HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-4-11 PC Subdivision Committee Agenda PacketPLANNING COMMISSION
KAAINA S. HULL, CLERK OF COMMISSION
•The Planning Commission Meeting will be at:
o LThu'e Civic Center, Moikeha Building
o Meeting Room 2A-2B
o 4444 Rice Street, LThu'e, Kaua'i, Hawai'i
GERALD AKO, CHAIR
DONNA APISA, VICE CHAIR
JERRY ORNELLAS, MEMBER
'23 APR -3 P 1 :50
•Oral testimony will be taken on specific agenda items, at the public meeting location
indicated on the meeting agenda.
•Written testimony indicating your 1) name or pseudonym, and if applicable, your
position/title and organization you are representing, and 2) the agenda item that you are
providing comment on, may be submitted on any agenda item in writing to
planningdepartment@kauai.gov or mailed to the County of Kaua'i Planning Department,
4444 Rice Street, Suite 473, LThu'e, Hawai'i 96766. Written testimony received by the
Planning Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be posted as testimony
to the Planning Commission's website prior to the meeting
(https://www.kauai.gov/Government/Boards-and-Commissions/Planning-Commission).
Any testimony received after this time will be retained as part of the record, but we
cannot assure the Commission will receive it with sufficient time for review prior to the
meeting.
IF YOU NEED AN AUXILIARY AID/SERVICE, OTHER ACCOMMODATION DUE TO A DISABILITY, OR
AN INTERPRETER FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF
BOARDS & COMMISSIONS AT (808) 241-4917 OR ASEGRETl@KAUAI.GOV AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. REQUESTS MADE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME TO FULFILL
YOUR REQUEST. UPON REQUEST, THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATE FORMATS SUCH
AS LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE, OR ELECTRONIC COPY.
•
4444 Rice Street, Suite A473 • LThu'e, Hawai'i 96766 • (808) 241-4050 (b)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
Tuesday,Aprilll ,2023
8:30 a.m. or shortly thereafter
Lihu'e Civic Center, Moikeha Building
Meeting Room 2A-2B
4444 Rice Street, Lihu'e, Kaua'i, Hawai'i
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.ROLL CALL
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D.MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Subdivision Committee
1.February 14, 2023
E.RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.None for this meeting.
G.NEW BUSINESS (For Action)
1.Preliminary Subdivision Map Approval
a.Subdivision Application No. S-2021-5
Kukui'ula Vistas, LLC. (formerly Kukui'ula Development Company, LLC.)
Kukui'ula Parcel H, Lot 19 Subdivision
Proposed 8-lot Subdivision
TMK: (4) 2-6-022: 055
Koloa, Kaua'i
1)Subdivision Report pertaining to this matter.
b.Subdivision Application No. S-2022-2
Kukui'ula Vistas, LLC.
Kukui'ula Parcel H, Lot 18 Subdivision
Proposed 7-lot Subdivision
TMK: (4) 2-6-022: 054
Koloa, Kaua'i
1)Subdivision Report pertaining to this matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE -APRIL 11, 2023 PAGE 2
Wailua, Kawaihau, Kaua'i
d.Subdivision Application No. S-2022-4
Tower Kauai Lagoons Sub 4, LLC.
Hokuala Resort Subdivision 4
Proposed 25-lot Boundary Adjustment
TM Ks: (4) 3-5-004: 400 to 424
Kalapaki, LThu'e, Kaua'i
I.ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE -APRIL 11, 2023 PAGE4
1
KAUA`I PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING
February 14, 2023
DRAFT
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua‘i was called to order by
Subdivision Committee Chair Ako at 8:30 a.m. - Webcast Link: https://www.kauai.gov/Webcast-
Meetings
The following Commissioners were present:
Mr. Gerald Ako
Ms. Donna Apisa
Mr. Jerry Ornellas
Excused or Absent
The following staff members were present: Planning Department – Director Ka`aina Hull, Deputy
Director Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa, Staff Planner Dale Cua, Kenny Estes, and Planning Commission
Secretary Shanlee Jimenez; Office of the County Attorney – County Deputy Attorney Laura Barzilai,
Office of Boards and Commissions – Support Clerk Lisa Oyama.
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
CALL TO ORDER
Subdivision Committee Chair Gerald Ako: Good morning. Today is Tuesday, February 14, 2023, and this
is the meeting for the Subdivision Committee Meeting of the Planning Commission. It’s 8:30 a.m., and
I’d like to call the meeting to order. Mr. Clerk, can we have a roll call?
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Ka`aina Hull: Roll call, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Apisa?
Commissioner Apisa: Here.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas?
Commissioner Ornellas: Here.
Mr. Hull: Chair Ako?
Mr. Ako: Here.
Mr. Hull: You have a quorum, Mr. Chair. We have one minor amendment to the agenda (inaudible) the
talk earlier, Mr. Chair. The D.1. and D.2. were previously reviewed and acted upon at a prior meeting, so
we’ll amend the agenda to remove Sections D.1. and D.2. Request that the agenda be amended to remove
D.1. and D.2.
D.1.
April 11, 2023
2
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Ako: Can we have a motion to accept the agenda with the deletion of D.1. and D.2., which are the
minutes of the October 11th and the October 25th, 2022, meeting.
Mr. Ornellas: I move to amend the agenda.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Ms. Barzilai: We need a motion to approve the agenda too, Chair. Motion to approve as amended.
Mr. Ako: Okay. Motion to amend as well to approve.
Mr. Ornellas: Motion to approve the agenda as amended.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Mr. Ako: If we can just have a voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). All
those oppose. No. Motion passes. 3:0.
MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Subdivision Committee
Mr. Hull: Next we have Agenda Item D. minutes for the November 15, 2022, meeting and the January 24,
2023, meeting.
Ms. Apisa: Move to approve minutes of the November 15, 2022, and January 24, 2023, minutes of the
Subdivision Committee.
Mr. Ornellas: Second.
Chair Ako: With that, if we can have a voice vote. All those in favor. Aye (unanimous voice vote). All
those opposed. Nay. Motion passes. 3:0.
Mr. Hull: We have no additional Receipt of Items for the Record. We have no Unfinished Business. We’ll
be moving on to Agenda Item G. Sorry, prior to going into (inaudible) note for the record that written
testimony as well as agency comments received after the posting of the agenda for the Subdivision
Committee were placed all before (inaudible) Commissioners this morning. We have packets of those
testimonies as well as agency comments available to the public (inaudible) Planning Commission
(inaudible) as well the Planning Department front counter. So, with that moving on to item G.1.
NEW BUSINESS (For Action)
Subdivision Application No. HS-2023-2
State of Hawai'i, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL)
DHHL Hanapepe, Phase 2 Subdivision
Proposed 136-lot Subdivision
TM Ks: (4) 1-8-007:003, 018, and 021; (4) 1-8-017:001 to 020; (4) 1-8-018:001 to 027 Hanapepe,
Waimea, Kaua'i
Mr. Hull: I’ll turn it over to Kenny for the subdivision report pertaining to this matter. Sorry, before I turn
it over to Kenny. It may be appropriate to ask for public testimony. We have nobody signed up, is there
3
anybody in the audience that is not part of the application, and would like to testify as a member of the
public on this agenda item? Seeing none, back over to you, Kenny.
Staff Planner Kenny Estes: Good morning. I’ll summarize the report for the record.
Mr. Estes read the Subdivision Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department)
Mr. Estes: Chair, we have received agency comments from the Department of Public Works Engineering
Division, the County Department of Water, the State Department of Health, and before you, we have
received comments from the State Historic Preservation Division. That SHPD has made a determination
on (inaudible) properties are affected before the (inaudible) projects. At the very end of their report they
have requested to attached the following comments at the end of the report. The department is
recommending to amend Condition 6.A. of the Subdivision Report to read those comments.
Mr. Hull: Kenny, do you want to read those updated SHPD comments for the record.
Mr. Estes: SHPD has noted in the event that subsurface historic resources, including human skeletal
remains, structural remains, cultural deposits, artifacts sand deposits, or sink holes are identified during
the demolition and their construction work, cease work in the immediate vicinity of the (inaudible),
protect the find from additional disturbance and contact the State Historic Preservation at 808-462-3225.
Chair Ako: Any questions for our staff?
Mr. Hull: And just for clarification what Kenny just referendum or updated SHPD comments which
generally all subdivision tentative approval recommendations have a pretty standard SHPD condition. In
this communication we got from SHPD, they've asked for updated language to it, so we received that after
the report was drafted, so essentially I’d say, oh there’s no problem with that, but we just need it reflected
on the record, and if the Commissioners willing to update that, that proposed amendment.
Ms. Apisa: Sounds fine to me. (Inaudible).
Mr. Hull: Yeah.
Chair Ako: With that, if we have no other questions for the staff. Do we have a representative from the
applicant here.
Ms. Maren Arismendez: Good morning, this is Maren Arismendez from Esaki Surveying here on behalf
of the applicant. We would like to respectfully request your tentative approval. The applicant is willing to
accept all the proposed conditions, and to work with all county agencies on the infrastructure
improvements.
Chair Ako: Questions?
Ms. Apisa: No questions.
Mr. Hull: This is an interesting proposal. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is actually exempt
from county zoning review, if you will, and so if they wanted to they could technically submit a map to
the Planning Department with whichever lines they’re proposing, because they're exempt from our
review, we just basically stamp, you know, approve to get it moving on to the next process. They're
coming in recognize that exception for some the lot with depth standards from the agriculture district, as
well as the one-time Subdivision Restrictions Act, which (inaudible) but they are (inaudible) to the
process to ensure that the infrastructure requirements that would be necessary for them to tie into the
4
county systems is fully adequate and that they could still do that on their own without going through this
process but they kind of avail themselves to the process to essentially utilize the subdivision to (inaudible)
those issues out, so there might be a lot of questions why there’s all these exceptions, but then again
because Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is not subject to our review technically.
Chair Ako: Pretty much they’re exempt from the State and County planning regulations.
Mr. Hull: Basically.
Chair Ako: But they still follow all the…
Mr. Hull: Yeah, you often see Department of Hawaiian Home Land applications going through the
building permit process (inaudible), they are technically, legally exempt from that as well, but they
require, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (inaudible) themselves as well to ensure that the homes
and structures are constructed in a manner that they’re safe and usable under building department
standards, so we get the applications all the time, coming to us for building (inaudible) review, then a gain
from the zoning perspective, we’re just like, exempt, moving on.
Ms. Arismendez: To just interject, I think what Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is doing (inaudible)
is trying to make it as much conformed to county standards and requirements as possible, even though it’s
not necessarily, technically required. Probably to open it up to county and even with this public comment.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
Mr. Ornellas: (Inaudible), along those lines and I realized there (inaudible), but I noticed a lot of
Hawaiian home developments do have parks and in some cases recreational areas, like a (inaudible) that
they have in Anahola, I was just wondering because, is there any indication that there will be such
addition to this subdivision.
Mr. Hull: I’ll have to defer to the applicant for that one.
Mr. Stewart Matsunaga: Aloha, Stewart Matsunaga, I’m the acting administrator for Land Development
Division at Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here and I
appreciate the comments that I’ve heard regarding DHHL’s powers, and so we do want to work as closely
as we can with eh county because the county plays a vital role in maintaining roadways and infrastructure,
so we appreciate that, so we do what we can to comply with the subdivision standards throughout our
parcels. In regards to parks and open space, we do have an environmental assessment done for the entire
Hanapēpē area and there are other areas set aside for community and open space, but tied to this
subdivision however, there is no specific park area, and so we’ll have to go back to our EA master plan
and then look at what other open space or park opportunities there are. Basically, DHHL, our main
mission is providing homestead lots and that’s, in terms of land development division that’s our bread and
butter, what we do provide homelands and homesteads, houses for native Hawaiians on the waiting lists,
so appreciate all of the assistance from the county, from planning, and all of the other departments have
been really good to work with, so we appreciate that. Excuse, can I make one more comment, regarding
the construction of houses and going through the building permit process, you know, we need to do that
because the lenders who are providing the home construction and take out financing, requires building
permits, and so that is really all about health and safety, and so we don’t want anybody to go and
circumvent any of those, the county construction standards, building, plumbing, electrical, so we choose
to comply in that regard.
5
Chair Ako: Mr. Matsunaga, maybe just for myself, yeah, can you educate me a little bit about Hawaiian
Home Lands, maybe like 3-minute kind. I know this could go on forever, but these are State lands?
(Inaudible).
Mr. Matsunaga: Yes, these are state lands, created by Act of Congress in 1920, Prince Kūhiō, is basically
our founding father, set up the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. We have approximately 200,000 acres
statewide and, so we have a waiting list established by the department for these lands, residential and
agricultural, pastoral, and even aquacultural homesteading purposes, so when we develop something like
Hanapēpē, which is residential, we have a waiting list of, I think it’s in the range of 4,000 native
Hawaiians who are waiting for homestead opportunities.
Chair Ako: But Kauaʻi (inaudible).
Mr. Matsunaga: For Kauaʻi would be 4,000. Statewide we have something in the range of 25,000 plus.
You’ve seen us in the news and all of that, and most recently we we’re blessed, legislature providing
600,000,000 million dollars to expand and move our program even further, but that covers maybe 3,000
homesteads and so, we are in need of a 10x more funding to provide residential, ag, and pastoral
homesteads, and so I think the construction contract for this project in Hanapēpē is over 17-million
dollars, so hopefully we’ll be starting construction soon and then we’re going to be putting our requests
for proposals to build the houses on many of these lots, so I appreciate the question and we’re always here
to provide whatever education.
Chair Ako: So, this is Phase II?
Mr. Matsunaga: This is Phase…the new lots are considered Phase II, there’s 82 new lots. What this
subdivision request also does is expands our first phase lots, there are roughly about 6,000 square feet,
they’re really skinny lots and so, the commission looked at and approved extending the backs of the lots,
above 1,500 square feet, so that these lots would be equal in size to the new lots.
Chair Ako: And best guess scenario everything goes right, permits all get approved, when do you think
that final house will be sold?
Mr. Matsunaga: The final house?
Chair Ako: Yeah.
Mr. Matsunaga: I’m thinking that infrastructure would take about a year or so, and so probably another
year after that, in terms of completing all of the houses.
Ms. Apisa: I’m just curious, do you build the houses and then the people buy them with the house on it, or
do they do the construction?
Mr. Matsunaga: We have multiple way of going through the house construction process, so in Anahola
we had a program called Vacant Lot Awards, and so in those cases the individual lessees would obtain
their financing, obtain house construction plans, and they’d be like an owner builder type. We also have
turnkey, which possibly Hanapēpē will be, but we will have a developer contractor come in and they’ll be
required to obtain construction financing, so they’ll be building the houses and then actually selling those
to the waiting list, whoever is financially qualified, and we go by rank order, so the top of the list and
qualify them and then basically continue until we can get all buyers.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
6
Mr. Matsunaga: We also have, if habitat is available or other self-help entities, we like to also go through
that process because it’s more affordable.
Chair Ako: Anything else Commissioners? Thank you very much for coming and sharing.
Mr. Matsunaga: Thank you. We’ve not been here for some time, and we hope to be back soon.
Chair Ako: Alright, thank you. So, with that, Mr. Estes, can we have the recommendation.
Ms. Apisa: I move to grant tentative approval with Condition 6.A. as amended.
Ms. Barzilai: Commissioner, would you like to hear the recommendation of the department prior to your
(inaudible)?
Ms. Apisa: Oops. Yes.
Mr. Hull: (Inaudible) as part of the record, (inaudible) record (inaudible).
Chair Ako: We can just move forward.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
Chair Ako: We have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Ornellas: Second.
Chair Ako: Any other concerns or comments? If not, Mr. Clerk, roll call vote please.
Mr. Hull: Roll call on a motion to approve. Commissioner Apisa?
Ms. Apisa: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Commissioner Ornellas?
Mr. Ornellas: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Chair Ako?
Chair Ako: Aye.
Mr. Hull: Motion passes, Mr. Chair. 3:0. With that, that completes all of our agenda items for (inaudible).
Chair Ako: Okay, there are no more items on the agenda. I can entertain a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Ornellas: Move to adjourn.
Ms. Apisa: Second.
Chair Ako: All those in favor say aye. Aye (unanimous voice vote). Those opposed. 3:0. Meeting
adjourned.
7
Chair Ako adjourned meeting at 8:54 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
________________________
Lisa Oyama,
Commission Support Clerk
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval)
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of _________meeting.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
KA'AINA HULL, DIRECTOR
JODI A. HIGUCHI SAVEGUSA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
I.SUMMARY
Action Required by
Planning Commission:
Subdivision Permit No.
Name of Applicant(s)
SUBDIVISION REPORT (REVISED)
DEREK S.K. KAWAKAMI, MAYOR
MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR
Consideration of Subdivision Application No. S-2021-5 that involves aneight (8) lot subdivision.
Application No. S-2021-5
KUKUl'ULA VISTAS, LLC. (Formerly Kukui'ula Development Company, LLC.)
II.PROJECT INFORMATION
Map Title Revised Tentative Approval. Subdivision of Lot 19 Kukui'ula Parcel H Subdivision Being a Portion of R. P. 6714, L.C. Aw. 7714-B, Ap. 2 to M. Kekuaiwa no M. Kekuanaoa into Lots 19-A through 19-G, Inclusive, andRoadway Lot 19-H at Koloa, Kaua'i, Hawai'i.
Tax Map Key(s): 2-6-022:055 I Area: I 3.21 Acres
Zoning: Residential District R-4
State Land Use Urban I General Plan I Residential
District(s): Designation:
AGENCY COMMENTS
[8J COK Public Works pending 0 State DOT-Highways:
[8J COK Water: 02.15.2023 [8J State Health: 01.30.2023 D Other(s) [8'.I DLNR -SHPD: 01.30.2023
EXISTING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY(S}
Road Name Existing Required Pavement Reserve Width Width YES NO Ala Kukui'ula 60 feet 60 feet IZI □ Kahela Place 44 feet 44 feet IZI □ Pua Lehiwa Way 44 feet 44 feet IZl □
APPLICABLE FEES
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA} $4,000
Park Dedication TBD. Appraisal required
Appraisal Report Required Yes
.Q. 1. DI. I.
APR 11 �"?3
Ill. EVALUATION
The action required is a consideration of a Revised Preliminary Subdivision Map Approval
involving the proposed subdivision that was previously granted Preliminary Approval on
August 10, 2021. At the time of preliminary approval, the development involved the
subdivision of Lot 19 into ten (10) residential lots and one (1) roadway lot with vehicular
access to the subdivision via a roadway connection taken from Ala Kukui'ula. The newly
revised subdivision layout establishes a total of seven (7) residential lots and one (1) roadway
lot with a new vehicular access point connection from Kahela Place.
The revised subdivision layout is a result of comments received from the Department of Public
Works-Engineering Division dated August 17, 2021, that outlined various traffic concerns if
access was taken from Ala Kukui'ula at its proposed location. The Engineering Division
recommended that the subdivision application not be approved with its current lot
configuration and that all access to Lot 19 be provided exclusively via Kahela Place, which is
the interior roadway lot of the Kukui'ula Parcel H Subdivision (refer to Preliminary Subdivision
Map).
In reviewing the proposal, it should be noted that the revised subdivision layout was reviewed
through Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2023-5 and Variance Permit V-2023-1 that was approved
by the County of Kaua'i, Planning Commission on November 15, 2022, to deviate from the Lot
Length requirement of Section 8-4.4(a) (3) (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO),
Kaua'i County Code (K.C.C.), 1987, as amended. As proposed, Lots 19-B through 19-F of the
revised subdivision layout all have an average lot length three times greater than their
average width. Therefore, a Variance Permit was requested to deviate from the required 3:1
average length to width ratio of Section 8-4.4(a) (3) (A) of the CZO.
It should be noted that the previous Tentative Subdivision Map approval involving the
subdivision on August 10, 2021 included a Modification of Requirement that allowed a
deviation from Section 9-2.3(e) of the Subdivision Ordinance relating to the construction of
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The deviation allowed the use of drainage swales on both sides
of the street in lieu of raised curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and no provisions for sidewalks
since there was a sidewalk fronting the subdivision along Ala Kukui'ula. In re-evaluating the
revised subdivision layout as it relates to the provision of Section 9-2.3(e) of the Subdivision
Ordinance, the previous approval of the Modification of Requirement should be respected
since there is an existing 'arterial' sidewalk along the makai side of Ala Kukui'ula, which is
adjacent to and runs parallel with proposed roadway (Lot 19-H) that serves the revised
subdivision layout. As such, constructing a sidewalk within the development would be
unnecessary since the existing arterial sidewalk serves its purpose to provide for adequate
pedestrian access within the master planned development.
Further, Lot 19 is part of the Kukui'ula Parcel H Subdivision (Subdivision Application No.
S-2016-2) that is currently under construction and infrastructure improvements have not been
completed. Therefore, no development should be allowed within any of the newly created
lots through this application until the infrastructure improvements relating to Subdivision No.
S-2016-2 are inspected and certified complete.
S-2021-5; Subdivision Report
Kukui'ula Vistas, LLC. (Lot 19, Kukui'ula Parcel H Subdivision}
04.11.2023
21Page
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey, and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis of Three
Developments in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
Prepared for
Prepared by
June 2022
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
ii
Authors and Lead Researchers
Trisha Kehaulani Watson, J.D., Ph.D.
Assistant Authors and Researchers
kuʻualoha hoʻomanawanui, Ph.D.
Fern Holland, M.S.
Catharine Thetford, B.S.
Kepā Maly
Onaona Maly
Amy Kalili, J.D.
Note on Hawaiian Language Use
In keeping with other Hawaiian scholars and current Indigenous language style guidelines, we
do not italicize Hawaiian words. Hawaiian is both the native language of the paeʻāina
(archipelago) of Hawai‘i and an official language of the State of Hawai‘i. Some authors will
leave Hawaiian words italicized if part of a quote; we do not. In the narrative, we use diacritical
markings to assist our readers, except in direct quotes, in which we keep the markings used
in the original text. We provide translations contextually when appropriate. Unless otherwise
noted, all translations are by Honua Consulting authors.
Front Cover Credit
1854 Bates, G.W. (photographer), “Sandwich Islands Notes. By a Haole [i.e., G. W. Bates.],”
British Library Digital Store 10491.d.25, Monograph, New York.
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
iii
Executive Summary
This cultural impact assessment and ethnographic survey looked to identify cultural resources
and practices in Kōloa. Numerous interviews were conducted in preparation of this survey.
Interviewees identified numerous practices in the Kōloa region, many of which have been
practiced for numerous generations, extending back to the time before foreign contact.
Research in preparation of this report consisted of a thorough search of Hawaiian language
documents, including but not limited to the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Mele Index and
archival documents, including the Hawaiian language archival caché. All Hawaiian language
documents were reviewed by Hawaiian language experts to search for relevant information to
include in the report. Documents considered relevant to this analysis are included herein, and
translations are provided when appropriate to the discussion. Summaries of interviews with
lineal and cultural descendants with ties to the project area are included in the study, and
information on other past oral testimonies are also provided herein. Data was extrapolated
from these sources that provide an unprecedented comprehensive look at the previous
cultural resources on this ʻāina.
This assessment thoroughly identified valued cultural, historical, and natural resources in the
project area, including the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights
are exercised in the project area. It also identifies the impacts that may potentially result from
the proposed action. The primary cultural activities identified in the ethnographic data for the
area were ceremonial access, trail access, and gathering. Some interviewees identified some
activities to occur in the Project Areas, while other interviewees identified the activities as
occurring in the larger Kōloa region.
Based on the information gathered and the assessment of the resources conducted, the
project has the potential to affect cultural resources, traditions, customs, or practices, and
the County should work with the project applicant to identify best management practices,
conditions, and other measures to serve as the feasible action required under law to protect
Native Hawaiian rights.
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................... VII
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. VII
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................... 8
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................... 8
1.2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT ........................................................................................................................................... 13
1.4 GOAL OF ETHNOGRAPHIC SURVEY .......................................................................................................................... 19
1.5 COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................... 21
2.1 IDENTIFYING TRADITIONAL OR CUSTOMARY PRACTICES .............................................................................................. 24
2.2 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, OR ETHNOSCIENCE, AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................. 25
2.3 MOʻOLELO ʻĀINA: NATIVE TRADITIONS OF THE LAND ................................................................................................. 26
2.4 HISTORIC MAPS ................................................................................................................................................... 26
2.5 ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 27
3.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 28
3.1 TRADITIONAL PERIOD ............................................................................................................................................ 28
3.1.1 Mo‘olelo ................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.1.1 Pele and Hi‘iakaikapoliopele ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.1.2 He Kaao no Kapunohu ...................................................................................................................................... 30
3.1.2 Inoa ‘Āina ................................................................................................................................................ 33
3.1.2.1 Maulili ................................................................................................................................................................. 43
3.2 KINGDOM AND HISTORIC ERA ................................................................................................................................ 44
3.2.1 Kōloa Plantation ..................................................................................................................................... 52
4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 57
4.1 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC SITES – KAUANOE O KŌLOA .............................................................................................. 58
4.1.1 Compliance with Land Use Commission Condition No. 7 .................................................................... 67
4.2 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC SITES – KUKUI‘ULA .......................................................................................................... 71
4.2.1. Parcel HH ............................................................................................................................................... 74
4.2.2 Parcel H: Lots 18 and 19 ....................................................................................................................... 76
4.3 NATURAL RESOURCES WITH CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................................... 77
4.2.1 Plants – Kauanoe o Kōloa ..................................................................................................................... 78
4.2.2 Wildlife – Kauanoe o Kōloa ................................................................................................................... 78
4.3 INTANGIBLE CULTURAL RESOURCES – KŌLOA AHUPUA‘A ........................................................................................... 79
4.3.1 ‘Ōlelo No‘eau ...................................................................................................................................... 79
4.3.2 Mele (Songs) ....................................................................................................................................... 81
5.0 ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA ......................................................................................................................................... 84
5.1 INTERVIEW WITH ANA MO DES ............................................................................................................................... 86
5.2 INTERVIEW WITH CHADLEY (CHAD) SCHIMMELFENNIG ............................................................................................... 89
5.3 RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS FROM ELIZABETH OKINAKA ........................................................................................ 93
5.4 RESPONSES FROM ELVIRA KIMOKEO ...................................................................................................................... 98
5.5 RESPONSES FROM GLENN SILVA ......................................................................................................................... 100
5.6 INTERVIEW WITH KEAO NESMITH ......................................................................................................................... 106
5.7 INTERVIEW WITH MALIA CHUN ............................................................................................................................. 110
5.8 INTERVIEW WITH MASON CHOCK .......................................................................................................................... 116
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
v
5.9 INTERVIEW WITH PELEKE FLORES ......................................................................................................................... 122
5.10 INTERVIEW WITH PUALIʻILIʻIMAIKALANI ROSSI-FUKINO ........................................................................................... 127
5.11 RESPONSES FROM ROSLYN CUMMINGS ............................................................................................................. 132
5.12 INTERVIEW WITH RUPERT HENRY ROWE ............................................................................................................. 137
5.13 RESPONSES FROM BLYTH KAHOKULE‘A BLAKE .................................................................................................... 143
5.14 RESPONSES FROM TERRY KURIBAYASHI ............................................................................................................ 146
5.15 RESPONSES FROM VAL KANE TURALDE .............................................................................................................. 151
5.16 RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS FROM LLEWELYN H. KAOHELAULI‘I ......................................................................... 154
6.0 TRADITIONAL OR CUSTOMARY PRACTICES HISTORICALLY IN THE STUDY AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA
................................................................................................................................................................................... 159
6.1 MO‘OLELO ........................................................................................................................................................ 159
6.2 HABITATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 159
6.3 TRAVEL AND TRAIL USAGE ................................................................................................................................... 160
6.4 CEREMONIAL PRACTICES ..................................................................................................................................... 162
6.5 FARMING AND FISHING ....................................................................................................................................... 162
6.6 TRADITIONAL CLOTHING (CLOTHES MAKING, DYEING, AND LEI MAKING) ................................................................... 162
6.7 HAKU MELE, HAKU OLI, AND HULA ...................................................................................................................... 165
7.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 166
8.0 FINDINGS AND KA PA‘AKAI ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 171
8.1 IDENTIFY WHETHER ANY VALUED CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, OR NATURAL RESOURCES ARE PRESENT WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA,
AND IDENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS ARE EXERCISED ..................... 172
8.2 IDENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE IDENTIFIED RESOURCES AND RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED OR IMPAIRED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................. 177
8.3 SPECIFY ANY MITIGATIVE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO REASONABLY PROTECT NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS IF THEY ARE FOUND TO
EXIST ...................................................................................................................................................................... 178
9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 179
APPENDIX I: GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS ....................................................................................................... 184
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Meridian Pacific, Ltd. project map showing the current and future developments in
Kōloa (provided to Honua Consulting, LLC by Meridian Pacific, Ltd.) ........................................ 9
Figure 2. 1901 historic map showing the Project Areas. .......................................................... 15
Figure 3. 1903 historic map showing the Project Areas. .......................................................... 16
Figure 4. 1912 historic map showing the Project Areas. .......................................................... 17
Figure 5. 1918 historic map showing the Project Areas. (This registered map shows the
mauka portion of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project to include a portion of Land Commission
Award 2668 R.A. Walsh for [Roman Catholic] Mission Church.) .............................................. 18
Figure 6. Diagram of elements that contribute to traditional or customary practices (Honua
Consulting) ................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7. Registered Map 148 showing Kōloa Village (Metcalf 1849) .................................... 34
Figure 8. Registered Map 155 showing portion of Kōloa (Kalama 1874) .............................. 35
Figure 9. Registered Map 156 showing Kōloa Village (Metcalf 1849) .................................... 36
Figure 10. Portion of Registered Map 2963 showing Kōloa (Aiu 1934) ................................. 37
Figure 11. USGS Map of Koloa (USGS 1910) ............................................................................ 48
Figure 12. 1950 Aerial Image of Kōloa (USGS 1950) .............................................................. 49
Figure 13. 1959 USGS Aerial image of Kōloa (USGS 1959) .................................................... 50
Figure 14. 1963 USGS Map of Kōloa (USGS 1963) ................................................................. 51
Figure 15. USGS 1965 Aerial Photo of Kōloa (USGS 1965) .................................................... 52
Figure 16. Registered Map 1372 (n.d.) ..................................................................................... 54
Figure 17. Portion of map showing Koloa Plantation Leases (Alexander 1937) .................... 55
Figure 18. Map of Koloa (Alexander 1937) ............................................................................... 56
Figure 19. CSH (Figure 1 of LRFI) showing the location of project area (Folk et al. 2022: 2) 59
Figure 20. CSH (Figure 6 of LRFI) showing the LCA claims in the area (Folk et al. 2022: 13)
...................................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 21: CSH (Figure 9 of Volume III) showing locations of Archaeological Preserves
outlined in red, all of which are beyond the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area. (Hammat,
Shideler, O’Hare, and Folk 2005:42); Blue outline and label for project area added for
reference. ..................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 22. CSH (Figure 9 of LRFI) showing previously identified historic properties in
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area (Folk et al. 2022:31). ............................................................... 64
Figure 23: CSH (Figure 2 of LRFI) showing the TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1 project area
location (Google Earth 2013); note the modern structure at the southeast corner of the
parcel, bulldozing cuts throughout, and the bulldozer road across the north end of the parcel
(Folk et al. 2022:3). ..................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 24: Map (courtesy of client) showing Kukuiʻula Preservation Areas, none of which are
located within Parcels H or HH. (Project Area Labeling added for clarity.) .............................. 72
Figure 25: CSH (Figure 11 of Field Letter; Parcel H outline removed) showing LCAs, shaded
in purple, in the vicinity of the Kukuiʻula Development area. ................................................... 73
Figure 26. TMK (4) 2-6-019:029 which is to be subdivided. Parcel HH is located on a portion
of this TMK. .................................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 27. TMK map showing Parcel H Lots 18 and 19. .......................................................... 76
Figure 28. Document provided by interviewee .......................................................................... 96
Figure 29. Document provided by interviewee .......................................................................... 97
Figure 30. Document provided by interviewee ........................................................................ 103
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
vii
Figure 31. Document provided by interviewee. ....................................................................... 104
Figure 32. Document provided by interviewee. ....................................................................... 105
List of Tables
Table 1. Agency action requiring analysis .................................................................................. 10
Table 2. Selected Inoa ‘Āina of Kōloa ........................................................................................ 38
Table 3. Identified Historic Properties within TMK [4] 2-6-015:029 based on review of maps
in Archaeological Data Recovery Report for Kukui‘ula Bay Planned Community Phase I
Development, Kōloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, Volume 1, referenced in the
June 8, 2021 Letter Report. ....................................................................................................... 75
Table 4. Table listing OEQC compliance requirements and their corresponding sections in
this assessment ......................................................................................................................... 169
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AIS: Archaeological Inventory Survey
BMP: Best Management Practice
CIA: Cultural Impact Assessment
CoK: County of Kaua‘i
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
ESP: Environmental Review Project, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development
HAR: Hawaii Administrative Rules
HRS: Hawaii Revised Statutes
ILK: Indigenous Local Knowledge
Ka Pa‘akai: Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Āina v. Land Use Commission, 94 Haw. 31 (2000)
LCA: Land Commission Award
LRFI: Literature Review and Field Inspection
LUC: State Land Use Commission
NRHP: National Register of Historic Places
OEQC: Office of Environmental Quality and Control
ROI: Range of Influence
SHPD: State Historic Preservation Division
SIHP: State Inventory of Historic Places
SLH: Session Laws of Hawaii
SMA: Special Management Area
TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge
TMK: Tax Map Key
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
8
1.0 Project Description and Compliance
Honua Consulting, LLC is preparing this Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey,
and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis analysis for three proposed developments in Kōloa, Kaua‘i. This
analysis is anticipated to be used by the County of Kaua‘i in making findings of fact as to the
projects’ impacts to cultural resources and practices as required under law.
1.1 Project Description and Proposed Action
Meridian Pacific, Ltd. (Meridian) is currently developing the Kauanoe o Kōloa project in Kōloa
Ahuapaʻa, Kona District, on the Island of Kaua‘i (TMK: [4] 2-8-014-032 Lot 1.) Kauanoe o
Kōloa will eventually extend to additional Lots in this same area. Meridian acquired this parcel
in June of 2021.
