HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 21, 2019 KHPRC Agenda packet double COUNTY OF KAUA'I KAUA'I HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Mo’ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) was held on January 17, 2019, in the Mo’ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Aubrey Summers, Vice Chair James Guerber, Deatri Nakea and Victoria Wichman (recused herself at 4:31 p.m.). The following Commissioners were excused: Althea Arinaga and Anne Schneider. The following staff members were present: Mayor Derek S. Kawakami (arrived 4:16 p.m., left 4:18 p.m.). Planning Department: Planning Director Ka‘Ɨina Hull, Deputy Planning Director Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa (left 4:29 p.m.), Shanlee Jimenez and Alex Wong (arrived 3:49 p.m.). First Deputy County Attorney Nicholas Courson (left 3:40 p.m.). Office of Boards and Commissions: Administrator Ellen Ching (left 4:20 p.m.) and Commission Support Clerk Sandra Muragin. A. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pro Tem Guerber called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. B. ROLL CALL Planning Director Ka‘Ɨina Hull: Good afternoon Chair and members of the Commission. First order of business is roll call. Commissioner Arinaga, is excused. Commissioner Ida. Mr. Ida: Present. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Nakea. Ms. Nakea: Present. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Schneider, is excused. Commissioner Summers. Ms. Summers: Present. Mr. Hull: Commissioner Wichman. Ms. Wichman: Present.
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 32 Mr. Hull: Chair Guerber. Chair Pro Tem Guerber: Present. Mr. Hull: Mr. Chair, you do have a quorum. C. SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON Mr. Hull: Next agenda item is what happens every new-year, it’s the selection of the chairperson and vice chairperson. We are going to want to entertain nominations for the chairperson. Chair Pro Tem Guerber: Please. Ms. Summers: Can they serve again? First Deputy County Attorney Nicholas Courson: No, they can serve as vice chair. Mr. Hull: But, the nomination for chair is the first order of business, then after… Ms. Summers: Then we could… Mr. Hull: Should a new chairperson be elected that new chairperson, would take nominations for (the) vice chairperson. Ms. Wichman: I nominate Aubrey Summers for chair. Chair Pro Tem Guerber: I’ll second that. Mr. Hull: And then you ask for any other nominations. Chair Pro Tem Guerber: Oh yes, that’s right, any more nominations? (Hearing none) Any discussion? (Hearing none) Mr. Hull: You ask for a motion to close nominations. Chair Pro Tem Guerber: We got to close nominations. I need a motion for closing nominations. Ms. Nakea: I move that we close nominations. Ms. Wichman: Second. Chair Pro Tem Guerber: All in favor. (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carried 5:0. Now the nominations are closed. Now we need to vote on the nomination. Mr. Hull: There was one nominee. January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 32 Chair Pro Tem Guerber: There was only one nomination, may I have a vote on that. All in favor, say aye? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed. (Hearing none) It’s unanimous. Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes. Thank you for your service Mr. Guerber. So Madame Chair, the next agenda item would be to ask for nominations for the vice chairperson. Chair Summers: Any nominations for the vice chair? Ms. Nakea: I nominate Jim Guerber. I’ll be leaving the Commission. Ms. Wichman: Oh, you won’t… Ms. Nakea: Correct. Chair Summers: Any more nominations. Could I have a motion to close the nominations? Ms. Wichman: I move to close the nominations. Mr. Guerber: I second. Chair Summers: Any further discussions? (Hearing none) All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Madame Chair. Oh, excuse me. That was the motion to close the nominations. So now that nominations have been closed, (and) you’d ask for a motion in favor of appointing Commissioner Guerber as the vice chair. Chair Summers: A motion to accept Mr. Guerber as the vice chair. Ms. Wichman: I move to accept Jim Guerber as vice chair. Ms. Nakea: I second. Chair Summers: Any discussions. (Hearing none) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any nays? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0 Mr. Hull: Motion passes Madame Chair. D. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Hull: Next agenda item is the approval of the agenda. Given potential quorum issues, the Department would recommend that agenda item, excuse me, J.3. and 4. be moved to the bottom of the agenda, right before adjournment…and we have no further amendments.
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 32 Chair Summers: Could I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? Ms. Wichman: I move to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Guerber: I second. Chair Summers: Any discussion. (Hearing none) Any nays? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any nays? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0 Mr. Hull: Motion passes Madame Chair. E. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2018 MINUTES Mr. Hull: Next agenda item is approval of the November 15, 2018, minutes. Mr. Guerber: I move that we approve the minutes of November 15, 2018. Ms. Wichman: Second. Chair Summers: Any discussion. (Hearing none) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any nays? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Madame Chair. F. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Hull: The next agenda item is Hearings and Public Comment. If there are any members in the audience that would like to testify on any agenda item at this time, now would be the time to speak. If you’d like to choose to speak during the listed agenda item, the Chair generally reserves that right, as well. Seeing none. G. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS 1. Letter (12/27/18) to The Honorable Derek S. Kawakami, Mayor, County of Kaua‘i from Tom A. Samra withdrawing its November 29, 2017 final decision and issuing a final decision cancelling the relocation project. Mr. Hull: Next agenda item is G. Announcements and General Business Matters. So what you folks have transmitted to you is…as many of you were aware (it) had been brought before this body on more than one occasion, is the United States Postal Service (USPS) made communications back in 2016 about their desire to relocate. Essentially close down the historic LƯhu‘e Post Office and relocate services closer in proximately to the LƯhu‘e Airport. This body went on the record and at great length to request the USPS to reconsider that action and to January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 32 oppose (the) ultimate relocation and discontinuation of services at the historic LƯhu‘e Post Office. There had been about two years of correspondence between the County and the USPS (in) analyzing the potential impacts that the relocation could have. Back about a little over a year ago, the USPS made a communication public. Sending it to the Mayor’s Office, to you folks, to the Department, as well as making it available at the postal site, that it had made its final decision to relocate its services to the airport. The Department strongly objected against that. Finding it in conflict with Section 106 of the Federal Rules and Regulations and subsequent to that, the United States Postal Service began its (Section) 106 process, which we found again counter, because you cannot make a final decision until the process is done. However, the Postal Service maintained that it had made its final decision and had the right to make that final decision before going into the Section 106 process. But throughout that (Section) 106 process the Department had been constantly engaged with the United States Post Office relaying the potential impacts to the historical site, as well as, to the overall site and again continuously providing objections to the manner in which they were proceeding through (the Section)106 proceedings. I can also say that other community members, LƯhu‘e Business Association, in particular and the Historic Hawai‘i Foundation of Hawai‘i have been partnering to also convey continued pressure on the United States Postal Service to reconsider. We had also been in touch with our Congressional Offices, for which they also had been exerting continual pressure, and it appears from this now recent communication from the U.S. Post Office, that they have reconsidered again and have made their final, new final decision, “to not relocate their services”, which we do applaud and support. And the letter is just being provided to you folks. If you have any questions or clarification, any input, it’s been transmitted to you folks for that reason. Mr. Guerber: I heard this about three days ago and I think a big part of this should be given to Pat Griffin, who was on our Commission and she really spearheaded a lot and I think it was through her work that this really – I don’t know what we can do? Write a letter, or something but she deserves a big applause from the… Ms. Wichman: Send her a coconut. Mr. Guerber: We can send her 100 coconuts. Chair Summers: Is that something that the Commission does typically or…sending a letter? Mr. Guerber: I don’t know. Mr. Hull: The Commission can elect to send a letter and officially recognizes somebody for their efforts; but you need a motion and vote to that affect. Ms. Wichman: I’d like to move to recognize Pat Griffin of the LƯhu‘e Business Association for their efforts in protecting the preservation of the LƯhu‘e Postal Service. Ms. Nakea: Second. Chair Summers: Discussion?
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 32 Mr. Guerber: Whose going to write the letter? Mr. Hull: The Department could draft that up and provide it at…sorry and because I think you need a properly agendized letter and right now it’s just a letter from Tommy Samra to you folks. The Department can draft up a letter to that affect and put it on the agenda for your review in February. Mr. Guerber: That’d be good. Wonderful, lets vote. Mr. Hull: If there’s no further discussion it would just be…the Department would ask for a motion to receive the letter from Mr. Samra. Mr. Courson: Oh, but there’s a motion on the floor right now. Mr. Hull: No, yes, so I don’t know if they have to withdraw that. Nick, is it possible for them to vote on… Mr. Guerber: We can receive after. Mr. Courson: This is an agenda that… Mr. Hull: Yes, that an actual drafting of a letter to the LƯhu‘e Business Association, isn’t specifically agendized? Can? Mr. Courson: I think it’s fairly within the realm. I don’t object to that on Sunshine Law. I think there’s enough of a nexus and I think that because the letter will come back on the next agenda anyone in the public that has thoughts on it will have an opportunity to express their thoughts. Mr. Hull: But I guess you would ask for…a motions been made and seconded so without further discussion you would ask for a vote on the… Chair Summers: All in favor of the motion to receive the letter. Mr. Hull: No, to draft the letter... Chair Summers: To draft the letter. Mr. Hull: To the LƯhu‘e Business Association. Chair Summers: Any opposed? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Madame Chair. Also I need a further motion to receive the letter from Tom Samra. Mr. Guerber: Madame Chair, I move that we receive the letter from Mr. Tom Samra. January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 32 Chair Summers: All in favor. Ms. Nakea: Second. I second. Chair Summers: Any discussion. (Hearing none) Any opposed? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes. 2. The West Kaua‘i Community Plan Heritage Resources public workshops will be held on Janaury 23rd and 24th from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at HanapƝpƝ Library and Kekaha Neighborhood Center, respectively. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i has also been hired as a consultant to publish a report that will inform the West Kaua‘i Community Plan document. The draft report is forthcoming and will be presented to KHPRC at a later date. Mr. Hull: I believe Marisa Valenciano is here just to give a quick briefing, as far as, what is going on with the West Kaua‘i Plan and the Heritage Resource discussions going on. Planning Department Marisa Valenciano: Good afternoon Madame Chair and members of the Commission. As Ka‘Ɨina mentioned, we are about midway through our West Kaua‘i Community plan process and as part of this process we are in the middle of our focus workshops, we’re calling it. And this month we are working on heritage resources which encompasses everything from culture sites and places, (inaudible) historic structures and buildings and so we just wanted to extend an invitation to all of you, as well as, the community, that we welcome you all to participate in this heritage resources workshop. I believe the dates and information is on the agenda. That’s happening next week the 23 and 24; 23 is going to be at the HanapƝpƝ Library and then Kekaha is going to be at the Kekaha Neighborhood Center from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. We have had a really, good turn out so far and we look forward to the next series of workshops related to heritage resources in January, transportation in February, (and) economic development in March. And then also along the same lines, we wanted to let the Commission know that back in, back before we started this process, we had hired consultants…cultural surveys to help us conduct a technical study called the Culture and Historic Assessment for West Kaua‘i. And we intend – right now, we’ve been working with our consultant on preparing some of the deliverables. Part of the deliverables will be a draft report and we do intend that when that comes available, to come to this Commission to seek input specifically on that. If any of you have any information…have any questions or want to be more actively involved in the process please feel free to come see me or just let Ka‘Ɨina know and we can make sure we can get that information to you. But that’s all I have right now. Mr. Hull: You guys have any questions? Ms. Valenciano: Thank you. Mr. Hull: Thanks Marissa.
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 32 H. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Hull: No communications. I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 and Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 6E, Memorandum of Agreement Discussion HanapƝpƝ Bridge Replacement Project, Project No. HI STP SR50(1) Waimea District, Kaua‘i Island, Kǀloa Ahupuaa TMK: (4) 1-9-007: 001 HanapƝpƝ Canal, (4) 1-9-007-013, (4) 1-9-007:034, (4) 1-9-007 Kaumuali‘i Highway Right-of-Way, (4) 1-9-010:015, (4) 1-9-010:046, (4) 1-9-010:050, (4) 1-9-010 Kaumuali‘i Highway Right-of-Way. a. Final Memorandum of Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, The Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Officer, and Regarding the HanapƝpƝ Bridge Replacement Project. Mr. Hull: You guys remember some time ago the Department of Transportation came to you folks in its Section 106 review to discuss the replacement of the bridge? At that time, there was also discussion from this body as far as entertaining or entering into a Memorandum (Of) Agreement (MOA) with the Department of Transportation (DOT) in their replacement of that bridge. So as they proceed throughout the project that this body would essentially be a party to that Memorandum of Agreement, on how the replacement is done, and any work being done. They have provided the final MOA to you folks and it’s one, up for discussion as far as whether or not you’re okay with that MOA. If you’d like to recommend any amendments to that MOA...excuse me? Mr. Guerber: This is the highway bridge… Mr. Hull: The highway bridge, this isn’t the… Mr. Guerber: Not the one-way bridge with the walkway beside. Mr. Hull: Correct. Mr. Guerber: Okay. Mr. Hull: So the Department didn’t have any objections to the MOA as it stands, but we’re providing to you folks as to if you are still wanting to – if there’s any desire to propose amendments to the MOA. Ms. Wichman: I have a question. You said to oppose or to have amendments for this. Is this the same one that, that we saw clear to them? Is it exactly, the same, because the date received, is today? January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 32 Mr. Hull: No, yes, so…this I believe and apologize. Our two historic preservation staff, both Myles and Alex are…have been taken to other places. Alex is stuck in ‘Ele‘ele and Myles has been taken for an HR issue. So I quite honestly, I am not sure. Myles supposed to be here to do a briefing and if you would like to defer this particular item for when Myles can give that briefing. Mr. Guerber: I think this was before my time on the commission, so I didn’t see this one. We saw the one for the County Bridge. Mr. Hull: No, excuse me, the one for the County Bridge was not an MOA with the Department of Transportation. The one for the County Bridge was an actual nomination for the State Register. Mr. Guerber: That’s right. Mr. Hull: Yes. So this one, I apologize. Myles isn’t here to give the briefing so I can’t actually say how much this has changed. I don’t believe, at least in like small talk, there have been much of any changes at all. It is subsequently the same, as I understand it. But again it is here so if you’d like to defer this till February to get that official briefing, we can do that as well. And part of this also quite honestly, is that before Myles supposed to be here, the actual Federal Highways folks were supposed to be here. But all the projects that have Federal Highways attached to it there was supposed to be some discussion on their part giving a presentation; we received communication from them that during the government shutdown they’re not participating in the discussions. So that’s why we’re a little in the dark here, and again I apologize for that. Mr. Guerber: (Inaudible), I move that we post-pone this until February. Ms. Nakea: I second. Mr. Hull: So the second was from Commissioner Nakea. Chair Summers: Any further discussion. (Hearing none) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0. b. Appointment of Investigative Committee members (Permitted Interaction Group) to Interact with the DOT on behalf of the KHPRC as a party to the Memorandum of Agreement for the HanapƝpƝ Bridge Replacement Project, Project No. HI STP SR50(1). Mr. Hull: The second item is also related to this bridge project, and in reviewing the minutes there was an actual Permitted Interaction Group that was formed to participate in the MOA discussions. The Permitted Interaction Group are no longer part of the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Commission, with the exception of Commissioner Wichman. The other commissioners are no longer part of it, so the proposal on the table is to see if this body still
