The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApril 19, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Agenda PacketMEETING OF THE KAUA'I COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2018 3:00 p.m. (or soon thereafter) L-Aiu'e Civic Center, Moikeha Building MEETING ROOM #2A/2B 4444 Rice Street, Lihu'e, Kaua'i AGENDA SWEARING IN OF COMMISSIONER '18 APR 13 All .55 A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA D. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2018 MINUTES E. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT - Individuals may orally testify on items on this agenda during the Public Comment Period. Please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting or notify Commission Staff at the meeting site. Testimony shall also be accepted when the agenda item is taken up by the Commission. However if an individual has already testified during this period, additional testimony at the agenda item testimony may be allowed at the discretion of the Chair. Testifiers shall limit their testimony to three (3) minutes, but may be extended longer at the discretion of the Chair. Written testimony is also accepted. An original and twelve (12) copies of written testimony can be hand delivered to the Planning Department or submitted to Commission Staff at the meeting site. F. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS G. COMMUNICATIONS H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government. April 19, 2018 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Agenda Page 2 I. NEW BUSINESS Alekoko Fish Pond TMK: 3-2-001:001, Huleia, Lihue Proposed conservation effort to remove approximately. 26 acres of invasive mangrove and to plant native Hawaiian vegetation. a. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. 2. Rutgard Residence - 4380 Amaama Road TMK: 5-5-004:008, Hanalei Bay, Hanalei Proposed nomination of the historic property to the National Register of Historic Places. a. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. J. COMMISSION EDUCATION COMMITTEE K. KAUAI HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE COMMITTEE L. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PUBLICITY COMMITTEE M. HANAPEPE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT COMMITTEE N. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS O. ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Commission may go into an executive session on an agenda item for one of the permitted purposes listed in Section 92-5(a) Hawaii Revised Statutes ("H.R.S."), without noticing the executive session on the agenda where the executive session was not anticipated in advance. HRS Section 92-7(a). The executive session may only be held, however, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members. present, which must also be the majority of the members to which the board is entitled. HRS Section 92-4. The reason for holding the executive session shall be publicly announced. Note: Special accommodations and sign language interpreters are available upon request five (5) days prior to the meeting date, to the County Planning Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 473, Lihue, Hawaii 96766. Telephone: 241-4050. COUNTY OF KAUA'I KAUA'I HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) was held on February 15, 2018, in the Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair James Guerber; Vice -Chair Anne Schneider; Althea Arinaga; Lawrence Chaffin Jr.; Gerald Ida; and Stephen Long. The following Commissioners were absent: Commissioner Deatri Nakea (excused); and Commissioner Victoria Wichman (excused). The following staff members were present: Planning Department: Myles Hironaka (arrived 3: 04 p.m.); Deputy Planning Director Ka`aina Hull; Shanlee Jimenez; Alex Wong; Boards and Commissions Office Staff. Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. The following staff member was absent: Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Deputy Planning Director Ka`aina Hull: Good afternoon Chair and members of the Commission, roll call. Commissioner Arinaga. Ms. Arinaga: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Chaffin. Mr. Chaffin: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ida. Mr. Ida: Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Long. Mr. Loner Here. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Schneider. Ms. Schneider: Here. Mr. Hull: Chair Guerber. Chair Guerber: Here. Mr. Hull: You have a quorum Mr. Chair. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is approval of the agenda. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we approve the agenda. Ms. Arina a: Second. Chair Guerber: Any discussion? (Hearing none) Any objections? (None) Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Chair. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 18, 2018 MINUTES Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is approval of the January 18, 2018 minutes. Ms. Arinaga: Move to accept. Ms. Schneider: I'll second. Chair Guerber: Any discussion? (Hearing none) Any objections? (None) Motion carried 6:0. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Hull: This next agenda item is agenda item E. Hearings and Public Comment. This is for individuals in the audience that may want to testify on any agenda item prior to it coming up. I see that there is only one member of the audience, and I believe she wants to speak during the actual agenda item. So we will hold off on that, Mr. Chair. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Mr. Hull: This next agenda item is, there are no announcements. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 19 COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Hull: There are no communications. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Review for Historic Importance of a 1.39 acre parcel located in "Aliomanu, `Aliomanu Ahupua`a, Koolau Moku, further identified as Tax Map Key (TMK) (4) 4-9-004:013, Owner: `Aliomanu Beach Living Trust a. Director's Report pertaining to this matter Mr. Hull: So we're on to agenda item H. Unfinished Business. Mr. Wong: Aloha, Alex Wong for the record. Mr. Wong read Supplement #1 To Planning Director's Report dated 1/29/18 for the record. (Document on file) Mr. Hull: For the Commissioner's edification the original Director's Report still stands as the Department has not found any reason to warrant a determination of historical integrity as far as architectural historical significance is concerned. Commissioner Ida pointed out that there could be historical significance on the site, but if it's archeological in nature it would take a significant amount of our research on behalf of the Department, which we quite honestly just don't have the resources to do that type of survey at this time. As of now the report stands that there is no architectural significance on the site. Ms. Schneider: So we need a motion to not... Mr. Hull: The Department is recommending this body find that there is no architectural significance on the site, architectural historical significance to the site; however, it's really at the discretion of this body where it wants to go. Chair Guerber: Do I hear a motion that there is no historical significance? Or there is historical significance? We need one or the other. Ms. Schneider: Based on what we've been presented with I make a motion that there's no historical significance to the structure. We don't know about the archeology and only testing will be able to tell us that. Ms. Arinaga: I second. Chair Guerber: Any discussion about this? (Hearing None) We have a vote. All in favor say aye? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Chair. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 19 2. Discussion on the.status of the Certified Local Government. Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is, agenda item for discussion on the status of the Certified Local Government. This is again a place holder for when KHPRC has the resources to send staff over to have discussions with the CLG or when the Department has updates concerning their CLG status and any upcoming events or happenings. At this time the Department has no reports and of course SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) is not here and not present. There really is no discussion on the CLG. NEW BUSINESS 1. L!hu`e Post Office TMK: 3-6-5:10, Lihu`e, Kauai Proposed Sale & Relocation of Services a. Letter (1/18/18) from Daniel B. Delahaye, USPS Federal Preservation Officer Request for Section 106 Consultation Mr. Hull`. The Commission is in receipt of a letter dated January 18, 2018 from Daniel B. Delahaye who is the USPS Federal Preservation Officer, request for Section 106 consultation with this body. Just as a refresher the United States Postal Service has put L-diu`e and Kauai on notice that it intends to or is looking at relocating postal services, and ultimately selling the Ldiu`e Post Office on the open market. The sale of it has been determined by the USPS to be apast. Potentially (it will) impact the historic property and therefore they're subject to Section 106 consultation which means they're required to consult with various parties. This body being identified as a consulting party to the process on what their findings are and you have that in the packet from Mr. Delahaye. Their findings are that ultimately the sale and transfer of the site on the open market will not have a detrimental effect on the historical integrity of the property. Much of that is predicated on the proposed private covenant that the USPS has provided in which they are stating that it ensures that the architectural integrity of the site will be maintained under the proposed covenants. It's open to you folks for your discussion and comment. I will urge this body ... the USPS gave each consulting party 30-days to provide comments and that 30-day window for both this body and the Planning Department runs up this weekend. As short notice as it is quite honestly action is necessary today. Chair Guerber: We have 2-days. Ms. Schneider. And the lease covenants, how are they enforced? And who enforces? Mr. Hull: There is a Covenant Holder and so they ultimately have to find somebody to hold that covenant. I can say that in a phone conversation with Mr. Delahaye he did inquire whether or not the County of Kauai would be interested in being a Covenant Holder and given the County of Kaua`i's participation in the Certified Local Government and its mission for historic preservation, I do think the County of Kauai could be an appropriate Covenant Holder. However, there are issues with the proposed covenant as drafted that we don't feel is adequate to ensure the protection and historic integrity of the site. If we ever entered into that we would have to resolve that. . February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 19 Chair Guerber: So the covenant would have to be rewritten to cover... Mr. Hull: In our interpretation of it, correct. If the Commission ... I drafted a letter. What happened was back in March the USPS entered into Section 106 consultation and they identified multiple parties as consulting parties. Those parties that they intend to consult for the historical review of the site and its possible disposal it identified; the National Trust Register Preservation, Historic Hawaii Foundation, the Lihu`e Business Association, the County of Kauai Planning Department, as well as the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission. There were two others. When they initiated Section 106 consultation I received an email from LISPS initiating 106 consultation and you folks are listed and we are listed. About 10 minutes after I received that email the same person that sent it to me, sent an email retracting those Section 106 consultation. I interpreted it as they were not entering into 106 consultation. Unbeknownst to me they didn't intend to send that retraction. While LThu`e Business Association, Historic Hawaii Foundation, and the National Trust did enter into 106 consultation (and) provided comments, we and this body did not because the Department was under the impression that it was not occurring. I contacted the USPS right after Christmas to inform them that we had not been provided, the Department nor this body was not provided the opportunity to participate in 106 consultation because of that retraction email, and I sent the email as proof that I wasn't lying. That's immediately when Mr. Delahaye who is the Historic Preservation Officer of the entire Federal United States Post Office program contacted us to say they will reinitiate 106 for just the County of Kauai Planning Department, and for this body. So that's what you have before you. I have speculated and I am sorry I didn't get to you earlier, we've been kind of scrambling and working with the County Attorney's Office a draft letter that the Department will be providing as a consulting party to this whole Section 106 process. And if Chair, if you allow me, I kind of want to go over briefly some of the points. Chair Guerber: Are you going to read the whole letter? Mr. Hull: I don't think it's necessary, we have bullet points and I can go over the introduction and the bullet points explain each of those bullet points briefly. It's about 7-8 pages long so I don't want to put the Commission through that. He sent his ... this is in direct response to his letter proposing closure and litigation measures. So this is our response and ultimately if this body wants to provide its own response that's what you guys are entertaining today. Mr. Chaffin: Excuse me. What's the date of this? Mr. Hull: Forgive me the letter is dated February 15, 2017, it should be 18. That's why we have "Draft" on there. I literally finished the first last sentences a few minutes ago. But we'll be sending that tomorrow, scrubbed and edit it down. But the letter opens, "Dear Mr. Delahaye, Thank you for your letter dated December 1, 2017 initiating the Section 106 process and granting the County of Kaua `i Department of Planning and the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission independent consulting party status for the future sale of the above referenced property. The subject property was listed on the Hawai `i and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and to this day the property maintains the historical and architectural integrity that was in place when listed in 1989. The subject property was listed on the Registers of Historic Places under the Secretary of the Interior's Applicable National Register Criteria A February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 19 and Criteria C, in that the subject property is A) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; and C) the subject property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. " And then our letter goes bullet point, by bullet point through a series of objections, so I'll just go through those bullet points. The first objection I made, "The County of Kauai Department of Planning OBJECTS to the defining of the Undertaking solely as a sale/transfer of the property out of federal ownership. The removal of the postal service from the Historic Lihu `e Post Office is also an Undertaking separate and apartfrom the sale/transfer; however, the removal of postal services is not listed." The essence of this is that the Section 106 review process that they have engaged both you folks as well as us is strictly on the sale. The Department as well as other organizations, including the Historic Hawaii Foundation, and the National Trust Register Preservation object to this because while the sale could potentially detrimentally affect the historical integrity of the site. That is our position that the postal services are integral to the historical significance of the site in that it was listed under Criteria A and C not just for architectural importance, but because of the role that the federal postal service plays at that site. It's intimately connected to its historic significance and therefore to parse out the removal of those services the County of Kauai feels it's inappropriate, and a separate Section 106 process should be initiated for the removal of postal services there. The second objection that the County of Kauai has is that "The County ofKaua`i Department of Planning OBJECTS to the limited Area of Potential Effect." When a Federal agency is proposing an undertaking and their doing Section 106 review they have to identify the area of potential effect. They have identified in their undertaking solely just the property which the Department, and again as well as Historic Hawaii Foundation, and the National Trust Register Preservation find as inappropriate, because it is immediately adjacent to the Lihu`e Civic Center Historic District. In that the Federal Postal Services operates in conjunction with this historical district and that the APE or Area of Potential Effect should be expanded in the proposed undertaking with the United States Post Office. The third bullet point is "The County of Kauai OBJECTS to the proposed National Register Addendum/Additional Information de -listing Criteria A from the Nomination Form/Sheet." In the packet you have ftom Mr. Delahaye he has provided two separate sets of documents. One is the covenant that would, what their claiming, ensure that the next holder or owner of the property would have to adhere to strict preservation standards. The other document they submitted is an addendum to the National Register Nomination form. The Department is in agreement with much of what he provides in the addendum, in fact the addendum provides additional information on the interior space and recognizes the significance of some parts of the Lihu` e Post Offices interior space that isn't recognized on the ' 89 listing. However, in the addendum there is a ... the USPS marked Criteria C and left out Criteria A and we strongly object to that. Because the fact that again it was originally listed with Criteria A that it's a major contributing, or part of, or associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history here in Hawaii. That is our next objection. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 6of19 The following objection after that is "The County of Kauai OBJECTS to the proposed Draft Preservation Covenant which could result in additional adverse effects." And we specifically state that "The County of Kaua `i, Department of Planning appreciates the proposed preservation covenant that would accompany the transfer of title of the subject property. However, the Department of Planning concurs with the assessment given by the Historic Hawaii Foundation (HHF) in their Section 106 comments. " In which they stated "A covenant thatprovides adequate legal protection of the historic property needs to include at least the following sections: " And there's a whole array. I am not going to go through them with you all, you can see them, of different things that should be included within the covenant. Some of these are actually included in the covenant proposed by USPS, but many of them are not. And many of the ones that are included are fairly lacking in specificity and this is the part where I was talking about earlier. The Department may be a willing participant in the covenant, but it's not until they are able to rectify these deficiencies would we be willing to enter into that program. Those two objections were just primary objections with the way in which USPS is proposing to mitigate any potential detrimental impact to the historical integrity of the site. The last two objections are just flat out calling a spade a spade and so the next objection states "The County of Kauai OBJECTS to the final decision made by the USPS to close the Lihu`e Post off ce prior to initiating the Section 106 process." Federal laws are very clear that any Federal agency participating in undertaking that could detrimentally affect or impact a historical property need to engage in the Section 106 review process prior to making a final decision. Tom Samra who is Vice President of USPS operations posted a letter, excuse me sent letter to the County of Kauai on November 29th informing the County of Kauai that a final decision had been made to sell the post office and relocate services. And the very next day is when they posted at the post office a notice to engage the public in Section 106 consultation as well as they began engaging with you folks and us on January l 8th. While we do have concerns about it and we have comments I guess in the beginning about the mitigation measures to the covenants as the addendum to the register overall, the whole process quite frankly is a bit shibai. Chair Guerber: So the 106 process is meant to help them make a decision. Mr. Hull: Correct. Chair Guerber: But they already said they made a decision first and then they're going through this sham. Mr. Hull: Correct. Chair Guerber: Of 106. Mr. Hull: Correct. That's kind of our final statement as far as the overall process and where that goes. The last statement is just something we had to bring up. When they posted in December 1 st to engage the public in Section 106 they had a posting outside of the post office notifying the public that they have 30-days to comment on whether, or provide input, on whether or not the public concurred or has comments on the finding of no detrimental effect on the historical site through the closure. There was no documentation provided to the public to comment on. We February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 19 raised this concern with the USPS on a letter, the same. letter that raised the concern that you folks haven't been able to engage in 106. We raised a concern that the public could not engage in 106 because the documentation wasn't provided. Mr. Delahaye contacted me and said they will be reinitiating the public Section 106 consultation process and a new posting was posted outside of the United States Post, the Lihu`e Post Office on January 18th the same time the letter was sent to you folks and to the Planning Department. Staff member Alex Wong recently went over to the L-liu`e Post Office to see if the posting was there, and it is, and it states that documentation will be provided at the front counter. When Mr. Wong approached the front counter and asked for the documentation the front counter informed him that there was no documentation available and was unaware of what to provide him. He did take Mr. Wong's contact information and state the post master will contact him in the future, but today Mr. Wong has not been contacted by any representative of the U.S. Post Office unveiling these documents to him. So we're objecting yet again to say, you're failing to meet the necessary criteria to engage the public in Section 106 review. So that is our letter in a nutshell. We provided that for you folks if you want to utilize some of that language for your own action, it's available. If you folks want to go and create some of your own letters of comments that of course is definitely your prerogative. I know Ms. Griffin is here to specifically speak on this item. But I leave it to the discretion of this body. Ms. Schneider: Could we have a letter in support of the County's objections? Chair Guerber: We sure can. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we have a letter in support of the County's objections to the way the 106 process has been portrayed to us and the ongoing closure of the post office. Chair Guerber: Do we want to list each objection that he specifies here? Ms. Schneider: Yes. Chair Guerber: Multiple motion, make this motion multiple motions. Ms. Schneider: To include all the objections that were included in the Planning Departments letter. Chair Guerber: We're looking for a second. Larry? Mr. Chaffin: Yes. Chair Guerber: Second from Commissioner Chaffin. Mr. Chaffin: Yes. Chair Guerber: Any discussion? February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 19 Mr. Long: I feel that's an appropriate way to approach the motion. I believe that certainly myself, is (in) support of all of the points and, recommendations made by the Planning Department in their letter. And I would like to add what one might consider a safety net mitigation comment. That is if at the end of this 106 process, and hopefully it will be carried out in proper manner, that if the post office is sold to another entity, that I noticed in the covenants provide for a new owner is an item of uses. The post office as we all know is the center of the community and holds a social fabric of a community together within a historical context of the downtown Llhu`e historic district. And that a mitigating factor, if a new owner purchases the building, that within the covenants there be a provision that there needs to be a similar use in the front of that building. So if the post office moves their operation, the social fabric as it relates to the historic context of Lihu`e historic district, will not be torn apart and that we can maintain the use if not the ownership. Mr. Hull: I think ... we don't have our illustrious County attorney here but I believe for clarity sake we need a motion to amend the existing motion to allow that. Chair Guerber: So you made that motion to amend it? How about a second? Ms. Schneider: I second. Chair Guerber: So now we have an amended motion on the table and a second, the amended motion. Any other discussion? Mr. Hull: Probably for simplicity sake maybe if you take a vote on Commissioner Long's motion, and therefore if it holds then it will hold with Anne's motion. But Anne's motion would still be open. Chair Guerber: Let's have a vote. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Chaffin: Can you clarify or site what that motion is? Chair Guerber: This is the motion to support the letter individually... Mr. Hull: No, the one you just voted on was the.... Chair Guerber: The original one with his amendment. Mr. Hull: No, it was Stephen's motion to amend. So essentially it includes Stephen's motion to require a mail type service or something similar at the front of the building and that now includes it within Anne's motion but the overall motion has not been voted on. It's still open. Chair Guerber: So we're still open. We're just voting on the amendment. Mr. Hull: Including (inaudible) February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 19 Mr. Chaffin: I have a question. Is this too vague that we're not being specific as to what the use is? Could it be a place that sells socks? Chair Guerber: Well, the post office currently doesn't sell socks. The post office now provides. mail service, so what we want to do to maintain that service for the historic district that all the people that now want to cross the street... Ms. Schneider: To keep the fabric... Chair Guerber: To place their mail, to get their mail, continue to do that. That's the motion in a very simplified way. That we maintain the historical significance of the post office even if the U.S. Post Office isn't in that building. Mr. Hull: Correct. So ultimately it's to have a mail service use or something similar in nature to that use at the front of the building and ultimately the Covenant Holder, if one is found, would be the responsible party for interpreting what is similar in nature to that mail type usage. Chair Guerber: Should we specify what these, those things. are or should we wait? Mr. Hull: It's at the discretion of this body coming from the Planning Department and familiarity with land usage it's a never ending... Ms. Schneider: So what do we need now, a second? Mr. Hull: Well your motion is still on the floor. I think you... Chair Guerber: We voted on the amendment. Mr. Hull: No, the vote is already taken on the amendment. So the amendment passed and is now part of the overall motion. We're still engaging in dialogue and discussion on whether or not additional language is going to be added to Commissioner Schneider's motion and also to, I would recommend the opening to a certain point the discussion up to the general public. Chair Guerber: I would like that. Should we take a vote first? Mr. Hull: No, so the vote would end it. Chair Guerber: Now we're doing (inaudible). Let's open it up to the public. I am suspending the rules at this point. Pat Griffin: Good afternoon Chair Guerber and Commissioners, my name is Pat Griffin and I feel privileged to be here with you today on this unfortunate topic. The work that the Planning Department has done on this is excellent and it follows strong objections from Historic Hawaii Foundation and from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. One of the issues with Ann Sarver's Facilities Headquarters person from her letter of last spring was that area of potential effect, when the post office is defining it simply by the properties boundary. She had mostly February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 19 inaccuracies on when the surrounding properties were built. We are now in an historic building which she dated it ' 78 instead of ' 64 to ' 66, and there were several others. That area of potential effect is really important because it supports the idea of a covenant, being to have some P.O. (Post Office) boxes remain in that post office building. And I know since you all are preservation experts at this stage you know that we judge things in the historic preservation by areas of integrity. One of those areas of integrity is association and that building has always since 1939 been associated with post office activities. It will affect other historic properties not only this Civic Center historic district, but the historic museum, the historic Civic Center. A thousand people are employed by the County. There are a lot of P.O. boxes so I would encourage a strong statement about that, and also to repeat all of those additional issues and it's in the Planning Departments letter. You can also go back to Historic Hawaii Foundations letter to list those. It's a little difficult not to get angry at some of the things because in fact the first letter that went up at the post office was last February 1 st saying that it was no longer necessary, and listed to be sold at fair market value. Then they said wait a minute we haven't done this. But Samra talks about the public meetings, but they didn't as being part of the open process, but they didn't have any sign in sheet, they took no notes, and they were proforma. So this 30-day period, as president of the L-1hu`e Business Association I wrote on April 27th asking to be a consulting party and I have not heard anything since. Anything you can do to support the Planning Department by saying this is not a true Section 106 review process would be helpful. To recap, I think that actually listing additional covenants that should and having them run with the deed so they are attached in perpetuity and adding that ability to retain some post office presence there through P.O. boxes. Objecting to the process itself because if any of these organizations (like) Historic Hawaii, National Trust, actually formally object to the Section 106 process as having been inadequate, you will have documented that also. Thank you. Chair Guerber: Any questions? Mr. Ida: You're here today as a private citizen? Ms. Griffin: I am. But for full disclosure I sit on the Board of Trustees of the Historic Hawaii Foundation. Mr. Hull: Pat, I know that you have some familiarity with the artwork that was at the post office. In reviewing the register nomination forms the artwork was actually catalogued and would appear to be a contributing element to the historic significance of this site. Do you have any insight as to where that artwork is now? Ms. Griffin: Generally, the current post master said there are 3 pieces of artwork. I think that she's confused. There are two pieces that were done by Marguerite Blasingame at the, during the work progress administration in the depression. The last I heard from a previous post master was that they were in the administrator's office, I know that Joline knows about them, what. happened is (the) comp blower was vandalized and the bottom section of that got broken off. I've asked the National Trust because there is some evidence that at least some artwork in public buildings has to remain in the public, it doesn't get sold with the building. I haven't been able to ascertain (and) I don't know if it's just a certain period that required that or if all the public art. But if you're going to talk to Mr. Delahaye that is a really good question to ask. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 19 Mr. Hull: The art isn't there right now? Ms. Griffin: No, after it was vandalized the comp blower was removed and then they put up some sort of security or something that there was an ads holder that was above the door that goes into the post masters office in the back part, and that one came down because there's some obstruction there now. But those are important pieces, Marguerite Blasingame also did the beautiful art deco bridges at Ala Moana Beach Park, if you've admired them and did wonderful piece of Pele at the Volcano House and other artwork around the islands. Mr. Hull: In your capacity as a member of the public would.you be amenable or advisable to the motion that the artwork be restored and returned to its original place in the covenant? Ms. Griffin: If it's sold with the building it will enter (and) probably become a private ownership. So I think the first thing to do is to establish whether it must remain in public domain. Chair Guerber: You're saying that the artwork is historic in itself? Ms. Griffin: It's historic in itself and it is a part of (the) public heritage. Chair Guerber: Any other discussion? Ms. Griffin: Thank you. Chair Guerber: We have before us a motion. Mr. Long: If I may add potentially two amendments to the existing motion on the floor. Mr. Hull: So Commissioner just for clarity sake because I know Sandra (Muragin) will be drafting these minutes. You may want to start off with I would like to make a motion to amend. Mr. Loner I would like to make a motion to amend the current motion that is open on the floor with two points. One is to underscore the bullet point request by the Planning Department in their February 15, 2018 letter to the Federal Preservation Officer of the United States Postal Service that the government and the postal service are here to serve us the citizens of this country, and we have a process called Section 106 to make sure that the government operates in a way that looks out for the citizens. It's very clear from the testimony presented by the public and the Planning Department that Section 106 has been violated and not been processed in a proper, and correct, and legal fashion, and I would propose that the Section 106 process be done from brand new start all over and be done properly. Secondly, there is some artwork associated with the post office that is mentioned in the National Register of Historic Places application and that artwork should be located, identified, restored, and remain in the public domain not sold and become private property with the building. Ms. Arinaga: I second. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 19 Chair Guerber: So this motion ask and demands that the 106 process starts again from scratch in good faith from the government and that we want to be consulted with it all along the way. Ms. Axinaga: And the second part of that would be... Chair Guerber: That the artwork be preserved, restored, and returned, and remain in the public domain not part of a private sale. Mr. Chaffin: I have a question on the term restore. What does that mean? Chair Guerber: There are museums around the country that restore artwork that will take upon themselves that they will repair tears, blotches, whatever and they will actually do the restoration so you can (inaudible), as close as they can so it looks as good as it was before. Any more discussion? Mr. Ida: I really like making them do it all over again. My experience with 106, I've seen so many times where I think the government is trying to slide everything under. So yes, I totally agree. Chair Guerber: Yes, this property is very vital to this community in a historic sense. So let's have a vote. All in favor of these motions? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: Motion carried. So that again was the motion to amend the original motion so (it) now includes these two other points of.. . Chair Guerber: Are we ready to vote on the original motion? Mr. Hull: You want to ask for further discussion. Chair Guerber: For further discussion? Mr. Hull: I think I'll say.to all parties here (we) are looking at the fact that the Section 106 process has just been not executed in good faith, and I think this body has seen several proposals under Section 106 particularly because of the highway improvements that you guys see and over the past few years you know... Ms. Schneider: Like for the consultant much more than us. Mr. Hull: They want to enter into a memorandum agreements with you folks, they want to bring you guys to other meetings, and it's an ongoing dialogue the DOT (Department of Transportation) has had with you folks on projects that have very little impact on historical sites in some situations. And low and behold we have this other agency coming that is a clear impact to historical resource and... Ms. Schneider: And an impact to this town. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 19 Mr. Hull: And I can also say that the Department on behalf of the Commission did request that Mr. Delayhaye or a representative from USPS be present to engage in a dialogue. Mr. Delayhaye stated that could not occur. The Department requested his reconsideration and that you do indeed send a staff member to engage in a dialogue to have a meaningful discussion towards the 106 consultation and again he did have to decline. He did mention that if there are any questions that the Commissioners or the Commissioners as a whole have he would be more than willing to answer them to the best of his ability. When I responded in the email would that extend the 30-day window? I didn't get any response yet. Chair Guerber: Is there anything we can say to make it stronger? Mr. Hull: From the Departments position I think this is sufficient. Mr. Chaffin: Could there be clarification that it doesn't have to be in person on the site. Could it be done through telecommunications, video, or some other such... Mr. Hull: We can follow up with Mr. Delayhaye and to see if he is able to perhaps engage in a Skype type of dialogue with this body. But for the purposes of the fact that 30-day window does close in the next few days the Department would recommend that you folks take action here today, and then we'll follow to see if he can engage in...say a video dialogue or teleconference. Chair Guerber: All in favor of this motion say aye? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? Mr. Chaffin: Whatever the motion is. Chair Guerber: It's the original motion that Anne proposed. Chair Guerber: Are there any opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: The motion passes. 2. Appointment of investigative committee members (Permitted Interaction Group) to discuss, explore, and survey other parts of Island of Kauai to update the Kauai Historic Resource Inventory. Once formed and the task completed, the investigated committee will present its findings to the Commission in a duly noticed meeting for decision -making. Ms. Schneider: I would like to continue doing this. I know Stephen is going to be off the commission in the next couple of months so we need another person at least to participate. Chair Guerber: Must the members of this committee be Commissioners? Ms. Schneider: Yes. Mr. Hull: Technically yes. We did check with the County Attorney's office. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 19 Ms. Schneider: Jim, if you have some free time and Ku'ulei, if you have some free time. Chair Guerber: How much time does it take? I have no time. Ms. Schneider: It doesn't take that much. We go out, we look at properties, and we figure we try to get to Kapa` a, maybe beach neighborhoods as the district. Chair Guerber: Okay, I'll do it. Mr. Hull: Generally there will be a nomination to it and then a vote. So... Ms. Schneider: I nominate Jim. Mr. Hull: And then I guess if a Commissioner would be willing to nominate Commissioner Schneider. Mr. Long: I nominate Commissioner Schneider to be on this PIG. Mr. Hull: So that's two. Mr. Long: I also nominate Victoria Wichman. Chair Guerber: That's three. Mr. Hull: Three is a sufficient number. If there are any other Commissioner's that are interested, they can have more. Ms. Schneider: I nominate Ku'ulei if she has time. Ms. Arinaga: I will. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Arinaga. Mr. Ida: I have a question. What is the Kauai Historic Resource Inventory? Mr. Hull: Under both the Certified Local Government program as well as the Historic Preservation Review Commissions enabling ordinance the County of Kauai is required to maintain a Historic Resource Inventory of sites here on the island, and it's essentially... for the most part it adheres to the Secretary of Interior's standards to recognize historically significant sites here on Kauai above and beyond say the 50 year threshold. So you have the 50 year threshold that now it's only placed on non-residential structures and all those can be considered historic. The loose way of describing the inventory is, it's above and beyond the 50 year cycle but it's not quite as high as the State or National Register. It's just an inventory that the County of Kauai recognizes these as historically significant and in many situations of course qualify to be nominated to the State or National Register, but it's up to whether or not the landowner wants those nominations to occur. So where it comes into the actual regulatory review or this body's February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 19 authority under Hawaii Revised Statutes, any non-residential structure over 50 years old is considered historic. For years it was every structure over 50 years or older is historic, so therefore any of those structures that were proposed to get a building permit or zoning permit and for alterations or changes or demolitions the Department would send to you folks for your review. Now that the Hawaii Revised Statutes have been changed to say its only non-residential structures over 50-years old that are considered historic. The County of Kauai utilizes this Historic Resource Inventory particularly for residential structures to say it has been identified as a historically significant structure, and if you are proposing to do any alterations you have to go before the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission for their review and comments. Does that make sense? I might have been a little long winded on that. Mr. Ida: Yes, but so this does not include pre -historic... Ms. Schneider: Oh no it does include, it does include archaeology. Mr. Hull: Myles, does the historic inventory include pre -historic sites. Mr. Hironaka: The existing historic inventory includes registered sites. Mr. Hull: So registered pre -historic sites. Mr. Hironaka: Yes, correct. Mr. Ida: Registered with whom? Mr. Hironaka: Registered with the State or the National Register. Mr. Ida: Oh, you mean it has to be on the National or the State Register? Mr. Hironaka: Well just for clarification, the current just includes that. Mr. Hull: So the current inventory, the one we first hired the consultant services back in the `80's to catalog historically significant sites on Kauai, those would automatically include the National or State Register sites. But then the inventory went above and beyond that to recognize other structures or buildings or sites that are of historic significance. But from what I am understanding from Myles, that the further up, beyond the National and State Register didn't include pre -historic sites. Mr. Ida: But it can. Mr. Hull: But it can, yes. Chair Guerber: And does this PIG determine whether it will or not? What is the purpose of this? Ms. Schneider: We have been looking at structures. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 19 Chair Guerber: Structures? Mr. Hull: Yes, and its not to say that the PIG could not entertain pre -historic. I think the reason being that the expertise of this body have been primarily architectural as well as the services that was rendered on the original survey. But that's not to preclude that Commissioner Ida with your expertise.if you wanted to join the PIG and look at other sites as well. I think that would be appropriate if you wanted to join in. Mr. Ida: Good to know. Chair Guerber: Where are,we? Mr. Hull: So currently we have Commissioner Schneider, Commissioner Arinaga, Chair Guerber, and Commissioner Wichman nominated to the Permitted Interaction Group. If there are no others the Department would recommend closing the nomination. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we close the nomination Ms. Arinaga: Second. Chair Guerber: All right, all in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: Not to be parliamentarian, that was just a motion to close the nomination. Now you have to have a motion to approve the nomination. Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we approve the nominations. Ms. Arinaga: Second. Chair Guerber: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? (Hearing None) Any objections? (None) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carried 6:0. Mr. Hull: The motion passes. For the Commission and Commissioner's own edification should any other Commissioner like to join the PIG there is still one more slot available that would ... no, sorry, that's four. Actually there would be no other slots available, I apologize. And with that we concluded the agenda Chair. COMMISSION EDUCATION COMMITTEE KAUA'I HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE COMMITTEE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PUBLICITY COMMITTEE February 15, 2018 KFIPRC Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 19 HANAPEPE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT COMMITTEE SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS Chair Guerber: Next meeting. Do we know when the next meeting would be? Mr. Hull: It will be the third Thursday of March. Currently we don't have any potential projects but if we get some we will be forwarding you the agenda. ADJOURNMENT Chair Guerber: Can I have a motion to adjourn? Ms. Schneider: I make a motion that we adjourn. Ms. Arinag_a: Second. Chair Guexber: All in favor... Mr. Chaffin: What were the dates again? Mr. Hull: It's the third Thursday of the month. Chair Guerber: These meetings are always on the third Thursday of every month unless notification (or) unless there's nothing to review, which the Planning Department will tell us about that. Mr. Long: I have a question. When we did the historic surveys with the previous PIG the work that Myles did to prepare the site tours was extraordinary. And with the absence of his recommendations, I am just hoping that the Department can find the resources to support that kind of effort in the future for this new PIG, whose community it hasn't been decided yet. But one for consideration might be Kapa`a Town. Ms. Schneider: Kapa`a, I think the baby beach area. Chair Guerber: So those notes are preserved right? Mr. Hull: Correct. Chair Guerber: Digitally? Is that how it's done? Mr. Hull: Yes, correct. So Myles was taking care of it and I think we will be working resources wise (on) who, what staff member will be going along, whether it's Myles, or whether Alex will be picking up the reins, we'll have that in the discussion. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 19 Mr. Lona: Alex has been terrific also. Ms. Schneider: And we want to thank the Department for providing the support. Chair Guerber adjourned the meeting at 3:59 p.m. Respectfully Submitted; Sandra M. Muragin Commission Support Clerk O Approved as circulated. () Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting. February 15, 2018 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 19 Michael A. Dahilig Director of Planning COUNTY OF KAUA'I PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ka`aina S. Hull Deputy Director of Planning DIRECTOR'S REPORT Kauai County Historic Preservation Review Commission I. SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC: II. PROJECT DATA Consideration of the subject parcel and the proposed conservation effort to remove approximately 26 acres of invasive mangrove and to plant native Hawaiian vegetation. 4 PROJECT INFORA►MTION �"' �. Parcel Location: Hule`ia, Li1iu`e Tax Map Key(s): 1(4) 3-2-001:001 Area: 55.408 acres LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & VALUES Zoning: I NIA I State Land Use District: I Conservation f General Plan Designation: I Natural Owner(s): I Okada Trucking Company, LTD I III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE BACKGROUND The subject lot of record is located at 2310 Hulemalu Road in Lihu`e, Hule`ia Ahupua`a, Puna Moku, Kauai, The subject lot of record is privately owned by Okada Trucking Co., LTD, and is approximately 55.408 acres (2,413,572 sq ft) according to County of Kauai Real Property records. It is located within the State Land Use Conservation District and General Plan Designation Natural. The lot of record includes Menehune Fishpond, also known as Alekoko Fishpond, a loko wai adjacent to Hule`ia Stream and over 1,000 meters west/upstream of Nawiliwili Small Boat Harbor. Menehune Fishpond is separated from Hule`ia Stream by a stone -faced dirt wall approximately 900 meters long. The fishpond is located below Hulemalu Road, which IAPR 19 2018 TMK: (4) 3-2-001:001 April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 7 runs east -west, and the well-known Menehune Fishpond Overlook is a popular turn-off along the highway that provides an expansive view of the historic site. The surrounding properties in the vicinity of the fishpond are predominantly zoned as Conservation, Agriculture, and Rural/Open towards Niumalu Beach Park. According to the description provided by the Applicant in the August 18, 2017 Departmental Determination Request, "The condition of the walls has deteriorated since the listing on the National Register. The fishpond walls are currently covered with mangrove. From what we can see it appears that the roots are damaging the wall structure. We won't know the true condition of the wall until the mangrove has been removed." The makaha, auwai, and fish pens are also covered in dense mangrove, and will be inspected by an archaeologist during the preclearing survey along with the other significant locations of the project area (stockpiling site, staging site, etc.). The Applicant also provided an on -site vegetation inventory of invasive/non-native and other (ornamental, canoe plants, etc.) species, as well as onsite fauna inventories of fish and invertebrates, and observed birds, documented at Hule'ia National Wildlife Refuge and nearby waters. The Applicant clearly states the proposed project is only for mangrove removal and planting of native Hawaiian vegetation. Applicant is not proposing to bring back the loko is back to operational condition at this time, adding that it is best to allow the system to find balance and to monitor the response of the hydrology and fishery over some time before determining what level of restoration would be needed to bring it to operational level. Lastly, the Applicant discusses Best Management Practices to be implemented throughout the length of the project. Sediment BMPs will be employed throughout the mangrove removal, and Earthworks Pacific will ensure pond outlets will minimize sediment release into HuWia Stream. Mangrove removal around the historic rock wall will be done by hand to avoid impacts to the archaeological feature. EXISTING STRUCTURES & PERMIT HISTORY Based. on the information -gathered. by the Planning Department, the subject property currently has no known permitted structures situated on the lot of record. Below is a list of the recorded permit history 1. Permit No. SMA(M)-1987-16 — Clearing and grubbing land. Applicant: Rego's Trucking, Ltd. on January 13, 1987. 2. Permit No. SMA(U)-1982-4 -- Subdivide into 24 lots. Applicant: Hawaiian Oceanic Enterprise, Inc. on November 12, 1981. 3. Permit No. Z-801-1983 & SMA(X)-83-2 -- Temporary Movie Filming Sites. TMK: (4) 3-2-001:001 April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 7 Applicant: Paramount Pictures, Inc. received on May 12, 1983. 4. Subdivision S-78-78 —3-lot subdivision: one lot Urban, one Ag, and one Conservation. Subdivision of Lot 1-B-3 into Lots 1-B-3-A, B, and C. Applicant: Kanoa.Estate Inc. Final Approval on July 12, 1978. Subdivision S-74-110 — Subdivision of Lot 1-E into Lots 1-E-1 and 1-E-2. Applicant: Emilio M. Olivas / Kanoa Estate Final Approval on July 10, 1974. IV. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS The Menehune Fishpond was placed on the Hawaii Register of Historic Places (SIHP No. 30-11-0501) and the National Register of Historic Places (No. 73000677) on March 14, 1973. The loko i`a once measured nearly 40 acres of open water, but is now approximately 23 acres and measures only 550 meters by 215 meters at its widest cross sections due to the overgrown invasive vegetation. According to the National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, it is the most significant and oldest fishpond on Kauai, and the best example of an inland fishpond in the entire state. Additional resource materials submitted by the Applicant include: 1. Mangrove. Removal Work Plan prepared by Malama Hule'ia. (July 28, 2017) EXHIBIT `A' 2. Alekoko Coastal Wetland Restoration National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant (NCWCG) Proposal and Ranking Criteria prepared by Malama Hule'ia. (August 2017) 3. Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan for the Eradication of the Invasive Red Mangrove in the Huleia River Watershed, L-iu`e, Kauai prepared by Paul L. Cleghorn, Ph.D. Pacific Legacy, Inc. (February 2018) EXHIBIT `B' 4. Final Environmental Assessment / Finding of No Significant Impact for the Statewide Programmatic General Permit and Programmatic Agreement for the restoration, repair, maintenance and reconstruction of traditional Hawaiian fishpond systems across Hawaii. DLNR was pursuing a State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) from the federal government that will allow the State to streamline the permitting process by utilizing a single application process for the above activities. A Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) will also be required for the program. This Programmatic FONSI does not constitute approval of the CDUA. Prepared by Honua Consulting with the support of Conservation International Hawaii Fish Trust for Department of Land and Natural Resources. (October 2013) EXHIBIT `C' TMK: (4) 3-2-001:001 April 19, 2018 Page 4 of 7 5. Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) ST-3703: Hoala Loko Ia submitted by Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, Applicant. Ho'iila Loko Pa is a proposed Statewide Programmatic General Permit and Programmatic Agreement for the repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation of traditional fishpond systems in Hawaii. The intent is to provide cultural practitioners with a single application and permit, processed by the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL), which will encompass the five (5) potential permits that are currently required for restoration activities. The program has been designed to be in compliance with seventeen distinct federal and state regulations. (June 27, 2014) EXHIBIT `D' V. AGENCY COMMENTS 1. On August 18, 2017, the Applicant from Malama Hule'ia submitted a Departmental Determination (DD-2018-5) to the Planning Department regarding the "Applicability of Special Management Area `Development' definition to a proposed use". The proposed. project included invasive vegetation (mangrove) removal using a combination of hand-cut/hand-removal and mechanized equipment, without grading or grubbing. The proposed project also included the placement of a storage container for keeping tools onsite, and the possible construction of a traditional Hawaiian hale (a minor accessory structure) "to have a shady area for volunteers to meet and learn. The project proposal also outlined BMPs to be used for sediment and erosion control and archaeological survey. The workplan submitted with this request for a Departmental Determination was based on the evaluation and proposal done by Earthworks Pacific for Malama HulCia, 2. On September 27, 2017, Planning Department responded with the determination that "Development" does constitute "Grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials." Furthermore, any grubbing, grading or stockpiling, in addition to the construction of the future hale will require submittal of an SMA Minor permit. 3. On October 25, 2017, the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) reviewed the Applicant's submittal regarding proposed work at Alekoko Fishpond. OCCL forwarded the application to the following agencies for comment: DLNR's Land Division, Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR), Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), and Historic Preservation; the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Kuaaina Ulu Auamo, the County of Kauai Planning Department; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Regional Office; and the State Department of Health, Environmental Planning Office. TMK: (4) 3-2-001:001 April 19, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Respondents included DAR, DOFAW, County of Kauai Planning Department, and OCCL. This correspondence, including the respective conditions and recommendations, are attached to this report as EXHIBIT `E'. 4. On December 20, 2017, Pacific Legacy, Inc. sent correspondence to the Applicant stating that the initial fieldwork portion of the archaeological inventory survey (AIS) of an approximately 3.83 acre section of the proposed project area was conducted between November 27 and 30. No archaeological sites were identified along the access pathway portion of the project area. The intent of this AIS is to minimize the impacts to potentially significant archaeological resources identified during the survey. Therefore, it is recommended that all archaeological sites identified during the AIS be avoided during the length of the project. EXHIBIT `F' 5. On March 29, 2018, the Applicant emailed the Planning Department correspondence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Alckoko Fishpond Restoration project was assigned a Department of the Army (DA) file number POH-2017-00195, and reviewed pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Based on the application presented, Army Corps made the determination that the proposed project would not involve an activity subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps, and therefore a DA permit is not required. VI. EVALUATION In reviewing the proposed project site for historical significance, the following should be considered: 1. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) should be considered when evaluating a property's potential for designation as "historically significant". The U.S. Department of the Interior's four National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria for evaluation should also be considered to insure that the County of Kauai remains consistent with national standards. Criteria A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; • Based on the information ascertained by the Planning Department, the existing fishpond can be linked to the long established history of traditional Hawaiian/Kauaian aquaculture and its presence on Kauai. This specific fishpond does reflect a significant historic trend, and therefore this property does meet TMK. (4) 3-2-001:001 April 19, 2018 Page G of 7 National Register Criteria A. Criteria B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; • Based on the information on record at Real Property Assessment and the Planning Department, the existing fishpond and historic site cannot be directly linked to any specific, distinguished local residents who have contributed greatly to the history of Kauai, Hawaii, and the United States. Without further information on the detailed history of the property itself, the justification for meeting Criteria B is not adequate. Criteria C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Based on the limited information on record at the Planning Department, it is apparent that this traditional Hawaiian fishpond is unique as it has been cited as the best example of an inland fishpond in the entire State of Hawaii. This style of architecture and land use is distinctive of the native Hawaiian culture and traditional aquaculture practices and method of fishpond construction that does represent a unique period of history. Justification for Criteria C is adequate. Criteria D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. • Based on the information gathered by the Applicant and the archaeological consultant, it possible that the historic fishpond may yield information important in history or prehistory due to the large size, location, type of land use, and years of human activity. Therefore, this property does meet Criteria D. 2. The National Register of Historic Places Inventory — Nomination Form was prepared by B. Jean Martin, Archaeologist, on September 29, 1971. The nomination form does not include which criteria the historic property meets to qualify for National Register of Historic Places status. The National Register Verification was. certified on March 14, 1973. The original application makes no reference to any of the National Register of Historic Places Criteria for nomination, nor does the application form address the applicability of any type of criteria or standard for register qualification. TMK: (4) 3-2-001:001 April 19, 2018 Page 7 of 7 VII. CONCLUSION Based on the information contained in the Report's Findings and Evaluation, the Planning Department finds that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the historic property. VIII. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing evaluation and conclusion, the Planning Department recommends that the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission SUPPORT the proposed invasive mangrove removal and native vegetation planting, provided that the Applicant adheres to the following conditions: 1. Applicant should be aware of the Section 106 applicability due to the use of Federal funds and the listing of this property on the National Register of Historic Places. 2. Applicant should be aware of HRS 6E-10 Review process as it pertains to privately owned properties listed on the Hawaii or National Registers of Historic Places. The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department's final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making. The entire record includes but is not be limited to: a. Government agency comments; b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and c. The land owner's response. By -ax-t-, �� --K ALEX WONG Planner Approved & Recommended to Commission: By KA`ATNA S. HbLL Deputy Director of Planning Date: I "L II EXHIBIT `A' Mangrove Removal Work Plan Project Summary This work plan is based on the evaluation and proposal done by Earthworks Pacific for Malama HulMa (MH), a non-profit with the mission to eradicate invasive mangrove from the Hule`ia River watershed. MH has successfully removed mangrove and restored nearly 4-acres of wetland along Pu'ali Stream to where it meets the Huleia river. (Map). The initial project provided the experience at mangrove removal and provided background for assessments and planning for a watershed scale project. The proposed project, located at Alekoko Fishpond (TMK:32001001000), is the next phase of mangrove removal in our overall plan. This project plans to remove approximately 26-acres of mangrove and replant with native Hawaiian vegetation in the supra -tidal areas suitable for planting (approx. 15-acres). The proposed removal includes two primary removal methods: 1) Hand cut (chainsaw/hand remove 2) Use mechanized heavy equipment. The hand cut/hand remove method will be used in areas of archaeological sensitivity such as the rock wall and any other areas identified by our archaeological survey. The mechanized equipment will be used only in appropriate areas. The project involves cutting the mangrove close to ground level, while leaving the root system intact so as to minimize disturbance to soil. The exception will be where mangrove air roots hang in the water and have only slight contact with the pond sediment. These will likely be pulled rather than cut, resulting in less root biomass left in water to decay over time. The steps involved in this project are as follows: 1. Archaeological pre -clearing survey and associated BM Ps. 2. Prepare stockpile area and access. 3. Order specialized equipment (shear attachment) 4. Set up plant nursery and start growing native plants to cover exposed areas. 5. Prepare a perimeter path along the edge of the mangrove along back (north) side of pond. 6. Clear mangrove with mechanized equipment along back (north) side of pond starting at upstream end and working down. 7. Plant native Hawaiian vegetation in cleared areas as soon as equipment out of way, working in acre plots. 8. Simultaneously clear mangrove with hand cut hand remove technique along the rock wall and other archaeologically sensitive areas. 9. Final area to be cleared and replanted with native Hawaiian vegetation will be the awai that drains the pond to the HulMa River between the access road and river. Specialty Equipment Based on review of other mangrove removal projects and in consultation with Earthworks Pacific, specialty equipment will be required: • Long Stick Excavator — Earthworks Pacific currently has a long stick for a CAT 325 on Kauai for projects that require extended reach. • Tree shear— Equipment will require tree shear attachment. These custom attachments must be fabricated/adapted for use on specific machines and will require some lead time for delivery from the mainland. Tree shear attachment mounted on excavator I Tree shear attachment mounted on skidsteer I Mobilization Most of the heavy equipment required for the mangrove removal project is available on Kauai through Earthworks Pacific or rental units. Excavators, loaders, and other material handling equipment can be mobilized to the site as long as a laydown area is available for off-loading from trailers. Custom attachments for shearing trees will need to be shipped in from the mainland. Erosion Control Since the primary focus of the project is clearing and not grubbing the intent would be to minimize disturbance of soil by cutting mangrove dose to the ground and leaving root systems intact. Sediment control BMPs (e.g. silt cloth and/or straw bales or straw waddles) will be placed at the pond outlets to reduce sediments released into Huie`ia River. Preliminary access and stockpile area preparations The existing access road will require minor clearing and grading to allow passage to the stockpile area by on -road trucks that will be used to haul off green waste for recycling by Green Energy Kauai. The proposed stockpile area will also require some clearing, grading, and removal of largejunk (cars, roofing, and bathtub) for use and to facilitate access by on -road trucks. Although some gravel may need to be added to the stockpile area to facilitate access the intent is to minimize disturbance, erosion, and promote re -vegetation once project is complete. Perimeter path around mangroves at pond A perimeter path will be cut through the backside edge (north/ land side of pond) of the mangrove to facilitate cutting and movement of green waste. The intent is to use heavy equipment and off -road trucks instead of constructing a road for on -road trucks. CAT D6 Bulldozer can be used to clear the Clear backside of pond with machines He area and cut a perimeter 11.5 acres of mangrove on the backside of the pond and 5 acres along a side channel adjacent to the access road to be cleared with heavy equipment with tree shear attachments supported by laborers as needed. The intent is to cut the mangrove as close to the ground as possible while leaving the root system intact to minimize disturbance of soil. Transport of debris to stockpile using equipment Green waste debris from the backside of the pond will be transported to the stockpile area in off -road trucks CAT 325 Excavator at a different EWP project on Kauai j CAT 740 Articulated off -road truck can transport depicted with standard stic material without the need for an improved road Clear along wall by hand/chainsaw Approximately 10 acres on and along the historic wall will need to be cleared without the use of heavy equipment. Labor crews equipped with chainsaws will cut the mangrove in this area and use floats to get the material to the area of staging and stockpiling. Float material across pond and unload for stockpiling Floats will be constructed to move the green waste debris produced along the wall across the pond to be off-loaded and stockpiled for hauling by Green Energy Kauai. Removal of Stockpile/Mangrove Biomass Removal of mangrove biomass from stockpile area will be done by the Green Energy Team LLC. Once a pile of approximately 350 tons is stockpiled they will bring their specialized chipper and walk-on trailer to chip, load and haul the biomass to their facility to be burned to generate electricity for Kauai. They are donating this service. EXHIBIT `B' MIF € a�r�•O�ssaiisng atn;nf ark; $uzrja ua Juasacd ayl $uzucdofuT sad dq4 $uuoldx3 :Fiau$a7 azfpvd ,say biu eb t n � <sFrr .: L n1121�7, ,F.TOR 1 K "5 �l r' r. 777 L'. r t F' F � 3 } 4 }I' F I } S .. r I,VfIVX `341HII `QMHS2IRJ,VM 1I3AM VIs31f1H aHs, EIH.L NI RA01IONViv aau dAISVANI 914140 NOLLVDIQV2I9 I ' 914.E HOJ NV'Id S3DI.LDV Hd .LSdg QNV kDHJLVU LS '1VDI00'lOdVHDHV � x OFFOX �� '�:waf'�t,��iip'ax �.