Meridian also has additional planned developments in the Kukuiʻula Development area of
Kōloa. Parcell HH (TMK: [4] 2-6-019-029) and Parcel H: Lots 18 and 19 (TMKs: [4] 2-6-022-
054 and [4] 2-6-022-055.) These developments are located seaward and west of the
Kauanoe o Kōloa project (Figure 1). Meridian acquired Parcels H and HH in August and
December of 2021, respectively.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i 9
Figure 1. Meridian Pacific, Ltd. project map showing the current and future developments in Kōloa (provided to Honua
Consulting, LLC by Meridian Pacific, Ltd.)
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
10
1.2 Background
Articles IX and XII of the State Constitution, other state laws, and the courts of the state require
government agencies to protect and preserve cultural beliefs, practices, and resources of
Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups. To assist decision makers in the protection of
cultural resources, Chapter 343, HRS and Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (HAR) § 11-200.1
rules for the environmental impact assessment process require project proponents to assess
proposed actions for their potential impacts to cultural properties, practices, and beliefs.
This process was clarified by the Act 50, Session Laws of Hawaiʻi (SLH) 2000. Act 50
recognized the importance of protecting Native Hawaiian cultural resources and required that
some environmental review documents include the disclosure of the effects of a proposed
action on the cultural practices of the community and state, and the Native Hawaiian
community in particular. Specifically, the Environmental Council suggested the CIAs should
include information relating to practices and beliefs of a particular cultural or ethnic group or
groups. Such information may be obtained through public scoping, community meetings,
ethnographic interviews, and oral histories.
There is no statutory requirement however for CIAs on these any of applicant’s projects, as
the environmental impact statements completed for the Kiahuna Development area (that
encompasses applicant’s Kauanoe o Kōloa project) and the Kukuiʻula Development area (that
encompasses applicant’s two Kukuiʻula projects) were completed in 1976 and 1989,
respectively, prior to the passage of Act 50. While this CIA is being undertaken voluntarily by
the applicant, it is nonetheless being prepared under applicable regulatory standards.
The County of Kaua‘i has however requested that a Ka Pa‘akai analysis be completed for the
Parcel HH project in the Kukui‘ula Development Area (Table 1).
Table 1. Agency action requiring analysis
County of Kaua‘i Agency
Action
Applicant(s) Project and Parcel
Information
Subdivision Application No.
S-2022-6
Kukui‘ula Development
Company, LLC / MP Kaua‘i
HH Development Fund, LLC
Kukui‘ula Parcel HH
Subdivision
Proposed 51-lot Subdivision
TMK: (4) 2-6-019: 026, 029,
&031
Kōloa, Kaua‘i
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
11
In the Agency Requirements section of its tentative approval of Subdivision Permit Application
S-2022-6, the County of Kauaʻi’s Planning Department included requirement 1.p. that for the
most part mirrors the three-part analytical framework referred to as the Ka Paʻakai analysis
that was an outcome of Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Āina v. Land Use Commission, 94 Haw. 31 [2000]
(Ka Pa‘akai). The County went on, in this particular Permit Application S-2022-6, to add 8 sub-
components to part one of the framework such that the requirement reads:
1. p. In Ka Pa‘akai o Ka‘āina v Land Use Commission, the Hawaii Supreme Court
established a three-part analytical framework to fulfill the constitutional duty to
preserve and protect traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights and resources
while reasonably accommodating competing private interests. Prior to the final
subdivision approval, the Applicant shall describe the actions taken and examination
conducted to analyze the following:
1) Identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources are
present within the project area, and identify the extent to which traditional and
customary Native Hawaiian rights are exercised. This part may include but not
be limited to the following analyses:
o Describe the project area in relation to traditional and customary
practices that occurred in the region or district.
o Describe the extent that traditional and customary practices
were practiced in the ahupuaʻa and project area.
o Describe the community members you consulted with including
their genealogical ties, long-standing residency, and relationship
to region, ahupuaʻa and project area.
o Describe the Land Commission Awards provided on the
property?
o Describe the prior archaeological studies that were conducted
for the property.
o Are you aware of any resources that found any evidence of
subsurface habitation or excavation on the property?
o Does the property contain any evidence that trails were in
existence on the property?
o Have any individuals ever requested access to the property for
any reason?
2) Identify the extent to which the identified resources and rights will be
affected or impaired by the proposed project.
3) Specify any mitigative actions to be taken to reasonably protect native
Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
12
This report is intended to directly address the three main parts of this requirement that mirror
the Ka Pa’akai framework (discussed further below). We will also directly address the first
three sub-components of part one and cover all the others, save the last which is best
addressed by the applicant. This survey will be submitted to the County of Kaua‘i for
consideration during the entitlement process specific to the Parcel HH, Kukuiʻula project.
As discussed further in section 1.3 Geographic Extent, given agency guidance, case law, and
existing policy, the Ka Paʻakai analysis herein – that aligns with the approach being followed
for Parcel HH, Kukuiʻula project – will coverall all three of the applicant’s projects that are
within in the Kōloa ahupuaʻa.
While four of the sub-components of part one (bulleted below) will be referenced throughout
this report, they will be more directly addressed as part of Agency Requirement 5 in the same
tentative approval of Subdivision Permit Application S-2022-6 that reads:
5. Requirements of the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD):
a. The subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the State Historic
Preservation Department (sic), if any, prior to final subdivision approval.
Regarding the following sub-components of the Ka Paʻakai framework of the County of
Kauaʻi’s Planning Department requirement 1.p. of Subdivision Permit Application S-2022-6,
SHPD – in alignment with Requirement 5 above - would be the appropriate governing entity
with the prerequisite expertise to determine if these conditions have been satisfactorily
addressed.
• Describe the Land Commission Awards provided on the property.
• Describe the prior archaeological studies that were conducted for the property.
• Are you aware of any resources that found any evidence of subsurface habitation or
excavation on the property?
• Does the property contain any evidence that trails were in existence on the property?
It is important to note that while similar in their areas of studies, archaeological surveys and
CIAs are concerned with distinct and different foci. Archaeological studies are primarily
concerned with historic properties and tangible heritage, whereas CIAs, or ethnographic
surveys, look at cultural practices and beliefs, which can be associated with a specific
location, but are also often intangible in nature. Archaeological studies are referenced in this
report, particularly in the Cultural Resources section, to the extent that they inform historic
practices and beliefs in particular locations and potential impact to those practices and
beliefs. However, this CIA – like most - is not meant to be an exhaustive review of all prior
archaeological studies.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
13
Ka Pa‘akai analyses take these completed studies and assessments into consideration to
evaluate both tangible and intangible cultural resources and cultural practices and beliefs,
and as such, typically both archaeological studies and ethnographic studies or cultural impact
assessments are utilized to complete a Ka Pa‘akai analysis.
As further referenced in the 1.5 Compliance section below, the State and its agencies have
an affirmative obligation to preserve and protect Native Hawaiians’ customarily and
traditionally exercised rights to the extent feasible.1 In Ka Pa‘akai, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court
provided government agencies an analytical framework to ensure the protection and
preservation of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights while reasonably
accommodating competing private development interests. This is accomplished through:
1) The identification of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the project area,
including the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are
exercised in the project area;
2) The extent to which those resources—including traditional and customary Native
Hawaiian rights—will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and
3) The feasible action, if any, to be taken to reasonably protect Native Hawaiian rights if
they are found to exist.
The appropriate information concerning Kōloa has been collected, focusing on areas near or
adjacent to the Project Area(s). A thorough analysis of the projects and potential impacts to
cultural resources, historical resources, and archaeological sites is included in this
assessment.
This cultural impact assessment and ethnographic survey provide an overview of cultural and
historic resources in the Project Area(s) via a thorough literature review, community and
cultural practitioner consultation, and high-level, project-specific surveys. The survey will focus
on identifying areas in which disturbance should be avoided or minimized to reduce impacts
to historic properties or culturally important features. The paramount goal is to prevent
impacts through avoidance of sensitive areas and mitigating for impacts only if avoidance is
not possible.
1.3 Geographic Extent
The geographic extent for impacts to cultural resources and historic properties includes the
Project Area(s) and localized surroundings. This survey also reviews some of the resources
primarily covered by the regulatory review. It primarily researches and reviews the range of
1 Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawai‘i State Constitution, Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Āina v. Land Use
Commission, 94 Haw. 31 [2000] (Ka Pa‘akai), Act 50 SLH 2000.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
14
biocultural resources identified through historical documents, traditional knowledge,
information found in the Hawaiian language historical caché, and oral histories and
knowledge collected from cultural practitioners and experts.
There is clear guidance from the Office of Environmental Quality and Control (OEQC), now
known as the Environmental Review Project, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development
(ESP), that recommends a geographic extent beyond the identified or typical boundaries of
the geographic project area. The recommended area is typically the size of the traditional land
area (ahupua‘a) or region (moku), but this can be larger or smaller depending on what best
helps to identify the resources appropriately.
The geographic extent of this survey is based on the position that the Project Area(s) are part
of a cultural landscape or cultural landscapes and therefore it is most appropriate to set and
study the proposed alternatives within that cultural context. In this case, the Project Area
includes the three discontiguous Project Area(s) and surrounding area(s) in the lands
considered part of the Kōloa ahupua‘a, which is located in the Kona moku of Kaua‘i.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
15
Figure 2. 1901 historic map showing the Project Areas.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
16
Figure 3. 1903 historic map showing the Project Areas.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
17
Figure 4. 1912 historic map showing the Project Areas.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
18
Figure 5. 1918 historic map showing the Project Areas. (This registered map shows the mauka
portion of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project to include a portion of Land Commission Award 2668
R.A. Walsh for [Roman Catholic] Mission Church.)
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
19
Some of the interviewees contested the use of a single analysis for three discontiguous
projects and project areas, yet, unlike other analyses which are bound to geographic area,
cultural impact assessments, ethnographic surveys, and Ka Pa‘akai analyses are intended to
look at practices within a cultural landscape. As such, existing policies on these surveys
recommend a geographic extent that considers practices throughout the entire ahupua‘a
instead of a geographically limited project area. Additionally, many of the informants spoke to
potential impacts the individual projects could have on the entire Kōloa area and its collective
community of practitioners or practices. Given, therefore, per the agency-directed guidelines,
that the geographic extent is the ahupua‘a of Kōloa, we maintain that it is important to
transparently identify all the applicant’s potential development activities in said geographic
extent and look at the potential cumulative and indirect impacts of their actions, in addition
to considering the potential impacts of the projects individually.
1.4 Goal of Ethnographic Survey
This survey looks to partially fulfill the requirement of taking into account the Projects’
potential impacts on historic and cultural resources and, at a minimum, describe: a) any
valued cultural, historic, or natural resources in the areas in question, including the extent to
which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the area, b) the extent
to which those resources – including traditional and customary native Hawaiians rights – will
be affected or impaired by the Project; and c) the feasible action, if any, to be taken to
reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist.
1.5 Compliance
As noted previously, the State and its agencies have an affirmative obligation to preserve and
protect Native Hawaiians’ customarily and traditionally exercised rights to the extent feasible.
State law further recognizes that the cultural landscapes provide living and valuable cultural
resources where Native Hawaiians have and continue to exercise traditional and customary
practices, including hunting, fishing, gathering, and religious practices. The Ka Paʻakai
framework is a means to ensure the protection and preservation of traditional and customary
Native Hawaiian rights while reasonably accommodating competing private development
interests.
While not attached to an HRS Chapter 343 action, this ethnographic survey was prepared
under HRS Chapter 343 and Act 50 SLH 2000 as those are the prevailing standards and best
practices for CIAs. These standards have been applied to this ethnographic survey, as there
are currently no state standards for ethnographic surveys. The appropriate information
concerning the ahupuaʻa of Kōloa has been collected, focusing on areas near or adjacent to
the Project Area(s). A thorough analysis of this project and potential impacts to cultural
resources, historical resources, and archaeological sites is included in this assessment.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
20
The present analyses of archival documents, oral traditions (oli or chants, mele or songs,
and/or hula or dance texts), and Hawaiian language sources including books, manuscripts,
and newspaper articles, are focused on identifying recorded cultural and archaeological
resources present on the landscape, including: Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian place names;
landscape features (ridges, gulches, cinder cones); archaeological features (kuleana parcel
walls, house platforms, shrines, heiau or places of worship, etc.); culturally significant areas
(viewsheds, unmodified areas where gathering practices and/or rituals were performed); and
significant biocultural resources. The information gathered through research helped to focus
interview questions on specific features and elements within the Project Area(s).
Interviews with lineal and cultural descendants are instrumental in procuring information
about the Project Area(s)’ transformation through time and changing uses. Interviews
conducted with recognized cultural experts and summaries of those interviews are included
herein.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
21
2.0 Methodology
The approach to developing the ethnographic survey and Ka Pa‘akai analysis is as follows:
1) Gather Best Information Available
a) Gather historic cultural information from stories and other oral histories about the
affected area to provide cultural foundation for the report;
b) Inventory as much information as can be identified about as many known cultural,
historic, and natural resources, including previous archaeological inventory
surveys, CIAs, etc. that may have been completed for the possible range of areas;
and
c) Update the information with interviews with cultural or lineal descendants or other
knowledgeable cultural practitioners.
2) Identify Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources
3) Develop Reasonable Mitigation Measures to Reduce Potential Impacts
a) Involve the community and cultural experts in developing culturally appropriate
mitigation measures; and
b) Develop specific Best Management Practices (BMPs), if any are required, for
conducting the project in a culturally appropriate and/or sensitive manner as to
mitigate and/or reduce any impacts to cultural practices and/or resources.
While numerous studies have been conducted on this area, few have utilized Hawaiian
language resources and Hawaiian knowledge. This appears to have impacted modern
understanding of this location, as many of the relevant documents are native testimonies
given by Kanaka Hawaiʻi (Hawaiians) who lived on this land.
While hundreds of place names and primary source historical accounts (from both Hawaiian
and English language narratives) are cited on the following pages, it is impossible to tell the
whole story of these lands in any given manuscript. A range of history, spanning the
generations, has been covered. Importantly, the resources herein are a means of connecting
people with the history of their communities—that they are part of that history. Knowledge of
place will, in turn, promote appreciation for place and encourage acts of stewardship for the
valued resources that we pass on to the future.
OEQC (now ERP) provides guidance on properly scoping the range of cultural practices. In their
guidance documentation, they explain:
In scoping the cultural portion of an environmental assessment, the geographical
extent of the inquiry should, in most instances, be greater than the area over which the
proposed action will take place. This is to ensure that cultural practices which may not
occur within the boundaries of the project area, but which may nonetheless be
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
22
affected, are included in the assessment. Thus, for example, a proposed action that
may not physically alter gathering practices but may affect access to gathering areas
would be included in the assessment. An ahupua'a is usually the appropriate
geographical unit to begin an assessment of cultural impacts of a proposed action,
particularly if it includes all of the types of cultural practices associated with the project
area. In some cases, cultural practices are likely to extend beyond the ahupua'a and
the geographical extent of the study area should take into account those cultural
practices (OEQC 2012: 11).
Background research for the literature review was conducted using materials obtained from
the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) library in Kapolei and the Honua Consulting
LLC. report library. Online materials consulted included the Ulukau Electronic Hawaiian
Database (www.ulukau.com), Papakilo Database (www.papakilodatabase.com), the State
Library online (http://www.librarieshawaii.org/ Serials/databases.html), and Waihona ‘Āina
Māhele database (http://www.waihona.com). Hawaiian terms and place names were
translated using the online Hawaiian dictionaries (Nā Puke Wehewehe ‘Ōlelo Hawaiʻi)
(www.wehewehe.com), Place Names of Hawaiʻi (Pukui et al. 1974), and Hawaiʻi Place
Names (Clark 2002). Historic maps were obtained from the State Archives, State of Hawaiʻi
Land Survey Division website (http://ags.hawaii.gov/survey/map-search/), UH-Mānoa Maps,
Aerial Photographs, and GIS (MAGIS) website
(http://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/magis). Maps were geo-referenced for this report
using ArcGIS 10.3. GIS is not 100% precise and historic maps were created with inherent
flaws; therefore, geo-referenced maps should be understood to have some built-in
inaccuracy.
M. P. Nogelmeier (2010) discusses the adverse impacts of methodology that fails to properly
research and consider Hawaiian language resources. He strongly cautions against a mono-
rhetorical approach that marginalizes important native voices and evidence from
consideration, specifically in the field of archaeology. For this reason, Honua Consulting
consciously employs a poly-rhetorical approach, whereby all data, regardless of language, is
researched and considered. To fail to access these millions of pages of information within the
Hawaiian language caché could arguably be a violation of Act 50, as such an approach would
fundamentally fail to gather the best information available, especially considering the
voluminous amounts of historical accounts available for native tenants in the Hawaiian
language.
Hawaiian culture views natural and cultural resources as largely being one and the same:
without the resources provided by nature, cultural resources could and would not be procured.
From a Hawaiian perspective, all natural and cultural resources are interrelated, and all
natural and cultural resources are culturally significant. Kepā Maly (2001), ethnographer and
Hawaiian language scholar, points out, “In any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
23
Hawaiʻi, one must understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its
natural environment. Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where
culture ends and nature begins” (Maly 2001:1). As a leading researcher and scholar on
Hawaiian culture, Maly, along with his wife, Onaona, have conducted numerous ground-
breaking studies on cultural histories throughout Hawai‘i. A substantial part of the archival
research utilized in this study was previously compiled and published by Kepā and Onaona
Maly, who have granted their permission to use this important work and are identified properly
as associated authors and researchers of this study.
This study also specifically looks to identify intangible resources. Tangible and intangible
heritage are inextricably linked (Bouchenaki 2003). Intangible cultural resources, also
identified as intangible cultural heritage (ICH), are critical to the perpetuation of cultures
globally. International and human rights law professor Federico Lenzerini notes, “At present,
we are aware on a daily basis of the definitive loss—throughout the world—of language,
knowledge, knowhow, customs, and ideas, leading to the progressive impoverishment of
human society” (Lenzerini 2011:12). He goes on to warn that:
the rich cultural variety of humanity is progressively and dangerously tending towards
uniformity. In cultural terms, uniformity means not only loss of cultural heritage—
conceived as the totality of perceptible manifestations of the different human groups
and communities that are exteriorized and put at the others’ disposal—but also
standardization of the different peoples of the world and of their social and cultural
identity into a few stereotyped ways of life, of thinking, and of perceiving the world.
Diversity of cultures reflects diversity of peoples; this is particularly linked to ICH,
because such a heritage represents the living expression of the idiosyncratic traits of
the different communities. Preservation of cultural diversity, as emphasized by Article
1 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, ‘is embodied in the
uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up
humankind’. Being a ‘source of exchange, innovation and creativity’, cultural diversity
is vital to humanity and is inextricably linked to the safeguarding of ICH. Mutual
recognition and respect for cultural diversity—and, a fortiori, appropriate safeguarding
of the ICH of the diverse peoples making up the world—Is essential for promoting
harmony in intercultural relations, through fostering better appreciation and
understanding of the differences between human communities. (Lenzarini 2011:103)
Therefore, tradition and practice, as elements of Hawaiian ICH, are essential to the protection
of Hawaiian rights and the perpetuation of the Hawaiian culture.
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
24
2.1 Identifying Traditional or Customary Practices
It is within this context that traditional or customary practices are studied. The concept of
traditional or customary practices can often be a challenging one for people to grasp.
Traditional or customary practices can be defined as follows:
Figure 6. Diagram of elements that contribute to traditional or customary practices (Honua
Consulting)
The first element is knowledge. This has been referred to as traditional ecological knowledge
(TEK), Indigenous local knowledge (ILK), or ethnoscience. In the context of this study, it is the
information, data, knowledge, or expertise Native Hawaiians or local communities possessed
or possess about an area’s environment. In a traditional context, this would have included
information Hawaiians possessed in order to have the skills to utilize the area’s resources for
a range of purposes, including, but not limited to, travel, food, worship or habitation. This
element is largely intangible.
The second element is the resources themselves. These are primarily tangible resources,
either archaeological resources (i.e., habitation structures, walls, etc.) or natural resources
(i.e., plants, animals, etc.). These can also be places, such as a sacred or culturally important
sites or wahi pana. Sometimes these wahi pana are general locations, this does not diminish
their importance or value. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that potential eligibility as
a “historic site” on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would require identifiable
boundaries of a site.
The third element is access. The first two elements alone are not enough to allow for
traditional or customary practices to take place. The practitioners must have access to the
resource in order to be able to practice their traditional customs. Access does not just mean
the ability to physically access a location, but it also means access to resources. For example,
if a particular plant is used for medicinal purposes, there needs to be a sufficient amount of
that plant available to practitioners for use. Therefore, an action that would adversely impact
the population of a particular plant with cultural properties would impact practitioners’ ability
to access that plant. By extension, it would adversely impact the traditional or customary
practice.
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
25
Traditional or customary practices are, therefore, the combination of knowledge(s),
resource(s), and access. Each of these individual elements should be researched and
identified in assessing any potential practices or impacts to said practices.
2.2 Traditional Knowledge, or Ethnoscience, and the Identification of Cultural Resources
The concept of ethnoscience was first established in the 1960s and has been defined as “the
field of inquiry concerned with the identification of the conceptual schemata that indigenous
peoples use to organize their experience of the environment” (Roth 2019). Ethnoscience
encompasses a wide range of subfields, including, but not limited to, ethnoecology,
ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnoclimatology, ethnomedicine and ethnopedology. All of these
fields are important to properly identify traditional knowledge within a certain area.
Traditional Native Hawaiian practitioners were scientists and expert natural resource
managers by necessity. Without modern technological conveniences to rely on, Hawaiians
developed and maintained prosperous and symbiotic relationships with their natural
environment for thousands of years. Their environments were their families, their homes, and
their laboratories. They knew the names of every wind and every rain. The elements taught
and inspired. The ability of indigenous peoples to combine spirituality and science led to the
formation of unique land-based mythologies that spurred unsurpassed innovation. Therefore,
identifying significant places requires a baseline understanding of what made places
significant for Hawaiians.
Hawaiians were both settlers and explorers. In Plants in Hawaiian Culture, B. Krauss explains:
“Exploration of the forests revealed trees, the timber of which was valuable for building houses
and making canoes. The forests also yielded plants that could be used for making and dying
tapa, for medicine, and a variety of other artifacts” (Krauss 1993). Analysis of native plants
and resource management practices reveals the depth to which Hawaiians excelled in their
environmental science practices:
[Hawaiians] demonstrated great ability in systematic differentiation, identification,
and naming of the plants they cultivated and gathered for use. Their knowledge of the
gross morphology of plants, their habits of growth, and the requirements for greatest
yields is not excelled by expert agriculturists of more complicated cultures. They
worked out the procedures of cultivation for every locality, for all altitudes, for different
weather conditions and exposures, and for soils of all types. In their close observations
of the plants they grew, they noted and selected mutants (spores) and natural hybrids,
and so created varieties of the plants they already had. Thus, over the years after their
arrival in the Islands, the Hawaiians added hundreds of named varieties of taro, sweet
potatoes, sugarcane, and other cultivated plants to those they had brought with them
from the central Pacific (Krauss 1993).
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
26
Thus, Native Hawaiians reinforced the biodiversity that continues to exist in Hawaiʻi today
through their customary traditional natural resource management practices.
The present analyses of archival documents, oral traditions (oli or chants, mele or songs,
and/or hula dances and haʻi moʻolelo or storytelling performances), and Hawaiian language
sources including books, manuscripts, and newspaper articles, are focused on identifying
recorded cultural resources present on the landscape, including: Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian
place names; landscape features (ridges, gulches, cinder cones); archaeological features
(kuleana parcel walls, house platforms, shrines, heiau [places of worship], etc.); culturally
significant areas (viewsheds, unmodified areas where gathering practices and/or rituals were
performed); and significant biological, physiological, or natural resources. This research also
looks to document the wide range of Hawaiian science that existed within the geographic
extent.
2.3 Moʻolelo ʻĀina: Native Traditions of the Land
Among the most significant sources of native moʻolelo are the Hawaiian language newspapers
which were printed between 1838 and 1948, and the early writings of foreign visitors and
residents. Most of the accounts that were submitted to the papers were penned by native
residents of areas being described and by noted native historians. Over the last 30 years,
Kepā Maly has reviewed and compiled an extensive index of articles published in the Hawaiian
language newspapers, with particular emphasis on those narratives pertaining to lands,
customs, and traditions. Many traditions naming places around Hawaiʻi are found in these
early writings. Many of these accounts describe native practices, the nature of land use at
specific locations, and native moʻolelo (history, narrative, story). Thus, these resources are a
means of understanding how people related to their environment and sustained themselves
on the land.
2.4 Historic Maps
There are also numerous, informative historic maps for the region. Surveyors of the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries were skilled in traversing land areas and capturing important
features and resources throughout Hawaiʻi’s rich islands. Historic maps were carefully
studied, and the features detailed therein were aggregated and categorized to help identify
specific places, names, features, and resources throughout the study area. From these,
among other documents, new maps were created that more thoroughly capture the range of
resources in the area.
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
27
2.5 Ethnographic Methodology
Information from lineal and cultural descendants is instrumental in procuring information
about the Project Area(s)’ transformation over time and its changing uses. The present
analyses of archival documents, oral traditions (including oli or chants, mele or songs), and/or
hula dance), and Hawaiian language sources including books, manuscripts, and newspaper
articles, are focused on identifying recorded cultural and archaeological resources present on
the landscape, including: Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian place names; landscape features
(ridges, gulches, cinder cones); archaeological features (kuleana parcel walls, house
platforms, shrines, heiau or places of worship, etc.); culturally significant areas (viewsheds,
unmodified areas where gathering practices and/or rituals were performed); and significant
biocultural resources. The information gathered through research helped to focus interview
questions on specific features and elements within the Project Area(s).
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
28
3.0 Historic Background
The purpose of this section is to characterize the Hawaiian cultural landscape within which
the Project Area(s) are located, which is the ahupua‘a of Kōloa. This includes a description of
Kōloa’s relevant and representative inoa ‘āina (place names), mo‘olelo (oral-historical
accounts), wahi pana (legendary places), and other natural and cultural resources.
3.1 Traditional Period
Kaua‘i is “the oldest geologically of the major islands of the Hawaiian chain” (Handy et al.
1972: 391). This difference in geological time accounts for notable differences between Kauai
in comparison to the other inhabited islands, specifically “[its] interior mountains are less
rugged and its streams have carved out real river beds” (Handy et al. 1972:391).
Kōloa is in the Kona moku (district) of Kaua‘i, which includes fourteen (14) ahupua‘a. Handy
et al. describe Kōloa and its neighboring areas as:
... Pa‘a is very dry. Breadfruit, yams, and bananas were planted in the gulches.
Weliweli is about like Pa‘a. Both of these narrow land sections lie on a slight seaward
promontory, Makahuena Point. W.C. Bennett (1931, p. 118) found an irrigation ditch
and terraces, indicating that there used to be some wet taro grown in the area which
is now dry. Desiccation may have been partly caused by clearing the woodland when
the first sugar plantation on Kauai was established there.
Koloa had a stream which at its seaward end was called Waikomo (Hidden-water),
suggesting that the stream much have gone underground. Three streams in upper
Koloa may have watered some taro terraces, since they flow through relatively flat land,
although a kama‘aina told us he knew of none. However, there were a few terraced
areas, whose names we obtained, in localities now dry because the water is diverted
upstream for sugar-cane irrigation. There were extensive terraces on land now planted
with sugar cane near what is now Kuhio Park, seaward of Koloa Valley. There were
fresh-water ponds in both Weliweli and Koloa. Possibly this was why Koloa was so
named, for koloa means duck, and duck were attracted to fresh water (Handy et al.
1972: 427-428).
Handy et al. identify two important impacts of early contact in Kōloa: desiccation from clearing
vegetation and water diversion.
3.1.1 Mo‘olelo
Moʻolelo (traditional narratives, stories, history) were once passed down through oral tradition
and later recorded in print upon the arrival of the printing press in the 1830s. One of the
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
29
beautiful elements of Hawaiian storytelling is that many versions of mo‘olelo exist, told from
the perspective of storytellers who are native to varying areas. By collecting and celebrating
the multiple versions of mo‘olelo, the depth and breadth of Kānaka ʻŌiwi perspective about
‘āina can be understood. Information about culture, language, and places are held within
those stories, and can continue to live on through those mo‘olelo.
Portions of many famous mo‘olelo take place in the Kōloa area, some sections of which will
be presented in this section in order to demonstrate the cultural significance of this ‘āina. It
should be noted that this is not a comprehensive list of mo‘olelo, but a selection of mo‘olelo
to demonstrate the use of this practice in the region.
Kōloa is long-standing traditional name that has been retained into the present, while other
place names in the region have largely been lost in the rapid development of mass agricultural
plantations at the beginning of the 20th century when Hawaiʻi became a U.S. Territory. Kōloa
has a rich and interesting cultural history, and there are numerous of mele and moʻolelo
associated with this region. Kōloa alternatively means long sugar cane [stalk(s)] or to make a
long roaring sound. One moʻolelo says the region “was named for a steep rock called Pali-o-
kō-loa [cliff of long sugar cane]” (Pukui, Elbert, and Mookini1974: 116). Koloa is also the
name of a native Hawaiian duck (Anas wyvilliana) now called koloa maoli to distinguish it from
foreign and introducted duck species which are also called koloa. Koloa were prevelant on
Kauaʻi and their presence is suggested in the kaona (poetic referencing) of this inoa ʻāina
(place name). Pīwai is one species of ducks common to the Kōloa area (Wichman 1998: 40).
Multiple interpretations of Hawaiian place names are not only common, they are sometimes
intentional because of the Hawaiian penchant for kaona. As H. Kekahuna observed:
The literal translation of the name Ko-loa is Long (loa) Sugarcane (ko). The name of
the Hawaiian duck is koloa pronounced as a single word with a lighter o. The full-
sounded word ko means success, or to succeed, as well as sugarcane, which is
symbolic of success. With the same full sound the word also means the movement of
a wind or current, or the drawing of the tide (ko’ ke au). Thus, through the astoninging
versatility and flexibility of the Hawaiian language there is for a project in Ko-loa an
augury of success (ko’) that is long-enduring (loa), like the moving of a current (ko’)
that flows afar (loa). (Kekahuna 1959: 2)
The traditional knowledge imbedded in place names reveals the history of place, people, and
the depth of their traditions. Although fragmented, the surviving place names describe a rich
culture. On these lands are found many place names that have survived the passing of time.
The occurrence of place names demonstrates the broad relationship of the natural landscape
to the culture and practices of the Hawaiian people. In A Gazetteer of the Territory of Hawaii,
J. W. Coulter observed that Hawaiians had place names for all manner of features, ranging
from “outstanding cliffs” to what he described as “trivial land marks” (1935:10). In 1902,
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
30
W.D. Alexander, former Surveyor General of the Kingdom (and later Government) of Hawai‘i,
wrote an account of “Hawaiian Geographic Names.” Under the heading “Meaning of Hawaiian
Geographic Names” he observed:
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to translate most of these names, on account of
their great antiquity and the changes of which many of them have evidently undergone.
It often happens that a word may be translated in different ways by dividing it
differently. Many names of places in these islands are common to other groups of
islands in the South Pacific, and were probably brought here with the earliest colonists.
They have been used for centuries without any thought of their original meaning. (395)
Moreover, historically named locations were significant in past times and it has been observed
that “Names would not have been given to [or remembered if they were] mere[ly] worthless
pieces of topography” (Handy et al. 1972: 412).
In traditional (pre-western contact) culture, named localities served a variety of functions,
informing people about: (1) places where the gods walked the earth and changed the lives of
people for good or worse; (2) heiau or other features of ceremonial importance; (3)
triangulation points such as ko‘a (fishing markers) for fishing grounds and fishing sites (4)
residences and burial sites; (5) areas of planting; (6) water sources; (7) trails and trail side
resting places (o‘io‘ina), such as a rock shelter or tree shaded spot; (8) the sources of
particular natural resources/resource collections areas, or any number of other features; or
(9) notable events which occurred at a given area. Through place names knowledge of the
past and places of significance was handed down across countless generations. There is an
extensive collection of native place names recorded in the mo‘olelo (traditions and historical
accounts) published in Hawaiian newspapers. The mo‘olelo provided below is only a very small
sample of the larger body of work created by kānaka about Kōloa.
3.1.1.1 Pele and Hi‘iakaikapoliopele
In the famous epic tale of the two sisters, Pele, the renowned goddess of the volcano, sends
her youngest Hi‘iaka sister, Hiʻiakaikapoliopele, on a journey across the island chain to fetch
the young lover that Pele discovers in a dream, the handsome chief of Kaua‘i named
Lohi‘auipo. On her journey, Hi‘iaka grows into her goddess nature by facing many obstacles
including mo‘o or dangerous reptilian water guardians, lethal storms, and countless other
challenges, only to find that she must revive her sister’s lover using her powers to bring him
back to life.
3.1.1.2 He Kaao no Kapunohu
Kōloa serves as part of the setting for the mo‘olelo of Kapunohu, who was a chief from Hawai‘i
Island. Kapunohu was famed for possessing a spear said to have magical powers called
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
31
Kanikawi. Kapunohu was also the brother of Konahuanui, who was the wife of the O‘ahu chief
Olopana. Kapunohu travels to O‘ahu to meet with his sister. Olopana, upon seeing Kapunohu
and the powers held by Kanikawi, recruits Kapunohu to be one of his warriors and sets out to
battle Kakuhihewa. Kapunohu defeats Kakuhihewa, after which all of O‘ahu is ruled by
Olopana (Fornander 1918).
A make o Olopana, haalele iho la o Kapunohu ia Oahu nei, holo aku la ia ma ka waa a
pae ma Poki i Waimea, Kauai, hele aku la ia malaila aku, a hiki i Wahiawa, malaila aku
a Lawai i Koloa noho. I laila o Kemamo kahi i noho ai, he koa ia, he kanaka ikaika i ka
maa ala, aohe ona lua ma ia hana o ka lima hema kona oi loa, e hiki ia ia ke maa i ka
ala hookahi, i na mile eono, a i ka hiku o ka mile, pio ka ikaika o ka ala. Aolc he kanaka
aa o Kauai, e hakaka me Kemamo aole alii, aole koa. Nolaila, ua makau loa ia ka hele
ana mai Koloa aku a Nawiliwili, aole hiki i ko Koolau ke hele mai maanei o Nawiliwili
a pela ko Kona nei, aole hiki ke hele aku ma o o Koloa. No ka mea, e noho ana o
Kemano ma waena o Koloa a me Nawiliwili, me kana wahine o Waialeale.