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 32 wants to continue having a Permitted Interaction Group and if that is the case to appoint at a minimum of three members to that Permitted Interaction Group. Chair Summers: What does a Permitted Interaction Group do? Mr. Hull: So the Permitted Interaction Group is essentially able to discuss agenda items off of the agenda, essentially. So they can meet and further analyze, discuss, and then ultimately propose to this body a course of action. So I don’t believe there really was much discussion with the PIG for this issue, but should it be reformed. Or excuse me…should members be appointed to it, so that there is actually a group in place now, they would have the potential to go into further discussions with the Department. As well as, enter into these where there isn’t a (Historic) Preservation meeting, (and) enter into discussions with the Department of Transportation, as well as, Federal Highways to discuss among other things the MOA. So ultimately, the Department would be looking for some type of action from this body. Either a motion to disband the PIG if there’s no desire to go further on it, action to defer, which you guys may want to do being that the actual MOA has been deferred until February, or an action to actually appoint three members right now to the Permitted Interaction Group to move forward. Ms. Wichman: Can I ask a question? As far as the Permitted Interaction Group, has the Federal Highways Administration, have they been meeting with anybody? With (the) community in Hanapepe, already? I mean the bridge project is already long underway and I did see a little kiosk with some kind of information that was just right before the bridge, on this side. And I was just wondering…we’ve never…I was on that PIG and I never heard anything from anybody about it? So (I) was just wondering how far they’ve come along since the previous MOA that we signed. And what is there left to do? That’s basically you know, what’s the purpose of us being on this? Yes. Mr. Hull: And yes. I would love to be able to convey that to Federal highways but alas. Ms. Wichman: I am sorry but I just… Mr. Hull: No, so I can say they have been meeting, they have continued to hold meetings. They have…they’ve updated us, (and) this is the last update, the last communication we sent to you folks was their previous MOA. So aside from them updating us with their new versions of MOA, we haven’t gotten much from them. We understand that they are also meeting with the public (and) the next meeting is scheduled, February 6, where they will have an evening meeting. But aside from that, again, I can’t speak on behalf of them until they’re able to get their government funding (and) they’re probably not going to be able to come back before (then) to answer the questions. Ms. Wichman: And the February 6 meeting might not happen? Mr. Hull: The February 6 meeting may not happen… Ms. Wichman: Because of the government shutdown? January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 32 Mr. Hull: Correct. Ms. Wichman: Okay. But if we were to defer this…our meeting is after February 6? So we actually, if we wanted to participate in this we’d have to make a decision now. Mr. Hull: If you wanted to participate in the February 6 meeting as a PIG, yes. So if you wanted the PIG members…and I can say that if the government shutdown is still going on February 6 the meeting won’t happen because ultimately it’s a DOT project. It was the Federal Highways Administration, as I understand it, that was facilitating the Memorandum (of) Agreement under Section 106 to bring all the parties together, but I don’t know if that would automatically preclude or foreclose on a meeting of February 6 from happening. So if the shutdown is still occurring, DOT theoretically still could go forward with the meeting. Ms. Wichman: Thank you. Mr. Hull: So again, ultimately we would need a motion… Mr. Guerber: I move we disband this PIG. It wasn’t doing any good, anyway. Ms. Wichman: I’ll second it. Chair Summers: Any discussion. (Hearing none) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Madame Chair. J. NEW BUSINESS 1. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Consultation for Kawaihau-Hauaala-Mailihuna Complete Streets, Kapa‘a Ahupuaa Moku of Puna, Island of Kaua‘i. Federal Aid Project No. STP-0700(071). Tax Map Keys: [4]4-6-014:030. 031, 112, and 113; 4-6015:003, 004, 012, 015, 021, 052, 058, 060, 067, 071, 073, 076, 082, 084, 086, 087, 090, and 102; 4-6-16:005, 034, 035, 037, and 069-071; 4-6-018:048, and 052; 4-6-019:001, 003-005, 009-011, 013-016, 029, 031, 037-039, 042, 044, 045, 047, 048, 053-057, and 095; 4-6-029:003-005, 009-011, 013-016, 029, 031, 037-039, 042, 044, 045, 047, 048, 053-057, and 095; 4-6-027:001-004, 007, 013, 014, 025, 035, 037, and 038; 4-6-029:003-005, 016, and 024. Mr. Hull: I believe we have Lee here to give a presentation. Lee Steinmetz: And yes Madame Chair, I have a PowerPoint so you might want to a…hopefully it’ll work. So my name is Lee Steinmetz (and) I am the Transportation Planner with the Planning Department and also here in the audience is Joel Bautista, who is with the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works. Joel’s actually managing this project but came into that role like last week, so I am going to give the presentation today as Joel kind of learns more
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 32 about the project. We wanted to bring this forward. This is a project of the Engineering Division (and) the consultant on this is Wilson Okamoto. We wanted to bring this to you because actually we were going through a Section 106 process on this, and to be honest the comment period for that has already closed because we weren’t able to schedule time on the agenda within the comment period. So that being said, we still wanted to bring this forward to you. We’re still in the design process and if you have comments about the project we can still acknowledge that and incorporate those and look at those as we continue with the design. So we’re not done with the design, but anyway so we just wanted to do this more informally, not formally as part of the (Section) 106 but still take your input. So the reason for doing this project is kind-of summarized by this picture. For any of you who are around Kapa‘a Elementary (School), Kapa‘a High School, (or) St. Catherine’s School/(Church), there is a lot of congestion around the schools at pickup and drop off times. There’s a lot of safety concerns for pretty much everybody using the road but especially for people who are walking, and biking to school. There’s a lot of concerns. There’s a large intersection with Kawaihau Road, Hau‘a‘ala Road, Mailihuna Road, (and) they all come together. It’s a very confusing intersection, so we’re trying to really address all of those safety issues, congestions issues, and also resurface the road in that area, all (these) things that need to be done. So anyway, this is the purpose of the project to really look at safety and complete streets improvements around these schools and on these streets. We’ve identified an Area Of Potential Effect, which is primarily the road right-of-way (and) it goes out a little bit in certain areas where we think we’re going to have some drainage, possible drainage improvements on adjacent properties. But you can see Kawaihau Road there and Mailihuna Road, which goes off to the right and a little bit of Hau‘a‘ala Road that goes right past St. Catherine’s Church and to the school. So anyway, that’s the Area of Potential Affect. Something that maybe you heard about, a component of this project, is what we’re calling a peanutabout. Which takes all of those intersections and creates a peanut shaped roundabout to try to address some of the safety concerns with pedestrian crossings across all of those streets. We’re also extending sidewalks all along, down to Kapa‘a Elementary and a little sidewalk going along Hau‘a‘ala street (sic) over to by St. Catherine’s School. We’re adding some bus shelters at the bus stops (and) one’s already been installed as part of a separate project, but we’ll do another one. And also more protected pedestrian crossings at certain locations, like right by the schools with the flashing beacon lights. So here’s just what that peanutabout area would look like. There’s that triangular park that is on the corner there by Mailihuna (Road), where Mailihuna and Hau‘a‘ala Roads come together (and) we’re taking a small portion of that triangle for this peanutabout. There’s also a little irrigation ditch there, but we’re not going to the other side of the ditch, we’re just staying on the road side of the ditch. That parcel is (an) Executive Order from the State to the County for a park, so one of the things that we have to do is get approval to use that little sliver on the corner for part of the road, instead of part of the park. So we’re working on the state with that. There’s (also) a few other minor acquisitions of private properties on the corners to make all of the things work. Other than that, all of the work with the exception of maybe some drainage is within the existing right-of-way. As you go down Kawaihau road we’re now looking, there’s parking lots (and) that upper parking lot is right in front of that elementary school. The parking lot on the other side serves teachers January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 32 and students of both the elementary school and the high school. So we’ll be extending sidewalks all along that street and on the school side of the street we’re actually showing a wider sidewalk that would be up to, between six and eight feet and what we’re trying to do is connect to the recently completed elevated boardwalk that comes up from the bike path and people can then just ride. Nicholas Courson left the meeting. We’ll have a wider sidewalk there, so people who aren’t comfortable riding in the street can ride on the sidewalk all the way connecting to the school. And by the way, it is legal to ride a bike on the sidewalk if it’s not in a commercial area, so we’re okay with that. You can also see those crossings, those kind of protected crossings with the median. Part of the purpose of the median is to slow down traffic so it’s more calm right near the school. This is extending along Kawaihau Road down to in front of Mahelona Hospital where we’re keeping the sidewalk just on the hospital and school side, but on the other side we’ll have a striped shoulder that people can walk or ride a bike in. And then this shows the connection to Iwaena road that connects to the bike path and the elevated boardwalk, so that becomes one complete system. Then on Mailihuna Road we’re looking…there’s already a sidewalk, kind of, sort of, sidewalk on the residential side of the street. We’re looking at improving that (by) making it little bit wider, and little bit safer. And then on the school side there’s currently just a drainage swale so we’re looking at putting a sidewalk near the school fence, which means that we’ll be regrading that drainage swale, as well. And you can see on the lower…this is kind of a connection starting at the top of Mailihuna (Road) and going down. Those improvements will extend down to the lower parking lot at Kapa‘a High School by the fields and that’s the end of the project. Oh I guess that’s the end of the presentation, sorry I forgot to just mention on Hau‘a‘ala Road you can see in front of St. Catherine’s School, we’re only extending a sidewalk down to the parking lot in the area of the school for kids that are walking that way. Unfortunately, Hau‘a‘ala Road is really constrained in terms of topography and with the right-of-way that we have. So we’re not able to extend (the) sidewalk beyond that point. So… Mr. Guerber: Have there been any studies done on peanutabouts on traffic confusion and there’s got to be university studies done about this? Mr. Steinmetz: Yes, so our consultant has a roundabout consultant on their team and they have designed these types of roundabouts. We looked at different options, (like) an ovalabout. But we were concerned that people would speed because it’s so long. (We) actually (thought about) having two roundabouts there (but) we thought that would be way too confusing, so this seemed like the best, the best approach. They really operate like a regular roundabout. They’re pretty much the same thing it’s just a way to extend it where you have intersections that don’t exactly line up. Okay thank you. If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, we’re happy to hear that. Ms. Nakea: That intersection terrifies me when it’s busy. So it could need some improvements. Mr. Guerber: So would that still terrify you, I mean…
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 32 Ms. Nakea: The peanutabout? No, I don’t think so. Mr. Guerber: Thank you. Chair Summers: Any further comments or discussion. Mr. Guerber: I have one question Lee. Are we going to narrow the traffic lanes? Is that happening? Mr. Steinmetz: Yes, the traffic lanes will be 10 feet basically. So again that will be…well it varies a lot because there’re a lot of different things going on there. In some areas, there’s just a center line, and then the road extends out. So they’ll be more defined then they are now. Mr. Guerber: Okay. Thanks. Chair Summers: Any other discussion. Mr. Hull: So the purpose of what the project is before you folks, is essentially pursuant to the Section 106 process to get comments, input, criticism, points of objection that this body may have to the project. If there aren’t, you can, you know take a, you can entertain a motion just to receive for the record with no comments, or you can take a motion to support the proposed improvements, or a motion to raise points of critique. Mr. Steinmetz: Maybe I should add something about the historic (inaudible). So sorry I just gave the scope. But we do have a Cultural Resources Historic Archaeological Consultant. The consultant has a sub-consultant and they’ve done a lot of extensive literature research. They’ve looked at the area and basically within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) they haven’t identified any historic resources that are endangered from this project, in terms of we will be doing, some excavation, and digging, and everything. But in terms where there are usually archaeological resources they have not. Based on the research that’s been done past project, they don’t see this as an area that is likely to contain archaeology resources, for example. So at this point although it’s not, (it) hasn’t officially (been) done yet, but we’re looking at a no adverse effect from a historic perspective for this project, just so you have that information. Mr. Hull: Yes sorry the actual…excuse me I stand corrected. The statement I just made to you folks. If there are points of objection, or critique that the Commission has for the project, now would be the time to put them on the record. If there is none, the group as Lee pointed out, the specific communication they’re requesting is a findings of no adverse impact, affect, no adverse effect. Ms. Nakea: And any concerns that we have would have to be historic in nature because that is the point of this Commission… Mr. Hull: Correct. January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 32 Ms. Nakea: So receiving would be probably the best course of action because even supporting it if there’s no historical conflict, so to speak, well I guess we could word it to…right? Or we… Mr. Hull: No, so that’s what I am saying, is that the actual finding they are asking for you to make is the finding of no adverse effect. And so… Chair Summers: Oh, I thought that was from their consultant? Mr. Hull: No, from the actual Commission is what Lees asking. So it goes into the line with what I trying to get at was, if you do have further questions, further concerns, (and) I am not saying give that motion. Then you would ask for, you know, further information, or you give the points of critique, or objections, for which Lee folks then would take those points of objections, analyze them, and get back to address those points of objections until essentially a findings of no adverse effect can be hopefully gotten from you folks, but yes. Ms. Wicham: Madame Chair, I have a question for Lee. Who’s the consultant, the archaeological consultant? Mr. Steinmetz: It’s, I believe it’s Cultural Resources Hawai‘i. Ms. Wicham: And have they already done the excavations or… Mr. Steinmetz: So what they do basically, is they don’t do field excavations. What they look at is all the literature review, all of the things that have been done in past projects, and see was anything found on those projects. So for example, one of the most relevant ones is Kapa‘a Elementary (School), Kapa‘a High (School) did a septic or sewer improvements and there was a lot of excavations and through those excavations they didn’t find anything. They didn’t find anything while they were working on that adjacent property. Yes, so they’ll look at the historical use of those properties and a lot of that area was plantation before so if there were pre-plantation resources, a lot of those have been destroyed anyway because of the cultivation of the work that had been done on the land. So basically after looking at all of that field research and looking at the historical uses, they felt that there was a low likely hood of finding anything. With that being said as part of law and as part of the specifications of the project, there’s also things in place that should something be found during construction, construction is stopped, archaeologist come in. So all of those protections are in place as part of the project. Moving forward, that doesn’t influence no adverse effect, those are mitigation measures that go into the project, no matter what. Ms. Wicham: Right, thank you. Mr. Ida: So the consultant’s report, has it been approved by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)? Mr. Steinmetz: So what has happened to date, so there was, so what happens first, is the area of potential effect is reviewed by SHPD and then following that there’s consultation letters that are sent out to various parties, Native Hawaiian organizations, to this body, to other people. And
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 32 they’re requested to provide input within a window of time, which is basically 30 days from when this letter goes out. Which happened in October or November. So once that period closes than the County and the Consultant take the comments that are received and review those and the next step is…because this is a Federally funded project, Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) is actually the leading entity. So then we draft a letter for FHWA letter head which basically summarizes all the research, summarizes all the discussion, and comes up with a finding and that’s the letter that’s in a draft form right now. That’s been sent to FHWA (and) that has a no adverse effect finding. That letter then gets sent to SHPD and they either concur or they don’t concur with that finding. Chair Summers: So does it make sense for us to wait for SHPD to wade in? Or would we be actually providing comments that they would, you know… Mr. Hull: We had a working relationship with SHPD over the past few years. It’s interesting …SHPD has been, they’ve been a resource (but) their resource has been put to the limit, I’ll say. And for most of the dialogue that I’ve had, with what dialogue I’ve been able to have over the past few years, is that they would prefer that a comment come from this body first and that they are able to work off of that as well. That does not mean that you have to, but I would also say that waiting for a comment from SHPD before taking action could mean that we could be here awhile. Chair Summers: Got it. Mr. Ida: I don’t know if this would help. But having personally worked on that bike path and board walk project, my opinion is…there ain’t nothing. Its nothing there. Chair Summers: Is the report from your cultural resource sub-contractor available to us if we wanted to look at it? Mr. Steinmetz: Yes, I think we can share with you their draft letter that was submitted to FHWA. Chair Summers: I don’t know if anybody would want to see that? Mr. Guerber: I think we should just move that there’s no adverse effect. Really, I didn’t see anything and we know the things that are in place, the rules that are in place. If they find something, they’re going to stop and they’re going to fix it, and we’ll be notified about that. Right? So I move that we find no adverse effect. Ms. Nakea: I second. Chair Summers: Any further discussion on that. (Hearing none) Any opposed? All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Now, any opposed? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Madame Chair. January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 32 2. Dark Horse Coffee TMK: (4) 2-8-004:056 5521 Kǀloa Road, Kǀloa, Kaua‘i Proposed renovations to existing commercial building. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Hull: And Alex has returned from ‘Ele‘ele. So I turn it over to him. Historic Planner Alex Wong: Aloha mai kƗkou. I have some old photos that I would like to share with you. So I put together a relatively brief Director’s Report encapsulating the information that I found from our Planning Department records that are on file. The actual part by KHPRC today, the Planning Department is requesting comments from the Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission. Mr. Wong read portions of the Director’s Report dated January 17, 2019, for the record. (Document on file) Mr. Hull: So, I believe the applicant is in the audience and if the Commission had any questions for the applicant. Architect Nalani Mahelona: Hello, my name is Nalani Mahelona, and I am the architect for the project and this is Linda Charlson. Linda Charlson: I am the mother of the four boys, who own the business. Chair Summers: On the drawing…so there’s a proposed demolition plan and then a proposed floor plan and I noticed that the new ramp isn’t showing. So how much of the existing rock wall is to remain? Ms. Charlson: (Inaudible) rock wall remains. Chair Summers: Okay, so just that tiny portion. Ms. Charlson: There’s just a tiny portion, yes. Ms. Mahelona: Just the portion of the landing for the turnaround. Chair Summers: Okay, so the rest of it… Ms. Mahelona: (inaudible) remains. Chair Summers: It just wasn’t shown in the new plans, I was a little confused. Any other questions?
