2022-6-22 revised planning commission agenda 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer PLANNING COMMISSION HELEN COX, CHAIR FRANCIS DEGRACIA, VICE CHAIR GERALD AKO, MEMBER DONNA APISA, MEMBER MELVIN CHIBA, MEMBER LORI OTSUKA, MEMBER KAAINA S. HULL, CLERK OF COMMISSION + Pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Section 92-3.7, which codified Act 220, 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 Līhu‘e Civic Center, Moikeha Building o Meeting Room 2A-2B o 4444 Rice Street, Līhu‘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. PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION – AGENDA 2, JUNE 14, 2022 REVISED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA Agenda 2, Tuesday, June 14, 2022 9:01 a.m. or shortly thereafter Līhu‘e Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A-2B 4444 Rice Street, Līhu‘e, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i To Join by Phone: US: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 720 707 2699 Webinar ID: 891 8643 5052 Participant ID: # To Join by ZOOM Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89186435052 Webcast Link: https://www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA D. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission 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 or pseudonym, 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, Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766. Written testimony received by the Planning Department before 9:00 a.m. on Monday, June 13, 2022, will be distributed to all Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting. Written testimony received after 9:00 a.m. on Monday, June 13, 2022, 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 portion 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. After oral testimony has been taken, members of the public may watch the meeting via the live stream link found at www.kauai.gov/webcastmeetings. 1. Continued Agency Hearing PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION – AGENDA 2, JUNE 14, 2022 a. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8), USE PERMIT (U-2022-8) and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1) to operate a construction material manufacturing facility on a parcel situated immediately adjacent to the Old Kōloa Sugar Mill site in Kōloa, along the eastern side of Ala Kinoiki, approximately 3,300 feet west of the Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: 2-9-001:001, and affecting a 3-acre portion of a larger parcel = HPM BUILDING SUPPLY [Director’s report received 4/28/2022, New Agency Hearing on 5/10/2022, Continued Agency Hearing 5/24/2022]. i. Pacific Resource Partnership’s (1) Petition to Intervene and (2) (2) Motion to Postpone the May 10, 2022 Hearing before the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i, from Cox Fricke LLP concerning in the Matter of the Application for HPM Building Supply. ii. HPM Building Supply’s Memorandum in Opposition to Pacific Resource Partnership’s (1) Petition to Intervene and (2) Motion to Postpone the May 10, 2022 Hearing before the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i. iii. Petition to Intervene from Michael Clark, member on behalf of The Community Members of Poʻipū ‘Aina Estates concerning the Class IV Zoning Permit (Z-IV-2022-8), Use Permit (U-2022-8), and Special Permit (SP-2022-1) to operate a construction material manufacturing facility. iv. HPM Building Supply's Memorandum in Opposition to the Petition to Intervene on behalf of the Community of Poipu Aina Estates. v. The Community Association of Poipu Aina Estates’ Supplemental Petition to Intervene. 2. New Agency Hearing a. None for this Meeting. 3. Continued Public Hearing a. None for this Meeting. 4. New Public Hearing a. None for this Meeting. 5. All remaining public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law) G. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Status Reports a. None for this Meeting. 2. Director’s Report for Project Scheduled for Agency Hearing a. None for this Meeting. PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION – AGENDA 2, JUNE 14, 2022 H. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS 1. None for this Meeting. I. COMMUNICATION 1. None for this Meeting. J. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Subdivision Committee a. None for this Meeting. K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) 1. None for this Meeting. L. NEW BUSINESS (For Action) 1. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8), USE PERMIT (U-2022-8) and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP- 2022-1) to operate a construction material manufacturing facility on a parcel situated immediately adjacent to the Old Kōloa Sugar Mill site in Kōloa, along the eastern side of Ala Kinoiki, approximately 3,300 feet west of the Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: 2-9-001:001, and affecting a 3-acre portion of a larger parcel = HPM BUILDING SUPPLY [Director’s report received 4/28/2022, New Agency Hearing on 5/10/2022, Continued Agency Hearing 5/24/2022]. a. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. b. Memorandum (5/9/2022) from the Clerk of the Commission. c. Memorandum (5/23/2022) from the Clerk of the Commission. d. Memorandum (6/13/2022) from the Clerk of the Commission. M. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4), the purpose of this executive session is to consult with the County's legal counsel on questions, issues, status and procedural matters. This consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Commission and the County as they relate to the following matters: 1. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8), USE PERMIT (U-2022-8) and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP- 2022-1) to operate a construction material manufacturing facility on a parcel situated immediately adjacent to the Old Kōloa Sugar Mill site in Kōloa, along the eastern side of Ala Kinoiki, approximately 3,300 feet west of the Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: 2-9-001:001, and affecting a 3-acre portion of a larger parcel = HPM BUILDING SUPPLY [Director’s report received 4/28/2022, New Agency Hearing on 5/10/2022, Continued Agency Hearing 5/24/2022]. PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION – AGENDA 2, JUNE 14, 2022 N. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Topics for Future Meetings. 2. The following regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter, on June 28, 2022. The Planning Commission anticipates this meeting to be held in-person at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A-2B, 4444 Rice Street, Lihue, Hawaii 96766. The Commission also anticipates providing telephone and a virtual platform capability for members of the public to testify remotely. The Commission will announce its intended meeting method via an agenda electronically posted at least six days prior to the meeting date. O. 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 ASEGRETI@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. PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION – AGENDA 2, JUNE 14, 2022 Pursuant to Section 8-27.8 (6) of the Kaua‘i County Code (1987), as amended, the following shoreline setback determinations by the Director are disclosed for purposes of public notification. June 14, 2022 SHORELINE SETBACK DETERMINATIONS Application No. Name of Applicant(s) Property I.D. (Tax Map Key) Location Development/Reasons SSD-2022-44 SOF-XI Kauai PV, L.P. a Delaware limited partnership 5-4-001:004 Princeville Proposed structural improvements located approximately 265 feet away from the shoreline. This is a considerable distance outside of the applicable 100 foot setback line. F.1.a. May 24, 2022 Updated January 2018 C:\Users\dcua\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\36L2GMDE\GeneralFilingRequireClassIII IV_Upd 2018.dotx.docx PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF KAUA‘I GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following is a list of General Application requirements for Class III and IV Zoning Permits, Use Permits, Project Development Use Permits, Variance Permits, Special Permits, and Special Management Area Permits (SMA). In preparing Applications for permit applications or petitions, please provide an exhibit and/or page reference for the application submittal, information, and documents requested. Zoning Permit Application Forms, Special Management Assessment Forms, and Special Treatment District Checklist are also available at the Planning Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473, Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766. Pre-permit application consultation with the Planning Department and various County and State Agencies are recommended. Instructions for Petitions for General Plan Amendments, State Land Use District Boundary Amendments (15 acres or less) and Zoning Amendments, are also available at the Planning Department. An original plus one copy of the following items shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department for suitability for processing based on the attached checklist. Upon deeming the application suitable for agency review, the Planning Department will contact the applicant to request the additional number of application packets needed to complete the land use application for processing. The applicant shall provide 12 copies of the final application form and supporting information to complete the application for processing in accordance with Section 8-3.1(f) of the Kauai County Code, 1987, as amended. Application shall be deemed complete when the above requirements have been satisfied and the following have been received: 1. Twelve (12) copies of the FINAL application. 2. Non-refundable filing fee payable to the COUNTY OF KAUAI, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. 3. The filing fees are as follows: o State Land Use District Boundary Amendment = $150.00 o General Plan Amendment =$600.00 o Zoning Amendment = $300.00 o Special Permit =$150.00 o Use Permit, Project Development Use Permit, Variance Permit = $300.00 o Class III Zoning Permit =$200.00 o Class IV Zoning Permit = $800.00 o Special Management Area Use Permit =$1,476.46 o Special Management Area Minor Permit = $150.00 o Shoreline Setback Variance Permit =$300.00 4. Digital copy (.PDF preferred) of entire transmittal including documents & exhibits on a CD or DVD. Incomplete __________________________________________________________________ Application Deemed Complete as all information has been submitted and necessary fees have been paid. By: _________________________________________ Date: _______________________________ 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT County of Kaua‘i, State of Hawai‘i 4444 Rice Street, Suite A-473, Līhu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 TEL (808) 241-4050 FAX (808) 241-6699 GENERAL CLASS III & IV ZONING REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST Project Name: TMK: (4) Applicant(s): Permit Nos. REQUIRED INFORMATION APPLICANT & PROPERTY INFORMATION Exhibit and/or Page Number Staff Comments 1 Zoning Permit Application Form or Petition for Amendments. The Application Form or Petition shall be completed and provide the required information pertaining to the property, such as: Tax Map Key number(s), State Land Use District Designation (SLUD), General Plan Designation, and County Zoning Designation. 2 Documents that verify ownership of the property under the subject application(s), or that the Applicant is the Authorized Agent o the property owner(s). 3 If the Applicant is not the owner(s) of the subject parcel, then a notarized written authorization for the application by the owner shall be included. Said authorization shall include the owner’s name, mailing addresses, contact information (i.e. phone number, cell number, email address) 4 Agent’s name, mailing address, and contact information (i.e. phone number, cell number, email address) GRAPHIC & SCHEMATIC REQUIREMENTS Exhibit and/or Page Number Staff Comments 5 Location Map identifying the project site, adjacent roadway, and identifying landmarks. 6 Schematic Site Development Plan of Plot Plans drawn to scale that identify the following: o Property lines and easements with its dimensions, total land or parcel area calculations; o County and SLUD Zoning and General Plan Designation areas of the property and applicable densities; o Flood Zone(s) and required elevations; o Location, size, and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, improvements and uses; o Building setback distances to property lines, between buildings, right-of-ways, and parking lots; o Proposed Lot Coverage calculations and areas; o Topographic information showing existing features, conditions and drainage patterns, and proposed grading & finished grade elevations, and drainage patterns; o Location of environmentally sensitive areas, habitat and botanical features which include, but are not limited to, wetlands, streams, rock outcroppings, endangered plants and animals, and exceptional trees; o Existing and proposed landscaping which depicts open spaces, plantings and trees; o Existing and proposed roadways, and accesses to the project site; and o Certified Shoreline, shoreline setback lines, stream and other setback lines. 3 7 Conceptual Building Plans (drawn to scale): o All existing and/or proposed building elevations with finished material called out. Exterior Elevations shall identify the existing and finished grade; o Building heights, maximum wall plate height, cross sections that are drawn to scale and clearly define the architectural character of the development; and o Floor plans of all buildings and typical unit types for multi-family projects; WRITTEN REQUIREMENTS Exhibit and/or Page Number Staff Comments 8 A Report or Statement addressing the following: o Description of the proposed project and proposed uses, operations and management of the proposed use which includes, but is not limited to, proposed employee housing plan, hours of operation; o Summary of Permits (i.e. Use Permit, Variance Permit, Special Permit, Class IV Zoning etc.) or Land Use Amendments requested, and the application section of the Kaua‘i County Code or regulation citing the specific standards and criteria for granting of the permit or amendment being requested; o Policies and Objectives of the General Plan; the provisions of the Community Development Plan applicable to the application (including design standards and application requirements); the provisions of the applicable zoning district; and an analysis of the extent to which the application, if granted, conforms to these provisions of the applicable district; and an analysis of the extent to which the application, if granted, conforms to these policies, objectives and provisions; o Detailed land use history of the parcel, which includes but is not limited to, former and existing State and County land use designations, violations and uses; o Status reports of all Zoning Amendment ordinance conditions, existing Land Use Permit conditions, and Subdivision Application conditions pertaining to the project site; o Analysis of the secondary impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding area, which includes but is not limited to, increases in property value, population, housing, community services and facility needs, secondary jobs and employment generated, and compatibility with the surrounding uses; o Water source, supply and distribution system analysis, which includes but is not limited to, methods of irrigation that exists on the parcel and proposed for the application, location and use of groundwater and non-potable water sources; o Sewage Disposal Analysis – A description of a proposed method of sewage disposal; o Solid Waste Disposal Analysis – A description of a proposed method of solid waste disposal, including methods for recycling, reclamation and waste stream diversion; and o Description of environmentally sensitive areas, habitat and botanical features, which includes but is not limited to, wetlands streams, rock outcroppings, endangered plants and animals, and exceptional trees. 9 A completed evaluation form or written comments from the County Housing Division relative to the County’s housing requirements, pursuant to Ordinance No. 860. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SUBJECT TO DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION) APPLICANT & PROPERTY INFORMATION Exhibit and/or Page Number Staff Comments 10 Title Report necessary for the project site. Title Insurance will be mandatory for all affected Kuleana parcel(s). GRAPHIC & SCHEMATIC REQUIREMENTS Exhibit and/or Page Number Staff Comments 11 Schematic Site Development Plans of Plot Plans drawn to scale, which identify the following: o Location of existing or required access to shoreline or traditional site either on property or adjacent to; and o Certified Shoreline, shoreline setback lines, stream and other setback lines. App. at sec. 8.1 - 8.4 4 12 Three (3) dimensional drawings of models, which clearly indicates the relation of the proposed development to other uses and structure within the surrounding area, and show the development in the context of significant viewplanes. 13 Dated photographs of the project site, existing structures, and the surrounding area. WRITTEN REQUIREMENTS Exhibit and/or Page Number Staff Comments 14 Additional information to the included in the required report: o Preliminary archaeological and historical data; o A preservation/mitigation plan; o Traffic Impact analysis showing level of service with and without the project, when required by the State Department of Transportation OR County Department of Public Works; o A Transportation Master Plan, which includes vehicle, pedestrian and other forms of circulation to adjacent services and destinations; o For parcel located in SLUD Agricultural or County Agriculture zoning district, an assessment of the impact which the proposed use may have on agricultural use of the parcel, which includes but is not limited to, feasibility analysis of potential agricultural uses suited for the project site; o A Water Master Plan, which aligns to the goals of the 2020 Water Plan for Kaua‘i; o A baseline study and preservation/mitigation plan for environmentally sensitive areas and endangered species habitat; o A summary of all meetings held between the Applicant and any community or residential group that may be impacted by the Applicant’s proposal, the issues raised at these meetings, and any proposed mitigation measures by the Applicant to deal with the raised concerns; o For properties adjacent to the shoreline or containing traditional access or sites requiring access – A Preservation/Mitigation Plan detailing how access will be allowed and managed; o For projects near the shoreline, riparian areas or wetlands, or those involving intensive landscaping or turf management, such as golf courses – Identification and assessment of chemicals and fertilizers used, including but not limited to, detailing effects upon surface, underground and marine water resources and neighboring properties and surrounding flora & fauna. If applicable, provide a mitigation plan and maintenance program and schedule; o For properties listed on the Kaua‘i Historic and Non-Historic Resource Inventory – An inventory and description of historic features on the property; o Proposed Employee Housing Plan; and o Description of sustainable strategies incorporated into project, including but not limited to, strategies to reduce water and energy and material consumption, promote alternative forms of transportation, reduce wastewater and storm runoff, waste stream diversion and encourage the preservation of function ecosystem, i.e. LEEDS, Los Impact Design, Green Building principles, recycling, composting, BMP’s, etc.. ADDITIONAL PERMITS Exhibit and/or Page Number Staff Comments 15 For projects located within the Special Treatment District – The Applicant shall comply with necessary requirements of Section 8-11.5 of the KCC, and provide information noted in the Special Treatment District Checklist. 16 For projects located within the Special Management Area (SMA) – The Applicant shall complete & submit an SMA Assessment application of the proposed development. 17 For properties located within 500 feet of the shoreline – The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 8-27 of the KCC, entitled “Shoreline Setback and Coastal Protection,” and provide the necessary information contained in the Shoreline Setback checklist. 18 If applicable, the petition requirements and content for a Special Permit, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures of the Planning Commission, and Chapter 205 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS). 19 A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), when required by Chapter 343 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS). N/A N/A CADES SCHUTTE A Limited Liability Law Partnership MAUNA KEA TRASK 8418 P.O. Box 1205 Lihu’e, HI 96766 Telephone: (808) 521-9297 Facsimile: (808) 540-5015 Email: mtrask@cades.com Attorneys for Applicants HPM BUILDING SUPPLY BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I In the Matter of the Application Of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Paa, District of Koloa, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9-001:001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. SPECIAL PERMIT________________ USE PERMIT (U)-_________________ CLASS IV ZONING PERMITZ-IV-_________ APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT, USE PERMIT AND CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT; EXHIBIT LIST; EXHIBITS “A” - “N” ii    TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION 1. APPLICANT/SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS. ................................................ 1  1.1 Applicant. . ............................................................................................................. 1  1.2 Property. . ............................................................................................................... 1  1.3 Ownership. . ........................................................................................................... 1  SECTION 2. LOCATION & LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF THE PROPERTY. ................ 2  2.1 Location. ................................................................................................................ 2  2.2 Land Use Designations. .......................................................................................... 2  a. SLUC.. ........................................................................................................ 2  b. Kaua’i General Plan. ................................................................................... 2  c. CZO. .......................................................................................................... 2  d. Development Plan Area. ........................................................................... 2  e. Special Management Area. ....................................................................... 2  f. Constraint District. ...................................................................................... 2  g. Special Treatment District. ....................................................................... 2  h. Heritage Resources. .................................................................................. 2  i. Flood Zone. ................................................................................................ 3  j. Violations. . ................................................................................................ 3  k. Visitor Destination Area. . ......................................................................... 3  l. Soils. .......................................................................................................... 3  m. Topography. ................................................................................................ 3  2.3 Prior Land Use Permits. . ....................................................................................... 4  SECTION 3. PAST, EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF THE PROPERTY. ................... 4  3.1 Past Uses. ................................................................................................................ 4  3.2 Existing Uses. ....................................................................................................... 4  3.3 Proposed Uses. ........................................................................................................ 4  SECTION 4. SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LANDS. ................................... 6  4.1 Location. ............................................................................................................... 6  4.2 Surrounding Uses. . ................................................................................................ 6  SECTION 5. PERMITS REQUESTED AND REQUIRED. ....................................................... 6  5.1 Special Permit. ...................................................................................................... 7  iii    5.2 Use Permit. ............................................................................................................ 7  5.3 Class IV Zoning Permit. ....................................................................................... 8  SECTION 6. IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT........................................................................... 8  6.1 Botanical Resources. ............................................................................................. 8  6.2 Historical Resources. ............................................................................................ 9  6.3 Air Quality/Noise. ............................................................................................... 10  6.4 Flooding and Drainage. ....................................................................................... 10  6.5 Utilities. ............................................................................................................... 10  a. Potable Water. ......................................................................................... 10  b. Electric/Communications. ....................................................................... 10  6.6 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. ................................................................. 11  6.7 Solid waste Disposal. .......................................................................................... 11  6.8 Governmental Services. ...................................................................................... 11  a. Fire & Police Services. ........................................................................... 11  b. Schools. ................................................................................................... 11  6.9 Economics. .......................................................................................................... 11  a. Jobs. ........................................................................................................ 12  b. Housing. .................................................................................................. 12  c. Property Values. . ..................................................................................... 12  6.10 Population. . ......................................................................................................... 12  6.11 Traffic Circulation. ............................................................................................. 12  6.12 Heritage Resources. . ........................................................................................... 13  6.13 View Planes. ........................................................................................................ 13  SECTION 7. SLUC CONSIDERATIONS. ................................................................................ 13  7.1 SLUC Agricultural District - Special Permit. . .................................................... 13  a. Consistency with the Objectives of Chapters 205 and 205A, HRS, and the Rules of the Land Use Commission. ................................ 15  b. The desired use will not adversely affect surrounding property. .............. 17  c. The Facility will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage and school improvements, and police and fire protection. .................................................................................... 17  d. Unusual conditions, trends and needs have arisen since the district boundaries and regulations were established. ........................................... 17  iv    e. The land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district. ..................................................................... 20  f. Promoting the effectiveness of Ch. 205, HRS. ........................................ 21  SECTION 8. GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS. ............................................................ 21  8.1 Kauai General Plan Visions and Goals. ............................................................... 21  a. Goal # 1: A Sustainable Island. .............................................................. 21  b. Goal # 2: A Unique and Beautiful Place. ............................................... 22  c. Goal # 3: A Healthy and Resilient People. . ........................................... 22  d. Goal # 4: An Equitable Place, with Opportunity for All. ........................ 22  8.2 Kauai General Plan Policies to Guide Growth. .................................................. 23  a. Policy # 1: Manage Growth to Preserve Rural Character. ..................... 23  b. Policy # 2: Provide Affordable Housing While Facilitating a Diversity of Privately Developed Housing for Local Families. .................................. 23  c. Policy #3: Recognize the Identity of Kauai’s Individual Towns and Districts. .................................................................................................... 24  d. Policy # 4: Design Healthy and Complete Neighborhoods. .................... 24  e. Policy # 5: Make Strategic Infrastructure Investments. ......................... 25  f. Policy # 6: Reduce the Cost of Living. ................................................... 25  g. Policy # 7: Build a Balanced Multimodal Transportation System. ....... 26  h. Policy # 8: Protecting Kauai’s Scenic Beauty. ...................................... 26  i. Policy # 10: Helping Business Thrive. .................................................. 26  j. Policy # 13: Complete Kauai’s Shift to Clean Energy. .......................... 26  k. Policy # 15: Respect Native Hawaiian Rights and Wahi Pana. ............. 27  l. Policy #16: Protect Access to Kauai’s Treasured Places. ...................... 27  m. Policy # 17: Nurture our Keiki. .............................................................. 27  8.3 Kauai General Plan Industrial Designation. . ....................................................... 27  8.4 Project Compliance with Kauai General Plan Standards. ................................... 28  SECTION 9. CZO AGRICULTURE DISTRICT CONSIDERATIONS. .................................. 28  9.1 CZO Agriculture District. ................................................................................... 28  9.2 Development’s Compliance with CZO Agriculture District Standards. ............ 28  SECTION 10. SOUTH KAUAI COMMUNITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS. ......................... 29  10.1 Community Plan Goals and Objectives. . ............................................................ 29  10.2 Compliance with Development Plan Standards. ................................................. 30  v    SECTION 11. HRS CH. 343 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSIDERATIONS. ........................................................................................... 30  11.1 HRS Chapter 343. ............................................................................................... 30  SECTION 12. IMPACTS TO NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES. ........................................................................................................ 30  12.1 Existence of Traditional and Customary Practices. ............................................ 30  SECTION 13. CONCLUSION. .................................................................................................... 32  1    APPLICATION FOR USE PERMIT AND CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT Comes now, HPM BUILDING SUPPLY (“HPM” or “Applicant”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, and hereby submits the following Application to develop a wooden truss and wall panel manufacturing facility and associated improvements as described herein. HPM is a Hawaii company that was founded by local contractors Kametaro Fujimoto and Sanzo Kawasaki in 1921 as a lumber milling operation on the Big Island of Hawaii. HPM has been doing business in Hawaii for 100 years and employs local residents at all of its manufacturing locations throughout the state. HPM provides competitive wages for all of its employees based upon the cost of living on each island and reviews its wages annually to ensure competitive wages are maintained. HPM is 100% employee owned through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. SECTION 1. APPLICANT/SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS. 1.1 Applicant. The Applicant is, HPM BUILDING SUPPLY. HPM has authorized Mauna Kea Trask of Cades Schutte LLP to file this Application. See, Exhibit “A”. 1.2 Property. This Application concerns a portion of that certain parcel of real property, situate at Pa’a, District of Koloa, Island and County of Kaua’i, State of Hawai’i, bearing Kaua’i Tax Map Key (“TMK”) No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (“Parcel 01”), and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. See, Exhibit “B”. The Facility itself will be located on a three (3) acre portion of Parcel 01 that is being licensed to HPM (the “Property”). See, Exhibit “C”. A copy of the license is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. 1.3 Ownership. Parcel 01 is owned by Mahaulepu Farm LLC, and HPM is the Licensee of the Property as shown in Exhibit “D”. 2    SECTION 2. LOCATION & LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF THE PROPERTY. 2.1 Location. The Property is located in the ahupua’a of Pa’a, District of Koloa, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, and is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. Practically speaking, the Property is located in a relatively secluded area that is removed from Koloa town. 2.2 Land Use Designations. The State Land Use Commission (“SLUC”), Kaua’i General Plan (“General Plan”), County of Kaua’i Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (“CZO”), and other relevant land use designations for the Property are described as follows: a. SLUC. The Property is located in the SLUC Agricultural District. See, Exhibit “E-1”. b. Kaua’i General Plan. The Property is located in the Kauai General Plan Industrial Designation. See, Exhibit “E-2”. c. CZO. The Property is within the County of Kauai Agriculture (A) zoning District. See, Exhibit “E-3”. d. Development Plan Area. The Property is within the Industrial land use area of the South Kauai Planning District. See, Exhibit “E-4”. e. Special Management Area. The Property is not within the Special Management Area (“SMA”). f. Constraint District. The Property is not within any Constraint District. g. Special Treatment District. The Property is not within any Special Treatment District. h. Heritage Resources. As shown in General Plan Figure 5-11, South Kaua’i Heritage Resource Map, the Property does not contain any registered historical sites or cultural features. See, Exhibit “E-5”. 3    i. Flood Zone. The Property is within the non-special flood hazard area Zone - X. See, Exhibit “E-6”. Non-special flood hazard areas are areas in a low-to-moderate risk flood zone. Id. Areas within Zone - X have been determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. Id. j. Violations. There are no known land use and zoning violations that affect the portion of Parcel 01 constituting the Property. k. Visitor Destination Area. The Property is not within the Visitor Destination Area (“VDA”). . l. Soils. According to the National Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”) Web Soil Survey, the Property consists of Waikomo stony silty clay (Ws). See, Exhibit “E-7”. The properties of Waikomo stony silty clay include 2 to 6 percent slopes, and no frequency of flooding or ponding. The soils on the Property are identified by the land study bureau's detailed land classification as overall (master) productivity rating class B. Id. m. Topography. Attached as Exhibit “E-8” is a copy of the U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”) map, drawn to scale, of the Koloa Quadrangle - 7.5 Minute Series. HPM has analyzed a dozen topography maps from various sources and has taken GPS measurements on site. HPM can confirm that the Property is flat and sits approximately 140’ ft. above sea level. Id. The second page of Exhibit “E-8” is a close-up depiction of the topographic map of the site indicating the basic slight drainage flow of the Property. According to HPM’s analysis, the existing grade under the building footprint does not change by 2’ or more in any direction. HPM will not be altering the grade or elevation of the Property as a result of constructing its Facility. The only site prep work that will be done will be preparing and pouring the asphalt foundation and placing gravel in the mapped areas. 4    2.3 Prior Land Use Permits. Parcel 01 is a large parcel of land that contains many tenants. However, there are no known prior land use permits that affect the Property. SECTION 3. PAST, EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF THE PROPERTY. 3.1 Past Uses. The Property is located approximately 1.25 miles to the east of Old Koloa Town and directly south of the remnants of the Koloa Sugar Mill. This area had been under intensive sugar cane cultivation since the 19th century. In 1948, Grove Farm Co. purchased Parcel 01 from Koloa Sugar Co. Beginning in the 1970s, Parcel 01 was leased to Lihue Plantation Co. (“LP”). LP used Parcel 01 for intensive sugar cane cultivation and accessory industrial agriculture uses until the mid-to-late 1990s. On or about the early 2000s, Parcel 01, including the Property, was licensed to Pioneer Hi Bred Intl. (“Pioneer”) to plant seed corn. However, this use was discontinued because the conditions of the Property were poor for agricultural purposes, and Pioneer moved its agricultural operation to a more suitable location. Thereafter, the Property sat fallow until approximately 2018 when it was briefly used as a staging site for a movie production. 3.2 Existing Uses. The Property currently lies fallow and is not in agricultural use. Guinea grass, koa haole, and other invasive species grow on the Property. The Property is regularly mowed for maintenance purposes. See, Exhibit “F”. 3.3 Proposed Uses. HPM is proposing to construct a wooden truss and wall panel manufacturing facility (the “Facility”). The Facility will be a steel and tension white vinyl fabric structure designed and fabricated in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code. See, Exhibit “G”. The Facility will be 40-feet tall, 100-feet wide and 260-feet long. Id. The Facility will sit on an asphalt pad and a portion of the surrounding area will be covered with 6-inches of gravel base 5    course. See, Exhibit “H”. Off-street parking will be provided within the graveled area. Id. An 8- foot-tall chain-link fence with an exit and entrance gate will surround the perimeter of the Facility. Id. The total site (“Project Area”) will be 278 ft. x 470 ft. Id. The Facility will be used to manufacture wooden trusses and wall panels for residential housing construction within the county of Kauai. HPM will import the raw lumber materials for manufacturing into trusses and wall panels from the Pacific Northwest. Current state building requirements mandate the use of borate treated Douglas fir or borate treated engineered wood products (“EWP”) for building construction. Neither of these raw materials are available in the state. However, if these raw materials become locally available in the future, HPM will use locally sourced raw materials in its manufacturing process. Using prefabricated wooden trusses and wall panels is much more efficient for residential construction projects because engineering software provides detailed layout instructions to builders and saves time and expense in the field. The Facility will use cutting edge technology in its manufacturing process which will minimize waste and maximize efficiency. The manufactured trusses will be fastened together with engineered plates that meet all required structural elements and standards. Manufactured wall panels will use code required galvanized fasteners, and structural strapping will be added when needed or in the event they are required per contractor specifications. HPM anticipates an initial production level of 10-15 truss and/or wall panel “packages” per month for the first 1-2 years. One “package” is equivalent to one single-family residential home. HPM anticipates the Facility will help bring home construction prices down and will facilitate the construction of more affordable single-family residences for local families. 6    The hours of operation of the Facility will be on Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. SECTION 4. SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LANDS. 4.1 Location. The Property is located in the ahupuaa of Pa’a, Koloa District, Kaua’i and is adjacent to the former Koloa Sugar Mill at the confluence of Kaluahonu Rd. and Mahaulepu Rd. See, Exhibit “I”. The Facility will be located approximately 3,100 ft. from Ala Kinoiki, the nearest public thoroughfare. Id. 4.2 Surrounding Uses. All immediate and surrounding lands are owned by Grove Farm Co. Inc., or its affiliated entities. Immediate and surrounding land uses include commercial, light industrial and renewable energy activities, including: 1) Kauai ATV tours; 2) KIUC’s renewable solar energy facility; and 3) small local businesses engaged in light industrial uses in the vicinity of the Koloa Mill. Currently there are no agricultural activities occurring in the lands surrounding the Property. Beyond the boundaries of Parcel 01, to the south and west are open space areas, hotel and resort developments, vacation rentals, small residential agricultural subdivisions, and residential condominium property regimes. SECTION 5. PERMITS REQUESTED AND REQUIRED. Initially, per Department Determination DD-2022-16, the Planning Director found the proposed development to be similar in nature to “Retail Sales” as listed in CZO §8-2.4(r)(17) and indicated that a Use Permit and Planning Commission review and action were required per CZO § 8-3.2(e)(1). See, Exhibit “J”. Later, based upon a preliminary review of this permit application, the Department determined that a Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit are required for the Project. See, Exhibit “J-1”. Consistent with both determinations, HPM is requesting the Commission grant it a Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit. 7    5.1 Special Permit. Upon petition, the Planning Commission may permit certain unusual and reasonable uses within the State Land Use Agricultural district. See, HRS §205-6 and Chapter 13 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures of the Planning Commission (“RPPPC”). Whether a particular use is "unusual and reasonable" is determined by applying the guidelines set forth in RPPPC Rule 13-6. RPPC Rule 13-6 requires the following: (1) Such use shall not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by Chapters 205 and 205A, HRS, and the Rule of the Land Use Commission; (2) That the desired use would not adversely affect surrounding property; (3) Such use would not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage and school improvements, and police and fire protection; (4) Unusual conditions, trends and needs have arisen since the district boundaries and regulations were established; (5) The land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the District; and (6) would promote the effectiveness and objectives of Chapter 205, HRS, as amended.1 5.2 Use Permit. A Use Permit may be granted if the Planning Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the construction, development, activity or use in the particular case is a compatible use and is not detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and the general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community, and will not cause any substantial harmful environmental consequences on the land of the applicant or on other lands or waters, and will not be inconsistent with the intent of the CZO and the General Plan. See, CZO § 8-3.2(e)(1).   1 The standards contained in RPPC Rule 13-6 are the same as those contained LUC Rule HAR § 15-15-95(c)(1)-(5). 8    5.3 Class IV Zoning Permit. Pursuant to CZO §8-8.4(d)(1), a Class IV Zoning Permit is a procedural requirement when applying for a Use Permit. SECTION 6. IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT. 6.1 Botanical Resources. The Property is located within an area that was previously used for intensive sugar cane agriculture and accessory industrial agriculture uses. According to a 2009 AECOS, Inc. study of flora and fauna in and around Parcel 01, including the Property, Parcel 01 is or has been previously highly disturbed, and no areas supporting native plant assemblages occur that would be impacted by the Facility. See, Exhibit “K” at 12. Currently, the Property is regularly mowed to inhibit the growth of guinea grasses, koa haole and other invasive species. As such, the Facility will not have any adverse effect on botanical resources on the Property. No aquatic species have been noted to be present on the Property. Id. at 17. A total of twenty-nine species of birds have been noted in or around Parcel 01. Id. at 20. Of these, twenty-six species are regularly encountered alien species, common in low to mid- elevation areas on Kauai. Id. One of the species, Nene2, is endemic to Hawai’i. Id. The remaining two species are indigenous to Hawaii and occur throughout the Pacific Region, i.e., the White-tailed Tropicbird, and the Pacific Golden-Plover. Id. The Facility will occupy a small 3-acre portion of Parcel 01 within an area that has been previously highly disturbed, and the Facility will not adversely impact any bird species. Eight mammalian species were detected in and around Parcel 01. Id. at 23. All eight mammalian species are alien to the Hawaiian Islands, including domesticated dogs, cats, goats,   2 After decades of conservation efforts including, intensive captive breeding program, habitat restoration, and active management strategies, in December 2019 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service down listed the nene from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). PIFWO - Nene (Branta sandvicensis) (fws.gov). 9    cattle, horses, pigs, etc. Id.at 4. As such, the Facility will not adversely affect any mammalian species. There are no caves or lava tubes located on the Property, and previous biological and archaeological surveys of surrounding areas did not locate any caves or lava tubes within the vicinity of the Property. Id. at 26. As such, the Facility will not have any adverse effect on subterranean invertebrate species. 6.2 Historical Resources. According to the South Kauai Community Plan (“SKCP”), South Kauai was home to a large pre-contact population that supported itself through a unique agricultural system. SKCP at 3.1. South Kauai is the setting of numerous mo’olelo, it is the birthplace of Prince Kuhio, and it is the home of eminent pre-contact royalty. Id. More than 1,000 archaeological sites have been documented within the South Kauai planning district. Id. However, an in-depth analysis of the SKCP Heritage Resources map (Figure 3-1) and the South Kauai Ahupua’a and Registered Historic Places map (Figure 3-2) indicate that no heritage resources or registered historic places are found within the Property. HPM has reviewed past studies that included the Property within their study area, including: The Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Koloa-Poipu Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System (Exhibit “L”); and the Historic Resources Survey of Koloa Mill (Exhibit “M”). According to these studies, the Property is located within an area that has been under intensive sugar cane cultivation since the mid-19th century and no historical resources were identified on the Property. See, Exhibit “L” at 48 – 58. Certain portions of the Koloa Mill, including the sugar mill building, water pump sheds, sugar bins, sugar storage building, molasses and day storage tanks, and cleaning plant foundations are over fifty years old and appeared to meet the criteria for listing in the Hawaii and National 10    Registers of Historic Places. See, Exhibit “M” at 3 – 4. Because the Facility is located away from the Koloa Mill, the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on any portion(s) of the Koloa Mill that may qualify as a historic resource. 6.3 Air Quality/Noise. The development will have little or no impact on the air quality and ambient noise levels in the area. The Facility itself will use cutting edge technology that will not create any industrial waste. The primary byproduct of the Facility’s operation will be sawdust with minimal additional hard-waste or refuse. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and State of Hawaii air quality standards will not be exceeded. HPM will take all necessary action to ensure that ambient noise levels will not exceed the State of Hawaii Dept. of Health maximum permissible sound levels pertaining to lands located in the Agricultural district. See, Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”) § 11-46-4. 6.4 Flooding and Drainage. The Property is within the Non-Special Flood Hazard Area Zone X. See, Exhibit “E-6”. The Facility will meet all the requirements of the Flood Plain Management Ordinance of the County of Kauai, as contained in Chapter 15, Article 1, of the Kauai County Code, 1987. 6.5 Utilities. The Facility will not require extensive utility service or the construction of utility infrastructure. a. Potable Water. The Facility will utilize a prefabricated potable water system consisting of one above-ground 5,000-gallon tank requiring an estimated delivery of 4,000 gallons every three months. Irrigation water, ground water or other non-potable water will not be used to service the Facility. b. Electric/Communications. The Property can easily access electric and communication services. Electricity will be provided by KIUC. HPM will utilize traditional 11    landlines, cellular service, and wired internet for communication purposes. HPM will contract with Hawaiian Telcom for land-based communication services and Verizon for cellular service. 6.6 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. Wastewater will be managed on site. Greywater resulting from use of HPM’s potable water system will be stored in an above-ground 200-gallon squat graywater catchment tank that will be pumped out as needed by a licensed pumping contractor. HPM will contract with a local portable toilet vendor for sanitary services. HPM estimates using two units that will be serviced once a week. 6.7 Solid waste Disposal. As stated above, HPM’s primary by-product will be sawdust with minimal additional solid waste or refuse. HPM anticipates generating approximately ten yards of waste every two months. HPM will contract with a local waste management company to collect and process any solid waste as appropriate whether via recycling, green waste/composting, or via the landfill. 6.8 Governmental Services. Applicants anticipate the development will have the following impacts on governmental services: a. Fire & Police Services. Fire and Police services are located in Koloa within two miles of the Property. The Facility will not significantly increase the need for existing Fire and Police services. b. Schools. The closest schools are Koloa Elementary School located in Koloa, and Chiefess Kamakahelei Middle School and Kaua’i High School, both located in Lihue. The development is not anticipated to generate any additional enrollment in local schools. 6.9 Economics. Applicants anticipate the development will have the following beneficial economic impacts: 12    a. Jobs. The development will result in the creation of construction and manufacturing jobs during the initial construction of the project. Thereafter, HPM will hire approximately fifteen Kauai residents for production operations. HPM expects to hire an additional five to eight local residents relating to products produced at the Facility and other supportive services for a total of approximately twenty to twenty-three new long-term jobs on Kauai. As stated above, HPM provides competitive wages for all of its employees based upon the cost of living on each island and reviews its wages annually to ensure competitive wages are maintained. In 1977, HPM created an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”), allowing employees to participate in its growth. In 2006, HPM became 100% owned by its ESOP. All new employees at HPM’s Facility will be offered to participate in these programs. b. Housing. Because HPM will be hiring local residents, the Project is not expected to result in the need for additional housing. However, it is anticipated that the Project will result in increased affordable housing opportunities for local residents of Kaua’i. c. Property Values. Because fair market value of real property is based on the value of the land and any physical improvements, the development will increase the value and real property taxes of the Property thus increasing revenues to the County of Kaua’i. 6.10 Population. The development will not result in an increase in population. 6.11 Traffic Circulation. The Property is accessed via Ala Kinoiki Road and then via Mahaulepu Road. On December 10, 2021, HPM conducted a traffic assessment in which traffic measurements were taken from Ala Kinoiki Road and then onto Mahaulepu Road. According to HPM’s analysis, an average of approximately 15 to 20 passenger vehicles per hour accessed this 13    area, and heavy equipment accessed this area at an average of approximately 2 to 3 trucks and trailers every three hours. Additionally, recreational vehicles, including ATV’s and Jeeps, traveled on the internal old cane haul roads at an average of approximately 3 to 4 vehicles every 1.5 hours. HPM anticipates an additional two or three semi-trucks with trailers, and ten passenger vehicles a day will access the Property between the hours of 6 am and 4 pm. Heavy equipment vehicles will avoid traveling through the residential and commercial areas of Koloa and Poipu, unless the delivery point is located within these areas. 6.12 Heritage Resources. As stated above in section 2.2.h, the Property does not contain any important natural, scenic, or historical features. See, Exhibit “E-5”. Additionally, as provided above in section 6.2, according to the SKCP, the South Kauai Heritage Resources map (Figure 3-1) and the South Kauai Ahupua’a and Registered Historic Places (Figure 3-2) indicate that no heritage resources or registered historic places are found within the Property. 6.13 View Planes. The Facility will not affect significant view planes within the surrounding area. The Facility is over 3,000 ft. from the nearest public thoroughfare. See, Exhibit “I”. The Facility will be surrounded by high stands of koa haole and other invasive plant species along its eastern, southern and western sides. See, Exhibit “F”. These plants will act as a natural and significant barrier that will protect view planes located around Parcel 01. Id. Additionally, Ala Kinoiki Rd. in bordered by tall stands of guinea grasses, koa haole and other invasive species along its eastern shoulder that will further block the Facility from public view. Id. SECTION 7. SLUC CONSIDERATIONS. 7.1 SLUC Agricultural District - Special Permit. The Property is located within the SLUC Agricultural District. Land uses within the state Agricultural districts shall include, inter alia: the cultivation of crops for timber, and buildings and uses that support agricultural activities 14    like mills, processing facilities, and vehicle and equipment storage areas. See, HRS §205- 4.5(a)(1)&(10). The development of a mill-type facility that processes timber and manufactures it into wooden truss and wall panels is an explicit allowable use within SLUC Agricultural lands. However, HRS §205-2 (d)(10) qualifies the above by requiring the accessory uses to support the agricultural activities of the fee or leasehold owner, a requirement HPM cannot satisfy. Thus, HPM is requesting the Commission grant a Special Permit for the proposed development. The special use or exception evolved as a land use control device from a recognition of the hardship frequently visited upon landowners due to the inherent rigidity of the Euclidean zoning system, and of the inapplicability of variance or boundary amendment procedures to all land use problems. 3 A. Rathkopf, supra § 41.03 at 41-8 to 41-10; 3 R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 19.01 at 358-59 (2d ed. 1977). Unlike a district boundary amendment, which is analogous to a rezoning in its effect of reclassifying land, and unlike a variance, which permits a landowner to use his property in a manner forbidden by ordinance or statute, a special permit allows the owner to put his land to a use expressly permitted by ordinance or statute on proof that certain facts and conditions exist, without altering the underlying zoning classification. Neighborhood Board v. State Land Use Commission, 64 Haw. 265, 271, 639 P.2d 1097 (1982). Its essential purpose, as explained by the state Attorney General, is to provide landowners relief in exceptional situations where the use desired would not change the essential character of the district nor be inconsistent therewith. Id. (citing) 1963 Op. Att'y Gen. 63-37. "By the use of the special use permits, the broad division of uses in terms of residential, commercial, and industrial, and subdivisions of each, can be supplemented by requiring a use which falls conveniently within a class assigned to a particular district, but which has singular characteristics 15    which may be incompatible with some uses of such class, to submit the (sic) administrative scrutiny, to meet certain standards, and to comply with conditions." Id. (citing) 3 R. Anderson, supra § 19.01 at 359. The only reason why this Project is not technically allowed under state and county law is because of the rigidity of Hawaii’s Euclidean zoning system, specifically the requirement that the proposed accessory uses support the agricultural activities of the fee or leasehold owner. A viable commercial timber industry does not exist in Hawaii due to unique historical and political factors that arose during the 20th century. For the reasons stated below, allowing HPM to develop its facility is appropriate in this situation because the proposed development meets all the criteria to satisfy the granting of a Special Permit. a. Consistency with the Objectives of Chapters 205 and 205A, HRS, and the Rules of the Land Use Commission. The first evaluative criteria in granting a Special Permit is whether the proposed development is contrary to the objectives sought to be to be accomplished by Chapters 205 and 205A, HRS, and the Rules of the Land Use Commission (“LUC”). As stated above, growing, harvesting, milling and processing timber is an expressly authorized land use within the SLUC Agricultural land use district, meaning the proposed development is consistent with the specific objectives and policies of HRS Ch. 205 and the Rules of the LUC. HPM’s proposed development is also consistent with the Hawaii State Plan, Chapter 226, HRS.3 The Hawaii State Planning Act provides in relevant part that planning for the State’s economy shall be directed towards achieving the growth and development of diversified agriculture throughout the State. See, HRS § 226-7(a)(2). To achieve this objective, it shall be   3 All actions of the LUC must conform to the Hawaii State Plan, Chapter 226, HRS. See, HRS §205-16. 16    the policy of the State to, in relevant part, support development activities that strengthen economic productivity in agriculture, stimulate greater efficiency, and enhance the development of new products and agricultural by-products (HRS § 226-7(a)(8)); enhance agricultural growth by providing public incentives and encouraging private initiatives (HRS § 226-7(a)(9)); and expand Hawaii's agricultural base by promoting growth and development of forestry and other potential enterprises (HRS § 226-7(a)(12)). HPM’s facility is an important part in supporting diversified agriculture in the State. According to a 2004 study commissioned by DLNR, the market for higher value hardwood products in Hawaii is increasing significantly and consistently as it is in most areas of the country.4 However, the principal reasons for the relatively small amount of Hawaiian grown wood products in the marketplace are (1) inconsistent supply and (2) inconsistent quality. Id. The inconsistency of supply comes about from the lack of committed resource to the potential producers. While inconsistencies in quality are, inter alia, predominantly the result of lumber drying issues, limited technology, and lack of competitive processing facilities. Id. Currently, the demand for hardwood products exceeds the locally produced supply. Id. For this imbalance to change several critical factors must be addressed. These factors are, in relevant part: (1) Properly sized manufacturing facilities to match resource availability. (2) Strong commitment to the technical issues of product quality; and (3) Effective marketing which will place high-value end use products in the marketplace. Id. HPM’s facility is an important part in increasing diversified agriculture opportunities in the State. As stated above, HPM must import the raw lumber materials for the Facility from the Pacific Northwest because suitable lumber is not currently available in the state. However,   4 HHMS-Final120904Published.doc (hawaii.gov). 17    according to State studies, in order for a domestic lumber industry to develop, there must be an adequate supply of competitive processing facilities that will allow producers to sell their products to processors. Thus, HPM’s facility is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Hawaii State Plan, the land use policies of HRS Ch. 205 and the LUC rules by providing the market with a processing facility that can purchase timber from local producers and process it into a consumer ready product. HRS Ch. 205A concerns lands within the County’s SMA, and because the Property is not within the SMA these objectives and policies do not apply to the proposed development. b. The desired use will not adversely affect surrounding property. As detailed above in Section 6, the Facility will not adversely affect surrounding property or the resources associated therewith, including: Botanical Resources (6.1), Historical Resources (6.2), Air Quality/Noise (6.3), Flooding and Drainage (6.4), Wastewater Treatment and Disposal (6.6), Solid waste Disposal (6.7), Traffic Circulation (6.11), Heritage Resources (6.12), and/or View Planes (6.13). c. The Facility will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage and school improvements, and police and fire protection. As detailed above in Section 6, the Facility will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage and school improvements, and police and fire protection. See, Traffic Circulation (6.11), Wastewater Treatment and Disposal (6.6), Solid waste Disposal (6.7), Flooding and Drainage (6.4), Heritage Resources (6.12), Fire and Police Services Planes (6.8.a), and School Improvements (8.8.b). d. Unusual conditions, trends and needs have arisen since the district boundaries and regulations were established. When the land use district boundaries were first established in the 18    early 1960s, the State’s main focus with regard to agricultural lands was to revitalize the failing plantation agriculture industry which had been the main economic force in Hawaii since the mid- to-late 19th century. This policy is clearly reflected in the Hawaii Sate Planning Act, which provides the primary goal in planning for the State’s economy with regard to agriculture shall be directed towards achievement of the viability of Hawaii’s sugar and pineapple industries. See, HRS § 226-7(a)(1). During this time, uses that were not clearly Urban or Conservation were placed in the Agricultural District, including lands not used or suited for agricultural activities.5 As such, the Agricultural District also became a residual category for other open, transitional, and sparsely developed areas. Id. This is why industrial zoned lands are in such short supply in Kauai and across the State. Because of the plantations economic dominance, most industrial uses were directly related to plantation agriculture, meaning that agricultural lands also doubled as industrial lands in the 20th century. The State’s primary policy of protecting the specific interests of large-scale plantation agriculture is deeply rooted in the plantation’s economic and political dominance of Hawaii since the late 19th century. Diversified agriculture generally suffered under these economic and political policies. However, Hawaii’s burgeoning timber industry was specifically singled out and repressed with the appointment of Charles S. Judd as the territorial Forester in 1914.6 Judd, a kamaaina whose family had been in the sugar industry since the mid-19th century, disagreed with the concept that Hawaii’s forest lands could serve a broad variety of purposes, including the production of timber in commercial quantities, while still performing the essential   5 See, State Land Use Review of Districts, State of Hawaii Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (2021). 6 See, Public Land Policy in Hawaii: The Multiple-Use Approach, Frame & Horwitz, Report No. 1, 1965 (Rev. 1969) Legislative Reference Bureau, University of Hawaii. 19    function of providing water supplies for the plantations. Id. Judd staunchly opposed multipurpose management of forest reserve lands on the grounds that disturbance of the forest cover might endanger the functioning of the Territory’s agricultural industries, and under his administration, the forest reserve program essentially served the exclusive purpose of supplying water to the sugar industry and urban consumers, effectively killing a domestic timber industry in Hawaii. Id. However, since the enactment of the land use districting statute, both the pineapple7 and sugar industries8 on Kaua’i and in Hawai’i have utterly collapsed.9 The sunsetting of plantation agriculture has opened the door for the establishment of a robust diversified agricultural industry in Hawaii, which was discouraged under the old system. The State has recognized that Hawaii's contemporary needs, together with rapid technological innovations in forest management and timber processing, demands a thorough re-examination of former policies that discouraged the development of Hawaii’s timber industry.10 As part of this effort the Hawai‘i Department of Land & Natural Resources (“DLNR”) Division of Forestry & Wildlife (“DOFAW”) formed the Hawai‘i Wood Utilization Team (“HWUT”).11 Currently, HWUT is initiating innovative, cross- sector ideas and projects that expand wood product markets in Hawai‘i. Industries include Forestry, Architecture, Design, Engineering, Wood Products, Construction, Finance, Marketing,   7 In 1969, Hawaiian Fruit Packers (“HFP”), whose Kapa’a cannery was the last pineapple cannery remaining on Kaua’i, announced plans to cease planting in 1969, and the cannery was closed in October 1973. See, Hawaii Pineapple: The Rise and Fall of an Industry in: Hort Science Volume 47 Issue 10 (2012) (ashs.org). 8 In 2008, Gay & Robinson, Inc., Kauai’s last remaining sugar plantation, announced that its last sugar crop would be harvested in 2010, marking the end of the sugar industry in Kauai. Gay & Robinson to quit sugar | starbulletin.com | News | /2008/09/11/. 9 The fall of the plantation industry in Hawaii is commonly attributed to a few main causes. First, U.S. tariff and quota protections for sugar began declining in the decades after World War II amid broader trade liberalization. Second, plantation workers began to organize effective unions in the 1930s, which helped build Hawaii's middle class but also made the industry less competitive compared with other countries. Finally, Hawaii's land values began to spike as the introduction of passenger jets in the 20th century reduced travel times to Hawaii and launched a tourism boom, leading to the rapid rise of the tourism industry as well as land prices. Why Hawaii's sugar plantations have disappeared - CBS News. 10 See, Public Land Policy in Hawaii: The Multiple-Use Approach, Frame & Horwitz, Report No. 1, 1965 (Rev. 1969) Legislative Reference Bureau, University of Hawaii. 11 Hawai‘i Wood Utilization Project – Hawaii Forest Institute 20    and Cultural Practice. The extinction of Hawaii’s large plantations has created unusual conditions, trends and needs since the agricultural district boundaries and regulations were established, i.e., the need and policy to support a viable diversified agricultural industry in Hawaii, including timber. As such, appropriate accommodations must be made in order to fulfill the State’s goals of facilitating the development of a viable diversified agricultural industry. HPM does not want to see Hawaii’s agricultural lands re-districted or re-zoned. HPM’s operations are an important part of the creation of a healthy diversified agricultural industry in Hawaii that includes forestry and timber. However, in order to create a viable timber industry, developments like HPM’s facility must be allowed on lands within the SLUC Agricultural district so that they can provide opportunity and incentive for the development of timber production in Hawaii. e. The land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district. There two general classifications of permissible uses within SLUC Agricultural district lands. First, uses that directly relate to food and crop cultivation. According to inquiries with the landowner, Mahaulepu Farms LLC, the soil within the Project area is silty clay with a lot of rocks, limiting the amount and types of crops that can be grown on site. In this regard, the Property is ill suited for food and crop cultivation. The second classification of land uses within the SLUC Agricultural district are uses that are accessory to agricultural production, including mills and processing facilities, energy facilities, open recreation areas, and housing. In this regard, the project site is perfectly suited for HPM’s proposed use. The Project Site is close to appropriate infrastructure, i.e., power, water, road system, and other essential utilities. The project site is also surrounded by other “industrial” 21    uses like the old mill and KIUC’s solar farm, including other small industrial and commercial businesses like Kauai ATV tours and CJR Enterprises. So while the project site is unsuited for the direct production of food and other agricultural products, it is perfectly suited to accommodate accessory agricultural uses like HPM’s processing and manufacturing facility. f. Promoting the effectiveness of Ch. 205, HRS. As stated above, HPM’s facility will promote the State’s ability to develop a viable diversified agricultural industry. HPM’s facility will provide Kauai with the necessary modern technology and competitive processing facility essential to support a domestic timber industry, consistent with the tenets of HRS Ch. 226, the Hawaii State Planning Act, and HRS §§ 205-2 and 205-4.5. SECTION 8. GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS. 8.1 Kauai General Plan Visions and Goals. The proposed development is consistent with the Visions and Goals of the General Plan. a. Goal # 1: A Sustainable Island. The development and operation of the Facility is consistent with Goal # 1 of the General Plan. According to General Plan Section 1.3, sustainability means growing responsibly to meet the needs of current and future generations without depleting important resources. First, the development is properly sited because it will allow for responsible growth due to its location immediately adjacent to the Koloa Sugar Mill, an area that was dedicated to industrial agriculture uses. Further, the Property is within the General Plan Industrial land use designation and has been specifically identified as accommodating future light industrial uses within the South Kauai Planning Area. This will allow the Facility to meet the needs of current and future generations without requiring the displacement of lands currently used for agricultural and open space purposes or depleting important resources associated therewith. 22    b. Goal # 2: A Unique and Beautiful Place. Applicant’s proposed Facility is consistent with Goal # 2 of the General Plan and will not adversely affect the care and protection of the treasured resources, traditions, and qualities of the natural, built, and human environment of the Koloa district. According to credible studies, the development will not infringe upon the rights of the community to engage in cultural traditions and practices and will not interfere with opportunities for recreation and meditative contemplation within the South Kauai Planning Area. Because the Facility will be within an area that was historically used for industrial agricultural processing and proposed for future use as a light industrial area, the Facility will not adversely affect Kauai’s natural ecosystem, endemic or endangered species, historic structures, archaeological sites, or the tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine. c. Goal # 3: A Healthy and Resilient People. General Plan Goal # 3 recognizes that health is influenced by the built environment. Community health is strengthened by preservation of natural areas, access to jobs that support a high quality of life, lowering the high cost of living to allow residents to enter the housing market, and a strong and diverse economy. As stated above, the Facility will not require the development or displacement of any existing natural areas of significant community value. Additionally, the Facility is expected to add approximately 20 – 23 new jobs to the economy that will provide competitive wages based upon the cost of living on Kauai. Finally, HPM anticipates that its Facility will reduce the shipping costs associated with home construction on Kaua’i which will bring down the cost of housing and will allow for more opportunities for local residents to enter the housing market. d. Goal # 4: An Equitable Place, with Opportunity for All. According to Goal # 4 of the General Plan, opportunity is about equal access to a high quality of life, which includes adequate housing, employment, and pathways to upward mobility. While HPM’s proposed 23    facility will not solve all these problems alone, it will play a very important part in doing so. HPM’s primary goal is to produce quality prefabricated wooden trusses and wall panels that are more affordable and more readily available than either importing the same from off island or constructing them at the home site. The facility and its products will therefore have a direct and immediate effect in addressing Kauai’s high cost of living, what the General Plan refers to as the “Price of Paradise.” HPM will also create between 20 - 23 new jobs in the Koloa district that are not directly tied to resorts or the visitor industry, an important step towards creating a more diversified economy and opportunities for upward mobility. 8.2 Kauai General Plan Policies to Guide Growth. The General Plan contains nineteen (19) polices to guide growth that articulate the County’s path toward meeting the community’s vision and goals of sustainability, unique character, resilience, and equity. An evaluation of Kaua’i General Plan Section 1.4 shows the proposed development is consistent with the following Policies to Guide Growth. a. Policy # 1: Manage Growth to Preserve Rural Character. The General Plan effectuates Policy # 1 by supporting infill and compact development within areas that have accommodated similar development in the past and that have been identified as suitable for controlled growth in the future. At the same time, the General Plan discourages low density development away from existing town cores that displaces agricultural lands. The Facility is consistent with Policy # 1 because it is proposed to be developed next to Koloa town within an area that was historically used for industrial agricultural uses and that has been identified as an area for light industrial use in the future. b. Policy # 2: Provide Affordable Housing While Facilitating a Diversity of Privately Developed Housing for Local Families. The General Plan identifies that a large 24    majority of Kauais population cannot afford housing. The average price of a single-family house on Kauai exceeds $700,00.00. General Plan at 39. Currently, the average cost to build a basic house or dwelling unit is$450,000.00. Id. Recognizing the extraordinary urgency for affordable housing, the General Plan identifies that the County needs to plan for and help facilitate the building of approximately 9,000 housing units by 2035. Id. HPM recognizes Kauai’s urgent housing needs and its Facility specifically addresses lowering the cost of housing construction by manufacturing prefabricated housing materials which will decrease shipping costs and construction time and expense at the house site. In this regard, the Facility is consistent with Policy # 2. c. Policy #3: Recognize the Identity of Kauai’s Individual Towns and Districts. The proposed development is consistent with Koloa’s distinct character as an area that supports mixed use and economic opportunities. The Facility involves low impact construction as the building itself can be easily erected and removed. Further, the Facility will be built immediately adjacent to the Koloa Sugar Mill which has always been associated with industrial agricultural uses. This allows South Kauai to continue to be an economically diverse area and ensures that this district will not solely rely on resort and visitor industry related businesses now and in the future. The Facility is located away from historic Koloa town and the coastal resources of Poipu and Mahaulepu and therefore will not interfere with South Kauais many costal access opportunities or its cultural and historic resources. d. Policy # 4: Design Healthy and Complete Neighborhoods. General Plan Policy # 4 seeks to guide growth by ensuring that new and existing neighborhoods have access to jobs, commerce, transit and public services. Development of the Facility will not only provide employment opportunities for current residents in Koloa, but these jobs will also potentially 25    provide jobs to Kauai’s western population without requiring them to drive into Lihu’e and/or other industrial areas in Kapaa. This will mitigate future traffic congestion. Further, developing immediately adjacent to the Koloa Mill site prevents expansion of urban sprawl onto existing agricultural lands and will not take up areas within or adjacent existing town cores that may be more appropriately identified for compact infill residential or other commercial growth. e. Policy # 5: Make Strategic Infrastructure Investments. The General Plan acknowledges that government investment into infrastructure should support growth areas and include priority project identified in Community Plans. General Plan at 41. Given the increasing cost of infrastructure, including water, wastewater, solid waste, and transportation, the County recognizes that infrastructure investment should direct growth to the areas most suitable for development. Id. As stated above, the SKCP identifies the proposed site as actively used as a light industrial center. SKCP at 3. The General Plan also identifies the proposed site as appropriate for light industrial uses. The development of the Facility in an area that has been identified as appropriate for industrial use by both the SKCP and the General Plan is consistent with Policy # 5. Further, development of the Facility will not require additional governmental investment into infrastructure as utilities are currently available at or near the site, and the site is served by adequate roadways. f. Policy # 6: Reduce the Cost of Living. HPM’s Facility is consistent with Policy # 6 as it will result in lowering the cost of housing construction by decreasing import costs associated with housing construction and reducing the time and expense of construction at the home site. Further, HPM’s practice of providing competitive wages based upon each island’s cost of living and its employee stock ownership plan directly addresses concerns related to stagnant wages and upward economic opportunities. 26    g. Policy # 7: Build a Balanced Multimodal Transportation System. Development of the Facility will not require the any additional road construction as it is adequately served by Ala Kinoiki Rd. and Mahaulepu Rd. In this way it is consistent with Policy # 7 by utilizing existing infrastructure appropriately designed and used for light industrial activities. h. Policy # 8: Protecting Kauai’s Scenic Beauty. The proposed Facility cannot be seen from any public view planes and is consistent with protecting Kauai’s scenic beauty. See, Exhibit “F”. The proposed location within an area that was historically used for industrial agriculture and that is identified as appropriate for future light industrial use will preserve existing open space and views within the South Kauai Planning district and will not require the displacement of open spaces or current or future agricultural uses. i. Policy # 10: Helping Business Thrive. The General Plan states that in order to provide equity and opportunity for all, a focus on job creation and economic growth is necessary. General Plan at 44. The General Plan identifies that Kauai’s economy should allow for diversification so that it is not solely reliant on the visitor industry. Development of the Facility is consistent with Policy # 10 by providing economic opportunities that are not reliant on tourism and will instead be part of Kauai’s small manufacturing economy and a viable diversified agricultural industry. j. Policy # 13: Complete Kauai’s Shift to Clean Energy. Kauai is directly affected by climate change. Policy # 13 seeks to mitigate climate change and reduce system-wide carbon emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 through, inert alia, a deep reduction in energy use. General Plan at 45. One of the largest contributors of Kauais energy construction is transportation costs, including ground, air and shipping costs. Id. By manufacturing prefabricated 27    housing materials on Kauai, the Facility will directly and significantly contribute to decreasing the carbon footprint associated with housing construction. k. Policy # 15: Respect Native Hawaiian Rights and Wahi Pana. The facility will not adversely affect native Hawaiian rights, traditional customary practices, or wahi pana. The Facility will be located within an area that has been associated with industrial agriculture for nearly 200 years. No cultural or archaeological resources have been identified on site. Further, the development of the Facility will not inhibit traditional and customary practices of native Hawaiians, nor will it result in the loss of traditional and customary resources. l. Policy #16: Protect Access to Kauai’s Treasured Places. The Facility is consistent with Policy # 16 as it will not affect access to and customary use of shoreline areas, trails, places for religious and cultural observances, fishing, gathering, hunting, and recreational activities, such as hiking and surfing. m. Policy # 17: Nurture our Keiki. The General Plan encourages providing Kauai’s keiki with financially sustainable jobs and housing, so they are able to seek livelihoods on Kauai. Although HPM’s facility will not solve this problem alone, its development and operation will contribute to providing economic opportunities outside of the visitor industry and the products it will manufacture will contribute to decreasing housing costs, thus contributing to more local families entering the housing market. 8.3 Kauai General Plan Industrial Designation. The Property is in the Kaua’i General Plan Industrial land use designation. See, Exhibit “E-2”. The Industrial designation applies to areas that exclusively accommodate business, transportation, production oriented, and light industrial uses. General Plan at 58. Actions for the Industrial designation are found in the Chapter 3, Sectors III and IV of the General Plan. 28    The proposed development is also consistent with the General Plan’s management of traffic congestion. Manufacturing housing materials in Koloa will decrease the frequency and cost of land transportation on Kauai because these products will not have to be transported solely from Nawiliwili to other parts of the island, leading to less traffic congestion going to and from Lihu’e. Further, the General Plan specifically states that the Industrial designation applies to areas with existing industrial zoning and areas that can appropriately provide potential industrial areas such as the Koloa Mill site specifically. General Plan at 58. 8.4 Project Compliance with Kauai General Plan Standards. The proposed development will be located within an area that has been historically used for industrial activities and that has been identified as an appropriate location for future industrial uses. As stated above, the Facility will be consistent with the General Plan and will not adversely affect existing neighboring residential and resort uses and will not have an adverse effect on important recreational and cultural resources within the South Kauai Planning district. As such, the development complies with the General Plan’s policy for the Industrial Use designation and is consistent with the County’s aim to provide more affordable housing opportunities, reduce carbon emissions and support more diverse economic opportunities. SECTION 9. CZO AGRICULTURE DISTRICT CONSIDERATIONS. 9.1 CZO Agriculture District. The Agriculture District is established to protect and accommodate existing and potential agriculture, and to limit and control the dispersal of urban use within agricultural lands. CZO § 8-8.1. The facility complies with the Agriculture District Development Standards provided in CZO § 8-8.2. 9.2 Development’s Compliance with CZO Agriculture District Standards. Agriculture and associated agricultural processing activities and sales are permissible uses within the CZO Agriculture district. Although county zoning focuses primarily on agricultural uses that 29    have a food component, a robust and diverse agricultural industry on Kauai requires agricultural pursuits that include the cultivation of non-consumable products like wood for building materials and other items that could be used for material use, e.g., rope, clothes, etc. Current state building practices and lumber requirements mandate the use of borate treated Douglas fir or borate treated engineered wood products (“EWP”) for building construction. Neither of these raw materials are available in the state which is why HPM must import these materials from the North West. However, HPM’s facility would be readily available to use Hawaii grown and processed EWP when such products become available in state. Further, it is possible that if facilities like HPM’s become more common, it will contribute to the creation of a domestic lumber industry in Hawaii which would not only provide more diverse agricultural opportunities but will also result in lower housing production costs in the state. In this regard, and consistent with the Department’s determination DD-2022-16, the proposed development is consistent with the CZO’s Agriculture zoning standards and is similar to “retail sales” as allowed per CZO § 8-2.4(r)(17) and (20). Further, the Facility will not place current agricultural operations at risk of loss, nor will it limit future agricultural use of the Property. The Property has been identified by the General Plan as an area for future light industrial use related to agriculture. In this way, the proposed development complies with the CZO’s requirement of limiting and controlling the dispersal of urban uses within agricultural lands. SECTION 10. SOUTH KAUAI COMMUNITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS. 10.1 Community Plan Goals and Objectives. The goals and objectives of the South Kauai Community Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 990, includes in relevant part, that Kōloa will be a thriving commercial and residential community that maintains its rural feel and historic “old town” charm by preserving, enhancing, and protecting its vast cultural treasures; and 30    outside of town, the former Koloa Sugar Mill is in active use as a light industrial center. SKCP at 3. Relevant guiding principles include, focusing growth in appropriate areas to reduce sprawl and preserve open space, encourage small business and workforce development, and support affordable housing development. SKCP at 4. 10.2 Compliance with Development Plan Standards. The proposed development is consistent with the goals and objectives contained in the South Kauai Community Plan, specifically those related to future light industrial uses, a diverse economy and provision of affordable housing opportunities. The location of the development will be compatible with the natural beauty of the area and preserve open spaces and available agricultural lands. The development will not encroach upon or displace coastal access and open space recreational resources along the coastline and will not adversely affect any historical or cultural resources within the South Kaui Planning Area. SECTION 11. HRS CH. 343 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSIDERATIONS. 11.1 HRS Chapter 343. HRS Ch. 343 requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement for certain activities specified in HRS § 343-5. The development does not constitute an action for which an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared pursuant to HRS § 343-5. SECTION 12. IMPACTS TO NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES. 12.1 Existence of Traditional and Customary Practices. Under Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution, the State of Hawai’i: [R]eaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants 31    of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights. For the purpose of practicing [Native Hawaiian] traditional and customary rights, practitioners may gather anywhere that those rights have been traditionally and customarily exercised in that manner – on land that is less than “fully developed.” David M. Forman and Susan K. Serrano, Ho’ohana Aku, a Ho’ola Aku: A Legal Primer for Traditional and Customary Rights in Hawaii, December 2012; citing, Public Access Shoreline Hawaii (“PASH”) v. Hawaii County Planning Commission, 79 Haw. 425, 903 P.2d 1246. If property is deemed "fully developed," it is always "inconsistent" to permit the practice of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights on such property. State v. Hanapi, 89 Haw. 177, 970 P.2d 485. HPM has reviewed several relevant studies pertaining to the Property and adjacent areas, including: Cultural Impact Assessment for a Proposed Well Site at Mahaulepu, Koloa, Kauai Hawaii (2001); and Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Koloa-Poipu Regional wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System (2009). See, Exhibit “N”. According to mo’olelo specifically relating to the ahupua’a of Pa’a, on the coastal headland between the ahupua’a of Pa’a and Weliweli stood a large heiau named after the god Kane’aukai, a god who, amongst other things, taught fisherman a sacred prayer that would help them catch fish. See, Exhibit “N” at 14. Pa’a was also famous for its’ he’e (octopus) which was especially large and delicious. Id. at 15. The CIA identified and assessed potential impacts to cultural practices as a result of the development of the Koloa-Poipu Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The Project Area studied by the CIA included the Property upon which HPM’s facility will be located. Information gathered in the CIA contained conflicting information regarding the presence of cultural resources and the continued exercise of traditional practices in the Project Area. For 32    example, cultural practices noted in the CIA included access to Waita Reservoir12 and Mahaulepu beach, gathering of plants, and pig hunting. Id. at 62. Other informants indicated that all sugar cane lands were previously harrowed, and it is most likely that very few cultural properties or cultural practices will exist on such lands. Id. at 64. Further, it was shared that the Project Area was too far from the coast to impact fishing, and there were no known cultural practitioners who gathered any plants in the Project Area as people do not know what pesticides are being sprayed or where they are being sprayed. Id. at 67. After diligent review, it does not appear that there are currently any traditional or customary practices specifically occurring on the Property and any such practices that may have occurred on the Property ceased well over one hundred years ago due to extensive sugar cane cultivation in the area. Further, all cultural practices that were noted in previous studies pertained to and occurred either at the coastline or in mauka areas that are not affected by the proposed Facility. As such, HPM does not believe that the Facility will adversely affect any Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices. SECTION 13. CONCLUSION. Applicant respectfully requests the Planning Department and the Planning Commission: 1. Find that: the development will not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by Chapters 205 and 205A, HRS, and the rules of the Land Use Commission; will not adversely affect surrounding property; will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements, and police and fire   12 Applicant notes that pursuant to State v. Zimring, 52 Haw. 472, 479 P.2d 202 (1970), November 25, 1892 is the date by which ancient Hawaiian practices must have been established in order to substantiate the right to engage in Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices. Waita Reservoir was constructed in 1906. See, Waita Reservoir - Holoholo Kōloa (koloascenicbyway.org). Therefore, access to Waita Reservoir is not considered to be a Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practice under HRS § 1-1. Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd., 66 Haw. 1, 656 P.2d 745 (1982)   EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit Exhibit Description A Authorization letter B TMK Map of Parcel 01 C Map of licensed area D License E-1 SLUC Map E-2 General Plan Land Use Designation E-3 COK Zoning Map E-4 South Kauai Planning Dist. Map E-5 GP South Kauai Heritage Resources Map E-6 HPM Flood Map E-7 NRCS Soils Map E-8 HPM Topography Map F Current site photo G Construction Plans H Site Plan and Floor Plan to Scale I Map showing distance from Ala Kinoiki J DD 2022-16 J-1 Dept. Preliminary Review letter. K AECOS 2009 Botanical Resources Study L AIS Proposed Koloa-Poipu Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System M HRS of Koloa Mill N CIA Proposed Koloa-Poipu Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System EXHIBIT A APPLICANT'S AUTHORIZATION  I.APPLICANT. Name:HPM Building Supply  Address:3‐1850 Kaumuali’i Hwy.  Lihu’e, HI 96766  II.AUTHORIZED AGENT. Name:  Address:  Mauna Kea Trask, Esq.   Cades Schutte LLP  P.O. Box 1205 Lihue, HI  96766  Telephone: (808) 521‐9297 Facsimile: (808)540‐5015 Email: mtrask@cades.com III.PROPERTY. Tax Map Key No. (4) 2‐9‐001‐001 (por.) EXHIBIT A IV.AUTHORIZATION. The Applicant hereby authorizes the Authorized Agent(s) to act on Applicant’s behalf and to submit to the Planning Department an Application for a Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit for the use and construction of a wooden truss and wall panel manufacturing facility. DATED:  12/16/21  Requester:  Adam Bauer  HPM Building Supply  By:_________________________________  Its: ________________________________  Adam Bauer COO EXHIBIT B Developed by Parcel ID 290010010000 Acreage 1076.073 Class INDUSTRIAL Situs/Physical Address Mailing Address MAHAULEPU FARM LLC 3-1850 KAUMUALII HWY LIHUE HI 96766 Total Market Value $9,905,900 Total Assessed Value$8,672,700 Total Exemptions $0 Total Net Taxable Value$8,672,700 Last 2 Sales Date Price Reason n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a Brief Tax Description n/a (Note: Not to be used on legal documents) The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps and data are made available solely for informational purposes. The GIS data is not the official representation of any of the information included, and do not replace a site survey or legal document descriptions. The County of Kauai (County) makes or extends no claims, representations or warranties of any kind, either express or implied, inluding, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, as to the quality, content, accuracy, currency, or completeness of the information, text, maps, graphics, links and other items contained in any of the GIS data. In no event shall the County become liable for any errors or omissions in the GIS, and will not under any circumstances be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other loss, injury or damage caused by its use or otherwise arising in connection with its use, even if specifically advised of the possibility of such loss, injury or damage. The data and or functionality on this site may change periodically and without notice. In using the GIS data, users agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data, or the use of the data. Date created: 12/10/2021 Last Data Uploaded: 12/10/2021 6:03:57 AM 1.5 mi Overview Legend Parcels Roads EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C .BQPGBDSFQPSUJPOPG1BSDFMMJDFOTFEUP)1.#VJMEJOH4VQQMZEXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D 1 367/7/733209.1 2804783v4 LICENSE AGREEMENT This License Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by the parties identified below on the following terms and conditions: 1.Licensor. Mahaulepu Farm LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose mailing address is 3-1850 Kaumualii Highway, Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii 96766. 2.Licensee. Hawaii Planing Mill, Ltd. dba HPM Building Supply, a Hawaii corporation, whose mailing address is 16-166 Melekahiwa Street, Keaau, Hawaii, 96749. 3.Property. Approximately 3 acres of yard space located at Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii, Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9-001-001, as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Licensed Premises”). Licensee agrees and understands that this Agreement authorizes the Licensee to have exclusive use of only the Licensed Premises. Licensee is not authorized or privileged to enter or remain upon any of Licensor's other real property other than the Licensed Premises ("Licensor's Other Property") except for access, ingress and egress to and from the Licensed Premises and to the extent specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement is to be construed as creating an implied right or authorization for Licensee to use or occupy Licensor's Other Property except as otherwise provided herein. 4.Term. The initial license term shall be for ten (10) years commencing on January 1, 2022. As used in this Agreement, the term “year" means a period of twelve (12) consecutive full calendar months. Assuming Licensee is not in default at the end of the initial license term, Licensee shall have the option to extend the license term for three (3) additional five (5) year-terms on the same terms and conditions stated herein, subject to the minimum fee increasing annually at three percent (3%) from the prior year. 5.License Fee. (a)Minimum Fee. A minimum monthly license fee shall be paid as follows: Year 1: No license fee shall be payable. Year 2: $11,761 For Year 2, no license fee shall be payable for the first four (4) months; the minimum monthly license fee shall commence on May 1, 2023. Year 3:$13,068 Year 4: $13,460 Year 5:$13,864 Year 6: $14,280 EXHIBIT D 2 367/7/733209.1 2804783v4 Year 7:$14,708 Year 8: $15,149 Year 9:$15,604 Year 10: $16,072 The monthly minimum fee payments shall be due on the first day of each calendar month during the license term. (b)Percentage Fee. Intentionally deleted. (c)Real Property Tax. Licensee shall pay all real property taxes attributable to the Licensed Premises on a pro-rata basis for real property taxes attributable to the underlying tax parcels. Property tax shall be paid semi-annually as billed by Licensor and shall be due (10) days after the bill is mailed by Licensor to Licensee’s last known address. (d)General Excise Tax. In addition to the minimum annual license fee, percentage rent, if applicable, and real property tax as stated above, Licensee shall pay to Licensor Hawaii General Excise Tax, currently computed at 4.712%, on all license fees, property tax payments and on any other payments to be made by Licensee which are subject to the general excise tax on gross income imposed by the law of Hawaii. Payment of General Excise Tax shall be made simultaneously with payment of the other fees of charges upon which the tax is based. (e)Utilities. Beginning on the effective date, and except as may be otherwise stated herein, the Licensee will pay directly, before the same become delinquent, all charges, duties, rates and other outgoings of every description to which the Licensed Premises or any part thereof or any improvements thereon, or the Licensor or the Licensee in respect thereof, may during the term be assessed or become liable for electricity, gas, refuse collection, telephone, sewage disposal, water, or any other utilities or services whether assessed to or payable by the Licensor or the Licensee. Licensor will provide any connections or meters for electricity and water; Licensee will provide any connections or meters for all other utilities or services, if necessary. Licensee will be charged based on metered usage or on a pro-rata share based on building size if no meter is available. Licensor shall under no circumstances be liable to Licensee, in damages or otherwise, for any failure to furnish or interruption in service, resulting from any cause whatsoever, of any water, electricity, refuse collection, sewage disposal, utilities or any other services or things. 6.Late Charge. A late charge of five percent (5%) of the amount due will be charged for any amount not received by Licensor more than five (5) days after the due date. 7.Use. The Licensed Premises shall be used solely for manufacturing, covered storage and yard storage for bulk building materials. Licensee may not construct any 3 367/7/733209.1 2804783v4 improvements on the Licensed Premises, without Licensor’s prior written consent, which consent may be withheld in Licensor’s sole discretion. 8. Security Deposit. Intentionally deleted. 9. Key Usage Fee. Licensor may, at its option, install locked gates around the Licensed Premises to restrict access to Licensor’s property, including the Licensed Premises, for the security and welfare of Licensee or for Licensor's own convenience. Licensor agrees to make available to Licensee a maximum of two (2) keys to locks restricting access to the Licensed Premises, subject to a Key Usage Fee payable by Licensee in an amount to be determined by Licensor at its sole discretion. If more than one key is obtained, the name, address and phone number of each person having a key must be filed with Licensor. A full refund of the Key Usage Fee is available when the key is returned to Licensor. Any lost or unaccounted for key should be reported immediately to Licensor. A lost or stolen key will subject the Licensee to a nonrefundable key replacement charge. 10. Insurance. Licensee shall secure (a) comprehensive, general liability insurance with minimum limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for injury or death to more than one person arising out of one occurrence, (b) hazard insurance covering Licensee’s equipment and other personal property in an amount equal to the full insurable value thereof, and (c) worker’s compensation insurance covering all of Licensee’s employees working on the Licensed Premises. Licensor shall be named as an additional insured party on all policies of insurance, other than worker’s compensation insurance. The forgoing limits may be adjusted from time to time upon the agreement of the parties. 11. General Agreement Terms. The General Terms and Conditions of Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “B” (“General Terms”) are incorporated in this Agreement and made a part hereof. 12. Guaranty. Intentionally deleted. 13. Remedies upon Licensee’s Default. In the event of a default under this Agreement, Licensor shall have the remedies set forth in Section 34 of the General Terms, including but not limited to the remedy of summary possession pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 666. The parties agree that this Agreement shall, in connection with the exercise of rights and remedies under HRS chapter 666, be treated and interpreted as a lease for all purposes. Licensee specifically consents to the jurisdiction of the District or Circuit Courts of the Fifth Circuit and the application of the provisions of HRS chapter 666. 14. Special Provisions: Intentionally deleted. 4 367/7/733209.1 2804783v4 [Signatures on following page] 1 2804818v4 EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LICENSE AGREEMENT Section 1. Premises. The real property covered by this License Agreement (“Agreement”) is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, which property shall be referred to in this Agreement as the "Licensed Premises. " Section 2. Peaceable Enjoyment. The Licensor hereby covenants with the Licensee that upon payment by the Licensee of the license fee, and upon the observance and performance of all of the terms, covenants and conditions and agreements herein contained and on the part of the Licensee to be observed and performed, the Licensee shall peaceably occupy and enjoy the Licensed Premises during the term of this license on an exclusive basis without hindrance or interruption by the Licensor or anyone lawfully or equitably claiming by, through or under the Licensor, except as in this Agreement expressly provided. Licensor further grants to Licensee access, ingress and egress to and from the Licensed Premises over and through Licensor’s Other Property. Section 3. Minimum Fee. The Licensee shall pay to the Licensor, without notice or demand, the Minimum Fee set forth herein during each calendar month or quarter, as applicable, during the term of this Agreement. If the Effective Date of this license is not at the beginning of a calendar month or quarter, the Minimum Fee shall be pro-rated accordingly, with the first payment of Minimum Fee to be made on or before the effective date. All payments of Minimum Fee shall be net, without deductions of any type, and shall be in addition to any other charges payable by the Licensee hereunder. All payments shall be delivered to the Licensor at its address stated herein. Section 4. Percentage Fee. If the Licensee is required to pay a Percentage Fee under this Agreement, the following terms shall apply: 4.1 Building/Yard Gross Sales. For purposes of computing any Percentage Fee payable under this Agreement, "gross sales," as used herein, shall be defined as the entire amount of the actual sales prices, whether for cash or otherwise, on all sales of merchandise or services, and all other receipts whatsoever with respect to all business conducted at, from or in the Licensed Premises, including mail or telephone orders received or filled at the Licensed Premises, receipts at any other location on account of work performed or orders received at the Licensed Premises, all deposits not refunded to purchasers, and all sales by any concessionaire or sublicensee or otherwise at, from or in the Licensed Premises. To the extent that the amount of such tax shall be separately charged as tax to a customer, there shall be deducted from gross sales any gross income, sales or excise tax, or any other tax upon or measured by the gross receipts of Licensee or measured by the sales prices of merchandise sold at, from or in the Licensed Premises and imposed directly upon Licensee by any duly constituted authority. Licensee may also deduct from gross sales each cash or credit refund made to a customer with respect to a sale of merchandise or services at, from or in the Licensed Premises where such sale is or has been included in Licensee's computation of gross sales. No deduction shall be allowed for uncollected or uncollectible credit accounts. 2 2804818v4 4.2. Agricultural Land Gross Proceeds. For purposes of computing any Percentage Fee payable under this Agreement, "gross proceeds," as used herein, shall be defined as the aggregate of the following items: (a) The entire actual revenues received by the Licensee from any person or persons to whom the Licensee's crops or by-products of crops grown on the Licensed Premises may be sold without deduction for any charges. (b) Any bounty, compliance payment, soil conservation payment, contribution, refund or any other payment in the nature of a subsidy received by the Licensee or accruing to its benefit on account of the production, manufacture or marketing of any crops or by-products of such crops grown on the Licensed Premises, or otherwise derived from the agricultural practices employed on the Licensed Premises or on account of the use or non-use of any portion or portions thereof. (c) All insurance proceeds received by the Licensee from insurance payable by reason of the loss or destruction of the crops or by-product, of such crops grown, produced or manufactured on the Licensed Premises. (d) All condemnation proceeds received by the Licensee from a condemnation of growing crops or the by-products of such crops grown, produced or manufactured on the Licensed Premises. 4.3 Books and Records. The Licensee shall maintain, keep and make available to the Licensor for inspection, upon reasonable notice, all books and records of the Licensee's crops and/or merchandise on the Licensed Premises and the sales related thereto which are necessary to fully document the Licensee's gross proceeds or sales for each calendar month during the term of this Agreement. 4.4 Audit. The Licensor and its agents shall be entitled to inspect and audit, upon reasonable notice and at any reasonable time during the Licensee's ordinary business hours, all books and records of any nature whatsoever, of the Licensee and its agents and contractors, pertaining to the amount and type of crops grown or produced or the merchandise and/or services sold or delivered upon the Licensed Premises by the Licensee. The Licensee shall cooperate and assist as may be reasonably necessary in any such audit. The Licensor's costs and expenses related to the audit shall be paid by the Licensor. If any audit by the Licensor discloses any error to the Licensor's detriment in the Licensee's statement of crops grown or produced or the or merchandise and/or services sold or delivered and Percentage Fee payable, the Licensee shall immediately pay to the Licensor any deficiency in the Percentage Fee resulting from such error, plus interest on such deficiency at the rate stated elsewhere in this license, from the date when such Percentage Fee should have been paid to the date of payment of the deficiency. If such deficiency equals or exceeds five percent (5 %) of the total fee paid for the period covered by such audit, the Licensee shall, in addition to the additional fee and interest thereon, pay the costs of the Licensor's audit. The acceptance by the Licensor of any license fee or other payment hereunder shall be without prejudice to the right of the Licensor to perform such inspection and audit and to receive payment of any such deficiency. Section 5. Option to Extend Term. If the terms of this Agreement provide for extension of the Agreement term, and if the Licensee is not then in default under any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Licensee shall have the option to extend the term of this Agreement for the additional term described herein, upon the same terms and condition, stated herein. If Licensee wishes to exercise its option to extend the term of this license, Licensee shall 3 2804818v4 deliver written notice of such exercise to Licensor not less than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration date of the initial term. Section 6. Termination. Intentionally deleted. Section 7. Acceptance of Premises and Improvements. Licensee acknowledges that the Licensor has not made, and does not hereby make, any representation or warranty as to the physical condition of the Licensed Premises and the improvements thereon, that Licensee has had the opportunity to inspect the Licensed Premises and to conduct any tests or investigations on or under the Licensed Premises which are deemed necessary by the Licensee for the purposes of the Licensee's intended use thereof, and the Licensee hereby accepts the Licensed Premises and all improvements thereon "as is, where is," in their existing physical condition. Section 8. Payment of Fees and Charges. The Licensee will pay all of the License Fee and other charges herein reserved in lawful money of the United States of America to the Licensor at the Licensor's principal place of business in Hawaii, or at such other place and to such person or agent as the Licensor shall designate by notice in writing to the Licensee, in the manner and time aforesaid, without any deduction or set-off and without any other notice or demand. Section 9. Payment of Taxes and Assessments. Beginning on the effective date of this Agreement, the Licensee will pay, upon receipt of Licensor's billing for the same, all real property taxes, rates, assessments, impositions, duties, charges and other outgoings of every nature and kind whatsoever which shall, during the term of this Agreement, be lawfully charged, assessed or imposed, become a lien upon, or become due and payable upon or on account of the Licensed Premises and any improvements thereon, whether payable or dischargeable by either the Licensor or the Licensee. Real property taxes and other assessments assessed against the Licensed Premises for the initial and terminal years hereof shall be prorated as of the effective date and of termination of the term hereof, respectively. Payment of taxes and assessments shall be made directly to Licensor unless Licensor, in its discretion, directs the payment to be made directly to the taxing authority. Real property taxes will be based on a pro-rata basis for real property taxes attributable to the underlying tax parcels. Section 10. Utility Charges. Beginning on the effective date, and except as may be otherwise stated herein, the Licensee will pay directly, before the same become delinquent, all charges, duties, rates and other outgoings of every description to which the Licensed Premises or any part thereof or any improvements thereon, or the Licensor or the Licensee in respect thereof, may during the term be assessed or become liable for electricity, gas, refuse collection, telephone, sewage disposal, water, or any other utilities or services or any connections or meters therefore, whether assessed to or payable by the Licensor or the Licensee. Licensor shall under no circumstances be liable to Licensee, in damages or otherwise, for any failure to furnish or interruption in service, resulting from any cause whatsoever, of any water, electricity, refuse collection, sewage disposal, utilities or any other services or things. Section 11. Security Deposit. Regarding any security deposit payable by Licensee hereunder, the security deposit shall be held by the Licensor as security for the faithful observance and performance by the Licensee of Licensee's agreements under this license. In the event all or part of said deposit is applied during the license term by the Licensor to any delinquent license fee or to pay any obligation of the Licensee, the Licensee shall upon the request of the Licensor redeposit or replenish said deposit to the original amount. If the Licensee shall faithfully observe and perform the Licensee's agreements under this license, said sum shall be returned to the Licensee, without interest. 4 2804818v4 Section 12. Use of Licensed Premises. 12.1 Use. The Licensee agrees that the Licensed Premises shall be used only for purposes described herein. If the Licensee abandons any portion or all of the Licensed Premises, or for any reason fails or refuses to make active use of the Licensed Premises for the purposes stated above for a period exceeding ninety (90) days without the Licensor's written approval, such failure or refusal shall be deemed a default of the Licensee' s obligations under this Agreement. 