A hiki o Kapunohu i laila, moe iho la ia a ao ae, i kau hale kamaaina, hoeu ac la o
Kapunohu e hele, olelo mai kamaaina: “Mai hele oe, o make auanei oe i ke koa o
makou nei.” Ninau aku o Kapunohu: “Owai ia koa?” “O Kemamo.” “Pehea kona
ikaika?” “He maa ala kona ikaika, aole e hala ka ala ke lele mai, aole hoi e nawaliwali
i na mile elima, nolaila mai hele oe, o make auanei.” I aku o Kapunohu: “Aole hoi ha
he ikaika, he mea paani ka maa ala, na ko makou kamalii mai lewalewa, a he mea
ikaika ole no.” No keia olelo a Kapunohu, kaulana aku la ia a lohe o Kemamo, i iho o
Kemamo: “Ae, akahi mea nana i hoole kuu maa, oia, ina he manao kona e hele mai e
hoike i na ikaika o maua, e hele mai no.” A lohe o Kapunohu, hele aku la ia a hiki, i
mai la o Kemamo: “Ea! O oeke kanaka nana i hoole kuu ala?” I aku o Kapunohu: “Ae,
owau no, no ka olelo mai a lakou nei, he ikaika oe i ka maa i ka ala. Nolaila, olelo aku
au, he mea paani ia na ko makou kamalii mai lewalewa.”
A lohe o Kemamo, huhu iho la ia ia Kapunohu, a olelo mai la: “E! Heaha kau
pili,ekamalihini?” I aku o Kapunohu: O na iwi ka’u pili.” Ae mai o Kemamo: “Ae, a heaha
hou ae?“ I aku keia: ”O ka waiwai iho la no ia a kamahele o na iwi, ina wau e eo, alaila
make au, a ina hoi oe e eo, make oe ia’u.” Ae mai la o Kemamo: “Ae ua mau ia pili
ana.” Olelo aku o Kemamo: “O ka pahu a kaua, e ku ai a maa, mai Koloa a Moloaa i
Koolau ka pahu ia ma waena o laila ka kaua hana, a i puka ma o o Moloaa eo kekahi
o kaua.” Ae aku la o Kapunohu. I aku nae o Kapunohu: “O ka’u hana i ike o ka pahee,
malaila no wau, o kau hana hoi i ike o ka maa, malaila no oe.” Ae mai la o Kemamo. I
aku o Kemamo: “Ia wai mua, i kamaaina paha, i ka malihini paha?” I aku o Kemamo:
“I kamaaina ka mua, he hope ka ka malihini.”
Ia wa, maa o Kemamo a pau eono maila, a i ka hiku nawaliwali, pela ka nawe hele ana
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
32
a hiki i Anahola waiho, ilaila loaa i ke kukini mama o Kauai, o Kawaikuauhoe kona
inoa. Pahee o Kapunohu i kana ihe, holo aku la kana ihe mai Koloa aku a Niumalu, o
ka malu o ka la i ka ihe a Kapunohu, kapaia ia aina o Niumalu a hiki i keia la. Mailaila
aku ka holo ana, a hiki i Kawelowai mauka o Wailua, nolaila keia inoa, e pili la, o
Kawelowai, a me Waiehu, no ke komo ana o ka ihe i loko o ka wai, a lele hou, mailaila
aku a Kalalea i Anahola, o ia keia puka e hamama ala a hiki i keia la, malaila aku a
hiki i Moloaa, malaila aku a Waiakalua a Kalihikai maalili ka ihe, a Hanalei pau ka holo
o ka ihe. A eo ae la o Kemamo hooko ia ka laua pili, a lilo ae la o Kapunohu i al holo.
Kauai.
After the death of Olopana, Kapunohu left Oahu and journeyed to Kauai. Boarding his
canoe he set sail and first landed at Poki, in Waimea; from this place he continued on
to Wahiawa and then on to Lawai in Koloa where he settled down. There lived at this
place a great warrior, by the name of Kemamo, who was noted for his great strength
and skill in the use of the sling; he was without equal in its practice; his left hand was
considered better than his right, and he could throw a stone for a distance of six miles
and in the seventh mile its force ceased. No person in Kauai was found who could face
him, not from amongst the chiefs or soldiers. Because of this man people were afraid
to travel between Koloa and Nawiliwili; those on the Koolau side could not pass over
to Nawiliwili and those, from the Kona side were afraid to travel toward the Koloa side,
for the reason that Kemamo and his wife Waialeale lived between Koloa and Nawiliwili.
When Kapunohu arrived at Lawai he was entertained that night by some of the people
of the place, and on the next day he prepared to continue on his journey. When he was
ready to start, the people said: “You must not go by this way or you will get killed by our
great warrior.” Kapunohu then asked: “Who is this warrior?” “Kemamo.” “In what is his
strength?” “He is very skilful in the use of the sling. He never misses a shot, and the
strength of his flying stone will go over five miles. Therefore you must not go for you
will get killed.” Kapunohu said: “Then he is not strong. The sling is only a plaything for
the boys of our place and it is not considered of any consequence.” These remarks
made by Kapunohu were carried around until they reached Kemamo; so Kemamo
made the remark: “Yes, this is the first time that my strength in the use of the sling has
been denied. Well and good; if he desires to come and test as which of us is the
stronger, let him come on.” When Kapunohu heard this, he went out to meet Kemamo.
Upon seeing Kapunohu, Kemamo asked: “Are you the man that has said that I have
no strength in the use of the sling?” Kapunohu replied : “Yes, I am the man. It is
because these people said that you are very skilful in the use of the sling, so I said,
that it is the plaything with the small boys at our place.”
When Kemamo heard this he became very angry toward Kapunohu and said: “What
will the stranger bet on the proposition?” Kapunohu replied: “My life will be my stake.”
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
33
“Yes,” said Kemamo, “and what else?'' Kapunohu replied: “That is all a traveler takes
with him. If you beat me my life shall be forfeited, and if I should beat you your life shall
be forfeited.” Kemamo agreed to this and the bet was declared made. Kemamo then
said: “The course over which we shall compete in throwing the stone with the sling,
shall be from Koloa to Moloaa in Koolau. We must make our throws over these points
and toward Moloaa; whoever throws the greatest distance beyond Moloaa wins.”
Kapunohu replied: “Yes, I will agree to that, but I am going to use my spear while you
use your sling.” Kemamo agreed to this. Kemamo then asked: “Who shall take the first
chance? Shall it be the stranger, or shall it be the native son?” Kapunohu answered:
“Let the native son take the first chance and the stranger the last.”
Kemamo then took up his sling and threw his stone, which went six miles and over,
and it only fell and rolled after it had entered into the seventh mile, stopping at
Anahola, where it was picked up by the best runner of Kauai, a man by the name of
Kawaikuauhoe. Kapunohu then threw his spear, darting along from Koloa and over
Niumalu, and as it shielded the sun from the coconut trees at this place the land was
given the name of Niumalu, as known to this day; then it went on and into the water in
upper Wailua, giving the place the name of Kawelowai as well as the land next to it
which is called Waiehu; from this place it again took an upward flight flying along till it
pierced through a ridge at Anahola, which is called Kalaea, leaving a hole through it,
which can be seen to this day; from this place it went on past Moloaa, then past
Waiakalua, then into Kalihikai, where it grew weaker and finally stopped at Hanalei.
Kemamo was therefore beaten and the conditions of their bet were carried out.
Kapunohu became thereby king of Kauai (Fornander 1918).
3.1.2 Inoa ‘Āina
Honua Consulting developed a list of place names from the ahupuaʻa of Kōloa in the vicinity
of the Project Area(s), which includes but is not limited to the following places and terms, to
help guide research and analyses (Table 1). The development of this list stemmed from
extensive research into a wide range of documents related to the project area. In many cases,
land divisions would be referred to as both ahupuaʻa and ‘ili, depending upon the document.
It was also unclear from documents where land was identified as ‘ili as to if the ‘ili were simply
a subdivision of larger ahupua‘a or if they were ‘ili kūpono, distinct land areas unto
themselves.
Historic maps were also reviewed to help identify specific place names within the region.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
34
Figure 7. Registered Map 148 showing Kōloa Village (Metcalf 1849)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
35
Figure 8. Registered Map 155 showing portion of Kōloa (Kalama 1874)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
36
Figure 9. Registered Map 156 showing Kōloa Village (Metcalf 1849)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i 37
Figure 10. Portion of Registered Map 2963 showing Kōloa (Aiu 1934)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
38
From the historical land records, there appeared to be little concern for specific boundaries,
as foreigners, many of them missionaries who converted to businessmen, eagerly
maneuvered their relationships with the new formalized government to acquire themselves
strategically located parcels of land that proved valuable as new capitalist economic
industries like sugar developed across the islands, including on Kauaʻi; Kōloa is the location
of the first successful commercial sugar plantation, which began in 1835 (Pukui, Elbert, and
Mookini 1974: 116).
Table 2. Selected Inoa ‘Āina of Kōloa
Selected Place Names of Kōloa Ahupua‘a in Vicinity of the Project Area(s)
Inoa ʻĀina (Place
Name)
Description Meaning Reference
ʻĀlanapō Heiau where the
Kauaʻi hero Palila
was taken by his
grandmother to be
raised by the gods.
Night offering Fornander; Wichman
1998
ʻĒkaha Bay to the east of Ka
Lae Kīkī
ʻĒkaha (birdʻs nest
fern) bay; also, a
kind of seaweed
Google maps,
Google Earth
Hālauakalena Heiau dedicated to
the moʻowahine
Kihawahine
Shed [to store]
ʻōlena (tumeric)
[roots]
Wichman 1998
Hanakāʻape A small harbor or
bay along the
shoreline later called
Whalers’ Bay and
now Kōloa Landing
Bay of the ʻape
(Alocasia
macrorrhiza,
Xanthosoma
robustum) plant;
headstrong bay
Wichman 1998
Hanakalauaʻe Heiau located at
Mahaulepu;
destroyed by
Frendenberg to build
cattle pens (Thrum)
Bay of the lauaʻe
fern
Bennett 1931
Hōʻai Beach near Kaheka
and Kolopā
To feed Google map
Hoʻoleinakapuaʻa Located next to a
small pond along
Waikomo stream
Place to throw the
pig
Wichman 1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
39
above the pond of
Mauhili
Humuʻula Land area in Kōloa
where the heiau
ʻĀlanapō was
located
Red jasper stone
used for adze
making
Fornander; Wichman
1998
Kāheka Land area; n.d. Shallow pool Google maps
Kāhili 3,016 ft. high
mountain peak on
Waiʻaleʻale that
marks the mauka
boundary of Kōloa
ahupuaʻa; waterfall
The royal feather
standard
PNH
Ka Lae Kīkī Point Spouting; name of a
bird
Google Earth
Kamoʻoloa Mauka plains area
below Kāhili; site of
many battles
The long ridge or
lizard
Wichman 1998
Kānehāʻule Heiau located at
Kaunuʻieʻie where
“rites of
circumcision" were
preformed (Thrum)
Kāne falling Bennett 1931
Kāneiolouma Heiau for sports and
food. Located just
inland of Poʻipū
beach. Part of a
larger complex
documented by
Kekahuna.
Kāne who drove and
pushed
Kekahuna map;
kaneiolouma.org; P.
Young blog
Kaʻōleloohawaiʻi Rock located just
below Waihānau
rock at Mauhili pool.
Brought to this
location by the
Kauaʻi chief
Kaweloleimakua
from Hawaiʻi Island.
The language of
Hawaiʻi
Wichman 1998
Kapōhakau 1,4000 ft. Peak on
Kāhili mountain;
The placed or set
rock
Wichman 1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
40
mauka boundary
point separating the
ahupuaʻa of Lāwaʻi
from Kōloa.
Kapunakea Pond, Mahaulepu The white coral Bennett 1931
Kauhuʻula Ridge on Kāhili that
divides the East
Kona from the Puna
moku
The red uhu (parrot)
fish
Wichman 1998
Kaunuʻieʻie Land area near a
small east branch of
ʻŌmaʻo stream. Site
of Kānehāʻule heiau
n.d. Bennett 1931
Keoneloa Beach, petroglyph
site
The long sand Bennet 1931
Kiahuna Beach; no data n.d.
Kihouna Point; walled heiau
(130 by 89 feet)
Bennet 1931
Kōloa Ahupuaʻa, town,
stream, reservoir.
Long sugar cane
stalk or long roaring
sound
PNH
Kolopā n.d. Google Earth
Kūʻia Stream Obstructed
Kukuiʻula Bay, surf site Red kukui (light) PNH, HPN
Lae o Kāhala Point, immediately
west of Hanakāʻape
and Waikomo
stream
Point (cape) of the
kāhala (Seriola
dumerilii) or
amberjack fish
Google Earth
Lae o Kaʻōpua Point; n.d. Google Earth
Lāwaʻi Ahupuaʻa bordering
Kōloa to the west;
gulch, stream;
considered part of
Kōloa district in
some sources
Day to end fishing
kapu
PED, PNH
Louma A small heiau
dedicated to Lono
and built by
Kapueomakawalu
with stones brought
n.d. Wichman 1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
41
from Oʻahu. Also
attributed to
menehune.
Offerings of pigs, red
fish, and vegetable
were given here.
Possibly the same
as Kāneiolouma.
Makahūʻena Point at Poʻipū Eyes overflowing
heat; very angry eyes
or face
PNH, HPN
Manini A koʻa (fishing
shrine) dedicated to
the shark deity
Kūhaʻimoana
located along the
Kōloa shoreline
A silverreef surgeon
fish (Acanthurus
triostegus) with
black stripes; also
varieties of kalo,
ʻuala, and kō
Wichman 1998
Mauhili Fresh water pool
located in Waikomo
stream; sleeping
forms of the gods
Kāne and Kanaloa
are found here.
Wichman renders
the name as
“Maulili.”
Entangled;
interwoven
PNH (HM 65)
Maulili Alternate name for
Mauhili, a deep pool
located in Waikomo
stream about
midway through the
ahupuaʻa. Home of
the moʻowahine
Kihawahine; when
she was there, the
water turned red,
warning of her
presence.
Constant jealousy Wichman 1998
Maulili Heiau built by
Kapueomakawalu,
who used it as a
Wichman 1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
42
luakini for human
sacrifice. Location
was lost, until
‘Aikanaka sought it
out and had the
heiau rebuilt.
Nahumāʻalo Point, west of
Hanakāʻape
Bite in passing PNH
Nukumoi Tomobolo or point,
west side of Poʻipū
beach
Moi or threadfish
(Polydactylus
sexfilis) snout
HPN
ʻŌmao Stream Green Wichman 1998
Paʻa Small ahupuaʻa
once part of Kōloa;
sand dune burial
site
Secure Bennett 1931
Pāʻōhiʻa Stream ʻŌhia log fence
Pihakekua n.d. The full back Google maps
Pōʻeleʻele Stream Black night Wichman 1998
Poʻipū Beach Completely overcast;
crashing, as waves
PNH, HPN
Punahoa Land area (fresh
water spring?), just
inland of
Hanakāʻape bay;
n.d.
Companion spring Google Earth
Puʻu o Hewa Hill, inland of Kōloa
town. Location of a
hōlua sled site
Hill of wrongdoing Bennett 1931
Waihānau Stone located on the
eastern bank of
Mauhili pond.
Birthing waters Wichman 1998
Waihohonu Hill, stream. A “hole”
was formed here
when the hero Palilo
felled a tree with a
single stroke.
Deep fresh water PNH (HM 414-415)
Waikomo Stream; both ʻŌmao
and Pōʻeleʻele
streams join to
Entering fresh water PNH; Wichman
1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
43
create Waikomo;
named “because
from time to time
the stream
disappears for a bit
before reappearing
farther down the
slope” (Wichman
1998: 40)
Waiʻohai Beach, surf site,
fresh water spring
ʻOhai nectar Kekahuna map; HPN
Waiopili Heiau, Mahaulepu,
northeast of
Kapunakea pond
Bennett 1931
Waitā Fresh water
reservoir, originally
called Kōloa
PNH
Weliweli Ahupuaʻa bordering
Kōloa to the east;
poʻokanaka heiau
located along the
shore
Revered, respected;
feared, dreadful;
immense, prolific
PED; Bennett 1931
Weoweopilau Stream below the
plains of Kamoʻoloa
Rotten big eye
(ʻāweoweo) fish or
sugar cane; spoiled
red banana
Wichman 1998
3.1.2.1 Maulili
In Place Names of Hawaiʻi, Elbert, Pukui and Moʻokini identify a fresh water pool located in
Waikomo Stream as Mauhili. The note that it is the location where the gods Kāne and Kanaloa
come ashore, and that “sleeping forms of the gods” are found here (224). In Kauaʻi Place
Names, F. B. Wichman says this place name is Maulili, “a deep pool located in Waikomo
stream about midway through the ahupuaʻa” ( ). Maulili is a home of the moʻowahine
Kihawahine, and that she was present, the water turned red ( ). This story of Kihawahine is
similar to one for her river mouth home on the other side of the island in Kīlauea river.
Wichman also says that Maulili is the name of a luakini heiau built here by the ancient chief
Kapueomakawalu, and that its location was lost until the later chief ʻAikanaka searched for it,
found it, and had the heiau rebuilt ( ). In an 1876 article in the newspaper Ka Lahui Hawaii,
D. Keaweamahi describes Maulili on a visit to Kauaʻi.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
44
Aia no hoi ma keia wahi, he kawa auau no na 'lii, o Maulili ka inoa, aia no hoi i keia
kawa ke alelo o Hawaii, he pohaku, a maluna ae o keia kawa he mau oawa, oia ka kahi
o Kane a me Kanaloa i moe ai, he mau kanaka, aia no hoi ilaila na koi pohaku a laua
i oki ai i ka puu pahoehoe a kahe ai ka wai i Maulili. A mahope iki aku olaila kahi i
kauia'i o Kawelo i ka lele mahope iho o kona hailukuia ana i ka pohaku i Wahiawa, me
ka manao ia ua make, aka, i ka wa i manao ia ai e make, ua ala mai la kela a hele, a
o ke ola no ia o Kawelo. Ua kokoke loa keia wahi ma ka hale noho o Rev. Mahoe. A ma
keia aina no hoi he hui mahiko, aole nae e wili ana ke ko i ko'u wa ilaila, a o ka ona
nona keia mahiko, o Charman. (Keaweamahi, “Huakai Makaikai ia Kauai,” Ka Lahui
Hawaii, August 10, 1876: 3)
Here at this place is a leaping place into a pool for the chiefs called Maulili. This leaping
stone is a tongue of Hawaiʻi, a stone, and above this stone are valleys, the place where
[the gods] Kāne and Kanaloa slept, two men, there are located adze stones they cut
so that in the smooth lava hill so that the fresh water flowed into Maulili. Right above
this place is where [the chief] Kawelo hid from being stoned by the rocks of Wahiawa,
where it was believed he was dead, however, he escaped with his life. This place is
close to the house of Rev. Māhoe. This is the land indeed of the sugar plantations,
although no sugarcane was being harvested while I was there; the owner of this
plantation is [Mr.] Charman.
3.2 Kingdom and Historic Era
Kōloa would be impacted by foreign contact within a few decades of the time in which Captain
Cook first happened upon the Hawaiian Islands. There are accounts of Chinese immigrants
and other foreigners to the islands growing and cultivating sugar in Kōloa in the early 1800s
(Alexander 1937:1-2). Kōloa would already be largely under the control of settlers when the
Kingdom began to adjust its land tenure system to suit the needs of foreign business who
steadily pressured the Kingdom to westernize its government.
The Kingdom Government passed modern boundaries outlined in the 1859 Civil Code “For
taxation, educational, and judicial purposes…”(Civil Code of 1859, Section 498). In this, it
specifically stated of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau:
The islands of Kauai and Niihau shall be divided into six districts, as follows: I. From
Nualolo to Hanapepe. inclusive, to be styled the Waimea district; 2. From Wahiawa to
Mahaulepu, inclusive, to be styled the Koloa district; 3. From Kipu to Kamalomalo.
inclusive, to be .styled the Lihue district; 4. From Anahola to Kilauea, inclusive, to be
styled the Anahola district; 5. From Kalihiwai to Honopou, inclusive, to be styled the
Hanalei district; 6. Niihau.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
45
This was the beginning of the district known as the modern Kōloa district. From historic
records, identifying the differences between which land areas were consider ahupua‘a versus
‘ili can be challenging.
This determination mattered not only in regard to disposition of land, but for tax purposes.
The Laws of 1848 called for property taxes to be paid to the Kingdom accordingly:
All landed divisions, denominated Ili, through the islands, shall pay a yearly tax, as
follows:
Ili No. 1, five dollars.
Ili No. 2, three dollars.
Ili No. 3, one dollar and a half.
In those parts of the islands were there is no distinct division into ilis, but merely into
ahpuaas, each ahupuaa shall pay a yearly tax for support of the government, as
follows:
Ahupuaa No. 1, ten dollars.
Ahupuaa No. 2, five dollars.
Ahupuaa No. 3, three dollars.
This tax however, may be diminished, at the discretion of the tax officer, he keeping
in view, not merely the size of the land, but also the number of its occupants and its
value, and preserving a just proportion between said value and the taxation.
This shift to the use of the ‘auhau tax system and away from a ho‘okupu tribute system
marked a significant social and political change for the young monarchy. Until approximately
1839, kānaka effectively paid taxes to the chiefly class through the sharing of crops or crafts.
In the early to mid-1800s, the kingdom began to codify this tax, and it changed from food and
materials goods into the need to pay the tax in cash. The new government’s need for money,
particularly against the influx of foreigners, motivated this change (Woods 2011).
Eventually, the growing pressure from Westerns began to erode the authority of the Kingdom,
Woods explains: “Unlike previous laws, these new laws from 1850 to 1852 completely
separated the Kingdom from its traditional kapu laws and weakened the monarchy as the
Kingdom conformed to a constitutional government and Western-style law. The tax law of
1850 reflected this rush toward Westernization. In a major change, for the first time, the
Kingdom required payment of taxes in currency only (Woods 2011: 27). A 1935 description
explained the resulting changes:
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
46
The system of land tenure which prevailed in ancient times was radically changed in
the reign of Kamehameha III by the Mahele of 1848, yet the boundaries of the ancient
subdivisions of land remain unchanged to the present day. This applies particularly to
the ahupua‘a which has been termed the unit of land in Hawaii; the boundaries of
ahupua’a are said to have been “fixed about twenty generations back in Hawaiian
tradition,” or about five hundred years ago if the Stokes based of chronology is used.
The district boundaries were fixed at the same time as that of the ahupua‘a, and there
is no known instance where an ahupua‘a boundary overruns an ancient district
boundary.
Since the advent of legislative government, or from about 1846, many modifications
have been made of the ancient district boundaries and there are many instances
where other names have been substituted for the old district names. Some of these
changes were made for political reasons and others for convenience, but the principal
changes in boundaries were caused by movements in population reflecting new uses
of the land areas. These new district boundaries did not always conform to the
ahupua‘a boundary and there are examples today of an ahupua‘a being situation in
more than one district where no such condition existed in ancient times (King in Coulter
1935).
The changes to Kaua‘i would impact the districts’ boundaries:
On Kauai the ancient district of Kona was divided into two, namely Waimea and Koloa,
each named from an ahupuaa and important town within its confines: the name of the
ancient district of Puna was changed to Lihue, a place name borrowed from
Oahu11 and used subsequently for the name of an important town in that district: the
name of the ancient district of Koolau was changed to Anahola, the name of
an ahupuaa within its boundaries: the ancient districts of Halelea and Na Pali were
merged and called Hanalei after an ahupuaa and town in Halelea. The island of Niihau
was made a separate district of Kauai.
No changes were made in the names or boundaries of districts until 1878 and 1880
and then only with respect to the island of Kauai. By an act approved August 1. 1878,
a new district was created by re-subdividing Lihue and Anahola districts, reducing
Lihue district about a third, and adding to what was then known as Anahola district
the ahupuaas of Olohena, Waipouli, Kapaa, Kealia, and Kamalomalo, the act,
however, changing the name of this newly created district to Kawaihau. The reason for
this change forms an interesting page in the history of the reign of King Kalakaua, the
details of which may be found in The Friend of April. 1920, a monthly, published in
Honolulu, and re-published in The Honolulu Advertiser of Oct. 21, 1929.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
47
The amendment to Chapter 498 of the Civil Code of 1859, made in 1878, reads as follows:
The Islands of Kauai and Niihau shall be divided districts as follows: 1. From Nualolo
to Hanapepe, inclusive, to be the Wai-mea district; 2. From Wahiawa to Mahaulepu
inch the Koloa district; 3. From Kipu to Wailua. Lihue district; 4. From Waipouli to
Kilauea. Kawaihau district; 5. From Kalihiwni to styled the Hanalei district; 6. Niihau.
The changes in 1880 included a slight between the districts of Waimea and Koloa.
Koloa by boundary of Koloa to include the ili of forms the east boundary of Waimea:
and aecing (sic) Lihue, Kawaihau and Hanalei dist reduced by taking from it and adding
to Kawai Wailua: and Kawaihau district was reduced by taking from it and adding to
Hanalei district, the ahupuaas of Lepeuli, Waipake. Pilaa, Waiakalua, Kahili and
Kilauea.
That portion of Chapter XI Laws of 1880 enacting these changes reads as follows:
The islands of Kauai and Niihau shall be divided into six districts as follows: 1. From
Nualolo to Hanapepe inclusive, to be styled the Waimea district; 2. From ili of Eleele to
Mahaulepu inclusive, to be styled the Koloa district; 3. From Kipu to Hanamaulu to be
styled the Lihue district; 4. From Wailua to Moloaa inclusive, to be styled the Kawaihau
district; 5. From Lepeuli to Honopou inclusive, to be styled the Hanalei district; 6.
Niihau.
The changes up to 1884 are consolidated in the Compiled Laws of 1884 as an amendment
to Section 498 of the Civil Code of 1859. The compiled laws were a compilation, not enacted
(King in Coulter 1935).
It is likely that many of the changes that specifically applied to Kōloa were the result of
lobbying by the foreign businessmen who settled in the area. Sugar would dominate the Kōloa
region for well over 100 years and significantly shape its cultural environment.
Despite the growing inflence of sugar, Kōloa would continue to be an important place for the
Kingdom. In 1871, Prince Kūhiō Kalaniana‘ole was born in Kōloa to the House of Kalākaua,
the ruling family of the sovereign Kingdom of Hawai‘i. He was the child of Princess Kinoiki
Kekaulike and Chief David Kahalepouli Pi‘ikoi. Kekaulike was the daughter of Kauai’s revered
King, Kaumuali‘i, and as such Kūhiō enjoyed lineage to both the reigning dynasty of the
Kingdom of Hawai‘i and to the independent Islands of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
48
Figure 11. USGS Map of Koloa (USGS 1910)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
49
Figure 12. 1950 Aerial Image of Kōloa (USGS 1950)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
50
Figure 13. 1959 USGS Aerial image of Kōloa (USGS 1959)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
51
Figure 14. 1963 USGS Map of Kōloa (USGS 1963)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
52
Figure 15. USGS 1965 Aerial Photo of Kōloa (USGS 1965)
3.2.1 Kōloa Plantation
In the early half of the 19th century, Kōloa became the location of the first commercially
successful sugar plantation not only on Kauaʻi, but in the Hawaiian archipelago. Kōloa
Plantation officially formed in 1835, but according to accounts from the first plantation
manager, William Hooper, “sugar cane was grown and sugar and molasses were
manufactured in the District of Koloa, in a small way, prior to 1835” (Alexander 1937:1).
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
53
Like many other foreigners of the time, the founders of Kōloa Plantation traveled from the
United States to the Kingdom of Hawai‘i to start private businesses. The three founders
were Peter Allan Brinsmade, William Ladd, and William Hooper, all in their 20s when they
arrived in Hawai‘i (Alexander 1937:2-3). Arthur Alexander would write of the original
partners:
The partners, after their arrival, conducted a profitable commission and mercantile
business in Honolulu. However, they were eager to expand their business. Convinced
that the greatest business opportunities here at that time lay in the development of
agriculture, they selected a tract of land at Koloa, Kauai, for the cultivation of sugar
cane on the east side of the Koloa, or Waihohonu, Stream. Stephen Reynolds on June
5th, 1835, wrote in his Journal: “[Brig. Velocity went out for Hanalei, Kauai, Mr. Ladd
and Dr. Peabody passengers. Ladd & Co. went to view the place and lay out a large
cane plantation. I hope they will succeed and put it in operation with success.”
After Mr. Laddʻs return they leased from King Kamehameha III this tract of land,
together with a mill site, 360 ft. By 360 ft. At the Maulili pool, with the use of the
waterfall for power. The lease was for fifty years from July 29th, 1835, at an annual
rental of $300.00. It contained a clause giving them the privilege of building a road to
the landing and the free use of the latter. From Kaikioewa, the Governor of Kauai, they
later leased a warehouse site at the landing, at a place called Hanakaape. The land
covered by the original lease has an area of 980 acres, of which 303 acres have since
been demonstrated to be good cane land (Alexander 1937: 3-4).
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
54
Figure 16. Registered Map 1372 (n.d.)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
55
Figure 17. Portion of map showing Koloa Plantation Leases (Alexander 1937)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
56
Figure 18. Map of Koloa (Alexander 1937)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
57
4.0 Cultural Resources
This section reviews and references archaeological studies and results in and around the
Project Area(s) in order to identify resources that may be of significance to the community.
Honua Consulting, LLC is an archaeology firm but did not complete any of the archaeology
fieldwork for these Projects, neither did we conduct any archaeological field or site visits for
this report. The cultural resource information is extrapolated from other archaeology reports,
and primarily those recently completed by Cultural Surveys Hawaii (CSH).
The historical reports are numerous, voluminous and – as with most large-scale
development projects – include surveys, remapping, data recovery and preservation plans,
monitoring plans, and reports on completed recovery, preservation, and monitoring work.
The archaeological studies on the development projects that encompass the applicant’s
Project Area(s) span decades, with the seminal survey for Kauanoe o Kōloa being completed
in 1978 and in 1988 for the Kukuiʻula projects. Those reports covered over 1400 acres –
1000 in Kukuiʻula and 460 in Kiahuna – and identified over 700 archaeological features –
150 in Kukuiʻula and 583 in Kiahuna. All three of the applicant’s projects were entitled by
previous owners and have been included in multiple development plans over the last 45
years. The resulting historical record is therefore both substantial and complex.
Although Honua is not the archaeological firm of record for these projects and an exhaustive
analysis of every study and report is beyond the scope of this report, upwards of 100
documents, equating to multiple thousands of pages, were reviewed to provide a foundation
for assessing cultural resources and impact. Mapping was conducted as part of this report
and estimates regarding historic properties in the areas are provided below. These
estimates should not however supersede the reporting completed by CSH or the reviews
conducted by SHPD.
It is commonly understood that once grading is permitted and begins, any previously
identified sites within the project area that were not set aside under SHPD-accepted plans
for preservation will be destroyed; hence the preservation plans. The reports discussed
below do adequately show that: (a) none of the sites set aside for preservation are within the
applicant’s Project Areas; (b) all of the Project Areas had been grubbed and graded prior to
applicant taking ownership; (c) and no surface sites were visible in the Project Areas by the
time the applicant took ownership.
It is important to note that while the reports reviewed are thorough and have been accepted
by SHPD, an administrative history tracing when and where the 700+ sites were identified,
and when those that no longer exist were lost, is not part of the record nor is it easily
compiled. This is understandable given the substantial and complex historical record.
However, when dealing with such a large number of sites, many of which represent
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
58
treasured cultural resources, the loss of the majority of these sites has and will continue to
cause distress in the community without this clear administrative history.
While it may not entirely satisfy the community’s concern, contemporaneous documentation
could prove extremely beneficial especially if it includes: comprehensive maps of historical
sites (overlaid on current parcel maps) that note preserves and sites that still exist;
corresponding tables listing site numbers (both SHIP #’s and CSH #’s); as well as a historical
listing of owners and developers, including an indication as to when they were granted
grading permits.
4.1 Cultural and Historic Sites – Kauanoe o Kōloa
Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc. (CSH) prepared a Literature Review and Field Inspection report
(LRFI) for Lot 1 of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project in August of 2021 (Figure 19).
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
59
Figure 19. CSH (Figure 1 of LRFI) showing the location of project area (Folk et al. 2022: 2)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
60
Figure 20. CSH (Figure 6 of LRFI) showing the LCA claims in the area (Folk et al. 2022: 13)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
61
The Archaeological Investigations within the Project Area and in the Vicinity section of the
LRFI speak to the voluminous record of archaeological identification, assessment, and
preservation work that has been done and accepted by SHPD that deal directly with the
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area dating back to a 1978 archaeological survey that covered
460 acres. The project area includes less than 28 of those 460 acres in the extreme
northeast corner of the surveyed area.
One of the many reports historical reports referenced in the LRFI, is the Kiahuna Project:
Kiahuna Golf Village and KMP Development Project in Approximately 400 Acres at Koloa
Ahupuaa Kona District, Kauai Island Volume III Summary of Inventory Survey and Data
Recovery Results and Archaeological Interpretations. (Volume III) The LRFI references this
Volume III report noting:
Volume III summarizes and brings together the findings of both the inventory survey
and data recovery for Project Areas 1 and 2. Included are an analysis of the sites
involved, summary discussions of the artifacts and midden found, summarization
and interpretation of the Kōloa Field System, significance, and recommendations
regarding development and preservation in the area, and the areas designated as
preserves (Folk et al. 2022:3).
The Hammat, Shideler, O’Hare, and Folk 2005 report details the five preserve areas, all of
which are well outside of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area (Figure 21).
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
62
Figure 21: CSH (Figure 9 of Volume III) showing locations of Archaeological Preserves
outlined in red, all of which are beyond the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area. (Hammat,
Shideler, O’Hare, and Folk 2005:42); Blue outline and label for project area added for
reference.
Kauanoe o Kōloa
project area
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
63
The project area was part of numerous development plans by several entities that did
extensive grubbing and grading to the project area before the current applicant’s acquisition
of the property in June, 2021.
A field check of 16 June 2003, related to reporting in the Hammatt et al. (2004)
inventory survey noted previous grubbing in the parcel resulting from the parcel
receiving clearance for construction development, based on a letter dated 22 August
1991, from Dr. Don Hibbard of SHPD approving the end of data recovery fieldwork for
this parcel. The survey report relates that ten SIHP-numbered sites of the Kōloa Field
System documented in the original 1978 survey (Hammatt et al. 1978) were still
present during the 2003 field check in the southern portion of the project area.