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 32 Mr. Guerber: We’re most concerned about how the outside of the building looks and it should look substantially the same that is when it was built, as close as we can get. What we’re getting to is we don’t see enough of what the change would be, so. Can you explain where the changes are? Ms. Mahelona: The front elevation if you look at that first, the only changes is the jalousies. We’re putting jalousies above the front entry door. All other windows remain jalousies. They have been changed in the past so this was existing when the new tenants came in. If I am not mistaken, if you do look at the old photos there may be fixed glass or other type of windows. When you come around on the side, the siding remains the same, the vertical siding, (and) the front remains the same with the stucco. What we are doing is adding windows to the rear of the building that match the front three window panels. So the idea is to take that design and repeat it. Chair Summers: So A3 is showing the existing up on top. Ms. Mahelona: A3 on top is existing, yes. Chair Summers: The proposed changes on the larger drafts are on the bottom. Ms. Mahelona: So the idea was to keep the front portion of the building, as much intact as possible. Now as we come around the building to the rear there was an old niche, that used to possible house the Buddhist statue or something on the interior that was kind of falling apart. It’s old, they want to remove it, and also add windows for ventilation on the rear. They do not intend to put air conditioning (ac), so this is for natural ventilation. When you come around, again to the left side, the left elevation there’s some awning…actually, sorry, there’s awning on both sides that are going to be removed and that’s to allow for the windows to open above the new doors. And also we have doors at the rear that are going to be replaced with the windows. If you look at the right and left elevation, you can see that we tried to keep consistency with the new windows; however, we can’t get the awnings above to match, because there’s a new mezzanine in the floor plan at the rear of the building. So again, the idea was, we tried to keep the front elevations of this building intact and to renovate the rest of the building to make it most functional for the project. Chair Summers: So the changes on the front really, I don’t think you’ll even see them because they’ll be in shadow within the entry and really the back, the changes along the back are kind of more the old service… Ms. Mahelona: Yes, that’s what they’re going to see, is the back portion changed. But the front we’re, you know, trying to remain it the same with the exception of the jalousies above that entry door and then most likely replacing that entry door to solid wood. So the looks not going to change. Sorry, we also have the president of the church, and he’s in the audience. West Kaua‘i Hongwanji Board member Dennis Kurokawa: My name is Dennis Kurokawa. I represent the West Kaua‘i Hongwanji. I am not the president, I am one of the board members and I was kind of in charge of the project and so we are the landlords of that property. January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 32 Obviously, we are in favor of the project because this project will definitely help the church financially because as you know all the churches now days, they’re having hard time, yes. So if it’s at all possible, we’d like to have the project approved, if they meet all the guidelines of course. We have secured a long-term lease with them, so they are going to be here awhile, you know. And they’re going to be investing quite a bit of money into the property to preserve the historical building there and also they’re going to allow us to put historical history of the church there so we can preserve that also for the community as a whole. Right now, there is no church there, so. And we haven’t made any definite plans as to what we’re going to put there, but we are definitely working on that right now. And we’ve kind of come a long way with the process (of) securing a lease and all of that, with the help of Jim Mayfield and some other people. Already the work and the planning that has taken place, I can see that it’s going to greatly improve the property and maintain the property and its history of the church. Also they’re going…because the monkey pod trees and stuff they are historical also, they’re on the (State) Register, I think. They’re going to be maintaining those monkey pod trees as is stated. I believe they’re also going to be promoting more business locally, as well as for Kaua‘i. They kind of have big plans, if it goes through but they’re going to initially start off with a Starbucks like coffee shop and their already working in the mainland. They have established themselves. I think they have, what five coffee shops near sunset up there? Nine? Wow, okay so and they’re pretty-solid business wise. We kind-of made sure of that as we try to engage them in a lease and stuff. So we’re excited about the project for the church and for the community and for them. So we’re in total support of this project. So you guys can give them your consideration, really appreciate it. You have any questions. Mr. Ida: So they have the lease on this entire property. Mr. Kurokawa: It’s not the entire property. Well the part that belongs to (the Kǀloa) Hongwanji Young Buddhists of America (YBA). We own two-thirds of the property and I think the preschool owns a third of it. And technically the ownership legally is under the State Honpa (Hongwanji Mission of Hawai‘i), but we are the actual owners. And I think they do this because the churches need to preserve the church and they oversee what happens at the church. They cannot leave it to the local community church, to decide on those religious matters; or what happens to the property. So we have to get approval from them. So they are the parent of us, but we definitely not own title to the property, but we own the property. Just to clarify this. Mr. Ida: So the plan to lease this out for a commercial venture… Mr. Kurokawa: Yes. Mr. Ida: Came locally from you guys? Or from the state Hongwanji? Mr. Kurokawa: The plan was develop by Jim Mayfield. He’s our commercial broker and he developed the whole plan for us, because we knew nothing of contracts and leases and stuff like that. But together with him and you know, we put together a pretty good lease, a long term lease. We have the packet lease already signed and sealed by Honpa (Hongwanji Mission of Hawai‘i) as well as the tenants. So if you guys need to see that, we can produce that.
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 32 Mr. Guerber: So Ka‘Ɨina, do they have to change the zoning? Is there a… Mr. Hull: No, so actually the area is in the section of Kaua‘i or south Kaua‘i that went through what’s referred to as farm based coding. And so while we’re appreciative there’s no proposed changes to the exterior of the structure, because the farm based code is essentially set up to center on the form of the building as opposed to the usage. And this is right in the town core area, where the freedom of uses is really open, so there’s nothing that they would have to do zoning wise to change over the potential to use it. The plan itself looks at revitalization of this area. Mr. Guerber: I move that we support this. Ms. Nakea: I second it. Chair Summers: All in favor. Any further discussion? (Hearing none) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Madame Chair. 5. Amendment to Chapter 8.6 of the Kaua‘i County Code (1987), as amended, relating to building design requirements and reduced parking standards for commercial development. a. Director’s Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Hull: So that proposed draft bill you have in front of you, is the zoning amendment for the Commercial Zoning district throughout the County of Kaua‘i. To one, require a street frontage designs for all commercial buildings and secondly, it reduces the parking requirements, quite honestly it eliminates the parking requirements for commercial structures and limits it to just requiring for employee parking. This bill actually came before this body, roughly five years ago. And essentially, it’s a bill to implement smart growth principles within the town core areas of various…of all of Kaua‘i’s towns. In essence, for the past forty, fifty, sixty years now, the pre-dominate design perimeters for commercial buildings has been one that has either required, out- right required or just facilitated what became commonly known as strip mall style developments with massive mall type of developments and or in particular a sea of parking requirements in front of those structures. Which as time has progressed, we’ve seen kind of eviscerated our town cores and changed the manner in which communities are centered around commerce and function within itself. And so this bill was floated, like I said five years ago, and was ultimately submitted out to the Historic Preservation Communities, as well as, the commercial communities, such as the LƯhu‘e Business Association and the Chamber of Commerce. And back in 2014 both this body, other preservationist and you know the small business groups, kind of rallied around this bill and recognizing that it was both a preservationist bill as well as a bill looking at redevelopment and revitalization of town core areas and bringing those standards outward to further commercial developments. And so we actually ended up putting the bill on hold as the County of Kaua‘i was going through a General Plan Update to see if those policies January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 32 resonated with the overall communities, as we reached out to them to update the General Plan. Since that time, the General Plan had been adopted and actually, it was vetted through communities, that indeed there is a desire to have, or to return, or put an emphasis on street frontage development for commercial buildings, as well as, looking at potential reductions in parking requirements. So that’s what we’re returning back to you folks with (and) we could’ve gone up and proposed it to the Planning Commission and referenced this body’s communications, as well as, the Chamber Commerce communications from 2014 saying, “look the preservationist community and the small business communities support this.” But to do that would be a little bit disingenuous being that those comments had been made five years ago. So we’re ultimately submitting it back to this body. I don’t know if anybody was on this body when we originally submitted. I believe Commissioner Schneider, who still is a commission member for a couple of months was (and) is the only remaining commissioner that was on the body at that time. So yes, we submit to you folks for your input and if you guys have any critical points on that. Mr. Guerber: Well I have to say that Kaua‘i Beer Company was kind of an experiment about this and what it says is yes, we need parking but we don’t need to be restrictive by County rules to have the parking or else we couldn’t exist. That was what it was, and you can tell that because along Rice Street there has been no restaurants along Rice Street, until we got there. Because they were not allowed, well they were allowed if they could have parking, but there was no parking, so it didn’t work. And it’s an example of somewhat simple ideas getting turned into laws that have an adverse effect to stifle a certain kind of development. And these rules were really there to make malls happen, it was kind of designed to make (a) mall. You have a big long area and you go outside of town, make a big development, make big parking and put the buildings in the middle of it. Kukui Grove is an example of that and they flourished for a long time. Now, I think the population is reverting-back to a neighborhood kind of concept, where people live, work, and shop in the same area. I would like us to get back to that in Rice Street and in our commercial areas. Mr. Hull: And Commissioner Guerber, that’s exactly what the bill is looking at. I will say this, we also have another bill that isn’t just so much a preservation side but we are considering combining it with this bill, to outright allow residential use in the commercial zoning district. In many of the town core areas that have done their community plan updates, like LƯhu‘e, like South Kaua‘i, they have already made that move to say in their town core areas, residential usage is an outright permitted use. But as much as we talk about mixed use, and smart growth, and infill development, we really haven’t gotten too much of a discussion. Sorry, we haven’t really gone back to say – right now in our commercial districts it requires a use permit before the Planning Commission (and) to ask for their permission and scrutinize in order to put an apartment above a commercial complex. And I guess somewhat loosely, being that you (are) discussing this bill, would you folks see any issue from a historic preservation side and knowing that many of our town cores are historical sites and allowing residential uses within those structures? Chair Summers: Aren’t a lot of the historic buildings that exact form? It’s actually just going back to a…
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 32 Mr. Guerber: That’s exactly right. Historically someone would have opened up a store on the bottom floor and they would live above it. Chair Summers: And we see that… Mr. Guerber: We still see that. Chair Summers: In small towns here, right? (In) a lot of the older buildings. Mr. Hull: Right, and many of those buildings were constructed prior to 1972 and it was in 1972 as we started looking at somewhat geometrically shifting uses apart from each other, that the barrier to residential use of commercial sites was put in place. Chair Summers: It was limited to a bar. Mr. Guerber: Build an apartment above Masa’s. Mr. Hull: So with that, I mean that’s why we submitted the draft bill to you. If you guys have any comments, criticism, ultimately we’re seeking the Commission’s support in moving it forward to the Planning Commission (and) ultimately to the County Council. Mr. Guerber: Well, I move we totally support this bill. Ms. Nakea: I totally second. Mr. Hull: Before discussion, I just want to make sure that there’s nobody in the public that (would) want to speak on this bill. Okay. Chair Summers: So any more discussions. (Hearing none) All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (Hearing none) Motion carried 5:0. Mr. Hull: Motion passes Madame Chair. Before we move into the next agenda item, which is essentially clearing it out, I do recommend that our esteemed Mayor walked into our gallery and I want to recognize him. Honorable Mayor Derek Kawakami: Madame Chair, can I have the floor please. Chair Summers: Of course. Mayor Kawakami: Thank you. Sorry for interrupting this very important meeting but I do want to say thank you to our Commissioners, Madame Chair, Our Planning Director, Deputy and to the entire staff for volunteering for this very important Commission, the Historic Preservation. You know how do we move forward and maintain our sense of place, our culture, so we can pass on and tell the tale of our history through our places. And I can tell you the work that you do is so very important. You know great places happen with intent, they don’t happen by mistake. They happen because it was intentionally planned, that way. So you are really planning for the January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 32 future, while maintaining our history and our past. So I want to say I really appreciate the work that you do, you’re all volunteering and it’s a noble calling to be a public servant, to be in a position to serve for the next generation. So I want to thank you and from time to time as my schedule permits, I’ll be down here to just listen. And on behalf of the Office of the Mayor if there’s any assistance that we can be of, please don’t hesitate to ask. But I want to thank all of you for the work that you do, alright. Thank you, have a great day. Mr. Hull: Thank you Mayor. Moving on. So the next agenda items we have are agenda items J. New Business 3. and 4. and this is all before adjournment. Chair Summers: Can I propose a five minute break? Mr. Hull: You’re the Chair, you can institute a five minute break. Chair Summers: I am instituting a five minute break. Meeting recessed at 4:24 p.m. Ms. Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa left the meeting. Meeting called back to order at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Hull: Madame Chair, we’re back in order. So what happens next is essentially we had to move agenda items 3. and 4. because as we understand now, commissioner Wichman will be recusing herself from both of those agenda items and without Commissioner Wichman, technically there is no quorum. We got clarification from the County Attorney that the applicants can still give a presentation, and you as individual Commissioners can sit and receive that presentation, and you can also ask clarifying questions, but being that there is no quorum and Jodie had to leave as well. I am kind-of here little bit playing referee. In essence, you can ask clarifying questions but I’ll ask you guy not go into any questions or dialogue between each other that would constitute deliberations on what actions would be taken later on in the future. So at the end of the presentation and at the end of any clarifying questions you folks might have that would be said, no motions can be had, (and) no motions can be made. We would just have to move on to the next agenda item, and again can ask clarifying questions but no motions can be made, and ultimately the meeting would be adjourned thereafter. Mr. Guerber: You can’t even move to receive because… Mr. Hull: You can’t even move to receive it. Technically, it’s going to go to the next agenda item because no action was made. I am not sure if the applicant can return for those deliberations but the next meeting would be when the deliberations would be had. So any questions on the process here? Okay, without further, adieu. Ms. Wichman recused herself.
