to be practiced today; however, this section also challenges “tropes of authenticity,” (Cipolla 2013) and acknowledges the multicultural influences and entanglements that may “change” or “create” a tradition. This section integrates information from Sections 3-6 in examining cultural resources and practices identified within or in proximity of the project area in the broader context of the encompassing Kalapaki landscape. Excerpts from informant comments are incorporated throughout this section where applicable. 8.1 Habitation and Subsistence In pre-Contact and early historic times, the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī was permanently inhabited and intensively used. Traditional fishing villages were once located near the seashore at Kalapakī, east and north (around and up the coast) of Kalapakī Beach. Loko and small drainages were inland of these settlement areas. Concentrations of permanent house sites and temporary shelters, heiau, ko‘a and kū‘ula, and numerous trails were also located in these coastal areas. Land Commission documents indicate a land use pattern that may be unique to this part of the island, or to Kaua‘i in general, in which lo‘i and kula lands are described in the same ‘āpana, with houselots in a separate portion. In most places, kula lands are defined as drier landscapes, and they do not typically occur next to, and among, wetter lo‘i lands. The kula area contained native forests and were cultivated with crops of wauke, ‘uala, and ipu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 68 Hammatt and Creed (1993:23) also note that, “there are several [LCA] references to other lo‘i next to the beach which indicate wetland cultivation extending right to the shoreline.” This is another type of land use that seems to be fairly unique to Kaua‘i. Historical accounts also describe Kalapakī and Līhu‘e’s natural resources. Edith Rice Pleus, granddaughter William Hyde Rice, noted that Kalapakī in the 1920s comprised fertile lands. She probably referred to the extensive plains or kula lands existing prior to use for commercial sugarcane. The cultivation of sweet potatoes, gourds and wauke, and other dryland crops would have dominated land use in these kula lands. At the time of the Māhele, Victoria Kamāmalu was awarded both the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī under Land Commission Award (LCA) 7713:2 which includes all the land within the present project area. The locations of kuleana land claims in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a are clumped in two areas, along the floodplain of the north side of Nāwiliwili Stream (just back from the coast, south of Rice Street) and on the shore, back from Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay. There were 13 claims in Kalapakī, of which 12 were awarded. The cultivation of taro, the major staple, was along the Nāwiliwili Stream flood plains and along the smaller brooks of Kalapakī and Koenaawa where there were springs. The only crop other than kalo (taro) mentioned specifically in Kalapakī is wauke. Most Kalapakī claimants lived, however, at the shore in the “kulana kauhale” or village of Kalapakī, located behind Kalapakī Beach on Nāwiliwili Bay. The house lots in Kalapakī were at the shore and more than one claim in Kalapakī mentions the fishponds of Koenaawa. Two streams—Koenaawa nui and Koenaawa iki—are identified in the claims but neither is named on current maps. The large tracts of inland areas (kula), not in the river valleys or at the shore, are not described in the claims but were probably in use. Traditional kula resources for all claimants would have been medicines, herbs, construction materials such as pili grass and trees for building houses, canoes, and perhaps lithic materials for tools. Sweet potatoes and other dryland crops, such as wauke, probably were cultivated in patches throughout the area at one time or another. Dr. Berg, ecologist and owner of Hawaiian Wildlife Tours, noted, “The land in question was historically destroyed by growing sugar. Then the airport came in, then the resort hotel complex. Then the ponds and islands were created by massive excavations.” He added, “I have never heard of any place there as being culturally significant. I doubt that there is any original native vegetation.” The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e recalled learning “old Hawaiian history” in school. They were taught that villages were built on higher grounds. They recalled being shown the remnants of “old Hawaiian settlements” by a member of their ‘ohana who encountered the remnants while hunting. They also stated, “Old traditions have been bulldozed over.” They also noted there are many heiau on Kaua‘i that have not been preserved but their locations can be found on old maps. They also stated that in traditional times, the beaches around Kaua‘i were “fighting grounds.” They noted that the “old ancient Hawaiian bones of warriors” have been encountered on the beaches by fishermen who will cover them back up. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 69 The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also noted there are walking paths in the vicinity of the project area which people use for exercising. They expressed their concern that access to the area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. They mentioned that their friend has observed “No Trespassing” signs along the golf cart path in the vicinity of the project area. They also shared a story about their friend who experienced “strange occurrences—tragic deaths; and a brush fire in the subdivision” at the home they bought. A kahuna that was brought in to bless the home observed spirits on the roof and explained that the strange occurrences occurred because homes were “built in the ancient walking path. They noted, “some badly burned and partially burned but no other homes in the subdivision got damaged.” The kahuna told their friend, “this ancient walking path was for the Hawaiian villagers to walk to the beach ocean shoreline for their fishing (food).” They also wondered if the Lihue Wastewater Treatment Plant would need to be upgraded to accommodate a higher-density subdivision? They expressed their concerns that odors from the wastewater treatment plant could be carried by the wind and spread throughout the area. 8.2 Marine Resources The Līhu‘e District is fed by four main water sources, the Hulē‘ia River, the Hanamā‘ulu River, Keālia River, and the Wailua River. Two smaller streams, Koena‘awa nui and Koena‘awa iki, are identified in Land Commission documents, although neither of these is named on any extant maps. Given the gently-sloping character of the natural lay of the land from Līhu‘e to the coast, it is possible that there were once a few other smaller drainages traversing what is now the airport, resort and golf course area; and, that Native Hawaiian planters made use of this water. Southwest of the project area is Nāwiliwili Harbor, a commercial deep-water port which accommodates “a wide range of vessels including passenger liners, interisland barges, freighters, and tankers” (Clark 1990:3). John R.K. Clark translates Nawiliwili as “the wiliwili trees” and noted that, “These trees provided the Hawaiians with orange-to-red seeds that were strung into leis [garlands] and a very light wood that was used to make surfboards, canoe outriggers, and fishnet floats” (Clark 1990:2). Nawiliwili Small Boat Harbor, which includes a boat ramp, restrooms, and parking for automobiles and trailers, is utilized by both recreational and commercial vessels. It is also a favorite spot for shoreline fishermen (Clark 1990:3). Nawiliwili Park, a long, narrow park whose entire seaward edge is formed by a concrete sea wall, is located on the northern side of the Nawiliwili Harbor (Clark 1990:3). The park is primarily used for picnicking, fishing, and surfing. A surfing site known as Ammonias is located directly offshore the wall. Kalapakī Beach is a popular place for many types of recreational activities including “canoe surfing, fishing, snorkeling, windsurfing, and twin-hull sailing” (Clark 1990:5). Clark (1990:4-5) stated that, “The surfing site known as Kalapakī offshore the beach is an ideal beginner’s surfing break with gentle waves that roll across a shallow sand bar.” He also noted that, “Kalapakī is one of Kaua‘i’s historic surfing sites. The break was surfed and bodysurfed by ancient Hawaiians and later by non-Hawaiians who took up the sports.” Ninini Beach consists of “two large pockets of white sand, separated by lava rock at the base of a low sea cliff” (Clark 1990:5). Conditions at the Ninini Beach are good for recreational activities including swimming and snorkeling (Clark 1990:5). Clark also noted that the beach is Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 70 “subject at all times of the year to high surf and kona (southerly) storms, both of which may generate dangerous water conditions” (Clark 1990:5). Clark also noted that Ninini Point which is “marked by the Nawiliwili Light Station and the foundations of the former lighthouse keeper’s quarters” is also a fishing spot which is very popular with shoreline fishermen (Clark 1990:5). A State Archives document listed only as Land Matters, Document 11 with no date refers to konohiki rights. The konohiki had proprietary rights to fish caught in the bay. According to Document No. 11, ana‘e (mature mullet) was the protected fish of Hanamā‘ulu, and uhu (parrot fish) for Kalapakī. These protected fish are part of the konohiki resources, which he or she would use to meet his/her obligations to superior chiefs, governors/governesses and the King or Queen. The proper procedure for fishing in the bay would be when “the proper fishing season arrives all the people may take fish, and when the fish are collected, they shall be divided—one third to the fishermen, and two thirds to the landlord. […] And the protected fish might all be for the konohiki” (Kosaki, 1954:14). Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos (see Section 7.3) spoke to the importance of access to marine resources noting that that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, people have been even more dependent on subsistence including fishing. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e expressed their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. They noted that the beaches were more accessible in the “old days,” and they would visit the shoreline with their ‘ohana to camp and fish. They also recalled that their grandfather, who was a fisherman, could “fish all over” in the “old days.” They pointed out that access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes that have been built along the shoreline in areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu.” These areas have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They also noted that presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. 8.3 Mo‘olelo and Wahi Pana The traditional place name for the moku of Līhu‘e was Puna, which means “spring of water.” Līhu‘e (literally translated as “cold chill;” Pukui et al. 1974:132) became the modern political name for the traditional moku of Puna. According to Ethel Damon (1931:402), the name Līhu‘e was first applied to this area by Kaikio‘ewa, Governor of Kaua‘i in the 1830s, perhaps after Kaikio‘ewa’s upcountry residence on the island. This late derivation of the name has been recently disputed (Griffin 2012:46). Pukui et al. (1974:75) describe Kalapakī Ahupua‘a as a land division and a beach, but no meaning is presented. Pukui and Elbert (1986:122) define the word kalapakī (with a small “k”) as “double-yolked egg, Kaua‘i.” Kalapakī was also the name of a village located along the coast. According to Hammatt and Creed (1993:22), Land Commission documents demonstrate that the “village of Kalapakī” was synonymous with the “‘ili of Kuuhai.” According to a collection of Kaua‘i place names by Kelsey (n.d.), Kalapakī was also known in traditional times as “Ahukini.” The traditional kaʻao mention numerous place names associated with the area. The place name Līhu‘e is mentioned in the “Legend of Uweuwelekehau” (Fornander 1918-1919:5:196–197). In Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Traditional Cultural Practices Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 71 the mo‘olelo, “The Goddess Pele,” two place names in the vicinity of the present project area are mentioned, Ninini and Ahukini (Rice 1977:14). In “The Menehunes,” Ninini is also mentioned as a favorite place for the sport of jumping off cliffs into the sea (Rice 1977:44). There were three heiau in Kalapakī, Ahukini (sometimes written Ahuhini) near Ahukini Point, Ninini Heiau near Ninini Point, and an unnamed heiau near Kūki‘i Point. Ahukini has been translated as “altar [for] many [blessings],” and this was also the name of a heiau in Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. The heiau was likely named for Ahukini-a-la‘a, one of the three sons of La‘a-mai-kahiki, an ancestor of the Kaua‘i chiefly lines. Ahukini lived about AD 1250 (Wichman 1998:61) and became the ali‘i nui (supreme chief) of the Puna district (Wichman 2003:39). Ninini has been translated as “pour,” as in ninini wai, to pour water. Ninini Heiau (SIHP No. 100) and Ahukini Heiau (SIHP No. 101) were both described by Bennett as totally destroyed. According to Thrum (Bennett 1931:125), Ahukini was “[a] heiau of medium size; foundations only now remain.” Damon (1931:398) lists four heiau, Kalapakī, Ahukini, Ninini, and Pohako‘ele‘ele, so it is possible that the unnamed heiau was called Pohako‘ele‘ele. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 72 Section 9 Summary and Recommendations CSH undertook this cultural impact evaluation and consultation at the request of Hōkūala. The research broadly covered the entire ahupua‘a of Kalapakī, including the current project area. 9.1 Results of Background Research Background research for this study yielded the following results, presented in approximate chronological order: 1. The original moku for the study area covered in this report was Puna, which means “spring of water.” Līhu‘e (literally translated as “cold chill;” Pukui et al. 1974:132) became the modern political name for the traditional moku of Puna. According to Ethel Damon (1931:402), the name Līhu‘e was first applied to this area by Kaiki‘oewa, Governor of Kaua‘i in the 1830s, perhaps after Kaiki‘oewa’s upcountry residence on the island. This late derivation of the name has been recently disputed (Griffin 2012:46). 2. The ahupua‘a of Kalapakī is described as a land division and a beach in Pukui et al. (1974:75), but no meaning is presented. Pukui and Elbert (1986:122) define the word kalapakī (with a small “k”) as “double-yolked egg, Kaua‘i.” Kalapakī was also the name of a village located along the coast. According to Hammatt and Creed (1993:22), Land Commission documents demonstrate that the “village of Kalapakī” was synonymous with the “‘ili of Kuuhai.” According to a collection of Kaua‘i place names by Kelsey (n.d.), Kalapakī was also known in traditional times as “Ahukini.” 3. The traditional kaʻao mention numerous place names associated with the area. The place name Līhu‘e is mentioned in the “Legend of Uweuwelekehau” (Fornander 1918- 1919:5:196–197). In the mo‘olelo, “The Goddess Pele,” two place names in the vicinity of the present project area are mentioned, Ninini and Ahukini (Rice 1977:14). In “The Menehunes,” Ninini is also mentioned as a favorite place for the sport of jumping off cliffs into the sea (Rice 1977:44). 4. In pre-Contact and early historic times, the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī was permanently inhabited and intensively used. At the coastal areas were concentrations of permanent house sites and temporary shelters, heiau, ko‘a and kū‘ula, and numerous trails. The kula of these ahupua‘a contained native forests and were cultivated with crops of wauke, ‘uala, and ipu. 5. There were three heiau in Kalapakī, Ahukini (sometimes written Ahuhini) near Ahukini Point, Ninini Heiau near Ninini Point, and an unnamed heiau near Kūki‘i Point. Ninini Heiau (SIHP No. 100) and Ahukini Heiau (SIHP No. 101) were both described by Bennett as totally destroyed. Damon (1931:398) lists four heiau, Kalapakī, Ahukini, Ninini, and Pohako‘ele‘ele, so it is possible that the unnamed heiau was called Pohako‘ele‘ele. 6. Traditional fishing villages were once located near the seashore at Kalapakī, east and north (around and up the coast) of Kalapakī Beach. Loko and small drainages were inland of these settlement areas. 7. Land Commission documents indicate a land use pattern that may be unique to this part of the island, or to Kaua‘i in general, in which lo‘i and kula lands are described in the same ‘āpana, with houselots in a separate portion. In most places, kula lands are defined as drier landscapes, and they do not typically occur next to, and among, wetter lo‘i lands. Also, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 73 according to Hammatt and Creed (1993:23), “there are several [LCA] references to other lo‘i next to the beach which indicate wetland cultivation extending right to the shoreline.” This is another type of land use that seems to be fairly unique to Kaua‘i. 8. Victoria Kamāmalu was awarded the ahupua‘a of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī under Land Commission Award (LCA) 7713:2. The Victoria Kamāmalu award (LCA 7713:2 part 7) includes all the land within the present project area. There were no commoner awards anywhere nearby. The locations of kuleana or commoner land claims of the Māhele (1848- 1853) in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a are clumped in two areas, along the floodplain of the north side of Nāwiliwili Stream (just back from the coast, south of Rice Street) and on the shore, back from Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay. 9. There were 13 claims in Kalapakī, of which 12 were awarded. The cultivation of taro (kalo), the major staple, was along the Nāwiliwili Stream flood plains and along the smaller brooks of Kalapakī and Koenaawa where there were springs. The house lots in Kalapakī were at the shore. The only crop other than kalo mentioned specifically in Kalapakī is wauke. Additionally, more than one claim in Kalapakī mentions the fishponds of Koenaawa. Two streams—Koenaawa nui and Koenaawa iki—are identified in the claims but neither is named on current maps. Most Kalapakī claimants lived, however, at the shore in the “kulana kauhale” or village of Kalapakī, located behind Kalapakī Beach on Nāwiliwili Bay. Several of the claimants describe their village house lots in relation to the fishponds of Koenaawa (Koenaawainui and Koenaawaiki). There is also a description of the muliwai or estuary of Koenaawanui. 10. Following the death of Victoria Kamāmalu in 1866, her lands were inherited by Princess Ruth Ke‘elikōlani. In 1870, Ke‘elikōlani sold large portions of her Kalapakī and Līhu‘e lands to William Hyde Rice of Lihue Plantation. William Hyde Rice made subsequent land purchases from Princess Ruth in 1879 including a large makai section of the ahupua‘a of Kalapakī and there conducted the Lihue Ranch. In later years he sold most of this land to the plantation (Damon 1931:747). 11. A State Archives document listed only as Land Matters, Document 11 mentioned that the konohiki had proprietary rights to fish caught in the bay. Document No. 11 lists ana‘e (mature mullet) as the protected fish of Hanamā‘ulu, and uhu (parrot fish) for Kalapakī. These protected fish are part of the konohiki resources, which he or she would use to meet his/her obligations to superior chiefs, governors/governesses and the King or Queen. 12. Pigs, sweet potatoes, and salt, among other items, were traded to the earliest sailing vessels arriving in Hawai‘i (post 1794) and it is likely that in Līhu‘e District, as elsewhere, the production of these items increased beyond the needs of the immediate family and their expected contributions to their chiefs during this period of early visiting voyagers. 13. The plantation at Līhu‘e was first established in 1849 by Henry A. Pierce; Judge Wm. Little Lee, the chairman of the Land Commission; and Charles Reed Bishop. It became Lihue Plantation in 1850. A steam-powered mill was built in 1853 at Lihue Plantation, the first use of steam power on a Hawaiian sugar plantation. Another important innovation at Līhu‘e was created in 1856, when William H. Rice completed the 10-mile-long Hanamā‘ulu Ditch, the first large-scale irrigation project for any of the sugar plantations (Moffatt and Fitzpatrick 1995:103). 14. Plantation labor was brought in from many countries and these new laborers brought some of their own cash crops. Rice production was an off-shoot industry of the sugar plantation Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 74 in the 1870s, since many of the new Chinese plantation workers began to grow rice for themselves and then for trade with California. Japanese immigrants, by the end of the nineteenth century did the same and took over many of the Chinese rice paddies. In general, rice planters used abandoned taro fields, but made the patches larger than the traditional taro lo‘i. This is probably true of the Kalapakī floodplain. 15. A series of maps and aerial photographs indicate the project area was a sea of commercial sugar cane between 1910 (see Figure 9) and 1965 (see Figure 15). 16. During the second half of the twentieth century the project area was a portion of Kalapakī lands transformed by resort development on Kaua‘i. The Kauai Surf Hotel on Kalapakī Bay was developed by Inter-Island Resorts in 1960. Then in 1970, the adjacent Kauai Surf Golf Course opened. Subsequently, in the mid-1980s, these Kalapakī properties were sold or leased to Hemmeter-VMS Kauai Company, which began development of the Westin Kauai Lagoons Resort on approximately 850 acres. In 1991, the Kauai Lagoons Resort was sold to Shinwa Golf Kabushiki Kaisha, which operated the resort and golf courses under Kauai Lagoons Resort Company, Ltd. The approximately 700-acre property, including the present project area, was acquired by Kauai Development LLC and KD Golf Ownership LLC in 2004 and the resort prospers into the twenty-first century as “Hōkūala.” 9.2 Results of Community Consultations CSH attempted to contact Hawaiian organizations, agencies, and community members as well as cultural and lineal descendants in order to identify individuals with cultural expertise and/or knowledge of the project area and vicinity. Community outreach letters were sent to a total of 29 individuals or groups; four responded (see Section 7.3) and three of these kama‘āina and/or kūpuna met with CSH for more in-depth interview. 