These former historic properties’ locations are shown in Figure 9 and they are listed
in Table 1. SIHP #s 50-30-10-3841 and -3851 were excavated during the data
recovery field work completed in 1989–1991 and are reported on in Hammatt,
Cordy, Rainalter, Gomes, Shideler, and Folk (2005B) as well as in the Hammatt et al.
(2004) inventory survey report; no further archaeological work was recommended.
None of the sites in the project area, TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1, were
recommended for further archaeological work and all data was collected prior to
grubbing of the project area. (Folk et al. 2022:20)
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
64
Figure 22. CSH (Figure 9 of LRFI) showing previously identified historic properties in
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area (Folk et al. 2022:31).
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
65
The LRFI goes on to note that:
The results of the 22 February 2021 field inspection conducted in the proposed
Kauanoe o Kōloa Lot 1 project area (TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1) found that the parcel
has been completely grubbed with evidence of grading and substantial bulldozing,
probably multiple times since 1991. The most recent clearing is illustrated by the
uniform height of ground cover in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Previous ground
disturbance occurred during construction of the Kiahuna Golf Course, the construction
of Kiahuna Plantation Drive, and during preparation for former proposed projects that
never materialized, e.g., the turf farm proposed for the parcel by two previous owners.
The integrity of, and in most cases the entire former historic properties, have been
destroyed. The southeast corner of Lot 1 also appears to have been filled and graded,
and supported a modern structure visible in 2013 aerial photos but which is no longer
present. These findings are consistent with the literature review demonstrating
documentation of the former historic properties and SHPD concurrence with the
archaeological documentation. (Folk et al. 2022:34).
The entire project area has been grubbed and bulldozed with some filling and grading
in the southeast corner of the lot. All former archaeological sites have been removed
(Folk et al. 2022:46).
One of the 2013 aerial photos referenced above is included below as Figure 23.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
66
Figure 23: CSH (Figure 2 of LRFI) showing the TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1 project area
location (Google Earth 2013); note the modern structure at the southeast corner of the
parcel, bulldozing cuts throughout, and the bulldozer road across the north end of the
parcel (Folk et al. 2022:3).
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
67
CSH also points out that:
The entire 460 acres of the Kōloa Field System in Kiahuna, including the proposed
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area, were an agricultural and habitation complex notable
for lack of human burials. There are no burial finds in the project area comprising
TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1 and none are anticipated (Folk et al. 2022:46).
4.1.1 Compliance with Land Use Commission Condition No. 7
An ongoing concern for the community, directly related to historical and cultural resources,
has been compliance with the State Land Use Commission (LUC) Decision and Order (D&O)
issued in 1977 for the subject parcel2. In 1977, the LUC issued a D&O In the Matter of the
Petition of MOANA CORPORATION, For Reclassification of Certain Lands Siutated at Poipu,
Island of Kauai (Docket No. A 76-418). Findings of Fact related to Reclassification No. 31
reads:
31. The presence of extensive archeological remains on and in the area of the subject
property is generally known. Petitioner, therefore, commissioned the Bernice P.
Bishop Museum to conduct an archeological survey of the area which was filed in this
proceeding as Petitioner's Exhibit "X" and is entitled Archeological Reconnaissance
Survey Of Knudsen Trust Land At Koloa, Poipu, Kauai. That survey reveals and the
Commission therefore finds as follows:
(a) A substantial number of archeological sites exist on approximately 200
acres within the southern and eastern portions of the subject property;
(b) These sites fall within the categories of platforms or varied forms;
enclosures; modified actual features .such as outcrops and sinkholes; large
wall structures; agricultural complexes with varied mounds, terraces and plots;
lava tubes; simple stone structures with no definite functions; irrigated
pondfields (lo'i) and irrigation ditches (auwai); foot trails and historic sites such
as houses, tombs, and ovens;
(c) These sites appear to be the remains of extensive agricultural complex that
at one time stretched from Koloa Town to the Coast. There is a general paucity
of information on aboriginal agriculture, and because most of the central,
northern, and western portions of the subject property were cleared in the past
2 The full LUC Docket is available online at https://luc.hawaii.gov/completed-
dockets/boundary-amendments/kauai/a76-418/
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
68
for agricultural activity such as sugar cane cultivation and grazing, these sites
represent the only substantially intact complex of sites remaining;
(d) Further archeological investigation will be necessary to determine the
significance of these sites and the feasibility of their salvage or preservation.
As a condition upon General Plan Amendment, the Kauai County Council has
required that a more detailed and comprehensive archeological study be
conducted and submitted to the County of Kauai Planning Department for
approval prior to actual development of the proposed project. That
comprehensive study will cost a minimum of $40,000 and will take three to
four months to complete;
(e) The Petitioner has represented that he is committed to a more detailed and
comprehensive archeological study of the subject property and that he would
preserve those areas or sites within the subject property which the Bernice P.
Bishop Museum determines to be archeological significant and worthy of
preservation (LUC 1977: 19-20).
As part of their D&O granting the reclassification of lands, the LUC placed conditions on the
reclassification. Condition No. 7 as originally ordered by the LUC read:
7. That prior to application for rezoning and before any grading of the subject property
begins, Petitioner commission and complete a comprehensive archeological and
biological study with actual inventories of archeological sites and flora and fauna on
the subject property, and that the Petitioner preserve any archeological sites which the
Bernice P. Bishop Museum believes to be significant and worthy of preservation and
protect and preserve the present habitats of any blind, eyeless, big-eyed, hunting
spiders and blind terrestrial sandhoppers which the Bernice P. Bishop Museum
believes to be worthy of preservation (LUC 1977: 37).
This condition, Condition No. 7, was amended by the LUC one year later on July 5, 1978. The
amended Condition No. 7 reads:
7. That Petitioner commission and complete a comprehensive archaeological and
biological study with actual inventories of archaeological sites and flora and fauna on
the subject property, and that the Petitioner preserve any archaeological sites which
archaeologist conducting such archaeological study believes to be significant and
worthy of preservation and protect and preserve the present habitats of any blind,
eyeless, big-eyed, hunting spiders and blind terrestrial sandhoppers which the
biological conducting the biological sutdy believes to be worthy of preservation. The
Petition may commission such archaeological and biological study to any
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
69
archaeological and biological or firm connected therewith who is qualified to conduct
such a study to satisfy the foregoing condition. The Petitions may apply to the County
of Kauai for rezoning of the subject property before the completion of the study,
provided that no actual work on any portion of the subject property begins until the
archaeological and biological study for that portion to be worked on has been
completed. Actual work on any portion of the subject property may be commenced by
the Petitioner upon certification by the archaeologist and biologist that the area for
which work is to commence does not contain any archaeological sites deemed
significant and worthy of preservation, nor contains any habitats of any blind, eyeless,
big-eyed, hunting spiders and blind terrestrial sandhoppers deemed worthy of
preservation” (LUC 1978: 2).
The most recent annual report filed under the docket (2020-2021 Annual Report, filed March
10, 2022), regarding Condition No. 7 states:
Current Status: As shown in the 2009 Amended Status Report, the 2010 Annual
Status Report, the 2011 Annual Status Report, and the 2012 Annual Status Report,
this condition has been fulfilled. As noted in the prior Annual Status Reports, a
comprehensive Archaeological and Biological Survey of the Proposed Kiahuna Golf
Village Area, dated September 1978, was prepared for the petitioner Moana
Corporation by Archaeological Research Center of Hawaii, Inc., towards meeting this
condition.
Additionally, an Inventory Survey Report, Data Recovery Report and Preservation
Plans for identified Preserves were submitted and approved by the State Historic
Preservation Division of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (herein
“SHPD”).
This resulted in four archaeological preserves, totaling approximately 11 acres, and
their metes and bounds descriptions were established pursuant to agreement with
SHPD and the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission.
Preservation Plans were prepared for these four Preserves, and those plans have
been approved by SHPD, as well, fully completing the archaeological requirements for
the project. An easement granting public access, as required by SHPD, has been
recorded, and actual implementation of public access to and interpretive signage of
Preserve 1 is available and is used by the public.
A flora survey and a fauna survey, covering all project sites, was completed and
submitted to the County of Kauai on or about March 29, 2004. As no endangered or
threatened species were found, no further work is planned in this area. With respect
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
70
to the habitats of any blind, eyeless, big-eyed hunting spiders and blind terrestrial
sandhoppers, and despite finding none of these spiders and sandhoppers in at least
the past eight years, the Project has established areas identified as critical habitats
to support these species should they reappear (Kiahuna Mauka Partners, LLC, 2022:
5-6).
Additionally, as related to the archaeological condition, CSH Principal Hallett H. Hammatt
submitted a letter dated May 12, 2022 regarding Kauanoe o Koloa [TMK (4) 2-8-014:032],
which the Planning Department found to sufficiently meet the preceeding condition.
Based on the public filings submitted to and accepted by the LUC, Condition No. 7, as related
to archaeological resources, has long been fulfilled. Additionally, the County of Kaua‘i Planning
Department contemporaneously affirmed that this condition has been fulfilled. As such, the
conditions and mitigation for the archaeological sites as called for under state and county
authorities have been met. It is not the role of this assessment to revisit these agency
decisions.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
71
4.2 Cultural and Historic Sites – Kukui‘ula
A total of 58 archaeological sites comprising 150 features were located, mapped, and
described in CSH’s June 1988 ß. (Hammat et al. 1988). The 1988 AIS notes the marked
difference between the Kiahuna Complex (where Kauanoe o Kōloa is located) and Kukuiʻula,
due to the extensive amount of cane cultivation in Kukuiʻula.
This picture of the Kiahuna complex and its high degree of preservation is in sharp
contrast to the present study area. Both areas were probably equally as heavily
inhabited and used for intensive irrigated Hawaiian agriculture. However, the Kukuiula
study area the last hundred years or so has seen heavy land modification which has
destroyed many sites. Even areas presently in pasture were formerly under cane
cultivation and the process of field clearing described elsewhere resulted in the
survival of mere remnants of former sites.
So while the Kukuiʻula Development covered more than double the acreage of Kiahuna,
because a majority of that land had been cleared for sugar cultivation, there was a quarter of
the number of archeological features identified in Kuukiʻula (150) as in Kiahuna (583).
Of the 58 sites (that encompassed the 150 features), 16 of those sites were identified in a
series of preservation plans that established the four Kukuiʻula archaeological preserves
(Figure 24).
As with the applicant's Kauanoe o Kōloa project in Kiahuna, none of the Kukuiʻula
archeological preserves are within either of the applicant’s Kukuiʻula project areas and as
detailed below, no surface sites were visible in the Project Areas by the time the applicant
took ownership.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i 72
Figure 24: Map (courtesy of client) showing Kukuiʻula Preservation Areas, none of which are located within Parcels H or HH.
(Project Area Labeling added for clarity.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i 73
Figure 25: CSH (Figure 11 of Field Letter; Parcel H outline removed) showing LCAs, shaded in purple, in the vicinity of the
Kukuiʻula Development area.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
74
4.2.1. Parcel HH
Figure 26. TMK (4) 2-6-019:029 which is to be subdivided. Parcel HH is located on a portion
of this TMK.
Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc. (CSH) prepared an Archaeological Field Inspection Letter Report
for Parcell HH of the Kukuiʻula Community Develop Project, TMK [4] 2-6-015:029 on June 8,
2021. (Field Inspection Letter Report) Regarding the field inspection that was completed on
May 6, 2021, CSH states that:
No historic properties were identified during this field inspection and there are no
archaeological concerns. SIHP #’s -01947, -01949, and -01950 identified by Hammatt
et al. (1988) has been since destroyed per Borthwick et al. (1990). The Parcel HH
project will not have any adverse effects to historic properties.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
75
Table 3. Identified Historic Properties within TMK [4] 2-6-015:029 based on review of maps
in Archaeological Data Recovery Report for Kukui‘ula Bay Planned Community Phase I
Development, Kōloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, Volume 1, referenced in the
June 8, 2021 Letter Report.
Site Number Description Citation Current Status
(as of July 2022)
SIHP 50-30-10-01947 Habitation and
agricultural sites
Hammatt 2021: 2 Destroyed prior to
1990
SIHP 50-30-10-01949 Habitation sites Hammatt 2021: 2 Destroyed prior to
1990
SIHP 50-30-10-01950 Habitation sites Hammatt 2021: 2 Destroyed prior to
1990
SIHP 50-30-10-01946
(per CSH June 8, 2021
Letter Report, located
outside Parcel HH)
Permanent
Habitation;
Enclosures,
Platforms
Hammatt et al.
1998: 5, 7
Unknown, assumed
destroyed prior to
1990
SIHP 50-30-10-01939
(per CSH June 8, 2021
Letter Report, located
outside Parcel HH)
‘Auwai Hammatt et al.
1998: 5, 8
Unknown, assumed
destroyed prior to
1990
While the Field Inspection Letter Report does not reference SIHP #s -01946 nor -01939,
they are located within TMK [4] 2-6-015:029 and therefore included in the table above.
Based however on the green areas in Figure 24 that denote mass grading that took place
before 2014, it can arguably be presumed that these two sites, like the other four in
TMK [4] 2-6-015:029, were destroyed prior to 1990, at minimum prior to 2014.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
76
4.2.2 Parcel H: Lots 18 and 19
Figure 27. TMK map showing Parcel H Lots 18 and 19.
CSH completed a Final Archaeological Assessment Report for the Kukuiʻula Community
Development Parcel H Project date December 2015 (AA 2015). The title of the report in and
of itself is an indication of the parcel being clear of any historic sites.
No historic properties were identified within the project area during the initial AIS
investigation, therefore this report is termed an archaeological assessment, per HAR
§13-13-284-5(b)(5)(A): “Results of the survey shall be reported either through an
archaeological assessment, if no sites were found, or an archaeological survey report
which meets the minimum standards set forth in chapter 13-276-5.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
77
4.3 Natural Resources with Cultural Significance
To employ the Hawaiian landscape perspective and emphasize the symbiosis of natural and
cultural resources, Honua Consulting uses the term ‘biocultural’ to refer to natural and cultural
resources, with additional sub-classifications by attributes.
A brief further discussion of environmental zones and traditional Hawaiian land management
practices is necessary to understand the tangible and intangible aspects of the Hawaiian
landscape. Additionally, it is important to point out once again that in the Hawaiian landscape,
all natural and cultural resources are interrelated and culturally significant. Natural unaltered
landscape features such as rocky outcrops, cinder cones, intermittent streams, or an open
plain can carry as much significance as a planted grove of wauke (Broussonetia papyrifera)
or a boulder-lined ‘auwai (canal).
The large districts (moku-o-loko) and sub-regions (‘okana and kālana) were divided into
manageable units of land that were tended to by the maka‘āinana (people of the land).
Perhaps the most significant management unit was the ahupua‘a. Ahupua‘a are subdivisions
of land that were usually marked by an altar with an image or representation of a pig placed
upon it (thus the name ahu-pua‘a or pig altar). In their configuration, the ahupua‘a may
generally be compared to wedge-shaped pieces of land that radiate out from the center of the
island, extending to the ocean fisheries fronting the land unit. Their boundaries are defined
by topographic or geological features such as pu‘u (hills), ridges, gullies, valleys, craters, or
areas of a particular vegetation growth (cf. Malo 1951: 16-18; Lyons 1875; and testimonies
recorded before the Boundary Commission).
The ahupua‘a were also divided into smaller manageable parcels of land (such as the ‘ili,
kō‘ele, māla, kīhāpai, mo‘o and paukū etc.), generally running in a mauka-makai orientation,
and often marked by stone wall alignments. In these smaller land parcels, the native tenants
cared for and cultivated crops necessary to sustain their families and the chiefly communities
they were associated with. As long as sufficient tribute was offered and kapu (restrictions)
were observed, the common people, who lived in a given ahupua‘a, had access to most of the
resources from mountain slopes to the ocean. These access rights were almost uniformly tied
to residency on a particular land and earned as a result of taking responsibility for stewardship
of the natural environment and supplying the needs of ones’ ali‘i (see Malo 1951:63-67 and
Kamakau 1992:372-377).
Entire ahupua‘a, or portions of the land were generally under the jurisdiction of appointed
konohiki or lesser chief-landlords, who answered to an ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a (chief who controlled
the ahupua‘a resources). The ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a in turn, answered to an ali‘i ‘ai moku (chief
who claimed the abundance of the entire district). Thus, ahupua‘a resource supported not
only the maka‘āinana and ‘ohana who lived on the land, but also contributed to the support
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
78
of the royal community of regional and/or island kingdoms. This form of district subdividing
was integral to Hawaiian life and was the product of strictly adhered to resources
management planning. In this system, the land provided fruits and vegetables, and some
meat in the diet, and the ocean provided a wealth of protein resources. Also, in communities
with long-term royal residents, divisions of labor (with specialists in various occupations on
land and in procurement of marine resources) came to be strictly adhered to (Malo 1951: 63-
67).
4.2.1 Plants – Kauanoe o Kōloa
A biological assessment conducted by Tetra Tech in December 2021 only identified a single
native plant in the Project Area for the Kauanoe o Kōloa project: ‘uhaloa. ʻUhaloa is primarily
a medicinal plant. The leaves, stems and roots were pounded, strained and used as a gargle
for sore throats, which is a practice that continues today (Abbott 1992). ʻUhaloa was also
combined with other plants to create a tonic for young and older children, and seldom adults
(Krauss 1993). Canoe builders would also occasionally add the sap of ʻuhaloa to a concoction
of kukui root, ʻakoko, and banana inflorescence to create a paint that would stain the hull
(Krauss 1993). This native plant remains abundant throughout the Hawaiian Islands and is
still treasured as a natural and safe tonic for bodily ailments today.
4.2.2 Wildlife – Kauanoe o Kōloa
A number of different species of native wildlife were identified in the biological assessment
for the Kauanoe o Kōloa project as being in, adajacent to, or potentially using the ahupua‘a
(geographic extent) as habitat:
• Kōlea (Pacific golden-plover)
• Ae‘o (Hawaiian stilt)
• Nēnē (Hawaiian goose)
• ‘Alae kea (Hawaiian coot)
• ‘Alae ‘ula (Hawaiian gallinule)
• Koloa (Hawaiian duck)
• ‘Ua‘u (Hawaiian petrel)
• A‘o (Newellʻs shearwater)
• ‘Akē‘akē (Band-rumped storm-petrel)
• ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a (Hawaiian hoary bat)
• Pinao (Globe skimmer dragonfly)
• Pe‘e pe‘e maka ‘ole (Kaua‘i cave wolf spider)
• Kaua‘i cave amphipod (possibly ‘ami kai in Hawaiian)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
79
The non-native pig was also identified in the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area. Pig hunting is a
legally recognized customary practice. Pigs are hunted and then used as a food resource
throughout the islands.
There are numerous practices associated with birds in Hawaiian culture, including lei making
and other traditional practices. The birds identified in the area are all protected by various
state and federal laws, limiting contemporaneous cultural practices.
All of the species could potentially be ‘aumākua, spiritual guardians, and interviewees
identified these species as such in the ethnographic data. Additionally, the larvae of the pinao,
called lohelohe, is used in hula and heiau ceremonial practices.
4.3 Intangible Cultural Resources – Kōloa Ahupua‘a
It is important to note that Honua Consulting’s unique methodology divides cultural resources
into two categories: biocultural resources and built environment resources. We define
biocultural resources as elements that exist naturally in Hawai‘i without human contact. These
resources and their significance can be shown, proven, and observed through oral histories
and literature. We define built environment resources as elements that exist through human
interaction with biocultural resources whose existence and history can be defined, examined,
and proven through anthropological and archaeological observation. Utilizing this
methodology is critical in the preparation of a CIA as many resources, such as those related
to akua, do not necessarily result in material evidence, but nonetheless are significant to
members of the Native Hawaiian community.
Hawaiian culture views natural and cultural resources as being one and the same: without the
resources provided by nature, cultural resources could and would not be procured. From a
Hawaiian perspective, all natural and cultural resources are interrelated, and all natural and
cultural resources are culturally significant. Kepā Maly, ethnographer and Hawaiian language
scholar, points out, “In any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in Hawaii, one must
understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its natural environment.
Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where culture ends and nature
begins” (Maly 2001:1).
4.3.1 ‘Ōlelo No‘eau
‘Ōlelo noʻeau are another source of cultural information about the area. ‘Ōlelo noʻeau literally
means “wise saying,” and they encompass a wide variety of literary techniques and multiple
layers of meaning common in the Hawaiian language. Considered to be the highest form of
cultural expression in old Hawaiʻi, ‘ōlelo no‘eau bring us closer to understanding the everyday
thoughts, customs, and lives of those that created them.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
80
While Mary Kawena Pukui’s important collection of ʻōlelo noʻeau does not contain proverbs
for Kōloa, Kauaʻi, there are but a small sampling of the numerous poetic sayings and epithets
Hawaiians had for important places. One such saying for Kōloa is “ka ua noe o Kōloa,” or “the
misty rain of Kōloa.” A variation of this ʻōlelo noʻeau is “ka ua noe kaulana o Kōloa,” (the
famous misty rain of Kōloa) (Ka Puuhonua o na Hawaii, September 7, 1917: 4). There are
nearly one hundred references to this ʻōlelo noʻeau found in articles between 1900-1920s
published in various Hawaiian language newspapers (for examples, see Peter Kemamo in Ka
Nupepa Kuokoa, June 1, 1922: 4, and “Ka Ua Noe o Koloa, Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, July 12,
1918: 8). Another variation is, “e mau ana nō ke kilihune o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the fine drizzle
of the misty rain of Kōloa endures) (Oliver Kua, “Ike i ka Nani o Poipu,” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa,
January 21, 1921: 8) and “ke kilihune mai nei nō ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the misty rain of Kōloan
continues to drizzle down) (Kiu Hana Meahou, “Na Me[a]hou Ono o Koloa,” Ka Nupepa
Kuokoa, May 8, 1924:6). In another article, Mrs. Nani Mahu includes another variation, “ʻo ka
ua noe o Kōloa ka helu ʻekahi” (the misty rain of Kōloa is number one [the best]), and utilizes
a varient of the chorus of the mele “Ka Ua Noe o Kōloa” ([he] nani maoli nō ka ua noe o Kōloa
/ He makalapua i ka waokele / Ka hiona o kuʻu ipo / Ua like me ka ʻanoʻi) as an ʻōlelo noʻeau
(Mahu, “He Hoomaikai,” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, November 19, 1920: 8).
Many of these references are utilized by Peter Kemamo Sr. of Kōloa, Kauaʻi. In a number of
published articles, he references similar ʻōlelo noʻeau for his homeland, including:
“Ka ʻoʻopu kalekale o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the soft ʻoʻopu fish of the misty rain of
Kōloa) (“Moses Puahi Keoua o ia mau na Oopu Kalekale o ka Uanoe o Koloa,” Ka
Nupepa Kuokoa, October 7, 1921: 3).
“[Ka] iʻo nenue ʻono o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the delicious meat of the the nenue fish of
the misty rain of Kōloa) (“Oia mau no na Kuhina o Koloa,” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, May
11, 1922: 3).
“Nā Iʻo Wana Momona o ka Ua Noe” (the fat, delicious sea urchin flesh of the misty
rain) (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, June 8, 1922:5).
He also variously references the concept of ʻono (delicious, primarily referring to food, but also
applicable to other kinds of enjoyment): “nā ʻono huikau o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the surprising
flavors of the misty rain of Kōloa) (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, April 28, 1922: 3); “nā kuhinia ʻono o
ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the rich flavors of the misty rain of Kōloa) (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, August
10, 1922: 3); “nā mea hou ʻono o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the new delicious things of the misty
rain of Kōloa) (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, September 27, 1923: 6); and “hoʻoheno mau nō nā ʻono
o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (forever cherished are the delicious flavors of the misty rain of Kōloa)
(Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, February 14, 1924: 2).
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
81
4.3.2 Mele (Songs)
The Buke Mele Lahui (Hawaiian National Songbook), published in 1895, is “the largest
number of political and patriotic Hawaiian songs ever printed in one place,” featuring mele
that “echo the steadfast resilience of Hawaiians of that time as they weathered the political
turbulence of the 1880s and 1890s that completely altered their world” through the
overthrow and establishment of a foreign-led provisional government and subsequent
annexation to the U.S. (Nogelmeier and Stillman 2003:xii). There are numerous mele and oli
composed for and inspired by the larger project area, and there is at least one mele
specifically composed in or for the project area of Kōloa. Nonetheless, Kōloa3 is referenced in
mele ‘āina of Kaua‘i.
In 1907, a mele for Kōloa, “Ka Ua Noe o Koloa” (The misty rain of Kōloa) was published in the
Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Naʻi Aupuni by R.W.
Ka Ua Noe o Koloa
Nani Haupu kilakila i ka laʻi
Hanohano Kilohana i ka nahele
Aia i laila ka maka o ka ʻōpua
Kīhene i ka wai o Kemamo
Chorus:
He nani maoli nō ka ua noe o Kōloa
He makalapua i ka waokele
Nā hiona o kuʻu ipo ua like me ka ʻanoʻi,
Nā kulu kēhau o ke aumoe
Ka hana a ka manaʻo lihi lau i ke pili
Makamaka pua o ka ʻōhiʻa
Ua hoʻohie nā manu o ka nahele
Kilipohe i ka ua nāulu
The Misty Rain of Kōloa
Beautiful is Hāʻupu standing majestic in the
calm,
Kilohana (hill) is glorious bedecked by the
forest
There is the eye of the cloudbanks (gathered)
Where the fresh waters of the heights of
Kemamo are gathered
Truly beautiful is the misty rain of Kōloa
Beautiful in the forest
The beauty of my beloved sweetheart with my
love,
In the drowsy mist of midnight
The desire on the leaf blade of the pili grass
The buds of the ʻōhiʻa blossom
The birds of the forest are made attractive
By the well-shape droplets of the nāulu rain
(R.W., Ka Naʻi Aupuni, March 29, 1907: 3)
3 It is important to note for this survey that there is also another place named Kōloa on Hawai‘i
Island. There are also mele that speak of this place, which were not included in this survey as
they are not related to Kaua‘i.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
82
This mele is referenced in a 1925 article as an entry in a song contest by the women of Kōloa
(“Ku i ka Nani ka Ahamele a ko Kauai Poe,” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, June 25, 1925: 2).
Kōloa - Robert Waialeale
Nani Hāʻupu kū kila i ka laii
Hanohano kilohana i ka nahele
Aia i laila ka maka e ka ʻōpua
Kihene i ka wai o Kemamo
Hui:
He ani maoli no ka ua noe o Kōloa
He makalapua i ka wao kele
Nā hiʻona o ku`u ipo ua like me ka ‘ano‘i
Nā dews kēhau o ke aumoe
Beautiful Haupu, rising in the calm
Magnificent is the view of the forest
There the cloudbanks
Gather over the waters of Kemamo
Chorus:
Beautiful indeed, the misty rain of Kōloa
Bringing forth blossoms in the upland forest
The appearance of my sweetheart awakens
my desire
Like the dews at midnight
In this mele, the composer, Robert Waialeale, father of famed Hawaiian musician Lena
Machado, writes this mele ‘āina (song about the land) for Kīpukai, located within Kōloa.
Waialelae writes of different places and resources in this mele, specifically Kemamo, which
was a spring said to be reserved for ali‘i in the Kōloa area. The notes for this composition also
state that some kūpuna believed Kōloa to be named for the steep rock feature in the area
called Pali-o-Kōloa.
Nani Kauaʻi - Traditional
A he nani Kauaʻi ʻeā
ʻO kuʻu ʻāina
Ke one Nohili ʻeā
E kani mai nei
Ka wai ʻanapanapa ʻeā
I ke kula o Mānā
ʻO ke kaupoku hale ʻeā
Lau aʻo Limaloa
A he nani Hāʻupu ʻeā
Ka ua noe o Koloa
Beautiful Kauaʻi
My homeland
The sand of Nohili
Makes sound
The sparkling water
On the plain of Mānā
The roofs of houses
Are many of Limaloa
Beautiful is Hāʻupu
The misty rain of Koloa
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
83
A he nani Lihuʻe ʻeā
I ka ua Pāʻupili
A he nani Hanalei ʻeā
I ka wai o Nāmolokama
A he nani Haʻena ʻeā
I nā pali ʻo ahi
A he nani Kalalau ʻeā
Nā pali o Koʻolau
Haʻina ka puana ʻeā
A he nani Kauaʻi
Beautiful is Lihuʻe
In the Pāʻupili rain
Beautiful is Hanalei
With the falls of Nāmolokama
Beautiful is Haʻena
With the cliffs where the firebrands were hurled
Beautiful is Kalalau
And the cliffs of Koʻolau
The end of my song
Beautiful is Kauaʻi
There are many songs that speak to the beauty of Kaua‘i. There are also more than one mele
titled, “Nani Kaua‘i.” This traditional composition above is less commonly known than another
mele, also called “Nani Kaua‘i.” Both mele speak of many famed placed across the island;
this mele in particular references Kōloa and its famed rain, the hā‘upu rain.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
84
5.0 Ethnographic Data
As discussed previously in Section 2.5 (Ethnographic Methodology), information was collected
from a wide range of individuals and sources. The findings of those efforts are discussed in
this section. Ethnographic data is utilized to supplement the other research methods utilized.
It is one in a range of research tools employed to gather information about the project area.
Honua Consulting was tasked with gathering information from individuals with lineal and
cultural ties to the area and its vicinity regarding regional biocultural resources, potential
impacts to these biocultural resources, and mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid
these impacts.
The bulk of the information available from practitioners and kūpuna were drawn from native
testimonies and Hawaiian language sources and integrated into the cultural and historic
overview section of this assessment. Those sources, along with responses to this project, were
considered when researching the traditional or customary practices discussed in a previous
section. Interviews were conducted with sixteen (16) individuals. This data helped to identify
additional resources and practices in the area; this information also helped to confirm
research conducted for this report.
Each participant was asked or provided the same questions:
Interview Questions
1. Please provide your name.
2. What is your profession?
3. Where were you born and raised?
4. Where do you live now?
5. What is your association, if any, with the Project Area(s)? Based on the provided
map, what place names do you know for the project area(s) or near the project area(s)?
6. Are you aware of any cultural resources in the Project Area(s) or near the Project
Area(s)? And have you ever accessed those resources?
7. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may take place near the Project
Area(s) or are otherwise associated with the Project Area(s)?
8. Is there anything about the project area that’s particularly significant you would like
to share?
9. Are there any stories associated with the project area we should be aware of?
10. The proposed project includes three new developments in Koloa. Are you aware
of any resources that may be impacted by such a project or projects? What might those
impacts be? Can you think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized,
mitigated, or avoided?
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
85
11. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may be impacted by such a project,
including your ability to access cultural resources? What might that impacts be? Can
you think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or
avoided?
12. Do you have any recommendations for conditions or best management practices
for the project, should it proceed?
13. Is there anything else you would like to share?
14. Is there anyone else we should talk with about the projects or the Project Areas?
15. Is there anything in this interview you would like us to omit from the summary?
Participants were invited to respond or participate in whatever manner was most comfortable
for them. Some participants elected to be verbally interviewed while others chose to respond
in writing.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
86
5.1 Interview with Ana Mo Des
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Ana Mo Des
Date: June 10, 2022
Location: Written / Phone
Biography
Ana Mo Des was born and raised in Miami, Fl and currently lives in Kalaheo. Ana has lived on
Kauaʻi since 2007 and is a full-time mom and instructor.
While Ana does not practice Hawaiian cultural practices in this area herself, she is connected
with those that do and has been following this issue and concerns over development at the
Kauanoe o Koloa location for over a year now.
Overview
Ana’s engagement and concern has been based around the Kauanoe o Kōloa project site
particularly, but she is concerned overall with the developers actions. She is a concerned
resident that has supported efforts by Hawaiian friends to bring attention to what they believe
is significant destruction of cultural sites on the property.
General Discussion
Ana walked the Kauanoe o Kōloa property in February 2021, just after it was freshly mowed.
She saw many sites worth exploring with a data recovery survey (the second part of a three-
part process that is involved in a proper cultural survey). She saw a large heiau, ancient stone
pilings that easily provide habitat for endangered species and what could very well be a burial
mound among many lava tubes easily identified as she walked throughout the property. She
also saw the native protected nēnē living comfortably in what she described was overgrown
lush habitat at the time.
Ana believes that these areas should instead be preserved in perpetuity so we may regain
access to what the island culture has to provide, not only for its people but for visitors and
resident transplants alike. She sees the value of these sites and the cultural resources they
could again provide in the future.
Cultural Resources
Ana sees the remnants of these rock structures and these important caves as cultural
resources worth protecting.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
87
Traditions and Customs
Ana is not personally aware or connected to traditions and customs in this area but
emphasizes that she believes the sensitivity of the site warrants full deep investigation prior
to any approvals.
Impacts
Ana sees the impacts of complete destruction of potential cultural sites, caves and other
artifacts as chipping away at the soul of the kanaka people. She sees the blasting, bulldozing
and works that have occurred as severely impacting the site and those connected to it and
believes that cannot be undone and the developer must answer for this destruction.
She sees the larger impacts of this development as displacement since it is in a visitor
destination area and the starting price is over $1,000,000 for a two bedroom. There is no way
local residents can attain that.
Ana is particularly concerned about the impacts developments like these will continue to have
on economic disparity. Ana said she quietly paid attention and observed for 10 years before
stepping forward to testify before Council about the economic disparity caused by exploitation
which results in drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, crime, homelessness, survival
trafficking and eventual suicide in 2017.
This has motivated her engagement in an attempt to make a difference in this area. Ana sees
these results coming from the failure of the State and County level governments who allow
these types of developers to disregard the rules. She believes the County and State and
decision makers are responsible for the aforementioned impacts.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Ana believes that these developers claiming that nothing of significance is on the property is
completely false and fraudulent. She also points out that the evidence on the property that
has been documented and photographed would have triggered a merited data recovery
survey.
She explains that Missy Kamai after her initial inventory survey said that her recommendation
will be to have a large team come in to do the data recovery portion of the survey and that all
mowing would be done by hand since the area is so sensitive. It is not clear what led to it
being reported completely different and Ana can only wonder if threats or bribes were made
for the report to conclude that nothing of significance is present.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
88
By logic standards how could such a large parcel right next to HAPA trail not have enough
triggers to do a full and complete investigation.
Ana’s biggest issue with the developer is that they are not following due process and feels it
is a complete disregard for the Rule of Law and what appears as evident corruption that has
been unveiled since these lies ensued.