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 32 3. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Consultation for Hawai‘i State Parks Water Bottle Filling Station Project. Project to install 19 water bottle filling stations within 15 Hawai‘i State Parks on the islands of Hawai‘i, Kaua‘i, Maui and O‘ahu from August 2018 to July 2021. Administrator Hawai‘i State Parks Division Alan Carpenter: Good afternoon Madame Chair, Mr. Director, Commissioners. It’s nice to see a fledging Chair (inaudible) interesting to watch, thank you for serving. Chair Summers: Thank you for keeping me entertained. Mr. Carpenter: I am Al Carpenter, Assistant Administrator of the Hawai‘i State Parks Division. I am wearing sort of two hats today. For 23 years I was the State Parks Archaeologist and done an immense amount of work on NƗpali and other parks on the island. With me today are Planning and Development Chief Russell Kumabe, from the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Engineering Branch Melissa Agbayani, and Victoria who has now left the table is an Interpreter Specialist and also a qualified Archaeologist, so she has involvement in some of these projects. The first project, this water bottle filling station is far less controversial than the second project that I am going to present. And I didn’t know we were on the agenda until yesterday but it essentially is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) grant that allows us to convert existing water fountains to water filling stations and its intent is to eliminate marine debris. We all know that single use plastic is a huge issue with creating that debris. So all it entails and it has a fairly lengthy document that goes along with the 106 Consultation. We are essentially changing out existing water fountains and putting in water fountains that also have a water filling station and I think we have four on this island. There is…one of them is new, and that’s up in Kǀke‘e between the lodge and the museum and that’s the only one that sort of breaks new ground. There are two proposed for the Wailua river state park, one is in a historic building, which is the marina building, I think she took historic status last year, 2018 and it will (be) essentially taking the existing water fountain off of the wall and putting a new one on the wall. And then there’s one at Opaekaa Falls and that again is on a modern restroom wall. And the final one is at HƗ‘ena State Park, which has an existing water fountain that we’ll just be replacing (the) existing one on a concrete slab, which of course right now has no water service because we lost our waterline in the flood. But that in a nutshell explains what this document is all about and I do have an update. We did in fact receive SHPD’s concurrence of no adverse effect, and so the public comment period has technically closed and for that I apologize that we didn’t present it to you before that happened. But I can tell you that any comments you do wish to offer and you can give to us at any time, we still have the corresponding Chapter 60 compliance to do for this project. So if you have any significant comment we’re certainly willing to entertain those and incorporate those into the (Chapter) 60 document that will also get reviewed by SHPD. So thank you. Mr. Hull: So is there any questions concerning this? Chair Summers: Any questions, no deliberations. Mr. Guerber: Pretty self-explanatory. January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 32 Chair Summers: Yes. Mr. Carpenter: I thought so. 4. HanakƗpƯ‘ai Bridge Project State of Hawai‘i, Division of State Parks Proposal to construct an aluminum truss pedestrian bridge across HanakƗpƯ‘ai Stream in HanakƗpƯ‘ai Valley, Napali Coast State Wilderness Park. Mr. Carpenter: So now I am here to talk about the proposed HanakƗpƯ‘ai Stream Bridge. And in addition to the folks I already introduced, I would like to mention that we have David Buckley who is the new SHPD Kaua‘i Archaeologist and at the time you guys received this packet we had not received a review from SHPD. We still have not, but we have consulted and had a site visit with David. And SHPD has offered input, (and) we will take that into account and try to highlight those during this presentation. So and there metaphorically is the…your Chair, getting her feet wet. This is the existing condition of HanakƗpƯ‘ai Stream, two miles into the NƗpali Coast State Wilderness Park with the trail head at HƗ‘ena. This should not be conflated with the island master plan that is going on right now, it’s an independent project that had been in the works for a very long time. I think we started this in 2013 for very compelling reasons, to add this as a public safety measure. I believe that possibly 30 people have died here since 1970, mostly from flash floods, (and) also from drowning in the ocean. So it is if not the most dangerous, one of the most dangerous areas in the park system for us and we do have means of mitigating that. This project came out – we had the idea independently, but we were approached by first responders, Kaua‘i Fire Department who are the ones who bear the brunt of having to rescue people here all the time. The state doesn’t do it, the county does. So we worked on this concurrently to come to this proposal and we are, we have a design and we – it’s sort of taken a back seat to everything that’s happening, with all the flooding, closure of the north shore, HƗ‘ena and NƗpali. You know there are rockslides, there are landslides, there are, you know broken facilities but it is a funded project and it is something if the approvals goes through, this is only one-step of many. We’ve gone through several already, this is a prelude to get into the County Special Management Area (SMA) Permit, we’ll have a public hearing prior to that and then we’ll present this again during the SMA to the County Planning Department. There would be some advantages to doing it. The closure (of the trail) still continues for many months (and) that seems to be a moving target, but I am certain it would make some sense to do (inaudible). Mr. Guerber: Who funded this? Mr. Carpenter: Capitol Improvement Project (CIP) funds and DLNR State funds. So the location. You’ve all been there? So the map on the left, that’s all closed area now (and that’s) the project area location in red. This would be I think about 300 feet from the shoreline, so it’s down low and there it is again, an aerial photo on the right. This is HanakƗpƯ‘ai Stream on a normal day. That bridge is essentially designed, the design we proposed, that bridge is not there that is a photo shop image that I created. That’s actually my wife and daughter on the bridge hiking in Bryce Canyon National Park. So that I tried (inaudible) that is about the height it would be, that is the width it would be, that is the style and color it would be. I think the only
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 32 thing I would say that is different is we proposed to have a dark treadway across the board, it’s kind of white there or a dark probably a plastic wood. So it is truss style which is to say you know it gives it strength across a long span. It will be aluminum. It needs to be rust proof and you know there’s a lot of styles of bridges in the wilderness we need ours to be kind of bullet proof, so while aesthetically makes sense for maintenance and just longevity, we decided to go with aluminum. It will be powder coated a dark brown to mitigate the most, the significant impact, which is the visual one, right? It’s a big change in the wilderness areas and that will span across it. Each side will have concrete abutments and there will be micro pilings that drill to the ground to support them. They’re very small and it spans from a natural rock outcrop on the left side of this, which is actually the KƝ‘Ɲ side. To the right side it meets up adjacent to the existing trail that goes up towards HanakƗpƯ‘ai Falls and eventually it morphs to become the continuation of the Kalalau Trail, as well towards Hanakoa. So far for the previous summer, we had done an Environmental Assessment (EA), (inaudible) from DLNR (and they) issued a finding of no significant impact (in) 2017. We had a cultural analysis done by Trish (Trisha) Kehau (Kehaulani) Watson and Keao NeSmith, two historians from this island. Our SMA permit we put in an application quite some time ago (and) this was a preliminary step to get a hearing, so that would be the next step and we also still have to complete the SHPD (inaudible) that we’re working on right now. The plans from the top, so you’re looking at it from the…bottom would be mauka and the top of the frame is makai towards HanakƗpƯ‘ai Beach. So the brown (lines) are the existing trail runs. So right now you come from KƝ‘Ɲ on the right side down that brown trail, meet the river (and) walk across, actually they hop across rocks. Up and down all around that area to get over (to) the trail on the left side and then head straight to HanakƗpƯ‘ai Beach, or if you take that trail and go into the bottom of the picture that’s what leads you up towards the falls and then continuation of the Kalalau Trail. And you can see the relation of bridge to the existing trails. The trail on the left side does not have any visible historic remnants; I actually believe it’s not the original historic trail. The trail on the right side is stone paved which has sort of, that’s one of the traditional elements of the trail which is a historic site built in 1860 and modified many times since. And then the photo on the right just shows you…it’s an aerial view of approximately where the bridge would sit and it’s showing you the degree of vegetation. Again, these are the construction plans, which are a little hard to see at this scale. One thing I should point out, the green trail on the right side is a new 50 foot long proposed spur trail to access the bridge on the KƝ‘Ɲ side, for a couple of reasons. One was to preserve both the route of the original trail and the stone paved remnants of it, so it allows people if they so choose, to continue to take the route they always have historically. Secondarily the right side of that bridge, if it was going to be connected to the trail at an elevation that made sense, the bridge would have to be much longer. It would have been up to (where) the green and the brown meet but also there is a natural outcrop that makes a perfect stable base, from an engineering geotechnical standpoint. It’s a much more solid base for the bridge abutment on that side and there’s some pictures there. Okay so this is the same thing more or less in cross section, the upper one shows you the, the depth of the stream, it shows you the proposed concrete abutments (inaudible) it goes down below a little bit and then the – those dash lines are micro piles which get drilled into the rock. This is very much the same as the color view that I showed you, January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 32 showing all the same elements. That gray shaded one is the new proposed trail. Which it will probably be built to mimic the style of the existing trail, which is largely a rock face trail and or just a flat cut, but it will have to adapt to whatever the conditions are out there. It may have a partially retained above it or partially retained below it. Existing trails have no retaining walls above the trail only below it. So (the) photo illustrates what I talked about – that is looking – (the) yellow box is basically where the bridge will enter the, or meet with the trail on the west side or Kalalau side of the stream. And the photo on the right shows that length or just it – geotech already been done there its archaeology monitored, there are no archaeological features or materials at that location. This is the opposite side now. The eastern side, HƗ‘ena side, and again it’s very obscured by vegetation but there’s a large rock outcrop as you can see sort of (at the) middle top on the photo on the right and that will be what it’s anchored to. Okay, so the – but it is within an archaeological complex, the greater area and so all of NƗpali is part of the – it’s a part of the NƗpali Coast Archeological District, it’s listed on the Hawai‘i and National Register of Historic Places. Every one of the valleys has a pretty-significant story to tell from an archaeological standpoint. They’re very loaded with particularly, agriculture remains. Kalalau being the most dramatic (has) a large number of sites, (and is) the largest area. And HanakƗpƯ‘ai is a fairly narrow one but there are two dozen or so recorded sites or site complexes. The one that we’re looking at here, is an agricultural complex minus habitation features to it. It is stone terraces, one stonewall and there are…we have identified some subsurface deposits. It is also highly degraded, it’s one of the most degraded site locations along the NƗpali Coast (and) that’s because we have, you know up to 2,000 people a day hiking there with limited management and (inaudible). So there’ve been…and for 40 years it was a legal camp spot and so we stopped camping there in the year 2000. Literally, from the 1950’s (and) before it was even a state park it was a popular camping location. Many people modified sites for decades; they turned what were traditional sites into campsites. So it is highly degraded and it’s difficult to determine in fact which sites…sometimes which ones are older. So this is one of the things that differ from the correspondence that we gave you. When we met in the field with David of SHPD, he had concerns that we had these areas of potential effect or these areas in red that we had identified. And he said “well there’s all this stuff all over there”, you know and this is based partially on uncertainty because we don’t have…the contractors have to be creative on how they make this work. So to explain what’s on the left and a little bit of our philosophy now. SHPD…we have an overall potential area of effect that’s fairly large and what I have been pushing and trying to do in my career as a part time archaeologist is instead of…what is typically done is you put a buffer around archaeology sites or features and you say “stay out of here”, right? Because we protect all kinds of things, geological features, you know, plants, endangered species, what have you, right? I much prefer to give the contractor a very limited area to work in. Then you limit the damage to only that location, regardless of what’s around you, even if it’s not an archaeological feature. So that’s really what the red was attempting to do but I do understand that there is always potential to impacting but we hope that, you know, that would be mitigated by working closely with contractors and clearing particular areas where they can stage materials. The bridge itself is not going to have a very large footprint; its just two abutments on each side and the 50-foot spur trail. But it’s the equipment and getting materials in there, storing it, staging it, etcetera. I am hopeful that they are actually going to bring the bridge in by helicopter and drop it in place, right.
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 32 May have to come in two to three pieces but that would be the best, then you don’t even have to lay it on the ground anywhere. So there is some uncertainty but we have identified all the features within the potential area of effect, I suspect the area of effect would be much smaller in reality. So to summarize, we have limited construction staging areas to those previously disturbed by campers, hikers, beach users. Our archaeologist will be in there; we always brief crews ahead of time and we try to monitor at least, you know, for every major phase of construction. We don’t necessarily have the staff to be there at all times. And then if there are features that are potentially going to have to move over them, across the, etcetera, we’ll try to cover them with plywood, cover them with you know, cover them with vegetation or something like that, some materials to mitigate any heavy impacts to those sorts of features. And one thing that SHPD asked that I believe we are permitted to do is, when we have these opportunities (inaudible) to clean vegetation these areas (inaudible) and very difficult to map and some of our maps (are) from 30 years ago did not benefit from clearing vegetation which can lead to misinterpretation. It’s always good for us to reevaluate the condition of features and remap them, re-document them, so we’ll implement that as part of this as well (and) give us an updated recorded for (when) the next changes occur. Again from the air you can see we have at the left side is our old loading zone (LZ) which was actually in our established decades ago. It’s kind of in an archaeological area served now (and) it’s also sloped. It was not particularly (an) ideal LZ from a safety and pilot’s perspective. So they asked and we recently had a project where we created a new LZ in a much larger open area that’s right smack dab in the middle there. That would probably be the area that would receive a bunch of the materials from staging and you can see on the right the relation of that LZ to the bridge. And then I should note, that we have a bunch of existing facilities already on the right, you can see the roofs. We have three composting toilets, very important for public health. And we have a large shelter which is kind…it’s both used for maintenance, it’s a rain shelter, it’s also been at times an emergency shelter for when people get trapped in there. And we actually do keep emergency supplies in there as well and the Fire Department and our staff has access to. Now some of these things when the bridge goes in, it won’t be as necessary anymore because right now the problem is when the stream floods, which we are finding is happening more and more frequently. I think in the last full year before the big flood that closed everything, I think we had 20 incidents of flash flooding and we were closed. Some of those closed for more than one day, so we were closed for almost one month of the year, because people, you know, couldn’t get across the stream in either direction. Okay so to focus on the features (inaudible). The Kalalau Trail spur itself, this is the last one (that) comes down the slope from HƗ‘ena towards HanakƗpƯ‘ai Stream (and) you can see the boulder paving, right there, on the left. That’s looking from the stream up and on the right you’re looking from the top of the trail down towards the stream. It’s been inventoried, as had, the entire first two miles of the trail in a separate project, when we did a maintenance project. And we have most of those things recorded and mapped already; that’s not part of the ones we need to re-record but we do need to protect it. And from there, you can’t really tell in this view where the new bridge abutments going to go but it sort of…if you look on the right photo, it’s kind of center, top, a lot of vegetation. Alright, so I just kind of talked about this the whole way long, but why, why this bridge is proposed? And I don’t need the bridge because I am smart enough to not cross the stream when it’s flooding but many people have died. Many people have been rescued who January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 29 of 32 don’t actually need to be rescued, they’re just trapped, right. They’re cold and uncomfortable, but they’re not really in danger and they…it takes sometimes a monumental effort to get these people out and sometimes the water does not subside for days. And we, you know, you could say well they can, you know, let them go, let them take the risk. I’d rather have them be safe if we can make them so with a simple edition of a bridge. I see the bridge as a way out not so much a way in, we can still close the trail in terrible conditions at the trailhead, as we typically do. But many of these floods have come without even a flashflood warning, right. So it’s just an area that’s super susceptible to it and has a very large catchment above – the Kǀke‘e area that all filters, all flows down one channel. And then on the right you can see, I mean even our flash flood signs get knocked out, when the floods come. That was actually just two weeks ago, that was from the big one. And I’ll end with just the notion that bridges along iconic trails and wilderness areas are not anything unusual, they’re actually often sought after. I suspect that this bridge, while it does mar the environment a little bit, that’s the one right in the middle, all the rest of these national parks and many of them are actually (like) New Zealand, which has a bunch of famous tracks, they call them, instead of trails. They are part of the landscape on these well-tracked avenues to the wilderness, it’s not that unusual a concept and they’re usually there to keep them safe. So… Chair Summers: What determines the height of the bridge the (inaudible)… Mr. Carpenter: Good question…I have an engineer that could chime in as well but if I…I believe the height was determined by what they felt was the 100 year flood stage plus the height of debris that come in that walk. Chair Summers: It didn’t look very high to me, that’s why I asked, because I am thinking… Mr. Carpenter: Right. Chair Summers: What we’ve seen out there. Mr. Carpenter: I think its 14 feet. Fourteen feet above stream level… Chair Summers: It may not seem nicely proportioned with the surrounding landscape. Mr. Carpenter: So it was based on a flood projection. Chair Summers: I figured it was, but I had to ask. Mr. Carpenter: And I wish I had pictures to see what happened in April (inaudible). Mr. Hull: I have a clarifying question Chair, in the event that you folks are unable to attend the next meeting. Alan, for the Commissions discussion, at that point in the previous application it’s a proposal (of) no adverse impact, effect. In this one, the findings are a determination of effect with proposed mitigation commitments.