9.3 Impacts and Recommendations Based on information gathered from the community consultation, participants voiced and framed their concerns in a cultural context. 1. Both Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos, (President of Na Kuleana O Kanaka Oiwi & Puna Moku representative of the Aha Moku O Manokalanipo) and Mr. Jan TenBruggencate, President, Mālama Hule‘ia, stressed the importance of public access both to access the coast for fishing and gathering of marine resources and simply for recreation (walking, biking). It is recommended that public access not be impeded by the proposed petition area changes. 2. Dr. Berg, ecologist and owner of Hawaiian Wildlife Tours, noted, “The land in question was historically destroyed by growing sugar. Then the airport came in, then the resort hotel complex. Then the ponds and islands were created by massive excavations.” He added, “I have never heard of any place there as being culturally significant. I doubt that there is any original native vegetation.” 3. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e expressed concern that access to walking paths in the vicinity of the project area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. 4. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e expressed their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. They noted that access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes that have been built Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 75 along the shoreline in areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu.” These areas have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They noted that presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. 5. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also wondered if the Lihue Wastewater Treatment Plant would need to be upgraded to accommodate a higher-density subdivision? They expressed their concerns that odors from the wastewater treatment plant could be carried by the wind and spread throughout the area. 6. Project construction workers and all other personnel involved in the construction and related activities of the project should be informed of the possibility of inadvertent cultural finds, including human remains. In the event that any potential historic properties are identified during construction activities, all activities should cease in that area and the SHPD should be notified pursuant to HAR §13-280-3. In the event that iwi kūpuna (Native Hawaiian skeletal remains) are identified, all earth moving activities in the area should stop, the area cordoned off, and the SHPD notified pursuant to HAR §13-300. 7. In the event that iwi kūpuna and/or cultural finds are encountered during construction, cultural and lineal descendants of the area should be consulted to develop a reinterment plan and cultural preservation plan for proper cultural protocol, curation, and long-term maintenance. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 76 9.4 Ka Pa‘akai Analysis In Ka Pa‘akai vs Land Use Commission, 94 Hawai‘i (2000) the Court held the following analysis also be conducted: 1. The identity and scope of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the project area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the project area; 2. The extent to which those resources—including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights—will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and 3. The feasible action, if any, to be taken by the LUC to reasonably protect native Hawaiian Rights if they are found to exist. Based on information gathered from the cultural and historical background, and community consultation for this project, no culturally significant resources were identified within the project area. At present, there is no documentation or testimony indicating traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights are currently being exercised “for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778” (Hawai‘i State Constitution, Article XII, Section 7) within the project area. While no cultural resources, practices, or beliefs were identified as currently existing within the project area, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a maintains a rich cultural history in the exercise of traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights within the project ahupua‘a. 9.4.1 Kalapakī Ahupua‘a The archaeological record in Līhu‘e District indicates a date range of ca. AD 1100 to 1650 for early Hawaiian occupation (Walker, Kajima and Goodfellow 1991). As pointed out by Franklin and Walker (1994), important ahupua‘a with large rivers lie north and south of Kalapakī (Franklin and Walker 1994:17). Adjacent to the north, Hanamā‘ulu offered an extraordinary bay and an extensive and broad river flood plain. To the south are located the broad Hulē‘ia River Valley and the ahupua‘a of Ha‘ikū. Kalapakī Ahupua‘a thus would have had less varied pre-Contact resources than the larger neighboring ahupua‘a. In pre-Contact Hawai‘i, the coastal zone of Kalapakī and Hanamā‘ulu was the locus for permanent habitation, heiau, and numerous major cross-ahupua‘a and inter-ahupua‘a trails. There were fishponds at Kalapakī, and major garden activities were within the valley floodplain on the north side of Nāwiliwili River. In the dryland areas (kula) crops of wauke, sweet potatoes, gourds and trees were likely but no traces of these crops have been documented to date. The Māhele records, archeological surveys and ethno-historical accounts confirm that in traditional Hawaiian times, habitation was tightly focused just back from the shoreline of Kalapakī Beach at Nāwiliwili Bay with intensive irrigated agriculture focused on the north side of the Nāwiliwili stream valley. At the shoreline, activities included the farming of fishponds and homes. Mauka, the Nāwiliwili stream valley contained the ahupua‘a lo‘i kalo and some wauke gardens. During the mid-19th century, the Māhele claims describe small villages just back from the shore at both Kalapakī Beach of Nāwiliwili Bay and neighboring Hanamā‘ulu Bay. The claims report a fishpond at the shore in Kalapakī. The total number of lo‘i mentioned in Kalapakī was 56, the number of houses was 9, and there were 5 kula lands mentioned (Mitchell et al. 2005:26). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 77 All known heiau for Kalapakī Ahupua‘a (there is evidence of four: Ninini, Ahukini, Pohakoelele, and one at Kūki‘i Point) were immediately coastal. The coastal zone distribution of heiau seems quite normative for Kaua‘i ahupua‘a other than those of Wailua and Waimea. There are several references to kapa (bark cloth) in the legends, one in particular where the tapa is being made to give as a wedding gift. There may well have been additional wauke plantations on the plains in the pre-Contact period in Kalapakī Ahupua‘a. Archaeological remains of a terrace and midden along the Kalapakī coast (Hammatt 1998) indicate other, at least intermittently used, shoreline habitations existed that were not included in the Māhele records. Shorelines are also traditional burial areas. Inland, in areas of Kaua‘i like Kilohana Crater, birds were caught for food (Damon 1931, story of Lauhaka). Typically, kuleana holders would have had access to wood and herbs in the uplands and in the mountains the bird catchers and canoe makers would have had temporary shelters but the present records are silent on these activities for Kalapakī. 9.4.2 The Project Area Vicinity The coastal plains, back from the coast and away from potable water, like the present project area, were typically less intensively utilized in traditional Hawaiian times. Utilization likely focused on dryland cultigens – such as sweet potatoes, dryland taro, wauke, ti leaf, and possibly banana, particularly in more mauka areas. Timber and medicinal plants may also have been available for gathering. Annual rainfall at the neighboring Līhu‘e Airport station is 997 mm (39.25 inches) (Giambelluca et al. 2013) which is suggested to be marginal for non-irrigated agriculture. The rainfall gradient is substantial; with Kilohana (the Kukaua Station, Giambelluca et al. 2013) receiving annual rainfall of 2,490 mm. Thus dry land planting areas further mauka were almost certainly more attractive. We have little detail on the environment before Lihue Plantation activities, but the Lt. George G. Jackson (RM 902) description of the vicinity as “Level grass land with volcanic boulders” seems likely. The inland coastal plains may have been savannah lands where grasses like pili were harvested for construction purposes. There are no records of major trails running through the project area. Such trails within Kalapakī would likely have been located more mauka or makai quite close to the shoreline. 9.4.2.1 Archaeological Resources An Archaeological Assessment study (Hammatt 1990) and follow-up archaeological field inspection (present study)) have identified no archaeological resources in the project area and none are believed as likely to be present.. Historical records, maps and photographs, and archaeological fieldwork support that sugarcane cultivation and development of plantation infrastructure was the dominant land use within the project area and surrounding lands. The documented pattern (Shideler and Hammatt 2021:30) is that historic properties are immediately coastal. It is certainly possible that there was traditional Hawaiian and early historic period land use further inland and that the traces of this were simply lost as a result of decades of intensive sugar cane cultivation but it seems that the pattern of traditional Hawaiian land use was very much in the Hanamā‘ulu stream valley (well to the northwest) and Nāwiliwili stream valley (well to the southwest) where the LCAs overwhelmingly were, and immediately along the coast particularly back of Kalapakī Beach at Nāwiliwili Bay. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 78 Ms. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake, kama‘āina of Kalapakī and cultural specialist, was interviewed by CSH on October 20, 2005: When Ms. Lovell-Obatake spoke of archaeological sites she spoke of “the coast and Kalapakī Point” (Mitchell et al. 2005:23) 9.4.2.2 Burials Seemingly no burials have been previously documented within a kilometer of the project area (Shideler and Hammatt 2021:33). Wendell C. Bennett briefly references burials in his “Site 103. Dune burials. In the sand dunes that run along the shore halfway between Hanamaulu and Wailua River are many burials.” (1931:125). This locus of burials is well to the north. At least some burials would be expected at Kalapakī but these would be expected to be almost exclusively in the Jaucus sands immediately adjacent to the coast. Both the distance from the coast and the Lihue silty clay (LhB) and Lihue gravelly silt clay (LIB) soils of the project area (Foote et al. 1972:). Would not have encouraged burial there. Ms. Lovell-Obatake specifically noted that she “never heard of any burials in the area of study.” (Mitchell et al. 2005: 23). An anonymous kama‘āina of Līhu‘e who spoke with CSH stated that in traditional times, the beaches around Kaua‘i were “fighting grounds.” They noted that the “old ancient Hawaiian bones of warriors” have been encountered on the beaches by fishermen who will cover them back up. 9.4.2.3 Faunal Resources Activities associated with faunal resources have and continue to be focused on marine resources. Ms. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake expressed her concern for marine resources and Ms. Sabra Kauka for fisherman using the coast (Mitchell et al. 2005: 24-25). Ms. Kauka also expressed her concern for Shearwater birds: Fourthly, I go to mālama the rare Shearwater birds that lay their eggs in the rock walls, boulders and bushes along the coast. I have been taking my 3rd and 4th grade students from Island School to count, capture, weigh, measure, and return the chicks to their nesting sites for the past two years. We have a special permit from the Department of Land & Natural Resources, State Forestry Division, to do this work. Last year we counted 38 chicks there. This year, unfortunately, a predator has eliminated them. We don’t know what predator it is but we couldn’t find any chinks. This bird is very important to me and my students because it teaches them the connection between the kai and the ‘aina. It teaches them that what humans do at sea and on the land affect other life on earth. If the birds have nowhere to nest, their species will die. If they have not fish and squid to eat, if man overharvests the ocean, the birds will have nothing to eat. They are an indicator that there is still fish in the sea for them and for us. There is still land for them and for us. [Mitchell et al. 2005: 24] The Shearwater nesting is understood as immediately coastal. No evidence of sea bird nesting has been reported for the project area. No accounts of hunting have been identified in association with this project area. The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also expressed their concerns regarding the potential impact to accessing the shoreline and aquatic resources. They noted that the beaches were more accessible Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 79 in the “old days,” and they would visit the shoreline with their ‘ohana to camp and fish. They also recalled that their grandfather, who was a fisherman, could “fish all over” in the “old days.” They pointed out that access to beaches has been disrupted by “big developments” including resorts and homes that have been built along the shoreline in areas such as “Princeville, Aliomanu, Kealia (above Kealia Heights a huge subdivision was built for million dollar homes too) and Poipu.” These areas have restricted access to the shoreline and locals must find other places to access beaches. They also noted that presently fishermen have to park their cars and walk long distances to access fishing spots along the shore in the vicinity of the project area including Kūki‘i Point, Ninini Point, and Kamilo Point. 9.4.2.4 Earth Resources No traditional use of the stones (or soft sediments) within the project area has been documented. 9.4.2.5 Plant Resources The project area is basically maintained lawns of the Hōkūala Resort with some landscaping (mostly resort-planted coconut palms and naupaka). In his written testimony, Dr. Carl Berg stated, “I doubt that there is any original native vegetation.” 9.4.2.6 Trails In traditional times, trails were well used for travel within the ahupua‘a between mauka and makai and laterally between ahupua‘a. A historical trail system existed on Kaua‘i which often ran well inland (approximating modern Kaumuali‘i Highway and Kūhiō Highway effectively acting as a short cut for travel between ahupua‘a. A coastal trail would have been used for access to marine resources and recreation, but this would have been quite close to the coast. Cheryl Lovell-Obatake spoke of “sacred trails that run from Nāwiliwili side coming from Kalapakī Point along the coast.” But these were understood to be quite close to the coast (Mitchell et al. 2005:23). Doubtlessly there were major mauka / makai trails but these would have been anticipated to be focused on connecting centers of habitation, like inland of Kalapakī Beach to the uplands. There are no records of trails running through the Hōkūala resort area (Mitchell et al. 2005:27). The kama‘āina of Līhu‘e also noted there are walking paths in the vicinity of the project area which people use for exercising. They expressed their concern that access to the area may be restricted and locals will no longer have access to the walking paths for exercising. They mentioned that their friend has observed “No Trespassing” signs along the golf cart path in the vicinity of the project area. They also shared a story about their friend who experienced “strange occurrences—tragic deaths; and a brush fire in the subdivision” at the home they bought. A kahuna that was brought in to bless the home observed spirits on the roof and explained that the strange occurrences occurred because homes were “built in the ancient walking path. They noted, “some badly burned and partially burned but no other homes in the subdivision got damaged.” The kahuna told their friend, “this ancient walking path was for the Hawaiian villagers to walk to the beach ocean shoreline for their fishing (food).” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 80 Cultural informants Ms. Donna Kaliko Santos, (President of Na Kuleana O Kanaka Oiwi & Puna Moku representative of the Aha Moku O Manokalanipo), Mr. Jan TenBruggencate, President, Mālama Hule‘ia, Dr. Carl Berg, and an anonymous kama‘āina from Līhu‘e stressed the importance of public access both to access the coast for fishing and gathering of marine resources and simply for recreation (walking, biking). It is recommended that public access not be impeded by the proposed petition area changes. This issue of access was not directly related to traditional Hawaiian trail alignments per se but does reflect a traditional pattern of access to the coast across a relatively open “level grass land with volcanic boulders here and there” (see Figure 8). 9.4.2.7 Wahi Pana Storied places in the vicinity would have included the four (possibly just three) Kalapakī heiau: Ninini, Ahukini, Pohakoelele, and one at Kūki‘i Point as well as the cove of Kalapakī Beach and Nāwiliwili Stream. Further inland, Kilohana was a storied landform. The vicinity of the present project area was relatively featureless and no wahi pana in the immediate vicinity are known. 9.4.2.8 Valued Cultural, Historical, or Natural Resources in the Project Area The project area was a sea of sugar cane of the Lihue Plantation for many decades. Since the end of sugar cane cultivation the land has pretty much been maintained as lawns with modest landscaping by the resort. 9.4.3 The Extent to which Traditional and Customary Native Hawaiian Resources will be Affected by the Proposed Action Given the location well-back from the coast, with no notable landforms in the vicinity, the relatively low rainfall, the absence of natural potable surface water, the prior land history of intensive sugar cane cultivation with frequent plowing of the entire project area and the prevailing vegetation regime dominated by lawns and modest resort landscaping. 9.4.4 Feasible Action, if any, to be Taken to Reasonably Protect Native Hawaiian Rights No adverse impact on cultural resources or practices is anticipated. No other customary resource has come to light in the historic background research, fieldwork or in the consultation outreach. The consideration of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices in this study does document some of the resources and practices on coastal lands, and across the airport runway to the east and emphasizes the import of consideration of these practices for any development activities that may be proposed there. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 81 Section 10 References Cited Akana, Collette Leimomi and Kiele Gonzalez 2015 Hānau Ka Ua: Hawaiian Rain Names. Kamehameha Publishing, Honolulu. Alameida, Roy Kakulu 1993 Land Tenure and Land Use in Kawaihapai, O‘ahu. Master’s thesis in History. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu. Altizer, Kendy and Hallett H. Hammatt 2010 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Nāwiliwili-Ahukini Bike Path Project Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu Ahupua‘a Līhu‘e District, Kaua‘i Island TMK: [4] 3-5-01:4, 8, 27, 60, 83, 85, 102, 118, 128, 159, and 160 por.and various rights-of-way between various plats. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. ARCH (Archaeological Research Center Hawai‘i) 1980 Letter Report, Archaeological Reconnaissance of Ninini Point Area, Kalapaki, Puna, Kauai Island, ARCH 14-176. Archaeological Research Center Hawai‘i, Inc., Lāwa‘i, Hawai‘i. Beckwith, M.W. 1970 Hawaiian Mythology. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Bell, Matthew J., Constance R. O'Hare, Matthew McDermott, and Shawn Barnes 2006 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Lihue Airport Improvements, Hanamaulu and Kalapaki Ahupua‘a, Līhu‘e District (Puna Moku), Island of Kaua‘i TMK [4] 3-5-001: Por. 005, 008, 102, 160, and 3-7-002: Por 001. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Bennett, Wendell C. 1931 Archaeology of Kauai. Bishop Museum Bulletin 80. Kraus Reprint Company, Millwood, New York. Cipolla, Craig N. 2013 Native American Historical Archaeology and the Trope of Authenticity. Historical Archaeology. Vol. 47, ed. 3:12-22. Clark, John R. K. 1990 Beaches of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Condé, Jesse C. and Gerald M. Best 1973 Sugar Trains, Narrow Gauge Rails of Hawaii, Glenwood Publishers, Felton, California. Creed, Victoria, Loren Zulick, Gerald K. Ida, David W. Shideler, and Hallett H. Hammatt 1999 Draft Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Līhu‘e Airport Expansion Area, Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, Līhu‘e District, Island of Kaua‘i (TMK 3-5- 01: 5, 6, 8, 9, 109, 111, and 158 and 3-7-02: Por. 1). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 82 2006 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Līhu‘e Airport Expansion Area, Hanama‘ulu and Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, Līhu‘e District, Island of Kaua‘i (TMK 3-5- 01: 5,6,8,9,109,111, and 158 and 3-7-02:Por 1). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Damon, Ethel M. 1931 Koamalu. Two volumes. Privately printed at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin Press, Honolulu. Emerson, N.B. 1965 The Unwritten Literature of Hawaii: The Sacred Songs of the Hula. Collected by Nathaniel B. Emerson. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, Vermont and Tokyo. ESRI Aerial Imagery 2016 ESRI Aerial Photograph, Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i. Foote, Donald E., Elmer L. Hill, Sakuichi Nakamura, and Floyd Stephens 1972 Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of Hawai‘i Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Fornander, Abraham 1918-1919 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folklore: The Hawaiians' Account of the Formation of Their Islands and Origin of Their Race, with the Traditions of Their Migrations, etc., as Gathered from Original Sources. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Franklin, Leta J. and Alan T. Walker 1994 Additional Archaeological Inventory Survey, Molokoa Lands Project Area, Lands of Hanamā‘ulu and Kalapakī, Līhu‘e District, Island of Kaua‘i. Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Garden Island (Newspaper) 1929 Nawiliwili Harbor. Garden Island, 14 December:1:3. 1950 Lihue Airport. Garden Island, 10 January:1:3, 11:1. Giambelluca, Thomas W., Michael A. Nullet, and Thomas A. Schroeder 1986 Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y.-L. Chen, P.-S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and D.M. Delparte 2013 Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society volume 94, pp. 313-316, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1. Electronic document, http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu (accessed 10 April 2014). Gonzales, Tirzo 1992 Memo Report on Proposed Federal Aviation Administration Radar Installation Facility Lihue, Kauai. Advanced Sciences, Inc., San Diego, California. Griffin, Pat L. 2012 The Līhu‘e Place Name on Kaua‘i. Hawaiian Journal of History 46:61-113, Honolulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 83 Hammatt, Hallett H. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of 150 acres of Coastal Land, Kalapakī, Kauai Island (Site of a proposal third Gold Course, Kauai Lagoons Resort). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. 1990 Archaeological Assessment of Phase III, IV, V Kauai Lagoons Resort Kalapaki, Kaua‘i. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. 2005 Archaeological Assessment of an Approximately 71-Acre Portion of the Kauai Lagoons Resort Property, Kalapakī Ahupua‘a, Līhu‘e District, Kaua‘i Island. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. Kailua, Hawai‘i. Hammatt, Hallett H., and Victoria S. Creed 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey of 61.6 Acres in Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i (TMK: 3-2- 06:5 and 3-2-07:16, 18). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Handy, E.S. Craighill 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, Volume 1. Bishop Museum Bulletin 161. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Hawai‘i State Archives n.d. Land Matters, Document No. 11; List of Konohiki, Prohibited Fish and Prohibited wood. Hawai‘i State Archives, Honolulu. Hawai‘i TMK Service 2014 TMK: [4] 3-5-001. Hawai‘i TMK Service, Honolulu. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2008a Ka Mo‘olelo o Hi‘iakaikapoliopele. Original Hawaiian text taken from series of articles in Ka Na‘i Aupuni 1905-1906. Awaiaulu Press, Honolulu. 2008b The Epic Tale of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele. As told by Ho‘oulumāhiehie. M. Puakea Nogelmeier, translator. Awaiaulu Press, Honolulu. Huapala n.d.a Lihu‘e. Electronic document. http://www.huapala.org/Li/Lihue.html. n.d.b Maika‘i Kaua‘i. Electronic document. http://www.huapala.org/Mai/Maikai_Kauai.html. Hula Preservation Society 2014 Hula Preservation Society website. Available online at http://hulapreservation.org. Jackson George G. 1881 Map of Nāwiliwili Harbor . Registered Map 902. Hawai‘i Land Survey Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, Honolulu. Available online at http://dags.hawaii.gov/survey/search.php Kaua‘i Community College 1973 Archaeology on Kaua‘i: A Collection of Newsletters (AOK). Kaua‘i Community College News Letter, Volume 2; 4 October 1973:4. Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 84 Kaua‘i Museum n.d. Undated photograph depicting Kalapakī Bay, showing location of two streams and their outlets (red Xs) to Kalapakī Bay; Koena‘awa stream is on the left. Available at http:www.hawaii.edu/environment.ainakumuwai.htm Kawelu, Kathleen L. 2015 Kuleana and Commitment: Working Toward a Collaborative Hawiian Archaeology. Univeristy of Hawai‘i Press: Honolulu. Kelsey, Theodore n.d. “Kaua‘i Place Names.” Unpublished manuscript, Kelsey Collection, Hawai‘i State Archives. Kikuchi, William A. and Susan Remoaldo 1992 Cemeteries of Kauai. Two volumes. Kaua‘i Community College and University of Hawai‘i, Puhi, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Kosaki, Richard 1954 Konohiki Fishing Rights. Report No. 1, 1954, Legislative Reference Bureau. University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. Landgraf, Anne Kapulani 1994 Nā Wahi Pana ‘o Ko‘olau Poko. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Lihue Plantation 1939 Map of Lihue Plantation, Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i. n.d. Undated Map of Lihue Plantation with Lessees. Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i. Macdonald, Gordon A., Agatin T. Abbott, and Frank L. Peterson 1983 Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geology of Hawaii. Second edition. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. McAllister, Gilbert J. 1933 Archaeology of Oahu. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu. McGregor, Davianna Pōmaika‘i 1996 An Introduction to the Hoa‘aina and Their Rights. The Hawaiian Journal of History 30:1–28. McMahon, Nancy 1990 Archaeological Fieldcheck of Three Parcels in Lihue Judiciary District: Possible Locations for a New Kaua‘i Judiciary Building, Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī, and Hanamā‘ulu, Kaua‘i. Historic Preservation Program, State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. Moffat, Riley M. and Gary L. Fitzpatrick 1995 Survey the Mahele, Mapping the Hawaiian Land Revolution. Palapala‘aina, Volume 2. Editions, Ltd., Honolulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 85 Monahan, Christopher M. and Hallett H. Hammatt 2008 Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection Report for the Nāwiliwili- Ahukini Bike Path Project Nāwiliwili, Kalapakī and Hanamā‘ulu Ahupua‘a Līhu‘e District, Kaua‘i Island TMK: (4) 3-2-004; 3-5-001, 002 & 3-6-002, 019, 020, and various rights-of-way between various plats. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Nakuina, Moses K. 1992 The Wind Gourd of La‘amaomao. Second edition. Esther T. Mookini and Sarah Nākoa, translators. Kalamakū Press, Honolulu. Pauketat, Timothy R. 2001 The Archaeology of Traditions. University Press of Florida: Florida. Pukui, Mary Kawena 1949 Songs (meles) of Old Ka‘u Hawai‘i. In Journal of American Folklore, Volume 26, No. 245 July to September 1949:247–258. 1983 ‘Ōlelo No‘eau. Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings. Bishop Museum Special Publication 71. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1995 Na Mele Welo: Songs of Our Heritage. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Pukui, Mary K. and Samuel H. Elbert 1984 Hawaiian Dictionary. First edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 1986 Hawaiian Dictionary. Second edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Pukui, Mary K. and Laura C. S. Green 1995 Folktales of Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Esther Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Rice, William Hyde 1977 Hawaiian Legends. Originally published 1923. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Shideler, David and Hallett H. Hammatt 2021 Draft Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection Report for the Hokuala Solar Photovoltaic Facilities Project, Kalapakī Ahupuaʻa, Līhu‘e District, Kauaʻi TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por., Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kailua, HI. Soehren, Lloyd J. 2013 Hawaiian Place Names, Ulukau: The Hawaiian Electronic Library. Electronic document, http://ulukau.org, accessed May, 2013 Thrum, Thomas G. 1906 Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands…Island of Kauai. Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual for 1907. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 1965 USDA Aerial Photograph of Kalapakī, Kaua‘i (UH MAGIS) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KALAPAKI 7 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hōkūala Petition Area, Kalapakī, Līhu‘e, Kauaʻi TMKs: [4] 3-5-001:027 por., 168 por. and 177 and [4] 3-5-004:100-109 TMK: [4] 3-5-001:006 por. 86 2001 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Fort Worth, Texas. http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo/ (accessed March 2005). USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 1910 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. 1950 USGS aerial photograph of Kalapakī, Kaua‘i (UH MAGIS) 1959 USGS aerial photograph of Kalapakī, Kaua‘i (UH MAGIS) 1963 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. 1978 Lihue quadrangle USGS orthophotoquad aerial photograph. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. 1996 Lihue USGS 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. USGS Information Services, Denver, Colorado. Vizenor, Gerald 1999 Manifest Manners: Narratives on Postindian Survivance. University of Oklahoma Press, Lincoln, Oklahoma. Waihona ‘Aina 2021 The Māhele Database. Electronic document, http://waihona.com (accessed 10 April 2014). Walker, Alan T. and Paul H. Rosendahl 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Hanamaulu Affordable Housing Project Area, Land of Hanamaulu, Lihue District, Island of Kauai (TMK: 3-7-03:Por. 20). Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Walker, Alan T., Lehua Kajima, and Susan T. Goodfellow 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Lihue/Puhi/Hanamā‘ulu Master Plan, Lands of Hanamā‘ulu, Kalapakī, Nāwiliwili, Niumalu, and Wailua, Līhue District, Island of Kaua‘i. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Wichman, Frederick B. 1998 Kaua‘i. Ancient Place-Names and Their Stories. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Wilcox, Carol 1996 Sugar Water: Hawaiis Plantation Ditches. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Wilkes, Charles 1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition. During the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAELA.DAHILIG,MANAGING DIRECTOR SUBDIVISION REPORT SUMMARY Action Required by Planning Commission: Subdivision Permit No. Name of Applicant(s) PROJECT INFORMATION Consideration ofSubdivision Application No.S-2022-11 that involves a consolidation of six (6)lots into one (1)lot. Application No.S-2022-11 KAUA'I HABITAT FOR HUMANITY,INC. Map Title Consolidation of Lot D-1 and E-l of Niulani Tract (File Plan 383)Also Lots 21,22,29,and 30 of Land Court Application 276 (Map 4)into Lot 50 at Waipouli,Kawaihau,Kaua'i,Hawai'i. Tax Map Key(s):4-3-009:051 &071 Area:36,861 sq.ft. Zoning:Residential (R-20) State Land Use District(s): Urban General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Center AGENCYCOMMENTS COK Public Works: COK Water: COK Housing Agency: pending pending 04.01.2021 State DOT-Highways:pending State Health:pending DLNR-SHPD:pending EXISTING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY(S) Road Name Existing Width Required Width Pavement YES N0 Reserve Kuhi'o Highway 80 feet 80 feet a Wana Road 44 feet D Niulani Road 44 feet D APPLICABLE FEES Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)N/A Park Dedication N/A Appraisal Report Required N/A T.C.I. MAY 10 2022 EVALUATION The proposed development involves a consolidation of six (6)lots into one (1)lot within the County Residential (R-20)zoning district.The intent ofthe subdivision application is to consolidate existing property boundaries to accommodate Kauai Habitat for Humanity's affordable housing project involving the construction of eight (8)two-story multi-family buildings and a two-story single-family dwelling,consisting of twelve (12)three-bedroom units and five (5)two-bedroom units for a total of seventeen (17)residential units.The subject development was previously reviewed through Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)- 2021-8 and approved by the County of Kaua'i Planning Commission on July 13,2021.In consideration of the subdivision,the Applicant is subject to all applicable requirements of the SMA Use permit. The project site is located off Kuhio Highway at its intersection with Wana Road,situated across the Kaua'i Village Shopping Center and Kaua'i Choy Village,and is approximately 240 feet from the shoreline.Currently,there is an existing single-family dwelling located on parcel 71,built in 1958.The applicant is seeking to relocate parts of the existing residence to another lot.The remaining portions ofthe existing residence that is built on a concrete slab will be demolished.Also,the existing driveway serving Parcel 71 will be removed and the Applicant intends to restrict access to the property to Wana Road only. Since the application does not create additional lots,there will be no assessment of an Environmental Impact Assessment Fee and Park Dedication Fee. Native Hawaiian Traditional and Cultural Rights A Ka Pa'akai O Ka'aina analysis was provided by the Applicant's consultant,ASM Affiliates,and the analysis describes the deep historic and traditional accounts associated with the Waipouli Ahupua'a.The analysis also provides a summary of archaeological studies that have been conducted in the vicinity ofthe project area that collectively provide a general understanding of the cultural resources and historic properties that may be present within the project area. As part of the analysis,eight individuals were contacted via email,U.S.Postal service and by phone to identify whether there are cultural practices presently occurring or have occurred in area.The individuals were identified as persons who were believed to have genealogical ties, long-standing residency,or knowledge of the Waipouli area and greater Puna District.Out of the eight individuals contacted,a joint response was received by phone expressing concerns of the wastewater management plan of the proposed development. As represented in the analysis,the Waipouli-Kapa'a coastal areas extending to Kuhio Highway have demonstrated the presence of buried cultural layers along with human burials.The proposed development does require ground disturbance that may potentially encounter, affect,and/or impair iwi kupuna (bones of ancestors).The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)-State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)suggested archaeological monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities as a mitigative measure.In addition,SHPD also recommends that a cultural awareness and sensitivity briefing be conducted for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any construction activities. 2 1 Pa ge S-2022-11;SubdiuisionReport Kauai Habitat for Humanity,Inc. 05.10.2022 Based on the available information,traditional Native Hawaiian cultural practices will not be affected or impajred by the proposed development. IV.RECOMMENDATION t d Denied D Approval D Denied Tentative Approval subject to all requirements as noted on the follow pages: All conditions have been complied with Director of Planning Date V.AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 1.Requirements ofthe Planning Department: a.An updated preliminary title report for the existing lot shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. b.All existing and proposed easements,ifany,shall be identified in the deed descriptions of the affected lots,draft copies of which shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. c.Pursuant to Section 9-3.8fb)of the Subdivision Ordinance,Kaua'i County Code (1987),the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department an electronic record (digitized format)of the final subdivision map(s)on disk for record keeping purposes priorto final subdivision approval. d.A future road widening reserve shall be established along the frontage of Wana Road and Niulani Road whichshall besubjecttothespecificationsofthe PublicWorks Departmentfora minorstreet.There shall be no new structures permitted within the reserve,and any new structures should be setback from the reserve.The reserve along with its restrictions shall be incorporated into the deed descriptions ofthe affected lot,draft copies of which shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 3 1 Page S-2022-JI1;SubdMsion Report Kauai Habitat for Humanity,Inc. 05.10.2022 e.The subdivider is informed that a portion of the subject property is located within the Special Management Area (SMA).Additional lots within the SMA or any new "Development,"asdefined inSection 1.4oftheSMA Rulesand Regulationsofthe County of Kaua'i,may require an SMA Permit and if so,the applicant is subject to all applicable requirements/conditions ofthe SMA Permit. Additionally,theApplicantshall be subjecttoall applicable requirementsofSpecial Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2021-8.These requirements shall be satisfied priorto final subdivision approval. 2.Requirements of the Department of Public Works (DPW): a.The subdivider shall comply with the requirements ofthe Department of Public Works,if any,prior to final subdivision approval.The subdivider shall be notified of such requirements upon receipt of their report. 3,Requirements of the Department of Water (DOW): a.The subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the Department of Water,if any,priortofinalsubdivisionapproval.Thesubdividershall be notifiedofsuch requirements upon receiptoftheirreport. 4.Requirement of the County Housing Agency: a.Applicant Habitat for Humanity is requesting review and approval of Subdivision No.S-2022-11,TMK (4)4-3-009:071,which seeks to consolidate Lots D-1 and E-l of Niulani Tract (File Plan 383)also Lots 21,22,29,and 30 of Land Court Application 276 (Map4)into Lot 50. The proposed consolidation constitutes a residential development with an overall project density of more than 10 residential dwelling units.Accordingly,the project is required to satisfy workforce housing requirements ofthe County Housing Policy,Kaua'i County Code Section 7A. The Applicant is currently working with the Housing Agency to finalize and execute a Workforce Housing Agreement,which will satisfy the above referenced requirements.It is our expectation that this Housing Agreement will be completed before this matter comes before the Planning Commission for consideration and approval. 5.RequirementsoftheState Department ofHealth (DOH): a.Thesubdividershallcomplywiththe requirementsofthe State Departmentof Health,if any,prior to final subdivision approval.The subdivider shall be notified of such requirements upon receipt of their report. S-2022-11;SubdiuisionReport Kauai Habitat for Humanity,Inc. 05.10.2022 4 1 Pa ge 6.Requirements ofthe State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD): a.The subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the State Historic Preservation Division,ifany,priorto final subdivision approval.The subdivider shall be notified of such requirements upon receipt oftheir report. 7.Requirements of the State Department of Transportation (DOT): a.The subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the State Department of Transportation,ifany,priortofinalsubdivisionapproval.Thesubdividershall be notified of such requirements upon receipt of their report. 8.The Applicant is advised the should any archaeological or historical resources be discovered during ground disturbing/construction work,all work in the area of the archaeological/historical findings shall immediately cease and the applicant shall contact the State Department of Land and Natural Resources,Historic Preservation Division and the Planning Department to determine mitigation measures. 9.The Applicant is advised that prior to and/or during construction and use additional conditions may be imposed by government agencies.Should this occur,the applicant shall resolve these conditions with the respective agency(ies). The Planning Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department s final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing process scheduled for MAY 10,2022 whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision-making.The entire record should include but not be limited to: a.Pending government agency comments; b.Testimony from the general public and interested others;and c.The Applicant's response to staff's report and recommendation as provided herein. ;ENNETH A.ESTES Planner 5 1 Pa ee S-2022-11:Subdivision Report Kauai Habitat for Humanity,Inc. 05.10.2022 KAUA'I COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY ADAM ROVERSI,DIRECTOR DEREK S.K.KAWAKAM1,MAYOR MICHAELA.DAHILIG,MANAGiNG DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO:Kaaina S.Hull,Planning Director FROM:Adam P.Roversi,Housing Director DATE:April 1,2022 SUBJECT:Housing Agency Comments on Consolidation of Lots D-1 and E-l of Niulani Tract (File Plan 383)also Lots 21,22,29,and 30 of Land Court Application 276 (Map 4)Into Lot 50; Subdivision Permit No.S-2022-11.TMK (4)4-3-009:07l.Applicant Habitat for Humanity Applicant Habitat for Humanity is requesting review and approval of Subdivision No.S-2022-ll,TMK (4) 4-3-009:071,which seeks to Consolidate Lots D-1 and E-l of Niulani Tract (File Plan 383)also Lots 21,22, 29,and 30 of Land Court Application 276 (Map4)into Lot 50. The proposed consolidation constitutes a residential development with an overall project density of more than 10 residential dwelling units.Accordingly,the project is required to satisfy workforce housing requirements ofthe County Housing Policy,Kaua'i County code Section 7A. The Applicant is currently working with the Housing Agency to finalize and execute a Workforce Housing Agreement,which will satisfy the above referenced requirements.It is our expectation that this Housing AgreementwillbecompletedbeforethismattercomesbeforethePlanningCommissionforconsideration and approval. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. 4444 Rice Street,Suite 330 •Uhu'e,Hawai'i 9676G •(808)241 -4444 (b)•(808)241 -5118 (f) An Equai Opportunity Employer sme 'iz 'ojon ;3ioa /.•|!UOLUfiH J°J 101!qc|-|i.ono>|;J3uuo li.V IS 'SO-E-'t'^X dciM Ko;. I.NMVH 'i.vnvM 'nvHivmv^'nnorfiw 05 i0-!01NI (t.do^)942 uoi^osjiddv priOQ puo-|^o Of puo '6S 'SZ 'LS sp-]os|v (CSC ^oid 31'^)1?D-11 !uofn!N ^L-3 PUO |.-Q sio-| ^o uo!}Dp!|osuo3 -c"?nv.)B ;}[H,IVH;) 3|p3S ai 10LI dV^A1.1NUIA ?w/':.'