12.2 Good Husbandry. Intentionally deleted. 12.3 Harmonious Conduct. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that Licensor owns and operates a large estate with multiple licensee, and Licensee understands that it and its employees and invitees may have interactions with Licensor, Licensor's other licensees, and Licensor's invitees, agents, and guests (the "Licensor Parties"). Licensee shall at all times act in a harmonious manner towards the Licensor Parties. Any altercation, aggressive conduct, threats or threats of physical violence towards the Licensor Parties shall be deemed a material default under the terms of this Agreement, and Licensor shall have the right to bar employees, invitees or guests of Licensee, or, in circumstances where, in Licensor's reasonable judgment, the incident was a of serious nature and/or presents a risk on continued or escalated danger to the Licensor Parties, Licensor may immediately terminate this Agreement. Additionally, in the event Licensee admits to or is determined to have committed any act or do anything which might reasonably be considered: (A) to be immoral, deceptive, scandalous or obscene, or (B) to inure, tarnish, damage or otherwise negatively affect the reputation and goodwill associated with Licensor, Licensor may immediately terminate this Agreement. Section 13. Reservations and Exceptions. The following are hereby excepted and reserved by the Licensor from this license: 13.1 Use of Improvements or Facilities. The Licensor reserves the right to use and maintain any of its improvements or facilities, elements of the water distribution system, easements or roadways which may be located upon the Licensed Premises, provided that such use and maintenance shall not unreasonably interfere with the Licensee's use of the Licensed Premises. 13.2 Licensor's Right to Use Roads. The Licensor reserves for itself, its agents, employees, permittees and tenants, the right of access, ingress, egress and use of and to all roads, presently existing or constructed in the future, on the Licensed Premises. 13.3 Water, Air and Mineral Rights. This Agreement does not confer on Licensee any rights to surface or subsurface water, air, or minerals or metallic mines on, above or under the Licensed Premises, and the Licensor reserves all such rights. Licensee shall not modify, alter or interfere with any stream channel, ditch or other waterway located on or in the vicinity of the Licensed Premises without Licensor's prior written consent, which need not be given. 13.4 Rock. The Licensor reserves the right to take all moss rock, field stone or quarry rock on the Licensed Premises, together with the right to remove and/or sell the same. Such 5 2804818v4 removal shall be done so as not to unreasonably interfere with the Licensee's use of the Licensed Premises. Section 14. No Removal of Soils, Etc. The Licensee will not, without the written consent of the Licensor, take or remove away, from or off the Licensed Premises any soil, rock or stone, or limestone from the Licensed Premises; and will not, without such consent, dig, drill, or cause to be dug or drilled any well on the Licensed Premises. Section 15. Prevention of Soil Erosion, Control of Noxious Weeds. Intentionally deleted. Section 16. Water Distribution System 16.1 Licensor's Water Distribution System. If the Licensor agrees to provide irrigation water, Licensor shall use its best efforts to furnish said water to the perimeter of the Licensed Premises, but no further, water reasonably sufficient for normal agricultural usage by the Licensee, subject to any charges or fees for the same which are stated herein. Any delivery of water to the Licensed Premises shall be by way of the Licensor's existing equipment, facilities, reservoirs, water lines, ditches and pumps (the "water distribution system"), but shall be subject in all cases to the availability of water in the Licensor's water distribution system, and shall be subject further to the understanding that the Licensor shall have the absolute right to apportion or ration water from the water distribution system among the Licensor and the Licensor's other tenants, lessees and licensees in reasonable quantities and for reasonable times if, in the Licensor's discretion, the same is necessary or desirable due to any natural or drought conditions, or due to the other demands placed upon the water available through the water distribution system. 16.2 Use of Water by Licensee. If water is furnished by the Licensor to the Licensee pursuant to this license, all shall be used by the Licensee only on the Licensed Premises and not for transportation to any other location or for use by any other person. 16.3 Nonliability for Interruption. Licensor shall not be liable to Licensee, in damages or otherwise, for or as a result of any failure to furnish, or interruption in service of, water, gas or electricity or for or as a result of stoppage of sewers. 16.4 No Interference with Water Distribution System. Licensee shall not take any action, or fail to take any action, which will in any way whatsoever impede, alter or interfere with the flow of water in and through any portion or element of Licensor's water distribution system, whether such portion or element of the system is located within or outside the Licensed Premises. 16.5 No Obligation of Licensor. Nothing in this license shall be construed as imposing any duty upon the Licensor to provide water, or to construct, develop or maintain facilities, other than the Licensor's existing water distribution system, if one exists. Section 17. Hazardous Materials. 17.1 Compliance. Licensee, at its sole expense, shall at all times comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations in force from time to time regarding the management and disposal on, under or about the Licensed Premises of flammable explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos, organic compounds known as polychlorinated biphenyls, chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes, toxic substances or related materials, including, without limitation, any substances defined as or included in the definition of "hazardous substance," "hazardous wastes," "hazardous 6 2804818v4 materials," or "toxic substances" (collectively, "Hazardous Materials") under any such federal, state or local laws, ordinances or regulations, now or hereafter in effect, relating to environmental conditions, industrial hygiene or Hazardous Materials, including, without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901, et seq., the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 6901, et seq., the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq., the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7401, et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2601 through 2629, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 300f through 300j, and any state and local laws and ordinances and the regulations now or hereafter adopted, published and or promulgated with respect to Hazardous Materials (collectively, the "Hazardous Materials Laws"). Licensee shall keep and maintain the Licensed Premises and all groundwater on or under the Licensed Premises, in compliance with, and shall not cause or permit the Licensed Premises and improvements thereon to be in violation of, any Hazardous Materials Laws. Licensee shall immediately advise Licensor in writing upon becoming aware of (a) any and all enforcement, clean up, removal, mitigation, or other governmental or regulatory action instituted, contemplated or threatened pursuant to any Hazardous Materials Laws affecting the licensed premises or improvements thereon, (b) all claims made or threatened by any third party against Licensee, Licensor or the Licensed Premises or improvements thereon relating to damage, contribution, cost recovery, compensation, loss or injury resulting from any Hazardous Materials or violation of or compliance with any Hazardous Materials Laws, and (c) Licensee's discovery of any occurrence or condition on the Licensed Premises or improvements thereon or any real property adjoining or in the vicinity of the Licensed Premises which could subject Licensor, Licensee or the Licensed Premises or improvements thereon to any restrictions on ownership, occupancy, transferability or use of the Licensed Premises or improvements thereon under any Hazardous Materials Laws. Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless Licensor, its directors, officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns from and against, any loss, damage, cost, expense or liability directly or indirectly arising out of or attributable to the use, generation, manufacture, treatment. handling, refining, production, processing, storage, release, threatened release, discharge, disposal, or presence of Hazardous Materials by Licensee on, under or about the Licensed Premises or any improvements thereon while Licensee is using, occupying or controlling the Licensed Premises, including, without limitation: (i) all foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential damages; (ii) all fines which may be imposed and all costs of any required or necessary repair, clean up or detoxification of the Licensed Premises or improvements thereon, and the preparation and implementation of any closure, remedial or other required plans; and (iii) all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Licensor in connection with clauses (i) and (ii), including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees; provided, however, that Licensee’s indemnification obligations hereunder shall not apply to any Hazardous Materials existing on the Licensed Premises as of the Commencement Date or to the extent that any such loss, damage, cost, expense or liability arises out of or results from the negligence or willful misconduct of Licensor. All of the agreements and obligations of Licensee under this Section shall survive, and shall continue to be binding upon Licensee notwithstanding, the termination, expiration or surrender of this Agreement. 17.2 Licensee's Release of Licensor. Prior to execution and delivery of this Agreement, the Licensee will have made any inspections and investigations of environmental conditions in and around the Licensed Premises as the Licensee deems sufficient. The Licensee expressly forever releases the Licensor from any and all liability and claims that any person may have against the Licensor, their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, trustees, beneficiaries, anyone with interest in the Licensor, their successors, and 7 2804818v4 assigns, known and unknown, in connection with environmental conditions coming into existence after the commencement of the Term of this Agreement. 17.3 Licensee's Indemnity of Licensor. In addition to and without limiting the scope of other indemnities provided by the Licensee to the Licensor under this Agreement or available under Hazardous Materials Laws, the Licensee shall indemnify the Licensor against all claims arising under or in connection with the violation of any Hazardous Materials Laws by Licensee and arising directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, arising out of or relating to the use or occupancy of the Licensed Premises by the Licensee (including its predecessors in leasehold title) or any person claiming through the Licensee, and against all costs and expenses, including consultant and expert fees, and court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in defending any such claim and all costs and expenses incurred in connection with any cleanup, remedial, removal or restorative work on or about the Licensed Premises required to restore the Licensed Premises as provided in this Agreement; provided, however, that Licensee’s obligations hereunder shall not apply to any Hazardous Materials existing on the Licensed Premises as of the Commencement Date or to the extent that such claims arise out of or result from the negligence or willful misconduct of Licensor. This indemnity shall expressly not extend to any claims arising out of acts or omissions from and after the expiration of the Term unless the basis for such claims occurred during the Term. Section 18. Risk of Activities on Adjacent Lands. The Licensee acknowledges that the Licensed Premises are adjacent to, nearby or in the vicinity of lands being, or which in the future may be, actively used for quarry and/or rock-crushing activities, real estate development or the growing, harvesting and processing of agricultural products, which activities may from time to time bring about upon the Licensed Premises or result in smoke, dust, noise, heat, agricultural chemicals, particulates and similar substances and nuisances (collectively, the "by-products"). The Licensee hereby assumes complete risk of and forever releases the Licensor from all claims for damages (including, but not limited to, consequential, special, exemplary and punitive damages) and nuisances occurring on the Licensed Premises and arising out of any such activities or by-products, with the exception of any such claims resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Licensor. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, and except for any claims resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Licensor, the Licensee hereby, with full knowledge of its rights, forever: (a) waives any right to require the Licensor, and releases the Licensor from any obligation, to take any action to correct, modify, alter, eliminate or abate any such activities or byproducts, and (b) waives any right to file any suit or claim against the Licensor for injunction or abatement of nuisances. The Licensee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Licensor from and against all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, asserted against or incurred by the Licensor, which arise out of any suit or claim by Licensee or anyone claiming by, through or under it for any injury, death or damage to person, property or business that occurs on the Licensed Premises and is the result of any such activities or by-products, irrespective of the theory of liability asserted against the Licensor; provided, however, this indemnification shall not apply to claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses caused by the proven (and not merely alleged) gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Licensor, but unless the Licensor's gross negligence or willful misconduct shall be established by a final, nonappealable judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, the Licensor shall be entitled to the full benefits of this indemnification, including the right to reimbursement for all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in the defense of any claims or demands asserted by any party against the Licensor. Any such activities or by-products, and any claim, demand, action, loss, damage, liability, cost or expense arising therefrom, shall not constitute a breach of any covenant or warranty of the Licensor under this 8 2804818v4 license or be the basis for a suit or other claim for injunction or abatement of nuisances, and the Licensee hereby forever waives any right to file any such suit or claim. As used in this Section, all references to the "Licensor" shall mean and include the Licensor and all parent, subsidiary, sister and other affiliated companies of the Licensor, in their respective capacities as the current owner of the Licensed Premises, the owner of the lands on which the activities described in this Section are or may be conducted, and the person conducting or who may conduct said activities, and all successors and assigns of the Licensor and its parent, subsidiary, sister and affiliated companies. Section 19. Assumption of Risk by Licensee/General Waiver of Liability. 19.1 Assumption of Risk. Without in any way limiting the provisions of the preceding Paragraph 18, Licensor shall not be liable to Licensee for any damage occasioned by fire, water, gas, explosion, electricity, steam, sewerage, wiring, deluge, rain, wind, storm, overflow of ocean waters, earthquakes, acts of a public enemy, war, rebellion, sabotage, transportation embargoes, failures or delays in transportation, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, water shortages, drought or other weather conditions, pestilence, disease, acts of God, acts, rules, regulations, orders or directives of any governmental authority or the order of any court of competent jurisdiction, bursting, leaking or overflow of water, gas, sprinkler or any pipes, plumbing or apparatus, or running of any tank, washstand, closed or waste or other pipes in or about the Licensed Premises nor by reason of any ceiling leak, nor for any damage occasioned by water coming into the Licensed Premises from any source whatsoever, nor any existing or future condition, defect, matter, or thing in the Licensed Premises, nor from any damage arising from any acts or neglect of any other party or any adverse environmental condition, except to the extent arising out of or resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Licensor. All property of Licensee and all equipment, supplies, merchandise and other property, by whomsoever owned, which is kept or stored on the Licensed Premises shall be so kept or stored at the risk of Licensee only, and Licensee shall hold Licensor harmless from any claims arising out of theft, loss or damage to the same, including subrogation claims by Licensee's insurance carriers. Licensee acknowledges that activities upon the Licensed Premises including but not limited to irrigating, grading, drainage, the use of fertilizers, herbicides and/or pesticides and other agricultural activity, may have an effect on properties other than the Licensed Premises. Licensee covenants that Licensee will exercise care so as not to create effects outside the Licensed Premises. Licensee further covenants that should Licensee create such effects, Licensee will mitigate or otherwise deal with them, including defending Licensor from any claims for damage from such alleged effects. 19.2 General Waiver. Without limiting any other waiver or assumption of risk provision in this Agreement, and to the fullest extent provided by law, the Licensee, for itself, its authorized representatives and any person claiming by, through or under the Licensee, waives all claims against the Licensor and its authorized representatives for (1) injury or death of any person on the Licensed Premises and (2) the loss of, injury or damage to, or destruction of, any tangible property located on the Licensed Premises, including loss of use, economic losses and consequential or resulting damage of any kind from any cause, regardless of whether the liability results from any active or passive act, error, omission or negligence of the Licensor or its authorized representatives or is based on claims in which liability without fault or strict liability is imposed or sought to be imposed on the Licensor or its authorized representatives, except to the extent arising out of or resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Licensor. The waiver set forth herein shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement until all claims within the scope of this waiver are fully, finally and absolutely barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 9 2804818v4 Section 20. Construction of Improvements; Permits. Except as otherwise stated below, Licensee may construct improvements relating to the permitted activities on the Licensed Premises and fence the Licensed Premises, subject to Licensor's prior review and written approval of Licensee's plans and drawings for such improvements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. No other improvements shall be allowed without Licensor's prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld if such improvements are reasonably related to the purposes of this Agreement, but which otherwise may be granted or withheld in Licensor's sole discretion. In no event shall Licensee be allowed to construct any residential or farm dwelling improvements on the Licensed Premises without Licensor's prior written consent, which consent need not be given. Licensee shall not apply for any building permit or other type of governmental authorization affecting the Licensed Premises or any improvements, or proposed improvements, on the premises without the Licensor's prior written consent. Section 21. Repairs and Maintenance. 21.1 By Licensee. Licensee will, at its own expense, keep all fences, constructed by Licensee and any buildings or other improvements constructed by Licensee on the Licensed Premises in good order, condition and repair, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and will not alter or change same without Licensor's prior written consent. Licensee shall make good, at Licensee's own cost and expense, all repairs and defects which are required to keep such improvements constructed by Licensee on the Licensed Premises in good, healthy and safe condition or of which notice shall be given by Licensor within thirty (30) days after the giving of such notice, and shall indemnify and hold harmless Licensor from any and all liens of any kind or character which may be levied for labor performed or materials furnished in connection with the maintenance, repair or alterations by Licensee on the Licensed Premises and any improvements now hereafter placed on the Licensed Premises by Licensee. If Licensee refuses or neglects to commence repairs required of Licensee within the thirty (30) day period, or to take reasonable good faith steps to commence such repairs at the earliest possible time if the same is not able to be commenced within said thirty (30) day period, Licensor may make such repair and shall not be responsible to Licensee for any loss or damage that may occur by reason thereof, and Licensee agrees to pay Licensor on demand the cost of such repairs, made or caused to be made by Licensor together with interest thereon at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or at the maximum rate allowed by Hawaii law, whichever is less. 21.1 By Licensor. Licensor will, at its own expense, keep all fences, constructed by Licensor and any buildings or other improvements existing on the Licensed Premises as of the Commencement Date in good order, condition and repair, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and will not alter or change such buildings or other improvements without Licensee's prior written consent. Licensor shall make good, at Licensor’s own cost and expense, all repairs and defects which are required to keep such improvements existing on the Licensed Premises as of the Commencement Date in good, healthy and safe condition or of which notice shall be given by Licensee within thirty (30) days after the giving of such notice. If Licensor refuses or neglects to commence repairs required of Licensor within the thirty (30) day period, or to take reasonable good faith steps to commence such repairs at the earliest possible time if the same is not able to be commenced within said thirty (30) day period, Licensee may make such repair and shall not be responsible to Licensor for any loss or damage that may occur by reason thereof, and Licensee may offset the cost of such repairs, made or caused to be made by Licensee against the amounts payable by Licensee to Licensor under this Agreement. 10 2804818v4 Section 22. Liens and Encumbrances. The Licensee will keep the Licensed Premises free of any mechanics' or materialmen's liens and any attachment, execution or judgment liens, and any charge or encumbrance whatsoever. Should the Licensee cause any such lien, charge or encumbrance or notice thereof to be recorded against or attach to the Licensed Premises, or any part thereof, or any interest therein, then the Licensee will immediately pay off the same and cause the same to be satisfied and discharged of record. If the Licensee shall not pay off the same and cause it to be satisfied and discharged of record promptly, the Licensor may, at the Licensor's option, pay off the same, and any amount so paid by the Licensor shall thereupon be and become immediately due and payable by the Licensee to the Licensor, together with interest calculated from the date such sums were so paid by the Licensor at the interest rate stated elsewhere in this Agreement. Section 23. Observance of Laws. Except as herein provided, the Licensee will not make or suffer any strip or waste, nor make or suffer to be made any unlawful, improper or offensive use of the Licensed Premises or any part thereof, or improvements thereon, and will keep the Licensed Premises, including the improvements thereon, in a strictly clean and sanitary condition, and will comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations made by or by authority of the federal, state or any municipal or other local government, any board, division or agency thereof or other lawful authority, applicable to the Licensed Premises or such improvements; and will not do or knowingly permit or suffer to be done on the Licensed Premises anything whereby, or by reason whereof, the Licensed Premises or any part thereof or interest therein may be forfeited, or the use thereof may be enjoined or prevented under any law, ordinance, regulation or rules, and will indemnify, hold harmless and defend Licensor against all actions, suits, damages and claims by whomsoever brought or made by reason of the nonobservance or nonperformance or the violation by the Licensee of any such law, ordinance, regulations or rule, or of this covenant. Section 24. Hazard Insurance. The Licensee will insure and keep insured against loss or damage by fire and the risks covered by the standard extended coverage endorsement now in general use in the State of Hawaii (including hurricane insurance) at its own expense and in a sum as near as may be practicable to the replacement costs thereof all improvements and buildings existing upon the Licensed Premises, or constructed by Licensee, with a reputable insurance company or companies, with the loss, if any, to be payable to the Licensor and the Licensee as their respective interests may appear; and in case the said buildings or any part thereof shall at any time during the said term be destroyed or damaged by fire or other insured casualty, then and as often as the same shall happen all moneys received in respect of such insurance shall, to the extent necessary, with all convenient speed be paid out either (a) in rebuilding, repairing or otherwise reinstating the same improvements in a good and substantial manner, according to the plans of the improvements so destroyed or damaged or according to such other plan or in such other manner as shall be previously approved by the Licensor in writing, or (b) in removing all debris and restoring the ground to good and clean condition; and in case the moneys received in respect of such insurance shall be insufficient for either purpose the Licensee will make good the deficiency out of its own moneys. Rent for the Licensed Premises shall be abated for the period during which there may be either substantial interference or discontinuation of Licensee's use of the premises due to the casualty. Upon request of the Licensor, the Licensee will furnish the Licensor with a certificate evidencing that such policy or policies is in full force and effect and that such policy or policies shall require thirty (30) days' written notice to the Licensor of the insurer's intent to cancel or fail to renew the same. Section 25. Liability Insurance. The Licensee shall maintain (a) comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per person and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or such higher or lower amounts as the parties hereto 11 2804818v4 shall from time to time mutually agree, for bodily injury or death to any person or persons and loss or damage to any property arising out of the use, occupancy, misuse or condition of the Licensed Premises, improvements thereon, and Licensee's use, occupancy, misuse or condition of Licensor's adjacent property and other adjoining and nearby areas; and (b) statutory Workers' Compensation insurance covering all employees of Licensee who are employed or hired to work on the Licensed Premises. Such insurance shall be carried with a reputable insurance company and shall name the Licensor as an additional insured party. All such coverages shall provide for at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Licensor before alteration or cancellation of such policies. A certificate of such insurance coverage shall be furnished to the Licensor. The policy(ies) of comprehensive general liability insurance shall also include (a) a provision stating that the general aggregate limit applies exclusively to the Licensed Premises and operations conducted on the Licensed Premises; (b) an endorsement specifically naming the persons who are the shareholders and who are the officers, directors of Licensor from time to time in office; (c) endorsements as needed to provide that the insurance afforded by those policies to the additional insured is primary liability insurance which shall apply to any loss or claim, and that all insurance carried by the Licensor is strictly excess and secondary and shall not contribute with the Licensee's general liability coverage; and (d) an endorsement containing a waiver of subrogation clause which states substantially as follows: The insurer waives any right of recovery it may have against the persons who are the shareholders and officer and directors of Licensor from time to time in office, because of payments made under this policy. Section 26. Indemnity of Licensor. The Licensee will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Licensor and its authorized representatives from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, liabilities, damage, costs, expenses, liens, charges, assessments, fines and penalties of any kind and all court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees arising out of or relating (directly or indirectly) to: (a) The use or occupancy or manner of use or occupancy of the Licensed Premises by the Licensee or persons claiming by, through or under the Licensee; (b) The conduct of business by the Licensee or persons claiming by, through or under the Licensee; (c) Any act, error, omission or negligence of the Licensee or its authorized representatives or any person claiming by, through or under the Licensee; (d) Any breach or default in the performance of any obligation on Licensee’s part under this Agreement, during the Term; and (e) Any mishap, fire, casualty or nuisance occurring or made on the Licensed Premises or adjacent property by Licensee or Licensee’s employees, representatives and invitees. This indemnification extends to and includes claims for (1) injury to persons (including death), (2) loss of, injury or damage to, or destruction of property (including all loss of use resulting from that loss, injury, damage or destruction), and (3) all economic losses and consequential or resulting damage of any kind; provided, however, that this indemnification shall 12 2804818v4 not apply to the extent arising out of or resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Licensor. The obligations of the Licensee under this indemnity shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. Section 27. Attorney's Fees and Expenses of Licensor. The Licensee will pay to the Licensor on demand all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the Licensor in enforcing any of the Licensee's covenants herein contained, in remedying any breach thereof, in recovering possession of the Licensed Premises or any part thereof, in collecting any delinquent license fees, taxes or other charges hereunder payable by the Licensee, or in connection with any litigation (other than condemnation proceedings) commenced by or against the Licensee to which the Licensor shall without fault be made a party. Section 28. Inspection and Entry by Licensor. 28.1 General. Licensor, its agents, or contractors, shall have at all reasonable times free access to the Licensed Premises for the purpose of examining the same, doing any maintenance that Licensor has the right or obligation to perform, determining whether the covenants, conditions and agreements herein are being fully observed and performed, or for any other reason which does not unreasonably interfere with or prevent the Licensee from using the Licensed Premises as authorized herein. If Licensor gives Licensee notice of any defect in the condition of the Licensed Premises, which pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, Licensee is required to correct, Licensee will make good at the Licensee's own cost and expense, or arrange for and deliver to the Licensor adequate security to make good all such defects within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice from Licensor or such longer period if such defects cannot reasonably be corrected within such thirty (30) day period. If the Licensee shall fail to make good all such defects, or arrange for and deliver adequate security therefor, such failure shall constitute a default hereunder and, in addition to any other remedy for such default to which the Licensor may be entitled, the Licensor may make good such defects, and the Licensee will repay to the Licensor, upon demand, all costs and incurred by the Licensor in connection with the same, with interest, calculated from the date such costs and expenses were so paid by the Licensor, at the interest rate stated elsewhere in this Agreement. 28.2 Emergency. Licensor and its authorized representatives may enter the Licensed Premises at any time in circumstances when person's property may be in imminent danger. 28.3 No Liability. Licensor shall not be liable in any manner for an inconvenience, disturbance, loss of business, nuisance or other damage arising out of the Licensor's entry on the Licensed Premises or making good any defects as provided herein, except damage resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Licensor. Section 29. Removal of Improvements. 29.1 General. The Licensee shall upon expiration or termination of the term of this license, remove, except as herein provided and except for groundwork approved by Licensor, at its own expense, if so requested by the Licensor, all or any portion of the structures and improvements, including buildings and machinery, erected or placed thereon by the Licensee at any time during this Agreement, and upon such removal, the Licensee shall restore the ground area as nearly as may be to the same or as good condition as such ground area was in at the time of the installation or construction of such improvements, and shall remove all foundations and 13 2804818v4 shall fill all excavations and holes caused or left by such removal, all at the Licensee's own expense. 29.2 Licensor’s Right to Elect in Certain Circumstances. Intentionally deleted. Section 30. Assignment, Mortgaging, Subleasing, Subdivision 30.1 No Assignment, Mortgaging, Subleasing, Subdivision by Licensee. The Licensee will not, without the written consent of the Licensor, which consent may be withheld in Licensor’s sole discretion, assign or mortgage this license or sublicense or subdivide the Licensed Premises or any part thereof. Licensor's consent to an assignment or sublicense shall not constitute a waiver of the provisions of this section nor a release of Licensee from its obligations under this Agreement nor in the case of a sublicense be deemed to create any contractual obligations on the part of the Licensor to the sublicensee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Licensee shall have the right to assign this Agreement or sublicense the Licensed Premises, without the consent of Licensor, to any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with Licensee. 30.2 Change in Control. If Licensee is a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or limited liability partnership, Licensee shall not, so long as the Agreement is in force, cause, permit, or suffer, directly or indirectly, any change in the ownership interests in Licensee from the percentages as of the effective date of this Agreement, without the prior written consent of Licensor; provided that, if the ownership interests in Licensee changes and Licensor does not consent as provided in this Section, such change shall be an event of default pursuant to Section 34, and Licensor shall have the remedies set forth in Section 34. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the issuance, redemption, transfer or other change in the interests in Tenant’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan shall not constitute a change in control pursuant to this Section. 30.3 Licensor’s Right to Create Easement. If at any time during the term of this Agreement, any governmental authority with jurisdiction requires, through appropriate action from which no appeal lies, that the Licensed Premises be legally subdivided or that a legally distinct separate area therefore be created in order for this Agreement to be kept in effect, Licensor may, at Licensor’s expense, undertake all steps necessary to obtain the designation of an easement area encompassing the Licensed Premises. 30.4 Licensor’s Right to Cancel Agreement. If at any time during the term of this Agreement, any governmental authority with jurisdiction determines, through appropriate action, that the Licensed Premises violate any law with respect to conveyance of unsubdivided property (“Governmental Action”), Licensor may, at Licensor’s option, terminate this Agreement without liability to Licensee for any damages in connection with such termination. Licensor shall give written notice to Licensee upon Licensor’s receipt of notice of any Governmental Action and shall keep Licensee informed during the process thereof. Section 31. Peaceable Surrender; Holding Over. At the end of the license term, or upon the sooner termination of this Agreement, or at the end of any hold-over period, the Licensee will peaceably surrender and deliver up to the Licensor the Licensed Premises, together with all improvements thereon which are not removed as stated above, in good and satisfactory condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Any holding over after the expiration of the term of this Agreement or after termination of this Agreement shall not be permitted without the consent of the Licensor. If Licensee holds over after such expiration or termination, a license fee shall be 14 2804818v4 charged at the same rate as stated herein and such holding over shall be construed only to be a tenancy at sufferance, terminable at will by Licensor. Any property left upon the Licensed Premises by the Licensee after the expiration or other termination of this Agreement, may at the option of the Licensor and without notice to the Licensee, be removed and stored at the expense of the Licensee or treated as abandoned by Licensee, and Licensor may deal with such property as though the Licensor were the owner, without any liability whatsoever or accountability to Licensee. The obligation of this Section shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement. Section 32. Interest on Past Due Amounts. Except as may be otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, if any amount which shall become due and payable under this Agreement from the Licensee to the Licensor is not paid by the Licensee within five (5) calendar days after the same is due and payable, the same shall bear interest from the due date or dates until paid at an interest rate equal to one percent (1%) per month computed upon the amount so due, or at the maximum interest rate then allowable under applicable law, whichever is less; PROVIDED that this section shall not be construed to authorize delay in payment of any amounts becoming due hereunder. Section 33. Condemnation. In the event at any time during the term of this license the Licensed Premises shall be taken or condemned, or threatened to be taken or condemned, by any duly constituted authority exercising or threatening to exercise the right of eminent domain (hereinafter referred to in both cases as "condemnation"), then and in every such case this Agreement shall terminate as of the date possession shall be taken and Licensee shall not by reason of such condemnation be entitled to any claim either against Licensor or others for compensation or indemnity and all compensation payable or to be paid by reason of any such condemnation shall be payable to and be the sole property of Licensor, and Licensee shall have no interest in or claim to such compensation or any part or parts thereof whatsoever; provided, however, that in the event any buildings or other improvements erected or made by Licensee shall be condemned and taken, or in the event Licensee is entitled to an award for loss, crop loss or damage, then and in either such event all compensation payable for such improvements, crop loss or loss shall accrue to Licensee (subject, in the event of damages awarded for crop loss or loss, to Licensor's right, if any, to receipt of percentage rent based upon such damages). Upon request of either party, the parties hereto will join in a request to the court having jurisdiction over the matter to determine the allocation of the award between land and improvements. If a portion of the Licensed Premises is so condemned, this Agreement will terminate if Licensee is no longer reasonably able to use the Licensed Premises as is permitted herein. Section 34. Default. An event of default shall occur if: (a) Licensee shall fail to pay in whole or any part the fees or any other amount payable under this Agreement at the times and in the manner herein provided, regardless of legal demand and such failure continues for ten (10) calendar days; or (b) Licensee shall fail to observe or perform any other covenant or condition to be observed and performed by the Licensee and any such default shall continue for thirty days after written notice to correct has been given to the Licensee; or (c) Licensee shall become bankrupt or insolvent or make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or file any proceedings as debtor or take or have taken against it any proceedings under any provision of the Federal Bankruptcy Code or similar insolvency laws seeking any readjustment, arrangement, postponement, composition or reduction of its debts, 15 2804818v4 liabilities or obligations; provided, however, that no default shall exist on account of any such proceedings against the Licensee if the proceedings are dismissed within sixty days from their date of commencement; or (d) Licensee shall vacate or abandon all or substantially all of the Licensed Premises as provided in Section 12; or (e) Licensee shall transfer this Agreement or any interest in this Agreement in violation of terms set forth herein or cause or permit a lien to attach to the Licensed Premises and fail to have the lien, writ or order or process released, satisfied, bonded off or discharged within sixty days after the date of creation or issuance of such encumbrance; or (f) Marijuana, coca or other illegal plants or material are discovered on the Licensed Premises, whether or not the same are owned or grown by Licensee; or (g) Licensee agrees and acknowledges that, should Licensee enter or remain in or upon Licensor's Other Property, in violation of this Agreement, such entering or remaining is unlawful and constitutes illegal trespassing, subject to civil and criminal sanctions, enforceable at Licensor's sole discretion. If Licensee enters or remains on Licensor's Other Property, in violation of this Agreement, or allows Licensee's invitees or guests to enter or remain on Licensor's Other Property, in violation of this Agreement, such actions shall be deemed a default of the Licensee's obligations under this Agreement. The Licensor shall have the remedies set forth in this Section upon the Licensee's default as follows: (a) The Licensor shall have the right to institute an action for, and obtain, immediate appointment of a receiver upon reasonable notice to the Licensee, without bond, to take immediate possession of the Licensed Premises, including all Improvements, to conserve, hold and operate the Licensed Premises for the same purposes and in a similar manner as that previously being conducted by the Licensee, pending final determination of the action against the Licensee. (b) The Licensor may at once re-enter the Licensed Premises in whole or any part in the name of the whole, with or without termination, and at the Licensor's option expel and remove from the Licensed Premises the Licensee and those persons claiming under the Licensee and their property without service of notice or resort to any legal process and without being deemed guilty of any trespass or becoming liable for any loss or damage which may be occasioned by entry and without prejudice to any other remedy or right of action which the Licensor may have against the Licensee for default. No act by the Licensor allowed by this Section shall terminate this Agreement unless the Licensor so notifies the Licensee in writing. The Licensor may at any time after the default elect to terminate this Agreement for the Licensee's previous or continuing default. (c) Upon the Licensor's resumption of possession for default, the Licensor or any receiver may dispossess and remove all persons and their personal property and trade fixtures from the Licensed Premises, and such property may be stored in a public warehouse or elsewhere at the cost and for the account of the Licensee. The Licensor shall not be responsible for the care or safekeeping of any such property, and the Licensee hereby waives any and all claims and causes of action for loss, destruction, damages or injury which may be occasioned in the exercise of any of the aforesaid rights. 16 2804818v4 (d) Upon taking possession of the Licensed Premises and without terminating this Agreement, the Licensor may make such alterations and repairs as may be necessary in order to relet the Licensed Premises and may relet all or any part of the Licensed Premises for any period of time, which may extend beyond the term of this Agreement, and at such fees and charges and upon such other terms and conditions as the Licensor in its discretion deems advisable. All fees and other amounts received by the Licensor from such reletting shall be applied first to the payment of Licensee's indebtedness for other than fees and charges due from the Licensee, second to the payment of any costs and expenses of reletting and necessary alterations and repairs; third, to the payment of fees, and the residue, if any, shall be held by the Licensor and applied in payment of future fees and other payments as they may become due and payable under this Agreement. If the fees received from reletting during any month are less than the fees required to be paid during that month by the Licensee, the Licensee shall pay the deficiency monthly upon demand of the Licensor. The Licensor reserves the right to bring as many actions for the recovery of any deficiencies which remain unpaid by the Licensee as the Licensor may deem advisable without being obligated to await the end of the term of this Agreement for a final determination of the Licensee's account. The commencement of one or more such actions by the Licensor shall not bar the Licensor from bringing other or subsequent actions for further accruals of deficiencies or damages pursuant to this Section. (e) At any time after the Licensee's default the Licensor may terminate this Agreement, with or without physical entry, by giving the Licensee notice of termination on a specified date not earlier than four days after the notice. Upon or after the date specified in the notice, the Licensor may take possession of the Licensed Premises, including all improvements thereon, and become wholly vested with all rights, title and interest of the Licensee in this Agreement and the Licensed Premises. Notwithstanding termination of the Agreement, the Licensee shall be liable to the Licensor for all losses and damages sustained by the Licensor on account of the Licensee's breach of this Agreement. Upon termination of the Agreement, the Licensor may recover from the Licensee all losses and damages which may have been incurred by the Licensor as a result of any default of the Licensee under this Agreement, including (1) delinquent fees and other charges, (2) damages for loss of fees and other charges for any period prior to termination of the Agreement that the Licensed Premises remain unlicensed or unoccupied, (3) all costs and expenses of recovering possession of the Premises, reletting, alteration and repairs, all leasing fees and marketing expenses and other appropriate and customary expenses of the Licensor in connection with such reletting, (4) court costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and (5) damages measured by the value at the time of termination of this Agreement of the rental income stream and other charges reserved to the Licensor under this Agreement for the remainder of the term of this Agreement. (f) The Licensor, in addition to any other rights and remedies it has under this Agreement and without waiving the Licensee's default, may (but is not obligated to) perform or cause to be performed any covenants, conditions or agreements on behalf of the Licensee at the Licensee's sole cost and expense that the Licensee has failed to perform. The Licensor may enter onto the Licensed Premises for such purpose and undertake such actions as the Licensor deems appropriate under the circumstances and with the facts known to the Licensor at that time. The Licensor shall have sole discretion in determining the manner and timing of the Licensor's exercise of its rights under this Section and shall have no obligation to minimize the cost or legal exposure of the Licensee or to minimize the inconvenience, business interruption or other impacts to the Licensee resulting from the Licensor's exercise of its rights under this Section. Upon the Licensor's demand, the Licensee shall promptly reimburse 17 2804818v4 Licensor for any and all costs and expenses incurred by Licensor in connection with any such cure by the Licensor, including all amounts paid by the Licensor for consultants', and experts', for materials and labor or services, for all losses incurred by the Licensor and the Licensor's attorneys' fees and costs, all with interest accrued from the date of each expenditure until paid by the Licensee. This reservation of a right by the Licensor to make or perform any repairs, alterations or other work in, to or about the Licensed Premises which, in the first instance, is the Licensee's obligation pursuant to the Agreement shall not be deemed to (1) impose any obligation on the Licensor to do so, (2) render the Licensor liable to the Licensee or any third person for the failure to do so, or (3) relieve the Licensee from any obligation to indemnify the Licensor. (g) The Licensor shall have the privilege of splitting its cause of action for fees and other charges so as to permit institution of a separate suit or suits or proceedings for the minimum fee reserved to the Licensor, and a separate suit or suits or proceedings for the percentage fee or any other payment required under this Agreement, and neither the institution of such suit or proceedings nor the entering of judgment in such suits, shall bar the Licensor from bringing a subsequent suit or proceedings for the minimum fee, or for any other payments required under this Agreement. (h) Licensor may elect to pursue a summary possession action against Licensee pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 666. (i) Each and all of the remedies of the Licensor under this Agreement are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or successively, and the exercise of one right or remedy by the Licensor shall not impair or waive the Licensor’s right to any other remedy. Section 35. Nonwaiver of Breach/No Accord and Satisfaction. 35.1 Nonwaiver. The acceptance of license fees by the Licensor shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the Licensor of any breach by the Licensee of any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, or of the Licensor's right to declare and enforce a termination for any such breach. No consent or waiver, express or implied, by any party hereto to or of any breach or default by any other party in the performance by the other of its obligations hereunder shall be deemed or construed to be a consent or waiver to or of any other breach or default in the performance by such other party of the same or any other obligations of such party hereunder. The failure by any party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this license, or to exercise any option or right herein conferred in any one or more instances, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment for the future of any such terms, covenants, conditions, option or right, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 35.2 No Accord or Satisfaction. A payment by the Licensee or receipt by the Licensor of an amount less than the fees and other amounts stipulated to be paid under this Agreement shall not be deemed to be received other than on account of the earliest unpaid fees or other amount. Any contrary endorsement or statement on a check or any letter accompanying any check or payment shall not be deemed an accord and satisfaction, and the Licensor may accept such check or payment without prejudice to the Licensor's right to recover the balance of such fees or other amount or to pursue any other remedy available to the Licensor. Section 36. Environmental Assessment. 18 2804818v4 36.1 Right of Entry. Licensor, in its sole discretion, may inspect any of Licensee’s records relating to the environmental condition of the Licensed Premises, and may enter the Licensed Premises to conduct any test, inspection or environmental assessment of the Licensed Premises or Licensee’s use of the Licensed Premises. Licensor shall exercise such right so as to minimize interference with Licensee's operation on the premises, to the extent consistent with the full exercise of Licensor's rights. Licensor shall pay the cost of such inspection, test or assessment, unless the same indicate that Licensee by its use of the premises has caused or permitted a violation of the Hazardous Materials Laws, in which case Licensee shall pay the cost. 36.2 Closure. Upon notice of termination of the Agreement, Licensor may require Licensee to retain a duly licensed environmental consultant acceptable to Licensor to perform a Phase I environmental assessment of the premises, if there is a reasonable evidence of the release of Hazardous Materials on the Licensed Premises by Licensee. The cost of such environmental assessment shall be solely Licensee’s expense, provided, however, that should such environmental assessment include matters in addition to those pertaining to the Licensed Premises, the cost of the assessment shall be apportioned between Licensee and Licensor so that Licensor shall pay that portion of the cost of the assessment reasonably attributable to the additional matters. Based on that assessment, Licensee shall formulate a plan for any further testing and for removal and proper disposal of any Hazardous Materials attributable to Licensee on or about the premises and restoration of all land, improvements and other affected areas to the same or better condition, character and quality as before Licensee's occupancy, together with a schedule for completing such plan before the end of the term. Licensee shall submit the plan to Licensor at least three (3) months before expiration of the Agreement term and, upon approval by Licensor, Licensee at its sole cost shall implement the approved plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Licensee shall have no obligation for the removal or disposal of any Hazardous Materials whose presence Licensee can demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, is solely attributable to events occurring prior to Licensee's first occupying the premises. The completion of the plan shall be confirmed in writing by the environmental consultant. If Licensee fails to do any of the above, Licensor shall have the right (but not the obligation) to do so. Licensee also shall take all steps necessary to terminate, close or transfer all environmental permits, licenses, entitlements and other approvals in accordance with all Hazardous Materials Laws, and shall provide Licensor with satisfactory written evidence that each such termination, closure or transfer has been completed. Section 37. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be effective upon receipt or upon refusal to accept delivery; shall be in writing; and shall be delivered by telecopy, telex, telegram, receipted courier service or by hand or mailed via United States receipted mail service with postage prepaid to the addresses shown on the first page of this Agreement. Section 38. Parties in Interest. All of the terms and provisions of this license shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and permitted assigns. Section 39. Short Form Agreement. Upon the request of the Licensor from time to time, the Licensee shall join in the execution of a memorandum or so-called "short form" of this Agreement and any amendments or supplements thereto for the purposes of recordation. Such memorandum or short form of this Agreement, as amended or supplemented, shall describe the parties, the Licensed Premises and the term of this Agreement and shall incorporate this 19 2804818v4 Agreement by reference. The costs of recording such short form license shall be borne by the Licensor. Section 40. Governing Law. The validity, enforceability and interpretation of this Agreement shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Hawaii. Section 41. Amendment or Modification. This Agreement may not be altered, amended or modified except by a written instrument executed by both parties hereto. Section 42. Survival of Representations. The representations and warranties of the parties hereto contained in this Agreement shall survive the expiration, termination or cancellation of this Agreement. Section 43. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the legality or validity of the remainder of this Agreement. Section 44. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall he deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 45. Force Majeure. A failure or delay in performance by either party shall not be a breach of this Agreement and shall not be an event of default under this Agreement if such failure or delay arises out of or results from an event of force majeure, including fire, flood, earthquake, hurricane, or other natural disasters, or acts of a public enemy, war, rebellion, sabotage, transportation embargoes, failures or delays in transportation, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, water shortages, drought or other weather conditions, pestilence, disease, normal agricultural risks associated with growing crops, acts of God, acts, rules, regulations, orders or directives of any governmental authority or the order of any court of competent jurisdiction; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing shall in no event be deemed or interpreted as a justification or excuse for the Licensee's failure to pay the minimum license fee or any other financial obligations set forth herein which would otherwise be the obligation of Licensee to pay. Section 46. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of the obligations of the Licensee hereunder. EXHIBIT E-1 UUA+DZDLL6/8'/RFDWRU(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ1*$86*66WDWH/DQG8VH'LVWULFWV$JULFXOWXUDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ8UEDQ1RYHPEHUPLNPEXHIBIT E-1 EXHIBIT E-2 5.2 FUTURE LAND USE MAPS| 5.0 POLICY MAPS 235Figure 5-4 South Kaua‘i Land Use Map5.2 FUTURE LAND USEMAPS|5.0 POLICYMYAPS 235KKKƃƃƃoaoloaPoPo॒॒ppppipƻƻKKauummuuali॒॒iHHwwyyKaKalĈĈheoheo॒Q॒Qmama॒॒ooKukui‘ulaKukui‘ulaLLLĈĈĈ‘wawa‘wa‘iWaita ReservoirWaita ReservoirKalawai ParkKalawai ParkPo‘ipPo‘ipƻƻBeachPark Beach ParkMauhia RdMaluhia RdAA la KKKK inn oo ikk i RR dd ॒॒QQQQ mm a॒ooooRRRddddPapPaapPPapĈlina Rdlina RdLLĈĈwwa‘iRRdd0120.5MilesN1 in = 1 milesReservoirsNaturalAgriculturalAgricultural (IAL)Major RoadsPlanning District BoundaryRoadsStreamsSmall TownParks and RecreationHomesteadLarge TownGolf CourseNeighborhood GeneralResidential CommunityNeighborhood CenterResortIndustrialTransportationProvisional AgricultureAgricultureAgriculture (IAL)ONLINE VERSIONONLINEONLINE VERSIONVERSIONEXHIBIT E-2 EXHIBIT E-3 EXHIBIT E-3 EXHIBIT E-4 -EXHIBIT E-4 EXHIBIT E-5 5.3 HERITAGE RESOURCE MAPS | 5.0 POLICY MAPS 247 Weliweli MĈhĈঘulepƻ LĈwaঘi Kal Ĉheo PĈঘĈ Kƃloa e Halewili RdK a umuali॒iHwyKalĈheo Kalawai Park LĈwa‘i ‘Qma‘o Kƃloa Po‘ipƻ Po‘ipƻ Beach Park Al aKi noi kiRdWaita Reservoir Maluhia RdKukui‘ula PapĈlina RdFigure 5-11 South Kaua‘i Heritage Resource Map Registered Historic Sites State"J National"J State & National"J Cultural Features Priority Public Access Points#* Ahupua॒a Boundaries Wetlands Coral Reefs State & County Parks Preserves Planning District Boundary Fish Ponds$ò Kƃloa Scenic Byway Trails Regulated Fishing Areas Major Roads Streams & Waterbodies Roads Reservoirs Traditional Cultivation Areas Open Space Acquisition Priorities Critical Habitat Threatened & Endangered Species High Density Very High Density Sand Dunes N 01.530.75 Miles 1 in = 2 miles ONLINE VERSIONONLINE VERSION ONLINE VERSION EXHIBIT E-5 EXHIBIT E-6 Flood Hazard Assessment Report Disclaimer: The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) assumes no responsibility arising from the use, accuracy, completeness, and Ɵmeliness of any informaƟon contained in this report. Viewers/Users are responsible for verifying the accuracy of the informaƟon and agree to indemnify the DLNR, its oĸcers, and employ- ees from any liability which may arise from its use of its data or informa Ɵon. If this map has been idenƟĮed as 'PRELIMINARY', please note that it is being provided for informaƟonal purposes and is not to be used for Ňood insurance raƟng. Contact your county Ňoodplain manager for Ňood zone determina- Ɵons to be used for compliance with local Ňoodplain management regulaƟons. Property InformaƟon COUNTY: FIRM INDEX DATE: THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN A TSUNAMI EVACUTION ZONE: FOR MORE INFO, VISIT: hƩp://www.scd.hawaii.gov/ THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN A DAM EVACUATION ZONE: FOR MORE INFO, VISIT:ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬĚůŶƌĞŶŐ͘ŚĂǁĂŝŝ͘ŐŽǀͬĚĂŵͬ Flood Hazard InformaƟon SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD - The 1% annual chance Ňood (100- year), also know as the base Ňood, is the Ňood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. SFHAs include Zone A, AE, AH, AO, V, and VE. The Base Flood ElevaƟon (BFE) is the water surface elevaƟon of the 1% annual chance Ňood. Mandatory Ňood insurance purchase applies in these zones: Zone A: No BFE determined. Zone AE: BFE determined. Zone AH: Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); BFE determined. Zone AO: Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet Ňow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. Zone V: Coastal Ňood zone with velocity hazard (wave acƟon); no BFE determined. Zone VE: Coastal Ňood zone with velocity hazard (wave acƟon); BFE determined. Zone AEF: Floodway areas in Zone AE. The Ňoodway is the channel of stream plus any adjacent Ňoodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance Ňood can be carried without increasing the BFE. NON-SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA - An area in a low-to-moderate risk Ňood zone. No mandatory Ňood insurance purchase requirements apply, but coverage is available in parƟcipaƟng communiƟes. Zone XS (X shaded): Areas of 0.2% annual chance Ňood; areas of 1% annual chance Ňood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance Ňood. Zone X: Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance Ňoodplain. OTHER FLOOD AREAS Zone D: Unstudied areas where Ňood hazards are undeter- mined, but Ňooding is possible. No mandatory Ňood insurance purchase apply, but coverage is available in parƟcipaƟng commu- niƟes. FLOOD HAZARD ASSESSMENT TOOL LAYER LEGEND (Note: legend does not correspond with NFHL) www.hawaiinfip.org Notes: BASEMAP: FIRM BASEMAP 0 0.30 0.60 mi KAUAI TMK NO: (4) 2-9-001:001 WATERSHED: MAHAULEPU; WAIKOMO PARCEL ADDRESS: ADDRESS NOT DETERMINED KOLOA, HI 96756 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 LETTER OF MAP CHANGE(S): NONE FEMA FIRM PANEL - EFFECTIVE DATE: 1500020314F - NOVEMBER 26, 2010 1500020318F - NOVEMBER 26, 2010 1500020356F - NOVEMBER 26, 2010 YES YES (KA-0099) EXHIBIT E-6 EXHIBIT E-7 Soil Map—Island of Kauai, Hawaii Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/10/2021 Page 1 of 324210002421200242140024216002421800242200024222002421000242120024214002421600242180024220002422200453100453300453500453700453900454100454300454500454700454900455100 453100 453300 453500 453700 453900 454100 454300 454500 454700 454900 455100 21° 54' 16'' N 159° 27' 17'' W21° 54' 16'' N159° 26' 0'' W21° 53' 30'' N 159° 27' 17'' W21° 53' 30'' N 159° 26' 0'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 4N WGS84 0 450 900 1800 2700 Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Meters Map Scale: 1:10,000 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. EXHIBIT E-7 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Island of Kauai, Hawaii Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 15, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 29, 2017—Oct 11, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Island of Kauai, Hawaii Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/10/2021 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Fd Fill land 21.2 5.8% KvC Koloa stony silty clay, 8 to 15 percent, MLRA 158 1.2 0.3% KvD Koloa stony silty clay, 15 to 25 percent slopes 3.4 0.9% NnC Nonopahu clay, 2 to 10 percent slopes 3.1 0.9% PdC Pakala clay loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes 3.4 0.9% W Water > 40 acres 1.2 0.3% Ws Waikomo stony silty clay 308.2 83.8% Wt Waikomo very rocky silty clay 25.9 7.0% Totals for Area of Interest 367.6 100.0% Soil Map—Island of Kauai, Hawaii Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/10/2021 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT E-8 Hanapepe Koloa Wai‘ale‘ale Kapaa Lihue Waimea Canyon ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES . . ..... ....... ......."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""̶E' ○E'̶̶̶○̶̶○E'E'̶̶○̶E'E'̶─X̶̶E'E' ○E'E'̶○○ ○EEE#!" █n █n █nF F 0 1400 1800 600 6004008006008 0 0 8006001200 180010006001000 200 200400400 1600800 600600 6001800 2000 20008008003000 8001200 600400 4008001000800 600 1600 400 14 0 0 22002800 1000 1 0 0 0 400 40 0 1200 1 6 0 0 16001400 200 0 24 0 0 80012001400 8001400 26001000800400600 800 1000 100060014001400 400 1 6 0 0 600 6001000 2000 22008002400 4004 0 0 4002200 4004001200160028001800140014001800 4001 8 0 0 8008 0 0 6 0 0 600600 800 12001 0 0 0 1000 600 600 600 400 100080014001400 200 1000 40016001 6 0 0 1000 1000 2000200 24 0 0 200 200 400 16001600 14002200600 8001400 180 0 1000 800600800 2200 200 12001000 24001000 1000 4004001000 10 0 0 40 0 6006001600 200800 600 600 1800 1800 20002600 800 800 800 600800 1200800 60020002400 80012 0 0 12001000400800 1200800 6001200 12 0 0 1 2 0 0 1200 4 6 0 02000 20 0 1200600800200 1400 22001200 1200 Ha‘ikū Airstrip Hi 23 Airstrip ¬«50 ¬«50 ¬«50 ¬«530 ¬«50 ¬«50 ¬«520 ¬«540 ¬«520PUNEE RDLEHELEHE RDPUU RD WAHA RDCANE HAUL RDMAK A R D KOLOA BYPASS RDCANFIELD RD KIPUKA STKNUDSON RDHAUL CANE RD AKA RD PI KO RDWAILAAU RD M AHA RDWAOKE ST UPA RD LAUOHO RD PUA ME LI A S T LOLO RD HOONE RD K IK E E R D KUA RDUMIUMI RD OMAO RD CANE HAUL RDMILO HAE LOOPPIWAI RESEVOIRP U U W A I R D KAHILI RD HAPA RDHOONANI RD AMIO RDLOHE RDEHAKO STPOWER LINE RDW AILA N I R DLAE RDKALAHEO D R NIUKAPU HEIAUHOOWILI RDKALAWAI PARKKOLOA RD N O H E A S T P O W E R L INE RD PRIVATE KIPU RD KAPILI RDNOMILU FISHPONDUM A U M A R D F IS H IN G S H R I N E H A IK U A I R S T R I P A A K U K U I R D MAKUA PL UHA R D AI RDOPU RDCANE RD C A NE R DPRIVATEWAIKOMO RDPAU A L A K A S TAKEMAMA RDE K E R D AI NAKO STPEE RDKIPU PL K E L E K A R DKUILEI STT APA STKULI RDNOHO RD KALUAHONU RDP U N I RD K A E N A S T I WI RDE M I RD WELI WELI RDCANE RDK IA H UNA PLANTATION DRWAWAE PLLAWAI RD LOPOKA PAIPA CANE HAUL RD POIPU RDK O L O A ML PAI ST P UUANA R D PANUI STNIHO R D P U H I A IR S T R IP ULU ALII ST ILI RD CANE RDIWIPOO RDK O L OA BYPAS S R D PAPALINA RD MAHAULEPU RDHAILIMA RDMAHAULEPU RD HOOHU RDWAWAE RDOHUOHU STPOIPU RDIHU RDP OOHI WI RDM I L I A S T I K E NA PL KIKALA RDP UULIMA RD Waiolue Falls Kaukiuki Falls Manawaiopuna Falls Ekaha Lokoawa Bay Lāwa‘i Bay Kaheka Kukui‘ula Bay Hanakaape Bay Keoniloa Bay Hoai Bay Huleia Stream Pāohia Stream Lawai StreamWaihohonu StreamKālai StreamPoel eele StreamHalenanahu StreamP uakukui Stream W aihohonu StreamPapuaa St reamLawai StreamHuleia StreamWahiawa StreamW ahiawa StreamOmao StreamO m a o S tr e a mW aikomo StreamKu i a S treamW a in o n o ia S tr e a m Kuia StreamKam o‘olo a St reamWahiawa StreamPapuaa Stream W e o w e op ilau StreamK ō ‘u l a R i ver PACIFIC OCEAN PACIFIC OCEAN Nomilo Fishpond Alexander Reservoir Aepoekolu Reservoir Kaupale Reservoir Puana Reservoir Pia Mill Reservoir Hanini Reservoir Omao Reservoir Aepoalua Reservoir Piwai Reservoir Puu o Hewa Reservoir Elima Reservoir Mau Reservoir Kumano Reservoir Loko Reservoir Manuhonuhonu Reservoir Ioleau Reservoir Puuhi Reservoir Pinau Reservoir Mauka Reservoir Huinawai Reservoir Aepoeha Reservoir Waita Reservoir Elua Reservoir Aepo Reservoir Ipuolono Reservoir Halenanahu Reservoir Luawai Reservoir Papuaa Reservoir PO Koloa Cem Kaluahonu N‘milu Cone Kalāheo Lāwa‘i Kīpū Kukui‘ula Kōloa Po‘ipū ‘Ōma‘o Koloa Mill Kō‘ula Valley Kalāheo Gulch Omoe Kalualea Kawaimanu Kahuamoa Puu Hi Ioleau Laaukahi Manuhonuhonu Puu Hunihuni Puuauuka Hulua Pihakekua Kauhuula Kapohakau Kalapa Ahua Uluhi Papapaholahola Puu o Hewa Puu Kolo Kahoano Kokii Ulupehupehu Kāhili Kāmaulele Kahoaea Puu Ainako Koloakapohu Waiohonu La‘auhiha‘iha‘i Puu Keke Kapeku Puu Kiloi‘a Pōhākea Puu Wanawana Kumanumanu Pu‘u‘aukai Ka Lae o Kahonu Camp Number Eighteen Hoai Heiau Waiopili Heiau Niukapu Heiau Kōloa Landing Kiahuna Golf Course Kalanipuao Rock Knudsen Gap Makawehi Bluff Makahū‘ena Point Makaokaha‘i Point Manoloa Nahumā‘alo Point Hanakā‘ape Kaulala Point Lae o Kahala Kolopa Punahoa Point Kihouna Punahoa Lae o Kamilo Kāne‘aukai Ka Lae o KaiwaNahunakueu Lae o Kaopua Kalaekīki Nu Kumoi Point Halfway Bridge Shipwreck Beach Hoai Beach Palama Beach Waterhouse Beach Makawehi Waiohai Beach Brennecke Beach Beach House Beach Poipu Beach Wahiawa 24 50 24 55 27' 21° 26 24 53 31 4 24 24 21 24 4 52' 445 4 25 48 630 57' 47 24 24 000 46 55' 22 N 4930" FEET 47 52 30" 4 27 000 24 4 4FEET 48 660 24 20 4E 159° 4 56 23 21° 4 30 4 52'21° 24 4 24 22 4 159° 57' 20 51 30 30" 4 29 000m 4 24 24 30" 24 46 21 19 N 000m 30" 30" 020 24 000m 4 30" 59' 24 1 4 FEET FEET 28 55' 159° 000m56 21° 4 24 159° 24 25' 30" 49 050 24 55 50 27 30' 4 59' 23 52 29 24 4530" 00051 28 30' 24 32'4 24 26 53 31 24 1 32' 25 4 E 52' 24 4 000 4 25'27'30" 24 52' 54 54 24 4 KOLOA, HI 2013 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WD Secondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./H KOLOA QUADRANGLE HAWAII-KAUAI CO. 7.5-MINUTE SERIES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY HAWAII QUADRANGLE LOCATION Imagery..................................Digital Globe, ©January 2010 Roads..............................................©2006-2012 TomTom Names..........................................................GNIS, 2012 Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010 Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2000 Boundaries....................Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2012 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and 1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 04Q Produced by the United States Geological Survey 10 000-foot ticks: Hawaii Coordinate System of 1983 (zone 4) This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011. A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.11 CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET DATUM IS LOCAL MEAN SEA LEVEL SCALE 1:24 000 10.50 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 U.S. National Grid 100,000-m Square ID Grid Zone Designation DK 04Q × ÙMN GN UTM GRID AND 2013 MAGNETIC NORTHDECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET 0° 11´ 3 MILS 9° 40´172 MILS *7643016362286*NSN.7643016362286NGA REF NO.USGSX24K76537EXHIBIT E-8 5.,   EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT F  EXHIBIT G CERTIFICATE OF DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING CONFORMANCE FOR VISION BUILDING SYSTEMS All components of the steel and fabric building system described below have been or will be designed and fabricated in accordance with the standards and load listed below 1. DESCRIPTION AP / Ref. number: ________________________________________ Building Type and Size: ________________________________________ Use and Occupancy: _________________________________________ Site Location (Civic Address): ___________________________________ Applicable Building Code: ______________________________________ Fabric Type: ________________________________________________ Construction Type: ___________________________________________ Builder's Name and Address: ___________________________________ ____________________________________________ Owner's Name and Address: ____________________________________ _____________________________________________ Building Legal Address: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ 2. DESIGN CRITERIA Occupancy Category: ________________________________________ Exposure Category: ________________________________________ Importance Factor Wind (Iw): _______________________________ Basic Wind Speed: ________________________________________ Importance Factor Snow (Is): _______________________________ Ground Snow Load (Psf):_______________________________ Roof Live Load(Psf):_______________________________ Roof Collateral (Psf):_______________________________ Building Dead Load (Psf): _______________________________ GENERAL THIS DRAWING INCLUDING INFORMATION HEREON, REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF VISION BUILDING SYSTEMS, IT IS PROVIDED SOLELY FOR ERECTING THE BUILDING DESCRIBED IN THE SALES ORDER AND SHALL NOT BER MODIFIED, REPRODUCE OR USE FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF VISION BUILDING SYSTEMS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR ERECTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCURATE, GOOD QUALITY WORKMANSHIP IN ERECTING THIS BUILDING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DRAWING, DETAILS REFERENCED IN THIS DRAWING AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS PERTAINING TO THE PROPER ERECTION INCLUDING THE PROPER USE OF TEMPORARY BRACING. THIS BUILDING IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE LIFTED AS AN ASSEMBLED UNIT. VISION BUILDING SYSTEM IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSSES AND/OR DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF LIFTING THIS BUILDING. IF, HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO LIFT THIS BUILDING IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON, FIRM OR COMPANY CONTRACTED TO LIFT THE BUILDING TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A QUALIFIED ENGINEER TO ENSURE THE LIFT DOES NOT DAMAGE THE BUILDING AND TO DETERMINE AND FINALIZE ALL ASPECTS OF THE LIFT INCLUDING ALL PARTS/CONNECTORS TO BE ADDED TO THE BUILDING TO FACILITATE THE LIFT. VISION BUILDING SYSTEMS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DAMAGES INCURED IN THE ERECTION OF THE COMPONENTS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, NOR FOR THE INSPECTION OF ERECTED COMPONENTS TO DETERMINE SAME. THIS CERTIFICATION AND ENGINEERING SEAL APPLIES ONLY TO PRODUCTS DESIGNED AND FABRICATED BY VISION BUILDING SYSTEMS OR THE CERTIFYING ENGINEER. ALL DOORS, WINDOWS, AND ROLL-UP CURTAINS MUST BE DESIGN TO SUPPORT THE SITE WIND LOADING AND ARE RELIED ON TO BE CLOSED IN THE EVENTS OF HIGH WINDS. ANCHOR BOLTS ANCHOR BOLT DIAMETERS ARE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CSA STANDARD CAN3-S16.1 USING Fy = 36 KSI (248 MPa). ANCHOR BOLT LENGTH AND LOAD TRANSFER TO THE FOUNDATION ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY OTHERS. ANCHOR BOLT PROJECTIONS BASED ON NO GROUT ARE AS FOLLOWS:. MIN. 2" (51mm) MAX. 3 1/2" (89mm). FOUNDATION MUST BE LEVEL, SQUARE AND SMOOTH. ANCHOR BOLTS MUST BE ACCURATELY PLACED AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS AND UNDERSIDE OF BASE PLATE IS 100'-0" (1000.000mm) UNLESS NOTED. ERECTION. THE ERECTOR MUST PROVIDE SAFE WORKING CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES CONFORMING TO ALL SAFETY REGULATIONS. ALL LIFTING DEVICES ARE TO BE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO LIFT THE VARIOUS BUILDING COMPONENTS. SLINGS AND SPREADER BARS ARE TO BE USED TO PREVENT PERMANENT DEFORMATION OF ALL STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. ERECTION SHOULD START AT A BRACED BAY. ERECT AND TEMPORARILY SUPPORT TRUSSES. USE TEMPORARY BRACING AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE STABILITY OF THE FRAMES. INSTALL PURLINS AND CROSS BRACING. PLUMB AND SQUARE TRUSSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAN3-S16.1 AND OSHA 29 CFR PART 1926 - SAFETY STANDARD FOR STEEL ERECTION. ENSURE ALL PURLIN REMAIN PARALLEL. STRUCTURAL FRAMING MEMBERS ARE CONSIDERED PLUMB, LEVEL, AND ALIGNED WHEN THE VARIANCE DOES NOT EXCEED 1:300. STRUCTURAL BOLTS BOLTS IN CONNECTIONS NOT SUBJECT TO TENSION LOADS, OR WHERE LOOSENING DUE TO VIBRATION OR LOAD FLUCTUATIONS ARE NOT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS NEED ONLY BE SNUG TIGHTENED, WHICH IS DEFINED AS THE TIGHTNESS THAT EXIST WHEN ALL PLIES IN A JOINT ARE IN FIRM CONTACT. ALL BOLTS LARGER THAN 1"(25mm) DIA CONFORM TO ASTM A325. ALL OTHER DIAMETER HEX BOLTS CONFORM TO SAE GR.5 OR EQUIVALENT. ALL BOLTS SHALL BE PLATED/GALVANIZED OR SUNSEAL COATED. ALL BOLT REFERENCES REQUIRE BOTH BOLT AND NUT. BOLTS IN CONNECTIONS SUBJECT TO TENSION LOADS REQUIRE PRE-TENSIONING TO MINIMUM TENSION. -VALUES AS SHOWN IN THE TABLE TABLE A - BOLT TENSION STRUCTURAL BOLT TORQUE VALUES. TABLE B LISTS THE BOLT CLAMP LOADS WITH A SUGGESTED ASSEMBLY TORQUE VALUES. TABLE B - IMPERIAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. ROLLED STRUCTURAL SECTIONS CONFORM TO CSA G40.21-44W (300W). STRUCTURAL PLATE CONFORMS TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS:. PLATES G40.21 44W G40.21/ASTM A572 GR 44 (300W) H.S.S. G40.21 50W G40.21/ASTM A572 GR 50 (350W) COATING OF STRUCTURAL PLATES ARE DONE, HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED TO A NOMINAL COATING ZINC WEIGHT OF 2.0oz/sqft (600g/sq m) (3.4mil). COATING OF TUBES ARE DONE IN-LINE, GALVANIZED TO A NOMINAL COATING ZINC WEIGHT OF 0.6 oz/sq ft (180 g/sq m) (1.0mil). CHROMATE CONVERSION COATING APPLIED OVER THE GALVANIZED SURFACE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CORROSION PROTECTION. CLEAR ORGANIC POLYMER APPLIED AS THE TOP SURFACE COAT TO RETARD OXIDATION, ENHANCE SURFACE APPEARANCE AND PROVIDE A PRIMER BASE FOR SUBSEQUENT MOLTEN ZINC APPLIED TO ALL WELDS. ALL VIPERSTEEL WITH GATORSHIELD WILL DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND A MINIMUM OF 2000 HOURS OF ACCELERATED SALT FOG TESTING TO THE CONDITION OF 5% SURFACE RED RUST, WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM B117 STANDARDS. DIAGIONAL BRACE STEEL CABLE EXTRA HIGH STRENGTH PER ASTM A475. CROSS CABLES - 5/16" DIA. (8mm) TYP U/N. SWAY CABLES - 3/16" DIA. (5mm) TYP. U/N PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM CHORDS U/N. STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:. 4" (102mm) SQ. TUBES - 32" (813mm) C-C USING 1.9" DIA. (48mm) WEB. 1" DIA. X 14ga & 5" DIA. X 7ga/8ga - MIN YEALD STRENGTH = 50ksi (344 Mpa). ALL SQUARE TUBE - MIN YEALD STRENGTH = 50ksi (344Mpa). ALL OTHER SIZE/GAUGES - MIN YEALD STRENGTH = 55KSI (379Mpa). FABRIC/LINER NOTES. EXTERIOR FABRIC IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM, REMOVAL OR ALTERATION WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IS PROHIBITED. ALL TEARS MUST BE PATCHED IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID WARRANTY PROBLEMS. EXTERIOR FABRIC WILL DEFLECT UNDER LOAD, THEREFORE ALL BUILDING ACCESSORIES (LIGHTING, HVAC, SPRINKLERS, ETC) MUST BE LOCATED BENEATH THE INNER CHORD OF THE TRUSS. ANYTHING ABOVE THIS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY VISION BUILDING SYSTEMS. SEVER DAMAGED TO THE BUILDING AND ACCESORIES MAY RESULT FROM FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. FABRIC SPECIFICATIONS. ROOF PLAN NOTES. UNLESS NOTED, USE 5/8" DIA. (16mm) BOLTS FOR PURLIN TO TRUSS, CABLE OR ROD BRACING TO TRUSS AND ANGLES TO TRUSS FOR ALL CONNECTIONS. CABLE/ROD AND PURLIN BRACING ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE TRUSSES STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND SHOULD BE PROPERLY INSTALLED PRIOR TO ERECTION OF FABRIC ROOF AND ENDWALLS PANELS. REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF ANY BRACING WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FRM VISION BUILDING SYSTEMS IS PROHIBITED. ELEVATION NOTES. HOLES REQUIRED IN HSS COLUMNS, HEADERS OR PURLINS FOR FRAMED OPENINGS, DOOR OR WINDOW POST CONNECTION TO BE BY ERECTOR. WALK DOOR, WINDOW AND FRAMED OPENING POSTS TO BE FIELD ANCHORED CONCRETE WITH 1/2" DIA. (13MM) "HILTI-KWIK-BOLTS" OR SIMILAR. PARTITION WALL NOTE. HIELD INSTALLATION OF PARTITION WALL TO UNDERSIDE OF ANY ARCH FRAMING MEMBERS MUST ALLOW FOR VERTICAL BUILDING DEFLECTION. CONTACT VISION BUILDING SYSTEM FOR REQUIRED CLEARANCES. MATERIAL STORAGE. GALVANIZED, ALUMINIZED, AND COLORED MATERIALS ARE SUBJECT TO CORROSION AND DISCOLORATION IF THEY ARE IMPROPERLY STORED. SHORT TERM JOB SITE STORAGE OF STEEL COMPONENTS MAYBE TOLERATED PROVIDED CARE IS TAKEN TO KEEP THE MATERIALS DRY AT ALL TIMES. WHEN TRUSSES ARE TO BE STORED OUTDOORS, THEY SHOULD BE PLACED AT AN ANGLE SUFFICIENT TO PROMOTE GOOD DRAINAGE. IN ADDITION, SEVERAL INCHES OF CLEARANCE MUST BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE LOWER END AND THE GROUND TO ALLOW VENTILATION. NOTE: VISION BUILDING SYSTEMS WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MATERIALS WHICH ARE IMPROPERLY PROTECTED AFTER DELIVERY. MANUFACTURING STANDADRS. FABRICATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAN/CSA-S16.1 AND CAN/CSA-S136, AS APPLICABLE. VISION BUILDING SYSTEMS INC. IS A CWB CERTIFIED DIVISION 2.1 MANUFACTURER OF TRUSSES. ALL WELDS ARE COMPLETED IN SHOP AS PER CWB STANDARD CSA V47.1 AND W59. THIS CERTIFICATION MEETS WITH AWS D1.1, CRITERIA. AS PART OF OUR CWB CERTIFICATION (AN INDEPENDENT 3RD PARTY) TEST OUR WELDERS AND PROCEDURES AND AUDITS OUR FACILITIES. SIZE GRADE 5 SIZE A325 in mm kips kN 5/8 3/4 7/8 1.0 1 1/8 1 1/4 16 19 22 25 29 32 18 28 39 51 56 71 80 125 174 227 249 316 SIZE GRADE 5 SIZE DIA. (INCH) 3/8 A325 THREAD PER INCH TENSILE KSI (Min) Proof load (lbs) Clamp load (lbs) Torque dry ft-lbs Torque Lube ft-lbs 7/16 1/2 5/8 3/4 1 1/4 16 14 13 11 10 7 120 105 6600 9050 12100 19200 28400 71700 4950 6780 9050 14400 21300 53800 30 50 75 150 260 1120 23 35 55 110 200 840 120 120 120 120 STRENGTH Grab tensile strength Tongue tear strength Strip Tensile strength Mullen Burst Thickness Hdrostatic resistance Cold crack % light transmission UV & Weathering Permittivity FIRE California Fire Marshall Boston Fire Department Large Scale Test Small Scale Test Scale Flame Spread Drip Test Drip Flame Spread Fire Property Retention TEST STANDARD ASTM D-5034 ASTM D-5034 ASTM D-5034 ASTM D-5034 ASTM D-5034 ASTM D-5034 ASTM D-5034 ASTM D-5034 ASTM D-5034 ASTM D-5034 TEST STANDARD Local Local NFPA 701 NFPA 701 ASTM E-84 CAN/ULC S-109 CAN/ULC S-102 UBC 31-1 PHYSICAL base scrim Coating thickness Surface Type Weight PROPERTIES HDPE 1600 denier yarn 4 mil (95 GSM) ea. side Modified LDPE c/w UV & FR 12.5 oz. / sq. yd (410gsm) DESCRIPTION High Density polyethylene Minimum 4 to 6 mil exterior coating on each side of base scrim. Modified Low density Polyethylene coating with UV inhibitors Minimum 12.5 oz./ sq yd. 100' X 260' @ 20' O.C. TITAN BUILDING B-2 (BUSINESS 50 PEOPLE OR LESS) STANDARD EXPOSURE C FR TYPE II N VISION BUILDING SYSTEM 1.0 1.0 5.0 3.25 1.5 Code Analysis Bases of Analysis 2006 International Building Code Type of Construction Type IIB Use and Occupancy Classification (IBC 2006, Chapter 3 Section 311.3 Low-Hazard Storage) Type IIB, S-2 Height 30' Stories 1 (Providing 1 Storey) Allowable floor area 8,400sq. ft./floor (Building 8,400) General Means of Egress (IBC 2006, Section 1004, Table 1004.1.1) Maximum Floor Area Allowances per Occupant Accessory storage areas - load factor 300 sq. ft. per occupant Building 8,400sq. ft.2 exit Egress width per occupant served (IBC 2006 Table 1005.1) Occupancies other than those listed below in table 0.2 inches per occupant MP MATERIALS CORP 67750 BAILEY ROAD, HC1 BOX 224 3150 WEST WIGWAM AVENUE, LAS VEGAS, NV 81939 MOUNTAIN PASS, CA 92366 CBC 2018 125 ULTIMATE 1.0 PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 0 DWG. REF. A1 DATE:2021-10-21 A1-100X260-R0-211021 100X260' STRUCTURE HPM KAUAI, HAWAII COVER PAGE LOT COVERGAE: PARCEL 01: .00055% LICENSED PROPERTY: 19.9% TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) EXHIBIT G TBS- TITAN BUILDING - 100' SPAN SITE SPECIFIC STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 20 FT. FRAME SPACING SITE SPECIFIC EVALUATION SUMMARY THE EVALUATION COVERS A TBS4-TITAN BUILDING 100' IN SPAN WITH FRAMES SPACED AT 20' ON CENTER. THE STRUCTURE IS INTENDED TO BE USED AS PERMANENT, STAND ALONE AND FULLY OPEN. THE STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED FOR THE LOADS LISTED BELOW IN ACCORDANCE WITH CBC 2018. ANY DEVIATION OUTSIDE THE CRITERIA LISTED BELOW IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT. SITE WIND CRITERIA WIND SPEED (ULTIMATE):125 MPH EXPOSURE CATEGORY:C BUILDING CATEGORY:LOW HAZARD BASIC PRESSURE:25.2 PSF @ 30' ELEVATION ENCLOSURE:FULLY CLOSED SITE SNOW CRITERIA GROUND SNOW LOAD:15 PSF WIND EXPOSURE:FULLY EXPOSED BUILDING CATEGORY:LOW HAZARD LIVE LOAD CRITERIA MINIMUM ROOF LIVE LOAD:12.0 PSF ALLOWABLE HANGING LOADS ON FRAMES: 7 PSF HUNG LOADS HAVE BEEN ASSUMED TO BE LESS THAN 3.25 PSF (APPROXIMATELY 6,500 POUNDS DISTRIBUTED ALONG THE FRAME). ADDITIONAL LOAD WILL REDUCE THE SNOW LOAD CAPACITY ACCORDINGLY. BASE REACTIONS FOR MAXIMUM RATED LOADS THE MAXIMUM FORCES AT THE FOUNDATIONS/SUPPORTS DUE TO THE SITE SPECIFIC LOADS AND CRITERIA ARE AS FOLLOWS: AT ANCHOR PIN - SHEAR (k) DOWN (k) UP(k) SNOW/LIVE:10.2 16.7 --- WIND: PERPENDICULAR 10.5 7.9 8.2 WIND: PARALLEL 7.0 ---18.8 PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 0 DWG. REF. A2 DATE:2021-10-21 A2-100X260-R0-211021 100X260' STRUCTURE HPM KAUAI, HAWAII DESIGN CRITERIA TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) (13) BAYS @20' O.C. FR WHITE FR WHITE PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 1 DWG. REF. A3 DATE:2021-12-21 A3-100X260-R1-211221 100X260' STRUCTURE HPM KAUAI, HAWAII PROJECT LAYOUT (13) BAYS @20' O.C. 99' - 1 1 " 260'-0" 260'-0" 99' - 1 1 " PROJECT LAYOUT SCALE:1" = 30'-0" TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) BASE PLATE LAYOUT SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0" (CENTER TO CENTER OF BASE PLATES)(OUT TO OUT OF BASE PLATES)1 BC C 2 3 4 5 BA A 99'-11"C C C C 260'-0" PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 1 DWG. REF. A4 DATE:2021-12-21 A4-100X260-R1-211221 100X260' STRUCTURE BASE PLATE LAYOUT C C 6 B A 141312 HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1" = 20'-0" (CENTER TO CENTER OF BASE PLATES)(OUT TO OUT OF BASE PLATES)B26,000 Square Feet 1 A99'-11"260'-0" 2' X 2' X 5' CONC. BLOCK TYP FABRIC TRUSSES TYP PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 0 DWG. REF. A5 DATE:2021-10-21 A5-100X260-R0-211021 100X260' STRUCTURE FLOOR PLAN 2 3 4 5 20'-0" 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) A B SIDE ELEVATION(OUT TO OUT OF BASE PLATES)PLAN FD 411 FD 410 1 2 3 4 12 13 FD 408 FD 416 AB FD 417 FD 401 FD 419 FD 406 FD 413 FD 412 FD 407 FD 414 (OUT TO OUT OF BASE PLATES)FD 415 FD 418 FD 403 FD 405 99'-11"A B 99'-11"1 2 3 4 12 14FD 404 FD 402 PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 1 DWG. REF. A6 DATE:2021-12-21 A6-100X260-R1-211221 100X260' STRUCTURE BRACING LAYOUT 13 14 260' 0" HPM KAUAI, HAWAII BRACING LAYOUT SCALE:1" = 20'-0" TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) BRACING LAYOUT SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 1 DWG. REF. A7 DATE:2021-12-21 A7-100X260-R1-211221 100X260' STRUCTURE BUILDING PROFILE HPM KAUAI, HAWAII 99'-11" TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 0 DWG. REF. A8 DATE:2021-10-21 A8-100X260-R0-211021 100X260' STRUCTURE FABRIC DETAILS HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) A B ENDWALL 1 & 2 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" OPEN END PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 1 DWG. REF. A9 DATE:2021-12-21 A9-100X260-R1-211221 100X260' STRUCTURE BRACING LAYOUT HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 0 DWG. REF. A10 DATE:2021-10-21 A10-100X260-R0-211021 100X260' STRUCTURE STANDARD DETAILS 1 HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 0 DWG. REF. A11 DATE:2021-10-21 A11-100X260-R0-211021 100X260' STRUCTURE STANDARD DETAILS 2 HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 0 DWG. REF. A12 DATE:2021-10-21 A12-100X260-R0-211021 100X260' STRUCTURE STANDARD DETAILS 3 HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 0 DWG. REF. A13 DATE:2021-10-21 A13-100X260-R0-211021 100X260' STRUCTURE SIDE OPENING SCALLOPS HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) 3D VIEW 1 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 1 DWG. REF. A14 DATE:2021-12-21 A14-100X260-R1-211221 100X260' STRUCTURE 3D VIEW 1 HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) 3D VIEW 2 SCALE:1" = 30'-0" PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 1 DWG. REF. A15 DATE:2021-12-21 A15-100X260-R1-211221 100X260' STRUCTURE 3D VIEW 2 HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) 3D VIEW 3 SCALE:1" = 100'-0" PROJECT: DETAIL: DRAWING: REV. 1 DWG. REF. A16 DATE:2021-12-21 A16-100X260-R1-211221 100X260' STRUCTURE 3D VIEW 3 HPM KAUAI, HAWAII TMK No. (4) 2-9-001-001 (por.) EXHIBIT H 5.,/P  EXHIBIT H 5.,/P   EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT J EXHIBIT J EXHIBIT J-1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAELA.DAHILIG,MANAGING DIRECTOR January21,2022 Mauna Kea Trask,Esq. CADESSCHUTTE PO Box 1205 LThu'e,Hawai'i 96766 Subject:Preliminary Use Permit Application Proposed Construction Material Manufacturing Facility Tax Map Key:(4)2-9-001:001 (Por.) Koloa,Kaua'i HPM BuildingSupply,Applicant Thank you for the opportunity to review the preliminary permit application for the proposal referenced above and based on the information provided,please note the following: 1.PERMIT(S)REQUIRED a.Special Permit -The proposed development is not identified as a permissible use within the State Agricultural Land Use District,pursuant to HRS §205-2(d). As such,the project will be evaluated by the standards set forth in Chapter 205 HRSand Chapterl3oftheCountyofKauai,Planning Commission Rulesof Practice and Procedures. b.Use Permit -The proposal is situated within a portion of a larger parcel that is located within the Agriculture (A)zoning district and the proposed use is not considered a permitted use within that zoning district.Please cite and evaluate the project pursuant to the Use Permit criteria contained in Section 8-3.2fe)of the Kaua'i County Code (1987),as amended (attached for your reference). c.Class IV Zoning Permit -A Class IV Zoning Permit is a procedural requirement when applyfora Use Permit. Based on the permitting requirements noted above,the permitting fee for this application is$1,250.00.(Special Permit =$150;Use Permit =$300;Class IV ZoningPermit=800) Please resubmit a copy this document with the necessary information to support and finalize the review of your application.Once transmitted,the department will then conduct its final review to determine the application "complete"andonce itisdeemed complete,processingofthe permitshall commence accordingly. 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 •LThu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241-4050 (b)•(808)241-6699 (f) An Equal Opportunity Employer C:\Users\l(huil\AppData\Local\MicrosoflWindaws\!NetCache\Content.Outlook\UOVHMDHV\Lefter-1 1.21.2022 DC HPM_Truss Manufacturing Operation-Preiim App.docx EXHIBIT J-1 Mauna Kea Trask,Esq. CADES SCHUTTE Proposed Construction Material Manufacturing Facility Page |2 Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact project planner Dale A.Cua of my staff at 808.241.4050.Aloha! Sincerely,n. Ka'ainaS.ftlull Directorof Planning EXHIBIT K EXHIBIT K Biological and Water Quality Assessments in Lower Waikomo Watershed for the Kōloa-Po‘ipū Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility Project, Kaua‘i AECOS, Inc. August 2009 AECOS1EricGuinther,ReginaldDavid2,andSusanBurrAECOS,Inc.45939KamehamehaHwy,Suite104Kne‘ohe,Hawai‘i96744Phone:(808)2347770Fax:(808)2347775Email:aecos@aecos.com12 Rana Biological Consulting Inc. WaterQualityandBiologyAECOS WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSWaterQualityandBiologyAECOSPlaceNamesofHawaiiAECOSΚ۷ WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSGeoXTWaterQualityandBiologyAECOSHawai‘i’s Ferns and Fern AlliesManualoftheFloweringPlantsofHawai‘iA Tropical Garden FloraTheAmerican Ornithologists’ UnionChecklist of North American Birds 7thEditionChecklist of North American BirdsMammalsinHawaiiLasiuruscinereussemotus‘Öpe‘ape‘a WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSSpeciesCommon nameStatusAbundance NotesFERNS and FERN ALLIES POLYPODIACEAE Phymatosorus grossus (Langsd. & Fisch.) BrownlielauaeNat R <1> FLOWERING PLANTS DICOTYLEDONS ACANTHACEAE Asystasia gangetica (L.) T. AndersonChinese violetNat O Justicia betonica L.white shrimp plant Nat R Thunbergia fragrans Roxb. sweet clockvineNat U AMARANTHACEAE Alternanthera pungens Kunth khaki weedNat Amaranthus spinosus L. spiny amaranthNat Gomphrena celosioides Mart. ---Nat ANACARDIACEAE Mangifera indica L. mangoNat <1> Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi Christmas berryNat APOCYNACEAE Thevetia peruviana (Pers.) K. Schum.Nat<1> ARALIACEAE Polyscius guilfoylei (W. Bull) L.H. BaileypanaxOrn <1> Schefflera actinophylla (Endl.) Harmsoctopus treeNat ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITAE) Bidens pilosa L.kiNat C Conyza sp. Nat U Crassocephalum crepidioides (Benth.) S, Moore --- Nat U Partheniuim hysterophorus L. false ragweedNat C Emilia fosbergii Nicolson Flora’s paintbrush Nat O Pluchea carolinensis (Jacq.) G. DonsourbushNat C Sonchus oleraceus L. sow thistleNat U Synedrella nodiflora (L.) Gaertn.nodeweedNat C Tridax procumbans L. coat buttonsNat U Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook.golden crown-beard Nat O BIGNONIACEAE Spathodea campanulata P. Beauv.African-tulip tree Nat U <1> BORAGINACEAE Heliotropium curassavicum L.Ind BRASSICACEAE Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm.. Nat WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSSpeciesCommon nameStatusAbundance NotesCACTACEAE Cereus uruguayanus Ritter ex R.KlieslingNat Selenicereus macdonaldiae (W.J. Hook.) Britton & Rose Nat CAPPARACEAE Cleome gynandra L. Nat CARICACEAE Carica papaya L. Nat<1> CECROPIACEAE Cecropia obtusifolia Bertol. Nat<1> COMBRETACEAE Terminalia catappa L. tropical almondNat<1> CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea indica (J. Burm.) Merr.koali‘awaInd Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker-Gawl.---Nat. Ipomoea triloba L. little bellNat. Merremia tuberose (L.) Rendlewood roseNat CRASSULACEAE Kalanchoë pinnata (Lam.) Pers.Nat CUCURBITACEAE Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt scarlet-fruited gourd Nat Momordica charantia L. wild bitter melon Nat. indet. white-blotched lvs --- <2> EUPHORBIACEAE Chamaesyce albomarginata (Torr. & A. Gray) Smallrattlesnake weed Nat Chamaesyce hirta (L.) Millsp.garden spurgeNat Chamaesyce hypericifolia (L.) Millsp.graceful spurgeNat Chamaesyce prostrata (Aiton) Smallprostrate spurgeNat Codiaeum variegatum (L.) Blumecroton Orn Euphorbia heterophylla L.kaliko Nat Euphorbia tirucalli L.pencil tree Orn <1> Ricinis communis L.castor beanNat FABACEAE Canavalia cathartica Thours maunaloaNat Canavalia sp. whitye & pink forms Cassia sp. shower treeOrn <1,2> Chamaecrista nictitans (L.) Moench partridge pea Nat Crotalaria incana L. fuzzy rattlepodNat. Desmanthus pernambucanus (L.) Thellungvirgate mimosaNat Indigofera hendecaphyla Jacq.creeping indigoNat Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. indigoNat WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSSpeciesCommon nameStatusAbundance NotesFABACEAE (cont.) Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) deWitkoa haoleNat Macroptilium lathyroides (L.) Urb.cow peaNat Mimosa pudica L. sensitive plantNat Neonotonia wightii (Wight & Arnott) Lackey glycineNat Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth.‘opiumaNat Prosopis pallida (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Kunth kiaweNat Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merr. monkeypodNat <1> Senna alata (L.) Roxb. candle bushNat <1> Senna occidentalis (L.) Link coffee sennaNat Senna surattensis (N.L. Burm.) H. Irwin & Barneby kolomanaNat <1> GOODINACEAE Scaevola taccada (J. Gaert.) Roxb.naupaka kahakaiInd LAMIACEAE Leonotis nepetifolia (L.) R.Br. Nat MALVACEAE Abutilon grandifolium (Wild.) Sweethairy abutilonNat Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. Chinese hibiscus Orn Malvastrum coromendalianum (L.) Garckefalse mallowNat Sida acuta N. L. Burm. ---Nat Sida fallax Walp. ‘ilimaInd Sida ciliaris Nat Sida rhombifolia L. Cuba juteNat Sida spinosa L. prickly sidaNat MORACEAE Ficus microcarpa L. fil. Chinese banyanNat. MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus deglupta BlumekamarereNat R <1> Eucalyptus sp. Nat R <1> Psidium cattleianum Sabinestrawberry guava Nat U3 <1> Psidium guajava L.commom guavaNat R <1> Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels.Java plumNat C NYCTAGINACEAE Boerhavia coccinea Mill. false alenaNat Mirabilis jalapa L. marvel-of-PeruNat ONAGRACEAE Ludwigia octovalvis (Jacq.) RavenNat PAPAVERACEAE Argemone mexicana L.Mexican poppyNat WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSSpeciesCommon nameStatusAbundance NotesPHYTOLACCACEAE Rivina humilis L.Nat POLYGONACEAE Coccoloba uvifera (L.) L.sea-grapeNat R <1> PORTULACACEAE Portulaca oleracea L.Nat PROTEACEAE Grevillea robusta R. BrownNat RUTACEAE Murraya paniculata (L.) W. JackOrn SOLANACEAE Datura stramonium L. Jimson weedNat Physalis peruviana L. Cape gooseberry Nat Solanum americanum P. MillerppoloPol Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme(Dunal) Spooner, G. Anderson, & Jansencherry tomatoNat Solanum seaforthianum Andr. --- Nat STERCULIACEAE Waltheria indica L.‘uhaloaInd. VERBENACEAE Citharexylum spinosum L. Nat <1> Lantana camara L. Nat Stachytarpheta cayennensis (Rich.) VahlNat Stachytarpheta jamaicensis (L.) VahlNat Vitex trifolia L. Nat MONOCOTYLEDONS AGAVACEAE Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev.ti cultivarsOrn U Furcraea foetida (L.) Haw.Mauritius hempNat C Furcraea selloa var. marginatauncertain ID Orn R <1> ARACEAE Epipremnum pinnatum ‘Aureum’J. Linden & AndrépothosNat R ARECACEAE Roystonia regia (Kunth) O. F. CookCuban royal palm Orn <1> Ptychosperma macarthurii (Veitch) J. D. Hook. Macarthur palmOrn <1> BROMELIACEAE Billbergia pyramidalis (Sims) LindleyOrn<1> COMMELINACEAE Commelina diffusa N. L. Burm.dayflowerNat WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSSpeciesCommon nameStatusAbundance NotesCYPERACEAE Cyperus rotundus L. nut grass Nat PANDANACEAE Pandanus textorius S. Parkinson ex ZhalaIndPOACEAE (GRAMINEAE) Axonopus fisifolius (Raddi) Kuhlm.nrw-lvd carpetgrass Nat Bothriochloa pertusa (L.) A. Camuspitted beardgrass Nat Cenchrus ciliaris L. buffelgrassNat Chloris barbata (L.) Sw. swollen fingergrass Nat Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. radiate fingergrass Nat Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Bermuda grassNat Digitaria insularis (L.) Mez ex EkmansourgrassNat Echinochloa colona (L.) Link jungle-rice Nat Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. wiregrassNat Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) LinkstinkgrassNat Eragrostis pectinacea (Michx.) NeesCarolina lovegrass Nat Leptochloa uninervia (K.Presl.) Hitchc. & Chase sprangletop Nat Melinus repens (Willd.) Zizka Natal redtopNat Paspalum fimbriatum Kunth fimbriate paspalum Nat Paspalum dilatatum Poir. Dallis grass Nat Paspalum sp. ---Nat. Saccharum officinarum L. sugar caneOrn Setaria verticillata (L.) P. Beauv.bristly foxtailNat Sporobolis africanus (Poir.) Robyns &Tournay smutgrass Nat Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. Indian dropseedNat Urochloa maxima (Jacq.) WebsterGuinea grassNat Zea mays L. cornOrn Legend to Table 1 nd.nd.Pol.WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSkoahaoleLeucaenaleucocephalakoahaolekoa haoleCereus guayanus;Selenicereusmacdonaldiae WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSkoahaoleWaterQualityandBiologyAECOSUrochloamaxima WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSAECOSAECOSWaterQualityandBiologyAECOSAECOSn 4 444 4 44AECOSn 3 434 4 33AECOSn 3 333 3 33n 128 61 38 55 15 29 WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSAECOSEnteroc.C.perfrin.AECOSn 4 4 4 4AECOSn 3 3 3 3AECOSn3 3 3 3n 40 127 111CheloniamydashonuWaterQualityandBiologyAECOSAtyoidabisulcata‘opaekala‘oleAwaousguamensis‘o‘opunakeaAECOSAECOSSpeciesCommonnameStatusStreamRel.Abund.NotesAQUATICINVERTEBRATESPhysavirgataMelanoidestuberculataCorbiculaflumineaAtyoidabisulcataopaekala‘oleProcambarusclarkiMacrobrachiumlarOrthemisferrugineaPantalaflavescensEnallagmacivileIschnurapositaIschnuraramburi WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSSpeciesCommonnameStatusStreamRel.Abund.Notes TilapiaSarotherodonmelanotheronSarotherodonmossambicaLepomisMicropterusMicropterus?dolomieuiClariusfuscusAwaousguamensis ‘o‘opunakeaGambusiaaffinisPoeciliareticulataXiphophorushelleri(amphibians) RanacatesbeianaUWaterQualityandBiologyAECOSSpeciesCommonnameStatusStreamRel.Abund.NotesCheloniamydashonuindendAECOSAECOSAECOSAECOS NnBrantasandvicensisPhaethonlepturusdorotheaPluvialis fulvaColumbalivia WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSAcridotheris tristisCarpodacus mexicanusLonchura punctulataAmandava amandava Common Name Scientific Name ST RA ANSERIFORMES ANATIDAE - Ducks, Geese & Swans Anserinae - Geese & Swans Hawaiian Goose Branta sandvicensis EE0.50 (Nn) GALLIFORMES PHASIANIDAE - Pheasants & Partridges Phasianinae - Pheasants & Allies Black Francolin Francolinus francolinus A 0.46 Red Junglefowl Gallus gallus A 3.69 Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus A 0.04 PELECANIFORMES PHAETHONTIDAE – Tropicbirds White-tailed Tropicbird Phaethon lepturus IB 0.04 CICONIIFORMES ARDEIDAE - Herons, Bitterns & Allies Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis A 2.35 PELECANIFORMES PHAETHONTIDAE - Tropicbirds White-tailed Tropicbird Phaethon lepturus IB 0.04 CHARADRIIFORMES CHARADRIIDAE - Lapwings & Plovers Charadriinae - Plovers Pacific Golden-Plover Pluvialis fulva IM 0.54 WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSCommon Name Scientific Name ST RA COLUMBIFORMES COLUMBIDAE – Pigeons & Doves Rock Pigeon Columba livia A 15.42 Spotted Dove Streptopelia chinensis A 2.12 Zebra Dove Geopelia striata A 3.85 PSITTACIFORMES PSITTACIDAE - Lories Parakeets, Macaws & Parrots Psittacinae - Typical Parrots Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri A 0.04 PASSERIFORMES ALAUDIDAE - Larks Sky Lark Alauda arvensis A 0.12 SYLVIIDAE, Sylviinae – Old World Warblers Japanese Bush-Warbler Cettia diphone A 0.46 TURDIDAE – Thushes White-rumped Shama Copsychus malabaricus A 0.27 TIMALIIDAE – Babblers Hwamei Garrulax canorus A 0.38 ZOSTEROPIDAE – White-Eyes Japanese White-eye Zosterops japonicus A 3.65 MIMIDAE – Mockingbirds & Thrashers Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos A 0.85 STURNIDAE – Starlings Common Myna Acridotheres tristis A 8.08 EMBERIZIDAE – Emberizids Red-crested Cardinal Paroaria coronata A 1.19 CARDINALIDAE – Cardinals Saltators & Allies Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis A 1.19 ICTERIDAE - Blackbirds Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta A 0.81 FRINGILLIDAE – Fringilline and Cardueline Finches & Allies Carduelinae – Carduline Finches House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus A 6.23 PASSERIDAE - Old World Sparrows House Sparrow Passer domesticus A 0.62 WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSCommon Name Scientific Name ST RA ESTRILDIDAE – Estrildid Finches Estrildinae – Estrildine Finches Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild A 1.77 Red Avadavat Amandava amandava A 5.54 African Silverbill Lonchura cantans A 0.08 Nutmeg Mannikin Lonchura punctulata A 5.88 Chestnut Munia Lonchura atricapilla A 0.96 Java Sparrow Padda oryzivora A 0.81 ST Status RARelative Abundance: Number of birds detected divided by the number of count stations (26) EE Endangered Endemic species – native and unique to Hawai‘i, and listed as endangered A Alien species – introduced to Hawai‘i by humans, and have become established in the wild IB Indigenous Breeding species – native to the Hawaiian Islands, but also found elsewhere naturally IM Indigenopus Migratory species - native to the Hawaiian Islands, but also found elsewhere naturally Suss.scrofaCaprah.hirca WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSCommon Name Scientific Name A/V S/T CARNIVORA- Flesh -Eaters Canidae - Wolves, Jackals & Allies Domestic dog Canis f. familiaris X X Felidae- Cats House cat Felis catus X X PERISSODACTYLA - Odd-Toed Ungulates Equidae - Horses, Asses & Zebras Domestic horse Equus c. caballus X X Donkey Equus a. asinus X Mule Equus asinus x Equus caballus X ATRIODACTYLA - Even-Toed Ungulates Suicidae - Old World Swine Pig Sus s. scrofa X Bovidae- Hollow-horned Ruminants Domestic cattle Bos Taurus X X Domestic goat Capra h. hircus X A/V Audio or Visual – detection S/TScat, Track or Sign – detection XDetection ‘uhaloaWaltheriaindica WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSWaterQualityandBiologyAECOS-AdelocosaanopsSpelaeorchestiakoloana- WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSPueoAsio flammeussandwichensisPterodroma sandwichensisPuffinus auricularis newelli WaterQualityandBiologyAECOS WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSRattus r.rattusRattusnorvegicusMusmusculusdomesticusRattus exulans hawaiiensisAlienAmphidromousCrepuscularEndemicEndangeredIndigenouMuridaeNocturnalPelagicRuderalSignVolantThreatenedESADLNRUSFWS WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSAECOSAECOSAECOSAECOSAECOSinEvolution,Ecology,Conservation,andManagementofHawaiianBirds:AVanishing Avifauna.ChecklistofNorthAmericanBirdsChecklistofNorthAmericanBirdsChecklistofNorthAmericanBirdsAukChecklistofNorthAmericanBirdsAukChecklistofNorthAmericanBirdsAukChecklistofNorthAmericanBirdsAukWaterQualityandBiologyAECOSChecklistofNorthAmericanBirds.AukChecklistofNorthAmericanBirdsAukChecklist ofNorthAmericanBirdsAukThecactioftheUnitedStatesandCanadaColonialWaterbirds WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSWaterQualityandBiologyAECOShttp://www.hawaiiwatershedatlas.com/watersheds/kauai/23002.pdf.FederalRegister Elepaio WaterQualityandBiologyAECOSHawaii’sfernsandfernalliesColonialWaterbirdsPlace Names of HawaiiAukPterodromaphaeopygiaIn:in:ATropicalGardenFlora.PlantsCultivatedin the Hawaiian Islands and other Tropical Places.‘ElepaioWildlifeSocietyBulletinWaterQualityandBiologyAECOShttp://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/section/backissuesfrontMammalsinHawaiiCorps of Engineers WetlandDelineation Manualhttp://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListingAndOccurrence.jsp?state=HIhttp://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.htmlManualoftheFloweringPlantsofHawai‘iSupplement to the Manual of the flowering plants ofHawai‘iin: EXHIBIT L EXHIBIT L Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kōloa-Po‘ipū Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. March 2009 O‘ahu Office P.O. Box 1114 Kailua, Hawai‘i 96734 Ph.: (808) 262-9972 Fax: (808) 262-4950 www.culturalsurveys.comMaui Office 16 S. Market Street, Suite 2N Wailuku, Hawai‘i 96793 Ph: (808) 242-9882 Fax: (808) 244-1994 DRAFT Archaeological Inventory Surveyfor the proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WastewaterReclamation Facility and Collection System,Kloa, Weliweli, and Pa‘a Ahupua‘a, Kloa District,Island of Kaua‘i TMK: [4] 2-8-004: por. 003; [4] 2-8-008: por. 001 & por. 036; [4] 2-8-009: por. 001; [4] 2-8-011: por. 001; [4] 2-8-014: por. 005, por. 019, por. 023, por. 030, & por. 037; [4] 2-8-022: por. 001, por. 011, por. 021, & por. 030; [4] 2-9-001: por. 001 Prepared for Wilson Okamoto Corporation Prepared by Jon Tulchin, B.A. andHallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. Kailua, Hawai‘i (Job Code: KOLOA 28) March 2009 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Management Summary Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System iTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Management Summary ReferenceArchaeological Inventory Survey for the proposed KΚloa-Po‘ipRegional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System, Kloa, Weliweli, and Pa‘a Ahupua‘a, KΚloa District, Island of Kaua‘i (Tulchin & Hammatt 2009) DateMarch 2009Project Number (s) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Inc. (CSH) Job Code: KOLOA 28 Investigation Permit Number Fieldwork in this report has been performed under CSH’s annual archaeological research permit, No. 09-20, issued by DLNR / SHPD. Land Jurisdiction The project area is predominantly situated in private lands owned by Grove Farm and the E.A Knudsen Trust, with smaller parcels belonging to various private land owners or the County of Kaua‘i. AgenciesState of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources / State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR / SHPD) Project Description HOH Utilities, LLC proposes to develop a privately-owned and operated regional wastewater reclamation facility and associated wastewater collection system in the Kloa-Po‘ip region on the south shore of the Island of Kaua‘i. The proposed KΚloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional WRF) and collection system (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “project area”) is intended to collect and treat wastewater associated with a service area encompassing the communities of Kloa Town, Po‘ip, and Kukui‘ula.The proposed wastewater collection system improvements would consist of four (4) wastewater pump stations (KΚloa WWPS, Villages WWPS, Crater WWPS, and Eastern WWPS) along with gravity lines and force mains situated within existing undeveloped lands, roadways or along established utility line corridors or unpaved roadway corridors within a predominantly agricultural area. Associated ground disturbance will include excavation related to the project area’s development, to include: structural footings, utility installation, as well as roadway and parking area installation. Project Location The project area is located on the south shore of the Island of Kaua‘i in the Kloa District. The new Regional WRF will be situated within an agricultural area utilizing a portion of the existing KΚloa Mill site. This site is located at the eastern end of Weliweli Road in Kloa Town, and consists of Tax Map Key (TMK): [4] 2-09-001: portions of 001 and 002.The wastewater collection system serving the new Regional WRF is planned to consist of three (3) components: 1.) The KΚloa Collection Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Management Summary Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System iiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001System, 2.) The Po‘ip Collection System, and 3.) The Eastern Collection System. New sewer lines associated with the Kloa Collection System would be routed within both privately-owned property and the rights-of-way for portions of County roadways which are Kloa Road, Waikomo Road, Weliweli Road, and across Ala Kinoiki Road. Privately-owned properties affected include parcels associated with Tax Map Keys (TMKs): 2-08-004: portion of 003, 2-08-008: portion of 001 and 036 (Yamada Road), 2-08-009: portion of 001, and 2-08-011: portion of 001, 2-08-014: portion of 023, and 2-08-022: portion of 001. A new wastewater pump station (Kloa WWPS) would also be provided near the intersection of Waikomo Road with Weliweli Road, identified as TMK 2-08-011: portion of 001. The Po‘ip Collection System will involve the construction of two (2) new wastewater pump stations. The Villages WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site just mauka of the existing Kiahuna Swim and Tennis Club facility and east of Hapa Road within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-08-014: portion of 019. The Crater WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site east of the existing water tanks near Puuhi Reservoir within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. The Eastern Collection System will involve the construction of one (1) new wastewater pump station. The Eastern WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site located east of the Po‘ip Bay Golf Course and mauka of the private road that extends eastward from Po‘ip Road within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. Sewer lines associated with the Po‘ip and Eastern Collection Systems would predominantly be located within privately owned property and a few County roadways. These properties are identified as TMKs: (4) 2-08-014: portions of 005 (Kiahuna Plantation Drive), 019, 030, and 037; (4) 2-08-022: portions of 011, 021, and 030; (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. The entire project area is depicted on the 1996 Kloa U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Management Summary Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System iiiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Project Acreage The proposed Regional WRF and 4 wastewater pump stations total an approximate area of 10 acres. The project also includes an approximately 5-mile long and 10 ft wide corridor, proposed for the instillation of gravity lines and force mains. Land Jurisdiction The project area is predominantly situated in private lands owned by Grove Farm and the E.A Knudsen Trust, with smaller parcels belonging to various private land owners or the County of Kaua‘i. Area of Potential Effect (APE) and Survey Acreage Based on available information, the proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System project will not impose adverse visual, auditory or other environmental impact to any known historic properties, including standing architecture, located outside the project area. Accordingly, the proposed project, based on available information lacks potential to affect historic properties outside the project area. As a result the project’s APE is the same as the project area. The survey area for the current investigation included the entire approximately 10 acres of land proposed for waste water treatment plant and pump station development as well as the 5 mile long and 10 ft wide corridor proposed for transmission line instillation, all of which constitute the APE/project area. HistoricPreservation Regulatory Context At the request of Wilson Okamoto Corporation, CSH undertook this archaeological inventory survey. In consultation with SHPD, the inventory survey investigation was designed to fulfill the state requirements for archaeological inventory surveys (HAR Chapter 13-276). This document was prepared to support the proposed project’s historic preservation review under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 6E-42 and HAR Chapter 13-284.Fieldwork Effort Missy Kamai, B.A., and Gerald Ida, B.A., conducted the fieldwork effort, which required 10 person-days to complete. Fieldwork took place between January 12th and 16th 2009 under the general supervision of Hallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D. (principal investigator). Number of Historic Properties Identified Three:State Inventory of Historic Properties (SIHP) #50-30-10-954, pre-contact habitation enclosure, terrace, and platform SIHP #50-30-10-955, pre-contact habitation platform SIHP #50-30-10-992, post-contact dirt road with parallel stacked stone boundary walls Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Management Summary Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System ivTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Historic Properties RecommendedEligible to the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places (Hawai‘i Register) SIHP #50-30-10-954, pre-contact habitation enclosure, terrace, and platform SIHP #50-30-10-955, pre-contact habitation platform SIHP #50-30-10-992, post-contact dirt road with parallel stacked stone boundary walls Historic Properties RecommendedIneligible to the Hawai‘i Register NoneEffectRecommendationCSH’s project specific effect recommendation is “effect, with proposed mitigation commitments.” The recommended mitigation measures will reduce the project’s effect on identified significant surface historic properties as well as any yet to be identified subsurface historic properties that may be located within the project area and be pro-active in addressing possible community concerns. Mitigation RecommendationNo further historic preservation work is recommended for SIHP #50-30-10-954 and SIHP #50-30-10-955. Sufficient information regarding the location, function, age, and construction methods of SIHP #50-30-10-954 and SIHP #50-30-10-955 have been generated by the current inventory survey investigation to mitigate any adverse effect caused by proposed development activities. It is recommended that a cultural resource preservation plan be prepared for the proposed -Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System project, in accordance with Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) 13-277-3, to address buffer zones and protective measures for SIHP #50-30-10-992 located within the southwestern portion of the project area as well as SIHP #50-30-10-947 and SIHP #50-30-10-953, which are located in the immediate vicinity of the southwestern portion of the project area. This preservation plan should detail the short and long term preservation measures that will safeguard the historic properties during project construction and subsequent use of the project area. Based on background research, it is likely that subsurface historic properties, associated with pre-contact land use, may be present within the southwestern portion of the project area. In order to mitigate the potential damage to these potential historic properties within the makaiportion of the project area, it is recommended that project construction proceed under an archaeological monitoring program. This monitoring program will facilitate the identification and proper treatment of any Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Management Summary Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System vTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001burials that might be discovered during project construction, and will gather information regarding the project’s non-burial archaeological deposits, should any be discovered. The specifics archaeological monitoring will be addressed in an archaeological monitoring plan to be reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Division. Additionally the area proposed for the construction of the Regional WRF, located in the northern portion of the project area, is in the immediate vicinity of an old sugar mill facility. A review of historic documents indicates that this building was constructed by at least 1912 as a component of the Koloa Plantation. Due to the historic nature of these structures CSH recommends consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division Architecture Branch prior to any land disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed Regional WRF. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System viTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Table of Contents Management Summary ............................................................................................................iSection 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................................11.2 Historic Preservation Regulatory Context and Document Purpose...............................................21.3 Scope of Work...............................................................................................................................51.4 Environmental Setting...................................................................................................................61.4.1 Natural Environment...............................................................................................................61.4.2 Built Environment ..................................................................................................................8Section 2 Methods .................................................................................................................. 102.1 Field Methods..............................................................................................................................102.2 Document Review .......................................................................................................................10Section 3 Background Research ........................................................................................... 113.1 Traditional and Historical Background........................................................................................113.1.1 Mythological and Traditional Accounts...............................................................................113.1.2 Early Historic Period ............................................................................................................133.1.3 Mid-1800s and the Great Mhele.........................................................................................143.1.4 1900s.....................................................................................................................................213.1.5 Modern Land Use.................................................................................................................213.2 Previous Archaeological Research ..............................................................................................253.2.1 Initial Archaeological Studies at Kloa................................................................................253.2.2 Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Project Area .......................................253.3 Background Summary and Predictive Model..............................................................................41Section 4 Results of Fieldwork.............................................................................................. 434.1 Survey Findings...........................................................................................................................434.2 Historic Property Descriptions.....................................................................................................484.2.1 SIHP #50-30-10-954.............................................................................................................484.2.2 SIHP #50-30-10-955.............................................................................................................514.2.3 SIHP #50-30-10-992.............................................................................................................54Section 5 Summary and Interpretation................................................................................ 59Section 6 Significance Assessments ...................................................................................... 61Section 7 Project Effect and Mitigation Recommendations............................................... 627.1 Project Effect...............................................................................................................................627.2 Mitigation Recommendations......................................................................................................627.3 Disposition of Materials...............................................................................................................63Section 8 References Cited.................................................................................................... 64Appendix A UTM Information for Historic Properties...................................................A-1Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System viiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 List of Figures Figure 1. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, Kloa Quadrangle (1996), showing the location of the project area..............................................................................................3 Figure 2. Composite of Tax Map Key [4] 2-8 (top half) and [4] 2-9 (bottom half) showing project area location....................................................................................................................4Figure 3. Overlay of Soil Survey of the State of Hawai‘i (Foote et al. 1972), indicating sediment types within the project area (indicated in red)...............................................................7 Figure 4. Orthophotograph showing historic and modern land disturbance within and in the vicinity of the project area (source: USDA Aerial Photograph Field Office 2000)........9 Figure 5. Portion of 1891 Map of Kloa by M.D. Monsarrat (R.M.1694), showing the location of the southwest portion of the project area (indicated in red) and Land Commission Awards (LCAs) in the vicinity......................................................................................16 Figure 6. Portion of 1891 Map of Kloa by M.D. Monsarrat (R.M.1694), showing the location of the northwest portion of the project area (indicated in red) and Land Commission Awards (LCAs) in the vicinity......................................................................................18 Figure 7. Portion of 1935 Koloa Sugar Company map showing the extant of cane lands within the project area..............................................................................................................20Figure 8. 1910 USGS topographic map, Lihue Quadrangle, showing the network of railroad tracks within the Kloa District. Note that a majority of the project area (indicated in red) is situated within either railroad right-of-ways or cane haul roads. ......................22 Figure 9. 1963 USGS topographic map, Kloa Quadrangle, showing the location of newly constructed (circa 1912) sugar mill in relation to the project area................................23 Figure 10. Portion of Tax Map Key (4) 2-8, (c. 1935) Note annotations “Fishpond and Taro Patch” just south of project area (indicated in red) and “House Sites, Fireplaces; Lava Tubes; Enclosures and Taro Patches in this Area” enclosing a portion of the southwest section of the project area. ............................................................................................24 Figure 11. Previous archaeological investigations in the vicinity of the project area (indicated in red)................................................................................................................................27 Figure 12. Portion of Bennett’s 1931 index map of Kaua‘i showing the approximate locations of archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project area (indicated in red) (Adapted from Bennett 1931)................................................................................................................31 Figure 13. Plan of Koloa house site, Site 86. a, walled area 9 by 25 feet; b, terrace 5 by 25 feet, 1 foot high; c, roughly paved area; d, section 21 by 30 feet; e, terrace 5 by 21 feet, 6 inches high; f, platform 11 by 11 feet; g, depressions 7 by 7.5 feet, 1 foot deep (Adapted from Bennett 1931:121)................................................................................33 Figure 14. Portion of Kahuna Golf Village study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Hammatt et al. 1978).....................................................................................................35 Figure 15. Portion of Po‘ipulani Golf Course study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Hammatt et al. 1991)...............................................................................37 Figure 16. Portion of Po‘ipulani Golf Course study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Simonson et al. 2009) .............................................................................39 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System viiiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Figure 17. Creed et al. (1995) archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Creed et al. 1995).........40 Figure 18. Portion of USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, KΚloa Quadrangle (1996), showing the locations of historic properties identified within the project area ............44 Figure 19. Photograph of historic sugar mill facility in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location of the Regional WRF, view to west................................................................46 Figure 20. Photographic collage showing representative examples of areas of disturbance observed throughout the project area............................................................................47 Figure 21. SIHP -954 Feature A plan view....................................................................................49 Figure 22. SIHP -954 Feature A enclosure....................................................................................50 Figure 23. SIHP -954 Feature B plan view....................................................................................52 Figure 24. SIHP -954 Feature B platform/modified outcrop.........................................................53 Figure 25. SIHP-955, site plan view..............................................................................................55Figure 26. SIHP -955 platform......................................................................................................55 Figure 27. GPS map of SIHP -992 (Hapa Road)...........................................................................57 Figure 28. Photograph of SIHP -992 (Hapa Road), view to northeast..........................................58 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System ixTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001List of Tables Table 1. Land Commission Awards in the vicinity of the southwest portion of the project area..17 Table 2. Land Commission Awards in the vicinity of the northwest portion of the project area..19 Table 3. Kloaheiau documented by Thrum in 1907...................................................................26 Table 4. Previous Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Project Area...................28 Table 5. Historic Properties Identified within the Project Area.....................................................45 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Introduction Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 1TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background At the request of Wilson Okamoto Corporation, Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc. (CSH) conducted an archaeological inventory survey for the proposed KΚloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System project, located in the ahupua‘a of Kloa, Weliweli, and Pa‘a, KΚloa District, Island of Kaua‘i.HOH Utilities, LLC proposes to develop a privately-owned and operated regional wastewater reclamation facility and associated wastewater collection system in the KΚloa-Po‘ip region on the south shore of the Island of Kaua‘i. The proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional WRF) and collection system (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “project area”) is intended to collect and treat wastewater associated with a service area encompassing the communities of KΚloa Town, Po‘ip, and Kukui‘ula.The proposed wastewater collection system improvements would consist of four (4) wastewater pump stations (Kloa WWPS, Villages WWPS, Crater WWPS, and Eastern WWPS) along with gravity lines and force mains situated within existing undeveloped lands, roadways or along established utility line corridors or unpaved roadway corridors within a predominantly agricultural area. Associated ground disturbance for the proposed project will include excavation related to the project area’s development, to include: structural footings, utility installation, as well as roadway and parking area installation. The project area is located on the south shore of the Island of Kaua‘i in the KΚloa District. The new Regional WRF will be situated within an agricultural area utilizing a portion of the existing Kloa Mill site. This site is located at the eastern end of Weliweli Road in KΚloa Town, and consists of Tax Map Key (TMK): [4] 2-09-001: portions of 001 and 002. The wastewater collection system serving the new Regional WRF is planned to consist of three (3) components: 1.) The KΚloa Collection System, 2.) The Po‘ip Collection System, and 3.) The Eastern Collection System. New sewer lines associated with the Kloa Collection System would be routed within both privately-owned property and the rights-of-way for portions of County roadways which are Kloa Road, Waikomo Road, Weliweli Road, and across Ala Kinoiki Road. Privately-owned properties affected include parcels associated with Tax Map Keys (TMKs): 2-08-004: portion of 003, 2-08-008: portion of 001 and 036 (Yamada Road), 2-08-009: portion of 001, and 2-08-011: portion of 001, 2-08-014: portion of 023, and 2-08-022: portion of 001. A new wastewater pump station (Kloa WWPS) would also be provided near the intersection of Waikomo Road with Weliweli Road, identified as TMK 2-08-011: portion of 001. The Po‘ip Collection System will involve the construction of two (2) new wastewater pump stations. The Villages WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site just mauka of the existing Kiahuna Swim and Tennis Club facility and east of Hapa Road within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-08-014: portion of 019. The Crater WWPS is proposed to be located Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Introduction Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 2TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001within an undeveloped site east of the existing water tanks near Puuhi Reservoir within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. The Eastern Collection System will involve the construction of one (1) new wastewater pump station. The Eastern WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site located east of the Po‘ip Bay Golf Course and mauka of the private road that extends eastward from Po‘ipRoad within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. Sewer lines associated with the Po‘ip and Eastern Collection Systems would predominantly be located within privately owned property and a few County roadways. These properties are identified as TMKs: (4) 2-08-014: portions of 005 (Kiahuna Plantation Drive), 019, 030, and 037; (4) 2-08-022: portions of 011, 021, and 030; (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. The entire project area is depicted on the 1996 KΚloa U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and a composite of Tax Map Keys (TMK) [4] 2-8 and [4] 2-9 (Figure 1 & Figure 2)The proposed Regional WRF and 4 wastewater pump stations total an approximate area of 10 acres. The project also includes an approximately 5-mile long and 10 ft wide corridor, proposed for the instillation of gravity lines and force mains. The project area is predominantly situated in private lands owned by Grove Farm and the E.A Knudsen Trust, with smaller parcels belonging to various landowners’.Based on available information, the proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System project will not impose adverse visual, auditory or other environmental impact to any known historic properties, including standing architecture, located outside the project area. Accordingly, the proposed project, based on available information lacks potential to affect historic properties outside the project area. As a result the project’s APE is the same as the project area. The survey area for the current investigation included the entire approximately 10 acres of land proposed for the Regional WRF and wastewater pump station development as well as the 5 mile long and 10 ft wide corridor proposed for gravity lines and force mains, all of which constitute the APE/project area. 1.2 Historic Preservation Regulatory Context and Document Purpose As a privately funded venture on private lands, the proposed KΚloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System project is a “project” subject to state of Hawai‘i historic preservation review legislation (Hawaii Revised Statutes [HRS] Chapter 6E-42 and Hawai‘i Administrative Rules [HAR] Chapter 13-284). Based on the project’s scope, cultural setting, and the results of previous cultural resource management investigations in the vicinity, Wilson Okamoto Corporation had this archaeological inventory survey investigation completed. This investigation was carried out as part of and in compliance with the proposed development’s historic preservation review. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Introduction Figure 1. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, Kloa Quadrangle (1996), showing the location of the project areaArchaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 3TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Introduction Figure 2. Composite of Tax Map Key [4] 2-8 (top half) and [4] 2-9 (bottom half) showing project area location Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 4TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Introduction Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 5TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Under Hawai‘i state historic preservation legislation, archaeological inventory surveys are designed to identify, document, and provide significance and mitigation recommendations for historic properties. Under this legislation, historic properties are defined as any “building, structure, object, district, area, or site, including heiau and underwater site, which is over fifty years old.” A project’s effect and potential mitigation measures are evaluated based on the project’s potential impact to “significant” historic properties (those historic properties determined eligible, based on established significance criteria, for inclusion in the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places [Hawai‘i Register]). Determinations of eligibility to the Hawai‘i Register result when a state agency official’s historic property “significance assessment” is approved by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), or when SHPD itself makes an eligibility determination for an historic property (HAR Chapter 13-284). In consultation with SHPD, this inventory survey investigation was designed to fulfill the state requirements for archaeological inventory surveys (HAR Chapter 13-276). This inventory survey report was prepared to support the proposed project’s historic preservation review. The report includes a project-specific effect recommendation and mitigation recommendations for the project area’s historic properties that are recommended eligible to the Hawai‘i Register. This document is intended to support project-related historic preservation consultation among state agencies and interested Native Hawaiian and community groups. 1.3 Scope of Work The archaeological inventory survey and its accompanying report will document all historic properties within the subject parcel. The prepared inventory survey will be in compliance with state standards and will be submitted for review and approval to the State Historic Preservation Division/Department of Land and Natural Resources (SHPD/DLNR).The following steps will satisfy the State and County requirements for an archaeological inventory survey: 1. A ground survey of the entire project area for the purpose of historic property identification and documentation. All historic properties would be located, described, and mapped with evaluation of function, interrelationships, and significance. Documentation will include photographs and scale drawings of selected historic properties. All historic properties will be assigned Inventory of Historic Properties numbers by the State and located with a Trimble GPS. This GPS data will be in the report in ArcGIS format and be sufficient for planning purposes.2. Research on historic and archaeological background, including search of historic maps, written records, and Land Commission Award documents. This research will focus on the specific area with general background on the ahupua‘a and district and will emphasize settlement patterns. 3. Appropriate consultation with knowledgeable members of the community, requesting information on historic properties in the project area. 4. Preparation of a survey report which will include the following: a. A topographic map of the survey area showing all historic properties; Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Introduction Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 6TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001b. Results of consultation with knowledgeable community members about the property’s past land use and historic properties. c. Description of all historic properties with selected photographs, scale drawings, and discussions of function; d. Historical and archaeological background sections summarizing prehistoric and historic land use as they relate to the project area’s historic properties; e. A summary of historic property categories and their significance in an archaeological and historic context; f. Recommendations based on all information generated that will specify what steps should be taken to mitigate impact of development on the project area’s significant historic properties - such as data recovery (excavation) and preservation of specific areas. These recommendations will be developed in consultation with the client and the State agencies. This scope of work also includes full coordination with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), and County relating to archaeological matters. This coordination takes place after consent of the owner or representatives. 1.4 Environmental Setting 1.4.1 Natural Environment The project area ranges from approximately 10 m (32 ft) to 3 km (1.9 miles) north of the coast, and ranges from approximately 317 m (0.2 miles) to 3.2 km (2 miles) east of Waikomo Stream. The project area receives 40 to 91 inches (1000 to 1500 millimeters) of rainfall per year, falling mostly in the winter months (November through March) (Giambelluca et al. 1986:86). Temperatures range from highs around 90ºF to maximum lows of about 50ºF, with the greatest variations occurring between day and night rather than winter and summer. Observed vegetation within the project area consisted of cacti, koa haole (Leucaenaleucocephala), buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), and java plum (Syzygium cuminii).Lands within the project area are relatively level with elevations ranging from 15 to 200 ft above mean sea level (AMSL). According to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey data the sediments within the project area consist primarily of Waikomo clay (Wt & Ws) and Koloa clay (KvB & KvC), with a small pocket of Fill land (Fd) within the middle of the proposed Kloa Collection System (Foote et al. 1972) (Figure 3). The Waikomo series consists of “well-drained, stony and rocky soils on uplands…developed in material weathered from basic igneous rock, probably with a mixture of ash and alluvium in places…used for sugarcane, pasture, wildlife habitat, and homesites” (Foote et al. 1972).The Koloa series consists of “well-drained soils on slopes of old volcanic vents and upland ridges on … underlain by hard rock at a depth of 20 to 40 inches…developed in material weathered from basic igneous rock…used for irrigated sugarcane” (Foote et al. 1972). Fill land consists of “areas filled with material from Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Introduction Figure 3. Overlay of Soil Survey of the State of Hawai‘i (Foote et al. 1972), indicating sediment types within the project area (indicated in red) Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 7TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Introduction Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 8TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001dredging, excavation from adjacent uplands, garbage, and bagasse and slurry from sugar mills” (Foote et al. 1972). 1.4.2 Built Environment Currently the proposed locations of the Regional WRF and wastewater pump station are all located either within undeveloped parcels, overgrown with exotic vegetation, or within agricultural fields formerly utilized for sugar cultivation. Additionally the proposed gravity lines and force mains run within existing asphalt paved roadways, cane haul roads, and/or railroad grade.During the post-contact period a majority of the project area had been impacted by land modifications (grubbing, grading, etc.) associated with historic sugar cultivation. An orthophotograph of the area shows the outlines of fallow cane fields as well as former cane fields that are currently being utilized for diversified agriculture, within and in the vicinity of the project area (Figure 4). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Introduction Figure 4. Orthophotograph showing historic and modern land disturbance within and in the vicinity of the project area (source: USDA Aerial Photograph Field Office 2000) Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 9TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 MethodsArchaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 10TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Section 2 Methods2.1 Field Methods Missy Kamai, B.A., and Gerald Ida, B.A., conducted the fieldwork effort, which required 10 person-days to complete. Fieldwork took place between January 12th and 16th 2009 under the general supervision of Hallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D. (principal investigator). The fieldwork component of the archaeological inventory survey was carried out under archaeological permit number 07-19 issued by the Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Division/Department of Land and Natural Resources (SHPD/DLNR), per Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 13-282. Fieldwork consisted of a 100% coverage pedestrian inspection of the project area. The pedestrian inspection of the study area was accomplished through systematic sweeps. The interval between the archaeologists was generally 5-10 m. All historic properties encountered were recorded and documented with a written field description, scale drawings, photographs, and located using Trimble Pro XR GPS survey technology (accuracy +/- 1 m). 2.2 Document Review Background research included a review of previous archaeological studies on file at the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR); a review of geology and cultural history documents at Hamilton Library of the University of Hawai‘i, the Hawai‘i State Archives, the Mission Houses Museum Library, the Hawai‘i Public Library, and the Archives of the Bishop Museum; study of historic photographs at the Hawai‘i State Archives and the Archives of the Bishop Museum; and a study of historic maps at the Survey Office of the DLNR. Information on LCAs was accessed through Waihona ‘ina Corporation’s Mhele Data Base (www.waihona.com). This research provided the environmental, cultural, historic, and archaeological background for the project area. The sources studied were used to formulate a predictive model regarding the expected type and location of sub-surface pre and post-contact historic properties in the project area. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 11TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Section 3 Background Research 3.1 Traditional and Historical Background 3.1.1 Mythological and Traditional Accounts The project area is situated within the Kona District on the island of Kaua‘i. Few records exist that document traditional Hawaiian life in the ahupua‘a of Kloa. While settlement by westerners with religious and commercial interests made the area a focus of documentation after the first quarter of the 19th century, the accounts generally emphasized the lives and concerns of the westerners themselves, with only anecdotal references to the Hawaiian population. Two 19thcentury documents, the Boundary Commission Testimony of 1874 and a Lahainaluna manuscript of 1885, however, provide an insight into the history of Kloa before the arrival of westerners. A dispute over the northern boundary of Kloa Ahupua‘a in 1874 led to a hearing before Duncan McBryde, the Commissioner of Boundaries for Kaua‘i. One native witness, Nao (who described himself as born in Kloa but presently living in Ha‘ik), in order to show that Hoaea (the area in dispute) was indeed at the northern boundary of Kloa, testified: "At Hoaea, tea [sic]leaves were hung up to show that there were battles going on" (Boundary Commission, Kaua‘i, vol. 1, 1874:124). That there were traditional "warning systems"; well-known to all natives: suggests that Kloa may well have been the scene of some serious conflicts. Throughout the early settlement history of KΚloa, conflicts must have occurred at intervals serious enough and often enough to warrant having to devise such a system. Additional evidence of a rich history within Kloa was offered in a Lahainaluna document produced eleven years later. This document appeared to have been based on an oral history project. On September 7, 1885 a student from Lahainaluna Schools (HMS 43 #17) interviewed Makea – "a native who is well acquainted with KΚloa" -- and recorded "what she said about the well-known places in the olden times." More than sixty-four years after the abolition of the kapu(taboo) system and almost as many years after contact with westerners, Makea was able to describe fourteen heiau (religious structures) within the KΚloa area. There were several place names within Kloa that have legendary associations. The name Kloa itself has several derivations. Kloa is the name for the large, soft Hawaiian sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum) once grown by the Hawaiians; KΚloa is also the name of a steep rock on the banks of Waikomo Stream, from whence the ahupua‘a got its name. This bank of the river was called Kloa, after the native Hawaiian duck (Anas wyvilliana) (Kikuchi 1963:46; Pukui et al. 1974:116).Maulili ([meaning] constant jealousy) is a deep pool in Waikomo Stream in the uplands of Kloa. When the gods Kne and Kanaloa first came to Kaua‘i, legends say they explored the island and came to the pool at Maulili at evening. They stretched out beside the pool for their night’s sleep on its eastern bank and left the impression of their forms within the rock: as can be seen in the ‘papa (a flat area). The Maulili heiau was first built by Ka-pueo-maka-walu, the son of Kapu-lau-k. It was a place of human sacrifice (Wichman 1998:12). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 12TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Thisheiau may be the Maulili Heiau described by Makea in the Lahainaluna document mentioned above. “The ‘papa in this vicinity is called an ‘Unu.' and a ‘Heiau,' but was never walled in, it is said. On the nights of Kne, the drums are heard to beat there, also at the sacred rocks, or unu's, of Opuokahaku and Kanemilohae, near the beach of Poipu” (Farley 1907). Bernice Judd, writing in 1935, summarized most of what was known of the traditional Hawaiian life of Kloa:In the old days two large ‘auwai or ditches left the southern end of the Maulili pool to supply the taro patches to the east and west. On the kuunas[embankments] the natives grew bananas and sugar cane for convenience in irrigating. Along the coast they had fish ponds and salt pans, ruins of which are still to be seen. Their dry land farming was done on the kula(dry land), where they raised sweet potatoes, of which both the tubers and the leaves were good to eat. The Hawaiians planted pia (arrowroot) as well as wauke (paper mulberry) in patches in the hills wherever they would grow naturally with but little cultivation. In the uplands they also gathered the leaves of the hala (screwpine) for mats and the nuts of the kukui (candlenut) for light (Judd 1935:53). Beginning possibly as early as 1450, the ‘Kloa Field System’ was planned and built on the shallow lava soils to the east and west of Waikomo Stream. The KΚloa Field System is characterized as a network of fields of both irrigated and dryland crops, built mainly upon one stream system. Waikomo Stream was adapted into an inverted tree model with smaller branches leading off larger branches. The associated dispersed housing and field shelters were located among the fields, particularly at junctions of the irrigation ditches (‘auwai). In this way, the whole of the field system was contained within the entire makai (seaward) portion of the ahupua‘a of Kloa, stretching east and west to the ahupua‘a boundaries.The field system, with associated clusters of permanent extended family habitations, was in place by the middle of the 16th century and was certainly expanded and intensified continuously from that time. Long ‘auwai were constructed along the tops of topographic high points formed by northeast to southwest oriented KΚloa lava flows, and extended all the way to the sea. Habitation sites, including small house platforms, enclosures and L-shaped shelters were built in rocky bluff areas which occupied high points in the landscape and were therefore close to ‘auwai, which typically ran along the side of these bluffs (Hammatt et al. 2004). From A.D. 1650-1795, the Hawaiian Islands were typified by the development of large communal residences, religious structures and an intensification of agriculture. Large heiau in Kloa may date to this period. The manufacture of salt was important for the Native Hawaiians. Many of the larger salt pans on Kaua‘i are located near NΚmilu, “where people came in the summer to gather salt when the winds blow the salt across the surface of the pond at the edge of the pond where it was carefully scooped out with the hands or with pieces of gourd shell and dried” (Wichman 1998:35). The importance of salt manufacture in the area was illustrated in the 1874 Boundary Commission determination for KΚloa, where the oral testimony of Pene Kalauau claimed he had come all the way “from Koolau to go to Koloa for salt” (Boundary Commission, 1874, Kauai, Vol. No. 1:124). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 13TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-0013.1.2 Early Historic Period By the early 1800’s, Kloa Landing had become the principal port of Kaua‘i. Shipments of North American furs and pelts to the Orient depended on the provisioning of ships at Kloa Landing, as well as other Hawaiian ports. As the fur trade grew, markets in China became aware of sandalwood (Santalum sp.) grown in the Hawaiian Islands. The shipment of most of Kaua‘i’s sandalwood to the Orient took place at KΚloa Landing, until the supply of the fragrant wood was exhausted around 1830. Accounts by visitors and settlers at Kloa focused on the early westerners’ own concerns--religious and commercial--as these concerns appeared within the historical record of KΚloa in the 1800's. However, scattered throughout the accounts are occasional references to the Hawaiians of Kloa that may give some insights into their lives. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) missionary Samuel Whitney described, in an article in the Missionary Herald (June 1827:12), a visit to KΚloa with Kaikio‘ewa, the governor of Kaua‘i, in 1826:The people of this place were collected in front of the house where the old chief lodged in order to hear his instructions. After a ceremony of shaking hands with men, women, and children they retired... Our company consisted of more than a hundred persons of all ranks. The wife of the chief, with her train of female attendants, went before. The governor, seated on a large white mule with a Spaniard to lead him, and myself by his side, followed next. A large company of aipupu, [‘‘pu‘upu‘u] cooks, attendants came on in the rear. Whitney's account suggests something of the deference paid to the ali‘i (chiefs) by the local populations and the scale at which the ali‘i carried out their functions. An even grander view of that deference was provided in an account of a later visit by an ali‘i to Kloa. John Townsend, a naturalist staying in Kloa in 1834, described a visit by Kamehameha III (In Palama and Stauder 1973:18):In the afternoon, the natives from all parts of the island began to flock to the king's temporary residence. The petty chiefs, and head men of the villages, were mounted upon all sorts of horses from the high-headed and high-mettled California steed, to the shaggy and diminutive poney [sic] raised on their natives hills; men, women, and children were running on foot, laden with pigs, calabashes ofPoe [sic], and every production of the soil; and though last certainly not least, in the evening there came the troops of the island, with fife and drum, and 'tinkling cymbal' to form a body guard for his majesty, the king. Little houses were put up all around the vicinity, and thatched in an incredibly short space of time, and when Mr. Nuttall, and myself visited the royal mansion, after nightfall, we found the whole neighborhood metamorphosed; a beautiful little village had sprung up as by magic, and the retired studio of the naturalists had been transformed into a royal banquet hall. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 14TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001In 1835, Thomas Nuttall and John K. Townsend, two American naturalists, visited the KΚloaarea. They noted “fields of taro, yam, and maize (possibly sugar cane), irrigation networks and sweet potato patches in the dryer areas” (Townsend 1839:206).On December 31, 1834, Peter Gulick and his family arrived in Kloa. Apparently the first foreigners to settle in the ahupua‘a, they initiated the process of rapid change that would re-shape the life of KΚloa in the nineteenth century. In 1835, a 30 by 60 foot grass house was erected as a meeting-house and school near the Maulili Pond. Mr. Gulick cultivated sugar cane and collected a cattle herd for the Protestant Mission. In 1837, a 45 by 90-foot adobe church was built where KΚloa Church stands today, and the first mission doctor, Thomas Lafon, arrived to assist Mr. Gulick (Damon 1931:179, 187). The Kloa mission station apparently flourished immediately. Navy Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, a member of the U.S. Exploring Expedition, during his visit to Kloa in 1840 recorded: The population in 1840, was one thousand three hundred and forty-eight. There is a church with one hundred and twenty-six members, but no schools. The teachers set apart for this service were employed by the chiefs, who frequently make use of them to keep their accounts, gather in their taxes &c. The population is here again increasing partly by immigration, whence it was difficult to ascertain its ratio (Wilkes 1845:64). Kloa Village and Kloa Landing, at the mouth of the Waikomo Stream, became flourishing commercial centers as trade with Americans and Europeans grew. An estimate in 1857 stated that “10,000 barrels of sweet potatoes were grown each year at Kloa, and that the crop furnished nearly all the potatoes sent to California from Hawai‘i” (Judd 1935:326). Sugar and molasses were also chief articles of export. Whalers used the KΚloa “Roadstead” from 1830 to 1870, and took on provisions of squashes (pumpkins), salt beef, pigs, and cattle (Damon 1931:176). Hawaiians grew the pumpkins on the rocky land north of the landing. There were also numerous salt pans along the shore near the landing that were used to make the salt (Palama and Stauder 1973:20). 3.1.3 Mid-1800s and the Great Mhele In the early Post-Contact period, the ahupua‘a of Kloa was controlled by the ruling chief of Kaua‘i and was administered by lesser chiefs appointed by him. When Ka-umu-ali-i, last of the ruling chiefs of the island, died in 1824, his lands (Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau) were given to the lineal descendants of Kamehameha. Queen Ka‘ahumanu redistributed the lands among chiefs of other islands who had been loyal to the bloodline of Kamehameha. By the mid-19th century, control of theahupua‘a of Kloa was divided between Kamehameha III and Moses Kekiwa, a brother of Kamehameha IV (Alexander 1937). The Mhele Award records indicate that KΚloa Ahupua‘a, which totaled 8,620 acres, was granted by way of a Land Commission Award (LCA) to Moses Kekiwa, (the brother of Alexander Liholiho [Kamehameha IV]), Lot Kapuiwa (Kamehameha V), and Victoria Kammalu (LCA 7714-B: Waihona ‘Aina 2000). Eighty-ninekuleana awards were given to individuals within Kloa Ahupua‘a. The majority of these Land Commission Awards (LCAs) were located in and around Kloa Town itself. No LCAs were granted within the present project area; however an 1891 map of KΚloa by M.D. Monsarrat indicates two LCAs (LCA 3606 and 10272) in the vicinity of the southwest portion of Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 15TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001the project area (Figure 5 & Table 1), and three LCAs (LCA 6667, 6309, and 3584) in the vicinity of the northwest portion of the project area (Figure 6 & Table 2).LCA 3606 transferred a section of the ‘ili of Pu‘u-ohaku to the claimant “Kamae” using the traditional “metes and bounds” description in use at the time. Distance was measured in “chains”. An amount of “kula” land, twelve taro patches, two potato patches, a house lot, and a cattle yard were claimed as appurtenant to LCA 3606. There was a reference within this LCA to the planting of “sugar cane and yams” before 1848 (No. 3606, Kamae, Koloa, Kauai, January 12, 1848, Native Register 71v9/ Foreign Testimony 30-31v13/ Native Testimony 35v13, Royal Patent 7269). LCA 10272 transferred a section of the ‘ili of Ma‘ulili to the claimant “Makalulu” using traditional boundary descriptions. An amount of “kula” land, a house lot, one taro patch, and four dry taro patches were claimed as appurtenant to LCA 10272 (No. 10272, Makalulu, Koloa, Kauai, January 7, 1848, Native Register 272v9/ Foreign Testimony 24v13/ Native testimony 27v13, Royal Patent 8367, Registration Map 1694 Monsarrat). Testimonies provided to the Land Commission by applicants of LCAs 3584, 6309 and 6667 were generally limited to stating the boundaries of their claimed lands as well as land use. All three LCAs are indicated as being enclosed by stone walls and note the presence of additional house lots and lo‘i of other claimants in the vicinity. Of particular interest are the stated boundaries of LCA 6309, which indicated the presence of pasture lands immediately puna (east) of the LCA. This may explain the presence of numerous stone walls described in the land claims and shown on the 1891 Monsarrat map, a portion of which is shown running through the the project area (see Figure 6). These walls are likely cattle barriers used to keep cattle out of house lots and agricultural plots. A review of Mahele documents (LCAs) indicates that in the vicinity of the southwest and northwest portions of the project area, land usage and activity by the mid-nineteenth century included habitation, cattle ranching, and agriculture, including the cultivation of taro, sugar, potatoes, and yams. This may reflect the continuation into that century of traditional Hawaiian land use within the project area. The 1891 Monsarrat map also indicates taro and associated walls located in the vicinity of the southwest portion of the project area, and numerous walls, fences, and structures in the vicinity of the northwest portion of the project area (see Figure 5 & Figure 6) This suggests that taro cultivation may have occurred within the southern portion of the project area, and the habitation, agriculture, and ranching may have occurred within the northwestern portion of the project area. The Koloa Sugar Company began commercial operation in the late 1840’s with about 450 acres of Kola land under cultivation. Development of additional acreage continued gradually. A 1935 map of Koloa Sugar Company shows the extent of cane lands within the project area (Figure 7).In 1882, the Koloa Sugar Company announced it had ordered all the components for a plantation railroad. According to the Planter’s Monthly, Volume 1 of 1882, “It (the railroad) will consist of four miles of 30 inch gauge track, forty cars 5 x 10 feet, and one locomotive…” (Conde 1993: 28). According to Arthur C. Alexander, in Koloa Plantation 1835-1935, “Cut caneCultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 5. Portion of 1891 Map of Kloa by M.D. Monsarrat (R.M.1694), showing the location of the southwest portion of the project area (indicated in red) and Land Commission Awards (LCAs) in the vicinity Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 16TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 17TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Table 1. Land Commission Awards in the vicinity of the southwest portion of the project area LCAAwardeeIliLand Use 3606 Kamae Pu‘u-ohakuKula land, twelve taro patches, two potato patches, a house lot, and a cattle yard 10272 MakaluluMa‘uliliLo‘i, kula, house lot, and four dry taro patches Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 6. Portion of 1891 Map of Kloa by M.D. Monsarrat (R.M.1694), showing the location of the northwest portion of the project area (indicated in red) and Land Commission Awards (LCAs) in the vicinity Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 18TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 19TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Table 2. Land Commission Awards in the vicinity of the northwest portion of the project area LCAAwardeeIliLand Use 3584 KaanaanaMa‘ulili House lot6309 Kapuniai, Elia Hakeku House lot 6667 Kailihakuma, Mika WailuaLo‘i&sugarcane Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 7. Portion of 1935 Koloa Sugar Company map showing the extant of cane lands within the project area Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 20TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 21TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001was hauled to the mill by oxcart until 1882. In that year, 3½ miles of 30-inch gauge, 18 pound railroad track and 50 cars were purchased”(Conde 1993: 28). By 1885, the railway extended to KΚloa Landing where steamers transported the bags of sugar to the mainland (Figure 8). A motorized derrick winched the bagged sugar from the railroad cars to the warehouse on the west side of the landing. From there, bagged sugar was loaded onto small lighters, which would row the sugar out to waiting ships in the harbor. By 1895, the railroad had extended a spur line through the coastal lands of KΚloa into Weliweli to aid in the harvest around P‘. Remnants of this spur line are seen today throughout lower Po‘ip, and include the stacked basalt railroad berm located in the vicinity of the southwestern portion of the present project area. 3.1.4 1900sThe Koloa Sugar Company had previously purchased the ahupua‘a of P‘ southeast of Kloa town, and a large parcel of it was unproductive. A new and much larger mill was built there in 1912 about a mile from Kloa (Figure 9). New railroad track was laid, and an asphalt road was built to connect the new mill with Kloa Landing. World War I caused a huge demand for sugar. By the end of hostilities in 1918, the Koloa Sugar Company was producing 9,000 tons of sugar each year, and adding additional acreage. Kloa Landing was phased out around 1925 when McBryde Sugar Company and the Koloa Sugar Company began shipping their product out of Port Allen Harbor at Hanapp. The McBryde Plantation had been improving the facilities at Ele‘ele Landing since the turn of the century, and a private company, the Kauai Terminal Limited Railway, had developed a modern bridge crossing the Hanapp River. Soon after this, the Koloa Sugar Company ceased to use the makai (seaward) Kloa fields, and much of the area was converted into cattle-grazing pasture by the Knudsen family. Most of the mauka (upland) areas of Kloa remained under sugar cane cultivation as late as the 1970s, when these cane lands were converted into pasture. Following the merger of the plantation lands of the Koloa Sugar Company and Grove Farm Company in 1948, the combined lands under cultivation required new sources of irrigation water. In 1965, Grove Farm built a tunnel to bring the waters from Ku‘ia directly into the Wait(Kloa) Reservoir. Grove Farm leased these cane lands to McBryde Sugar Company when it terminated sugar operations in 1974 (Wilcox 1996). The mill in P‘ was finally closed in 1996, and remains a landmark of the countryside. The Tax Map of Section (4) 2-8 made in 1936 (Figure 10) shows a dotted area enclosing a portion of the southwestern project area. This area is labeled “House Sites, Fireplaces; Lava Tubes; Enclosures, and Taro Patches in This Area.” This map also shows a pond just south (makai) of the current project area, with the words “Fish Pond and Taro Patch.” A second pond is located southeast of the current project area and labeled “Pa‘u a Laka, Salt Ponds.” 3.1.5 Modern Land Use By the late 1960’s, the main town of Kloa experienced a type of reverse migration back to the shoreline. Although the town had established a Civic Center in 1977, the pace of tourism-driven development at the shoreline had been drawing construction and service jobs away from the town center. The Kahuna Plantation Resort opened in 1967, followed by the construction ofCultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 8. 1910 USGS topographic map, Lihue Quadrangle, showing the network of railroad tracks within the Kloa District. Note that a majority of the project area (indicated in red) is situated within either railroad right-of-ways or cane haul roads. Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 22TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 9. 1963 USGS topographic map, Kloa Quadrangle, showing the location of newly constructed (circa 1912) sugar mill in relation to the project area Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 23TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 10. Portion of Tax Map Key (4) 2-8, (c. 1935) Note annotations “Fishpond and Taro Patch” just south of project area (indicated in red) and “House Sites, Fireplaces; Lava Tubes; Enclosures and Taro Patches in this Area” enclosing a portion of the southwest section of the project area. Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 24TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 25TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001various condominiums throughout the 70’s and 80’s. Finally, the Hyatt Regency Resort, with its expansive golf course, opened in 1991. By the early 1990’s, the tourist industry had successfully attached the name “Po‘ip Beach” to the entire coastline beginning at KΚloa Landing, and continuing east to Makah‘ena Ledge. With the development of the Po‘ip Bay Resort Golf Course and the Hyatt Regency Kaua‘i Resort Hotel, the Po‘ip Beach name became synonymous with all two miles of coastline fronting the Wai‘ohai, Kiahuna, and Sheraton developments; ending at Po‘ip Beach Park (Donohugh 2001).Future plans within the Kloa District will place more demands on beachfront properties along the coastline. Over 1,000 acres of former sugar plantation lands are slated for hotel and condominium development surrounding both Lwa‘i and Po‘ip coastal resort areas (Donohugh 2001). Future development plans for the upland areas involve both large tracts of lands, as well as regional redevelopment within Kloa Town itself. 3.2 Previous Archaeological Research 3.2.1 Initial Archaeological Studies at KloaEvidence of the importance of KΚloa to pre-contact traditional Hawaiians was indicated in a Lahainaluna Schools document produced in 1885. This document appeared to have been based on an oral history project utilizing information obtained from Makea – "a native who is well acquainted with Kloa". Makea was able to describe fourteen heiau (religious structures) within the Kloa area. Of the 14 heiau five (5) were associated with human and animal blood sacrifices (luakini and po‘okanaka), five (5) with fishing, two (2) medicinal, and one (1) agricultural, with one (1) of unknown function (Lahainaluna 1885 HMS 43 #17). Thomas Thrum was the next to document sites in the KΚloa area in his list of the heiau of Kaua‘i (Thrum 1907). He discussed six heiau in the district of KΚloa, which once extended from Hanapp to Mh‘ulep (Table 3). The heiau were Hanakalauae (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kanehaule (inland Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kihouna (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kaneiolouma (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Weliweli (Weliweli Ahupua‘a), and Waiopili (Mh‘ulep Ahupua‘a). 3.2.2 Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Project Area The following is a discussion of previous archaeological investigations conducted in the vicinity of the project area (Figure 11 & Table 4). A majority of the investigations have been conducted within the ahupua‘a of Kloa in conjunction with the burgeoning development of the area. In contrast the archaeological record in the ahupua‘a of Weliweli and Pa‘a is relatively sparse, due to the fact that these ahupua‘a are relatively undeveloped and have been continuously under cultivation (historic sugar followed by modern diversified agriculture) for over a century. The earliest systematic archaeological survey on the Island of Kaua‘i was conducted by Wendell Bennett in the late 1920s. Bennett examined and recorded 202 sites on the island. According to his site location map (Figure 12; Bennett 1931:98), Sites 76, 83, 85, and 86 appear to be in the vicinity of the project area. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 26TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Table 3. Kloaheiau documented by Thrum in 1907 Name LocationRemarks HanakalauaeMahaulepu, KoloaOf large size, destroyed years ago by Fredenberg to erect cattle pens with its stones. KanehauleKaunuieie, KoloaA paved walled enclosure of large size, destroyed some time ago: a heiau where rotes of circumcision were performed. KihounaPoipu, Koloa A single walled heiau situate a short distance west of the above, 100x125 feet, enclosed on all sides by walls 4 to 6 feet high, with entry way near middle of mauka wall: seaward or makai wall 8 feet thick. A section of stones as of pavement shows nearly the whole length near makai wall and in N.E. corner is a section said to have been its altar stones.KaneioloumaPoipu, Koloa Size 102x180 feet, lying nearly east and west along shore close to the beach; of three terraces, with two prominent and other room divisions at east or inner end: west end open; side walls 3 to 5 feet high; seward wall 9 feet thick; east end wall very crooked, 11 feet thick, 6 feet high. Inner terrace is stone paved, middle terrace partly so, with flat slabs of coral or limestone. WeliweliWeliweli, Koloa A paved heiau of large sixe. Pookanaka class; walls 4 feet high: portions of same said to be still standing. WaiopiliMahaulepu, Koloa An oblong heiau of good size, walls still standing. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 11. Previous archaeological investigations in the vicinity of the project area (indicated in red) Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 27TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 28TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Table 4. Previous Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Project Area ReferenceType of Investigation FindingsBennett 1931 Archaeological Survey Identified Site’s 76 (salt pans), 83 (Weliweli Heiau), 85 (concentration of walls and enclosures), and 86 (large pre-contact house site) in the vicinity of the project area. Palama & Stauder 1973Archaeological Reconnaissance18 historic properties (SIHP #50-30-10-3173 to -3190) identified consisting of pre-contact habitation structures (dwelling caves, miscellaneous enclosures, and a platform) livestock enclosures, an agricultural complex (‘auwai network) and a burial platform. No historic properties were observed in the vicinity of the current project area. Hammatt et al. 1978 Archaeological Survey 15 historic properties identified in the immediate vicinity of the current project area, consisting of pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian habitation and agricultural features: stacked stone enclosures (SIHP –3455, -3457, & -3820), platforms (SIHP -3463, -3757, & -3758), c-shapes (-3694, -3695, -3705, & -3756); an ‘auwai network (SIHP -3823). Kikuchi 1981 Archaeological ReconnaissancePre- and post-contact archaeological sites observed within the study area. Pre-contact archaeological sites consisted of ‘auwairemnants, terraces, and enclosures; Post contact sites consisted of a well, rock walls, a railroad causeway, and other various rock structures.Walker & Rosendhal 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey 18 historic properties identified consisting of pre-contact and early post-contact habitation, boundary, and ceremonial features in the form of C-shapes, walls, platforms, terraces, and mounds. Post-contact sites consisted of agricultural clearing mounds. Human skeletal remains were noted eroding out of sand dunes along the coast. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 29TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001ReferenceType of Investigation FindingsHammatt et al. 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey 75 historic properties identified including both pre- and post-contact sites. Pre-contact historic properties consisted of habitations (platforms and enclosures), agricultural features (‘auwai,field walls, terraces, and earthen mounds) and human burials; Post-contact contact historic properties consisted of a single house platform associated with an LCA and a brick and mortar corral. Creed et al. 1995 Archaeological Inventory Survey 3 historic properties identified, including two enclosures, a terrace, and a portion of the Kloa-Weliweli boundary wall. Hammatt et al. 2004 Archaeological Survey Eight historic properties identified. Pre- and early post contact habitation structures consisted of platforms (SIHP –3757 & -3758), enclosures (SIHP –3756 & -3758), and a mound (-541); agriculture structures consisted of clearing mounds (SIHP -539 & -540). Two historic properties associated with historic transportation were also identified: SIHP -947, a segment of the Kloa Sugar Company railroad berm; and SIHP -992, a segment of Hapa Road. Hammatt et al. 2005 ArchaeologicalInventory Survey & Data Recovery Reorganized and reanalyzed data originally collected during the 1978 ARCH study and identified 462 historic properties associated with Kloa Field system. Documented historic properties included 316 habitation sites (131 temporary and 214 permanent), 102 agricultural sites, 6 storage areas, 1 petroglyph site, 1 historic crypt with no burial, a heiau, and a historic railroad berm. Radiocarbon analysis indicated that primary occupation of the study area occurred between 1400 and 1600 A.D. Hammatt 2005 ArchaeologicalInventory Survey One historic property identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3922, an earthen berm associated with a former plantation road and railroad. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 30TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001ReferenceType of Investigation FindingsHill et al. 2005a Archaeological Inventory Survey 4 historic properties identified: SIHP -947, segment of railroad berm attributed to the Koloa Sugar Company; SIHP -362, pre-contact temporary habitation stacked basalt enclosure; SIHP -363, pre-contact temporary habitation overhang; and SIHP No. -3920, a railroad-era rock-crushing site. Hill et al. 2005b Archaeological Inventory Survey One historic property identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3926, an elevated metal irrigation flume constructed in 1902. Hill et al. 2005c Archaeological Inventory Survey Six historic properties identified: SIHP -3930, a post-contact boundary wall; SIHP -3931, a pre-contact / post-contact terrace; SIHP – 3932, a post-contact irrigation reservoir; SIHP -3933, a post-contact house foundation; SIHP -3934, a post-contact irrigation ditch; and SIHP -3935, a pre-contact / post-contact stacked rock wall. Hammatt 2005 ArchaeologicalInventory Survey One historic property was identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3922, an earthen berm associated with a former plantation road and railroad. Tulchin et al. 2007 ArchaeologicalInventory Survey One historic property identified: SIHP #50-30-10-5002, a post-contact stone wall.Tulchin & Hammatt 2007Data Recovery Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal samples collected from SIHP -362 yielded a date range (1410AD to 1530AD) that is within the pre-contact period, suggesting that the temporary habitation enclosure was constructed and utilized by pre-contact indigenous Hawaiians.Simonson et al. 2009Data Recovery Relocated 39 previously identified historic properties within the study area. Test excavations revealed that a majority of the archaeological features were utilized sporadically as temporary habitations. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 12. Portion of Bennett’s 1931 index map of Kaua‘i showing the approximate locations of archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project area (indicated in red) (Adapted from Bennett 1931) Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 31TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 32TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Bennett’s Site 76 [later designated State Inventory of Historic Properties (SIHP) #50-30-10-076] is shown on his site map (Bennett 1931: 98) as in the immediate vicinity of the southwestern portion of the project area (see Figure 12). The following is Bennett’s description of Site 76: Site 76. Salt pans, east of Waikomo stream along the shore. In these numerous salt pans, some divisions are made by a single row of flat stones on edge, others by round stones in line, still others by a double row of stones with dirt or sand filled in between for a sort of a walk. Site 83 (SIHP #50-30-10-083), Weliweli Heiau, is located in the immediate vicinity of the southeastern tip of the project area (see Figure 12). The following is Bennett’s description of Site 83:Site 83. Weliweli heiau, on the shore of Weliweli section, Koloa. Described by Thrum as “A paved heiau of large size, pookanaka class; walls 4 feet high; portions of same to be still standing.” The cane field has been cleared and the stones piled over this heiau. Bennett provides the following description of Sites 85 and 86 (SIHP #50-30-10-085 & -086), located in the vicinity of the northern half of the project area (see Figure 12):Site 85. Innumerable walls, some of them inclosures [sic] and some merely division walls and fences. In one large, walled inclosure [sic], there were three piles of stone near one end. The center one, and the largest, was 10 by 7 feet and 2 feet high. It was built up around the edge with large stones and filled with 2-inch pebbles. On each side of the structure was a 3 by 3 by 2-foot pile of rocks. There are some fine house sites on flat places on the lava flows, slightly leveled with small stones. House sites about 10 by 15 feet are found everywhere on the lava. The walls are of different types of construction and some have been restored for modern use.Site 86. This special house is rectangular, 25 feet wide, and 45.5 feet long, inclosed [sic] by walls 2 feet wide and about 2 feet high (Figure 13). It is divided into two sections. The south section is paved with small stone and has a terrace across the southern end. East of this section, outside the wall, is a roughly paved irregular area. The roughly paved north section is one foot lower than the south section, the walls being correspondingly higher. Outside the west wall of this house near the center is a paved platform in which is a square depression. The walls of this house site are made of double rows of stones on edge with a small stone fill between them. Coral is found in the walls. Southwest of this house site is another, with walls on three sides only, which measures 15 by 15 feet. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 13. Plan of Koloa house site, Site 86. a, walled area 9 by 25 feet; b, terrace 5 by 25 feet, 1 foot high; c, roughly paved area; d, section 21 by 30 feet; e, terrace 5 by 21 feet, 6 inches high; f, platform 11 by 11 feet; g, depressions 7 by 7.5 feet, 1 foot deep (Adapted from Bennett 1931:121). Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 33TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 34TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001In 1973, Archaeological Research Center of Hawaii (ARCH) conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of a proposed cane haul road to the Koloa Mill (Palama & Stauder 1973). The proposed new section of road extended from Weliweli Road, southwestward across Po‘ip Road, connecting to an existing cane haul road. A total of 18 historic properties (SIHP #50-30-10-3173 to -3190) were identified along the southwestern portion of the study area. All observed historic properties were of pre-contact origin and consisted of habitation structures (dwelling caves, miscellaneous enclosures, and a platform) livestock enclosures, an agricultural complex (‘auwainetwork) and a burial platform. No historic properties were documented in the vicinity of the current project area. In 1978, ARCH conducted an archaeological survey of 460 acres for the then-proposed Kahuna Golf Village, located on the east side of Waikomo Stream and Po‘ip Road (Hammatt et al. 1978). A total of 583 archaeological features were identified, including 175 stone enclosures, 108 stone house platforms, 10 habitation caves, a heiau, extensive ‘auwai networks, ponded fields, terraced plots, and mounded fields. These features suggest intensive pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian settlement with a focus on wet and dry land agriculture. Many of the archaeological remains identified were considered unique as they reflected “a complex Hawaiian adaptation of intensive agriculture and settlement to a dry, rocky leeward environment” (Hammatt et al. 1978). An analysis of site location maps generated during the 1978 ARCH study, indicate 12 historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the current project area (Figure 14). Documented historic properties consist of pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian habitation and agricultural structures. Habitation structures consisted of stacked stone enclosures (SIHP –3455, -3457, & -3820), platforms (SIHP -3463, -3757, & -3758), and c-shapes (-3694, -3695, -3705, & -3756); agriculture structures consisted of an ‘auwai network (SIHP -3823). SIHP -3756, -3757, & -3758 were recommended for preservation; no further work was recommended for the remaining historic properties identified in the vicinity of the current project area. Modern development of the area has subsequently destroyed SIHP -3455, -3457, -3462, -3820, and -3823.In 2005, CSH returned to the Kahuna Golf Village to complete archaeological investigations initially conducted by ARCH in 1978 (Hammatt et al.2005; Hammatt et al. 1978). The CSH study area consisted of approximately 400 acres, 60 acres less than the original 1978 ARCH study. CSH reorganized and reanalyzed the data originally collected during the 1978 ARCH study and identified 462 historic properties within the truncated KǑahuna Golf Village study area. The 462 historic properties were primarily of pre-contact and/or early post-contact origin and are attributed to being a part of the KΚloa Field system. Documented historic properties included 316 habitation sites (131 temporary and 214 permanent), 102 agricultural sites, 6 storage areas, 1 petroglyph site, 1 historic crypt with no burial, a heiau, and a historic railroad berm. The 2005 CSH investigations of the Kahuna Golf Village also included data recovery of 31 historic properties. The data recovery effort involved subsurface testing in the form of controlled hand excavations at the selected historic properties. Observed and collected indigenous Hawaiian artifacts consisted of primarily of lithic debitage, volcanic glass flakes, and fishing implements (bone and marine shell fish hooks as well as sinkers or various material), with a smaller occurrence of ornaments (shell, bone, and dog teeth) and a single ulu maika (traditional Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 14. Portion of Kahuna Golf Village study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Hammatt et al. 1978) Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 35TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 36TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Hawaiian game stone). Radiocarbon analysis indicated that primary occupation of the study area occurred between 1400 and 1600 A.D. In 1981, the Anthropology Club of Kaua‘i Community College conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey of the Weliweli Track which was proposed for the development of residential housing (Kikuchi 1981). Extensive bulldozing of historic origin was noted within the study area. Even with the land disturbances, both pre- and post-contact archaeological sites were observed within the study area. Pre-contact archaeological sites consisted of ‘auwai remnants, terraces, and enclosures; Post contact sites consisted of a well, rock walls, a railroad causeway, and other various rock structures. No SIHP numbers were assigned to the archaeological sites observed within the study area.In 1990, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted an archaeological inventory survey for the proposed Hyatt Regency Golf Course located within coastal Pa‘a Ahupua‘a (Walker & Rosendahl 1990). 18 historic properties were identified within the seaward portion of the study area. It is believed that historic properties that were likely present within the inland portion of the study area but were destroyed during land disturbances associated with sugar cultivation. Observed historic properties consisted of pre-contact and early post-contact habitation, boundary, and ceremonial features in the form of C-shapes, walls, platforms, terraces, and mounds. Post-contact sites consisted of agricultural clearing mounds. Human skeletal remains were noted eroding out of sand dunes along the coast but were not assigned as historic properties. No historic properties were identified in the vicinity of the current project area. In 1991, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey for the proposed Po‘ipulani Golf Course and residential development consisting of 160 acres located in the makai eastern portion of Kloa along the Kloa-Weliweli ahupua‘a boundary (Hammatt et al. 1991). Although the study area was observed to have been heavily disturbed by 19th century sugar cultivation and cattle ranching, significant remnants of pre-contact indigenous Hawaiian habitation and agriculture were documented. 75 historic properties were identified including both pre- and post-contact sites. Pre-contact historic properties consisted of habitations (platforms and enclosures), agricultural features (‘auwai, field walls, terraces, and earthen mounds) and human burials; Post-contact contact historic properties consisted of a single house platform associated with an LCA and a brick and mortar corral. An analysis of site location maps generated during the 1991 CSH study, indicate 11 historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the current project area (Figure 15). Documented historic properties consist of pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian habitation and agricultural structures. Habitation structures consisted of a stacked stone platforms (SIHP –909, -952), an enclosure (-954) a C-shaped terrace (-910), and a probable burial platform (-953); agriculture structures consisted of mounds (SIHP -906, -955), terraces (SIHP -948), field walls (-906, -948), and ‘auwai (-972). A railroad berm segment associated with post-contact sugar cultivation (SIHP -947) was also identified in the vicinity of the current project area as well as a post-contact road (SIHP -992). SIHP -947 and -992 were recommended for preservation; data recovery was recommended for SIHP -909, -948, -952, -954, -955, and -972; and no further work was recommended for SIHP -906 and -910. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 15. Portion of Po‘ipulani Golf Course study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Hammatt et al. 1991) Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 37TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 38TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001In 2009, CSH completed data recovery of the makai portion of the 1991 Hammatt et al. study area, located makai of the railroad berm (SIHP -947) and extending to the mauka edge of Po‘ipRoad (Simonson et al. 2009). CSH relocated 39 previously identified historic properties withinthe study area (Figure 16). Where warranted, site descriptions and plan view maps were updated. Test excavations were conducted at 21 of the 39 relocated historic properties. Test excavations revealed that a majority of the archaeological features were utilized sporadically as temporary habitations, providing shelter to pre-contact and early post contact indigenous Hawaiians while they tended to agricultural fields and associated infrastructure observed throughout this portion of the Kloa area, also known as the Kloa Field System. In 1995, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey for proposed Poip Road saftey improvements within a 1.4-mile corridor along the mauka (inland) side of Po‘ip Road (Creed et al. 1995). 3 historic properties were identified, including two enclosures, a terrace, and a portion of the Kloa-Weliweli boundary wall. One historic property, CSH 1 (a pre-contact habitation enclosure), was identified in the vicinity of the current project area (Figure 17). CSH 1 was recommended for data recovery. In 2004, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey for Parcel 30, owned by the Eric A. Knudsen Trust Lands (Hammatt et al. 2004). Eight historic properties were identified. Documented historic properties consist of pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian habitation and agricultural structures. Habitation structures consisted of platforms (SIHP –3757 & -3758), enclosures (SIHP –3756 & -3758), and a mound (-541); agriculture structures consisted of clearing mounds (SIHP -539 & -540). Two historic properties associated with historic transportation were also identified: SIHP -947, a segment of the KΚloa Sugar Company railroad berm; and SIHP -992, a segment of Hapa Road. SHIP 50-30-10-947, -992, -3756, -3757 and –3758 were recommended for preservation. No further work was recommended for SHIP –539, -540, and –541.In 2005, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey of a 10.6-acre parcel located south of Po‘ip Road near the coast (Hill et al. 2005a). Four (4) historic properties were identified: SIHP No. 50-30-10-947, segment of railroad berm attributed to the Koloa Sugar Company; SIHP No. 50-30-10-362, pre-contact temporary habitation stacked basalt enclosure; SIHP No. 50-30-10-363, pre-contact temporary habitation overhang; and SIHP No. 50-30-10-3920, a railroad-era rock-crushing site. The railroad berm (SIHP -947) was recommended for preservation, and SIHP -362 (pre-contact temporary habitation enclosure) was recommended for data recovery.In 2007, CSH conducted data recovery excavations at SIHP #50-30-10-362 (pre-contact temporary habitation C-shaped enclosure) previously identified by Hill et al. (2005a) (Tulchin & Hammatt 2007). Excavation revealed that a majority of the enclosure’s base course sat directly upon basalt bedrock. This suggests that the geology at the initial occupation of the site consisted of exposed basalt bedrock outcrops with minimal soil formation. Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal samples collected from SIHP No. 50-30-10-0362 yielded a date range (1410AD to 1530AD) that is within the pre-contact period, suggesting that the temporary habitation enclosure was constructed and utilized by pre-contact indigenous Hawaiians. Indigenous Hawaiian midden and artifacts observed during excavation further supported this conclusion. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 16. Portion of Po‘ipulani Golf Course study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Simonson et al. 2009) Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 39TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Figure 17. Creed et al. (1995) archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Creed et al. 1995) Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 40TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 41TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001In 2005, CSH conducted an inventory survey of an 8.633-acre parcel for the Eric A. Knudsen Trust Lands (Hill et al. 2005b). One historic property was identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3926, an elevated metal irrigation flume constructed in 1902. No further work was recommended for SIHP #50-30-10-3926. In 2005, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey of a 9.348-acre parcel in KloaTown, located on the east bank of Waikomo Stream (Hill et al 2005c). Six historic properties were identified: SIHP -3930, a post-contact boundary wall; SIHP -3931, a pre-contact / post-contact terrace; SIHP – 3932, a post-contact irrigation reservoir; SIHP -3933, a post-contact house foundation; SIHP -3934, a post-contact irrigation ditch; and SIHP -3935, a pre-contact / post-contact stacked rock wall. SIHP -3930 to -3932 and -3935 were recommended for preservation, and SIHP -3933 and -3934 were recommenced for data recovery. In 2005, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey of a 8.15-acre Knudsen Trust Parcel, located just southeast of Anne Knudsen Park (Hammatt 2005). One historic property was identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3922, an earthen berm associated with a former plantation road and railroad. No further work was recommended for SIHP #50-30-10-3922. In 2007, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey 10-acre Knudsen Trust Parcel, located along the makai edge of Weliweli Road (Tulchin et al. 2007). One historic property was identified: SIHP #50-30-10-5002, a post-contact stone wall. No further work was recommended for SIHP #50-30-10-5002. 3.3 Background Summary and Predictive Model From previous archaeological studies and historic accounts it appears that pre-contact habitation and intensive irrigated agriculture were widespread in central and coastal KΚloa. As an extensive irrigated complex, the Kloa Field System was used to divert the waters of the Waikomo Stream for taro, native sugar, and fish. In the early post-contact era (1795-1880), the Kloa Field System continued in use for foreign trade and was probably further intensified. Sweet potatoes were a main crop for the whaling and merchant ships, and the purchase of pigs, salt, oranges and other items are noted in many ship journals.Documents of the Great Mhele show that by the mid-1800s there were still several traditional farmers within KΚloa who both lived and worked within the area. The individual claims – for both lo‘i (wetland) and kula (dryland) suggest that while traditional farming of taro for subsistence was still taking place, in kula lands – sugar cane production for sale to the nearby sugar mill, had begun to dominate the landscape. Of the LCAs within Kloa, several claim a kulaplanted with cane or a cane field or sugar cane garden. Several also identify cane lands as boundaries for the LCAs. Within three years of sugar cultivation by Ladd and Company in 1835, residents in and surrounding Kloa were quickly moving to adapt to the new economy based on the production of sugar cane. Eventually, most of inland Kloa was planted with sugar cane and only the rockiest areas, unsuitable for cultivation, survived the dramatic changes in the landscape brought about during the early 20th century. A 1935 map of Koloa Sugar Company shows the extensive cane lands within the project area (see Figure 7).Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Background Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 42TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001The Koloa Sugar Company had previously purchased the ahupua‘a of P‘ southeast of Kloa town. A new mill was built in P‘ in 1912 about a mile from KΚloa Town, and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Regional WRF (see Figure 9). The mill in P‘ was finally closed in 1996. By the late 1960’s, the main town of Kloa experienced a type of reverse migration back to the shoreline. Although the town had established a Civic Center in 1977, the pace of tourism-driven development at the shoreline drew construction and service jobs away from the town center.Based on background research, historic properties (i.e. archaeological sites) in the form of pre- and post-contact surface architecture may be encountered during the archaeological inventory survey of the project area. Historic research has indicated five LCAs in the vicinity of the project area, suggesting indigenous Hawaiian land use in the form of habitation and agriculture. Previous archaeological research has documented evidence of both pre- and post contact land use in the area. Evidence of indigenous Hawaiian land use could include both habitation (platforms, enclosures, and C-shapes) and agricultural (terraces, mounds, field walls, etc.) features. Evidence of post-contact land use is likely to be associated with historic sugarcane cultivation and could include irrigation infrastructure (ditches and flumes), sugar transport infrastructure (road causeways, railroad berms, etc.), clearing mounds, and boundary walls.. It should be noted that the due to the extensive sugarcane cultivation documented within the project area, mechanized land modifications associated with sugarcane cultivation has likely disturbed and/or destroyed any pre-contact historic properties that may have been present. Additionally the project area is situated primarily within in-use roadways and old cane haul roads, which have caused additional land modifications within the project area, disturbing and/or destroying historic properties. Thus the probability of encountering surface historic properties during the pedestrian inspection is low. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 43TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Section 4 Results of Fieldwork CSH completed the archaeological assessment fieldwork under state archaeological permit No. 09-20 issued by SHPD, per HAR Chapter 13-13-282. Missy Kamai, B.A., and Gerald Ida, B.A., conducted the fieldwork, which required 10 person-days to complete. Fieldwork took place between January 12th and 16th 2009 under the general supervision of Hallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D. (principal investigator). Fieldwork involved a complete pedestrian inspection of the project area. 4.1 Survey Findings A 100% pedestrian inspection of the project area relocated three previously identified historic properties [State Inventory of Historic Properties (SIHP) #’s 50-30-10-954, -955, and -992] within the project area (Figure 18 & Table 5). Identified historic properties consisted of pre-contact traditional Hawaiian archaeological features associated with habitation as well as a post-contact road. Detailed descriptions of all identified historic properties are presented in the following section of this report. Of note is the presence of two previously identified historic properties located in the immediate vicinity of the project area: SIHP #50-30-10-947, a stacked basalt railroad berm associated with Koloa Plantation; and SIHP #50-30-10-953, a pre-contact probable burial platform constructed of stacked basalt boulders. Both historic properties are located approximately 25 m mauka (north) of the makai (seaward) portion of the project area which is proposed for the development of the Po‘ip Collection System (see Figure 18). Both historic properties were originally identified by CSH in 1991, and were recommended for preservation (Hammatt et al. 1991). Due to the close proximity of these two preservation sites to the project area CSH recommends consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division Archaeology Branch prior to any land disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed Po‘ipCollection System. The pedestrian inspection also confirmed that modern development had destroyed SIHP -3455, -3457, -3462, -3820, and -3823, all previously identified by Hammatt et al in 1978, and located at the southwestern end of the project area (Po‘ip Collection System). Additionally the area proposed for the construction of the Regional WRF, located in the northern portion of the project area, is in the immediate vicinity of an old sugar mill facility (Figure 19). A review of historic documents indicates that this building was constructed by at least 1912 as a component of the Koloa Plantation. Due to the historic nature of these structures CSH recommends consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division Architecture Branch prior to any land disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed Regional WRF. The relatively small number of historic properties observed within the project area can be attributed to the majority of it consisting of narrow linear corridors situated within old cane haul roads and asphalt paved roadways, as well as the project area being located within lands that have been under cultivation for over a century. The pedestrian inspection of the project area confirmed that almost the entire project area has been disturbed through land modifications (i.e. grading via bulldozing, excavations for utilities, etc.) associated with historic sugarcane cultivation, as well as modern agriculture and urban development (Figure 20).Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 18. Portion of USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, KΚloa Quadrangle (1996), showing the locations of historic properties identified within the project area Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 44TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 45 TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Table 5. Historic Properties Identified within the Project Area SIHP # (50-30-10)Site Type Features Age Function Significance Criteria MitigationRecommendations-954 Enclosure, terrace, and platform 2 Pre-contact Habitation D No Further Work -955 Platform 1 Pre-contact Habitation D No Further Work -992 Dirt road with parallel stacked stone boundary walls 1 Post-contact Transportation C & D Preservation Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 19. Photograph of historic sugar mill facility in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location of the Regional WRF, view to west Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 46TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 20. Photographic collage showing representative examples of areas of disturbance observed throughout the project area Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 47TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 48TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-0014.2 Historic Property Descriptions 4.2.1 SIHP #50-30-10-954 FORMAL TYPE:Enclosure, terrace, and platform FUNCTION:Habitation# OF FEATURES: 2AGE:Pre-contactDIMENSION: 10 m N/S by 6.3 m E/W LOCATION: Southwestern portion of project area (see Appendix A) TAX MAP KEY: [4] 2-8-014: 037 LAND JURISDICTION:Private, E.A. Knudsen Trust SIHP #50-30-10-954 was initially described in the Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Po‘ipulani Golf Course and Residential Development Kloa Kaua‘i (Hammatt et al. 1991) as follows: This is a temporary habitation enclosure with external dimensions of 20’ (6.1 m) and a roughly oval shape. The walls are 3-5’ (0.9-1.5 m) high and 4-5’ (1.2-1.5 m) wide of stacked boulders. The center of the enclosure contains a 2’ (0.6 m) deep depression. An ‘auwai branch section abuts the structure on the southwest and southeast sides. No artifacts or midden were observed. The structure is partly disturbed by surrounding bulldozing and is judged to be pre-contact in age. In 2007, CSH archaeologists relocated SIHP -954, located it with GPS, remapped the site, and modified the description as follows (Simonson et al. 2009): Feature A of Site 954 is a pre-contact, circular habitation enclosure with a small attached agricultural terrace on the NE side (Figure 21 and Figure 22). The entire site measures 10 meters by 6.3 meters with a maximum height of 0.74 meters. It is constructed of stacked basalt boulders in 2 to 4 courses, with cobble fill in some areas. Vertical facing is present at the western exterior of the enclosure, the W and E sides of the interior, and along portions of the terrace. The interior of the enclosure is 2.0 meters in diameter, and there is an entrance on the south side. Much of the exterior is filled with rubble form the collapse of the wall on the N side. The terrace measures 5 meters by 3 meters. Site 971, an ‘auwai, passes adjacent to the S of the feature. Bulldozed areas surround this site, which is located on gently sloping terrain with bedrock outcrops. Vegetation includes koa haole, cacti and unidentified grasses.The condition of the feature is good and the excavation potential is good due to it likely being a habitation site. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 21. SIHP -954 Feature A plan view Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 49TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 22. SIHP -954 Feature A enclosure Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 50TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 51TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Feature B of Site 954 is likely a pre-contact habitation platform measuring 14 meters by 10 meters with a maximum height of 1.0 meter (Figure 23 and Figure24). Construction incorporates a bedrock outcrop and many in situ bedrock boulders. The surface is roughly paved with boulders and cobbles. On the NE side, two (2) rough boulder/cobble terraces extend outward toward the NE. The two (2) terraces are 2.0 and 3.0 meters long, and are bulldozed at their NE ends. No cultural material was observed on the surface. No facing exists, likely due to rock removal from the structure. Vegetation includes koa haole, cacti, and unidentified grasses. This is a newly restored feature. The condition is poor and the excavation potential is fair due to much of the central portion of the feature being intact.In 2007, CSH also conducted data recovery excavations at SIHP -954 (Simonson et al. 2009). Two 1 m by 1 m test units (TU 1 & 2, see Figure 21) were placed within SIHP -954A. Test excavations revealed a buried cultural layer containing marine shell and faunal bone midden, basalt flakes, fire-cracked rock, and charcoal. 4.2.2 SIHP #50-30-10-955 FORMAL TYPE:Platform FUNCTION:Habitation# OF FEATURES: 1AGE:Pre-contactDIMENSION: 8.4 m by 6.3 m LOCATION: Southwestern portion of project area (see Appendix A) TAX MAP KEY: [4] 2-8-014: 037 LAND JURISDICTION:Private, E.A. Knudsen Trust SIHP -955 was initially described in the Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Po‘ipulani Golf Course and Residential Development Kloa Kaua‘i (Hammatt et al. 1991) as follows: This is a pre-contact agricultural mound located 50’ (15.2 m) to the east of Site 954. The mound measures 8’ (2.4 m) in diameter and has a maximum height of 2’ (0.6 m). There are clearly defined facings along the edges. No midden or artifacts were observed. In 2007, CSH archaeologists relocated SIHP -955, located it with GPS, remapped the site, and modified the description as follows (Simonson et al. 2009): Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 23. SIHP -954 Feature B plan view Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 52TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 24. SIHP -954 Feature B platform/modified outcrop Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 53TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 54TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Site 955 is a 6.1 meter (N/S) by 5.7 meter platform (Figure 25 & Figure 26). The platform is constructed of basalt boulders and cobbles of various sizes stacked two (2) to six (6) courses high with a maximum height of 1.0 meter. The facing along the west end of the platform is very distinct and in excellent condition compared to the rest of the sides. At the north, northeast end of the platform, intensive rock removal took place. All that remains is an outline of small basalt boulders. There is a 1.8 meter (NE/SW) by 1.1 meter (NW/SE) low wall constructed of basalt boulders and cobbles stacked one (1) to two (2) courses high with a maximum height of 0.25 meters. The site is situated on a gently sloping area with a dozed road just east of it. Due to the construction and height of the wall as well as the size, it is possible that this site is a burial. Vegetation consisted of cacti and koa haole.In 2007, CSH also conducted data recovery excavations at SIHP -954 (Simonson et al. 2009). Two 1 m by 1 m test units (TU 1 & 2, see Figure 25) were placed within SIHP -954A. Test excavations revealed a buried cultural layer containing a hearth, marine shell and faunal bone midden, basalt flakes, fire-cracked rock, and charcoal. Test excavation findings ruled out the intial determination of the site having a possible burial function. Based upon the presence of the midden and the hearth, the function of SIHP -955 was determined to be habitation. 4.2.3 SIHP #50-30-10-992 FORMAL TYPE:Dirt road with stacked stone boundary walls FUNCTION:Transportation# OF FEATURES: 1AGE:Post-contactDIMENSION: 750+ m long by 7.3 m wide LOCATION: Southwestern portion of project area (see Appendix A) TAX MAP KEY: [4] 2-8-014: 021 & 030 LAND JURISDICTION:Private, E.A. Knudsen Trust SIHP #50-30-10-992 was first described in 2004 in the Archaeological Inventory Survey For Parcel 30 of the Eric A. Knudsen Trust Lands, Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Kaua‘i Island(Hammatt et al. 2004) as follows: Site 50-3-10-992 is a stacked boulder wall on both sides of Hapa Road, which runs between Po‘ip Road and Kloa Town. The road’s west wall adjoins the east side of the project area. In some areas the wall has been reduced to its foundation by rock thieving. Along its length the original alignment of the wall is still Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 25. SIHP-955, site plan view Figure 26. SIHP -955 platform Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 55TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 56TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001traceable even though the bulk of the rocks are gone. Much of the wall is core-filled construction (Hammatt ert al. 2004: 26). SIHP -992 roughly runs in a north-south direction with the current project area bisecting it approximately 164 m mauka (inland) of Po‘ip Road (Figure 27). The portion of SIHP -992 observed within the project area consisted of two 3 m long stacked basalt boulder wall remnants bordering a dirt roadway. The boundary wall segments measured approximately 10 to 50 cm high and 0.8 to 1.0 m wide, and were constructed of basalt boulders and cobbles stacked 2-3 courses high (Figure 28). The two wall remnants border a dirt roadway measuring approximately 6 m wide. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 27. GPS map of SIHP -992 (Hapa Road)Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 57TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Results of Fieldwork Figure 28. Photograph of SIHP -992 (Hapa Road), view to northeast Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 58TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Summary and Interpretation Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 59TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Section 5 Summary and Interpretation In compliance with and to fulfill applicable Hawai‘i state historic preservation legislation, CSH completed this archaeological inventory survey investigation for the proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System.Per the Hawai‘i state requirements for archaeological inventory surveys [HAR Chapter 13-276], this inventory survey investigation includes the results of cultural, historical, and archaeological background research and fieldwork. The background research focused on summarizing the project area’s pre-contact and post-contact land use, cultural significance, and types and locations of potential historic properties within the project area and its vicinity.Pedestrian inspection of the project area identified three historic properties: SIHP #50-30-10-954, a pre-contact habitation enclosure, terrace, and platform; SIHP #50-30-10-955, a pre-contact habitation platform; and SIHP #50-30-10-992, a post-contact dirt road with parallel stacked stone boundary walls. All three historic properties are located within the southwestern portion of the project area within an area that is proposed for the development of the Po‘ip۷Collection System component of the Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System. All three historic properties (SIHP -954, -955, & -992) observed within the project area were previously identified by CSH in 1991 during an archaeological inventory survey for the proposed Po‘ipulani Golf Course and residential development (Hammatt et al. 1991). Additionally, in 2009, SIHP -954 and SIHP -955 were subjected to data recovery in the form of subsurface testing (Simonson et al. 2009). Test excavations revealed that both historic properties were utilized sporadically as temporary habitations, providing shelter to pre-contact and early post contact indigenous Hawaiians while they tended to nearby agricultural fields and associated infrastructure, all of which is part of an elaborate agricultural complex known as the Kloa Field System. Of note is the presence of two previously identified historic properties located in the immediate vicinity of the project area: SIHP #50-30-10-947, a stacked basalt railroad berm associated with Koloa Plantation; and SIHP #50-30-10-953, a pre-contact probable burial platform constructed of stacked basalt boulders. Both historic properties are located approximately 25 m mauka (north) of the makai (seaward) portion of the project area which is proposed for the development of the Po‘ip Collection System (see Figure 18). Both historic properties were originally identified by CSH in 1991, and were recommended for preservation (Hammatt et al. 1991). Due to the close proximity of these two preservation sites to the project area CSH recommends consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division Archaeology Branch prior to any land disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed Po‘ipCollection System. Additionally the area proposed for the construction of the Regional WRF, located in the northern portion of the project area, is in the immediate vicinity of an old sugar mill facility (see Figure 19). A review of historic documents indicates that this building was constructed by at least 1912 as a component of the Koloa Plantation. Due to the historic nature of these structures Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Summary and Interpretation Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 60TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001CSH recommends consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division Architecture Branch prior to any land disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed Regional WRF. The current archaeological inventory survey investigation also confirmed extensive post-contact and modern disturbances throughout the project area. A majority of the project area is situated within either asphalt paved or dirt roads that would have involved grading, cutting, and/or filling during road construction. Other smaller portions of the project area are situated within fallow fields that were being cultivated for decades prior to abandonment. The presence of only three historic properties within the entire project area can be attributed to these observed land modifications. The findings of this archaeological inventory survey are largely in keeping with expectations. Background research has indicated that pre-contact habitation and intensive irrigated agriculture were widespread in central and coastal KΚloa. Waters diverted from Waikomo Stream were utilized for the cultivation of taro and native sugar, and for fish aquaculture. Previous archaeological studies have documented extensive pre-contact indigenous Hawaiian habitation and agriculture within and in the immediate vicinity of the southwestern portion of the project area, where the current investigation documented the presence of two historic properties of pre-contact origin.During the post-contact period, a majority of the project area was utilized for the cultivation of sugarcane. Historic maps indicate extensive sugarcane fields and sugar transport infrastructure (railroad tracks and berms), as well as sugarcane processing facilities (sugar mill) within and in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Previous archaeological research has identified remnants of sugarcane infrastructure, in the form of abandoned railroad berms and irrigation flumes in the vicinity of the western portion of project area. Based on background research, it is likely that subsurface historic properties, associated with pre-contact land use, may be present within the southwestern portion of the project area, an area proposed for the development of the Po‘ip Collection System. This area has been determined to be within what is known as the Kloa Field System, an extensive network of irrigated agricultural complexes and associated habitations located within central and coastal KΚloa.Evidence of pre-contact land use could be in the form subsurface cultural deposits containing human burials, midden deposits, and artifacts (i.e. stone tools). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Significance Assessments Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 61TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Section 6 Significance Assessments The inventory survey investigation has documented three previously identified historic properties within the project area. Significance for all three historic properties was previously assessed by CSH in 1991 during a prior archaeological inventory survey of the project area (Hammatt et al. 1991). Significance is determined after evaluation of the historic property in light of the five broad criteria used by the Hawai‘i State Register of Historic Places (HAR 13-284-6). The criteria are the following: A Historic property reflects major trends or events in the history of the state or nation. B Historic property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.C Historic property is an excellent example of a site type. D Historic property has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. E Historic property has cultural significance to an ethnic group, including, but not limited to, religious structures, burials, and traditional cultural properties.SIHP #50-30-10-954, a pre-contact habitation enclosure, terrace, and platform, has integrity of location and materials, and was recommended eligible to the Hawai‘i Register under criteria D.SIHP #50-30-10-955, a pre-contact habitation platform, has integrity of location and materials, and was recommended eligible to the Hawai‘i Register under criteria D. SIHP #50-30-10-992, post-contact dirt road with parallel stacked stone boundary walls, has integrity of location and materials, and was recommended eligible to the Hawai‘i Register under criteria C and D. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Project Effect and Mitigation Recommendations Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 62TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Section 7 Project Effect and Mitigation Recommendations 7.1 Project EffectCSH’s project specific effect recommendation is “effect, with proposed mitigation commitments.” The recommended mitigation measures will reduce the project’s effect on identified significant surface historic properties as well as any yet to be identified subsurface historic properties that may be located within the project area and be pro-active in addressing possible community concerns. 7.2 Mitigation Recommendations To reduce the proposed project’s potential adverse effect on significant historic properties, the following mitigation measures are recommended. The mitigation measures should be completed prior to any land disturbing activities within the project area. No further historic preservation work is recommended for SIHP #50-30-10-954 and SIHP #50-30-10-955. Sufficient information regarding the location, function, age, and construction methods of SIHP #50-30-10-954 and SIHP #50-30-10-955 have been generated by the current inventory survey investigation to mitigate any adverse effect caused by proposed development activities. Additionally both historic properties were previously identified and documented by CSH in 1991 (Hammatt et al. 1991) and in 2009 were subjected to data recovery in the form of subsurface testing (Simonson et al. 2009). It is recommended that a cultural resource preservation plan be prepared for the proposed -Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System project, in accordance with Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) 13-277-3, to address buffer zones and protective measures for SIHP #50-30-10-992, a post-contact road located within the southwestern portion of the project area. This historic property was previously identified by CSH in 1991 and was recommended for preservation (Hammatt et al. 1991). Additionally the recommended cultural resource preservation plan should also address SIHP #50-30-10-947 (post-contact railroad berm) and SIHP #50-30-10-953 (pre-contact probable burial platform), which are located in the immediate vicinity of the southwestern portion of the project area and are also recommended for preservation. This preservation plan should detail the short and long term preservation measures that will safeguard the historic properties during project construction and subsequent use of the project area. Based on background research, it is likely that subsurface historic properties, associated with pre-contact land use, may be present within the southwestern portion of the project area, an area proposed for the development of the Po‘ip Collection System. This area has been determined to be within what is known as the Kloa Field System, an extensive network of irrigated agricultural complexes and associated habitations located within central and coastal KΚloa.Evidence of pre-contact land use could be in the form subsurface cultural deposits containing human burials, midden deposits, and artifacts (i.e. stone tools). In order to mitigate the potential damage to these potential historic properties within the makai portion of the project area, it is recommended that project construction proceed under an archaeological monitoring program. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 28 Project Effect and Mitigation Recommendations Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 63TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001This monitoring program will facilitate the identification and proper treatment of any burials that might be discovered during project construction, and will gather information regarding the project’s non-burial archaeological deposits, should any be discovered. The specifics archaeological monitoring will be addressed in an archaeological monitoring plan to be reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Division. Additionally the area proposed for the construction of the Regional WRF, located in the northern portion of the project area, is in the immediate vicinity of an old sugar mill facility (see Figure 19). A review of historic documents indicates that this building was constructed by at least 1912 as a component of the Koloa Plantation. Due to the historic nature of these structures CSH recommends consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division Architecture Branch prior to any land disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed Regional WRF. 7.3 Disposition of Materials No cultural materials were collected during this archaeological inventory survey. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 26 References Cited Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 64TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Section 8 References Cited Alexander, Arthur, C. 1937Koloa Plantation 1835-1935, Kauai Historical Society, Lihue, Kaua‘i. Bennett, Wendell C. 1931The Archaeology of Kaua‘i, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 80, Honolulu, Hawai‘i.Boundary Commission 1874 "Boundary of the Ahupua‘a of KΚloa," as published in the Boundary Commission Report, Kauai, Vol. 1, State Archives, Honolulu, HI. Conde, Jesse C. 1993 “Fowler Locomotives in the Kingdom of Hawaii”, as published in The Narrow Gauge, Alan Burgess, Editor, 22 Peveril Road, Peterborough, PE 1 3PY, England Creed, Victoria, Gerald Ida, and Hallett Hammatt 1995 An Archaeological Inventory Survey for Po‘ip Road Safety Improvements, Po‘ip, Kaua‘i, (TMK: 2-8-15, 16, 17 & 18), Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i.Damon, Ethel M. 1931 Koamalu: A Story of Pioneers on Kauai and of What They Built in that Island Garden. Privately Published, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Donohugh, Donald L. 2001 The Story of Kloa, A Kaua‘i Plantation Town, Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Dorrance, William H. and Francis S. Morgan 2000 Sugar Islands: The 165-Year Story of Sugar in Hawaii, Mutual Publishing, Honolulu.Farley, J. K. 1907 “Notes on Maulili Pool, Kloa”, as published in Thrum's Almanac 1907,Honolulu.Foote, Donald E., E. L. Hill, S. Nakamura and F. Stephens 1972Soil Survey of the Islands of Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, Maui, Moloka‘i and Lana‘i, State of Hawaii, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Foreign Testimony 1848 Foreign Testimony of Kuleana Claims to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaii Islands, State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu, HI. Giambelluca, Thomas W., Michael A. Nullet and Thomas A. Schroeder 1986Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Hammatt, Hallett H. 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey of an 8.15-acre Knudsen Trust Parcel, KΚloaAhupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i TMK: (4) 2-8-004: por. 003 & 055. Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc., Kailua, Hawaii. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 26 References Cited Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 65TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Hammatt, Hallett H., R.M. Bordner and M. J. Tomonari-Tuggle 1978 Archaeological and Biological Survey of the Proposed KǑahuna Golf Village Area, Kloa, Kona, Kaua‘i Island, Hawai‘i, A.R.C.H., Lwa‘i, Kaua‘i. Hammatt, Hallett H., William H. Folk, and Mark Stride 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Po‘ipulani Golf Course and Residential Development, Kloa, Kaua‘i (Revised July 1991), CSH Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.Hammatt, Hallett H., Gerald K. Ida, Sarah Masciangelo, and William Folk 2004 Archaeological Inventory Survey for Parcel 30 of the Eric A. Knudsen Trust Lands, Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Kauai Island, TMK: (4) 2-8-014: 30, Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc., Kailua, Hawaii. Hammatt, Hallett H, Dominique Cordy, Uta Rainalter, Paul Gomes, David W. Shideler, and William H. Folk 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Data Recovery Of The Kiahuna Golf Village and KMP Development Project Parcels in Approximately 400 Acres at Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona, Kaua‘i Island, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i.Hill, Robert R., John E. Dockall and Hallett H. Hammatt 2005a Inventory Survey of an Approximately 10.6-Acre Parcel at Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: (4) 2-8-15: 43, 44, 82, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.Hill, Robert R., Todd Tulchin, Jon Tulchin, and Hallett H. Hammatt 2005b Archaeological Inventory Survey of an 8.633 Acre Parcel at Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: (4) 2-8-014: 001 Mauka Portion, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. 2005c Inventory Survey of an Approximately 9.348-Acre Parcel at Kloa, KloaAhupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: (4) 2-8-009: 001, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Judd, Bernice 1935 “Koloa, A Sketch of Its Development”, as held within the Kauai Historical Society Papers, Volume II, Honolulu. Kikuchi, William K. 1963 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on the Island of Kaua‘i, Kona District, Unknown publisher. 