•c 4 iv ARCHAEOLOGICAL STRATEGY AND BEST PRACTICES PLAN FOR THE ERADICATION OF THE INVASIVE RED MANGROVE IN THE THE HULE`IA RIVER WATERSHED, LIHU`E, KAUA`I Prepared by: Paul L. Cleghorn, Ph.D. Pacific Legacy, Inc. 30 Aulike Street, Suite 301 Kailua, HI 96734 (808) 263-4800 Prepared for: Malama Hule`ia P.O. Box 662092 Lihue, HI 96766 February 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1 `Alekoko Fishpond................................................................................................................................1 MANGROVE REMOVAL WORK PLAN............................................................................................4 HandClearing.................:...................................................................................................................... 4 MechanizedClearing.............................................................................................................................4 Removal of Stockpile/ Mangrove Biomass......................................................................................... 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL STRATEGY....................................................................................................... 8 PacificLegacy, Inc..................................................................................................................................8 Strategies..................................................................................................................................................9 Task 1: Prepare an Archaeological Strategy Plan.......................................................................... 9 Task 2: Pre -clearing Survey of Stockpile and Access Path along Inland Side of Pond ............ 9 Task 3: Site Visits During Clearing Activities................................................................................ 9 Task 5: Analysis and Report Preparation.....................................................................................10 BESTPRACTICES..................................................................................................................................11 Awareness.............................................................................................................................................11 Education..............................................................................................................................................11 Identification.........................................................................................................................................11 Avoidance.............................................................................................................................................12 Protection..............................................................................................................................................12 Documentation.....................................................................................................................................12 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................13 APPENDIXA...........................................................................................................................................14 APPENDIXB............................................................................................................................................19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of `Alekoko Fishpond.............................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Location of study area (courtesy of Malama Hul&ia)........................................I.................5 Figure 3. Floating platform (8'x12' with ca. 2,000 lb capacity) for transporting cut mangrove across pond to stockpile area (courtesy of Malama Hul&ia)......................................................6 Figure 4. CAT D6 Bulldozer to be used to clear stockpile area and access path .............................. 7 Figure 5. Tree shear attachment mounted on an excavator................................................................ 7 Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan Pacific Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Legacy Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai rI 5« ��- February 2018 I 111-1 1n ." Frontispiece: Overview of 'Alekoko Fishpond (photograph taken in 2002) Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan PaC1�1C Eradication of Invasive Mangrove LCgaC�' Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai rr53,r« February 2018 ii INTRODUCTION Malama Hule'ia is a voluntary non-profit organization dedicated to improving key parts of the Nawiliwili Bay Watershed on Kauai by eliminating an alien and highly invasive plant species, This invasive plant, red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), is attacking some of the most valuable assets in the watershed. Of specific concern is the `Alekoko Fishpond, also known as the Menehune Fishpond. The `Alekoko Fishpond (Loko i `a) has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, signifying is importance to the history of Hawaii. Its importance lies in its informational potential for the study and understanding of traditional pre -Contact and Historic aquacultural practices. With the reawakening of the importance of fishponds to contemporary Hawaiian culture, `Alekoko Fishpond is viewed as an important cultural asset that must be protected. Malama Hule is is embarking on an aggressive program to eliminate the red mangrove from the I Iule'ia watershed, including the area adjacent to and surrounding `AIekoko Fishpond, and replanting the area with native species. `ALEKOKO FISHPOND The `Alekoko Fishpond is a traditional Hawaiian loko wai, or fresh water fishpond, that is located on I-lule'ia River ca.1,000 m upstream of the mouth of the river and NawiliwiIi Small Boat Harbor in Lihu`e, Kauai (Figure 1). The fishpond was created by walling off a large bend in the HuWia River with a boulder and earthen filled wall extending over 800 m from east to west. The wall is about 1.2 m wide and 1.5 m high. The `AIekoko Fishpond once consisted of ca. 40 acres of open water, but is currently only ca. 23 acres (ca. 550 m by 215 m at its widest sections). The reduction is size is due to the growth of invasive mangrove. Kauai historian Fredrick B. Wichman relates the following story of the building of the `AIekoko Fishpond: In Niumalu there is a large fishpond now called the Menehune Fishpond. The rocks used for the facing, as the story goes, came from the plains of Wahiawa and were passed from hand to hand down a double row of men and women. The pond was built at the request of Chief `Alekoko and Chiefess Ka-lala-lehua, who were brother and sister. The Menehune insisted that these two must remain inside their house and must not peek out at the work in progress. Through the long night and most of the day, the two listened to the voices of the Menehune and heard the sounds of stone falling on stone. At last curiosity won out, and the brother poked his fingers tluough the grass thatch of the house and peered out. Immediately the Menehune chief ordered I -Lis people to drop the stones they were holding and wash their hands in the almost completed fishpond. The rocks were not water polished and there was not a hand that wasn't bleeding from several cuts. The Menehune left the dam unfinished as a reminder to Chief `Alekoko of his broken promise. The fishpond still bears his name: `Alekoko, "rippling blood" (Wichman 1998:57-58). Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan PaC1�1C Eradication of Invasive Mangrove LegCy Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai I livoric February 2018 1 The `AIekoko Fishpond was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 14,1973. The statement of significance reads: Menehune Fishpond is the most significant fishpond on Kauai, both in Hawaiian legends and folklore and in the eyes of Kaua`i's people today —its construction is attributed to the Menehunes (sic), a mythical people inhabiting Hawaii before the Hawaiians arrived. Its antiquity makes it undoubtedly the oldest fishpond on Kaua` i and therefore it has an extremely high research potential. Additionally, it is the best example of an inland fishpond in the entire state (National Register Nomination; see Appendix A). Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices PIan Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai February 2018 MANGROVE REMOVAL WORK PLAN The current I Tule is Watershed Mangrove Removal project consists of approximately 26 acres of mangrove surrounding the `Alekoko Fishpond (Figure 2), Once the mangrove is removed, native Hawaiian plants will be planted to re -vegetate the area. Two forms of vegetation removal will be used: hand clearing and mechanized clearing. It is anticipated that a tremendous amount of biomass will be generated and there are plans for its removal and use. HAND CLEARING Hand clearing will consist of hand cutting and hand removal of mangrove in archaeologically sensitive areas, and especially along the wall(s) of the fishpond. Hand cutting will involve labor crews using chainsaws in the archaeologically sensitive areas. Hand cut mangrove will be carefully removed from the sensitive areas and loaded onto floats that will be used to get the materials to the stockpile area. Figure 3 shows the floating platforms that will be used to transport the hand cut mangrove. MECHANIZED CLEARING Mechanized clearing will only be used in appropriate areas. Three areas have been identified (See Figure 2); the stockpile area the access pathway on the north side of `Alekoko Fishpond the mangrove forest around but not adjacent to the fishpond The stockpile area and the access pathway will be cleared with a CAT D6 bulldozer (Figure 4). Mechanized mangrove removal will be done using a tree shear attachment that may be mounted on an excavator, or a "long stick" excavator (Figure 5). The mangrove trees will be cut close to ground level leaving root systems intact and thus minimizing damage to the soil and resulting erosion. The mangrove cut from the north or backside of the pond will be transported to the stockpile area with large off road trucks. The off road trucks are designed to not need a finished roadway but will be able to use the cleared access pathway. REMOVAL OF STOCKPILE/MANGROVE BIOMASS Removal of mangrove biomass from stockpile area will be done by the Green Energy Team LLC. Once a pile of approximately 350 tons is stockpiled they will bring their specialized chipper and walk-on trailer to chip, load and haul the biomass to their facility to be burned to generate electricity for Kauai. Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan Eradication of Invasive Mangrove HuWia Watershed, Island of Kauai February 2018 Proposed. Project Areas Project Elements T;} Mangrove Removal Area Mangrove Access Pathway Project Elements include: 1 - Stockpile for biomass out hauling 2 - Native plant nursery 3 - Potential Hale p - Mangrove Access Pathway Figure 2. Location of study area (courtesy of Malama Hule`ia) Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan PaC1f1C Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Legacy Hule`ia Watershed, lsland of Kauai February 2018 5 ors"sr` ��C�•1�•p�'aFluil Figure 3. Floating platform (8'x12' with ca. 2,000 lb capacity) for transporting cut mangrove across pond to stockpile area (courtesy of Malama Hule`ia) Archaeological Strategy and Best Pr; Eradication of Invasive Mangrove l lule`ia Watershed, Island of Kaua'i February 2018 I Ep l •. r • i' 'igure 4. CAT D6 Bulldozer to be used to clear stockpile area and access path. n•� 9?y }Ig � 4 '� / fir{ � { �`.. r'E�I fr� �,'�•. � _ �\� F �fI`dq'�}x§fin Yes J� -; .,*T113.� •f;, yCi�''ram\ ! r!'ll�l! L J/3�His ,-R,,�'y11}fl I �f ��f.O�,*yi �1� � a{Y '�- wJ h 4 ,J ram•. fd I - J�•'t qAM f y 5 z1 tiL-k { ,.Y.{ Fwi ��t I.Jf �. � � �� ' S- •�� 6� j�� I : y, I C' } it - � � l�Tli1.4-'4}; Ifti\I •jl��I��J�I f/f I•. r I 1 - i ARCHAEOLOGICAL STRATEGY Recognizing the cultural and archaeological sensitivity of the area, Malama Hule`ia contracted Pacific Legacy, Inc. to provide archaeological expertise in protecting the.cultural resources of the area. PACIFIC LEGACY, INC. Founded in 1994, Pacific Legacy provides expert and professional archaeological and cultural resource management services. Pacific Legacy has two offices in Hawaii, on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii, as well as four in California. Pacific Legacy has a strong local presence as well as broad business and regulatory support. Pacific Legacy possesses a current permit from the State Historic Preservation Division to carry out archaeological investigations in the State of Hawaii (a copy of this permit is housed at the Pacific Legacy offices in Kailua, Oahu and is available for inspection). Pacific Legacy has' conducted numerous projects for federal, state, and county governments, as well as for corporate and private clients in Hawaii. Pacific Legacy assists clients in complying with their historic preservation obligations under federal statues, state laws and local ordinances. Pacific Legacy have a good working relationship with regulatory agencies such as the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) and the individual island Burial Councils. Pacific Legacy and its predecessor, BioSysteins Analysis, under Principal Investigator Paul L. Cleghorn conducted two archaeological surveys in the Hule`ia National Wildlife Refuge (Shapiro and Cleghorn 1995; Cleghorn 2005). This experience, as well as CleghorWs work with a number of fishpond studies, makes Pacific Legacy well suited to undertake the needed archaeological investigations for this mangrove eradication project. Cleghorn's fishpond studies include an archipelago -wide overview study (DHM, Inc. 1990), documentation of the Nu`upia Fishponds in Kaneohe (Jackson et a1. 1993), and excavations in the buried fishponds in Kalia,. Waikiki (Simons, Jackson, and Cleghorn 1995). The main Hawaii Office of Pacific Legacy is headed by Dr. Cleghorn, who was born and raised in Hawaii and has over 40 years of Hawaiian archaeological and cultural resource management experience. Dr. CIeghorn is one of the four founders and principals of Pacific Legacy. In his professional career, Dr. Cleghorn has worked on all of the major islands in Hawaii, including the islands of Nihoa and Mokumanamana, undertaking projects forTederal, State, and local government agencies, as well as private entities. Dr. Cleghorn has worked closely with the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), members of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO) and local community groups, and is well known throughout the State. Dr. Cleghorn will be the Principal Investigator on the proposed work and will be the principle point of contact for all matters relating to this project. Dr. Cleghorn will provide overall duality control for the study. Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai February 2018 sm STRATEGIES Generally prior to a project such as the current mangrove removal project, an archaeological inventory survey is conducted following the rules and requirements issued by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) in the administrative rules found in HAR § 13-276. However given the density of the mangrove forest and the growth characteristics of mangroves, a traditional archaeological pedestrian survey was not feasible. Simply put,'the archaeologists would not be able to Iocate or document the cultural resources assumed to be present. An alternative strategy was developed in consultation with SHPD. The agreed upon strategy consists of five tasks: Task 1 Prepare an Archaeological Strategy Plan Task 2 Pre -clearing Survey of Stockpile and Access Path along Inland Side of Pond Task 3 Site Visits During Clearing Activities Task 4 Post Clearance Survey and Mapping Task 5 Analysis and Report Preparation Task 1: Prepare an Archaeological Strategy Plan Based on consultations with the State Historic Preservation Division (Susan Lebo pers. com. 3 October 2016) an Archaeological Strategy Plan needs to be prepared and submitted to the,SHPD for review and comment. The plan is not intended to be as comprehensive as an Archaeological Inventory Survey Plan, but will identify the strategic steps in the archaeological investigation process, describe and define the methods to be used in completing each strategic task, and outline the objectives and anticipated outcomes of each task. Task 2: Pre -clearing Survey of Stockpile and Access Path along Inland Side of Pond The stockpile area (consisting of a large stockpile area, a small native plant nursery, and a potential hale) and the access path along the inland or northern side of `Alekoko Fishpond will be archaeologically surveyed prior to any clearing, grubbing, or clearing in the staging area and the access path. All archaeological sites encountered will be recorded with written descriptions, plan view maps, digital photographs, and GPS coordinates. The intent of the work is to minimize impact to potential important archaeological resources. If the proposed stockpile area contains archaeological sites, the area around the stockpile areas containing archeological sites will be inspected with the aim of shifting the location of the stockpile area in order to avoid impacting archaeological sites. The archaeological survey was conducted in November 2017 by two Pacific Legacy archaeologists (Fechner 2017). The archaeological survey was a pedestrian survey with team members spaced approximately 10 to 20 m apart depending on vegetation density and ground visibility. Most of the survey work was done at 10 m intervals, but where vegetation lessened and visibility was greater, the transects were expanded, but not to exceed 20 m. Appendix B contains the post -field summary report of this pre -clearing survey. Task 3: Site Visits During CIearing Activities Full time monitoring of clearing activities is not warranted. Rather periodic site visits will be conducted in order to document the findings of any new archaeological resources and to ensure Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan PaCIIC Eradication of Invasive Mangrove gacy Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai February 2018 9 that clearing activities do not impact archaeological resources. Prior to the initiation of clearing activities, the Principal Investigator for the project will conduct a pre -clearance orientation and briefing for the work crew. This briefing will focus on the type of archaeological resources that may be encountered, and what actions should be taken in the event that an archaeological resource is found. It is anticipated that the clearing activities will take approximately eight months to complete. The plan is to conduct field visits every two weeks for the first four months of clearing activities, with monthly site visits for the last four months. Any findings made will be fully documented with written descriptions, sketch maps, CPS coordinates, and digital photographs. Task 4: Post Clearance Survey and Mapping At the conclusion of mangrove clearance two sub -tasks will be undertakes: (1) mapping of `Alekoko Fishpond and determining its current condition; and (2) archaeologically survey the areas that were cleared of mangrove. The mapping and recording of `Alekoko Fishpond will involve both CPS mapping and tape and compass mapping. CPS mapping will use a handheld Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) unit. In addition to plan view mapping the resource, selected cross section of the wall will be drawn. Construction details will be recorded by written notes and digital photographs. The current condition of the fishpond walls will be assessed. Areas cleared of mangrove will be surveyed for the presence of archaeological resources. All archaeological resources encountered will be recorded with maps, digital photographs, and written descriptions. Task 5: Analysis and Report Preparation At the conclusion of all field investigations, the data obtained will be analyzed and used to prepare an Archaeological Inventory Survey report. This report will include an executive summary, tables, maps, photographs and other graphics. It will include descriptions of the geographical context of the project area, including soil types, climatic conditions, and vegetation patterns. All archaeological sites will be described and tabulated. The survey data will be synthesized with the results of the archival research to create an archaeological inventory survey report sufficient to satisfy the requirements of HAR §13-276 (Rules Governing Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports). This final AIS report will include recommendations for the preparation of a Historic Preservation Plan for `Alekoko Fishpond and associated sites. Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan P1dfi—c Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Legacy Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai `iis«,a� February 2018 10 rr1E'r,�-�111 , BEST PRACTICES The following best practices are intended to facilitate the removal of mangrove from the project area and provide the best care for cultural resources that are present. These best practices involve continual communication with and feedback from the project archaeologist to guide the clearing activities. The best practices for the protection and conservation of the `Alekoko Fishpond and associated cultural resources revolve around six principals: • Awareness • Education • Identification • Avoidance • Protection • Documentation AWARENESS All people working, visiting, or simply enjoying the area surrounding `Alekoko Fishpond need to be aware that the area contains important cultural resources consisting of the `Alekoko Fishpond and associated sites and features. These cultural resources are conceived of as non- renewable resources that must be protected from damage or destruction. If any one of these resources is damaged or destroyed it is altered or Iost forever and cannot be replaced. EDUCATION To make people aware of the presence, fragility, and importance of the cultural resources of the area an ongoing educational program needs to be implemented. This program will be initiated with the pre -clearance orientation and briefing for the clearing work crew. During this orientation and briefing, work crew will be taught how to recognize archaeological sites and what to do if sites are found. Aspects of this briefing can be incorporated into a general orientation for Malama H.ul&a volunteers and visitors, as well as any informational productions (e.g., pamphlets, signage, etc.) IDENTIFICATION The first step in protecting cultural resources is the identification of the resource. During the pre -clearing survey of the stockpile area and access pathway (Appendix B) five archaeological sites were identified: the `Alekoko Fishpond, one pre -Contact habitation site, and three historic features. Additional archaeological sites will undoubtedly be identified during the course of mangrove clearing and during the post clearing archaeological survey. When additional archaeological sites are found during clearing, they need to be marked with highly visible Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan Pacific Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Legacy Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai February 2018 flagging tape, avoided, and their location shown to the archaeologist during the semi-monthly field inspection. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, work in the immediate vicinity shall halt and the following must be contacted: SHPD Burial Sites Specialist Kauanoe Hoomanawanui 808-896-0475 Kauai Police Department 808-241-1679 Pacific Legacy Paul L. Cleghorn 808-263-4800 AVOIDANCE Any archaeological sites discovered during the course of mangrove clearing should be avoided to prevent damage to the resource. If the discovered resource is cloaked in mangrove, the work crew must consult with the project archaeologist during the semi-monthly field inspection on how best to remove the -mangrove.. Care must be exercised and hand clearing may be the best option. PROTECTION All archaeological resources discovered during the course of mangrove removal must be protected from damage. The site with a 2m to 5 m surrounding buffer zone needs to be marked with highly visible flagging tape. No work should proceed within this buffer zone until after consultation with the project archaeologist. If work in the area is time sensitive, arrangements can be made to have the project archaeologist make a special trip to the project area to consult. DOCUMENTATION The documentation of identified cultural resources will be conducted by the project archaeologist. Documentation will include preparing sketch maps, digital photographs, GPS location coordinates, and written description that include dimensions, construction techniques, associated artifacts, possible age, and interpretive function, Site documentation will be included in the archaeological inventory survey report that will be produced at the conclusion of the project for submittal to the State Historic Preservation Division for review, and acceptance. Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan PaC1�IC Eradication of Invasive Mangrove LegCy Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai February 2018 12 REFERENCES Cleghorn, Paul L, 2005 Cultural Resource Identification and Mapping at HuIe`ia Wildlife Refuge, Island of Kauai. Prepared by Pacific Legacy, Inc. Kailua, Oahu. DHM, Inc. 1990 Hawaiian Fishpond Study: Island of Hawaii, Maui, Lanai, and Kaua'i. Prepared by DHM, Inc. Honolulu, Hawaii. Fechner, Caleb C. 2017 Pos-field summary report for the Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Eradication of the Invasive Red Mangrove in the HuI&ia Watershed in Lihu`e, Kauai. Prepared by Pacific Legacy for Malama Hule`ia. Jackson, T., I. Carlson, P. Cleghorn, C. Dagher and S. Goddard, 1993 Archaeological Monitoring, Reconnaissance, and Test Excavations at Nu'upia Fishpond, Kaneohe, Oahu. Prepared by BioSystems Analysis, Inc. Kailua, Oahu, Shapiro, Lisa and Paul L. Cleghorn 1995 Archaeological Investigations of Hule'ia Wildlife Refuge, Ha'iku, Niamalu, Kauai. Prepared by BioSystems Analysis, Inc. Kailua, Oahu. Silva, Carol 1995 Land Use History: HuWia National Wildlife Refuge, HuhYia, Lihue, Kauai. Appendix in Shapiro and Cleghorn, Archaeological Investigations of HuVia National Wildlife Refuge, Haiku, Niamalu, Kauai. Prepared for the Fish and Wildlife Service. On file at the State Historic Preservation Office, Kapolei, Oahu. Simons, Jeannette, Thomas L. Jackson and Paul L. CIeghorn 1995 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Fort DeRussy, Waikiki, Oahu, Hawaii. Prepared by BioSysems, Inc., Kailua, Hawaii. Wichman, F. B. 1998 Kaua'i Ancient Place -Names and Their Stories. A Latitude 20 Book. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan Pacific Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Legacy Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai --- February 2018 13 APPENDIX A NATIONAL REGISTER FORM FOR THE `ALEKOKO FISHPOND Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan PaC1�iC Eradication of Invasive Mangrove LgaC� Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai - February 2018 14 Form 10-300 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STATES (July 1969) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Hawaii COUNTY: NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Kauai INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY ENTRYNUMBEq GAT$ (Type all Entries — complete applicable sections) TS tm C OMMPNi v \ `lie Menehune Fishpond AND/OR HisT6m Ce Alekoko Fish and / STREET AND NUMBERe $e3vw Hmatlr-iatckboa-1e'Huleaa River CITY OR TOWN i r } I Yl tt (c. STATE I CODE COUNTY, CODE Hawaii Kauai 1 r 0 77 m ry�.> u CATEGORY 134IN£RSHIFi STATUS ACCESSIBLE (chock Oreo) TO THE PUBLIC ❑ District ❑ Building ❑ Public Public Acquisltfon: ❑ Occupied Yes: ] Site ❑ Structure IR Private © In Process Unoccupied Restricted ❑ 061ect [l Both ❑ Being CensWered 0 Preservation work 0 Unrestricted in progress ❑ No PRESENT USE (Check One or Mora as APPtnprlete) ❑ Agricultural 0 Government © Perk 1] Transportation ❑ Comments ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrigl ❑ Private Residence (Z Othat Mpeafty) 0 Educatianol ❑ military © Religious ❑ Entertainment ❑ Museum ❑ Scientific �WNEFJ'S NAMEi - N Kanoa-- BgtOe STREET AND NUMBER, m: C/O R. Bugene Platt, Bishop Trust Co. Ltd., P.O. Box 2390 CITY OR TOWN:- 9TATE: CODE Honolulu Hawaii 1s ' � COURTHOUSE. R5013TAY OP DEEDS, ETC: [1 Bureau of Conveyances, Department of Land and Natural, Resourc s'z STREET ANu NUMBER, .I 425 Queen. Street CITY OR TOWN, STATE CODE Honolulu Hawaii 15 �) A 019 TITtE OF 9URVEYI m 2 t b .!Hawaii Register of Historic Places "A DATE of SURVEY; oncroincr ❑ Federal 51ote ❑ County ❑ Local K 1]EPOSITPRY POR SURVEY RECORDe, C_ Hawaii Re 'star of Historic Places Division nf qtatp Park.% X' °m STREET AND NUMSERs �- 455 South King Street CITY Oft TOWN, 9TATEc 0 a E!q i m Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan Pacific Eradication of Invasive Mangrove LCgaC� Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai FLsx,ric February 2018 15 I't r 11L1ii11 (Check One) X] Excellent ❑ Good [] Fulr [:] Deteriomred 0 Ruins © Unexposed CONDITION (check (Jne) (Gheck Onp) 1] Alterod © Unoltenrd Meved -}X Origit01 Sift 7EeCRIBE THE PRESENT AND 01910INAL (if known) P"Yzic AL Af-PGARANCE Imenehune Fishpond is located near the mouth of the Huleia River on the southeast coast of the "garden isle" of Kauai.. This ancient fishpond, also known as Alekoko Pond, consists primarily of a stone faced dirt wall that runs for over 900 yards and cuts off a large bend in the river for use as a fishpond. There is 50 yards of shallow swamp land between the west end of the wall and theshore. A dirt wall runs for 1.45 yards whereupon the stone facing starts on the river side of the wall. The dirt wall is 5 feet above the water level, 4 feet wide on top and the dirt slants up on both sides. The facing wall begins with a single row of stones and then become; of•, double tbickneps,as i.t. gets further out into the river and the-cu;ren , start,io to., become effective. The stones also become larger until the double layer is 2 feet thick. The stone facing on the outside is five feet high in most places and is quite perpendicular. The stones are very carefully fitted together; the stone facing runs for about two-thirds of the total length of the wall. In the 1940's, after a tidal wave, the wall was repaired by the man who had the lease at the time. He put bags of cement in the weak spots and now longish "rocks" are visible where the bags deteriorated and the cement hardened. Today the Lush vegetation on the wall and banks of the pond and the calm blue waters of the Huleia River combine to make Menehune Fishpond an impressive sight, an ideal picture of Polynesia. It is an important historical reminder of the past and a contemporary source of pride for the people of Kauai. RA m M Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan PaClf1C Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Legacy Huleia Watershed, Island of Kauai I €uwric February 2018 16 I§c.cn uiun LOT, PBRIOO (Chock One or More ias APprpprtaty) Cl pro•Colurrrition 1 ❑ loth Century ] 18th:Century 20ih Century EJ YSth Century 0 lith Century $] 141h Century x Pre —contact 'SPEC1Fte DfATF S1 (Qr AppficoWv and'lfrwarp) AREAS OF $16HIFICANCE (Check One or Moro no Appropr}ate) A6.arigrnal Q Edue diem [} political Q ()roan Plenning prehlsloric [] Engineering Cl Religian/phi. :QC Other (Specify) iilstatic O Industry losophy aquaculture ❑ Agrieultune Q Invention Q Science Architecture C] Londseope [D Scuipturo Art Architecture ElSp-iol/ifuman- [] Comomerer © Literature Itoriart © communrcotlons 0 Milltary Q Theater ❑ Conservation C] Music 0 Tmnsportotion STATIMrtaT OF SIGRiFICANCE - --• - - - - -• Menehune Fishpond is the most significant,fis.