/ 4;/,')~-A;r»"/w /ijjjS{S!!Hflin^:-^^t A Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity TMKs:(4)4-3-009:071 and 051 Waipouli Ahupua'a Puna District Island ofKaua'i ASM Table ofContents CHAPTERS Page l.INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2.IDENTIFICATION OF CUSTOMARY AND TRADITIONAI. RESOURCES AND PRACTICES ..............................................................................7 WAIPOULI AHUPUA'A AND THE GREATER PUNA DISTRICT................................7 Traditional Accounts Associated in Waipouli Ahupua'a...............................................9 FARLY EUROPEAN DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................14 MAHELE 'AINA OF 1848.............................................................................................16 Kuleana Awards and Govemment Land Grants..........................................................16 CommissionofBoundaries (1862-1876).....................................................................19 WAIPOULI AND THE GREATER PUNA DISTRICT AFTER THE MAHELE ...........19 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES ................................................................23 3.CONSULTATION.................................................................................,.....................28 KAUANOEHO'OMANAWANUl..................................................................................28 SHELEIGH KA'AHIKJ SOLIS.........................................................................................29 4.ANALYSIS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES........................................................29 IDENTIFY WHETHER AN'Y VALUED CULTURAL,HISTORICAL,OR NATURAL RESOURCES AREA PRESENT WITHIN THE PETITION AREA, AND mENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARYNAT[VEHAWAIIANRIGHTSAREEXERCISED..............................29 Traditional Agricultural and Fishing Practices ............................................................29 IwiKOpuna,..................................................................................................................30 IDENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THOSE RESOURCES AND RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED OR IMPAIRED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION.......................30 SPECIFY ANY MITIGATIVE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO REASONABLY PROTECT NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS IF TIIEY ARE FOUND TO EX1ST..........30 REFERENCESCITED................,...............................,..................................................31 FIGURES Page I.Project area location.,.........,...,..............,,...............,,,................................................................,...............2 2.Tax IVtap Keyplat (4)4-3-009 showingprojectareawith parcels 051 and 071.......................................3 3.Google Earth satellite image showing the project area.......,.......,..........................,....,.„,.....................4 4.Northwest comerofproposed project area alongKuhio Highway,view to thesoutheast.......................5 5.Southem boundary oftheprojectareabounded byWana Road,view to the east....................................5 6.Southeastcornerofthe project area,view to the n.orthwest.....................................................................6 7.Eastem boundaryoftheprojectarea,view to the norihwest....................................................................6 8.Northem boundary ofprojectarea,viewto the west..............,..,„..,........,...........,.....................,..............7 9.A portion ofHawai'i Registered Map No.2375 from 1903 by John M.Donn showing swamp land north ofthe project area................,..................................................................................................8 10.Aportion ofHawai'i Registered Map No.432 ca.1833 hy Rmersonshows atrail alignmentto the west oftheprojectarea..................................................................................................................15 Ka Pa'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis forthe Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipouli,Piina,Kaua i (r' TableofContents FIGURES Page 11.Distribution of Kuleana (LCAw.)parcels shown on a portion ofHawai'i Registered Map No. 2452 from 1907.....................................................................................................................................18 12.Photo ofMakee Plantation (ceater)with Nounou (also kiiown as "Sleeping Giant";lefl)and Wai'ale'ale(right)(Kaua'iMuseum)...................................................................................................21 13.Kapa'aSchoolca.l933(LibraryofCongress)....................................................................................21 14.Waipouli Polo Field,ca.1924 (Hawai'i StateArchivcs)......................................................................22 15.Prior archaeological studies conducted in the vicinity oftheproject area..,.........................................26 16.Historic properties identified within and in thevicinityoftheproject area.........................................27 Tables Page 1.Kuleana awards in WaipouU Ahupua'a....,..,..........................,,....,.........,..................................,............17 2.Waipouli land grants..............................,.....,.,........................,...„....................„.................,...........,......19 3.Prcviousarchaeological studies near the project area..........,.....................,..............................,.....,,.....24 4.Community members confacted for consultation...................................................................................29 Kd Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Anatysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua'i 1.(ntruductiaii 1.INTRODUCTION At the request ofthe County ofKaua'i,the Kaua'i Habitat for Humaiiity (Applicant)contracted ASM Affiliates (ASM) to prepare this Ka Pa'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis in support ofa Special M^anagement Area (SMA)Permit for the developmcntofaii affordablehousingprojectonTaxMap Key (TMK):(4)4-3-009:071 and 051,Waipouli Ahupua'a, Puna District,K.aua'i Istand (Figures 1,2,and 3).The proposed project will involve the consfniction of seventeen affordable housing units (8 duplexes and 1 single-faiiiily dwelling)\vithin the 0.8-acre project area at 4-870 Kuhio Highway,Kapa'a,Kaiia'i.Thesubjectparcel consists oftwo lots,onewithan existing residence,and is locateda little more than 200-feet from the ocean.Photo ofthe project area are included as Figiires 4,5,6,7,and 8). Article XII,Section 7 ofthe Hawai'i Constitiition obligates the State and its agencies "to protect the reasonable exercise ofcustomarily and traditionally exercised rights ofnative Hawaiiaas to the extent feasible when granting a petition for reclassificatioii ofdistrict boundaries"(Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina v Land Use Commission,94 Hawai'i 31, 7 P.3d 1068 [2000]).Under Article XII,Section 7,the State reaffirms and shall protect all rights,customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence,cultiiral and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants ofnative Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islaiids priorto 1778,subject to therightofthe State to regulate such riglits.In the context of land use permitting,these issues are commonly addressed when the state or county coinmjssion is asked to approve a petition for the reclassification ofdistrict boundaries or zoning,as such an action inost oflen initiates activities that precede initial intensive development.Wliile this approval ofa Special Use Pennit does not Jnvolve the reclassification ofany lands,the Applicant thought it pnident to provide a discussion of such rights to facilitate tlie Special Use Permit decision making processes for the County Planning Coinmission, On September 11,2000,the Hawai'i Supreme Court's landmark decision m Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina v Land Use Commission established a three-part analytical framework for addressing the preservation and protection oftraditional and customary rights specific to Hawaiian commumties.To effectuate the State's (and its agencies)constitutional responsibility to protect native Hawaiian customary and traditional practices while reasonably accommodating competing private interest;the Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina framework addresses the following: 1)Identify whether any valued cultural,hisforical,or nalural resources area present within the petition area,and identify the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are exercised; 2)Identify the extent to which those resources and rights vvill be affected or impaired by the proposed action;and 3)Specify any nutigative actious to be taken to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights ifthey are found to exist. Following this framework,tlie Ka Pa 'akai o ka 'Aina analysis provided here consists of four sections.Bach sectiou relies on historical archival sources,prior archaeological sUidies,and consultation to identify whether any valued cuiUiral,historical or natural resources are present within the project area.These sources,furthermore,aid in identifying the extent to which any traditionai and customai-y native Hawaiian rights are (or have been)exercised in the project area.The Hrst section considers the project area in relation to customary aiid traditional practices known withm broader Puna region.The second section assesses the extent to which specific customary and traditional practices were practiced in the ahupua 'a of Waipouli anct the project area,The third section summarizes consultation with community membcrs who have genealogical ties and long-standing residency or relationships to Waipouli.The last section summarizes these flndings using the analytical framework outlined above. Kci Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua*i Habitat for Hlimanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaiia'i r ^ [ [.Introduction 467000 WdifKtiti SfiKh |Portion oFUSGS 7.5 Quadrangle Kapaa,MI 20f7[ O ,100 2(10 IMclcta 4S7tlOO Figure 1.Project area location. A Projcct arca Ka Pa'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for tlic fCatiii'i Habitiit for Humanity,WaipoLili,Piinii,Kaua'i L L-l L L 1.[nttOt.lLictio]] / liiiJ|}tj|;liJ L\wihvsi".^MO Cl.s1 EXi ^ .s-s ^ w [L ''"•*—"?lF'i}a"t'';'_—""'•""•' i •"•»;W!^=i?.:tl!!^«,'"',..'~<-«',» Ku Pti akai O Ka Aina Aiialysis for the Kaiia'i I-Iabitat for Hiimanity,Waipuuli,Puna,Kaua'i r^r•\ [ 1.Introdiiction Figure 3.Ooogle Earth satellite image showing the projcct area. L L Ka Pa cikas O Ka 'Aiiia Analysis for (he Kaiia'i Habitat for HDinaiiity,Waipoiili,Puna,Kaiia' 1.Introduction ^.^;-T;--.-•''*'— "^*n^,:^:••. ^:^KB^^ si!s>: ^wSSSSS&'S *S;s-/rf.-^ASL^ Figiire 4.Northwest comer ofproposed project area along [Ciiliiu FIi^hway,view to tlie southeast. Figure 5.Soutliem boLindaiy oFthe project area bouiided by Waiia Road,view to the east. Ka Pci akai O K.a 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for I-Iumanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaiia'i r'r "\ I,Introduction Figure 6.Soiitheast conier ofthe project area,view to the northwest. Figure 7.Easlern boundaiy ofllie project aren,view to Ihe northwest. Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humanily,VVaipouli,Puna,Kaua'i L L L L 2.Identificatioii ofCiistoiiiary and Traditional Resources and Practices Figure 8.Northeni boiindary ofproject area,view to thc west. 2.IDENTIFICATION OF CUSTOMARY AND TRADITIONAL RESOURCES AND PRACTICES [n an effort to identify any valued cultiiral,historicat,or natiiral resources and to assess the exfent to which traditional and customary rights are or have been exercised in the project area (the fii-st part of the analytical framework),tliis section presents a sunimary ofhistorical-archivdl information specific to Waipouli Ahupua a and wliere applicable tlie broader;»rt/r«(district)ofPuna.This sectioii concludcs witli a sumniary offliiclings fcom previoiis archaeologicnl studies condiictecl within the subject parcel. WAIPOULI AFIUPUA'A AND THE GREATER PUNA DISTRICT The approximately 0.85-acre project area is located within the afwpua'a of Waipouli,which is one of fourteen traditional (ilnipiia 'a that make up tlie larger vvindward moku (district)of Puna.The project area is wilhiii the modem judicia)district of Kawailiau,a designation that was effccted in 1887 undcr the administration of K.ing David Kalakaua;prior to that tinie,the district \vas knovvn as Ko'otaii (Coniinission 1898).The iiamc of the a/iupua'a,wokii, ancl judicia!district coniiote the abundance of water in this region:Waipoiili cat-i be translated as "dark water," Kawaihau iiterally means "ice water,"and Puna refers to "fi'eshwater springs"(Pukui et al.1974:98,227,355). Waipouli Aliupua'a is nestled between tlie ahupua'a ofNorth OIohent^(to the south)aiid ICapa'a (to the iiortli)aiid does not extend to the summit of Wai'tile'ale.Thc makai portion ofWaipoiili is generally fiat,wliite tlie uplands consist oFsniall valleys and in'egularly shaped giilches.Tribiitaries iii tlie mauka region incliide Kapahi ("thc knife"), M'akalehei ("eyes lookiiig about as in woncler ancl admiration"),and Moalepe ("chicken witli comb")Streains (Handy and Mandy 1972:423).The Kapa'a Streani (also kiiown as Kapa'a River and Kealia River)is formed by tlie convcrgence ofthc former and empties to tlie north ot thc Kapa'a/Kealia borcler.An approximately 170-acre swamp land,which has been inostjy filled in niodem times,can also bc fouiid in tlic lowlands ot'Kapa'a (Handy and Haiitly 1972).Two proininent laiidscape fealiires eiicompass tlie Kapa'a/Waipouli area—acoastal plaiii with sand dunes and a large marsli.These fealures are shown iii Hawai'i R.egistered Map No.2375 froin 1903 map (Figure 9)by John M. Donn which depicts thcse bounclaries and the swamp area 111 the mcikai region ofWaipoiili thrit cxtcnds into Kapa'a. Ka Pa'akat O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaiia'i ITabitat for IIiimanity,Waipouli,Piina,K.aiia'i r-'r' 2.Identification ofCustomary and Traditionai Resoiirces and Practices ^..^ -^-^-^i^'.A;^;^ CSn^.\^ T,tlV •'V^\t--::^(^1^^ .„....,. Figure 9.A portion ofHawai'i Registered Map No.2375 from 1903 by John M.Donn showing swamp land north ofthe project area. The followuig passage as told by Frederick B,Wichinan describes the 'aiiia (land),the many kahawai (rivers), and historical settlement ofthe Puna District; The ancient kingdom ofPuna lies between thc walls ofWai'aie'ale and the sea,cradled by the arms ofthe Ha'upu Range on the south and the Makaleha Mountains to the north.This area Is watered by fliree small rivers-Hule'ia,Hanama'ulu and Ke'alia—tliatfed complexes oftaro fields.The center of the land was also dominated by the watershed of the mighty Wailua River.It beguis in the countless waterfalls that cascade down an immense green amphilheater formed by three-thousand foot cliffs.Small tributariesjoin to form large ones and those combine into large stl'eams,the North and South Forks,which together cut a path through the ridge lying crossways intand ofthe shore. The river becomes broad,deep,and slow,Havvai'i's longest navigable stream.It was the center of Kaua'i's second kingdom,Puna. For six to eight hundred years,froni the time ofKu'aiunuikiniakua,the iiihabitants ofKoiia centeied ou fhe Waimea River has little w no contact with the islands to the south.The population peacefully grew and expanded tnto new areas,developing new homes,agricultural ttelds,and temples. Then sometime between 1000 and t LOO A,D.,ttie settters from the Marquesas an-ived,led by Puna- nui-ka-ia-'aina.There is no trace in siirviving tegends oftlie negotiations that must have taken place to acconiniodate these new settters,but Punanuikaia'aina succeeded in creating a chiefdom independent ofKona. The Puna kingdom grew to accomniodate an increasing population and spread out on both sides of' the river unttl it cavered the area between the Ha'iipu Range aiid the Makaleha Mountains.By the end ofthe foui-teenth cenhiiy,seven ahupuci 'a were created to ttie south and five to the north of tlie river.(Wichman 1998:50) Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'A'ma Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Hiimanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua i 2,[dentificatioii ufCustoinary and Tradttional RcsoLirces and Practiccs Eacli geographic area around tlie Hawaiiaii IsEaiids lias a name for the iiatural elenients unique to that specific place.Tfiere was 110 excepltuii for \\\G ahiipuu'a ofWaipouli ur tlie/«6iA:»ufPuiia.The raiiis ofaysuciatecl willi Kapa'a and the greater Puna I^istrict include IIa'ao,Kea,aiid Ho'olua.The FIa'ao rain is mentioned in the mele (song)titled, "Kawaikini,"which describes Wai'ale'ale,the highest summit on Kaua'i: Aloha ke kapa huki palai Greetings to the shores tliat conceal and coiifuse /ka lupea e ka ua Hd 'ao Made attractive by Ihe Ha'ao rain (Hofstein in Akana and Gonzalez 2015:30) A makena (lament)for Queen 'Ernalani Kaleleonalani discusses the Kea rain ofPuna,Kaua'i below: He ua Kea ko Puna Puna has a white [Kea]rain Ke ua maila i Kuaahiahi Raining now at Kuaahiahi He ua ho 'oinalie kai no MakaTwa A rain that quiets the sea of MakaTwa E ana ana i ka taiila o Kapa 'a Measuring the expanse ofKapa'a (Nogelmeier in Akana and Gonzalez 2015:72-73) The name ofthe winds ofKaua*i are listed iii a chant aud story called The Wind Goifi'd ofLa'amaomao.When the gourd was opened,a specific wind would emerge a»d coiild fill the sails of a canoe,taking that person in the direction tliey desired.Kiiapaka'a,the son ofPaka'a and descendant ofLa'amaomao,catls out to tlie winds ofPuna Mokii: Ho'olua is the wind ofMakaTwa, Keliau isofKapa'a, Malamalamamaikai is ofKealia, Hulilua fs ofHomaikawa'a, Amu is ofAnahola, (Nakiiina 1990:53) Pukui's (1983)'Olelo Mo'eau Hawaiian Proverbs &Poeiical Sayings recorded the following poctical expression tlmt further describes Ehe beauty throughoiit the mokii ofPuna,Kaiia'i below: He nani wale no o Pima mai 'o a 'o. There is only beauty from one end ofPuna to the other. There is nothing to complaia about,Refers to Puna,Kaiia'i.(PiikLii 1983:91) Traditional Accounts Assoeiated in Waipouli Ahupua'a Mo 'olelo (accounts)and mele (songs)offer rich resources for understanding the cultural landscapc,land use,and practices ofan area.In addition to the aforementioned inoa ua (rain names)and inoa makani (wind names),they are another source of history that informs our understanding of how peoples of the past expressed their relationships to their lands and enviroiunent.The following paragraphs present a sunmiary ofselect traditional accounts with reference to Waipouli and the greafer Puiia District ofKaua'i. Ka Mo tolelo O Wiakaikapoliopele The story begins at Ha*ena in the Puna District on Hawai'i Island—thedistrict where Pele,the deity oflava aiid the elder sister ofHi'iakaikapoliopele,resided.After eajoying a great display offuifa,Pele fell into a cleep sleep ancl hcard the rhythmic beats ofhulapahii (hula drums).Drawii to the sound,Pele iu herspirit foim followed the echoes ofthe di'ums and arrived at the small village ofHa'ena on tlie north shore ofKauai.Here Pele found herself amongst a crowd ofspectators,alf ofwhom looked at her in wonder and admiration at her beauty,a beauty not seen before on their island.Standing in the midst ofthis crowcl was the striking Lohiau,who was seemingly unconscious ofPele's presence.The two lovers spent three nights and days together,however,Pele would oiily grant hiin kisses.During that time,Pele recited a chant naining the inany winds ofthe islet ofLehua,Ni'ihau,and Kaua't.Below is an exccrpt from Ehat chant which feali-ires winds in thc Puiia District.Note that Inuwai (drinking water,a sea brecze)is the name of one ofthe vvinds ofWaipouli: He Waiakualawaktwci ka makani o Koiwle 'ci Waiakiialawala is the vviiid ofKonole'a P!e W^ailohi ka makani o Nahanahanai Wailohi is the wiiid ofNahanaiianai He Imiwcii ka makwu o Waipoidi Inuwai is the wind of Waipouli Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaiia'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipoiili,Piina,Kaua'i (r 2.Identification ofCustomary and Traditional Resources and Practices He Ho 'oluahe 'enalu ka makani o Makaiwa He Pepe ekiukena ka makani o Kapa 'a (Ho'oulumahiehie 2006) Ho'oluahe'enalu is the wind of MakaTwa Pepe'ekiukena is the wind ofKapa'a (ASM in-house trarislation) On the moming ofPcle's departure,she promised to fctch him and bring him to Puna,where they would once again be united,at which time,Pele's spirit leaped into the ocean and was united with her body that lay in Puna, Hawai'i.When Pele's spirit was finally reunited witli her body,she called upon each ofher sisters where she made a proposition,asking which one ofthem would fetch her dream lover Lohi'au from Kaua*i.Kjaowing Pele's tempestuous temper,each feared possible repercussions and refused to go.After being denied by all but one sister,her youngest sister,Hi'iakaikapoliopele appeared to her.Pele demanded that Hi'iaka travel to Kaua'i to fetch Lohi'au and sent her on her way with strict instructions.Hi'iaka was not to take him as her husband,she was not to touch him,and she was to take no lunger than forty days on herjoumey.While Hi'iaka agreed to her sister's demands,she realized that iu her absence,Pele would become incensed with a buming and vehement tury and destroy whatever she desired.So IIi iaka set forth two stipulations;her beloved 'ohi'a lehua grove was to be spared from destruction,and Pele was to protect her dcar friend Hopoe in her absence. Hi'iaka immediately set out on herjouraey to fetch Lohi'au,traveling to various parts ofthe istands where shc encountered a variety ofchallenging situations that tested her skills and abilities as a rising goddess and found traveling companioQS that accompanied her on this joumey.After some time,Hi'iaka arrived at Ha*ena,Kaua'i,and found herself at the home of the paralyzed fishennan,Malaeha'ako'a,and his haughty and inhospifablc wife, Wailuanuihoano. Malaeha'ako'a was a man ofchiefly rank and because of his condition,his wife would carry him to the shore where he could enjoy his favorite activity,fishing.After leaving him at the shore,Wailuanuiahoano retumed home to her hale kuku kapa (tapa beatiag house)to prepare kapa (traditional bark cloth).Upon reaching the home of Wailuanuihoani and Malaeha*akota,Hi'iaka offered the following chant,requesting pemiission to enter: Kuniki ka mawia i ka la i,e, O Wai-aleale.la,i Wai-lua: Huki ilww kapopo ua o Ka-wai-kim; Alae ia a'ela e Nounou, Nalo ka Ipu-ha 'a, Ka laula ma uka o Ka-pa 'a,e. Ipa 'a i ka leo,he ole e hea mai. E hea mai ke leo,e! The mountain tums the cold shoulder, Facing away from Wai-lua, Afbeir in time offair