1981 Reconnaissance Survey, Archaeological Sites Weliweli Tract, TMK 2-8-22, Por6, Kloa District, Island of Kaua‘i. Lahainaluna Schools 1885 “Heiaus and Fishing Grounds [of Koloa, Kauai]”, (translation), HMS 43, #17. Mission Houses Museum 1970Missionary Album Sesquicentennial Edition 1820-1970, published by the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society, Honolulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 26 References Cited Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 66TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Missionary Herald 1827 Journal of the Missionaries at Honolulu, February 17, 1821. Missionary Herald XVIII (June 1827:12). Monsarrat, M.D. 1891 Map: Hawaii Territorial Survey, Koloa. “Traced from M.D. Monsarrat circa 1891 Government Survey Map 1694”, by T. B. Butch and E. J. Grube, September 1918. Native Register 1847 Native Register of Kuleana Claims to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaii Islands, State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu, HI. Native Testimony 1847 Native Testimony of Kuleana Claims to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaii Islands, State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu, HI.. Palama, Stephen L., and Catherine Stauder 1973 The Archaeology of Kona, Kaua‘i from the Ahupua‘a of Kloa to the Ahupua‘a of Weliweli: Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Cane Haul Road to the Kloa Mill for McBryde Sugar Co., Ltd., A.R.C.H., Lwa‘i, Kaua‘i. Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Ester T. Mookini 1974Place Names of Hawaii, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Simonson, Mindy, Amy Hammermeister, Rosanna Runyon, and Hallett H. Hammatt 2009 Archaeological Data Recovery Report for a portion of the Eric A. Knudsen Trust Lands, Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i (TMK: (4) 2-8-014:019 por.), Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Thrum, Thomas G. 1907 “Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands”, as published in Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908, compiled by Thomas G. Thrum, Honolulu.Townsend, John 1839 Narrative of a Journey Across the Rocky Mountains….and a Visit to the Sandwich Islands and Chile…, H. Perkins and Marvin, Boston. Tulchin, Jon, and Hallett H. Hammatt 2007 Archaeological Data Recovery for SIHP No. 50-30-10-0362, at the proposed Starwood Vacation Ownership Development Project, KΚloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: (4) 2-8-015: 43, 44, & 82, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Tulchin, Jon, Amy Hammermeister and Hallett H. Hammatt 2007 Archaeological Inventory Survey of an Approximately 10-Acre Knudsen Trust Parcel, Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: [4] 2-8-011:001. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. U.S. Geological Survey 1910 (1912 Edition) Map: Topographic Map of the Island of Kauai, Territory of Hawaii, George Otis Smith, R.B. Marshall, U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 26 References Cited Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 67TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Waihona ‘Aina Corp. 2002 The Mhele Database and The Boundary Commission Database, as maintained by Project Director Victoria S. Creed, (Internet: www.waihona.com).Walker, Allen T., and Paul H. Rosendahl 1990 Archaeological Data Recovery, Phase II, Hyatt Regency Kaua‘i Mitigation Program, Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc., Hilo, Hawai‘i.Wichman, Frederick B. 1998Kauai: Ancient Place-Names and Their Stories, University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.Wilcox, Carol 1996Sugar Water: Hawaii’s Plantation Ditches, University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.Wilkes, Charles, Commander U.S.N. 1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years…., Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia, PA. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 26 Appendix A: UTM Information for Historic Properties Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System A-1TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001Appendix A UTM Information for Historic Properties SIHP #50-30-10-954, UTM NAD 83, Zone 4 North (m) NORTHINGEASTING 2419921.28453181.85SIHP #50-30-10-955, UTM NAD 83, Zone 4 North (m) NORTHINGEASTING 2419933.47453204.82SIHP #50-30-10-992, UTM NAD 83, Zone 4 North (m) NORTHINGEASTING 2419557.63452780.402419558.58452776.972419559.79452773.67 EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT M A Historic Resources Survey of Kōloa Mill Mason Architects, Inc. July 2009 An Historic Resources Survey of Koloa Mill Project Background HOH Utilities, LLC proposes to develop a privately-owned and operated regional wastewater reclamation facility and associated wastewater collection system in the Koloa-Poipu region on the south shore of the island of Kauai. The proposed wastewater collection system improvements would consist of a regional wastewater reclamation facility (Regional WRF) and four wastewater pump stations as well as gravity lines and force mains. The proposed location of the Regional WRF is off Weliweli Road on a portion of Tax Map Key 2-9-001:001, which includes the site of the sugar mill formerly utilized by Koloa Sugar Company (1913-1948), Grove Farm Plantation (1948-1974), and McBryde Sugar Company (1974-1996). The proposed project intends to incorporate and adaptively reuse the sugar mill’s bagasse storage building and a water tank as part of the Regional WRF. The adaptive reuse of these buildings will most likely entail the removal of the conveyor system which transported the bagasse to and from the sugar mill building. The present inventory survey was undertaken to gather sufficient information to assess the historic significance of the complex of buildings which constitute the former Koloa Sugar Company mill. The historic resources inventory forms were completed following a visit to the site on May 21-22, 2009, by Don Hibbard, Ph.D., and basic historic research concerning the site was undertaken, which included conversations with former McBryde Sugar Company employees Earl Smith on May 22, 2009 and Bob Bryan on May 21, 2009.Historic Context Ladd and Company, the predecessor to the Koloa Sugar Company although not the first to attempt to produce sugar in Hawaii, was the first to be somewhat successful in this endeavor. The story of their effort well reveals the changing character of Hawaiian society during the 1830s. Supported by a missionary desire to provide Hawaiians with “gainful” employment, Kamehameha III was influenced, in 1835, to grant Ladd and Company a fifty year lease and water rights for about one thousand acres of land in Koloa for300/year. This written, binding lease for such a large holding of land was unprecedented in Hawaii, as previously the monarchy only granted, in the vaguest of terms, the use of relatively small land parcels to foreigners. In addition to granting land and water rights, the lease exempted Hawaiians who worked for the plantation from paying taxes to their alii, thus undermining the authority of the Hawaiian rulers by giving commoners a new means of livelihood and obligation. The plantation further transformed the Hawaiian barter-based, subsistence economy by printing its own money, the first currency to be produced in the kingdom. The Koloa dollars were exchanged for goods at the plantation store, but soon circulated beyond the store, remaining in use on Kauai until at least 1850. The plantation also provided worker housing, and addressed medical needs, thereby establishing the foundations of the paternalistic plantation system which spread throughout the Islands and endured for over one hundred years. Initially, twenty five acres of sugar cane were cultivated at Koloa, and in 1836 a dam was built to provide water power for turning a mill located at Maulili. Two years after its completion this rudimentary mill was replaced by a new mill at the same location. Ladd and Company was sufficiently successful to allow the construction of a larger sugar mill in 1841 at Waihohonu, on lands leased to the Koloa Sugar Company by the Knudsen family. The stone stack of this mill still stands in the heart of Koloa town at the intersection of Maluhia and Koloa roads. The Waihohonu mill was updated in 1853, and in 1869 became the first steam powered mill on Kauai. It fulfilled the sugar company’s needs for the remainder of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. (Alexander, page 69) The present mill’s location was the third and final mill site used by the Koloa Sugar Company. By 1912, it was apparent that the Waihohonu factory was outdated and required extensive repairs. In June 1912, the Koloa Sugar Company board of directors decided that rather than expend moneys on repairing and upgrading a mill that sat on leased land, it would be more prudent to construct a new mill on lands owned by the company. A site for the new factory was chosen in Paa, midway between Waita Reservoir (built 1903-1906) and Puuhi Reservoir, just below the former 1902 “Mill Ditch”. At their meeting of July 18, 1912, the board accepted the offer of the Honolulu Iron Works to furnish materials, buildings, crushing machinery, and evaporating equipment for the new factory for a cost of $242,000. Provision was made to reduce this cost, if it was found some of the old machinery could be installed in the new mill. (Alexander, pages 144-145) Work was started in early 1913 on the foundations and various adjuncts to the factory, such as shops, warehouses, railroads and roads. Construction on the factory itself commenced on May 30, 1913 under the supervision of John Gribble, an engineer who worked for Honolulu Iron Works. The factory was completed in 1913, at an approximate cost of$330,000. The new mill train had twelve rollers, 32” x 66” with a Krajewski crusher and automatic feeders to deliver the bagasse to the boilers. Kopke clarifiers, made in Hawaii, were initially used, but these proved unsatisfactory and in 1933 a three compartment Dorr clarifier was installed. (Garden Island, Gilmore, 1935-1936, page 170, and Alexander, pages 145-147) The years immediately following the construction of the new mill were the most profitable for Koloa Sugar Company, in large part the result of the high sugar prices engendered by World War I. By 1919 Koloa Sugar Company was producing 9,000 tons of sugar with annual profits of nearly $300,000. Following World War I the price of sugar dropped tremendously, but the introduction of tractors into the fields and other efficiencies resulted in greater sugar production, with 18,833 tons produced in 1933. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Koloa Sugar company confronted economic difficulties, and by 1946 the company found itself over one million dollars in debt. It appeared Koloa was destined to follow such other small plantations as Kipahulu, Hana, Waianae, and Waimanalo and go out of business. At this time Koloa Sugar’s neighboring plantation, Grove Farm, was also beginning to discover the economic disadvantages of a small operation. In addition, Grove Farm had no mill of its own, and Lihue Mill had raised its rates for grinding Grove Farm Plantation’s cane. As a result in 1948 Grove Farm acquired Koloa Sugar Company, thereby doubling its acreage planted in cane and coming into possession of its own mill. Grove Farm constructed a tunnel through the mountain between its fields and Koloa Mill, substantially upgraded the mill, cleared the rock filled Koloa fields of enough stones to allow mechanization of the harvests, and inaugurated the use of tracks, rather than the railway, to transport the cane to the mill and the sugar to the docks. Sugar in Hawaii continued to decline in the face of international competition. In the early 1970s Kahuku on Oahu, Kohala on the island of Hawaii, and Kilauea on Kauai, ceased operations. In 1974 Grove Farm decided to close as well, and leased its mill and surrounding lands to McBryde Sugar Company, while leasing its original Grove Farm lands to Lihue Plantation. McBryde shifted its milling operations to Koloa, as its own mill was in need of major improvements. McBryde closed its Numila mill near Eleele and transferred its best equipment to Kolao and also upgraded and expanded the Koloa Mill so that it could handle all of the company’s harvest. The mill continued in operation for another twenty two years, but Hurricane Iniki destroyed much of the company’s fields in 1991, and McBryde gradually phased out of sugar production, concluding its sugar operations in 1996, when it closed the mill. The Buildings and Structures The site visit discovered eight buildings and five structures associated with the former Koloa Sugar Company’s mill site that remain standing. These included the following: buildings:1. bagasse storage building 2. sugar mill 3. parts warehouse 4. water pump sheds 5. office building 6. electric shop and laboratory 7. sugar bins 8. sugar storage building structures:1. water tank 2. molasses tank 3. day tank 4. foundations of former cleaning plant 5. stack Of these buildings and structures, only the Bagasse Storage Building and Water Tank may be directly affected by the proposed wastewater treatment project. The remaining buildings and structures may be indirectly affected by the proposed project. All eight buildings and five structures were photographed, and historic resource forms were completed for each. Of these buildings and structures, the sugar mill building, water pump sheds, sugar bins, sugar storage building, molasses and day storage tanks, and cleaning plant foundations are over fifty years old and appear to meet the criteria for listing in the Hawaii and National Registers of Historic Places. The bagasse storage building, water tank, stack, parts warehouse, office building, and electric shop are not fifty years old, and do not appear to meet the National Register’s Criteria Consideration G for exceptional importance for properties less than 50 years old; therefore they are not considered to be historic properties. As the proposed project will only directly involve the water tank and bagasse storage building, both of which were constructed by McBryde in the 1970s, the proposed project will have no direct effect upon historic properties. Retaining and reusing the water tank and bagasse storage building, will allow the sugar mill complex to remain intact. However, the reuse of these two components may have an indirect effect on the historic buildings and structures that comprise the sugar mill complex by introducing a new function as well as new visual and atmospheric elements to the complex, thereby reducing its integrity with regards to setting, feeling, and associations. To mitigate any indirect effects, the client should consider providing the State Historic Preservation Division with additional digital photographs documenting the water tank and bagasse storage building, and to also provide the office with a copy of the original drawings of the bagasse storage building’s conveyor system, which are presently held by Grove Farm Plantation. Bibliography Alexander, Arthur C., Koloa Plantation, 1835-1935, Lihue, Kauai: Kauai Historical Society, 1985. Cook, Chris, Kauai, The Garden Island, A Pictorial History, Virginia Beach, Virginia: The Donney Company, 1999. Donohugh, Donald, The Story of Koloa, Honolulu: Mutual Publishing Company, 2001. Durrance, William, Sugar Islands, Honolulu: Honolulu: Mutual Publishing Company, 2000.The Garden Island “New Mill Started,” June 10, 1913, page 1. Gilmore’s Hawaii Sugar Annual, 1936, 1938-39, 1947-48, 1951, and 1966. Hoverson, Martha, Historic Koloa: A Guide, Koloa, Kauai: Friends of the Koloa Community, 1985. Krauss, Bob with W. P. Alexander, Grove Farm Plantation, Palo Alto, California: Pacific Books, 1965. Koloa Mill USGS Map Koloa Quadrangle, 1996 1:24,000NAD 1983 Koloa Mill Photograph of Mill from the west, circa 1914-1924 Koloa Mill Photograph of Mill from the west, 1948 Koloa Mill Photograph of Mill from the southeast, 1958 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building________________ 2.Hiistoric Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______vacant_________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: __________________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________utiliarian___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: __X _ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other __monitors____ Special features Roofing Material _______metal_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves __X__ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: ____ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window __Openings in walls at various locations______Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass ____pivot______________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____most all of the machinery and equipment remain in the mill__________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____1913_______ This date is __X__ factual ___ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ___John Grisholm___________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): The mill building at Koloa was initially constructed in 1913. Over time numerous additions were made to the structure to accommodate expanded needs and improved technologies and equipment. The building is comprised of a number of gable roofed sections, with each section housing distinct functions. When viewing the building from the west the dominant four story, front facing gable roofed section which forms a backdrop for most of the building, houses the boiler house, with the shed roofed power house extending off to the north. To the south of the boiler house is another four story, gable roofed section which contains the original boiling house. To the west of the original boiling house are a number of two and three story wings and additions with lateral and front facing gable roofs which accommodated the expansion of the boiling house and also a power plant. The prominent shed roofed addition and row of evaporators along the outside of the building on the west side were constructed by McBryde. The front facing gabled structure immediately to the north of the McBryde additions held a power house constructed in 1936, while the shallow pitched front facing monitor roofed wing to the north of the power house contains the mill train and machine shop. To the left rear of this wing is the original front facing, gable roofed bagasse storage area. Within the building much of the machinery and equipment remains intact. The cleaning plant and crusher no longer remain on site; however, the twelve roller mill train and its concluding French Press are in place. The steam turbines that powered the mill train were removed and sold to Gay & Robinson for installation in their mill at Makaweli. The reduction gears remain. The machine shop still contains its crane, lathes and several other items. The two boilers are still intact as is their stack and the power house with its two General Electric steam turbines and generators. The latter was constructed in 1964 by Grove Farm and replaced the earlier power house located on the evaporator floor. The two boilers were also installed by Grove Farm. The smaller one was added in 1953 and replaced seven old boilers. The larger, second boiler was erected in 1964 in part to provide sufficient steam for the new power house. The boiling house is four stories high. It still contains its clarifier, scales, heaters, quadruple effect evaporators, with numbers one and two in parallel, four mud presses, high and low grade pans and their Nash vacuum pumps, crystallizers, massecuite heaters, and low and high grade centrifugals. The cup elevator is also intact as are the conveyors leading to it. The ground floor of the boiling house is criss-crossed with overhead pipes to convey the sugar juice, massecuite, steam, and condensed water to various destinations, and contains numerous pumps. In addition one heater is located on this level, as is two large caustic soda tanks, and the base of the clarifier. Also at this level, in the southwest corner, are the centrifugals, which are elevated above the floor on metal stagings. These include a row of four continuous low grade centrifugals, one of which was sent to HCS at Puunene on Maui. The initial Silver centrifugal is among this group and dates from circa 1966. Running perpendicular to the continuous centrifiguals is a row of nine low grade batch centrifugals, six of which have been removed. Adjoining these machines, on its own staging are four high grade centrifugals, two of which were sold and sent to Louisiana. Screw conveyors are located beneath the centrifugals. These transported the sugar crystals to the cup elevator, which in turn took the processed sugar to a conveyor which led to the sugar bins. On the evaporator floor may be found the scales, as well as the Dorr clarifier, and Oliver mud presses. The smallest of the four mud presses was brought to the mill by McBryde from Eleele. Accompanying the mud presses are two receiver tanks and a cyclone feeder which delivered bagasse for the mud presses. The mud presses sit in their own shed roofed section. To the west of the mud presses, clarifier and scales are the five evaporators. K-1 and K-2 are in parallel, with the former built by Hilo Iron Works in 1936 and the latter by the St. Mary Iron Works in Louisiana. Beyond the evaporators is the 1936 two-story powerhouse wing, which is currently vacant with its 500 k.w. General Electric turbo-generator removed, although some of its control panels remain in place. The wing contains some of the few pivot windows in the mill. These have twenty four panes with a four pane pivot flanked by twelve panes above, six below and one to each side.The third floor of the boiling house contains twenty three continuous system crystallizers. These were installed between 1951 and 1966. Steps lead up to a mezzanine which allows serving of the crystallizers from above. The top floor of the boiling house is the pan floor. At the east end of this room are the three high grade pans, with pans 1 and 2 manufactured in Louisiana by St. Mary’s Iron Works, and pan 3 made by Honolulu Iron Works in 1956. To the south of these are rectangular syrup tanks and a fourth high grade pan. To the west of the high grade pans are five low grade pans, which include two pans manufactured by Honolulu Iron Works, one dating from 1924 and the other 1936. Low grade pan number 8 is in a shed roofed addition which McBryde constructed. This pan was also fabricated by Honolulu Iron Works. The Nash vacuum pumps and condensers, which were installed in 1966, are all still intact on this floor, and at the east end two massecuite heaters. An office and laboratory is also within the confines of the mill building in the southeast corner, and a lime station is located beyond the laboratory to the south in a shed roofed addition.See the historic context section of the inventory report for information on the history and operation of the mill. 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Oral interview on May 22, 2009 with Earl Smith, who formerly worked with McBryde. Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. Gilmore’s Hawaii Sugar Annual, 1936, 1938-39, 1947-48, 1951, and 1966. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Floor Plan from 1955 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Overall view from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Exterior view from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Exterior view from the south, bagasse storage building on the right, 1949 sugar storage building on the left. Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Exterior view from the east Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Exterior view from the northeast, power house wing Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of mill train from the northwest Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of mill train from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of French Press from the northwest Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of reduction gears, steam turbines have been removed, from the southwest Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of machine shop from the southwest, original bagasse storage area behind rear concrete block wall. Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of original bagasse storage area from the east Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of power house, second floor with General Electric steam turbine and generator from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of condenser on ground floor of power house, from the south Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of scales, on evaporator floor of boiling house with mud press in background, from the southeast Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of heaters, on evaporator floor of boiling house from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of top of evaporator from crystallizer mezzanine from the southeast Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of old power house from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of old powerhouse from the east Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of crystallizers from the east Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of mud presses on evaporator floor from the north Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of pan floor from the west, Honolulu Iron Works low grade pan dating from 1924 in immediate foreground. Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of pan floor from the northwest, High Grade Pan 4 in Foreground, Syrup Tanks Beyond. Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of pan floor from the east, low grade pans Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of massecuite heater on pan floor from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of low grade centrifugals, Silver in the foreground from the north Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of high grade centrifugals from the east Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of cup elevator and screw conveyor from the southeast Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of boiler number one from the northeast Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Mill Building Interior view of lime station from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Bagasse Storage Building________________ 2. Historic Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______vacant_________________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ___________________________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________utilitarian___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: __ Stone __ Stucco __ Adobe _concrete and metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: ___X_ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other ________________ Special features Roofing Material _______metal_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves __X__ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: __X__ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window ____________________________Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____bagasse conveyor system____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____1975_______ This date is ____ factual __X__ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): McBryde Sugar Company obtained a lease on the former Koloa Sugar Mill in 1974. In the following year they constructed this bagasse storage building. 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Oral interview on May 22, 2009 with Earl Smith, who formerly worked with McBryde. Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Bagasse Storage Building Bagasse Storage Building, Floor Plan Koloa Sugar Mill: Bagasse Storage Building View from the south Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Bagasse Storage Building View from the southwest Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Bagasse Storage Building Interior, view from the south Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Bagasse Storage Building Conveyor from Bagasse Storage Building to Mill, View from the southeast Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Bagasse Storage Building Bagasse Storage Building and blue covered conveyor to mill, View from the east Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Warehouse Building________________ 2. Historic Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______warehouse_________________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ___________________________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________utilitarian___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: ___X_ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other ________________ Special features Roofing Material _______metal_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves __X__ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: ____ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window __entire sidewall is comprised of open bays Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____ ____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____post-1974_______ This date is __X__ factual ____ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): McBryde Sugar Company obtained a lease on the former Koloa Sugar Mill in 1974. It subsequently constructed this warehouse building, which was used for the storage of spare parts. The present occupants of the building added the concrete floor. 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Oral interview on May 22, 2009 with Earl Smith, who formerly worked with McBryde. Oral interview on May 21, 2009 with Bob Bryan, a former McBryde employee who currrently works for the present occupant of the building, Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Spare Parts Warehouse View from the southeast Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Fire Protection Pump Houses________________ 2. Historic Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______vacant-recreation_________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ______warehouse____________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________utiliarian___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: __X _ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other ___________ Special features Roofing Material _______metal_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves __X__ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: __X__ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window ____________________________Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____ ____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____unknown_______ This date is ____ factual __ __ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): These two corrugated metal sheds housed the pumps used for the mill’s fire protection system. 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Oral interview on May 22, 2009 with Earl Smith, who formerly worked with McBryde. Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Fire Protection Pump Houses View from the south Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:_Koloa Sugar Mill: Office, Warehouse and Electric Shop Building_ 2. Historic Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______agricultural_________________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ___________________________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________utilitarian___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: ___X_ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other ________________ Special features Roofing Material _______metal_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves __X__ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: ____ Centered __X__ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window __ Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____ ____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____post-1974_______ This date is __X__ factual ____ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): McBryde Sugar Company obtained a lease on the former Koloa Sugar Mill in 1974. It subsequently constructed these two buildings to serve as their office, and as a warehouse and electrical shop. The buildings are presently occupied by Pioneer HI-Bred International, which uses it in their seed production operations. 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Oral interview on May 22, 2009 with Earl Smith, who formerly worked with McBryde. Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Office, Warehouse, Electrical Shop View from the northwest Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Office, Warehouse, Electrical Shop View from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Sugar Bins ________________ 2. Historic Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______vacant _________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ______ ____________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________utilitarian___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: ___ _ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other _Shed __________ Special features Roofing Material _______metal_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves __X__ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: __ __ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window ____________________________Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____ ____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____ 1950_______ This date is __ __ factual __X__ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): Gilmore’s Hawaii Sugar Manual for 1951 reported Grove Farm had installed a new sugar bin of three hundred ton capacity. The sugar bin was constructed when Grove Farm decided to shift from shipping its sugar in bags to bulk shipping. The two bins have three chutes to load the sugar into the trucks for transportation to the ships. 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Gilmore Hawaii Sugar Manual, 1951 Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Sugar Bins View from the southeast Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Sugar Bins View from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Sugar Storage Building________________ 2. Historic Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______vacant-recreation_________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ______warehouse____________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________round___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: ___ _ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other _conical__________ Special features Roofing Material _______metal_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves __X__ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: __X__ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window ____________________________Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____ ____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____1949_______ This date is __X__ factual __ __ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): This building was constructed in response to the I.L.W.U. (International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union) shipping strike of 1949. The strike was a part of the union’s intensive campaign against the Big Five companies in Hawaii and virtually stopped all shipments to and from Hawaii. Concerned that their sugar could not be delivered to the mainland, and fearful that their crops would rot in the fields if not harvested, the plantations on Kauai decided to remain in operation, harvest their crops, process the cane, and jointly store the sugar until such time that it could be shipped to California for refining. In addition to this store house, McBryde built a similar one, and also made available a warehouse for sugar storage. The shipping strike lasted for 177 days, and this building at Koloa was never used to store sugar as McBryde’s facilities were able to handle all the plantations’ storage needs. The building was subsequently used for storage. In recent years Grove Farm has generated some revenues from this distinctive structure by renting it out for large parties. 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Oral interview on May 22, 2009 with Earl Smith, who formerly worked with McBryde. Oral interview on May 21, 2009 with Bob Bryan, a former McBryde employee who currently works on the premises adjoining the Koloa Sigar Mill. Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Sugar Storehouse View from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Sugar Storehouse Interior, View from the west Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Water Storage Tank________________ 2. Historic Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______vacant_________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ______ ____________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________round___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: ___ _ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other _flat__________ Special features Roofing Material _______metal_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves ____ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: ____ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window ____________________________Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____ ____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____1975_______ This date is ____ factual _X__ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): McBryde Sugar Company obtained a lease on the former Koloa Sugar Mill in 1974. It constructed this water tank in 1975 as part of its fire protection system. 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Oral interview on May 22, 2009 with Earl Smith, who formerly worked with McBryde. Oral interview on May 21 2009 with Bob Bryan, a former McBryde employee, who presently works on the premises adjoining the Koloa Mill.. Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Water Tank View from the east Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Molasses Storage and Day Tanks_________ 2.Hiistoric Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______vacant _________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ______ ____________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________round___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: ___ _ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other _flat__________ Special features Roofing Material _______metal_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves __ __ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: ____ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window ____________________________Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____ ____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____pre-1935___ This date is ____ factual __X__ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): Up through 1951 Koloa Mill had limited molasses storage with its only tank holding 66 tons for waste molasses (Gilmore, volumes published between 1935 and 1951). Grove Farm expanded this capacity sometime between 1951 and 1966, with Gilmore’s Hawaii Sugar Manual for 1966 reporting that Grove Farm had four vertical tanks, 10’ x 40’ with a total capacity of 100,000 gallons of molasses. There is no evidence of any 10’ x 40’ tanks on the premises, so it appears these tanks date from the pre-1935 period.18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Molasses and Tanks View from the west, with sugar bins in the left background and sugar storage building in the right background. Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Foundations of CaneCleaning Station_______ 2. Historic Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______vacant_________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ______ ____________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________Utilitarian___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _concrete__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: ___ _ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other ___________ Special features Roofing Material ________________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves ____ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: ____ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window ____________________________Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____ ____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature __X__ Altered ____ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____late 1930s, 1956, post-1974____ This date is __X__ factual __X_estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): The harvesting of cane began to be mechanized in Hawaii during the 1930s. The Koloa Sugar Company’s fields, however, were so rocky, that the company continued to harvest by hand up to the time of its merging with Grove Farm. Koloa Sugar Company had a modest cane cleaning plant where the trains dropped off the cane to be processed by the mill, but it was not until after Grove Farm acquired Koloa’s fields and mill that a concerted effort was made to remove the rocks from the fields and to institute mechanized harvesting. In addition, Grove Farm introduced trucks to transport the cane from the fields to the mill, eliminating the plantation railway. The concrete foundation is all that remains of the enlarged cleaning plant Grove Farm constructed in 1957. The company used the rocks separated by the cleaning operation to make roads, and they took the mud and cane trash to built up new acres of productive land for growing cane, eventually improving one hundred and thirty acres of barren and unproductive lava flow into cane fields. McBryde further expanded the mill’s cleaning capabilities after it acquired a lease on the mill in 1974. They added the final concrete portion of the cleaning plant. The trucks would drive up to the wall at the far end of the structure and the cane would be dumped into the bin on the other side, and would then be processed 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Oral interview on May 22, 2009 with Earl Smith, who formerly worked with McBryde. Krauss, Bob, with W. P. Alexander, Grove Farm Plantation, Palo Alto, California: Pacific Books, 1965. Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Foundation of the Cane Cleaning Plant Looking out from the mill, view from the east Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Foundation of the Cane Cleaning Plant View from the south Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Koloa Sugar Mill: Foundation of the Cane Cleaning Plant McBryde addition, view from the south Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 Site # _______________________ TMK __2-9-001:001__________ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORYIDENTIFICATION 1. Common Name:____Koloa Sugar Mill: Stack________________ 2. Historic Name, if known: __________________________________________________ 3. Street or rural address __Weliweli Road______________________________________ City: ____Koloa__________ Zip: ___96756_____ County: _____Kauai____________ 4. Present Owner, if known: ___Grove Farm_____________________________________ Address if different from above: ___3-1850 Kaumualii Hwy, Lihue 96766___________ 5. Ownership is: ___ Public __X_ Private 6. Present Use: ______warehouse_________________ Original Use: __agricultural_________ Other Past Uses: ___________________________________________________________ DESCRIPTION 7. Physical Appearance: Style __________utilitarian___________________________ Primary Exterior Building Material: ____ Stone ____ Stucco ____ Adobe _metal__ Other Wood: ____ Clapboard ____Shiplap ____ Vertical Board ____ Board and Batten _____ Shingle _________ Other Additional Materials _________________________________________ Roof: ___X_ Gable ____ Hipped ______________ Other ________________ Special features Roofing Material _______NA_________________________ Roof Trim: ____ Closed Eaves __ __ Overhanging Eaves _____ Brackets Dormers: ____ Gabled ____ Hipped ____ Shed ____ Eyelid ____Other Porch: ____Inset ____Outset ____ Open ____ Enclosed ____ Facade length ____ Wraparound ____ Centered ____ Offset Door: ____ Centered ____ Offset ____ Inset ____Transom ____ Side Panels ____ Sidelights ____ Window __ Other Windows: ____Double-Hung _____ Sliding _____ Casement _____ Awning ____ Jalousies _____ Plate glass __________________________________Other Number of panes: _______ Other Features: ____ ____________________________________ 8. Approximate Property Size: Frontage ________________ Depth ________________ or approximate acreage ____________________ 9. Is the feature ____ Altered __X__ Unaltered ? 10. Surroundings: ____ Open Land ____ Scattered Buildings ____ Densely Built-up ____ Residential ____ Commercial __X__ Industrial _______________ Other 11. Is the structure __X__ on its original site ____ moved ____ unknown 12. Year of initial construction _____1983_______ This date is __ __ factual __X__ estimated. 13. Architect (if known) ____________________________________________________ 14. Builder (if known) ______________________________________________________ 15. Related features: ____ Barn ____ Carriage House ____ Outhouse ____ Shed(s) ____ Formal Garden(s) ____ Windmill ____ Watertower/ Tankhouse ____ Garage ____ Servants' or Guest House __________________ Other 16. Date of attached photograph _____May 22, 2009__________________ See attached sheets SIGNIFICANCE 17. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): McBryde Sugar Company obtained a lease on the former Koloa Sugar Mill in 1974. It constructed this stack with its internal scrubber system in 1983. The stack was designed to reduce the particulate matter in the smoke emerging from the stack. It replaced two earlier stacks and an external scrubber system which had been built by Grove Farm. 18. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: Oral interview on May 22, 2009 with Earl Smith, who formerly worked with McBryde. Site visit to the property on May 21-22, 2009 by Don Hibbard. CREDITSDate form prepared _June 1, 2009___ By (name): ___Don Hibbard____________________________ Address: __119 Merchant Street, Suite 501_______________ City: ___Honolulu____ Zip: _96813___ Phone: ___(808)-536-0556________ Organization: ____Mason Architects______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ STATE USE ONLY: Koloa Sugar Mill: Stack View from the east Photographer: Don Hibbard May 22, 2009 EXHIBIT N EXHIBIT N Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kōloa-Po‘ipū Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. May 2009 O‘ahu Office P.O. Box 1114 Kailua, Hawai‘i 96734 Ph.: (808) 262-9972 Fax: (808) 262-4950 www.culturalsurveys.com Maui Office 1993 Main St. Wailuku, Hawai‘i 96793 Ph: (808) 242-9882 Fax: (808) 244-1994 Cultural Impact Assessment for the proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System, Kloa, Weliweli, and P‘ Ahupua‘a, Kloa District, Island of Kaua‘i TMK: [4] 2-8-004: por. 003; [4] 2-8-008: por. 001 & por. 036; [4] 2-8-009: por. 001; [4] 2-8-011: por. 001; [4] 2-8-014: por. 005, por. 019, por. 023, por. 030, & por. 037; [4] 2-8-022: por. 001, por. 011, por. 021, & por. 030; [4] 2-9-001: por. 001 Prepared for Wilson Okamoto Corporation Prepared by Mishalla Spearing, B.A. and Hallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. Kailua, Hawai‘i (Job Code: KOLOA 29) May 2009 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System iTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Management Summary Reference Cultural Impact Assessment for the proposed KΚloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System, KΚloa, Weliweli, and P‘ Ahupua‘a, KΚloa District, Island of Kaua‘i (Spearing & Hammatt 2009) Date May 2009 Project Number (s) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Inc. (CSH) Job Code: KOLOA 29 Land Jurisdiction The project area is predominantly situated in private lands owned by Grove Farm and the E.A Knudsen Trust, with smaller parcels belonging to various private land owners or the County of Kaua‘i. Agencies State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources / State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR / SHPD) Project Description HOH Utilities, LLC proposes to develop a privately-owned and operated regional wastewater reclamation facility and associated wastewater collection system in the Kloa-Po‘ip region on the south shore of the Island of Kaua‘i. The proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional WRF) and collection system (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “project area”) is intended to collect and treat wastewater associated with a service area encompassing the communities of Kloa Town, Po‘ip, and Kukui‘ula. The proposed wastewater collection system improvements would consist of four (4) wastewater pump stations (Kloa WWPS, Villages WWPS, Crater WWPS, and Eastern WWPS) along with gravity lines and force mains situated within existing undeveloped lands, roadways or along established utility line corridors or unpaved roadway corridors within a predominantly agricultural area. Associated ground disturbance will include excavation related to the project area’s development, to include: structural footings, utility installation, as well as roadway and parking area installation. Project Location The project area is located on the south shore of the Island of Kaua‘i in the Kloa District. The new Regional WRF will be situated within an agricultural area utilizing a portion of the existing KΚloa Mill site. This site is located at the eastern end of Weliweli Road in Kloa Town, and consists of Tax Map Key (TMK): [4] 2-09-001: portions of 001 and 002. The wastewater collection system serving the new Regional WRF is planned to consist of three (3) components: 1.) The KΚloa Collection System, 2.) The Po‘ip Collection System, and 3.) The Eastern Collection System. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System iiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 New sewer lines associated with the KΚloa Collection System would be routed within both privately-owned property and the rights-of-way for portions of County roadways which are KΚloa Road, Waikomo Road, Weliweli Road, and across Ala Kinoiki Road. Privately-owned properties affected include parcels associated with Tax Map Keys (TMKs): 2-08-004: portion of 003, 2-08-008: portion of 001 and 036 (Yamada Road), 2-08-009: portion of 001, and 2-08-011: portion of 001, 2-08-014: portion of 023, and 2-08-022: portion of 001. A new wastewater pump station (Kloa WWPS) would also be provided near the intersection of Waikomo Road with Weliweli Road, identified as TMK 2-08-011: portion of 001. The Po‘ip Collection System will involve the construction of two (2) new wastewater pump stations. The Villages WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site just mauka of the existing KǑahuna Swim and Tennis Club facility and east of Hapa Road within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-08-014: portion of 019. The Crater WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site east of the existing water tanks near Pu‘uhi Reservoir within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. The Eastern Collection System will involve the construction of one (1) new wastewater pump station. The Eastern WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site located east of the Po‘ip Bay Golf Course and mauka of the private road that extends eastward from Po‘ip Road within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. Sewer lines associated with the Po‘ip and Eastern Collection Systems would predominantly be located within privately owned property and a few County roadways. These properties are identified as TMKs: (4) 2-08-014: portions of 005 (Kahuna Plantation Drive), 019, 030, and 037; (4) 2-08-022: portions of 011, 021, and 030; (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. The entire project area is depicted on the 1996 KΚloa U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Project Acreage The proposed Regional WRF and 4 wastewater pump stations total an approximate area of 10 acres. The project also includes an approximately 5-mile long and 10 ft wide corridor, proposed for the instillation of gravity lines and force mains. Land Jurisdiction The project area is predominantly situated in private lands owned by Grove Farm and the E.A Knudsen Trust, with smaller parcels belonging to various private land owners or the County of Kaua‘i. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System iiiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Area of Potential Effect (APE) For the purposes of this CIA, the APE is defined as the approximately 10-acre project area plus the 5-mile long and 10 ft wide corridor footprint within the larger context of KΚloa, Weliweli and P‘ Ahupua‘a. Document Purpose The project requires compliance with the State of Hawai‘i environmental review process [Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343], which requires consideration of a proposed project’s effect on cultural practices and resources. CSH undertook this CIA at the request of Wilson Okamoto Corporation. Through document research and cultural consultation efforts, this report provides information pertinent to the assessment of the proposed project’s impacts to cultural practices (per the Office of Environmental Quality Control’s Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts). This document is intended to support the project’s environmental review and may also serve to support the project’s historic preservation review under HRS Chapter 6E-42 and Hawai‘i Administrative Rules Chapter 13-284. Community Consultation Hawaiian organizations, agencies and community members were contacted in order to identify potentially knowledgeable individuals with cultural expertise and/or knowledge of the project area. The organizations consulted included the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), the Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Islands Burial Council (KNIBC), the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC), Mlama Mh‘ulep, the Kloa Neighborhood Center and community and cultural organizations in the Kloa area. Results of Background Research Background research for this project yielded the following results: 1. From previous archaeological studies and historic accounts it appears that pre-contact habitation and intensive irrigated agriculture were widespread in central and coastal KΚloa. As an extensive irrigated complex, the Kloa Field System was used to divert the waters of the Waikomo Stream for taro, native sugar, and fish. 2. In the early post-contact era (1795-1880), the KΚloa Field System continued in use for foreign trade and was probably further intensified. Sweet potatoes were a main crop for the whaling and merchant ships, and the purchase of pigs, salt, oranges and other items are noted in many ship journals. 3. Documents of the Great Mhele show that by the mid-1800s there were still several traditional farmers within KΚloa who both lived and worked within the area. The individual claims – for both lo‘i (wetland) and kula (dryland) suggest that while traditional farming of taro for subsistence was still taking place, in kula lands – sugar cane production for sale to the Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System ivTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 nearby sugar mill, had begun to dominate the landscape. Of the LCAs within Kloa, several claim a kula planted with cane or a cane field or sugar cane garden. Several also identify cane lands as boundaries for the LCAs. 4. Within three years of sugar cultivation by Ladd and Company in 1835, residents in and surrounding Kloa were quickly moving to adapt to the new economy based on the production of sugar cane. Eventually, most of inland KΚloa was planted with sugar cane and only the rockiest areas, unsuitable for cultivation, survived the dramatic changes in the landscape brought about during the early 20th century. A 1935 map of Koloa Sugar Company shows the extensive cane lands within the project area (see Figure 8). 5. The Koloa Sugar Company had previously purchased the ahupua‘a of P‘ southeast of Kloa town. A new mill was built in P‘ in 1912 about a mile from KΚloa Town, and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Regional WRF (see Figure 10). The mill in P‘ was finally closed in 1996. 6. By the late 1960’s, the main town of Kloa experienced a type of reverse migration back to the shoreline. Although the town had established a Civic Center in 1977, the pace of tourism-driven development at the shoreline drew construction and service jobs away from the town center. 7. Based on background research, historic properties (i.e. archaeological sites) in the form of pre- and post-contact surface architecture may be encountered during the archaeological inventory survey of the project area. Historic research has indicated five LCAs in the vicinity of the project area, suggesting indigenous Hawaiian land use in the form of habitation and agriculture. Previous archaeological research has documented evidence of both pre- and post contact land use in the area. 8. Evidence of indigenous Hawaiian land use could include both habitation (platforms, enclosures, and C-shapes) and agricultural (terraces, mounds, field walls, etc.) features. Evidence of post-contact land use is likely to be associated with historic sugarcane cultivation and could include irrigation infrastructure (ditches and flumes), sugar transport infrastructure (road causeways, railroad berms, etc.), clearing mounds, and boundary walls.. 9. It should be noted that the due to the extensive sugarcane cultivation documented within the project area, mechanized Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System vTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 land modifications associated with sugarcane cultivation has likely disturbed and/or destroyed any pre-contact historic properties that may have been present. Additionally the project area is situated primarily within in-use roadways and old cane haul roads, which have caused additional land modifications within the project area, disturbing and/or destroying historic properties. Thus the probability of encountering surface historic properties during the pedestrian inspection is low. Results of Community Consultation CSH attempted to contact 52 community members (government agency or community organization representatives, or individuals such as cultural practitioners) for the purposes of this CIA, 31 people responded, One provided a short testimony and ten kpuna (elders) and/or kama‘ina (native-born) were interviewed for more in-depth contributions to the CIA. Two interviews are currently pending approval and were not included in this report. Community consultation shows: 1. According to community contacts, the site of the KΚloa-Po‘ip Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System and vicinity is likely to have surface and subsurface cultural and historic properties, including human skeletal remains. Several of the study participants are concerned about iwi kpuna (ancestral remains) and cultural and historic properties in or near the project area. a. Clyde Nmu‘o of OHA states, “Numerous cultural sites including, but not limited to heiau complexes and fishing shrines are situated within the assessment area and community groups are actively working to preserve these cultural sites for future generations.” b. Stella Burgess says that it is likely that iwi kpuna will be found in Kukui‘ula and Kloa, which is full of underground lava tubes. She recommends that if any cultural historic properties, such as iwi kpuna are found, the construction should stop. She hopes that the project proponent will be sensitive toward cultural issues and the project will keep “above board” and if anything is found, it should be reported. She recommends for a special place to be designated for the iwi kpuna and they should be put back as quickly as possible not to create another Wal-Mart situation (in which cultural and lineal descendants as well as members of the community expressed outrage over the treatment of the 25 sets of human remains found during construction.) She would like to be contacted if any iwi Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System viTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 kpuna or other cultural historic properties are found. c. Mr. Francis Ching, archaeologist and former Kaua‘i resident states that because most of the project area is on sugar cane lands that were previously harrowed, it is most likely that very few sites will be found. However, if burials are found, they will be easily identified by looking at the stones closely. The walls in burials are nicely lined up. If they aren’t, they are probably sweet potato mounds. He recommends that a cultural monitor be present during construction. d.Kloa Resident #2 says that there are additional significant cultural resources that have not been adequately documented and assessed by prior historic-preservation work. She says that to her knowledge no one has surveyed the underground caves. She says that many of the burial sites between KΚloa and Po‘ip, where current projects are being built, were not recorded. e. Mr. Randy Wichman voiced his concerns with the proposed project in the mauka regions of Po‘ip saying, the project proponent, “will actually being taking out some of the sites, although originally designated to be taken out or data recovery, we lose those [sites].” He is concerned the project proponent will breech the railroad berm. He also mentioned that “within the actual footprint of the Hapa Road area there may be some real sensitive issues because there are a lot of things going on right now, like the law suit.” He recommends a higher level of sensitivity be used in the Hapa Road area. Although the project will be near the edge of Hapa Road, he asks the area be looked at as part of the whole scheme and seen as such.” He is also concerned with the “affect the project may have on the Kne I Olo Uma site because it had that serious agriculture component.” f. Mr. Rupert Rowe is also concerned for the safety of the Kne I Olo Uma site on the edge of the project area. 2. The project area and environs, has a long history of use by Knaka Maoli (native born), and other kama‘ina groups for a variety of cultural activities including fishing, the gathering of plants and fruits like mountain apple (Syzygium malaccense), java “choke plum” (Syzygium cuminii) and ‘ilima (Sida).. Community participants expressed concern that mauka access is restricted as a result of past development and that access to Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System viiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 cultural and natural resources has been disrupted. Two project participants shared their concerns about the limited access of Wait Reservoir, which is impeding cultural practices. One participant mentions ongoing gathering of plants in the project area. a. Beryl Blaich says, “Since the plantation closed, the community has lost access to Waita Reservoir where there are now commercial operations, as well as to the cane haul road along the mill, which the community traditionally used to go to Mh‘ulep, and to the valleys and ridges where pigs were hunted and people did gather plants.” She continues by saying that although landowners and leasees are concerned about liability, vandalism and already commit money to management of the area, community members resent their exclusion to formerly used areas. b.Kloa Resident #1 recalls fishing in Wait Reservoir as a child and thinks that access should be granted to the public. He says that the children of today should be able to go fishing at Wait. c. Stella Burgess mentioned flowers are often gathered in the project area, specifically ‘ilima from the Pu‘uwanawana area to the former cane fields. 3. One community member also is concerned with the wild pigs from the mauka regions making their way to the coastal area. Beryl Blaich states that these wild pigs have created a problem in the native plant restoration project of Grove Farm leasees David and Linda Burney. She continues mentioning that she is unsure if the pigs are also a problem for the GMO corn operation starting in P‘ and Mh‘ulep. 4. One cultural consultant is concerned with the project’s impacts to view corridors. Beryl Blaich expresses Mlama Mh‘ulep’s concerns with the visual and environmental impacts to Pu‘u Wanawana, Pu‘u Hunihuni and Pu‘uhi Reservoir. “We are concerned about the visual impact of the proposed eastern pump station and the crater pump station on these puu, especially looking mauka from the coast to the mill.” 5. One project participant is concerned with the historic preservation of the KΚloa Sugar Mill. Beryl Blaich says, “The mill itself is a historic icon. From the Makawehi and Punahoa limestone headlands on the coast, the mill presents a distinctive profile yet does not obscure the singular coastal craters. Ideally, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System viiiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 the mill will not be demolished but reused and no future structure near it will obscure or dominate it.” 6. Beryl Blaich also expresses concern about possible environmental impacts on two of the craters. After the winter rainy season, they hold intermittent lakes that are frequented by migratory water birds. She is concerned that the wastewater plant will cause the birds of the area to become endangered. 7. Mr. Randy Wichman expressed his concerns with the cost of the project saying, “The massive drilling through bedrock. If they actually commit to the directional drilling, my guess it is going to be really expensive. It is probably easier for them to just carve a trench through then it is to drill. So cost wise it will be a lot more expensive.” 8. Several community members express a desire for a preservation or development plan for the area. a. Beryl Blaich recommends for the KΚloa-Po‘ipu-Kalheo development plan to be updated. She states that there “is a need for [a] master plan for this important area as well as for the development plan [to] update Koloa’s undeveloped lands.” b. Mr. Rupert Rowe states, there is “no plan for preservation” and that Kaua‘i is, “the only county with no evacuation plan or signs.” 9. Several community members recommended the project proponent discuss the project with the community or look to the past to solve planning problems. a. Stella Burgess recommends the developers ask for help when dealing with cultural issues. She advises the project proponents to consult with the community in general and in particular with Grace Bacle, whose family comes from the South Shore. b.Kloa Resident #1 recommends the project proponent hold public meetings and update the community on the proposed project. Project participant c. Mr. Randy Wichman mentioned the importance of place names and their association with the history of Kloa. He also mentions it is important that the exact footprint is for public view where this pump station is going to be. d. Community member Ms. Wilma Holi stated project planners need to go back into the history of KΚloa and Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System ixTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Po‘ip to understand how was the community designed. 10. Two community members voiced concerns or recommendations regarding water resources in the project area. a. Mr. Randy Wichman stated, “Part of the reclamation of the water since it is good for irrigation could be considered for ‘auwai use. It might be worth considering as a concession in this particular area that it would be done.” b. Aunty Wilma Holi Aunty Wilma Holi voiced concerns about the lack of water and the source of water for this project. She also stated concern for the many dry streams and river beds and that there is a new reservoir but no water in stream. She also recommended recycling the waste to be used for soil. c. Mr. Tommy Oi voiced the benefits of the project saying the proposed project, “would be a better way to contain all your sewage and waste. Most waste will be contained. I know that they can recycle the water. A lot of that water can be used by the community and for irrigation. It is just something that is going to help the area so I don’t have any concerns.” 11. Three participants are concerned with the smell and noise that may be generated from the Pump Stations. a.Kloa Resident #1 is most concerned with the smell the Kloa Pump Station will generate. The KΚloa Pump Station is very close to his home. b.Kloa Resident #2 hopes that there will be no odor or noise from the facility at the Mill. c. Aunty Wilma Holi is concerned with, “The smell of waste is everywhere.” 12. One participant recommends that the project proponent take responsibility for cleaning the area near the old KΚloa Mill. Kloa Resident #2 is suggests the project proponent clean the area by removing abandon cars and other garbage in the area, and making the area more presentable, instead of just being a “brownfield.” 13. Two project participants voiced concern that they would be forced to hook up to the new sewage system which would be expensive. They are also concerned the project will lay the pipes through their backyards and property. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System xTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 a.Kloa Resident #1 believes the project is unnecessary and will probably not hook up to the system. He stated that many of the KΚloa community members he knows are satisfied with the current cesspool system they have and also will not hook up. He believes this project will benefit upcoming businesses and the KΚloa Creekside subdivision, not the existing community members. b.Kloa Resident #2’s family is also concerned about the cost of hooking up to the sewage system. They explained that many community members had recently renovated their cesspools after Hurricane ‘Iniki . They also do not want project pipes in their backyards and properties. 14. Three participants expressed sadness, frustration, or negative feelings about the overall cumulative impacts of ongoing and future developments in KΚloa-Po‘ip as contributing to the loss of what is authentic and traditional about the area: a.Kloa Resident #1 sees this project as “opening the door to more development” in the Kloa-Po‘ip area b.Kloa Resident #2 is concerned about the project’s long-term impacts on the community. She stated that new infrastructure (sewer system, new water system, etc) may mean that a significant zoning change or large development project is anticipated and thus, foresees this project supporting more (new) development in the future. Her family expressed frustration with the ongoing development of the KΚloa-Po‘ip area. Kukui‘ula has especially brought out a lot of negative sentiments from the community. c. Mr. Rupert Rowe states that, “the traditional cultural practices are affected by population growth in the project area: All the fishing in this area is not the way it once was before we could fill a couple coolers. Shoreline everything has changed. More people, the environment has changed and thus changed our culture.” Recommendations Several participants expressed concern that the proposed action for the Kloa, Weliweli and P‘ ahupua‘a may negatively impact Hawaiian and Kloa community members’ beliefs, resources and practices. A good faith effort to develop appropriate measures to address concerns and pay attention to the following recommendations may help mitigate potentially adverse effects of the proposed project on cultural, historic Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Management Summary Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System xiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 and natural resources in and near the project area. Based on the findings of this CIA, it is recommended that: 1. Based on the archival evidence and community consultation conducted for this assessment, it is possible that there are human skeletal remains as well as significant cultural and historic properties in the project area; it is therefore recommended that: a. Cultural monitoring and continuous ongoing consultation with cultural and lineal descendants of the area be conducted during all phases of development including ground-breaking and construction; b. Personnel involved in development activities be informed of the possibility of inadvertent cultural finds, including human remains. Should cultural or burial sites be identified during ground disturbance, all work should immediately cease, and the appropriate agencies notified pursuant to applicable law; c. If human burials are found, cultural and lineal descendants of the area should be consulted with regard to burial treatment plans. 2. Generally, it is recommended that project proponents pursue proactive consultation with community members in the KΚloa area in order to address community concerns about the impacts to the environment, access to Wait Reservoir, view corridors, possible cultural finds and sites, etc., integrate preservation and restoration ideas into the design and construction of the annex before development begins, and to consider meaningful ways of benefiting/contributing to the local Kloa community. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System xiiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Table of Contents Management Summary ............................................................................................................ i Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Document Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Companion Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Project Area ............................................... 2 1.4 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 5 1.5.1 Natural Environment............................................................................................................... 5 1.5.2 Built Environment .................................................................................................................. 7 Section 2 Methods .................................................................................................................... 9 Section 3 Traditional Background ........................................................................................ 10 3.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Place Names ................................................................................................................................. 10 3.3 Mo‘olelo (Stories) Associated with Specific Place Names ......................................................... 11 3.3.1 Kloa Mo‘olelo ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.3.2 Weliweli Mo‘olelo ................................................................................................................ 13 3.3.3 P‘ Mo‘olelo ....................................................................................................................... 14 3.4 ‘lelo No‘eau (Proverbs and Poetic Sayings) ............................................................................. 15 3.5 Subsistence and Settlement .......................................................................................................... 15 3.5.1 Agricultural ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.5.2 Salt ........................................................................................................................................ 17 3.6 Heiau (Place of Worship, Temple) .............................................................................................. 17 3.7 Lava Tubes and Caves ................................................................................................................. 17 Section 4 Historical Background .......................................................................................... 18 4.1 Early Historic Period ................................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Mid-1800s and the Great Mhele ................................................................................................ 19 4.3 1900s ............................................................................................................................................ 27 4.4 Modern Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 27 4.5 Prior Oral History Research in the Project Area .......................................................................... 31 4.5.1 University of Hawai‘i Ethnic Studies Department Oral History Project: Kloa: An Oral History of a Kaua‘i Community .......................................................................................................... 31 4.5.2 Past Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Cultural Impact Assessments in KΚloa ................................ 34 Reginald Gage ............................................................................................................................... 34 Section 5 Archaeological Research ....................................................................................... 36 5.1 Initial Archaeological Studies at KΚloa ....................................................................................... 36 5.2 Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Project Area .............................................. 36 5.3 Archaeological Background Summary and Predictive Model ..................................................... 53 Section 6 Community Consultation ...................................................................................... 55 6.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 55 6.1.1 Mlama Mh‘ulep ............................................................................................................. 62 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System xiiiTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 6.1.2 State Historic Preservation Division ..................................................................................... 63 6.1.3 Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) ....................................................................................... 63 6.2 Brief Responses from Project Participants .................................................................................. 63 6.2.1 Francis Ching ........................................................................................................................ 63 Section 7 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews .................................................................... 65 7.1 Stella Burgess .............................................................................................................................. 65 7.2 Tommy Oi .................................................................................................................................... 68 7.3 Kloa Resident #1 ........................................................................................................................ 69 7.4 Kloa Resident #2 ........................................................................................................................ 71 7.5 Mr. Randy Wichman, Mr. Billy KaohelauliI, and Mr. Rupert Puni Rowe ................................ 72 7.5.1 Mr. Randy Wichman ............................................................................................................ 72 7.5.2 Mr. Billy Kaohelaulii........................................................................................................... 76 7.5.3 Mr. Rupert Puni Rowe .......................................................................................................... 80 7.6 Aunty Wilma Holi ....................................................................................................................... 81 Section 8 Cultural Landscape of Kloa ................................................................................ 83 8.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 83 8.2 Hawaiian Habitation and Agriculture .......................................................................................... 83 8.3 Marine and Freshwater Resources ............................................................................................... 89 8.3.1 Salt ........................................................................................................................................ 89 8.4 Gathering Plant Resources ........................................................................................................... 89 8.5 Wahi Pana (Storied Places) .......................................................................................................... 89 8.6 Cultural and Historic Properties, including Ilina (Burials) .......................................................... 89 8.7 Lava Tubes and Caves ................................................................................................................. 89 Section 9 Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................ 90 9.1 Results of Background Research ................................................................................................. 90 9.2 Results of Community Consultation ............................................................................................ 92 9.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 96 Section 10 References Cited .................................................................................................. 98 Appendix A Mlama Mh‘ulep ResponseLetter .......................................................... A-1 Appendix B State Historic Preservation Department Response Letter .......................... B-1 Appendix C Office of Hawaiian Affairs Response Letter ................................................ C-1 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System xivTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 List of Figures Figure 1. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, Kloa Quadrangle (1996), showing the location of the project area ..............................................................................................3Figure 2. Composite of Tax Map Key [4] 2-8 (top half) and [4] 2-9 (bottom half) showing project area location ....................................................................................................................4Figure 3. Overlay of Soil Survey of the State of Hawai‘i (Foote et al. 1972), indicating sediment types within the project area (indicated in red) ...............................................................6Figure 4. Orthophotograph showing historic and modern land disturbance within and in the vicinity of the project area (source: USDA Aerial Photograph Field Office 2000) ........8Figure 5. Moku (traditional districts) and ahupua‘a of Kaua‘i; the KΚloa, Weliweli and P‘ ahupua‘a are within the Kloa District (Handy 1940) ..................................................11Figure 6. Portion of 1891 Map of Kloa by M.D. Monsarrat (R.M.1694), showing the location of the southwest portion of the project area (indicated in red) and Land Commission Awards (LCAs) in the vicinity ......................................................................................22Figure 7. Portion of 1891 Map of Kloa by M.D. Monsarrat (R.M.1694), showing the location of the northwest portion of the project area (indicated in red) and Land Commission Awards (LCAs) in the vicinity ......................................................................................24Figure 8. Portion of 1935 Koloa Sugar Company map showing the extant of cane lands within the project area ..............................................................................................................26Figure 9. 1910 USGS topographic map, Lihue Quadrangle, showing the network of railroad tracks within the Kloa District. Note that a majority of the project area (indicated in red) is situated within either railroad right-of-ways or cane haul roads. ......................28Figure 10. 1963 USGS topographic map, Kloa Quadrangle, showing the location of newly constructed (circa 1912) sugar mill in relation to the project area ................................29Figure 11. Portion of Tax Map Key (4) 2-8, (c. 1935) Note annotations “Fishpond and Taro Patch” just south of project area (indicated in red) and “House Sites, Fireplaces; Lava Tubes; Enclosures and Taro Patches in this Area” enclosing a portion of the southwest section of the project area. ............................................................................................30Figure 12. Previous archaeological investigations in the vicinity of the project area (indicated in red) ................................................................................................................................38Figure 13. Portion of Bennett’s 1931 index map of Kaua‘i showing the approximate locations of archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project area (indicated in red) (Adapted from Bennett 1931) ................................................................................................................42Figure 14. Plan of Koloa house site, Site 86. a, walled area 9 by 25 feet; b, terrace 5 by 25 feet, 1 foot high; c, roughly paved area; d, section 21 by 30 feet; e, terrace 5 by 21 feet, 6 inches high; f, platform 11 by 11 feet; g, depressions 7 by 7.5 feet, 1 foot deep (Adapted from Bennett 1931:121). ...............................................................................44Figure 15. Portion of Kahuna Golf Village study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Hammatt et al. 1978) .....................................................................................................46Figure 16. Portion of Po‘ipulani Golf Course study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Hammatt et al. 1991)...............................................................................48Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System xvTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 17. Portion of Po‘ipulani Golf Course study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Simonson et al. 2009) .............................................................................50Figure 18. Creed et al. (1995) archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Creed et al. 1995) .........51Figure 19. 700-year-old Poi pounder found in the Hi‘inui area. ...................................................68 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System xviTMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 List of Tables Table 1. Land Commission Awards in the vicinity of the southwest portion of the project area ..23Table 2. Land Commission Awards in the vicinity of the northwest portion of the project area ..25Table 3. Kloa heiau documented by Thrum in 1907 ...................................................................37Table 4. Previous Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Project Area ...................39Table 5. Summary of Community Consultation ............................................................................56 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 1TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background At the request of Wilson Okamoto Corporation, Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc. (CSH) conducted a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for the proposed KΚloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System project, located in the ahupua‘a of Kloa, Weliweli, and P‘, Kloa District, Island of Kaua‘i. HOH Utilities, LLC proposes to develop a privately-owned and operated regional wastewater reclamation facility and associated wastewater collection system in the KΚloa-Po‘ip region on the south shore of the Island of Kaua‘i. The proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional WRF) and collection system (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “project area”) is intended to collect and treat wastewater associated with a service area encompassing the communities of KΚloa Town, Po‘ip, and Kukui‘ula. The proposed wastewater collection system improvements would consist of four (4) wastewater pump stations (Kloa WWPS, Villages WWPS, Crater WWPS, and Eastern WWPS) along with gravity lines and force mains situated within existing undeveloped lands, roadways or along established utility line corridors or unpaved roadway corridors within a predominantly agricultural area. Associated ground disturbance for the proposed project will include excavation related to the project area’s development, to include: structural footings, utility installation, as well as roadway and parking area installation. The project area is located on the south shore of the Island of Kaua‘i in the Kloa District. The new Regional WRF will be situated within an agricultural area utilizing a portion of the existing Kloa Mill site. This site is located at the eastern end of Weliweli Road in KΚloa Town, and consists of Tax Map Key (TMK): [4] 2-09-001: portions of 001 and 002. The wastewater collection system serving the new Regional WRF is planned to consist of three (3) components: 1.) The KΚloa Collection System, 2.) The Po‘ip Collection System, and 3.) The Eastern Collection System. New sewer lines associated with the Kloa Collection System would be routed within both privately-owned property and the rights-of-way for portions of County roadways which are Kloa Road, Waikomo Road, Weliweli Road, and across Ala Kinoiki Road. Privately-owned properties affected include parcels associated with Tax Map Keys (TMKs): 2-08-004: portion of 003, 2-08-008: portion of 001 and 036 (Yamada Road), 2-08-009: portion of 001, and 2-08-011: portion of 001, 2-08-014: portion of 023, and 2-08-022: portion of 001. A new wastewater pump station (Kloa WWPS) would also be provided near the intersection of Waikomo Road with Weliweli Road, identified as TMK 2-08-011: portion of 001. The Po‘ip Collection System will involve the construction of two (2) new wastewater pump stations. The Villages WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site just mauka of the existing Kahuna Swim and Tennis Club facility and east of Hapa Road within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-08-014: portion of 019. The Crater WWPS is proposed to be located Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 2TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 within an undeveloped site east of the existing water tanks near Pu‘uhi Reservoir within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. The Eastern Collection System will involve the construction of one (1) new wastewater pump station. The Eastern WWPS is proposed to be located within an undeveloped site located east of the Po‘ip Bay Golf Course and mauka of the private road that extends eastward from Po‘ip Road within a parcel identified as TMK: (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. Sewer lines associated with the Po‘ip and Eastern Collection Systems would predominantly be located within privately owned property and a few County roadways. These properties are identified as TMKs: (4) 2-08-014: portions of 005 (Kahuna Plantation Drive), 019, 030, and 037; (4) 2-08-022: portions of 011, 021, and 030; (4) 2-09-001: portion of 001. The entire project area is depicted on the 1996 KΚloa U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and a composite of Tax Map Keys (TMK) [4] 2-8 and [4] 2-9 (Figure 1 & Figure 2) The proposed Regional WRF and four wastewater pump stations total an approximate area of ten acres. The project also includes an approximately 5-mile long and ten foot wide corridor, proposed for the instillation of gravity lines and force mains. The project area is predominantly situated in private lands owned by Grove Farm and the E.A Knudsen Trust, with smaller parcels belonging to various landowners’. 1.2 Document Purpose The project requires compliance with the State of Hawai‘i environmental review process [Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343], which requires consideration of a proposed project’s effect on cultural practices. Through document research and cultural consultation efforts, this report provides information pertinent to the assessment of the proposed project’s impacts to cultural practices and resources (per the OEQC’s Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts). 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 Chapter 6E-42 and Hawai‘i Administrative Rules Chapter 13-284. 1.3 Companion Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Project Area An Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) was conducted by CSH for the project area. The results of the archaeological study are presented in a companion report titled, “Archaeological Inventory Survey for the proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System, Kloa, Weliweli, and P‘ Ahupua‘a, Kloa District, Island of Kaua‘i” (Tulchin & Hammatt 2009). Results of the AIS are enumerated in Section 5 below. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 3TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 1. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, Kloa Quadrangle (1996), showing the location of the project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Introduction Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 4TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 2. Composite of Tax Map Key [4] 2-8 (top half) and [4] 2-9 (bottom half) showing project area location Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Introduction Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 5TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 1.4 Scope of Work The scope of work for this CIA includes: 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. A 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. Consultation and interviews with knowledgeable parties regarding traditional cultural practices at or near the parcel; present uses of the parcel; and/or other (non-Hawaiian) practices, uses, or traditions associated with the parcel. 4. Preparation of a report summarizing the results of these research activities. 1.5 Environmental Setting 1.5.1 Natural Environment The project area ranges from approximately 10 meters (m) (32 ft.) to 3 km (1.9 mi. north of the coast, and ranges from approximately 317 m (0.2 miles) to 3.2 km (2 miles) east of Waikomo Stream. The project area receives 40 to 91 inches (1000 to 1500 millimeters) of rainfall per year, falling mostly in the winter months (November through March) (Giambelluca et al. 1986:86). Temperatures range from highs around 90ºF to maximum lows of about 50ºF, with the greatest variations occurring between day and night rather than winter and summer. Observed vegetation within the project area consisted of cacti (Cactaceae),, koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), and java plum (Syzygium cuminii). Lands within the project area are relatively level with elevations ranging from 15 to 200 ft above mean sea level (AMSL). According to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey data the sediments within the project area consist primarily of Waikomo clay (Wt & Ws) and Koloa clay (KvB & KvC), with a small pocket of Fill land (Fd) within the middle of the proposed Kloa Collection System (Foote et al. 1972) (Figure 3). The Waikomo series consists of “well-drained, stony and rocky soils on uplands…developed in material weathered from basic igneous rock, probably with a mixture of ash and alluvium in places…used for sugarcane, pasture, wildlife habitat, and homesites” (Foote et al. 1972).The Koloa series consists of “well-drained soils on slopes of old volcanic vents and upland ridges on … underlain by hard rock at a depth of 20 to 40 inches…developed in material weathered from basic igneous rock…used for irrigated sugarcane” (Foote et al. 1972). Fill land consists of “areas filled with material from Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Introduction Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 6TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 3. Overlay of Soil Survey of the State of Hawai‘i (Foote et al. 1972), indicating sediment types within the project area (indicated in red) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Introduction Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 7TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 dredging, excavation from adjacent uplands, garbage, and bagasse and slurry from sugar mills” (Foote et al. 1972). 1.5.2 Built Environment Currently the proposed locations of the Regional WRF and wastewater pump station are all located either within undeveloped parcels, overgrown with exotic vegetation, or within agricultural fields formerly utilized for sugar cultivation. Additionally the proposed gravity lines and force mains run within existing asphalt paved roadways, cane haul roads, and/or railroad grade. During the post-contact period a majority of the project area had been impacted by land modifications (grubbing, grading, etc.) associated with historic sugar cultivation. An orthophotograph of the area shows the outlines of fallow cane fields as well as former cane fields that are currently being utilized for diversified agriculture, within and in the vicinity of the project area (Figure 4). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Introduction Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 8TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 4. Orthophotograph showing historic and modern land disturbance within and in the vicinity of the project area (source: USDA Aerial Photograph Field Office 2000) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Methods Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 9TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 2 Methods Historical documents, maps and existing archaeological information pertaining to the sites in the vicinity of this project were researched at the CSH library. Information on Land Commission Awards was accessed through Waihona ‘ina Corporation’s Mhele Data Base (www.waihona.com) as well as other online resources (e.g., http://www.ulukau.org/cgi-bin/vicki?l=en). The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Islands Burial Council (KNIBC), Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC), and community and cultural organizations in KΚloa were contacted in order to identify potentially knowledgeable individuals with cultural expertise and/or knowledge of the project area and the surrounding vicinity. The names for potential community contacts were also provided by colleagues at CSH and from the authors’ familiarity with people who live in the vicinity of the project area. The cultural specialist conducting research on this assessment employed snowball sampling methods, an informed consent process and semi-structured interviews according to standard ethnographic methods (as suggested by Bernard 2005). Some of the prospective community contacts were not available to be interviewed as part of this project. A discussion of the consultation process can be found in Section 6 on Community Consultations. Please refer to Table 5, Section 6 for a complete list of individuals and organizations contacted. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Traditional Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 10TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 3 Traditional Background 3.1 Overview This section focuses on the traditional background of the ahupua‘a of Kloa, Weliweli and P‘ in general, and specifically on the inland/near-coastal portions of this ahupua‘a. Kloa, Weliweli and P‘ Ahupua‘a are located in the moku (traditional district) of Kona (Figure 5). The subject project area is spread across these three ahupua‘a. 3.2 Place Names Translations presented without attribution in this subsection are from Pukui et al. (1974), unless indicated otherwise. Kloa, according to Pukui et. al (1974), is town, park, land division, elementary school, district reservoir, landing, and stream, southeast Kaua‘i. According to one account, the district was named for a steep rock called Pali-o-k-loa. The first successful sugar plantation in the Islands was started here in 1835. It became a part of Grove Farm in 1948. The name Kloa itself has several derivations. Kloa is the name for the large, soft Hawaiian sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum) once grown by the Hawaiians (Pukui et. al 1974: 116). According to William Kikuchi, Kloa is also the name of a “steep rock on the banks of Waikomo Stream, from whence the ahupua‘a got its name.” This bank of the river was called KΚloa, after the native Hawaiian duck (Anas wyvilliana) (Kikuchi 1963:46; Pukui et al. 1974:116). Weliweli, “fearful.” Frederick Wichman says that when the island was being explored by the Menehune, who had been brought to Kaua‘i by K‘alunuipaukmokumoku, one adventuresome group was led by Weliweli, a gruff-voiced man. He was very strict and everyone jumped to fulfill his orders. The area was named after him (Wichman 1998:43-44). P‘ Land section and cones, Kloa district, Kaua‘i. Lit., dry, rocky. Frederick Wichman defines it as “fence of lava rock” (Wichman 1998:45). Wait Reservoir, Grove Farm, Kaua‘i. Perhaps wai-, water, and –ta rice paddy (Japanese). Formerly called Kloa. Waikomo Stream, Kloa district, Kaua‘i. The sleeping forms of the gods Kne and Kanaloa are said to be imprinted at Maulili pool in this stream (Pukui et. al (1974). Waihohonu. Hill and stream, Kloa district, Kaua‘i. A “hole” here was formed when a kupua [one possessing supernatural powers] hero Palila, felled a forest of trees with a single stroke. Lit., deep water. Ka-uhu-‘ula, “red parrotfish,” is a ridge that descends from Khili peak onto the plains that mark the beginning of the Puna District (Wichman 1998: 39). Ka-mo‘o-loa, “long ridge,” is at the bottom of Kauhu‘ula and was the scene of many battles (Wichman 1998:39). Kukui‘ula, Land section, harbor and bay, K-loa district, gulch, and stream, Kpahulu. Lit., red light. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Traditional Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 11TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Ka-lae-o-ka-honu, “headland of the turtle” (Wichman 1998:45). Mh‘ulep۷, Land section and road, K-loa district, Kaua‘i. Lit., and falling together. “The boundary of Mh‘ulep follows the P‘ border to Kuma‘ulele peak and then continues along the ridge to the top of H‘upu mountain, then goes down the western ridge named Lae-ka-weli-koa to the sea (Wichman 1998:46). Figure 5. Moku (traditional districts) and ahupua‘a of Kaua‘i; the KΚloa, Weliweli and P‘ ahupua‘a are within the Kloa District (Handy 1940) 3.3 Mo‘olelo (Stories) Associated with Specific Place Names 3.3.1Kloa Mo‘olelo There are several places within Kloa that have legendary associations. The first is Maulili Pool, meaning “constant jealously,” in Waikomo Stream, a sacred place once located in the present Kloa Town, in the middle of the ahupua‘a. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Traditional Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 12TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 One tale is of the gods Kne and Kanaloa who slept on the eastern bank of Maulili Pool and left the impressions of their forms on the ‘papa (coral flat). “The apapa in this vicinity is called an 'Unu.' and a 'Heiau,' but was never walled in, it is said. [This heiau may be the Maulili Heiau described by Makea in section 3.5 below.] On the nights of Kne the drums are heard to beat there, also at the sacred rocks, or unu's, of Opuokahaku and Knemilohae, near the beach of Po‘ip...” (Farley 1907:93). Just below the resting places of Kne and Kanaloa is the “Pali o Kloa” or “Cliff of KΚloa,” of which the district was possibly named after. Wai-hnau meaning “birth pool,” is a rock on the eastern bank of the pool. There is a mele (chant) about Waihnau: “Aloha wale ka Pali o KΚloa, Ke Ala huli i Waihnau e, hnau” (Farley 1907:93). Below Wai-hnau, was a rock shaped like a human tongue called “Ka-‘lelo-o-Hawai‘i, “language of Hawai‘i.” It is said that Kaweloleimakua, who lived at the end of the 1600’s, brought this rock to Kaua‘i from the island of Hawai‘i. According to Wichman (1988), “Kiha-wahine, the fearsome mo‘o goddess, lived in this pool. When she was in residence, the water turned red and no one dared to swim there” (Wichman 1998:40). “At the southern end of the Maulili pool started two large ‘auwais [ditch, canal] that watered the land east and west of Kloa” (Farley 1907:93). Maulili is also the name of KΚloa’s most important heiau. It was first built by Ka-pueo-maka-walu, the son of Kapu-lau-k. He had his house on the eastern side of this heiau. It was a place of human sacrifice, but once Kapueomakawalu died, it was no longer used its location was lost (Wichman 1998: 41). Many years later, when ‘Aikanaka had defeated his cousin Kawelo in the battle of stones on the plains of Wahiawa, ‘Aikanaka wanted a place to sacrifice the body. No one was sure of it, but a deaf mute led ‘Aikanaka to the place. The place was rebuilt and in the morning ‘Aikanaka went to sacrifice the body. He found that Kawelo was healed from his wounds and it was ‘Aikanaka instead who was sacrificed (Wichman 1998:41). Kapueomakawalu also built the heiau of Louma, which stood on the mountain side of Ho‘oleina-ka-pua‘a, “place to throw in the pig.” This was beside a small pond mauka of Maulili. Louma was a small heiau in which hogs, red fishes, and other sacrifices were offered. It was dedicated to Lono-i-ka-ou-ali‘i, the god who had come to Kaua‘i with La‘a-mai-kahiki in the twelfth century. The stones for this heiau were brought from O‘ahu. It is said that the Menehune did the actual building (Wichman 1998:41). According to Wichman (1998), Palila, the legendary figure who wielded a huge war club to save his father, was born during the period of war between the kingdoms of Puna and Kona about 1200 A.D. at Kamo‘oloa. He was raised by his grandmother in the heiau of ‘lana-p, “night offering,” sacred to the gods from the time of darkness (Wichman 1998: 39-40). The following is a mo‘olelo about the small stream called Weoweo-pilau, “rotten bigeye fish” which is on the plains of Kamo‘oloa: It seems an upland farmer heard that the bigeye fish were running at the beach, so he went down and caught a great number of them. On his way home, an old woman asked him for a few fish but he refused to give her any, saying she could Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Traditional Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 13TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 go to the shore and get as many as she wanted. As he continued home, his load of fish became heavier and heavier, the path dustier and dustier, and the sun blazed with heat. When he reached the stream, he put down his fish and plunged in to cool off. When he came out, he smelled that his fish were completely rotten. He then realized that the old lady had been Pele, the volcano goddess, testing his generosity and hospitality. He had been found wanting and was punished (Wichman 1998:40). The Kloa ahupua‘a is “well watered by constantly flowing streams. Two of these, the ‘ma‘o, “green,” and P-‘ele‘ele, “dark night,” feed the area of Pwai (a variety of wild duck). Where they join, the stream becomes Wai-komo, “entering water,” which flows down the center of the land, bringing life to the drier regions toward the seashore. It is so named because from time to time the stream disappears for a bit before reappearing farther down the slope” (Wichman 1998:40). There are also many mo‘olelo in the makai (seaward) area of Kloa. According to Wichman (1998), Hlau-a-ka-lena, “shed for the ‘olena (Curcuma domestica), turmeric plant,” was dedicated to the mo‘o godess Kihawahine. If she was offended she would take the form of a sea dragon and patrol the seashore, killing all who dared fish from canoes and along the reef and rocks (Wichman 1998:420). The story of “Ke Kloa o Kaikap” is similar (Wichman and Fayé 1991: 88-91) in which a mo‘o named Kaikap guarded the Kloa shoreline, keeping everyone away from the swimming places and from the food on the reefs and in the sea. She would eat fishermen and swimmers near the shore. Soon no one living in KΚloa would come to the ocean to fish, gather the golden brown lpoa seaweed used to flavor their food, or work at the natural rock pans where salt was made. Liko and his grandmother lived on the hill above Kukui‘ula bay. Liko’s grandmother once expressed that she longed for the taste of i‘a ho‘omelu, the relish made of raw hnlea (brightly colored wrasses, family Labridae) fish mixed with red salt, roasted kukui (Aleurites moluccana) nuts and brown lpoa seaweed. Liko decided his grandmother must have the fish and brought his kauila (Alphitonia ponderosa) wood spear and his hnlea trap woven from ‘inalua (Cardiospermum halicacabum) vine. Liko dove into the water and battled Kaikap. He defeated her by swimming into the lava tube opening that led to a rocky platform above and trapping her in the narrowing tube. From then on, the seashore was free for everyone to use. Even today when the column of water shoots high into the sky, an angry roar echoes from the tube, ke kloa o Kaikap (Wichman and Fayé 1991: 88-91). 3.3.2 Weliweli Mo‘olelo Weliweli’s east boundary begins at the headland Maka-hena, “eyes overflowing with heat” (Wichman 1998: 44). Sometimes the headland shimmers in the summer sun, and whenever that happened it was believed that a procession of departed chiefs and their followers were on the move. It was safest to stay away until the shimmering stopped (Wichman 1998:44). There are three mo‘olelo of how the swamp in the Weliweli ahupua‘a was formed: At the upper end of this ahupua‘a was a swamp that now has been dammed to create a reservoir for the sugar plantation. At one time this area was covered by forest. Palila, son of Ka-lua-o-p-lena, left the heiau where he had been raised and trained, curious about the noise of battle he heard. He climbed to the peak K- Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Traditional Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 14TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 manumanu, “scarred K,” and looked down on the battlefield. He saw his father’s army on one side and the Kona enemy led by N-maka-o-ka-lani on the other, seemingly ready for the usual face-to-face battle. However, Palilia noted that, unknown to his father, the enemy chief had concealed many of his warriors in the woods. Palila took his war club and with one sweep felled a tree at the edge of this forest. It fell against its neighbor with such force that the neighbor fell too, and one by one, all the trees in the forest toppled, crushing the enemy beneath them. Then Palila rested his war club on the ground. It was so heavy that it sank deep into the ground. When Palila pulled out, a gush of water welled out. This spring, Wai-hohonu, “deep water,” covered the once mighty forest, creating the swamp of Plena, named after Palila’s father. Wai-hohonu is sometimes given as Wai-o-honu, “stream of the turtle,” and the giant stone turtle on the ridge above is pointed out as being the turtle in question. A female turtle dug out a hole for a nest, but a never-ending gush of water greeted her. On her way to search for another nesting site, she was turned to stone. Another explanation for the swamp tells of a maiden who lived at Palena, her house surrounded by a fence of ‘lena plants. Her lover used to come from his home down the coast by canoe and walk up to visit. He became irritated that she was never ready to receive him, there was no food prepared, the house was not neat, and so on. She retorted that since the forest obstructed her view and he never sent a messenger to announce his coming, there was no way she could anticipate his coming. The young man seized an ax and cut down all the trees, giving the young woman a clear view over the plains to the sea and plenty of time to have thing ready for his arrival (Wichman 1998: 44-45). 3.3.3P‘ Mo‘olelo The following is a mo‘olelo about the fishing god Kne‘aukai: On the headland between P‘ and Weliweli stood a large heiau, Kne-‘aukai, “seafaring man.” Kne-‘aukai was the oldest brother of Maikoha, who at his death turned into the hairy wauke (paper mulberry). Four of his sisters were transformed into fishing grounds, each attracting a different species of fish. His body was in the shape of a log of wood that drifted ashore here and was carried in and out by the tide for several days. Tiring of this, Kne‘aukai change into his human form and came ashore. He came across two old men fishing. From time to time they would chant a prayer, but as the prayer was not directed to any god in particular it was caught in the wind and blown away. Kne‘aukai asked them why they did not pray to a particular fishing god; they replied that although they knew of a god who could help him, they did not know his name. Kne‘aukai replied: ’His name is Kne-‘aukai, and when you let down your nets again call out, ‘Eia ka‘ai a me ka i‘a, e Kne‘aukai,’ ‘Here is the food and fish, Kane-‘aukai,’ and he will help you.’ The old men followed his instructions, and each time they threw in their nets they drew up a great haul of fish. Other people heard of the old men’s great Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Traditional Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 15TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 success in fishing and came to learn the name of the fishing god, too.’ (Wichman 1998: 45-46) P‘ was also famous for it’s he‘e (octopus) which was especially large and delicious. This tale is about the chief Keakianoho: [He‘e] was the favorite food of Ke-akia-noho, the konohiki [headman of ahupua‘a under the chief] who had become the local chief after Kaluaoplena, with the help of his son Palila, had conquered Nmakaokalani of Kona, and he looked forward happily to a lifetime supply of his favorite food. Within weeks, however, the he‘e of P‘ disappeared. Keakianiho sent for his kahuna Kne-a-ka-lua to discover the reason for this lack. The priest hid on the ridge above and soon saw a giant crab with eleven dark red spots on its back emerge from a hole in the ground and enter the ocean. After a time it returned, bearing he‘e in its claws, and disappeared into the hole. When the konohiki and his soldiers found the hole, they saw that it led underground into a network of large caves where they found a handful of defeated Kona warriors and a fierce battle took place. At the end, none of the enemy survived. The caves were searched for the large crab, but it was never seen again. Shortly thereafter, however, the reef for P‘ became filled with little ‘alamuku crabs, each bearing eleven red spots on its back. (Wichman 1998:46) 3.4 ‘lelo No‘eau (Proverbs and Poetic Sayings) One‘lelo no‘eau are associated with KΚloa and aspects of its lifeways. Aia i Kloa Is at Kloa A play on k (drawn) and loa (long)- drawn a long way under. Drunk (Pukui 1983: 8). 3.5 Subsistence and Settlement The project area is situated within the KΚloa District on the island of Kaua‘i. Few records exist that document traditional Hawaiian life in the ahupua‘a of Kloa. While settlement by westerners with religious and commercial interests made the area a focus of documentation after the first quarter of the 19th century, the accounts generally emphasized the lives and concerns of the westerners themselves, with only anecdotal references to the Hawaiian population. Two 19th century documents, the Boundary Commission Testimony of 1874 and a Lahainaluna manuscript of 1885, however, provide insight into the history of KΚloa before the arrival of westerners. A dispute over the northern boundary of Kloa Ahupua‘a in 1874 led to a hearing before Duncan McBryde, the Commissioner of Boundaries for Kaua‘i. One native witness, Nao (who described himself as born in Kloa but presently living in Ha‘ik), in order to show that Hoaea (the area in dispute) was indeed at the northern boundary of Kloa, testified: "At Hoaea, tea [sic] leaves were hung up to show that there were battles going on" (Boundary Commission, Kaua‘i, vol. 1, 1874:124). That there were traditional "warning systems" well-known to all natives suggests that Kloa may well have been the scene of some serious conflicts. Throughout the Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Traditional Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 16TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 early settlement history of Kloa, conflicts must have occurred at intervals serious enough and often enough to warrant having to devise such a system. Additional evidence of a rich history within KΚloa was offered in a Lahainaluna document produced eleven years later. This document appeared to have been based on an oral history project. On September 7, 1885 a student from Lahainaluna Schools (HMS 43 #17) interviewed Makea – "a native who is well acquainted with KΚloa" -- and recorded "what she said about the well-known places in the olden times." More than sixty-four years after the abolition of the kapu (taboo) system and almost as many years after contact with westerners, Makea was able to describe fourteen heiau (religious structures) within the KΚloa area. 3.5.1 Agricultural Bernice Judd, writing in 1935, summarized most of what was known of the traditional Hawaiian life of Kloa: In the old days two large ‘auwai or ditches left the southern end of the Maulili pool to supply the taro patches to the east and west. On the kuunas [embankments] the natives grew bananas and sugar cane for convenience in irrigating. Along the coast they had fish ponds and salt pans, ruins of which are still to be seen. Their dry land farming was done on the kula (dry land), where they raised sweet potatoes, of which both the tubers and the leaves were good to eat. The Hawaiians planted pia (arrowroot) as well as wauke (paper mulberry) in patches in the hills wherever they would grow naturally with but little cultivation. In the uplands they also gathered the leaves of the hala (screwpine) for mats and the nuts of the kukui (candlenut) for light. (Judd 1935:53) Beginning possibly as early as 1450, the “Kloa Field System” was planned and built on the shallow lava soils to the east and west of Waikomo Stream. The KΚloa Field System is characterized as a network of fields of both irrigated and dryland crops, built mainly upon one stream system. Waikomo Stream was adapted into an inverted tree model with smaller branches leading off larger branches. The associated dispersed housing and field shelters were located among the fields, particularly at junctions of the irrigation ditches (‘auwai). In this way, the whole of the field system was contained within the entire makai (seaward) portion of the ahupua‘a of Kloa, stretching east and west to the ahupua‘a boundaries. The field system, with associated clusters of permanent extended family habitations, was in place by the middle of the 16th century and was certainly expanded and intensified continuously from that time. Long ‘auwai were constructed along the tops of topographic high points formed by northeast to southwest oriented KΚloa lava flows, and extended all the way to the sea. Habitation sites, including small house platforms, enclosures and L-shaped shelters were built in rocky bluff areas which occupied high points in the landscape and were therefore close to ‘auwai, which typically ran along the side of these bluffs (Hammatt et al. 2004). From A.D. 1650-1795, the Hawaiian Islands were typified by the development of large communal residences, religious structures and an intensification of agriculture. Large heiau in Kloa may date to this period. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Traditional Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 17TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 3.5.2 Salt The manufacture of salt was important for the Native Hawaiians. Many of the larger salt pans on Kaua‘i are located near NΚmilu, “where people came in the summer to gather salt when the winds blow the salt across the surface of the pond at the edge of the pond where it was carefully scooped out with the hands or with pieces of gourd shell and dried” (Wichman 1998:35). The importance of salt manufacture in the area was illustrated in the 1874 Boundary Commission determination for KΚloa, where the oral testimony of Pene Kalauau claimed he had come all the way “from Koolau to go to Koloa for salt” (Boundary Commission, 1874, Kauai, Vol. No. 1:124) Other salt pans were noted at Kane-milo-hai and at Pau-a-Laka adjacent to the [older coastal] road [at KΚloa] (Kikuchi 1963:66-67). At P‘, “the seafront is dominated by a crescent beach called Ke-one-loa, “long beach,” where there were kuakua pa‘akai (salt ponds)” (Wichman 1998:45). 3.6 Heiau (Place of Worship, Temple) Clearly Kloa was a particularly important ahupua‘a in traditional Hawaiian times. The fact that at least fourteen heiau of varying sizes and functions have been documented in the Kloa area (Thrum 1907, Bennett 1931), and that these heiau are associated with many legendary-historic figures such as Kawelo and ‘Aikanaka, suggests a heightened cultural richness of the ahupua‘a. In the 1885 Lahainaluna Schools document, Makea was able to describe fourteen heiau (religious structures) within the KΚloa area. Of the 14 heiau five were associated with human and animal blood sacrifices (luakini and po‘okanaka), five with fishing, two medicinal, and one agricultural, with one of unknown function (Lahainaluna 1885 HMS 43 #17). The Maulili heiau was first built by Ka-pueo-maka-walu, the son of Kapu-lau-k. It was a place of human sacrifice (Wichman 1998:12). This heiau may be the Maulili Heiau described by Makea in the Lahainaluna document mentioned above. Thomas Thrum was the next to document sites in the KΚloa area in his list of the heiau of Kaua‘i (Thrum 1907). He discussed six heiau in the district of KΚloa, which once extended from Hanapp to Mh‘ulep (Table 3). The heiau were Hanakalauae (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kanehaule (inland Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kihouna (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kaneiolouma (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Weliweli (Weliweli Ahupua‘a), and Waiopili (Mh‘ulep Ahupua‘a) (Thrum 1907). 3.7 Lava Tubes and Caves There are many underground lava tubes and caves in the KΚloa ahupua'a. William K. Kikuchi in a 1963 archaeological survey of Kaua‘i states that “A great many caves were reported for the area back of the beaches of Koloa. The last eruption for the island of Kaua‘i is reported to be in the lava fields of Koloa. Thus the relatively recent and fresh pahoehoe lava fields and the numerous lava tubes” (Kikuchi 1963:49). He goes on to talk about the specific caves , near the project area, “In the area between Koloa town, Koloa Mill and the flat pahoehoe lands below Kaluahonu (Waitah or Koloa reservoir) several caves and shelters were found” (Kikuchi 1963: 55). . Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 18TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 4 Historical Background 4.1 Early Historic Period By the early 1800’s, Kloa Landing had become the principal port of Kaua‘i. Shipments of North American furs and pelts to the Orient depended on the provisioning of ships at Kloa Landing, as well as other Hawaiian ports. As the fur trade grew, markets in China became aware of sandalwood (Santalum sp.) grown in the Hawaiian Islands. The shipment of most of Kaua‘i’s sandalwood to the Orient took place at KΚloa Landing, until the supply of the fragrant wood was exhausted around 1830. Accounts by visitors and settlers at Kloa focused on the early westerners’ own concerns---religious and commercial---as they appeared within the historical record of Kloa in the 1800s. However, scattered throughout the accounts are occasional references to the Hawaiians of KΚloa that may give some insights into their lives. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) missionary Samuel Whitney described, in an article in the Missionary Herald (June 1827:12), a visit to KΚloa with Kaikio‘ewa, the governor of Kaua‘i, in 1826: The people of this place were collected in front of the house where the old chief lodged in order to hear his instructions. After a ceremony of shaking hands with men, women, and children they retired... Our company consisted of more than a hundred persons of all ranks. The wife of the chief, with her train of female attendants, went before. The governor, seated on a large white mule with a Spaniard to lead him, and myself by his side, followed next. A large company of aipupu, [‘‘pu‘upu‘u] cooks, attendants came on in the rear. Whitney's account above suggests something of the deference paid to the ali‘i (chiefs) by the local populations and the scale at which the ali‘i carried out their functions. An even grander view of that deference was provided in an account of a later visit by an ali‘i to Kloa. John Townsend, a naturalist staying in Kloa in 1834, described a visit by Kamehameha III (In Palama and Stauder 1973:18): In the afternoon, the natives from all parts of the island began to flock to the king's temporary residence. The petty chiefs, and head men of the villages, were mounted upon all sorts of horses from the high-headed and high-mettled California steed, to the shaggy and diminutive poney [sic] raised on their natives hills; men, women, and children were running on foot, laden with pigs, calabashes of Poe [sic], and every production of the soil; and though last certainly not least, in the evening there came the troops of the island, with fife and drum, and 'tinkling cymbal' to form a body guard for his majesty, the king. Little houses were put up all around the vicinity, and thatched in an incredibly short space of time, and when Mr. Nuttall, and myself visited the royal mansion, after nightfall, we found the whole neighborhood metamorphosed; a beautiful little village had Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 19TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 sprung up as by magic, and the retired studio of the naturalists had been transformed into a royal banquet hall. (Palama and Stauder 1973:18) In 1835, Thomas Nuttall and John K. Townsend, two American naturalists, visited the KΚloa area. They noted “fields of taro, yam, and maize (possibly sugar cane), irrigation networks and sweet potato patches in the dryer areas” (Townsend 1839:206). On December 31, 1834, Peter Gulick and his family arrived in Kloa. Apparently the first foreigners to settle in the ahupua‘a, they initiated the process of rapid change that would re-shape the life of KΚloa in the nineteenth century. In 1835, a 30 by 60 foot grass house was erected as a meeting-house and school near the Maulili Pond. Mr. Gulick cultivated sugar cane and collected a cattle herd for the Protestant Mission. In 1837, a 45 by 90-foot adobe church was built where KΚloa Church stands today, and the first mission doctor, Thomas Lafon, arrived to assist Mr. Gulick (Damon 1931:179, 187). The Kloa mission station apparently flourished immediately. Navy Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, a member of the U.S. Exploring Expedition, during his visit to Kloa in 1840 recorded: The population in 1840, was one thousand three hundred and forty-eight. There is a church with one hundred and twenty-six members, but no schools. The teachers set apart for this service were employed by the chiefs, who frequently make use of them to keep their accounts, gather in their taxes &c. The population is here again increasing partly by immigration, whence it was difficult to ascertain its ratio. (Wilkes 1845:64) Kloa Village and Kloa Landing, at the mouth of the Waikomo Stream, became flourishing commercial centers as trade with Americans and Europeans grew. An estimate in 1857 stated that “10,000 barrels of sweet potatoes were grown each year at Kloa, and that the crop furnished nearly all the potatoes sent to California from Hawai‘i” (Judd 1935:326). Sugar and molasses were also chief articles of export. Whalers used the Kloa “Roadstead” from 1830 to 1870, and took on provisions of squashes (pumpkins), salt beef, pigs, and cattle (Damon 1931:176). Hawaiians grew the pumpkins on the rocky land north of the landing. There were also numerous salt pans along the shore near the landing that were used to make the salt (Palama and Stauder 1973:20). 4.2 Mid-1800s and the Great Mhele In the early Post-Contact period, the ahupua‘a of Kloa was controlled by the ruling chief of Kaua‘i and was administered by lesser chiefs appointed by him. When Ka-umu-ali-i, last of the ruling chiefs of the island, died in 1824, his lands (Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau) were given to the lineal descendants of Kamehameha. Queen Ka‘ahumanu redistributed the lands among chiefs of other islands who had been loyal to the bloodline of Kamehameha. By the mid-19th century, control of the ahupua‘a of Kloa was divided between Kamehameha III and Moses Kekiwa, a brother of Kamehameha IV (Alexander 1937). The Mhele Award records indicate that KΚloa Ahupua‘a, which totaled 8,620 acres, was granted by way of a Land Commission Award (LCA) to Moses Kekiwa, (the brother of Alexander Liholiho [Kamehameha IV]), Lot Kapuiwa (Kamehameha V), and Victoria Kammalu (LCA 7714-B: Waihona ‘Aina 2000). Eighty-nine kuleana awards were given to individuals within KΚloa Ahupua‘a. The majority of these Land Commission Awards (LCAs) were located in and around Kloa Town itself. No Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 20TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 LCAs were granted within the present project area; however an 1891 map of KΚloa by M.D. Monsarrat indicates two LCAs (LCA 3606 and 10272) in the vicinity of the southwest portion of the project area (Figure 6 & Table 1), and three LCAs (LCA 6667, 6309, and 3584) in the vicinity of the northwest portion of the project area (Figure 7 & Table 2). LCA 3606 transferred a section of the ‘ili of Pu‘u-ohaku to the claimant “Kamae” using the traditional “metes and bounds” description in use at the time. Distance was measured in “chains.” An amount of “kula” land, twelve taro patches, two potato patches, a house lot, and a cattle yard were claimed as appurtenant to LCA 3606. There was a reference within this LCA to the planting of “sugar cane and yams” before 1848 (No. 3606, Kamae, Koloa, Kauai, January 12, 1848, Native Register 71v9/ Foreign Testimony 30-31v13/ Native Testimony 35v13, Royal Patent 7269). LCA 10272 transferred a section of the ‘ili of Ma‘ulili to the claimant “Makalulu” using traditional boundary descriptions. An amount of “kula” land, a house lot, one taro patch, and four dry taro patches were claimed as appurtenant to LCA 10272 (No. 10272, Makalulu, Koloa, Kauai, January 7, 1848, Native Register 272v9/ Foreign Testimony 24v13/ Native testimony 27v13, Royal Patent 8367, Registration Map 1694 Monsarrat). Testimonies provided to the Land Commission by applicants of LCAs 3584, 6309 and 6667 were generally limited to stating the boundaries of their claimed lands as well as land use. All three LCAs are indicated as being enclosed by stone walls and note the presence of additional house lots and lo‘i of other claimants in the vicinity. Of particular interest are the stated boundaries of LCA 6309, which indicated the presence of pasture lands immediately puna (east) of the LCA. This may explain the presence of numerous stone walls described in the land claims and shown on the 1891 Monsarrat map, a portion of which is shown running through the project area (see Figure 7). These walls are likely cattle barriers used to keep cattle out of house lots and agricultural plots. A review of Mhele documents (LCAs) indicates that in the vicinity of the southwest and northwest portions of the project area, land usage and activity by the mid-nineteenth century included habitation, cattle ranching, and agriculture, including the cultivation of taro, sugar, potatoes, and yams. This may reflect the continuation into that century of traditional Hawaiian land use within the project area. The 1891 Monsarrat map also indicates taro and associated walls located in the vicinity of the southwest portion of the project area, and numerous walls, fences, and structures in the vicinity of the northwest portion of the project area (see Figure 6 & Figure 7) This suggests that taro cultivation may have occurred within the southern portion of the project area, and the habitation, agriculture, and ranching may have occurred within the northwestern portion of the project area. The Koloa Sugar Company began commercial operation in the late 1840’s with about 450 acres of Kloa land under cultivation. Development of additional acreage continued gradually. A 1935 map of Koloa Sugar Company shows the extent of cane lands within the project area (Figure 8). In 1882, the Koloa Sugar Company announced it had ordered all the components for a plantation railroad. According to the Planter’s Monthly, Volume 1 of 1882, “It (the railroad) will consist of four miles of 30 inch gauge track, forty cars 5 x 10 feet, and one locomotive…” (Conde Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 21TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 1993:28). According to Arthur C. Alexander, in Koloa Plantation 1835-1935, “Cut cane was hauled to the mill by oxcart until 1882. In that year, 3½ miles of 30-inch gauge, 18 pound railroad track and 50 cars were purchased” (Conde 1993: 28). By 1885, the railway extended to KΚloa Landing where steamers transported the bags of sugar to the mainland (Figure 9). A motorized derrick winched the bagged sugar from the railroad cars to the warehouse on the west side of the landing. From there, bagged sugar was loaded onto small lighters, which would row the sugar out to waiting ships in the harbor. By 1895, the railroad had extended a spur line through the coastal lands of KΚloa into Weliweli to aid in the harvest around P‘. Remnants of this spur line are seen today throughout lower Po‘ip, and include the stacked basalt railroad berm located in the vicinity of the southwestern portion of the present project area. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 22TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 6. Portion of 1891 Map of Kloa by M.D. Monsarrat (R.M.1694), showing the location of the southwest portion of the project area (indicated in red) and Land Commission Awards (LCAs) in the vicinity Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 23TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Table 1. Land Commission Awards in the vicinity of the southwest portion of the project area LCA Awardee Ili Land Use 3606 Kamae Pu‘u-ohaku Kula land, twelve taro patches, two potato patches, a house lot, and a cattle yard 10272 Makalulu Ma‘ulili Lo‘i, kula, house lot, and four dry taro patches Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 24TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 7. Portion of 1891 Map of Kloa by M.D. Monsarrat (R.M.1694), showing the location of the northwest portion of the project area (indicated in red) and Land Commission Awards (LCAs) in the vicinity Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 25TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Table 2. Land Commission Awards in the vicinity of the northwest portion of the project area LCA Awardee Ili Land Use 3584 Kaanaana Ma‘ulili House lot 6309 Kapuniai, Elia Hakeku House lot 6667 Kailihakuma, Mika Wailua Lo‘i & sugarcane Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 26TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 8. Portion of 1935 Koloa Sugar Company map showing the extant of cane lands within the project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 27TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 4.3 1900s The Koloa Sugar Company had previously purchased the ahupua‘a of P‘ southeast of Kloa town, and a large parcel of it was unproductive. A new and much larger mill was built there in 1912 about a mile from Kloa (Figure 10). New railroad track was laid, and an asphalt road was built to connect the new mill with Kloa Landing. World War I caused a huge demand for sugar. By the end of hostilities in 1918, the Koloa Sugar Company was producing 9,000 tons of sugar each year, and adding additional acreage. Kloa Landing was phased out around 1925 when McBryde Sugar Company and the Koloa Sugar Company began shipping their product out of Port Allen Harbor at Hanapp. The McBryde Plantation had been improving the facilities at ‘Ele‘ele Landing since the turn of the century, and a private company, the Kauai Terminal Limited Railway, had developed a modern bridge crossing the Hanapp River. Soon after this, the Koloa Sugar Company ceased to use the makai (seaward) Kloa fields, and much of the area was converted into cattle-grazing pasture by the Knudsen family. Most of the mauka (upland) areas of Kloa remained under sugar cane cultivation as late as the 1970s, when these cane lands were converted into pasture. According to Wilcox’s account of the Koloa Sugar Company (1996:77-78), following the merger of the plantation lands of the Koloa Sugar Company and Grove Farm Company in 1948, the combined lands under cultivation required new sources of irrigation water. In 1965, Grove Farm built a tunnel to bring the waters from Ku‘ia directly into the Wait (Kloa) Reservoir. Grove Farm leased these cane lands to McBryde Sugar Company when it terminated sugar operations in 1974. The mill in P‘ was finally closed in 1996, and remains a landmark of the countryside. The Tax Map of Section (4) 2-8 made in 1936 (Figure 11) shows a dotted area enclosing a portion of the southwestern project area. This area is labeled “House Sites, Fireplaces; Lava Tubes; Enclosures, and Taro Patches in This Area.” This map also shows a pond just south (makai) of the current project area, with the words “Fish Pond and Taro Patch.” A second pond is located southeast of the current project area and labeled “Pa‘u a Laka, Salt Ponds.” 4.4 Modern Land Use By the late 1960’s, the main town of Kloa experienced a type of reverse migration back to the shoreline. Although the town had established a Civic Center in 1977, the pace of tourism-driven development at the shoreline had been drawing construction and service jobs away from the town center. The KǑahuna Plantation Resort opened in 1967, followed by the construction of various condominiums throughout the 70’s and 80’s. Finally, the Hyatt Regency Resort, with its expansive golf course, opened in 1991. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 28TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 9. 1910 USGS topographic map, Lihue Quadrangle, showing the network of railroad tracks within the Kloa District. Note that a majority of the project area (indicated in red) is situated within either railroad right-of-ways or cane haul roads. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 29TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 10. 1963 USGS topographic map, Kloa Quadrangle, showing the location of newly constructed (circa 1912) sugar mill in relation to the project area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 30TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 11. Portion of Tax Map Key (4) 2-8, (c. 1935) Note annotations “Fishpond and Taro Patch” just south of project area (indicated in red) and “House Sites, Fireplaces; Lava Tubes; Enclosures and Taro Patches in this Area” enclosing a portion of the southwest section of the project area. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 31TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 According to Donohugh (2001), by the early 1990’s, the tourist industry had successfully attached the name “Po‘ip Beach” to the entire coastline beginning at Kloa Landing, and continuing east to Makah‘ena Ledge. With the development of the Po‘ip Bay Resort Golf Course and the Hyatt Regency Kaua‘i Resort Hotel, the Po‘ip Beach name became synonymous with all two miles of coastline fronting the Wai‘ohai, Kahuna, and Sheraton developments; ending at Po‘ip Beach Park (Donohugh 2001: 244)). Future plans within the KΚloa District will place more demands on beachfront properties along the coastline. According to Donohugh (2001:258), over 1,000 acres of former sugar plantation lands are slated for hotel and condominium development surrounding both Lwa‘i and Po‘ip coastal resort areas). Future development plans for the upland areas involve both large tracts of lands, as well as regional redevelopment within KΚloa Town itself. 4.5 Prior Oral History Research in the Project Area 4.5.1University of Hawai‘i Ethnic Studies Department Oral History Project: Kloa: An Oral History of a Kaua‘i Community There have been a number of oral history projects conducted with residents of the KΚloa area. Most notable is a three-volume report by the University of Hawai‘i’s Ethnic Studies Department Oral History Project called Kloa: An Oral History of a Kaua‘i Community, published in 1987. The intent of the UH Oral History Project is to document through research and interviews the histories of communities in Hawai‘i undergoing rapid and large scale social, economic and environmental changes (UH 1988: xlv). The report begins by describing the changes in KΚloa: Kloa is the site of Hawai‘i’s first commercial sugar plantation founded in 1835… However, since the 1960’s, Kloa together with it’s neighboring shoreline community of Po‘ip has experienced tremendous change. And undeveloped shoreline, fields of sugarcane and a quiet plantation town are giving way to resort hotels, condominiums, golf courses, upscale boutiques and restaurants catering to tourists and wealthy newcomers. Because of those developments, some KΚloa residents have been buoyed by an overall stimulation of the community’s economy and the prospect of jobs for the young. Others have expressed reservations about the influx of visitors and newly-arrived residents, crowded streets and beaches, soaring property values, and the disruption of their rural, agricultural lifestyle (University of Hawaii 1998: xlv). The following is a summary of some of the interviews pertinent to the current project area. Burt Hiroshi Ebata says, “Well, I know that we used to go up the mountains to get mountain apples, you know, mostly in the area behind the Wait Reservoir, which in the old days they used to call the Marsh Reservoir” (University of Hawaii 1988: 11). He also described picking mangoes and java plums. When asked if he ever went fishing at the reservoir, Mr. Ebata stated that Herman Steljas, a luna (foreman, boss) at Kloa Sugar Company, would keep the kids away from Wait Reservoir. Although it was a restricted area, the kids would catch goldfish. He also remembered big ‘o‘opu (general name for fishes included in the families Eleotridae, Gobiidae, and Blennidaethere) as well. Once the Reservoir “dried up” because of a drought, and he “saw Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 32TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 all the huge ‘o‘opu there.” He also added that they had catfish and ‘pae (shrimp) in the mountain streams in the Mh‘ulep area. He and his childhood friends would catch ‘pae in big ditches. There were also frogs in the big ditches. He also recalled swimming in Wailana (also known as Waikomo) Stream, the Wait Reservoir and in the stream along the Kloa Fire Station. “Because the one stream [Waihohonu Stream] came past the fire station and then the other stream came from ‘ma‘o. Came right there, that’s right. And there’s a dam over there. Small dam. [‘ma‘o Stream and Waihohonu Stream merge mauka of the old sugar mill site to Waikomo Stream which flows to the ocean. Old timers also refer to Waikomo Stream and Wailana.] (UH 1988:15). Louis Jacintho, Jr. was born on December 19, 1924 in Kloa Sugar Company Portuguese Camp. At 14, Louis began working as a full time employee for KΚloa Sugar. Following the merger of Kloa Sugar Company and Grove Farm in 1940, he assisted the transition and eventually became crew chief in the herbicide department. When McBryde Sugar Company bought out Grove Farm in 1974 Louis became irrigation supervisor (University of Hawaii 1998: 107). When asked what he did for fun as kids, he said, “In those days, actually, what we used to do is to go in the pastures, get mangoes, or go up into the mountains, get mountain apples, rose apples, up on the hill “guaivis,” you know, the Hawaiian guava. Swimming in the plantation ditches. Swimming in Wailana” (University of Hawaii 1988: 107). Mr. Jacintho recalled the railroad, “Well the railroad would go up to Wait, and then would come down. From Wait would come straight down here to where Big Save is. And the rest of the railroad would go up mauka up to the Highway. So, up Khili. And then, during the Second World War, they connected the railroad there to Grove Farm, you know, during the wartime. Used to end up there right where the intersection is, the tunnel of trees” (University of Hawaii 1988:111). He also reminisced about the different fruits he’d pick and eat. “Choke plum, actually, is java plum, it grows wild on the island here. We call ‘em, ‘choke plum’” (University of Hawaii 1988:118). He and his friends would pick the plums, put them in jars and add salt, shake it up and eat them. Eventually, he said, you would have a hard time swallowing because of the tartness of the fruit. His father also made wine from the fruit. “Guaivi is the Hawaiian guava. A red one and the yellow one. That thing grows wild, too, you know. That’s sweet. But we were hungry all the time, so we’d eat all those things” (University of Hawaii 1988: 119). When asked about the fish in Wait Reservoir Mr. Jacintho remembers carp- regular koi (Cyprinus carpio) and goldfish, kingyo. “They weren’t to eat, just pretty to look at. Charley Rice from the Kpu Ranch introduced the charley fish, a largemouth bass just before the Second World War. The bass would eat the goldfish. Then there was bluegill in the Reservoir. Bluegill, koi and then tilapia” (University of Hawaii 1998:199). During his interview in 1987, Mr. Jacintho stated that the fish in the reservoir were tilapia, largemouth bass, and more recently tucanan, which are like bass from Argentina. There was also pk, ‘o‘opu, or catfish. In the plantation ditches, there was ‘o‘opu. He was a caretaker of the tunnels, where the ditch came from the Lhu‘e powerhouse and in the tunnels, there was ‘pae (University of Hawaii 1998:199). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 33TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Mitsugi (Mitaru) Muraoka was born in 1905 at Lwai Stable Camp. At 9, he moved to KΚloa and worked at Kloa Sugar Company for 50 years. He began fishing at an early age and later started hunting at about 20 years old. He hunted “all around the Wait side” (University of Hawaii 1998: 348) He also said that he would bring a good hunting dog and that the area was covered in tall buffalo grass. And those days used to be plenty birds. And I hear the [territory] used to release the pheasants, you know. About 3 months before the hunting, they used to release the cocks. Because the hens are plenty, yeah? And that was good because when we started to go hunt, well, lot of pheasant. The hunting start November. You can hunt everyday. During weekends, Saturday, Sunday, holidays, you can. But today, you can only hunt weekends and holidays, that’s all. And they only allow you three birds a day. But those days, lot of time, especially like the weekend like that, we go. During the week, we only go in the afternoon sometime when the weather is good. But weekend, sometimes we go in the morning. We shoot three in the morning. And then, in afternoon, you take a rest, you have lunch, and maybe you start again maybe about 1:30, 2 o’clock, you shoot another three. Lot of time. Not every time, though. Yeah, when you get luck, eh? (University of Hawaii 1988: 348) About the crater, Edene Naleimaile Vidinha, born in 1905. said, “…the olden days, down in the crater, the Hawaiians used to plant watermelons and potatoes, never saw anything like that. So now, it’s filled with houses” (University of Hawaii 1988: 536). Abraham Keli‘iokapalapala Aka, born in 1915, discussed salt making in Kloa: When come summertime like that, the pond all, just before summer springwater that came in from underneath. So what the Hawaiians used to do, they make bed, rocks and everything, and then let ‘em stand. Water get inside. Then the sun rays heat ‘em. Then you see, just like snow get on top, eh. They come, they check ‘em, “Oh, ah. Leave ‘em.” Go maybe another day or two. Next time they come, “Hey pretty good.” So they tap ‘em. Tap ‘em with their hand or a piece of stick. Just tap ‘em and then the salt on the top, not too much- then it sinks to the bottom. Every other day they come, go, go, bumbai [by and by], all of a sudden you say, “Hey, there’s a lot of salt.” So what they do, they drain the water. Take the water out, and then leave the pond like that. Then the sun hit the salt, then it dries ‘em up, eh. So they pick ‘em all up, they rake ‘em, put ‘em all together like that. Make ‘em into a pile. Then they pick ‘em up, put ‘em in any kind container. Then they bring ‘em home, make a rack, then throw all the salt inside. Then put maybe wooden horses, like that. Then they make a big box, put all the salt on top where the sun can get ‘em. It goes like that until its really dry. Then they take ‘em, and they smash ‘em all up. Smash ‘em all with a, just like a poi pounder, eh. Make ‘em nice and small like that. Then if you like the salt white, as it is, it’s up to you. Or you like dye ‘em red, they have that some kind of stone that they get. ‘laea, they call, ‘laea. Then you get your red salt, eh. [Then they rubbed the salt with the ‘laea.] And then, it can be coarse, the ‘laea like that, then dilute ‘em. It comes just like water, dye ‘em. That’s only for, you know, when you eat raw fish Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 34TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 or cooking like that. The rest [of the white salt] if you going- what we used to do, kill maybe one big steer like that. And then my father used to take so much, put ‘em in barrels, eh. And put plenty salt, you know. But you use the [white] salt mostly for salting beef. (University of Hawaii: 1988: 849-850) Isaac Brandt, born in 1905, grew up in a place called Banana Camp in KΚloa. He eventually became the timekeeper at the plantation. He said this about hunting: My father was a hunter. He liked to go out for pheasant hunting. The birds, were plentiful then and he had a shotgun. And he’d go out Sunday’s when there was no work on the plantation, and during the weekday, he’d spot the pheasants and what location they were, where they were at, and he’d go out, and get, always come home with pheasants. And Mother would pluck the feathers, the beautiful feathers, and eventually make feather leis for our hats. (University of Hawaii: 1988: 920). According to Katherine Bukoski Viveiros, “Kaluahonu Cave is close by the Waita reservoir. The plantation used to dump human waste and rubbish from all the camps into this very large cave” (University of Hawaii 1998: 697-698). 4.5.2 Past Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Cultural Impact Assessments in KΚloa Reginald Gage Mr. Gage granted permission for CSH to include pertinent excerpts from the interview on Kloa conducted in 2005 (Mitchell et al. 2005a): Reginald Gage was born in Chicago, Illinois in the year 1935 to Reginald Gage and Evelyn Gage. His parents came to Hawai‘i during WW II, and he followed after the conclusion of the war in 1945 aboard the SS Lurline. Mr. Gage was raised in Mnoa and Kahala and later graduated from the University of Hawai‘i Mnoa with a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Education. After working several years on the island of Maui he became an appraiser. He was later offered the job of Chief Appraiser for the County of Kaua‘i. Mr. Gage came to Kaua‘i in 1968 and has been here ever since, living in the Kloa (Kona) District and in Kalheo. Mr. Gage serves on the Board of Directors of the Kaua‘i Historical Society. When asked about Hawaiian place names specifically in KΚloa, Mr. Gage remembered: I believe Kloa got its name from the ducks. There was a wetland in back of Kloa in ancient history. The wetland was drained by KΚloa Sugar and some of it was dammed to make the Waip Reservoir, but much of the wetland was drained. Prehistorically there were many ducks in KΚloa. The people from McBryde Plantation think k is cane and loa is long, they think it means “long cane”, but I think it is historically inaccurate. I have read about the steep rock (Pali-O-Kloa) on the east bank of the Waikomo Stream in Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual. There is supposed to be a petroglyph on it and also a picture, but I have never seen it. Mr. Gage mentioned that there are legends associated with KΚloa: Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Historical Background Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 35TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Frederick Wichman is the guy who wrote about Kaua‘i legends. His grandfather was Charlie Rice, and he wrote an early text on legends. Wichman used to collect those kinds of things and other books. So Wichman would be an excellent source for the legends. He and I sit on the Board of Directors for the Kaua‘i Historical Society. He is the President of the Board, and I am Vice-President. Regarding cultural practices [in KΚloa], Mr. Gage noted: I have not witnessed any gathering of resources or cultural practices by Native Hawaiians or other ethnic groups during my lifetime other than the cultivation of sugar cane. Prehistorically, Kloa was an area inhabited by the Hawaiians, and they used it for agriculture, not in the sense as we think of agriculture today, because it was a dry area. All throughout the KΚloa region there were ‘auwai. The ‘auwai were bringing water into the KΚloa area. I think Kloa was primarily used to grow sweet potato and dryland taro. Primarily sweet potato was grown with ‘auwai bringing in water to the fields and the water coming from Waip and Waikomo streams. Asked about his knowledge of any cultural sites, trails or burials within the project area Mr. Gage stated: …I know a great deal about caves in KΚloa because of my work with Storrs Olson, a curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution. He is an ornithologist. We have searched the caves in KΚloa for bird remains and looking back I cannot recall ever having seen a burial in Kloa, except along the shorelines. There were many burials along the shorelines, but not in caves. I think the KΚloa caves were most likely used for habitation rather than burials. Kaua‘i trails are not like Hawai‘i Island trails where they are paved. Kaua‘i trails tend to get overgrown and lost. I don’t know of any trails. But undoubtedly they were there. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 36TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 5 Archaeological Research 5.1 Initial Archaeological Studies at Kloa Evidence of the importance of KΚloa to pre-contact traditional Hawaiians was indicated by Makea in a Lahainaluna Schools document produced in 1885. As stated above, Makea was able to describe fourteen heiau (religious structures) within the Kloa area. Thomas Thrum was the next to document sites in the Kloa area in his list of the heiau of Kaua‘i (Thrum 1907). He discussed six heiau in the district of Kloa, which once extended from Hanapp to Mh‘ulep (Table 3). The heiau were Hanakalauae (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kanehaule (inland Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kihouna (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kaneiolouma (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Weliweli (Weliweli Ahupua‘a), and Waiopili (Mh‘ulep Ahupua‘a). 5.2 Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Project Area The following is a discussion of previous archaeological investigations conducted in the vicinity of the project area (Figure 12 & Table 3). A majority of the investigations have been conducted within the ahupua‘a of Kloa in conjunction with the burgeoning development of the area. In contrast the archaeological record in the ahupua‘a of Weliweli and P‘ is relatively sparse, due to the fact that these ahupua‘a are relatively undeveloped and have been continuously under cultivation (historic sugar followed by modern diversified agriculture) for over a century. The earliest systematic archaeological survey on the Island of Kaua‘i was conducted by Wendell Bennett in the late 1920s. Bennett examined and recorded 202 sites on the island. According to his site location map (Figure 13; Bennett 1931:98), Sites 76, 83, 85, and 86 appear to be in the vicinity of the project area. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 37TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Table 3. Kloa heiau documented by Thrum in 1907 Name Location Remarks Hanakalauae Mahaulepu, Koloa Of large size, destroyed years ago by Fredenberg to erect cattle pens with its stones. Kanehaule Kaunuieie, Koloa A paved walled enclosure of large size, destroyed some time ago: a heiau where rites of circumcision were performed. Kihouna Poipu, Koloa A single walled heiau situated a short distance west of the above, 100x125 feet, enclosed on all sides by walls 4 to 6 feet high, with entry way near middle of mauka wall: seaward or makai wall 8 feet thick. A section of stones as of pavement shows nearly the whole length near makai wall and in N.E. corner is a section said to have been its altar stones. Kaneiolouma Poipu, Koloa Size 102x180 feet, lying nearly east and west along shore close to the beach; of three terraces, with two prominent and other room divisions at east or inner end: west end open; side walls 3 to 5 feet high; seward wall 9 feet thick; east end wall very crooked, 11 feet thick, 6 feet high. Inner terrace is stone paved, middle terrace partly so, with flat slabs of coral or limestone. Weliweli Weliweli, Koloa A paved heiau of large sixe. Pookanaka class; walls 4 feet high: portions of same said to be still standing. Waiopili Mahaulepu, Koloa An oblong heiau of good size, walls still standing. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 38TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 12. Previous archaeological investigations in the vicinity of the project area (indicated in red) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 39TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Table 4. Previous Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of the Project Area Reference Type of Investigation Findings Bennett 1931 Archaeological Survey Identified Sites 76 (salt pans), 83 (Weliweli Heiau), 85 (concentration of walls and enclosures), and 86 (large pre-contact house site) in the vicinity of the project area. Palama & Stauder 1973 Archaeological Reconnaissance Eighteen historic properties (SIHP #50-30-10-3173 to -3190) identified consisting of pre-contact habitation structures (dwelling caves, miscellaneous enclosures, and a platform) livestock enclosures, an agricultural complex (‘auwai network) and a burial platform. No historic properties were observed in the vicinity of the current project area. Hammatt et al. 1978 Archaeological Survey Fifteen historic properties identified in the immediate vicinity of the current project area, consisting of pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian habitation and agricultural features: stacked stone enclosures (SIHP –3455, -3457, & -3820), platforms (SIHP -3463, -3757, & -3758), c-shapes (-3694, -3695, -3705, & -3756); an ‘auwai network (SIHP -3823). Kikuchi 1981 Archaeological Reconnaissance Pre- and post-contact archaeological sites observed within the study area. Pre-contact archaeological sites consisted of ‘auwai remnants, terraces, and enclosures; Post contact sites consisted of a well, rock walls, a railroad causeway, and other various rock structures. Walker & Rosendhal 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey Eighteen historic properties identified consisting of pre-contact and early post-contact habitation, boundary, and ceremonial features in the form of C-shapes, walls, platforms, terraces, and mounds. Post-contact sites consisted of agricultural clearing mounds. Human skeletal remains were noted eroding out of sand dunes along the coast. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 40TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Reference Type of Investigation Findings Hammatt et al. 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey Seventy-five historic properties identified including both pre- and post-contact sites. Pre-contact historic properties consisted of habitations (platforms and enclosures), agricultural features (‘auwai, field walls, terraces, and earthen mounds) and human burials; Post-contact contact historic properties consisted of a single house platform associated with an LCA and a brick and mortar corral. Creed et al. 1995 Archaeological Inventory Survey Three historic properties identified, including two enclosures, a terrace, and a portion of the Kloa-Weliweli boundary wall. Hammatt et al. 2004 Archaeological Survey Eight historic properties identified. Pre- and early post contact habitation structures consisted of platforms (SIHP –3757 & -3758), enclosures (SIHP –3756 & -3758), and a mound (-541); agriculture structures consisted of clearing mounds (SIHP -539 & -540). Two historic properties associated with historic transportation were also identified: SIHP -947, a segment of the KΚloa Sugar Company railroad berm; and SIHP -992, a segment of Hapa Road. Hammatt et al. 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey & Data Recovery Reorganized and reanalyzed data originally collected during the 1978 ARCH study and identified 462 historic properties associated with Kloa Field system. Documented historic properties included 316 habitation sites (131 temporary and 214 permanent), 102 agricultural sites, six storage areas, one petroglyph site, one historic crypt with no burial, a heiau, and a historic railroad berm. Radiocarbon analysis indicated that primary occupation of the study area occurred between 1400 and 1600 A.D. Hammatt 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey One historic property identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3922, an earthen berm associated with a former plantation road and railroad. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 41TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Reference Type of Investigation Findings Hill et al. 2005a Archaeological Inventory Survey Four historic properties identified: SIHP -947, segment of railroad berm attributed to the Koloa Sugar Company; SIHP -362, pre-contact temporary habitation stacked basalt enclosure; SIHP -363, pre-contact temporary habitation overhang; and SIHP No. -3920, a railroad-era rock-crushing site. Hill et al. 2005b Archaeological Inventory Survey One historic property identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3926, an elevated metal irrigation flume constructed in 1902. Hill et al. 2005c Archaeological Inventory Survey Six historic properties identified: SIHP -3930, a post-contact boundary wall; SIHP -3931, a pre-contact / post-contact terrace; SIHP – 3932, a post-contact irrigation reservoir; SIHP -3933, a post-contact house foundation; SIHP -3934, a post-contact irrigation ditch; and SIHP -3935, a pre-contact / post-contact stacked rock wall. Hammatt 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey One historic property was identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3922, an earthen berm associated with a former plantation road and railroad. Tulchin et al. 2007 Archaeological Inventory Survey One historic property identified: SIHP #50-30-10-5002, a post-contact stone wall. Tulchin & Hammatt 2007 Data Recovery Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal samples collected from SIHP -362 yielded a date range (1410AD to 1530AD) that is within the pre-contact period, suggesting that the temporary habitation enclosure was constructed and utilized by pre-contact indigenous Hawaiians. Simonson et al. 2009 Data Recovery Relocated 39 previously identified historic properties within the study area. Test excavations revealed that a majority of the archaeological features were utilized sporadically as temporary habitations. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 42TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 13. Portion of Bennett’s 1931 index map of Kaua‘i showing the approximate locations of archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project area (indicated in red) (Adapted from Bennett 1931) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 43TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Bennett’s Site 76 [later designated State Inventory of Historic Properties (SIHP) #50-30-10-076] is shown on his site map (Bennett 1931: 98) as in the immediate vicinity of the southwestern portion of the project area (see Figure 13). The following is Bennett’s description of Site 76: Salt pans, east of Waikomo stream along the shore” (Bennett 1931: 98) . In these numerous salt pans, some divisions are made by a single row of flat stones on edge, others by round stones in line, still others by a double row of stones with dirt or sand filled in between for a sort of a walk. Site 83 (SIHP #50-30-10-083), Weliweli Heiau, is located in the immediate vicinity of the southeastern tip of the project area (see Figure 13). The following is Bennett’s description of Site 83 (Bennett 1931:118). “Weliweli heiau, on the shore of Weliweli section, Koloa” . Described by Thrum as “A paved heiau of large size, pookanaka class; walls 4 feet high; portions of same to be still standing”. The cane field has been cleared and the stones piled over this heiau (Bennett 1931:118). Bennett provides the following description of Sites 85 and 86 (SIHP #50-30-10-085 & -086), located in the vicinity of the northern half of the project area (see Figure 13): Site 85. Innumerable walls, some of them inclosures [sic] and some merely division walls and fences. In one large, walled inclosure [sic], there were three piles of stone near one end. The center one, and the largest, was 10 by 7 feet and 2 feet high. It was built up around the edge with large stones and filled with 2-inch pebbles. On each side of the structure was a 3 by 3 by 2-foot pile of rocks. There are some fine house sites on flat places on the lava flows, slightly leveled with small stones. House sites about 10 by 15 feet are found everywhere on the lava. The walls are of different types of construction and some have been restored for modern use. (Bennett 1931:118) Site 86. This special house is rectangular, 25 feet wide, and 45.5 feet long, inclosed [sic] by walls 2 feet wide and about 2 feet high (Figure 14). It is divided into two sections. The south section is paved with small stone and has a terrace across the southern end. East of this section, outside the wall, is a roughly paved irregular area. The roughly paved north section is one foot lower than the south section, the walls being correspondingly higher. Outside the west wall of this house near the center is a paved platform in which is a square depression. The walls of this house site are made of double rows of stones on edge with a small stone fill between them. Coral is found in the walls. Southwest of this house site is another, with walls on three sides only, which measures 15 by 15 feet. (Bennett 1931:118) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 44TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 14. Plan of Koloa house site, Site 86. a, walled area 9 by 25 feet; b, terrace 5 by 25 feet, 1 foot high; c, roughly paved area; d, section 21 by 30 feet; e, terrace 5 by 21 feet, 6 inches high; f, platform 11 by 11 feet; g, depressions 7 by 7.5 feet, 1 foot deep (Adapted from Bennett 1931:121). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 45TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 In 1973, Archaeological Research Center of Hawaii (ARCH) conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of a proposed cane haul road to the Koloa Mill (Palama & Stauder 1973). The proposed new section of road extended from Weliweli Road, southwestward across Po‘ip Road, connecting to an existing cane haul road. A total of 18 historic properties (SIHP #50-30-10-3173 to -3190) were identified along the southwestern portion of the study area. All observed historic properties were of pre-contact origin and consisted of habitation structures (dwelling caves, miscellaneous enclosures, and a platform) livestock enclosures, an agricultural complex (‘auwai network) and a burial platform. No historic properties were documented in the vicinity of the current project area. In 1978, ARCH conducted an archaeological survey of 460 acres for the then-proposed Kahuna Golf Village, located on the east side of Waikomo Stream and Po‘ip Road (Hammatt et al. 1978). A total of 583 archaeological features were identified, including 175 stone enclosures, 108 stone house platforms, 10 habitation caves, a heiau, extensive ‘auwai networks, ponded fields, terraced plots, and mounded fields. These features suggest intensive pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian settlement with a focus on wet and dry land agriculture. Many of the archaeological remains identified were considered unique as they reflected “a complex Hawaiian adaptation of intensive agriculture and settlement to a dry, rocky leeward environment” (Hammatt et al. 1978). An analysis of site location maps generated during the 1978 ARCH study, indicate 12 historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the current project area (Figure 15). Documented historic properties consist of pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian habitation and agricultural structures. Habitation structures consisted of stacked stone enclosures (SIHP –3455, -3457, & -3820), platforms (SIHP -3463, -3757, & -3758), and c-shapes (-3694, -3695, -3705, & -3756); agriculture structures consisted of an ‘auwai network (SIHP -3823). SIHP -3756, -3757, & -3758 were recommended for preservation; no further work was recommended for the remaining historic properties identified in the vicinity of the current project area. Modern development of the area has subsequently destroyed SIHP -3455, -3457, -3462, -3820, and -3823. In 2005, CSH returned to the Kahuna Golf Village to complete archaeological investigations initially conducted by ARCH in 1978 (Hammatt et al.2005; Hammatt et al. 1978). The CSH study area consisted of approximately 400 acres, 60 acres less than the original 1978 ARCH study. CSH reorganized and reanalyzed the data originally collected during the 1978 ARCH study and identified 462 historic properties within the truncated KǑahuna Golf Village study area. The 462 historic properties were primarily of pre-contact and/or early post-contact origin and are attributed to being a part of the KΚloa Field system. Documented historic properties included 316 habitation sites (131 temporary and 214 permanent), 102 agricultural sites, six storage areas, one petroglyph site,one historic crypt with no burial, a heiau, and a historic railroad berm. The 2005 CSH investigations of the Kahuna Golf Village also included data recovery of 31 historic properties. The data recovery effort involved subsurface testing in the form of controlled hand excavations at the selected historic properties. Observed and collected indigenous Hawaiian artifacts consisted of primarily of lithic debitage, volcanic glass flakes, and fishing implements (bone and marine shell fish hooks as well as sinkers or various material), with a smaller occurrence of ornaments (shell, bone, and dog teeth) and a single ulu maika (traditional Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 46TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 15. Portion of Kahuna Golf Village study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Hammatt et al. 1978) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 47TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Hawaiian game stone). Radiocarbon analysis indicated that primary occupation of the study area occurred between 1400 and 1600 A.D. In 1981, the Anthropology Club of Kaua‘i Community College conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey of the Weliweli Track which was proposed for the development of residential housing (Kikuchi 1981). Extensive bulldozing of historic origin was noted within the study area. Even with the land disturbances, both pre- and post-contact archaeological sites were observed within the study area. Pre-contact archaeological sites consisted of ‘auwai remnants, terraces, and enclosures; Post contact sites consisted of a well, rock walls, a railroad causeway, and other various rock structures. No SIHP numbers were assigned to the archaeological sites observed within the study area. In 1990, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted an archaeological inventory survey for the proposed Hyatt Regency Golf Course located within coastal P‘ Ahupua‘a (Walker & Rosendahl 1990). Eighteen historic properties were identified within the seaward portion of the study area. It is believed that historic properties that were likely present within the inland portion of the study area but were destroyed during land disturbances associated with sugar cultivation. Observed historic properties consisted of pre-contact and early post-contact habitation, boundary, and ceremonial features in the form of C-shapes, walls, platforms, terraces, and mounds. Post-contact sites consisted of agricultural clearing mounds. Human skeletal remains were noted eroding out of sand dunes along the coast but were not assigned as historic properties. No historic properties were identified in the vicinity of the current project area. In 1991, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey for the proposed Po‘ipulani Golf Course and residential development consisting of 160 acres located in the makai eastern portion of Kloa along the Kloa-Weliweli ahupua‘a boundary (Hammatt et al. 1991). Although the study area was observed to have been heavily disturbed by 19th century sugar cultivation and cattle ranching, significant remnants of pre-contact indigenous Hawaiian habitation and agriculture were documented. Seventy-five historic properties were identified including both pre- and post-contact sites. Pre-contact historic properties consisted of habitations (platforms and enclosures), agricultural features (‘auwai, field walls, terraces, and earthen mounds) and human burials; Post-contact contact historic properties consisted of a single house platform associated with an LCA and a brick and mortar corral. An analysis of site location maps generated during the 1991 CSH study, indicate 11 historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the current project area (Figure 16). Documented historic properties consist of pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian habitation and agricultural structures. Habitation structures consisted of a stacked stone platforms (SIHP –909, -952), an enclosure (-954) a C-shaped terrace (-910), and a probable burial platform (-953); agriculture structures consisted of mounds (SIHP -906, -955), terraces (SIHP -948), field walls (-906, -948), and ‘auwai (-972). A railroad berm segment associated with post-contact sugar cultivation (SIHP -947) was also identified in the vicinity of the current project area as well as a post-contact road (SIHP -992). SIHP -947 and -992 were recommended for preservation; data recovery was recommended for SIHP -909, -948, -952, -954, -955, and -972; and no further work was recommended for SIHP -906 and -910. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 48TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 16. Portion of Po‘ipulani Golf Course study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Hammatt et al. 1991) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 49TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 In 1995, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey for proposed Poip Road safety improvements within a 1.4-mile corridor along the mauka (inland) side of Po‘ip Road (Creed et al. 1995). Three historic properties were identified, including two enclosures, a terrace, and a portion of the Kloa-Weliweli boundary wall. One historic property, CSH 1 (a pre-contact habitation enclosure), was identified in the vicinity of the current project area (Figure 18). CSH 1 was recommended for data recovery. In 2004, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey for Parcel 30, owned by the Eric A. Knudsen Trust Lands (Hammatt et al. 2004). Eight historic properties were identified. Documented historic properties consist of pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaiian habitation and agricultural structures. Habitation structures consisted of platforms (SIHP –3757 & -3758), enclosures (SIHP –3756 & -3758), and a mound (-541); agriculture structures consisted of clearing mounds (SIHP -539 & -540). Two historic properties associated with historic transportation were also identified: SIHP -947, a segment of the KΚloa Sugar Company railroad berm; and SIHP -992, a segment of Hapa Road. SHIP 50-30-10-947, -992, -3756, -3757 and –3758 were recommended for preservation. No further work was recommended for SHIP –539, -540, and –541. In 2005, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey of a 10.6-acre parcel located south of Po‘ip Road near the coast (Hill et al. 2005a). Four historic properties were identified: SIHP No. 50-30-10-947, segment of railroad berm attributed to the Koloa Sugar Company; SIHP No. 50-30-10-362, pre-contact temporary habitation stacked basalt enclosure; SIHP No. 50-30-10-363, pre-contact temporary habitation overhang; and SIHP No. 50-30-10-3920, a railroad-era rock-crushing site. The railroad berm (SIHP -947) was recommended for preservation, and SIHP -362 (pre-contact temporary habitation enclosure) was recommended for data recovery. In 2007, CSH conducted data recovery excavations at SIHP #50-30-10-362 (pre-contact temporary habitation C-shaped enclosure) previously identified by Hill et al. (2005a) (Tulchin & Hammatt 2007). Excavation revealed that a majority of the enclosure’s base course sat directly upon basalt bedrock. This suggests that the geology at the initial occupation of the site consisted of exposed basalt bedrock outcrops with minimal soil formation. Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal samples collected from SIHP No. 50-30-10-0362 yielded a date range (1410AD to 1530AD) that is within the pre-contact period, suggesting that the temporary habitation enclosure was constructed and utilized by pre-contact indigenous Hawaiians. Indigenous Hawaiian midden and artifacts observed during excavation further supported this conclusion. In 2009, CSH completed data recovery of the makai portion of the 1991 Hammatt et al. study area, located makai of the railroad berm (SIHP -947) and extending to the mauka edge of Po‘ip Road (Simonson et al. 2009). CSH relocated 39 previously identified historic properties within the study area (Figure 17). Where warranted, site descriptions and plan view maps were updated. Test excavations were conducted at 21 of the 39 relocated historic properties. Test excavations revealed that a majority of the archaeological features were utilized sporadically as temporary habitations, providing shelter to pre-contact and early post contact indigenous Hawaiians while they tended to agricultural fields and associated infrastructure observed throughout this portion of the Kloa area, also known as the Kloa Field System. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 50TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 17. Portion of Po‘ipulani Golf Course study area archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Simonson et al. 2009) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 51TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Figure 18. Creed et al. (1995) archaeological site location map, showing historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area (source: adapted from Creed et al. 1995) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 52TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 In 2005, CSH conducted an inventory survey of an 8.633-acre parcel for the Eric A. Knudsen Trust Lands (Hill et al. 2005b). One historic property was identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3926, an elevated metal irrigation flume constructed in 1902. No further work was recommended for SIHP #50-30-10-3926. In 2005, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey of a 9.348-acre parcel in KΚloa Town, located on the east bank of Waikomo Stream (Hill et al 2005c). Six historic properties were identified: SIHP -3930, a post-contact boundary wall; SIHP -3931, a pre-contact / post-contact terrace; SIHP – 3932, a post-contact irrigation reservoir; SIHP -3933, a post-contact house foundation; SIHP -3934, a post-contact irrigation ditch; and SIHP -3935, a pre-contact / post-contact stacked rock wall. SIHP -3930 to -3932 and -3935 were recommended for preservation, and SIHP -3933 and -3934 were recommenced for data recovery. In 2005, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey of a 8.15-acre Knudsen Trust Parcel, located just southeast of Anne Knudsen Park (Hammatt 2005). One historic property was identified: SIHP #50-30-10-3922, an earthen berm associated with a former plantation road and railroad. No further work was recommended for SIHP #50-30-10-3922. In 2007, CSH conducted an archaeological inventory survey 10-acre Knudsen Trust Parcel, located along the makai edge of Weliweli Road (Tulchin et al. 2007). One historic property was identified: SIHP #50-30-10-5002, a post-contact stone wall. No further work was recommended for SIHP #50-30-10-5002. In 2009, CSH completed the archaeological assessment fieldwork under state archaeological permit No. 09-20 issued by SHPD, per HAR Chapter 13-13-282. Missy Kamai, B.A., and Gerald Ida, B.A., conducted the fieldwork, which required 10 person-days to complete. Fieldwork took place between January 12th and 16th 2009 under the general supervision of Hallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D. (principal investigator). Fieldwork involved a complete pedestrian inspection of the project area. Three historic properties were identified: State Inventory of Historic Properties (SIHP) #50-30-10-954, pre-contact habitation enclosure, terrace, and platform, SIHP #50-30-10-955, pre-contact habitation platform and SIHP #50-30-10-992, post-contact dirt road with parallel stacked stone boundary walls. Three historic properties were recommended eligible to the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places (Hawai‘i Register): SIHP #50-30-10-954, pre-contact habitation enclosure, terrace, and platform, SIHP #50-30-10-955, pre-contact habitation platform and SIHP #50-30-10-992, post-contact dirt road with parallel stacked stone boundary walls. It was recommended that a cultural resource preservation plan be prepared for the proposed -Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System project, in accordance with Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) 13-277-3, address buffer zones and protective measures for SIHP #50-30-10-992 located within the southwestern portion of the project area as well as SIHP #50-30-10-947 and SIHP #50-30-10-953, which are located in the immediate vicinity of the southwestern portion of the project area. This preservation plan should detail the short and long term preservation measures that will safeguard the historic properties during project construction and subsequent use of the project area. Based on background research, it is likely that subsurface historic properties, associated with pre-contact land use, may be present within the southwestern portion of the project area. In order to mitigate the potential damage to these potential historic properties within the makai portion of the project area, it is recommended that project construction proceed under an archaeological monitoring program. This monitoring Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 53TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 program will facilitate the identification and proper treatment of any burials that might be discovered during project construction, and will gather information regarding the project’s non-burial archaeological deposits, should any be discovered. The specifics archaeological monitoring will be addressed in an archaeological monitoring plan to be reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Division. Additionally the area proposed for the construction of the Regional WRF, located in the northern portion of the project area, is in the immediate vicinity of an old sugar mill facility. A review of historic documents indicates that this building was constructed by at least 1912 as a component of the Koloa Plantation. Due to the historic nature of these structures CSH recommends consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division Architecture Branch prior to any land disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed Regional WRF. 5.3 Archaeological Background Summary and Predictive Model From previous archaeological studies and historic accounts it appears that pre-contact habitation and intensive irrigated agriculture were widespread in central and coastal KΚloa. As an extensive irrigated complex, the Kloa Field System was used to divert the waters of the Waikomo Stream for taro, native sugar, and fish. In the early post-contact era (1795-1880), the Kloa Field System continued in use for foreign trade and was probably further intensified. Sweet potatoes were a main crop for the whaling and merchant ships, and the purchase of pigs, salt, oranges and other items are noted in many ship journals. Documents of the Great Mhele show that by the mid-1800s there were still several traditional farmers within KΚloa who both lived and worked within the area. The individual claims – for both lo‘i (wetland) and kula (dryland) suggest that while traditional farming of taro for subsistence was still taking place, in kula lands – sugar cane production for sale to the nearby sugar mill, had begun to dominate the landscape. Of the LCAs within Kloa, several claim a kula planted with cane or a cane field or sugar cane garden. Several also identify cane lands as boundaries for the LCAs. Within three years of sugar cultivation by Ladd and Company in 1835, residents in and surrounding Kloa were quickly moving to adapt to the new economy based on the production of sugar cane. Eventually, most of inland Kloa was planted with sugar cane and only the rockiest areas, unsuitable for cultivation, survived the dramatic changes in the landscape brought about during the early 20th century. A 1935 map of Koloa Sugar Company shows the extensive cane lands within the project area (see Figure 8). The Koloa Sugar Company had previously purchased the ahupua‘a of P‘ southeast of Kloa town. A new mill was built in P‘ in 1912 about a mile from KΚloa Town, and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Regional WRF (see Figure 10). The mill in P‘ was finally closed in 1996. By the late 1960’s, the main town of Kloa experienced a type of reverse migration back to the shoreline. Although the town had established a Civic Center in 1977, the pace of tourism-driven development at the shoreline drew construction and service jobs away from the town center. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Archaeological Research Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 54TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Based on background research, historic properties (i.e. archaeological sites) in the form of pre- and post-contact surface architecture may be encountered during the archaeological inventory survey of the project area. Historic research has indicated five LCAs in the vicinity of the project area, suggesting indigenous Hawaiian land use in the form of habitation and agriculture. Previous archaeological research has documented evidence of both pre- and post contact land use in the area. Evidence of indigenous Hawaiian land use could include both habitation (platforms, enclosures, and C-shapes) and agricultural (terraces, mounds, field walls, etc.) features. Evidence of post-contact land use is likely to be associated with historic sugarcane cultivation and could include irrigation infrastructure (ditches and flumes), sugar transport infrastructure (road causeways, railroad berms, etc.), clearing mounds, and boundary walls.. It should be noted that the due to the extensive sugarcane cultivation documented within the project area, mechanized land modifications associated with sugarcane cultivation has likely disturbed and/or destroyed any pre-contact historic properties that may have been present. Additionally the project area is situated primarily within in-use roadways and old cane haul roads, which have caused additional land modifications within the project area, disturbing and/or destroying historic properties. Thus the probability of encountering surface historic properties during the pedestrian inspection is low. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 55TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 6 Community Consultation 6.1 Overview Throughout the course of this CIA, an effort was made to contact and consult with Hawaiian and kama‘ina cultural organizations, government agencies, and individuals who might have knowledge of and/or concerns about cultural resources and practices specifically related to the project area in the context of KΚloa Ahupua‘a. This effort was made through the use of letters, e-mails, telephone calls, and in-person interviews. The letter refers to Figure 1.1 which is not included in this CIA. CSH sent out a letter, map and aerial photograph dated March 2, 2009, describing the project area. The text of the letter was as follows: At the request of Wilson Okamoto Corporation, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Inc. (CSH) is conducting a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for the proposed Po‘ip۷ Regional WWTP Project, located in the ahupua‘a of Kloa, Weliweli, and P‘, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, Tax Map Key (TMK) No. (4) 2-09-001: portions of 001 and 002. The proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional WRF) and collection system is intended to collect and treat wastewater associated with a service area encompassing the communities of Kloa Town, Po‘ip, and Kukui‘ula. The site proposed for the Regional WRF is approximately 3.0 acres, and other associated collection system improvements involve about 10.0 additional acres. This is based upon a 10-foot-wide easement for sewer collection lines which could be less. Therefore, the total project area is about 13.0 acres. This site consists of property located at the eastern end of Weliweli Road in Kloa and owned by Grove Farm Company, Inc. The wastewater collection system serving this Regional WRF’s is planned to consist of the following three components and are identified in Figure 1.1: 1. Kloa Collection System. A wastewater collection system will be constructed having a service area that includes several existing developed properties and planned developments within the Kloa Town area. This collection system is referred to as the “Kloa Collection System”. New gravity sewer lines, and force mains would be routed within or along Kloa Road, Waikomo Road, Weliweli Road, and across Ala Kinoiki Road in an eastbound direction to the proposed Regional WRF. A new wastewater pump stations (WWPS) would also be provided near the intersection of Waikomo Road with Weliweli Road. 2. Po‘ip Collection System. A wastewater collection system will be constructed with a service area that includes several existing developed properties and planned developments within the Po‘ip area. This collection system is referred to as the “Po‘ip Collection System,” and will encompass a Po‘ip service area Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 56TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 extending from the planned Kukui‘ula development in the west to the area of the Grand Hyatt Kaua‘i Resort and Spa in the east. Proposed collection system improvements includes two new wastewater pump stations, gravity sewer lines, and force mains. 3. Eastern Collection System. A wastewater collection system will be constructed with a service area that generally includes the area of the Po‘ip Bay Golf Course situated east of the Grand Hyatt Kaua‘i Resort. This collection system is referred to as the “Eastern Collection System”. Collection system improvements include a new wastewater pump station, a gravity sewer line, and a force main. Effluent from the Regional WRF is planned to be used for irrigation of the Po‘ip Bay Golf Course. The purpose of this cultural study is to assess potential impacts to cultural practices as a result of the proposed project in the KΚloa, Weliweli, and P‘ Ahupua‘a. We are seeking your kkua and guidance regarding the following aspects of our study: General history and present and past land use of the project area. Knowledge of cultural sites which may be impacted by future development of the project area - for example, historic sites, archaeological sites, and burials. Knowledge of traditional gathering practices in the project area, both past and ongoing. Cultural associations of the project area, such as legends and traditional uses. Referrals of kpuna or elders and kama‘ina who might be willing to share their cultural knowledge of the project area and the surrounding ahupua‘a lands. Any other cultural concerns the community might have related to Hawaiian cultural practices within or in the vicinity of the project area. A number of attempts (two to three) were made to contact individuals, organizations, and agencies apposite to the subject CIA. Two community members referenced as KΚloa Resident #1 and #2 chose not to be named in this CIA. They are not included in the community consultation table. Table 5. Summary of Community Consultation Name Affiliation, Background Comments Andrade, Mackie Kloa kama‘ina CSH attempted to contact Mr. Andrade on May 5, 2009. According to his son, Mr. Andrade was off-island and unavailable for an interview. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 57TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Name Affiliation, Background Comments Ayau, Edward Hui Mlama I Na Kpuna O Hawai‘i Nei CSH sent letter and maps on April 7, 2009. A follow-up attempt was made May 7, 2009. Aipoalani, C. Kunane Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Island Burial Council chairperson CSH sent letter and maps on April 7, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Blaich, Beryl Mlama Mh‘ulep Coordinator, Manoa Valley Heritage Foundation On May 8, 2009, Ms. Blaich responded on behalf on the Mlama Mh‘ulep. See Section 6.1.1 and Appendix A.. Blake, Ted Kloa kama‘ina CSH scheduled an interview appointment with Mr. Blake, but he was unable to attend. Bukoski, Elizabeth Kalehuamakanoe Kloa kpuna CSH sent letter and maps on March 2, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made to contact her family member May 15, 2009. Burgess, Stella Cultural Specialist at the Grand Hyatt Resort in Po‘ip See Section 7.1. Cataluna, Don Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Office of Hawaiian Affairs CSH sent letter and maps on March 2, 2009. A follow-up attempt was made April 4, 2009. Cayan, Coochie State Historic Preservation Department On March 13, Ms. Cayan responded with a written response. See Section 6.1.2 and Appendix B. Chang, David Mlama Mh‘ulep, raised in Kloa CSH sent letter and maps on March 2, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. (See Beryl Blaich for the Mlama Mh‘ulep response.) Chang, Pi‘ilani Cultural Historian CSH sent letter and maps on March 2, 2009. Letter was returned. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Ching, Francis Hawaiian Resource Specialist, Kamehameha Schools See Section 6.2.1. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 58TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Name Affiliation, Background Comments Cobb, Rowena Cobb Realty, Kaua‘i CSH sent letter and maps on May 8, 2009. On the same day, Ms. Cobb replied that she would be on a trip but would hopefully submit a comment shortly. Dias, David McBryde Sugar Company worker CSH sent letter and maps on March 2, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Gage, Reginald Board of Directors, Kaua‘i Historical Society CSH sent letter and maps on March 2, 2009. On May 6, 2009, CSH received permission to use Mr. Gage’s interview for a previous CIA in the Kloa area. See Section 4.5.2. Harmony, Branch Kalani Kumai O N Ali‘i Hanohano Descendant of P‘ and area ali‘i, kuleana owner CSH sent letter and maps on May 9, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 19, 2009 and May 21, 2009. Holi, Wilma Former Kaua‘i representative for Hui Mlama I N Kpuna o Hawai‘i Nei See Section 7.6. Isoda, Stanley Kloa resident CSH sent letter and maps April 8, 2009. On April 14, 2009, the letter was returned because the address did not have a mail receptacle. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Kamai, Grace Former Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Island Burial Council representative CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. Through her daughter Missy Kamai, she declined an interview as she is not from the project area. Kane, Suzette A&B Properties CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. On March 13, 2009, Ms. Kane sent a response via email saying she would provide additional contact names. Kaohelauli'i, Billy cultural practitioner, Kanaka Maoli of Hui Malama Kane I olo Uma See Section 7.5.2. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 59TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Name Affiliation, Background Comments Kaohi, Lionel Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. On May 5, 2009, Mr. Kaohi responded saying that he would need to gather more information and would contact CSH soon to make a statement. Kaholokula, Robbie Kaua‘i Museum CSH sent letter and maps April 7, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Kauwe, Chris cultural practitioner, Kanaka Maoli of Hui Malama Kane I olo Uma CSH conducted an interview with Chris Kauwe on May 10, 2009. However, at the time of the submittal of this report, his interview was pending approval. Kekua, Kehaulani Director of Kaua‘i Culture & Heritage Center/ Kumu Hula CSH conducted an interview with Kehaulani Kekua on May 10, 2009. However, at the time of the submittal of this report, her interview was pending approval. Kimokeo, James Kanaka maoli, cultural practitioner CSH sent letter and maps April 21, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Kloa Neighborhood Center CSH sent letter and maps May 6, 2009. On May 11, 2009 the Kloa Neighborhood Center responded saying that they would have an assembly on May 13, 2009 and that they would contact CSH if any kpuna were interested in participating. However, no contact with CSH was made. Kruse, John Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Island Burial Council chairperson CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. On April 8, Mr. Kruse responded via email referring Stella Burgess and Tom Shigemoto to CSH. McMahon, Nancy SHPD CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made April 7, 2009. On April 8, Ms. McMahon responded via email saying she would refer the matter to Phyllis “Coochie” Cayan and Pua Aiu of the SHPD. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 60TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Name Affiliation, Background Comments Medeiros, Bernard Rancher in Kloa CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. On May 11, 2009 Mr. Medeiros declined to participate, saying he was unfamiliar with the project area as he raised cattle on the west side of Po‘ip Road. Medeiros, Gabriel Kloa resident CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. The letter was returned March 18, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Muraoka, Satoshi Kloa resident CSH sent letter and maps April 8, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Muraoka, Ikito Resident of Kloa CSH sent letter and maps April 8, 2009. On May 11, 2009, Mr. Muraoka stated that he was unable to participate in the project as he had a trip scheduled during the interview period. Nmu‘o, Clyde OHA See Section 6.1.3 and Appendix C. Perry, Warren Royal Order of Kamehameha, Kaumalii Chapter no. 3 CSH sent letter and maps on March 2, 2009. On April 9, 2009, CSH received permission to use Mr. Perry’s interview for a previous CIA in the Kloa area and will include his interview in the final draft. Oi, Tommy Department of Land and Natural Resources, Kaua‘i See Section 7.2. Rogers, Lucille Ke Ola Pono No N Kpuna Alu Like Program Specialist CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Rowe, Rupert cultural practitioner, Kanaka Maoli of Hui Malama Kane I olo Uma See Section 7.5.3. Say, Barbara Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Island Burial council member CSH sent letter and maps April 7 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 61TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Name Affiliation, Background Comments Shigemoto , Tom Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Island Burial Council member, A&B Properties CSJH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. On April 7, 2009 via email, Mr. Shigemoto kindly referred CSH to Walter Souza, Stanley Isoda, Jenichi Shigematsu, Satoshi Muraoka, Ikito Muraoka, Wayne Tanaka, Bruce Sakimae, Allan Smith and Gabriel Medeiros. Shigematsu, Jenichi Kloa resident CSH sent letter and maps April 8 2009. On April 14, 2009, the letter was returned because the address did not have a mail receptacle. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Smith, Allan Kloa resident CSH sent letter and maps April 8, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5 and May 11, 2009. Souza, Walter KΚloa resident CSH sent letter and maps April 8 2009. On April 14, 2009, the letter was returned because the address did not have a mail receptacle. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Summers, Molly Ka‘imiloa Kaua‘i Community College Hawaiian Language professor CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. Subsequent contact efforts were made April 7 and May 5, 2009. Tanaka, Wayne Kloa resident CSH sent letter and maps April 8 2009. On April 14, 2009, the letter was returned because the address did not have a mail receptacle. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Torres, Johnny Kloa resident CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. Subsequent contact effort was made May 5, 2009. Tsuchiya, Rick KHPRC CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. Mr. Tsuchiya invited CSH to attend the May 7, 2009 KHPRC meeting. The KHPRC found the community contact list sufficient and provided no referrals. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 62TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Name Affiliation, Background Comments Wichman, Randy KHPRC See Section 7.5.1. Yagodich, Darrell Department of Hawaiian Homelands CSH sent letter and maps March 2, 2009. On April 7, 2009, Mr. Yagodich replied via email with the following: “Thank you for sharing the information. We have no property or homestead community in the vicinity of the proposed facility. We have no comments to offer.” 6.1.1Mlama Mh‘ulep CSH contacted Mlama Mh‘ulep coordinator Beryl Blaich on March 2, 2009. Mlama Mh‘ulep is a grassroots group determined to preserve Mh‘ulep, a heritage ahupua‘a (watershed) about 2,700 acres from the peak of Mt. H‘upu that flows through the ahupua‘a into the ocean, which neighbors the project area. In a written response sent to CSH May 8, 2009, (see Appendix A), Ms. Blaich states the historic value of KΚloa Sugar Mill, built in 1913, as well as graveled dirt haul cane roads, many of which were haul cane rail routes until about 1954. She recommends that the mill, ideally, “will not be demolished but reused and no future structure near it will obscure or dominate it.” She also speaks about the kuleana records of the project area. She says, “As you no doubt recognize several of the P‘ ahupua‘a parcels were located in ‘marsh’ which became Waita- the largest reservoir in Hawai‘i. It seems that several of the applicants did not receive grants allegedly because their claims, written by the school teacher (public school located at Mh‘ulep) named Kekele, were rejected in Honolulu as Governor Kanoa said they were ‘soiled and improperly written.’” She also refers CSH to Kalani Kumai O N Ali‘i Hanohano, kpuna Rupert Rowe and Leonara Dizol Kaiaokamaile. Ms. Blaich is concerned about cultural practices in area, which she says have been limited in recent years. “Since the plantation closed, the community has lost access to Waita Reservoir where there are now commercial operations, as well as to the cane haul road along the mill, which the community traditionally used to go to Mh‘ulep, and to the valleys and ridges where pigs were hunted and people did gather plants.” She also goes on speak about the restrictions to mauka access and pigs as a problem with the native plant restoration project by David and Linda Burney. She says she doesn’t know if the pigs are also causing a problem for the GMO corn operation starting in P‘ and Mh‘ulep. Another community concern she shares is that although landowners and leasees are concerned about liability, vandalism and already commit money to management of the area, community members resent their exclusion to formerly used areas. She also shares Mlama Mh‘ulep’s concerns about negative visual and environmental impacts to Pu‘u Wanawana, Pu‘u Hunihuni and Pu‘uhi Reservoir. She cites the 1992 State Land Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 63TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Use District Boundary Review (see Appendix A), in which the Office of State Planning proposed to redesignate 1,517 acres of the Mh‘ulep coastal area from agricultural to conservation, which included the aforementioned pu‘u and reservoir. She also expresses concern with possible environmental impact that two of the craters, after the winter rainy season, hold intermittent lakes that are frequented by migratory water birds. She goes on to add that the 157 acres mauka (north and west) of Wait Reservoir were proposed to be added to the conservation district since the reservoir was “designated as a primary water bird habitat by Federal and State agencies and is used by all four endangered water birds in the state as well as the black crowned night heron and migratory shorebirds and ducks.” She is concerned that the wastewater plant will cause the birds of the area to become endangered, and worries, “whether the plant’s infiltration basin will attract water birds and is that all dangerous?” Ms. Blaich also is concerned about how the project will affect the viewplane. She says, “we are concerned about the visual impact of the proposed eastern pump station and the crater pump station on these puu, especially looking mauka from the coast to the mill.” There are also land use planning concerns, namely, that the Kloa-Po‘ipu-Kalheo development plan is “over due to be updated,” according to Ms. Blaich. There are several diverse uses proposed for the mill area. She states that there “is a need for [a] master plan for this important area as well as for the development plan [to] update Koloa’s undeveloped lands.” 6.1.2 State Historic Preservation Division CSH contacted Phyllis “Coochie” Cayan, History and Culture Branch Chief of SHPD, on March 3, 2009. In a written response sent to CSH May 13, 2009, (see Appendix B), Ms. Cayan refers Nancy McMahon, SHPD archaeologist who lives in KΚloa and is familiar with burial and sites in the area. Also referred to CSH is the Kaua‘i Museum, N Kpuna at Alu Like (Lhu‘e Unit), Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau Island Burial Council members John Kruse, Aunty Barbara Say and chairman C. Kunane Aipoalani. She encouraged CSH to “talk-story” with or to get referrals from those who know of traditional and cultural practices in the area. 6.1.3 Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) CSH contacted Clyde Nmu‘o, Administrator of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, on March 2, 2009. In a written response sent to CSH on April 20, 2009 (Appendix C), Mr. Nmu‘o states, “Numerous cultural sites including, but not limited to heiau complexes and fishing shrines are situated within the assessment area and community groups are actively working to preserve these cultural sites for future generations.” Mr. Nmu‘o also recommends CSH consult with Rupert Rowe, James Kimokeo, Billy Ka‘ohelauli‘i, Randy Wichman and Chris Kauwe. 6.2 Brief Responses from Project Participants 6.2.1 Francis Ching On May 6, 2009, CSH conducted a phone interview with Mr. Francis Ching, Hawaiian Resource Specialist for Kamehameha Schools. Mr. Ching was born in Kalapak, Puna, Kaua‘i in 1937. His father moved the family from Port Allen (‘Ele‘ele, Kona, Kaua‘i) to Kalheo, Kona, Kaua‘i in 1957. He spent his childhood on Kaua‘i and O‘ahu, and his summers on Kaua‘i while Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Community Consultation Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 64TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 he was in the Navy, and attending the University of Hawai‘i. His father moved to Kaua‘i in 1936 because his mother’s family lived on Kaua‘i. His father was at one time the Personnel Manager, then the Trucking Department Manager for Kaua‘i Terminals/Kaua‘i Commercial Co., then the General Manager for Kaua‘i Commercial, which allowed his family access to areas unseen by most of the public. Mr. Ching also conducted archaeological work on Kaua‘i for many years. He has seen the island change over time. He “saw many cultural sites when [he] was growing up by my grandfather Henry Ka‘iwi Aki.” When asked if there were any cultural properties in the project area, Mr. Ching stated that most of the project area is on sugar cane lands that were previously harrowed. He states that the project is following areas that have been previously disturbed and it’s most likely that very few sites will be found. Mr. Ching also referred to several different archaeological testing sites he conducted in the area during the 1970’s and other sensitive areas in which sites were found. The first is the Old Cane Road near the coast in front of Fort Elizabeth, Makaweli, Kaua‘i on the banks of the Waimea River. During that testing, sites were found in areas that were not covered by sugar cane planting. Those sites were located in the area not utilized by cane cultivation. The cultural layers were found close to the surface probably as a result of ground leveling in the area. He also recalls conducting an archaeological inventory survey in Weliweli, in back of Weliweli track, where some things were found. He also mentioned the railroad berm. He says that in the past, when the berm was being laid, the rocks from the cultural sites along the way were used to construct the berm, so he believes very few sites will be discovered. He also refers to the lava tubes, as potential sites, but he acknowledges that the project area is not likely to include the lava tubes. He also said that there would possibly be some sites near Kloa town, but he suspects that modern homes were built upon whatever was previously there. Mr. Ching adds that Kloa Road was built on the main system. Most Cane Haul roads in the project areas did not disturb the ground. They were built over non-harrowed ground. The sugarcane train tracks were also laid over the ground. Therefore, if the project runs across non-harrowed ground, cultural or historic properties may be found. Mr. Ching believes that very few burials will be found, but if they are, he says they will be easily identified by looking closely at the arrangements of stones. He says the walls in burials are nicely lined up, and stones that are not lined up are probably sweet potato mounds. Mr. Ching suggests putting down a few test pits will clear the area for cultural or historic properties. He recommends a cultural monitor be present during construction. He also says that there will be “no surprises- either you see the strata or not.” If something is found, it will not be on previously disturbed land. When asked if he there were any other pertinent cultural sites or practices in the project area, he says, “I do not see any pertinent regards to cultural sites and practices in the area impacted by the proposed project.” When asked if he had any other further recommendations for the project, he stated, “Standard archaeological procedures should be followed as well as common sense.” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 65TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 7 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Kama‘ina and kpuna with knowledge of Kloa, Weliweli, and P‘ Ahupua‘a and the proposed project area were contacted for a more in-depth contribution to this assessment. The approach of CSH to cultural impact studies provides these community contacts an opportunity to review transcriptions and/or interview notes and to make any corrections, deletions or additions to the substance of their testimony. For this CIA, eight people generously shared their mana‘o (thoughts, ideas, theories) in face-to-face, talk story interviews. 7.1 Stella Burgess CSH interviewed Mrs. Stella Burgess, Cultural Specialist at the Grand Hyatt Hotel on Friday, May 15, 2009. She has done extensive research on kuleana lands pertaining to her family. She was born and raised in Kalahe‘a. Her grandfather’s mother came from Kloa and her grandfather’s father was from Kilauea, but her grandfather moved to Pakala on the west side of Kaua‘i. The following is a summary of her interview: Mrs. Burgess has researched a kuleana land holder, Mika [Kailihakuma], who was awarded LCA 6667 during the Mhele. According to LCA records, at the time of the Mhele, he grew Irish potatoes, oranges, bittermelon, gourds and yams. There was a wall and a fence on his property and a government road ran through his property. He did not live here, but lived in Mh‘ulep. The area of the LCA was called Makapa‘ala. From the Mika holdings, the property ended up in Mrs. Burgess’s ‘ohana (family). That section explained that there was a heiau to Laka. Pili grass was often offered at the heiau. Also in the Makapa‘ala area was the home of a family named Nakai or Naka‘iwelo, who were canoe builders. She says that there may be burials in the area because “they always buried near the hale (house).” Along Hapa Road, there were some individual homes there as well. They would grow ‘uala (sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas) and sugar cane in their time period. The entire area was known as Pa‘uolaka, “the skirt of Laka.” The area was not dedicated for hula, but for agriculture. Laka was a duality god- male and female. 500 acres were dedicated for Laka during the time of Mnokalanip, who was responsible for the resurgence of agriculture in the south shore area. According to Mrs. Burgess, Kukonaala‘a was a chief, descended from Tahitians, who settled in Kaua‘i in the 15th century. His brother Ahukiniala‘a settled in the area of Ahukini. Kukonaala‘a was probably the origin of the name for the Kona District of Kaua‘i. In the 15th century Kukonaala‘a fought the first large battle of the Hawaiian islands, which took place in the project area. The biggest battle happened at Mh‘ulep. Kukonaala‘a battled every island chief and won, 300 years before Kamehameha conquered the Hawaiian Islands. In the project area, and neighboring Mh‘ulepu and Makwehi, bones that are found are usually from this large battle. Many believe that the iwi found in the area are from the battle with Kamehameha, but they are actually from Kukonaala‘a’s battles. Mh‘ulepu and other neighboring areas are named after parts of a canoe because those who won the battles came in on canoes. Once the area was conquered, the name was changed. When Mrs. Burgess was young, she saw underground caverns or volcanic tubes near the Kloa Neighborhood Center area with water flowing through them. She says that when it rains Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 66TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 very hard, the rain goes into the caverns and spouts above ground. She warns that care needs to be taken during the construction of that area. She explained that the Battle of Palena and Palilia took place near Wait Reservoir and a little below it in the 16th century. There were many lehua (Metrosideros macropus) trees and the ground was soft and spongy. When Palila’s father was fighting the battle, Palila saw that the enemies were hiding in the trees. He had the men cut down the lehua trees so the lehua became a part of the soil, and the soil became very soft and spongy. This is how the soil became the way it is today. In modern times, they attempted to plant sugarcane in this area, because when they burned the sugarcane, the ground burned too because of the fossil fuels in the soil. CSH asked if she knew the meaning of Pu‘uwanawana, and Mrs. Burgess knows no story attached to the hill. “Wanawana” could mean “much spikiness” after the wanawana sea urchin. She says that when the missionaries brought Christianity, many of the legends and the kaona (hidden meanings) of words were lost. Pu‘uwanawana was the last active crater of the 28 cinder cones in the Kloa area. As far as she knows, Pu‘uwanawana is a natural formation. She says that the Ainako house lot was near there and they were a family of permanent fishermen next to the Grand Hyatt Resort. When asked about the place name of Pu‘uhi Reservoir, Mrs. Burgess said that “pu‘u” refers to a hole, pocket or well. She believes that Pu‘uhi was a name given to the Reservoir by the sugar cane companies. Often times many place names are named “one, two, three, four” by sugar companies and were not named so by native Hawaiians. She also says that native Hawaiians did not own water and although they would divert water, it would always end up into a stream or ocean. There were no enclosures of water, as Pu‘uhi Reservoir is today. There is no record of “Pu‘uhi” in the Land Commission Awards that she has researched. She also adds that, after the Mhele many place names changed to the names of the people who lived in the area. Often times, LCA testimony was given by one person who supported many. The Po‘ip area has changed from a small section to a much larger area. She relates that many south shore names in Kaua‘i include “po” from Kukonaala‘a’s son Mnokalanip’s journeys to the south shore. The true area of Po‘ip was from the fence at Waiohai to half of where they call “Baby Pond” today until you get to the main road. There was never a Po‘ip Beach. It was called Kahuolenaopua‘a, possibly relating to either the pigs on land or a fish called pua‘a. It may also be a reference to Kamapua‘a who played in the back of the ridge of the ahupua‘a with Pele. In this cane field, there are many crevices, tunnels and volcanic tubes in the area as well. Waikomo Stream may have been ten times a big as it is now and had many auwai extensions. There was an auwai where the Sheraton Resort is now and went to Kahuna. Many ancient Hawaiians had temporary shelters in the area. The families would have a kuleana (property) mauka (inland) and another makai (towards the sea) and go back and forth. She gives the example of a family who are hulu (feather) catchers and live at their mauka kuleana, but when they are tending to their kalo (Colocasia esculenta) for one or two months, they live in a temporary shelter. This is how they were able to barter and trade for salt and other items. Evidence of kalo farming in the area is found with a 700-year-old poi pounder came from the area of the Grand Hyatt Hotel (Hi‘inui) site which Mrs. Burgess owns (see Figure 19). Mrs. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 67TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Burgess also mentioned that fish hooks were found further inland which supports the idea that the ancient Hawaiians would live in mauka and makai properties. She said that the Maulili Heiau has not been found, but may be in the project area. She says that it was a sacrificial heiau and there was also one in Mh‘ulep, which is not in the project area. Mrs. Burgess stated that further north of the project area, in the valley, the ancient Hawaiians would grow sugar cane. Sugar cane was used it for medicinal purposes and for tassels for arrows. Lehua (which also grew near the ocean), pili grass and medicinal herbs were also grown. Mrs. Burgess was taught that noni (Morinda citrifolia), was eaten as fruit. They also had kukui (Aleurites moluccana) for the fishermen as well as breadfruit. ‘Uhaloa (Waltheria indica var. Americana) was possibly grown by individual families in auwai, but probably did not grow in abundance as it does on the west side of Kaua‘i. Ppolo (Solanum nigrum), which was eaten in a salad and also used medicinally was grown everywhere. She says that it is likely that iwi kpuna will be found in Kukui‘ula and KΚloa, which is full of underground lava tubes. She recommends that if any cultural historic properties, such as iwi kpuna are found, the construction should stop. She hopes that the project proponent will be sensitive toward cultural issues and the project will keep “above board” and if anything is found, it should be reported. She recommends for a special place to be designated for the iwi kpuna and they should be put back as quickly as possible not to create another Wal-Mart situation. She would like to be contacted if any iwi kpuna or other cultural historic properties are found. When asked if any cultural practices would be affected by this development, she sites that the project area is too far from the coast to impact fishing. She knows of no one who currently gathers any plants in the area as people do not know what pesticides are being sprayed where. Many people grow and gather their own plants and herbs on their own properties. She does say that flowers are often gathered in the project area, specifically ‘ilima (Sida) from the Pu‘uwanawana area to the former cane fields. There is also hina in the neighboring Mh‘ulep area, but none in the project area as it needs salt and lime rock to grow. She makes leis out of hina (possibly Heliotropium anomalum), which is a baby cactus, in a circle, poepoe (round, circular) fashion. Hina is also used medicinally for cleansing, but if overused, could cause death. There may also be a l‘au (medicinal) heiau in the area as it lines up with Kne heiau on Wai‘ale‘ale, although she can not verify it. According to her research with the Land Commission Award records from 1948, Kloa is only a part of the original place name of KΚloakomohana. The area was a place where one could see the sun rise and set. When asked if she knew of any ‘lelo no‘eau in the project area, she could not think of any. She contacted Robert Bukoski to ask if he knew of chants about Kukona, Mnokalanip and Palila. However, Mr. Bukoski did not know of any. When asked for her thoughts on the proposed project, she said that there are many pros as well as cons. The positive aspects of the project include that there will be a place to put the sewage, as well as accommodate the new developments in the area. She says that in the past, sewage has been pumped into caverns. The negative aspects of the project are the possible impacts to historic cultural properties. She says that that these impacts can be mitigated by close monitoring of the area while the construction is in progress. She anticipates that when the project Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 68TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 starts, trouble can be avoided if everyone is mindful of each other. She recommends the developers ask for help when dealing with cultural issues. She advises the project proponents to consult with the community in general and in particular with Grace Bacle, whose family comes from the South Shore. Figure 19. 700-year-old Poi pounder found in the Hi‘inui area. 7.2 Tommy Oi Mr. Tommy Oi was born in Honolulu and moved to LǑhu‘e in 1969. Mr. Oi has been working for the DLNR since 2003 and care of all the leased agricultural lands on Kaua‘i. Today these systems are made better than before. When asked about his knowledge and concerns with the proposed project Mr. Oi responded: DLNR only has one pasture in the project area the rest is all privately owned land. A lot of this wastewater stuff is based on the health regulations before everybody had cesspool, but with different health regulation and the development of this area capacity is needed. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 69TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 In the past I used to work for a civil engineering firm a long time ago. In this area over here (pointing to the map in the Po‘ip and Kloa areas) there are a lot of lava tubes, so when they used take care of a cesspool a lot of them would hit lava tubes so you don’t know where the waste is going, whether it is going into the ocean. This would be a better way to contain all your sewage and waste. You are not contaminating every place else. Most all the waste will be contained. I know that they can recycle the water. A lot of that water can be used by the community and for irrigation. It is just something that is going to help the area so I don’t have any concerns. When asked about direct drilling impacting burials, archaeological sites and cultural practices Mr. Oi mentioned: I am not going to say no. I am not sure on how they do the drilling, but again I say I cannot say. The only way you can find the cultural stuff, but then it is going to be hard because they will be drilling. You don’t know what is under there. Before when they dig at least you have some way of observing what is there. I know places maybe 10 years or 20 years ago in Los Angeles they refine their sewage water and they are drinking. That way you are not depleting the resources even if you are using for irrigation. I know of only one or two waste water plants in Kloa. The only reason I know about two when I was working for the civil engineering firm we had to develop in that area. 7.3Kloa Resident #1 CSH interviewed Kloa Resident #1 on May 14, 2009 at his home in Kloa. Born and raised in Kloa, he feels that he needs to say something because it is not in the nature of local residents to state their opinion in matters regarding development. In the many years past, if Kloa residents had spoken up about overdevelopment of KΚloa and Po‘ip the development would not have occurred to this magnitude. He was very active in all of the youth sports in Kloa for many years. As a child, he recalls fishing in the Wait Reservoir and the plantation ditches for bass, tilapia, koi and frogs. He also recalls pig hunting near Wait Reservoir, although he himself only went once. Currently there is no access to Wait Reservoir, and he stated that he would like there to be access for the children today to have a chance to fish there. He also would gather mountain apples and the purple “choke plum” in the area when he was a child. With regard to the proposed KΚloa-Po‘ip Wastewater Treatment Facility and Collection System, he is concerned that many homes in the KΚloa Town area would be affected because it is very close to the subdivision in Kloa Town. He is concerned about the smell that the Pump Station will generate. He is also concerned that the KΚloa residents will be forced to connect to the sewer line. He refers to a situation in LǑhu‘e in which residents had to connect to the sewer line and spend a lot of money. He states that he and many community members are happy with the cesspools that they currently have and find the proposed project unnecessary. He says that the soil in KΚloa is very porous and rocky and absorbs the waste and pumping the cesspool is rarely needed. He said Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 70TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 perhaps if HOH Utilities covered the installation fee and if the service cost only$25 a month, he may consider it, but thinks those conditions unlikely and generally finds the project unnecessary. He sees the Kloa branch of the system being built for the KΚloa Creekside Subdivision, which is currently in the planning stage. The Kloa Pump Station is directly across the street from the Kloa Creekside site. He also believes that the sewer system may be being built for a shopping center going up near the post office. He mentions that there are underground lava tubes in the KΚloa area and that some of his neighbors have hit the lava tubes when digging their cesspools. He also expresses frustration with the overall development in the KΚloa-Po‘ip area. When asked if there were any historic sites to preserve, he replied, “How can we preserve something if we don’t own the land?” He sees this project as “opening the door to more development” in the area. He believes that this project will support future development in the KΚloa-Po‘ip area. With regard to the shopping center being built in KΚloa, he feels that there are enough businesses, which have enough competition amongst themselves. He is concerned for local businesses such as Big Save, Kukui‘ula Store area, and Sueoka’s. Their profits are put back into the community, unlike national companies, such as Wal-Mart, which are cheap but do not take care of their workers, and do not return anything to the community. He also mentioned that although the new developments are creating new jobs, many of those jobs are being given to those not local to the area. A lot of the younger generations of local people do not have the same educational background as their counterparts from the mainland. “A lot of the residents in the new subdivisions that are coming up are from the mainland. I’m sure that all of them are not 65 years and up and retired. They will compete with local people for jobs. Kaua‘i High Schools are graduating 1,000 kids a year and very few of them are going to college. How are the ones that didn’t go to college and stayed home compete with newcomers from the mainland for jobs?” He says that the plantation would have taken care of these people today, but there is no plantation. He says that with the recent developments in KΚloa and Po‘ip, everyone thought for all these years these lands were zoned as “agricultural” because they saw cows and koa trees on the land. Many people did not know that these lands had been rezoned a long time ago. He asks, “Were the developers and landowners paying a higher tax on these zones? What is fair?” He mentions that although the landowners have done a lot for the community, he would hope that they would not maximize their profits and keep the land under agricultural zoning. Related to the new development in the area, he is concerned about the public right of way near Spouting Horn. The landowner is blocking access to the area, forcing community members to walk from Kukui‘ula Harbor, over rocks and through people’s private homes, to Spouting Horn. He would like to see an easier right of way for community access. He recommends the project proponent hold public meetings and update the community about the proposed project. He heard that the Kloa Community Association (KCA) has approved the project, but many KCA members do not live in the affected area and that the proposed project may not affect them directly. “If it was in their backyard maybe their decision would have been different if they lived right in the KΚloa Town area.” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 71TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 He also states that the project seems to be moving forward despite the fact that the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was not complete. He feels that the community’s input is not valued as he has not heard about the project except through the community consultation for the CIA. He referred to the Hawai‘i Super Ferry, in which the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed after the company had already begun to operate and the harbor improvements were made. Act 2, which allowed the Super Ferry to operate without an EIS, was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Therefore, he is wary that this project, although not under Act 2, is similarly proceeding without following the legal process. With regard to the legal issue of the EIS, he says that someone will probably contest this process if not followed correctly. From his travels abroad in the Army, he has seen that no matter where it is in the world, “if it’s a beautiful place, it will be overrun and money and politics will prevail.” He hopes that law makers will have long-term visions for the community and will create laws to protect Hawai‘i and its residents. He hopes that the lawmakers and developers will do what is right. 7.4Kloa Resident #2 CSH interviewed Kloa Resident #2 at a coffee shop in Lhu‘e on May 15, 2009. Born and raised in Kloa, she is involved with community groups such as Malama Mh‘ulep and the Kloa Community Association. She discussed the concerns of her family and other community members. After Hurricane ‘Iniki, many residents had to redo their cesspools and find the system unnecessary. They also do not want to pay extra money for the new proposed system. Her family and community members are also concerned about the project proponent laying pipes through their backyards and properties. She is also is concerned that the Bypass Road is sinking because it was built on coral flats. She says that to her knowledge no one has surveyed the underground caves. She asks how far and expansive the drilling will be under the Bypass Road and is concerned about its effect. She says that the whole area is sensitive and may yield cultural historic properties, because they may inadvertently dig into the underground caves. She says also that the project area may be on land that’s already been “touched,” thus there may already be irreparable damage to cultural/historic properties in the area. The bypass road is sinking because they had to build the road quickly and cheaply to link the road to Po‘ip. She shares that many of the burial sites between KΚloa and Po‘ip, where current projects are being built, were not recorded. She mentions that there are pockets of native plants along the side of the road, primarily on the Mh‘ulep side of the project area where there is anapanapa(Columbrina asiatica). When asked about the Kloa Sugar Mill, she stated that she was hoping the Mill could be used for another purpose. The original Mill in town has been changed, but no one seems to have a problem with it. She says that she hopes that there will be no odor or noise from the facility at the Mill. She is also hoping that the project proponent will take responsibility and clear the old cars and other garbage in the area, to make the area more presentable, instead of just being a “brownfield.” Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 72TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 She also shared her concerns about the long-term impacts to the community this project may bring with it. She stated that new infrastructure (sewer system, new water system, etc) may mean that a significant zoning change or large development project is anticipated and thus, foresees this project supporting more (new) development in the future. Her family expressed frustration with the ongoing development of the KΚloa-Po‘ip area. Kukui‘ula especially brought out a lot of negative feelings from the community. She believes that this project will raise questions regarding new developments in addition to Kukui‘ula, Kloa Creekside, and the shopping center in Kloa that stirred a lot of controversy. She asks who the proposed wastewater system will service. She recommends the project proponent conduct meetings in the community to clarify this question as well as to listen to and take into account the community’s concerns. 7.5 Mr. Randy Wichman, Mr. Billy Kaohelauli‘i, and Mr. Rupert Puni Rowe On May 12, 2003, Mr. Wichman, Mr. Kaohelauli‘i, and Mr. Rowe most graciously hosted Cultural Surveys Hawaii for an interview at Mr. Kaohelauli‘i’s kuleana lands where he was raised. The scene for our interview was set on the lnai (porch) of Mr. Kaohelauli‘is home a peaceful home amongst the modern day development which is now Po‘ip. The evening began with talking story and catching up on past projects conducted by CSH in KΚloa followed by dinner Mr. Wichman, Mr. Kaohelaulii, and Mr. Rowe graciously shared their knowledge of the lands of Kloa, Po‘ip, and the present project areas. 7.5.1 Mr. Randy Wichman Mr. Randy Wichman is the President of the Kaua‘i Historical Society and serves as the Chairperson for the Kaua‘i Historic Review Commission. Mr. Wichman was born to Ms. Loretta ‘Ainoa Brandt daughter of Lilinauele Hart and Herman Brandt of KΚloa, Kaua‘i. CSH asked Mr. Wichman to share his association with Kloa and the proposed project area: My name is Randy Wichman. My mother is Loretta Brandt and my grandmother is Gladys ‘Ainoa Brandt. My great-great-grandmother is Lilinauele Hart who married Herman Brandt. They were here at Kloa Sugar 1835. My whole family from that side is buried here in KΚloa. I feel a responsibility to what is going here in Kloa. I feel a kuleana (responsibility). We are here to discuss the reclamation sewage treatment for KΚloa and the five out stations. My understanding of the project is 90 percent of it, I think is going through old plantation cane lands and 10 percent has true impact. As you start to identify the central core around Kloa Mill it is on the National Register as a historic landmark. The bug-gas building is intended to be used for the main treatment settling plan. The water reclamation out of that is for irrigation. I don’t think it is going to be potable, but the number one problem there is that by doing this, whether it is going to affect this national historic registry status and that is yet to be determined. I think they are looking into it right now. The main line coming in from the center of KΚloa to the Kloa Mill may not be so problematic. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 73TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 The line coming from KΚloa Mill down towards Pu‘u Wanawana and working off towards the Knudsen Property and ending up through Hapa Road and especially along the Knudsen property- Hapa Road sector there are some issues there. The pathway going through the different pu‘u or hills I think needs to be looked at a lot closer because there is the trails that are linking all through there. It would be curious to see what is up with that. I think that right now there are 14 waste water treatment plans around KΚloa this will illuminate all of it and provide the sewage maintenance in the long term; right now it is all injection wells. They are pumping all the sewage underground and that will stop and it will all be done through the mill. So 90 percent of it is really good. Now let’s get specific as into the areas coming through Kloa Mill down towards the pu‘u especially through the Knudsen property coming through the berm. I think the maps right now only specify the distance to the berm, but I think they breech it. There is a site that they go through. They know there is data recovery one site which means we are going to lose it. When asked about archaeological sites, such as ‘auwai and the berm mauka (inland) of Po‘ip۷ Beach Park Mr. Wichman mentioned: Clearly the ‘auwai are going through there. The lands we are talking about right now are obviously the Kloa Field System and then over that is the early ranching. These lands have pretty much stayed in ranching ever since the first paniolo (cowboys) started the enterprises as Kloa was the port of entry for all shipping, so massive Kloa field system that expanded during early historic. Historically these lands stayed in cattle. The walls that are going through there are intense. There is a lot of it in there and I know part of it is that they are talking about directional drilling because of the concern of the lava tubes and things that are also run right through this particular corridor. Exactly what they mean by that I am not really sure and how it is they are going to be coming across and down below Hapa Road I am not sure, but here we are looking at an aerial photograph that shows the sector where the actual waste treatment plan is. At certain points in one area it was old sugar. They actually planted sugar up to a certain line, but on a certain edge of it there are a lot of things that are still going on. The exact footprint of the Hapa Road Pump Station is not clear to me. Once I know that I think we can take the next step. Then going out towards Mh‘ulep we have a 1924 aerial photograph that shows the whole sector in dunes prior that. So exactly within the footprint of Makahuena I would like to know. I know it is on Grove Farm property. I know they are going through that sector. The lands floods right there behind Mhulep and the roads are built up on cause ways. Mh‘ulep or into Makahuena Point and then here also looking at the proximity of Kneaukai Heiau. The heiau (place of worship) is lost. There is the heiau of Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 74TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Kne I Olo Uma which is in the proximity. It is in the ili (land section) of Wai‘ohai. CSH asked Mr. Wichman to speak about previous run-off from the Kloa Sugar Mill, he stated: Well it would have been Waikomo Stream, right where the reclamation plant is, where this area is coming. The water used to come right down into Kiahuna. Where they built Kiahuna is the main ponds right there. Then from those ponds right there then it drained out to sea. When they built Kiahuna they blocked that part of it. The ‘auwai that fed into Kne I Olo Uma came off that one. When they plugged up the Wai‘ohai, they forced the water and diverted it around the corner so they do have drainage issue problems there right now. Rupert and Billy will tell you. Hapa Road where is the luahine pi‘i (a place inland) whether that was incorporated in there and when you look at the whole extent of Hapa Road and its historic importance, not only as the King’s Highway but the way it divided out the lands and partly protected all the cattle areas. There was massive cattle going on in those days, but yet it is a much older trail. So you are looking at an ancient trail that became a Kingdom Highway and then later on cattle all leading out to Hanaka‘ape. When asked about place names associated with KΚloa, Mr. Wichman shared: There is Waikomo base and the stream basin that comes down. The main heiau (shrine) in the area is Maulili. Maulili was central around the pool just like Ka‘awakoa of Wai‘ale‘ale and in Nu‘alolo Kai also are essentially at one point around a spring. From there you have the main road, the main trail that leads you to Hanaka‘ape, which is Kloa Landing. In front of Beach Park almost a washed over island but still kind of connected is Nukumoi which we talked about earlier. You have the ahupua‘a of Kualoa then Weliweli Ahupua‘a which is a long narrow ahupua‘a then the ahupua‘a of P‘. P‘ was given to Pi‘ikoi and Pi‘ikoi was Kaumuali‘i’s tobacco lighter. When Liholiho visited him in the early 1820s prior to kidnapping him he noticed that Kaumuali‘i had his own tobacco lighter. Kaumuali‘i gave Pi‘ikoi to Liholiho as his personal tobacco lighter. When he passed away he was given into the household of Kahalei‘a and then into the household of Kamehameha III where he was on the Privy Council and during the time of the mhele (division of lands) her was given the ahupua‘a of P‘. Then you have the ahupua‘a of Mh‘ulep then the ahupua‘a of Kp etc. The Weliweli Ahupua‘a is quite narrow. It is not necessarily one that is connected into a river basin or a natural drainage. You have also in front here (Po‘ip) the big battle in Kkona. Kkona is the father of Manokalanip. At the time of the invasion, there was a combined invasion from the different islands; we are talking 15th century early 16th century, 1500s. A combined invasion fleet came into the Kloa, Mh‘ulep, Makahuena sector. Kkona put his main war canoe fleet at Hanapp and his main land forces Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 75TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 right here and when they landed completed he shows himself and the whole armies troop inland, so he is leading them inland. In the meantime he sends his canoe fleet and destroys them on the beach because there were not very well protected. He destroys the invading canoe fleet and then now sandwiches the armies into two fronts and then he is able to get surrender. They go around the island and end up at Kke‘e in which they finally hammer out the deal from this point on you do not attack us again and in return we will not attack you. That piece stayed until Kamehameha tried to do his invasion. He broke that deal that was made by Kkona. Also it was the end of a war that lasted 250 years after the death of Kaiwilauokekoa. The island was split in two between east and west as they warred out. Kaiwilauokekoa was betrothed to a west person then fell in love with an east person and then the west person started a war. That lasted for generations, but Kkona after destroying the combined fleet marries his son Manokalanip to the last of the west side chiefessess and united the island under one m‘ (king, sovereign) again. Mankalanip is the one credited with the renaissance because now the great peace begins except for one civil war in Kawelo which part of it takes place here (Po‘ip) also in regards to Maulili. Kawelo, ‘Aikanaka, Kaweloleimakua they are cousins, but two sets of twins are born at Holoholok. Huge storm it tears apart the kapa (bark cloth).The prophecy of their birth says that as long as these children are alive Kaua‘i will be torn apart like the kapa in the storm. As they became into young men, ‘Aikanaka captures and stones presumably Kaweloleimakua to death and places him on Maulili which is right up road from here. Then in a storm Kawelo comes awake scares his guards to death escapes into Poli‘ahu at Wailua and then ‘Aikanaka comes into Wailua and goes into Nounou a big fight. It is both ceremonial in the way they insult each other and also in battle. Kaweloleimakua finally becomes the victor he brings ‘Aikanaka to Maulili where he was originally to be sacrificed and sacrifices ‘Aikanaka on Maulili. One thing that was also important to Kloa and that Billy was talking about is the fishing. The place names that are here are related to the k‘ula (fish shrine). Part of the fishing consecration process for the fleet everything that was needed for a voyage was taken up on to the heiau. They spent the night and prayed. If the omens looked really good then they would launch the following day, if they didn’t they postponed it. And then that puts particular type signature to the heiau itself with a long for core. Also associated with Kloa is Kna‘u of course Kna‘u was the sister of Pele, but she was more known for her sorcery yet she had many women and she dug in here. Pele actually only stops at Nmilu and then moves on, but Kna‘u continues actually digs into Kloa. Kna‘u is represented by the red tapa (bark clothe) with the black dots. Then she eventually marries Kalaiphoa. She marries many of her women to Kloa men. Mr. Wichman shared his concerns about the proposed project in KΚloa and Po‘ip: Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 76TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 My concerns as they move along they will be breaching the berm itself. They will actually being taking out some of the sights, although originally designated to be taken out or data recovery, we lose those. Within the actual footprint of the Hapa Road area there may be some real sensitive issues because there are a lot of things going on right now, like the law suit. It will be difficult. Part of the reclamation of the water since it is good for irrigation could be considered for ‘auwai use. It might be worth considering as a concession in this particular area that it would be done. That part of the reclamation water will help to make the ‘auwai flow again. We can take a certain percentage of it actually goes back into the ‘auwai and into sacred sites like Kne I Olo Uma because it had that serious agriculture component. It may be a good concession to the culture, at least be considerate of that, however I think because of the Hapa Road footprint and what is going on with that particular sector right now we are losing sites really bad. This of course is on the edge of it but it would be incorporated as part of the whole scheme and seen as such. Although I know the pipes are only going to be buried three feet under the ground it is massive drilling through bedrock. So those are the facts too. If they actually commit to the directional drilling, my guess it is going to be really expensive. It is probably easier for them to just carve a trench through then it is to drill. So cost wise it will be a lot more expensive. The may be saying it now but actually whether they are going to end up doing it is another question. The Hapa Road sector is problematic. There is a lawsuit going on right now. The level of sensitivity they would have to bring to that particular sector and would have to be looked at. It is important that I see the exact footprint where this pump station is going to be. 7.5.2 Mr. Billy Kaohelauli‘i Mr. Billie Kaohelauli‘i was born on July 4, 1950 to Henry Kalima Kaohelauli‘i from Ni‘ihau and his wife Hazel Tita Kimokeo. Mr. Kaohelauli‘i was raised in KΚloa where he presently resides. Mr. Kaohelauli‘i heads a native organization called “Hui Mlama Kne I Olo Uma”. The group presently cares for the cultural sites bordered by Po‘ip Road and the parking lot of Brenneke’s Restaurant at Po‘ip Beach in Kloa. Mr. Kaohelauli‘i currently works throughout the island of Kaua‘i setting up stage productions for various musical entertainers. CSH asked Mr. Kaohelaui‘i about his cultural and lineal association with Kloa and Po‘ip, he shared: My name is Billy Kaohelauli‘i. I have lived here all my life in Po‘ip right around here Kuai Road. This land here was my grandfather’s land way back it still is now we are on it. My grandfather was the king of the fish down here. His name was James Kimokea but he owned all this land over here including Kne I Olo Uma way back. Somehow he got this land from his brother and his brother got it from the chief Eke‘pnui. Weliweli Ahupua‘a. He had a big role over here, my grandfather was a Policeman. He worked here and everybody knew him because he was a fishermen. In fact we just received a map about Hapa Trail that he owned Hapa Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 77TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Trail, somehow he owned it. I think how Knudsen got all this land is through all the people. I don’t think he even bought them. I think this was all leased lands and when the people died he over powered the land and took them so all these lands belong to the kanaka (people) yet. I don’t know how Knudsen thinks he owns these lands? When asked about the traditional cultural practices of his family and the potential impact the proposed project may have on the community, Mr. Kaohelaulii answered: When my grandfather fished it was different kind of fishing from today. We had hukilau (fish net with pull ropes) style. The whole family would be there because when they said to come down we had to be there. You had to put your hands in there you have to help because this is hukilau it is a family thing. You would see them huki (pull) that net and bring it all in. Then all you see is fish just kicking and you try to grab them because the thing flies in your eye and everything. Others in the community would come to help and then everybody comes and huki the net together. Then you see all the strong guys scoop them with baskets, this was old style nets, old style baskets. They never had buckets like today only old style baskets. They carried them all the way up to the car and then they had to take them to my grandfather’s house. When we would go over to our grandfather’s house and he would say, “This is your pile.” You would get scared how you are going to take that in your car because it is a mountain of fish. The first pile he would make is for the church, which was my grandfather’s style he always made for the church. My dad was working for my grandfather. My dad is Henry Kaohelauli‘i from Ni‘ihau. When he came over he met my mom. Then they got together. My father was pure Hawaiian and could not speak really good English. He worked for my father on the sampan. My grandfather had about seven big sampan, fishing boats, tuna boats and they would come here to. I forget the name of river when a hurricane from way back they ended up in the river. My grandfather was able to see the fish through the rain and he would point and then tell them to go get them. Everybody would get ready and take the boats right around the fishes and pick them up. He would then tell them to take care of everything and when you are finished with the catch they are to go straight to O‘ahu with the boat. They unload their fish in O‘ahu, they don’t come home. My grandfather’s favorite fish to fish for ‘‘io (Albula vulpes). He was the king of the fish over here. Mr. Kaohelauli‘i shared his knowledge of his family ko‘a or fishing grounds: Right here on Brennecke’s Beach where my grandfather would catch the ‘‘io his favorite place when we would get our fish. Everyone get land mark like me I knew where the bottom of the ocean. I knew where all the fish was. I knew if I looked from the ocean I knew where I was. We had landmarks to go and come from the ocean some of them are now gone due to the new houses. Some is still here. Over here they always look at the points, but the points don’t look the same. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 78TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Some is filled with buildings. So usually when they navigate from O‘ahu it is direct, straight direct. Some of them just are automatic pilot. They are not steering the boat. They just head straight to the point. Makahuena Point is for the Honolulu and Tahiti destinations. That is the south point. When asked about the effect of population growth had on traditional cultural practices, Mr. Kaohelauli‘i mentioned: Well everybody likes to live here now. It was way back in the 60s and 70s we had the beach to us kama‘ina (native-born). The buildings came in 70s and 80s they were gung-ho! CSH asked Mr. Kaohelauli‘i when in his lifetime did he first notice fishing practices impacted by development in Po‘ip. He answered: The developers buried all the fishponds. That is what happened. They covered all our fishponds. You wouldn’t believe the fishponds use to be here. Right in front here had a nice fishpond (Pointing to Beach Park). You see (Pointing to the 1924 aerial photograph of Po‘ip), this all was loko i‘a (fishponds). They were all filled in the 1960s. All of them were buried. Where the hotels are was fishponds, but they rose up the hotel and that is why it does not drain. Oh, the fish is way less today and less because I think the run-off of all the rain and sewage. The fish stay way out side now. It is sad, because not that much like before time. (Mr. Wichman interjected sharing more about traditional cultural places with early photographs of Po‘ip) sharing that this is the pua i‘a (fish spawn) that part of it is still in the parking lot (Brennecke’s). You can still see. It is a little bit awkward this photograph. It is actually a peninsula that is still there. The county got a hold of it and filled it in. They built this road across here and now the water drains here through these ponds at the Waiohai and then out to sea. When they plugged that in all the water now is forced to the sector which comes down and naturally goes into the fishponds and floods the whole area. Every time we have a heavy rain it drains. When asked about the fishing practices today and the hpapa or coral reefs, Mr. Kaohelaulii added: This is Nukumoi. What I used to do out there is catch fish at Nukumoi. It was too rough out there for the women. They would not be able to gather limu at Nukumoi. They would gather limu on the other side. Limu kohu (Asparagopsis taxiformis), get lpoa (Dicyopteris plagiogramma and D. australis) all kinds. At Makahuena Point I used get my wana (sea urchin), ‘opihi (limpets), moi (threadfish, Polydactylus sexfilis) and holehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis). Have nenue (pilot fish, Kyphosus bigbbus, K. vaigiensis), black fish, and uhu (parrot fish, Scarus perspicillatus), but very rare now they used to come way inside. Not like before. (Mr. Wichman interjected to direct us to the early photographs to help better see the effects of early and previous development to the shoreline of Po‘ip) and mentioned that in the 1950s and early photographs there has been serious shrinkage right here (pointing to an early photograph of Nukumoi) Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 79TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 definitely. The Lahaina Luna 1885 mentioned many heiau. The loko or (pond) right here is kapua‘a ho‘olaina is the name of this right here. It is really interesting the association of the laina (alignments) towards the pua‘a (the altar on which a pig was laid as payment to a chief of an ahupua‘a). Traditional alignment by the early Hawaiians when building heiau as this was. Mr. Kaohelauli‘i mentioned other traditional cultural practices in Po‘ip today: We only fish little bit today. Little bit, because very little. Everything is going. We worry about so many things like population and chemicals. Surfing! This was a famous place in old days for that. That was my dad’s spot. He called it “laugh-laugh” I don’t know the Hawaiian name was. That is where I learned how to surf out there. They call it Wai‘ohai is the name. When asked about past history of Kloa, Mr. Kaohelauli‘i stated: Lwa‘i was the beginning. There was some from Lwa‘i Kai because that was a navigational point. There was a navigation rock. Also the Pu‘u Kilo i‘a. That is the spot is where the canoes came in from Tahiti. Then they would always return to that very spot. Yes. That is what they did. In long distance voyaging there were certain spots along this coast especially for landing. KΚloa landing was seat of all the navigation prior to Nwiliwili. Lwa‘i was the beginning of the early arrivals and then spread out over the plains of Kloa. After a study of Lwa‘i Kai in the valley and what came out of it was essentially that Lwa‘i was always been controlled by certain ali‘i (chiefs). It is the coastal trail so as the m‘ and the families were going between Wailua and Waimea several times a year the armies would be following along the shore line. Between Wailua and Lwa‘i is the overnight stay so you are looking at a huge amount of agriculture with part of it as hardly any hale (house) settlements at all so that was a curious thing when you are looking at massive lo‘i (wet land taro fields) and large loko i‘a (fishponds). Out of the whole coast line as it comes down here at KΚloa following the old coastal trail is the trail they would have followed. They did have a fishpond in Kne I Olo Uma. A kupuna said that there were over a thousand canoes inside the fishpond. In the old days there was a pathway coming in with the canoes, one canal coming in with the canoes in Kne I Olo Uma Fishpond. My guess is they came in to come into the heiau from Kahiki (Tahiti). Mr. Kaohelauli‘i (Looking at where the pump stations are on maps) mentioned the pump stations in KΚloa: What happens is that the water is not draining through its natural drain because they filled it up and put a hotel on top. All of it is actually getting pumped up into Kloa Mill. All the sewage from all these hotels and everything is getting pumped to this station which takes lines up to KΚloa Mill, then they process it all up there and then send out the clean water from there. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 80TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 When asked to share his concerns with the proposed project, Mr. Kaohelauli‘i mentioned: My concerns no matter what they get up there is they I am going to be here. They dynamite, throws all this dust. My main concern is that everything they have up there is coming down to us. The smell the sewer is terrible now. Even the water now is different. It is not taste like before. I hope we don’t have to drink that water. I am not. It all affects me. My taxes go up caught it development. Now the Knudsen’s are up for their renewal or whatever they have to do, but the 100 year lease is coming up soon, so that is why they are pushing all this development. They are pushing all these old plans from way back are being pushed through. I am not comfortable about this whole thing. I live here I smell it. I can smell it from down by the sea and my neighbors too. I can smell everybody’s around here. 7.5.3 Mr. Rupert Puni Rowe Mr. Rupert Rowe is of the Puni ‘ohana of Kloa. He is kama‘ina to Kloa where he was raised. Mr. Rowe presently is a member of the native organization “Hui Mlama Kne I Olo Uma,” which presently cares for the Kne I Olo Uma site in Po‘ip: When asked to share his concerns about the proposed project and the potential impact to Kloa and the Po‘ip community, Mr. Rowe shared: My name is Rupert Rowe. My ‘ohana is the Puni Family of Kloa. My grandfather was a kahuna l‘au lapa‘au (medicinal healer) in the Hawaiian Culture. This area we are talking about was his gathering area in the caves where he would make his medicines. What has happened in the area has been a dramatic change that we were not prepared for were plans from the 70s injected into the 21st Century because we do have great problems with the drainage as I will get there. Let’s get to the points over there. Number one, we have development on the south side that is totally out of control. To help everybody get a better view of what is really happening in the area they have destroyed all the archaeological sites on private land in which I believe the State Historic Preservation Division had no control or any power to undo what has happened there so all the sites are gone. Culturally we lost a great thing of the past (referring to the KΚloa Field System), secondly, right now this development on this side and the sewer treatment (referring to Po‘ip) I would like to see the whole layout of everything if they can get that to me later on (meaning the client). I want to concentrate on Kne I Olo Uma. What has happened over the last fifteen years, the County does not have a drainage plan which they once had and signed off on. We have a problem right now because the water cannot drain, so the parking lot in floods. The Hotel Wai‘ohai in which they built right upon the fishponds that was there so the natural drainage has been plugged on the bottom. They are trying to figure out how they are going to correct the problem. I don’t Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 81TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 think it is possible, but we will see. Right now we have more injected wells on the south side I believe area wise than any other place in Hawai‘i. Storm run-off into the wells because everything on the south side, if you have an aerial view of the area you will see why there is a problem because they don’t know how to move the water. The native people moved the water west because that was the only way to make the water drain properly so there fishponds in the lower area would be productive, but through development they have never really looked at the culture issues to protect the past so that the future can be set. Now on this development on the top end they are draining water into Kne I Olo Uma so there is a great problem right there and this problem lies because the site has to be registered. If it is registered under the federal and state then I believe the site cannot be used as a catchment basin. This is a serious problem that we must really look at and concentrate on the drainage for the south side. We need answer on how everything is to be drained? As far as our culture sites, the private land owner which controls most of the south side has a great concern on destroying the sites on their private properties. We ask kanaka maoli (Native Hawaiian person) really cannot tell the private landowner if they can preserve our site because of development. So a lot of the sites were lost by poor planning by the planning department. I think Billy can add a little bit more. What I am talking about is the drainage. The surface water, kukae (excrement) water. So they want to use Kne I Olo Uma as the catchment basin because the bottom part is flooding right now and they cannot figure how to stop the flooding on the bottom part. So when you come down by the Wai‘ohai and you look on the left hand side they bulldozed all inside there and they have three big pipes running out. That is surface water. Now from there where is the water going? Is it going to come to Kne I Olo Uma or is emptying down in the Wai‘ohai? There is no drain. It will go to the ocean. The aerial photographs gives you a better view of the seriousness of the existing problem because this is the only spot in the state of Hawai‘i they only get injected wells. Mr. Rowe shared his concerns about the proposed project: The fisherman in this area is Billy. All the fishing in this area is not the way it once was before we could fill a couple coolers. Shoreline everything has changed. More people, the environment has changed and thus changed our culture. So whatever is happening I don’t see a plan on preservation. There is no evacuation plan no signs we are the only county with no plan. 7.6 Aunty Wilma Holi CSH conducted a “talk-story” interview with Ms. Wilma Holi at the Waimea High School Library on Kauai. Aunty Wilma is kama‘ina to Hanapp, Kaua‘i and also has lineal and cultural ties to KΚloa. CSH provided a project description and maps for her review. Aunty Wilma Holi provided the following information: Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Kama‘ina “Talk Story” Interviews Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 82TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Hawaiians never consumed reclamation water it is against our religion. We have gone too far. It has gone so against our water springs like Wait and Waikomo. There are wells up mountain by the cemetery. Now many dry streams and river beds. Outside of Kloa just before ‘ma‘o a new bridge had a reservoir up there but no water in the stream. As you come into KΚloa by the tunnel of trees going to Kloa Town. The project planners need to go back into the history of Kloa and Po‘ip to understand how was the community designed. It wasn’t heavily populated. The Marquesas arrivals to the forest of Kloa. Weliweli and Po‘ip was hot and dry areas. Closer to Lwa‘i was lusher, maybe a rain belt? The island has lava tubes; water will percolate down and find a spring. Wai‘ohai has many springs. Were they covered? We don’t eat kukae .Why drink it? Where did the mill get their wash cane from? What is their source of water when they start? You have to have a water source for development. Looking at the capacity it is based on community. The Hawaiians managed their resources. Local live mauka, visitors live in the rich area. The smell of waste is everywhere. We need to think on how can waste be recycled and used for soil. Drilling? We will not know what is underground? Grove Farm plans to develop east of the bypass on Weliweli side. My grandma is the last kuleana claim in Mh‘ulep. Grove Farm closed off streams to flow into Po‘ip area. Is this done in anticipation for this project? Reclamation water does not work for local kalo (taro) which contains chemicals. They have to get their source. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Landscape of Kloa Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 83TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 8 Cultural Landscape of Kloa and Po‘ip 8.1 Overview Discussions of specific aspects of traditional Hawaiian culture as they may relate to the project area are presented below. This section examines traditional cultural resources and practices identified within the project area in the broader context of the encompassing the project area in Kloa-Po‘ip area and the Kloa, Weliweli and P‘ Ahupua‘a landscape. Excerpts from the previous two sections, including the kama‘ina interviews and statements about the proposed project area, are incorporated throughout this section where applicable. 8.2 Hawaiian Habitation and Agriculture Beginning possibly as early as 1450, the “Kloa Field System” was planned and built on the shallow lava soils to the east and west of Waikomo Stream. The KΚloa Field System is characterized as a network of fields of both irrigated and dryland crops, built mainly upon one stream system. Waikomo Stream was adapted into an inverted tree model with smaller branches leading off larger branches. The associated dispersed housing and field shelters were located among the fields, particularly at junctions of the irrigation ditches (‘auwai). In this way, the whole of the field system was contained within the entire makai (seaward) portion of the ahupua‘a of Kloa, stretching east and west to the ahupua‘a boundaries. The field system, with associated clusters of permanent extended family habitations, was in place by the middle of the 16th century and was certainly expanded and intensified continuously from that time. From A.D. 1650-1795, the Hawaiian Islands were typified by the development of large communal residences, religious structures and an intensification of agriculture. Large heiau in Kloa may date to this period. Historical documentation shows Kloa thriving agriculturally. An estimate in 1857 stated that “10,000 barrels of sweet potatoes were grown each year at Kloa, and that the crop furnished nearly all the potatoes sent to California from Hawai‘i” (Judd 1935:326). Sugar and molasses were also chief articles of export. Whalers used the Kloa “Roadstead” from 1830 to 1870, and took on provisions of squashes (pumpkins), salt beef, pigs, and cattle (Damon 1931:176). Hawaiians grew the pumpkins on the rocky land north of the landing. There were also numerous salt pans along the shore near the landing that were used to make the salt (Palama and Stauder 1973:20). Bernice Judd, writing in 1935, summarized most of what was known of the traditional Hawaiian life of Kloa: In the old days two large ‘auwai or ditches left the southern end of the Maulili pool to supply the taro patches to the east and west. On the kuunas [embankments] the natives grew bananas and sugar cane for convenience in irrigating. Along the coast they had fish ponds and salt pans, ruins of which are still to be seen. Their dry land farming was done on the kula (dry land), where they raised sweet potatoes, of which both the tubers and the leaves were good to eat. The Hawaiians planted pia (arrowroot) as well as wauke (paper mulberry) in Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Landscape of Kloa Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 84TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 patches in the hills wherever they would grow naturally with but little cultivation. In the uplands they also gathered the leaves of the hala (screwpine) for mats and the nuts of the kukui (candlenut) for light (Judd 1935:53). In past oral history interviews, community members spoke of past Hawaiian habitation and agriculture in the KΚloa area. Edene Naleimaile Vidinha, said this about the crater, “But you know, the olden days, down in the crater, the Hawaiians used to plant watermelons and potatoes, never saw anything like that. So now, it’s filled with houses.” Stella Burgess says, “Further north of the project area, in the valley, the ancient Hawaiians would grow sugar cane. She said the sugar cane was used for medicinal purposes and for tassels for arrows. She also said lehua (which also grew near the ocean), pili grass and medicinal herbs were grown. Mrs. Burgess was taught that noni (Morinda citrifolia), which was found in the area, was not made into a tea but eaten as fruit. She continues, “They also had kukui (Aleurites moluccana) for the fishermen as well as breadfruit. ‘Uhaloa was possibly grown by individual families in auwai, but probably did not grow in abundance as it does on the west side of Kaua‘i. Ppolo (Solanum nigrum), which was eaten in a salad and also used medicinally was grown everywhere.” Mr. Randy Wichman said, “The ‘auwai are going through there. The lands we are talking about right now are obviously the Kloa Field System.” Project participant Mr. Rupert Rowe noted that the native people moved the water west because that was the only way to make the water drain properly so there fishponds in the lower area would be productive. Eighty-nine kuleana awards were given to individuals within KΚloa Ahupua‘a. The majority of these Land Commission Awards (LCAs) were located in and around Kloa Town itself. No LCAs were granted within the present project area; however an 1891 map of KΚloa by M.D. Monsarrat indicates two LCAs (LCA 3606 and 10272) in the vicinity of the southwest portion of the project area (Figure 6 & Table 1), and three LCAs (LCA 6667, 6309, and 3584) in the vicinity of the northwest portion of the project area (Figure 7 & Table 2). Mrs. Burgess has researched a kuleana land holder, Mika [Kailihakuma], who was awarded LCA 6667 during the Mhele. According to LCA records, at the time of the Mhele, he grew Irish potatoes, oranges, bittermelon, gourds and yams. There was a wall and a fence on his property and a government road ran through his property. He did not live here, but lived in Mh‘ulep. The area of the LCA was called Makapa‘ala. From the Mika holdings, the property ended up in Mrs. Burgess’s ‘ohana (family). In that section, there it was told that there was a heiau to Laka. Pili grass was often offered at the heiau. Also in the Makapa‘ala area was the home of a family named Nakai or Naka‘iwelo, who were canoe builders. She says that there may be burials in the area because “they always buried near the hale (house).”Along Hapa Road, there were some individual homes there as well. They would grow ‘uala (sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas) and sugar cane in their time period. The entire area was known as Pa‘uolaka, “the skirt of Laka.” The area was not dedicated for hula, but for agriculture. Laka was a duality god- male and female. 500 acres were dedicated for Laka during the time of Mnokalanip, who was responsible for the resurgence of agriculture in the south shore area. Beryl Blaich of Mlama Mh‘ulep speaks about the kuleana records of the project area. She says, “As you no doubt recognize several of the P‘ ahupua‘a parcels were located in ‘marsh’ which became Waita- the largest reservoir in Hawai‘i. It seems that several of the applicants did not receive grants allegedly because their claims, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Landscape of Kloa Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 85TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 written by the school teacher (public school located at Mh‘ulep) named Kekele, were rejected in Honolulu as Governor Kanoa said they were ‘soiled and improperly written.’” Hunting was popular in and in the vicinity of the project area during modern times, as Mitsugi (Mitaru) Muraoka shared, he hunted “all around the Wait side.” He recalled there “used to be plenty birds” including pheasants. However, during the time of his interview in 1987, he says that hunting was restricted to certain times only a few birds could be taken. Isaac Brandt in a past oral history interview shared that his father would hunt pheasant and his mother would pluck the birds to make feather leis. KΚloa Resident #1 recalls pig hunting near Wait Reservoir, although he himself only went once. 8.3 Marine and Freshwater Resources The Kloa ahupua‘a is well watered by constantly flowing streams. Two of these, the ‘ma‘o, “green,” and P-‘ele‘ele, “dark night,” feed the area of Pwai (a variety of wild duck). Where they join, the stream becomes Wai-komo, “entering water,” which flows down the center of the land, bringing life to the drier regions toward the seashore. It is so named because from time to time the stream disappears for a bit before reappearing farther down the slope. Stella Burgess says that Waikomo Stream may have been ten times a big as it is now and had many auwai extensions. There was an auwai where the Sheraton Resort is now and went to KǑahuna. Makai of the project area, native Hawaiians in Kloa would fish along the Po‘ip coastline. Mrs. Stella Burgess described fishermen in ancient times saying, “Many ancient Hawaiians had temporary shelters in the area. The families would have a kuleana (property) mauka (inland) and another makai (towards the sea) and go back and forth.” She also added that the Ainako house lot was near there and they were a family of permanent fishermen next to the Grand Hyatt Resort in Po‘ip. In more modern times, many Kloa residents would fish and swim in the Wait Reservoir, Waikomo Stream and plantation ditches. From the University of Hawai‘i Oral History project on Kloa in 1987, a few participants described fishing and swimming activities in and near the project area. Burt Hiroshi Ebata stated that although Wait Reservoir was a restricted area, the kids would catch goldfish. He also remembered big ‘o‘opu as well. Once the Reservoir “dried up” because of a drought, and he could saw all the huge ‘o‘opu there. He also added that they had catfish and ‘pae (shrimp) in the mountain streams in the Mh‘ulep area. He and his childhood friends would catch ‘pae in big ditches. There were also frogs in the big ditches. He also recalled swimming in Wailana (also known as Waikomo) Stream, the Wait Reservoir and in the stream along the Kloa Fire Station. Louis Jacintho, Jr. also remembered swimming in the plantation ditches and Wailana Stream. He also recalled the koi and goldfish in Wait Reservoir, although they did not catch them to eat. He stated that the fish in the reservoir were tilapia, largemouth bass, tucanan, which are like bass from Argentina, pk, ‘o‘opu, or catfish. In the plantation ditches, there was ‘o‘opu. He was a caretaker of the tunnels, where the ditch came from the Lhu‘e powerhouse and in the tunnels, there was ‘pae. Mitsugi (Mitaru) Muraoka also mentioned fishing. As a child, Kloa Resident #1 recalls fishing in the Wait Reservoir and the plantation ditches for bass, tilapia, koi and frogs. Project participant Mr. Randy Wichman noted that fishing was important to Kloa. The place names that are here are related to the k‘ula (fish shrine). Part of the fishing consecration process Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Landscape of Kloa Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 86TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 for the fleet everything that was needed for a voyage was taken up on to the heiau. They spent the night and prayed. If the omens looked really good then they would launch the following day, if they didn’t they postponed it. And then that puts particular type signature to the heiau itself with a long for core. He also mentions that there is the pua i‘a (fish spawn) that part of it is still in the parking lot (Brennecke’s). Kama‘ina, Mr. Billy Kaohelauli‘i noted that many fishponds use to be here in front Brennecke’s had a nice fishpond (Pointing to Po‘ip Beach Park) and that it was all loko‘ia (fishponds). They were all filled in the 1960s. All of them were buried.” He added, “What I used to do out there is catch fish at Nukumoi. It was too rough out there for the women. They would not be able to gather limu at Nukumoi. They would gather limu on the other side. Limu kohu (Asparagopsis taxiformis), get lpoa (Dicyopteris plagiogramma and D. australis) all kinds. At Makahuena Point I used get my wana (sea urchin), ‘opihi (limpets), moi (threadfish, Polydactylus sexfilis) and holehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis). Have nenue (pilot fish, Kyphosus bigbbus, K. vaigiensis), black fish, and uhu (parrot fish, Scarus perspicillatus), but very rare now they used to come way inside. Not like before.” 8.3.1 Salt The manufacture of salt was important for the Native Hawaiians. Many of the larger salt pans on Kaua‘i are located near NΚmilu. The importance of salt manufacture in the area was illustrated in the 1874 Boundary Commission determination for KΚloa, where the oral testimony of Pene Kalauau claimed he had come all the way “from Koolau to go to Koloa for salt” (Boundary Commission, 1874, Kauai, Vol. No. 1:124) Other salt pans were noted at Kane-milo-hai and at Pau-a-Laka adjacent to the [older coastal] road [at KΚloa] (Kikuchi 1963:66-67). At P‘, “the seafront is dominated by a crescent beach called Ke-one-loa, “long beach,” where there were kuakua pa‘akai (salt ponds)” (Wichman 1998:45). Abraham Keli‘iokapalapala Aka shared the process of salt-making in Kloa in the 1987 UH Oral History Study. However, no community members interviewed for this CIA mention salt-gathering. 8.4 Gathering Plant Resources Hawaiians utilized upland resources for a multitude of purposes. Forest resources were gathered, for not only the basic needs of food and clothing, but for tools, weapons, canoe building, house construction, dyes, adornments, hula, medicinal and religious purposes. Modern gathering of plants is documented in the University of Hawai‘i Oral History project on Kloa in 1987, many participants described gathering fruits. Burt Hiroshi Ebata said he would gather mountain apples, mostly in the area behind the Wait Reservoir. He also describes picking mangoes and java plums. Louis Jacintho, Jr. recalled going, “in the pastures, get mangoes, or go up into the mountains, get mountain apples, rose apples, up on the hill ‘guaivis,’” or Hawaiian guava as well as “choke plum.” During this assessment, cultural consultants mentioned some gathering of plant resources. Stella Burgess knows of no one who currently gathers any plants in the area as people do not know what pesticides are being sprayed where. Many people grow and gather their own plants and herbs on their own properties. She does say that flowers are often gathered in the project area, specifically ‘ilima (Sida) from the Pu‘uwanawana area to the former cane fields. There is Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Landscape of Kloa Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 87TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 also hina in the neighboring Mh‘ulep area, but none in the project area as it needs salt and lime rock to grow. She makes leis out of hina (possibly Heliotropium anomalum), which is a baby cactus. As a child, KΚloa Resident #1 would gather mountain apples and the purple “choke plum” in the area. Kloa Resident #2 said there pockets of native plants along the side of the road in KΚloa once in awhile, but more so on the Mh‘ulep side of the project area where there is anapanapa(Columbrina asiatica). Project participant Mr. Rupert Rowe mentioned that his grandfather was a kahuna l‘au lapa‘au (medicinal healer) in the Hawaiian Culture and the area we are talking about was his gathering area in the caves where he would make his medicines. 8.5 Wahi Pana (Storied Places) The Kloa, Weliweli and P‘ ahupua‘a are wahi pana, rich in mo‘olelo. For Hawaiians, the mo‘olelo does more than explain an area; it reconnects the land with its own spiritual past. In the Kloa ahupua‘a mo‘olelo are told on the gods Kne and Kanaloa visiting Maulili Pond and leaving impressions of their forms on the ‘papa (coral flat). Kiha-wahine, the fearsome mo‘o goddess, lived in Waihnau Pool, near Maulili Pond. When she was in residence, the water turned red and no one dared to swim there (Wichman 1998:40).There is also the story of ‘Aikanaka attempting to sacrifice his cousin Kawelo at Maulili Heiau, which has not been found by modern archaeologists. Also in Kloa, is the tale of the small stream Weoweopilau on the plains of Kamo‘oloa in which a fisherman refuses to give fish to an old woman. On his journey home, he feels more and more weary, as the sun grows hotter and hotter and he realizes the old woman was Pele. In the makai area of KΚloa there is the mo‘olelo of Kaikap, a sea mo‘o who is trapped by a young boy named Liko. The mo‘o is said to be trapped even to this day. In Weliweli ahupua‘a there are tales about Makahena, “eyes overflowing with heat” that the shimmer of the sun are the spirits of Hawaiian warriors passing through (Wichman 1998: 44). Also in Weliweli, Palila defeats a Kona enemy by cutting down a forest. In P‘, there is the heiau of Kne‘aukai, the fishing god, who aids two fisherman by turning into human form and teaching them ‘oli to catch more fish. P‘ is also famous for it’s delicious he‘e. Keakianoho, the P‘ konohiki who loved he‘e, was disturbed when the he‘e were being eaten by a giant crab. Project participant Stella Burgess shared a few mo‘olelo of the area. She described the Battle of Palena and Palilia that took place near Wait Reservoir and a little below it in the 16th century. There were many lehua (Metrosideros macropus) trees and the ground was soft and spongy. When Palila’s father was fighting the battle, Palila saw that the enemies were hiding in the trees. He had the men cut down the lehua trees so the lehua became a part of the soil, and the soil became very soft and spongy. This is how the soil became the way it is today. Randy Wichman also mentions the Po‘ip area was the stage for battles between chief Kkona and invading neighbor island forces in the early 15th century. Generations later, a civil war splits Kaua‘i in two and battle between cousins Kawelo and ‘Aikanaka. ‘Aikanaka attempts to sacrifice Kawelo on Maulili Heiau, but Kawelo is saved by a great wind. Mr. Wichman also associates Kloa with Kna‘u. Kna‘u was the sister of Pele, but she was more known for her sorcery yet she had many women and she dug in here. Pele actually only stops at NΚmilu and then moves on, but Kna‘u continues actually digs into KΚloa. Kna‘u is represented by the red tapa (bark cloth) with the black dots. Then she eventually marries Kalaiphoa. She marries many of her women to Kloa men. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Landscape of Kloa Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 88TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 8.6 Cultural and Historic Properties, including Ilina (Burials) Clearly Kloa was a particularly important ahupua‘a in traditional Hawaiian times. The fact that at least fourteen heiau of varying sizes and functions have been documented in the Kloa area (Thrum 1907, Bennett 1931), and that these heiau are associated with many legendary-historic figures such as Kawelo and ‘Aikanaka, suggests a heightened cultural richness of the ahupua‘a. The 1885 Makea was able to describe fourteen heiau (religious structures) within the Kloa area. Of the 14 heiau, five were associated with human and animal blood sacrifices (luakini and po‘okanaka), five with fishing, two medicinal, and one agricultural, with one of unknown function (Lahainaluna 1885 HMS 43 #17). Thomas Thrum was the next to document sites in the Kloa area in his list of the heiau of Kaua‘i (Thrum 1907). He discussed six heiau in the district of Kloa, which once extended from Hanapp to Mh‘ulep (Table 3). The heiau were Hanakalauae (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kanehaule (inland KΚloa Ahupua‘a), Kihouna (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Kaneiolouma (Kloa Ahupua‘a), Weliweli (Weliweli Ahupua‘a), and Waiopili (Mh‘ulep Ahupua‘a). The Koloa Sugar Company built a new, large mill in P‘ in 1912 about a mile from KΚloa. New railroad track was laid, and an asphalt road was built to connect the new mill with Kloa Landing. World War I caused a huge demand for sugar. By the end of hostilities in 1918, the Koloa Sugar Company was producing 9,000 tons of sugar each year, and adding additional acreage. The mill in P‘ was finally closed in 1996, and remains a landmark of the countryside. Ms. Blaich states the historic value of Kloa Sugar Mill, as it was built in 1913 as well as graveled dirt haul cane roads, many of which were haul cane rail routes until about 1954. Mr. Francis Ching mentioned when the railroad berm was being laid, the rocks from the cultural sites along the way were used to construct the berm, so very few sites will be discovered. Mr. Reginald Gage in 2005 said there is a steep rock (Pali-O-Kloa) on the east bank of the Waikomo Stream, which is referenced in Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual. There is supposed to be a petroglyph on it and also a picture, but he has never seen it. Mr. Randy Wichman shares about the heiau in the project area, “The heiau (place of worship) is lost. There is the heiau of Kne I Olo Uma which is in the proximity. It is in the ili (land section) of Wai‘ohai. The main heiau (shrine) in the area is Maulili. Maulili was central around the pool just like Ka‘awakoa of Wai‘ale‘ale and in Nu‘alolo Kai also are essentially at one point around a spring. The main heiau (shrine) in the area is Maulili. Maulili was central around the pool just like Ka‘awakoa of Wai‘ale‘ale and in Nu‘alolo Kai also are essentially at one point around a spring.” According to Clyde Nmu‘o of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, there are, “Numerous cultural sites including, but not limited to heiau complexes and fishing shrines are situated within the assessment area.” Several participants acknowledge the possibility of finding iwi kpuna in the project area. Stella Burgess states that in the project area, and neighboring Mh‘ulepu and Makwehi, bones that are found are usually from large battle with Kukonaala‘a. Many believe that the iwi found in the area are from the battle with Kamehameha, but they are actually from Kukonaala‘a’s battles. Kloa Resident #2 shares that many of the burial sites between KΚloa and Po‘ip, where current projects are being built, were not recorded. Of a differing viewpoint, Mr. Ching believes that Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Cultural Landscape of Kloa Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 89TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 very few burials will be found as the project follows previously harrowed grounds. However, if burials are found, they will be easily identified by looking at the stones closely. The walls in burials are nicely lined up. If they aren’t, they are probably sweet potato mounds. 8.7 Lava Tubes and Caves There are many underground lava tubes and caves in the Kloa ahupua'a. “In the area between Koloa town, Koloa Mill and the flat pahoehoe lands below Kaluahonu (Waitah or Koloa reservoir) several caves and shelters were found” (Kikuchi 1963: 55). According to Katherine Bukoski Viveiros in a 1988 Oral History of Kloa, “Kaluahonu Cave is close by the Waita reservoir. The plantation used to dump human waste and rubbish from all the camps into this very large cave” (UH 1998: 697-698). Mr. Gage stated that there are many caves in KΚloa, but thought that the caves were likely used for habitation rather than burials. He could not recall seeing burials in Kloa, except along the shoreline. Francis Ching also refers to the lava tubes, as potentially yielding some sites but acknowledges that the project area likely does not include the lava tubes. When Stella Burgess was young, she saw underground caverns or volcanic tubes near the Kloa Neighborhood Center area with water flowing through them. She says that it is likely that iwi kpuna will be found in Kukui‘ula and Kloa, which is full of underground lava tubes. Kloa Resident #1 mentioned that there are underground lava tubes in the KΚloa town area and that some of his neighbors had hit the lava tubes when digging their cesspool. KΚloa Resident #2 says that the whole area is sensitive and may yield cultural historic properties, because they may inadvertently dig into the underground caves. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 90TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 9 Summary and Recommendations At the request of Wilson Okamoto Corporation, CSH prepared this CIA for the proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System, KΚloa, Weliweli, and P‘ Ahupua‘a, Kloa District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: [4] 2-8-004: por. 003; [4] 2-8-008: por. 001 & por. 036; [4] 2-8-009: por. 001; [4] 2-8-011: por. 001; [4] 2-8-014: por. 005, por. 019, por. 023, por. 030, & por. 037; [4] 2-8-022: por. 001, por. 011, por. 021, & por. 030; [4] 2-9-001: por. 001. In addition to conducting background research into the traditional and historic importance of the project area, in the context of KΚloa, Weliweli and P‘ Ahupua‘a, including results from archaeological studies, CSH also made a substantial effort to consult with community members and organizations. CSH attempted to contact 52 community contacts (government agency or community organization representatives, or individuals such as cultural practitioners) for the purposes of this CIA, 31 people responded, one provided a short testimony and ten kpuna (elders) and/or kama‘ina (native-born) were interviewed for more in-depth contributions to the CIA. Six interviews are currently pending approval and were not included in this report. HOH Utilities, LLC proposes to develop a privately-owned and operated regional wastewater reclamation facility and associated wastewater collection system in the KΚloa-Po‘ip region on the south shore of the Island of Kaua‘i. The proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional WRF) and collection system (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “project area”) is intended to collect and treat wastewater associated with a service area encompassing the communities of Kloa Town, Po‘ip, and Kukui‘ula. The proposed wastewater collection system improvements would consist of four wastewater pump stations (Kloa WWPS, Villages WWPS, Crater WWPS, and Eastern WWPS) along with gravity lines and force mains situated within existing undeveloped lands, roadways or along established utility line corridors or unpaved roadway corridors within a predominantly agricultural area. Associated ground disturbance will include excavation related to the project area’s development, to include: structural footings, utility installation, as well as roadway and parking area installation. Broadly, this CIA considered the Area of Potential Effect (APE) to be the project area footprint within the larger context of Kloa, Weliweli and P‘ Ahupua‘a. 9.1 Results of Background Research Background research conducted for this project yielded the following results: 1. From previous archaeological studies and historic accounts it appears that pre-contact habitation and intensive irrigated agriculture were widespread in central and coastal KΚloa. As an extensive irrigated complex, the KΚloa Field System was used to divert the waters of the Waikomo Stream for taro, native sugar, and fish. 2. In the early post-contact era (1795-1880), the KΚloa Field System continued in use for foreign trade and was probably further intensified. Sweet potatoes were a main crop for the whaling and merchant ships, and the purchase of pigs, salt, oranges and other items are noted in many ship journals. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 91TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 3. Documents of the Great Mhele show that by the mid-1800s there were still several traditional farmers within Kloa who both lived and worked within the area. The individual claims – for both lo‘i (wetland) and kula (dryland) suggest that while traditional farming of taro for subsistence was still taking place, in kula lands – sugar cane production for sale to the nearby sugar mill, had begun to dominate the landscape. Of the LCAs within Kloa, several claim a kula planted with cane or a cane field or sugar cane garden. Several also identify cane lands as boundaries for the LCAs. 4. Within three years of sugar cultivation by Ladd and Company in 1835, residents in and surrounding Kloa were quickly moving to adapt to the new economy based on the production of sugar cane. Eventually, most of inland Kloa was planted with sugar cane and only the rockiest areas, unsuitable for cultivation, survived the dramatic changes in the landscape brought about during the early 20th century. A 1935 map of Koloa Sugar Company shows the extensive cane lands within the project area (see Figure 8). 5. The Koloa Sugar Company had previously purchased the ahupua‘a of P‘ southeast of Kloa town. A new mill was built in P‘ in 1912 about a mile from Kloa Town, and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Regional WRF (see Figure 10). The mill in P‘ was finally closed in 1996. 6. By the late 1960’s, the main town of Kloa experienced a type of reverse migration back to the shoreline. Although the town had established a Civic Center in 1977, the pace of tourism-driven development at the shoreline drew construction and service jobs away from the town center. 7. Based on background research, historic properties (i.e. archaeological sites) in the form of pre- and post-contact surface architecture may be encountered during the archaeological inventory survey of the project area. Historic research has indicated five LCAs in the vicinity of the project area, suggesting indigenous Hawaiian land use in the form of habitation and agriculture. Previous archaeological research has documented evidence of both pre- and post contact land use in the area. 8. Evidence of indigenous Hawaiian land use could include both habitation (platforms, enclosures, and C-shapes) and agricultural (terraces, mounds, field walls, etc.) features. Evidence of post-contact land use is likely to be associated with historic sugarcane cultivation and could include irrigation infrastructure (ditches and flumes), sugar transport infrastructure (road causeways, railroad berms, etc.), clearing mounds, and boundary walls.. 9. It should be noted that the due to the extensive sugarcane cultivation documented within the project area, mechanized land modifications associated with sugarcane cultivation has likely disturbed and/or destroyed any pre-contact historic properties that may have been present. Additionally the project area is situated primarily within in-use roadways and old cane haul roads, which have caused additional land modifications within the project area, disturbing and/or destroying historic Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 92TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 properties. Thus the probability of encountering surface historic properties during the pedestrian inspection is low. 9.2 Results of Community Consultation CSH attempted to contact 52 community members (government agency or community organization representatives, or individuals such as cultural practitioners) for the purposes of this CIA, 31 people responded, One provided a short testimony and ten kpuna (elders) and/or kama‘ina (native-born) were interviewed for more in-depth contributions to the CIA. Two interviews are currently pending approval and were not included in this report. The findings of this CIA suggest that there are a few key areas of cultural interest and concern regarding the proposed project. Community consultation shows: 1. According to community contacts, the site of the Kloa-Po‘ip Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System and vicinity is likely to have surface and subsurface cultural and historic properties, including human skeletal remains. Several of the study participants are concerned about iwi kpuna (ancestral remains) and cultural and historic properties in or near the project area. a. Clyde Nmu‘o of OHA states, “Numerous cultural sites including, but not limited to heiau complexes and fishing shrines are situated within the assessment area and community groups are actively working to preserve these cultural sites for future generations.” b. Stella Burgess says that it is likely that iwi kpuna will be found in Kukui‘ula and Kloa, which is full of underground lava tubes. She recommends that if any cultural historic properties, such as iwi kpuna are found, the construction should stop. She hopes that the project proponent will be sensitive toward cultural issues and the project will keep “above board” and if anything is found, it should be reported. She recommends for a special place to be designated for the iwi kpuna and they should be put back as quickly as possible not to create another Wal-Mart situation (in which cultural and lineal descendants as well as members of the community expressed outrage over the treatment of the 25 sets of human remains found during construction.) She would like to be contacted if any iwi kpuna or other cultural historic properties are found. c. Mr. Francis Ching, archaeologist and former Kaua‘i resident states that because most of the project area is on sugar cane lands that were previously harrowed, it is most likely that very few sites will be found. However, if burials are found, they will be easily identified by looking at the stones closely. The walls in burials are nicely lined up. If they aren’t, they are probably sweet potato mounds. He recommends that a cultural monitor be present during construction. d.Kloa Resident #2 says that there are additional significant cultural resources that have not been adequately documented and assessed by prior historic-preservation work. She says that to her knowledge no one has surveyed the Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 93TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 underground caves. She says that many of the burial sites between KΚloa and Po‘ip, where current projects are being built, were not recorded. e. Mr. Randy Wichman voiced his concerns with the proposed project in the mauka regions of Po‘ip saying, the project proponent, “will actually being taking out some of the sites, although originally designated to be taken out or data recovery, we lose those [sites].” He is concerned the project proponent will breech the railroad berm. He also mentioned that “within the actual footprint of the Hapa Road area there may be some real sensitive issues because there are a lot of things going on right now, like the law suit.” He recommends a higher level of sensitivity be used in the Hapa Road area. Although the project will be near the edge of Hapa Road, he asks the area be looked at as part of the whole scheme and seen as such.” He is also concerned with the “affect the project may have on the Kne I Olo Uma site because it had that serious agriculture component.” f. Mr. Rupert Rowe is also concerned for the safety of the Kne I Olo Uma site on the edge of the project area. 2. The project area and environs, has a long history of use by Knaka Maoli (native born), and other kama‘ina groups for a variety of cultural activities including fishing, the gathering of plants and fruits like mountain apple (Syzygium malaccense), java “choke plum” (Syzygium cuminii) and ‘ilima (Sida).. Community participants expressed concern that mauka access is restricted as a result of past development and that access to cultural and natural resources has been disrupted. Two project participants shared their concerns about the limited access of Wait Reservoir, which is impeding cultural practices. One participant mentions ongoing gathering of plants in the project area. a. Beryl Blaich says, “Since the plantation closed, the community has lost access to Waita Reservoir where there are now commercial operations, as well as to the cane haul road along the mill, which the community traditionally used to go to Mh‘ulep, and to the valleys and ridges where pigs were hunted and people did gather plants.” She continues by saying that although landowners and leasees are concerned about liability, vandalism and already commit money to management of the area, community members resent their exclusion to formerly used areas. b.Kloa Resident #1 recalls fishing in Wait Reservoir as a child and thinks that access should be granted to the public. He says that the children of today should be able to go fishing at Wait. c. Stella Burgess mentioned flowers are often gathered in the project area, specifically ‘ilima from the Pu‘uwanawana area to the former cane fields. 3. One community member also is concerned with the wild pigs from the mauka regions making their way to the coastal area. Beryl Blaich states that these wild pigs have created a problem in the native plant restoration project of Grove Farm leasees David Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 94TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 and Linda Burney. She continues mentioning that she is unsure if the pigs are also a problem for the GMO corn operation starting in P‘ and Mh‘ulep. 4. One cultural consultant is concerned with the project’s impacts to view corridors. Beryl Blaich expresses Mlama Mh‘ulep’s concerns with the visual and environmental impacts to Pu‘u Wanawana, Pu‘u Hunihuni and Pu‘uhi Reservoir. “We are concerned about the visual impact of the proposed eastern pump station and the crater pump station on these puu, especially looking mauka from the coast to the mill.” 5. One project participant is concerned with the historic preservation of the Kloa Sugar Mill. Beryl Blaich says, “The mill itself is a historic icon. From the Makawehi and Punahoa limestone headlands on the coast, the mill presents a distinctive profile yet does not obscure the singular coastal craters. Ideally, the mill will not be demolished but reused and no future structure near it will obscure or dominate it.” 6. Beryl Blaich also expresses concern about possible environmental impacts on two of the craters. After the winter rainy season, they hold intermittent lakes that are frequented by migratory water birds. She is concerned that the wastewater plant will cause the birds of the area to become endangered. 7. Mr. Randy Wichman expressed his concerns with the cost of the project saying, “The massive drilling through bedrock. If they actually commit to the directional drilling, my guess it is going to be really expensive. It is probably easier for them to just carve a trench through then it is to drill. So cost wise it will be a lot more expensive.” 8. Several community members express a desire for a preservation or development plan for the area. a. Beryl Blaich recommends for the Kloa-Po‘ipu-Kalheo development plan to be updated. She states that there “is a need for [a] master plan for this important area as well as for the development plan [to] update Koloa’s undeveloped lands.” b. Mr. Rupert Rowe states, there is “no plan for preservation” and that Kaua‘i is, “the only county with no evacuation plan or signs.” 9. Several community members recommended the project proponent discuss the project with the community or look to the past to solve planning problems. a. Stella Burgess recommends the developers ask for help when dealing with cultural issues. She advises the project proponents to consult with the community in general and in particular with Grace Bacle, whose family comes from the South Shore. b.Kloa Resident #1 recommends the project proponent hold public meetings and update the community on the proposed project. Project participant c. Mr. Randy Wichman mentioned the importance of place names and their association with the history of Kloa. He also mentions it is important that the exact footprint is for public view where this pump station is going to be. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 95TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 d. Community member Ms. Wilma Holi stated project planners need to go back into the history of Kloa and Po‘ip to understand how was the community designed. 10. Two community members voiced concerns or recommendations regarding water resources in the project area. a. Mr. Randy Wichman stated, “Part of the reclamation of the water since it is good for irrigation could be considered for ‘auwai use. It might be worth considering as a concession in this particular area that it would be done.” b. Aunty Wilma Holi Aunty Wilma Holi voiced concerns about the lack of water and the source of water for this project. She also stated concern for the many dry streams and river beds and that there is a new reservoir but no water in stream. She also recommended recycling the waste to be used for soil. c. Mr. Tommy Oi voiced the benefits of the project saying the proposed project, “would be a better way to contain all your sewage and waste. Most waste will be contained. I know that they can recycle the water. A lot of that water can be used by the community and for irrigation. It is just something that is going to help the area so I don’t have any concerns.” 11. Three participants are concerned with the smell and noise that may be generated from the Pump Stations. a.Kloa Resident #1 is most concerned with the smell the KΚloa Pump Station will generate. The KΚloa Pump Station is very close to his home. b.Kloa Resident #2 hopes that there will be no odor or noise from the facility at the Mill. c. Aunty Wilma Holi is concerned with, “The smell of waste is everywhere.” 12. One participant recommends that the project proponent take responsibility for cleaning the area near the old Kloa Mill. KΚloa Resident #2 is suggests the project proponent clean the area by removing abandon cars and other garbage in the area, and making the area more presentable, instead of just being a “brownfield.” 13. Two project participants voiced concern that they would be forced to hook up to the new sewage system which would be expensive. They are also concerned the project will lay the pipes through their backyards and property. a.Kloa Resident #1 believes the project is unnecessary and will probably not hook up to the system. He stated that many of the KΚloa community members he knows are satisfied with the current cesspool system they have and also will not hook up. He believes this project will benefit upcoming businesses and the Kloa Creekside subdivision, not the existing community members. b.Kloa Resident #2’s family is also concerned about the cost of hooking up to the sewage system. They explained that many community members had recently renovated their cesspools after Hurricane ‘Iniki . They also do not want project pipes in their backyards and properties. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 96TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 14. Three participants expressed sadness, frustration, or negative feelings about the overall cumulative impacts of ongoing and future developments in KΚloa-Po‘ip as contributing to the loss of what is authentic and traditional about the area: a.Kloa Resident #1 sees this project as “opening the door to more development” in the Kloa-Po‘ip area b.Kloa Resident #2 is concerned about the project’s long-term impacts on the community. She stated that new infrastructure (sewer system, new water system, etc) may mean that a significant zoning change or large development project is anticipated and thus, foresees this project supporting more (new) development in the future. Her family expressed frustration with the ongoing development of the KΚloa-Po‘ip area. Kukui‘ula has especially brought out a lot of negative sentiments from the community. c. Mr. Rupert Rowe states that, “the traditional cultural practices are affected by population growth in the project area: All the fishing in this area is not the way it once was before we could fill a couple coolers. Shoreline everything has changed. More people, the environment has changed and thus changed our culture.” 9.3 Recommendations Several participants expressed concern that the proposed action for the KΚloa, Weliweli and P‘ ahupua‘a may negatively impact Hawaiian and KΚloa community members’ beliefs, resources and practices. A good faith effort to develop appropriate measures to address concerns and pay attention to the following recommendations may help mitigate potentially adverse effects of the proposed project on cultural, historic and natural resources in and near the project area. Based on the findings of this CIA, it is recommended that: 1. Based on the archival evidence and community consultation conducted for this assessment, it is possible that there are human skeletal remains as well as significant cultural and historic properties in the project area; it is therefore recommended that: a. Cultural monitoring and continuous ongoing consultation with cultural and lineal descendants of the area be conducted during all phases of development including ground-breaking and construction; b. Personnel involved in development activities be informed of the possibility of inadvertent cultural finds, including human remains. Should cultural or burial sites be identified during ground disturbance, all work should immediately cease, and the appropriate agencies notified pursuant to applicable law; c. If human burials are found, cultural and lineal descendants of the area should be consulted with regard to burial treatment plans. 2. Generally, it is recommended that project proponents pursue proactive consultation with community members in the KΚloa area in order to address community concerns about Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Summary and Recommendations Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 97TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 the impacts to the environment, access to Wait Reservoir, view corridors, possible cultural finds and sites, etc., integrate preservation and restoration ideas into the design and construction of the annex before development begins, and to consider meaningful ways of benefiting/contributing to the local Kloa community. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 98TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Section 10 References Cited Alexander, Arthur, C. 1937 Koloa Plantation 1835-1935, Kauai Historical Society, Lihue, Kaua‘i. Bennett, Wendell C. 1931The Archaeology of Kaua‘i, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 80, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Bernard, Russell H. 2005 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Fourth Addition. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.Boundary Commission 1874 "Boundary of the Ahupua‘a of KΚloa," as published in the Boundary Commission Report, Kauai, Vol. 1, State Archives, Honolulu, HI. Conde, Jesse C. 1993 “Fowler Locomotives in the Kingdom of Hawaii”, as published in The Narrow Gauge, Alan Burgess, Editor, 22 Peveril Road, Peterborough, PE 1 3PY, England Creed, Victoria, Gerald Ida, and Hallett Hammatt 1995 An Archaeological Inventory Survey for Po‘ip Road Safety Improvements, Po‘ip, Kaua‘i, (TMK: 2-8-15, 16, 17 & 18), Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. Damon, Ethel M. 1931 Koamalu: A Story of Pioneers on Kauai and of What They Built in that Island Garden. Privately Published, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Donohugh, Donald L. 2001 The Story of Kloa, A Kaua‘i Plantation Town, Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Dorrance, William H. and Francis S. Morgan 2000 Sugar Islands: The 165-Year Story of Sugar in Hawaii, Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Farley, J. K. 1907 “Notes on Maulili Pool, Kloa”, as published in Thrum's Almanac 1907, Honolulu. Foote, Donald E., E. L. Hill, S. Nakamura and F. Stephens 1972 Soil Survey of the Islands of Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, Maui, Moloka‘i and Lana‘i, State of Hawaii, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Foreign Testimony 1848 Foreign Testimony of Kuleana Claims to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaii Islands, State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu, HI. Giambelluca, Thomas W., Michael A. Nullet and Thomas A. Schroeder 1986 Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 99TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Hammatt, Hallett H. 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey of an 8.15-acre Knudsen Trust Parcel, KΚloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i TMK: (4) 2-8-004: por. 003 & 055. Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc., Kailua, Hawaii. Hammatt, Hallett H. and David Shideler 2006 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Kukui‘ula – Po‘ip Road 24-inch Sewer Line, Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kloa District, Island of Kaua‘i Hammatt, Hallett H., R.M. Bordner and M. J. Tomonari-Tuggle 1978 Archaeological and Biological Survey of the Proposed KǑahuna Golf Village Area, Kloa, Kona, Kaua‘i Island, Hawai‘i, A.R.C.H., Lwa‘i, Kaua‘i. Hammatt, Hallett H., William H. Folk, and Mark Stride 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Po‘ipulani Golf Course and Residential Development, Kloa, Kaua‘i (Revised July 1991), CSH Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Hammatt, Hallett H., Gerald K. Ida, Sarah Masciangelo, and William Folk 2004 Archaeological Inventory Survey for Parcel 30 of the Eric A. Knudsen Trust Lands, Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Kauai Island, TMK: (4) 2-8-014: 30, Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc., Kailua, Hawaii. Hammatt, Hallett H, Dominique Cordy, Uta Rainalter, Paul Gomes, David W. Shideler, and William H. Folk 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Data Recovery Of The Kiahuna Golf Village and KMP Development Project Parcels in Approximately 400 Acres at Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona, Kaua‘i Island, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, Hawai‘i. Handy, E. S. Craighill 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, Volume 1. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 161, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Hill, Robert R., John E. Dockall and Hallett H. Hammatt 2005a Inventory Survey of an Approximately 10.6-Acre Parcel at KΚloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: (4) 2-8-15: 43, 44, 82, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Hill, Robert R., Todd Tulchin, Jon Tulchin, and Hallett H. Hammatt 2005b Archaeological Inventory Survey of an 8.633 Acre Parcel at Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: (4) 2-8-014: 001 Mauka Portion, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. 2005c Inventory Survey of an Approximately 9.348-Acre Parcel at KΚloa, Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: (4) 2-8-009: 001, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Judd, Bernice 1935 “Koloa, A Sketch of Its Development”, as held within the Kauai Historical Society Papers, Volume II, Honolulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 100TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Kikuchi, William K. 1963 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on the Island of Kaua‘i, Kona District, Unknown publisher. 1981 Reconnaissance Survey, Archaeological Sites Weliweli Tract, TMK 2-8-22, Por6, Kloa District, Island of Kaua‘i. Lahainaluna Schools 1885 “Heiaus and Fishing Grounds [of Koloa, Kauai]”, (translation), HMS 43, #17. Mission Houses Museum 1970 Missionary Album Sesquicentennial Edition 1820-1970, published by the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society, Honolulu. Mitchell, Auli‘i, Rodney Chiogioji, Hallett H. Hammatt 2005a Cultural Impact Assessment for an Approximately 203-Acre Parcel in Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua. Monsarrat, M.D. 1891 Map: Hawaii Territorial Survey, Koloa. “Traced from M.D. Monsarrat circa 1891 Government Survey Map 1694”, by T. B. Butch and E. J. Grube, September 1918. Native Register 1847 Native Register of Kuleana Claims to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaii Islands, State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu, HI. Native Testimony 1847 Native Testimony of Kuleana Claims to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaii Islands, State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu, HI.. Palama, Stephen L., and Catherine Stauder 1973 The Archaeology of Kona, Kaua‘i from the Ahupua‘a of Kloa to the Ahupua‘a of Weliweli: Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Cane Haul Road to the Kloa Mill for McBryde Sugar Co., Ltd., A.R.C.H., Lwa‘i, Kaua‘i. Pukui, Mary Kawena 1983 ‘lelo No‘eau. Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 71, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Ester T. Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Simonson, Mindy, Amy Hammermeister, Rosanna Runyon, and Hallett H. Hammatt 2009 Archaeological Data Recovery Report for a portion of the Eric A. Knudsen Trust Lands, Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i (TMK: (4) 2-8-014:019 por.), Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Thrum, Thomas G. 1907 “Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands”, as published in Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908, compiled by Thomas G. Thrum, Honolulu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 101TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Townsend, John 1839 Narrative of a Journey Across the Rocky Mountains….and a Visit to the Sandwich Islands and Chile…, H. Perkins and Marvin, Boston. Tulchin, Jon, and Hallett H. Hammatt 2006 Archaeological Data Recovery for SIHP No. 50-30-10-0362, at the proposed Starwood Vacation Ownership Development Project, KΚloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: (4) 2-8-015: 43, 44, & 82, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. 2009 Archaeological Inventory Survey for the proposed KΚloa-Po‘ip Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Collection System, Kloa, Weliweli, and Pa‘a Ahupua‘a, Kloa District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: [4] 2-8-004: por. 003; [4] 2-8-008: por. 001 & por. 036; [4] 2-8-009: por. 001; [4] 2-8-011: por. 001; [4] 2-8-014: por. 005, por. 019, por. 023, por. 030, & por. 037; [4] 2-8-022: por. 001, por. 011, por. 021, & por. 030; [4] 2-9-001: por. 001, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. Tulchin, Jon, Amy Hammermeister and Hallett H. Hammatt 2007 Archaeological Inventory Survey of an Approximately 10-Acre Knudsen Trust Parcel, Kloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, TMK: [4] 2-8-011:001. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i. U.S. Geological Survey 1910 (1912 Edition) Map: Topographic Map of the Island of Kauai, Territory of Hawaii, George Otis Smith, R.B. Marshall, U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C. Ulukau 2009 (Internet) http://www.ulukau.org/cgi-bin/vicki?l=en) University of Hawai‘i at Mnoa. Center for Oral History 1988 Kloa, an oral history of a Kaua‘i community, Center for Oral History, University of Hawai‘i at Mnoa, Honolulu. Waihona ‘Aina Corp. 2002 The Mhele Database and The Boundary Commission Database, as maintained by Project Director Victoria S. Creed, (Internet: www.waihona.com). Walker, Allen T., and Paul H. Rosendahl 1990 Archaeological Data Recovery, Phase II, Hyatt Regency Kaua‘i Mitigation Program, Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Whitney, Samuel 1827 Journal of the Missionaries at Honolulu, February 17, 1821. Missionary Herald XVIII (June 1827:12). Wichman, Frederick B. 1998Kauai: Ancient Place-Names and Their Stories, University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Wichman, F.B. and C. Fayé 1991 Polihale and Other Kaua‘i Legends, Bamboo Ridge Press, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 References Cited Cultural Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System 102TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Wilcox, Carol 1996 Sugar Water: Hawaii’s Plantation Ditches, University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Wilkes, Charles, Commander U.S.N. 1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years…., Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia, PA. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix A: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System A-1TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Appendix A Mlama Mh‘ulep ResponseLetter Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix A: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System A-2TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix A: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System A-3TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix A: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System A-4TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix A: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System A-5TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix A: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System A-6TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix A: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System A-7TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix A: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System A-7TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix B: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System B-1TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Appendix B State Historic Preservation Department Response Letter Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix B: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System B-2TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix C: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System C-1TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Appendix C Office of Hawaiian Affairs Response Letter Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix C: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System C-2TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: KOLOA 29 Appendix C: Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kloa-Po‘ip Regional WRF & Collection System C-3TMK: [4] 2-8-004; [4] 2-8-008; [4] 2-8-009; [4] 2-8-011; [4] 2-8-014; [4] 2-8-022; [4] 2-9-001 COX FRICKE LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP LLP ABIGAIL M. HOLDEN 8793-0 aholden@cfhawaii.com CHRISTINE A. TERADA 10004-0 cterada@cfhawaii.com 800 Bethel Street, Suite 600 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Telephone: (808) 585-9440 Facsimile: (808) 275-3276 Attorneys for PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I In the Matter of the Application Of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa‘a, District of Koloa, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua‘i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9- 001:001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1) USE PERMIT (U-2022-8) CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8) PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP’S (1) PETITION TO INTERVENE AND (2) MOTION TO POSTPONE THE MAY 10, 2022 HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DATE: May 10, 2022 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP’S (1) PETITION TO INTERVENE AND (2) MOTION TO POSTPONE THE MAY 10, 2022 HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I Pacific Resource Partnership (“PRP”), is a non-profit market recovery trust fund doing business in Hawai‘i, whose stated mission is to, among other things, promote a vibrant 2 economy, create jobs, and enhance the quality of life for all residents of Hawai‘i, hereby seeks permission from the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i (“Commission”) to (1) intervene in the above-captioned proceeding pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Commission Rules”) and, accordingly, obtain status as a party in a Contested Case proceeding, and (2) postpone the hearing currently scheduled for May 10, 2022 hearing pursuant to Rule 1-5-3 of the Commission Rules, as this petition demonstrates that the subject permit application “warrant[s] further study.” I. INTRODUCTION PRP submits this Petition to Intervene and Motion to Postpone the May 10, 2022 Hearing (collectively, “Petition”) in response to HPM Building Supply’s (“HPM”) February 4, 2022 Application for Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit (the “Application”). PRP submits this Petition after reviewing the Application and the April 22, 2022 Director’s Report (“Director’s Report”), which were made publicly available on May 4, 2022, as part of the May 10, 2022 Planning Committee Agenda Packet. Upon viewing the Agenda Packet, the day it was made publicly available on the Commission’s website, PRP observed that there are significant deficiencies in the Application that necessitate PRP’s intervention. Moreover, given that the Agenda Packet was not published for accessible public participation until May 4, 2022, a mere six days before the May 10, 2022 hearing, PRP requests that the hearing be postponed pursuant to Chapter 5, Rule 1-5-3.1 As set forth below, PRP’s Petition demonstrates that the Application “warrant[s] further study.” 1 Postponement of the hearing is necessary in order to provide actual and adequate notice and opportunity for public participation. The public was able to access the May 10, 2022 Planning Committee Agenda Packet on May 4, 2022, which included the Application and the Director’s Report. Prior to that date, PRP was not aware of the details of either document. Accordingly, 3 More specifically, the Application “warrant[s] further study” inasmuch as: • The proposed development does not comply with the requirements for a Special Permit, as it is inconsistent with Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) Chapters 205 and 205A and the rules of the Land Use Commission. An industrial manufacturing plant intended to build factory-built housing has no agricultural connection and is not compatible with the existing land use and designation as agricultural. In addition, there is a whole host of issues, including economic, cultural, and environmental issues, that must be studied in order to determine whether the “desired use would not adversely affect surrounding property[.]” Accordingly, a boundary amendment is likely required here, as opposed to a Special Permit. • The proposed development does not comply with the requirements for a Use Permit, as it does not adequately address environmental issues, such as the disturbance of impacted soil. The project is also contrary to the Kaua‘i County General Plan, and closer study is necessary to assess the soundness of HPM’s sweeping assertions, including but not limited to: (1) that the facility “will result in lowering the cost of housing construction by decreasing import costs associated with housing construction and reducing the time and expense of construction at the home site”; (2) that “HPM’s practice of providing competitive wages based upon each island’s cost of living and its employee stock ownership plan directly addresses concerns related to stagnant wages and upward economic opportunities”; (3) that the facility will “provid[e] economic opportunities that are not reliant on tourism and will instead be a part of Kauai’s small manufacturing economy and a viable diversified agricultural industry”; and (4) that “[b]y manufacturing prefabricated housing materials on Kaua‘i, the Facility will directly and significantly contribute to decreasing the carbon footprint associated with housing construction.” • Additional issues relating to the impacts of the proposed development have not been fully studied or addressed, including but not limited to: (1) the presence of Nene on the property, which is endemic to Hawai‘i, as well as the presence of the White-tailed Tropicbird and the Pacific Golden-Plover, which are indigenous to Hawai‘i, which may trigger additional requirements under the Endangered Species Act; (2) the on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system may constitute a trigger under HRS Chapter 343; (3) stormwater runoff from construction activities may require an PRP – and potentially other members of the public – were unable to benefit from and contribute to the process of public notice and participation. 4 NPDES permit; and (4) the project may impact the area surrounding the Old Sugar Mill of Koloa, a National Historic Landmark, and the Koloa Heritage Trail, which has been recognized by the National Park Service. Accordingly, the Commission should grant PRP’s petition to intervene and motion to postpone the hearing on the Application. II. PRP MUST BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE Rule 1-4-1 of the Commission Rules provides that all persons who, hold interest in the land, who lawfully reside on the land, or who otherwise can demonstrate that they will be so directly and immediately affected by the proposed application that their interest in the Proceeding is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public, shall be admitted as Parties-Intervenors upon timely written application for intervention. (Emphases added). Rule 1-4-4 of the Commission Rules requires that the Petition state: (1) The nature of Petitioner’s statutory or other right, (2) The nature and extent of Petitioner’s interest, (3) The specific issues to be raised or contested by the Petitioner in the Contested Case hearing; and (4) The effects of any decision in the Proceeding on Petitioner’s interest. As set forth below, the factors all support intervention by PRP and, thus, PRP shall be admitted as a Party- Intervenor inasmuch as PRP has “good cause” for the delayed filing. Rule 1-4-4 also states that, if applicable, the Petition shall also make reference to the following: (5) Other means available whereby Petitioner’s interest may be protected, (6) Extent Petitioner’s interest may be represented by existing parties, (7) Extent Petitioner’s interest in Proceeding differs from that of other parties, (8) Extent Petitioner’s participation can assist in, development of a complete record, (9) Extent Petitioner’s participation will broaden the issue or delay the Proceeding, (10) How the Petitioner’s intervention would serve the public interest. As discussed below, these additional factors also support intervention by PRP. 5 A. PRP’s has a right to intervention PRP has organizational and associational standing to intervene in this matter in that its interests, as well as the interests of its members, will be directly and immediately impacted by the Application, which proposes to build and use an industrial manufacturing facility to produce prefabricated materials for factory-built housing. In the Application, HPM makes bold and unsupported claims – which are adopted by the Director’s Recommendations – that the Kaua‘i County General Plan supports issuance of the requested permits inasmuch as HPM’s proposed industrial manufacturing plant will provide jobs, competitive wages for its employees and will result in increased affordable housing opportunities for local residents of Kaua‘i. PRP is a non-profit market recovery trust fund which represents approximately 7,000 men and women union carpenters and 240 large and small contractors throughout the State of Hawai‘i, including approximately 250 individuals and unionized contractors on Kaua‘i. PRP has expertise in, and is committed to, building a stronger, more sustainable Hawai‘i in a way that promotes a vibrant economy, creates jobs, and enhances the quality of life for all residents of Hawai‘i. PRP advocates for the following issues, all of which are directly relevant to and impacted by the Application: • Jobs. PRP advocates for job creation in the construction industry along with ensuring that construction workers are paid a living wage. • Wages and benefits. PRP advocates for living wages for construction workers building affordable housing and other types of construction projects. A part of the solution to solving the State and County’s housing affordability crisis is also about paying workers a “living wage” to keep up with Hawaii’s high cost of living and to ensure that workers can afford the homes they are building. Workers paid a living wage will help to keep residents 6 off government subsidies and create a healthy economy for all residents on Kaua‘i. • Skilled workforce. PRP is a proud supporter of a skilled workforce, including but not limited to, the state-approved apprenticeship program that provides high school graduates and job seekers with an opportunity to learn specialized skills in the construction industry. After completing training in an apprenticeship program, apprentices can earn good middle-class wages and pursue other career options in the future, such as becoming an apprentice supervisor, contractor, or business owner. PRP members go through this training. • Affordable housing. PRP has advocated for affordable housing policies that would reduce the cost of housing by creating state and county incentives to reduce the construction costs for building homes for Hawaii’s residents. PRP asserts that allowing HPM’s requested industrial manufacturing plant to produce prefabricated materials for factory-built housing will actually not support the Kaua‘i County General Plan or the granting of the requested permits. Contrary to HPM’s assertions, HPM’s requested industrial manufacturing plant will lead to a significant reduction in local jobs, as well as a potential reduction in living wages, and will present a use of the land that is entirely out of character for the area, which the General Plan deems as having an “historic ‘old town’ charm” with “vast cultural treasures.” As the foregoing makes clear, PRP and its members - approximately 250 men and women union carpenters and unionized large and small contractors on Kaua‘i – are directly and significantly impacted by the development of factory-built housing. Accordingly, PRP has both organizational and associational standing to intervene under the Commission Rules. First, PRP has standing to intervene as organizations, like individuals, having standing where they satisfy the following questions in the affirmative: “(1) has the plaintiff suffered an actual or threatened injury . . . (2) is the injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s 7 actions; and (3) would a favorable decision likely provide relief for plaintiff’s injury.” Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 115 Hawai‘i 299, 319, 167 P.3d 292, 312 (2007), as corrected (Oct. 10, 2007). PRP satisfies all three prongs as the goal of the Application – to develop factory-built housing – directly undercuts PRP’s advocacy efforts and will necessarily force PRP to expend and/or reallocate significant resources related to job creation, a skilled workforce, and living wages for its members. Second, organizations such as PRP have standing to sue on behalf of their members, even though they have not themselves been injured, when: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Sierra Club, 115 Hawai‘i at 334, 167 P.3d at 327. PRP easily satisfies the requirements to sue on behalf of its members because (1) its members – union carpenters and contractors – would have standing on their own regarding such issues as job loss and living wages; (2) PRP seeks to protect job creation and living wages as part of its mission; and (3) the participation of individual members is not necessary. B. The nature and extent of PRP’s interest HPM’s proposed industrial manufacturing plant could significantly impact PRP and its members in that it will facilitate the large-scale development of prefabricated housing on Kaua‘i, using materials shipped from the Pacific Northwest. Accordingly, PRP seeks a permit application process that fully studies the impacts of the proposed industrial manufacturing plant. Contrary to HPM’s conclusory allegations otherwise, this industrial manufacturing plant will have short-term and long-term economic, environmental, and cultural impacts, and will impact PRP members and residents of the neighboring community and County. 8 In sum, PRP and its carpenter and contractor members on Kaua‘i have a direct and significant interest in ensuring that the proposed industrial manufacturing plant supports local jobs and provides living wages, and also meets the statutory environmental, economic, and cultural requirements. PRP and its members – as critical members of the local development sector – also have an interest in development and land use that comprehensively accounts for the local economy and environment by including community members in the application process. C. The specific issues to be raised or contested by PRP in the Contested Case hearing In relation to HPM’s request for a Use Permit, PRP will raise the issue of whether the Application is aligned with the Kaua‘i County General Plan’s Vision and Goals, and specifically the issues of job creation, living wages and affordable housing. There are a number of questions to be addressed in a Contested Case hearing. As discussed below in Section IV, there are concerns related to the development of the industrial manufacturing facility to produce prefabricated homes. For instance, HPM touts the creation of jobs but fails to acknowledge that the automated process of factory build housing will take away many more jobs and living wages from County residents – including PRP’s members – than it will create. Moreover, HPM’s proposed use of this agricultural land as an industrial manufacturing facility (unconnected with any agricultural practice taking place on the land or even in the state of Hawai‘i) is not aligned with or permitted in the agricultural land use district, as has already been determined by the Department of Planning in its January 21, 2022 letter. PRP and its members have a direct interest in ensuring that development projects involve responsible planning, industry integrity, and beneficial industry relations. As PRP has hundreds of members residing on Kaua‘i, PRP will also raise the issue of whether the Application accounts for potential environmental impacts. As discussed 9 below in Section IV, the development of a large-scale manufacturing facility on lands designated for agricultural use should be carefully studied, particularly as it involves the disruption of soil previously used for “intensive sugar cane cultivation” and corn seed studies by Pioneer Hi Bred Intl. (App. at 4.) Grading activities may be necessary for the asphalt pad and gravel base course, (id. at 4-5,) which would disturb soil that is likely impacted with chemicals from past activities and which could potentially lead to runoff. This is particularly critical where the project site is in the vicinity of a residential development situated approximately half a mile to the south of the property. In addition, the Application does not include a discussion about potential impacts regarding water which should be studied, such as stormwater runoff from construction activities requiring an NPDES permit. D. The effects of any decision in the Proceeding on PRP’s interest The Commission’s decision on the Application will have a significant impact on PRP, as well as that of its members; if approved, this project will directly and significantly undermine PRP’s efforts to advocate for such critical issues as job creation and living wages. This project replaces products created by skilled union workers who are members of the community with products manufactured in factories. PRP’s interest in representing the largest construction union in the state, and approximately 250 carpenters and unionized diverse contractors on Kaua‘i, will be significantly impacted if factory-built housing is allowed to proceed without any intervention or consideration of the community’s voices. E. Status as an Intervenor is necessary to protect PRP’s interest PRP’s interest will not be protected by other means because, if approved, the Application will allow the project to proceed. If that occurs, PRP, a non-profit, would have to 10 expend significant resources to litigate, which would necessarily result in decreased funding in valuable services provided by PRP. In addition, as evidenced in the application documents, PRP’s interest is not represented by HPM or the Planning Department. HPM merely discusses the jobs that it will create relating to its operations but does not take into consideration how many jobs would be lost and how the project would impact the local economy in that regard. Indeed, PRP’s interest in the proceeding is distinguishable from that of HPM and the Planning Department in that PRP represents union carpenters – including approximately 250 individuals and unionized contractors on Kaua‘i – who will likely not be involved in building the prefabricated homes, who may or may not be paid living wages if they are involved in building the prefabricated homes, and who may lose work due to the increased development of prefabricated homes. F. The Proceeding would benefit from PRP’s participation PRP’s participation will assist in the development of a complete record because it will allow for a full assessment of the project’s impacts on the local economy. PRP’s participation will not unduly broaden the issue and will instead allow for a fully informed decision to be made based on a comprehensive evaluation of the project and its impacts on the local community and environment. Such a comprehensive evaluation is critically missing in the Application. Further, the issues raised by PRP are particularly necessary where the project is subject to additional scrutiny as an impermissible use of agricultural land. Indeed, the Planning Department previously identified that such a use of the land is not considered a permitted use within the State Agricultural Land Use District or the Agriculture (A) zoning district. 11 Significantly, PRP’s intervention will serve the public interest in that it represents union carpenters and contractors throughout the state and on Kaua‘i and advocates for job creation, living wages, and supports a skilled workforce, all of which play a critical element in the Kaua‘i County General Plan, which provides that “Kaua‘i strives to be a place where the economy is resilient, small businesses thrive, and all people have opportunities to access the education and training that lead to gainful employment.” (General Plan at 157.) G. Good Cause Exists To Permit This Petition Filed Four Days Before the Hearing Rule 1-4-3 of the Commission Rules provides: Timing. Petitions to intervene shall be in writing and in conformity with these Rules. The petition for intervention with certificate of service shall be filed with the Commission at least seven (7) days prior to the Agency Hearing for which notice to the public has been published pursuant to law. Untimely petitions for intervention will not be permitted except for good cause shown. The instant petition should be permitted because good cause exists for the delayed filing. Significantly, HPM’s application file, including the Director’s Recommendation, was not made publicly and accessibly available until May 4, 2022 – just six days before the hearing.2 Prior to reviewing HPM’s application and the Director’s Recommendation, PRP did not know the extent of the manufacturing facility, HPM’s reliance on unsubstantiated claims of job creation and housing costs, the land use designations of the property, or the considerations and studies – or lack thereof – involved in the application. The hearing notice indicated generally that HPM would seek the subject permits “to operate a construction material manufacturing facility located on a parcel situated 2 https://kauai.gov/Government/Boards-and-Commissions/Planning-Commission. PRP expresses concern that the Commission Rules, which require a petition to be filed seven days before the hearing (Rule 1-4-3), but only require that the notice be filed six days before the hearing (Rule 1-6-5), violate HRS chapters 91 and 92, as well as constitutional rights of due process. 12 immediately adjacent to the Old Koloa Sugar Mill site in Koloa,” but it was not until PRP reviewed HPM’s application and the Director’s Recommendation on May 4, 2022 – just six days before the hearing – that PRP learned of the significant deficiencies in the application, as discussed herein, which were in turn relied on in the Director’s Recommendation. Accordingly, good cause exists because it was not possible for PRP to meet the seven-day deadline to submit the instant petition. See, e.g., Eckard Brandes, Inc. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus. Rels., 146 Hawai‘i 354, 363, 463 P.3d 1011, 1020 (2020), as corrected (Apr. 27, 2020) (noting generally that the term “good cause” “has been defined to mean ‘a substantial reason amount in law to a legal excuse for failing to perform an act required by law.’” (citation omitted)); see also Chen v. Mah, 146 Hawai‘i 157, 177, 457 P.3d 796, 816 (2020) (noting that “good cause” “is a much lower standard under Hawai‘i law”). In Chen, the court held that whether “good cause” exists “will depend upon the circumstances of the individual case,” and noted that “good cause” exists “if there is no (1) deliberate delay and/or contumacious conduct; or (2) if deliberate delay or contumacious conduct exist, there is no actual prejudice that cannot be addressed through lesser sanctions.” 146 Hawai‘i at 180, 457 P.3d at 819. There was no deliberate delay or contumacious conduct here, as PRP was not aware of project’s details or considerations prior to review of the full application and Director’s Recommendation made available on May 4, 2022. Further, PRP is diligently submitting this petition as quickly as possible given the circumstances. Good cause therefore exists to permit this petition to intervene. 13 III. THE HEARING SHOULD BE POSTPONED In addition to the above requested intervention, PRP seeks postponement of the hearing on the Application pursuant to Rule 1-5-3 of the Commission Rules, as this petition demonstrates that the Application “warrant[s] further study.” Postponing the hearing on the application will allow time for full review of the information submitted by HPM and the Director’s Recommendation.3 Moreover, postponing the hearing will provide time for further study of the project, which is necessary given the significant impacts to the local economy, community, and environment. A. Further Study Is Necessary Regarding Whether the Project Meets the Permit Requirements 1. Special Permit Pursuant to Rule 13-6, the Commission may approve a Special Permit under such protective restrictions as may be deemed necessary if it finds that the proposed use is “an unusual and reasonable use of land,” taking the following factors into consideration: (1) Such use shall not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by Chapters 205 and 205A, HRS, and the rules of the Land Use Commission; (2) The desired use would not adversely affect surrounding property; (3) The use would not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements, and police and fire protection; (4) Unusual conditions, trends, and needs have arisen since the district boundaries and rules were established; and (5) The land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district; and 3 In this regard, PRP reserves its right to raises additional issues related to the Application and/or otherwise amend its Petition pursuant to Rule 1-3-2(e). 14 (b) Would promote the effectiveness and objectives of Chapter 205, HRS, as amended. Further study is necessary to determine whether a boundary amendment is required here, as opposed to a Special Permit. HPM asserts that “[t]he only reason why this Project is not technically allowed . . . is because of the rigidity of Hawaii’s Euclidean zoning system, specifically the requirement that the proposed accessory uses support the agricultural activities of the fee or leasehold owner.” (App. at 15.) HPM subsequently attempts to persuade the Commission into thinking that “HPM’s facility is an important part in increasing diversified agriculture opportunities in the State” because “growing, harvesting, milling and processing timber is an expressly authorized land use within the SLUC Agricultural land use district[.]” (App. at 15-16.) HPM, in effect, tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. Significantly, in the same breath, HPM acknowledges that it must import the treated lumber materials from the Pacific Northwest because suitable lumber is not currently available in the state. (Id. at 16.) A manufacturing plant to build factory-built housing is far from having any agricultural connection and is not compatible with the existing land use and designation as agricultural. Unlike the old sugar mill, the proposed facility has no connection to existing agricultural uses. It is pharisaical for HPM to suggest that its factory will use locally sourced raw materials in its manufacturing process, if these raw materials become locally available in the future, when the materials it proposes to use are Douglas Fir or borate treated engineered wood products. (Id. at 5.) Douglas Fir does not grow in Hawai‘i. It appears that HPM is trying to short-cut the zoning process by seeking a Special Permit, when they should seek rezoning of lands, which would allow for more community input. As discussed below with respect to the Use Permit, there is a whole host of issues, including environmental issues, that must be studied in order to determine whether the “desired 15 use would not adversely affect surrounding property[.]” In addition, further study is warranted with respect to whether the “land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district[.]” HPM asserts that the project site “is unsuited for the direct production of food and other agricultural products” merely based on inquiries with the landowner (who benefits through lease rent to HPM). (App. at 21.) However, as discussed below, the Kaua‘i County General Plan indicates that “[c]offee, papaya, and other export crops are being grown on former sugar lands.” (General Plan at 74.) Even if the land is found to be fallow and not suitable for intensive agriculture, HPM does not explain how a facility used to manufacture prefabricated homes constitutes a use that is “accessory to agricultural production.” (App. at 20.) 