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 30 of 32 Mr. Carpenter: Correct. Mr. Hull: Are you specifically looking for essentially the Commission, if there is no further critique, criticism, opposition for them to just accept the effect with proposed mitigation commitments or… Mr. Carpenter: Correct and with SHPD we’ll work out the final details. They impose the condition on us effectively, we ask them for this, but they have to concur. So we’re still waiting for their concurrence. There’ll be minor modifications to the documents you guys have now. Mr. Hull: And then I…just thinking out-loud, one of the effects that’s found in the documents you provided is, and the predominate one is, the visual impact that it has on the historical sites and as well as the overall area. Is there a reason why, at least in the photo rendering the paint of choice is brown as opposed to something that blends more with the valley itself? Mr. Carpenter: Actually, so…are you thinking green. Okay. I promise you, go take a look sometime at like a green fence, its way more, its far more prominent in your view than black or brown, right. So most of the soil and the rocks are black, brown or gray and so are the trees and tree trunks but yes, you see this green. I think I ought to provide you a Photoshop version of green and you would say “Whoa” it’s really, harsh. Chair Summers: And the treads would be a darker or a gray or something right. Mr. Carpenter: Brown. Chair Summers: Brown and gray, so. Mr. Carpenter: It’ll get muddy pretty quick. Chair Summers: No you did a good job. Mr. Hull: And then one last question, sorry. When eventually, and as you mentioned it’s a moving target, when those roads do open up and I understand that it looks like the State Park would be open possibly or at least ready for opening prior to the actual road opening up. But once the road is open, and the park there is open, is the trail itself as well going to be open for the public to traverse this area or not yet? Mr. Carpenter: Okay, good question. Right now, we’re looking at potentially being done by the end of March, with the improvements. Now, if there’s still other things we need, we didn’t completely flush out the master plan (and) we got the big things done, and local residences, of course want to have access, they’ve been asking even about the trail, as well. So there were…there is damage and there remains some hazards along the trail. There were…so what happened along the trail was a (inaudible) of what happened to the highway. So we had five, you know, major landslides, but five foot wide rather than 20 foot roadway. Three, four, of those now this week, it’s been repaired. Some of them were really, sketchy, right, like the 400-foot drop for the one-foot wide trail, right. So but the area from the trailhead to HanakƗpƯ‘ai, that one January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 31 of 32 large slide has been repaired. It’s still a mess. There’s trees down, there’s rocks that have come onto the trail. It needs essentially a really, good basic maintenance run. But I believe we can get that done, concurrent with the opening of HƗ‘ena. Then the question becomes do we want to send people down there? Or are we going to have our staff on? Because we got three new positions, gratefully from the Legislature for HƗ‘ena, NƗpali this year, something we’ve been begging for, for years. So we have those folks on board. Yes, I can see some soft opening on both HƗ‘ena and the trail and we also, we have a very dedicated group of volunteer curators who have been maintaining the trail for us. They’ve been dying to get back in and we’re about ready to let them go in so long as we got the whole County pass issues. Because they would gladly, you know, do all that the maintenance that it really needs just to get it back in shape. Lot of vegetation encroachment, lot of just debris on the trail just makes it slippery, things like that. For the most part it’s, I wouldn’t call it unsafe. Mr. Hull: Thank you. So there. So the Commission has no further questions to the applicant. We would just ultimately move to adjournment. K. COMMISSION EDUCATION COMMITTEE L. KAUA'I HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE COMMITTEE M. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PUBLICITY COMMITTEE N. HANAPƜPƜ BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT COMMITTEE O.SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS (2/21/2019) P. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Guerber: I move we adjourn. Ms. Nakea: I second. Mr. Carpenter: Would you prefer we come back or do you think that’s necessary? Mr Guerber: We don’t even know if next month we’ll have a quorum. We don’t know. Mr. Hull: We’ll be in touch as far as one whether or not the…I think we’ll work with Aubrey as the Chair and whether or not there’s a request for you to officially return to participate in the deliberations or not.
January 17, 2019 KHPRC Meeting Minutes Page 32 of 32 Mr. Carpenter: We’re all good. Mr. Hull: Okay. Chair Summers: Hereby adjourned. Chair Summers adjourned the meeting at 5:04 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sandra M. Muragin Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of ____________ meeting.
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:32May 16, 2018bridge would allow hikers to pass safely over the stream regardless of weather and keep those returning from Kalalau Valley from becoming stranded at the river crossing (Figs.4-5). Importantly, it would also reduce demands placed on emergency responders, both those of Kaua‘i County and State Parks, who also provide services to other parts of the island. Rescues and evacuations in this remote location are particularly difficult and costly because they are only accessible by foot trail, helicopter if conditions permit, and boat when the ocean is sufficiently calm.The total project area, that which will be directly affected by construction of the bridge and a new spur trail, is roughly 0.16 acres (Fig. 29). The project staging areas have yet to be determined, but four areas near the bridge site are considered potentially appropriate. For the purposes of this review, the area of potential effect includes these four possible staging areas plus locations directly affected by construction. This would be a total of 0.54 acres. State Parks is requesting a determination of “effect, with proposed mitigation commitments” for this project and concurrence to proceed if the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) agrees that the proposed mitigation precautions are sufficient to avoid altering historic properties within the vicinity of the project area and staging areas. State Parks archaeologists believe that an archaeological inventory survey for this project is not needed as sufficient information exists on the location and significance of archaeological features in the area based on archeological work conducted since 1979 (Hawaii Administrative Rules, §13-275-5(b)(4)). An archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted of HanakƗSƯµDL9DOOH\in 1979 and a follow-up site inventory and assessment carried out in 1981 (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989, Yent 1981). In 2010, an inventory survey of the historic Kalalau Trail was completed which includes atrail segment located immediately downslope of a project element (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010). Recent projects conducted in or near potential project staging areas were monitored in 2016 in accordance with an approved archaeological monitoring plan(Carpenter 2015).In addition to previous work, State Parks archaeologists participated in selecting the bridge placement and design to insure that project elements would not disturb archaeological features. A subsequent field inspection confirmed that this remains true with the final construction plans. This inspection also verified that subsurface cultural deposits and features are highly unlikely given the composition of boulders, soils, and basalt outcrops lying beneath the proposed bridge abutments (Figs. 17-18, 21). The composition of natural deposits beneath the abutments was also confirmed by soil borings drilled at the abutment sites.Note that the project area lies within the expansive Na Pali Coast Archaeological District (Site # 50-30-02-3200) which was listed in the Hawaii and National Register of Historic Places in 1984 (Yent 1984). An archeological complex (SIHP #50-30-02-7023) contributing to the significance of this district encompasses three areas that may be used for project staging (Figs. 25-26, 29). This use will not diminish the integrity of this already heavily disturbed complex nor will any of the remaining archaeological surface
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:33May 16, 2018features in the complex be altered. The proposed bridge will, however, have a visual effect on the general setting of the valley which contains multiple archaeological complexes and is culturally important. Design of the bridge, including its scale, use of materials, and color selections, was specifically developed to minimize this unavoidable visual effect (Fig. 4). Also limiting visibility of the bridge is the valley’s dense vegetation. It shields the view of the bridge from most parts of the valley and confines itseffects primarily to the immediate area of the bridge, nearby trail segments, portions of the stream, and portions of the beach. The project is located within the Special Management Area (SMA) and the State Conservation District (Resource Subzone). It may therefore be subject to additional review under §6E-42, HRS, when the County of Kaua‘i Planning Department considers the State Parks SMA permit application for the project and when the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands reviews the project’s Site Plan Approval application. This submittal is intended to provide information for these reviews as well. Project DescriptionThe proposed bridge project is composed of three primarily elements: the truss-style EULGJHWKDWZLOOVSDQ+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP FRQFUHWHDEXWPHQWVLQVWDOOHGRQWKHVORSHVWReither side of the stream to support the bridge frame; and a new spur trail providing access from the existing Kalalau Trail to the bridge abutment on WKHHDVWHUQ +ƗµHQD side of the river. Only construction related activities for the abutments and spur trail involve excavation and significant ground disturbance. The bridge would be located approximately 300 feet inland from the beach.The 81.67’ long and 5.8’ wide truss bridge will be constructed of an aluminum frame covered with a dark brown powder coating to help the bridge blend with the surrounding vegetation and terrain (Figs. 4 and 7). A brown plastic wood composite will be used for the bridge’s 4-foot wide pedestrian deckwhich also supports a brown picket hand rail running along both sides of the deck (Figs. 4 and 9). Truss-style bridges are generally composed of triangular-shaped connected units which give bridge superstructures the load-bearing capacity needed to support heavy loads over relatively lengthy spans while also being constructed of comparatively little material (Tetra Tech 2016:7). Aluminum was selected for this project because its light weight allows the truss bridge to span the stream without any intermediate piers in the stream bed (Tetra Tech 2016:9). Aluminum is well suited to this remote coastal location because it is durable and has low corrosion properties which reduce maintenance costs. When completed, it will stand approximately 14 feet, 6 inches above the current stream bottom which is above projected flood levels(Fig. 9). The bridge will be pre-fabricated off-site in three segments and then flown to the site by helicopter where it will be bolted together in place.The two reinforced concrete abutments will be installed into the slopes adjacent to the stream. The abutment sites were selected because they are at comparable elevations and the distance between them allows for installation of a level bridge with a short span which is at least 4 feet above predicted maximum flood heights (Figs. 14 and 19). TheHRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:34May 16, 2018advantage of the selected locations is that they minimizes the need to construct larger or taller abutments to achieve the required bridge heights, levels, and support. On the western (Kalalau) side of the stream, the abutment will be located adjacent to the Kalalau Trail and constructed into the slope to a depth of 8 feet (Figs. 9 and 15). The maximum width of the abutment is 6.5 feet. A four-foot wide and five-foot long unpavedpath will provide level access from the main Kalalau Trail to the bridge (Figs. 7 and 9). 2QWKHHDVWHUQ +ƗµHQD VLGHRIWKHVWUHDPWKHDEXWPHQWZLOOEHSODFHRYHUDQGLQWHJUDWHGinto a large existing outcrop (Figs. 9, 20 and 21). This abutment will reach a depth of 9.5 feet and be 5.7 feet wide at the widest. For added stability, MAI type micropiles will be drilled through the footings of both abutments and into the soils, boulders, and bedrock beneath the abutments to minimum depths of 20 feet (Figs. 9 and 12). This type of micropile is well suited to highly variable substrates composed of soil and boulders such as those found in the project area (Tetra Tech 2016: 10). Framed concrete washdowns, measuring 10 by 20 feet, will be temporarily installed near the abutments to contain all water used to wash tools and equipment during construction. All excess concrete and residue in the washdowns will be remove from the site after water in the washdowns evaporates.The QHZVSXUWUDLORQWKHHDVWHUQ +ƗµHQD VLGHRIWKHstream is needed to provide relatively level access from the existing Kalalau Trail to the bridge deck. The boulder outcrop on which the abutment rests is12 to 13 feet above the existing Kalalau Trail at the base of the slope (Fig. 9). The four-foot wide spur trail needs to follow the slope contour for about 50 feet to join the Kalalau Trail at a comparable elevation (Figs. 7, 21, 23 and 24). Notes on the project plans emphasize that the spur trail alignment depicted on project plans is only approximate (Fig. 7). The trail’s exact location will be determined after vegetation is cleared and project engineers can best assess the slope and then design a detailed alignment that best fits these conditions.Also uncertain is placement of a retaining wall needed to create the level trail bed on the steep and uneven slope. The plan presents two alternatives. In one, the anticipated design, the trail bed will be primarily cut into the slope and the retaining wall would be constructed along the upslope side of the trail to prevent slope wash and slippage from covering the trail (Figs. 7 and 8). The three-foot tall retaining wall would be constructed of tightly fit stacked stones with suitable soil used as mortar (Fig. 8). Lodge pole headers,six inches in diameter, would define and stabilize the downslope edge of the trail. The alternative design places the retaining wall on the downslope side of the trail where it would primarily support fill used to level the trail bed.This wall would also be constructed of tightly fit stacked stones with soil mortar.Site preparation work for the bridge abutments and spur tail include grubbing and clearing these areas of vegetation and rocks (Fig. 6). Clearing will not extend more than two feet from the abutment and trail foot prints and, if needed, all excess soil and rock generated by clearing and subsequent construction will remain in the valley at a designated location. This would include fragments of boulders and outcrops that need to be broken up during this process. Mature hala trees within the cleared area will be
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:35May 16, 2018preserved when possible. To contain soil erosion during clearing and construction, composite filter socks will be installed along the slope below the areas to be altered (Figs.6 and 8).One or more staging areas will be needed during the project to store and organize construction supplies, materials, and equipment, most of which will be brought in by helicopter. Construction related debris, will also be kept in staging areas before being taken out of the valley. The construction notes state that staging areas will be determined during pre-construction meetings between the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) project engineer and contractor because the amount of material being staged at any given time will depend on how the selected contractor decides to schedule the work.Four staging areas have been identified as being potentially suitable because of their proximity to the project area, existing trails, designated helicopter landing zone, park support facilities (e.g. composting toilets and shelter), and former camping areas (Fig. 29). These areas have also been heavily disturbed and can be used without affecting know historic properties. Areas of Potential Effect:The project’s “area of potential effect” is presented in two parts. The first and primary area is that directly affected by construction activities needed to install the bridge and create the new spur trail connecting the bridge to the existing Kalalau Trail (Fig. 29).This also encompasses adjacent areas that will be grubbed and cleared of vegetation prior to construction and where erosion containment filter socks and concrete washdowns will be placed. Combined, these project elements cover an area of approximately 0.16 acres.The secondary “area of potential effect” covers the four potential locations to be used for support activities such as staging construction materials and supplies, consolidating rubbish before removal, depositing excess soil or rocks, and, if needed, crew overnight camping. All are located on the westeUQ .DODODX VLGHRI+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDPand collectively cover 0.38 acres (Fig. 29). The final determination on which areas to use will not be made until the DLNR project engineer meets with the contractor on site prior to construction. A State Parks Archaeologist will be at this meeting to insure that no archeological surface features are within selected staging areas and that they have been disturbed by past use. One or more of these areas may be used concurrently for different purposes.The first of these four areas is the recently created helicopter landing zone for +DQDNƗSƯµDLthat will likely be used when helicopters drop off construction materials and equipment and pickup accumulated rubbish and debris (Figs. 29, 30, 35 and 36). The cleared periphery of the landing zone appears to provide sufficient space and shade to stage materials and equipment, particularly when first unloaded from the helicopter. This use can occur without hindering use of the zone for emergency rescues. The old landing zone is an alternative as it remains anopen space along the main trail and would only require clearing of tall grass which covers the site (Figs. 29, 30 and 37). The third possible location previously served as a general camping area and is near the composting HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:36May 16, 2018toilets (Figs. 29, 30 and 33). It is also along the main trail, has been heavily disturbed by decades of use, is protected by shade and is close to the project area. This location would be convenient for construction crews to camp if proposed by the contractor. The fourth location is a level area makai of the bridge’s west bank abutment and adjacent to the current Kalalau trail stream crossing (Figs. 29 and 32). The broad open area is used by most park users to access the beach after having crossed the stream. As with the other proposed staging sites, the area has been heavily used for decades. Not included in these areas of potential effect is the main trail leading from the stream FURVVLQJRQWKHZHVWEDQNWRWKHEDFNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\DQGWR.DODODX(Fig. 29). This trail will be used by crews carrying materials and supplies from staging areas to the bridge site, but this use will not exceed or increase its current usage. The trail is a major thoroughfare used continually by hikers and State Parks staff and is well defined. Another area not included is the beach (Figs. 1 and 31). The bridge’s three pre-fabricated segments will be brought to +DQDNƗSƯµDLand lowered into place by helicopter. A contingency option discussed was staging the three segments on the beach prior to lowering them in place. This option may not be feasible as the sand beach disappears or is diminished during fall and winter storms and can be covered by high tides. These unstable conditions exclude the probability of there being intact cultural deposits or burials in beach sands.Previous Archaeology and BackgroundSystematic archaeological work has been conducted within the project’s “area of potential effect” four times between 1979 and 2016. The first was during a 1979 archaeological reconnaissance survey of the valleys along the NƗpali Coast and the second was a 1981 follow-up inventory and assessment of sites recorded during the 1979survey in +DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\(Tomonari-Tuggle 1989, Yent 1981). The third is a 2010 archaeological inventory conducted of the first two miles of the historic Kalalau Trail which includes the stretch reaching WKHHDVWHUQEDQNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP &DUSHQWHUand McEldowney 2010). The fourth project involved archaeological monitoring for installation of a new composting toilet and rain shelter and clearing of the new helicopter landing zone (Carpenter 2015November and December). Two studies conducted prior to 1979 established, in general terms, the presence of UHPQDQWDJULFXOWXUDODQGUHVLGHQWLDOIHDWXUHVLQ+DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\. Wendell Bennett prepared the first overview of archaeology on Kaua‘i which included fieldwork conducted in 1928 and 1929 (Bennett 1931). His overviewEULHIO\PHQWLRQV+DQDNƗSƯµDLValley as having “…the usual taro and house markings together with some paving near the seashore of indefinite nature and extent.” (Bennett 1931: 138). These were collectively identified as Site 157. The “usual markings” presumably refers to the more detailed evidence he describes as “extensive agricultural work and a fairly extensive population in the five largest valley” of the NƗpali Coast (Bennett 1931: 138). These five valleys were Kalalau, Honopnj, Awa‘awapuhi, Nu‘alolo, and Miloli‘i. This suggests that KHSDVVHGWKURXJK+DQDNƗSƯµDLEULHIO\DQGVSHQWPRUHWLPHexamining the other names valleys.