weather, Wai-kini flaunts,toplofty,its rain-cap; And the view is cut offby Nounou, Thus Humility Hilt is not seen, Nor Ka-pa'a's broad upland plain. You seal your lips and are voiceless; Best to open your mouth and speak. (Emcrson 1915:109) When Hi'iaka finished chanting,Wailuanuiahoano dtd not rcspond and continued to beat her kapa.Although Hi'iakadidnotreceivethe reply she had anticipated,she continued with herjoumey and ascended the/?;7/i (cliff)near Wailuaauiahoano and Malaeha'ako'a's home.Atop the pali,Hi'iaka saw Malaeha'ako'a at tlie shore and proceeded to make her way there.As she approached,Hi'iaka heard him chanting,and thus,she replied to him with another chant.Immediately following this exchange,the sea cakned,aad numerous fish began to bite his hook.When he looked up at Hi'iaka,he immediately knew she was an akua (deity)that had come fi-om across the archipelago. Malaeha'ako'a felt a thri]!run through his body and soon found himselfable to stand on his own feet.WithoDt a word, he walked back to his home.To Wailuanuiahoano's surprise,he began tearing down a portion of the fence that suiTounded their home.M'alaeha'ako'a knew that the woman he encountered was a divine being,so he hastily prepared a feast.When Hi'iaka arrived once more at the home of the fisherman and his wife,she was greeted and entertained by Malaeha'ako'a,who performed a mele "that recited the deeds,the events,the mysteries that had marked Pele's reignsince theestablishmentofherdominion in Hawaii"(Emerson 1915:112).Followingthisinitial/n^/e,moremefe were exchanged,offering Hi'iaka insight into her sacred and powerful lineage.One of the meie that Malaeha'ako'a shared with Hi'iaka described Pele's travels throughout Hawal'i,including the following stanza that described her time on Kaua'i and where reference is made to Wailua: A Kaua 'i,i ke olewa iluna.Frorn the ether above Kaua'i A kapua lanai kai o Wai-lua,To the blossoms afloat af Wailua Nana mai Pele ilaila:Ranges the flightofPele's gaze. E waiho akii ana oAhu.She sees Oahu floating afar; Ahha i ka wai U 'u o ka aina.Feels thirst for the wat'ry mirage; E ala mai ana Mokihana,lahales the scent of mokihana— 10 Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitaf for Huinanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua'i 2.Ideiidfit/atioii ofCustuinary and Tiaditioiial Rcsourccs autJ Practices f^ai auau o Hiiaka. Hoopd 'apa 'a Pele ilaila; Aohekahu e ulu ai. Keehi aku Pele i ka ale kua ioloa: He onohi no Pele, Ka oaka o ka Lani,la. R!ieli,kau mai! (Emerson 1915:115-116) The bath-water ofHiiaka. She once had a conl&st there; She had no tenant to giiard the place. Pele spums with her feet the long waves; They give back a flash like her eye, A Oash that's repeated on high. Wonder and awe possess me' (Emerson 1915:126) A second chant was offered that described Wailua as the place where Pele's lover Lohi'au's house stood.Tlie first line ofthis mele is titled Ku i jyai-Iua kapou hale a ka ipo,and rcads thusly: Her lover's house-post stands in Wai-lua; There Pele hears a call that appeals; 'Tis a song voiced by Ulu-po. She utters no word to answer Thispleading babel ofvoices, Now comes the first thrili to virgin flesh; Impatient,the princeling crawls on his knees; There's plenteous downfall oftears,as when Rain-colunins fall,or men leap and dive, Head-first,feet-first,into the flood. These symbols will tell the tale,Hiiaka. For whom do I make this offering ofsong? For the ancieat stock ofHaumea. God Kaoe planted fhe coral reefs; A work that done in Pele's time; For Pele,for Hiiaka the land— This solid ground that swings and floats Beneath the o'erhauging arch ofheaven. (Emwson 1915:129-130) Ku i Wai-lua kapou hale a ka ipo; IIoolofio i ka uwalo,ka wflwa nui O Ulupo ma oli nei:aohe uwalo mai,e Aloha ino o Ikuwa ma oli nei. Ke lele la ka eka mua, Ka mo a ka makani. Ukiuki,kolo e,Kau-lana, Ka ua lele aku a lele mai: Leh a Puhi-lala,lele a kau-lana--- Ka hoaka,e Hiiaka,e! Nowai ke kanaenae? No ka ohaiw a Ha-umea ke kanaenae. Ku 'uae Kane ke ko 'a: l ka ia nei manawa.fa. No Pele,no Hiiaka no ka honua, Ka honua ne'i.ka hofiua iewa, Ka lam iluna. O Ana-ku,ku ka aha iloko: O Haamo he ala i hei a 'e ia. He pahif i htla 'i na,he pa i a 'e ia; He kahua i hele ia,he luana mau 'u; He kavnana ko,okanapiko; He hola moena,he }awe na ipukai; He uhihi na wai,he kaumaha ai; He haina no ka hale,e. Moa.noa ia hale—uaae a, Ua komohia no wai-honua. Kit ana o hatau ololo. Ka hale o Pele i noho ai. Maka 'ika 'i mai Kini o ke Akua. Ho i akii e.ho 'i aku iwaho na! He kahuna pule ole,he li 'i pule ole! Mai komo wale mai i ka hale o Pele, O ko'uAkua.la! Elieli,kau maif (Emerson 1915:122) After the exultant feast and exchange ofdances,Hi'iaka knew it was time to carry forth with herjoumey and to fetchhersister's lover,Lohi'au.Hi'iaka informed Malaeha'ako'aofthepurposeofherjoumey,to which he informed the young girl that Lohi'au had taken his own life after a passionate encounter and that he had been dead for many days,IIi'iaka managed to find I.ohi'au's lifeless body and knew that she hacl the power to restore him back to life,so she went insearch ofhis wailua (spirit)ttiaf was repoiledly wandering around Kaua'i.Hi'iaka found his yvailua and desperately chanted incantations to restore him to life.After some tiine,Hi'iaka's prayers had brought life back to Lohi'au,and the two charge bacfc towards Puna on Hawai'i Island,where Pele iinpatiently awaited their retum.As Hi'iaka and Lohi'au made their way back to Puna,she observed smoke trailing from her sacred lehua groves—the very groves that she bas requested for her sister to protect.In an act ofrebellion,Hi*iaka embraced Lohi'au at the rim Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysls for the Kaua'i IIabitat for IIumanity,Waipouli,Puna,tCaua'i II r' 2.Identificittion of Customary and Traditional Resources and Practices ofK.Tlauea and made love to her sister's lover.Pele broke out in a great rage and killed Lohi'au causing his wailua to flee back to Kaua'i in search ofsomeone who could help him.Lohi'au's spirit appeared one night before his dear friend Paua.Upon seeing Lohi'au's spirit,Paoa offered the following chant,again making explicit reference to Wailua, K-aua'i. Mau a 'alina oe mauka o Ka-la-ke-ahi hfa Puna ka huli mal ana; Ka ua a Makali 'i, Ke ua la i Laau, I Ka'u,i Ka-hihi,i Ka-pea, Ike waoa keakua. Eia ho 'i au la,o ka Maka-o-ke-ahi; Aole ho 'i na la o ka Lawa-kua. Ke Koolau la,e,aloha! Aloha ku 'u hoa i ka ua anu lipoa, Hu 'ihu 'i.ko 'eko 'e.kaou: He ahi ke kapa o kaua e mehana ai, E lula au kaua i Oma 'o-lala; I pili wa/e,i ha 'alete la,e. Ha 'alele i ^ailua na hoa aioha— O Puna,alna aloha, O Puna.i Kaua 'i. (Emerson 1915:217) Thou bundle ofscars from a fieiy day, 'Twas at Puna ourjourney began, With a dash ofrain in the summer; Rain again when we entered tfae woods, Rain,too,in Ka'u,in thejungle, In the forest-haunts ofthe gods, Rain at each crossing ofroad and path:— Here stand I,with fire io my eyes: Ourdays ofcommunion are gone; You've bidden adieu to Ko'olau; IIail now to my mate ofthe gloomy rain— When wet aad cold and chilled to the bone, Our garmet ofwarmth the blazing hearth; Then basked we at Omo'o-lala, Haunting the place,then tearing away. E'en so you fore away fi-om your fi-iends, Those friends ofWailua,ofPuna— Thaf dear land ofPuna,Kaua'i! By this time,Pele was furious.She shook the earth with great ferocity and heaved her lava in a torrent of devastation,annihilating Hi'iaka's 'ohi'a lehua forest,obliterating all ofPima,and fmally consuming her beloved friend Hopoe as shelingeredbythesea.Enragedbyhersister'sspiteful acts,Hi'iakatumedherwrath onto hei beloved sister Pele.The two sisters went head-to-head in a brutal battle that could only be subdued by the elder gods.Fearing that the two sisters would destroy the entire island,the elder gods intervened and quieted the battle between the two powerful sisters. Winfis Described in He Ka fao no Paka 'a Set mainly on Hawai'i,K-aua'i,and Moloka'i,the story of Paka'a was first publishect in 1861 by S.K.Kuapuu.In 1990,Esther T.Mo'okini and Sarah Nakoa translated a version of the mo 'oleh penned by Moses Nakuina in 1902 and publishedit imderthe title The Wind Gowd ofLa'amaomao CNakuina 1990).Nathaniel B.Emerson (l915)also published a version ofthis story as well.Paka'a was a respected advisor ofKeawenuiatumi,chiefofHawai'i Island. His primary role was to care for the king's personal possessions and his double hauled canoe.Whatever Paka'a advised,the king obeyed,Paka'a's brother,Lapakahoe also served as an advisor in the chiefs royal court.Paka'a kept a special gourd calabash called La'amaomao,which he named afterhis mother,who,during her lifetime,developed a special relationship with the winds.La'amaomao contained the bones ofPaka'a's mother;he would call upon her to summon the power of the winds when needed. One day,Ho'okeleihilo and Ho'okeleipunajoined Keawenuiaumi's court.They told lies to Keawenuiaumi about Paka'a,which led to Paka'a's mistreatment by the king.With the exception ofcaring for the king s personal items, Paka'a's advisory duties were stripped frorn him and given to the two men.After some timej Paka a lefl Keawenuia*umits court and during his departiire,took some ofthe king's persona!possessions,including liis kapa (bark cloth)and malo (loincloth),and pfaced them in his sacred calabash.He eventually settfed on the leeward side of Moloka'i and took up a wife,who was a chiefess.She later gave birth to their son whom they named K-uaapaka'a. Paka*a taught his son alt that he knew about caring for and advisEng the paramount chief,for he wanted Kuaapaka'a to be prepared should the kuig desire to have him back in his court.Paka'a prepared wisely,for a canoe anived fi-om PIilo carrying the message that Keawenuia'umi was looking for his long-lost servant.Paka'a,however,did not tell tlie messengers aboard the canoe that he was indeed Paka'a.In a dream,Paka'a and Keawenuia'umi came to each other and Paka*a told the chiefofhis whereabouts.Without hesitation,Keawenuia'umi summoned his six district chiefs to seek out Paka'a. Paka'a and his son set out in their canoe pretending to be fishing for 'uhu (parrotfish;Scarus perspicillatus},a fishing style that required one to continuously gaze down at the ocean as to avoid being seen by Keawenuia umi s chiefs.The canoes ofthe district chiefs led the way with Keawenuia'umi's canoe following behlnd.As each ofthc canoe's belongmg tu the district chiefs passed,Kuaapaka'a at the advice ofhis father chanted insultingly to eacli of 12 Ka PQ 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua'i 2.Identification ofCustoinary aad Traditional Resources and Practices the district chiefs'canoey,pointing oul diiicrepancies in their lineage and the shortcomings ot the tands they ruled. This greatly angered the district chiefs causing thein to sail past the t'ather and son duo. The king's double hauted canoe finaily made its way toward the small fishing canoe and onboard was Lapakahoe, brother of'Paka'a.Lapakahoe inquired with the young boy about his kuowledge ofthese chiefs,pomting out that such knowledge was only held by a fcw people,one ofwhich was Paka'a and asked ifhe kiiew where the chiefs formcr servant was,The boy,however,continued wilh his taunts,this time calling forth all the winds ofthe various lands, including those ofK.aua'i's Puna District.This chant could bring about a violent stonn.The chant segment betow is extracted &om Kuapuu's mo 'olelo.Note that the Inuwai winds are named once more in Paka'a's chant: He paupiia ko Kipu, He alaoli ko Hulaia, He waikai ko Kalapaki, He ka-ao ko Hanamaulu, He waipua-a-ala ka makani kulai hale no Konolea, He waioptia ko Waihta, He waiolohia ko Nahanahanai, He inuwai ko Waipouli, He hoolua makani ko Makaiwa, He kehau ko Kapaa, He malamalamaiki ko Kealia. (Kuapuul861:4) Klpu has the Paupua wind Hula'ia has the Ala'oli wind Kalapakl has the Waikai wind Hanama'ulu has the Ka'ao wind Konolea has the Waipua'a'ala,the wind that knocks down houses, Wailua has the Wai'opua wind Nahanahanai has the Waiolohia wind Waipouli has the Inuwai wind Makaiwa has the Ho'olua wind Kapa*a has the Kehau wind Kealia has the Malamalam&iki wind (ASM in-house translation) After calling forth all the winds ofthe islands,Kuaapaka'a proceeded to call forth all the men aboard the king's canoe by name.Angered by the boy's remarks,the chiefs canoe drew away until nothing,but a mere speck ofthe canoe was in sight.At which time,at the orders of his father,Kuaapaka'a uncovered the sacred wind gourd La'amaomao,sending a fury ofwind over the ocean that caused the ocean to chum and overwhelmed the cliiefs canoe.After watching the chieFs canoe neariy swamped with water,the boy placed the cover back on the sacred gourd>causing the ocean to become calm once again.Altbough shripped ofall their possessions,the chief and his men landed on Moloka'i. Although Paka'a remained out ofsight ofthe chief,he gave specific orders to his son on how to best care for the chief for he knew of all the chiefs favorite things.He gave his son the chiefs frtalo and told the son to offer it to Keawenuia'umi.Pakala then gave his son the chiefs kapa which was scented with fragrant plants ofLala (*0la'a), Puna.As Kuaapaka'a handed the kapa to the chief,he recognized the scent.Paka'a's intent was to grow the chiefs desires by giving him all ofhis favorite things that reminded him ofhow he once cared for the chief.This went on for some time as Kuaapaka*a again uncovered La'amaomao,causing a stonn that kept the chiefon the island which tasted for four months.Afier closing the gourd,the weather had calmed and Keawen'uia'umi strongly desired to have the young Kuaapaka'ajoin his court.Afterncgotiatingwith thc king,the boy consented.Thechiefs canoewas prepared and they set sail for Kaua'i.Wliile there,they encountered a storm incited by the wind gourd La'amaomao. Nonetheless,Kuaapaka'a had come prepared with food and other necessities,The young boy offered protection and food to everyone on the canoe except for the sailing masters,Ho'okcleihilo and Ho'okeleipima,the vcry men that had replaced his father.Weak and battered from the storm,the two men eventually fell overboard at which time Kuaapaka*a covered the gourd once more,sending calmness over the waters.K-uaapaka'a ordered the canoe back to Hawai'i Island and after several more cunning acts,Kuaapaka'a revealed his true identity to Keawenuia'umi and ordered the boy to bring his father Paka*a to him.Paka'a refused the king's orders until full restoration was raade to which the king agreed and upon Paka'a's retum to Hawai'i,the whole ofHawai'i was given to him, MQ'Jkeha Mo'Tkeha was an infamous chief from Wailua and Hanama'ulu.He was the grandson ofMaweke,one ofthe first genealogicai lines to arrive in Hawai'i dating back to the eleventh and twelfih centuries (Beckwith 1970).Mo^keha was one of the three Iiigh ranking sons of Mulieleali'i.The eldest son,Kumuhonua,was his father's successor. Kamakau relates that Kumuhonua battled with his younger brothers,'Olopana aud Mo'Ikeha,and tuok them to sea as captives (Kamakau 1991).Mo'IkehabroughtLa'awith him,an a/;"t bom at Kukaniloko in Waialua,O'ahu to Ahukai and Keaka-milo K(t Pu 'ctkac O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habllal for Humanity,Waipouti,Puna,Kaua i 13 r'r 2,Identification ofCustomary and Traditional R.esources and Practices ]n aiiother mo'olelo,Mo'Tkeha sailed fi-om Kahiki to Hawai'i because "he had opened a food-offering calabash (ipu 'aurnakua)ofhis older brother *01opana",and had been caught undoing tlie "chastity belt"ofhis sister-in-law Lu'ukia and was severely criticized for these actions (Kamakau 1991:105).He took several followers with him and ti'aveled throughout the islands to Ka'u (Hawai'i Island),Lahaina (Maui),Haleolono (Moloka'i),and Wai'anae (O'ahu),At each place,one of Mo'ikeha's companions left his entourage (Kamakau 1991:105-106).ICamakau continues to recount M5'Tkeha's voyage and his life in the Puna District ofKaua'i: As Mo'ikeha sailed on,the backs of Ha'upu and Kalatea on Kaua*i were seen,then Kalalea rising from the sea as though carried m the arnis ofNounou,then the face ofPuna and its harbor,Wailua. He landed in Puna at Wai-mahana-lua in Kapa'a.He left the things he had used on the sands of Kapa'a among the kalukalu sedges ofKewa. The chiefs of Kaua'i who lived at Kapa'a while Mo'ikelia was living there were Puna-nui-kai- anaina,Puna-kai-'olohe,and Puna-*ai-koale.A beautiflit daughter ofthe Puna chiefs,Ho'oipo-i-ka- malanai—alsocalled Hina-'au-lua—livedatWaimahanaluabecauseoftheexcetlenceofthesurfof Makaiwa there,Mo'ikeha took her to wife,and they were united in a lasting union (Ao 'ao pa 'a), When their oldest son was bom,Mo'ikeha gave him the name Ho ukamali'i,for the skin of*01opana,Their second son he named Haulani-nui-ai-akea for the eyes of 'Olopana,and their third sonhenan-iedKilaforLu'ukia,thewifeof'OIopana.(Kamakau 1991:106) PoHtical Instabitity FoUo wiiig Kaumuali'i's Death A chiefofWaipouli named Kia'imakani is described in '^KaMooleh o Na Kamehameha,"a serialized history ofthe Kamehameha dynasty written by Kamakaa In 1961,a translation of "Ka Moolelo o Na Kamehameha was published by Kamehameha Schools as Ruling Chiefs ofHawaii,followed by the publication ofa revised second edition in 1992. In Kamakau's account,he recalls Kaumuali'i's death in 1825 and the political turmoil that resulted.Upon his death bed,K.auniuali'i proclaimed that the rule over Kaua'i and Ni'ihau should be given to his nephew,Luanu'u Kahalai'a. The council of chiefs worked to abtde by Kaumuali'i's last words,Kahalai'a and several other chiefs,including Kalanimoku,sailed to Kaua'i to let the people ofthat island know of their King's death and his successor.However, aft.er the announcement,a chiefofWaipouli objected to the new leadership which led to a skirmish at at Ka Pa *Ula<ula o Hipo (also known as Russian Fort Elizabeth)in Waimea: AtWaimeaKa-lani-mokuexaminedthepropertyatthefort.HethencaIledacounciiofall tliechiefs and announced to them the will oftheir dead rulcr,that "those ofthe chiefs who hold land,they are well off;the commoner who holds property is fortunate;the chiefor commoner who has no portion is unfortun^te.The lands shall continue as tliey now stand.Our son,Kahala-i'a,shall be ruter over you."A blind chiefofWaipouIi in Puna,named Ki'ai-makani,said,"That is not right;the land should be put together and re-divided because we have a new ruler,"but Ka-lani-moku would not consent to this.On Friday most ofthe chiefs gathered at Nihoa,one ofKa-'ahu-manu's houses at Papa'ena'ena,and urged the redistribudon ofthe land,but Ka-laai-moku again reftised,On Saturday night they seized their digging sticks and attacked the fort,which they found manned by the meo of Hawaii with guns.Kahala-i'a and his men were awakened by the ringing ofthe bell and the shouts ofa woman warrior who cried,<IHere come the Kauai wan-iors after the arms!here come the rebels! the men ofHawail stil!hold the fort'it is not t&ken for Kauai!"Ni'au,who tried to push his way into the fort past Kahala-i'a,was shot in the mouth and killed.Several others were killed,some leaped down the cliffofHipo and had their bones broken,others escaped by sea.The next day, Sunday,the dead bodies were tumed over to the pigs.Ka-lani-moku senl the ship,Pa'alua,to Honolulu after reinforcements and Mr.Bingham and Mr.Whitney and their families took passage for fear of the war.It was on this trip that the csptain threw Kane-maka-kini overboard to be drowned.(Kamakau 1992:267) EARLY EUROPEAN DESCRJPTIONS Historical descnptions ofWaipouli are limited with the earliest derived from thejoumal ofCaptain George Vancouver, who arrived in 1793.Although Vancouver dld not disembark at Wailua,he provided a brief description,writing: This portion ofAttowai [Kaua*!],the most fertile aad pleasant district ofthe island,is the principal residence ofthe king,or,in his absence,ofthe superior chief,who generally takes up his abode in an extensive village,about a league to the southward of the north-east point of the island,Here Enemo (Inamo'oJ the regent,with the young prince Tamooerrie [Kaumuali'i],were now living;,.. (Vancouver 1967:221-222) 14 K.a Pa'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua i Habitat for Humanity,Waipuuli,Puna,Kaua'i 2.Ideiititication ofCustomai'y and rraciitioiial Resoiirccs aiict Pcacticcs Pollowing tiiedeath ot Ka'eokiiltitii in 1 794 and tlic subsequent pdssing ufliis niotlier !iigli cliiefess Kamakalielci tiicir soii Kauitiucili'i assiiined tiic iiovereign rcigii over KauiTi aiui Ni'ihau (Kamakau \991).Whiie Kaumiiali'i nilcd ovcr his isfand kingdom,Hawai'i Isiand chief,Kamehameha liad already cmbarked on a inajor queyt to consoliilate till of the islancls Lindcr his nilc—adestiny thaf was prophesized in liis earlier years when he managed to overtiini the fiimcd Pohaku Naha (Nalia Stone)in Hilo (Desha 2000).Althoiigh this ainazing feat occurred in Ililo,Desha poiiits to Wailua as the stone's place oforigin wfien he noted: 'l'his stone,callecl Pohakii Naha,liad bccii brouglit ft'oiii Kaua'i.froni a placc ciose tu tliat great heiau which was sitiiatcd iiear the estuaiy of the Wailua Rivcr.Tlus royat birthstone has been brouglit by a certtiin chiefnanied Makali inulkuakavvaiea,and it was the mark ofthe chietly naha line.