�and-'on•Kauai, th in Hawaiian legends and folklore and in�tha eyes-Kauai's people today. it is so old that its construction is attributed to the Menehunes, a mythical people inhabiting Hawaii before the Hawwaiians arrived. its antiquity makes it undoubedtly the oldest fishpond on Kauai and therefore it has an extiaemely high research potential. Additionally, it is the: best example of an inland fishpond in the entire state. Close to the major urban center on Kauai, the pond has high public visibility because of a road that runs along the slopes of the hill behind the fishpond/ The setting is beautiful and lush with trmpical vegetation and a winding river, making it an idyllic area ftr a historical park. 4 5 61 Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai February 2018 17 w" `k,n ',.r a_2?x BENNETT, WENDELL CLARK 1931 Archaeology of Kauai. Bernice P. Bishop .Museum Bulletin 80. Honolulu, Hawaii. Published by the Museum. 1971 New York, Kraus Reprint Co. AS la�`. „�.. }�' ..Yf. '.: f :"� Ya :3a .. � � '. � `:Y: �'fi wS`t.. 2�. ..F � �.: �• ^t � r ��ti� �4,<. L�b��._ F:. LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES DEFINING A RECTANGLE LOCATING THE PROP EfiTY G R ~T LATITUDE AND LONG,TUVE COORDINATES DEFINING THQ CENTER POINT OF A PROP ERTY OF LESS THAN TEN ACRES LATITUDE S..ONGi TU'DF CORNER LATITUDE LoNGITUOE Nw Oe ra Mlnules Sennnds 2l .1 57 09. » Dearena Minute' Seconds 159 a 22 46 e Degrees MI —tax Seconds G Degrees Mirwta. 5—ands 4 NE 21: a 57 16 » 159 a 22 25 st^ '''21 a 57 04 15.96:2'21- 17 e _�L4 15 Q a 2�' 4 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY: ca. 5 acres JLIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES POR PROPERTIES OVONLAPPING STATE O Y BOUNDARIES STATE: CODE COUNTY - _ /]� I 1 Cooe STAM CODE COON CODE STATEI COPE COUN coca TIONAL ` STATE: COOK COUIJ REGISTER' CODE NAME AND TITLE: B. Jean Martin Archaeo..Qgist ORGANIZATION DATE HAwaii Register of STREET AND NUMBER:. 465 South King Street= CITY OR TOWW STATE CODE Honolulu HAwaii 007 yy As the designated State Liaison Officer for the No- tional Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law I hereby certify that this property IS included in the 89-66.5), I hereby,tominate -thin property for inclusion National Register. in the National Ragister.and certify that it has been ?Z�w�. evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set Earth by the Nattunai Park Service, The rerorn ended level of significance of this nuntinetfun is; Chief, Office of prrhenlo®y an storic Preservation National 0 State X] Local [ Data ATT1 sT; Natne Title Chairman and Member rAefeeper of he Nel art > Ra$}star Date March 3, 1972 (late / Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai February 2018 18 do UTA Wry M M Pacific Legacy t>na�:rrull„I, APPENDIX B PRE -CLEARING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY POST -FIELD SUMMARY REPORT Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai February 2018 19 Archaeological Strategy and Best Practices Plan PaC1f1C Eradication of Invasive Mangrove Legacy Hule`ia Watershed, Island of Kauai rr,, February 2018 20 EXHIBIT I C I NEIL ABERCROMBIE STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96909 ref:OCCL:MC Genevieve Salmonson Office of Environmental Quality Control Department of Health, State of Hawai `i 235 S. Beretania Street, Room 702 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Ms. Salmonson: WILLIAN1 J, AILA, JR. CHAiW'EM00 DGARD OF LAM AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER NLSOURt. FfANA11afCNi ESTHER KIA`AINA FIRSTOWITIV W ILLIAM M. TANI DEPUTY 0110CFOR- WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION HUREAU Of CONVBYANCES CORUAISSION ON WATER RLSOURCR MAHACEIAUNT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONS RVATMI1 AND RESOURCES F.NFOKCERG:NT ENOMERU I) FORL57EY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION I.AIIOOLAWE I.SLANDRLSERVE COtaMSK)N LAND STATC PARKS OCT 11 2013 With this letter, the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) hereby transmits the final programmatic environmental assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FEA-FONSI) for the Statewide Programmatic General Pen -nit and Programmatic Agreement for the restoration, repair, maintenance, and reconstruction of traditional fishpond systems in Hawai'i. Please publish this in the October 23, 2013 edition of the Environmental Notice. The Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment and anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact (DEA-AFONSI) for the project was published in the April 23, 2013 edition of the Environmental Notice. The FEA includes copies of public comments that were received during the 30-day public comment period on the DEA-AFONSI, as well as the corresponding responses. We have determined that this program will not have significant environmental effects, and have therefore issued a FONS1, A Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) will also be required for the program. This Programmatic FONSI does not constitute approval of the CDUA. Enclosed is a completed OEQC Publication Form, a copy of the Final Programmatic EA-FONSI, an Adobe Acrobat PDF file of the same, and an electronic copy of the publication form in MS Word. Simultaneous with this letter, we have submitted the summary of action in a text file by electronic mail to your office. If there are any questions, please contact Michael Cain at 78 Enclosures: Final EA, OEQC Pub Form Disc: FEA, OEQC Pub Form c: Honua Consulting Sincerely, `'' _ -1I c3 71 A E istrator c, —• Office of Conservation and Coasa taLIL- -� = N AGENCY ACTIONS SECTION 343-5(B), HRS PUBLICATION F01M (FEBRIUARY 2013 REVISION) Project Name Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (DPEA-AFONSI) for a Statewide Programmatic General Permit and Programmatic Agreement that facilitates the restoration, repair, maintenance and reconstruction of traditional Hawaiian fishpond systems across Hawaii Island: Statewide Proposing/Determination Agency: Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands; ; ,? Department of Land and Natural Resources; 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 131, Honolulu,. HI 96813 Sam J. Lemmo, Administrator (808) 587-0377 Consultant: Trisha Kehaulani Watson, JD, PhD Honua Consulting NJ 4348 Wai'alae Ave 4254, Honolulu, HI 96816 (808) 392-1617 Status (check one only): _,_DEA-AFNSI Submit the proposing agency notice of determination/transmittal on agency letterhead, a hard copy of DEA, a completed OEQC publication form, along with an electronic word processing summary and a PDF copy (you may send both summary and PDF to oegchawaiitti,doh.hawaii.gov); a 30-day comment period ensues upon publication in the periodic bulletin. X FEA-FONSI ^ Submit the proposing agency notice of determination/transmittal on agency letterhead, a hard copy of the FEA, an OEQC publication form, along with an electronic word processing summary and a PDF copy (send both summary and PDF to oegchawaii{LMoh.hawaii,g ov); no comment period ensues upon publication in the periodic bulletin. _FEA-EISPN Submit the proposing agency notice of determination/transmittal on agency letterhead, a hard copy of the FEA, an OEQC publication form, along with an electronic word processing summary and PDF copy (you may send both summary and PDF to oe chawaii(u�doh.hawaii.fzqv); a 30-day consultation period ensues upon publication in the periodic bulletin. Act 172-12 EISPN Submit the proposing agency notice of determination on agency letterhead, an OEQC publication form, and an electronic word processing summary (you may send the summary to oo_gcichawaiira),doh.hawaii.aov). NO environmental assessment is required and a 30-day consultation period upon publication in the periodic bulletin. _DEIS The proposing agency simultaneously transmits to both the OEQC and the accepting authority, a hard copy of the DEIS, a completed OEQC publication form, a distribution list, .along with an electronic word processing summary and PDF copy of the DEIS (you may send both the summary and PDF to oe(lchawaiii'cz,,doh.hawaii.ggv_); a 45-day comment period ensues upon publication in the periodic bulletin. The proposing agency simultaneously transmits to both the OEQC _FEIS and the accepting authority, a hard copy of the FEIS, a completed OEQC publication form, a distribution list, along with an electronic word processing summary and PDF copy of the FEIS (you may send both the summary and PDF to pg(AchawaiiCci),d_oh.hawaii.t,,ov); no comment period ensues upon publication in the periodic bulletin. Section 11-200-23 Determination The accepting authority simultaneously transmits its determination of acceptance or nonacceptance (pursuant to Section 11-200-23, HAR) of the FEIS to both OEQC and the proposing agency. No comment period ensues upon publication in the periodic bulletin. _Section 11-200-27 Determination The accepting authority simultaneously transmits its notice to both the proposing agency and the OEQC that it has reviewed (pursuant to Section 11-200-27, HAR) the previously accepted FEIS and determines that a supplemental EIS is not required. No EA is required and no comment period ensues upon publication in the periodic bulletin, Withdrawal (explain) Summary The objective of the Proposed Action is the restoration, repair, maintenance and reconstruction of loko Fa (traditional Hawaiian fishpond systems) across the pae'aina of Hawaii (Hawaiian archipelago). The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) is currently pursuing a State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) from the federal government that will allow the State to streamline the permitting process by utilizing a single application process for the above activities. This action will stimulate traditional Hawaiian cultural activities, the restoration of fishpond systems and their related ecosystem services. Fishpond systems were a vital component of Hawai'i's pre -contact native Hawaiian communities; their degradation was caused by the urbanization and colonization brought and fostered by foreign. contact. Fishponds are identified as valuable cultural and ecological resources that positively impact coastal ecosystems and their adjacent communities. The potential impacts on the environment of the Proposed Action, and a range of reasonable alternatives, are discussed and analyzed in this fPEA. The direct and indirect impacts of nutrient enrichment, turbidity, and invasive species resulting from the proposed action and alternatives are negligible. The long-term cumulative impacts will be the simulation of traditional Hawaiian cultural activities, the restoration of fishpond systems and their related ecosystem services. EXHIBIT I D I STATE OF HAWAI`I DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS Honolulu, Hawaii June 27, 2014 Board of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii 180-Day Exp. Date: July 27, 2014 REGARDING: Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) ST-3703: Ho`ala Loko Ira A Statewide Programmatic General Permit and Programmatic Agreement for the repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation of traditional fishpond systems in Hawaii APPLICANT: Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands LOCATION: Statewide; all traditional Hawaiian fishponds .located in the State Land Use Conservation District SUBZONE: All DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Ho`51a Lobo 1`a is a proposed Statewide Programmatic General Permit.and Programmatic Agreement for the repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation of traditional fishpond systems in Hawaii. The intent is to provide cultural practitioners with a single application and permit, processed by the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL), which will encompass the five (5) potential permits that are currently required for restoration activities. The program has been designed to be in compliance with seventeen distinct federal and state regulations' OCCL is requesting that the Board approve the following: That the Board delegate to the Chair the authority to sign a five-year Programmatic Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Ho`ala Loko Pa program, That the Board delegate to the Chair the authority to sign Tier 2 and Tier 3 level permits, as described below, and That OCCL be given the authority to implement and manage the Ho`ala Loko I`a program as described below. OCCL notes that there are access, land disposition issues, regulatory hurdles, financing and other issues involved with restoration. This project is designed to specifically address the regulatory side of these challenges. OCCL anticipates that the U.S. Army Corpse of Engineers (Corps) will issue a "General Permit" that will Board of Land and 5T-3703 Natural Resources delegate to the State the authority to issue permits .covered under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). The Section 10 process includes a mandatory consultation with resource agencies, and compliance with the Coastal Zone Managementprogram, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act §401 Water Quality Certification program, the Magnusson -Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. If this process holds true, the Corps will issue a public notice for the General Permit. This public notice will trigger an agency consultation process; the outcome of this .process will be a finalized list of protocols, conditions and best management practices that prospective fishpond practitioners will need to follow for the repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation of traditional fishpond systems in Hawaii. The OCCL is trying to make this process as seamless as possible for fishpond practitioners in order to enhance their capacity to engage in a traditional native Hawaiian practice and to improve the functionality of these systems which provide environmental services important to everyone. The primary way to help a practitioner repair a fishpond is to reduce the regulatory burdens they face — e.g., multiple disparate permitting authorities and expensive studies. Under the Statewide General Programmatic Permit process, projects will require a single user-friendly Conservation District Use Application that has been modified to meet the needs of the Ho`ala Loko I`a program (Loko I`a CDUA). The CDUA will ask applicants to discuss the history of the pond, the ecology of the pond system the applicant's relationship to the pond and associated ahupua`a, the proposed work, and the proposed best management practices and water quality monitoring plans that will be followed. The application will have an associated Guidebook (in process) that will discuss the federally and state - mandated best management practices that will need to be observed for the various types of activities. Streamlined Permit Structure OCCL will receive a complete application and assign it to one of three different tracks for processing. The first tier will encompass those activities that currently do not require a permit from or minimally require a Site Plan Approval from OCCL, but that do not trigger the need for federal review. OCCL will issue the permit to the' applicant along with general conditions, monitoring protocol, and best management practices, and provide notice of the permit to cooperating agencies. First tier activities include the minor repair, restoration, maintenance and operation of existing fishponds (e.g., replacement of small wall sections, replacement of individual rocks or other wall materials, repair of gates,`auwai, minor dredging by non -mechanized means and non -routine - maintenance of vegetation), construction or placement of minor structures (not to exceed 600 square feet) in the Conservation District that are accessory to the maintenance and operation of a loko i`a, stocking & harvesting with traditional methods, temporary emergency repair of breaches, and the removal of alien species (e.g. mangroves). The second and third tiers will encompass those activities that trigger the. need for Section 1.0 Review. Upon receipt of a complete application OCCL will forward the application to the A Corps and appropriate resource agencies for review. Reviewers will be able to concur with the standard conditions, request additional information from the applicant, seek additional consultation with subject matter area experts, or identify additional and or site -specific conditions, protocols, and BMPs. Once the review is complete notice will be provided to cooperating agencies of the findings, and the applicant will be issued an authorization to proceed. If no concerns or comments are'received within thirty days OCCL will forward the application to the Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, who will have the final authority to approve, modify, or deny the permit. 2 Board of Land and Natural Resources ST-3703 Second tier activities include emergency repair of fishponds, and restoration work that involved. a change in excess of 10 percent, but no more than fifty percent of the dimensions of the historic structure. Third tier activities are those where site -specific conditions, protocols, and BMPs are likely to be required. These include repair and restoration work that is in excess of fifty percent of the original fishpond structure, dredging with the use of mechanized .equipment, and any activity that may moderately affect or alter sandy beaches or sediment deposition, or activities that night require an Incidental Take Permit or Habitat Conservation Plan. The Department will retain the discretion to exclude major projects from this process if :there is the potential for significant environmental impacts. Excluded activities that will not be covered by this process include .new fishpond construction; activities that are likely to have significant, long-term negative :impacts on marine life, water quality, or coastal processes, or coastal access (e.g. activities excluded from authorization under section 2.3.3); .activities that are likely to result in significant damage to special aquatic sites such as wetlands, vegetated shallows, mudflats, coral reefs, and sea grass beds; and the introduction or culture of alien species. OCCL notes that all of these issues, procedures, and best management practices were fully vetted through a Programmatic Final Environmental Assessment (PFEA), .prepared by Honua Consulting: The .Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was published in October 2013. The PFEA examined over three decades of research data into fishpond systems, and concluded that the project could result in short-term minimal impacts to water quality, but these would be mitigated by long-term cumulative benefits to the coastal ecosystem in Hawaii. This streamlined regulatory effort is supported by non -regulatory efforts. For instance, both the Kua`aina Ulu `Aumo (a 501(c)3 non-profit organization), funded with a grant from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the Castle Foundation, intend to offer technical assistance to practitioners and researchers to:.conduct baseline studies and long -Merin monitoring projects that examine the environmental effects of restoration.. In addition, these organizations will assist in training and the development of a Guidebook for the repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation of traditional fishpond systems in Hawaii. Overall funding for. this effort has been provided by Conservation International, and OCCL intends to encourage other funding agencies, scientists, and universities to conduct additional projects. Our office believes that this project offers researchers an unparalleled opportunity to unito traditional methods of ecosystem management with modern methods of scientific analysis. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) .Sanctuaries System will take the lead in coordinating a state-wide parallel effort to study the effects of fishpond repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation on water quality. These findings will be calibrated against the findings of the water quality testing done by individual ponds. Fishponds are categorized into six main types, each specific to a particular geographic area. Type I — Loko I`a Kuapa: A. fishpond of littoral water whose side or sides facing the sea consist of a stone or coral wall, usually containing one of more sluice gates, Type II — Loko I`a Pu`uone: An isolated shore fishpond usually formed by the development of barrier beaches building a single, elongated sand ridge parallel to the coast and containing one or more ditches and sluice gates. Type III — Loko I`a Wai: An inland freshwater fishpond which is usually either a natural lake or swamp, which can contain ditches connected to a river, stream, or the sea, and which contain sluice gates. Board of Land and Natural Resources ST-3703 Type IV — Loko I`a Kalo: An inland fishpond utilizing irrigated taro plots. Type V --- Loko I`a `Ume`iki: A fishtrap, similar to a Type I — loko Va kuapa, which has various combinations of inward and outward leading lanes. Type VI — Kaheka and Hapunapuna: A natural pool or holding pond. This General Permit is intended to apply to all traditional loko Pa that are located within the Conservation District. It does not apply to any Loko I'a located within a land jurisdiction regulated by a County authority. Historically, fishponds provided important ecosystem services to their moku (traditional Hawaiian districts). Research shows that approximately 400 fishponds once functioned across at least six of the inhabited Hawaiian Islands: Hawaii Island, Maui, O'ahu, Molokai, Lanai and Kauai. Efforts to maintain and restore these systems continue today on all six of these islands. Fishpond systems have lost function due to coastal degradation, fresh water impairment, lack of maintenance, loss of ownership, invasive species, urban development, and natural disasters. Climate change and sea level rise present new threats. Concerns regarding the regulatory hurdles to repairing the ponds date back to the early part of the 20'n Century. In the past two decades only a small handful of fishpond hui have succeeded in securing the necessary permits to restore fishponds. OCCL and Honua set six main goals in designing the program: 1. The process needed to meet the relevant state and federal requirements; 2. The process needed to meet the needs of practitioners, and be usable by community groups and local practitioners; 3. The process needed enough flexibility to allow for innovation in meeting current environmental challenges while still respecting the integrity of the fishponds; 4. The permit needed to cover the "big three" activities that practitioners were having difficulty securing permits for: dredging, removal of invasive species that triggers grounddisturbances; repair of severely damaged walls; 5. The process should not addany additional regulatory burdens or requirements; and 6. The process needed to be consistent with the Coastal Zone Management federal consistency general concurrence for minor federal permit activities for Hawaiian fishpond restoration, repair, maintenance, and reconstruction. Activities that will be covered by the program include:. 1. Repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation of fishpond walls and sluice gates, including but not limited to the placement, movement, manipulation and temporary stockpiling of necessary materials; 2. Placement, movement, manipulation and temporary stockpiling of small stones or rubble for interior wall fill (`ili`ili); 3. Silt removal by hand and/or mechanized equipment from within fishponds to restore original fishpond depth; 4. Vegetation removal by hand and/or mechanized equipment from within fishponds and from fishpond walls; Board of Land and Natural Resources ST-3703 5. Periodic post -restoration maintenance activities required to facilitate the long-term use, management and operation of fishponds; 6. Use of hand and/or mechanized equipment to conduct fishpond restoration activities; 7. Placement of temporary structures within fishponds, which are necessary .to conduct restoration; 8. Placement and use of aquaculture pens, nets, and/or cages within fishponds; and 9. Use of harvesting equipment within fishponds. Activities related to water resources would include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Clearing of `auwai, or traditional waterways, to allow for restoration .of fresh water flow into the loko Pa, thus restoring functional integrity and ecosystem services; 2. Removal of invasive species from loko Pa that diminishoxygen. and other ecosystem services to the pond system; 3. Restoration of pnnawai, wai hi , waipuna, kele, `ele, kahawai and/or other fresh water sources for the purpose of restoring functional integrity to the system and ecosystem services; and/or 4. Stocking and breeding native species of flora and fauna using traditional methods for the purpose of restoring functional integrity and ecosystem services to the system. Activities that are explicitly excluded from authorization or consideration under the Program are those projects that utilize any of the following- 1 . Blasting; 2. Pile -driving, pre -drilling for pile -driving; 3. Activities that penetrate the pond floor; 4. New construction or dredging or in -water trenching not related to original fishpond structure/fanction; 5. Construction of new or expanded effluent discharge systems; 6. Construction of new bank stabilization structures; 7. Exploration or construction within estuaries or the marine environment that cannot be conducted from a work vessel or an existing bridge, dock, or wharf; 8. Any use of treated wood in marine or aquatic habitats (other than pressure -treated); ' 9. Actions determined for any reason by the technical advisory team to have a significant adverse environmental or cultural impact; 10. Use of chemicals inside or outside the fishpond to control or capture organisms; 11. Use of live rock or coral to construct or repair fishpond walls or other features; and 12. Actions that would cause extreme turbidity, purposeful damage to live rock or coral, extreme eutrophication, or other long-term impairment to water quality. The following attachments have been included with this application: TABLE 1: Fishpond Restoration Activities TABLE 2: Description of the Review Process ExmBrr 1: 1ow Chart of Review Process ExHWrr 2; Loko. I°a Conservation District Use Application ExxlBrr 3: Draft Protocols and Best Management Practices Board of Land and Natural Resources SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ST M3 Pursuant to §13-5-40 of the HAR, Public Hearings were held between February 18 and March 5, 2014 in Kaneohe, Oahu; Kapa`a, Kauai; Kalamaulu, Molokai.; Ki-hei, Maui;. Lanai City, Lanai, and Kailua- Kona, Hawai.`i. The application was also referred to the following agencies for their review and comment: DLNR Commission on Water Resource Management, Division of Aquatic Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Historic Preservation Division, Land Division, State Parks Division, and the Aha Moku Advisory Council; Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Kamehameha Schools; State Department of Health; State Coastal Zone Management Program; University of. Hawaii Water Resources :Research Center; Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Council; National Park Service; Army Corps of Engineers; The Nature Conservancy; Kua`aina Ulu `Aumo; Harold Castle Foundation, Marine Conservation. Officer; Conservation International; the County Planning Departments of Kaua`i,. Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii; and NOAA's NMF Habitat Conservation Division, NMF Protected Resources. Division, NMF Office of Aquaculture, and Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Notice of the application was published in the October 23, 2013 edition of the Environmental Notice. In addition, the application and Programmatic Environmental Assessment were available for review at the Hawaii State Library, Hilo Public Library, Kona Public Library, Lihu`e Public Library, Wailuku Public Library, Molokai Public Library, Lanai Public Library, and Kaneohe Public Library. OCCL and Honua Consulting also hosted copies of the application and supporting documents on their respective websites. The following comments, questions, and suggestions were raised during the public hearings: Oahu - Rising sea levels will impact fishponds, the program should address this - This needs to be done in perpetuity, not just for five years - Solutions for rural communities must be simple and affordable - Pa`epae has been trying to get a permit .to repair one section of wall for three years — the initial breach occurred in 1965 - Importance to have consistency with CZM. - Waipi`o ponds (Big Island) silted up since 1946 tsunami, but water quality is still good, fresh water streams are still intact. Sees snails, oopu, clams at Lalakea Pond.: - Important to know the cultural history of each pond. If a pond is in one family it should stay in that family. - Funding for repairs is a concern - Give credit to restoration efforts that came before, in 1998 and 2001. - There still seem to be a lot of parameters that need to be followed. - Main water quality is turbidity, and to make sure that it doesn't go into class AA waters. In the past 60 years only one permit has been given for state-owned pond. This is an important issue. It costs a lot to restore ponds, and takes a lot of physical labor. Sustainable ponds can have some commercial uses. Kaua` i - Important that water quality standards can be done on site, not sent away to a lab. - Pondrestoration can be a trigger for upland stewardship, overall ahupua'a health. Change the tier level; some of the uses can be moved to a.lower tier. Hawaiians are innovative people. Process needs to acknowledge that, Concern that BMPs are too much for practitioners. 6 Board of Land and 5T-3703 Natural Resources Molokai - There is a hierarchy for imported rock: quarry rock is best. Removing river rock has other consequences. Land rock needs to be cleaned first. - Look up the Babcock study on water quality testing, which was done during restoration and post - restoration. - Muft had a barge to remove mangroves. - Mangroves at high tide are part of the ecosystem of the pond. - Bucket thing can be used to pull out mangroves; rocks and sediment stay in the bucket, water drains out, COE doesn'tregulate these. - Nutrients were shared between lo`i and loko. - Sustainable practices do not include injecting fish, or using fertilizers and artificial feed. - Subsistence and traditional uses were defined in the earlier Molokai project, it's ok to box applicants in so that we don't have :million dollar projects. Maui - Reconstruction shouldn't interfere with access or beach processes. - Sometimes `maintenance' can get out of Band, so this needs to be defined. Doing an annual report has helped Ko'ie`ie understand where they've been and measure the progress they made. Was very valuable after part of wall damaged by tsunami, and when changing shoreline impacted pond. Lease fees at Ko`ie`ie are 2G / year, this is a big .part of their budget. Please help with this. Keep this process moving forward. How much time will it. take to move the firststone, before kupuna begin passing? It's better to build first and ask permission later. Lanai - Part of being sustainable is economic sustainability. Restoration takes a -lot of. effort. Can knpuna fish in the ponds? Can they migrate close to the ponds to live? - There are .upland inputs that have been degraded, Improved ponds can lead to improved support for watershed restoration. - How can practitioners handle poaching? How does ownership work over migratory fish such as `ama`ama? Is there a unique regulatory framework that addresses this? Will the rights of public access still be preserved? Kona Fishponds connect people to a place. Good to standardize BMPs across the state. Anchialine ponds were managed also, and should be included. OCCL's Res once OCCL was heartened by the large degree of community support this proposal has. We have adjusted the tiering hierarchy in response to the concerns raised, and worked to simplify the proposed best management practices and to make them more user friendly. 7 Board of Land and 5T-3703 Natural Resources Other concerns raised - such as improving access to State-owned ponds, securing financial resources to carry out restoration work and improving the overall environmental health of the ahupua'a — remain significant issues. We anticipate working with community groups as they develop future legislative, administrative, and economic actions. Written responses were received and have been summarized from the following agencies! Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) OHA supports the program, but has reservations towards the proposed BMPs listed, as they dictate, a higher threshold than currently required: OHA has received several concerns from beneficiaries regarding water quality testing in particular. OHA also notes that some BMPs require that an endangered species monitor be present at all times, and to survey the area prior to work commencing. The level of expertise required of these monitors is not disclosed, and suggests that "knowledgeable person" be substituted for "monitor." OCCL's Response OCCL appreciates the support that OHA has shown the program throughout its development. We share the same concerns that additional burdens not be created, and note that the extensive BMPs will only be activated by large projects that trigger Section 10 review. There will be no change in the requirements for Tier 1 level activities. We have rewritten the proposal to clarify this. OCCL has modified the proposed water quality testing protocols in response to community concerns. OCCL also wishes to respect and promote local knowledge wherever possible, and 'concurs that "knowledgeable person" can be used instead of "a monitor." We note, though, that the final practices will be determined during the Corps review process. DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW� DOFAW is generally supportive of the proposal, but has the following concerns regarding the potential impacts on threatened and endangered species: The CDUA should mention HRS Chapter 195D, Hawaii's Endangered Species Statute, and its effects on the proposed actions The BMPs generally do a good job of addressing possible impacts, but DOFAW should be consulted regarding threatened and endangered species and potential Habitat Conservation Plans and Safe Harbor Agreements. DOFAW should also be on the list of agencies contacted if a waterbird nest, turtle nest, monk seal pup, or pregnant monk seal is discovered. Actions that might result in take will require habitat conservation plans. The protected species BMP9 should mention State protected species as well as Federally - protected species. Work being conducted near these species but not "in water" should also follow .these BMPs of suspending activity within 100 feet. .8 Board of Land and Natural Resources OCCL's Response ST-3703 The .Hest Management Practices contained in this report are drafts; they will be finalized during the Corps review process. DpFAW will be one of the agencies consulted in developing the final set of practices. OCCL will also be seeking, DOFAW's comments, along with those of other resource agencies, on individual Tier 2 and Tier 3 applications. This will be an opportunity to develop site -specific BMPs and conservation plans. for projects that might impact threatened and endangered species. We have added a discussion in the beginning of this report that emphasized that projects that might result in "take" will require an Incidental Take Permit and Habitat Conservation Plan, which should be coordinated with DOFAW. DLNR Land Division Applicants may require a land disposition, typically a right -of -entry permit, for actions to be: conducted on fishponds owned by the state. DLNR Division of Aquatic Resources If implemented, the permitting process will be streamlined and become more user friendly. No adverse effects on the fisheries or aquatic resources of the State are anticipated by the implementation of this program. Oahu County Planning Department No comments, other than to note that repaidrestoration of shoreline structures are subject to limitations of §23-1.6, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. County of Hawaii Planning Department Any proposed work within the Special Management Area (SMA) in Hawaii County shall first be reviewed against the guidelines of the SMA, following submission of an SMA Use Permit Assessment Application. We .recommend that the State put those interested in applying for this permit in touch with their local county Planning Department to prevent unanticipated delays in acquiring all required permits for the restoration projects. With respect to Hawaii County, may of the listed activities may fall under the definition .of "development" and would require 1) Either a SMA Minor or Major Use Permit, 2) Review against Hawaii County Code Chapter 27 "Floodplain Management," 3) Consultation with the regional branch of the State Historic Preservation Division, and 4 ) Review of the proposed uses and activities against Rule l l of the County of Hawaii Planning Department Rules of Practice and Procedure and Chapter 205A-43 through 44, HRS regarding shoreline setbacks. 9 Board of Land and Natural Resources OCCL's Response ST-3703 OCCL encourages all applicants whose projects fall within Special Management Areas to begin the SMA review process as early as possible. We will make a note to remind. practitioners to follow through with this, and will notify the relevant County departments of Loko I a applications that we receive. State Office of Planning The Office of Planning supports the intent of the subject application. The .Office offers the following comments on the application: The application should list the potential permits that are currently required for the proposed action, and the estimated time and/or financial resources to complete these processes. The application notes that "contemporary construction methods may be used." The application should describe the characteristics of these cases, and provide examples. Activities that will be covered by the program include "reconstruction, restoration, repair, and maintenance," the Office notes that "reconstruction" is not included in the title of the application. The potential scope and extension of reconstruction should be noted in the CDUA. The application addresses six of the CZM objectives set forth in HRS §205A-2. The application should also discuss other objectives, such as Beach Protection, Marine Resources, Recreational Resources, and Managing Development. OCCL's Response The program is incompliance with seventeen different federal and state laws, and covers the following permits or authorizations, Conservation District Use Permit, State of Hawai `i Water Quality Certification, and the US Army Corps of Engineers General Permit. The Corps permit is based in turn on compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Magnusson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The terminology in this proposal was written to be consistent with the Coastal: Zone Management Consistency Statement issued by the Office of Planning in April, 2013. The program does not incorporate County permits for projects in the SMA. The Environmental Assessment for the project was written so that it can be used as a supporting document for fishpond projects that are outside the Conservation District. We are not able to estimate the cost it would take an individual fishpond to secure the .individual permits; there have not been enough successful applications since Statehood for us to establish.a baseline number. In order to avoid confusion we have removed the term "reconstruction" as one of the listed activities, as the current terms "repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation" are inclusive. In our meetings with practitioner two "contemporary techniques" were discussed: the use of metal mdkaha, and the use of rebar in reinforcing walls exposed to open ocean waves. Any proposal to use non- traditional materials or techniques will be reviewed by the, State. Historic Preservation. Division. Based upon your recommendation we will add discussions on: the additional CZM objectives of Beach Protection, Marine Resources, Recreational Resources, and Managing Development. 10 Board of Land and Natural Resources State Da arttment of Health ST-3703 The Department notes that any project and its potential impacts to State waters must meet the antidegredation policy (HAR §11-54-1.1), designated uses (HAR §11-54-3), and water quality criteria (HAR § 11-544 through 11-54-8). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits might be required. It is recommended that OCCL contact the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding their permitting requirements. Do the "traditional fishponds" discussed in the application meet the "Hawaiian fishponds" definition found in HRS § 18313-1. Please ensure that stockpiling of small stones or rocks for interior wall fill is not done in state waters. Clarification is needed on how dredged/excavated material will be disposed and dewatered to prevent leakage and return flow. It is recommended that the Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Protocol be revised to demonstrate the purpose of the sampling, how plans will demonstrate that they are successful, and how adverse impacts will be demonstrated. Please note that noncompliance with water quality requirements: may subject a permittee to penalties of $25,000 per day per violation. OCCL's Response The project has been designed to be in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws relating to water quality. The associated BMPs for water quality will be finalized during the Corps of Engineer's review process. OCCL has been working closely with. Corps throughout this process. The definitions of "traditional fishponds" and "Hawaiian fishponds " are consistent. We will not. issue permits for the stockpiling of stones orpebbles in State waters. Each applicant will need to disclose how dredged/excavated material will be disposed and dewatered to prevent leakage and return flow as part of their 'Water Quality Best Management.proposals. Per your recommendation, we have revised the proposed Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Protocols. We have modeled the revised plan off of existing plans that have been approved by the Clean Water Branch, When OCCL finds an objectionable level of impacts then we will have the authority, in consultation with the State Department of Health Clean Water Branch, to shut down the project. Please note that the final protocols and practices will be developed during the Corp's review process. Western Pacific Fishery Management Council In general, the Council is not opposed to the application as it relieves the burden on communities that are working to restore a part of the Hawaiian culture. The tiered permit system is important to ensure that minor activities are: not subject to the same rigors as major activities. The application lists the types of ponds and allowable fishpond types, but should also identify the known/current fishponds that may be eligible under this permit. This will help OCCL determine which tiers a proposal would fall into, as the construction of new ponds is not allowed. ]I Board of Land and ST-3703 Natural Resources A tiered system should take into account the purpose of the activity, There is a big difference between maintenance, restoration, and putting a fishpond back into productivity. This will allow for a greater understanding of the permit's use and intention. Finally, the Council would like to make certain that the existing mechanisms for review by agencies in the current Section 10 process are still utilized. The application should explicitly state those agencies that will be able to provide review opportunities and at the applicable point in the review process, OCCL's Response OCCL thanks the Council for their comments and support of the tiered system. Over 400 fishponds have been documented, ten percent of which are listed on the Hawai `i State Register of Historic Places. If an application comes in for a pond that has not been registered then OCCL. will need to seek verification that it meets the definition of Hawaiian fishpond as found in HRS 183B-1. We have adjusted the application that permit seekers will useto allow for more discussion of the purpose of the repair or restoration. OCCL anticipates using the same distribution list for Loko I "a applications that we use for other land use applications: DLNR divisions, NOAA offices and divisions, US Army Corps of Engineers, the Ahu Moku councils, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the State Department of Health,the relevant County Planning Departments, and any identified community groups in the relevant ahupua'a. National Park Service (NPS) NPS offers the following comments: The permit doesn't seem toaddress ownership issues. In the intent for the fishponds to be managed and run by the community, but to remain public entities? How would community management change if small-scale commercial activities were allowed? The application does not contain future plans for fishponds once the pond has been restored and productivity is achieved, Will the application contain a time frame.=. i.e.. how long applicants will continue operations? We need clarification on what is meant by fishponds having "no impact on public access. Is that because the.fishponds will be considered public regardless of who is managing it? What happens if fishponds are run as small-scale public entities? How are cultural practitioners defined? Would a commercial resort. qualify as one if they applied as one? There is an implied assumption that Kua`aina Ulu `Aumo has the skills and expertise to provide the stated technical assistance. It might be helpful to provide an appendix or link to more information about this organization. What is the :timeline for NOAA coordination on water quality? How would silt removal by traditional methods, such as using a rake towed behind a canoe and taken out to sluice, not cause extreme turbidity? Table 1 states that dredging with mechanized equipment falls under Tier III, but dredging with traditional materials is Tier 1. Is there a difference between amount of silt removed? Excluded activities include the "use of chemicals inside or outside the fishpond to control or capture organisms." Does this include using traditional fish stunning methods using ground up plants? 12. Board of Land and s,T-3703. Natural Resources It is unclear, whether fish feeding would be allowed or not. "Significant discharges of fill" is not defined. Silt management is not clearly dealt with in the program. OCCL's Response Many traditional loko Va are privately owned. Some of these will be managed by community -based hui, and some will be managed by the family that retains ownership. Applicants wishing torestore or manage State-owned ponds will need to secure the necessary lease agreements; rights -of -entry, and permits from the government agency that retains ownership. OCCL understands that some .community groups have approached DLNR's Land Division to develop protocols for access to State-owned ponds; however, such access issues are beyond the scope of this permit. Conservation District Use Permits (CDUPs) generally contain a time frame for commencing and completing a project. The standard time frame is that construction must be initiated within one year, and completed within three years of approval. This can .be adjusted on a case -by -case basis. We anticipate that some restoration activities, such as the repair of walls by community groups, might take longer than three years. Others, such as dredging, are likely to be short term projects. OCCLs hope is that once a pond is properly restored it,can be maintained in perpetuity. Hawai `i State Law allows the public access to the beaches and submerged lands makai of the shoreline (Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§115-4, 115-5, Revised 2010). Landowners are required to ensure that lateral beach transit corridors are kept free and passable. The State delegates to the individual counties' the authority to establish and maintain public access to the shoreline (HRS §§ 46-6.5, 1.15-, & 115-7). The program entails no changes to HRS laws regarding public access. The program was designed. with cultural practitioners in mind, and we anticipate that they will be .the primary applicants. However, any owner of a fishpond would be allowed to apply for a permit. OCCL notes that Articles IX and XII of the State Constitution, other State laws, and She courts of the State require government agencies to.promote and preserve cultural beliefs, practices, and resources of Native Hawaiians. Any proposal will be evaluated in light of these laws. Kua'dina Ulu Aumo has received a grant from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to promote fishpond restoration and to provide technical assistance to practitioners. OCCL mentions them, along with Castle Foundation, as a potential resource for applicants. The Hu'ala Loko I `a program, however, exists independently of the participation of these and other non -governmental organizations. OCCL understands that, once the Army Corps of Engineers releases their Public Notice of the project, a thirty -day review period will commence. A weighted bamboo rake, kope 'ohe, was used in historical times to clean the pond floor of debris; an action that is significantly different than dredging. The "minor dredging my non -mechanical mean" discussed under Tier I refers to clearing of mud and sand using hand-held buckets. OCCL agrees that this can also create turbidity, and will amend the discussion to note thatthis should be done in ponds with intact walls and closed / barricaded makaha, which will act as a sediment containment device. Dredged materials will need to be disposed of inland in such a way that effluent does not leach back into the ocean. Dumping debris, silt, or other materials in the ocean would not be compliant with Department of Health Clean Water regulations. Using toxins derived from plants to stun fish would not be covered by this program. 13 Board of Land and ST-3703 Natural Resources Any pond wishing to feed fish would need to comply with applicable Department of Agriculture, Department of Health, and Federal laws. OCCL asks that applicants disclose any proposed feeding regimens so that we can forward the application to the appropriate agencies for review. The only fill that OCCL anticipates in this program involves the repair of pre-existing walls. Silt management is dealt with in the water quality best management practices, pollution and erosion control plan, and water quality monitoring and assessment protocols. United States Denartment of the Interior National Park Service We recommend that the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act .or Chapter 6E of the Hawaii Revised Statutes be required prior to issuing a permit. Without first mapping a site, it will be difficult to accurately determine the percentage of the rock walls that need to be repaired. The fishponds are cultural sites eligible for the National Register, therefore a complete archeological inventory and study would be critical before any work is conducted in order to provide baseline data and assess whether the work will have negative impacts to the archaeological sites. OCCL's Response The Section 106 process will occur as part of the Corps of Engineers assessment of the General Permit. OCCL notes that fishponds are also integral elements of an active culture; our goal is to help practitioners restore them to functionality in an environmentally and culturally appropriate manner. Requiring a complete archeological inventory and study is a financially prohibitive recommendation that would preserve a pond as museum pieces for study to the detriment of the living descendants of those who first built the ponds. The Nature Conservanc The Nature Conservancy supports the proposed Ho`aia Loko I`a program as the restoration of ponds can help feed local communities and'restore wild fish stocks. However, we believe that a substantial revision of the Water Quality Monitoring Protocols is needed. Rather than developing generic monitoring guidelines for a wide .range of restoration activities, we suggest that each permit application include a monitoring plan. The draft application does not address actions that may have impacts to endangered species other than to say that they are excluded activities. However, the application also states that "Nearly all marine waters, as well as the lower reaches of many freshwater streams, within the Corps' jurisdiction are occupied by ESA -listed marine species. Because the Proposed Action will occur within, near, or upstream of the marine environment, it has the potential to impact ESA -listed marine animals.and their habitats across the Program's geographic area." It will be useful to see how this will be addressed. One proven way is to use the Corps process for nationwide general permits. It may be useful to designate the State as the non-federal representative to the USACE for fishpond restoration projects. 14 Board of Land and Naturai Resources OCCL's Response ST-3703 OCCL concurs that our original Water Quality Monitoring Plan was in need of serious revision. The current proposal incorporates the suggestions made by the Nature Conservancy and other agencies. We note that the final protocols will be developed as part of the US Army Corps process. E,SA consultation will take place during the US Army Corps of Engineers review. We have added a discussion in the beginning of this report that discusses "take" and the need for an Incidental Take Permit and Habitat Conservation Plan. k1 a the Fishponds of Maui) `Ao ao O Na Loo „ O Maui Association of The Association supports the proposal. They note that they were granted a 30-year lease in 2008 to revitalize Ko`ie'ie Fishpond on Maui, and since then have helped maintain the pond's 1200 foot wall, and have relied on support from the community to move large boulders. Many .community members have been hired as part-time masons through a National Park Service grant. However, they note that their yearly lease fees consume ten. percent of their budget, and ask that the lease agreement can be reviewed by the Board of Land and Natural Resources. OCCL's Response Lease fees are negotiated with DLNR's Land Division; we will forward these comments and concerns to Land Division and the Board Graydon "Buddy" Keala Mr. Keala has been involved with fishpond restoration for more than 25 years, and has restored many fishponds throughout the state. He notes that the ponds are important cultural and historic sites and therefore require the preview of constitution laws under the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106. Also, any decision making requires native Hawaiian consultation compliance in its development, and adds that "section 106 has also experienced environmental rules have been impacting cultural sites and associated practices nationally and have laws to provide Native practitioners opportunities to create balance with other federal agencies via interagency consultations. OCCL's Response The Section 106 process will occur as part of the US Army Corps of Engineers assessment. of the General Permit. We note that the genesis of this proposal came at the request of practitioners who were having difficulty securing the necessary permits. OCCL consulted with a wide range of practitioners in developing the program, including development meetings with different hui on Oahu, Molokai, and Kauai. There have been two rounds of public comment, first on theenvironmental assessment and later on the Conservation District Use Application; the proposal has been modified extensively in response to input from practitioners. 15 Board of Land and Natural Resources Dorothy Meisner ST-3703 Ms. Meisner supports the proposal. As a student of William S. Richardson School of Law she has heard first -person accounts of how the onerous legal hurdles and fees associated with restoration, particularly the extensive permitting requirements, present difficulties to community groups and .Native Hawaiian practitioners. This process will reduce the burden on these. communities, and will help to ensure the perpetuation of loko Va, increase cultural and food sustenance, and improve the quality of Hawai`i's near shore marine areas. Casev G. Jones Mr. Jones notes that the Hawaii State Constitution mandates the: preservation of a healthy environment, and that the State has "the power to preserve and develop the cultural, creative and traditionalarts of its various ethnic groups." The preservation of native Hawaiian fishponds touches on these important purposes. As these vital cultural. resources exist nowhere else in the world, DLNR and the State have the responsibility to do anything possible to enhance and preserve this cultural practice. OCCL's Response OCCL thanks the students of UH's Law School for their support and their insights into the legal process. ANALYSIS The following discussion evaluates the merits of the proposed land use by applying the criteria established in Section 13-5-30, HAR. 1. The proposed land use is consistent with the purpose of the Conservation District. The objective of the Conservation District is to conserve, protect and preserve the important natural resources of the State through appropriate management' and use to promote their long-term sustainability and the public health, safety, and welfare. The direct and indirect impacts of fishpond repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation on the environment, including, but not limited to nutrient enrichment, turbidity, invasive species, and other biological impacts resulting from the proposed action and alternatives are found to be negligible. The process would only apply to actions that are not likely to cause significant negative long-term impacts to the environment. Avoidance and minimization of impacts. will be achieved with BMPs and conditions on permits; otherwise a permit will not be issued under the proposed process. 2. 7'he proposed land use is consistent with the objectives of the subzone of the land on which the use will occur. Submerged lands are typically in the Resource Subzone of the State Land Use Conservation District. Pursuant to HAR §13-5-13 (a), The objective of this subzone is to ensure, with proper management, the sustainable use of the natural resources of those areas. Traditionally, fishponds were economically, culturally and environmentally critical to the sustainability of Hawai`i's unique and fragile ecosystems.. The traditional ahupua`a system, created 16 Board of Ladd and Natural Resources ST-3703 by the Ali`i MWi.likukahi, delineated a system that extended from the top of the watershed out to the reef or near shore waters. The near shore fisheries were essential to providing fish and food to the surrounding communities. Active management of the ponds can also help in the management of invasive species,. For example, a common and highly problematic invasive species is the red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). Two other species of mangrove have also been established in the Hawaiian Islands: Bruguiera gymnorrhiza and Conocarpus erectus. Although mangroves provide important habitats in their native areas, introduction of mangroves to the Hawaiian Islands has caused negative impacts such as reduction in habitat quality for the Hawaiian stilt, (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) and colonization and overgrowth of important cultural sites and biological habitats (such as anchialine ponds). Mangroves, known for .their thick and extensive root systems, have proven destructive to kuapa. They enhance sediment deposition and decrease oxygen circulation in the ponds. A variety of invasive algae also occur in nearshore areas. Habitat characteristics can make certain areas more susceptible to invasion. In healthy coral reef ecosystems, corals and coralline algae dominate with macroalgae and turf algae growth mainly in areas that are difficult for herbivores .to access. Phase shifts of coral reefs to algal dominance (from both invasive and native algae) can result in changes in reef community structure and decreased biodiversity. Both mangroves and invasive algae will need to be managed or removed to restore loko 1'a to functionality. Doing so will improve the ecosystem health of both the ponds :and the wider area. 3. The proposed land use complies with provisions and guidelines contained in Chapter 205, HRS, entitled "Coastal Zone Management, " where applicable. The Hawaii Coastal Zone. Management (CZM) Program has issued a CZMA federal consistency general concurrence for minor federal permit activities for Hawaiian fishpond restoration, repair, maintenance and reconstruction in the State of Hawaii. The program meets the following objectives of Chapter 20SA: Historic resources: The program will undergo §106 (National Historic Preservation Act) review as part of the Corps permit process. It is intended to restore historic resources to functionality, and to help local communities reintegrate these resources into their lives. Scenic and open space resources: The removal of mangroves and other coastal invasive species will improve coastal open space. Coastal ecosystems: Best management practices will be in place to protect coastal ecosystems during any construction phase. Active care and management of ponds can have a beneficial effect on water quality and.adjoining coral reef health by catching sedimentation and limiting the spread of invasive species. Economic uses: Fishponds can be utilized for small-scale commercial uses, which will provide direct economic benefits to rural Hawaiian communities and families. Loko Pa are not physically suited to host the types of modern commercial aquaculture facilities found in open ocean waters; such high-tech operations would not be covered through this program. Coastal hazards: Restored seawalls can protect neighboring communities from the effects of large storm waves, 17 Board of Land and Natural Resources sT--3703 Public participation: The project was initiated by members of the public, and OCCL has consulted with practitioners throughout the development of the program: Beach Protection: Proposals that have the potential to impact beach processes will need to develop site -specific protocols to address this. OCCL is staffed with shoreline specialists and coastal geologists who have the expertise to identifypotential issues should they arise. Marine Resources: The restoration of pond wails will serve to trap sediment, allowing. for a cleaner marine environment outside the walls. They can also serve to strengthen the supplies of native fish stock; as ponds act as a de facto nursery, free from predators, for juvenile fish. Recreational Resources: Fishponds are not generally considered recreational resources, and OCCL does not anticipate that their restoration will have an impact in marine recreation areas. Managing Development: The program covers the restoration and maintenance of traditional fishpond systems; new developments are not part of the proposal. 4. The proposed land use: will not cause substantial adverse impacts to existing natural resources within the surrounding:area, community, or region. The Proposed Action and Alternatives involve primarily short-term repair, restoration, maintenance and operational activities. As described in Section 2 of the Programmatic Final Environmental Assessment, fishpond practitioners have developed and refined many .BMPs and monitoring measures for carrying out their activities. Also, as described in Section 3, the existing baseline conditions within the geographic scope of analysis vary with the level of human activity and presence (i.e., from minimally populated rural areas to heavily developed beachfront communities). The proposed action will result in enhancement of long-term productivity, with no short-term losses. The action does not foreclose on future options, narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment, or pose long-term risks to health or safety. There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources involved in the proposed action. Any work conducted on fishponds can be removed, and ponds can be deconstructed .if desired in the future. The proposed action does not include take or harassment of protected species or significant damage to corals or live rock. There will not be any use of chemicals or external materials for feeding or maintaining fishponds that could cause long term damage to water quality or resources. There are no unresolved issues associated with the proposed action. 5. The proposed land use, including buildings, structures and facilities, shall be compatible with the locality and surrounding area, appropriate to the physical conditions and capabilities of the specific parcel or parcels. The proposed action does not include constructing any new permanent infrastructure in submerged lands, significant discharges of fill material, significant dredging, or using any hazardous materials that could be released into the environment. Therefore, it has been determined that the potential impacts to vegetation, aesthetics, traffic, utilities, population and demographics, public access to the coastline, and air duality, are negligible. Any new structures will be limited to those that have been traditionally associated with loko i`a, and will not exceed 600 square feet. 18 Board of Land and Natural Resources ST-37o3 6. The existing physical and environmental aspect of the land, such as natural beauty and open space characteristics, will be preserved or improved upon, whichever is applicable. The clearing of mangroves and other coastal invasive species will improve coastal vistas; repaired walls will help protect sediment from flowing into the open ocean; and removing invasive algae will help neighboring coral reefs from being colonized. OCCL does not anticipate any negative impacts on the lands open space or natural beauty. 7. Subdivision of the land will not be utilized to increase the intensity of land uses in the Conservation District. No subdivision of land is being proposed as part of this project. 8. The proposed land use will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Restoring functional integrity to ponds, through restoration of historic wall structures and removal of invasive vegetation encroaching on the pond ecosystem,. could have significant cumulative benefits to Hawai`i's environment and coastal resources and communities. The program could help restore valuable ecosystem services and human capital to coastal areas, which have been. degraded due to overpopulation and urbanization. DiscussIQN Archaeological and historical evidence suggests that loko Pa were constructed as early as AD 1000, and continued to be built until the 1820's. Fishpond construction intensified .beginning in the late 1500's and early I600's as pre -contact Hawaiian population was rapidly expanding and socio-political systems evolving in complexity. Historic and cultural sites found within the geographic area of the program include historic structures, burials, fishing shrines, heiau (religious structures), leina (cultural sites from which spirits leapt into the next world), as well as cultural structures related to traditional Hawaiian and Polynesian navigation and seafaring. The proposal is designed to assist community groups, families, and practitioners in restoring these loko i`a to functionality, Applicants will be expected to respect any historic sites found within the work area; permits will not be issued for projects that would result in the destruction or degradation of shrines, heiau, or leina. The -application itself requests that applicants discuss the relationship of their hui, family, or community group to the subject pond and the neighboring community. It is geared towards those whose aim is to strengthen traditional and customary rights and practices. BLNR's support of this application will help the Department to respect and show support for native Hawaiian rights and practices. Restoration activities are likely to have minor, short-term impacts to turbidity, which is a measure of water clarity. Turbidity can be a natural occurrence in ponds, but it can be exacerbated by erosion and other laud -based factors. Turbidity can be minimized through BMPs. Managing turbidity is a necessity of the program, as any factors that would reduce storage capacity of the ponds or impair the environment for cultivation defeats the purpose of restoration and function. Applications for Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities (dredging using mechanized equipment; invasive species removal using mechanized equipment; a greater than 10% increase in the pond's dimensions; use of artificial feeds, and any activity that would moderately affect sandy beaches or increase sedimentation) 19 Board of Land and Natural Resources ST-3703 will be required to submit a Pollution and Erosion Control Plan and a Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Plan. These plans will draw from the list of required BMPs. While the exact BMPs will- be developed during the Army Corps process, OCCL has studied existing permits and anticipates that the. Ho`ala Loko I`a protocols will be similar. Based upon the above analysis, staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the State's Conservation Criteria. It will help the Department to respect and show support for native Hawaiian: rights and practices, and it will assist communities who are working to improve the ecological functions of the ahupua`a. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding analysis, Staff recommends that the Board of Land and Natural Resources APPROVE the Department's participation in the Ho`ala Loko I`a program, and specifically authorize the following actions; 1. That the Board delegate to the Chair the authority to sign a five-year Programmatic Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Ho°Ala Loko I`a program; 2. That the Board delegate to the Chair the authority to sign Tier 2 and Tier 3 level permits; That OCCL be given the authority to approve Tier 1 level permits, and to implement and manage the general Ho ala Loko Va program; and 4. That permit holders be subject to the following conditions where applicable: 1. The permittee shall comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules; and regulations of the federal, state, and county governments, and applicable: parts of this chapter; 2. The permittee, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify and hold the State of Hawaii harmless from and against any loss, liability, claim, or demand for property damage, personal injury, and death arising out of any act or omission of the applicant, its successors, assigns, officers, employees, contractors, and agents under this permit or relating to or connected with the granting of this permit; 3. The permittee will comply with any required water quality BMPs, protected species BMPs, historic preservation protocols and BMPs, and water quality monitoring protocols; 4. The permittee shall obtain appropriate authorization from the Department for the occupancy of State lands, if applicable; 5. The permittee shall comply with all applicable Department of Health administrative rules; 5. Before proceeding with any work authorized by the Department or the Board, the permittee shall submit four copies of the construction plans and specifications to .the Chairperson or an authorized representative for approval for consistency with the conditions of the permit and the declarations set forth in the permit application. Three of the copies will be returned to the permittee. Plan approval by the. Chairperson does not constitute approval required from other agencies; 7. Unless otherwise authorized, any work or construction to be done on the land shall be initiated within one year of the approval of such use, in accordance with construction plans that have been signed by the chairperson, and shall be completed within three years of the 20 Board of Land and Natural Resources sT-3703 approval of such use. The permittee shall notify the.department in writing when construction activity is initiated and when it is completed; 8. All representations relative to mitigation set forth in the accepted environmental assessment or impact statement for the proposed use are incorporated as conditions of the permit; 9. The permittee understands and agrees that the permit does not convey any vested right(s) or exclusive privilege; 10. In issuing the permit, the Department and Board have: relied onthe.information and data that the permittee has provided in connection with the permit application. If, subsequent to the issuance of the permit such. information and data prove to be false, incomplete, or inaccurate, this permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked, in whole or in part, and the department may, in addition, institute appropriate legal proceedings; 11. When provided or required, potable water supply and sanitation facilities: shall have the approval of the department of health and the county department of water supply; 12. Where any interference, nuisance, or harm may be caused, .or hazard established by the use, the permittee shall be required to take measures to minimize or eliminate the interference, nuisance, harm, or hazard; 13. Obstruction of public roads, trails, lateral shoreline access, and pathways shall be avoided or minimized, If obstruction is unavoidable, the permittee shall provide alternative roads, trails, lateral beach access, or pathways acceptable to the department; 14. During construction, appropriate mitigation measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to off site roadways, utilities, and public facilities; 15. Cleared areas shall be revegetated, in accordance with landscaping guidelines provided in this chapter, within thirty days unless otherwise provided for in a plan on file with and approved by the department; 16. Use of the area shall conform with the program of appropriate soil and water conservation district or plan approved by and on file with the Department, where applicable; 17. The permittee shall obtain a county building or grading permit or both for the use prior to final construction plan approval by the department; 18. For all landscaped areas, landscaping and irrigation shall be contained and maintained within the property, and shall under no circumstances extend seaward of the shoreline :as defined in section 205A-1, HRS; 19. Artificial light from exterior lighting fixtures, including but not limited to floodlights, uplights, or spotlights used for decorative or aesthetic purposes, shall be prohibited if the light directly illuminates or is directed to project across property boundaries toward the shoreline andoceanwaters, except as may be permitted pursuant to section 205A-71, HRS. All exterior lighting shall be shielded to protect the night sky; 20. Where applicable, provisions for protection of beaches and the primary coastal dune shall be established by the permittee, to the satisfaction of the -department, including but not limited to avoidance, relocation, or other best management practices; 21. The permittee acknowledges that the approved work shall not hamper, impede, or otherwise limit the exercise of traditional, customary, or religious practices of native Hawaiians in the 21 Board of Land and Natural Resources ST-3703 immediate area, to the extent the practices are provided for by the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and by Hawaii statutory and case law; and 22. Other terms and conditions as prescribed by the chairperson. 23. Failure to comply with any of these conditions shall render a permit void under the chapter, as determined by the chairperson or board. Approved for submittal: William I Ma, Chairperson Board of Land and Natural Resources Respectfully submitted, Michael Cain, Staff P anner Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands 22 TABLE 1: TISHPDND REST©RATION ACTIVITIES ,f New fishpond construction Activities that likely to have long-term bhvities are significant, yi Iob negative impacts on marine life, water quality, or coastal q to nt processes/access (e.g. activities excluded from authorization ` P.nVtII11IIr#e� �; �not?} under section 2.3.3) imp,S Activities that are likely to result in significant damage to �.. A . eoe special aquatic sites. such as wetlands, vegetated shallows, �s `fi mudflats, coral reefs, and seagrass beds Introduction or culture of alien species Legal Authorities Fishpond repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation involving work that is :in excess of 50 percent of the original Department fishpond structure,., with the caveat that that the ,ys ` Ra penal � d Rivers an Harbors Act, §10 has the discretion to exclude major projects From the Programmatic Permit due to the potential for significant environmental impacts. ondittons, N' .� �31V CWA §404 Activities that are likely to result in take of endangered, �1�011itO��,y s ,BMps�� CWA §401 ESA 7 threatened,or otherwise protected species and that will require an Incidental take License or a Habitat Conservation Additton�, § andgSite'° k, S c NHPA § 106 Plan. Fishpond .dredging involving the use of mechanized (onditton NEPA equipment. MBTA Any activity that may .moderately affectlalter sandy reaches. 3 EFH or sediment deposition. FWCA r Tie�IL Creneral W, �� CZMA COnd1t[oI18� HRS § 183-44 Fishpond repair, restoration, maintenance, and operation p ltiionitoiig�d involving work that is in excess of 10 percent, but less than HRS § 183B 50 percent of the original fishpond structure. HRS § 343 Legal Minor .repair, restoration, maintenance and operation of ;�,j � .Authorities existing fishponds (e.g„ replacement of small wall sections, � Tier ITS , h� CAA replacement of individual rocks or other wall materials, repair of gates, `auwai, minor dredging by non -mechanized means and non -routine maintenance of vegetation). Genes HRS § 183-44 Construction or placement of minor structures (not to exceed ditiads, Mons g HRS § 183B 600 square feet) in the Conservation District accessory to ' and BMPs HRS § 343 the maintenance and operation of a loko Pa. Stocking & harvesting with traditional methods r ` Removal of alien species (e.g, mangroves) Achvittes not k }Y 1, stb�ect to} Routine maintenance of existing fishpond by hand or with ,,E, xegulat<on�� hand -tools and utilizing existing traditional materials Table 1: Fishpond Restoration Activities TABLE 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE RmEw PROCESS vitteskrvith potertdai Upon review of completed application, applicant is notified that activities are sigrijfcant etvu�i��ntal '' outside the scope of the environmental assessment and/or SPGP and advised to p ur►pacts not covered pursue individual permits ;under this BA No notice provided to cooperating agencies Upon review .of completed application, applicant is notified that the application q } is either accepted or that additional information is required Upon receipt of a complete application OCCL forwards application to interagency/advisory group and resource agencies as appropriate for review. '1Yer IIlf A Reviewers can respond with one or more of the following: s • Request for additional information; Awditlonal`and'S�te SficRCon + Seek additional review / consultation from cooperating agencies or ,4 subject matter area experts; and/or General3 Condi�ons; Monttor,ng and BMPs • Identify additional and/or site -specific conditions, monitoring and BMWs. h Once the review process is complete, notice is to cooperating ,provided agencies of findings and/or issuance of authorization to proceed. If no comments or concerns are received within thirty days then the permit will be issued with standard best management practices and conditions. «� K 1 , Upon receipt of a complete application OCCL forwards application to P P pppliPPi M interagency/advisory group and resource agencies as appropriate for review. _ Reviewers committee can respond with one or more of the fallowing: M., " • Request for additional information; sE 3 • Seek additional review / consultation from cooperating agencies or ' subject matter area experts; and/or General Cond�ttons, Momtonng aad B1V i?s , Identify additional and/or site -specific conditions, monitoring and BMPs, 5 Once review is complete, notice is provided to cooperating agencies of findings and/or issuance of authorization to proceed. xi 9V z s t pa Upon review of completed application, OCCL issues permit to applicant .and Trer,'Im may choose to provide BMPs and/or monitoring requirements as conditions on General Cnndtttans; ° k the permit. Monitoring and Blvg's O.CCL provides notice to cooperating agencies. F Activitte¬ subaecE to Upon review of completed application, OCCL notifies applicant that activities Tegultton are not regulated, but provides language to applicant regarding BUN. s Table 2: Description of the Review Process Flow Chart of Review Process Exhibit 1 - Flow Chart of Review Process Ord and N Akio, FISHPOND NAME: HuiNAME: Project Address: FISHPOND RESTORATION APPLICATION File No: Acceptance Date: Assigned Planner: Distribution List: Nearest Tax Map Key(s): Ahupua a: County: Proposed Commencement Date: _ Wall length: WORK SUMMARY ❑ Construction of ❑ Minor repair;` gyres ❑ Moderate repair' ❑ Major repair and Date: aintenance of walls, auwai, makaha, or other (10 to 50% damage) _ rater than 50% damage) Linear feet of wall to be repaired (rocks on site): Linear feet of wall to be restored (new rock): Source of new rock: Amount of "fill' (expansion beyond original footprint): f ❑ Dredging using mechanized equipment Estimated volume of dredging: ❑ Vegetation removal using mechanized equipment Estimated acreage: — Heavy machinery that will be used ❑ Emergency repair Exhibit 2: Loko Va Application REQUIRED SIGNATURES Applicant Name / Hui: Street Address: Contact Person & Title: Phone: Fax: Email: Interest in Property: Signature: Date: Signed by an authorized officer if far a Corporation, Partnership, Agency or Organization Landowner (if different than the applicant) Name: Title; Agency: Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Signature: Fax: Date: For State and public lands, the State of Hawaii or government entity with management control over the parcel shall sign as landowner. Agent Agency: Contact Person & Title: Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Fax: Signature: Date: For DLNR Managed Lands State of Hawaii Chairperson, Board of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809-0621 Signature Date: Exhibit 2: Loko Pa Application HISTORY OF THE POND Please discuss the history of the pond. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Please discuss the ecology of the pond. This should include fresh water sources, the nearby coast, and the natural & urban conditions mauka and inakai of. the pond. Please also note if any endangered or threatened species are found in the pond. Hui Please discuss the hui, community group, or family that will be conducting the work. Describe the hui's connection to the pond and the neighboring community. STATE OF THE POND / PROPOSED WORK PLAN Please provide a summary of the overall work that would be needed to bring the pond back up to productivity and what work is being proposed under this permit. Please note any use of mechanized equipment PRODUCTIVITY Please discuss what species you intend to raise in the pond, and your proposed methods of stocking, raising, and harvesting these species. Exhibit 2: Loko I`a Application BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Please review the attached list best management practices (BMPs) and plans that will be required for certain activities, and discuss how the project will be in compliance with them: Purpose: To comply with Rivers and Harbors Act, §I0, CWA §404, CWA §401, ESA § 7, NHPA § 106, NEPA, MBTA, EFH, FWCA, CZMA, HRS § 183-44, HRS § 183B, HRS §343. Activities: Dredging using mechanized equipment; invasive species removal using mechanized equipment; a greater than 10% increase in the pond's dimensions; any activity that would moderately affect sandy beaches or increase sedimentation. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Protocols Water Quality BMPs Protected Species BMPs Pollution and Erosion Control Plan Historic Resources Protection Criteria Exhibit 2: Loko Pa Application CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that I have read this completed application and that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this application and all attachments and exhibits is complete and correct. I understand that the failure to provide any requested information or misstatements submitted in support of the application shall be grounds for either refusing to accept this application, for denying the permit, or for suspending or revoking a .permit issued on the basis of such misrepresentations, or for seeking of such further relief as may seem proper to the Land Board. I hereby authorize representatives of the Department of Land and Natural Resources to conduct site inspections on my property. Unless arranged otherwise, these site inspections shall take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Signature of authorized agent(s) or if no agent, signature of applicant AUTHORIZATION of AGENT I hereby authorize to act as my representative and to bind me in all matters concerning this application. Signature of appiicantfs) Exhibit 24- Loko I`a Application ExH1BIT 3; DRAFT PROTOCOLS AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Note: These will be finalized during the US Army Corps of Engineer's Review Process Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Protocols A Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Plan will be needed for permits that involve mechanical dredging, mechanical removal of vegetation, and placement of new fill. Testing will be done for salinity, temperature, pH, and turbidity. Testing will be done at two locations per 100-foot section of project area not contained by intact walls. The first site should be within 1 meter of the work area, and the second 15 meters out. Procedures: 1. Map the proposed testing sites 2. Photo document the existing conditions 3. Baseline testing: will be done ten times over the course of a two week (minimum) to ten week period. Longer periods are preferable. OCCL will review the baseline tests in consultation with the State Department of Health Clean Water Branch prior to issuing the final notice to proceed, d. Daily testing will be done three times per day per testing site for the first ten days. S. Daily testing will be done once per work day per testing site thereafter. 6. Post -construction testing will be done once per week for ten weeks after; If no effects are seen during the active phase then OCCL can waive post -construction testing. Testing result's will be emailed or faxed to OCCL at the end of each workday.- If there is an objectionable level of turbidity then OCCL, in consultation with the State Department of Health Clean Water Branch, will have the authority to stop the project. Potential options at this point will be to adapt the restoration procedures, initiate advanced water testing for total nitrogen, nitrate + nitrite, and ammonia; or halt the project until environmental conditions are more favorable. Potential options if nitrogen parameters are exceeded will be to further adapt the restoration procedures, initiate advanced water testing for dissolved oxygen; or halt the project until environmental conditions are more favorable. Exhibit 3: Draft Protocols and Best Management Practices EXHIBIT `E' Sara Bowen, Executive Director Hui Maiama Hule`ia double layer is 2 feet thick:. The .stone facing on the outside is five feet:high in. most places and is quite. perpendicular. The stones are very carefully fitted together; the'stone facing runs for about two-thirds of.. the total length of the wall. The proposed project is only for mangrove removal and planting of native Hawaiian vegetation. The applicant is not proposing to bring the loko Pa back to operational condition it this time...: It is best to allow'.the. system to find balance and. to monitor the response of the hydrology and fishery over `some time before determining what level of restoration would be needed.to bring it to aperational level Best Management Practices. will be completed , throughout the project. Archaeological:..pre-clearing survey will be done on site by Pacific Legacy of the stockpile and staging areas. All archaeological sites encountered will be recorded with written descriptions, plan view maps, digital photographs, and GPS coordinates. The intent ` of this work -is. to minimize impact to potential important archaeological resources. If sites are found, the area will.be avoided as a stockpile. area to avoid impact. A pre -clearance orientation and briefing will also;be conducted with crew members:prior to any work being done on site. A post clearance survey and mapping will be done after the mangrove removal. Further BMP recoiivmeridations will be : rovided followin the initial survey. Sediment control BMPs. P g will be employed throughout the mangrove removal. Earthworks Pacific will provide sediment control. BMPs, placed at the:.pond outlets to reduce sediment released into the river and `;impacting the waterbodies. In addition,; Malama Hule`ia will ensure,that any mangrove removal 'done :in and around ` the rock wall will be done by hand, and will be done with care to avoid impacts to :the rock wall, Sediment control BMPs will allow.sediment to be captured priot to,entering the water bodies. This will be done through use of silt cloth and/or straw bales. or Straw waddles that will protect the river and fishpond. : The proposed mangrove removal; includes two primary removal methods; 1) Hand;cut (chainsaw), hand remove and 2) 'Mechanized heavy equipment. The hand cut hand remove method:will be used in areas: of archaeological sensitivity such as the rock wall and any other areas identified by our archaeological consultant. The mechanized equipment will be used in all other appropriate areas. The project involves cutting the mangrove while leaving the root system intact so as to minimize disturbance to soil. The exception will be where mangrove air roots are hanging in the water and have only slight contact with the pond sediment; these will likely be pulled rather than cut resulting in less root biomass 'left in water to decay over time: The steps involved in this project are as follows: i, Archaeological pre -clearing survey and associated BMPs. 2. Prepare stockpile area and access. 3. Prepare a perimeter path along the edge of the mangrove along back (north) side of Bond. 4. Clear mangrove with mechanized equipment along back-(n,orth).side of pond starting at upstream end and.working down. 5, Begin planting native Hawaiian vegetation in cleared; areas' immediately. 6. Simultaneously clear mangrove with hand cut hand,remove;technique along frock wall and other archaeologically sensitive areas. 2 Sara Bowen, Executive Director Hui Malama Hule ra 7. Final area to be cleared and replanted with. native. Hawaiian vegetation will be the side channel that flows from the pond to the Hule`ia River between the access road and river. Specialty Equipment Based on the unique requirements of the mangrove removal project some specialty equipment will be required: • Long Stick Excavator - Earthworks Pacific currently has a long stick, for a CAT 325 on Kaua'i for projects: that require extended reach. • Tree shear — Equipment will require tree shear attachment. These custom attachments must be fabricated/adapted for use on specific machines and will require some lead-time for delivery " from the mainland. OCCL sought comments on the proposal and associated best management plan from DLNR's Land Division, Division of Aquatic Resources, Division "of Forestry and Wildlife, and Historic Preservation; the Office of Hawaiian, Affair; Kua`aina _Ulu `Auamo, the "Hawail County Planning Department; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, .;NOAA Fisheries Pacific islands Regional Office; and the State Department of Health, Environmental Planning Office. Division of Aquatic Resources The Division of Aquatic Resources is -generally in favor of the project: " The project is appreciated"as it moved towards effectively managing the preserving state aquatic ,resources. Such an effort not only preserves a culturally significant fishpond, but will. significantly reduce, a seed -bank of invasive species along the Hulk River, The historical photographs provided compared to current images show.how invasive mangroves can become and the.Division recognizes the benefits of your efforts. DAR has a:few questions that we would like your project to: address. - What native plant species are planned for re -vegetation in the subtidal zone?" The consultant. indicates that the primary native vegetation that will be planted are; 'Ae`ae, Akulikuli, Kipukai, Makaloa, 'M, Ahu `awa, A. aki The plan mentions sediment will be controlled by BUTS With:: the use of silt cloth and/or straw bales or straw wattles. Can you provide more detail about the deployment configurations of these three catchment systems? The consultant indicates that following the archaeological surveys, they will obtain recommendations on BMPs associated with protecting cultural sites/resources found. The deployment of water quality/sediment control BMPs will be done under the guidance of their. contractor, Earthworks Pacific who has extensive experience in selecting and installing appropriate sediment control BMPs._`They have 3 Sara Bowen, Executive Director Hui Maiarna Hule'ia provided product sheets for the most commonly used sediment control BMPs including silt cloth, stakes, and straw wattles. The objective is to contain all sediment on site. The applicant anticipates installation of straw wattles around the designated stockpile areas and temporary containment areas of % to one acre'in active work areas. The Bio Sock Pro does not require the need for ground` disturbance. and trenching. These will likely be used in most cases where they are found to be suitable for sediment and/or run-off containment. Secondary sediment control BMPs will be installed at the outlet channel at the downstream end of the pond and the two .rock wall openings. These will include the use of geotextile fabrics (Miraf 600x geotextile fabrics) integrated withrn a slurce ype gate at each'm.aka.ha/opening along the fish pond wall. These secondary BMPs will capture any sediment that could be released because of the mangrove removal if not 100% contained on. (active work area) site. How and where will you dispose of the sediment collected?, The consultant.indicates that the sediment will be collected*hen the straw wattle is 2/3 full. The wattle will be replaced and those sediment filled ones will be moved to the. upland stockpile area. At the end of the project the ,sediment and straw will be incorporated into the soil of the stockpile area which will be revegetated with native upland trees and shrubs, Division of Forestry and Wfldlife The Department of Forestry and Wildlife has received your inquiry regarding the L:oko I`a Restoration Application KA-19-0.1 for the proposed Alekoko Fishpond Restoration. The Alekoko Fishpond is located on the Hule`ia River in. Kauai, and has been overtaken by mangroves, with only 23-acres of .open water remaining. ,The proposed action would include removal of approximately 2.6 acres of mangrove and replanting with native Hawaiian vegetation: Mangrove removal would be accomplished using chainsaw or' hand saves, as: well as mechanized heavy equipment such as an excavator with tree shear attachment. Access roads would require minor clearing and grading to allow `passage of off road trucks to haul off green waste. DOFAW would like. to ensure that the following, best management practices are followed: Hawaiian hoary hat The .State and Federally listed Hawaiian hoary bat.or `Ope`ape`a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) has the potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed'pxoject. Hawaiian hoary'bats roost in both exotic and native trees. If any trees are planned for removal during the bat breeding season there is a risk of injury or mortality to juvenile bats. To. minimize the potential for impacts to this species, site .clearing should be timed to avoid disturbance, to;breeding Hawaiian hoary bats; woody plants greater than,l5 feet (4.6 meters) tall should not be disturbed, removed, or trimmed during the bat birthing and pup rearing season (Julie 1 through September 15) Waterbirds State and Federally listed waterbirds such as the :Hawaiian duck (Arras wyvilliana), Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus ` knudseni), Hawaiian moorhen (Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis), ;Hawaiian coot (Fulica alai), and Hawaiian goose, or Nene (Branta sandvicensis) are likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project site due to the proximity of the Hule`ia National Wildlife Refuge. To minimize Sara Bowen, Executive Director Hui Malama Hule`ia the potential for take, surveys for.waterbirds by a qualified biologist are recommended before any land clearing or excavation activities occur; and should be repeated if these activities are. delayed more than three days. If a nest is discovered gat any point, please contact'DOFAW staff. If a bird is present during ongoing activities, then all activities within 100 feet (30 m) of the bird should cease, and the bird should also not be approached. Work may continue after the bird leaves the area of its own accord. Hawaiian short -eared owl The state endangered ` Hawaiian short -eared owl or Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) has . the potential to occur in the project vicinity site. Pueo aro a crepuscularspec es . nest on the ground, and are most; active during dawn and dusk twilights. DOFAW.recommends ,twilight pre -construction surveys by a qualified biologist prior to clearing vegetation. It Pueo:'nests are present, a buffer zone should be established in which no clearing occurs until. nesting ceases and notify DOFAW staff. Seabirds DOFAW would like to ensure that effective avoidance measures are in place to pre cent adverse impacts......... to native seabirds. DOFAW strongly recommends the use of only "seabird -friendly ;lighting" during the seabird nesting season beginning in March through mid -December. DOFAW Wildlife Biologists will be able to provide technical assistance in developing "seabird -friendly lighting." Ltgff Comments The work will include a condition the permittee implement and sustain throughout the duration of the work all applicable hest management practices described in. the Ho `ala Loko: l `a Permit Application Guidebook as well those mitigation measures outlined in the permittee's application: These best management practices include measures to mitigate and eliminate potential impacts endangered water birds and other species, water quality management, and cultural and archaeological resources. County of Kauai, Planning Department The County, of Kauai Planning Department is in favor of the project. After reviewing the application,. OCCL fiuds:that: The proposed work at the Alekoko Fishpond: is consistent with the statewide programmatic general permit -for the restoration, repair, maintenance; and operation of Ioko Pa (Conservation District, Use Permit ST-3703: Ho`aia Loko I`a), as approved by the Board of Land and Natural Resources on June 27, 2014; The activitiesdescribed were covered in the Programmatic Final -Environmental Assessment (PFEA) and Finding of No ,Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Ho`ala Loko I`a;progrram, which was published_ on October 23,. 2013; The proposal requires the need for a Tier 2 Loko I`a permit signed by the Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources; The State Department- of Health water quality certifications are waived pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342D WATER POLLUTION, Section 6.5 Hawaiian lokoi`a (b) The department 5 Sara Bowen, Executive Director Hui Malama Hufe`ia shall waive the requirement to obtain water quality certification under this chapter for any person" that has received notice of authorization to proceed from the department of land and natural resources office of conservation and coastal lands under the statewide programmatic general permit for the restoration, repair, maintenance, and operation ofloko i`a; and`l The standard conditions found in Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-5 -42. apply. After careful review of the proposed project, the Department finds that the proposed work will not negatively impact water quality, endangered or threatened species, archeological and cultural resources, provided that the permittee implement appropriate mitigation measures, and=therefore, authorizes' a Tier 2. Loko Pa permit for mangrove removal and native plant propagation at Alekoko Fishpond Hulie`ia, Puna, Kauai, TMKS:.(4) 3-2-001:00, subject:to the following standard conditions: i . The permitted shall comply with. all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations of the federal, state, and county governments, and applicable parts of this chapter; 2. The permittee shall implement and sustain throughout the duration of the work all applicable best management practices described in the Ho`ala Loko I`a Permit Application Guidebook as well those mitigation measures outlined in the permittee's application;' 3. The permittee, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify and hold the .State of Hawaii harmless from and against any loss, liability, claim,. or demand for. property; damage, personal injury,; and death arising out of any act or omission of the applicant; its successors, assigns, officers, employees, contractors,:and agents.under this permit or relating to or connected with the granting of this permit, `4. The permittee shall obtain appropriate authorization from the department for the occupancy of state lands, if applicable; 5. The actions outlined in ;the . best, management plan . submitted with the application are incorporated::asconditiots of the permit; 6. The permittee understands and agrees that the permit does not convey any vested right(s) or exclusive privilege; 7. In issuing the permit, the department and board have relied on the information and data that the permittee has provided in,connection with the permit application. If, subsequent to the issuance of the permit such information. and data prove to be false, incomplete, or inaccurate, this permit may be"modi"fied, suspended, or revoked, in whole or in part, and the department may, i i addition; institute appropriate legal proceedings; 8. Where any interference, nuisance, or harm may be caused, or hazard established by the use, the permitted shall be required to take measures to mini or eliminate the interference; nuisance, :harm, or hazard; 1 The Department received comments from the Department of Health and responded via uvMen comments. Both letters are attached here for reference. 