She believes that instead of Poverty Awareness Week or Suicide Prevention Month, elected
and appointed officials need to ensure developers follow the Law and best practices. She
specifically referred to the Law that was quoted in the first page she read of this Ka Paʻakai
packet.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
89
5.2 Interview with Chadley (Chad) Schimmelfennig
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Chadley (Chad) Schimmelfennig
Date: June 3, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Chad is the Executive Director of Kawaikini Charter School. He was born and raised on Kauai
and currently resides in Hanapēpē.
Chads association to the project area is through genealogy. Kōloa and Poʻipū area is where
his family lineage descends as far back as his family can recall. Currently he works on
restoration efforts on Kamaloʻula heiau and is familiar with the history and sites in Po‘ipū and
Koloa.
Overview
Chad explains that while a great deal of the cultural sites in this area and the resources that
were associated have been destroyed over the last century, there is a lot of rich culture and
history in this area and significant coastal ecosystems that are continuing to be impacted.
Chad likes to stay neutral and factual and has concerns about recent activism mislabeling
some of these significant sites and is concerned that when sites are renamed to suit agendas.
He has an issue with names being ascribed to different names to fit something else that is
not based in historical research.
General Discussion
Chad explains that while he doesn't recall all the names of the specific sites in this area there
are quality records of the original place names and maps that can provide this. He explains a
lot of these areas were created in the 1400s under the reign of Manokalanipō. There are
records of that and structures like Kamaloʻula heiau is a smaller section of the greater heiau
structure that has been demolished.
There are at least two heiau in this area Chad is aware of. The Kukuiʻula area is significant
because it has several heiau and it has another area that is a koʻa and connects to Prince
Kuhio or Hoʻai Park. As far as what this area was, it was significant, but as far as what it is
now, is really nothing, because almost all of it has been lost. He describes it as simple
carelessness of resource protections when building golf courses and developments. There are
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
90
a handful of heiau that are accessible and being managed and restored in this area, which he
is thankful for.
Cultural Resources
Chad says that unfortunately he really doesn't have any immediate resources to gather from
the project sites, only because the plantation during the latter part of the 1800s and early
1900s wiped out the natural resources in this area leaving only sugarcane. At one time Chad
explains there were cultural resources associated with having a large population in that area.
Chad speaks of the shoreline area as a cultural resource that has been impacted over time.
He talks about the shoreline area being impacted by the developments and poor land use
choices. He mentions particularly the impacts to the reef and coastal ecosystem, emphasizing
the huge difference in his lifetime and species he saw prevalent as a child, which are now
harder to find.
He particularly mentions remembering harvesting fish and ʻopihi along this shore that are no
longer common in this area.
Chad included that one of the heiau in this region is commonly called the wrong name. He
said while he has heard people refer to the heiau at Kiahuna as laka heiau, because the name
of the street is Pāʻū a Laka, he clarifies that the site is registered to his 5 great grandparents
and is a house site that is still registered to Nāhinu and ʻAuhea in the state archives. It was
their home site. Chads great grandparents would take his father there to show him where they
lived and ate. The developers had a kumu hula name the streets during the building of the
area, and they named it Pāʻū a Laka. Now, people keep calling it the incorrect name. The true
name that it’s registered as is Mauna Pōhaku. It was their site that they lived in after the
rebellion of Kaumualiʻi. They retained their status as aliʻi only because ʻAuhea was aunt to
Kamehameha II.
Traditions and Customs
Theoretically there were significant traditions down here but the earliest western records are
from the 1920s and a large percentage of this area was a village then. There were absolutely
at one time abundant agricultural resources in this area. He explains that there were
absolutely structures and with them traditions and customs associated with this highly
populated area but much of this has been destroyed with the destruction of the sites. He also
mentions that now specifics about locations are hard to pinpoint.
Chad mentions the birthplace of Prince Kūhio is in this area and that there is history
associated with aliʻi here. He explains that the area where Prince Kūhio was born was also the
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
91
area of previous aliʻi and could be dating back to Manokalanipō and Kukona because that
was as far back as we could find in any history books the sites of aliʻi.
He describes the traditions and customs most practiced in this area as being based around
agriculture. He explains since the 1800s these systems have been impacted and continue to
be. Chad explains that the whole area was an agriculture complex with 10 miles of ʻauwai
system. This started at the tree tunnel, Kahili, spawning out to the south end of Kauaʻi and
branching off for another 10 miles of ʻauwai branches.
He describes any practices and traditions as subjective now since it is hard to know what was
whereas the sites are largely gone and demolished and the memory of those practices largely
lost with it. He clarifies there is no one here today to explain what the specific practices were
and where. He does say there are some old audio recordings of his kupuna in the 1930s and
1940s that tell stories of the area and what the practices were and what the various places
were, but all are no longer existent.
Chad mentions that his kupuna had many old style moʻolelo that were recorded. His great
great grandma was one of the influential people in that area in the 1920s and before and she
had these old stories that talk about the folklore of the Kōloa area. Some of these do correlate
to the areas where these projects are planned. One speaks of a flying turtle and certain caves
that were dedicated to a specific turtle.
Impacts
The Kauanoe o Kōloa development is close to a lot of cave systems that still exist in that area.
Most of these have been closed in or blocked off according to Chad. He believes the level of
impact varies depending on the specific site. He explains some areas were just caves and
shelters but some could have been used for other things, like burial sites. This practice of
burial ways still happens on Hawaiʻi Island.
Chad says that where Kauanoe o Kōloa is proposed was another portion of the agricultural
complex. He says he met people in the 1960s that saw the bulldozing of a lot of these areas
that resulted in these large rock mounds and there are over 3 dozen mounds in the area that
were from bulldozed rock piles. Whatever wasn't collected for use locally for rock walls in
peoples’ yards were just left in piles and a lot of that is the ancient walls and ʻauwai structures
that were a part of this system.
Chad mentions the massive impacts to these areas in the past and the dynamiting that
happened in the 1990s. He explains that the entire area was leveled and the cave systems
and lava tubes were largely destroyed along with that. He specifically remembers closer to the
Hoʻai area the land was dynamited for at least a year straight. He remembers this destruction
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
92
and the leveling that happened. He describes most of those structures as now flat and
destroyed. He mentions one site in that immediate area that was spared and it is a hale aliʻi
site and a cooking area that was blocked off and preserved.
Since most of this area was agriculture and provided food a lot of the drastic impacts already
happened in the 1870s and the real use has already been lost, and impacts continue.
Chad sees the impacts of these additional developments as potential continued destruction
to what remains. He clarifies that the specific impacts of what is being impacted varies from
site to site. He explains some of the sites are demolished and some have remained intact.
Disturbance to these sites therefore has different impacts because some have been sitting
there for 30 years untouched but exploded and dead and some areas have existing structures
that are now being pushed to the side that are intact, especially the ʻauwai system, which is
unique within the Hawaiian Islands.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Chad isn’t comfortable suggesting measures that would be appropriate. He feels that would
be speculation on his part and he likes to look at the facts and specifics before making those
recommendations and specific suggestions.
He said everyone on all sides needs to do what is right. He believes that there needs to be
communication and transparency and a process of healing.
He said that concerned community members need to focus on saying the things we know to
be true about these places because if we do not use correct resources and facts, it does a
disservice. He sees some of this as taking everything and giving nothing back and that
requires a process for healing to move through.
Chad recommended we reach out to some of the older families that are still living today. He
mentions his Aunt Betsy Ludington who has been there for a long time and has some great
stories and knows things that normally people don't know. He suggests that Randy Wichman
be engaged because of his records and maps of historical knowledge of this area.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
93
5.3 Responses and Documents from Elizabeth Okinaka
1. Elizabeth Okinaka - Spiritual indigenous woman
2. Stay at home mother/Cultural Practitioner
3. Born in CA raised in Koloa, HI and have lived there through the present
4. Koloa, HI
5. I used hapa trail as a child and frequently use the trail today with my children for beach
access.
6. Yes spring water, native plants, indigenous species who is revered to as a ‘aumakua.
Endangered species, the blind cave spider and amphipod found no where else in the
world.
7. Yes prayer and spiritual practice took place on subject property daily. Many cultural
practitioners access this site prior to development happening. I practiced protocol here
daily and am now threatened with arrest by developer if I step foot off hapa trail.
8. This entire parcel is significant. The birthing stone, the alter which I visited daily and
prayed at is now destroyed. The burial sites and chiefs sitting area are now being
destroyed. Chief Palikua is buried underneath this property within a burial cavern and
a part of the cave system. Laka heiau and the cave directly behind this property shows
the lack of preservation for this entire area. This property has lava tubes and caves
exposed since blasting which developer is denying. 3 caves were destroyed in Wainani
subdivision which is directly next to this lot. The developer of Wainani admitted to the
LUC and there are LUC records that confirm the destruction of the 3 caves in Wainani,
destroyed with bulldozers during development. See attached. The developer of Pili Mai,
the parcel just below the project area, had problems with its foundation as it was also
built over a cave system. There are at least 3 designated habitat caves in the area
immediately adjacent to the project site and knowing about the caves under Wainani
and Pili Mai, it is unlikely that they are not also under the project area. Hal Hammett
and Cultural Survey's Hawaii advertise the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) on
their website and claim to have trained personnel with the technological ability to use
GPR. Yet no GPR was used on the project area prior to extensive grading, excavating,
blasting and filling with dozens of truck loads of dirt and rock being delivered to the
project area.
9. I have read stories of great events held by Kaikioewa here, the procession of helpers he
was followed by and also his Spanish friend who traveled with him often was present.
10. Yes, in answering this survey, I am responding the the questions relating to the project
area on Kiahuna Plantation Drive, 5425 Pau a Laka. I object to the developers effort
to secure answers to these questions for the cottages near Kukuiula boat harbor and
the luxury homes in Kukuiula. If I am expected to answer Ka Pa`akai questions for
other developments, I should receive a questionnaire with more details about those
developments so that I can proper respond. Since my young childhood and to present
I have been a frequent visitor to the Kukuiula boat harbor, beach and Lawaii coast and
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
94
am requesting that I be allowed to comment on a separate questionnaire for any
development in that area. I refuse to combine 2 completely separate areas into this
single question. Kukuiula is almost entirely in a different ahupua’a. I believe developer
should have to conduct 3 surveys, One for each project area. Impacts for substantial
destruction of cave system and lava tubes. Continued desecration of burial sites and
culturally significant sites in Koloa. Why not give a more in-depth explanation or TMK
number for every property? 2 species found no where’s else which reside in the the
Koloa cave ecosystem consider to be one of the 10 most endangered cave systems in
the world.
11. Yes I am being threatened by arrest daily if I try to access my once daily prayer site.
KPD is being privately hired by developer and has given out trespass warning for the
property and the adjacent road that the public uses to enter Kiahuna development and
Wainani subdivision. Even though this road is accessed by the public, I and other
practitioners have been told that we are not allowed to walk on the public road and we
will be arrested if we step foot off of Hapa Trail. The difficulty is that no one has ever
determined where Hapa Trail begins and ends. In fact, there are rock formations on
Hapa Trail that abut the fence recently built by the developer which raises serious
questions about whether or not the developer is actually fencing us off of parts of Hapa
Trail. Colin Thompson the VP has been harassing us as we document the desecration
from Hapa Trail. He calls out and yells at us and asks why we are there. Recently, he
started flying a drone right next to us as we stand on Hapa Trail. I took pictures of his
drone and strongly object to this threatening and harassing behavior by this developer.
12. No it should NOT proceed. This developer has blatantly and repeatedly broken the law.
He is pending IRS charges for a similar instance of depreciation of value of land. He is
blocking cultural and lineal descendants from accessing this culturally significant site.
I do not trust this process. I do not believe in this process, how can you ask for our
input of such a culturally significant site while the developer is grading with bulldozers
and front end loaders and blasting, destroying the resources? I was on site the day
Missy Kamai conducted her survey for cultural surveys Hawaii. She herself told me she
could see the cultural significance in this property and promised us that the lot would
be cleared by hand before a full team came in and concluded a final archaeological
survey This never happened. I was also approached by Rick Paul Cassiday the same
day Missy came, I was on site when he attempted to bribe me offering a payout for
each child I had and a donation to each school my children attended if, in return, I stop
being vocal against this project. I declined his offer. I told him I was not interested in
money.
13. I do not trust cultural surveys Hawaii and I do not trust Honua consulting and have
been made aware that they have been a part of burial desecration on Oahu and Kauai.
This entire process is wrong and there are still pending burial registration for this land.
With multiple ex-county attorneys and employee working for developer of this project
and the developer who is relying on a Christmas Eve county agreement that was never
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
95
approved by the LUC. The Decisions and Orders by the LUC affecting the project area
have not been followed and the developer applicants and County are jointly obligated
to follow the LUC decisions. See attached for 3 party agreement between County and
developers with no LUC approval.
14. Yes there are many community members who did not get a chance to give input. This
process is completely being done backwards and the wrong way, how is the county of
Kauai now asking for our input on this property when we have been trying for almost 2
years to protect this site? County of Kauai was required to conduct this analysis before
granting the grading and grubbing permit that was illegally given without a final
biological or archaeological report. (grading permit granted 3/22 final biologic survey
not done until 5/12/2022 and alleged archeological clearance from Cultural Survey's
Hawaii is dated 5/9/2022, more than a month following excavation and extensive
grading.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
96
Figure 28. Document provided by interviewee
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
97
Figure 29. Document provided by interviewee
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
98
5.4 Responses from Elvira Kimokeo
1. Please provide your name.
Elvira (Ella) Kimokeo
2. What is your profession? Retired
3. Where were you born and raised? Born and Raised in Koloa on family parcel in Poipu, Nalo
Rd
4. Where do you live now? Hanapepe, Kauai
5. What is your association, if any, with the Project Area(s)? Based on the provided map,
what place names do you know for the project area(s) or near the project area(s)? Walked
regularly to the Catholic Church from our home in Poipu on Hapa Trail with my Grandmother
and Mother Mary Costa Kimokeo
6. Are you aware of any cultural resources in the Project Area(s) or near the Project Area(s)?
And have you ever accessed those resources? We would visit the Lava Tubes and Caves near
Hapa Trail and we would pick mauna loa and black-eyed susan for lei making.
7. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may take place near the Project Area(s)
or are otherwise associated with the Project Area(s)? Yes for lei making and cultural practices
seeds for lei’s and keawe wood for kaula pig. Moho lived in lava tubes and we were told by
Kupuna that the Ali`I were buried in the caves under or near the project area.
8. Is there anything about the project area thatʻs particularly significant you would like to
share?
It was my way to the get to Church with grandma Mary Kimokeo, to Koloa town and school.
We used Hapa Trail almost every day. It has now been fenced and access is much more
difficult.
9. Are there any stories associated with the project area we should be aware of? We all learned
from our elders that the mo`o lived in the cave and traveled the cave to the fish pond near
the coast to keep the fish pond clean and then return to the cave in the Kiahuna area of the
project where he lived and propagated to preserve the fish ponds like the one at kaneiolouma.
The mo`o was a lizard like creature that lived in the water and on land. The parcel that is now
being developed was known to have underground springs and water that traveled through
lava tubes to the ocean. The explosions that are being done we know from our elders are not
good for the health of the ocean because of the debris that travels in the water underground
to the coast contaminating the Limu, Opihi and Ayukuki/Wana.
10. The proposed project includes three new developments in Koloa. Are you aware of any
resources that may be impacted by such a project or projects? What might those impacts
be? Can you think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or
avoided? No one talks to us. The property is already graded. Mounds that used to be on the
property are now flat. Many rock formations have been blown up or crushed. How do we get
that back? I don’t know how to mitigate this damage except to ask that you please stop the
development and allow the kupuna buried there to rest in peace.
11. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may be impacted by such a project,
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
99
including your ability to access cultural resources? What might that impacts be? Can you
think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or avoided? Ali`i iwi
will be impacted. Plants that we used to gather can no longer be gathered as they have been
cleared away. Our sacred trail is now fenced with barbed wire on one side and fence posts
that are sunk in concrete. A worker was seen adding dirt to the top of the concrete to hide all
the concrete that is poured in the ground right next to Hapa Trail. This is a desecration of our
environment. The amakua underground has been permanently violated.
12. Do you have any recommendations for conditions or best management practices for the
project, should it proceed? Stop the projects, make it a park. A place that people can enjoy.
We don’t need more people and more cars to compete with to get to our coastline and
beaches. Developer greed is changing the life we’ve known and the land we love.
13. Is there anything else you would like to share? No, other than to ask you to please consider
and change your plan to keep so many more people from being hurt.
14. Is there anyone else we should talk with about the projects or the Project Areas? Families
and descendants that still live on Kuai Rd
15. Is there anything in this interview you would like us to omit from the summary? No
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
100
5.5 Responses from Glenn Silva
Interview Questions
1. Please provide your name.
Glen Silva
2. What is your profession?
Retired - Land Title Research
3. Where were you born and raised?
Born Oakland, CA; Raised Koloa
4. Where do you live now?
Puhi, Kauai
5. What is your association, if any, with the Project Area(s)? Based on the provided map,
what place names do you know for the project area(s) or near the project area(s)?
Family Land ties. Please see deed that granted my family more than 3,300 acres between
Wiliwili tract and Kukuiula harbor. I went with my grandparents to a family burial sites that
were in the property along what is now Kiahuna Plantation Drive. We accessed the property
from Hapa Trail and I went with my Aunt and grandparents to take ho 'okipa to grave sites in
tribute to our kupuna. Place Names - Kana Moku and my family name was Kukona which my
great grandfather changed to just Kana. Because the Kana family was deeded so much land
on the South Shore, the family name was used for the name of the Moku. My great
grandmother signed the Pala pa la Hoopii Kue Hoohuianina Petition Against Annexation, copy
which she gave me attached which bares her signature, last on the list.
6. Are you aware of any cultural resources in the Project Area(s) or near the Project Area(s)?
And have you ever accessed those resources?
On the lot being developed now in Kiahuna I remember going to honor kupuna that were
buried there. There used to be a mossed rock formation on the part of the property nearest
the golf course. It had a rock wall nearby that was broken by bulldozers that worked on the
property in January 2021. I was visiting family in Koloa and saw the damage to what was an
ancient Heiau. I have walked Hapa Trail many times and it was used most by young people on
their way to the beach to fish, throw net and swim when I was growing up in Koloa. We used
to collect plants for my grandmother and aunt who would make medicine for our family. I also
collected lima kohu, threw net and fished from the shore which several of my friends still do.
7. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may take place near the Project Area(s)
or are otherwise associated with the Project Area(s)?
From my family, I know there was a long history of loi and sweet potato planting in the area.
There were ceremonial practices for the planting and harvest season that we remember today
when we walk the historic Hapa Trail. I would like my children and grandchildren to know of
these practices like walking Hapa Trail which is now much more difficult because the access
on the east and west side has been fenced. The Kiahuna property was an area for hunting as
well and also a place for births and deaths with burials in the caves that we believe go
throughout and connect all the parcels.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
101
8. Is there anything about the project area that's particularly significant you would like to
share?
My aunt and grandmother took to the graves of our ancestors but with the recent changes on
the property with the fencing that keeps me from walking on the parcel I am not sure I can
find their graves today.
9. Are there any stories associated with the project area we should be aware of?
I had family members who would connect spiritually with the Kupuna in the Kukona and Kon
a family. I recall auntie Stella telling me it is important to remember and try and preserve the
family stories.
10. The proposed project includes three new developments in Koloa. Are you aware of any
resources that may be impacted by such a project or projects? What might those impacts
be? Can you think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or
avoided?
Yes, Koloa is a small community with many older plantation families, 2 small grocery stores
and 1 post office. I'm concerned that the proposed development will impact my friends and
family being able to get to the beach. It is already difficult, if not impossible, to find a place to
park when we want to swim, fish or enjoy our coastline. It's not that we don't want to share
but we have 3 large resorts in the area and more vacation rental properties than properties
for Koloa residents. There are already many more tourist here than local families and these
planned developments will bring even more traffic, waste, runoff to the ocean during
construction directly changes my families ability to enjoy this community which has been
home to most of my family for hundreds of years. The size of the proposed developments are
too large for this community. The 3 planned developments will add more than 400 cars to our
roads which are all single lane and the tree tunnel is the only way in or out unless we are
routed to Omao Rd which is a windy residential road. We already have problems when there
are threats of hurricanes or tsunami and our single lane roads become gridlocked as people
try to exit and head for higher ground. Any natural disaster requiring evacuation is already a
problem for Koloa and Poipu. Adding so many more units is only going to add to the problem.
11. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may be impacted by such a project,
including your ability to access cultural resources? What might that impacts be? Can you
think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or avoided?
Yes, Absolutely Access, Access, for all traditional and customary practices (see #7) =
Destruction of Kanaka way of life. STOP! Now!
12. Do you have any recommendations for conditions or best management practices for the
project, should it proceed?
Recommend you respect and honor all customs, traditions and access to our lands and the
ocean. Hapa Trail has been open for years and could be accessed from its east and west side
which are now fenced. Developer said the fencing was temporary. I saw the fence going in
and there were concrete footings for each fence post that went at least 2 feet into the ground.
Some workers cave back and put dirt on top of the concrete to disguise that it's built in
concrete but we saw it being built.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
102
13. Is there anything else you would like to share?
It scares me to think of more than 300 new homes in this small community. With the added
people and cars, Koloa and the people that have enjoyed its small-town culture and traditions
will be lost. That make me very sad for my children and grandchildren.
14. Is there anyone else we should talk with about the projects or the Project Areas?
Hopefully others in my community like uncle Billy, Rupert and Kane will send in their
responses. We all know that these developments are going to limit our access to Kukuiula
boat harbor, Koloa landing, Sheraton beach, Waiohi beach and Poipu Beach.
15. Is there anything in this interview you would like us to omit from the summary?
No, and I would recommend that you contact and consult the Wichman family, Kauai Historical
Society, and read Na Pua Ali'i o Kauai which will help you understand how important this area
is to our people and the local residents.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
103
Figure 30. Document provided by interviewee
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
104
Figure 31. Document provided by interviewee.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
105
Figure 32. Document provided by interviewee.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
106
5.6 Interview with Keao NeSmith
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Keao NeSmith - kumukeao@gmail.com
Date: June 9, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Keao NeSmith is an independent researcher and consultant. He was born in Waimea, Kauaʻi
and raised in Kekaha. He currently resides in Honolulu.
Keao grew up in the project area and is a local who accessed and utilized resources along this
area throughout his life. He is a Hawaiian researcher and has an interest as such in this area.
He has worked to clean and restore Kāneiʻolouma heiau.
Overview
Keao’s particular interest is the area is mostly around Kāneiʻolouma heiau and complex. His
interest is based around his research and ongoing discussions about the sites in this area
and their uses in the past and their potential uses today and in the future.
Keao is opposed to further development of this area and points out it is already so heavily
impacted. Keao mentions the rich history this area has spanning centuries. He talks about
the overall importance of this area and the important educational opportunities it offers and
solutions for the future. He describes the impacts he sees because of these developments.
General Discussion
Keao says he, and many Kauaʻi residents, don't want more development in general. He says
Kauaʻi roads are jammed packed and there are already too many cars. He describes the over
development as drowning out Kauaʻi and its people with foreigners. He feels people need to
do whatever they can to slow down this displacement of locals and bring the population to
sustainable levels.
Cultural Resources, Traditions and Customs
The Kāneiʻolouma complex was along the coast. He explains the significance of Kāneiʻolouma
complex and the extensive network that runs along the coast, much of which he notes has
already been destroyed by existing development and commercial projects. He explains that,
looking at the archeological record all these cultural sites are a connected network, all the
way to Lāwaʻi Beach Resort and Kūhiō Park to Māhāʻulepū in the other direction, is one
system. We don't know specifically some of the uses of certain areas. A lot of it was mixed
use, a lot of it was heiau, some villages, even rock quarrying. A lot of the rocks in the stories
of menehune were taken from this area.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
107
Another form of cultural resource Keao points out is the study of the old aquaculture systems
in this area. Kāneiʻolouma has raised aqueducts, which is an amazing feat of engineering and
these troughs are still there that were raised above the ground in order to use water through
a gravity fed system. He says we don't completely understand how these systems worked and
if they are even aqueducts, but it appears this way. This would have been part of a system
that went mauka that would have been connected to the streams in this area.
Keao says another important resource is access to important land for agriculture. He explains
the mauka areas were extensively farmed for ʻuala, kalo, etc and the records show there were
loʻi kalo up there and the fields were planted in ʻuala in other areas.
Kukona, father of Manokalanipō, in the 1400s, was involved in a battle here and Kamapuaʻa
was involved. This battle was with the aliʻi of Maui and they fought a really bloody battle along
this coastline. It ended with Kamapuaʻa jumping in to support Kukona and the Kauaʻi army to
defeat the Maui army. Then there was the time of peace under the reign of Manokalanipō.
This was about 400 years of peace and prosperity for Kauaʻi that followed this battle. This
could be the time these complexes were built. Later, Kamehameha landed here in this area
also.
These are events that he believes memorials should be created for in these areas.
Limaloa is an aliʻi that became best friends with Kamapuaʻa. Limaloa was the aliʻi of this area,
not sure if it was the aliʻi of the ahupuaʻa or a moku, but according to legend he would hang
out with Kamapuaʻa and at some point, he fell out of favor with the people of the area and
they kicked him out and he ended up in Mānā. Limaloa became a kakua, god, in Mānā and
he is connected to the story La'ieikawai, goddess of the rainbows, which always followed her.
La'ieikawai was the goddess of the lake of Mānā area and the mirage of the Mānā. Limaloa
became her lover. There are lots of chants and hula that reference Limaloa, Lāʻieikawai and
other aliʻi and important figures. Limaloa is originally from this area.
Salt beds were once in that coastal area but those have been destroyed. Uncle Billy
Kaohelauliʻi would have more insight on the locations of salt beds and traditions related to
this.
Impacts
Much of this area has already been destroyed from existing developments, particularly since
statehood, 1959. This was the beginning of the era of large-scale developments. Many sacred
grounds and aliʻi estates were rapidly developed post 1959. The destruction of a lot of these
sites like Kāneiʻolouma then occurred, to create roads. County and state departments should
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
108
have maps and records of the developments of the road systems and that means they should
have maps that show these cultural sites in this area.
Keao says this development is the continuation of the destruction of these cultural sites. He
notes that the destruction is already extensive and he feels we should not be piling onto it.
He explains if these agricultural systems are destroyed, we have lost all opportunity to study,
understand and learn from them. If Hawaiians are further restricted from these agricultural
areas and these sites convert from important agricultural features to commercial venture
projects, it prevents the possibility of Kauaʻi becoming independent and self-sustaining
agriculturally.
He is concerned there isn’t proper recognition of the important treasures we have in these
valuable sites. He believes all of these sites should be considered national treasures instead
of ventures for capitalism.
For locals, he sees it as a chain reaction that's been happening since occupation. He notes
one of the first things to go in colonization was the aspects of the education system that taught
the value of these places. This disregard for education about these cultural sites led to lack
of knowledge among locals about these sites and their importance. In turn this lends to
ambivalence to developments like this, like they don't matter, which extends from a previously
existing, decades long, exclusion from the education system.
In order for Hawaiians to arrive at a common understanding development like this need to be
stopped and education needs to happen.
There are many ways to look at the impacts to resources. If we are talking about resources we
use on a daily basis today, he thinks immediately of water primarily.
Many projects do not write into their plans to make sure locals don’t have access, but it is the
natural result of developments such as these.
Cultural practices returning to these areas could be impacted. Just because Kāneiʻolouma is
protected and being restored doesn't mean we are asking that locals return to that practice.
The fact that this exists and the stories continue is a resource.
Projects like this aren’t built for or to attract locals, they attract foreigners by their very nature.
The more we edge out the local population and allow in the foreign population the less
appreciation there is for all of this and these resources. Locals in turn feel less connected to
their history, land and culture by actual segregation and developing them out of the area. He
compares it to the overdevelopment of Kīhei on Maui, and does not look kindly on over
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
109
development of the south shore such as this. He sees Kīhei as totally overdeveloped and not
resembling Hawai’i anymore and believes the problem is projects like this.
Keao struggles with the rationale behind these types of projects. He does not want more
developments such as these. He says he speaks for many on Kauaʻi when he says Kauaʻi
roads are already jam packed, there are already way too many cars and we are drowning out
Kauaʻi locals with foreigners of all kinds. He feels we need to do whatever we can to slow
down that change and bring the population down to sustainable levels. The problem is already
severe when it comes to the overpopulation and over use of commercial spots and the
beaches in this area and these developments will further exacerbate this problem.
Keao believes that projects like these also result in an increasing economic divide on Kauaʻi.
He explains these developments keep locals with few options but low paying jobs that are
hard to survive on here anymore. Developments like these like to brag about job creation, but
they are often offering only low paying jobs, without security. Projects like these do not provide
opportunities for highly educated residents, who have to go elsewhere to find jobs that suit
their educational background. He does not feel like it is brag worthy for developers to boast
to the community about their job creation, especially at the cost of what is lost. All things
considered, when he looks at the pros and cons, it seems to Keao that the advantages are to
the mega rich and developers, but not for locals who do not obtain secure and economically
sustainable lives for themselves through these developments.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Speaking of mitigation, Keao feels like if they are going to mitigate the project it would have
to be significant. He described it like, if they want to take some, they have to give some and it
has to be equal. It cannot be take a lot and give a little. He explains that if these developers
are going to take, they need to provide in equal proportion.
This is an extremely sensitive cultural area because it is so packed with historical events that
took place centuries ago. Really Keao is against the project and would rather it not happen
altogether.
He suggests further conversation with Canen Hoʻokano & Members of the Knudsen Trust,
Kumu Leinaʻala Jardin, Uncle Billy Kaohelauliʻi, Andre Perez and Momi Kapahulehua.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
110
5.7 Interview with Malia Chun
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Malia K Chun
Date: June 1, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Malia Chun from is the Program Director for Nā Pua No‘eau. Nā Pua No‘eau is a keiki cultural
enrichment program, which is a program of the University of Hawaiʻi. Malia was born and
raised in the Moku of Puna, in the ahupuaʻa of Wailuanuiahoʻāno on Kauaʻi. She currently
resides in the Moku of Kona in the ahupuaʻa of Waiawa.
Overview
Although Malia grew up in the Moku of Puna, when she was like 1-4 years old she lived on the
south side, while her father was the sous chef at the Waiohai. She explains that back then all
that surrounding area was still sugarcane. There were also still fishing families there
beachside that were sustaining themselves and their families from resources along the
shoreline there. Her family gathered and fished from this coastline and her connection is one
that was fed and nurtured by this area and its resources.
This project area is extremely significant to her, as well as this whole south shoreline, not just
because of its rich history for her as a kanaka but because of the potential for what it could
be restored to in the future and what that would mean for the survival of future Hawaiians
and everyone that lives here. The site is significant to Malia as a kanaka and as a mother and
as a connection to her identity.
General Discussion
Malia explained that these types of questions and processes seek forms of additional proof
of the cultural and historical significance of an area when it is already blatantly there in our
history. She explains it is true that there is cultural and historical significance in this entire
Koloa area. She tells of how it is well known that this area housed an ancient elaborate and
unique Hawaiian agricultural system, numerous heiau and burials and ʻauwai and stream
systems that fed this area in a unique manner.
She explains that the problem from a kanaka, indigenous, perspective is that the proof comes
in the form of moʻolelo and genealogy and cultural practices. She mentions that these forms
of evidence are not considered relevant in a western system of occupation. She feels that
these forms of evidence do not count as enough under American law, unless it is validated by
a white man.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
111
Malia explains that the cultural significance of this entire area has already been thoroughly
established and that the complete desecration by development of this entire area is also clear.
Cultural Resources
Malia mentioned that there are too many site names to mention in this area.
Malia says that despite the destruction of these areas and over development of Koloa, the
remnants of this ancestral blueprint of her people still exist. Malia talks about the many
relevant moʻolelo that refer to this area and feels that these historical accounts should be
enough to warrant deep investigation and due diligence for any disturbance.
She goes on to explain that for her to pinpoint exactly what is in a specific location would take
too long and a lot of deep research, if provable at all. Malia stresses that what we need to
consider is what we value. To Malia this ancestral blueprint to self-sufficiency is a priceless
part of her history and culture that will lead us into the future. She asks what is more of
“value”? Is it multimillion dollar homes and condos or this ancient and historic blueprint to
self-sufficiency and sustainability and food production for Kauaʻi? She feels that with every
additional development though this area we are bulldozing this important blueprint.
Malia mentions the HAPA Trail exists in this area and that it had an ancient name, even before
the times of the HAPA trail, she believes it was named Luahine Alapa'i. This highlights the
need to look at the various layers of history in this area.
Kāneiʻolouma nearby was also mentioned and Malia mentioned that it has so much mana
and relevance to Hawaiian traditions and customs and yet it is completely surrounded by
development. Kāneiʻolouma heiau housed navigation, agriculture, makahiki games and was
a dynamic and elaborate complex.
Malia recalls that the whole shoreline along the coast as a child was covered in koʻa, or fishing
ahus or markers. These were used to mark important places and specific resources, traditions
and places of religious practice. As a child she remembers some of these koʻa and seeing
practitioners utilize these fishing traditions. She says it may be irrelevant or not noticeable to
foreigners, but for kanaka this is a story of the prized value of the fishing resources in this
area. Malia explains also that this is matched by moʻolelo about the fishing gods and legends
that relate to these fishing resources along this coastline.
She emphasizes the uniqueness of the once thriving dry land agricultural complex in this area.
Malia explains that Hawaiian natural scientists and engineers were developing and
maximizing the lands with this complex system. She mentions the ingenuity that it took of her
ancestors to maximize the limitations of this area to sustain such a large population.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
112
Traditions and Customs
Malia mentions that makahiki traditions and customs were practiced in this area. She also
explains that unique fishing, agriculture and navigation history and traditions occurred in this
area and that a great deal of the ancient moʻolelo is largely neglected. Many practices
occurred in this immediate area associated with these important features.
Malia knows general stories about this area and explains that many moʻolelo are general in
nature and it can be hard to pinpoint the exact spaces where some of these things happened
based on moʻolelo, but we know it is in this area.
She specifically referred to the stories associated with the wars that happened along this
coastline. She mentions that 500 years before Kamehameha united the islands there was a
huge war during the time of Kukona’s reign. She explained that this war called on warriors
from the two biggest moku on Kauai and that many of them perished in this area. This
incredible moʻolelo talks of perseverance and what it means to care for people. It speaks of
grace and dignity. This is one of Malia’s favorite moʻolelo about this area and its history and
specifically relates to the areas closer to Māhāʻulepū where the actual battles ensued.