(Desha 2000:78) f)i 1840,the United States Exploring Expedition fead by Charles Wilkes,traversed the coastline from Wailua to (he north by horseback..Below is an excerpt fi'om Wilkes travels: The counti-y on the way is ofthe saine charactcr as that already seeii.They passed tlie sinall villages ofKupau (Kapa'a],Keaiia [Kealia],Anehola [Anahola],Mowaa [Moloa'a],and Kauharaki,situated at the mouths ofthe iiiountaiii streams,which wcre closed with siiiiilar saiul-bars to Ihose already described.These bars afforded places to cross at,tliough requiring great precaiition wlien on horseback.The streams above tlie bars were in most cases,cleep,wicte,ancl navigable a few miles forcaiioes.Besides thc siigarcanc,taro,etc.,soine good Fields ofrice wcrc seen,Tlie coiintry tnay be called open;it is covered with grass forming excclleiit pasture-grounds,and abouncls in plovcr and tiirnstones,scattereri in sinall flocks,(Wilkes 1856:69) Althoiigh Wiikes'did not provide iri inap sliowiiig tl-ieir route,Hawai'i Registered M'ap No.432 dated 1833 and produced by Emerson shows a trail aligninent passing to the nortli ofthe cuiTent project area (Kigure 10). Figure 10.A portionofHawai'i Registered Map No.432 ca.1833 by Enierson shows a trail alignineiit to tlie west oftlie project aren. Ka Pa'fskfii O Kn 'Aina An;ilys[s for the Kaiia'i IIabifat for IIunianity,Waipoiili,Pona,Kaiia'i 15 c f 2.Identification ofCustomary and Traditional Resources and Practices MAHELE 'AINA OF 1848 By tJ-ie mid-19t11 century,the Hawaiian Kingdom was an established center ofcommerce and trade in the Pacific, recognized intemationally by the United States and other nations in the Paclfic and Burope (Sai 2011).As Hawaiian political elite sought ways to modemize the burgeoning Kingdom,and as more Westerners settled in the Hawaiian Islands,major socioeconomic and political changes took place,including the formal adoptlon of a Hawaiian coastitution by 1840,the change in govemance from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy,and the shift towards a Euro-American model ofprivafe land ownership.This change in land govcmance was partially infonned by ex-missionaries and Euro-American businessmen in the islands who were generally hesitant to enter business deals on leasehold lands thaf could be revoked from them al any time.Mo 'i (King)Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III),through intense deliberations with his high-ranking chiefs and political advisors,separated and defined the ownership ofall laads in the Kingdom (Kiag n.d.).They decided that three classes ofpeople each hsd one-third vested rights to the lands ofHawai'i:the A/o T,the ali 'i and konohiki,and the native tenants known as hoa 'aina.In 1 846,King Kauikeaouli formed the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles (more commonly known as the Land Conunission)to adopt guiding principles and procedures for dividing the lands,grant land titles,and act as a court of record to investigate and ultimately award or reject all claims brought before them (Bailey in Commissioner of Public Lands 1929).All land claims,whether by chiefs for an entire ahtipua 'a or 'iU kiipono (nearly independent 'i7i land division within an ahupua '<?,that paid tribute to the ruling chiefand not to the chiefofthe ahupua 'a),or by hoa 'aina for their house lots and gardens,had to be flled with the Land Comjiussion within two years ofthe effective date ofthe Act (February 14, 1846)to be considered.This deadUne was extended several times for chiefs and konokiki,but not for native tenants (Soehren 2008). The M5'T and some 245 ali'i spent nearly two years trying unsuccessfully to divide all the lands of Hawai'i amongst themsetves before the maner was discussed in the Privy Council on December 18,1847 (King n.d.; K.uykendall 1938).Once the Mo 'i and his aU 't accepted the principles of the Privy CoiincU,the Mahele 'Aina (Land Division)was completed injust forty days (on March 7,1848).The names ofall ofthe ahupua'a and 'ilikupono of the Hawaiian Islands,as well as the names ofthe chiefs who claimed them,were recorded in the Buke MShele {Mahele Book)(Buke Mahele 1848;Soehren 2008).As this process unfoided,tl-ie Mo'T,Kauikeaouli,received roughly one- third ofthe lands ofHawai'i,realizing in the process the importance ofsetting aside public lands that could be sold to raise money for the govemment and also purchased for fee simple title by his subjects.Accordingly,the day after the division when the name ofthe last chiefwas rccorded in the Buke Mdhele.the A/o Tcommuted about two-thirds ofthe lands awarded to him to the govemment (King n.d.).Unlike Kauikeaouli,the chiefs aad konohiki were required to present their claims to the Land Commission to receive their Land Commission Awards (LCAw.).The chiefs who participated in the Mahele were also required to provide to the govemment commutations of a portion of their lands in order to receive a Royal Patent giving them title to their remaining lands.The lands surrendered to the guvemment by the King and chiefs became knowa as "Govermnent Land."The lands personally retained by the King became known as "Crown Land."Lastly,the lands received by the chiefs became known as "Konohiki Land"(Chinen l958:vii;1961:13).For all lands designations,whetherto theA/oT,konohiki,or Govemment,therights ofthe native tenants were expressly reserved (Garavoy 2005).To expedite the work ofthe Land Commission,all lands awarded during the Mahele were identified by name only,with the understanding that the ancient boundaries would prevail until the lands could be formally surveyed. On January 28,1848,the ali'i Charles Kana'ina on behalfofhis son,William Charles Lunalilo,who was only thirteen years ofage,claimed Waipouli Ahupua'a as parcel 42 of LCAw.8559-B.Lunalilo's ciaim to Waipouli was conflnned on September 24,1879,wheii he received the Royal Patent Grant No.7373 from the then ruling monarch, King K.alakaua.Despite having to relinquish some 73 percent of his land in lieu of conaniutatton,he was the third- largest ali 'i land holder during this time (Kame'eleihiwa 1 992). JK.u/eana Awards and Government Land Graats As the Mo "i and his ali 'i and fwnohiki made claims to large tracts of (and via the Mahele,questions arose regarding the protection ofrights forthenative tenants,To resolve fhis matter,on August6,1850,the Kuleana Act (also known as the Enabling Act)was passed,clarifying the process by which native tenants could claim fee simple titie to any portion of lands that tliey physically occupied,actively cultivated,or had improved (Garavoy 2005).The Kuleana Act also clarified access to htleana parcels,which were typically landlocked,and addressed gathering rights within an ahupua 'a,Lands awarded through the Kuledna Act were and still are,referred to as kuleana awards or hdeana lands. The Land Commission oversaw the program and administered the kuleana as Land CQmmission Awards (LCAw.) (Chinen 1958).Nalive tenants wishing to make a claim to their lands were required to register in writiag those lands 16 Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua'i 2.Idciitification ofCustomary and Traditional Resources and Practices with the Land Commission,who assigned a iiumber to each claim,and that number (the Native Register)was used to track tlie clEiiinant through the enlire land claims proctisy,TIie native tcnants regislering Iheir kuleana were then required to have at least two Jndividuafs (typically neighbors)provide testimony to confirm their claim to the land, Those tesfimoaies given in Hawaiian became known as the Native Testimony,and those given in English became known as the Foreign Testimony.Upon provision of the required information,the Land Commission rendered a decision,and if successful,the tenant was issued the LCAw.Finally,to relinquished any govemment interest in the properfy,the holder ofa T.CAw.obtained a Royal Patent Gmiit from the Minisfer ofthe Interior upon payment ofthe conunutation fee. Within Waipouli,ten kuleana comprised ofapproximately seventeen acres were awarded.Table 1 below lists (by claimant name)all awarded claims along with other pertinent information.The data included in Table l was extracted from the Indicies ofAwards (Commissioner of Public Lands 1929)and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs KTpuka Database.Hawai'i Registered Map No.2452 (Figure 11)from 1907 shows the disfribution ufthe kuleana awards within \Vaipoult.All of kuleana awards were located between the coast and about halfa mile inland and centered around Kealia swamp.None of the awarded htieana parcels are within the project area.Based on a review of the Native Testimony and Native Register,documeots it can be deduced that the larger parcels located mauka of K-uhio Highway were typically for kiila lands,defmed by Lucas (1995)as dry open plains and that may or may not be cultivated.At least one claimant (Kaalihikaua LCAw.8836)did note plantings of wauke (paper mulberry)on their kula lands and a pa pua 'a (pig pen),while others noted its use as a house lot.Nearly all of the awardees made claims for kalo (taro)lands and one fishpond named Kapakio was noted by K.awaimakanui (LCAw.9013). Table l.Kiiteana awards m Waipouli Ahupua'a. Awarded,LCAw. ifo. Royal Patenl No. fear Awarded Approx, Acyes No.of Parcels Awarded {Ili Name Kaalihikaua Kahakuma Kamaholelani Kanaka Kapalahua Kauakahi Kawaimakanui Kuaiwa Mahi Umiumi 8836 8838 3622 7636 3639 3560 9013 8839 10146 3624 n/a 7109 n/a 7636 4835 4855 o/a n/a 6951 4854 n/a 1878 n/a 1882 1860 1861 n/a n/a 1877 1861 1.17 1.73 2.53 0.92 0.75 3.67 1.49 2.08 1.35 1.49 I Kahaloke 1 Pini 2 Kukaeuli &Makamakaole 2 Mokuapi I Keku 2 Puaa &Puuiki 2 Mokuaahele & Uhelekawawa 2 Hape &Mokunabale 2 Paa &Paikahawal 2 Makamakaole &Pohaku Itis unctearas to howlongthe a/t";Lunalilo held onto his W^aipouli landsbecausebythetum ofthe20[f>century, large swaths ofthe mauka Waipouli lands were subdivided as part ofthe 2"series ofthc Kapa'a Homesteads.This homestead series included lands in both Waipouh and the neighboring South Olohena.While historical records do not clearly account for the change in ownership,based on the establishment of the homesteads and issuance of grants,it may well be thafc by the tum ofthe 20th century Lunalilo had lost controt ofthese lands and the land was subsequently incorporated into the inventory of Govermnent land. In conjunction with the Kuleana Acl,the King authorized the issuance ofLand Gmnts to applicants for tracts of Govemment land that were allocated during the Mahele 'Aina.These Land Grants were generally larger than those awarded by the Land Commission,The Act resolved that portions ofGovemment Lands should be set aside and sold as grants rangiug in size 6'om one to fifty acres at a cost offifty cents per acre.Tbe statetl goai ofthe program was to enable native tenaiits,many ofwhom were insufficienrty awarded or not awarded land through the Kuleana Act to purchase lands of their own.Despite the stated goal ofthe land grant program,this provided the mechanism Ihat allov/ed many foreigners to acquire large tracts ofGovemment lands, A review of land grants in Waipouli reveals that approximately thirty-seven land grants parcels (Table 3)were sold to twenty-one individuats.All land grants awarded in Waipouli were located roughly 2.5 miles from the coast, well beyoad the constraints ofthe project area. Ka Pa'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis forthe K.aua'i IIabitat lor Humanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua'i 17 r r"r 2.Idenlification ofCiistoniary and Traditional R.csoiirces and Practices L L(-t 18 Ka Pa'akaiO Ka 'Aifia Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat forHiiinaiiity,WaipOLifi,Punii,Kaua'i L L 2.Identification ofCti'itomaLy and Traditiunal Resuurves and Practices Table 2.WaipouU land grants. Awardee Grant No.YearSold Nttinber ofLots Purchased Total Acres Amalu,Charles K.. Booge,Alice J. Booge,A, Booge,Annie May Cummings,Jonah B. Cummings,Martha K. French,Clarence E, Hepa,Willie Johomiot,L.C. Kaiu,Wahine Kondo,Tadaichi Miyoshi,Kurakichi Nagahisa,Sadatonio Reichelt,Agusta Reis,Prank C. Silva,Joseph E. Soto,Jose C. Souza,John B, Souza.Vincent Tracy,Frederick R. Ventura,Jule Wilson,David G. 7368 6870 7487 6909 7848 8979 6855 7614 7147 9165 7719 7633 7645 7958 7718 6965 7360 7286 7717 6944 8540 7624 1919 1917 1920 1917 1921 1926 1917 1920 1918 1926 1921 1920 1920 1921 1921 1917 1919 1919 1921 1917 1924 1920 24.64 46.30 0.63 119.13 27.94 31.75 70.53 24.17 69.36 69.95 72.17 38.81 54.54 70.85 30.27 70.06 22.09 35.35 70.13 68.35 21.76 55.39 Commission of Boundaries (1862-1876) [n 1862,theComjDissionofBoundaries (Boundary Commission)was established in theKingdomofHawai'itolegatly set fhe boundaries ofalt the ahupua'a that had been awarded as a part of the Mahele.Subsequently,in 1874,the Boundary Commission was authorized to certify the boundaries for l^nds brought before theni.Tlie primary infonnants for thc boundary descriptions were old native residenls who leamed of the boundaries from their parents,neighbors.or other relatives.The boundary information was collected primarily between 1873 and 1885 and was usually given in Hawaiian and simultaneously transcribed into English.Although hearings for most ahupua 'a boundaries were brought before tlie Boundary Conimission and later surveyed by Govemment employed surveyors,in some instances,the boundaries were esfablislied tlirough a combination of other methods.In some cases,ahupua 'a boundaries were cstablished by conducting surveys on adjacent ahupua'a.Or in cases where the entire ahupiia'a was divided and awarded as LCAw.and or Govemment-issued Land Grants (both of which required formal surveys),the Boundary Commission relied on those surveys to estsblish Ehe boundaries for that ahupua 'a.Although these smaft-scale surveys aided in establishing the boundaries,they lack the detailed knowledge of the land that is found in the Boundary Coinrnission hearings. On Augiist 28,1872,Charles R.Bishop and Charles Kaaa'ina,guardians ofWilliam Charles Lunalilo filed a petition with the Commissioner ofBoundaries to define and settle boundaries ofWaipouli Ahupua'a.Testtmony was heard from four kama 'aina,Pahuwai,Hoolepu,Kahu,and Huluili.Various places along the boundary ofthe ahupua 'a accompaaied by brief descriptions were noted in the testimony.Because the project area is not located along the ahupua 'a boundary,no specific information was discussed,However,general land use pattems were discussed which included a canoe landing known as Kaunanawa'a (located at the southeast boundary of Waipouli.[n addition to taro lands and open plai&s (kiila),the testimony also indicafes that this ahupua 'a had fishing rights thaf extended out to the reefas several boundary points in the sea were noted including Kumunui described as a hole in fhe reefand Pohakuao noted as a point at the edge ofthe reef. WAIPOULI AND THE GREATER PUNA DISTRICT AFTER THE MAHELE As forelgners mcreasingly settled on Kaua'i and in the \vake ofthe fonnalized private property right,they pursued a variety of diversified agricultural endeavors.For example,Elard Hoffschlaeger and Florens Stapenhorst consotidated Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Ama Analysis fbr the Kaua'i Habifat for Humanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua'i 19 c r 2.Identifjcation ofCustomary and Traditional Resources and Practices their business holdings in 1 856 to form Ed.Hoffschlaeger &Stapenhorst (by 1866,Stapenhorst's name was r&moved, and the company refen-ed Eo as Ed.IIoffschlaeger &Co.).Ed.Hoffschlaeger &Stapenhorst established a ranch that supplied provisions for whaling ships that an-ived in Hawaiian waters during the winter months.While the company's primary business was cattle ranching,they also made butter,barreled salted beef,and raised fresh produce.Prior to the establishment ofEd.Hoffschlaeger &Stapenhorst,Duncan McBryan arrived in Wailua in 1854 to manage this enterprise.McBryde was later replaced by Paitl Isenberg who was hired in 1860 as the manager ofWailua Ranch.A year later Isenberg left Wailua Ranch for an emptoyment opportunity with Lihue PIantation—asugar plantation company that starfed in 1849 as a partnership between Charles Reed Bishop (the husband of Hawaiian royalty, Princess Bemice Pauahi Bishop),Judge William L.Lee,and Henry A.Pierce (Flores 1995). Native Hawaiians atso attempted to collectively pursue agricultural ventures in Wailua through the creation ofan agncultural cooperative known as Hui Mahiku (literally translated as "Land Ciearing Group").The Hui was fomied in 1855 when they leased fonTier konohiki lands within Wailua Kai m the amount of $300 per year (Flores 1995).As their chosen group name indicates,Hui Mahiku brought together farnicrs to clear lo 'i (irrigated terraces)overgrown with neki (Great bulmsh;Scirpus validus}to make them productive once more,This collective effort was a benefit to Hui members because it meant that the clearing and planting of lo't could be done in less time than [fthe farmers worked individually (Holi 1856).Hui Mahiku's lease to Ehese lands was later acquired by Emest Lindemann who arrived in Wailua from Germany in 1864 to manage Wailua Ranch.Lindemann devoted the Wailua Kai lands for sheep ranching and later added cattle and horses.Lindemann also attempted to grow cotton on ten acres of land in the'Ui ofKonolea,which was originally leased to Thomas Brown in 1850, Ja the Kapa'a and Kealia region,the first large-scale agricultural enterprise began m 1877 by the MaJkee Sugar Plantation and the Hui Kawaihau.Originally a choral society in Honolulu,the Hui Kawaihau membership was comprised ofprominent Hawaiian and foreign names.Kalakaua felt that the Hui couldjoin forces with Captain Makee, \vhohadpreviousexperienceinthesugarbusmessonMaui,toestablishasuccessfu]sugarcorporationforeastKaua'i. Makee was given land in Kapa'a for the construction ofa mill (Figure 12).He also agreed to grind cane for Hui Kawaihau members.The Hui attempted to grow sugarcane at Kapahi—theplateau above Kapa'a buE a fire destroyed aimost halfofthe Hui's second crop ofsugar and Captain Makee's untimety death led to the Hui dispersing.The leasehold rights were passed on to Colonel Z.S.Spalding,Makee's son-in-law and the new Makee Plantation owner (Dole 1916).The new plantation included a sugar mill and the Makee Landing at Kapa'a.In 1885,the plantation moved to neighboring Kealia (Cook 1999). Conde and Best (1973)state that railroad construction for Makee Plantation bfigan sometime in the mid-I890s. A reference to Queen Lili'uokalani's visit to Kaua'i in the summer of 1891 suggests fhe train was completed,in use, and utilizedby a royal band (Joesting 1984).In the late 1800s,Makee Plantation was thriving with more than 1,000 workers mostly ofPortuguese and Japanese descent (Cook 1999).In 1883,a lease was signed between Makee Sugar Company and the Board ofEducation,as Portuguese immigrant contracts had a stipulation for children to be instructed in public school (Figure 13).The original school site was constructed io 1883 on a rocky point adjacent to the railroad known as Kaahiahi.In 1908,Kapa'a School moved to its present site at Mailihune Hill.Additionally,south ofthe project area was the Waipouli Polo Field and Race Track (Figure 14)that dates back to the 1880s when Colonel Spalding took over Makee Plantation (Soboleski 2015).The location ofthe race h'ack with respect to the project area is shown onHawai'i Registered MapNo.2375 by John M.Doim from 1903 (see Figure 9).Spalding constructed the track,then his son James built the polo fieid within the racetrack around 19]5.The fields were in use until sometime in the mid~1920s and often provided spectators with free transportation via Ahukini Terminal &Railway Company. One sporting highlight that occuned at the field and track was a polo match on January 1,1917 (Soboleski 2015). With more than 1,000 in the audience,a Kaua'i team comprised ofCharles Ricc,Phillip Rice,James Spalding,and John Malina defeated an O'ahu team consisting ofHarold Castle,Arthur Rice,Charles Lyman,and Charles Lucas.In addition to polo and horse races,men*s basketball,and rodeo events were also held at Waipouli. 20 Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaiia'i EIabitat for Humanity,Waipouli,Piina,Kaua'i 2.IdentiHcation ofCustomary and Tradilioiial Resources and Practices .a.BnsifS;:.-SVR~^^ ^iSS^^gaffS^':;'"'aKS^:"•"' Figure 12.Photo ofMakec Plmtation (center)with Nounou (also known as "Sleeping Giant";left) and Wai'ale'ale (right)(Kaua'i Museum). iW<a-^•i.,-'(JttW-.<!^^j-t;':" ••!;,.;.'"".•".•;.":•'-•; .^i .»,/•''•'•_' y^^'^ Figure 13.Kapa'aSchool ca.1933 (Library ofCongress). Ka Pa 'akaiOKa 'Awa Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity,WaipouEi,Puna,Kaua'i 21 r r r 2.Identirication ofCustomary aiid Traditional Rcsources aiid Pracdccs rati.j^fg*!^!^-^Sft"-1S81-"':.,^,;^^^;,:.;' •'"••P!;^';1'•.^t'!-tW'!ifSfliM^.•l.'-i^••^t^^s^s^.y^y^^^!1'^^ Figure 14.Waipouli Polo Field.ca.1924 (Hawai'i State Archives). In thelate 1800s,Chinese rice fanncrs begaii tocultivate lower Kapa'aand were successftil with theircrops.This ted to ktileana owners leasing or selling their parcels to Chiiiese rice farmers.Eventually,thesc farmers appealed to the goverrunent for swamplands.By thc early 1900s,govemment lands in Kapa'a town were auctioned to help accommodate the burgeoniiig plantation population (Bushnell et al.2004),Many of tlie lots were purchased by Portiiguese aiid Japanese taborers working for thc Makee Ptantation. In 1908,the tet'ritorial government offered to excliange lands in the Puna Disti'iut with the Makee Siigar Company (MSC),Disciissions around this exchange were published in nevvspapers at the time as the territorial governmcnt determined how best to proceed.Oiice the lands were appraisecl,a letterdated April 18,1908,was prepared by James W.Pratl,CommissionerofPublic LandsoftheTerritoryofHawai'i,andsenttoG.H.Fairchild,theManagerofMSC. Pratt stated that the goveniment would coiivey to MSC their laiids iii Analiola,Kamaloinalo,iis well as some land in Kapaa.The govenimetit also reserved their rights and ownership ofpre-existing roads,church,school,aiid cemctei-y fots iii the area,the right to constnict anil maintain a railroad across Anahola aiid Kamaloma!o...any\vhere betweeii the shore and one hundred (100)feet above the present railroad track."Lastly,the goveminent granted MSC water riglils and Ehe use ofthe wharfin Anahola (Pratt 1908:1).In exchange,tlie govemment proposed to MSC to do the following: ...convey to the governinent the lands ofWaipouii,Noi-th Ofohena and the part ofKealia above the forest liiic (reserving right to ctevelop and take water etc.);surrender the lecisc ofSoLtth Olehena [sic.];fciicc...along thc forcst line across Anahola,Kamalomalo,Kealia,Kaapa [sic.J,Waipouli and Nort]i and South Olehena [sic.];raise the dam ofnortherly Kapaa reservoir about ten (10)feet or so as to increase the reservoirs capacity...;pay tlie cost of said appraisemeiit;and coiivey to the Govemmenl olher lands acceplable lo it oflhe valuc ofS 12,876.42.