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:37May 16, 2018The second study was E.S. Craighill Handy’s ethnographic study of Hawaiian plant cultivation undertaken to “present a credible picture of old horticulture in Hawaii”(Handy 1940: 1). His work included 18 months of field work conducted during 1934 and $W+DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\KH“explored” the valley a mile inland from the coast. He describes small terraces with stone facings utilizing “all irrigable land for a distance of more than a mile inland” starting from a “few hundred yards inland on the southwest side of Hanakapiai Stream” (Handy 1940: 60). On the northeastern side of the stream, he found “low, relatively level areas similarly utilized” (Handy 1940: 60). He presumed that terraces extended further up the valley from where he was able to explore. The valley was primarily in use as cattle pasturage at the time. Archaeological Reconnaissance of NƗpali Coast State ParkThe 1979 archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted to provide information for a management plan being developed for 1Ɨpali Coast State Park (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 9). This large area was established as a State park unit in 1962 but continued to be managed by the Division of Forestry until 1979. The scope of the seven-week survey included determining the extent of cultural resources in the most heavily used parts of the park (e.g., along trails, campgrounds, coastal areas, etc.), assessing the impact of current uses on cultural resources, and identifying the most vulnerable areas for subsequent protection or mitigation. A week was spent surveying and evaluating +DQDNƗSƯµDLAs with all of the major valleys in the park, the dominant archaeological structures found in +DQDNƗSƯµDLwere the remains of extensive stone and earthen terrace complexes typical of those created for irrigated kalo cultivation. A total of 14 complexes were identified in +DQDNƗSƯµDLDQGDOOZHUHlargely defined by the relatively flat benches formed along the narrow valley floor by the meandering stream (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 27) (Fig. 26). Several possible habitation sites where found nearer the coast and within the irrigated complexes, but these were not sufficient to define a clear settlement pattern in the valley.The terrace complex located closest to the beach, Site No. 50-30-02-7023 (i.e., HKP-3 in the original report), is adjacent to the proposed bridge site and several possible staging areas are situated within the complex (Figs. 25 to 29). The site is described as consisting of a series of terraces that were probably used for irrigated kalo cultivation and as being “in extremely poor condition due to intensive use as a campground” (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 52-53). The terrace facings were vague with a few exceptions. This contrasts with the much better defined and intact terrace systems found inland. A very well-faced terrace (5 m wide, 8 m long, stone facing 1.25 m high) located at the base of the talus slope and near the State Parks tool shed was described as a possible habitation site (Figs. 25, 27 and 29). Other features within the complex included two small enclosures at the edge of the stream bank, both of which encompass large boulders surrounded by stacked cobble and boulder walls, and a large stacked rock wall that bisects the stream bench (22 m long, 0.30 to 1.25 m high) (Figs. 25 and 27).The major trail inland crosses the wallthrough a wide and well-established opening.HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:38May 16, 2018Four other sites were identified makai of the terrace complex. One is a paved area located near the edge of the steep embankment formed between talus slope and the water-worn boulder beach below (Site No. -7042, HKP-4) (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 53). The site’s flat boulder paving is 4 by 2 m with a 0.50-meter high retaining wall. This possible house site was considered to be in fair condition although being used as a campsite at the time of the survey. The three other sites were platforms with primarily dirt floors and stone retaining walls (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 52 and 53). All were located at the back of boulder beach near the steep drop in the talus slope (Figs: 25, 26 and 28). One platform, Site -7042 or HKP-2, appeared to be recently constructed because the slope behind the platform was cut away, bamboo poles were placed in two corners, and hala logs supported the wall facings. It measured 5 by 5 m with a 50 cm high, two course boulder faced walls. Another Platform, Site -7021 (HKP-1), was located at the upper edge of the boulder beach and in poor condition due to use by campers and high waves. The rectangular platform measured 6 by 3.5 m defined by 0.50-cm high facing on the makaiside of the platform and a 75-cm facing on the mauka side. Alignments along the east and west were level with the boulder beach. The third platform, Site -7025 or HKP-5, is the only one located on the eastern side of the stream. The square, 4 by 4 m, platform is delineated by boulder alignments. It had also been heavily disturbed by campers and wave action. The remnants of all four of these sites can be avoided during the project.Archaeological Monitoring, Mapping, and Testing of Sites in +DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\In 1981, State Parks Archaeologists spent five days in the +DQDNƗSƯµDL9DOOH\checking the status and condition of sites identified in 1979, particularly those being most effected by public use (Yent 1981). They also mapped, with a transit, archaeological sites and park facilities in the most highly impacted area to provide baseline information for park planning and resource management. This included tested subsurface deposits in four sties identified as being in this high impact area (Yent 1981). The testing would help determine whether additional archaeological work was need to document and manage these sites. This work, the monitoring of archaeological sites, was recommended in both the 1979 survey report and the subsequent Environmental Impact Statement.As a result of the inspection, they concluded that most of the agricultural terracecomplexes along the main trails leading into the valley were not significantly disturbed because most were obscured by dense vegetation which discourage users from leaving the trails. Their efforts then focused on five sites they believed were most endangered by public use. These were the terrace complex (Site -7023), the three platform sites (Sites -7021, -7022, -7025), and the paved area (Site -7024) which are all located near or within the proposed bridge project areas (Figs. 25 and 26). All five sites and park facilities at the time (i.e., designated campgrounds, maintenance tool shed, rain shelter, and pit toilet) were mapped by transit and compiled on single map (Figs. 27 and 28). The three platforms and the paved area were tested by auger coring to determine if subsurface cultural deposits were present which could indicate the function or potential age of the features.
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:39May 16, 2018The terrace complex as whole was found to be in poor condition given the continuing use of the area by hikers and campers. Despite this, the prominent features mapped and described in 1979 were still intact with the exception of some indistinct terrace alignments which could not be relocated (compare Figs. 25 and 27-28). The new map and updated descriptions were considered adequate mitigation in that they provided asufficient basis for monitoring site conditions over time. Two exceptions were the stone wall which dissects the level bench and the two small round enclosures near the stream embankment (Fig. 27). The study recommended letting the two the small round enclosures become overgrown with ki and hala to discourage campers from throwing trash in them and installing signs adjacent to the stone wall to ask campers not to remove stones when creating campfires. The area is no longer used as designated campground. Coring and further examination of the three platform sites (Sites -7021, -7022, -7025) and paved area (Site -7024) suggested that all were created relatively recently, primarily to create leveled camp sites. No non-modern cultural deposits or materials were found in any of the core samples nor were there any other indications of them being anything but recent. Brief descriptions of the coring results are as follows:Site -7021: This site is primarily a cleared dirt area located within the boulder beach at the interface of the beach boulders and soil-boulder slope immediately inland of the beach (Yent 1981: 2). The leveled, silty loam soil of the platform proved to be a shallow layer over beach boulders. An exposed section showed the feature’s retaining wall being underlain by “clayey loam high in basalt rock and iron” (Yent 1981: 2). Site -7022: The core sample extracted from Site -7022 reached a depth of 42 cm before hitting rock (Yent 1981: 7). Two layers were identified; an upper silty loam layer (0-6cm) and a lower clayey loam (6-42 cm). The site is located at the base of the steep embankment cut in the bench inland of the beach.Site -7024: This site is located on the stream bench above the beach and is immediately adjacent to the steep embankment dropping to the beach. It was described as being poorly defined and actively used for camping (Yent 1981: 7 and 9). The core reached a depth of 64 cm with three layers being identified. The upper layer was composed of a silty loam (0-5 cm) and the second was a clayey loam high in iron staining (5-55cm). Decomposing basalt was found within the layer at 35 cm before the surface. Clay soils and decomposing basalt formed the last layer (55-64 cm).Site -7025: Located east RI+DQDNƗSƯ‘ai Stream, the site sitson a sand and boulder rise inland of the boulder beach. The upper layer was a silty loam with coralline sand (0-2cm). The second was a darker silty loam with less coralline sand and rounded basalt pebbles (2-12 cm). A rubber shoe fragment was also found in the second layer. The third lay was composed of clay with some decomposing basalt (Yent 1981: 9). HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:310May 16, 2018Historic Kalalau Trail (State Site #50-30-02-4021)In 2009, State Parks archaeologist Alan Carpenter conducted an inventory survey of the first two miles of the 11-mile long Kalalau Trail. Constructed in the 1860s, the trail provided overland access for those living in the then-populated valleys along the coast (Carpenter and McEldowney, 2010: 6-11). The trail is considered a historic property and was determined significant under multiple criteria. The first two-miles surveyed covered the stretch from trail head at HƗµena State Park to the east bank of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai Stream. The inventory was prompted by a 2007 legislative State Grant-in-Aid that provided a non-profit group funding to restore and repair this section of the trail. Actions needed to repair and restore the trail could, if approached inappropriately, affect the overall integrity and character the trail, much of which remains despite recurrent modificationsand ongoing heavy use by park users. The inventory report was approved by SHPD as were the proposed mitigation measures which were judged to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.The survey scope included inspecting the existing trail alignment and approximately 3 meter (10 feet) to either side of the trail centerline. It focused on identifying, describing, and mapping those trail segments with preserved stonework elements and describing the general characteristics of trail sections not modified by stonework. In all, 31 remnants with stonework elements were identified along the two-mile stretch or what amounts to 9% of the linear project area. Identified elements included stone paving, stacked stone retaining walls; and stone aligned trail edges (Figs. 22-24). The remaining 91% of the trail was either never modified with constructed stonework or previously existing stonework was damaged beyond recognition or destroyed by erosion. Trail beds created along ridge contours were primarily formed by slope cuts and subsequently hardened by use. Based on the best preserved segments, the average trail width appears to be 5.5 feetwhich is consistent with early photographs of the trail. No historic properties were found in the corridor other than the trail itself and its component features.The relative age of the various trail segments could not be determined definitely for lack of specific evidence, including when segments were initially built or significantlymodified over the trail’s 150-year history. Strong similarities among the more intact and stable sections, however, suggest that they provide a long-standing portrait of the trail’sgeneral character and route and reinforce the trail’s historic integrity. Some accounts suggest that the initial 1860s trail was widened and reinforced in the 1900s, including work done by Civilian Conservation Corp crews in the 1930s. After 1960, emergency repairs by State Parks crews contributed to the trial’s ongoing alteration and modification.One of the recorded stone paved trail segments, that designated Remnant EE, lies directly downslope of the propose spur trail that will provide access to the bridge abutment on the eastern side of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai Stream (Figs. 7 and 22-24) (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010: 84-85). The new trail alignment runs along the slope between 6 to 10 feet above this 33 feet (10.1 m) long, 5.6 feet (1.7 m) wide paved trail segment. The historic segment is thus located within the project area of potential effect. This steep trail segment
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:311May 16, 2018leading to the stream crossing is paved with boulders and cobbles embedded in clay. This was the only trail remnant recorded that appeared constructed with the paved segment intentionally sloped towards the outer or downslope edge of trail to shed water. Archaeological Monitoring of Park Facilities at +DQDNƗSƯ‘aiIn 2015, an archaeological monitoring plan was prepared for construction of a new rain shelter, installation of two new composting toilet units, and creation of a new helicopter landing zone. All are within the heavily used area west of +DQDNƗpƯ‘ai Stream and inland of the proposed bridge (Figs: 29 and 30) (Carpenter December 2015). As all proposed improvements were located within the boundaries of Site -2073, it was determined that the project could affect this historic property (Carpenter November 2015: 13-14). The potential adverse effects identified were the visual effects of the new structures; the possibility of known archaeological surface features being disturbed by construction related actions; the potential for previously unrecorded surface features being exposed when the new helicopter landing zone was cleared of vegetation; and possible subsurface cultural deposits being disturbed when postholes and foundations for the new shelter and composting toilet units were excavated. Most potential effects were addressed during project planning and design. Visual effects were mitigated by keeping the size and footprint of new structures at a minimum and painting the structures a dark brown to blend with the setting. All facilities were locatedin previously disturbed areas and where archeological surface features could be avoided. This was confirmed by previous archaeological studies of Site -7023 and field inspectionsconducted by State Parks archaeologists specifically for this project (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989, Yent 1981, and Carpenter 2015 November). The new rain shelter was installed in the exact location of the previous shelter which was removed in the 1990s. The new composting toilet units augment an existing one and were placed adjacent to it. Approximately half the helicopter landing zone was previously used as designated camping sites up until the year 2000. The potential effects of project ground disturbance on subsurface cultural deposits or materials would be mitigated through archeological monitoring as set out in a monitoring plan.In addition to standard procedures required under HAR Chapter 13-279, the archeological monitoring plan committed to two major actions. First all ground disturbing actions required during construction would be monitored by a State Parks archaeologist. This included excavation of six post holes needed to support the rain shelter (each 30 cm diameter, 65 cm deep) and a single pit to contain two holding tanks for the new composting toilets (2 m by 1 m, 65 cm deep). Second, an archaeologist would reexamine the new helicopter landing zone after vegetation clearing incase previously unrecorded surface features were exposed. Any new features would be mapped, described and assessed. If needed, mitigation measures would be proposed.HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:312May 16, 2018Archaeological monitoring of the required project elements took place on February 22 and 23, 2016.1A total of 12 postholes were excavated and monitored; six for the new rain shelter and six for the new composting toilet structure.2All post holes were excavated to depths of approximately 90 cm (3’) depending on the slope. At both project sites, the soilwas predominately a dark reddish-brown sandy clay soil mixed with variably sized pebbles and cobbles. Decomposing basalt rock (saprolitic rock) was encountered in some postholes at depths of approximately 35 cm. There was no evidence in any of the excavated postholes that these soil deposits were significantly disturbed other than near the surface. These relatively small samples did confirm that information on past uses of the site complex is present in subsurface deposits although the amount of cultural material encountered was low and the deposits were not clearly stratified.At the rain shelter site, most artifacts recovered were historic-period items such as iron nails, a metal rivet for jeans, a small fishing weight, one 30-caliber shotgun shell, and scattered small pieces of metal. All were recovered from three postholes on the north,northeast, and northwest sides of the rain shelter footprint (i.e., towards beach and stream). Objects reflecting native Hawaiian use, two pieces of volcanic glass and a polished basalt flake, were also found in a posthole on the northeastern side. On the opposite side, a piece of mammal bone was exposed at 15 cm below surface and a piece of coconut shell at 25 cm below surface. A small charcoal sample was taken from an eastern (mauka) posthole. Flecks of charcoal were found scatter throughout all postholes. No artifacts or modern materials were found in the six postholes excavated for the composting toilet structure. Charcoal lenses were encountered in two postholes, one on the northeast side of the structure’s footprint and the other on the northwest side. On the northeast side, the lenses was near the base of the posthole at 55 to 81 cm below surface. In the eastern side (mauka-stream side), the lenses was exposed on the edge of the posthole wall at 45 cm below surface and was 10 cm thick and 20 cm wide. The new helicopter landing zone was inspected by a State Parks archaeologist after it was cleared of vegetation and no previously unrecorded surface features were exposed by the clearing. Project Cultural AnalysisIn 2016 a cultural analysis was prepared as part of the bridge project’s environmentalassessment process (NeSmith, et. al 2016). The analysis was based on community outreach and scoping meetings held in April and July of 2015 respectively and a review RIWUDGLWLRQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK+DQDNƗSƯµDi as well as the valley’s history. Issues raised during outreach efforts primarily focused on concerns that the bridge would change the character of the valley, that enhanced safety would increase already heavy use of the trail, and that the public safety concerns the bridge is meant to remedy would be better 1This summary was provided by State Parks archaeologist Victoria Wichman who monitored the project. The monitoring report is in preparation. 2Original plans to excavate a pit for the two toilet units were changed. Instead the two units were cover by an elevated, above-ground structure supported by six posts. The six excavated postholes were monitored.