The other specific stories from this area that she is aware of relate to the incredible
agricultural complex which is a huge moʻolelo in itself.
Impacts
To Malia it is sickening that this desecration is continuing today. She acknowledges it is just
one small example of the desecration that happens daily in the islands and explains that she
feels like despite all the marching and screaming, things will not change until the paradigm
shifts and this ancestral knowledge is valued by western society.
Malia says that she thinks that the bulldozing, blasting and development happening in this
area poses a threat to many things. She describes that for some kanaka, whether it has been
proven or not, their ancestors still reside and are at rest in these areas. For others these areas
are places of worship and where they gather and practice traditional customary rights. Malia
asks how one can consciously build over these important sites. She talks about the existing
impacts and how developments that have already been built in the area do not want to give
practitioners access or work with Hawaiian practitioners. She does not feel this will be
different with these new proposed developments.
Malia talks about how she has tried to access some of these cultural sites and has to try to
get access through people’s yards. She is appalled that this is still happening today. She
compares it to developers still going by the old rules and mentality when they have new tools
and understandings to go by these days. Malia believes something is really wrong if Hawaiians
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
113
have to go through gated communities and multimillion dollar homes to practice their culture
because their places of worship are in someone's backyard.
Malia believes these developments in particular, pose a huge threat to the cultural landscape
of this place. She says the big question is when is enough, enough and how much more abuse
can a place and people take before they break. She goes on to ask who are we serving with
these projects? She does not believe it serves the health and wellbeing of this ʻāina and
certainly doesn't have the future of our keiki in mind.
Malia sees the impacts of the destruction and erasing of these sites as something that will
lead to further displacement and restricted access to places of historical and cultural
significance for Hawaiians. She sees it as isolation from important places to practice and
exercise which in turn completely strips kanaka of their identity while erasing their history.
She mentions that kanaka fail to exist without ʻāina, yet ʻāina can thrive without people. If a
people are connected to a place and they are no longer given access to those places that
shape and grow their identity as an individual and as a people then we lose the essence of
Hawaiʻi.
When she looks at how far we have come in such a short time, away from sustainability and
instead to luxury condominiums, it hurts her heart. She points out that we as a society must
reobtain these skills and knowledge to survive in our changing world. She feels that the next
generations are being robbed of what should be their opportunity to revitalize this agricultural
system to help us thrive in this remote place. She continues to point out that the next
generations can’t eat the dollars that come from cleaning multimillion dollar condos and gated
communities. Malia thinks about it as what kind of future will her children and their children
have and she sees these developments as greatly impacting this future.
Malia talks about the imminent food crisis we are facing and the housing crisis and how we
should be doing what we can to address these issues but instead are bulldozing these gifts
our ancestors gave us to deal with these challenges. She believes the impacts of this will leave
the next generations bankrupt in every aspect of their lives.
Malia talked about the many cases of desecration that have occurred to date on the south
shore. She lists many examples like the Hyatt where the surrounding area is the location
where many battles happened and it was no surprise that they would uncover hundreds of iwi
to develop there. She mentioned they paved right over a heiau to make a parking lot for the
golf course. She also mentioned Kōloa landing as another example and yet feels like
Hawaiians are still wrongfully tasked with continuing to prove that this area is significant and
will result in further desecration.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
114
She asks, if as a society are we blind? Did we not learn from all the other developments that
have happened on the south shore, in which hundreds and hundreds of iwi and the
destruction of these valuable ancient blueprint, is that not proof enough to halt development
in this area and reassess.
Malia understands that if these sites are lost her keiki will no longer have this important
blueprint to refer to about how to survive and sustain themselves in their homeland and in
return they will continue to be prisoners of this system, where the only way to sustain
themselves is to be servants to the wealthy. She finds it mind boggling that it is being allowed.
Malia said as a kanaka and as a makua the impact on a personal level is discouraging and
upsetting. She believes it is important to create spaces that native intelligence, genealogy and
moʻolelo are relevant and unfortunately does not feel those spaces exist currently.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Malia wants the desecration of this area to stop. Malia does not think the project should
proceed. She does not think they have engaged the community or practitioners or done their
due diligence.
As far as luxury housing, luxury condominiums and luxury multimillion dollar homes, that are
inaccessible to her keiki and the next generation of Hawaiians, Malia does not see any
solution besides stopping these kinds of ridiculous developments. Malia believes we need to
address the issues at hand, the houselessness and lack of food security on Kauaʻi before
such foolish developments. She points out we have enough luxury accommodations that sit
empty half the time while our local Hawaiian people struggle to put food in their mouth and
roof over their head. She believes until we have addressed these critical issues, we should
not be allowing developments such as these to even be considered.
Even if these sites were being developed for local housing needs, she does not feel it would
be right to desecrate these significant sites. She said, whatever affordable housing means in
this day in age it would at least make more sense than luxury condos. Malia does not support
development on cultural sites at all but definitely not for the development of luxury vacation
homes and transient accommodations, which feels like another layer of adding insult to injury.
She feels the development of these areas means that the reference point for Hawaiian
moʻolelo genealogy and history are erased. The impact of erasing important things that
connect kanaka to this space erases self-identity as a kanaka. She sees the bulldozer as an
eraser of identity.
Malia feels that as long as the wrong people are in positions of power and decision making
this abuse and desecration will continue. She believes that Hawaiians need to understand the
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
115
laws and loopholes and learn the process to use it to their advantage to stop this type of
desecration and foolish development.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
116
5.8 Interview with Mason Chock
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Mason Chock
Date: June 2, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Mason Chock is a Kauaʻi Council Member. He was born and raised in Wailua, Kauaʻi as well
as Kapaʻa and Kōloa. He currently resides in the Wailua Homesteads. Mason is familiar with
the Koloa and Poʻipū area from his time growing up there as a child.
Overview
Masons emphasizes the unique structures, complexes and practices that occurred in this area
and his connection to them. Mason discusses the potential impacts he sees of these
developments and the recommendations he has.
General Discussion
Mason discussed the significance of this area to him, as a Hawaiian, and to all Hawaiians and
its rich history. Mason describes the importance of these fishing resources and the structures
that were associated with them along this coastline. He also mentioned that the unique
structures and complexes in this area are extremely significant and have a great deal to teach
us about ways to live sustainably in Hawaiʻi.
Mason described his involvement with the site as one of visiting and participating in some
cultural events in the Kāneiʻolouma area and also along HAPA trail and the heiau that is closer
to the coast by the Kukuiʻula parcels. From a practitioner's standpoint, Mason accesses these
areas to gather, and has his whole life and monitored that coastline closely for many years.
Mason has participated in rituals and celebrations that acknowledge his kupuna along this
area from Kukuiʻula to Makahūʻena.
Mason mentions the resources from this area he has personally used include surfing,
collecting limu (mentions Kohu, ʻEleʻele, Wāwaeʻiole and others) and fishing in these historic
and prized fishing areas. He notes the changes in his lifetime and how many of these
resources are now depleted and heavily impacted. He mentioned that as a child moi was
extremely plentiful, especially along the Māhāʻulepū side. He notes the big caves along
Makena. At one time there was a huge abundance and assemblage of species and Masons
fished daily along this area. He has specifically caught menpachi and even pelagic fish and
tako are prevalent in this area. Opihi used to be prevalent along the coast. He also notes high
shark populations here.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
117
Cultural Resources
Mason sees the area as providing a wide range of cultural resources and spiritual sites
important to Hawaiian practitioners. Mason points out that near these projects there are a
multitude of significant sites and a rich history and lots of coastal resources.
He mentions the important cave systems in this area. He mentions the environmental and
cultural significance of the presence of the endemic endangered spiders that are found only
in Koloa and notes there should be US Fish & Wildlife protective measures to avoid impacts
to these populations of spiders.
Mason mentions Kāneiʻolouma and the larger complex that runs from mauka to Kāneiʻolouma
and transverses multiple properties. Mason describes this system as a rich cultural resource
and an elaborate complex of sporting activities, community-based fishing traditions and rich
with canoe history. Mason compared the Kāneiʻolouma system to acting like its own self-
sufficient ahupua'a incorporating a wide range of land uses and forms of agriculture and land
management together in a small area.
Mason describes this entire area as being well used in ancient times. He marveled at the
complexities of the system his ancestors developed, describing the level of engineering skill
and land management understandings that would have established these agricultural
complexes within this largely dry and arid area. He specifically noted the amazing rock
structures that were used to move and manage water in this area.
There are significant loko iʻa and water management systems that were in this area, he notes
that these would have specific names that should be able to be researched.
There are significant cultural sites around Kukuiʻula and some of these sites reference to
burials, including for aliʻi burials hidden in these areas. As far as he understands some of
these have already been destroyed and developed over.
Mason mentions that the proposed Kauanoe o Kōloa development is near the HAPA Trail.
Mason shared that growing up in this area he was aware of historic sites and heiau related to
fishing along the coastline. Mason participated in cultural events at some of these sites and
at a heiau in Kōloa. As a practitioner from an access perspective, Mason has and will continue
to use these areas and resources.
Traditions and Customs
Mason referred to the rich moʻolelo that comes from this area that would likely describe more
of the traditions and customs associated with this area. In addition to the ceremonial aspects
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
118
He talked about the traditions that would have occurred for aliʻi in this area. Mason explained
that aliʻi were known to have resided in this area and some of their burials are referred to but
their location is not known. He said so much of this area was frequented by aliʻi and there
were specific structures related to aliʻi that are worth noting.
Mason shared that this area was rich in makahiki traditions and customs. He described the
unique custom to pull together a wide range of purposes into a small area.
Mason reiterated that this was an extremely unique area and incorporated a wide range of
ingenuity that would have been associated with a wide range of its own traditions and
customs.
Mason mentioned the agricultural importance of this area and that he thought a lot of this is
very significant for the future of Hawaiʻi. He explained this area can provide important
education and understanding about the traditions and customs of our ancestors regarding
engineering and land management that will allow us to plan for the future.
Impacts
Mason feels it is quite possible that cultural resources, caves and burials could be present on
these parcels or immediately adjacent given the significance of this entire project area. He
emphasizes the need to exhaust due diligence for a project like this.
Mason explains that the Kōloa and Poʻipū area have always had issues with managing water.
Whether it’s not enough access to water and how you get it there or in terms of development
and how you manage what is coming off of it. There is no significant response to how runoff
and drainage has affected and continue to affect our low-lying areas such as our beaches or
coastal resources and fisheries. It also impacts health and safety. He explains the land use
and developments above these coastlines greatly impact the resources and health of the
coastal ecosystem and fishing grounds as well as the safety of recreational swimmers and
subsistence fishermen.
Mason points out that the impacts of previous developments in this area are clear. He
explains, if you look at the parcels and talk to the old-timers the loko iʻa that was there helped
serve an important function to manage the drainage. He explains that loko iʻa were prevalent
along the coast and acted as filters and basins to protect water and coastal water quality. This
loko iʻa was covered by the County, and now the runoff literally has to be pumped out of the
Sheraton and parking lots. Mason explains the costs associated with the destruction of these
ancient water management systems that we do not often consider. These other parcels could
have major impacts on the long-term restoration efforts of these fishponds and cultural sites.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
119
The impacts to water quality Mason said is already prevalent offshore in this area. The data
is clear that what we have done and are doing is having a huge impact on the coastal
resources from a health and safety standpoint. The coastal waters and the adjacent water
bodies are known to be polluted with human waste. To add more development in this area
without a regional plan that takes into consideration the existing degradation and the
compounded impacts on future restoration efforts. He sees additional development without
these concerns being addressed first as the certain destruction of the remaining reef
ecosystem and fisheries.
In relation to access Mason says we have to do better than just recognizing the site is there
but then also connect it to the practice and access needs for the site to be honored properly.
Mason talks about the impacts to practitioners who are unable to make those connections
and use these sites as they are meant to be used. He explains if the site is enclosed in a hotel,
or surrounded by multimillion-dollar homes, it loses its relevance and when we don't
acknowledge the connections and purpose of the site, it is not really protected. He feels that
while we have started looking more to preserving these sites, it is not enough, we need to look
at restoring their purpose and the knowledge that came with it.
He goes on to explain that if, for example, he is going to utilize a historical navigational point
and honor the movement of celestial bodies in some way, imagine how difficult it will be with
a multi-story building blocking the view. He points out it becomes impossible for some of these
practices to continue.
As Mason explained the correlation of sites to each other with the navigation perspective,
regarding access specifically in Koloa, he spoke of the interconnected relationship of specific
heiau and ʻauwai systems. He described these as having been broken or dismantled over time
leaving gaps in Hawaiian history and its significance as a complex agricultural and religious
system. Cultural stewardship organizations are working hard to make those reconnections
and to support this effort. Mason believes we need to more clearly outline the whole region
and protect the access between them for when we are ready and able to restore it.
He addressed that continued access for practitioners is always an issue. He mentioned golf
courses that surround important ceremonial sites and how we have to do better in recognizing
and honoring the true purpose of the site and providing the right kind of access. It's
understanding the connections a site has to what is around it that he says matters.
Mason believes we should be looking at all developments appropriately and investigating how
they fit into the surrounding landscape in a way that works with nature rather than against it
and questions the goals we have and if they revolve around community, and honoring
traditional land uses. Mason points out that as we are looking more at the land management
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
120
of the past in an attempt to find balance, these sites will become more and more important
to learn from.
Mason said that human impact is always prevalent, regardless of how intent we are on
preservation and protection. When we look at it from a standpoint of how we encourage those
that don't understand the significance and impact they create, it becomes amplified. That is
what we seem to be supporting here, exploitation of our resources just by the nature of the
properties we are developing.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Mason points out that historically we have seen a lot of illegal activity around this area and a
lot of destruction of significant sites in this area. Mason said that while regulatory frameworks
have somewhat changed to better protect some of these resources the development practices
and processes seem to remain the same.
Mason spoke of the complexity of this area in the sense of cultural and historical significance
and suggested it may even need a specific progress with the highest level of due diligence.
Because of its uniqueness Mason believes we should be even more cautious than usual of
how we move forward and revisit and exhaust our resources and assessment methods before
we clear the way for developments.
Mason pointed out that in the case of Kauanoe o Kōloa, the community does not have faith
that due diligence was undertaken. They have lost faith in the regulatory process that has
occurred and getting clarity on the findings and mitigating measures have not been easy, even
for him as a council person. He explains that while some of the boxes may have been checked
off, in the eyes of the community there are significant holes in what was presented and the
developer has clearly not engaged with the Hawaiian practitioners in this area or combed
through available resources. It highlights how important it is to conduct good thorough
assessments and outreach especially in sensitive areas like this.
Mason suggested we revisit the process if it's not addressing the impacts in a regional
manner. He says we need stronger wider coordination from a regional perspective relating to
collective impacts. Mason explains we too often look only at a subject parcel rather than with
a lens of the wider impacts to the entire region.
Mason said that we should be mapping and marking out the remnants of this major complex
before it is entirely lost. One of the regional pieces we are lacking, he explains, is connecting
these cultural sites and looking at the system as a whole. There is important connectivity
between the structures in this area and there is a correlation to each one that is significant
and our processes are not recognizing that.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
121
Mason suggested we need a regional watershed plan and we have a responsibility to
understand the added impact of various developments and ensure due diligence when
approving projects such as these. We need to think beyond swales and a single property or
project best management practices and think on a larger scale collectively about how to
manage discharge of all kinds. We need to include the way over land flow moves and plan
accordingly to limit the impacts not just to human infrastructure but to the coastal waters and
environment.
Mason mentioned that detailed drainage plans that mitigate impacts from waste water is
crucial. Managing all waste and runoff in a way that not only avoids further negatively
impacting the environment but works in correlation with the cultural restoration projects
needed in this area would be key.
Mason feels like the regulating agencies need to do their job and apply extra due diligence in
this sensitive area. He says we need developers to consider these things holistically, for
example, considering the uses of a place and incorporating such uses into its preservation. In
doing this we help things not just become relics and sites that are for aesthetics but instead
we are protecting the connections and the importance of the place and its purpose.
Mason is disappointed that we cannot have better smoother communications relating to the
surveys and assessments that are used to determine impacts in this area. He notes that
departments and overseeing regulatory bodies don’t have the resources to manage
everything they need to, and this needs to change.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
122
5.9 Interview with Peleke Flores
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Peleke Flores
Date: May 25, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Peleke Flores was born in Hilo, Hawai‘i and raised in Waimea, Kaua‘i where he still lives today.
Peleke currently works for Mālama Hulēʻia on Hulēʻia Kaua'i as a Field Operations Manager
and Community Outreach Coordinator, currently working to restore Alakoko Fishpond. He has
experience in traditional hale building, Uhau Humu Pōhaku (Hawaiian dry set) and restoring
traditional Hawaiian food systems such as loʻi kalo, loʻi paʻakai, koʻa/limu, and loko iʻa.
Overview
In his ʻāina based land restoration role(s) Peleke has a special interest in the historical sites
and their restoration, not just protection. His interest is in trying to learn more about what
specifically is still here that could be restored and what the impacts are to these sites.
Peleke spoke about being on site to pay his respects and see the project site and his interest
to learn more about what is going on and learn the facts for himself. He mentioned he has
been unable to access or inspect the site. He mentioned a consistent pattern of lack of trust
in archeological determinations that say no archeological findings when major concerns are
being voiced by Hawaiians. He was concerned that the investigations into the sites and
potential archeological sites on and in the area may not have looked deep enough. Peleke
mentioned that he wished he had the time, in addition to what he is already doing with his
full-time job, volunteer positions and family responsibility, to check all those records and
resources himself. It was clear he felt like due processes are often not being followed correctly.
General Discussion
Peleke described his association with the site and current developments as one of mostly
curiosity. He explained that he has been trying to learn more about the specifics of the cultural
surveys to date and what is recorded in this area and how any significant sites are being
impacted. He said he was trying to investigate if due diligence was done but was unable to
get the reports or surveys that showed what was surveyed and the findings.
Peleke said he felt it was wrong of the developer to start breaking down rock structures, and
grading and grubbing, given the cultural significance of this area and concerns without
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
123
thoroughly exhausting cultural resources and clearly demonstrating that no sites are being
impacted.
Peleke talks about his view of the resources that are here in the sense of restoration and not
just historical preservation but the restoration and reuse of these sites for practicing
Hawaiians and for their intended purpose again in the future.
He described the entire area surrounding these projects as a footprint of what his kupuna left
behind and a knowledge of how Hawaiian people thrived in this area. He mentioned the entire
area surrounding these developments is rich with culture and history and hopes, what can be,
is restored in his lifetime.
Place Names & Sites
Peleke mentions the Kōloa Complex, and the unique style of agriculture practices and
structures that were built in this area for a significant dryland food production system.
Peleke pointed out sites in the area like Kāneiʻolouma Heiau. He mentioned that there are old
villages in this area and different makahiki sites. He also mentioned the unique water system
ditch that connected across the road and then climbed up mauka from there. He explained
that a lot of those systems and sections and the large fishpond in front of Kāneiʻolouma has
been cut off and the system requires the water that runs down and through that site.
He also mentioned the presence of HAPA trail and koloa flats area and the historic nature of
this entire site.
Peleke mentioned the presence of unique caves and burials and a unique raised ʻauwai
system that all had specific names he is not familiar with offhand.
Cultural Resources
Peleke described the resources in these areas as old structures and cultural sites where a
range of practices from spiritual to agricultural and sustainable living occurred. He talked in
general of sites expected in this area that would include unique caves, burials and water and
food production systems that he considers cultural resources for spiritual practice and
facilitating a return to our native foodways. Peleke referred to the ʻauwai system that
connected through the areas all connected to growing food and irrigation.
He mentioned that it is hard to prove every cultural site every time, knowing enough that there
was stuff in that spot, it shouldn't be the community's job to identify them, the developers
should exhaust the resources available and prove without a doubt no harm will come. A unique
system especially with moving water and amplifying.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
124
Peleke mentioned that the resources in this area today are used mostly for spiritual practice,
given its rich history there is a desire to restore whatever can be. To him, and he said to others,
this is a place of rich culture and worthy of protection and thorough investigation.
Peleke talked about the historic nature of the HAPA trail and importance to be protected.
Traditions and Customs
Peleke spoke about the makahiki games and gatherings that happened in that area and the
traditions and customs that were practiced associated with makahiki. Kāneiʻolouma Heiau
was a place of makahiki celebrations and the best and biggest games and gatherings on
Kauaʻi.
He mentioned again the presence of old villages in this area and the traditions that were used
for the waterways that produced food and the desire to restore these sites. There were many
traditions and customs that were done in this area relating to fishing and aquaculture and
agricultural fields.
Peleke knows of people that are spiritually practicing at these specific sites and trying to
restore and maintain cultural sites in this area and the areas that are sitting surrounded by
development now or poised for future development. He also spoke of the many known burial
areas and caves and the traditions of using these places for burials and worship.
Peleke mentioned that he is aware that there are a lot of stories that are written about this
area in general and he would have to do the research to list the names of them. Personally,
he also spoke of family stories from his tutu about respecting this place and lessons he
learned as a kid about the history and presence of a village connected to fishponds, above
ground ʻauwai and the marvels of this ancient system his ancestors built.
Impacts
Peleke explained that some of the sites have largely been destroyed already. He said that now
people that are trying to restore and protect these sites and are hoping to be honored, and
respected but instead are being disrespected and threatened.
Peleke sees the impacts of these projects as potentially being ones that further degrades the
remaining infrastructures that we have to restore which will make it harder to recreate some
of these systems and knowledge and properly manage our resources along this coastline.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
125
Peleke described the impacts of disturbing desecrating iwi kupuna burial sites and defiling
Hawaiian graveyards as another layer of impact and trauma to those that are trying to
preserve their iwi kupuna.
Peleke described the overall impact of these developments as a destruction of our history,
which is a major resource especially in the uncertain times that we face and the enhanced
need to look to our ancient food and land management ways to bring us back to self-
sufficiency.
He talked about the loss of self-identity should these sites be destroyed further. He mentioned
that people can still connect their genealogy back to this place and once it is erased, he feels
like they are floating souls and unable to trace back their history to these sites and restore
them. Given the history of illegal land grabs and displacement, the destruction of the sites
becomes a way that people are completely cut off from their access to self-identity.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Peleke mentioned he felt that developers had the responsibility to prove without a doubt that
there are no impacts to these resources. He mentioned modern Lidar technology, mahele,
kipuka database and other existing record sources (kuleana records, maps, stories eventually
and moʻolelo) that can be searched. He felt that developers and people associated with the
projects should be able to clearly identify or prove the absence of significant sites on the
project sites and surrounding areas and present this to the community.
It is ridiculous and abusive to him that Hawaiians have to struggle through life, and then also
stop and prove these places exist despite all these resources developers could exhaust to
determine that nothing is there and prove it sufficiently. He felt like it was Hawaiians that care
that end up having to do the work for the developers to prove why they cannot build in a certain
place instead of these developers doing the work to prove to Hawaiians, using good resources
and facts, that they can build in a place without any impacts. He felt like this treatment is a
way that Hawaiians are being abused and disrespected and killed slowly over generations. He
pointed out that with full time jobs and busy lives trying to survive already and then they are
expected to also be the ones to do the work for developers to prove to the developers why
they can’t build on something significant seems absurd.
He said there should be a template for every resource they go through, for all places not just
Koloa, to ensure that due diligence is followed. If it was there should be no impact, and there
should be facts to show it.
Peleke mentioned that we should be attempting to reconnect these old place names back to
places that have been renamed and reconnect in the process with the history and purpose of
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
126
those places. If no sites of significance exist it should be clearly able to be demonstrated by
exhausting these resources.
His main recommendation was that developers use resources, due diligence and follow the
existing laws completely and ensure that significant sites are not being destroyed or else the
project should not go ahead. He mentioned looking through cultural research, papers, mahele
records, kuleana reports, census, internet, museums, maps, moʻolelo and pictures to really
be clear about what is and isn't impacted and make sound assessments about what should
go ahead where.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
127
5.10 Interview with Pualiʻiliʻimaikalani Rossi-Fukino
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Pualiʻi Rossi-Fukino
Date: May 31, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Pualiʻiliʻimaikalani Rossi-Fukino (Pua) is a Hawaiian Studies Instructor and Program
Coordinator for University of Hawaiʻi at Kauaʻi Community College campus in Līhuʻe, Kauaʻi.
She was born in Kalāheo and raised in Wailua Kauaʻi. She currently still lives in Wailua. Pua
does have ancestral ties to Koloa and her grandmother was born where Kukuiʻula market is
now. Her family names associated with the area include Kaio, Hipa and Kiheihipa.
Overview
Pua provided general information about the region and the history and unique nature of the
structures there. She shared some of the stories and legends she was familiar with and her
overall thoughts about the importance of this area.
General Discussion
Pua is less familiar with place names outside of what is documented and familiar with multiple
legends from this area. She feels that the area is very culturally significant and shared about
the isolation of important sites in this area and the potential for continued displacement with
this development and others in the area.
Place Names & Sites
There is a ‘forgotten’ ahupuaʻa that is named Aepo that she recalled in this area. This is a land
district that is close to where parcel H development is planned. Aepo cuts through near the
Lodge at Kukuiʻula is marked on the map. This is an old name and not referred to on many
maps.
There are several heiau in this area she mentioned. One sits where the golf course is now,
mauka of the Lodge at Kukuiʻula, closer to parcel H. Some say it was lamakū, or a navigational
point for canoes. Makai of the site there is supposed to be another of these points closer to
the shore.
Pua mentioned that this entire area was significant for aliʻi and while Wailua and Waimea are
commonly considered the most royal sites on Kauaʻi but that aliʻi frequented and had history
and significant presence in Kōloa too. From Aepo to Pāʻā, Weliweli, area particularly has
significant aliʻi history. It was a site of a lot of activity both aliʻi and makaʻāinana.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
128
According to modern history as well she recounts that we had aliʻi living there in the
1870s. The original site of Queen Emma was also relatively close to this area and was moved
to the NTBG site later. Pua shared that her home was near where the Kukuiʻula golf course
ends and where you start overlooking the road to National Tropical Botanical Gardens (NTBG).
Up mauka of that is where her home was located. Queen Emma renamed that area Mauna
Kilohana around that time. Her house site suggests further significant sites for aliʻi also.
Queen Emma had ancestral ties to Kōloa, and obtained that during the mahele. Queen Emma
established there in the 1860’s. People think of the house, but the house was moved. This
original site is above where Parcel H is mapped.
Within the Parcel H area, she said that there is Niukapukapu Heiau. She describes it as right
on the cusp of where NTBG starts, and slightly west of parcel H.
Makai of the Kauanoe O Kōloa development area there is also a heiau dedicated to Kāne.
Kihahouna Heiau, Nukumoi surf spot and Kāneiʻolouma Heiau are also in the surrounding
areas, more toward the Grand Hyatt, but in the wider area surrounding these developments.
Pua shared that the site is associated with the unique dry land field system; there were also
fishponds, and loʻi. There is one heiau (Mauna Pōhaku) that was once cared for by Nāhinu
and ʻAuhea, who lived there around the 1800s, I believe. There was an ʻauwai system going
through that heiau. There is also another heiau (Kamaloʻula) which I was told had the only
untouched above-ground ʻauwai. They used these irrigation ditches as part of the heiau. There
is some really unique architecture that is not seen elsewhere.
Really significant fishing resources and cultural practices.
There were really different styles of heiau structures in this area. Very unique systems like the
raised ʻauwai systems. Kāneiʻolouma Heiau is another example of these rarer designs of
heiau, which is very unique and significant to Hawaiian history.
Cultural Resources
There used to be impressive bird populations, loʻi and fishing grounds that were significant in
this area. Lots of important fishing grounds. To the north of these developments there are
also some sites she mentioned including Waikomo stream which was a major cultural
resource and site in this area. There are stories of moʻo, like Kihawahine where the Maulili
pool is.
Pua shared that there was a dry land field system in this area. Dry land systems we know the
least about and were incredibly important where there wasn't an abundance of water. Right
now there are very few areas that have this and this is the only one known on Kauaʻi. It was a
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
129
rotating crop system. It was a very unique system and I know that in the Kauanoe koloa area
was where it was identified.
Traditions and Customs
Pua discussed the unique styles of architecture and with them traditions and customs that
would have occurred with them.
The area is known for moʻo traditions and legend. She shared about the history of spouting
horn, which was associated with a moʻo tradition and a unique story of the salt water moʻo.
This is located makai of Parcel H. She shared the history of the destruction of the original
Spouting Horn which was blown up leaving the existing one today that people call Spouting
Horn. Tradition says that there were certain fishing grounds that were guarded by this moʻo. A
young boy was said to have trapped the moʻo in the old spouting horn. The spout used to go
very high and then the sugar industry blew it up to stop water flowing back into the fields and
killing the cane.
Maulili Pool is tied to Waikomo stream along Kukuiʻula area. This site is associated with
Kihawahine, probably one of the most dominant moʻo who was known to frequent Waikomo
area. Certain traditions that are specific to the worshiping of Moʻo. Traditions associated with
worship of moʻo included building of certain hale structures, giving certain offerings, practicing
customs associated with the kapu system that restricted various types of fishing and access
at some times. There was a definite moʻo relationship with the people there and with it
significant unique practices and traditions.
Impacts
Pua was definitely concerned about the impacts to fishing grounds and underground water
systems that feed them Pua is concerned about. She understands that historically, because
of less outfall points and the dry nature of the coastline, water quality was very clear and clean
in the past. She is concerned that the development will further degrade and add to continued
degradation of the water quality along the coastline.
Pua mentioned the potential impacts to a returning bird population and the stifling that these
developments could result in for the restoration of these cultural sites and systems that the
future bird habitat that could be restored in this area.
She was concerned about the potential for impacts to HAPA Trail, burial sites and caves and
lava tubes which are hugely present in this immediate area and culturally significant burial
sites and hiding locations historically. Pua discussed the presence of many in this area and
their importance and her concern about them being damaged or impacted during works.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
130
Having access to heiau, fishing sites, cultural practice sites and historical agricultural sites
was some Pua was definitely concerned about the impacts to. Pua discussed the potential for
future displacement and how families she knows are being impacted from surrounding
existing development. She said these families who were caretakers for some of these heiau
have been unable to access the sites and practice their kuleana to mālama them. She is
concerned that the proposed development will negatively impact families who have a
generational responsibility to care for these sites and restore them as they were tasked. Pua
was specifically concerned with having access to these sites further limited or cut off
altogether.
Pua mentioned the impacts around access but also stressed the impacts associated with the
loss of these sites altogether. She described the overall impacts of the loss of these sites as
generations who will lose their history and knowledge that was passed down from generations
of her ancestors that practiced and lived in this area. She described the impacts of this loss
as a loss of cultural identity, connection and family history. She is concerned about the loss
of culture and knowledge should this important area continue to be developed for luxury
homes and tourism.
Pua said she believes the place has reached maximum capacity and it’s not beneficial to local
families to proceed with these developments. She is worried about the overdevelopment for
hotels and transient accommodation while the affordable housing crisis for local families
worsens.
There are families that are now unable to access or use sites they were entrusted to care for.
While legally Pua acknowledged that she knew she had a right to supposedly have that access
and practice she pointed out that it doesn't feel that way, and it is not really enforced or
allowed in many cases including some places in Kōloa.
There are reasons they were there. Within this small area there are a significant number of
these important sites and stories which means this significant site meant a lot to our people.
To me it's glaringly obvious that this site should not be used for luxury housing.
She sees the impacts as one of loss of generational history and knowledge, and a loss of
cultural identity, connection and family history. Pua sees this as a potential significant loss of
knowledge and cultural identity.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Pua does not think the project should go ahead, and doesn't see reasonable mitigation
measures that could be taken to avoid major impacts to the sites she is concerned about.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
131
She did say should it proceed; her advice is that the right Hawaiian families need to be
included in the conversation and the developer needs to be educated on the significance of
the site and the necessary protections of all of the areas mentioned. She mentioned cultural
monitors there as advisors and independent oversight to ensure that these sites are not being
impacted and that the works respect the cultural significance of that area.
She talked about planning for any future development having the cultural significance built in
with respect to its history and the traditional owners from the beginning.
She suggested that it was wrong to blast, crush or break through the rocks and recommended
avoiding such works. She said overall that any development in this area would need to tread
lightly and work around the many significant sites and cultural uses of this area.
She suggested working with the community, with the kahuna of the area and lineal
descendants of Kōloa and she talked about the long-term responsibility to educate visitors
and people that move to these sites about the rights, practices and significance of these areas
to Hawaiians.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
132
5.11 Responses from Roslyn Cummings
Pule, Prayer
E IʻO mahalo no kēia lā,
mahalo no kō mākou ola,
no kō mākou ea a kō mākou mana.
Aia no mākou i nei ʻĀina ʻO Kauai ke kū nei no ka palekana o nā iwi k ūpuna, ‘āina, na kamali’i,
wahine, kane
He noi haʻahaʻa kēia no kou palekana i luna o mākou pākahi a pau.
E mālama i ka pono ma ke aō a me ka pō.
E kōkua iā mākou e kū me ka haʻaheo no kō mākou kūpuna a no kō mākou lau manamana.
Me ke aloha pau ʻole, ʻāmama ua noa, ʻamene.
Kou Inoa Manawaiakea, noho Kalaheo Ahupua’a, Kona Moku, Mokupuni Kauai
(Manokalanipo, Kamawaelualani),
Wahine Maoli (Women) taught to me by my tutu Kane
Kalani Paiʻea Wohi o Kaleikini Kealiʻikui Kamehameha o ʻIolani i Kaiwikapu kauʻi Ka Liholiho
Kūnuiākea he called me a- “Wahine Maoli”
Kuleana: Kahuna Papakulo, Mana Lomi, Kahea, Kea
(Child of God) Alo to be present in Hā life essence as equals (not above, nor below) as equals
He āina Ha Wai ‘I I am of Hawaii
Home of our ancestors, those that walk before us.
Kou hanau Waimea, Kauai (Ka Ua ‘I)
Hapai ‘ia Pokiikauna, Kauai, Makaweli, Kauai, Ko’ula Kauai, Polihale Kauai, Nualolo Kauai,
Lawai, Kauai, Kalaheo, Kauai, Kōloa, Kauai, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Ike Papalua
Kukuiula is a place where our ancestral burials and cave systems are so vast we hold near
and dear the secrets of their passage. Palekana (DO NOT TRESPASS)
To forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those we trespass against us. Modern day Kukuiula
is known for its reinterment site amongst high end luxury homes. Specifically the Kapu burials
of our tutu wahine chiefess along with the burial that had been desecrated back in the 2000’s
of George Humehume our tutu kane through Eke, Ese Oponui. He aligns with the birthing place
of Prince Kuhio the one of whom descends from those that are buried in these vast burial
systems which hold a large amount of our wealth (waiwai) wai (waters) a large part of our
sustenance. Without it we are malnourished. As our ancestors were in the times of disease
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
133
and famine. Bought to our lands by greed. The area host a large amount of spiritual, cultural,
religious significance. To each a kuleana, to have respect and be responsible for. It seems
that kanaka maoli in the past 50-60 years have failed their kuleana.