(Pralt 1908:1) Finally,Pratt outtined that iftlieexchaiigeproceeded Ihen the govenunent would Eease toMSCforapproximately nine years their cane lands iii Kapa'a,Waipouli,and South OIohena.The "Kapaa land qiiestion,"as it was reten'ed to at thc time,was settled in 1910.The terms ofthc settleinent were siinilar to what was ctravvn up in 1908 but included the conveyance ofMSC's lands in Manoa Valley to the govemmeiil Eo biiild (he Coflege ofHawaii,tlie preclecessor to the University ofHawai'i at Manoa (Star 1910:8), 22 Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Ahid Analysis for thc KaLia'i l-1abilat for I-Iiimanity,Waipoiili,Piina,Kaua'i I.J L L 2.Idenlification ofCustomary and Tradilional Resources and Practices The next commercial enterprise was the pineapple industry.As homesteaders iTiuved into the newly established Kapa'a tracl lots,pineapple becaine one of their inajor products.In 1912,Governor Walter F.Frear and ten-itorial Land Commissioner Charles S.Judd discussed surveying and opening lands in WaipoulE for further homesteading to growpineapples,aswell as plans foropening a cannery oo Kaua'i (Advertiser 1912'2)."Eighly lots,averaging tv/'enty acreseachinarea,"weresurveyedbygovemmentsurveyors]nthesameyear(Bridgewater 1912:1).In 1913,Hawaiian Canneries (later renamed Kapa'a Cannery)opened in Kapa'a where the Pono Kai Resort stands today north ofthe project area (Cook 1999:56).Kapa'a Cannery employed many area residents andby 1960,the company had 250 fall- time employees along with 1,000 seasonal workers and 3,400-acres ofpineapple (Bushnell et al.2004:21).Two ycars later,the business failed as it was unable to keep up with pineapple plantations in foreign countries. In 1920,the Ahukini Terminal &Railway Company was formed to connect Anahola,Ke3lia,and Kapa'a to Ahukini Landing ?t Hanama'ylu to "provide relatively cheap freight rates for the carriage of plantation sugar to a tenuinal outlet (Conde and Best 1973:185),The coinpany was responsible for extending the railroad for Makee Plantation from Makee Landing to Ahukini Landing.'Ihe rail line traversed much ofthe Puna coastline and was in use from 1921 until Lihue Plantation Company took over in 1934.The rail line continued to be in use until the late 1950s when the company converted from railroad transport to truuking making iE the last plantation in Hawai i to phase railroads out(Condeand Best 1973:167). Resort development in Waipouli was promoted with great jnterest immediately following Hawai*i's statehood in 1959,According to McGertyand 3pear(2005),sometime during thefirsthalfoftlie 20th century>Mr,Broadbenl,who was associated with the Makee PIautation,planted a coconut grove to produce copra and animal feed in coastal Waipouli.In Waipouli and neighboring Kapa'a Town,tbe push for developing hotels aud other sites ofleisure was regarded by some residence as an opportunity for employment since the Hawaiian Cauneries Company was closing (Kadota 1960).One ofthe first hotel ventures in Waipouli was the development and construction ofEbbtide Hotels' Blue Water Lodge,a three-story,30 unit structure built on 50,000 square feet of land (Star-Bulletin 1965).The Castaways Resorts Inc.,managed by John Rohrback,began construction ofa hotel at Waipouli Beach in 1965 and resulted in a 72-unit property that was ready to receive guests by 1967 (Advertiscr 1967).By 1978,the development of the "Coconut PIantation complex"by Blackfield-Hawaii,sou(h of the current project area,was well underway. Four hotels were already built by Blackfield-Hawaii and plans were drawn up to build a fiffih hotel,leading one news reporter to comment that "the Wailua-to-Kapaa district of East Kauai [is]the fastest developing area on the Garden Island"(StofFel 1978:C-13). According to the County ofKaua'i tax map records,between 1958-1964,a roughly 2,040 square foot home was constructed on the westem portion oftheprojectareaonTMK;(4)3-009-071.The homemcluded four bedrooms and 2.5 baths.Ofthe two TMK parcels thatmakeup thecun-entprojectarea,development has been Hmited toparcd 071, Additional knowledge ofhistoric resoui-ces in this region began to develop following the passage ofthe federal and state legislation (i.e.National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Hawai'i Revised Statufes Chapter §6E), As such,this legislation led to a series of stafe-mandated archaeological studies that has helped to improve our understanding ofPrecontact and Historic Period land-use pattems in Waipouli. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES Togamanunderstandingofthetypeofculturalresourcesand historic properties thatmaybepresentwithin theproject area,this section typically begins with a summary of archaeological studies conducted within the subject parcel. However,bccause no previous archaeological studies have been conducted on the subject parcel thus,this section includes a summary of studies conducted in the vicinity of the project area.Collectively,these studies providc a general understandiug of the cultural resourees and historic propertles that may be preseut within the project area, Tablc 3 below Jncludes a chronological listing ofsuch smdies and the location ofthese studies with respect to the project area is shown in Figure 16. [n 1988,Rosendahl and Kai (1988)conducted an Archaeotogicat Inventory Survey (AIS)on TMK parcels (4)4- 3-007:027 and(4)4-3-002:016,located south of Ihc project area (only pareel 027 is shown in Figure 16).Rosendahl and Kai (1988)identified two extensive subsurface cultural deposits.SIHP Site 50-30-08-1801 was documented within parccl 027 and S1HP Sitc 50-30-08-1800 was documcnted with parcel 016.Site 1800consists oftwo subsurface culturat deposit layers.The uppennost cultural deposit layer contained variabfe amounts ofshelt middea,fishbone, charcoal fragments,ash,fire-cracked rock,and several pit features.The lower cultiiral deposit layer contained small amounts of shell midden,charcoal flecks,fire-cracked rocks,seveml pit features,and artifacts.Additionally,a minimum ofeight Precontact Period human burials were identified at Site 1800.Site 1801 contained one subsurface Ka Pa 'akaf O Ka 'Aina Analysis for llie Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipoiili,Puna,Kaiia'i 23 r r 2.Identification ofCustomary wd Traditionat Resources and Practices cultural deposit layer in which shell midden,fish and mammal bone,charcoal fragments,fire-cracked rocks,and pit features were identified.Also,five Precontact Period huiTian burials were identifted at Site 1801. Table 3.Previous archaeological studies cpnducted aear the project area Year Author(s)Type ofStudy 1988 Rosendahl and Kai 1991 Folkelal. 1991 Hammatt 1991 Townjesetal. 1991 Shun 1994 Hainmatt et al. 1995 Creed et al. 2000 Bushnell and Hammatt 2000 Hammatt et al. 2000 Idaetal. 2001 Persinski and Hammatt 2003 Dega aad Fowell 2004 Hammatt and Shidelcr 2005 Dega and Powell 2006 Dega and Dagher 2006 Morawski and Dega 2006 Wilson and Dega 2007 Tome et al. 2009 McCurdy et al. 2012 Burke and Hammatt 2012 Potter and Dega 2014 Lyman and Dega 2018 Monahan and Condit 2020a Monahan 2020b Monahan Archaeological Inventory Survey Ai'chaeological Inventory Survey and Subsurface Testing Subsurface Testing Data Recovery Subsurface Testing Archaeological Inventory Survey Monitoring R.eport Monitoring Report Data Recovery Burial Disintennent and Reintennent Archaeological Monitoring Archaeological Monitoring and Burial Report Archaeological Assessment Burial Site Component ofa Data Recovery Plan Archaeological Inventory Survey Monitoring Report Data Recovery Archaeological Inventory Survey Monitoring Report Archaeological Inventory Survey Archaeological Inventory Survey Monitoring Report Archaeological Inventory Survey Burial Slte Component ofa Preservation Plan Burial Site Component ofa Data Recovery Plan In 1991,during archaeological data recovery efforts at Site 1801 (see Figure 16),Toenjes et al.(1991)identified anothersubsurfaceculturallayerbelow theoneidentifiedbyRosendahl andKai (1988),This layer contained hematite flakes and lithic debitage believed to be associated with fishing too]manufactuTing;as well as numerous shell,bone, coral,and sea urchin artifacts.In 2006,Wilson and Dega (2006)conducted data recovery effarts at Site 1801 (see Figure 16)to disinter two of the five burials originally recorded by Rosendahl and K.ai (1988).Wilson and Dega (2006)also attempted to systematically deflne the boundaries ofSite 1 801 and to gather additional information through the excavation work.AIthough the two previously identified burials cou1d not be located,the excavation work resulted in the recovery ofan abundance ofmarine shell,bone,traditional and historic artifacts. South of the current project area between Kuhio Highway and Aleka Loop (the current Longs Drugs/CVS Pharmacy property),Shun (1991)conducted subsurface testing (sec Figure 16).Twelve backhoe trenches were excavated and none ofthe test trenches contained any cultural material. Iii 1991,CuLhiral Sun/eys Hawai'i (CSH)conducted an archaeoiogical inventory sun'ey with subsurface testiug (Folk etal.1991)for a study of a Niu Pia property located south ofthe project area (see Figure 16).A cultural layer was found adjacent to and north of Uhalekawa'a Stream (also kiiown as Waipouli Stream).The site extended from the shoreline to the mauka side ofKuhio Highway and was given SHPD Site 50-30-08-1836 (Figure 16).Additional studies conducted on this property included data recovery (Hammatt et al.2000),burial disintermeat (Ida et al,2000), and archaeological inonitoring (McCurdy et al,2009). The same year,CSH conducted subsurface testing for the Kapa'a Sewer Project which extended along Kuhio Highway fi-om the Wailua River through Kapa'a Town (Hammatt 1991).The pui-pose ofthe testing was lo determine if any archaeologically sensitive areas were preseat,to assess potential impacts,and to recommend mitigative measures.Thirteen backhoe trenches and fifteen hand-dug trenches were excavated along Kuhio Highway.Three sites were identified:SHPD Site 50-30-08-1836,Site 1848,and Sile 1849 (Hammatt 1991:50-52).Site 1836 (see Figure 16)was a cultiiral layer located in Waipouli Ahupua'aon fhe northside ofUhclekawa'aStrearn.Site 1848 (seeFigiure 16)was anotber A-horizon cultural layer extending alongKuhio Highway including thewesteni portlon ofthecun-ent 24 Ka Pa'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis forthe Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua'i 2.Itieiilif'tcaiiuii ut'Customaiy an(.l Traditional Resoiirces and Prncticus project area,wiiicli coiitainecl pre-Contact and historic cleposits.Site 1849 consistcd of a coiitinuation ofcultiiral uialericil.Cliarcutil sainpltfs were eullectetl fron]Site f836 aiicl 1849 with age raiiges t'roiii A.D.1435 Eo 1920,The report found the area alony Kiihio Higliway from soiith of Kapa'a Town to the coinmercial area of Kapa a Town extending nwkni to Inia Street.All three sites were deemed as subsurface habitation Ipiyers.No burials were located in the test trenches,but it was detennined that there would be a high probability during sewer construction ancl on-call arcliaeological inoiiitoring was reconiniended (Hamiiiatt 1991;i). From 1992 to 1995,CSH provided archacological monitoriiig for the Kapa'a Sewer Pt-ojecf (Ct-ecd etal.1995). Between April 1992 and Deceinber 1993,thirty burials werc iiiadvertcntiy foiitid during subsurface treiiching,which were documented iii place then disinterred,Osteological analysis reveated that all human reniains vvere ofHawaiian or Polynesian descent.Most ofthe burials were found along Inia (13 individuals)and Ulu (1 1 individuals)Streets, however,other burials were found at Kukiii (I inclividual)and Ohia (I individual)Streets as well as along Kuhio Highway between Wana Road and Kalolokii Road in Waipouli (4 individuals).The Inia Street buriats were given SHPD Site 50-30-08-871;Ihe Ulu Street burials were Site 1894;and the Kuhio Highway burials were classified as Site 872 (see Figure 16).The Kukiij Street burial was given Site 867 and the Lehua Street \vas Site 868.All burials were found with moepu or fiinerary goods and were reinterred at the Kapa'a County Cemetery.Five radiocarbon dates were obtained at Site 1849 and another sampte was taken from a burial pit on Ulu Stt'eet,which yielded dates ranging from A.D.1445 to present (Creed et al.1995:i). An archaeological inventory survey (Hammfitt et al.1994)vvas coiiducted on a 1 -87-acre property northwest of the project area (see Figure 16)where five backhoe ti-enches were excavated.Although the northern portion of that particutar project area was disturbed,an A-horizon correlating to late Mawaiian prehistoric occupation was observed in two ofthe backhoe treiiches.No prehistoric cultural materials were found with the exception ofa charcoal sample taken from a pit feature in Trench 1 that vvas tested and yielded a radiocarbon date ranging from A.D.1464-1703 (Hammatt et al.1994:26).Due to minimal findings,archaeological monitoring was not recommended. During iniprovements at the Kapa'a Sevenfh-Day Adventist Church located to tlie noi-thwest ofthe project area (see Figure 16),Bushnell and Hammatt (2000)conducted archaeological monitoring as it was detennined that most ofthe project area lies within the previously identified Site 1848.No human remains or subsurface cultural deposits were encountered during constniction activities and Bushnell and Hammatt (2000)determined that Site 1848 did not extend into their project area. CSH conducted archaeological monitoring (see Figure 16)along Kuhio Highway and on the margins ofWaikaea Canal (Perziiiski and Hammalt 2001).During monitoring,no significant archaeological material was identified. In 2003,Dega and Powell (2003)conducted archaeological monitormg for a residential lot (TJVUC;(4)4-5- 002:004 located to the northeast ofthe project area (see Figiire 16).One site,Site 881 comprised offour featiires and three human burials were identified.Features that were identified included a buried cultural stratum,fire pit/hearth, an anomaloiis pot,and post molds.The three burials were disinterred and reinterred elsewhere on the property. In 2004,CSH conducted an Archaeological Assessment (Hainmatt and Shideler 2004)for the Lydgate to Kapa'a bike and pedestrian path (see Figure 16).Hammatt and Shideter (2004)noted four previously documented sites within Waipouli:Site 1801,a subsurface cultural deposit with five huinan burials;Site 1836,a subsurface cultural layer and fifteen biiriais;Site 1848 (see Figurc 16),a subsurface cultural layer;and Sitc 872 (scc Figure 16),foiir burials.Sites 1801 and 1836 arc southeast ofthe current project area.However,a portion ofSites 1848 extends along the westcm boundary of the current project area and Site 872 is immediately west of the project area along K-uhio Highway (see Figure 16).Gight years later,an AIS (Burke and Hammatt 2012)was conducted for Phascs C and D ofthe Lydgate Park-KapEi'a Bike and Pedestrian path located south ofthe project area (see Figure 16).Biirkc and Hammatt (2012) noted foiir previously identified sites (SIHP Site 50-30-08-791,1800,and 1801)aiid two new burials (located soulh ofthe project area)were documented. Dega aiid Powell (2005)prepared a Burial Site Componcnt of a Diita Rccovery P[an for aii inadvertently discovered hiinian biirial (Site 3927)that was encountered on a residential lot on Kealoha Road (TMK:(4)4-5- 002:016)located to the northeast of the project area (see Figure 16),The buria!was disinterred and reinterred elsewhere on the property. Scientific Consultant Services,Inc.(SCS)(Dega aiid Dagher 2006)conducted an arcliaeological inventoi'y survey on a 0.44-acre coastal parcel in Waipouli and North Olohena Almpua'a (see Figure 16).Ten backhoe ti-enches were excavated and Iwo sites were idcntified:SIHF Site 50-30-08-3938,a culhiral layer,and Site 3939 (see Figure 16),t\vo pre-Contact/early Historic Native Hawaiian biirials.Site 3939 consisted ofa pit featiire with charcoal and fire-cracked rocks.Sainples were taken and radiocarbon dating resulted inadateofA.D.l690to 1775,whichwas latcrdocumented in tlie siibsequent niouitoring report (Morawski and Dega 2006). Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaiia'i Habitat for Hunianity,Waipoiiii,Piina,Kaua'i 25 r^ 2.IdeiUiiicafion ofCustomary and Traditional Resources aiid E:>rac(ices "^ Hammatl 2000 Dega and Powell 2003 Dega and Powell 2005IHammattetal.1994 <?/fl j1ii/[Lymanand Dega 2014 ^:^/-^-TPotter and Dega 2012 |•^'•s'?/""••^/ Q//<?;/ ^•J?/ Hammatt1991 Creed et al. iHammaitand Shideler 2004 Tome et al.2007 persinski and Hammatt Folketal.1991 Hammatt et a].2000 Idaelal.2000 McCurdy et al.2009 K/ii.lAI/COUNTY Degaand0agher2006 Morawski and Dega 2006 IBurke and Hammatt 20121 Rosendahland Kai1988 Townjes et al.1991 Wilson and Dega 2006 Monahan and Condit 2018 Monahan 2020a.2020b 'ortioiiqgUSOS 7,5 Quadrinelc Kapaa,III 202U ^./•s,^ Figure 15.Prior arehaeological sluclies coiidiicted in tlie vicinity oftheproject area. 26 Ka Pa'akai O Kci 'Aina Analysis for the Kaiia'i Habilat for Hiimanity,Waipoiili,PLIIUI,Kaiin'i r L L L 2,[dentificatioii ofCustoniary and Traditional Resources and Practi<;es 1-listoric propcrty Siibsurfacccuftiiral Figure 16.Historic properties identified within and in tlie vicinity ofthc project arefi. In 2007,clirectly inafcai ofthe project area on the east side ofNiulani Road (see Figure 16),an AIS was conducted by Tome et al.(2007).Eight trenches were excavated on the 0.3295-acre property tliat resiilted in two newly ideiitified sites,Site 5003 and Site 5004 (sce Figure 16).Site 5003 was a pre-Contact cultural layer with two associatecl subsiu'face features that includecl a pit and heai-tli.This site was foiind throughoiit five of the cight stratigraphic treiiclies (ST-1 thn.i ST-4,and ST-6)(Tome et al.2007).Site 5004 consisted ofan uncovered huinan cranium and femur tliat were not associated witli the cultiiral layer in ST-8 (Tome et al.2007:24).The only surface sti'uctiire found above the surfacevvas a residential ooncrete foundation thatwas affecled by Hurricanc Iiiiki,however,the date oftiie concrete foiindation coulcl not be detennined (Toine et al.2007).Other siirface stnictiires that were prcsent includcd cesspool PVC pipes,a water spigot,and T-bars.Large basalt bouiders found at the eastern perimeter of the parcel were used for thc purpose oferosion prevention from the ocean.No ftirther work was recommended for Site 5003, but a Burial Treatmcnt Ptan was to be prepared for Site 5004. SCS conducted an archaeological inventory survey iii 2011 (Pottcr aud Dega 201 2)for Section I of the Waipouli Waterlitie Replacement Project,which spanned from Waipouli to Kapa'a and located northeast oftlie ciin-ent project area (see FigLire 16).Twenty-scven stratigrapliic trenclies were mechanicEilly excavatcd.Three newly idenlified archaeologiCtil sites (SHPD Site 50-30-08-2152 throiigh 2154)that incktded eight subsiirface featiires.Charcoal sainples were collected an<l retiirned a calibrated dates raiiging H-om the 1400s through the late 1800s.Site 2152 consisted of four subsurface featiires including t\vo postmold featurcs,a possible postmold featiire,and an associated cultural layer.A wood charcoal sainple collected from the base ofthe yite yielcled a date ofA.D.1440 to A.D.14SO. Site 2153 cojisistecl of tlirec subsiirfacc fealures inteipreted as two flre pify aiid a cultiiral layer,A wood charcoal sample wascollected near the baseoftliesite,which yielded a dateofA.D.1800 toA.D,1890.Based 011 the featiit'e.s identified and tlie results ofradiocarbon aiialysis,tlie site was intei'pretecl to represent traditional Hawaiiaii activities in Ihe siirroiinding area.Although there Wits aii absence oflithic artifacts,ciala siiggcst Hawaiian siibsistence practices werc occurriiig jn tlie area. SCS perfomied archaeological monitoriiig for the Waipoiili Waterline Replacenicnt Pt-ojcct (see Fjgure 16)in 2014 (Lyman aiid Dega 2014).Diiring moniloriiig,SI-1PD Site 50-30-08-2078,a concrete foiliidation rcmnant assuciated witli tlie Ahiikini Tcrmiiicil aiul Railroad,was encoiititerecl.Tlie feature consisted ofa rectangular,seini- buried,soil-filled concrete box with aii uiiknown fiinction.However,it was deten-i-iinecl that this specific feature was not icleiitified at Ehe time of its original docuinentation and was designated as Feature F.Artifacts fouiid (.liiring nionitoilng 111 tlie spoils dui-iiig (renchitig excavatioiis consisted ofWestem and traditional liistoric culturai materials, This incliided six historic glass bottles;a Japanese porcelaiii ricc bowl;a 6-iiicli railrond spike;aiicl oiie basalt cobble haminer stone.No buriats werc found during excavatioii. The 2018 AIS (M^onahan aiid Condit 2018)conducted by TCP Hawai'i,LLC focused tlieir investigation 011 a 0.9- acrearea south oftheprojectarea (see Fjgure 16)tliat woiildbc pliysicallyalterecl by proposed dovelopiuentactivities. Oflhe six test tenches,one historic property (SIMP Site 50-.10-08-23 84)describcd as an arganic-ricli,biiried A horizon Kti Pfi afcai O Kn 'Aiiui Analysis fbr the K;iiia'j f-1abita(For Hiinuinity,Waipoiili,Piina,Kaiia'i 27 r 3.Consultation was identified between 70-85 centimeters (cm)(2.3-2,8 feet)below the ground surface in Trench #6,Screcning ofthe excavated material did not yield any cultural material (i.e.artifacts,bones,midden,or charcoal).Given the results of fhe Hve other test trenches which exposed introduced fill sediment down to the water table (Trench #3,4,5)and down fo 210 centimcters below surface (cmbs)for Trench #1 and 235 cmbs for Trench #2,the buried A horizon in Trench #6 was detemiined to be a remnant portion ofwhat is believed ta be an extensive buried land surface.Due to a large number of utilities ai)d hardscape near Trench #6,the precise lateral limits of the site could not be ascertained, however,Monahan afld Condit (2018)proposed,witii limited certainty,that this buried A horizon may have once connected with Site 1801 to the northeast and Site 1800 to the southwest.Monahan and Condit (2018:54) recomniended an effect determination of "effect,with agreed-upon mitigation conunifcments."The first raitigative commifiiient included the creation of a vertical buffer in which the project proponenf redesigning a water feature planned for the area and limj'teii excavation to 45.7 cm (18 inches;1.5 feet)thereby creating a verticle buffer of 24.3 cm (9.6 inches;0.8 feet).The final mitigative conimitment callcd for arehaeological monitoring during all ground- disturbing activities.In 2019,ground-disturbing activities revealed unidentified human skeletal remains in a previously disturbed area.A second inadvertent (Site 2399)discovery was made and a third discovery of isolated fragments (Site 2398)was found in fill.A Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan (Monahan 2020a)and a Burial Site Component of a Data Recovery Plan (Monahan 2020b)were prepared,respectively.Site 2399 was preserved in place,while Site 2398 was relocated on tlie subject parcel. In summary,the archaeological studies conducted in coastal Waipouli and the neighboring ahupua'a makai of Kuhio Highway have demonstrated the presence of buried cultural layers along with human burials (see Figure 16). Thus,any proposed development activity that requires digging has the potential to encounter such resources. 