2. Use Permit/Class IV Zoning Permit A Use Permit may be granted only if the Planning Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the construction, development, activity or use in the particular case is a compatible use and is not detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and the general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community, and will not cause any substantial harmful environmental consequences on the land of the applicant or on other lands or waters, and will not be inconsistent with the intent of this Chapter and the General Plan. (Kaua‘i County Code, Rule 8-3.2(e)(1).) First, this project warrants the study of environmental impacts to ensure that it “will not cause any substantial environmental consequences,” particularly as the proposed use of the property is not consistent with the current land designations. As the Planning Commission determined in its January 21, 2022 letter, “the proposed development is not identified as a permissible use within the State Agricultural Land Use District, pursuant to HRS § 205-2(d),” 16 nor is it considered a permitted use within the Agriculture (A) zoning district. The development of a large-scale manufacturing facility on lands designated for agricultural use should be carefully studied, particularly as it pertains to the disruption of soil previously use for “intensive sugar cane cultivation” and corn seed studies by Pioneer Hi Bred Intl. (App. at 4.) Grading activities may be necessary for the asphalt pad and gravel base course, (id. at 4-5,) which would disturb soil that is likely impacted with chemicals from past activities and which could potentially lead to runoff. This is particularly critical where the project site is in the vicinity of a residential development situated approximately half a mile to the south of the property. Second, HPM’s sweeping assertions also demonstrate the need for further study regarding the issue of whether the project is consistent with the Kaua‘i General Plan’s Visions and Goals, as required under Kaua‘i County Code. HPM asserts that the proposed development “is consistent with the Visions and Goals of the General Plan,” as well as 13 of the 19 Policies to Guide Growth. (App. at 21-28.) HPM concludes that “the development complies with the General Plan’s policy for the Industrial Use designation and is consistent with the County’s aim to provide more affordable housing opportunities, reduce carbon emissions and support more diverse economic opportunities.” (Id. at 28.) With respect to Goal #1, “A Sustainable Island,” HPM fails to account for the impact that prefabricated homes will have on local jobs. HPM’s business model, which strips away local construction jobs and places an industrial manufacturing facility on agricultural lands, is not sustainable for the local community. Indeed, HPM fails to recognize that the General Plan specifically includes the following: In 1835, the Old Koloa Sugar Mill became Hawai‘i’s first commercially- viable sugar mill. This heralded the era of plantation agriculture where sugar and pineapple cultivation dominated the landscape. . . . The era of plantation agriculture has come to an end, but the remaining infrastructure 17 and still-undeveloped swaths of agricultural land provide for today’s agricultural activity and opportunities for new enterprise to thrive. Agriculture and food industries remain one of the most promising economic sectors on Kaua‘i. It is a substantial source of employment, with about 3,601 jobs on Kaua‘i in 2014. It is also a sector that supports Kaua‘i’s vision of remaining a rural island, preserving open spaces, and producing more food and resources. (General Plan at 166-67.) Further, “[c]offee, papaya, and other export crops are being grown on former sugar lands.” (Id. at 74.) The Application must therefore include a study of the project will impact Kauai’s goals for sustainability. In addition, further study must be conducted on the impact that the manufacturing facility will have on local jobs. The facility will be used to manufacture prefabricated wooden trusses and wall panels for residential housing on Kaua‘i. (App. at 5.) HPM anticipates an initial production level of 10-15 truss and/or wall panel packages per month for the first 1-2 years, with one package equivalent to one single-family residential home. (See id.) HPM fails, however, to account for the significant impact that prefabricated homes have on local construction jobs. Indeed, the application only briefly discusses “the creation of construction and manufacturing jobs during the initial construction of the project,” and “a total of approximately twenty to twenty-three new long-term jobs on Kaua‘i” relating to its operations. (App. at 12.) PRP has approximately 250 men and women carpenters and unionized contractors on Kaua‘i, and the impacts on local carpenter jobs and the local economy must be further studied before an informed decision could be made on the project. With respect to Goal #2, “A Unique and Beautiful Place,” HPM asserts that the facility “will not adversely affect Kauai’s natural ecosystem, endemic or endangered species, historic structures, archaeological sites, or the tenets of the Public Trust Doctrine,” (App. at 22), but fails to touch upon the greater impacts of the facility. Indeed, prefabricated homes are 18 manufactured for large-scale replication and are a far cry from being “unique.” Further, the General Plan provides the vision that Koloa “will be a thriving commercial and residential community that maintains its rural feel and historic ‘old town’ charm by preserving, enhancing, and protecting its vast cultural treasures.” HPM concludes that “the development will not infringe upon the rights of the community to engage in cultural traditions and practices and will not interfere with opportunities for recreation and meditative contemplation within the South Kauai Planning Area,” (App. at 13), but fails to include any discussion of how the manufacturing facility may impact the overall vision for Koloa. Accordingly, additional study is necessary to determine whether the facility will actually contribute to making Koloa a “unique and beautiful place” and preserving its rural and agricultural character. As HPM acknowledges for Goal #3, “A Healthy and Resilient People,” “[c]ommunity health is strengthened by the preservation of natural areas, access to jobs that support a high quality of life, lowering the high cost of living to allow residents to enter the housing market, and a strong and diverse economy.” (App. at 22.) HPM’s reliance on the 20-23 new jobs and reduced shipping costs associated with home construction on Kaua‘i, (id. at 22), is shortsighted, as it does not fully account for the widespread impacts that prefabricated homes will have on the local economy. Further study is necessary to determine critical issues, including but not limited to the following: (1) if the developer has plans to hire union labor for the construction of the project, and (2) if the developer does not plan on utilizing union labor for the construction of the project, will it pay workers at least the prevailing wage within the meaning of HRS, Chapter 104. Such study and information is necessary to ensure that living wages will be provided to employees consistent with the goals of the General Plan. 19 Further, HPM suggests – without any evidence – that the facility will “help bring home construction prices down and will facilitate the construction of more affordable single- family residences for local families.” (Id. at 5.) There is no evidence to support this assertion, particularly where HPM will be shipping lumber from the Pacific Northwest which will incur substantial shipping costs. Indeed, PRP has found the opposite to be true – factory-built housing in Hawai‘i may actually increase housing costs. Thus, the impacts to the local economy should be more closely examined evidentiarily. Similarly, with respect to Goal #4, “An Equitable Place, with Opportunity for All,” HPM acknowledges that its “primary goal is to produce quality prefabricated wooden trusses and wall panels that are more affordable and more readily available than either importing the same from off island or constructing them at the home site.” (Id. at 23.) In making such statements, HPM fails to account for the cost of land, the lengthy entitlement process, lack of incentives to build affordable housing, and timing needed to ship the materials. Moreover, HPM fails to acknowledge that the automated process of factories will take away jobs and living wages for local homebuilders, local carpenters, plumbers, and electricians. Accordingly, a comprehensive study on the economic impact of HPM’s development of a facility to produce prefabricated homes is necessary and currently lacking in the Application. For many of the reasons discussed above, this project warrants further study regarding its compliance with the General Plan’s Policies to Guide Growth, particularly as HPM, again, makes a number of sweeping assertions that require a closer look, including but not limited to: (1) the facility “will result in lowering the cost of housing construction by decreasing import costs associated with housing construction and reducing the time and expense of construction at the home site”; (2) “HPM’s practice of providing competitive wages based upon 20 each island’s cost of living and its employee stock ownership plan directly addresses concerns related to stagnant wages and upward economic opportunities”; (3) the facility will “provid[e] economic opportunities that are not reliant on tourism and will instead be a part of Kauai’s small manufacturing economy and a viable diversified agricultural industry”; and (4) “[b]y manufacturing prefabricated housing materials on Kaua‘i, the Facility will directly and significantly contribute to decreasing the carbon footprint associated with housing construction.” (App. at 26-27.) Finally, additional issues relating to the General Plan but not adequately addressed by the Application warrant further study, including but not limited to the following: • The presence of Nene on the property, which is endemic to Hawai‘i, as well as the presence of the White-tailed Tropicbird and the Pacific Golden-Plover, which are indigenous to Hawai‘i. (App. at 8.) HPM’s Application’s blanket statement that its facility “will occupy a small 3-acre portion of Parcel 01 within an area that has been previously highly disturbed, and the Facility will not adversely impact any bird species.” (Id.) Indeed, HPM even acknowledges that the Nene is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. (Id. at n.2.) Accordingly, further study is required to understand the impacts of the proposed development on these species. • The Application vaguely asserts that “[w]astewater will be managed on site,” and that greywater from HPM’s potable water system “will be stored in an above-ground 200-gallon squat graywater catchment tank that will be pumped out as needed by a licensed pumping contractor.” (App. at 11.) This wastewater treatment and disposal system needs further study to determine whether it constitutes a trigger under HRS Chapter 343. • The Application does not include a discussion about potential impacts regarding water which should be studied, such as stormwater runoff from construction activities requiring an NPDES permit. See, e.g., Friends of Maha‘ulepu, Inc. v. Hawai‘i Dairy Farms, LLC, 224 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1109 (D. Haw. 2016) (noting that in a valley close to the property at issue, “[r]unoff concentrates into several ditches, created by prior agricultural operations, before ultimately collecting into one of the major 21 ditches that runs mauka to makai along the central or east side of the farm.”). • The Application fails to acknowledge potential impacts to the area surrounding the Old Sugar Mill of Koloa, a National Historic Landmark, and the Koloa Heritage Trail, which is recognized by the National Park Service as a 10-mile tour “of the area’s most important cultural, historical, and geological sites.”4 As the foregoing makes clear, the Application fails to meet the permitting requirements as further study is necessary on a number of critical issues. V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, as well as a whole host of issues lacking consideration in the Application, postponement of the hearing is therefore necessary so that Pacific Resource Partnership may intervene and further study can be conducted. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 6, 2022. ABIGAIL M. HOLDEN CHRISTINE A. TERADA Attorneys for Pacific Resource Partnership 4 https://www.nps.gov/places/old-sugar-mill-of-koloa.htm BEFORE THE KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I In the Matter of the Application Of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa‘a, District of Koloa, Kaua‘i, Hawa‘i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua‘I Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9- 001:001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1) USE PERMIT (U-2022-8) CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was duly served upon the following parties via the means and on the date indicated below: 2 NAME(S) U.S. MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID HAND DELIVERY EMAIL COUNTY OF KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION Helen Cox, Chairperson By Kaaina S. Hull, Clerk of the Commission planningdepartment@kauai. gov 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 Lihue, Kaua‘i 96766 CADES SCHUTTE Mauna Kea Trask mtrask@cades.com PO Box 1205 Lihu‘e, Hawai‘i 96766 Attorney for HPM Building Supply ý ý ý ý DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 6, 2022. ABIGAIL M. HOLDEN CHRISTINE A. TERADA Attorneys for Pacific Resource Partnership CADES SCHUTTE A Limited Liability Law Partnership MAUNA KEA TRASK P.0.Box 1205 Lihu'e,HI 96766 Telephone:(808)521-9297 Fac8imile:(808)540-5015 Email:mtrask(S),cades.com Attomeys for Applicants HPM BUILD1NG SUPPLY 8418 .'••,-/.oi:Kaua-•"-•'NNfNGDEP') 22 nWl9 l\6:l: RECEiw... BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE COUNTYOFKAUA'I In the Matter of the Application Of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY,for a Special Pennit,Use Pennit and Class IV Zoning Pennit, for Real Property Situated at Pa'a,District of Koloa,Kaua'i,Hawai'i,and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua'i Tax Map Key No.(4)2-9-001:001,and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres,more or less. SPECIAL PERMIT SP-2022-1 USE PERMIT (U)-2022-8;and CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT Z-IV-2022-8 HPM BUILDING SUPPLY'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY OF POIPU AINA ESTATES;DECLARATION OF COUNSEL;EXHIBITS "A"-"C"; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HPM BUILDING SUPPLY'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY OF POIPU A1NA_ESTATES Comes now,HPM BUILDING SUPPLY ("HPM"or "Applicant"),who,by and through its undersigned attomeys,submits this Memorandum in Opposition ("Opposition")to the Community Association of Poipu Aina Estates ("Poipu Aina")Petition to Intervene (the "Petition"). For the reasons stated herein,Poipu Aina's Petition does not comply with the legal requirements goveming Petitions to Intervene as provided in the Rules ofPractice and Procedure of the Kauai Planning Commission (as amended)("Commission Rules")and therefore must be denied.This Opposition is brought pursuant to Commission Rules 1-4-1,1-4-2,1-4-3,1-4-4,1-4- 6,l-4-7,and 1-6-11 (a). I.INTRODUCTION. On May 9,2022,Poipu Aina,c/o Jeff Masters,submitted a one-page document titled "Petition to Intervene".Exhibit "A".The Petition does not comply with the requirements goveming form and content of Petitions to Intervene in Chapter 4 of the Commission Rules. Indeed,the Petition is in the fonn of public testimony against HPM's Application for Special Permit SP-2022-1,Use Pennit (U)-2022-8,and Class IV Zoning Pennit Z-IV-2022-8.The Petition states Poipu Aina is very concemed that HPM's facility will negatively impact the traffic,air quality,noise and view plains (sic)in and around their community.The Petition then lists twelve (12)general concems about HPM's development.The Petition is not signed by Mr.Masters,but instead by Michael Clark.The Petition does not indicate who Mr.Clark is or whether he has authority to submit the Petition on behalfofPoipu Aina. II.ARGUMENT. A.Poipu Aina's Petition is Untimely and Was Not Served on HPM. Commission Rule 1 -4-3 is crystal clear,"[t]he petition for intervention with certificate of service shall be filed with the Commission at least seven (7)days prior to the Agency Hearing for which notice to the public has been published pursuant to law."Further,Rule 1-4-3 provides that "untimely petitions for intervention will not be permitted except for good cause shown."The date of the Agency Hearing for which notice to the public has been published pursuant to law in this matter was May 10,2022.Seven (7)days prior to May 10,2022,was May 3,2022.Poipu Aina's Petition wasn't filed until May 9,2022,six days too late.Poipu Aina also failed to serve the Petition on HPM and/or HPM's counsel as required by Commission Rule 1-3-3.Declaration of Counsel at 1)5.For these reasons alone,the Petition must be denied. Further,the Petition does not explain why there is "good cause"for its late filing."Good cause"[]"depends upon the circumstances of the individual case,and a finding of its existence lies largely in the discretion ofthe officer or court to which [the]decision is committed."Doe v. Doe,98 Hawai'i at 154,44 P.3d at 1095.Thus,whether "good cause"exists depends upon the circumstances of the individual case,and whether good cause exists will "lie[]largely in the discretion ofthe []court to which [the]discretion is committed."Id. A review ofthe facts and circumstances show there is no good cause to excuse Poipu Aina's late filing of the Petition.Public notice of the May 10 Agency Hearing has been posted on the County ofKaua'i Planning Department's ("Department")website since March 24,2022,47 days prior to the May 10 Agency Hearing.Exhibit "B".Further,the Department had notice published in the newspaper on April 8,2022,a full 32 days prior to the Agency Hearing.Exhibit "C".The public notice clearly states,"Petitions for intervenor status must be submitted to the Cominission and the applicant at least seven days prior to the date ofthe hearing advertised herein and shall be in conformance with Chapter 4 ofthe [Commission Rules]."Id.at 2.Given that public notice has been available weeks prior to the Agency Hearing and given the complete lack of evidence or argument as to what would constitute "good cause"for Poipu Aina to fail to timely file and serve the Petition,the Commission must deny the Petition pursuant to Commission Rule 1 -4-3. B.Poipu Aina Provides No Evidence of Their Standina to Intervene. In order to be granted intervenor status,Poipu Aina has the burden to establish that it is a person/organization who:(1)holds interest in the land;(2)lawfully resides on the land;or (3)will be so directly and immediately affected by the proposed application that their interest in the Proceeding is clearly distinguishable from that ofthe general public.Commission Rule 1-4-1. Poipu Aina proffers no evidence to show it holds an interest in the land or that it resides on the land.Indeed,Poipu Aina neither owns an interest in the land or resides on the land,so both the first and second bases to grant intervention fail.Declaration ofCounsel at T|6. As to the third basis to grant intervention,Poipu Aina states it is "very concemed that the HPM facility will negatively impact the traffic,air quality,noise and view plains (sic.)in and around our community."Exhibit A.However,Poipu Aina does not indicate where their community is located or how HPM's facility will "so directly and immediately"affect them so that their interest in the Proceeding is clearly distinguishable from the general public.Indeed,the concems raised in the Petition are the same as those general concems raised by all other members ofthe public who voiced their concems about HPM's facility and as such Poipu Aina's interests are indistinguishable from that ofthe general public . Poipu Aina,as the party initiating consideration of its Petition,has the burden of proof, including the burden ofproducing evidence as well as the burden ofpersuasion that it satisfies the intervention requirements ofCommission Rule 1-4-1.Commission Rule 1-6-17 (b).Based upon the complete lack of evidence to sustain a finding that Poipu Aina has standing,the Petition must be denied. C.The Petition Does Not Comolv With Commission Rule 1-4-4. Commission Rule 1-4-4 mandates that every petition to intervene state:(1)The nature of Petitioner s statutory or other right;(2)The nature and extent of Petitioner's interest and if an 'HPM notes that although testimony against the proposed project was submitted,the majority of the public testimony submitted was in support ofthe project. affected property owner,provide the Tax Map K.ey description of the affected property;(3)The specific issues to be raised or contested by the Petitioner in the Contested Case hearing;and (4) The effects ofany decision in the Proceeding on Petitioner's interest. The Petition does not contain any of the aforementioned four categories of infonnation required by Commission Rule 1-4-4 (1)-(4).Poipu Aina does not state the nature oftheir statutory or other rights.Poipu Aina does not state the nature and extent of its interest,nor does it provide that Tax Map Kay description ofthe affected property(ies).Poipu Aina does not state the specific issues it will raise in the contested case.And Poipu Aina does not state the effects of any decision in the Proceeding on its interest.As such,the Petition must be denied for failure to comply with Commission Rule 1-4-4 (1)-(4). Commission Rule 1 -4-4 also provides that,if applicable,the Petition shall also make reference to the following:(5)Other means available whereby Petitioner's interest may be protected;(6)Extent Petitioner's interest may be represented by existing parties;(7)Extent Petitioner s interest in Proceeding differs from that of the other parties;(8)Extent Petitioner's participation can assist in,development of a complete record;(9)Extent Petitioner's participation will broaden the issue or delay the Proceeding;and (10)How the Petitioner's intervention would serve the public interest. Due to the insufficiency ofthe Petition,HPM does not know ifthe information contained in Commission Rule 1-4-4 (5)-(10)is applicable.Nonetheless,Poipu Aina does not include any of the aforementioned information in the Petition,so to the extent that such infonnation is applicable,Poipu Aina has also failed to include the required information contained in Commission Rule 1-4-4 (5)-(10)and the Petition must be denied on that basis as well. D.Poipu Aina Did Not Pay the Reauired Filins Fce. Commission Rule 1 -4-6 requires petitions for intervention be accompanied by a filing fee of $25.00.The Petition was not accompanied by the$25.00 filing fee and thus the Petition must be denied.Declaration ofCounsel at ^[7. III.CONCLUSION. For the reasons sated above,the Commission must deny Poipu Aina's Petition to Intervene. However,HPM assures the Commission that despite the required denial ofPoipu Aina's Petition, HPM is committed to being a good tenant ofthe K.oloa district and working with all members of the public to address their concems to the maximum extent possible.HPM's intent is to benefit Kauai's community,and HPM understands that begins with being a good neighbor to all within the Koloa district. DATED:Lihue,Kauai,Hawaii,May 19,2022. CADES SCHUTTE LLP A Limited Liability Law Partnership Attomeys for Applicant HPM BUILDING SUPPLY BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE COUNTY OF KAUA'I In the Matter of the Application Of HPM BUILD1NG SUPPLY,for a Special Permit,Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa'a,District of Koloa,Kaua'i,Hawai'i,and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel ofReal Property Identified by Kaua'i Tax Map Key No.(4)2-9-001:001,and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres,more or less. SPECIAL PERMIT SP-2022-1 USE PERMIT (U)-2022-8;and CLASS IV ZONING PERM1T Z-IV-2022. DECLARATION OF COUNSEL DECLARATION OF MAUNA KEA TRASK I,MAUNA KEA TRASK,declare as follows: 1.I am the attomey for HPM BUILDING SUPPLY,Applicant in the above-captioned matter,and make this declaration based on personal knowledge. 2.Attached hereto as Exhibit "A"is a true and correct copy of the Community Association ofPoipu Aina Estates'Petition to Intervene (the "Petition"). 3.Attached hereto as Exhibit "B"is a true and correct copy ofa screen shot ofthe Planning Department's webpage showing that public notice for HPM's May 10,2022 agency hearing was posted on March 24,2022. 4.Attached hereto as Exhibit "C"is a tme and correct copy of the Planning Department's Public Notice ofthe HPM May 10,2022 Agency Hearing. 5.The Petition was filed on May 9,2022,and was not served on myselfor my client. 6.I have reviewed County ofKaua'i real property tax records,spoken with authorized representatives ofMahaulepu Fann LLC -the lessor and fee simple owner ofTax Map Key Parcel No.(4)2-9-001:001 (the "land"),and conferred with my client,and the Community Association ofPoipu Aina Estates neither owns an interest in the land nor resides on the land. 7.On May 16,2022,I spoke with Dale Cua,Planner IV of the County of Kaua'i Planning Department,and he confinned that the Community Association of Poipu Aina Estates did not submit a $25.00 filing fee with their Petition to Intervene. I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED:Lihu'e,Hawai'i,May 19,2022. COUNTYnFKAUAI '22 MAY-9 P 2 32 PLANNING DF.PT. Community Assodation of Poipu Aina Estates C/0 Jeff Masters P.0.Box 238 Koloa,Hl 96756 May 9,2022 Kauai County Planning Department 4444 Rice St,Suite 473 Lihue,Hl 92677'el&T~!0^' RE:CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8),USE PERMIT (U-2022-8)and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1)to operate a construction material manufacturing facility on a parcel situated immediately adjacent to the Old Koloa Sugar Mill site in Koloa,along the eastern side of Ala Kinoiki,approximately 3,300 feet west of the Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection,further identified as Tax Map Key:2-9-001 :001,and affecting a 3-acre portion of a larger parcel. Petition to Intervene We respectfully requestthatyou acceptthis Petitionto Intervene on behatfofthe CommunityofPoipu Aina Estates. We areveryconcernedthatthe HPMfacilitywlllnegativelylmpactthetraffic,airquality,noise and view plains in and around our community.HPM asserts Ihat there will be little to no impact in these areas but we disagree.Some ofour concerns are as follows: •Traffic noise of trucks on the gravel road starting as early as 6 am. •Visual impact of a large,open ended tent. «Noisecreated bythe saws and otherpowertools,trucksand equipment,especially as ourcommunityis downwind of the facility. •Lack ofsound control based on the open tent like nature ofthe structure. •Visual impact of the power lines being pulled to the facility. •Largely obstructed view ofthe sugar mill. •Decrease in property values forour community. •Increased trucking traffic on the South shore specifically the narrow,already congested streets in and around Koloa town. •The traffic assessment done by HPM was done on 12/10/21 while tourism was still significantly lower because of COVID 19. •Allowing this facility to operate along the main artery road of Ala Kinoiki,where thousands a day access the Poipu area resorts and beaches. •The letter sent by cades &schutte dated April 5,2022 to "persons listed on the current reat property assessment notice (ist within 30 feet from the subject property"did not contain accurate information on attending the Planning Commission meeting via Zoom on 5/10/22 as the zoom (ink provided was from a past meeting.This may have made it difficult for residents to attend the public hearing via zoom if unable to attend in person. •The peacefulness and beautysurroundingthe area aroundtheOld Koloa Mill that isvalued by locals and tourists alike. Sincerely, Michael Clark,member,on behalfof The Community Members of Poipu Aina Estat^EXHIBIT A Plannlng Commfsslon Arboflst Commfttee Board of Ethcs Board of Reinew Board of Water Supply Bulldlng Board of Appeals Charter Sewew Commlssion Civil Senice Commission Committee on the Status of Women Cost Control Conmission The Pfannjng Commfssion consfsts of seven (7)memberi from the publlc that are appoinied by the Mayor afid conf'fnied by th?Councii.The Plannlng Commission meets twice a month 10 hoid pubi'c hearings on ^oning and iand use permits and applicarions,aa wei!35 render (fecisioni cn ttiese matters Meeiing Ttme/Lccation 9'OOam.MEetingRoom2A/2B.2nd&41h Tuesda/of each monih. The pub!ic may altend the meeting via Zoom using the 'Z&oni link'and tstephoni?using tiie "jciin by Dhone'tcleptiona fiui'''>t,er thst M\\be provicfed on the agenda for the meeiing,The Agenda f&f the meeling will be posted in accortfante witli HR5 92. Members Contact Information Correspondence and publlc testlmonv may be sent t0- Pisnmng Coinmission c/o County of Kaoai Pianning Department 44d4 tice Sireet.Suite A473 Lihu'e.f<aua)9G766 Email.planni ngdep artment@ikaual.gov ftione [808]3^1-^050 Q_Baaus£-8,seai ch ar^ked PlannTia Lommisyon Liquor Controi Commission Open Space Commisslon Plannlr.g Cofnm.ssion Police Commi^sfon Salary Comnniaskin Click^Gm' 8uilding_Permlt&Qnljnel t.hei.i.permit.pten tracking.and inspection siatus online' Mew to permitting?Get Femn^Ung information HERE' Gsra!d Ako Subdivision Connitt^a CF'3'r Donna Apisa Mehin Ghiba Lori Otsuka Plannlng Commfssion Agenda Wtdntsciiy May ^2P2.! May 10.2022 PtannlflgCommissli Agwida Pack.et May ;.i 2022 Planning Cofnmisslon Agenda Pactet •L.<il3>t.'s.i .'J;; May 10.20U PfitiqjnB Commlsslon AgeQda t.ls'j 'O.2022 PlanninsCommission Agenda Planning Commlssfon Minutes WidnfrSday,fffb-L-sf^'5.^•,.';^ Octflber2&203l Hannlna Commlsiioo MlnutnDfUtfT Octobef26 202)Planrtifi^Ccmmisswn Minutes ORAFT Fnd£y.j5nua--;ig.3i3; Pttnt»r1i}.2(tttPtannlneConutilssiflO MlnutM Oi.'.otier '2 2021 Pldfning Commrii;c;n Minute; Public Hearlng Notlces Tuts.diy.ADnliS.202; UaK_a.2022 Ptannfng CommlMiea Pt|t)lj(,ysaflne NotiM May 24.Z0i2 PlanningC&nimissicin PuUlc HearifigNDtice tSsy^Q^JQ^Mannfng Conruiilssion )g Notlce -REV1SED May 10.2032 Pjannjng Comnilssidfi Public MearinR Notoe Moiday,,^pnn 1,203; Aprd 12.2022 Planntpg CominfSSlEUl^ ElrstAffditiOT.lo/aeQsla Apri!12.202Z Planning C^nnmissioi'i • First Addltion ;o Agenda i'.'-.:'n""?^^c-tili:20;; ApriL>2,2022 Planning Qommi' Agenda Packet April t2.2022 Planning Cf.'mr-tisstori ^gentia Packet Ffkta/far.ui'y14 203; Seplember 19._ CommlssiMi Minutes Sepiembef-23.iQ2 >Plantiing Commis^ion kllpui:es SfipKinb^f 14.;0;1 Planning Conrunluton Mlnutei °/i.]/202l PC Kl'(-;ute; ApdLU.2022 Plannlpg Ccxnmisston PuUk Hearlng^atice Apnl 11.20t2 Plarinir.g Con-.iriission Fublic HeanngNotice nuridiy.;arLiary 20,202; March 8.20?2 Planning (;pmni|ssk)n Public HeflrJpg^jotlU Maf;n 3,202^Planning Cornniission Pub!ic HMring Nctice EXHIBIT B COUNTY OF KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION -4444 Rice Street,Suitc A473,Lihue, Kauai,Hawaii,96766,tel:(808)241-4050,email:planninedeDartment(g),kauai.gov. NOT1CE IS I1EREBY GIVEN ofan agency hearing with a public hearing and an opportunity for public testimony from all interested pcrsons to be held by the Kaua'i Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions ofSpecial Management Area Rules,Kauai County Code,Chapter 8,as amended,Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)Chapter 92 and 91,and the Rules ofPractice and Proccdure ofthe County of Kauai Planning Commission.Thc hearing will be held regarding the following: CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8),USE PERMIT (U-2022-8)and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1)to operatc a construction material manufacturing facility on a parcel situated immediately adjacent to the Old Koloa Sugar Mill site in Koloa,along the eastem side ofAla Kinoiki,approximately 3,300 feet west ofthc Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection,further identified as Tax Map Key:2-9- 001:001,and affecting a 3-acre portionofa larger parcel. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-9)and USE PERMIT (U-2022-9)to allow construction ofanew single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated at the southern terminus ofLeleiona Street in Puhi,situated approximately 800 feet south of its intersection with Puhi Road and further identifiedas 1811 Leleiona Street,Tax Map Key:(4)3-3-011:003,containingatotalareaofapproximatcly 3.401 acres. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2022-6,CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-10),USE PERMIT (U-2022-10),and VARIANCE PERMIT (V-2022-2)to allow installation ofa stealth telecommunication structure and associated equipment on a parcel situated on the makai side of Aleka Loop in Wailua,approximately 400 feet east of the Kuhio Highway/Aleka Loop intersection,further identified as 650 Aleka Loop,Tax Map Key:(4)4-3-007:028 and containing a total areaof 10.377 acres. Meeting LThu'e Civic Center,Moikeha Building,Meeting Room 2A-2B, Location:4444 Ricc Street,LThu'e,Kaua'i,Hawai'i Interactive The public may attend the meeting via Zoom using the "Zoom link"and Conference telephone using the "join by phone"telephone number that will bc provided Tcchnoloey:on the agenda for the meeting.The Agenda for the meeting will be posted in accordance with HRS 92. Webcast Meeting:https://www.kauai.govAVebcast-Meetings Date: Timc: May 10,2022 9:00 a.m.or shortly thereafter Pursuant to Hawai'i Reviscd Statiites Section 92-3.7,which codified Act 220,SLH 2021,the meetings of the County ofKaua'i Planning Commission will bc conducted as follows: •The meeting location that will be open to the public with audiovisual cormection is: o LThu'e Civic Center,MoikeTia Building o Meeting Rqom 2A-2B o 4444 Rice Street,LThu'e,Kaua'i,Hawai'i •In addition to attendance in-person,the public may also attend the meeting by phone using the "join by phonc"telephone number provided on the agenda. EXHIBIT C •The public may also attend the mccting through Zoom.Ifattending the meeting via Zoom,it shall be the responsibility of the attendee to join the meeting through the Zoom link provided via E- mail.In addition,it shall be the responsibility ofthe testifier to ensure that the Zoom software is downloaded and operational prior to the meeting.Once you sign-in for the meeting,you will receive the meeting link. o You may usc a unique identificr (i.e.,an alias name and alias email addrcss)instead ofyour real name to maintain anonymity.Please note that the unique Zoom meeting link will be sent by Zoom to the Email that was entercd at sign-in. •Also,the meeting will be live streamed and available as an archived meeting after completion at www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings.Please note that thc livestream broadcast does not allow interaction between the viewer and Planning Commission.Also,video production scrvices or enhancements ofthe recorded video will not be available. •Written testimony may be submitted on any agenda item and submitted to plarmingdeDartment(%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 mceting will be distributed to all Planning Commissioners prior to the mecting.Any testimony received after this time and up to the start of the meeting will be summarized by thc Clerk ofthe Commission during the meeting and added to the record thereafter. •Oral testimony will be taken during the public hearing portion of the meeting in-person at the public meeting location,via Zoom link,or using the "join by phone"number listed on the agenda. o All testifier audio and video will be disablcd 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 Ifthere 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 any major and insurmountable tcchnical difficulties are encountered during the meetings,the Planning Commission will continue all matters and reconvene at the next schedulcd Planning Commission Meeting. Petitions for intervenor status must be submitted to the Commission and the applicant at least seven days prior to the date ofthc hearing advertised herein and shall be in conformance with Chapter 4 ofthe Rules ofPractice and Procedure ofthe Planning Commission.A copy ofthe proposal will be emailed to any interested person who requcsts a copy.Please submit your request to the Planning Department. KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION,Helen Cox,Chairperson,By Kaaina S.Hull,Clerk of the Commission. NOTE:IF YOU NEED AN AUXILIARY AID/SERVICE,OTHER ACCOMMODATION DUE TO A D1SABILITY,OR AN INTERPRETER FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSONS,PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AT (808)241-4917 OR ASEGRETI@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. Ptiblicalion Dale:April S,2022 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE COUNTY OF KAUA'I In the Matter ofthe Application Of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY,for a Special Permit,Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa'a,District of Koloa,Kaua'i,Hawai'i,and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel ofReal Property Identified by Kaua'i Tax Map Key No.(4)2-9-001:001,and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres,more or less. SPECIAL PERMIT SP-2022-1 USE PERMIT (U)-2022.8;and CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT Z-IV-2022- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a copy ofthe foregoing document was served in the manner indicated below by Hand-Deliver or by U.S.Certified Mail,postage prepaid,on the following: KA'AINA S.HULL [via Hand-Delivery] Planning Director Planning Department County ofKaua'i 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 Lihue,HI 96766 LAURA BARZILAI,ESQ. County ofKauai County Attomey's Office 4444 Rice Street,Suite 220 Lihue,HI96766 [via Hand-Delivery] Attomey for the Planning Commission COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF [via U.S.Certified Mail,postage prepaid] P01PU AINA ESTATES c/o Jeff Masters P.0.BOX 238 Koloa,HI 96756 DATED:Lihue,Kauai,Hawaii,May 19,2022. CADES SCHUTTE LLP A Limited Liability Law Partnership MAUN~A~KEA~FRAS^J Attomeys for Applicant HPM BUILDING SUPPLY 6563546.v2 Of Counsel: DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT Attorneys at Law A Law Corporation GREGORY W. KUGLE 6502-0 MAX J. KIMURA 7393-0 LOREN A. SEEHASE 10414-0 1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1600 Honolulu, HI 96813 www.hawaiilawyer.com Telephone: (808) 531-8031 Facsimile: (808) 533-2242 Attorneys for THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I, STATE OF HAWAI’I In the Mater of the Application of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa’a, District of Koloa, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9-001-001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1) USE PERMIT (U-2022-8) CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8) THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES’ SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO INTERVENE; DECLARATION OF MAX J. KIMURA; EXHIBITS “A”; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DATE: May 24, 2022 TIME: 9:00 a.m. THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES’ SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO INTERVENE 2 The Community Association of Poipu Aina Estates (“Poipu Aina”), by and through its attorneys Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, respectfully submits its Supplemental Petition to Intervene in the above-captioned proceeding, pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Rules Practice and Procedure of the Kaua’i County Planning Commission. I. INTRODUCTION Poipu Aina is an adjacent neighbor to HPM Building Supply’s proposed Construction Material Manufacturing Facility (“Facility”). Poipu Aina is directly situated downhill and downwind from the proposed Facility. On May 9, 2022, Michael Clark, on behalf of himself—whose lot is directly adjacent to the Facility—and the Community Members of Poipu Aina, submitted a Petition to Intervene in HPM’s Application for Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zone Permit (“Application”). Mr. Clark’s Petition is incorporated by reference and is attached as Exhibit A. HPM’s Facility would be a violation of the permissible uses within an agricultural district, under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 205-4.5. Its Facility would not be “directly accessory” to permitted agricultural activities identified in HRS § 205-4.5(a)(1 through 23), and therefore shall be prohibited. Agricultural districts shall be restricted to agricultural uses and the County Planning Commission may permit special uses that would promote the effectiveness and objectives of HRS § 205, i.e. support agriculture businesses in Hawaii. HRS § 205-6(c). HPM’s Facility to prefabricate trusses and houses would not support agriculture in Hawaii. It is disingenuous for HPM to claim otherwise. HPM’s Facility would be for industrial manufacturing. Let’s call a spade a spade. HPM and its Facility would not be in any shape or form consistent with agriculture. It would not 3 be in any way consistent with growing, milling, processing timber in Hawaii, not when it opens and not anytime in the near future. Euclidean Zoning enforces the separation of industrial land from agricultural and residential land, and protects the latter zones from industrial pollution. It is obvious to any reasonable person that HPM’s Facility would increase pollution—noise, air, and traffic—to the surrounding area. II. NATURE OF POIPU AINA’S STATUTORY OR OTHER RIGHT Poipu Aina has a Constitutional and Statutory Right to enforce H.R.S. § 205—the law related to the conservation, protection, and enhancement of natural resources—against its adjacent neighbor, HPM Building Supply. HPM seeks a special use permit to erect and use an industrial manufacturing facility on agricultural land which would violate Chapter 205. Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawaii State Constitution establishes the right to a clean and healthful environment which includes the control of pollution and the conservation, protection, and enhancement of natural resources. “Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through the appropriate legal proceedings . . . .” Haw. Const. art XI, § 9. This right is made whole through HRS Chapter 205 which conserves, protects, and enhances Hawaii’s land and provides the appropriate proceedings for people to enforce responsible land regulation and use. The Hawai’i Supreme Court has specifically held that a community association has standing and a private right of action to enforce HRS Chapter 205 against a neighbor. County of Hawai’i v. Ala Loop Homeowners, 123 Haw. 391 (2010). III. NATURE AND EXTENT OF POIPU AINA’S INTEREST Poipu Aina is a community of 17 homeowners, whose lots are adjacent to Mahaulepu Farm LLC’s Lot, TMK (4) 2-9-001:001. See State of Hawaii Flood Hazard 4 Assessment Report Map, Exhibit E-6 to HPM’s Application, which depicts and identifies “Poipu Aina Pl.” the main road within Poipu Aina Community, directly adjacent to the Mahaulepu Farm Lot. HPM Building Supply is licensing Mahaulepu Farm’s Lot in order to erect a gigantic, 4-story tall, 100-feet wide, and 260-feet long manufacturing facility. The exact location of this manufacturing facility is situated within a half mile from Poipu Aina’s homes and lots. The increased traffic, noise, and air pollution from this manufacturing facility would substantially impact and harm Poipu Aina, which is located downwind, South-West, of the prevailing, Trade Winds that blow from the North-East direction. IV. EFFECT OF ANY DECISION IN THE PROCEEDING ON POIPU AINA’S INTEREST If the Kauai County Planning Department grants HPM’s Special Use Permit to erect a manufacturing facility and therein, conduct industrial manufacturing on what is historically designated as agricultural land, then Poipu Aina, an adjacent neighbor, will witness, feel, and suffer the brunt of HPM’s destruction, endangerment, and deterioration of natural resources. V. EXTENT POIPU AINA’S INTEREST MAY BE REPRESENTED BY EXISTING PARTIES Poipu Aina is an adjacent neighbor and its homes and lots are the closest to HPM’s proposed manufacturing facility. To our knowledge, there is no entity or persons that will be more severely affected by HPM’s industrial manufacturing facility than Poipu Aina. VI. EXTENT POIPU AINA’S INTEREST IN PROCEEDING DIFFERS FROM THAT OF THE OTHER PARTIES Poipu Aina would be closer to HPM’s industrial manufacturing facility than any other community, homeowner, and resident of the Poipu area. However, besides the proximity, 5 Poipu Aina’s interest are not that different from other parties. We believe that all of the residents living in the Poipu area will detrimentally be impacted by HPM’s noise, air, and traffic pollution. VII. EXTENT POIPU AINA’S PARTICIPATION CAN ASSIST IN DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPLETE RECORD Poipu Aina’s participation and contribution as an adjacent neighbor would develop and complete the record on this issue of HPM’s application for a special use permit to conduct industrial manufacturing on historically and appropriately designated, agricultural land. VIII. POIPU AINA’S PARTICIPATION WILL NOT BROADEN OR DELAY THE ISSUE Poipu Aina’s participation in this matter will not broaden the issues or delay the proceedings. IX. THE POIPU AINA’S INTERVENTION WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST It is time for the people of Kauai to make a determination and set a precedent for what kind of development and future it wants for themselves and their children. Poipu Aina is committed to fighting for all of Kauai, to ensure the right to a clean and healthful environment is protected and held sacrosanct. Poipu Aina will hold steadfast the goals of controlling pollution and conserving, protecting, and enhancing our natural resources and not sacrifice them for the low hanging fruit, which only offers short-term profit and few employment opportunities. Poipu Aina’s intervention would serve the people of Kauai by participating in the HPM’s application process and engaging in thoughtful dialogue with the parties involved. The lessons and outcomes we all learn from this matter would help us to have a brighter, greener, and more sustainable future. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. 6 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 23, 2022. DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT /s/ Max J. Kimura ________________________________ GREGORY W. KUGLE MAX J. KIMURA LOREN A. SEEHASE Attorneys for THE ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I, STATE OF HAWAI’I In the Mater of the Application of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa’a, District of Koloa, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9-001-001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DECLARATION OF MAX J. KIMURA DECLARATION OF MAX J. KIMURA I, MAX J. KIMURA, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, attorneys for the COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES, and I am duly licensed to practice in all courts in the State of Hawaii. 2. I am an attorney in good standing before the Hawaii Supreme Court. 3. I make this declaration on personal knowledge, unless otherwise indicated, and am competent to testify to the matters stated herein. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of Michael Clark’s Petition to Intervene, dated May 9, 2022. Mr. Clark is a lot owner in Poipu Aina Estates and his lot is directly adjacent to Mahaulepu Farm LLC’s lot, wherein HPM Building Supply proposes to build its large, industrial manufacturing facility. 2 5. Submitted with the foregoing Supplemental Petition to Intervene is a check for$25.00 for the filing fee sent via U.S. Mail to the Kauai Planning Department. I declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of Hawaii that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of May 2022, at Honolulu, Hawaii. /s/ Max J. Kimura MAX J. KIMURA EXHIBIT “A” Community Association of Poipu Aina Estates C/O Jeff Masters P.O. Box 238 Koloa, HI 96756 May 9, 2022 Kauai County Planning Department 4444 Rice St, Suite 473 Lihue, HI 96766 RE: CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8), USE PERMIT (U-2022-8) and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1) to operate a construction material manufacturing facility on a parcel situated immediately adjacent to the Old Kōloa Sugar Mill site in Kōloa, along the eastern side of Ala Kinoiki, approximately 3,300 feet west of the Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: 2-9- 001:001, and affecting a 3-acre portion of a larger parcel. Petition to Intervene We respectfully request that you accept this Petition to Intervene on behalf of the Community of Poipu Aina Estates. We are very concerned that the HPM facility will negatively impact the traffic, air quality, noise and view plains in and around our community. HPM asserts that there will be little to no impact in these areas but we disagree. Some of our concerns are as follows:  Traffic noise of trucks on the gravel road starting as early as 6 am.  Visual impact of a large, open ended tent.  Noise created by the saws and other power tools, trucks and equipment, especially as our community is downwind of the facility.  Lack of sound control based on the open tent like nature of the structure.  Visual impact of the power lines being pulled to the facility.  Largely obstructed view of the sugar mill.  Decrease in property values for our community.  Increased trucking traffic on the South shore specifically the narrow, already congested streets in and around Koloa town.  The traffic assessment done by HPM was done on 12/10/21 while tourism was still significantly lower because of COVID 19.  Allowing this facility to operate along the main artery road of Ala Kinoiki, where thousands a day access the Poipu area resorts and beaches.  The letter sent by cades & schutte dated April 5, 2022 to “persons listed on the current real property assessment notice list within 30 feet from the subject property” did not contain accurate information on attending the Planning Commission meeting via Zoom on 5/10/22 as the zoom link provided was from a past meeting. This may make it difficult for residents to attend the public hearing via zoom if unable to attend in person.  The peacefulness and beauty surrounding the area around the Old Koloa Mill that is valued by locals and tourists alike. Sincerely, Michael Clark, member, on behalf of The Community Members of Poipu Aina Estates EXHIBIT "A" THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I, STATE OF HAWAI’I In the Mater of the Application of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa’a, District of Koloa, Kauai, Hawai’i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9-001-001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was duly served upon following entities at their last known addresses and via Email, as follows: KAUAI PLANNING DEPARTMENT planningdepartment@kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 Lihue, Hawaii 96766 CADES SCHUTTE Mauna Kea Trask (mtrask@cades.com) PO Box 1205 Lihue, HI 96766 Attorneys for HPM BUILDING SUPPLY 2 COX FRICKE LLP Abigail M. Holden (aholden@cfhawaii.com) Christine A. Terada (cterada@cfhawaii.com) 800 Bethel Street, Suite 600 Honolulu, HI 96813 Attorneys for PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 23, 2022. DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT /s/ Max J. Kimura ________________________________ GREGORY W. KUGLE MAX J. KIMURA LOREN A. SEEHASE Attorneys for THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION POIPU AINA ESTATES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI.MAYOR MICHAEL A.DAHILIG,MAHAGING DIRECTOR DIRECTOR'S REPORT SUMMARY Action Required by Planning Commission: Consideration of Class IV Zoning Permit,Use Permit,and Special Permit to operate a construction material manufacturing facility and associated site improvements. Permit Application Nos. Name of Applicant(s) Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2022-8 Use Permit U-2022-8 Special PermitSP-2022-1 HPM BUILDINGSUPPLY Mauna Kea Trask,Esq.,Authorized Agent PERMITINFORMATION PERMITS REQUIRED ^t Use Permit Pursuant to Section 8-8.6 of the KCC,1987,as amended,a Use Permit is required for construction and operation of a construction material manufacturing facility within the Agriculture (A)zoning district. I1 Project Development Use Permit 11 Variance Permit ^)Special Permit Pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS),a Special Permit is required as the proposed use is not a permissible use within the State Agricultural Land Use District. Zoning Permit Class ^]IV III Pursuant to Section 8-8.4 ofthe KCC,1987,as amended,a Class IV Zoning Permit is a procedural requirement for obtaining a Use Permit in the Agriculture (A)zoning district. 1]Special Management Area Permit Use Minor AMENDMENTS F.1.a.1. May 24, 2022 Date of Receipt of Completed March 14,2022 Application: Date of Director's Report:April 26,2022 Date of Public Hearing:MAY 10,2022 Deadline Date for PC to Take Action June 25,2022 (60 Day): PROJECT DATA IV.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Section 8-3.l(f),KCC:This report is being transmitted to the Applicant and Planning Commission in order to satisfy the requirements ofSection 8-3.l(f),relatingto the Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8,SP-2022-1;Director's Report HPM Building Supply 4.22.2022 2 1 Pag e Zoning Amendment General Plan Amendment [_]State Land Use District Amendment PROJECT INFORAMTION Parcel Location:The project site is located situated immediately adjacent to the Old Koloa Sugar Mill site in Koloa,alongthe eastern side ofAla Kinoiki, approximately 3,300 feet west of the Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection. Tax Map Key(s):2-9-001:001 Area:3 acres ZONING &DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Zoning:Agriculture (A)/0pen (0) State Land Use District:Agricultural General Plan Designation:Agriculture Height Limit:50 feet Max.Land Coverage:60%oflotarea Parking Requirement:NotApplicable FrontSetback:10 feet Rear Setback:10 feet Side Setback:5feet Community Plan Area:NA. Community Plan Land Use Designation:NA. Deviations or Variances Requested:NA provision of the 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 March 14,2022 and the Applicant,through its authorized agent,was notified accordingly ofthe Planning Department's intentto commence permlt processing. Public Hearing Date:MAY 10,2022 V.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE As represented,the proposed development involves construction of a new facility fabricating construction materials such as wooden trusses and wall paneling for residential housing projects.The building will be a steel and tension vinyl fabric structure that is designed to comply with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). The project site involves an area that approximately 3 acres in size,measuring 278 ft.X 479 ft.The County tax records indicate that the overall parcel size is 1,076 acres and it stretches from the area around the Old Koloa Mill site to the coastline area between Keoniloa Bay to Gillins Beach (Maha'ulepu). The facility will be used to manufacture wooden trusses and wall panels for residential housing construction.HPM will import the raw lumber materials for manufacturing into trusses and wall panels from the Pacific Northwest.Current state building requirements mandate the use of borate treated Douglas fir or borate treated engineered wood products (EWP")for building construction.Neither ofthese raw materials are currently available in the state.However,if these raw materials become locally available in the future,HPM will use locally sourced raw materials in its manufacturing process.The Facility will use cutting edge technology in its manufacturing process which will minimize waste and maximize efficiency.The manufactured trusses will be fastened together with engineered plates that meet all required structural elements and standards. Manufactured wall panels will use code required galvanized fasteners,and structural strapping will be added when needed or in the event they are required per contractor specifications. The facility hours of operation will be from Monday through Friday,7:00 am to 4:30 pm. (Please refer to Page 4 of the Application for further project specifications) VI.APPLICANT'S REASONS/JUSTIFICATION Please refer to Application. Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8,SP-2022-1;Director's Repori HPM Building Supply 4.22.2022 3|Pagc VII.ADDITIONALFINDINGS 1.Site Informatipn/Characteristics As previously noted,the subject parcel is designated as "Agriculture"under the Kaua i General Plan and the entire parcel is classified as Agricultural"under the State Land Use District Boundary maps.The present zoningofthe project site is Agriculture (A) District. The surrounding parcels are primarily fallow agriculture lands,with some agricultural activities and with related uses.There is a solar-power generation facility approximately 1,200 feet to the northwest of the project site. The Federat Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)Flood Insurance Map indicates the project site being is situated within the flood zone identified as Zone 'X'.FEMA has determined that areas within the Zone "X"(unshaded)means that the area is outside the 500-year flood plan. 2.Surroundings The surrounding parcels are primarily fallow agriculture lands,with some agricultural activities and related uses to the east &south ofthe project site.The nearest residential development is situated to the south and approximately 1/2-mile away.As previously noted,the project is situated immediately adjacent to the Old Koloa Mill site where some industrial-type activities occur.It is noted that the project site is near an algae farm to the east,and a solar power facility that is approximately 1,500 feet to the west. 3.Access The primary access to this facility is taken from an existing cane haul road that stems from Weliweili Road.It is noted that the portion of Weliweli Road leading up to the project site is paved and is wide enough to accommodate two-way vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is restricted by a security gate.In considering the proposal,it should be noted that vehicular traffic in this area is relatively low. 4.Use Permit Pursuantto Article 3 ofthe Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO),Chapter 8 ofthe Kauai county Code (1987),the purpose ofthe Use Permit Procedure is to assure the proper integration into the community of uses which may be suitable only in specific locations ofa district,oronly under certain conditions,or only ifthe 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 ifthe Planning Commission findsthat the use meetsthe following cnteria: a.The use must be a compatible use; Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8,SP-2022-1;Director's Report HPM Buitding Supply 4.22.2022 41 Page b.The use must not be detrimental to persons or property in the area; c.The use must not cause substantial environmental consequences;and d.The use must not be inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO)and General Plan. 5.CZO Development Standards The proposed development is subjected to standards prescribed in Sections 8-4.3,8- 4.5and 8-8.2: a.Setback Requirements:Front property line setbacks are ten feet (10'-0")with a side and rear property line setback offive feet (5'-0")or halfthe distance ofthe plate height whichever is greater.As proposed,the structure complies with the setback requirements specified by the CZO. b.Land/Lot Coverage:The subject property is within the County Open zoning district.Thus,the allowable land coverage should not exceed more than 60%of the parcel or lot area,as prescribed in Section 8-9.2fa)of the CZO. c.Building Height:Developments within the Agriculture zoning district to be no more than fifty (50)feet to the highest point ofthe roof. VIII.AGENCY COMMENTS Attached as Exhibit 'A'. IX.PRELIMINARY EVALUATION In evaluating the Applicant's proposal to allow operation of a construction material manufacturing facility and associated site improvements on the subject parcel,the following are being considered and responses are taken from the Application (beginning from Page 21). 1.General Plan The proposed development satisfies the following policies of the General Plan,as taken from Sections 1.3 and 1.4: a.Section 1.3,entitled "VISIONS AND GOALS" 1)Goal #1 "Sustainable Island"-The development allows for responsible growth due to its location being in close proximity to the Koloa Sugar Mill, an area that was dedicated to industrial agriculture uses.The project site is within the General Plan "Industrial"land use designation and has been specifically identified as accommodating future light industrial uses within the South Kaua'i Planning Area.This will allow the Facility to meet the Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8,SP-2022-L Director's Repori HPM Building Supply 4.22.2022 5|Page needs of current and future generations without requiring the displacement of lands currently used for agricultural and open space purposes or depleting important resources associated therewith. 2)Goal #2 "Unique and Beautiful Place -The development should not infringe upon the rights of the community to engage in cultural traditions and practices and will not interfere with opportunities for recreation and meditative contemplation within the South Kaua i Planning Area.Because the Facility will be within an area that was historically used for industrial agricultural processing and proposed for future use as a light industrial area,the Facility will not adversely affect Kauai's natural ecosystem, endemic or endangered species,historic structures,and archaeological sltes. 3)Goal tt3 "A Healthy and Resilient People"-The Community health is strengthened by preservation of natural areas,access to jobs that support a high quality of life,lowering the high cost of living to allow residents to enter the housing market,and a strong and diverse economy.The facility should not require the development or displacement of any existing natural areas of significant community value.Additionally,the facility is expected to add approximately 20-23 new jobs to the economy that would provide competitive wages based upon the cost of living on Kaua'i.HPM anticipates that the proposed facility would reduce the shipping costs associated with home construction on Kaua'i,which would bring down the cost of housing and allow for more opportunities for local residents to enter the housing market. 4)Goal #4 "An Equitable Place,with Opportunity for All"-HPM's primary goal is to produce quality prefabricated wooden trusses and wall panels that are more affordable and more readily available than either importing the same from off island or constructing them at the home site.The facility and its productswould have a direct and immediate effect in addressing Kauai's high cost of living,what the General Plan refers to as the "Price of Paradise."HPM anticipates between 20-23 new jobs in the Koloa district that are not directly tied to resorts or the visitor industry,an important step towards creating a more diversified economy and opportunities for upward mobility. b.Section 1.4,entitled "POLICIES TO GUIDE GROWTH" 1)Policy #1 "Manage Growth to Preserve Rural Character"-The project is consistent with the policy since it is proposed to be developed next to Koloa Town within an area that was historically used for industrial 61P age Z-IV-2022-8.U-2022-8.SP-2022-1;Director's Report HPM Bui!ding Supply 4.22.2022 agricultural uses and has been identified as an area for light industrial use in the future. 2)Policy #2 "Provide Affordable Housing While Facilitating a Diversity of Privately Developed Housing for Local Families -HPM recognizes Kauai s urgent housing needs and the proposed facility specifically addresses lowering the cost of housing construction by manufacturing prefabricated housing materials that would decrease shipping costs,construction time, and expense at the house site.In this regard,the Facility is consistent with the Policy. 3)Policy #3 "Recognize the Identity of Kauai's Individual Towns and Distracts"-The proposed development is consistent with Koloa s distinct character as an area that supports mixed use and economic opportunities. Further,the Facility will be built immediately adjacent to the Koloa Sugar Mill which has always been associated with industrial agricultural uses. 4)Policy #6 -Reduce the Cost of Living -The facility should result in lowering the cost of housing construction by decreasing import costs associated with housing construction and reducing the time and expense of construction at the home site.Further,HPM's practice of providing competitive wages based upon each island's cost of living and its employee stock ownership plan directly addresses concerns related to stagnant wages and upward economic opportunities. 5)Policy #8 "Protect Kauai's Scenic Beauty"-The proposed facility should not be visible from any public view planes.Its location is within an area that was historically used for industrial agriculture use and is also identified as an area appropriate for future light industrial use.The facility should not result in the displacement of open spaces or current/future agricultural uses. 6)Policy #10 "Helping Business Thrive"-The Kaua'i GP identifies that Kauai's economy should allow for diversification so that it is not solely reliant on the visitor industry.Development of the facility would provide economic opportunities that are not reliant on tourism and will instead be part of Kauai's small manufacturing economy,and a viable diversified agricultural industry. 7)Policy #15 "Respect Native Hawaiian Right and Wahi Pana"-The facility should not adversely affect native Hawaiian rights,traditional customary practices,or wahi pana.The proposed facility is located within an area that has been historically associated with intensive agriculture.The studies 1W-20I2-S.U-2022-8,SP-2022-]:Dlreclor'!Reporl HPM 8uilding Supply 4.22.2022 7|P ag e conducted showed no cultural or archaeological resources identified on the project site.Also,the development ofthe Facility should not inhibit traditional and customary practices of native Hawaiians,nor will it result in the loss oftraditional and customary resources. 8)Policyffl7 "NurtureourKeiki"-Operation ofthisfacilitywould contribute to providing economic opportunities outside of the visitor industry and the manufactured products would contribute to decreasing housing costs,thus contributing to more local families entering the housing market. c.Section 2.2,LAND USE DESIGNATION:As previously stated,the project site is immediately adjacent to the Old Koloa Mill site and Kauai GP identifies its location as well as the surrounding area to be designated for "Industrial"use. This designation applies to areas that exclusively accommodate business, transportation,production oriented,and light industrial uses. While the project area is not situated within the designated industrial expansion as shown in Figure Map 5-4 "South Kaua'i Land Use Map"ofthe General Plan,it is a logical location for industrial-type development since there is existing infrastructure that can serve the project and is consistent with the intended purpose of the industrial designation. The following aspects are further being considered: 2.Native Hdwaiian Traditional and Cultural Rights As noted in the Application,a Cultural Impact Assessment Report (CIA)was prepared for projects in the vicinity ofthe proposed development and affectingthe subject parcel in 2001 &2009.The CIAcontained conflicting information regardingthe presence of cultural resources and the continued exercise of traditional practices affectingthe parcel. After further investigation by the Applicant,it does not appear that that there are currently any traditional or customary practices specifically occurring at the project site.It is however noted that all cultural practices that were noted in the foregoing studies pertained to and occurred either at the coastline or in mauka areas that are not affected by the proposed development.Further,it is worth noting that the mauka (northern)boundary ofthe 1,000+acre parcel is approximately 1-%miles inland and the makai (southern)boundary is alongthe coastline. Based on the information contained in the CIA where known cultural practitioners and kumu ofvarious Hawaiian arts were consulted,and evaluating historical information that was available to the department,the department finds that the proposed Project Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8,SP-2022-1:Director's Reporl HPM Building Supply 4.22.2022 8|Page involving the construction a construction material manufacturing facility on the subject parcel at its designated location 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 at the Project Site. b.There are no special gathering practices taking place at the project site or near the Old Koloa Mill site. c.The Project should not detrimentally inhibit 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. f.There are no known burials within the petition area. The CIA recognizes that all traditional and customary practices,and all valued cultural, and natural resources in the area involve subsistence fishing and gathering within the coastline portion ofthe parcel.In addressingthis matter,it is noted that the property owner (Maha'ulepu Farm LLC.)allows for public access to the coastline areas in order to ensure traditional and customary practices continue. 3.Special Permit Pursuant to Chapter 205 ofthe Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)and its Rules of Practice and Procedures,the Planning Commission may approve a Special Permit under such protective restrictions as may deemed necessary if it finds that the proposed use is an unusualand reasonable use of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District,and that the use would promote the effectiveness and objectives of Chapter 205,HRS.The Planning Commission shall consider the following guidelines in determining unusual and reasonable use: (1)Such use 5/)o//not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by Chapters 205 and 205A,HRS,and the Rules of the Land Commission. An intent of the State law is to assure that agricultural lands with a high capacity for intense cultivation be afforded the highest protection of agricultural purposes,and the uses allowed on other agriculture lands be compatible with such agricultural uses. 9 1 P age Z^V^022-8,U-2022-8,SP-2022-1;Director's Reporl HPM Building Supply 4.22.2022 Although the project site is surrounded by agricultural activities to the north, south,and east,thc facility affects an area that is approximately 3 acres in size and the remaining parcel is more than 1,076 acres.As such,there is adequate land within the surrounding larger parcel to further promote and accommodate agricultural activity. (2)The desired use would not adversely affecting surrounding property. The facility should not be associated with any adverse and noxious impacts. Residential uses are far removed from the project site.Furthermore,no significant traffic should be generated since it is only utilized by members of the construction industry and its employees.The areas immediately adjacent to the project site are relatively active agriculture lands,however,since it was previously under agriculture cultivation and fallow,there will be no irrevocable loss to natural,scenic,cultural,historical,or archaeological resource or sites. As such,the use should not significantly affect the surrounding properties. (3)The use would not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets,sewers,water,drainage,school improvements,and police andfire protection. Access and infrastructure are readily available for the project site.Any infrastructure improvements required for the proposed use would be provided by the Applicant,as noted in agency comments,and be a part of the overall construction ofthis facility. (4)Unusual conditions,trends,and needs haue arisen since the district boundaries and rules were established. The island is currently experiencing a population and construction growth. There is a very limited number of on-island facilities that can accommodate the need for prefabricated construction materials.Further,there are no on-island amenities that can mill locally grown lumber products.By having this facility,it would accommodate the construction industry for the southern &western regions of the island where growth is very prominent.Situated within a rural setting,impacts of the proposed development would be minimal and without adversely impacting surrounding properties.At the time the district boundaries were established,the State was on the back end of the failing sugar plantation industry and as a result,the future ofthis area was undetermined. The area was left in the Agricultural Land Use designation until such time a more developed plan was created.Since the area has been experiencing a population growth in the last four decades,there is a growing need for urban- type development,and more specifically,industrial-type operations to facilitate uses related to the manufacturing of construction materials. Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8.SP-2022-]:Direclor's Reporl HPM Building Supply 4.22.2022 l0|P ag c (5)The land upon which the use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted in the District. Due to the industrial-type activities associated with the Old Koloa Mill site,the areas that are surrounding and immediately adjacent to the mill site were left fallow and not suitable for intensive agriculture.These areas also included the land encumbered by the project site.However,it is noted that the project site is a very small portion of a larger parcel that is being utilized for various agricultural endeavors. 4.Use Permit Pursuantto Article 3 ofthe Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO),ChapterS ofthe Kaua i County Code (1987),the purpose ofthe Use Permit procedure is to assure the proper integration into the community of uses which may be suitable only in specific location 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 ofthe CZO specifies a USE PERMIT may be granted only if the Planning Commission finds that the use meets the following crlterla: o the use must be a compatible use; o the use must not be detrimental to persons or property in the area; o the use must not cause substantial environmental consequences;and o the use must not be inconsistent with the intent ofthe Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO)and General Plan. Based on the foregoing,the following aspects are taken into consideration: a.The proposed development is designed to be integrated with its surroundings and satisfies the growing need to provide construction material for the booming residential construction industry; b.Although the project is in the vicinity of residential development situated to the south of the project site that's approximately /z-mile away,it should not be detrimental to persons residing in those areas; c.The project site has been previously developed and it is unlikely that rare, threatened,or endangered species,or sensitive habitat will be affected by the proposed use.Due to the extensive ground disturbance as a result of intensive agricultural activities leading up to the 1980's,it is unlikely that cultural resources or historic sites will be impacted by the project;and d.The proposed development should not be detrimental to the health,safety, peace,morals,comfort,and general welfare of person residing or working in the surrounding community,and should not cause substantial harmful environmental consequences;and Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8,SP-2022-1:Direclor's Reporl HPM Suilding SuppSy 4.22.2022 ll|P ag e e.The proposal is consistent with the overall policies,long range goals,and objectives found in the County's General Plan &South Kaua i Community Plan. 5.Prpject Considerations/CZO Development Standards As proposed,the project complies building setback and building height requirements for development within the Agriculture (A)zoning district,as stipulated in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO). a.In the unlikely event there are excessive parking issues generated by this facility,Section 8-5.5(3)(E)of the CZO states that "the Planning Director shall determine the distribution of requirements for any particular use or combination of uses and may increase parking requirements when particular uses or locations occur in areas where unusual traffic congestions or conditions exist or are projected."Therefore,in an effort to mitigate unforeseen parking issues,the department reserves the authority to increase the parking requirements when particular uses cause unusual traffic congestion. b.To further ensure that the project is compatible with its surroundings and to minimize the visual impact ofthe structure,the external color ofthe buildings should be of a moderate to dark earth-tone color.The proposed color scheme should be submitted to the Planning Department for review and acceptance priorto building permit application. c.It is uncertain as to whether the Applicant has made provisions for night illumination with the project,based on the preliminary plans that have been submitted.Ifso,night illumination should be designed to minimize adverse impacts on the Federally Listed Threatened Species,Newell's Shearwater and other seabirds.Night lighting should be shielded from above and directed downwards and shall be approved by the U.S.Dept.of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.If external lighting is to be used in connection with the proposed project,all external lighting should be only ofthe followingtype:downward-facing,shielded lights.Spotlights aimed upward or spotlighting of structures is prohibited. The Applicant should institute the "Best Management Practices"in order to ensure that the operation of this facility does not generate impacts that may affect the health,safety,and welfare ofthose in the surrounding area ofthe proposal. Agency Comments -The Applicant should resolve and comply with allagency Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8,SP-2022-1;Direcfor's Report HPM Building Supply 4.22.2022 12 1 P age requirements as recommended in the permit application review,including but not limited to the fire code requirements as imposed by the County Fire Department,drainage requirements for COK DPW-Engineering Division,domestic water requirements for the COK Department of Water,wastewater requirements for the State Department of Health (DOH),and the archaeological/historical requirements ofthe State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). X.PRELIMINARYCONCLUSION Based on the foregoing,it is concluded that through proper mitigative measures,the proposed development would not have any detrimental impact to the environment and is consistent with the criteria outlined for the granting of a Special Permit,pursuant to Chapter 205 &205A of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)and rules of the State Land Use Commission. It is further concluded that the proposed facility is consistent with the standards of issuance for a Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit within the Agriculture District.The use should not have any significant adverse impacts to the environment,nor be detrimental to persons or property in the surrounding area. The Applicant should institute the "Best Management Practices"to ensure that the operation ofthis facility does not generate impactsthat may affect the health,safety,and welfare ofthose in the surrounding area ofthe proposal.Additionally,the Applicant should implement to the extent possible sustainable building techniques and operational methods for the project. XI.PRELMINARY RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing,it is hereby recommended that Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2022- 8,Use Permit U-2022-8,and Special Permit SP-2022-1 be APPROVED,subject to the following conditions: 1.The proposed improvements shall be constructed as represented.Any changes to the operation and/or the respective structures shall be reviewed by the Department to determine whether Planning Commission review and approval is required. 2.In accordance with Section llA-2.2(a)ofthe KCC,the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)fees for the project. 3.The Applicant is made aware that in an effort to mitigate unforeseen parking issues,the department reserves the authority to increase the parking requirements when particular uses cause unusual traffic 13 l P age ;-]V-2022-B,U-2022-8,SP-2022-1;Direclor's Reporl HPM Building Supply 4.22.2022 8. 9. 10. congestion. To further ensure that the project is compatible with its surroundings and to minimize the visual impact ofthe structure,the external color ofthe buildings should be of a moderate to dark earth-tone color.The proposed color scheme should be submitted to the Planning Department for review and acceptance prior to building permit application. In order to minimize adverse impacts on the Federally Listed Threatened Species,Newell's Shearwater and other seabirds,all external lighting shall be onlyofthe followingtype:downward-facing shielded lights.Any spotlights aimed upward or spotlighting of structures,landscaping,or the ocean shall be prohibited. The Applicant shall develop and utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's) during all phases of development in order to minimize erosion,dust,and sedimentation impacts ofthe projectto abutting properties. The Applicant shall resolve and comply with all agency requirements as recommended in the permit application review,including but not limited to the fire code requirements as imposed bythe County Fire Department,drainage requirements ofthe COK DPW-Engineering Division,domestic water requirements for the COK Department of Water,and the wastewater requirements ofthe State DepartmentofHealth (DOH). 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 (SHPD)and the Planning Department to determine mitigation measures. To the extent possible within the confines of union requirements and applicable legal prohibitions against discrimination in employment,the applicant shall seek to hire Kaua'i contractors as long as they are qualified and reasonably competitive with other contractors,and shall seek to employ residents of Kaua'i in temporary construction and permanent jobs.It is recognized that the applicant may have to employ non-Kaua'i residents for particular skilled jobs where no qualified Kaua'i resident possesses such skills.Forthe purposes ofthis condition,the Commission shall relievethe Applicant ofthis requirement ifthe applicant is subjected to anti- competitive restraints on trade or other monopolistic practices. The Applicant shall implement to the extent possible sustainable building techniques and operational methods for the project,which may include but Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8.SP-2022-1;Dlrector's Reporl HPMBuiidingSupply 4.22.2022 14 lPag c is not limited to recycling,natural lighting,extensive landscaping,solar panels,low-energy fixtures,low energy lighting and other similar methods and techniques.All such proposals shall be reflected on the plans submitted for building permit review. 11.The Applicant is advised that prior to construction and/or use,additional government agency conditions may be imposed.It shall be the Applicant s responsibility to resolve those conditions with the respective agency(ies). 12.The Planning Commission reserves the right to add or delete conditions of approval in order to address or mitigate unforeseen impacts this project may create,or revoke the permits through the proper procedures should conditions of approval be violated or adverse impacts be created that cannot be properly addressed. 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 priorto 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 staffs report and recommendation as provided herein. DALE A.CUA Planner Approved &Recommended to Commission: KA'AINtiS.HULL Director of.Planning Date 4 7A-ZblZ Z-IV-2022-8,U-2022-8,SP-2022-];Direclor1!Report HPM Buiiding Supply 4.22.2022 15 lP age EXHIBIT"A // (Agency Comments) For reference COUNTYOFKAUA'I 1'LANNING UEPARTMKNT 4444 RICE STREET,SUITE A473 LIHU'E,HAWAI'I 96766 (808)241-4050 l-'ROM:Kaaina S.Hull,Director (Dale)April 1,2022 SUBJECT:Class IV Zoning Pcrmit Z-IV-2022-8,Use Permit U-2022-8,Special Permit SP- 2022-1,Manufacturing,General Tax Map Key:(4)2-9-001:001,Hpm Building Supply,Applicanl TO: Departinent ofTransportation -STP DPW-Engineering DOT-Highway,Kauai(info only)a IlPW-Wastewatcr DOT-Airports,Kauai (info only)DPW-Building DOT-Harbors,Kauai (info only)0 DPW-SolidWaste State Department ofHeallh Department ofParks &Rccreation D State Dcpartment ofAgriculture Firc-Dcpartinent D State Office of Planning County Housing-Agency State Dcpt.ofBus.&Econ.Dev.Tourism a County Economic Dcvelopment D Statc Land Use Commission KIIPRC State Historic Preservation Division Water DepartmentaDLNR-Land Management Kaua'i Civil Defense DLNR-Foresty &Wildlifc a U.S.Postal DepartmcntaDLNR-Aquatic R.csources UI1 Sea Grant DLNR-OCCL a County 'I'ransportation Agcncy a Olher: COMMENTS from DPW Engineering:PW#03.22.094 We offcr the following comments for the project: 1.The applicanl shall comply with all provisions ofthc "Scdiment and Erosion Control Ordinancc No. 808"to safeguard thc public health,safcty,and welfare,to protect property,and to conlrol soil erosion and sedimcntation.This shall include,but not be limited to,a grading and/or grubbing pcrmit in compliance with thc County's Sedimcnt and Erosion Control Ordinance,which is required ifany of the following conditions apply: •The work area cxceeds one (1)acre. •Grading involving excavation or embankment,or combinalion thereofexceeds 100 cubic yards. •Grading excccds five (5)feet in vcrtica]height or dcpth al its deepest point. •The work area unreasonably alters thc general drainagc pattern to the detrimcnt ofabutting propcrties. 2.Duriiig construction,bcst management practices (I^MPs)shall be incorporatcd lo the maximum cxtcnt practicable to prcvenl dainage by scdimentation,erosion,or dust to watcrcourses,natural arcas,and other propcrties. 'Phe permittee and thc property owner shall bc rcsponsiblc to ensure thal BMPs are satisfactorify implemcnted at all tiines. Sincerely, ...^ Digitaltysigned byMichael Moule Date:2022.04.20 18:22:39 -lO'OO' Michael Moule,P.E. Chief,Engineering Division This mattcr is scheduled for a public hearing before thc Counly ofKauai Planning Commission on 5/10/2022 at the Lihue Civic Centcr,Moikeha Building,Mccting Room 2A-2B,4444 Rice Slreet, Lihue,Kauai,at 9:00 am or soon thcrcafter.Ifwe do not rcceivc your agency coinments within one (1) month from the date ofthis request,we will assume that thcre are no objections to this permit request. Mahalo! XF.1.a. May 24, 2022 F.1.a.2 June 14, 2022 X DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • /ŞKX¶H+DZDL¶L• (808) 241-4050 (b) $Q(TXDO2SSRUWXQLW\(PSOR\HU DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA‘ŅINA HULL, DIRECTOR JODI A. HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Planning Commission Chair Helen Cox and Members of the Kauai Planning Commission FROM: Ka‘aina S. Hull, Director of Planning RE: Additional Public Testimony Attached for the Planning Commission’s consideration: 1.HPM Building Supply’s Memorandum in Opposition to Intervene on behalf of the Community of Poipu Aina Estates 2.Power Point slides for presentation to Commission members, on behalf of HPM’s representative. 3.Petition to Intervene from Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert concerning in the Matter of the Application for HPM Building Supply, received on May 23, 2022, 8:58 a.m. Kaaina Hull Digitally signed by Kaaina Hull Date: 2022.05.23 13:34:49 -10'00' F.1.a.2. May 24, 2022F.1.a.3. June 14, 2022 X CADES SCHUTTE A Limited Liability Law Partnership MAUNA KEA TRASK P.0.Box 1205 Lihu'e,HI 96766 Telephone:(808)521-9297 Fac8imile:(808)540-5015 Email:mtrask(S),cades.com Attomeys for Applicants HPM BUILD1NG SUPPLY 8418 .'••,-/.oi:Kaua-•"-•'NNfNGDEP') 22 nWl9 l\6:l: RECEiw... BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE COUNTYOFKAUA'I In the Matter of the Application Of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY,for a Special Pennit,Use Pennit and Class IV Zoning Pennit, for Real Property Situated at Pa'a,District of Koloa,Kaua'i,Hawai'i,and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua'i Tax Map Key No.(4)2-9-001:001,and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres,more or less. SPECIAL PERMIT SP-2022-1 USE PERMIT (U)-2022-8;and CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT Z-IV-2022-8 HPM BUILDING SUPPLY'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY OF POIPU AINA ESTATES;DECLARATION OF COUNSEL;EXHIBITS "A"-"C"; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HPM BUILDING SUPPLY'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY OF POIPU A1NA_ESTATES Comes now,HPM BUILDING SUPPLY ("HPM"or "Applicant"),who,by and through its undersigned attomeys,submits this Memorandum in Opposition ("Opposition")to the Community Association of Poipu Aina Estates ("Poipu Aina")Petition to Intervene (the "Petition"). For the reasons stated herein,Poipu Aina's Petition does not comply with the legal requirements goveming Petitions to Intervene as provided in the Rules ofPractice and Procedure of the Kauai Planning Commission (as amended)("Commission Rules")and therefore must be denied.This Opposition is brought pursuant to Commission Rules 1-4-1,1-4-2,1-4-3,1-4-4,1-4- 6,l-4-7,and 1-6-11 (a). I.INTRODUCTION. On May 9,2022,Poipu Aina,c/o Jeff Masters,submitted a one-page document titled "Petition to Intervene".Exhibit "A".The Petition does not comply with the requirements goveming form and content of Petitions to Intervene in Chapter 4 of the Commission Rules. Indeed,the Petition is in the fonn of public testimony against HPM's Application for Special Permit SP-2022-1,Use Pennit (U)-2022-8,and Class IV Zoning Pennit Z-IV-2022-8.The Petition states Poipu Aina is very concemed that HPM's facility will negatively impact the traffic,air quality,noise and view plains (sic)in and around their community.The Petition then lists twelve (12)general concems about HPM's development.The Petition is not signed by Mr.Masters,but instead by Michael Clark.The Petition does not indicate who Mr.Clark is or whether he has authority to submit the Petition on behalfofPoipu Aina. II.ARGUMENT. A.Poipu Aina's Petition is Untimely and Was Not Served on HPM. Commission Rule 1 -4-3 is crystal clear,"[t]he petition for intervention with certificate of service shall be filed with the Commission at least seven (7)days prior to the Agency Hearing for which notice to the public has been published pursuant to law."Further,Rule 1-4-3 provides that "untimely petitions for intervention will not be permitted except for good cause shown."The date of the Agency Hearing for which notice to the public has been published pursuant to law in this matter was May 10,2022.Seven (7)days prior to May 10,2022,was May 3,2022.Poipu Aina's Petition wasn't filed until May 9,2022,six days too late.Poipu Aina also failed to serve the Petition on HPM and/or HPM's counsel as required by Commission Rule 1-3-3.Declaration of Counsel at 1)5.For these reasons alone,the Petition must be denied. Further,the Petition does not explain why there is "good cause"for its late filing."Good cause"[]"depends upon the circumstances of the individual case,and a finding of its existence lies largely in the discretion ofthe officer or court to which [the]decision is committed."Doe v. Doe,98 Hawai'i at 154,44 P.3d at 1095.Thus,whether "good cause"exists depends upon the circumstances of the individual case,and whether good cause exists will "lie[]largely in the discretion ofthe []court to which [the]discretion is committed."Id. A review ofthe facts and circumstances show there is no good cause to excuse Poipu Aina's late filing of the Petition.Public notice of the May 10 Agency Hearing has been posted on the County ofKaua'i Planning Department's ("Department")website since March 24,2022,47 days prior to the May 10 Agency Hearing.Exhibit "B".Further,the Department had notice published in the newspaper on April 8,2022,a full 32 days prior to the Agency Hearing.Exhibit "C".The public notice clearly states,"Petitions for intervenor status must be submitted to the Cominission and the applicant at least seven days prior to the date ofthe hearing advertised herein and shall be in conformance with Chapter 4 ofthe [Commission Rules]."Id.at 2.Given that public notice has been available weeks prior to the Agency Hearing and given the complete lack of evidence or argument as to what would constitute "good cause"for Poipu Aina to fail to timely file and serve the Petition,the Commission must deny the Petition pursuant to Commission Rule 1 -4-3. B.Poipu Aina Provides No Evidence of Their Standina to Intervene. In order to be granted intervenor status,Poipu Aina has the burden to establish that it is a person/organization who:(1)holds interest in the land;(2)lawfully resides on the land;or (3)will be so directly and immediately affected by the proposed application that their interest in the Proceeding is clearly distinguishable from that ofthe general public.Commission Rule 1-4-1. Poipu Aina proffers no evidence to show it holds an interest in the land or that it resides on the land.Indeed,Poipu Aina neither owns an interest in the land or resides on the land,so both the first and second bases to grant intervention fail.Declaration ofCounsel at T|6. As to the third basis to grant intervention,Poipu Aina states it is "very concemed that the HPM facility will negatively impact the traffic,air quality,noise and view plains (sic.)in and around our community."Exhibit A.However,Poipu Aina does not indicate where their community is located or how HPM's facility will "so directly and immediately"affect them so that their interest in the Proceeding is clearly distinguishable from the general public.Indeed,the concems raised in the Petition are the same as those general concems raised by all other members ofthe public who voiced their concems about HPM's facility and as such Poipu Aina's interests are indistinguishable from that ofthe general public . Poipu Aina,as the party initiating consideration of its Petition,has the burden of proof, including the burden ofproducing evidence as well as the burden ofpersuasion that it satisfies the intervention requirements ofCommission Rule 1-4-1.Commission Rule 1-6-17 (b).Based upon the complete lack of evidence to sustain a finding that Poipu Aina has standing,the Petition must be denied. C.The Petition Does Not Comolv With Commission Rule 1-4-4. Commission Rule 1-4-4 mandates that every petition to intervene state:(1)The nature of Petitioner s statutory or other right;(2)The nature and extent of Petitioner's interest and if an 'HPM notes that although testimony against the proposed project was submitted,the majority of the public testimony submitted was in support ofthe project. affected property owner,provide the Tax Map K.ey description of the affected property;(3)The specific issues to be raised or contested by the Petitioner in the Contested Case hearing;and (4) The effects ofany decision in the Proceeding on Petitioner's interest. The Petition does not contain any of the aforementioned four categories of infonnation required by Commission Rule 1-4-4 (1)-(4).Poipu Aina does not state the nature oftheir statutory or other rights.Poipu Aina does not state the nature and extent of its interest,nor does it provide that Tax Map Kay description ofthe affected property(ies).Poipu Aina does not state the specific issues it will raise in the contested case.And Poipu Aina does not state the effects of any decision in the Proceeding on its interest.As such,the Petition must be denied for failure to comply with Commission Rule 1-4-4 (1)-(4). Commission Rule 1 -4-4 also provides that,if applicable,the Petition shall also make reference to the following:(5)Other means available whereby Petitioner's interest may be protected;(6)Extent Petitioner's interest may be represented by existing parties;(7)Extent Petitioner s interest in Proceeding differs from that of the other parties;(8)Extent Petitioner's participation can assist in,development of a complete record;(9)Extent Petitioner's participation will broaden the issue or delay the Proceeding;and (10)How the Petitioner's intervention would serve the public interest. Due to the insufficiency ofthe Petition,HPM does not know ifthe information contained in Commission Rule 1-4-4 (5)-(10)is applicable.Nonetheless,Poipu Aina does not include any of the aforementioned information in the Petition,so to the extent that such infonnation is applicable,Poipu Aina has also failed to include the required information contained in Commission Rule 1-4-4 (5)-(10)and the Petition must be denied on that basis as well. D.Poipu Aina Did Not Pay the Reauired Filins Fce. Commission Rule 1 -4-6 requires petitions for intervention be accompanied by a filing fee of$25.00.The Petition was not accompanied by the $25.00 filing fee and thus the Petition must be denied.Declaration ofCounsel at ^[7. III.CONCLUSION. For the reasons sated above,the Commission must deny Poipu Aina's Petition to Intervene. However,HPM assures the Commission that despite the required denial ofPoipu Aina's Petition, HPM is committed to being a good tenant ofthe K.oloa district and working with all members of the public to address their concems to the maximum extent possible.HPM's intent is to benefit Kauai's community,and HPM understands that begins with being a good neighbor to all within the Koloa district. DATED:Lihue,Kauai,Hawaii,May 19,2022. CADES SCHUTTE LLP A Limited Liability Law Partnership Attomeys for Applicant HPM BUILDING SUPPLY BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE COUNTY OF KAUA'I In the Matter of the Application Of HPM BUILD1NG SUPPLY,for a Special Permit,Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa'a,District of Koloa,Kaua'i,Hawai'i,and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel ofReal Property Identified by Kaua'i Tax Map Key No.(4)2-9-001:001,and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres,more or less. SPECIAL PERMIT SP-2022-1 USE PERMIT (U)-2022-8;and CLASS IV ZONING PERM1T Z-IV-2022. DECLARATION OF COUNSEL DECLARATION OF MAUNA KEA TRASK I,MAUNA KEA TRASK,declare as follows: 1.I am the attomey for HPM BUILDING SUPPLY,Applicant in the above-captioned matter,and make this declaration based on personal knowledge. 2.Attached hereto as Exhibit "A"is a true and correct copy of the Community Association ofPoipu Aina Estates'Petition to Intervene (the "Petition"). 3.Attached hereto as Exhibit "B"is a true and correct copy ofa screen shot ofthe Planning Department's webpage showing that public notice for HPM's May 10,2022 agency hearing was posted on March 24,2022. 4.Attached hereto as Exhibit "C"is a tme and correct copy of the Planning Department's Public Notice ofthe HPM May 10,2022 Agency Hearing. 5.The Petition was filed on May 9,2022,and was not served on myselfor my client. 6.I have reviewed County ofKaua'i real property tax records,spoken with authorized representatives ofMahaulepu Fann LLC -the lessor and fee simple owner ofTax Map Key Parcel No.(4)2-9-001:001 (the "land"),and conferred with my client,and the Community Association ofPoipu Aina Estates neither owns an interest in the land nor resides on the land. 7.On May 16,2022,I spoke with Dale Cua,Planner IV of the County of Kaua'i Planning Department,and he confinned that the Community Association of Poipu Aina Estates did not submit a$25.00 filing fee with their Petition to Intervene. I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED:Lihu'e,Hawai'i,May 19,2022. COUNTYnFKAUAI '22 MAY-9 P 2 32 PLANNING DF.PT. Community Assodation of Poipu Aina Estates C/0 Jeff Masters P.0.Box 238 Koloa,Hl 96756 May 9,2022 Kauai County Planning Department 4444 Rice St,Suite 473 Lihue,Hl 92677'el&T~!0^' RE:CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8),USE PERMIT (U-2022-8)and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1)to operate a construction material manufacturing facility on a parcel situated immediately adjacent to the Old Koloa Sugar Mill site in Koloa,along the eastern side of Ala Kinoiki,approximately 3,300 feet west of the Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection,further identified as Tax Map Key:2-9-001 :001,and affecting a 3-acre portion of a larger parcel. Petition to Intervene We respectfully requestthatyou acceptthis Petitionto Intervene on behatfofthe CommunityofPoipu Aina Estates. We areveryconcernedthatthe HPMfacilitywlllnegativelylmpactthetraffic,airquality,noise and view plains in and around our community.HPM asserts Ihat there will be little to no impact in these areas but we disagree.Some ofour concerns are as follows: •Traffic noise of trucks on the gravel road starting as early as 6 am. •Visual impact of a large,open ended tent. «Noisecreated bythe saws and otherpowertools,trucksand equipment,especially as ourcommunityis downwind of the facility. •Lack ofsound control based on the open tent like nature ofthe structure. •Visual impact of the power lines being pulled to the facility. •Largely obstructed view ofthe sugar mill. •Decrease in property values forour community. •Increased trucking traffic on the South shore specifically the narrow,already congested streets in and around Koloa town. •The traffic assessment done by HPM was done on 12/10/21 while tourism was still significantly lower because of COVID 19. •Allowing this facility to operate along the main artery road of Ala Kinoiki,where thousands a day access the Poipu area resorts and beaches. •The letter sent by cades &schutte dated April 5,2022 to "persons listed on the current reat property assessment notice (ist within 30 feet from the subject property"did not contain accurate information on attending the Planning Commission meeting via Zoom on 5/10/22 as the zoom (ink provided was from a past meeting.This may have made it difficult for residents to attend the public hearing via zoom if unable to attend in person. •The peacefulness and beautysurroundingthe area aroundtheOld Koloa Mill that isvalued by locals and tourists alike. Sincerely, Michael Clark,member,on behalfof The Community Members of Poipu Aina Estat^EXHIBIT A Plannlng Commfsslon Arboflst Commfttee Board of Ethcs Board of Reinew Board of Water Supply Bulldlng Board of Appeals Charter Sewew Commlssion Civil Senice Commission Committee on the Status of Women Cost Control Conmission The Pfannjng Commfssion consfsts of seven (7)memberi from the publlc that are appoinied by the Mayor afid conf'fnied by th?Councii.The Plannlng Commission meets twice a month 10 hoid pubi'c hearings on ^oning and iand use permits and applicarions,aa wei!35 render (fecisioni cn ttiese matters Meeiing Ttme/Lccation 9'OOam.MEetingRoom2A/2B.2nd&41h Tuesda/of each monih. The pub!ic may altend the meeting via Zoom using the 'Z&oni link'and tstephoni?using tiie "jciin by Dhone'tcleptiona fiui'''>t,er thst M\\be provicfed on the agenda for the meeiing,The Agenda f&f the meeling will be posted in accortfante witli HR5 92. Members Contact Information Correspondence and publlc testlmonv may be sent t0- Pisnmng Coinmission c/o County of Kaoai Pianning Department 44d4 tice Sireet.Suite A473 Lihu'e.f<aua)9G766 Email.planni ngdep artment@ikaual.gov ftione [808]3^1-^050 Q_Baaus£-8,seai ch ar^ked PlannTia Lommisyon Liquor Controi Commission Open Space Commisslon Plannlr.g Cofnm.ssion Police Commi^sfon Salary Comnniaskin Click^Gm' 8uilding_Permlt&Qnljnel t.hei.i.permit.pten tracking.and inspection siatus online' Mew to permitting?Get Femn^Ung information HERE' Gsra!d Ako Subdivision Connitt^a CF'3'r Donna Apisa Mehin Ghiba Lori Otsuka Plannlng Commfssion Agenda Wtdntsciiy May ^2P2.! May 10.2022 PtannlflgCommissli Agwida Pack.et May ;.i 2022 Planning Cofnmisslon Agenda Pactet •L.<il3>t.'s.i .'J;; May 10.20U PfitiqjnB Commlsslon AgeQda t.ls'j 'O.2022 PlanninsCommission Agenda Planning Commlssfon Minutes WidnfrSday,fffb-L-sf^'5.^•,.';^ Octflber2&203l Hannlna Commlsiioo MlnutnDfUtfT Octobef26 202)Planrtifi^Ccmmisswn Minutes ORAFT Fnd£y.j5nua--;ig.3i3; Pttnt»r1i}.2(tttPtannlneConutilssiflO MlnutM Oi.'.otier '2 2021 Pldfning Commrii;c;n Minute; Public Hearlng Notlces Tuts.diy.ADnliS.202; UaK_a.2022 Ptannfng CommlMiea Pt|t)lj(,ysaflne NotiM May 24.Z0i2 PlanningC&nimissicin PuUlc HearifigNDtice tSsy^Q^JQ^Mannfng Conruiilssion )g Notlce -REV1SED May 10.2032 Pjannjng Comnilssidfi Public MearinR Notoe Moiday,,^pnn 1,203; Aprd 12.2022 Planntpg CominfSSlEUl^ ElrstAffditiOT.lo/aeQsla Apri!12.202Z Planning C^nnmissioi'i • First Addltion ;o Agenda i'.'-.:'n""?^^c-tili:20;; ApriL>2,2022 Planning Qommi' Agenda Packet April t2.2022 Planning Cf.'mr-tisstori ^gentia Packet Ffkta/far.ui'y14 203; Seplember 19._ CommlssiMi Minutes Sepiembef-23.iQ2 >Plantiing Commis^ion kllpui:es SfipKinb^f 14.;0;1 Planning Conrunluton Mlnutei °/i.]/202l PC Kl'(-;ute; ApdLU.2022 Plannlpg Ccxnmisston PuUk Hearlng^atice Apnl 11.20t2 Plarinir.g Con-.iriission Fublic HeanngNotice nuridiy.;arLiary 20,202; March 8.20?2 Planning (;pmni|ssk)n Public HeflrJpg^jotlU Maf;n 3,202^Planning Cornniission Pub!ic HMring Nctice EXHIBIT B COUNTY OF KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION -4444 Rice Street,Suitc A473,Lihue, Kauai,Hawaii,96766,tel:(808)241-4050,email:planninedeDartment(g),kauai.gov. NOT1CE IS I1EREBY GIVEN ofan agency hearing with a public hearing and an opportunity for public testimony from all interested pcrsons to be held by the Kaua'i Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions ofSpecial Management Area Rules,Kauai County Code,Chapter 8,as amended,Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)Chapter 92 and 91,and the Rules ofPractice and Proccdure ofthe County of Kauai Planning Commission.Thc hearing will be held regarding the following: CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8),USE PERMIT (U-2022-8)and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1)to operatc a construction material manufacturing facility on a parcel situated immediately adjacent to the Old Koloa Sugar Mill site in Koloa,along the eastem side ofAla Kinoiki,approximately 3,300 feet west ofthc Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection,further identified as Tax Map Key:2-9- 001:001,and affecting a 3-acre portionofa larger parcel. CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-9)and USE PERMIT (U-2022-9)to allow construction ofanew single-family dwelling unit on a parcel situated at the southern terminus ofLeleiona Street in Puhi,situated approximately 800 feet south of its intersection with Puhi Road and further identifiedas 1811 Leleiona Street,Tax Map Key:(4)3-3-011:003,containingatotalareaofapproximatcly 3.401 acres. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA(U)-2022-6,CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-10),USE PERMIT (U-2022-10),and VARIANCE PERMIT (V-2022-2)to allow installation ofa stealth telecommunication structure and associated equipment on a parcel situated on the makai side of Aleka Loop in Wailua,approximately 400 feet east of the Kuhio Highway/Aleka Loop intersection,further identified as 650 Aleka Loop,Tax Map Key:(4)4-3-007:028 and containing a total areaof 10.377 acres. Meeting LThu'e Civic Center,Moikeha Building,Meeting Room 2A-2B, Location:4444 Ricc Street,LThu'e,Kaua'i,Hawai'i Interactive The public may attend the meeting via Zoom using the "Zoom link"and Conference telephone using the "join by phone"telephone number that will bc provided Tcchnoloey:on the agenda for the meeting.The Agenda for the meeting will be posted in accordance with HRS 92. Webcast Meeting:https://www.kauai.govAVebcast-Meetings Date: Timc: May 10,2022 9:00 a.m.or shortly thereafter Pursuant to Hawai'i Reviscd Statiites Section 92-3.7,which codified Act 220,SLH 2021,the meetings of the County ofKaua'i Planning Commission will bc conducted as follows: •The meeting location that will be open to the public with audiovisual cormection is: o LThu'e Civic Center,MoikeTia Building o Meeting Rqom 2A-2B o 4444 Rice Street,LThu'e,Kaua'i,Hawai'i •In addition to attendance in-person,the public may also attend the meeting by phone using the "join by phonc"telephone number provided on the agenda. EXHIBIT C •The public may also attend the mccting through Zoom.Ifattending the meeting via Zoom,it shall be the responsibility of the attendee to join the meeting through the Zoom link provided via E- mail.In addition,it shall be the responsibility ofthe testifier to ensure that the Zoom software is downloaded and operational prior to the meeting.Once you sign-in for the meeting,you will receive the meeting link. o You may usc a unique identificr (i.e.,an alias name and alias email addrcss)instead ofyour real name to maintain anonymity.Please note that the unique Zoom meeting link will be sent by Zoom to the Email that was entercd at sign-in. •Also,the meeting will be live streamed and available as an archived meeting after completion at www.kauai.gov/Webcast-Meetings.Please note that thc livestream broadcast does not allow interaction between the viewer and Planning Commission.Also,video production scrvices or enhancements ofthe recorded video will not be available. •Written testimony may be submitted on any agenda item and submitted to plarmingdeDartment(%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 mceting will be distributed to all Planning Commissioners prior to the mecting.Any testimony received after this time and up to the start of the meeting will be summarized by thc Clerk ofthe Commission during the meeting and added to the record thereafter. •Oral testimony will be taken during the public hearing portion of the meeting in-person at the public meeting location,via Zoom link,or using the "join by phone"number listed on the agenda. o All testifier audio and video will be disablcd 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 Ifthere 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 any major and insurmountable tcchnical difficulties are encountered during the meetings,the Planning Commission will continue all matters and reconvene at the next schedulcd Planning Commission Meeting. Petitions for intervenor status must be submitted to the Commission and the applicant at least seven days prior to the date ofthc hearing advertised herein and shall be in conformance with Chapter 4 ofthe Rules ofPractice and Procedure ofthe Planning Commission.A copy ofthe proposal will be emailed to any interested person who requcsts a copy.Please submit your request to the Planning Department. KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION,Helen Cox,Chairperson,By Kaaina S.Hull,Clerk of the Commission. NOTE:IF YOU NEED AN AUXILIARY AID/SERVICE,OTHER ACCOMMODATION DUE TO A D1SABILITY,OR AN INTERPRETER FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSONS,PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AT (808)241-4917 OR ASEGRETI@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. Ptiblicalion Dale:April S,2022 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE COUNTY OF KAUA'I In the Matter ofthe Application Of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY,for a Special Permit,Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa'a,District of Koloa,Kaua'i,Hawai'i,and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel ofReal Property Identified by Kaua'i Tax Map Key No.(4)2-9-001:001,and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres,more or less. SPECIAL PERMIT SP-2022-1 USE PERMIT (U)-2022.8;and CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT Z-IV-2022- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a copy ofthe foregoing document was served in the manner indicated below by Hand-Deliver or by U.S.Certified Mail,postage prepaid,on the following: KA'AINA S.HULL [via Hand-Delivery] Planning Director Planning Department County ofKaua'i 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 Lihue,HI 96766 LAURA BARZILAI,ESQ. County ofKauai County Attomey's Office 4444 Rice Street,Suite 220 Lihue,HI96766 [via Hand-Delivery] Attomey for the Planning Commission COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF [via U.S.Certified Mail,postage prepaid] P01PU AINA ESTATES c/o Jeff Masters P.0.BOX 238 Koloa,HI 96756 DATED:Lihue,Kauai,Hawaii,May 19,2022. CADES SCHUTTE LLP A Limited Liability Law Partnership MAUN~A~KEA~FRAS^J Attomeys for Applicant HPM BUILDING SUPPLY 6563546.v2 HPM Building Supply Kōloa Kaua‘i Truss Facility Providing a benefit and service to the community of Kaua‘i and local union contractors and members. May 24, 2022 HPM –100 Years of Commitment and Service 1921 Founded by issei Kametaro Fujimoto and Sanzo Kawasaki 1941 Navy assumes control of inventory, operations and employees 1946 Tsunami 1959 Employee profit sharing 2006 100% employee-owned 2011 Expands to Kauaʻi 2018 Kīlauea volcano eruption and HalePlus |2 Serving the Community “[HPM] has been instrumental in keeping prices down for Kauai Habitat for Humanity at levels that our low-income homebuyers can truly afford.” “HPM supports not only Kauai Habitat, but also all four Habitat affiliates in Hawaii.” “We sorely need competitive options for wood trusses as well as options to streamline our efforts through the use of wall panels and other products for affordable residential construction.” “HPM has high ethical standards and the Fujimoto family honors their community commitments.” Kaua‘i Habitat for Humanity April 30, 2022 written testimony. |3 Truss Facility Location |4 Kōloa Mill Site ●Used for “industrial” purposes from 1912 to the present. ●Identified as a light industrial site in the Kaua‘i Kakou General Plan (2018). ●Location of the future Kōloa-Po‘ipū Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and Infiltration Pond. |5 Truss Facility ●H.R.S. Ch. 205 allows mills, storage facilities, processing facilities. ●High-tech/low impact operation. |6 May 2022 PRP Deception Campaign ●Facebook post linked to actionnetwork.org petition. ●“Action Network is an open platform that empowers individuals and groups to organize for progressive causes.” ●Use of actionnetwork.org to support passage of Kumu Hou project at Waikōloa, Veto of Maui Bill 148, and Veto of Maui Bill 111. ●No fast track/harm to ag. land. ●No destruction of native species. ●No tenfold increase in traffic. |7 Mahalo Of Counsel: DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT Attorneys at Law A Law Corporation GREGORY W. KUGLE 6502-0 MAX J. KIMURA 7393-0 LOREN A. SEEHASE 10414-0 1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1600 Honolulu, HI 96813 www.hawaiilawyer.com Telephone: (808) 531-8031 Facsimile: (808) 533-2242 Attorneys for THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I, STATE OF HAWAI’I In the Mater of the Application of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa’a, District of Koloa, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9-001-001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1) USE PERMIT (U-2022-8) CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8) THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES’ SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO INTERVENE; DECLARATION OF MAX J. KIMURA; EXHIBITS “A”; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DATE: May 24, 2022 TIME: 9:00 a.m. THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES’ SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO INTERVENE 2 The Community Association of Poipu Aina Estates (“Poipu Aina”), by and through its attorneys Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, respectfully submits its Supplemental Petition to Intervene in the above-captioned proceeding, pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Rules Practice and Procedure of the Kaua’i County Planning Commission. I. INTRODUCTION Poipu Aina is an adjacent neighbor to HPM Building Supply’s proposed Construction Material Manufacturing Facility (“Facility”). Poipu Aina is directly situated downhill and downwind from the proposed Facility. On May 9, 2022, Michael Clark, on behalf of himself—whose lot is directly adjacent to the Facility—and the Community Members of Poipu Aina, submitted a Petition to Intervene in HPM’s Application for Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zone Permit (“Application”). Mr. Clark’s Petition is incorporated by reference and is attached as Exhibit A. HPM’s Facility would be a violation of the permissible uses within an agricultural district, under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 205-4.5. Its Facility would not be “directly accessory” to permitted agricultural activities identified in HRS § 205-4.5(a)(1 through 23), and therefore shall be prohibited. Agricultural districts shall be restricted to agricultural uses and the County Planning Commission may permit special uses that would promote the effectiveness and objectives of HRS § 205, i.e. support agriculture businesses in Hawaii. HRS § 205-6(c). HPM’s Facility to prefabricate trusses and houses would not support agriculture in Hawaii. It is disingenuous for HPM to claim otherwise. HPM’s Facility would be for industrial manufacturing. Let’s call a spade a spade. HPM and its Facility would not be in any shape or form consistent with agriculture. It would not 3 be in any way consistent with growing, milling, processing timber in Hawaii, not when it opens and not anytime in the near future. Euclidean Zoning enforces the separation of industrial land from agricultural and residential land, and protects the latter zones from industrial pollution. It is obvious to any reasonable person that HPM’s Facility would increase pollution—noise, air, and traffic—to the surrounding area. II. NATURE OF POIPU AINA’S STATUTORY OR OTHER RIGHT Poipu Aina has a Constitutional and Statutory Right to enforce H.R.S. § 205—the law related to the conservation, protection, and enhancement of natural resources—against its adjacent neighbor, HPM Building Supply. HPM seeks a special use permit to erect and use an industrial manufacturing facility on agricultural land which would violate Chapter 205. Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawaii State Constitution establishes the right to a clean and healthful environment which includes the control of pollution and the conservation, protection, and enhancement of natural resources. “Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through the appropriate legal proceedings . . . .” Haw. Const. art XI, § 9. This right is made whole through HRS Chapter 205 which conserves, protects, and enhances Hawaii’s land and provides the appropriate proceedings for people to enforce responsible land regulation and use. The Hawai’i Supreme Court has specifically held that a community association has standing and a private right of action to enforce HRS Chapter 205 against a neighbor. County of Hawai’i v. Ala Loop Homeowners, 123 Haw. 391 (2010). III. NATURE AND EXTENT OF POIPU AINA’S INTEREST Poipu Aina is a community of 17 homeowners, whose lots are adjacent to Mahaulepu Farm LLC’s Lot, TMK (4) 2-9-001:001. See State of Hawaii Flood Hazard 4 Assessment Report Map, Exhibit E-6 to HPM’s Application, which depicts and identifies “Poipu Aina Pl.” the main road within Poipu Aina Community, directly adjacent to the Mahaulepu Farm Lot. HPM Building Supply is licensing Mahaulepu Farm’s Lot in order to erect a gigantic, 4-story tall, 100-feet wide, and 260-feet long manufacturing facility. The exact location of this manufacturing facility is situated within a half mile from Poipu Aina’s homes and lots. The increased traffic, noise, and air pollution from this manufacturing facility would substantially impact and harm Poipu Aina, which is located downwind, South-West, of the prevailing, Trade Winds that blow from the North-East direction. IV. EFFECT OF ANY DECISION IN THE PROCEEDING ON POIPU AINA’S INTEREST If the Kauai County Planning Department grants HPM’s Special Use Permit to erect a manufacturing facility and therein, conduct industrial manufacturing on what is historically designated as agricultural land, then Poipu Aina, an adjacent neighbor, will witness, feel, and suffer the brunt of HPM’s destruction, endangerment, and deterioration of natural resources. V. EXTENT POIPU AINA’S INTEREST MAY BE REPRESENTED BY EXISTING PARTIES Poipu Aina is an adjacent neighbor and its homes and lots are the closest to HPM’s proposed manufacturing facility. To our knowledge, there is no entity or persons that will be more severely affected by HPM’s industrial manufacturing facility than Poipu Aina. VI. EXTENT POIPU AINA’S INTEREST IN PROCEEDING DIFFERS FROM THAT OF THE OTHER PARTIES Poipu Aina would be closer to HPM’s industrial manufacturing facility than any other community, homeowner, and resident of the Poipu area. However, besides the proximity, 5 Poipu Aina’s interest are not that different from other parties. We believe that all of the residents living in the Poipu area will detrimentally be impacted by HPM’s noise, air, and traffic pollution. VII. EXTENT POIPU AINA’S PARTICIPATION CAN ASSIST IN DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPLETE RECORD Poipu Aina’s participation and contribution as an adjacent neighbor would develop and complete the record on this issue of HPM’s application for a special use permit to conduct industrial manufacturing on historically and appropriately designated, agricultural land. VIII. POIPU AINA’S PARTICIPATION WILL NOT BROADEN OR DELAY THE ISSUE Poipu Aina’s participation in this matter will not broaden the issues or delay the proceedings. IX. THE POIPU AINA’S INTERVENTION WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST It is time for the people of Kauai to make a determination and set a precedent for what kind of development and future it wants for themselves and their children. Poipu Aina is committed to fighting for all of Kauai, to ensure the right to a clean and healthful environment is protected and held sacrosanct. Poipu Aina will hold steadfast the goals of controlling pollution and conserving, protecting, and enhancing our natural resources and not sacrifice them for the low hanging fruit, which only offers short-term profit and few employment opportunities. Poipu Aina’s intervention would serve the people of Kauai by participating in the HPM’s application process and engaging in thoughtful dialogue with the parties involved. The lessons and outcomes we all learn from this matter would help us to have a brighter, greener, and more sustainable future. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. 6 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 23, 2022. DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT /s/ Max J. Kimura ________________________________ GREGORY W. KUGLE MAX J. KIMURA LOREN A. SEEHASE Attorneys for THE ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I, STATE OF HAWAI’I In the Mater of the Application of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa’a, District of Koloa, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9-001-001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DECLARATION OF MAX J. KIMURA DECLARATION OF MAX J. KIMURA I, MAX J. KIMURA, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, attorneys for the COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF POIPU AINA ESTATES, and I am duly licensed to practice in all courts in the State of Hawaii. 2. I am an attorney in good standing before the Hawaii Supreme Court. 3. I make this declaration on personal knowledge, unless otherwise indicated, and am competent to testify to the matters stated herein. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of Michael Clark’s Petition to Intervene, dated May 9, 2022. Mr. Clark is a lot owner in Poipu Aina Estates and his lot is directly adjacent to Mahaulepu Farm LLC’s lot, wherein HPM Building Supply proposes to build its large, industrial manufacturing facility. 2 5. Submitted with the foregoing Supplemental Petition to Intervene is a check for $25.00 for the filing fee sent via U.S. Mail to the Kauai Planning Department. I declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of Hawaii that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of May 2022, at Honolulu, Hawaii. /s/ Max J. Kimura MAX J. KIMURA EXHIBIT “A” Community Association of Poipu Aina Estates C/O Jeff Masters P.O. Box 238 Koloa, HI 96756 May 9, 2022 Kauai County Planning Department 4444 Rice St, Suite 473 Lihue, HI 96766 RE: CLASS IV ZONING PERMIT (Z-IV-2022-8), USE PERMIT (U-2022-8) and SPECIAL PERMIT (SP-2022-1) to operate a construction material manufacturing facility on a parcel situated immediately adjacent to the Old Kōloa Sugar Mill site in Kōloa, along the eastern side of Ala Kinoiki, approximately 3,300 feet west of the Weliweli Road/Ala Kinoiki intersection, further identified as Tax Map Key: 2-9- 001:001, and affecting a 3-acre portion of a larger parcel. Petition to Intervene We respectfully request that you accept this Petition to Intervene on behalf of the Community of Poipu Aina Estates. We are very concerned that the HPM facility will negatively impact the traffic, air quality, noise and view plains in and around our community. HPM asserts that there will be little to no impact in these areas but we disagree. Some of our concerns are as follows:  Traffic noise of trucks on the gravel road starting as early as 6 am.  Visual impact of a large, open ended tent.  Noise created by the saws and other power tools, trucks and equipment, especially as our community is downwind of the facility.  Lack of sound control based on the open tent like nature of the structure.  Visual impact of the power lines being pulled to the facility.  Largely obstructed view of the sugar mill.  Decrease in property values for our community.  Increased trucking traffic on the South shore specifically the narrow, already congested streets in and around Koloa town.  The traffic assessment done by HPM was done on 12/10/21 while tourism was still significantly lower because of COVID 19.  Allowing this facility to operate along the main artery road of Ala Kinoiki, where thousands a day access the Poipu area resorts and beaches.  The letter sent by cades & schutte dated April 5, 2022 to “persons listed on the current real property assessment notice list within 30 feet from the subject property” did not contain accurate information on attending the Planning Commission meeting via Zoom on 5/10/22 as the zoom link provided was from a past meeting. This may make it difficult for residents to attend the public hearing via zoom if unable to attend in person.  The peacefulness and beauty surrounding the area around the Old Koloa Mill that is valued by locals and tourists alike. Sincerely, Michael Clark, member, on behalf of The Community Members of Poipu Aina Estates EXHIBIT "A" THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I, STATE OF HAWAI’I In the Mater of the Application of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit, and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Pa’a, District of Koloa, Kauai, Hawai’i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9-001-001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was duly served upon following entities at their last known addresses and via Email, as follows: KAUAI PLANNING DEPARTMENT planningdepartment@kauai.gov 4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 Lihue, Hawaii 96766 CADES SCHUTTE Mauna Kea Trask (mtrask@cades.com) PO Box 1205 Lihue, HI 96766 Attorneys for HPM BUILDING SUPPLY 2 COX FRICKE LLP Abigail M. Holden (aholden@cfhawaii.com) Christine A. Terada (cterada@cfhawaii.com) 800 Bethel Street, Suite 600 Honolulu, HI 96813 Attorneys for PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 23, 2022. DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT /s/ Max J. Kimura ________________________________ GREGORY W. KUGLE MAX J. KIMURA LOREN A. SEEHASE Attorneys for THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION POIPU AINA ESTATES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING KA'AINA HULL,DIRECTOR JODI A.HIGUCHI SAYEGUSA,DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEREK S.K.KAWAKAMI,MAYOR MICHAEL A.DAHILIG,MANAGING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM No.4 DATE: TO: June 13,2022 Honorable Planning Commission Chair Helen Cox and Members ofthe Kauai Planning Commission FROM:Ka'aina S.Hull,Director of Planning RE:PublicTestimony Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration are: 1.Public Testimony from community members (Refer to Exhibit 'A'); o Email dated June 9,2022 from Timothy Lee o Email dated June 9,2022 from Wendy Raebeck o Email dated June 9,2022 from Catherine Clement o Email dated June 10,2022 from Terry Renee Rosemark Harper o Email dated June 11,2022 from email address fiiaalumni2@gmail.com o Email dated June 12,2022 from Vanya Fagasa o Email dated June 13,2022 from Francoise Desoutter o Email dated June 13,2022 from Linda Morrison 2.Exhibit 'B -HPM Supplemental Exhibits to Application,from Mauna Kea Trask,Esq., Cades Schutte,representing Applicant; 4444 Rice Street,Suite A473 •LThu'e,Hawai'i 96766 •(808)241 -4050 (b) An Equal Opportunity Employer ((A //EXHIBIT"A (PublicTestimony) From: Sent: To: Subject: Timothy Lee <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Thursday,June 9,2022 2:08 PM Planning Department Stop putting corporations before our communities and agricultural lands CAUTION:This email originated from outside the County of Kauai.Do not click links or open attachments even ifthe sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. Planning Department Planning Department Planning, The proposed plan by HPM in Koloa would harm our historic agriculture land,destroy native species,and increase truck traffic on our streets tenfold.This is not the type of Kauai where 1 want to live. Don't let the Kauai County Planning Department ram through a special permit behind closed doors that will disrupt our neighborhood. Timothy Lee timothydeanlee@gmail.com 3120JervesStreet#G-3 Lihue,Hawaii 96767 From: Sent: To: Subject: Wendy Raebeck <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Thursday,June 9,2022 2:19 PM Planning Department Stop putting corporations before our communities and agricultural lands CAUTION:This email originated from outside the County of Kauai.Do not click links or open attachments even Jf the sender is known to you untess it Is something you were expecting. Planning Department Planning Department Planning, The proposed plan by HPM in Koloa would harm our historic agriculture land,destroy native species,and increase truck traffic on our streets tenfold.This is not the type of Kauai where 1 want to live. Don't let the Kauai County Planning Department ram through a special permit behind closed doors that will disrupt our neighborhood. Wendy Raebeck wendywailua @ gmail.com P.0.Box510058 Kealia,Hawaii 96751 From: Sent: To: Subject: Catherine Clement <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Thursday,June 9,2022 10:03 PM Planning Department Stop putting corporations before our communities and agricultural lands CAUTION:This email originated from outside the County of Kauai.Do not click links or open attachments even if the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. Planning Department Planning Department Planning, The proposed plan by HPM in Koloa would harm our historic agriculture land,destroy native species,and increase truck traffic on our streets tenfold.This is not the type of Kauai where 1 want to live. Don't let the Kauai County Planning Department ram through a special permit behind closed doors that will disrupt our neighborhood. Catherine Clement cateclement@gmail.com 7103Koolau Rd. Kilauea,Hawaii 96754 From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry Renee9pm Rosemark hlarper <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Friday,June 10,2022 4:01 AM Planning Department Stop putting corporations before our communities and agricultural lands CAUTION;This email originated from outside the County of Kauai.Do not click links or open attachments even ifthe sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. Planning Department Planning Department Planning, The proposed plan by HPM in Koloa would harm our historic agriculture land,destroy native species,and increase truck traffic on our streets tenfold.This is not the type of Kauai where 1 want to live. Don't let the Kauai County Planning Department ram through a special permit behind closed doors that will disrupt our neighborhood. Terry Renee9pm Rosemark Harper reneeroseharper@gmail.com 4982 Kua Road Kalaheo,Hawaii 96741 From: Sent: To: Subject: giaalumni2@gmail.com <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Saturday,June11,2022 11:34 AM Planning Department Stop putting corporations before our communities and agricultural lands CAUTION:This email originated from outside the County of Kauai.Do not click links or open attachments even ifthe sender is known to you unless It is something you were expecting. Planning Department Planning Department Planning, The proposed plan by HPM in Koloa would harm our historic agriculture land,destroy native species,and increase truck traffic on our streets tenfold.This is not the type of Kauai where 1 want to live. Don't let the Kauai County Planning Department ram through a special permit behind closed doors that will disrupt our neighborhood. giaalumni2@gmail.com 5164PaanauRd#201 Koloa,Hawaii 96756 From: Sent: To: Subject: Vanya Fagasa <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sunday,June 12,2022 7:40 AM Planning Department Stop putting corporations before our communities and agricultural lands CAUTION:This email originated frorn outside the County of Kauai.Do not click links or open attachments even ifthe sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. Planning Department Planning Department Planning, The proposed plan by HPM in Koloa would harm our historic agriculture land,destroy native species,and increase fruck traffic on our streets tenfold.This is not the type of Kauai where 1 want to live. Don't let the Kauai County Planning Department ram through a special permit behind closed doors that will disrupt our neighborhood. Vanya Fagasa kulamanu @ hotmail.com 5200 Paanau Road Koloa,Hawaii 96756 From: Sent: To: Subject: Francoise Desoutter <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Monday,June 13,2022 9:46 AM Planning Department Stop putting corporations before our communities and agricultural lands CAUTION:This email originated from outside the County of Kauai,Do not click links or open attachments even if the sender is known to you unless tt is something you were expecting. Planning Department Planning Department Planning, The proposed plan by HPM in Koloa would harm our historic agriculture land,destroy native species,and increase truck traffic on our streets tenfold.This is not the type of Kauai where 1 want to live. Kauai needs to focus on becoming 100%self sustainable through agriculture.Kauai is NOT the place to put an industrial factory.Please do NOT let this factory be on Kauai. Don't let the Kauai County Planning Department ram through a special permit behind closed doors that will disrupt our neighborhood. Francoise Desoutter pacificpommesfrites@gmail.com 1970HanalimaStG104 Lihue,Hawaii 96766 6/13/22,2:21 PM Mail -Dale Cua -Outlook FW:Stop putting corporations before our communities and agncultural lands Pianning Department <planningdepartment@kauai.gov> Mon 6/13/2022 2:13 PM To:DaleCua <dcug@kauai.gov> From:Linds Morrison <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Monday,June 13,2022 11:19 AM To:Planning Department <pfanningdepartment@k3uai.gov> Subject:Stop putting corporations before our communities and agricultural lands CAUTION:This email originated from outside the County of Kauai.Do not click links or open attachments even if the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. Planning Department Planning Department Planning, The proposed plan by HPM in Koloa would harm our historic agriculture land,destroy native species,and increase truck traffic on our streets tenfold.This is not the type of Kauai where t want to iive. Don't let the Kauai County Planning Department ram through a special permit behind closed doors that will disrupt our neighborliood. Linda Morrison lmjyjy2g,@hotmail.conn 3494 Waha Road KALAHEO,Hawail 96741.9602 https://outlook,office365.com/mail/inbox;id/AAQkAGU2NTU30WFjLTgwM21tNGJjNS050TEOLWFhYjk4ZJViYmRIOAAQAJW4ARk%2BZKhHnuOKeZoD...1/1 EXHIBIT"B" (Supplemental Exhibitsto Application) Transmittal Memorandum VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY: planningdepartment@kauai.gov TO: County of Kauai Planning Commission c/o Ka’aina Hull, Planning Director 4444 Rice St. Ste. 473 Lihue, HI 96766 FROM: Mauna Kea Trask, Esq. DATE: June 13, 2022 RE: In the Matter of the Application of HPM BUILDING SUPPLY, for a Special Permit, Use Permit and Class IV Zoning Permit, for Real Property Situated at Paa, District of Koloa, Kaua’i, Hawai’i, and Being a Portion of that Certain Parcel of Real Property Identified by Kaua’i Tax Map Key No. (4) 2-9- 001:001, and containing an area of 1,076.073 acres, more or less We are sending you the following: ORIG. COPIES DATED DESCRIPTION Supplemental Exhibits “O” – “R” For your information For your files Per your request Per our conversation For necessary action Are returned herewith For signature and return For signature, forwarding, as noted below & return For review & comment For distribution For recording/filing REMARKS: Please see the attached supplemental exhibits “O” – “R” in support of HPM’s above- captioned application. 6599226.v1 7 EXHIBIT O Price$2.50 PUBLIC LAND POLICY IN HAWAII: THE MUL TIPLE·U5E APPROACH William V. Frame Department of Political Science Kenyon College Robert H. Horwitz Department of Political Science Kenyon College Report No.1, 1965 (Rev. 1969) . . . '- LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 FOREWORD Publication of this revised and expanded report on the multiple- use approach to management of Hawaii's natural resources constitutes one of the concluding phases of a research program dealing with public land policy in Hawaii. This research program was initiated by the Legislative Reference Bureau in 1963 at the request of Hawaii's state Legislature. The Bureau was asked to prepare a comprehensive historical analysis of public land policies and practices of the federal and state governments, with particular emphasis on a review and analysis of land policy in Hawaii from 1893 to the present. Three major monographs were prepared in response to this request: Hawaii's Public Land Laws: 1897-1963 (1963); Land Exchanges (1964) and The Multiple-Use Approach (1965). Public response to publication of the multiple-use study was such that copies of the monograph were quickly exhausted. The volume has been out-of-print for several years and virtually unobtainable. Because of continuing, persistent demand for the volume and because the data contained in it are indispensable for adequate understanding and consideration of the analyses presented in other monographs in this series, especially the concluding volume, the Bureau is responding to the suggestion of legislators and others to make this new edition available. A proper response to this suggestion required that our staff update the extensive annotated bibliography material which has been found to be especially useful to those interested in the mUltiple-use approach. It has also been necessary to incorporate minor changes in the text to take account of the findings of post-1965 research and other developments. As is evident from the Summary that follows, revisions in the 1965 text have been minimal. The 1963 legislative request for research on land policy in Hawaii was broadened and extended in 1965 through Senate Resolution Number 128, which requested that the Legislative Reference Bureau update its earlier study of Hawaii 's "large private land owners." Specifically, this Senate Resolution requested the Legislative Reference Bureau to study Hawaii's "large private land owners and land use , giving special attention to the many important factors relating to our land resources." Three additional monographs were prepared in response to the 1965 legislative request: Land Reserved for Public Use (1966); Major Landowners (1967); and An Historical Analysis (1969). These 11 , monographs amplify the findings of this study of the multiple-use approach to land management and may best be understood by reference to it. Note should be taken of one major addition that has been incorporated in this revised edition of the mUltiple-use study. A number of legislators and other policy makers have suggested that a capsulized statement of our findings would be helpful. Accordingly we have prepared the brief summary that immediately follows this Foreword. The addition of this summary has further facilitated the updating of the study by minimizing changes in the earlier text, for it has enabled us to take account of recent developments and to incorporate substantive points of interest based on extended discus- 'sions held with interested individuals as we updated our materials. Significant portions of the overall presentation and argument have been condensed in this summary, and the interested reader will, of course, find the full, supporting arguments and data in the body of the report. The execution of the original study and this revised edition would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals and agencies, including Dr. Harold Baker, Director of the Land Study Bureau of the University of Hawaii and Mrs, Faith N. Fujimura, cartographer at the Land Study Bureau. We are, as always, especially indebted to Mr. James Dunn, Hawaii's extraordinarily knowledgeable, former Territorial and State Surveyor and to Miss Agnes Conrad, State Archivist. Mr. Robert Nelson and Mr. Roger Skolmen of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, were unstintingly generous, and made it possible for us to prepare and to update the comprehensive bibliography without which this study would be manifestly deficient. We are also obligated to the U.S. Forest Service for the photographs appearing in chapters I, III, and V. Mr. George K. Ikeda and Mr. Robert T. Hokama of the Legislative Reference Bureau assisted in preparation of the text, while Nancy K . Hammond of the Social Science Research Bureau, Michigan State Univer- sity, edited the manuscript. Miss Hanako Kobayashi edited and ordered the extensive footnotes and the annotated bibliography. Mrs. Maizie Yamada and Miss Evelyn Goya of the Legislative Reference Bureau typed the revised manuscript. The Legislative Reference Bureau is especially indebted to the many readers who displayed extraordinary patience in criticizing successive drafts of the original study. That their generosity was not exhausted was manifested by their additional contribution in assisting us with the task of revision. These readers and consultants include persons of diverse backgrounds: businessmen, attorneys, iii engineers, academics, and numerous officials from federal, state, and county governments. Their suggestions proved extremely helpful and have largely been included in the study. staff and financial assistance were provided by the All- University Research Fund of Michigan state University and by the Rockefeller Foundation. To those individuals and organizations here enumerated and to the many others who assisted us in the preparation of this study, we express our sincere appreciation. I am especially grateful to Professor William V. Frame of the Department of Political Science, Kenyon College for his indispensable contribution to the revision of this study. To Professor Robert H. Horwitz of Kenyon College I should like to e x press appreciation for his years of service as an associate of the Legislative Reference Bureau in contributing to the preparation of this and other studies and for having served as Director of the Land Study Project since its inception in 1963. August, 1969 lV Henry N. Kitamura Director TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD . SUMMARY 1. PUBLIC LAND POLICY--THE PRESENT ISSUE The Goals of Public Land Policy The Forest Reserve Act II. MULTIPLE USE AND WATER CONSERVATION The Threat of Residential Subdivision of Watershed Areas .. . . . The Multiple Use of Watersheds III. MULTIPLE USE AND GRAZING IV. MULTIPLE USE AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES V. THE PROSPECTS FOR COMMERCIAL FORESTRY IN HAWAII VI. MULTIPLE USE AND EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS VII. CONCLUSION . FOOTNOTES ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Supplementary Bibliography: 1965-69 Figures 1. Deforestation May Lead to Soil Losses 2. Stand of Silk-Oak, Island of Hawaii 3. Stand of Eucalyptus Robusta, Island of Hawaii Page ii iii 1 2 4 17 20 21 23 28 34 49 52 54 65 88 8 26 35 Commercial Timber Areas, State of Hawaii . . . . . . .. 42 v SUMMARY During the five-year period since this study was first published, the multiple-use approach to the development and management of Hawaii's public land has been accepted increasingly by public policy makers and private landowners alike. Current developments appear to support the basic argument of the study; indeed, they suggest that its recommenda- tions may be of greater import than they were five years ago, when it was suggested that: ... for well over a century, the utilization of Hawaii's public lands has been guided by what may be called the "single-use" approach to land policy--that is, by the view that a given land area, or type of land, should be utilized exclusively for a single purpose at any given time. A notable example of this policy has been the leasing of enormous areas of public land for the exclusive purpose of ranching. Other large tracts of public land have been utilized exclusively for over a half- century as water reserves when, as is now realized, with the introduc- tion of safeguards designed to protect domestic water supplies would have made it possible to utilize these watershed areas for other pur- poses simultaneously.l Our study postulated that the traditional, "single-use" approach to land management in Hawaii effectively foreclosed the full develop- ment of roughly half a million acres of publicly owned forest and related land. This land area has always had the potential to support a commercial timber industry in Hawaii which, at today's prices for hardwood timber, lumber, and other products, could be worth as much as one hundred million dollars per year to the Islands' economy. While this land area is producing timber, it could simultaneously sustain greatly increased recreational activities, be aesthetically enhanced, and materially improve the functioning of watersheds. Thus, by putting the Islands' public land to multiple use, desperately needed recreational resources could be made available for the bur- geoning tourist industry and for Hawaii's citizenry alike. A citizenry gaining ever greater leisure and affluence could thereby secure respite from the mounting pressures succinctly described as "urban cramp". The mUltiple-use of land might also provide some assistance to Hawaii's faltering ranching industry. In any event, conversion of grazed or cultivated land to forest cover (which can provide season grazing and year around recreational use), could significantly enhance watershed values. An underlying premise of our suggestion for consideration of the multiple-use approach five years ago was that the prospects: vi · •. for commercial forestry in the Islands are excellent. This premise is not arbitrary, nor has it been accepted lightly. The evidence for it has been carefully examined and weighed for many years by businessmen, the U.S. Forest Service, and others. The conclusion to which they have been consistently drawn is that the full development of public and private land suited for timber production could make commercial forestry a major industry in Hawaii within some 35 years. The ultimate size attainable by this industry is necessarily a matter of conjecture, but there is evidence to support the contention that its contribution to Hawaii's economy could eventually equal or even surpass that now being made by the pineapple or sugar industries. The most sanguine estimates suggest that full-scale timber production and processing could generate as much as $150,000,000 to$200,000,000 annually (the present approximate range of the sugar industry), while providing employment for as many as 15,000 to 20,000 people. Furthermore, depending on the extent to which wood processing and associated manufacturing industries were developed in the Islands, the ultimate long-range potential of this complex of related industries could produce an annual return at least twice that derived from timber production and processing alone, while employing as many as 30,000 to 35,000 people.2 Developments in Hawaii and elsewhere over the past five years appear to lend credence to these estimates. Of special significance within the state has been the growth of small but developing logging and milling enterprises on the islands of Maui and Hawaii. within the past few years, four firms have begun to harvest hardwood trees from the Islands' forests, mill them into lumber and other wood products, and market them both locally and elsewhere in the Pacific Basin. While these enterprises do not by any means constitute the first, successful timbering operations in the Islands, and although one of these firms is faltering economically because of poor manage- ment practices, the success of at least two of these firms is helping to demonstrate the present economic feasibility of commercial timbering in Hawaii utilizing koa and ohia, as well as stands of exotic hard- woods. The contribution of these firms to Hawaii's economy is pio- neering in the sense of opening local, West Coast, and Asian markets to Hawaii-grown wood products. Since all of these markets have been adversely affected by the growing shortage of hardwoods throughout the world, this task is proving to be less difficult than anticipated. Should some of these enterprises become firmly established, it is almost certain that additional North American and Asian investors (a number of whom have already shown interest in Hawaii's commercial timber potential) will seek to establish a variety of wood products plants in the Islands to manufacture hard-board, fiber-board, furni- ture, and perhaps pulp products. vii These sanguine expectations can be fulfilled, however, only if public and private landowners take the necessary steps to insure adequate timber resources in the future. with respect to Hawaii's public land, it is imperative that the State accelerate its present schedule of tree planting as part of an intensive land management program. At the present time, some 2,000 acres of public forest land are annually being planted by the State Division of Forestry. A sustained-yield timbering program commensurate with even a modest estimate of the potential of wood products industries in the State a few decades hence calls for a tree planting program at least three times larger, or a minimum of 6,000 acres planted annually. Such a program would cost approximately $750,000 annually, and would almost immediately yield valuable indirect benefits through the extension of recreational opportunities. An intensified tree-planting program on public land should also enhance the prospects for the mUltiple-use of Hawaii's forest land by those private landowners who hold great acreages of forest land. For example, the firm of Alexander and Baldwin is presentl¥ selling Eucalyptus robusta stumpage from watershed areas on Maui. Although the corporation is said to plan the replanting of harvested land, there is no evidence as yet that corporate management is con- vinced of the economic feasibility of undertaking reforestation of underproductive range land. A broadened and intensive statewide tree planting program on public land might contribute convincing evidence to some major private landowners of the feasibility of commercial forestry in the Islands. The possibility of a favorable conclusion being reached is perhaps enhanced by the generally acknowledged failure of traditional ranging practices which no longer serve to support a flourishing ranching industry in Hawaii, as well as the declining economic health of Hawaii's pineapple industry. Many of Hawaii's major landowners are presently searching for new uses for substantial portions of their land.4 For example, areas planted to "Christmas tree"--timber types can provide cash crops along with forest recreation sites and improved watershed protection. Any properly developed proposal for multiple-use management of Hawaii's public forest land must also seek maximum development of recreational areas for the ever-increasing number of tourists and the Islands' citizenry alike. This task can be successfully accom- plished through close cooperation between many state, county, and federal agencies, including the State Division of Forestry and the Division of State Parks. The continuing failure in Hawaii to develop access to those parts of the public forest land suitable for hiking viii and camping is intensifying "urban cramp," is contributing to the overcrowding of inadequate recreation areas, and to a growing but somewhat misguided demand to preserve as much non-urban land in a "natural" and therefore unproductive (except in some aesthetic sense) state. On this score, one may usefully distinguish "preservationists," who seek to preserve large land areas from any kind of use and to retain them in an undeveloped form, and "conservationists, II or natural resource managers, who seek full use of resources through multiple- use management. Enormous land areas are already IIlocked-up" in Hawaii's great national parks, and perhaps additional land should be preserved in this way, but the state's policy makers must give the most serious consideration to the competing claims of preservationists and conservationists. One important, indirect effect of the preserva- tionist attitude toward forest land has been a form of IIbacklash", i.e., an increasing demand for acquisition of extraordinarily expensive land for public recreation development in other areas--almost without regard to cost. Inasmuch as the state owns vast tracts of land in mountainous areas well suited to multiple-use, it is imperative that this hitherto untapped resource be developed to meet part of the increasing needs of the populace for recreational facilities. Visi tationsto Hawaii's state parks, almost all 0 f which are located in beach areas, have skyrocketed in recent years. statistics released by the state Division of Parks reveals that its facilities were used by some 600,000 visitors in 1963. By 1968, when these facilities had been increased only minimally, the number of visita- tions reached some 5.3 million. Not only have greater affluence and leisure among Hawaii's residents contributed to this enormous increase, but also the changing character of tourism here is creating a growing demand for more outdoor recreational facilities. The argument advanced in this study in 1965 is even more pertinent now: ... Today, an increasing number of Hawaii's visitors are unable or unwilling to remain long in expensive hotels or resort areas. More than 50 per cent of the tourists now entering Hawaii come from the West Coast, where the population is substantially younger than elsewhere on the mainland. Moreover, increased leisure and affluence in Japan have propelled a growing segment of that country's population into the world tourist market. Hawaii is already receiving increased patronage from Japanese nationals, who share with westerners an increasing appetite for outdoor recreation. This combination of youthfulness and modest, middle-class income suggests that an increasing proportion of these tourists will be in search of camping and lodge facilities comparable to those found in mainland recreation areas.S lX The underdeveloped character of most of Hawaii's existing state parks, along with the lack of adequate maintenance in these parks, points to the desirability of linking the development of recreational facilities with programs of tree planting and commercial logging through mUltiple-use forest land management. Commercial forestry requires the development of roads, trails, fences, and the employment of forest rangers. All of these developments would simultaneously serve the requirements of the recreationist. To reiterate a question raised earlier, why not develop outdoor recreational facilities in areas that could support commercial forestry operations? ••. Such a combination of commercial forestry and recreational use of mountain land permits public investment to meet a combi- nation of economic and social objectives. Furthermore, forest clearing, reforestation, and maintenance of stands of commer- cially valuable timber contribute directly to the utility and attractiveness of forest areas for recreation. Intensive development of such areas for recreational use requires addi- tional expenditures for developing camp sites, damming and stocking streams, building lodges, and other improvements, of course. Mainland experience supplies convincing evidence that a significant portion of these development costs can be recovered directly through the leasing of concessions and, indirectly, through the stimulus provided to the economy of surrounding areas. Another significant indirect economic benefit in the case of Hawaii would be the increase in inter-island travel.6 Whatever the costs of developing recreational activities in public forest land, they would be relatively insignificant compared to the cost of purchasing and developing additional beach areas for parks--especially on Oahu. We find nothing incompatible between timber production, recreational use, and water production on the same land. Recreation use would be mildly disturbed only every twenty to thirty years when mature stands of timber are harvested. In the meantime, developed forest would provide especially desirable recreational habitat and watershed cover. This would require" as already noted, effective cooperation between governmental agencies. Another aim of a sound mUltiple-use program for management of Hawaii's public forest land should be the selection and development of those areas that could strengthen the Islands' faltering ranching industry. It was suggested earlier that if: x · .. the ranching industry is to be rejuvenated, basic changes in both ranch operation and techniques would be required. Among other things, Hawaii's cattlemen would have to make intensive, rather than extensive, use of land resources. Such a change in ranching practice could significantly increase total yield and improve the quality of island beef. Before sound policy deci- sions can be made, however, it will be necessary first to deter- mine whether island beef producers should attempt to compete with high-grade mainland beef, the lower-grade imports, or either .... In recent years at least, ranching has proven profitable chiefly for the larger operators. At this time there are approximately a dozen. • . . Still they have not been doing well, and their operations have been cut back markedly in recent years. If profit margins continue to fall, it seems probable that they will increasingly be liquidated, and this possibility presents the State with several potentially serious problems, including an adverse effect on balance of payments, increased unemployment--especially on the Neighbor Islands--and considerable losses in taxable income. To avert these ills, Hawaii's beef producers will need both to become more efficient and to develop all possible sources of supplementary income.7 The requisite changes have not yet occurred, and it is evident that many of Hawaii's major, private landowners are progressively abandoning commercial ranching operations. Some of them are presently leasing portions of their range land to small ranchers who, because they generally do not calculate the value of their contributed labor as part of operating costs, appear to show some profit. But this practice only serves to emphasize the marginal character of ranching in Hawaii today. While commercial ranching is unlikely to ever again play an important part in Hawaii's economy, it is possible that under the conditions sketched in this study, it may once again become profitable. For example, as part of a mUltiple-use program some reforested areas may be utilized for cattle grazing. Needless to say, this calls for very careful management and is only feasible after trees have reached a certain height. Under the proper circum- stances such grazing practices may even lower the costs of forest management, since there are areas in Hawaii where certain varieties of grass pose a threat to timber seedlings. Controlled grazing can be valuable in keeping some of these varieties of grass in check. Finally, the reforestation of range land capable of supporting commercial timber could contribute significantly to water conservation, especially in those areas where poor ranching practices--oftentimes pursued in the wake of indiscriminate clearing of trees--have led to excessive flood run off and soil erosion.8 An important objective of a mUltiple-use approach to land management in Hawaii should be xi that of developing the water-bearing capacity of the land. It has long since been learned, and should not be forgotten, that in Hawaii the water-bearing capacity of watershed areas can be decisively diminished--depending on the land use and management practices that are followed. Cultivation and grazing drastically reduce water holding capacity of soils. Even though commercial forests are logged infrequently (perhaps every thirty to forty years), steps must be taken to prevent contamination of surface or ground water when such operations are undertaken in or near critical watershed areas. The protection of water resources must, of course, be given the most careful consideration when land is also used for recreational purposes. We cannot emphasize too strongly that land management practices in watershed areas must be informed and guided by all relevant research on water quality, some of which suggests hitherto unsuspected ways in which potential contaminants may reach basal water supplies. Current research is exploring improved methods of detecting such contaminants, and there is a continuing need for expanding such research--and taking it into account in watershed management. Especially careful watch must be maintained over water quality when urban water supplies are not clorinated, the situation prevailing in Hawaii. Given the possibility of misunderstandings on this score, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that the programs of mUltiple-use advocated in this study take full account of Hawaii's need for abundant and safe water supplies. Water conservation neces- sarily has been one of the highest uses of our fo~est lands, and must remain so. But, the single-use approach to land management practiced in the past to achieve this objective need not guide policy in the future. The very important interest in water conserva- tion in forest areas is generally wholly compatible with the multiple- use approach. Certainly, the disturbance of a forest by logging every thirty to forty years is of minor significance to water values as compared to the annual or biannual cultivation of soils for commercial agriculture. In summary, developments during the past five years confirm the conclusion suggested in 1965: .•• Policies suited to an earlier era may well fall short of meeting present needs, to say nothing of future needs. The single-use approach to public forest land management in Hawaii can no longer be accepted uncritically if it can be demonstrated that multiple use of these lands would effectively serve broader purposes, while continuing to insure an adequate supply of water for domestic and agricultural purposes.9 xii CHAPTER I PUBLIC LAND POLICY-THE PRESENT ISSUE Pressing, unresolved problems of public land pOlicy presently confront Hawaii's policy-makers. The consequences of official action-- or inaction--in coping with these problems will decisively affect the future of the state's economy, the way of life of its citizenry, and the range of alternatives open to policy-makers in the years ahead.l Why is the public land question so critical and complex in Hawaii? Because, among other things, rapid change continues to characterize Hawaii, and virtually every fundamental change in this island com- munity is related, directly or indirectly, to land policy. It is manifest that in recent decades the Islands have been swept by political and economic forces which, having transformed much that was familiar in the pre-war period, have left a "new Hawaii" in their wake. Gone forever is the essentially stable community of the terri- torial period, a community based predominately on plantation agri- culture and characterized by a static economy, long-established ways of doing business, and rather firmly fixed horizons. The old Hawaii has been replaced by an explosively changing community whose expanding population finds employment in an ever-broader variety of occupations. The consequences of these sweeping changes for public land policy are numerous, since patterns of land use developed in an earlier period no longer meet present needs. During the past decade, there have been both an increasing awareness of the need for new public land policies and a persistent demand from many quarters for changes in the public land laws. Such demands are continuing and will persist, for there is little likelihood that Hawaii will again become a static community. The second state legislature responded to these demands in some measure in 1962 with the passage of Act 32, the first comprehensive revision of Hawaii's public land laws since the innovations made by President Dole during the short-lived Republic. Other land measures enacted during the past decade have been designed to complement the goals of Act 32. A state land use commission 2 has been charged with the protection of prime agricultural land from urban encroachment, while tax measures have been devised, in part, to force idle land into productive use. This program of land legislation is probably one of the broadest and boldest ever undertaken by any American state. Yet because this legislation was drafted and enacted within such a short period and under less than optimal conditions, even its stoutest pro- ponents admit that it requires revision. The criticism, opposition, and misunderstandings inevitably engendered by a land reform program of this magnitude have been compounded by the numerous difficulties 1 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH complicating its administration. For example, it is evident that the leaders of various public agencies responsible for administering the various facets of this program do not feel that the laws are entirely sound; requests to the legislature for amendments to the land laws have been frequent. It is important that the state legislature care- fully evaluate all major aspects of public land policy at this time to determine, among other things, the adequacy and consistency of the many and varied statutes presently controlling the use of the State's land. The difficulties faced by Hawaii's citizenry and policy-makers alike in reaching a clear understanding of the public land issue currently confronting the community compound this problem. This is hardly surprising, for the land issue is extremely complicated. It is rooted in the very fabric of Hawaii's political history and is intertwined with virtually every other major issue in the Islands. The land issue is not one which lends itself to easy agreement. Bluntly put, it gives rise to the sharpest disagreement among men of intelligence and good will. Unquestionably, public land policy con- stitutes one of the most complicated, emotionally charged, and important issues which face Hawaii. Once again it is reaching critical proportions. What course of action should be considered by Hawaii's body politic in reformulating land policy? We submit that an adequate answer to this question demands the following considerations: (1) An analysis of pertinent economic, political, historical, and other factors; (2) An articulation of present and future goals of public land policy for Hawaii; and (3) A statement of specific policy alternatives. An historical analysis of Hawaii's public land policy will be presented in a related study within this series. The present study concentrates attention on the articulation of policy goals, with emphasis on certain alternatives for their implementation. The Goals of Public Land Policy The ultimate objective of public land policy should be to secure the broadest long-term benefits which the public lands can provide for 2 THE PRESENT ISSUE the welfare of the community. All too often, the calculation of benefits has been limited largely to short-term economic considera- tions. Such calculations are insufficient as a guide for public policy formation. Short-term financial interests sometimes conflict with more basic, long-term economic considerations. This appears to be especially true of land policy. While the public lands presently make a significant contribution to the economy, and should continue to benefit established industries,they should at the same time stimu- late the development of new industries, as this study attempts to show. Furthermore, important as they are, economic considerations, whether long-or short-term in character, must be weighed against more fundamental concerns. The larger criterion which policy-makers should bear in mind in designing public land policy is the degree to which such policy contributes to the welfare of the citizenry and the over- all quality of life within the community, both now and in the future. This criterion has served as the focal point for our investigation, and attention has been afforded to each of a number of related goals which can be realized through more effective use of Hawaii's public land s. It is probable that some of these far-ranging and seemingly re- mote goals of public land pOlicy may be viewed with considerable skepticism. It understandably will be asked why, if the public lands have such rich potential, past policy has failed to realize only a small part of it. This question can be fully answered only by con- sidering this study as a whole, but an initial clue to the answer may prove helpful. The fundamental consideration is that, for well over a century, the utilization of Hawaii's public lands has been guided by what may be called the "single-use" approach to land policy--that is, by the view that a given land area, or type of land, should be utilized exclusively for a single purpose at any given time. A notable example of this policy has been the leasing of enormous areas of public lands for the exclusive purpose of ranching. Other large tracts of public land have been utilized exclusively for over a half- century as water reserves when, as is now realized, the introduction of safeguards designed to protect domestic water supplies would have made it possible to utilize these watershed areas for other purposes simultaneously. The single-use approach to land utilization was, perhaps, appropriate to the economic and political structure of Hawaii during the period extending roughly from 1865 to the Second World War. It was during this period that Hawaii became the world's most efficient producer of sugar and pineapple, and much of the public domain served primarily as an adjunct to the plantation economy. While the single- 3 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH use approach to public lands may very well have been basically sound during former times, even then there were critics who objected to the restricted use to which the public domain was being put. This comment is not intended as a criticism of those past policy-makers who worked for the general welfare as they understood it, and it should be emphasized that in the discussions which follow there is no intention of passing judgment on the motives of those who made and administered Hawaii's past public land policies. Nevertheless, it is essential that those policies be examined with a view to understanding their objectives and reevaluating them in the light of present needs and future potentialities. To reiterate: the most significant and crippling attribute of Hawaii's past public land policy was its single-use approach to land utilization, an approach which will be contrasted throughout this report with the possibilities inherent in multiple use. In order to define more clearly the limitations of the single-use approach, it is necessary to consider one of the major exclusive uses to which much of Hawaii's public lands have been exclusively put during most of the twentieth century--as forest reserves for water conservation and development. The Forest Reserve Ad The Forest Reserve Act of 1903 was undoubtedly one of the most significant public land measures ever enacted in Hawaii. This Act authorized the governor to place vast amounts of public land, plus private lands temporarily surrendered by their owners, into forest reserves for the primary purpose of protecting water supplies and preventing erosion.3 This program was necessitated by the depreda- tions to which these lands had long been subjected; upon its success hung the future of Hawaii's commercial agriculture. The sequence of events which led to its passage can be traced to the time when early western explorers and settlers introduced to the Islands such domestic and wild animals as goats, cattle, and new species of pigs. Some of these animals were allowed to roam freely. Their slaughter was forbidden by the king, with disastrous results. The expanding animal population ravaged and sometimes denuded thousands of acres of forest lands. The erosion which followed affected substantial areas. In the case of Kahoolawe and Lanai, entire islands were seriously damaged.4 Belatedly, the kapu against the slaughter of these animals was lifted,S but it was not until the last decade of the 19th century that there was a sufficient decline in the number of wild cattle, goats, and pigs to reduce substantially the destruction of forest cover. 4 THE PRESENT ISSUE This ravaging of the public domain was partially checked, on some islands at least, by the phenomenal growth of Hawaii's sugar industry, which developed rapidly during the closing decades of the 19th century and the opening decade of the 20th. The sugar planters gradually realized that the welfare of the industry was dependent, at least indirectly, upon the preservation of forest cover. They observed that destruction of forests seemed to decrease the amount of water received from mountain streams and water tunnels. Furthermore, there appeared to be some direct relationship between the forest cover of mountains and the amount of precipitation in these areas. As early as 1856, kamaainas living near the Waimea and Kawaihae areas on Hawaii reported that rainfall was less plentiful than when the Waimea plains were heavily forested. During a visit to Maui in 1873, Charles Nordhoff reported that, as forests were destroyed by uncontrolled grazing, there were increasing complaints that adjoining areas were becoming arid and less fertile. Others have made similar observations of the close relationship between forest cover and rainfall in the Islands. For example, in the lush valley of Kahana on Oahu, heavy tree cover on the windward side of the mountains serves not only to conserve soil that might otherwise be washed into the sea, but also to cool trade winds blowing in from the ocean, thereby increasing the amount of precipitation in the mountain area above the water tunnel network of the Waiahole Water company.6 The rather unique combination of climate and topography in the Islands also produces a phenomenon known as "fog-drip." Clouds borne by the trade winds regularly sweep the tops of tree covered mountain ridges. The resulting temperature changes in the moist air produce condensation which falls on the ground below. The importance of this phenomenon to the water cycle in Hawaii has been convincingly documented by Paul Ekern of the Hawaii Institute of Geophysics. He reported that an additional 30 inches of sUch moisture was harvested by Norfolk-island pine on Lanai during a period when 50 inches fell in the form of rain. Ekern contends that, in areas where "fog-drip" is substantial, as much as 100 additional inches of water a year are added to the total water precipitated by other causes.7 The important function of "fog-drip" in the ecology of at least one of the islands is revealed by reference to the history of Kahoolawe, once a heavily forested island. Its delicate ecology was sustained almost entirely by the water harvested from passing clouds. During the 19th century, wild goats, sheep, and other foraging animals became so numerous that they killed many of the trees. The rate of forest destruction was accelerated when the government of the Republic leased the island for grazing. By the time the Forest Reserve Act was passed, tree cover had been virtually eliminated and the island no 5 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH longer received the harvest of "fog-drip" on which life depended.8 Its forests destroyed, the island lay exposed to devastating wind erosion. Top soil was blown into the sea. So much top soil has now been lost that the restoration of Kahoolawe's productivity is un- likely. Today the island is used only as a military target area. By contrast, evidence of the good effects of reforestation,when accomplished in time, is furnished by Lanai. Following destruction of its forests by wild animals and, later, by exploitive ranching, Lanai was plagued by severe droughts and ravaged by erosion. Es- pecially vigorous tree planting programs were undertaken in the 1920s when the island was purchased by the Hawaiian Pineapple Company. Stands of Norfolk-island pine were planted, and, as a result, one aspect of the water problem was solved and erosion substantially checked. Today Lanai is one of the most valuable agricultural islands in the archipelago.9 Similar observations of the relationship between forest cover and rainfall were made by William A. Hall of the U. S. Bureau of Forestry as early as 1903.10 Hall's recommendations for the establish- ment of a forest reserve program were based in part on his conclusion that the drastic decline in forest cover on the island of Hawaii had contributed to sharply diminished rainfall, and this decline threat- ened the operation of plantations along the Hamakua coast. Other consequences followed the damage done to Hawaii's native forests by foraging animals. The extremely fast growth of certain shrubs and grasses enabled them to take hold in areas damaged by foraging animals. These plants, such as false-staghorn fern, grew so quickly and lushly that they prevented the germination of tree seeds. Under these circumstances, the return of forest cover was restricted, while the heavy mat of roots prevented the absorption of rain with the resulting loss of considerable amounts of water. The developing recognition of the consequences of forest damage for the future of commercial agriculture contributed to the passage of the Forest Reserve Act. This legislation was sponsored by Hawaii's sugar planters, among others, and its administration has been super- vised by men keenly cognizant of the needs of plantation agriculture.ll Vigorous administration of the Act led to the destruction of as many as half a million wild cattle in forest reserve areas.12 Protecting the forests from uncontrolled grazing undoubtedly con- tributed significantly to saving the remnants of Hawaii's woodlands from total destruction, but it was necessary to counter other threats as well. One of the most menacing of these threats was the wholesale 6 THE PRESENT ISSUE clearing of forest cover by ranchers. Long before the Act was passed, ranching had become a major industry in the Islands. The rounding up of wild cattle was necessary by the turn of the 20th century to supply the growing population's need for meat. Hawaii's cattlemen tradi- tionally relied almost exclusively upon range feeding of their stock. This grazing management system was formerly dependent upon continuous extensions of range lands to maintain production. Through such addi- tions to ranches, plus occasional overstocking of ranches, cattlemen maintained Hawaii's self-sufficiency in beef until recent decades, but major extensions of ranching operations took~place at the expenf3e of the forests. The seriousness of this threat had been recognized by some during the late 19th century. In 1899 the Board of Agriculture reported that: For the past twenty years the attention of our Government and of this Forestry Bureau has been called to the destruction of our Native forests on Government lands in particular. It is become a serious problem with us. Large areas of Public Forests are annually destroyed by fire, orginating [sic] in many instances by cattlemen setting fire to the ferns and underbrush to improve their pasture. A short time ago a visit was made to Kahana Valley. .. The Native forest in this valley is in a good state of preservation, but, sorry to say, will not remain so long. It was stated that some enter- prising Honolulu business men purchased a few shares of the Native hui, turned in a lot of cattle, and deliberately set fire to the underbrush on the hillside with the view of getting better pasture. If the cattle are not taken away soon it will be but a short time when this Native forest will be destroyed, and the water supply on the low land diminished.13 The author concluded that "cattle seem to be the principal enemy of the forests." By way of countering this threat, he recommended that large parts of the government forest lands "should be fenced off at once, for the purpose of preserving the living and growing timber and promoting the younger growth of fern and underbrush. " This theme was reiterated by William A. Hall, who was invited to the Territory by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters I Association in 1902 to explore means of protecting plantation water resources. Hall empha- sized that poor ranching practices were responsible for a considerable part of the damage which was being inflicted upon Hawaii's forests. He recommended that forest areas be protected by curbing further clearing by ranchers, as well as by exterminating the wild cattle which continued to forage in forest areas.14 Hall criticized pre- vailing ranching practices, noting that cattle were allowed to range extensively, while 'grazed-out areas were sometimes abandoned by ranch 7 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH managers, who found this practice more economical than investing re- sources in pasture improvement. As a result of these malpractices, thousands of acres of denuded land formerly protected by grass cover were left vulnerable to the destructive forces of wind and water. Erosion was widespread, swift, and catastrophic, for Hawaii's range lands are characterized by steep slopes.IS Tons of soil, no longer held by trees, shrubs, or adequate grass cover, washed into the sea, leaving behind rocky, low-value soil and near-worthless land. Gullies etched their way steadily into the landscape at an accelerating rate forming barren gulches of the sort pictured in Figure 1, below. Figurct 1 Deforestation May Lead to Soli Losses 8 THE PRESENT ISSUE Enormous amounts of arable land were seriously damaged or rendered worthless. 16 As long as additional range land could be secured through further clearing of forests, little was done to stem this destructive cycle. Indeed, this problem has not been satisfactorily solved, even today. The destruction of land resources continues, while soil and water conservationists estimate that over 50 per cent of Hawaii's more than one million acres of range land is in need of erosion control or other conservation practices. Still, some ranchers objected to the introduction of the Forest Reserve Act. Ralph Hosmer, the first territorial forester responsible for administering the forest reserve program, reported that Parker Ranch was initially unwilling to permit incorporation of certain key lands in the reserve system on the ground that these lands were needed for grazing. The ranch resorted to litigation to prevent inclusion of portions of the Kohala Mountains in the system.17 Fortunately, the power of the sugar planters in the Territory at the time of passage of the Act served to neutralize the ranchers' opposition to the forest reserve system. For that matter, many of the major ranches were subsidiaries of sugar plantations, and it had been at the insist- ence of the sugar men that the reserve system was established. The predominant position of sugar men over the ranchers, and their intense interest in insuring adequate water supplies for the plantations, softened the opposition to forest protection by independent ranchers. Though the forest reserve system slowed the ranchers' range- clearing activities, it did little to improve the condition of exist- ing range land. As population increased in the Islands during the first half of the 20th century and as ranching was stimulated by ever- growing demands for meat, the poor quality of range land became in- creasingly evident. Poor pasture management practices and deteriora- tion of range lands made the maintenance of economically sound grazing operations increasingly difficult. Ranchers inevitably brought pressure on the Division of Forestry to open for grazing land not critically needed for water supply purposes. The records suggest that sometimes the ranchers were successful, and the forests continued to recede before them. The ranchers were not alone responsible for the disastrous attack on the native forests. Sugar planters had earlier cleared forest lands for plantation use almost as fast as had the ranchers. During this era the sugar mills made extensive use of wood for fuel, and furnished it in generous amounts for their employees' cookstoves and furos (Japanese baths). William A. Hall indicated that there was danger that the: 9 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH Plantations may go so far in the matter [of clearing for cane growing or cutting for fuel] as to bring ultimate disaster upon themselves by ruin- ing their water supply and decreasing the rainfall. Many of the planta- tions now obtain water from the mountain streams for fluming cane to the mills. There is scarcely enough water for this purpose, and it has been noticed that with the clearing of the lower slopes these small streams have been perceptibly diminished. IS The recommendations of Hall and others were taken quite seriously. Providing fuel wood in a manner which would not interfere with water conservation became an initial and principal objective of the forest reserve program. Ralph Sheldon Hosmer, who was appointed to administer the new program at Hall's suggestion, assumed his new duties in 1904. By 1914 he had succeeded in putting 798,214 acres (68 per cent of which belonged to the Territory) into 37 forest reserves. 19 Hosmer believed that the forest reserves were useful for two primary purposes: water production for the Territory's agricultural industries, and timber production to meet the growing demand for wood products. The forest reserve system, he said, should not lead to "the locking up from economic use of a certain forest area." Even in critical watersheds the harvesting of old trees "is a positive advantage, in that it gives the young trees a chance to grow, while at the same time producing a profit from the forests.,,20 Hosmer further contended that part of the forest reserves could play no part in water conservation, and that commercial timbering should be of primary concern there. In his view, a soundly designed forest reserve system would encourage the uses for which particular areas were best suited: the production of commercially useful wood, water conservation, or some combination of the two.21 In his initial report to the Board of Agriculture and Forestry, he suggested that some parts of Hawaii's forests could not feasibly supply timber be- cause they were inaccessible, while in other areas it was necessary to harvest timber. He observed that: The diminishing supply of wood and timber on the American mainland, the consequent rise in price of all wood products, the local need for wood suitable for fence posts, railroad ties, bridge timbers and the like, not to speak of general construction timber and the necessity for a cheap fuel supply--that already in some districts is a serious problem-- all point to the wisdom of tree planting.22 Hosmer reported in 1910 that applications for logging rights on government lands were increasing. He maintained that the Division of 10 THE PRESENT ISSUE Forestry should respond positively and immediately to these applica- tions. He also argued for an enlargement of the government's role in promoting sound forestry practices on private as well as public land 23 for the benefit of both water and wood production: In view of the close relation between forest production and the continued success of agriculture in Hawaii, and because of the steadily growing demand for wood of all kinds, it is not only desirable--it is essential-- that the citizens of Hawaii be brought to understand and practice forestry.24 Hosmer demonstrated his belief in the timber potential of Hawaii's forest lands in 1914 when he recommended that the governor set aside two additional reserves on the island of Hawaii, not for their potential contribution to water conservation, but because he thought they might eventually produce commercial timber and thereby produce revenue for the Territory. 25 During Hosmer's administration (1904-1914) the commercial timber industry made an impressive and promising beginning in Hawaii. In 1907, a contract was signed by the Hawaiian Mahogany Company and the Santa Fe Railway System for the cutting and delivery of 2,500,000 ohia rail ties over a 5-year period. 26 In that same year, the territorial government granted the Bishop Estate the right to "conservatively harvest timber from mountain land near Kona, Hawaii."27 Commercial timbering was then being carried out on both privately and publicly owned land. Timber owned by the Bishop Estate in the Kau district on Hawaii was cut by the Hawaiian Mahogany Company. Another company harvested koa on the Big Island and shipped 30,000 board feet of saw logs to a mill in California in 1907. The Hawaiian Development Company initiated plans at this time for the establishment of a major lumbering operation as part of its overall plan for the general economic development of the Kona district and received several permits to log government lands in the area.28 Hosmer's conviction that Hawaii's forest land could be success- fully used for the production of commercial timber carried over into other aspects of his administration of the forest reserve program. For example, he required a lessor of grazing land in the Kukaiau district on the Big Island to plant a minimum number of trees annually on specified portions of the state-owned tracts.29 Hosmer also pushed ahead with the importation and testing of exotic trees (trees native to other lands), a program which had been initiated as early as the l850s. One of the areas partially re- forested during his administration was the Tantalus-Nuuanu area, which had been almost completely denuded by wild goats and the cutting 11 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH of trees for firewood.30 Despite these promising beginnings under Hosmer1s administration, Hawaii1s infant timber industry was crippled by a combination of un- fortunate accidents and developments. A disastrous fire destroyed the Pahoa Mill of the Hawaiian Development Company in 1913. The Pahoa fire coincided with two developments which had an important bearing on the general utilization of Hawaii1s forests. One was the sugar millsl adoption of oil for fuel. Of longer range significance was Hosmer1s resignation as territorial forester in 1914. Hosmer was replaced by a forester of strikingly different con- victions regarding the use of Hawaii1s forests. This new territorial forester was Charles S. Judd, a kamaaina who, after graduating from the Yale School of Forestry, returned to Hawaii to direct the adminis- tration of the forest reserve program from 1915 until his death in 1939. Judd assumed the duties of territorial forester at a time when decisions of fundamental importance regarding the future use and development of Hawaii1s public lands were being made. New public land legislation had been enacted in 1911. The protracted battle over homesteading was coming to its climax. The suitability of pineapple for plantation agriculture had been demonstrated. By 1915, large- scale agriculture had gained effective control of most of the arable land, and had incorporated into its system those portions of the forest lands which, though unsuited for crops or ranching, were essential for the provision of water for the plantations. The under- lying issue which faced Hawaii1s policy-makers at that time was whether the fullest long-range economic development of the Territory could be gained through concentrating resources on sugar and pineapple production, along with ranching, or through broadening the economic base. The available evidence suggests that Judd favored the former alternative, for during his administration, forest lands were used almost exclusively as an adjunct to the plantation system. He dis- agreed with Hosmer1s view that a significant portion of Hawaii1s forest lands could serve a broad variety of purposes, including the production of timber in commercial quantities, while still performing the essential function of providing water supplies for the plantations. Under Judd1s administration, the forest reserve program essentially served the exclusive purpose of supplying water to the sugar industry and urban consumers. Judd staunchly opposed mUltipurpose management of forest reserve lands on the grounds that disturbance of the forest cover might endanger the functioning of the Territory1s agricultural industries. This position was presaged in his first report as territorial forester when he stated unequivocally, "Our forests are more valuable, not for the timber which they produce, but for the 12 THE PRESENT ISSUE beneficial influence which they exert on a far more valuable product-- water. ,,31 Although opposed to the development of commercial forestry, Judd actively encouraged the importation and testing of many varieties of trees to determine those best suited to the Islands. Records of tree planting activities during his administration show that many varieties were brought in from Australia and elsewhere. These were planted for windbreaks and for ornamental and other purposes in areas where native trees did not flourish.32 For such purposes Judd undertook extensive planting programs of imported trees including Java plum, paper bark, various figs, and others not useful for timber to supplement the native forest cover.33 This program was in keeping with Judd's view that nature should not be assisted in the propagation of the native Hawaiian forest; that artificial propagation, therefore, should be limited to areas beyond the natural habitat of native trees. This program of reforestation, Judd emphasized, was valuable solely "for the beneficial effect which it exerts on the water supply, rather than the exploitation of the forest for timber • • . and any factors which work against these main objects are detrimental to the best interests and welfare of the Territory. 1134 Judd's views determined the scope and character of the Territorial Division of Forestry for nearly three decades. The Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, through its Division of Botany and Forestry, supported his program wholeheartedly. This division of the H.S.P.A. was established in 1918 and was headed by Dr. H. L. Lyon, whose views regarding the proper role of Hawaii's forest lands paralleled Judd's own thinking and may well have contributed importantly to it. Like Judd, Lyon believed that disturbing the forest reserve areas by putting them to mUltiple use could upset the balance of nature, there- by endangering the sugar industry and other industries whose produc- tivity depended upon ample water supplies. His planting recommenda- tions were explicitly designed to forestall the development of a commercial timber industry in Hawaii.35 The several nurseries which Lyon established and operated were charged with the task of propagat- ing trees useful for some purposes, but worthless for timber produc- tion.36 Working closely with Judd, Lyon paid special attention to the propagation of fruit trees such as figs and plums. Prior to his death in 1957, Lyon avowed publicly and unequivocally that during his career he had been unalterably opposed to the development of a com- mercial timber industry in the Islands.37 Ironically, the research carried out by both Lyon and Judd con- tributed significantly to present-day knowledge of Hawaii's timber potential. Some of the trees planted under their programs turned out 13 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH to be valuable for timber purposes, even though this was completely contrary to their intention. The most notable example of this un- anticipated outcome is the Eucalyptus robusta, a tree which is not highly regarded in its native Australian habitat, but which, in recent years, has been recognized increasingly as a potentially valuable hardwood which produces magnificent specimens in Hawaii. Opposed though they were to the development of a large-scale commercial timber industry, Judd and Lyon did experiment with the cultivation of certain tree species which were thought to lend themselves to plantation-type cUltivation. Thus, they experimented with the propagation of rubber trees.38 In 1921-1922, the Division of Forestry planted in the Waiahole forest reserve nearly 3,000 Chaulmoogra trees which were expected, within about a decade, to pro- duce all of the oil required for the local treatment of Hansen's disease. In 1921-1922, the Division distributed nearly a half million macadamia nut seedlings for planting on homesteads, ranches, planta- tions, army posts, and even in the zealously guarded forest reserves.39 Macadamia nut production has achieved significant size in recent years, but not as part of a statewide forestry program and not on public lands.40 There was some promise of a new era in the management of Hawaii's forest lands in the mid-1930s with the implementation of the New Deal's Civilian Conservation Corps. The introduction of this program into the Islands brought sustained and substantial federal support, along with a broadening of policy objectives. Although water con- servation continued as the paramount objective of forest management, reforestation was given a powerful boost as early as April, 1934, when about 600 young men were put to work building trails, fencing forest reserves to protect them from the depredations of foraging animals, and clearing and planting forest land.4l William Bryan was placed in charge of the program during an interim period following Judd's death, after which William Crosby, formerly district forester for Maui, became territorial forester in 1939. Crosby asserted that the resources made available through the CCC accomplished more in 8 years than would have been possible in 40 with the territorial legis- lature's characteristically inadequate appropriations of the 1930s.42 Unfortunately, the considerable promise of the CCC remained largely unfulfilled, for the outbreak of war in 1941 effectively ended the program. All available manpower was of course committed to the war effort, and there ensued a drastic cutback in the various programs of the Territorial Division of Forestry, including reforestation and 14 THE PRESENT ISSUE experimentation. The war did have one unexpected benefit for forestry in Hawaii. The opening phase of the war, marked as it was by large- scale destruction of American shipping, required that Hawaii become considerably more self-sufficient in the production of foodstuffs, building materials, and such than she had been for many decades. Military planners warned that continued destruction of shipping or further disruption of the mainland lumber market channels would require Hawaii to turn to its own forests for wood supplies. Accordingly, saw mills and men experienced in the cutting and processing of timber were brought to Hawaii. At the direction of the military, consider- able cutting, milling, and processing of Eucalyptus robusta took place on Kauai, Oahu, and Hawaii during the war years.43 Knowledge about the possible uses of Hawaii's woods, as well as technology designed to improve harvesting, was somewhat expanded. Consequently, there was renewed interest in commercial forestry which had been one of the key- notes of Hosmer's administration of the forest reserve program 40 years earlier. The outbreak of war coincided roughly with the appointment of a new territorial forester, as has been noted. Although Crosby appeared initially to subscribe to the Judd-Lyon policies, there were indica- tions that he was more concerned than they had been with the potential of Hawaii's forests for commercial timber production.44 But this impetus soon diminished with the declaration of peace, and interest in commercial forestry faded rapidly after 1945.45 Crosby was unable to generate much support for his pOlicies from the territorial legis- lature or the Board of Agriculture and Forestry, and traditional pOlicies continued to prevail.46 It was not until the mid-1950s that interest in commercial forestry in Hawaii revived to any appreciable extent. In 1956, the newly appointed president of the Board of Agriculture and Forestry, C. Eric Reppun, invited the U. S. Forest Service to establish a research office in the Territory. The Service accepted the Terri- tory's proposal and the Honolulu office was established in 1957. The high degree of professional competence characteristic of the Forest service's staff has been chiefly utilized in carrying out a broad research program designed to facilitate the development of commercial forestry. Beyond this, the Service has construed its proper role in Hawaii as essentially that of an advisory board--responding to requests for information, rather than entering actively into policy- making. To summarize: during the greater part of the 20th century, Hawaii's more than one million acres of forest land were utilized 15 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH primarily as an adjunct to commercial agriculture, and the administra- tion of the forest reserve system was directed chiefly toward the goal of water conservation. Realization of this objective frequently required considerable reforestation, after which, as far as possible, the forests were protected from damage, mainly by being left severely alone. These policies prevailed, even though Ralph Hosmer, the first territorial forester, introduced programs designed to promote multiple use of forest land. His successors, however, concentrated on the single-use objective of water conservation. whatever may have been the merits of the single-use approach to forest land management in the past, Hawaii's contemporary needs, together with rapid technological innovations in forest management and timber processing, demands a thorough re-examination of former policies. 16 CHAPTER II MULTIPLE USE AND WATER CONSERVATION During the extended period when Hawaii's public land policy was guided by the single-use concept, developments elsewhere convincingly demonstrated that land could be utilized simultaneously for two, three, or more purposes. This multiple-use approach, as it is called,l may dictate the use of a given land area concurrently for water conservation, timber production, and foraging. Another area suitable for multiple use may serve for water conservation, timber production, and a wide variety of recreational pursuits, such as camping, hiking, and hunting. The multiple-use approach may substantially increase the potential benefits from a particular land area; it is especially promising for the fullest development of Hawaii's public forest lands. Properly applied, it could broaden the Islands' economic base, and also provide social benefits that defy measurement in strictly monetary terms. Multiple use provides the most promising solution to the challenge of land management on an island chain of little more than 4 million acres and subject to extraordinary population pressure. Indeed, both the state legislature and the Department of Land and Natural Resources have agreed that it is no longer possible to satisfy Hawaii's needs by continued reliance on the single-use approach to land mangement.2 Although agreement has been reached in principle that the mUltiple-use approach should be applied in Hawaii, the limited appro- priations which have been made for the implementation of the various facets of such a program, as well as the weight of long-established attitudes and practices, have made progress slow. Furthermore, it is not likely that any pronounced movement toward multiple use of Hawaii's public lands will occur unless Hawaii's policy-makers are convinced that adoption of this approach will not endanger the major, estab- lished objective of forest land management--water supply--even as broader objectives are achieved. It is therefore necessary to examine carefully the chief objections which have long been made by those opposed to multiple use of Hawaii's forest lands, the alleged danger of water contamination and reduction in water yield. The most deter- mined opponents over the years to introduction of the mUltiple-use approach to land management hav~ been some officials of several of the county boards of water supply. These officials contended over many years that multiple use would threaten to contaminate the Islands' water supplies. Accordingly, they insisted that the rainfall- infiltration and run-off areas of the forests be protected by a veritable kapu. They feared particularly that the initiation of com- mercial forestry in these areas might serve to contaminate both 17 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH surface and underground water supplies. This position was steadfastly maintained, even though highly qualified foresters and other experts have advanced persuasive evidence that professional management of watersheds for a variety of purposes need not adversely affect the purity of water supplies, and ma~ even tend to increase water yield and improve the timing of flows. The present study does not permit an exhaustive analysis of the opposing positions, but considerable evidence has been weighed on the question of whether multiple-use management may be applied to Hawaii's forest lands in a fashion compatible with the maintenance of pure water supplies. While it is true that the uncontrolled deposit of enormous amounts of waste or contaminated water in areas above the Islands' basal water tables could dangerously contaminate water supplies, it appears to us that this threat is not inherent in the sound application of multiple-use programs to land management in Hawaii. There are a variety of effective techniques presently avail- able which could prevent the development of such a threat. For that matter, it appears to us that the long alleged threat of water con- tamination has been overstated, as is suggested by a growing volume of evidence, including the following: since 1962, treated sewage effluent combined with fresh water has been used to irrigate portions of the Oahu Sugar Company's fields located above the basal water supplies of central Oahu.4 The U. S. Geological Survey estimates that between half and two-thirds of the water utilized for sugar cane irri- gation eventually percolates into the basal water supply.5 Inasmuch as the Oahu Sugar Company's fields are located over a portion of the Ewa district water lens, a portion of the treated sewage from Schofield Barracks is incorporated into the basal water supply--without any apparent adverse effects whatsoever on the quality of the water in the underlying lens. This sewage effluent is, of course, further filtered as it percolates through the earth. On the basis of available evi- dence, it appears to be in no way noxious by the time it reaches the water lens. If this were not true, those responsible for the purity of Oahu's water supplies would have long since found it necessary to utilize chlorinators at nearby pumping stations. Further reassuring evidence is furnished by a Hawaii Water Authority report issued in 1959 which suggests that, as a last resort, and without reference to economic feasibility, an "adequate water supply can always be made available to the City of Honolulu" by running waste and sewer water through treatment plants and utilizing it for irrigating sugar cane in exchange for fresh ground water.6 In this same connection a 1963 research report on the character and extent of water quality problems in Hawaii discloses that ground- water supplies are not contaminated by cesspools, even when these pools 18 WATER CONSERVATION penetrate as deep as 60 feet into areas above basal water sources drawn on for human consumption, so long as the water travels a sufficient distance before it reaches the water table or pumping sta- tions which supply water for domestic use.7 The weight of evidence gathered to date indicates that sewage contamination is not reaching the basal water stations in Honolulu. The extensive filtration which takes place as contaminated water slowly works its way through many strata of soil and rock seems to have proved effective in preventing contamination. This is the case, even though these strata of lava rock, with their cracks, cinder beds, and lava tubes are a less effective filtering medium than sand, for example, through which it has been demonstrated that bacterial contamination will travel but a few tens of feet. Nevertheless considerable time is required for polluted water to penetrate the many strata of lava materials and lateral movement of ground water ranges from only a few inches to a few feet a day. Thus, months or even years may be required for water to reach withdrawal points at basal water stations. Since intestinal bacteria have a very limited life span in an unfavorable environment, it is fair to conclude that this threat of contamination of basal water supplies can be controlled. Among other things, this calls for carefully regulating the location and construction of septic tanks, cesspools, or similar facilities developed on the public lands. The examples presented in the foregoing discussion were selected in order to suggest that inasmuch as water contamination has not resulted in these extreme situations, it should not result from careful application of the multiple-use approach to Hawaii's forest areas. The proper development of commercial forestry, recreational facilities in wooded areas, hunting and fishing on the public lands, and the like would not, in any event, lead to the deposit of large quantities of waste in watershed areas. Unless the threat of contamination of sur- face streams and reservoirs were to become serious,8 with water being drawn directly from those streams and reservoirs for human use, one may reasonably conclude that multiple use of Hawaii's lands should not pose any serious threat to the Islands' water supplies. At the same time, it should be emphasized that Hawaii's policy-makers and citizens alike must always be concerned with the maintenance of ample supplies of uncontaminated water for domestic consumption. If careful consider- ation of all pertinent evidence reveals that broader use of watershed areas is compatible with the maintenance of adequate supplies of un- contaminated water, and will also produce other beneficial returns, then traditional concerns should not be allowed to stand in the way of implementing soundly conceived multiple-use programs. 19 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH The Threat of Residential Subdivision of Watershed Areas Another legitimate and understandable concern, especially on the part of officials of county boards of water supply, is that applica- tion of the multiple-use approach might lead to extensive subdivision of watershed areas for residential purposes. It must be made perfectly clear that the multiple-use policy recommended in this study does not envision the subdividing of forest lands for residential purposes. For that matter, subdividing land for residential purposes is directly counter to the policy goals of multiple use, since land utilized for residences can be used thereafter only for that purpose alone. While it is not true that the advocates of sound multiple-use programs propose residential subdivisions within Hawaii's forest lands, it is undeniable that there is mounting pressure to secure land for homesites throughout the Islands, especially on Oahu. These pressures will increase on the Neighbor Islands also, and demands may be made there to utilize portions of the watershed areas for residential purposes, thereby reducing infiltration areas. Those responsible for the maintenance of adequate water supplies fear that any substantive reduction in the State's forested areas would markedly diminish the quantity of water percolating to the water lenses by increasing the amounts of water lost through run-off. Policy-makers are properly concerned with this threat, but the matter is more complex than water conservationists have commonly suggested. Hawaii's most competent hydrologists have long known that effective techniques are available for recapturing run-off from residential areas. George Y. Ewart, speaking before the Conservation Council in 1961, maintained that more long-range research was needed to find ways of recharging the water lens by capturing the run-off from sub- division areas. He argued that: As long as our flood control projects and drainage facilities are de- signed to serve only one purpose, i.e., get rid of storm waters and run- off as rapidly as possible by wasting them into the ocean, then we must protect our watersheds against urban encroachment with its stripping, grading and scarring operations. 9 It should be emphasized that not all flood control and drainage facilities in Hawaii have been designed to get rid of storm water and run-off as rapidly as possible. In recent years, several flood control projects have been designed to recharge ground water supplies through the construction of retarding dams and reservoirs which permit 20 WATER CONSERVATION water to percolate through the underlying soil.10 Ewart, then, has not been alone in arguing that run-off from houses, lawns, and streets can be directed into recharge sumps or shafts, for these possibilities have long been the subject of extended research, especially by hydrologists and by the boards of water supply. 11 Specific and detailed plans have been made for the develop- ment of recharge sumps, but little has been done to implement them-- in part because it has not been evident that the maintenance of adequate water supplies on Oahu requires them. Such installations are expensive, especially if run-off is collected near sea-level, for the water has to be pumped up to recharge shafts at higher altitudes to permit percolation into the water lens. It is hardly necessary to add that, if such installations are constructed, suitable precautions will have to be taken to insure that the recaptured water will not contaminate basal water supplies. In conclusion, we must emphasize that this discussion should not be understood as recommending subdivision of forest reserve areas, but rather as a plea for thorough-going research and explora- tion of another of the concerns which have been responsible for mis- directed opposition to the application of the multiple-use approach to land management. Undoubtedly, these misapprehensions have retarded objective exploration of means for increasing water recovery from both forested and urban areas. This consequence was inevitable as long as Hawaii's policy makers accepted unquestionably the premises underlying the Forest Reserve Act of a half-century ago. The Multiple Use of Watersheds The degree to which the premises underlying the Forest Reserve Act has continued to determine public land policy may be more clearly seen by considering the regulations promulgated by the former Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry of the Territory of Hawaii on December 1, 1941. These regulations still exclusively govern Hawaii's four key watersheds. Among other things, they forbid "the cutting, killing, destroying, injuring, or otherwise damaging, or the removal of any grass, shrub, vine, plant or other vegetation, except as authorized by permission from the Territorial Forester or his agent.,,12 Although one can enthusiastically and whole-heartedly agree with the goal of preventing indiscriminate destruction, of ground cover, the question is whether regulations such as these have worked too broadly in restricting the development of forested areas for any purpose other than water conservation. The 21 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH deeper significance of these regulations may well be that they stem from and reflect a long-established tradition, as is shown in a major report published by the Honolulu Board of water Supply in 1948: It is the basic proposition of the writer of this report that the accumu- lated knowledge of the last 70 years should be the best guide to the future ... of all that we can now do, none could name a more worth- while objective than to dedicate permanently an area for a "forest reserve," a forest infiltration area through which the water that reaches us as rain may be transmitted to the underground water body upon which the life of Oahu will always depend.13 In keeping with this position, the board has, until very recently, opposed application of the multiple-use approach to management of watershed areas. This position was strongly reiterated in a state- ment presented to the Department of Land and Natural Resources which asserted that the mUltiple-use concept recently introduced into the state laws is "contrary to past thinking and experience of all who have had any responsibility in the protection of water sources and the supporting watershed and infiltration areas.,,14 Recently, however, the Honolulu Board of water Supply has become persuaded that although past experience should always be fully evaluated in formulating public policy, this evaluation, if it is to be valid for the present, must also assess new knowledge. It is not necessarily true that the knowledge accumulated in the past in Hawaii is lithe best guide to the future". Indeed, it can be a very misleading and inadequate guide in those cases where needs have changed and where additional knowledge has been gained. Policies suited to an earlier era may well fall short of meeting present needs, to say nothing of future needs. The single-use approach to public forest land management in Hawaii can no longer be accepted uncritically where it can be demonstrated that multiple use would effectively serve broader purposes, while continuing to insure an adequate supply of water for domestic and agricultural purposes. In substantial areas of the State, a mUltiple-use program of forest land management can serve community and plantation water needs fully as well or even more effectively than they are being served now. 22 CHAPTER III MULTIPl.E USE AND GRAZING Application of the multiple-use approach may serve to strengthen the Islands' presently depressed ranching industry in significant ways. In Hawaii, as well as on the American mainland, there has been a traditional conflict of interest, accompanied by sometimes bitter antagonism, between ranchers and conservationists. We have observed earlier that uncontrolled grazing contributed significantly to the destruction of Hawaii's forest cover during the 19th century. Ranchers deliberately destroyed tree cover over enormous areas, and some opposed enactment of the Forest Reserve Act in 1903. This traditional conflict between ranchers and proponents of sound forest management may be mitigated through application of the multiple-use approach, for it has been demonstrated that land can be used for grazing without undue injury to commercially valuable trees. Systematic experimentation has shown that, when tree seedlings of certain species reach sufficient height, cattle may be permitted to forage among the trees without undue damage.l Depending on the tree varieties planted, this form of multiple use may be undertaken in as little as six years after planting. cattle can then seasonally graze these areas for the following 15 to 20 years, i.e., until tree harvest- ing time, depending in part upon how closely the stands of trees are planted. This approach demands temporary withdrawal from grazing of those land areas requiring reforestation. While this type of multiple use of grazing-forest land has long been practiced on the mainland, its application to Hawaii has been delayed--and is likely even now to be resisted--due to certain charac- teristics of the ranching industry in the Islands. Of fundamental importance is the general reliance of Hawaii's ranchers on extensive, rather than intensive, use of land resources. For example, as of 1962, less than 175,000 cattle were grazing on more than 1,000,000 acres of land, a ratio of approximately one animal to 6 acres.2 (This ratio includes cattle in feed lots and intensively cultivated pasture. Otherwise it would be considerably higher.) This approach to land utilization constitutes inefficient use of resources. It also fails to produce high-quality beef. As a result, Hawaii's beef producers have had a shrinking share of the State's meat sales, even though the slaughter of locally grown animals has increased.3 until recent years, they supplied virtually the entire demand for beef: in 1952, 86 per cent of the local population bought island beef.4 By 1961, local beef production supplied only 57 per cent of the market demand, while 20 23 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH per cent was filled by cheaper, low-quality imports from Australia and New Zealand, and about 23 per cent by high-quality mainland imports. 5 Even if the slaughter of local animals were markedly in- creased, it ~ doubtful that low-quality Hawaiian beef could success- fully compete with imports under today's conditions of free competi- tion. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Hawaii's ranching industry is in difficult straits, and that an already serious situa- tion will continue to deteriorate as customer preferences continue to change. These facts are generally admitted, although the underlying causes of consumer demands are not always easy to diagnose, and competent men disagree about them. Among the pertinent factors may be the growing number of mainland migrants to the Islands, increased patronage of restaurants by both tourists and local residents, marked changes in the diet of successive generations of islanders of Oriental ancestry, and greater affluence in the community as a whole. Whatever the causes, the effects grow increasingly serious, and there is no indication of a reversal of the continuing consumer preference for standard grades of beef rather than the home-grown, but tough, local product. As mainland imports successfully challenge island beef producers for the discriminating palate, importation of Australian and New Zealand beef challenges island ranchers for the economy- minded segment of the market. Island ranchers are thus squeezed simultaneously from two directions, and profits from ranching have therefore declined precipitously. One study of the industry's profit margins during the two-year period, 1958-60, revealed that only 37 per cent of the 400 producers were making a net profit. The largest profit realized by the most efficient ranches was only$25 per acre per year, but few ranchers received even that. A more representative profit figure for the period was between $1 and$5 per acre per year.6 If the ranching industry is to be rejuvenated, basic changes in both ranch operation and techniques would be required. Among other things, Hawaii's cattlemen would have to make intensive, rather than extensive, use of land resources. Such a change in ranching practice could significantly increase total yield and improve the quality of island beef. Before sound policy decisions can be made, however, it will be necessary first to determine whether island beef producers should attempt to compete with high-grade mainland beef, the lower- grade imports, or either. Short of resorting to the dubious device of utilizing import quotas or other restrictive practices which generally invite damaging repercussions, it would probably prove extremely difficult for Hawaii's cattlemen to successfully challenge Australian and New Zealand beef 24 GRAZING producers. Rather than confront this competition, island beef pro- ducers might compete more profitably for the growing market for U. S. choice or prime beef. Successful competition for this market would require at least three major changes in ranching practices. First, it would be necessary to increase the percentage of island beef fattened in feed-pens rather than on the open range. Secondly, a number of changes in shipping practices, grain storage, and related parts of the process would be required to make pen-feeding more economical. 7 Finally, mainland grading techniques would have to be utilized more widely so that island and mainland beef could be marketed together at approximately the same price.8 It is hardly necessary to add that changes of this magnitude would require a high degree of cooperation within the industry. For instance, steps would have to be taken to facilitate the importation of feed at a bulk rate substantially lower than present container cargo rates.9 In some cases, this might be accomplished by the establishment of buying cooperatives. Cooperatives might also lower slaughtering costs, secure reduced interisland shipping rates, and reduce other production and marketing costs.10 In recent years at least, ranching has proven profitable chiefly for the larger operators. At this time there are approximately a dozen large independent ranches in Hawaii, with a few other large ranches operated as subsidiaries of plantations. 11 As such, they benefit from the generally strong capital positions of the Honolulu-based factors and from sharing overhead costs with other parts of the over- all plantation operation. still, they have not been doing well, and their operations have been cut back markedly in recent years. If profit margins continue to fall, it seems probable that they will increasingly be liquidated, and this possibility presents the State with several potentially serious problems,12 including an adverse effect on balance of payments, increased unemployment--especially on the Neighbor Islands--and considerable losses in taxable income. To avert these ills, Hawaii's beef producers will need both to become more efficient and to develop all possible sources of supplementary income. It is on this last point that adoption of the mUltiple-use approach to land management could make an especially valuable contri- bution. The rigid separation between range and forest lands associated with the single-use approach has generally precluded even controlled grazing in forest areas. At the same time, ranchers have failed to realize opportunities to supplement income by growing commercial timber on land hitherto used exclusively for grazing. By way of illustrating the wastefulness of past ranching practices as well as some of the potentialities of mUltiple use,_ we may observe that 25 MULTIPLE-USE APPROACH ranchers have regarded silk-oak, a choice cabinet wood, as a range pest. They have systematically eradicated stands of silk-oak from grazing areas. The wastefulness of this practice may be understood when one considers that,if land suited to the cultivation of silk-oak were properly planted to that species, its profit potential within 35 years would be approximately three times greater than the highest re- turns per acre per year now being realized by Hawaii's most prosperous ranching operation. Pictured below in Figure 2 is a 38-year old planted stand of silk-oak yielding 105,000 board feet per acre. Figure 2 Stand of SlIk·Oak. Island of Hawaii While full timber yields in areas planted to silk-oak or other timber trees could not be realized without markedly reducing the utility of the land for grazing, the combined yields from timber and grazing could be considerably greater than from either use alone.13 Multiple use of the hundreds of thousands of acres suited for grazing 26 GRAZING and commercial timber production could thereby increase returns significantly. The long-term welfare of Hawaii's ranching corporations depends indirectly upon the adoption of a multiple-use program which will serve to check soil erosion. A considerable amount of land well suited for timber production as well as for grazing is in need of protection from erosion. continued erosion of this land will ulti- mately render it useless for any productive purposes, while re- forestation of partially eroded ranch land at this time would minimize run-off and thereby also augment the state's water resources. In conclusion, there may be resistance to the adoption of the mUltiple-use approach to grazing land, even though this approach reflects well-established practices elsewhere. Yet there is every indication that it could be successfully and profitably applied to the more efficient utilization of Hawaii's scarce land resources. It will be difficult to break century-long habits and outlooks, but un- less Hawaii's ranching practices are greatly improved, this important industry, along with the people and industries dependent upon it for a livelihood, will continue to be confronted by grave difficulties-- and even the threat of ultimate failure. Adoption of the multiple-use approach wherever it is feasible would increase the amount of land in productive use in the state, while simultaneously yielding a larger net return to ranchers. 27 CHAPTER IV MULTIPLE USE AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES The preceding discussion of the advantages inherent in the mUltiple-use approach to public land management has been based essentially upon economic considerations. Important as these are, a more immediately promising contribution inherent in the multiple use of Hawaii's scarce land resources is its potential for developing a more salutary way of life for the Islands' citizenry. without question one of the most wholesome and cherished aspects of life in Hawaii has always been the unexcelled, year-round opportunities for outdoor recreation and enjoyment of the Islands' remarkable natural beauty. In the past, outdoor recreation has been easily and immedi- ately available to virtually all. Manifestly, this is no longer true. Swift population increases, diminishing availability of land, mis- carried plans for urban development, and the extraordinarily rapid urbanization of the city and County of Honolulu have occurred, even as opportunities for park development have been largely neglected. As a result, Honolulu's city dwellers suffer increasingly from the condi- tion aptly described as "urban cramp." This situation is neither healthy nor necessary, and is all the more regrettable given Hawaii's unique potential for outdoor recreation. The deprivations increasingly suffered by the residents of Honolulu's urban complex are accentuated by the fact that the forest reserve lands fringing the urban areas have been generally closed to recreational purposes. Many of these forested areas are not easily accessible, and little has been done to facilitate access to them. To be sure, some of these forested areas are in zones of high rainfall, and safe public use of them would require the development and mainte- nance of better trails. But, above all, management practices have been designed to discourage the public from making use of the most beautiful and conveniently located forests adjoining Honolulu. As early as 1922, territorial forester Charles Judd reported that his division had closed a 1,500-acre area behind Palolo and Manoa valleys on Oahu to "trampers," noting that heavy hiking traffic had disturbed forest cover and created difficulties for his rangers. Though these restrictions met with some opposition, he reported that they had been generally accepted "with good grace."l Hawaii's forest administrators have permitted limited hunting in forest reserves not considered crucial to the water supply,2 but territorial foresters have complained that public ignorance of the objectives of the forest reserve system has forced them to make an increasing number of arrests for such violations as hunting without a permit or disturbing forest growth.3 28 RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Re-examination of these restrictive policies is desirable in the light of two important developments. First, Hawaii's tourist trade has undergone a change in character in recent years as a result of startling developments in transportation, and increasing affluence and leisure. Faster and cheaper air travel is bringing more tourists to Hawaii than ever before. Also, many of these tourists seek a different kind of vacation experience in Hawaii. Until recently, most tourists to the Islands traveled first class, sought accommodations in hotels, and relaxed on the then uncluttered and attractive beaches of Honolulu. Their sightseeing on the Neighbor Islands was usually arranged by travel agencies, and was generally brief. Today, an increasing number of Hawaii's visitors are unable or unwilling to remain long in expensive hotels or resort areas. More tha