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:313May 16, 2018addressed through management initiatives (e.g., increased enforcement, user education, staffing increases, controlling park visitor numbers, use of technology to monitor stream flow and predict flash flood incidents, etc.).The discussion of traditions associated with HanDNƗSƯµDi was drawn from Hawaiian language sources which can identify wahi pana or celebrated places significant because of their ties to legends, traditional events, myths, mele, or chants. In an 1868 Hawaiian language manuscript, three accounts tell of young Menehune who create structures and objects of stone which then become part of the +DQDNƗSƯµDi landscape. In one account, they create an ahua pohaku (heap of stone) encompassing a large stone somewhere in the valley’s interior and, in another, large fish pond walls are built on a kind of reef at +DQDNƗSƯµDiDQG3ǀKDNXDR(NeSmith et. al. 2016: 12-13). The reef walls were said to bedestroyed by high waves and, by 1868, only a few individual rocks remained. Their work also included a canoe carved of stone which was carried to the top of a steep ridge EHWZHHQWKHYDOOH\VRI+DQDNƗSƯµDiDQG3ǀKDNXDR'XHWRHURVLRQthe canoe eventuallyfell RQWKH+DQDNƗSƯµDi side of the ridge and broke into three or four pieces (NeSmith et. al. 2016: 14-15). An 1892 article in a Hawaiian language newspaper tells of a climbing competition between the gods Kanaloa and Kamapua‘aVWDUWLQJDW+ƗµHQD(NeSmith et. al. 2016: 15-16). After winning, Kamapua‘a descends through the many banana patches in Kokuapu‘u, a side valley in HaQDNƗSƯµDi, and eats a banana. He then decrees that all banana patches in the area would never bear fruit again. This explained why bananas in this area no longer bear fruit.The cultural analysis also examines sayings and epithets used when poetically referring to +DQDNƗSƯµDi. The wind of +DQDNƗSƯµDi was named Peke and the term o‘opu peke was used when UHIHUULQJWRWKHSHRSOHRI+DQDNƗSƯµDi (NeSmith et. al. 2016: 18-19). The o‘opu peke (a freshwater goby) LQ+DQDNƗSƯµDLwere famous for being “plump and shorter in length than those elsewhere” (Pukui 1983: 164 and 276). The report suggests that the fame o‘opu peke may underscore the valley’s connection with Menehune who were fond of eating o‘opu (NeSmith et. al. 2016: 19).None of the places associated with the four traditions are within the project area. The closest would be the fishpond walls said to be built on the reef or beach of +DQDNƗSƯµDLby Menehune, but remnants of these walls were all but gone by 1868. Subsequent exposure to storm waves would make them difficult to recognize today. The other accounts describe places inland in the valley.7KHOHQJWKRI+DQDNƗSƯµDi Stream could be viewed as a significant feature given the fame of its o‘opu peke. Regardless of where the o‘opu peke were most common or frequently caught along the stream, their life cycle requires that they pass beneath the proposed bridge span on their way upstream from off-shore waters. Construction of the bridge was designed to avoid any short or long term disturbance of the stream.The overview of the valley’s history presented in the report is essentially similar that presented in previous studies with some additional details. After the Mahele in 1848, HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:314May 16, 2018+DQDNƗSƯµDi became government lands as did most of the NƗpail valleys and lands. No individual Land Commission Awards were issues to any +DQDNƗSƯµDLUHVLGHQWVQRUwere any government land grants offered for sale. The number of permnant residents presumably diminished during the second half of the 1800s as it did elsewhere along the coast.+DQDNƗSƯµDLDQGRWKHUYDOOH\V, however, must have been sufficiently populated and seen as productive to justify construction of the Kalalau Trail in the 1860s. Any permnant VHWWOHPHQWVLQ+DQDNƗSƯµDLwere likely abandoned by or before 1919, the year Kalalau Valley became uninhabited (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 26). The Hawaiian Kingdom issued a 30-year lease for +DQDNƗSƯµDLto D. W. Pua in 1883 who then transferred it to W.W.H Deverill in 1891. Sometime in the late 1800s, a coffee plantation was established in +DQDNƗSƯµDLabout half a mile inland. In 1920, the Territory of Hawaii issued a 260-acre, 15-year pasture lease to W.H. Rice Sr. (NeSmith et. al. 2016: 21). When cattle grazing proved unproductive, the territorial government decided to LQFRUSRUDWHG+DQDNƗSƯµDLLQWRthe Na Pali-Kona Forest Reserve in 1938 (Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: 19). This brought anend to commercial cattle grazing in the valley and, in 1962+DQDNƗSƯµDLbecame part of anewly established State Park unit which continued to be managed by the Division of Forestry until 1979.Other than the Kalalau Trail, none of the archaeological sites found in or near the project area could be identified as specifically reflecting one of these historic uses although all would have altered the landscape in some way. Clearly use of area near the proposed bridge was altered by recreational uses, first under the management of the Division of Forestry and then State Parks, diminished the integrity of Site -7023.Significance AssessmentsOf the six archaeological sites identified within or near the project area, two are considered significant under multiple criteria. Site -7023, the +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai agricultural complex located closest to the ocean, contributes to the overall significance of the Na Pali Coast Archaeological District (Site # 50-30-02-3200) which was listed in the Hawaii and National Register of Historic Places in 1984 (Yent 1984: Description, page 6 andSignificance page 8). Site -7023 was also considered significant under multiple criteria when assessed prior to installation of the new rain shelter, composting toilet units, and new helicopter land zone (Carpenter November 2015:13). The historic Kalalau Trail (Site-4021) was, as a whole, found to be significant under multiple criteria in 2010 (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010: 86-87). The three platform sites (Sites -7021, -7022, -7025) and paved area (Site -7024) identified in the 1979 survey, and later tested in 1981, were viewed as recent constructions and therefore not considered historic properties (i.e., not over 50 years old). Na Pali Coast Archaeological District encompasses multiple agricultural complexes andother features recorded in the coast’s 7 major valleys (+DQDNƗSƯ‘ai, Hanakoa, Kalalau, Honopnj, Awa‘awapuhi, Nu‘alolo µƖina, and Miloli‘i); in a series of small gulches between Hanakoa and Kalalau Valley (Pohakuao Ahupua‘a), and on the coastal flats adjacent to Nu‘alolo µƖina (Nu‘alolo Kai). The National Register nomination was based on the 1979 survey results and includes all the agricultural complexes identified in the
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:315May 16, 2018survey, including Site -7035 at +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai. The significance statement in the nomination emphasizes the value of this extensive and relatively complete archaeological record for the information it contains on changing social and cultural interactions over time and adaptations to the varying topography and environments found along this coast. Under Hawaii Administrative Rules, the district would thus be significant under Criteria “a” (associated with events contributing to the broad patters of history), Criterion “c”(embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction), andCriterion “d” (has or is likely to yield information important for research on prehistory or history) (HAR, §13-275-6). Overall, the districthas retained sufficient integrity to convey this significance. The integrity of Site -7023 has been greatly diminished by decades of use, particularly when compared to inland complexes that are significantly more intact, itat least retains some potential to yield information important to research on the prehistory and history of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai, particularly as it is located closest to the shore and the historic-period trail. In the 2015 determination letter submitted to SHPD for installation of the rain shelter, composting toilet units, and helicopter land zone improvements, Site -7023 was found to be significant under Criteria “a” and “d” (Carpenter November 2015:13). The entire historic Kalalau Trail was argued to be significant under Criteria “a”, “c” and “d” and to have retained sufficient integrity to convey this significance (HAR, §13-275-6) (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010: 86-87). It is associated with and reflects developments occurring in local agriculture and commerce in the Hawaiian Kingdom between the 1850s and 1890s (Criterion “a”); it embodies the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of trail construction during the Hawaiian Kingdom period and thus serves as a good example of these characteristics (Criterion “c”); and it is likely to yield information on stonemasonry techniques used during this period for the trail and road construction of (Criterion “d”). The trail segment lying downslope of the proposed spur trail leading to the eastern bridge abutment, “Remnant EE”, contributes to the significance of the trail as a whole as it is relatively intact and is the only stone-paved trail segment constructed to intentionally shed water by being sloped toward the outer edge of the trial.Although not mentioned in the Na Pali Coast Archaeological District nomination form, the trail should be considered a contributing property to the district. One of the district’s areas of significance is listed as “Historic-Non-Aboriginal” and one of the periods of significance includes that between 1750 and 1900 (https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/). Both apply to the trail.Determination of Effect:A determination of “effect, with proposed mitigation commitments” is being proposed for the project as a whole because some project elements are within or sufficiently close to significant historic properties. Some project elements are highly unlikely to affect either identified or unknown historic resources while others are within the proximity of cultural HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:316May 16, 2018features and require precautionary measures. These project elements and their potential effects are addressed as follows:Construction of Bridge and Concrete Abutments: It is highly unlikely that construction of the two reinforced concrete bridge abutments will directly affect any archaeological resources. Field inspections conducted by State Parks archaeologists confirmed that there are no surface features at the selected abutment locations. On the western (Kalalau) side of the stream, the abutment footprint is five feet from the current route of the Kalalau Trail and will be linked to the trail by an unpaved foot path which will not permanently alter the character of the adjacent trail (Figs. 7, 9 and 15). This portion of the Kalalau Trail has not been modified by any historic stone work. Any construction related disturbance of the trail, such as moving supplies and equipment to the project locations, will be temporary and not exceed that occurring routinely by the high volume of hikers. On the eastern (HƗµHna) side,the abutment is situated primarily on a large outcrop (Figs. 20 and 21). There are no signs that the outcrop was previously modified nor were there any cavities or crevices visible which could contain cultural or historic-period materials. Theabutment footprint is 12’ to 13’ upslope of the stream crossing used by hikers afterleaving the Kalalau Trail (Figs. 13 and 19). The stream bank at this crossing is repeatedly washed by flood waters. The probability of subsurface cultural deposits or features being encountered is equally unlikely at both abutment locations. On the western embankment, excavation for the 6.5’ wide abutment will reach a depth of 8’ and, on the eastern side, the abutment (5.4’ wide, 9.5’ deep) will largely be integrated with the large outcrop with some excavation occurring adjacent to the outcrop (Fig. 9). Micropiles will be drilled through the abutment footings to a minimum depth of 20 feet. Soil borings and other soil samples were taken by the project geotechnical team at both abutment locations for structural engineering purposes. The geotechnical team concluded that the matrix of large boulders, core stones, outcrops, and soils forming these embankments was primarily the result of weathering in place and not alluvial deposition (Masa Fujioka and Associates 2016: 18-20).No cultural materials or deposits, including charcoal or ash lenses, were uncovered in any of these borings and samples (Masa Fujioka and Associates 2016: 20-23). A State Parks archaeologist was on site to observe the testing and examine samples.State Parks archaeologists also examined the exposed boulder, soil, and outcrop embankments underlying the two proposed abutment locations and saw no evidence of cultural materials or deposits in the slope faces (Figs. 17, 18, 20, and 21). One factor lowering the probability of subsurface cultural deposits is that the abutment sites are not along one of the relatively level stream benches where most of the identified archaeological features are located and subsurface deposits are more likely (e.g., Site -7023). The probability of subsurface cultural deposits being disturbed by construction of the eastern abutment is particularly low as the entire abutment is primarily integrated with the large outcrop (Figs. 9 and 21).
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:317May 16, 2018Spur Trail from Kalalau Trail to Bridge Abutment (HƗµena Side): As with the concrete bridge abutments, construction of the four-foot wide, 50-foot long spur trail from the Kalalau Trail to the eastern abutment will not directly affect any archaeological surface features in the project footprint and it is highly unlikely to encounter subsurface cultural deposits or features in the soil, boulder and outcrop matrix of the slope. The absence of surface features along the slope was verified during site inspections. Construction of the spur trail and its retaining wall could, however, indirectly damage the stone-paved section of the Kalalau Trail, Remnant EE, which lies between 6’ and 10’ directly downslope of the spur tail (Figs. 5, 7, 23 and 24). Slope cuts needed to create a level trail bed and construct the trail’s retaining wall will require dislodging rocks and possibly boulders which could, without precautions, fall and damage the paved trail and require repairs. Disrupting theslope’s soil and boulder matrix could also result in slope slippage. Less extreme potential impacts, such as moderate amounts of slope debris and cleared vegetationfalling on the paved trail segment, would not have a significant effect because neither the debris nor cleanup would damage this heavily used paved trail segment. Use of the paved trail segment to bring supplies and equipment to the project site and to remove excess soil or rock will not exceed routine wear on the trail and is unlikely to damage the paving. The join between the spur trail and the Kalalau Trail is upslope of stone-paved section and will match the existing edge of the Kalalau Trail bed. Use of the spur trail and bridge will route general foot-traffic away from the stone-paved section and therefore reduce on-going wear of the trail and could possibly help maintain its integrity.Staging Areas: Although final selection of project staging areas will be decided with the contractor, the most feasible areas near the proposed bridge appear to be within the boundaries of Site -7023 (Figs. 25-29). Much of the area is relatively level, portions are open and have been heavily disturbed by years of heavy use, and support facilities such as the helicopter landing zone, composting toilets, and rain shed are all located within the site complex. Archaeological surface features within the complex include rock walls, terraces, and other features and recent monitoring established that subsurface cultural deposits, mostly ash lenses, and objects are present within portions of the complex. Routine staging operations have the potential to disrupt the complex’s archaeological surface features, particularly the storing of supplies and equipment and moving them to and from the work sites. Preparation of staging areas, such as clearing or leveling areas, could affect surface or subsurface features if such efforts included moving stones or displacing soil. Several areas have been proposed as potential staging areas prior to coordination with the contractor and are included in the defined project area of potential effect for the purposes of this review (Fig. 29). Visual Effects: The proposed bridge, concrete abutments, and the spur trail will all have some long-term visual effects on the overall setting of the archaeological complexes of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai Valley and more directly on the historic Kalalau Trail. Much of the bridge’s broader potential impact will be masked by the valley’s thick HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:318May 16, 2018vegetation. View of the bridge and spur trail from the Kalalau Trail will alter the setting of the trail as it descends into the valley from the east. Mitigation and Precautionary MeasuresBased on an assessment of available information, full time archaeological monitoring of the project does not appear warranted given the very low probability of unknownarchaeological surface or subsurface cultural features or deposits being discovered in the project foot print during construction. Sufficient information also exists to avoid archaeological features recorded within Site -7023 where most of the staging activities are likely to take place and can be confined to heavily disturbed areas within the complex. The following precautionary measures will, however, be taken to ensure that known archaeological features are protected, that potential subsurface deposits in Site-7023 are not disturbed, and that the required regulatory contingencies are in place should unanticipated discoveries be made:Long-Term Visual Effect: The projects most dominant visual effect will be the aluminum frame bridge. To reduce its visibility, project specification call for the frame to be covered with a dark brown powder coating to blend with the surrounding vegetation and terrain and the bridge’s wood composite pedestrian deck and picket hand rails will also be brown (Figs. 4 and 9). The choice of analuminum, light-weight, truss-style bridge, with its open frame and hand rails, also reduces the visual mass of the structure and its intrusive appearance. The concrete abutments are almost entirely below ground and what little is visible will become stained by the surrounding soil (Fig. 9). The spur trail was also designed to blend with the slope in that it will be constructed of local materials with the exception of the lodge pole header (Fig. 8). The trail bed will be compacted soil and soil mortar, instead of concrete, will be used to stabilize the stacked-stone retaining wall.Pre-Construction Crew Briefing: Prior to project mobilization and commencement, aState Parks archaeologist will brief the construction crew, including the crew supervisor, on site about the general cultural significance of +DQDNƗSƯ‘ai and its archaeological sites; will show crews which archaeological sites near project locations and staging areas must be avoided and protected;and describe which kinds of previously unidentified archaeological features could, although unlikely, be encountered. Also included would be the statutory and regulatory steps needed should archaeological features or iwi kupuna(human remains) be discovered.Particularly emphasized will be their responsibility to stop construction should an inadvertent discovery occur and that State Parks archaeologist or designated staff have the authority to stop work in the vicinity of the find and determine where construction work can continue. Selection of Staging Locations and Other Project Support Activities: State Park archaeologist will meet with the DLNR project engineer and contractor representatives to determine the location of project staging areas to insure that these meet the needs of the project and are in areas where no archaeological features are
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:319May 16, 2018present (Fig. 29 and 30). Decisions will also be made on whether any nearby features or those along routes to project locations should be marked for their projection. Agreements will also be reached on what ground alteration is allowed to accommodate staging equipment and materials. Excavation or leveling of soil surfaces will not be allowed. The locations of other project support activities will also be determined at this time. For example, locations for the two 10’ x 20’ concrete washdown frames have not been determined yet other than they need to be near the concrete abutments sites (Fig. 6, 7 and 16). Also addressed will be where and how excess soil and rocks will be disposed within +DQDNƗSƯµDLProtection Measures for Kalalau Trail Remnant EE: The State Parks archaeologist, DLNR Engineer, and contractor will decide what measures will be taken to protect the stone-paved trail section located directly downslope of the spur trail and its retaining wall (Figs. 7 and 24). It is premature to determine the most effective and feasible measures at this time because project plans call for the final design of the spur trail and retaining wall to be determined once vegetation is cleared and the slope can be examined in more detail. The planned placement of compost filter socks downslope of the spur tail alignment will protect the stone-paved trail from soil runoff and moderately sized rocks (Fig. 6). Tarps or plywood could be used to cover the stone-paved trail when upslope actions could risk triggering slope instabilities. If the stone-paved segment is damaged, repairs will follow the work guidelines prepared for the 2010 project to repair the first two miles of the Kalalau Trail (Carpenter and McEldowney 2010: 88-91). These were prepared to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Project Inspections: State Parks archaeologist or a designated representative (i.e., on-island State Parks staff) will periodically inspect the project site and staging areasto confirm that steps taken to avoid and protect archaeological sites are being followed and that there are no indications of inadvertent finds. On-island State Parks staff will also be present at the construction crew briefing so that they are aware of these commitments and concerns. A State Parks archaeologist will periodically inspect the project for the following purposes: view excavationsrelated to installation of the concrete bridge abutments to confirm the presence or absence of subsurface cultural deposits or materials; verify that selected staging locations are being used as agreed upon and that archaeological features near these locations are not altered; examine construction of the spur trail and effectiveness of measures taken to protect the stone-paved remnant of the Kalalau Trail; and conduct an inspection to verify that no archaeological features were damaged and, if needed, determine what actions should be taken to remedy identified concerns. A minimum of four inspections will occur over the anticipated 10-week project.Inadvertent Discoveries: Should any unanticipated archaeological features or human remains (iwi kupuna) be discovered during the project, all requirements of HARChapter 13-280 (Rules Governing General Procedures During a Project Covered by the Historic Preservation Review Process); HRS §6E-43 (Prehistoric and historic burial sites) and §43.6 (Inadvertent discovery of burial sites); HAR HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:320May 16, 2018Chapter 13-300 (Rules of Practice and Procedures Relating to Burial Sites and Human Remains); and HAR §13-300-40 (Inadvertent discovery of human remains)will be followed. These procedures will include, but are not necessarily limited to, following:Contact SHPD as soon as possible if cultural materials, objects, or surface features are discovered and mobilize State Parks archaeologists to fully document the discovery and its context and, if appropriate, explore the possibility that the discovery is more than an isolated find and part of a larger recorded or unrecorded feature. State Parks archaeologists will also prepare preliminary significance evaluations and propose mitigation measures. If SHPD concurs, State Parks archaeologists will execute the agreed upon measures.If iwi kupuna are discovered, all work will stop in the immediate area and the Kauai Burial Sites Staff and Archaeology Branch Chief will be notified as soon as possible. A temporary buffer will be established to protect the area and, if exposed to the sun, the iwi kupuna will be covered temporarily. The process established under HAR Chapter 13-300 (Rules of Practice and Procedures Relating to Burial Sites and Human Remains) will be followed as will any directives from SHPD staff.Any artifacts or cultural materials discovered and removed from the project area will be held in the State Parks storage facility on O‘ahu until adequate storage is available on Kaua‘i.If significant discoveries occur, a report will be prepared and submitted to SHPD for review and approval. The report would fulfill the requirements of monitoring reports established under HAR §13-279-4.