Kamakahelei would summon her warriors at the heiau of Kanaloa. A large voyaging Heiau
dedicated to Kanaloa, redeficated to ‘I’O ‘I supreme, ‘O earth, universe ever revolving. In the
time of ‘I’O, the great awakening, the reckoning (knowing what is right by doing what is right)
Amongst our Ali’i (Ali ‘I) are the warriors and it’s people. The villagers. Held in high respect,
regard is the Ahupua’a. Where many thrived.
Koloa borders the ahupuaa of Lawai to the west and Weliweli to the east.
Developments are detrimental to our people, kanaka maoli. Its effects are felt for generations.
I am here as you should be to stop the progress of DEVELOPMENT. Damaging our eco-system.
Kukuiula as wetlands. Depleted by the unset of large luxury homes. Waste and Water usage
damaging our waters from Mauka to Makai. Water needing to be diverted to feed into these
man made systems what is protected under law! Effecting our wai. Our reefs which host a
large amount of our healthy iron (limu) is being depleted on the entire coastline throughout
Kona Moku.
We fish here, we gather here. We pray here. We visit our ancestral burials here.
The original name prior to Prince Kuhio Birthplace was Kualu a name carried down through
my Great grandfather William Waikaka Kanakanui Kualu. A name Kapu to most. A name that
came before our time. Since time immemorial- Kualukiniakua of the Mu,
Kualunuikupaumokumoku of the Wao, and Kualunuiaola of the Menehune.
The developer, limited warranty deed holder Gary Pinkston if Meridian Pacific Ltd. A brand of
MP Financial (Nevada based Corporation of investors) removed the surface layers of the
seating house of Kualunuikupaukokumoku. He removed the birthing stone of
Kamawaelualani son of Wakea and Papanuihanaumoku Haumea I am a descendant as we
are, kanaka maoli.
Kiahuna in the 1950’s it was shared that a mummified burial surrounded by shrunken skulls
were found.
In Ike papalua that area from modern time going back in history: host a lot of our waiwai;
collective. Kaikioewa the first governor of Kauai elected at the time by his hanai son
Kauikeaouli is kanu in the proposed area we call Palikua lot. He is also known as Palikua.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
134
There is a piko that is present day in that particular development. Where all souls exit when it
leaves the outer islands. They enter through here. ‘O oio spirit pathway. The heiau is shaped
in the creation symbol. Like a labyrinth. On the west side of the fraudulent tmk is the cave
system that has been collapsed during Kiahuna development. You can still see the tree trunk
and the lauhala tree which sits in the collapsed cave, lava tube, cavern. Bars within tells-
burials!
On the north side of the āina the Catholic Church built an altar right over a known cave, cave
systems as shown in previous maps. To the east of said property there is also a preserve area.
So, how can slap, dab in the middle not be significant as KAUAI COUNTY, DLNR, SHPD, and
numerous Agencies have made claims to. Accountability goes a long way.
On the southwest you have Pa’u a Laka Heiau and to the southwest of that another preserved
area. Both are surrounded by development. Homes of foreign investors.
I say foreign because there is no pilina in the area. It’s culture and history. Not even to our
practices. To the south there are the remnants of the Kōloa field system of which Hallett
Hammett of Culural Survyes Hawaii speaks so highly of and later claims “no significance”. To
whose belief?
Our people come from oral history. Āina is our foundation. You cannot build a house where
one is already standing.
In the story of Kawelo whose villagers are buried kanu in these lands and its surrounding. The
heiau is part of the Kiahuna development which the archeologists stated somewhere along
the lines of- it’s just landscape for the golf course. So, I ask- what was here first? Our ancestors
the kanaka maoli or the golf course. There are many Kalweo make sure what you perceive
comes from the source- Ike papalua
Right above you have maulili a well known historical site of the legends of Kane and Kanaloa
There are waterways underground of this property and using our natural resource foreigners
call Blue Rock. Again, depleting resources that do not belong to foreigners. Resources that
need to be preserved and protected.
The blind eyed spiders and the amphipods they feed on are FEDERALLY protected species.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife claim they do not have a full survey of the area. Then why is the County
of Kauai, SHPD, and DLNR permitting projects over preserved lands. Lands that since the
1970’s have been monitored and written about. Desecration of burials documented but
controlled narratives. Large amount of burials have been taken out, destroyed and sold in the
history of Kōloa!
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
135
Mainly, Ike papalua will share that these lands is a huge part of the battle, war in the time of
Kukona and his son Manokalanipo. Why would we allow such history to be erased for modern
day process by the hands of those who are greedy. Which only see on the surface. Not below
nor above. They only see the view. Sooner or later we won’t have the practice of papakulo if
this does not stop.
Kauai cannot be another Oahu. These projects are a stem from Moana Corporation Kiahuna
Land Commission Use. Where from the early 2000’s through the mid 2015 lahui fought
against development. Knudsen trust who in a 1970’s newspaper article admitted to
“stewards” of the land not ownership. Their title is held through a 1920’s Anne Sinclair
(Knudsen) land grant after the unlawful overthrow of our Hawaiian Kingdom Government.
These people control our waters and sold our lands including our ancestral burials and
artifacts.
History cannot repeat itself.
the Hawaiian Kingdom
On May 28, 1892, in her opening address to the last lawful Legislature, her Majesty Queen
Liliuokalani declared her intentions and legislative agenda:
‘…I shall firmly endeavor to preserve the autonomy and absolute independence of this
Kingdom and to assist in perpetuating the rights and privileges of all who are subject to our
laws and in promoting their welfare and happiness…’
On November 25, 1892 ‘An Act, To Reorganize The Judiciary Department’ was enacted by the
Hawaiian Kingdom Legislature, and became law on January 1. 1893:
‘The common law of England, as ascertained by English and American decisions, is hereby
declared to be the common law of the Hawaiian Islands in all cases, except as otherwise
expressly provided by the Hawaiian Constitution or laws, or fixed by Hawaiian judicial
precedent, or established by Hawaiian national usage, provided however, that no person shall
be subject to criminal proceedings except as provided by the Hawaiian laws’ [Section 5.
Chapter LVII. An Act, To Reorganize The Judiciary Department, enacted on November 25,
1892, effect on January 1. 1893]
In no way can this interview over email be altered. In no way will it bring harm upon my ‘Ohana.
I pray this will help the next 7-21 generations in a way that they are provided a foundation of
sustenance. An end to systematic failures upon our people. To our children I pray you find
peace of what I am giving. To stand in protection of āina!
Aloha No,
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
136
Manawaiakea
Roslyn Nicole Manawaiakea Malama mare Cummings
General Delivery [Box 315]
Kalaheo Station, [U.S.P.Z. Exempt- 96741]
roslyncummimgs@ymail.com
E Ola Kakou Hawaii
The United States of America must uphold:
On December 20, 1849, the Treaty between the United States of America and the Hawaiian
Kingdom was concluded and signed in Washington, D.C. Ratifications by both countries were
exchanged in Honolulu on the Island of O‘ahu, on August 24, 1850. Article VIII of the treaty
provides:
“…each of the two contracting parties engages that the citizens or subjects of the other
residing in their respective States shall enjoy their property and personal security in as full
and ample manner as their own citizens or subjects, or the subjects or citizens of the most
favored nation, but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively.”
In addition, Article XVI of the said treaty provides that any:
“…citizen or subject of either party infringing the articles of this treaty shall be held responsible
for the same, and the harmony and good correspondence between the two governments shall
not be interrupted thereby, each party engaging in no way to protect the offender, or sanction
such violation.”
Neither the United States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention
to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVI of the 1849 Treaty.
Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
137
5.12 Interview with Rupert Henry Rowe
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Rupert Henry Rowe
Date: June 7, 2022
Location: Kapahi at his home on Kawaihau Rd
Biography
Rupert’s lineage dates back to Wailuanuiahoʻāno, Koloa and Hulēʻia areas. He is 80 years old
and is a retired fireman. Rupert was born at Kapiʻolani after traveling by steamer to Oʻahu
from Kauaʻi while his mother was at full term. He was born an hour after arriving in Honolulu.
Rupert was raised in Kōloa, Kauaʻi in his younger years but then in 1949 was sent to Oʻahu
to learn the western ways. He spent most of his time in ʻIolani Palace until 1959. At the time
his mom worked for the territory and his uncle was the genealogist for Hawaiian Homelands,
which was in the basement of the palace. He did not officially move back to Kauaʻi until 1978.
He now resides in Kapahi on the east side of Kauaʻi.
Rupert’s relationship to the project area is one of deep cultural connection, ancestral lineage
and past involvement intervening in previous developments and restoration works in the area,
particularly for Kāneiʻolouma complex, which he began working to protect and restore in
1998. He is very familiar with longer term impacts and changes to this region and how past
officials and the county have incorrectly built infrastructure and developments across
important cultural sites in the past, some of which have still not been corrected or moved.
Overview
Rupert expressed concern with the amount of development in this area and referred multiple
times to carrying capacity for both the island as a whole and as individual smaller sections,
such as the south side or Koloa area. He is very concerned about the continued loss of identity
that colonization results in and sees the project as a part of the ongoing process of
displacement. Rupert mentions stories from kupuna that engrained common sense and
respect for this place into him as a child.
General Discussion
Rupert shared that at some point in the 1990s he testified against land use changes for a
rezoning attempt for 475 acres in this area. He spoke of the previous failures by planners and
developers to provide drainage plans and adequate water and wastewater management for
projects in the area.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
138
He repeatedly shared his disappointment in government departments and land developers
who approved and continue to approve these projects that result in the destruction of
important cultural sites in Kōloa, for what he sees as simply greed and money. He described
the immense loss to self-identity, important structural features, history and ancient knowledge
that overdevelopment has caused in Koloa to date and sees the project as a continuation of
this. Rupert described a lifetime of changes to this coastline and Hawaiʻi land use and
management in general. He believes that some of these initial approvals and development
plans came from as far back as 1962.
Rupert understands the hesitancy for Hawaiians to share their secrets about what is taken
and used and from where because he feels it is often appropriated and used against them.
He feels that sometimes the sharing of that culture helps to rob the self-identity of Hawaiians
because those that come to get it try to become it and then it becomes a stranger to its original
people and warped. He feels that this is a form of displacement in his own lands.
He mentioned the impacts on Hawaiians when archeologists check off boxes and make
statements of no significance on places that Hawaiians know are important but that so much
has been lost through the loss of language and cultural practice that sometimes it is hard to
prove every time.
Cultural Resources
Rupert shared that there are lots of heiau in this area. He talked about the already impacted
and destroyed sites, although believing with the right efforts some of them could be restored.
He mentioned the Waiohai side of the Poʻipū Beach parking lot area was built in the fishpond
that was a part of this larger system. He describes the larger Kāneiʻolouma complex as being
from where Kalapaki Joes is today to Kiahuna down to the fence line to the Waiohai all the
way back to Nukumoi Surf Shop and back up to Kalapaki Joes.
Rupert spoke of the cultural sites in this area that provide an important connection for him
and other Hawaiians. He sees these as sites as important parts of self-identity and as
important sites for us to restore and regain that connection to Hawaiian heritage and ancient
knowledge. Rupert describes the cultural resources that this area had, and estimated roughly
70% are probably destroyed with only 30% remaining in this area. He feels the 30% remaining
are more important than ever to protect and that their restoration is a way of reconnecting
that Hawaiian cultural practice, land management knowledge and self-identity.
Rupert shared that the HAPA Trail, while commonly referred to as such, is actually the royal
pathway with its own royal patent. He describes the extensive nature of that royal pathway
that went all the way through Koloa Town to Lihue and beyond.
Rupert also mentions burial caves are located throughout the project area.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
139
Rupert mentions the largely destroyed Kōloa irrigation system that was coming down from
Waita and the extensive nature of this system. While he said much of this has been destroyed,
there are sections and areas that remain that can be protected and restored.
Rupert says this entire coastline was rich in resources but that most of those are gone due to
impacted water quality due to development over the last 50 years.
Traditions and Customs
Throughout the interview Rupert mentions reference to Makahiki games and festivals that
occurred in this area.
Rupert refers to the high population that resided in this area and the traditions and customs
that were associated with their burial, food production, and unique traditions that went along
with the unique structures and systems Kōloa is known for.
There would have been specific fishing traditions and food production traditions associated
with the fishpond(s) in the surrounding area also.
Impacts
Rupert mentioned that injury to ʻāina anywhere feels like an injury to all kanaka because what
we see today, we will not see tomorrow and once we lose these sites they are gone. He
mentioned society's failure to appreciate the infrastructure and legacy laid down for the
betterment of those that come after us. He felt that this project continues to impact all future
Hawaiians. That mentality was ingrained in him growing up but he said seems largely
forgotten.
Rupert spoke of the drastic changes he has seen in his life and was concerned that these
were continuing to accelerate with this additional development.
He was concerned about the impacts of current and future injection wells in the Koloa area.
He referred to the impacts of too many people being present in an area without the proper
management of all forms of waste. He was particularly concerned about injection wells from
the existing Kiahuna property.
He talked about the compounding impacts that we are not considering from climate change
and rising sea levels. He questioned if we are thinking 25 years or so into the future about
how we will deal with all of these impacts with the changes coming.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
140
Rupert was particularly concerned about the solid waste concerns and where we will be
putting all the waste coming out of these growing developments and pointed out there is no
plan on how we will be dealing with our waste in the coming decades.
Rupert questioned the initial authorities that granted the right to develop this area and rezone
these important agricultural systems for luxury and transient development and pointed out
the impacts of these careless decisions as a form of genocide and an attempt to erase
Hawaiian history and knowledge. He says he sees this as the result of intentional
brainwashing that has happened in his lifetime to convince Hawaiians that the selling of their
lands and tourism and western social structure were somehow going to provide a better life
for them. He also said that 80 years later he sees that as a continued lie that has resulted in
the displacement of Hawaiians from their own land and no one is better off, except those who
have profited on the backs of these land grabs.
He mentioned Kiahuna had burial and cultural sites on their property, but the project pushed
ahead and the continued pain that this causes for kanaka maoli. He described that these
impacts of loss of identity happen when we lose language, cultural practice and important
places and infrastructure such as what has happened and continues to happen in Kōloa.
Rupert mentioned that for anyone to recite specifics of the impacts to what burials and
features is hard offhand and that there is so much has already been lost.
Rupert was concerned about the loss of cultural sites and the further loss of self-identity which
he sees as a form of genocide and to him this project is a part of that perpetuated colonization
which is to blame. He sees the impact as kanaka losing an understanding of where they come
from and the connection to place. He sees these developments as also being a perpetuation
of colonization with more foreigners moving here and changing the culture and impacting
Hawaiian practice and way of life.
Rupert understands that if we mālama the ʻāina and work with it, it will give back to us; but
when we instead continue to just take whatever we can, we all lose. Hawaiian culture teaches
us the land will reject us if we do not properly care for it.
Impacts to access were referred to as an ongoing struggle and Rupert mentioned that the
system and processes as are clearly not functioning that are meant to allow Hawaiians access
to important places and cultural sites.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Rupert did not mention specific mitigation measures that can be taken but instead asked the
larger questions relating to why this project was able to go ahead considering there are no
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
141
clear answers provided by developers. He feels that there aren’t easy mitigation measures
that could stop the problems happening with this project because no clear answers have been
provided about the impacts and how the projects will deal with waste, carrying capacity for
Koloa and other important planning issues and again mentioned climate change and the
rising oceans as an added challenge.
Rupert feels that one of the sad parts of this is that royal patents are not given the respect
they deserve. He describes the differences between royal patent land titles and corporate
warranty titles and how this is part of the overthrow of Hawaiian lands and lifestyle by bringing
in the American property ownership model. He does not feel that this westernized land
ownership and management model is appropriate or sustainable for our small island.
He believes the mentality of our county employees and officials needs to change to value the
true worth of sites like those in Koloa. He mentioned that previous county department heads
and employees are hired by land developers and the concerns he has with the ‘revolving door’
on a local county level that sees people in important regulatory positions then go to work for
developers and private interests. He mentioned the ongoing trust issues these patterns have
created in the community and feels like it is a form of local corruption when conflicts of interest
are ignored on this level.
Rupert mentions how overpopulation of this area and poor planning has resulted in excessive
impacts already to this area and that he doesn't see ways that this area could cope with more
development. Rupert suggested a plan for assessing how many people can this area, and
others on our small island, responsibly handle. He referred to the loss of environmental quality
and resources when development continues to not only destroy important ancient
infrastructure but then fails to protect environmental quality. He pointed out there is no plan
for how we can responsibly accommodate this kind of growth.
One of the things he specifically mentioned was solid waste concerns. He feels there are no
good answers for how we will manage the increase in not just construction waste but the long-
term waste production from these additional sites at a time when our solid waste situation is
already dire. He does not see a responsible way we can continue to develop without first
addressing our waste issue. He asked who is liable for the production and poor disposal of all
the waste associated with these developments.
He also mentioned he did not see viable ways to avoid impacts when these condos continue
to perpetuate colonization and the loss of local lifestyle and ways through displacement of
Hawaiians. He sees the destruction as two-fold, both in the physical destruction but also in
the destructive nature of the continued colonization by more foreigners coming here who then
in turn change this place to be more like their home rather than Hawaiʻi. He sees this as further
displacement and does not have a mitigation measure to address it.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
142
Rupert sees the goal as one of restoring as many of these sites as possible. He sees the
reconstruction training the next generation has undertaken as a path to not just protect these
sites but to restore them and learn from them and he sees this revival in restorative
knowledge as originating from Kāneiʻolouma protection and restoration efforts in the Kōloa
area.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
143
5.13 Responses from Blyth Kahokule‘a Blake
1. ‘O Blythe Kahokule’a Blake (hoku) ko’u inoa. - my name is Blythe Kahokule’a Blake.
2. Full time mother, full time Hawaiian Studies student at Kaua’i Community College,
Kia’I of Kōloa.
3. I was Born in Lihue at Wilcox Hospital, I was raised in Kōloa.
4. Noho au ma Kōloa. - I live in Kōloa
5. My association as Hawaiian practitioner who prays and teaches my keiki in these
areas. E kala mai but I don’t see how one questionnaire can answer for multiple
projects as each area has different cultural purposes. I’ll try my best but I believe
there would need to be specific questions for each project separately.
6. Kiahuna -the upper part of Kiha Honua wasn’t always easily accessible. Growing up,
Kiahuna drive stopped at the golf course entry/ restaurant. My ohana used to go for
brunch on the weekends so when the development for Pili mai and the housing
started it was very obvious. I remember driving up as far as could go with my great-
uncle Heartwel “Hanalei” Blake and my great-grandmother Thelma Blake, they spoke
about how “back in the day” assuming pre-missionary contact, there was a village, an
ohana system that belonged to this area, even a Heiau we could only see if we went
in the golf course, Laka Heiau. I was also baptized at St.Raphael so I’m familiar with
the church property and was told by my grandfather Dennis Blake when he was a kid
they would walk down near the church, on Hapa trail to go to the beach. So being the
curious kid I was I took my bike to the trail yet saw the pastures and gate up so I
decided not to head down. It wasn’t until my great-uncle Ted “teddy” Blake restored
Hapa trail did I actually walk it. Talking about this area with my uncle Blake, he told
me there is an ahu - Hawaiian altar, along the hapa trail. I asked him to take me but
he didn’t remember exactly where it was, being this was almost 30 years ago when
he stumbled upon it.
7. Kiahuna- protocol is something that is done within these wahipana - significant area,
upon entry and before exiting. Protocol is when the person/persons offer an Oli-
chant followed by their mo’okuauhau - genealogy, intention of why they are there is
stated, ho’okupu may also be given, closed with an oli.
8. Kiahuna- or it’s original inoa Kiha Honua, getting shortened over time by newcomers
is believed to be a resting area of a Kihawahine, Mo’o goddess, with the cave system
beneath kiahuna drive. (Along the shore front of this area there’s a plaque dedicated
to the “remaining” pohaku of a Heiau dedicated to her and a couple more gods. Yet it
wasn’t just the shore that was important. It was the whole surrounding area. Going
inland There is Literally houses surrounding a Heiau. Surrounding Laka Heiau, in a
very disrespectful manner). It is without a doubt to say this area in general is
significant irregardless of the current development.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
144
9. Pali Kua, Laka Heiau, hapa trail, the beginning of the sugar era, the blind spiders, the
nene who call this area home, or did. Pueo, the aquifer beneath it, the cave system
Pu’u wanawana is not even a mile away. The missing Heiau.
10. I can’t speak for three spectate areas in one.
11. The tradition of honoring the dead within this area will be lost. Honoring gods at their
Heiau, teaching keiki of the wahipana, Hawaiians won’t be able to access, let alone
get near those sites, when it becomes occupied. We can’t even get there now. This
can all be prevented by bringing an immediate halt to the current plans of
development.
12. There should actually be cultural monitors, burial council member present, on site
the ENTIRE time of operation. I also believe The department of Land and Natural
Resources should also be present considering the cave system. There also needs to
be revised or simply new environmental impact reports. Let’s not forget the brackish
water or the redirection of Waikomo stream. There has always been nene around the
kiahuna area, I would see many ohana and now just a few birds themselves. Their
disappearance is obvious. Isn’t it a law that any construction / development has to
stop or isn’t allowed in the nene’s habitat, or does that not apply to multi million
dollar companies.
13. The south side is already over developed and overcrowded with tourists. Where are
the Kanaka maoli ? Most of us got pushed out of the south side. Excluding myself I
only know two other households in Kōloa that are actually Hawaiian. The County of
Kaua’i should be ashamed of themselves for putting visitors above residents. Putting
visitors above the families who actually took care of this land so they the county can
profit money. Not only is our community not built for this, where am I supposed to go
for my cultural practices when access to those areas are being taken away? Where
am I supposed to teach my kids how to be Hawaiian when there’s nowhere to
practice. Where are we all gonna do grocery shopping ? Big save can barely keep the
shelves full with the amount of people we have on the south side, right now.
Sueoka’s got sold and now Sells souvenirs, Kukuiula store never has parking
available (not the store's fault, just too many tourists). Where are all the cars gonna
go? Anytime poipu road or Ala kalanikaumaka has work being done the cars are
bumper to bumper. Where will my kids go to swim? I can’t even put a mat down at
poipu beach because there is simply no room let alone find a stall to park in. You
can’t even get a plate lunch in Kōloa without waiting 30+ minutes because
everywhere is always packed with tourists. There is simply no room and I refuse to be
pushed out of my hometown.
14. There should be a survey done by residents within the south side, If we oppose or
support these developments. Where was the public meetings, when do residents
actually get to speak up without being dismissed as protesters?
15. The county of Kaua’i should listen to the people and not allow themselves to be
bought out by companies who will displace the local community. The county of Kaua’i
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
145
should be protecting endangered species all over our island and not choose what
species gets to be important and what gets to die off. The actions done by the county
of Kaua’i and by the Kaua’i police department all contribute to the continues
displacement of Kanaka Maoli and local residents. Their actions comite cultural
genicide. Our Mayor Derek Kawakami is not fit to fulfil his duties and role of our
leadership. He can put an end to all of this and his words were “ when the bones are
found, they’ll stop”. No they won’t because if that was the case Pili mai wouldn’t exist
and neither would, Kōloa landing, Kuku’i’ula club, the Sheraton, the Hyatt, the point
at poipu, whaler’s cove, kiahuna, the Waioahi, all those rentals along Pe’e road. The
Kōloa estates, or Kiahuna golf course. They are selling our culture while killing it off
at the same time, where is the “paradise” going to be if it’s all dug out.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
146
5.14 Responses from Terry Kuribayashi
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
147
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
148
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
149
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
150
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
151
5.15 Responses from Val Kane Turalde
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
152
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
153
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
154
5.16 Responses and Documents from Llewelyn H. Kaohelauli‘i
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
155
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
156
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
157
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
158
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
159
6.0 Traditional or Customary Practices Historically in the Study Area and Surrounding Area
In traditional (pre-western contact) culture, named localities served a variety of functions,
informing people about: (1) places where the gods walked the earth and changed the lives of
people for good or worse; (2) heiau or other features of ceremonial importance; (3)
triangulation points such as ko‘a (fishing markers) for fishing grounds and fishing sites (4)
residences and burial sites; (5) areas of planting; (6) water sources; (7) trails and trail side
resting places (o‘io‘ina), such as a rock shelter or tree shaded spot; (8) the sources of
particular natural resources/resource collections areas, or any number of other features; or
(9) notable events which occurred at a given area. Through place names knowledge of the
past and places of significance was handed down across countless generations. There is an
extensive collection of native place names recorded in the mo‘olelo (traditions and historical
accounts) published in Hawaiian newspapers.
This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all the practices that historically or
contemporaneously occur in Kōloa. This is meant to show the range of traditional or customary
practices that took place in the larger geographic extent. Many of these practices may not
have taken place within the specific confines of the Project Area(s), and many of those that
may have do not currently take place within the Project Area(s), although that may actively
occur within the larger region.
6.1 Mo‘olelo
Mo‘olelo is the practice of storytelling and developing oral histories for the purpose of
transmitting knowledge information and values intergenerationally. Mo‘olelo are particularly
critical in protecting and preserving traditional culture in that they are the primary form
through which information was transmitted over many generations in the Hawaiian Islands
and particularly in the Native Hawaiian community.
Storytelling, oral histories, and oration are widely practiced throughout Polynesia and
important in compiling the ethnohistory of the area. The Native Hawaiian newspapers were
particularly valued for their regular publication of different mo‘olelo about native Hawaiian
history. Were it not for the newspapers having the foresight to allow for the printing and
publication of mo‘olelo, far less information about the cultural history of the Hawaiian people
would be available today.
There are numerous mo‘olelo about Kaua‘i and specifically the Kōloa area. Two of these
mo‘olelo are provided in Sections 3.1 (Traditional Period). Additionally, multiple informants
note that there are many, significant stories about the area.
6.2 Habitation
Hawaiians lived extensively throughout the islands. Handy, Handy, and Pukui (1991) identify
how different kānaka and their ‘ohana lived in accordance with what the authors termed
“occupational contrasts” (286), meaning that based on occupation (i.e., planter or fisherman,
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
160
for example), habitation systems differed. They describe, “The typical homestead or kauhale…
consisted of the sleeping or common house, the men’s house, women’s eating house, and
storehouse, and generally stood in relative isolation in dispersed communities. It was only
when topography or the physical character of an area required close proximity of homes that
villages exist. There was no term for village. Kauhale meant homestead, and when there were
a number of kauhale close together the same term was used. The old Hawaiians, in other
words, had no conception of village or town as a corporate social entity. The terrain and the
subsistence economy natural created the dispersed community of scattered homesteads”
(284). Traditionally, as shown in historic maps and through ethnographic data, kānaka
inhabited areas throughout Kōloa. Some of the informants still have lineal ties to their familyʻs
lands.
6.3 Travel and Trail Usage
The ability to travel was essential to Hawaiians and enabled their sustainability. Travel, and
the freedom to move throughout different areas, had different names, including huaka‘i,
ka‘apuni, or ka‘ahele. Traveling by sea had distinct names as well, like ‘aumoana. Traveling
through the mountains was sometimes referred to as hele mauna. Travel, and moving
throughout various places and regions was an essential practice and way of life in traditional
Hawai‘i.
The freedom to travel safely was so important that Kamehameha I would come to pass a well-
known law protecting travelers, Ke Kānāwai Māmalahoe (The Law of the Splintered Paddle).
It is explained by the William S. Richardson School of Law as follows:
As a young warrior chief, Kamehameha the Great came upon commoners fishing along
the shoreline. He attacked the fishermen, but during the struggle caught his foot in a
lava crevice. One of the fleeing fishermen turned and broke a canoe paddle over the
young chief’s head. The fisherman’s act reminded Kamehameha that human life was
precious and deserved respect, and that it is wrong for the powerful to mistreat those
who may be weaker.
Years later when Kamehameha became ruler of Hawai‘i, he declared one of his first
laws, Ke Kānāwai Māmalahoe (the Law of the Splintered Paddle), which guaranteed
the safety of the highways to all. This royal edict was law over the entire Hawaiian
kingdom during the reign of Kamehameha the Great. Considered one of the most
important kānāwai (royal edict), the law gave the Hawaiian people an era of freedom
from violent assault (William S. Richardson School of Law 2021).
The kānāwai (law) reads:
E nā kānaka O my people
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
161
E mālama ʻoukou i ke akua
A e mālama hoʻi
Ke kānaka nui a me kānaka iki
E hele ka ʻelemakule
Ka luahine, a me ke kama
A moe i ke ala
Aʻohe mea nana e hoʻopilikia
Hewa no, make
Honor thy god
Respect alike, the rights of
All men great and humble
See to it that our aged,
Our women, and children
Lie down to sleep by the roadside
Without fear of harm
Disobey, and die
The law would have such long-lasting resonance that it would be expressly incorporated into
the Hawai‘i State Constitution.4
As traveling through traditional trails was the primary means by which people traveled on land
throughout most of Hawaiian history, the traditional trail system is particularly important
throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Throughout the islands, there were numerous trails that
allowed for people to access different locations. This trail system was critical not only for
maintaining a healthy population and managing this population, but it was also important for
the traditional economic system of bartering. The trail system allowed for different localized
communities to engage and interact. This also allowed for the trade of goods throughout
island communities.
Traditionally, trails were widely used, as there was no other means of land transportation. This
meant that these trails were essential to the ability of different ahupua‘a communities to
interact. There were also important to allow for the governance of different ahupua‘a by
konohiki and ali‘i.
From the historic maps provided in Section 3.1, it is clear that kānaka traveled extensively
throughout this area. Figures 6-9 in particular show trails that routed through Kōloa.
Additionally, Hapa Trail, State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) # 50-30-10-00992, is
immediately east of Lot 4 of the Kauanoe o Kōloa development. Multiple interviewees spoke
to the cultural importance of this site and its continued usage.
The historic trail was previously known as Hapa Road and was the government road that
connected Kōloa and Poipu.
4 Article IX. Section 10 of the Hawaii State Constitution reads: “The law of the splintered
paddle, mamala-hoe kanawai, decreed by Kamehameha I--Let every elderly person, woman
and child lie by the roadside in safety--shall be a unique and living symbol of the State's
concern for public safety.”
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
162
6.4 Ceremonial Practices
There are numerous heiau located in Kōloa. While numerous heiau were destroyed following
foreign contact, there are also contemporaneous efforts to protect and preserve heiau in the
region. Numerous informants identified the importance of heiau in Kōloa. Some even
identified their ongoing work on heiau, specifically Kamaloʻula and Kāneiʻolouma heiau.
In this area, there are numerous preservation and restoration activities associated with Uhau
Humu Pōhaku, as this region of Kaua‘i enjoys numerous practitioners skilled in this traditional
practice. There are numerous practitioners in this area, some of whom were interviewed for
this survey, who are familiar with the customary practices associated with building and
consecrating traditional structures.
6.5 Farming and Fishing
Since poi was the staple food for Native Hawaiians, it was of the utmost priority for the first
settlers to establish loʻi. Kalo’s prominence in the Hawaiian diet derived from its nutritional
value, but even more so from its mythological significance. According to Hawaiian traditions,
the first human (male) was born from the taro plant:
The first-born son of Wakea and Papa was of premature birth and was given the name
Haloa-naka. The little thing died, however, and its body was buried in the ground at
one end of the house. After a while, a taro plant shot up from the child’s body, the leaf
of which was named lau-kapa-lili, quivering leaf; but the steam was given the name
Haloa.
After that another child was born to them, whom they called Haloa, from the stalk of
the taro. He is the progenitor of all the peoples of the earth. (Malo 1951:244)
As discussed in Section 3.1 (Traditional Period), the area has an extensive history of farming
that extends well back into the pre-European contact era. Informants also identified important
fishing practices in the coastal waters off Kōloa.
6.6 Traditional Clothing (Clothes Making, Dyeing, and Lei Making)
Kapa (commonly known as bark cloth) was the traditional material made through a traditional
method of gathering, treating, and beating plant fibers, often, but not limited to, wauke
(Broussonetia papyrifera) to make fabric that was used to make lole (clothing). Pacific and
Hawaiian kapa was known for its wide range of colors and the application of watermarks.
One article describes the process for making kapa:
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
163
The finest kapa came from the paper of the mulberry tree. These trees were cultivated
on plantations and grew to heights of more than twelve feet. As the tree grew, the
branches were nipped off along the main trunk, ensuring a long piece of bark which
was easily peeled from the tree.
The manufacture of kapa was an important occupation for women. After the bark had
been peeled from the tree, the inner bark was separated and soaked in sea water to
make it soft and pulpy. The softened bark was placed on an anvil and beaten with a
cylindrical wooden beater. The first beating separated the fibers and produced strips
about eight or nine feet long and ten to fourteen inches wide. These strips could be
dried and stored until needed. When needed, the strips were soaked in water, placed
in layers between banana leaves, and left for about ten days to mature by "retting"
which is the decomposition and removal of softened tissues, leaving the finer fibers.
These partially decomposed layered strips were beaten a second time with specially
carved four-sided beaters. The patterns carved on the beaters were functional as they
produced the necessary characteristics in the kapa for its end use. These carved
designs left the equivalent of a watermark on the kapa.
Kapa which was to be extremely soft and pliable, such as that used for the malo or
loincloth, was subjected to an additional softening process. This process, which
produced a finely ribbed fabric, was done by dampening the cloth, stretching it over a
grooved board, and running a wooden grooving tool along the indentations in the
board. When the cloth dried, permanent ribs remained. The hand was very similar to
our crinkle gauze of today (Furer 1981:109-110).
Hawaiians were skilled at utilizing plants and materials to dye their clothing and other
materials. Different methods would be employed to hō‘awa, extract dye colors from their
source material(s). These dyes would be placed in a cup, known as a kā kāpala. Even foreign
or exotic plants were utilized for this practice. Hawaiians used different words for the various
types of dyeing activities and methods.