3.CONSULTATION In an effort to identify individuals knowledgeable about past and oiigoing customary and traditional cultural practices associated with the project area,efforts were made by ASM staffto contact cight individuats via email,U.S postal service,and or phone.The naines ofthe individuals are listed in Table 4 below.These individuals were identified as persons who were beljeved to have genealogical fies,long-standing residency,or knowledge ofWaipouli Ahupua'a and the greater Puna District.Ofthe eight individuals originally contacted,ajoint response was received via phone by Aunty Nani Rogers and Noelani Josselin who asked about a wastewater maiiagement plaii for the proposed project and pointed out thal the project area is at sea-level and in a isimami (Japaaese for tidal wavc)zone.Ms.Rogers relayed tliat a joint written testimony would be forthcoming.Multiple attempts to contact Ms.Rogers were made and as ofthe finalization of this report,no written testimony was provided.In additian,SHPD Kaua*i Burial Sites Specialist, Kauanoe Ho'oraanawanui was contacted ifshe had comments and/or recomiTiendations regarding the proposed project area,Ms.Ho'omanawanui commented and also referred SHPD Cultural Historian,Sheleigh Ka'ahiki Solis,who also commented.Their responses are included below. Prior to the interview,ASM staff provided the potential interviewees with information about the nature and location ofthe proposed project and the scope the current study.The potential interviewees were mfonned fhat the interviews were voluntary and that they would be given an opportunity to review and edit their interview summary prior to mclusion in this report.With their consent,ASM staff then asked questions about their background,their knowledge ofpast land use,andhistory oftheproject area,aswetl as theirknowledgeofanypast or ongoing cultural practices.The informants were a1so invited to share their thoughts on the proposed development and offer mitigative solutions.Below are the interview summaries that have been reviewed and approved by the coiisulted parties. KAUANOE HO'OMANAWANUI ASM Affiliates Cultural Specialist,Nicole Ishihara,contacted SHPD Kaua'i and Ni'ihau Burial Sites Specialist, Kauanoe Ho*omanawanui,via email on April 1,2021 to see ifshe had any concems or comments on the proposed project area.The following response was received from Ms.Ho'omanawanui; Ccd above is SHPD's Kauai Cultural Historian [Sheleigh Ka'ahiki Solis]fur further traditional cultural practices.The eDfire Waipouli has hundreds of families there.Please see the LCA rccords forpossible burials within the that area without invasive studies. 28 Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipoutl,Puna,Kaua'i 4.Aiialysis and Mitigative M.easiires Tablc 4.Community mcmbers contacted for consultation. Name Afftliation Date Contacted Response KAHEA,The Hawaiian Alliance Donna Kaliko-Santos Kumu Hu1a Beverly Muraoka Noa Mau-Espirito Liberta Albao-Huseey Kamealoha Smith Nani Rogers Noelani Josselin K-auanoe Ho'omanawanui Sheleigh Ka'ahiki Solis Na Kuleana o KSnaka 'Oiwi Na Mo'okupuna O Wailua Queen Deborah Kapule Hawaiian Civic Club Mahamoku 'Ohana Counci) Kama'aina and kupiina Kama 'aina and culhiral practitioner Kaua'i Buria)Sites Specialist,SHPD Cultural Historian,SHPD March 12,2021 Mareh 12,2021 March 12,2021 March 12,2021 March 12,2021 Mareh 12,2021 March 12,2021 Marchl7,2021 Apri]1,2021 April 1,2021 No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes SHELEIGH KA'AHIKJ SOLIS Ms.Soliswas CC'd on an emaii by Ms.Ho'omanawanui on April 1,2021.Ms.Solis responded with the foflowing: As always coinmunity groups.Possible IBC presentation you can ask if the Kaua'i Ni'ihau Island Burial Coimcil wants to hear about your project.It is a great way to reach descendants!If they choose to hear your project. Homestead groups in the area that may have cultural ties through customary practices and tradttions. I would also like to see your final product.Ifyou would kindly send al]ofyour finished CIA,EA, BIS to me that would be great! 4.ANALYSIS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES This section provides an analysis witlun the three-part Ka Pa akai framework. IDENTIFV WHETHER ANY VALUED CULTURAL,HISTORICAL,OR NATURAL RESOURCES AREA PRESENT WITHBM THE PETITION AREA,AND IDENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WIIICH TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY NATIVE HAVVAIIAN RIGHTS ARE EXERCISED A review ofthe culture-historical background material has resulted ui the identification ofseveral traditional cultural practices that formerly took place within the general project area vicinity. Traditional Agricultura]and Fishing Practices An 1840 accountby Charles Wilkes indicated from Kapa'aextendingnorth towards Moloa'a were full ofvillagesthat eagaged in traditional cultural fanning practices which were planted in sugarcane,taro,and some rice.During the Mahele,ten kuleana comprised ofapproximately sevcnteen acres were inland from the coastline,but clustered around Kealia Swamp.No kuleana parcels were within the project area.It can be deduced that larger parcels mauka ofKuhio PIighway were typically used for hila lands,which may or may not have been cultivated.Otie ctaimant (LCAw.8836) noted the farming ofwaiike and apSpua 'a on Iheir kula land.The majority ofawardees made claims for cultivating kalo with one fishpond called Kapakio (LCAw.9013).In addition to taro and kula lands,an 1872 petition filed with the Commissioner ofBoundaries to define and settle the boundaries ofWaipouli,(ndicated that the ahupua 'a retained h'aditional culturai fishing rights that extended to the rccfwith several boundary points in tbe sea.The area kiiown as Kaunanawaa (Kaunanawa'a)was described as a canoe harbor.One point in the sea was noted as Kumunui,which consisted ofa hole in the reef,while Pohakuao was iocated at the edge ofthe reef.SHPD Kaua'i Cultural Historian, Sheleigh Ka'ahiki Solis mentioned via email that "homestead groups in the area that may have cultura]ties through customary practices and traditions." Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humaaity,Waipoult,Puna,Kaua'i 29 r r 4.Analysis and Mitigaiive Measures Jwi Kupuna Two prominent landscape features in the Kapa'a/WaipouIi area include a coastal plain with sand dunes and a large marsh.The marsh has since been mostly filled and is northwest of the project area,However,the projecf area lies within the coastal plain and sand dunes—thelatter being a preferred sediment for traditional reintennent.During Wilkes 1840 expedition,he noted the various tributaries and sandbanks thToughout the northem portion ofPuna Moku, wliich required great caution when traversing via horseback.Previous archaeological research indicates that the coastal Kapa'aAVaipouli areas extending to Kuhio Highway have demonstrated the presence ofburied culhjral layers atong with human burials.SHPD Kaua'i and Ni'ihau Burial Sites Specialist,Kauanoe Ho'omanawanui,suggested reviewing"LCA records for possible burials"within the proposed project area without having to perform any inviisive skidies." IDENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THOSE RESOURCES AND RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED OR IMPAIRED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION Based on the avaiiable information,traditional agricultural and aquaculture practices will not be affected or impaired by the proposed action.However,the proposed project does require ground disturbance that may potentially encounter, affect,and/or impair iw;kupuna,moepu,and previously disturbed skeletal remains.There has nol been any previous archaeological work done in the project area.However,a property directly makai of the subject parcel has been previously investigated (Tome et al.2007),which yielded a cultural layer (Site 5003)and a human cranium and femur (Site 5004).Furthemiore,the westeni portion of the project area is within Sitc 1848,a buried cultural layer.Lastly, Site 872,containing four human burials,is located to the northwest ofthe project area along Kiihio Highway,Due to these previous fmdings,there is a probability that {wi kupuna may be encountered on the property and the proper precautions to mitigate impacts to human remains must be taken into consideration. SPECIFY ANY MITIGATrVE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO REASONABLY PROTECT NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS IF THEY ARE FOUND TO EXIST. Based &n the infomiation provided above paired with the results ofthe consultation process,the following mitigation actions are proposed to reasonably protect Native Hawaiian rights.First,there is the concem of potentially encountering iwi kupima during ground-disturbing activities.All consulfed parties,induding DLNR-SHPD,suggested archaeological monitoring as a mitigation measure.Archaeological monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities is recommended.A cultural awareness and sensitivity briefing for al!constmction personnel prior to the commencement of any consti-uction activities is also recommended.Second,DLNR-SHPD also has information regarding recognized descendants for this area and if skeletal remains are encountered,these individuals shoutd be consulted regarding the handling and treatment of any madvertently discovered human skeletal remains.Lastly,the project proponents should be commjtted to the proper treatment of all inadvcrtently discovered human skeletal remains,associated moepu,and ariifacts in accordance with HAR §13-13-300 and FIRS §6E-43. 30 Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the ECaua'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua'i References Cited REFERENCES CITED Advertiser,T.H. 1912 Govemor Talks ofHomesteading Plans.The Hotiolulu A^vertiser [HonQ\u\u\.February 27,1912: 2, 1967 Kauai Hotel Wil]Expand.The Homlulu Adverlise [Honolulu].Marcli 19,1967:A-17. Akana,C.L.and K.Gonzalez 20 L5 Hanau Ka Ua:Hawaiian Rain Names.Kamehameha Pabiishing,Honolulu, Beckwith,M.W. 1970 Hawaiian Mythology.Uuiversity ofHawai'i Press,Honolulu. Bridgewater,E.B. 1912 Territory is Again Suveying Lots.The Gardm hland [Lihue,HI).June 18,1912:I. Buke Mahele 1848 Buke Kakait Paa no ka mahele aina i Hooholoia iwaena o Kamehameha III a me Na Lii a me Na Konohiki ana^Hale Alii.Honolulu. Burke.K.and H.H.Hammatt 2012 Archaeological InventoiySurveyReportfortheLydgate—Kapa'sBikeandPedestrianPalh Project, Phases C and D,South Olohena,North Olohena,and Waipouli Ahupua'a,Kawaihau District,Island ofKaua'i,TMK:[4]4-3-001,002 and 007:various.Cultural Surveys Hawaii,Inc. Bnshnell,K.W.,D.Shideler,and H.H.Hammatt 2004 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Kapa'a ReliefRoute;Kapa'a,Waipouli,Olohena,Waitua,and Hanama'utu,Island ofKaua'i.Cultural Surveys Hawai'i,Inc.Prepared for Kimura International. Bushnell,T.and H.H.Hammatt 2000 An Archaeological Monitoring Report for Improvements to the Kapa'a Seventh-Day Adventist Church,1132 Kuhio Highway,Kapa'a Ahupua'a,District of Puna,Island of K-auai (TMK 4-5- 03:19).Cultural Surveys Hawai'i,Inc.Prepared for Kapala Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Chinen,J.J. 1958 1961 Coinmission,H. 1898 The GreatMahele:Hawaii's Land Division of 1848.University ofHawaii Press,Honolulu. Original Land Tilles in Hawaii.Privately published. Messagefrom the Presidenl ofthe Umted States,55th Congress 3d Session.Govemment Printing Office,Washington. Commissioner ofPublic Lands (Officeofthe CommissionerofPLiblic I.ands ofthe Territory ofHawaii) 1929 Indices ofAwards Made by the Board of Commissioners to Qiuet Land TUles in the Hawaiian Islands.Star Bulletin Press,Honolulu. Cottrie,J,C.and G Best 1973 Sugar Tra'ms;Narrow Gauge Raik ofHawaii.Glenwood Publishers,Felton,Califoniia. Cook.C. 1999 Kaiia 'i,the Garden Island:A Pictorial History offhe Commerce and f^ork oflhe People.Donning Conipany,Vifginia Beach,VA. Creed,V.S.,H.H.Hammatt,G.K.[da,I.A.Mastcrson,and J.Winieski 1995 A Summai'y of the Archaeological Monitoring for the Kapaa Sewerline Project,Waipouli and Kapa'a Ahupua'a,Funa District,Kaua'i,(TMK:4-3-09 &4-5-03 to 11).Cultural Surveys Hawai'i, Inc.Prepared for Park Engineerings. Ka Pa 'akai OKa 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for IIumanity,Waipouli,Puna,Kaua'i 31 r c Refereiiccs Cited Dega,NT,F.and C.A.Dagher 2006 An Archaeologica!Inventory Survey ofa 0.440-acre Area in Waipouli,North OIohena Ahupuaa, Kawaihau District,Island ofKaua'i,Hawai'i [TMK (4)4-3-007:008 and 009].Scicntific Consultant Services.Inc. Dega,M.F.and J.Powell 2003 Archaeological Monitoring Report and Btirial Treatment Plan foi a Coastal Parcel m Kapa'a Town, Kapa'a Ahupua'a,Kawaihau District,Kaua'i Island,HawaEi ('I'MK (4)4-5-002:004.Scientific Consultant Services,Inc.,Honolulu, 2005 Desha,S. 2000 Dolc,C.S. 1916 Ernerson.N 1915 Flores,K. 1995 FoU<,W.H., 1991 Garavoy,J. 2005 Hammatt,H. 1991 Burial Site Component of an Archaeological Data Recovery Plan for Inadvertently Discovered Buiial (State Site No.50-30-08-3927)on Approximately 0.3-Acres in Kapa'a,Waipouli Aliupua'a, Puna District,Kaua'i Island,Hawai'i (TMK (4)4-5-002:016).Scientific Consultant Services,Inc., Honolulu. Kamehameha and his warrior Kekuhaupi'o,Translated by F.N.Frazier,Kamehameha Schools Press,Honolulu. "The Hui ECawaihau."A Paper read at the November meeting of the Kaua'i Historical Society on 16 November 1916.In Papers oflhe Hawaiian Historical Socfety,pp.8-L5.The Print Shop Co., Ltd..LThu'e,Kaua'i,Hawai'i. Pele and Hiiaka;a mythfrom Ha-waii.Honolulu Star Bulletin Limited,Honolulu, Historical &;Cuttural Research of Maiaeha'akoa,District of Puna,Island of Kaua'i,Statc of Hawai'i,Draft,Mana'o'i'o,Waimea,Kauati,Hawai'i.Prepared forState ofHawaii. R.Chiogioji,M.J.McDermott,and H.H.Hammatt Archaeological Survey and Subsurface Testmg at Waipouli Kaua'i,State ofMawai'i Site No.50- 30-08-1836.Cultural Surveys Hawai'i. "Ua koe ke kuleana o na kanaka"(Reserving the rights of Native Tenants);Integrating Kuleana Rights And Land Trust Priorities in Hawaii.Harvarfl Envif'omnentdi Law 29:523-57}. H. .B. Archaeological Subsurface Testing for thc Proposed Kapa*a Serwerline,Wailua,Olohena, Waipoult and ICapa'a,Kaua'i.Cultural Surveys Hawaii,Kailua,HI Prepared for James Pederson. Hammatt,H.H.,0.K.Ida,and W.Folk 1994 Archaeological Inventuryofa 1.87-Acre Parcel,Kapa'a,ICaua'(TMK 4-5-05:6).Culturat Surveys Hawaii,Prepared for Applied Planning Services. Hammatt,H.H.aiid D.W.Shideler 2004 Archaeological Assessment ofAltemative Routes Proposed for the Lydgate to Kapa'a Bike Path and Pedestrian Pathway Project witbin the Ahupua'a of Wailua,South Olohena,Noi-th Olohena, Waipouli,and Kapa'a.Cultural Surveys Hawai'i,Inc.Prepared for Kimura Intemational. Hammatt,H.H.,D.W.Shideler,J.Winieski,and D.Perzinski 2000 Aichaeological Data Recovert for a 12 acre Parcel (The Golding Propetty)at Waipouli,Puna, Kaua'i (TMK 4-3-08:1).Cultural Surveys Hawaii,lac. Handy,E.S.C.and E.0.Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawau:Their Life.Lore,and Environment.Bernice P.Bishop Museum Bulletin 233.Bisiiop Museum Press,Honolulu. 32 Ka Pa ttkai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humanily,WaipouLi,Puna,Kaua'i References Cited Holi.B.K. 1856 Na Mea Hou Ma Waiiua Kauai.fCa Hae Hawaii [Honoliilu].26 Noveniber 1856:153. Ho'ouliimaliiehie 2006 The Epic tale ofHi'iakaikapohopele.Traiislated by M.P.Nogelineier.Awaiaulu,Honolulu. Ida,G.,D.W.Shideler,and H.H.Hammatl 2000 Documentation of Burial Disintemient and Re-interment at the "Golding Property,"Waipouli, Kawaihaii,Kaua'i (TMK:4-3-08:1)Cultural Siiiveys Hawaii. Joesting,E. 1984 Kadota,J. 1960 Kaua'i:The Separate Kingdom.University ofHawai'i Press,Hunolulu. Whyl'm Proud ofKapa'a.HoiloluluSlar-Bullelin[Honoluhl].May I,1960:62. Kamakau.S.M. 1991 Tales afid TradUions of the Peopie ofOld,Na Mo'oleh a ka Pu'e Kahiko.Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1992 Ruling Chiefs offfawaii.Revised ed,Kamehameha Schools Press,Honolulu. Kame'cleihiwa;L. 1992 Nalive Land and Foreign Desires:IIow Shall We Live ift Harmony?=Ko Ha\vaii Aina a Me Na Koi Puitmake a Ka Poe Haole.Bishop Museum Press,Honolulu. King,R. n.d.Hawaiian Land Titles.n.d.Electronic documenf,https://ags.ha\vaii.gov/wp-content/uploads, accessed May 15,2020. Kuapuu,S.K, 186)He wahi Moolelo—Helu1.Ka Hae Hawaii [HonoluluJ.17 April:12.Electronic document, https://www.papaki ladatabase.com,accessed 08/28/2020. Kuykendall,R. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854.Foundation and Traiisformation,vol.l.3 vols.University Press ofHawaii,Honoluly. Lucas.P. 1995 A Dictionary ofHawaiian Legal Land-Teritis.Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation.University of Hawai'i Committee for the Preservatiotl aiid Study of Hawaiian Language,Art and Cultiire, Honolulu. Lyman,K.and M.Dega 2014 Au Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Waipouli Mam Rcplacement Along Kuhio Highway (JOB No.02-19,WK-12),Kapa'a,Kapa'a Ahupua'a,Puna Dislrict,Kaua'i Island,Hawai'i,(TMK: (4)4-3-09,and 4-5-01 through 07,and 09).Scicntific Conshiltant Services,Inc.SCS Project Number 1338-AMR-2,Prepared for Cinodfellow Bros,Inc.,Honolulu. McCurdy,T.,R.Runyon,and H.H.Hammatt 2009 Arehaeological Monitoring Reporl for Waipouli Beach Resort (SIHP #50-30-08-1836),Waipouli Ahupua'a,Kawaihau District,Kaua'i (TMK (4)4-3-008:001).Cultural Surveys Hawai'i,[nc. McGerty,L.and R.L.Spcar 2005 A Cultural Impact Assessment of Approximately 12-acres of Land in Waipoiili Ahupua'a^ Kawailiau District,Kaua'i,Hawai'i,[T.MK:4-3-007:027].Scientific Consulfant Scrvices,[nc.SCS Project 597-CIA-l.Prepared for Coconut Plantation Holdings,LLC,Honolulu. Ka Pa 'akai O K.a 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipouli,Piina,Kaua'i 33 r r References d'ted Monahan.C. 2020a 2020b Burial Site Component ofa Preservation Plan for SIHP 50-30-08-2399 at Waipouli Ahupua'a,Puna District,Island ofKaua'i,TMK:(4)4-3-0c7:028.TCP Hawaii.Prepared for KHS Holel Holding, LLC. Buria)Site Compunent ofan Archaeological Data Recovery for S1HP 50-30-08-2398 at Waipouli Ahupua'a,Puna Disb-ict,[sland of Kaua'i,'l'MK.: (4)4-3-007:028.TCP Hawaii.Prepared for KHS Hotel Holding,LLC. Monahan.C.M.and J.Condit 2018 FENAL Archaeotogical Inventory Survey of an Approximately 0.9-acre Parcel at Courtyard by Marriott at Cocouut Beach,Waipoiifi Ahupua'a,Puna District,Kaua'i Island,Hawai'i,TMK.(4)4- 3-007:028 (por.).TCP Hawai'i,LLC.Prepared for KHS Hotel Holding,LLC,( /a Courtyard by Marriott at Coconut Beach,Kailua.HI. Morawski,L.and M.Dega 2006 Nakuina,M. 1990 An Archaeolugical Monitonng Report for a 0.440 Acre Area in Waipouli,North Olohena Ahupua'a, Kawaihau Districl,Island ofKaua'i,Hawai'i [TMK [4]4-3-007:008 and 009].Scientific Consultant Services,Inc.,Honolutu. The Wind Gourd ofLa 'amaomao.Revised ed.Transtated by Esther T.Mookini and Sarah Nakoa. Kalamaku Press,Honolulu. Faul H.Rosendahl and V.Kai 1988 InterEm Report:Summary ofFindings,and General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments.Archaeological Inventory Survey,Coconut Plantation Development Sites 4 and 6,Lands ofOlohena and Waipouli,Kawaihau District,Island ofKauai.Paul H.Rosendahl, Ph.D.Inc.Report 467-08228.Prepared for Blackfield Hawaii Corporation,Hilo,HI. Perzinski,D.and H.H.Hammatl 2001 A Summary of Archaeological Monitoring for the Kuhio Highway,Waikaea Bridge Widening Project,Kapa'a Ahupua'a,Kawaihau District,Kaua'i Island (TMK (4)4-3-06 to 4-3-08).Cultural Surveys Hawai'i,Kailua,HI. Potter,E.and M.F.Dega 2012 Archaeological [nvenlory Survey Report for the Pipeline Replacement Project (Job No.02-16), Wailua,Wailua Ahupa'a,Lihue and Kavvaihaii Distncts,Kaua'i Island,Hawai'i,[TMK:(4)3-9-06, 4-1-B2,4-1-03,and 4-1-04].Scicntific Consultant Services,Inc.Job No.02-16. Pratt,J.W. 1908 The Kapaa Land Exchange Offer.The Hawalian Star[Hoaolshi].April 18,1908:1,5, Pukui,M.K.(editor) 1983 'Olelo No 'eau:Hawaiian proverbs &poetical sayings,Bishop Museum Press,Honolulu, Putali,M.K.,S.H.Elbert,and E.Mo'okini 1974 Sai,D.K. 2011 Shun,K. 1991 Place Names ofHawaii.Revised and Expanded ed.University of Hawaii Press,Honolulu. Ua Maii Ke.Ea Sovereignty Endures:An Overview of the Political and Legal Histoy of the Hawaiian Islands,Pii'a Foundation,Honolulu. Archaeological Subsurface Testing,TMK:4-4-3-07:29 and 30.Waipouli,Kawaihau District,Island of ICauai.Archaeological Associates Oceania.Prepared for Hawaii Sponsorship Corporation, Kaneohe,HI. 34 Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina Analysis for the Kaua'i Habifat for Humanity,Waipouli,Piina,Kaua'i References Cited Soboleski,H. 2015 The Waipouli'Polo Field and Race Track.The Garden Island,Llhue,Hawaii.Electronic document, https://www.thegardenis]aiid.coni/2015/07/05/lifestyles/the-waipouli-polo-field-and-race-track/, accessed March 2,?.021. Sochrcn.L. 2008 A Catalog ofO'ahu Place Names Compiled from the Records offhe Boundary Commisston and The Board ofCommissioners to Quiet Land Titles ofthe Kingdom ofHawaii.Part ):Aiphabcticai. 2008.Electronic docuinent,hrtp://www.useapenci].org/soehren/pdfs/oahu.pdf,accessed. Star-BuIletin.H. 1965 Ebbtide Hotels'first profitable year.//ono/u/u 5'tor-Su/tei'n [Honolulu].October 27,1965:F-7. Star,T.H. 1910 Kapaa Seltled.The Hawaiian Siar [Honolulu].Apnl16,1910:8. Stoffel,P. 1978 Oarden Isle Development Plans Held Up.Honolulu Slar-Bullelin [Honolulu].January 26,1978:C- 13. Tocnjes,J.H.,R.Chiogioji,W.H.Folk,and H.H.Hanirnall 1991 DRAPT,Results of Archaeologica]Data Recovery For 12-acre Property at Cocoiiut Plantation, Waipouli,Kauali,(TMK 4-3-07:27).Cultural Surveys Hawai'i.Prepared for Pankow Developmeut Company and Coconut Limited Partnership,Honolulu. Tome,0.,S.Cordlc,and M.Dega 2007 An Archaeological Inventory Survey Report on a 0.3295-acre Property in Waipouli,Waipouli Ahupua'a,Kawaihau District,Island of Kaua'i,Hawai'i,[TMK:(4)4-3-009:049].Scientific Consultant Sen/ices,Inc.SCS Project Number 775-2.Prepared for Kohala Design,Honolulu. Vancouver,G. 1967 Wichman,F.B. 1998 Wilkes,C. 1856 A Voyage of Discove/y to the Norlh Paciflc Ocean,and Round ihe Worid,vol,II.Three vuls. Bibllotheca Australiana #31.N-Israwl/Da Capo Press,Amsterdam,New Yotk. Kaua'i:Ancient Place-names and Their Stories.UniversityofHawaii Press. Narralive of the United States Exploring Expedition Diiring the Years 1838-]842,Under the Command ofC.ITilkes,U.S.N,vol.IV.O.P.Putnam and Co.,New York. Wilson,J.and M.F,Dega 2006 Archaeological Data Recovery Report for 11.783 acres (Coconut Plantation-Lot 6)Including State Site 50-30-08-1801 in Waipouli,Waipouli Ahupua'a,Kawaibau District,ICaua'i Island,Hawai'i [TMK (4)4-3-07-27].Scientific Consultant Scrvices,Inc.SCS Project 580-DR-2.Prepared for CM&D-Hawai'i,LLC,Honolulu. Ka Pa akai O Kci 'Aina Analysis for the Kaiia'i Habitat for Humanity,Waipoi.ili,Puna,Kaua't 35