HRS §6E-8 Compliance, Proposed HanakƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:321May 16, 2018References CitedCarpenter, Alan. Bennett, Wendell C. “Archaeology of Kauai,” Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, No. 80, 1931. §6E-8, HRS, Compliance – Request for “No Historic Properties Affected” Determination DQG&RQFXUUHQFHWR3URFHHGIRU:LOGHUQHVV)DFLOLWLHV,QVWDOODWLRQ+DQDNƗSƯµDLNƗpali Coast State Wilderness Park. Memorandum, Curt Cottrell to Alan Downer, November 4, 2015.Carpenter, Alan. Archeological0RQLWRULQJ3ODQIRU3DUN)DFLOLWLHVDW+DQDNƗSƯµDLNƗpali Coast State Wilderness Park. Prepared for the Division of State Parks, December 2015.Carpenter, Alan and Holly McEldowney. Archaeological Inventory Survey of a Portion of the Kalalau Trail. Prepared for the Division of State Parks, 2010.Handy, E.S. Craighill. “The Hawaiian Planter, Volume I: His Plants, Methods and Areas of Cultivation”,Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, No. 161, 1940.Masa Fujioka & Associates. Geotechnical Report–ReviVLRQ+DQDNƗSƯµDL%HDFK%ULGJH,PSURYHPHQW3URMHFW1ƗSDOL&RDVW6WDWH:LOGHUQHVs Park, Hanalei District, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i, Prepared for GeoTek Hawaii, Inc., April 11, 2016.NeSmith, Keao, Trisha Kehaulani Watson, Rosanna Thurman, and Bee Thao.+DQDNƗSƯµDi: Cultural Analysis, Prepared for Tetra Tech Inc. by Keao NeSmith and Honua Consulting, Sept. 2016Tetra Tech. Bridge Type Selection Report, HanakƗpƯµai Bridge Improvement Project.Prepared for Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Parks Division,July 2016.Tetra Tech. )LQDO(QYLURQPHQWDO$VVHVVPHQW +DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP%ULGJH3URMHFW1ƗSDOL&RDVW6WDWH:LOGHUQHVV3DUN.DXDµL+DZDLL.Prepared for Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks,2017.Tomonari-Tuggle, Myra Jean.An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey: Na Pali Coast State Park, Island of Kaua‘i. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, 1989.Pukui, Mary Kawena (Compiler and Translator). “µƿlelo No‘eau: Hawaiian Proverbs and Poetic Sayings”.Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication, No. 71, 1983.Yent, Martha. Archaeological Monitoring, Mapping and Testing of Sites in Hanakapi‘ai Valley, Na Pali Coast, Kauai. Memorandum to Bill Gorst, Division of State Parks, August 13, 1981.Yent, Martha. Na Pali Coast Archaeological District (Site # 50-30-01-3200). National Register of Historic Places Inventory–Nomination Form, September 14, 1984 (Hawaii Register) and November 16, 1984 (National Register).HRS §6E-8 Compliance, PropoVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:322May 16, 2018ATTACHMENTFigures and Illustrations, HanaNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP%ULGJH3URMHFW )LJ *HQHUDO/RFDWLRQRI3URSRVHG%ULGJHLQ5HODWLRQWR+DQDNƗSƯµDL%HDFK6WUHDPDQG9DOOH\6ORSHV 9LHZ)DFLQJSouth). Switchbacks of Kalalau Trail are visible on ridge face to the right. More gradual trail segments are visible to the left. (2013 Google Image)
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:321May 16, 2018 )LJ 'HWDLORI86*67RSRJUDSKLF0DS6KRZLQJ/RFDWLRQRI3URMHFWDW+DQDNƗSƯµDL+ƗµHQD6WDWHPark, and Kalalau Trail (Haena, HI Quad, USGS, 1983). Kalalau Trail is highlighted in blue. Scale of figure and original quad is 1:24,000.HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:322May 16, 2018 )LJ ([WUDFWRI70.0DS6KRZLQJ/RFDWLRQRI3URMHFWDW+DQDNƗSƯµDL+ƗµHQD6WDWH3DUNDQG.DODODX9DOOH\70. -9-01: 001(por.). Extracted from Real Estate Atlas, State of Hawaii, 32ndEdition, 1998.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:323May 16, 2018 Fig. 4: ApproxLPDWH5HQGHULQJRI3URSRVHG%ULGJH&URVVLQJ+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP 9LHZ)DFLQJ6RXWKHDVW +LNHUVXVLQJFXUUHQW.DODODXTrail to left and right of photograph. Rendering is from Final Environmental Assessment (Tetra Tech 2017: Figure 2).HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:324May 16, 2018 Fig. 5: Diagram Showing Approximate Location of Proposed Bridge and New Spur Trail to Bridge Abutment. Diagram from Final Environmental Assessment (Tetra Tech 2017, Figure 1).
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:325May 16, 2018 Fig. 6: Erosion Control, Demolition, Vegetation Clearing, and Grubbing Plans (Extract, Drawing C-1). Site preparation includes clearing vegetation; grading new spur trail alignment from current tail to bridge; clearing and leveling bridge abutment sites; and installing erosion control socks. Crosshatched rectangle at bottom left is concrete washdown to prevent runoff to stream. HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:326May 16, 2018 Fig. 7: Site, Grading, and Horizontal Control Plans for Proposed Bridge, New Spur Trail, and Limits of Grading (Extract, Drawing C-2). Exact alignment, width, and grade of spur trail segment east of stream will be finalized after clearing and grubbing. Rock retaining wall along spur trail may be installed downslope of spur depending on post-clearing assessment.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:327May 16, 2018 Fig. 8: Details of New Spur Trail, Retaining Wall, Erosion Control Compost Filter Sock, and Concrete Washdown (Extract, Drawing C-3).HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:328May 16, 2018 Fig. 9: Bridge Plan and Details (Extract, Drawing S-2).
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:329May 16, 2018 Fig. 10: Typical Section of Proposed Bridge (Extract, Drawing S-2).HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:330May 16, 2018 Fig. 11: Detail and Location Plans for Bridge Abutment Anchor Bolts (Extract, Drawing S-3).
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:331May 16, 2018Fig. 12: Details on Micropiling to Secure Abutment Foundations (Extract, Drawing S-4). HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:332May 16, 2018 Fig. 13: Drone Image of Current Trail and Stream Crossing with Approximate Bridge Alignment Superimposed in Yellow (View Oriented North-South). Note the steep slope of trail deVFHQGLQJWRVWUHDPEHGRQOHIWLQFOXGLQJSRUWLRQZLWKVWRQHSDYLQJ +ƗµHQDRUHDVWHUQside of stream). Bridge alignment depicted is not to scale.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:333May 16, 2018)LJ /RFDWLRQRI%ULGJH$EXWPHQWRQ:HVW%DQNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDL6WUHDP 9LHZ)DFLQJ6RXWKZHVW The yellow square indicates location of project area, not dimensions of the proposed abutment. HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:334May 16, 2018)LJ /RFDWLRQRI3URSRVHG%ULGJH$EXWPHQWDQG([LVWLQJ.DODODX7UDLO:HVW%DQNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDLStream (View Facing Northeast). Kalalau Trail is in foreground. Path to abutment runs between large boulder on right and smaller boulder on left. Fig. 16: Level Area Potentially Suitable for 20’ by 10’ Concrete Washdown Located Upslope of West Bank Abutment (View Facing Northeast). Area was inspected for archaeological surface features.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:335May 16, 2018Fig. 17: Exposed Slope Face Directly below West Bank Bridge Abutment (View Facing the Northwest). Illustrates mix of clay soil and boulder deposits underlying proposed abutment and low probability of cultural subsurface deposits. Fig. 18: Detail of Lower Slope Face beneath West Bank Bridge Abutment and Directly above the Stream (View Facing the Northwest). Illustrates the high percentage of large stones and boulders in slope deposits. HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:336May 16, 2018 Fig. 19: Location of Bridge Abutment on EDVW%DQNRI+DQDNƗSƯµDLStream (View Facing Northeast). Yellow square indicates location of project area, not dimensions of the proposed abutment.Fig. 20: State Parks Staff Stands on Basalt Outcrop Forming Foundation of Proposed East Bank Bridge Abutment (View Facing East).
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:337May 16, 2018 Fig. 21: Basalt Outcrops Forming Slope Face below East Bank Bridge Abutment Location (View Facing East). Use of outcrop makes probability of subsurface cultural deposits highly unlikely. No cavities or overhangs were seen in this or adjacent outcrops. Fig. 22: Stone-Paved Remnant of Historic Kalalau Trail Located Downslope of Proposed Trail Spur (View Facing Southeast). Spur would run along slope contour above the trail remnant from abutment to main trail HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:338May 16, 2018Fig. 23: Approximate Location of Junction between Proposed Spur Trail to Bridge and Main Kalalau Trail (View Facing Southeast). Spur trail would exit main trail to the left of large trail boulder in foreground of photograph and follow the contour to the bridge. The beginning of the paved trail remnant is visible at the far end of the photograph on the right. Fig. 24: Historic Stone-Paved Remnant (EE), Kalalau Trail (View Facing North). New spur trail to bridge runs along slope above trail to the right.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:339May 16, 2018 Fig. 25: Map of Archaeological Site Identified during 1979 Reconnaissance Survey (Extracted from Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: Fig. 13). Site HP-4 was subsequently given SIHP No. 50-30-01-7024and the complex of sites, HP-3, the number -7023.HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:340May 16, 2018 Fig. 26: Distribution of ArchaeoloJLFDO6LWHVDQG6LWH&RPSOH[HV,GHQWLILHGLQ+DQDNƗSƯµDLGXULQJ1979 Reconnaissance Survey (Adapted from Tomonari-Tuggle 1989: Fig. 4). Note map was amended to reflect SIHP numbers instead of the temporary field number given during the reconnaissance.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:341May 16, 2018 Fig. 27: Mauka (Inland) Portion of Map Depicting Archaeological Complex Site -7023 and State Parks Facilities in 1981. HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:342May 16, 2018 Fig. 28: Makai (Seaward) Portion of Map Depicting Archaeological Complex Site -7023 and State Parks Facilities Prepared in 1981. Superimposed is the approximate location of the proposed bridge.
HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:343May 16, 2018 Fig. 29: Map of Archaeological Complex Site -7023 and State Parks Facilities Prepared in 1981. Superimposed are general locations of park features established since 1981, the project’s potential areas of effect, and the proposed bridge. Locations and dimensions are approximate.HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:344May 16, 2018 Fig. 30: Locations of the Current and Old Helicopter Landing Zones, New Shelter, Composting Toilets, and Proposed Bridge Superimposed on Drone Image (View towards West). The two landing zones and area located adjacent (towards stream) to the composting toilets may be used as project staging areas. Distances among features and their sizes may reflect some distortion in the drone image.
HRS §6E-8&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:345May 16, 2018Fig. 31:+DQDNƗSƯµDL%HDFK 9LHZ)DFLQJ1RUWKZHVW 7KHVDQG\SRUWLRQRIWKHEHDFKPLJKWEHXVHGDVa short-term staging area for pre-fabricated bridge segments prior to installation if sand is present. Winter storms and high waves move beach sand offshore and leave the beach with little or no sand. Fig. 32: Possible Temporary Staging Area for Project Materials and Equipment (View Facing Northwest). Flat area is located makai of the west bank project area (Fig. 29). This area is currently used by hikers as the major route from the trail to the beach. HRS §6E-8&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:346May 16, 2018Fig. 33: Potential Temporary Staging Area for Project Materials and Equipment Located Near Composting Toilets (View Facing Southeast). Area is located mauka of west bank project area. It was once an official camp site and is heavily disturbed (Fig. 29). Fig. 34: Stone Wall Identified and Mapped as Part of Archaeological Complex in 1979 (Site -7023) 9LHZ)DFLQJ6RXWKHDVW 7KHZDOOLVLQWHUVHFWHGE\PDLQWUDLOOHDGLQJXS+DQDNƗSƯµLD9DOOH\WRWKHpopular waterfall (See also Figs. 27 and 29).
HRS §6E-8&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:347May 16, 2018Fig. 35: Helicopter Landing Zone Located Mauka of West Bank Project Area (View Facing Northeast). The landing zone is a potential staging area because it is sufficiently wide to accommodate both landings and the storing ofmaterials and equipment along the zone’s periphery (Figs. 29 and 30). Fig. 36: Drone Image of Current Helicopter Landing Zone (View Facing Southwest). Cleared periphery of the landing zone is potentially suitable for staging project supplies and equipment. HRS §6E-&RPSOLDQFH3URSRVHG+DQDNƗSƯµDL%ULGJH1ƗSDOL&RDVW6:348May 16, 2018 Fig. 37: Old Helicopter Landing Zone Located Mauka of Recently Created Landing Zone (View Facing North). Grass could be cleared from old landing zone to create a staging area for project supplies and equipment (See Figs. 29 and 30).