6 (AVID Y. IG£ SUZOM R CASE 3OVERNOR OF .. �¢ �C NAB, BOARD OF LAND ANDMATURAL RMOURCU HAWAII - - A'.* 9� .F - COMMSIDNONWATER MOURCEMANAOPNIRK f=»EPVrY in"WRY T. D�ElCYAmF-C7OR. WIwTBR BOATINGAANDOCEANRECRBATtON.. 'm.LII&Bt1BUMU OF NM COMM2MON ON WATERRESOURCE MANAOPAEfr CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS COMERVATRNNAND RES(AIRCES ENFORCEMENT STATE OF HAWAU �... - - - ENOB,MBJO. FORBSTRY AND WI DLUM eofE DEPARTMENT OF LANs) AND NATURAL RESOURCES IESTORICPRESERVATION RAF1OOLAWE M ANOammvE CM0,M]ON Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands POST OFFICE BOIL 621 HONOLULU. HAWAII 96809 OCT 2 4 2011 Pile No-1 : LOW Pa: KA8-01 Gerald N. Takamura, Chief District Environmental Health Program Kauai , State Department of Health Kauai District Health Office 3040 Umi Street Lihue Hawaii '96766 Dear Mr. Takamura, SUBJECT: LOKO I°A PERMIT KA-1 8-01: Alekoko Fishpond Restoration Hulie`ia, Puna, Kauai (4) 3-2-00. 1:001 Gerald N. Takamura, Chief District Environmental Health Program Kauai State Department of Health the Department of Health. Under the CDUP ST-3703 all Ho`ala Loko permittees are. still required to have water quality monitoring, mitigation, and best management practices>in ace.,. Keeping Hawaii's waters clean and our reefs healthy areal of our responsibility. Our findings on the project are as follows: " 1. The proposed work at the Alekoko Fishpond maintenance: work is consistent with the statewide programmatic general-perinit for the restoration, ,repair, maintenance, and operation of loko i`a (Conservation District Use Permit ST-3703: Ho`ala Loko I`a), as approved by the Board of Land and Natural Resources on June 27, 2014; 2. The activitiesdescribed were covered: in the Programmatic. Final' Environmental Assessment (PFEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Ho`Fda Loko I`a program, which was published on October 23, 2013; 3. The proposal .requires the need for a. Tier 2 Loko I`a permit signed by the Chain of the Board of Land and Natural Resources; and 4 As mentioned in the above, the State Department of Health water quality certifications. are waived pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342D WATER; POLLUTIONS Section 6.5 Hawaiian loko i`a (b) The department shall waive the' requirement to obtain water quality certification under this chapter for any person that has received notice of authorization to proceed from the department of land acid natural resources office of conservation and coastal lands : under the statewide programmatic general permit. for the restoration, repair, maintenance, and operation of loko The Department appreciates your input on this important matter.- I have attached a Ho`ala ;Lako I`a Permit Application Guidebook (see best management practices, pages 32 35) and a copy 'of the approved Loko I`a.Permit (KA-18-01`). for your information and use.. C: Chairperson 3 a; "a� . DAVID Y. WE ' o0veaaRi�w�wu� I4n� . wi F'ICG (iF CMIS;;RV--(md0t41l6FRMTH'- AND A':'TA i rvNl1[15s STATE OF FIAWAII 2011: OCT I VErA.1111 A P. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH KAUAI DIMICT HEALTH OFFlCE 3040LIMSTIiM }EFT.,_ .AND 6 LIHUE,HAWAII 9878 HATIJ11Ai. iic r.JfXl S A - September28,. 2017 :J IQi ..' inWf{!l EXHIBIT `F' Pacific Pacific Basin — O`ahu Phone: 808.263,4800 Legacy 30 Aulike Street, Suite 301 Fax: 808.263.4300 Kailua, HI 96734 www.pacificlegacy.com Ple"el 'A11.,.t 20 December, 2017 Sara Bowen Executive Director Malama Hul& is P.O. Box 662092 Lihue, HI 96766 sent via email: sara.ed@malamahuleia.org RE: Post-fieId Summary Report for the Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Eradication of the Invasive Red Mangrove in the Hul&ia Watershed in Lihu`e, Kauai. Dear Sara: Pacific Legacy, Inc. has completed the initial fieldwork portion of the archaeological inventory survey (AIS) of an approximately 3.83 acre section of the proposed project area which covers approximately 26 acres of invasive red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) to be removed along areas adjacent to the `Alekoko Fishpond (SIHP No. 50-30-11-501). The project area is located in the ahupua`a (traditional land division) of Niumalu and Kipu, in the district of Puna, on the east side of the island of Kauai (Figure 1). The following four project components were surveyed prior to commencing clearing activities (Figure 2): Stockpile Area (ca. 300m by 25 m; 1.85 acres) Pond Perimeter Pathway (ca. 760m by 10 m;1.88 acres) Native Plant Nursery (ca. 15m by 15 m; 0.05 acres) Potential Hale (ca. 15m by 15 m; 0.05 acres) The present archaeological inventory survey fieldwork was conducted between 27 and 30 November, 2017. The survey was under the overall supervision of Principal Investigator Paul Cleghorn, Ph.D. Field operations were directed by Caleb Fechner, B.A. with the assistance of Michael PIacher, B.A. The overall purpose of the AIS investigations is to gather ethnohistoric and other background information, and site survey information of historic properties within the project area, including mapping and documenting `Alekoko Fishpond. The information gathered through this Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) can be subsequently used to develop a Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) that will ultimately guide the stabilization and interpretation of this important cultural resource. The AIS investigations and the resulting report products will be Pacific Basin - Hawai°i Island Business Office Bay Area Sierra/Central Valley 900 Kumukoa St, 2641 Hwy 4 900 Modoc St. 4919 Witidplay Dr., Ste. 4 Hilo, HI 96720 PO Box 6050 Berkeley, CA 94707 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 808,351,9560 Ph. Arnold, CA 95223 510.524.3991 Ph. 916.358.5156 Ph, 809.263.4300 Fax 209.795.4481 Ph. 510.524.4419 Fax 916.358,5161 Fax 209.795.1967 Fax designed to meet the standards of the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 13-276 for Archaeological Inventory Surveys. The following post fieldwork report contains an initial summary of the findings of the fieldwork phase of the inventory survey. 'The data collected during the inventory survey will be further analyzed and additional research on the cultural history of the survey area as well as any previous archaeological research undertaken in the vicinity will be undertaken. All of this analysis and research will be presented in a detailed archaeological inventory survey report which will be submitted to Malama HuI&ia at the conclusion of the project. The wetland areas adjacent to `Alekoko Fishpond consist of low areas with extremely dense vegetation consisting mostly of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) and hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) trees with occasional niu (coconut, Cocos nucifera) and hala (pandanus) trees (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The survey crew was initially guided through portions of the project areas by the Malama Hule`ia Executive Director Sara Bowen. In addition, the survey crew was shown a historic aerial photograph of `Alekoko Fishpond from 1912 which showed the fishpond in use. The goal of the survey was to identify any potentially significant archaeological resources within the project areas, as well as identify any of the structures and landforms visible in the 1912 aerial photo of the fishpond. Team members were spaced approximately 10 to 20 m apart depending on vegetation density and ground visibility (Figure 5). Most of the survey work was done at 10 m intervals, but where vegetation lessened and visibility was greater, the transects were expanded, but not to exceed 20 m. Once an archaeological site was encountered it was assigned a temporary field number to facilitate identification. This consisted of a T (for temporary) followed by a consecutive number (i.e., T-001). Individual structural features within a specific site were assigned consecutive letter designations to aid in recording and mapping. Detailed site and feature descriptions were recorded for all identified archaeological sites. Documentation also included digital photographs of each site. Plan view maps were prepared using tape and compass (Figure 6). A metal site tag was filled out and left at each site for relocation purposes. Since, at the time of the survey, SIHP numbers had not been assigned, the metal site tags left at each site were marked with the temporary field number and date. Vegetation clearance was undertaken as needed. The location of each site was mapped using a hand held Trimble GeoExpIorer 7X global positioning system (GPS) unit. Its coordinates were recorded using a Universal Transverse Mercator, North American Datum for 1983, Zone 4 (UTM NAD 83 Z4) projection. GPS points were recorded using a Real -Time SBAS Corrected system and had a horizontal accuracy of less than 1 m; no post processing was undertaken. An individual point was taken for each site and for each individual feature. For mapping linear or shaped features, GPS line recordings were made. In addition, an effort was made to document the present landforms associated with `Alekoko Fishpond that were visible in the 1912 aerial photograph of the area. GPS line recordings were made of accessible landforms adjacent to low areas containing water and dense mangrove. All field records (descriptions, notes, photographs, and GIS shapefiles) resulting from the inventory survey, have been temporarily housed in the Pacific Legacy offices in Kailua, Oahu. No subsurface testing was undertaken at the sites identified. The archaeological inventory survey of the Hule`ia project area identified a total of five archaeological sites (Figure 7, Figure 8, Table 1). Descriptions and photographs of these five Page 2 of 27 sites are presented in Attachment 1. One other potential feature was identified during the survey (T-003), but was not recorded as an archaeological site because it was determined to be modern in age. The five newly identified archaeological sites were all situated in the vicinity of the stockpile portion of the project area located to the east of `Alekoko Fishpond. No archaeological sites were identified along the access pathway portion of the project area. In addition to the five archaeological sites three modern structures are currently located within the project area. Two corrugated metal sheds are located at the east edge of `Alekoko Fishpond. A single modern post and beam picnic structure is located at the east edge of the fishpond, near the small beach access fronting Hul&ia Stream. In regards to `Alekoko Fishpond (Site T-005), only a small section along the southeastern portion of the fishpond consisting of the eastern half of the southern fishpond wall which fronts Hule`ia Stream is currently accessible by foot. A small trail on top of the wall currently allows access to this portion of the pond. All of the other portions of the fishpond wall are covered in water and/or dense mangrove and are currently inaccessible by foot. According to the historic 1912 aerial photograph 'of `Alekoko Fishpond, the fishpond was still in use at that time. This historic aerial photograph is presented in Attachment 2. The photograph clearly shows the southern fishpond wall which fronts Hul&ia Stream and numerous modifications to the area located at the southeast corner of the fishpond including a small island area, internal pond divisions and waterways, a concrete makaha (gate) also utilized as a bridge (Site T-006), several small structures, and a variety of small agricultural plots. During the present archaeological survey, very little of the modifications visible in the historic photograph were relocated. The survey was only able to identify a portion of the eastern half of the southern fishpond wall, the small island area, the concrete makaha (gate) utilized as a bridge (Site T-006), and several spits of land that may correspond to spits of landvisible in the aerial photograph. No other features in the photograph were relocated at this time. The intent of this AIS is to minimize the impacts to potentially significant archaeological resources identified during the survey. Therefore, it is recommended that all archaeological sites identified during the AIS be avoided. Full time monitoring of clearing activities is not warranted. Rather periodic site visits will be conducted in order to document the findings of any new archaeological resources and to ensure that clearing activities do not impact archaeological resources. Prior to the initiation of clearing activities, the Principal Investigator for the project will conduct a pre -clearance orientation and briefing for the work crew. This briefing will focus on the type of archaeological resources that may be encountered, and what actions should be taken in the event that an archaeological resource is found. At the conclusion of mangrove clearance two sub -tasks will be undertaken: (1) mapping of `AIekoko Fishpond and determining its current condition; and (2) archaeologically survey the areas that were cleared of mangrove. The mapping and recording of `Alekoko Fishpond will involve both GPS mapping and tape and compass mapping. GPS mapping will use a handheld Trimble GeoExplorer 7X global positioning system (GPS) unit. In addition to plan view mapping the resource, selected cross sections of the wall will be drawn. Construction details will be recorded by written notes and digital photographs. The current condition of the fishpond walls will be assessed. Areas cleared of mangrove will be surveyed for the presence of archaeological resources. Given the location of these cleared areas (along the river shores), access will be difficult and will rely on kayaks for survey. All archaeological resources encountered will be recorded with maps, digital photographs, and written descriptions. The information gathered through this AIS can be subsequently used to develop a Historic Page 3 of 27 Preservation Plan (HPP) that will ultimately guide the stabilization and interpretation of this important cultural resource. The data from our investigation is currently being analyzed and will be presented in a detailed archaeological inventory survey report which will be submitted to Malama Hule`ia at the conclusion of the project. The report will summarize our findings and provide detailed descriptions, photographs, and GPS coordinates for the sites we have identified. Recommendations of significance for each site, along with possibilities for future archaeological studies and site preservation will also be presented. In the interim, if you would like to discuss our findings or if you have any questions regarding our survey, please contact Paul Cleghorn or myself (808-263-4800). Sincerely, Caleb Fechner, B.A. Supervisory Archaeologist Page 4 of 27 5� F -3M - M-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Proposed Project Areas ® Project Elements F......_ . 11 Mangrove Removal Area Mangrove Access Pathway Project Elements include: 1 - Stockpile for biomass out hauling 2 - Native plant nursery 3 - Potential Hale 4 - Mangrove Access Pathway Figure 2. Aerial image showing project area (Provided by Malama Hule`ia). Page 6 of 27 I` } I Figure 7. Aerial image showing relative locations of archaeological sites identified within the current Hule°ia project area. (Source ESRI 2017 and GIS User Community). Page 9 of 2/ rigure ti. Aerial image showing relative locations of archaeological sites and landforms identified within the current Hule`ia project area. Survey transects are not represented (Source ESRI 2017 and GIS User Community), Page 10 Of 2Y Table 1. Archaeolozical bites ldentitied Uurine Current Alb T-001 - Terrace Pre -Contact T-002 - Concrete Lined Ditch Historic T-003 - Not Recorded Modern T-004 - Metal Pipe Sections 2 Historic T-005 50-30-11-501 `Alekoko Fishpond Pre -Contact and Historic T-006 - Concrete Bride Historic Page 11 of 27 ATTACHMENTI SITE DOCUMENTATION Page 12 of 27 Site T-001 Site T-001 is a terrace located in the central portion of the stockpile project area approximately 20.0 m north of the existing dirt access road and ca. 15.0 m in elevation above the access road. The terrace is situated along the base of a basalt bedrock outcrop cliff face. The surrounding area slopes steeply to the south towards the access road. Vegetation in the area consists of java plum and other undetermined trees with at least three palm trees located downslope to the south of the terrace. The groundcover consists of pockets of California grass, small vines, and the occasional century plant. The terrace itself is relatively clear of vegetation except for three medium sized trees growing out of it. The terrace consists of a partially stacked and partially tumbled basalt stone retaining wall with fairly level soil and stone interior constructed along the base of a basalt bedrock outcrop cliff face that runs roughly northwest to southeast across the south facing slope (Figure 9). The stone retaining wall is constructed of loosely stacked small subangular basalt boulders and medium to large subangular basalt cobbles approximately 2-3 courses in height (Figure 10). The stone retaining wall is located ca.1.0-1.5 m south of the base of the cliff face. Overall, the retaining wall measures ca. 7.5 m long (N/ W-S/ E) by 0.30-1.0 m wide (N/ E-S/ W) by 0.30-0.60 m high along the downslope edge. A large portion of the southeast side of the retaining wall measuring ca. 2.0 m in length has tumbled downslope to the south. A small section of loosely stacked stone located at the northwest end of the terrace measures ca. 1.2 m long (N/W-S/E) by 0.50 m wide (N/E-S/W) by 0.40 m high. The soil and stone interior surface of the terrace measures ca. 7.0 m long (N/W-S/E) by 1.0-1.5 m wide (N/E-S/W). The southeastern portion of the surface of the terrace consists of more stone than soil. The basalt bedrock cliff face consists of two different lava flows, one on top of the other. The cliff face measures ca. 4.0 m high from the surface of the terrace. Another smaller basalt bedrock cliff face is located ca. 3-4 m downslope to the south of the terrace. No cultural material was observed at Site T-001. The terrace is in overall fair condition. The northwest portion is the most intact. Some of the southeast portion of the retaining wall has tumbled downslope. In addition, at least three medium sized trees are growing either on or nearby the terrace causing disturbance to the terrace. Several small basalt boulders appear to have fallen from the cliff face above. Site T-001 appears to have functioned as a temporary habitation terrace constructed and utilized during the pre -Contact period. AIthough no cultural material was observed, based on the location along the cliff face and style of construction, the terrace appears to be traditional. Page 13 of 27 Al � q �, ,. J Site T-002 Site T-002 is a concrete lined ditch located in the eastern portion of the stockpile project area approximately 1.7 m from the north edge of the existing dirt access road (Figure 11). The terrain on the north side of the access road slopes steeply to the south towards the road. Vegetation in the area consists of koa haole and dense vines, several palm trees, and one large shower tree located just to the east of the concrete ditch. Site T-002 consists of a relatively shallow soil ditch lined with a thin layer of concrete situated at the base of a natural bedrock cliff face/hillside that appears to have had water flowing through it intermittently at some point in time, although currently no water is present (Figure 12). The concrete lined ditch is oriented roughly north to south and measures ca. 3.9 m long (N-S) by 1.4- 1.5 m wide (E-W). The concrete itself is roughly finished and only measures ca. 3-5 cm thick. The ditch slopes moderately to the south and drop down to the elevation of the access road. The southern end of the ditch is cracked and broken. At Ieast three medium basalt boulders are located at the north end of the ditch where it connects to the natural cliff face. These boulders appear to have been roughly set in place. A single large basalt boulder is located along the west edge of the ditch and appears to have incorporated into the construction of the ditch. The basalt cliff face extends steeply to the north and measures ca. 10.0 m in height from the ditch surface. The ditch appears to have at one time flowed down the hill, across the dirt access road, and into a small soil ditch located ca. 8.8 m southeast of the south end of the concrete ditch. This soil ditch measures ca. 8-10 m wide (E-W) and runs south ca. 58.0 m before connecting with a large low area with dense mangrove and water. The soil ditch measures ca. 1.5 m deep below the edges of the ditch. Several large basalt boulders are located at the north end of the soil ditch and south edge of the dirt access road along with a single octagonal concrete column. These stones appear to have been at least roughly placed in order to control water flow. No historic cultural material was observed at Site T-002, however, modern trash debris consisting of glass beer bottles, aluminum cans, and pieces of plastic were scattered around the area. Several modern metal fence posts with concrete bottoms are located ca. 5.0 m to the east of the ditch. The concrete ditch is in fair condition. The surface of the concrete is partially cracked and the south end of the ditch is almost completely broken. The concrete Iined ditch appears to have functioned to control and direct the flow of water coming down the natural basalt cliff face, directing the water across the dirt access road and into the soil ditch. The concrete lined ditch appears to have been constructed during the historic period, likely late historic (past 1900s) based on the type and style of the concrete. Page 15 of 27 zi �F r i� r i •i r( ��r , !1 -F ; '� �, �J+1 �""jai -.y: SJtite �•`<i i f—. X �`.^'` r- S� r - ji !' `- _.i f' � z r �a }� 1�1F � ti �"a•, J! + �1 ..+. F.F7"S� i -�i. r'Lf ie� a.`; r i Ec �a7 `:e?w r+ • Y�,e�-"Yl?,r. r,� .+ii.:i�.r.Cl. -. Y� T-003 T-003 consists of modern trash and debris including modern glass bottles, aluminum cans, and several fragments of concrete including at least five square concrete blocks located in the central portion of the stockpile project area approximately 10.0 m south of the dirt access road. T-003 was determined to be modern and therefore did not constitute an archaeological site at this time. Page 17 of 27 Site T-004 Site T-004 consists of two Iarge metal pipe sections located on the surface south of the stockpile project area, south of the dirt access road, and east of `Alekoko Fishpond and Site T-006 concrete bridge. The pipes are situated across a narrow raised soil berm with water and mangrove to the north and the south. The berm extends southeast from the dirt access road near Site T-006 towards the pipe sections, then bends to the south and continues on. Vegetation in the area consists of koa haole, hau, mangrove, California grass, and vines. At least two palm trees are located just to the northwest. Site T-004 consists of two large metal pipe sections set roughly end to end, although there is a gap between the two pipes and they are currently not connected (Figure 13). The southern pipe is oriented N/E to S/W (70' to 250°) and the northern pipe is oriented N/E to S/W (40' to 220°). The pipes cross the small soil berm that runs N/W to S/E through the area. Each pipe is constructed slightly differently of welded rectangular steel or cast iron sheets. Each end of the pipe has a metal connector fitting with numerous bolt holes (Figure 14). The southern pipe measures ca. 4.47 in long with an interior diameter of 1.07 in (42 inches) and a connector fitting diameter of 1.27 m (50 inches). The northern pipe measures ca. 4.04 m long with an interior diameter of 1.07 in (42 inches) and a connector fitting diameter of 1,27 in (50 inches). No historic cultural material was observed near the pipes, however, several fragments of modern trash debris including a clear glass bottle were observed nearby. The pipe sections are in poor condition and badly rusted with numerous holes. The two pipe sections are currently not connected. Site T-004 appears to have functioned to control water, allowing water from one low area to flow through the pipe over the soil berm and into the other low area. The pipe sections appear to have been utilized during the historic period. They are not visible on the 191.2 aerial photograph of the area. Page 18 of 27 Site T-005 Site T-005 consists of `Alekoko (Menehune) Fishpond (Figure 15). `Alekoko Fishpond is presently listed on the National Register for Historic Places and has been assigned Hawaii State Inventory of Historic Places site number 50-30-11-501. Only a small section along the southeastern portion of the fishpond consisting of the eastern half of the southern fishpond wall which fronts Hule`ia Stream is currently accessible by foot. A small trail on top of the wall currently allows access to this portion of the pond (Figure 16). All of the other portions of the fishpond wall are covered in water and/ or dense mangrove. The visible portion of the fishpond wall extends west for approximately 233.0 m from the small island area with the modern picnic structure and small beach. The west end of the visible wall appears to terminate near one of the original fishpond mdkdhd (gate). Vegetation along the wall consists of dense mangrove and hau with several palm trees located at the eastern end where the wall connects into the small island area. The majority of the fishpond wall consists of a raised soil berm that measures ca. 4.0 m wide and 0.50-0.70 m high. Sections of the southern edge of the wall have been edged with up to two courses of small rounded basalt boulders (Figure 17). Dense mangrove, hau, and water are present directly to the north and south of the wall. No traditional or historic cultural material was observed along the wall, however, a variety of modern trash brought in by Hule`ia Stream is present. This portion of the fishpond wall is in fair condition. The wall appears to be mostly covered in sediment deposited by Hul&ia Stream. Only small sections of the stone edging along the south edge of the wall are visible. Numerous mangrove and hau trees are growing along and on top of the wall causing significant disturbance. `Alekoko Fishpond was originally constructed during the pre -Contact period, but the fishpond was utilized and likely modified during the historic period. The fishpond appears to have been in use up until at least 1912 based on a historic aerial photo of the area. A full site description and plan map of `Alekoko Fishpond are pending following the vegetation clearance along the fishpond wall. Page 20 of 27 lbb T � y Site T-006 Site T-006 is a stone and concrete bridge with metal cover for the bridge crossing located at the east end of `Alekoko Fishpond and situated u1 between the two existing modern shed structures and the small modern picnic structure near the beach (Figure 18). The vegetation to the east and the west of the bridge consists of dense mangrove and hau with a few palm trees and ironwood trees located nearby. The stone and mortar foundation of the bridge consists of a linear channel constructed of small to medium rounded basalt boulders and small to large rounded basalt cobbles set in concrete mortar. The interior surface of the channel consists of finished mortar and the exterior edges consist more of stone set into the mortar (Figure 19). The channel that serves as the bridge foundation measures approximately 6.7 m in overall length (E- W). The interior width of the channel measures ca.1.45 m. The interior height of the concrete channel ranges between ca. 0.65-1.45 m. The current water depth in the channel is roughly 0.60 m. The exterior height of the channel measures between ca. 0-0.40 m. The interior of the concrete channel has a total of three gate slots to control water flow through the channel. One gate slot is located at the west end of the channel and measures ca.1.0 m long by 0.07 m wide. The other two gate slots are located underneath the eastern end of the metal bridge crossing and each measure ca. 1.45 m long by 0.07 m wide (Figure 20). The surface of the bridge crossing consists of nine rectangular metal plates oriented north to south and welded together with two triangular metal strips running east to west. Overall, the metal bridge crossing measures ca. 2.8 m long (E-W) by 1.83 m wide (N-S). Each metal plate measures ca. 1.83 m long (N-S) by 0.31 m wide (E-W) and 0.10 m thick. The triangular metal strips measure ca. 0.06 m wide. There are small concrete ramps that lead directly up to the metal bridge crossing which measure ca. 3.3 m long (E-W) by 0.30-0.65 m wide (N-S). A small dirt access road runs from the two existing modern metal shed structures across the bridge to the small island area where the modern picnic structure and small beach is located along HuICNa Stream. A portion of the west side of the dirt road nearest the bridge is edged with stone and mortar, concrete slabs, and rectangular concrete blocks. This edging extends ca, 2.0 m to the north and ca. 10.0 m to the south of the bridge along the west edge of the road. A single 11/2" PVC pipe runs north to south directly underneath the metal plates on the west side of the bridge. The pipe has a 90' fitting with a single 1" PVC pipe running east under the bridge and hanging into the water (Figure 20). This pipe has a small spigot attached to the east end. No cultural material was observed in association with the bridge. The bridge is in good condition and is actively in use when accessing the small island area with the modern picnic structure and small beach. The bridge appears to have served several functions including providing access to the small island area and allowing water drainage for the east (down river) side of `Alekoko Fishpond. The bridge/concrete drainage channel appears to have been constructed during the historic period, prior to 1912 based on an aerial photograph of the area in which the bridge/channel appears to be visible (Figure 21). According to the aerial photograph, the bridge/channel appears to be located at the east edge of a small internal pond area situated within the southeast corner of `Alekoko Fishpond. The water currently flows from the fishpond, through the concrete channel into a wide soil canal or ditch that bends southeast towards Hule`ia Stream. No other features besides the bridge/channel, southern edge of the fishpond wall, and small Page 23 of 27 island area were relocated from the 1912 aerial photograph, although several spits of land extending out into areas of dense mangrove were surveyed nearby and may correspond to spits of land visible in the aerial photograph. Figure 18. Site T-006, Bridge/Channel (view south). Page 24 of 27 Figure 19. Site T-006, Bridge/Channel (view south). Figure 20. Site T-006, Bridge/Channel (view east). Page 25 of 27 ATTACHMENT 2 1912 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Page 26 of 27 rtgure .4r. nniwric aerial pnotograpn or •Atekoko rishpond from 1912 with edits plotting Site T-005 and Site T-006 (photo provided by Maiama HuRNa). rage a or tr United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "NA" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: Fish House No. 1 Other names/site number: Rutgard Residence Name of related multiple property listing: NA (Enter "NIA" if property is not part of a multiple property listing 2. Location Street & number: 4380 Amaama Road City or town: Hanalei State: HT County: Kauai Not For Publication: E Vicinity: ❑ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _ nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property _X meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: _national _statewide X local Applicable National Register Criteria: _A _B X C _D Signature of certifying official/Title: Date State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property _ meets does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting official: Title . Date State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government T a a rAPR 19 2018 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register other (explain:) Signature of the Keeper 5. Classification Ownership of Property (Check as many boxes as apply.) Private: FX] Public — Local Public — State Public — Federal Category of Property (Check only one box.) Building(s) ❑x District Site 17 Structure Object Sections 1-6 page 2 Date of Action Number of Resources within Property (Do not include previously listed resources in the count) Contributing Noncontributing 1 1 buildings 0 0 sites 0 0 structures 0 0 objects 1 1 Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register 0 6. Function or Use Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) DOMESTIC/single dwelling Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) DOMESTIC/single dwelling Sections 1-6 page 3 7. Description Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions.) OTHER: Hawaiian Plantation Materials: (enter categories from instructions.) Wood Post & Concrete Pier foundation, 7 3/" x 3/" heartwood Redwood tongue & groove and shiplap siding, asphalt shingle roof. Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property. Describe contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, type, style, method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has historic integrity.) Summary Paragraph Fish House No. 1, built in 1945 after the end of World War 11, is a modest one-story, Hawaiian Plantation Style single family resort Beach House located on the beachfront in the center of Hanalei Bay, Kauai. The foundation is simple wood post and concrete pier construction. It has single wall framing and siding of heartwood Redwood. The compact 34'x36' original structure has a centrally organized floor plan, with an open Kitchen / Living Area and a full length Lanai along the north Hanalei Bay view elevation. The original 3 Bedroom 2 Bath home has had a modern third Bathroom and Laundry added in 2002 that is compatible with the original exterior architectural features. A historically significant 16'x27' open covered Entry Lanai was constructed in 1954. The roof is a simple hip roof. This home was built in a series of three existing adjacent homes by Lihue Plantation Co. as a summer cottage for their managers. There is an existing 384 SF non-contributing 16'x24' Guest Cottage on the property that was built in 1968 in a simple rectangle. The lot is sparsely landscaped and remains open where the original volleyball court once existed. Section 7 page 4 Narrative Description In 1938 there was a 16'x24' Garage constructed that was demolished in 1945 to build the existing nominated Fish House No. 1. The historic modest one-story 34'x36' Hawaiian Plantation Style single family resort Beach House structure and historically significant covered Lanais additions were constructed entirely of heartwood Redwood (Sequoieideae). The foundation construction is of 4"x4" (actual size) wood posts that bear directly on 12"x12" concrete footings. It has single -wall 2"x4" wood framing with vertical siding. An unusual feature is that the siding on the North beachfront and South entry elevations is 7 1/" x V shiplap siding and the siding on the two sides is 5 1/a" T&G. There are no vertical siding board & batons, so the shiplap siding on the North Tradewinds elevation and South Kona winds elevations may have been used to protect the wood from the harsh weather conditions. The exterior 16'x27' covered open Entry Lanai ceiling has 71/4" x 3/" T&G siding that runs perpendicular to the beachfront. The simple hip roof is modern asphalt shingles, installed after Hurricane Iniki (1992). The interior exposed single wall framing, siding and window & door frames are painted white. The interior of the house has not been altered and the original door and window openings have been retained. The window frames are 1 "x4" and the door frames are 1"0" (actual size). The roof support columns for the Entry Lanai (1954) are 5 1/2" x 5 %2", which demonstrates the conversion from `actual' to `dressed' framing sizes that is used in more contemporary construction. Roof framing screened vents are 4"x22" and site constructed. This home was originally built in a series of three very similar adjacent homes by the Lihue Plantation Co., as summer cottages for their managers on Hanalei Bay. All three have a very similar floor plan, roof profile and detailing, which can be seen in the adjacent Neighbor's Fish House No. 2's identical enclosed North Elevation 8'x34' enclosed Lanai. This Beach Home is designed in the Hawaiian Plantation Style. It has many architectural and design features reflecting a strong Hawaiian Plantation influence from Charles Dickey and the `Asian' modernism of Frank Lloyd Wright. This includes the open spacious covered Entry Lanai on the opposite side of the prevailing NE trade winds, covered full length 8'x34' North Elevation Lanai (1954) with expansive views of Hanalei Bay over the County Park that lies between the house and the beach. The original screened North Elevation Lanai has been `glasses in' using the existing column and fenestration openings to retain the original historic aesthetic integrity. The roof is a single pitched 4:12 hip roof, with a 42" overhang that protects the exterior siding from the coastal trade winds and winter sea spray. The effectiveness of the large roof overhangs is evidenced by the excellent condition of the Redwood siding. The original structure does not have gutters and downspout, as do the new exterior Lanai Laundry Area and Master Bath additions (2002). This subtly differentiated the existing building from the new construction. There have been three minor revisions / additions to the original structure that were done in a historically sensitive manner that conform to The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: Section 7 page 5 1. The 6'-6" x 7'-8" new Laundry Area (2202) was added onto the existing covered Entry Lanai and does not obscure the original existing T&G Redwood siding. This was done to protect the historic materials that characterize the property. 2. The 11'-6" x 6'-8" new Master Bath (2002) is constructed between the existing windows and does not obscure the original hot water closet or outdoor shower & shower entry door. The addition has an identical 4:12 roof pitch and the window trim is also 1"A" Redwood. The new work is differentiated from the old by installing an aluminum gutter. It is compatible with the massing, scale, and architectural features of the original home to protect the historic integrity of the structure. 3. The existing North elevation screened Lanai has replaced with glass, within the existing screened openings. The renovation has been detailed identically to the adjacent Fish House No. 2, recently `glassed -in' North Elevation Lanai. The original Redwood swing screen door into the original screened Lanai has been retained and preserved. Despite the non-contributing alterations, the structure and property retain the historic integrity of the original home and site. There is also a non-contributing, legal non -conforming Guest Cottage built in 1968 on the property, approximately 35' from the historic home. This 16'x24' Guest Cottage is a simple 384 SF rectangular building with a simple gable 4:12 sloped roof. The fenestration is 4" jalousie windows with aluminum hardware typical of 1960's construction. It is non-contributing because it has a very different architectural aesthetic from the Main House. The property consists of one lot totaling 0.3723 acres (16,217 SF) and is centrally located on Hanalei Bay along Amaama Road, immediately behind the County Park that runs along a portion the beachfront of Hanalei Bay. The front of the property is at the corner of Weke Road and the flat lot slopes gently to the beach and ocean. The open estate grass lawn between the historic home and Weke Road is framed by mature towering Coconut trees and Ironwood Pines (Disambiguation). There is a 6' high Ironwood hedge along Weke and Amaama Roads, which is similar to other historic home property line hedges along Weke Road. The expansive open yard is landscaped at the perimeter with cultural plant materials, such as Ti Plants, Red Ginger and Plumeria trees. The original pre -cast 12" diameter concrete stepping stones to the Entry Lanai and existing outdoor shower have been retained. The exterior recreational space has been retained where the original sand volley ball court existed, as evidenced by the existence of an original 8'-4" high 2 318" diameter volley ball net support pipe. The structure suffered little damage from the tsunami of 1957 or Hurricanes Ewa (1983) and Iniki (1992). The structures remain in excellent condition and retain their historic integrity of design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling and association. This is one property and home on Hanalei Bay, along with the Faye, Sanborn and Wilcox Beach Houses, that has maintained its original historic character, architectural integrity and site aesthetics. The Sanborn and Wilcox Beach Houses are currently on the National Register. Section 7 page 6 1. i 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark 'Y' in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.) A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. ❑x C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.) A. Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes ElB. Removed from its original location C. A birthplace or grave D. A cemetery F] E. A reconstructed building, object, or structure F—I P. A commemorative property ❑ G. Less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions.) Architecture Section 8 page 7 Period of Significance 1945-1954 Significant Dates 1945; 34'x36' Main House Constructed 1954; 14'x27' Exterior Covered Entry Lanai and 8'x34' Screened Lanai Constructed Significant Person (Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.) Cultural Affiliation NA Architect(Builder Lihue Plantation Co. Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes level of significance, applicable criteria, justification for the period of significance, and any applicable criteria considerations.) The three Hanalei Fish Houses were built on three adjacent lots by The Lihue Plantation Co. in 1945, immediately following the end of World War II in May -April of 1945. Fish House No. 1 -- No, 3 were built at a time when Hanalei was transitioning from an agriculturally based community, growing rice and taro, to a more leisure resort population. They were built for their Managers and extended families to enjoy summer beach homes on Hanalei Bay. The level of significance for the architecture of Fish House No. 1 is local. This Application is for Fish House No. 1, which is designed in a Hawaiian Plantation Style, emulating the architectural design aesthetic of Charles Dickey. The recreational beach home has a modern `Asian' simplicity reminiscent of the Japanese influence in Frank Lloyd Wright's Section 8 page 8 contemporary architecture. It has a similar floor plan to the other two adjacent Fish Houses. Fish House No. 1 is smaller in scale compared to the larger Hawaiian Summer Beach Houses built by the most prominent of local Hawaii / Kauai families on Hanalei Bay. Fish House No.1 meets National Register Criterion `C' in the area of Architecture as one of the remaining residential examples of a Hawaiian Plantation Style Beach House with Estate Grounds, built with the highest quality of Redwood materials and craftsmanship on Hanalei Bay, Kauai. The 1945--1954 Period of Significance is documented because the original 34'x36' home was built in 1945 and the 16'x27' Entry Lanai and 8'x34' North elevation Lanai were added in 1954. Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.) In compliance with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, from the time of the construction of Fish House No. 1 in 1945 to the present, the house and all other improvements have been maintained with the highest degree of respect for the integrity of the existing architectural design and have not been altered in any way as to detract from the historic significance. Minor additions have been made, such that the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment have been unchanged. Distinctive historic features, finishes and construction techniques have been preserved. Any new work that has been performed has been compatible with the massing, size, scale, architectural features and property environment of the historic buildings and site. The first tax record for the property is for a Garage in January 1, 1938, owned by The Lihue Plantation Co. [1] January 1, 1954 the existing 16' x 24' Garage was torn down and the nominated historic home was constructed. December 9, 1968 the property was bought by the Eagle County Development Corp. January 27, 1972 the property, house and neighboring Fish House No. 3 were purchased by Frank N. Wright. February 10, 1978 the property was bought by Malcom S. Smith, a prominent Kauai family and owner of Smith's Paradise, in Kapaa, Kauai, Hawaii. February 4, 1986 the current owners, Linda Rutgard, bought the property. It is logical that this property was initially owned by the The Lihue Plantation Co. because they were a prominent local business and were the primary landowners in Hanalei Town during the 1800's, and still have descendants living in Hanalei. At the turn of the 1800's Hanalei was an agricultural community growing rice and taro. In the Teens and Twenties Hanalei was Section 8 page 9 transformed into a vacation destination by many visitors and local families from around Kauai. The Albert Spencer Wilcox Beach House (1899), near the Hanalei River, the Kauikeolani Estate, the Faye House and the Sanborn Beach House (1910), on Hanalei Bay Beach. [8] are on the National Register of Historic places. Albert Wilcox was born in Hanalei, on the North Shore of Kauai, to his immigrant parents who arrived there by ship in 1836. "Albert married Emma Kauikeolani Napoleon Mahelona in 1898. He owned this 0.3723 Acre property as part of their estate named Kauikeolani, meaning "a beautiful vision that comes in the early morning mist". The estate included a substantial amount of the Hanalei Valley. [8] Hanalei, meaning `wreath making', is located within the Kauai Koolau District and encompasses Hanalei Bay. [4] Fish House No. 1 was designed in a Hawaiian Plantation Style, reminiscent of Charles Dickey, combined with a modern `Asian' simplicity similar to the 1950's work of Prank Lloyd Wright. [6] Specific Hawaiian Plantation Style architectural features include the 4:12 single hip roof, large 42" overhangs, large covered exterior Entry Lanai, full length covered Lanai along ocean elevation, single wall construction of heartwood Redwood and awning windows. Ripley and Dickey's A.F. Judd Residence, Honolulu (1899) and Irene Li Brown Bungalow, Honolulu (1899) are excellent historical precedent examples. [6] `Dickey returned to Honolulu in late 1925 from the San Francisco Bay Area ... with hopes to develop a "most charming", perhaps distinct, Hawaiian Style, "in which broad Lanais, interior courts, fountains and the like will play an important part". Upscale houses incorporated the new style, as did business and government buildings. A Hawaiian Style of Architecture featuring the Dickey roof and open, flowing interior -exterior spaces thus blossomed' [9], as seen in the architectural design and detailing of Fish House No. 1. In Fish House No. 1 one can see a modern unadorned design aesthetic expressed in the compact rectilinear building mass. There is an `Asian' design aesthetic of balanced simplicity, integrated design features and openness between the interior and exterior that is reminiscent of the Japanese influence in Frank Lloyd Wright's contemporary architecture. Fish House No. 1 exhibits a high degree of integration of architectural aesthetic and structural construction elements typical of the strong architectural regionalism of Hawaiian Style Beach Homes found along Hanalei Bay Beach. One can also see the influence of Dickey from the Hanalei Elementary School (1926) and Waioli Mission House (1837), Hanalei, built by Dickey's father William Alexander. [6] Fish House No. 1 is among the Beach Homes that survived the March, 1957 tsunami along with the Albert Spencer Wilcox Beach House (1899), Sanborn Beach House (1910) and Faye Beach House 1917. [7] The Sanborn and Faye Beach Houses are a Hawaiian Cottage Style. The Faye Beach House has a Northern European Chalet Design. Section 8 page 10 Fish House No. 1 is significant because it was built by The Lihue Plantation Co. in a group of three nearly identical homes in a more modern style with distinctive Hawaiian Plantation Style architectural components from the past applied with modern design aesthetics and materials exhibited in post -World War 11 resort homes. During World War II, Hanalei Bay Town was protected in part by a mass of barbed wire on the beach. At the end of the War in April / May of 1945 Hanalei Bay Beach sand could not be see due to the mass of rusted barbed wire. Immediately after the War, the beach was cleaned and Fish Houses No. 1-3 were constructed. [11]. AmFac, a reginal sugar cane land owner, sub -divided what has become the historic Kahoe Road neighborhood above Kalihiwai Bay. Many of the homes there were constructed using Hicks Homes building packages, whose primary building material was 7 1/" x 1/" Redwood Heartwood Tongue & Groove siding, along with all the other structural elements. The same materials were initially imported from the Pacific NW to Kauai to build Fish Houses No. 1-3. [12]. This was typical of the older Hawaii beach homes, yet was becoming prohibitively expensive by the 1970's. The original Redwood framing remains in excellent condition. Redwood is particularly resistant to the wet tropical'conditions, as well as being an insect repellant. The Entry Lanai and original screened North Elevation Lanai were added in 1954. The comparatively large open covered Lanai was typically located on the leeward side of many Hawaiian beach homes. It creates expansive opportunities for indoor / outdoor living, unique to Hawaii. The original Hanalei Beach Houses were built at a time when Hanalei was transitioning from an agriculturally based community, growing rice and taro, to a more leisure resort population. Financial resources from the production of rice and then sugar and pineapple created considerable wealth. Hanalei has long been recognized as among one of the most beautiful resort destination beaches in the world. Hawaii has had a long history of the society elites having Beach Homes. Kings (Ali'i) Kamehameha IV, Kamehameha V, Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani had resort Beach Homes in Waikiki. The `Outer Islands' also had their beach front retreats, as exemplified by Kamehameha's Beach House at Kaunakakai, Big Island, Queen Emma in Lawai, Kauai and the early Nineteenth Century Beach Homes built on the Island of Kauai at Kipu Kai, Poi Pu and Hanalei Bay by wealthy European immigrants to Hawaii, typically engaged in large agricultural plantations of sugar cane and pineapple or in providing utilities. [ 121 On March 30, 1817 the Cleopatra's Barge, owned by the Crowninshield family, sailed from Salem, Massachusetts to Europe. While there, George Crowninsheld entertained politicians and gave tours of the 100' long opulently furnished and painted hermaphrodite Brig. It is also rumored that he hoped to escort napoleon from his exile on Saint Helena Island to America. On November 16, 1820 King Kamehameha II purchased the yacht for over one million pounds of sandalwood, worth approximately $80,000 at the time. On May 10, 1823 it was renamed Ha 'aheo o Hawaii (Pride of Hawaii). In July 1821 King Kamehameha II spent two weeks on Kauai entertaining King Kaumuali'I on the yacht. On September 16, 1821 King Kamehameha quietly left Kauai with King Kaumuali'I on board, which effectively exiled him. On April 6, Section 8 page 11 1824 when King Kamehameha 11 was in England to visit King George IV. Ha'aheo o Hawaii was in Hanalei Bay, perhaps scouting a potential rebellion as retribution for the exile, and the yacht ran aground on Middle's Reef in Hanalei Bay. The Fish House No. 1 property is located at the center of the 1.5 mile crescent shaped Hanalei Bay Beach. In front of the house just to the west is Middle's Reef. [4] The reason that the home has been known locally as Fish House No. 1, is because that was where all of the `Hukilaus' occurred during the summer on Hanalei Bay. Huki means pull and Lau means fish in Hawaiian. When a school of fish were spotted in Hanalei Bay by the Konohiki (the individual responsible for spotting the fish), the entire community was mobilized. Standing ready on the water's edge were two 25' long, 8' wide, heavy plank constructed flat bottom and transom row boats sitting on balsam wood rolling logs. The stern was piled high with fishing nets weighted on one side. The two -person row boats were approximately 100' apart and each sat next to a large wooden post with a turnstile on top. At the end of the nets was a long length of rope to allow the boats to go out into the Bay as far as possible to surround the school of fish from both sides. Once the school had been surrounded, the net was closed by the most experienced Hawaiian swimmers who could hold their breath the longest. It was their job to sew the nets together. Upon surrounding the fish, the entire community would pull both ends of the closed net, with the assistance of the turnstile winches, to the beach chanting Huki Huki. An array of fish were typically caught, including Aku, Opelu, Kavakava, and the occasional Mahimahi & Ono. The fish were distributed amongst the community by filling up each individual's shirt with fish to take home. An amount of fish was always held back for a community feast on the beach park in front of Fish House No. 1, called a Hukilau. [ 11 ]. Fish House No. 1 Entry Lanai was where the nets were repaired and became a community social center, particularly because there was a County Park in front of the property. The start date of the Period of Significance is 1945, the year the Main House was constructed. The end date was determined as 1954, when the two exterior Lanais were constructed. The structure remains in excellent condition and retains its historic integrity of design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling and association. It has not been altered in any way as to detract from the historic significance. Section 8 page 12 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.) County of Kauai Tax Office Records: 1. Bureau of Conveyances Book 5204 2. Bureau of Conveyances Book 5503 [Obsolete] Kauai Historical Society for: 3. Aerial Photographs of E. Hanalei Town & Bay 4. 002.2 The Kauai Papers, Book 5, Hanalei Place Names 5. Griffin, Pat. Lihue Root and Bunch of a Hawai 'i Town. Lihue, HI: Kauai Historical Society, 2014. 6. Jay, Robert. The Architecture of Charles Dickey Hawaii and California. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1992. pp. 68 & 136. 7. Johnson, Robert. "Kauai Hurt Worse Than in '46 Wave" Honolulu Star Bulletin. Honolulu, Hawaii. Wednesday, March 13, 1957: P.1. 8. "History of Kauikeolani, Hanalei Land Company, LLC, Hanalei, Hawaii". Home Page www.hanaleiland.com. January 20, 2018. 9. Hibbard, Don. Buildings of Hawaii. University of Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2011. pp 32-33 10. Rutgard, Linda. Personal Interview. Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii: January 22, 2018. Phone: 858-922-6854. 11. Faye, Alan. Personal Interview. 4209 Liholiho Road, Princeville Hawaii: January 23, 2018. Phone: 808-826-7630. 12. Wikipedia, King Kamehameha Hawaii. https://www.gohawaii.com/culturelhistory/king- kamehameha Sections 9-end page 13 Previous documentation on file (NPS): preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested previously listed in the National Register !previously determined eligible by the National Register designated a National Historic Landmark recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # Primary location of additional data: X State Historic Preservation Office Other State agency Federal agency Local government University Other Name of repository: Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): 13. Geographical Data Acreage of Property: (1) TMK Parcel totaling 0.372 Acres (16,217 SF) Use either the UTM system or latitude/longitude coordinates Latitude/Longitude Coordinates (decimal degrees) Datum if other than WGS84: (enter coordinates to 6 decimal places) 1. Latitude: 22.202515 Longitude:-159.502645 2. Latitude: Longitude: 3. Latitude: Longitude: 4. Latitude: Longitude: Or UTM References Datum (indicated on USGS map): NAD 1927 or ❑ NAD 1983 Sections 9-end page 14 1. Zone: Easting: Northing: 2. Zone: Easting: Northing: 3. Zone: Easting: Northing: 4, Zone: Easting : Northing: Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.) TMK NO.(4) 5-5-004: Parcel 008 4380 Amaama Road, Hanalei, Hawaii 96714 The Historic Main House is on Parcel 008. Parcel 008 shares its western boundary with the eastern boundary of Parcel 007. Parcel 008 has its northern boundary parallel to the Ocean and fronts along Kauai County Hanalei Bay Beach. It has naturally occurring coconut trees and Ironwood Trees. Parcel 008 shares an eastern boundary that is the County of Kauai Amaama Road Right of Way. It is planted with an Ironwood Hedge. Parcel 008 shares a southern boundary that is the County of Kauai Weke Road Right of Way. It is planted with an Ironwood Hedge. The side property lines are essentially parallel and run north south to form a rectangle. Parcel oo8 is bordered on the sides and across Weke Road by similar residential properties. Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.) The boundaries were selected because there is one legal TMK Lot of Record that is owned and improved by one Owner. 14. Form Prepared By name/title: Stephen W Long / President organization: Stephen W Long & Associates, Inc. street & number: PO Box 22343 59 city or town: Princeville state: HI zip code: 96722 e-mail: slong808@gmail.com telephone: 808-652-8000 date: January 29, 2018. Revised per Hawaii SHPD Letter dated February 7, 2018. Additional Documentation Sections 9-end page 15 Submit the following items with the completed form: Maps: A USGS map or equivalent (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map. • Additional items: (Check with the SHPO, TPO, or FPO for any additional items.) Photographs Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels (minimum), 3000x2000 preferred, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity, the name of the photographer, photo date, etc, may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn't need to be labeled on every photograph. Photo Log Photo 1 of 17. Hanalei Bay, Kauai ... West Photo 2 of 17: Hanalei Bay, Kauai... West Photo 3 of 17: Weke & Amaama Roads Intersection ... NW Photo 4 of 17: Front Entry and Two Houses... West Photo 5 of 17: Main House East Elevation... West Photo 6 of 17: Main House South Elevation... North Photo 7 of 17: Main House SW Elevation ... NE PHOTOS & PDF's 8 — 22 Would not attach to the Application and are attached separately to the Cover Email Photo 8 of 17: Main House New Laundry ... NE Photo 9 of 17: Main House New Bath Addition ... NE Photo 10 of 17: Main House Lanai ... North Photo 1 I of 17: Main House Lanai View North ... North Photo 12 of 17: Main House NW Elevation ... SE Photo 13 of 17: Main House North Elevation.. South Photo 14 of 17: Main House East Elevation ... NW` Photo 15 of 17: Cottage South Elevation & Lawn ... North Photo 16 of 17: Northern Property Line at Park... South Photo 17 of 17: Neighbor's Fish House No. 2... South PDF 18 TMK Map PDF 19 Rutgard Residence USGS Map PDF 20 Kauai Assessor's Information PDF 21 Rutgard Site Plan, Photographic Key Plan & Exterior Elevations PDF 22 Rutgard Floor Plan & Exterior Elevations Sections 9-end page 16 Name of Property: Fish House No.1, Rutgard Residence City or Vicinity: Hanalei County: Kauai State: Hawaii Photographer: Kauai Historical Society Date Photographed: March 15, 1929 Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera: 1 of 17: Hanalei Bay, Kauai... West Sections 9-end page 17 . ..... ........ ....... . . ...... ..... .. ........ Name of Property: Fish House No. 1, Rutgard Residence City or Vicinity: Hanalei County: Kauai State: Hawaii Photographer: Kauai Historical Society Date Photographed: December 1968 Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera: 2 of 17: Hanalei Bay... West Sections 9-end page 18 Name of Property: Fish House No. 1; Rutgard Residence City or Vicinity: Hanalei County: Kauai State: Hawaii Photographer: Stephen Long Date Photographed: January 20, 2018 Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera: Photographs Nos. 3-17 are photographs taken by Stephen Long January 20, 2018 attached as separate PDFs below and keyed to the Site Plan, Sheet 1 of 4 of the Construction Drawings (PDF No. 21). Sections 9-end page 19 f E ]0.� i i; A� .T�-'_'- r.}� `r��t..9'�y.F 'ry��C �.Y` �. � p Ii �f C �� . �).i • .i. .i any 4-_1 � Y,. � 4t ICJ �Z i 9 \.I '" ��' '•r : m h� ti- ro y - -�' t, i p A -;I j:- k=, Al � End ' .`t . i!^•'..�—��,�„ai;i�«�`" � .h, � s ti. ✓ Vie._ ,. �., .'�r.� r� -�".,� t �n i i r,. : y i 'All � � A V j T � � Vo Y T NE IN we ,lam'" r � ° ✓ ��, �,�'� L� w.4'� �F -gam �� i� r! � �, A AW Ali - ! E. } {I � �0:>•-:.;,b,� � ♦.'^� rY-� r �+ .,,-+', a , �: a, a +.l'F!'I:; s�', �l ,�,tr t . s,, � --.�, }..:., � 4 � E �� u' . t - t ; � # ti`egs{; �. �F�.:: � � `fit _ j _# [! ,�^: .. � ,1� .::�, .�.._ y„s? i h {.I 1 h , ih ti k �l yari 74 OR 19 R e � j n - r - . Jby IF Lr lot AL -'ilop ` t .� �'.��= '�9i r�s ~jw— . • � A if �_ _-ti , upc {au O a ' a - , Ilk tj 1 y Ya fn � y1�: Ql _ n a d Pp,t/ ' —.- 9m J� limeE pgODUM NEWS WNNEGT ADWY Ihnpscl! rwrw,W[gppo4p+'Mra�rt9ns'f�M�p1a$s'B�IWt�ltllNo'enu[lp�}yWliQtlSi�ch { nsrps;liwww. u sgs.gnvl uses stare MyAttnuar 1 J WV[at] Map Locator MAp iocatlnn pins dropped or searcned for by addnss/piace pro"de products wMiIA a tB m3lo tadias or spe4Ned location. ;l you hove any questlons or issues please dck here to email usBsstare®usgs.gov {mallto: a sgutnre.o sgs.govisu6lscr-Map•laca rorR82dQueatlai I, Jump to Popular Areas GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK r f ! CI'C� �gentBafas In_Neiahb�t,i'heod Recent Sales In. Area Owner Name/ Type RUTGARD.IdNOA HI PERS RES TR / Fee Owner Melling Address 1867 SPINDRIFT OR LA JOLLA, CA 92D37 Location Address 4380 AMAAMA RO Tax Chum0licatlon VACATION RENTAL Neighborhood Code 5514-1 Legal Information Year Tax Cloomfieatton 2018 VACATION RENTAL Year Built Effective Year Built 1945 1956 Year Built Effective Year Built 1968 196E Previous Palxei Next P lancet Owner and Parcel Information Today's Date Parcel Number Project Name Parcel Map Land Area (acres) Land Area (approximate sti It) Assessment Inrormatiod Show Historical As =Mlilrta Total Market Total Assessed Volvo value $ 5,044,300 $ 5rO44,300 Improvement Information Living Area Bedrooms/Full Bath/Hal( Bath 1,350 312/0 Living Area Bedrooms/Full Both/Half Bath 384 0/1/0 Other Building and Yard Improvements Description Quantity WOOD DECK RAILING t, Permit Information Total Exemption $0 Year Built P002 January 28,24)18 550040090000 - "NANI NANI HALE" TYR show Poecal Map D.3723 16,217 Total Not Taxable Value $ 5,044,300 sketch Sketch Building t sketch Skalch Euliding 2 Date Permit Number Reason Porten Amount 05/30/2003 0300000873 ADD $ 1,300 10/24/2002 0200002496 LANA] $ 14,000 Sales information Sale Date Price instrument V Insfinent Type Instrument Description Onte Recorded Document # Cart A Book/Page Convayanca Tax 06/02/1987 $ 0 0000000000 O1/1011994 $ 0 9400038586 FEE CONVEYANCE 03/04/1994 0 OVID/1994 S 0 9400038505 FEE CONVEYANCE 03/0411994 0 Current Tax Bill Information Tax Period Description original Due Date Taxes Assessment Tax Credits Net Penalty interest Tax 2017.2 Real Property Tax 02/201201B $ 2.059.09 $ 0,00 $ 2,059.GR $ 0.00 Tax BIII with irterestcomputed through 02120/2010 $ 2,059.09 $ 0.00 1 $ 2,059.08 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Recent Sales In Nalahborhoed ReSMt ntesInArea Previous Parcel (text Parcel Return to Mein Search Page The Kauai County Tax Assessor's Orrice makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No Warranties, expressed or Implied, are pravkded for the data herein, Its use or Interpretatlon. Webslte updated: January 28, 2018 01010 by the knuai County Ux Astener's Me i Wehslte deahla hyg blew Ie n¢I 4 Area 21 Document Typo Other Amount Due $ clan $ 2,059.08 g a.00 $ 2,059.08 Kauai Nome 1 vf+"v ' Wqn i 1 v)I YrivTMlj 2 0: do cl 4 W 1 d�Yti7lM1 Yoh+'� � a d 3y , io J II @ rJ 1+1'7'1 `s9 jha �-h17� Ci }�-�1 h�.l� inn �iJ00� ��bG� r' 9 H n \ B9 E a r a 'i 3 �Ys . 8 m 3 19 rK 1 Fp g �J I i cr ] N > � / .. ®Lm� CL �a xa al air f a N y EOm O w ll1 y r AReI. aG Ale.S C.uN �W S,d �r.+1 M94W3 54iiN6 ' �xtsT. D„SE 4L.�kca I�] (eA fed ♦ms-6 � Tul E A S T ! E L E V A T i o 1.1- /q Oa• 2•i4o cc R.wW.... 6,-P.0 Oow r! J.buw /O'er a a•. 2- Fw. � u•,.k ..s.+. ��.r. ra rxu� ® R-. iA 11 aMf. "bu•uc �IJJ INI 3^q�''., T. a15T..1} O3'. L` FM PsnAv, /awli •! v i 1 N 6 R-- 14 O t4 VW tO 5*7 L V—Fo x ( n4PuiTe]i A✓1 9 w FPSJ�IJ4 ® eiRdn3 W E �][i�Ys�OJ - wa0 /lr Fp�wtw � �1 rhl+ (� P -7,-T q^ sT a &p- tl t C_J P B—Q c 6Y..e— i n7Pum+4.rt c..nr. FiOoR- LA 1' T--.--�ll Michael A. Dahilig Director of Planning COUNTY OF KAUA`I PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ka`aina S. HuIl Deputy Director of Planning Kauai County Historic Preservation Review Commission L SUMMARY Action Required by KHPRC: Consideration of the subject parcel and the proposed nomination of the historic property to the National Register of Historic Places IL PROJECT DATA I Parcel Location: Hanalei Bay, Hanalei Tax Map Key(s): (4) 5-5-004:008 Area: 116,217 sq ft LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & VALUES Zoning: I Open I State Land Use District: I Urban I General Plan Designation: Natural I Owner(s): I Linda Rutgard III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND USE BACKGROUND The subject lot of record is located at 4380 Amaama Road in Hanalei, Waioli Ahupua`a, Halelea Moku, Kauai. The subject lot of record is privately owned by Linda Rutgard, and is approximately 0.3723 acres (16,217 sq ft) according to County of Kauai Real Property records. It is located within the County of Kaua`i's Open Zoning District, State Land Use Urban District, and. General Plan Designation Natural. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department SUPPORTS the nomination application provided by the nominee, and recommends that KHPRC refer to the application for further detailed ' APR 19 2018 TMK: (4) 5-5-004:008 April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 2 information on the historic integrity and character of the subject property, Fish House No.1. The Commission is further advised that this report does not represent the Planning Department's final recommendation in view of the forthcoming public hearing process whereby the entire record should be considered prior to decision making. The entire record includes but is not be limited to: a. Government agency comments; b. Testimony from the general public and interested others; and c. The land owner's response. ALEX W N Planner Approved & Recommended to Commission: By KA`AINA S. LL Deputy Director of Planning Date: 1 Q