• We‘a – a red dye or to print or dye red
• Hili – bark dye, as hili kukui, hili kōlea, hili noni; also kapa dyed with bark or the name
for dyeing with the use of bark
• Kūhili – to dye (or stain) by soaking in water containing mashed bark, such as used for
nets; also mulberry bark before it is beat into kapa
• Kūpenu – to dye by dipping material
• Ki‘olena – to dye kapa
• Hōlei –native tree (Ochorosia compta) related to the hao (Rauvolfia), which yields a
yellow dye for kapa
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
164
• Kīhe‘ahe‘a pala‘ā – dye made from the pala‘ā (Sphenomeria chinensis syn. chusana)
fern; pala‘ā also references a kapa made from the māmaki (Pipturus spp.) bark which
is then dyed a brownish-red with pala‘ā fern
Hawaiians also had a lexicon for the various colors that could be achieved through this
traditional practice.
• ‘Ōlenalena – yellow
• Hili – Dark-brown dye made from bark
• Puakai – red
• Nao – dark red
• Pōkohukohu – color made from the noni (Morinda citrifolia) root
• ‘Ākala – color made from raspberry or thimbleberry juice
• ‘Ōma‘oma‘o – light green color made from ma‘o leaves
Similarly, lei making was a regular occurrence in traditional Hawaii. Anderson-Fung and Maly
(2009) write about the traditional practice:
In old Hawai‘i, lei could have important ceremonial functions, such as in religious
offerings and for chiefly regalia, but lei were also enjoyed as personal adornment by
Hawaiians of all levels of society. The ali‘i (chiefs) and the maka’āinana (the common
people who tended the land) all wore lei. Even the akua (gods, deities, spirits), it was
believed, sometimes wore lei when they walked the land in human form. The following
observation by the French botanist Gaudichaud, who visited the islands in 1819,
paints a picture of Hawai‘i as a place where the lei was an integral part of everyday life:
“It is indeed rare to encounter one of the natives of this archipelago who does
not have an ornamental plant on his head or neck or some other part of his
body…[The] women … change [the plants they wear] according to the seasons,
[and for them] all the fragrant plants, all flowers, and even the colored fruits,
serve as attire, one after another. …The young girls of the people, those of the
island of Hawai‘i especially, seem to be fond of the [kou, Cordia subcordata], a
tree very abundant in all the cultivated areas… The young girls of the
mountains, who live near the forests, give their preference to the flowers of the
[Erythrina (wiliwili) and a species of Canavalia, called ‘awikiwiki], the lively
color of which makes magnificent garlands. Such natural attire is much more
rich, much more striking, than all the dazzling creations of the elegant European
ladies.”
This account and others like it suggest that lei worn for personal adornment were
fashioned from the favorite plant materials that were readily available and abundant
in the lei maker’s environment (4).
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
165
Lei making continues as an important practice today, as the making and giving of lei as an
expression of aloha to loved ones still regularly occurs throughout the Hawaiian Islands.
Practitioners of these crafts actively practice in the project area, especially hula practitioners
who use the forest to gather plants for their ceremonial purposes. In the ethnographic data,
informants also identified lei making as a practice that occurs in the area.
Additionally, historic records show that these ethnobotanical practices occurred in the Kōloa
ahupua‘a. Bernice Juddʻs 1936 piece in the Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Hawaiian
Historical Society for the Year 1935 clearly states, “The Hawaiians planted pia (arrowroot) as
well as wauke (mulberry) in patches in the hills wherever they would grow naturally with but
little cultivation. In the uplands they also gathered the leaves of the hala for mats and the nuts
of the kukui for light” (Judd 1936: 53).
6.7 Haku Mele, Haku Oli, and Hula
This practice is related to the composition of song and chants. this is a practice that has
existed for many centuries in the Hawaiian culture. When the Hawaiian culture primarily relied
on an oral tradition to pass on knowledge and information, the ability to create songs and
chants was essential to pass information from one generation to the next. As Donaghy (2013)
notes, Hawaiians had hundreds of terms associated with this practice.
Songs and chants are largely influenced by the environment around them. As a pedagogical
device it was important if not imperative that these songs or chants effectively captured data
from the environment around the composer and passed on this information for others to
utilize when managing natural resources. In a very real sense, the land and natural resources
act as a muse for composers. The category of songs that provide information on or speak to
natural resources are called mele ‘āina (songs of the land). As shown in the previous section,
there are numerous traditional chants and songs about the area.
Much like mele and oli, hula serves as a way of both honoring place and telling the story of
place. Many hula, especially those based on mele ʻāina, require intimate understanding of the
place where the mele was composed, including the natural elements of that ʻāina. Hula hālau
will regularly take huaka‘i, or journeys, to visit and honor the place a particular mele speaks
of. The ability to visit the place and learn about it is important to the practice of hula.
Hula, as well as mele or oli, are also offered as gifts to kupuna or gods. This practice also
requires access to traditional sites. Associated with hula would have been the practices of lei
making and the use of plants to dye clothing (see Section 5.6 for additional information on
ethnobotanical practices related to clothing, weaving, and lei making).
Section 4.3.2 provided mele that were composed for Kōloa or in part for Kōloa. Additionally,
the area enjoys haku mele (composers) who contemporaneously write mele for Kaua‘i.
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
166
7.0 Impact Assessment
As previously mentioned, CIAs are not required for the applicant’s Project Area(s) as the
environmental impact statements completed for the Kiahuna Development area – that
encompasses applicant’s Kauanoe o Kōloa project - and the Kukuiʻula Development area –
that encompasses applicant’s two Kukuiʻula projects - was completed in 1976 and 1989,
respectively, prior to the passage of Act 50. Nonetheless, this CIA is being prepared under
applicable regulatory standards.
When the Hawai‘i State Legislature passed Act 50 in 2000, the purposes of the Act were clear:
“1) Require that environmental impact statements include the disclosure of the effects of a
proposed action on the cultural practices of the community and State; and 2) Amend the
definition of “significant effect” to include adverse effects on cultural practices” (Act 50, SLH
2000).
HRS 343-2, as amended per Act 50, defines an “Environmental impact statement” as “an
informational document prepared in compliance with the rules adopted under 343-6 and
which discloses the environmental effects of a proposed action, effects of a proposed action,
effects of a proposed action on the economic welfare, social welfare, and cultural practices
of the community and State, effects of the economic activities arising out of the proposed
action, measures proposed to minimize adverse effects, and alternatives to the action and
their environmental effects” (emphasis added) (HRS Chapter 323-2).
Under the same part, “Significant effects” is defined under state law as “the sum of the effects
on the quality of the environment, including actions that irrevocably commit a natural
resource, curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment, are contrary to the State’s
environmental policies or long-term environmental goals as established by law, or adversely
affect the economic welfare, social welfare, or cultural practices of the community and State”
(emphasis added) (HRS Chapter 323-2). Therefore, an adverse effect to cultural practices of
the community or State constitutes a “significant effect” under Chapter 343.
Any tangible or physical impacts to historic sites are addressed in the work completed for HRS
Chapter 6E by Cultural Surveys Hawaii and as reviewed by SHPD and are not covered by this
CIA. This separate review is necessary to meet both the statutory requirements of HRS Chapter
6E and the conditions set forth by the County of Kaua‘i.
Similarly, any tangible physical impacts to flora or fauna are address in the biological section
of the SMA application and other entitlement processes and not covered by this CIA. This CIA
focuses on affects to cultural practices of the community.
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
167
The role of this assessment is to primarily identify effects of the proposed action on cultural
practices. Cultural practices historically and contemporaneously associated with the project
area fall into three general eras: a traditional pre-contact era, a historic post-contact era (i.e.,
plantation era), and a contemporaneous era during which these lands have been under
primate ownership.
As shown through the preceding discussions regarding traditional and customary practices,
the project area saw different cultural practices through the different eras. During the
traditional era, cultural practices would have only been limited by the kapu system. The kapu
system was the widely employed political system that allowed for chiefs to oversee their
people and manage resources. Under the kapu system, access to and use of the resources in
the project era were generally allowed under Kaua‘i chiefs. The area would have also enjoyed
extensive traditional habitation, due to its abundance of fresh water. The Hawaiian Kingdom
would undergo a series of significant changes after foreign contact in 1778. From the
unification of the Kingdom under Kamehameha I to the end the kapu system. Once foreigners
arrived, changes came quickly.
Liholiho’s reign, while significant for the end of the kapu system, would ultimately be short, as
he and his wife, Kamāmalu, would succumb to the measles while visiting London in 1824. His
younger brother Kauikeaouli, Kamehameha III, succeeded Liholiho as mōʻī (high chief or king).
It was under the rule of Kauikeaouli that the Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy with
the promulgation of the 1840 Constitution. Further changes under his governance included
changes to the land title system. A land commission that served to quiet land titles was first
formed in February of 1846. The Māhele, which occurred in 1848, “was a division of nearly
all the lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom” (Beamer 2014: 142). Beamer further explains, “The
Māhele – which established distinct land bases for the mōī, the government, and the chiefs
and ultimately made large-scale private ownership possible – was nevertheless still subject
to the rights of makaʻāinana to make their claims for land” (Beamer 2014: 142). Many native
tenants failed to make successful claims for their ancestral lands, and this would open the
door to land ownership by foreigners.
Changes in cultural practices within the project area pre-dated the political changes that
would take place within the Kingdom in the 19th century. As discussed in Section 3.2, and in
more detail in Section 3.2.1, of this assessment, sugar and the plantation economy would
move into Kōloa in the early 1800s. This would have a significant impact on the area, as it
would change land ownership, land and resource management, water usage, and the
demographics of the area.
In Hawaiian culture, natural and cultural resources are largely viewed as being one and the
same. Without the resources provided by nature, cultural resources could not and would not
be procured. From a Hawaiian perspective, all natural and cultural resources are interrelated,
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
168
and all natural and cultural resources are culturally significant. Ethnographer and Hawaiian
language scholar Kepā Maly observed, “In any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in
Hawaii, one must understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its
natural environment. Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where
culture ends and nature begins” (Maly, 2001:1).
The kinship between Hawaiians and their land extends back across many generations, and it
was the depth and intimacy of this relationship that enabled Hawaiians to thrive sustainability
in the islands for hundreds of years prior to the arrival of Westerners. Therefore, Hawaiians
are entitled to the pain and anguish they feel at the loss of their lands and resources. There
is no gain from ignoring the fact that the acquisition of lands by foreigners, including the U.S.
Military, has caused and continues to cause Hawaiians pain and even trauma.
This loss lies at the heart of Hawaiian struggles for traditional or customary access. Therefore,
the obligation of the state to ensure that these rights are protected is much more than a legal
obligation, as such rights are a necessity of indigenous human life. Recognition and respect
for these rights also enables a more mutually respectful and beneficial relationship between
the military and Hawaiians.
Act 50 was passed by the State recognizing:
… the past failure to require native Hawaiian cultural impact assessments has resulted
in the loss and destruction of many important cultural resources and has interfered
with the exercise of native Hawaiian culture. The legislature further finds that due
consideration of the effects of human activities on native Hawaiian culture and the
exercise thereof is necessary to ensure the continued existence, development, and
exercise of native Hawaiian culture (Act 50, SLH 2000).
Despite Act 50 not be applicable in to this project, the legislative intent quoted above is critical
to the due consideration of the effects the proposed action has and will have on cultural
practices, because it specifies the importance of ensuring “the continued existence,
development, and exercise” of culture. This recognizes that culture is not static; it is dynamic.
It changes over time. And Act 50 specifically calls for consideration of the effects a proposed
action may have on the continued “development” of native Hawaiian culture. Which means it
is insufficient to simply look back to historic practices. Considering effects to the continued
development of culture means the State, specifically the County of Kaua‘i in this case, must
contemplate how an action may affect a culture’s ability to evolve, innovate, and develop.
Additionally, OEQC offers specific guidelines for what elements and issues a CIA should
address. They are detailed in Table 4, and the section of this CIA which addresses that element
is also provided.
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
169
Table 4. Table listing OEQC compliance requirements and their corresponding sections in this
assessment
OEQC notes that in addition to the content requirements for the draft environmental
impact statement, which are set out in HAR §11-200.1 et seq., the assessment
concerning cultural impacts should address, but not necessarily be limited to, the
following matters:
A. A discussion of the methods applied and
results of consultation with individuals and
organizations identified by the preparer as
being familiar with cultural practices and
features associated with the project area,
including any constraints or limitations
which might have affected the quality of the
information obtained.
A detailed methodology section is provided
in Section 2.
B. A description of methods adopted by the
preparer to identify, locate, and select the
persons interviewed, including a discussion
of the level of effort undertaken.
A discussion of the effort to gather into from
persons familiar with the area or other
stakeholders is provided in Section 2.5.
C. Ethnographic and oral history interview
procedures, including the circumstances
under which the interviews were conducted,
and any constraints or limitations which
might have affected the quality of the
information obtained.
A discussion of procedures, including
constraints or limitations, is provided in
Section 2.5.
D. Biographical information concerning the
individuals and organizations consulted,
their expertise, and their historical and
genealogical relationship to the project
area, as well as information concerning the
persons submitting information or
interviewed, their particular knowledge and
cultural expertise, if any, and their historical
and genealogical relationship to the project
area.
Biographical information was provided in
and through the surveys in Section 5.0.
E. A discussion concerning historical and
cultural source materials consulted, the
A discussion of the materials consulted are
provided in Section 2. An extensive cultural
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
170
institutions and repositories searched and
the level of effort undertaken. This
discussion should include, if appropriate,
the perspective of the authors, any
opposing views, and any other relevant
constraints, limitations or biases.
and historical overview, which uses both
Hawaiian and English language resources is
also provided in Section 2.
Stakeholders are given significant
consideration. Petitions and other materials
by project opponents are included in the
appendices and are addressed in the
context of this assessment.
F. A discussion concerning the cultural
resources, practices and beliefs identified,
and, for resources and practices, their
location within the broad geographical area
in which the proposed action is located, as
well as their direct or indirect significance
or connection to the project site.
In addition to the cultural and historical
overview, an extensive discussion
concerning cultural resources, practice and
beliefs are provided throughout the
document, specifically in Section 6.0.
G. A discussion concerning the nature of
the cultural practices and beliefs, and the
significance of the cultural resources within
the project area affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed project.
A thorough discussion concerning the
nature of traditional or customary practices
and the significance of the cultural
resources affected directly or indirectly by
the proposed alternatives are provided in
Section 7.0 and Section 8.0.
H. An explanation of confidential
information that has been withheld from
public disclosure in the assessment.
There has no confidential information
withheld from public disclosure, except for
personal emails, addresses, or phone
numbers.
I. A discussion concerning any conflicting
information regarding identified cultural
resources, practices and beliefs.
There was no conflicting information
regarding cultural resources, practices, or
beliefs.
J. An analysis of the potential effect of any
proposed physical alteration on cultural
resources, practices or beliefs; the potential
of the proposed action to isolate cultural
resources, practices or beliefs from their
setting; and the potential of the proposed
action to introduce elements which may
alter the setting in which cultural practices
take place.
Thorough analyses are provided in Section
7.0 and Section 8.0.
K. A bibliography of references and
attached records of interviews which were
allowed to be disclosed.
References are included in Section 9.0
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
171
8.0 Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
It has long been the law of the land that the State of Hawaiʻi has an “obligation to protect the
reasonable exercise of customary and traditionally exercised rights of Hawaiians to the extent
feasible” Public Access Shoreline Hawai‘i v. Hawai‘i County Planning Commission (“PASH”)
79 Hawaiʻi 425, 450 n. 43, 903 P.2d 1246, 1271 n. 43 (1995). In 2000, in the Ka Pa‘akai
decision, the Court established a framework “to help ensure the enforcement of traditional
and customary Native Hawaiian rights while reasonably accommodating competition private
development interests.” 94 Hawai‘i 31, 35, 7 P.3d 1068, 1972 (2000). This analysis is used
here to fulfill the goals of this survey and assessment (Section 1.4).
Based on the guidelines set forth in Ka Pa‘akai, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court provided
government agencies an analytical framework to ensure the protection and preservation of
traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights while reasonably accommodating competing
private development, or other, interests. The Court has stated: “that in order to fulfill its duty
to preserve and protect customary and traditional Native Hawaiian rights to the extent
feasible, as required by Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution, an administrative
agency must, at minimum, make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the
following:
1) The identification of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the project area,
including the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are
exercised in the project area.
2) The extent to which those resources—including traditional and customary Native
Hawaiian rights—will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and
3) The feasible action, if any, to be taken to reasonably protect Native Hawaiian rights if
they are found to exist. Ka Pa‘akai, 94, Hawaii at 47, 7 P.3d at 1084. Cited in Matter
of Contested Case Hearing Re Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) HA-3568
for the Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, Ka‘ohe Mauka,
Hāmākua, Hawai‘i, 143 Hawai‘i 379, 431 P.3d 752 (2018) (“Mauna Kea II”).”
In order to complete a thorough analysis that complies with statutory and case law, it is
necessary to fully consider information available from, and provided by, Native Hawaiian
cultural practitioners and cultural descendants from the Project Area(s).
The Ka Pa‘akai analysis is largely a legal analysis, as the applicable tests are legal standards.
Therefore, a strong analysis will be conducted by someone with sufficient legal training.
Additionally, at the core of a thoughtful Ka Pa‘akai analysis is a comprehensive understanding
of traditional and customary practices. In breaking down the Court’s tests, it is important to
the different elements that contribute to each test.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
172
8.1 Identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources are present within the
project area, and identify the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights
are exercised
In addition to the language taken from the Ka Pa‘akai decision, the County also identifies
additional criteria for review:
o Describe the project area in relation to traditional and customary practices that
occurred in the region or district.
o Describe the extent that traditional and customary practices were practiced in the
ahupuaʻa and project area.
o Describe the community members you consulted with including their genealogical ties,
long-standing residency, and relationship to region, ahupuaʻa and project area.
o Describe the Land Commission Awards provided on the property?
o Describe the prior archaeological studies that were conducted for the property.
o Are you aware of any resources that found any evidence of subsurface habitation or
excavation on the property?
o Does the property contain any evidence that trails were in existence on the property?
o Have any individuals ever requested access to the property for any reason?
The first part of the Ka Paʻakai test – “The identification of valued cultural, historical, or natural
resources in the project area, including the extent to which traditional and customary Native
Hawaiian rights are exercised in the project area” – actually consists of two separate
elements.
The first element is the simple identification and existence of valued cultural, historical, or
natural resources. These resources are tangible in nature. They can include sacred places,
culturally valuable plants, or a religious or historic site. This assessment sought to exhaustively
identify the multitude of resources that may exist in the Project Area(s) or adjacent areas.
As to this test, and as to the County’s inquiries: 1) “[d]escribe the project area in relation to
traditional and customary practices that occurred in the region or district”, and 2) “[d]escribe
the extent that traditional and customary practices were practiced in the ahupua'a and project
area,” this assessment shows there are potentially resources within or immediately outside
the Kauanoe o Kōloa and Parcel H project areas. Interviews indicate that practitioners made
use of the plants in the Kauanoe o Kōloa area for lei making, specifically “mauna loa and
black-eyed Susan” (see Section 5.4). Neither of these plants were identified in the biological
assessment as being in the Kauanoe o Kōloa Project Area, but it does not mean that these
resources are not in the surrounding region.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
173
A full listing of community members consulted and their biographies are included in Section
5.0, meeting the county requirement to: “Describe the community members you consulted
with including their genealogical ties, long-standing residency, and relationship to region,
ahupua'a and project area.”
The second element of the first part of the Ka Pa‘akai framework is access. There are two
critical components of access. One is the existence of a resource. Whether a plant, an animal,
a place, or site, the resource must exist in order for a practitioner to access it. The second
component is physical access. This includes, but it is not limited to, the ability to physically
access a plant, animal, site, or location associated with a particular practice. This can also
include the traditional and customary route or path taken to access the resource. This can
also include cultural protocols that existed in accessing a resource. These are often temporal,
in that access protocols can be at a certain time of day or year. Makahiki would be a good
example of a traditional custom that has specific cultural protocols associated with access. In
the case of Makahiki, the custom takes place at a certain time of year.
Therefore, the first element under Ka Pa‘akai should include not only a listing of resources,
but the identification of ways in which those resources are accessed and utilized in
association with a traditional and customary practice. In this case, the resources include
access to the ocean and the various plant resources utilized by practitioners located on
property. One informant identified that they access the area for prayer: “Yes prayer and
spiritual practice took place on subject property daily. Many cultural practitioners access this
site prior to development happening.” (responses from Elizabeth Okinaka).
Okinaka also claims there are numerous significant resources in the Project Area(s):
This entire parcel is significant. The birthing stone, the alter which I visited daily and
prayed at is now destroyed. The burial sites and chiefs sitting area are now being
destroyed. Chief Palikua is buried underneath this property within a burial cavern and
a part of the cave system. Laka heiau and the cave directly behind this property shows
the lack of preservation for this entire area. This property has lava tubes and caves
exposed since blasting which developer is denying. 3 caves were destroyed in Wainani
subdivision which is directly next to this lot. The developer of Wainani admitted to the
LUC and there are LUC records that confirm the destruction of the 3 caves in Wainani,
destroyed with bulldozers during development. See attached. The developer of Pili Mai,
the parcel just below the project area, had problems with its foundation as it was also
built over a cave system. There are at least 3 designated habitat caves in the area
immediately adjacent to the project site and knowing about the caves under Wainani
and Pili Mai, it is unlikely that they are not also under the project area. Hal Hammett
and Cultural Survey's Hawaii advertise the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) on
their website and claim to have trained personnel with the technological ability to use
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
174
GPR. Yet no GPR was used on the project area prior to extensive grading, excavating,
blasting and filling with dozens of truckloads of dirt and rock being delivered to the
project area (responses from Elizabeth Okinaka).
It is understandably concerning that an area that once enjoyed: “583 interconnected
archaeological features were identified, including 175 stone enclosures, 108 stone house
platforms, ten habitation caves, a heiau extensive ‘auwai networks, ponded fields, terraced
plots, and mounds” appears to now be entirely absent significant historic sites. While the
myriad of surveys and reports done over the last 40+ years might not yield an easily-traceable
record of the small subset of these sites that were directly within the boundaries of the
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area, nor when, how and why they were removed, the surveys and
reports do reflect that none remained on Lot 1 of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area as of
2013.
The complexities of the administrative history of the Kukuiʻula and Kiahuna Developments,
given the massive archive of archaeological work that has been done for numerous
developers in these areas for the past 40+ years, was a concern for respondents. Mason
Chock noted his disappointment that we cannot have better smoother communications
relative to the surveys and assessments that are used to determine impacts in the area.
Peleke Flores mentioned that he wished he had the time, in addition to what he is already
doing with his full-time job, volunteer positions and family responsibility, to check all those
records and resources himself.
There is no doubt that there were extensive archaeological features throughout the Kōloa
area. There is also no doubt that many of these sites have been destroyed over time,
particularly those that were not slated for preservation, which includes all of those that were
located within the applicant’s Project Areas. In its March 1, 2022 letter to the County, SHPD
concurred with the findings of the December 2021 LRFI, stating:
The Folk et al. (2021) archaeological literature review and field inspection (LRFI) report
prepared in support of the proposed development of Lot 1 indicates that previous
archaeological studies within the (Lot 1) project area and vicinity include Hammatt et
al. (1978), Hammatt (1989), and Hammatt et al. (2003, 2004, 2005). Hammatt et al.
(1978) documented 583 interconnected archaeological features were identified,
including 175 stone enclosures, 108 stone house platforms, ten habitation caves, a
heiau extensive ‘auwai networks, ponded fields, terraced plots, and mounds. These
features were recognized as an intensive pre-Contact and early post-Contact Hawaiian
settlement with a focus on irrigated and dryland agriculture; together they reflected “a
complex Hawaiian adaptation of intensive agriculture and settlement to a dry, rocky
leeward environment” (Hammatt et al. 1978:vii) now referred to as the Kōloa Field
System; notably absent are human burials.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
175
Folk et al. (2021) LRFI report indicates that previously recorded sites within the Lot 1
project area are: Site #50-30-10-3857 (complex) which includes Site #50-30-10-3656
(agricultural field), 50-30-10-3657 (C-shaped temporary habitation), 50-30-10-3658
(temporary habitation enclosure), 50-30-10-3659 (C-shaped temporary habitation),
50-30-10-3764 (permanent platform habitation), 50-30-10-3789 (field catchment
basin), 50-30-10-3841 (permanent platform habitation), 50-30-10-3851 (two
agricultural mounds) and 50-30-10-3853 (cattle wall system). None of these sites
were recommended for preservation by Hammatt et al. (1978) or subsequent survey
and/or testing studies.
The Folk et al. (2021) LRFI included a 100-percent coverage pedestrian survey which
occurred on February 22 and March 20, 2021 and documented that the
archaeological sites previously recorded within the southeastern portion of Lot 1 had
been destroyed by bulldozing and other ground disturbing activities that occurred over
the last several decades. Nine surface features were identified during the field
inspection: three remnant sections of ranch walls, two bulldozed boulder piles, one
pile of asphalt debris, and one pile of concrete debris, and two outcroppings of
boulders in the southeast corner (likely associated with the leveled fill where a former
trailer and shed roof structure were visible in a 2013 aerial photo). The three remnants
of the cattle walls no longer have integrity except in location, and the seven other
features are modern remnants of previous grubbing and bulldozing activities in the
project area since the 1990s. The bulldozed and dispersed rock and rock piles may
have been portions of some of the previously recorded historic properties within the
project area. The cattle wall remnants were not assigned site or feature numbers.
Based on the field inspection findings, Folk et al. (2021) recommend no further
archaeological work within Lot 1. Additionally, the USDA (Foote et. al 1972) identifies
the soils within Lot 1 as Waikomo very rocky silty clay (Wt), and Waikomo extremely
rocky silty clay (Wu). Low potential exists to encounter subsurface historic properties
(SHPD 2022: 2).
Similar to the what the archaeological record for Kiahuna reveals regarding remaining sites
in the vicinity of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area, many of the previously identified sites in
Kukuiʻula were not slated for preservation and no longer exist. In its January 21, 2022 letter
to County of Kauaʻi, SHPD concurred with the findings in the 2021 Field Inspection Letter
Report for Parcell HH, stating:
An archaeological inventory survey (AIS) conducted for the Kukuiʻula Bay Community
(Hammatt et al. 1988) identified 58 archaeological sites, including 150 features within
a 1,000-acre area from Poipu Rd. on the east to the edge of Lawai Valley to the west.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
176
Three previously identified historic properties were documented in the western portion
of the project area: a habitation and agricultural site (Site # 50-30-10-01947), and two
habitation sites (Site # 50-30-10-01949 and Site # 50-30-10-01950). Additional work
within the Kukuiʻula development included data recovery (Hammatt 1998, Hammatt
1989) and the establishment of five archaeological preserves. No preserves are within
the current Parcel HH project area. The three sites (Site #s 50-30-10-01947, 50-30-
10-01949, and 50-30-10-01950) were not slated for preservation and the 2021
archaeological field inspection conducted in support of the current project (Hammatt,
June 2021) indicates the three sites are no longer present and that they likely were
removed during permitted mass grading activities in the 1980s. No historic properties
are present in the current project area.
Similary, in its lettter dated January 11, 2016, SHPD concurred with the Final Archaeological
Assessment Report for the Kukuiʻula Community Development Parcel H Project stating:
The AA is an Archaeological Inventory Survey with negative findings. The AA was
conducted for 26 acres of the 270.1 acre property, and is not intended to represent
the findings of the entire subject property, which contains historic properties. Dave
Hutchinson and Lindsay Crawford of Kukuiʻula Development Company contacted our
office and clarified that the grading permit is for Parcel H - the 26 acres designated
as the Kahela Subdivision. We have determined that no historic properties will be
affected by the proposed grading.
In answering the first part of the Ka Paʻakai test: this survey finds there to be valued cultural,
historical, or natural resources within the larger geographic extent of Kōloa. Ethnographic data
shows that traditional or customary practices take place particularly around the Kauanoe o
Kōloa Project Area and in the surrounding Kōloa ahupua‘a. These specifically include Native
Hawaiian beliefs, ceremonial practices, and ethnobotantical practices.
As to the remainder of the countyʻs inquiries:
o Describe the Land Commission Awards provided on the property?
o This information is provided in the archaeological reports, although based on
the LCA-related maps provided in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, there is only one LCA
located within the entirety of the Project Areas, which is a portion of Land
Commission Award 2668 R.A. Walsh for [Roman Catholic] Mission Church
(Figure 20).
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
177
o Describe the prior archaeological studies that were conducted for the property.
o This information is provided in the archaeological reports.
o Are you aware of any resources that found any evidence of subsurface habitation or
excavation on the property?
o This information is provided in the archaeological reports.
o Does the property contain any evidence that trails were in existence on the property?
o This information is provided in the archaeological reports.
o Have any individuals ever requested access to the property for any reason?
o Honua would not have knowledge of this information, it should be provided to
the county by the project applicant.
8.2 Identify the extent to which the identified resources and rights will be affected or impaired
by the proposed project
The second test – “The extent to which those resources — including traditional and customary
Native Hawaiian rights — will be affected or impaired by the proposed action” – also looks at
two separate elements. The first element seeks to determine whether the proposed action
and its alternatives have an adverse impact on the existence of resources. This would include
the alteration, destruction, modification, or harm of sites, including biological resources,
sacred places, burial sites, etc. It also includes a loss of species. Any adverse impact or harm
to resources is alone an affect or impairment caused by the proposed action.
Based on this test, should any of the tangible cultural resources identified by the practitioners
be present in the Project Area(s) and impacted by the development, that would be an affect
to traditional or customary practices. Additionally, should access be denied to practitioners
for spiritual practices, include offering prayer, that would also constitute an affect to those
traditional or customary practices that would require the County to identify feasible action that
would reasonably protect these Native Hawaiian rights.
Many of the informants also spoke to how expansive development in Kōloa not only poses an
immediate threat to traditional or customary practices, but poses a threat to the future
restoration of practices. This is best addressed by the County through a holistic consideration
of the applicant’s proposed activities, which is why the transparent disclosure of all potential
development proposed by the applicant for consideration is the appropriate approach under
a Ka Pa‘akai analysis.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
178
8.3 Specify any mitigative actions to be taken to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if
they are found to exist
The third part of the Ka Pa‘akai test aims to identify “[t]he feasible action, if any, to be taken
to reasonably protect Native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist.” Determining whether
or not action is suitably “feasible” is a matter reserved by the Court as the exclusive
jurisdiction of the State, or in this case, the County. Nonetheless, from the ethnographic data
gathered for this assessment, the County would be justified in finding such action appropriate
for the applicantʻs proposed project(s).
As to potential impacts to historic properties, appropriate mitigation would be determined
jointly by the SHPD and County of Kaua‘i under HRS Chapter 6E.
Such feasible action to mitigate impacts to traditional or customary practices could potentially
include designated access areas and/or times to conduct traditionally or customary practices,
including offering prayer. Additionally, feasible action could also include implementing best
management practices and/or monitoring measures to ensure that cultural resources,
including but not limited to plants, animals, or historic sites, in the Project Area are not
adversely impacted by project activities. It is the responsiblity of the County to identify these
actions and properly implement them in their decision making.
The County should also carefully consider how development in Kōloa may cumulatively impact
traditional or customary practices throughout the entire region. The ethnographic data
showed a strong concern for how development may force kānaka out of the area. Therefore,
in identifying feasible action to reasonably project Native Hawaiian rights in Kōloa, the County
would be best served to consider a holistic approach that protects resources and practices
throughout this entire region and significant cultural landscape.
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
179
9.0 References
Abbott I.A.
1992. Lāʻau Hawaiʻi: Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants. Honolulu, HI: Bishop
Museum Press.
Akana C.L. and Gonzalez K.
2015. Hānau Ka Ua: Hawaiian Rain Names. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Publishing.
Akiu R.
2015. Hualālai. Huapala Hawaiian Music and Hula Archives. Available at:
http://www.huapala.org/Hu/Hualalai3.html
Alexander, W.D.
1891 A Brief History of Land Titles in the Hawaiian Kingdom. In Thrum’s Hawaiian
Almanac and Annual for 1891. Honolulu: Thomas G. Thrum.
1902 Hawaiian Geographic Names. Appendix No. 7 Report 1902. Washington, DC:
Treasury Department, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.
Ashdown I.
1976. Ha‘ilono Mele, June 1976. Vol II. No. 6. Honolulu, HI: The Hawaiian Music
Foundation. Available at: http://ulukau.org/gsdl2.80/collect/hailono/cgi-
bin/hailono?a=pdf&d=DHMN002006.1.5&dl=1&sim=Screen2Image
(Accessed October 10, 2017).
Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds & Their Aquatic Resources (Atlas)
2008. Kalialinui Gulch, Maui. Honolulu, HI: Department of Land and Natural
Resources.
Beckwith, M.
1970 Hawaiian Mythology. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Belluomini, Scott A., Hammatt, Hallett H.
2015 Final Archaeological Assessment Report for the Kukuiʻula Community
Development Parcel H Project, Kōloa Ahupuaʻa, Kōloa District, Kauaʻi, TMK:
[4] 2-6-015:014 por., Cultural Surveys Hawaiʻi, Inc., December 2015
Bennett, W. C.
1931 Archaeology of Kauai. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Board of Commissioners
1929 Indices of Awards made by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in
the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: Star Bulletin Press.
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
180
Boundary Commission Testimonies
1864-1920 Digitized collection from Microfilms of the Hawai‘i State Archives (Kumu Pono
Associates LLC).
Buke Māhele
1848 Buke Kakau Paa no ka mahele aina i hooholoia iwaena o Kamehameha 3 a
me Na Lii a me Na Konohiki ana Hale Alii Honolulu. Ianuari 1848. (Ke Kope
1864).
Clark, J.R.K.
2002 Hawaiʻi Place Names, Shores, Beaches, and Surf Sites. Honolulu: University of
Hawaiʻi Press.
Coulter, J.W.
1935 A Gazetteer of the Territory of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi.
Desha, S. L.
1924 “He Moolelo Kaao no Hiiakaikapoliopele, ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, ao ka
Uʻi Palekoko Uwila o Halemaumau.” Ka Hoku o Hawaii, November 13, 1924.
DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources)
2002 Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Subtitle 13 (Chapters 275-284), State Historic Preservation
Division Rules (October 31, 2002).
Fornander, Abraham
1916-1917 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore, volume 4.
Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
1919 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore, volume 5.
Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Folk, William H., Kamai, Nancine “Missy,” Hammatt, Hallett H.
2021 Final Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection of the Proposed
Kauanoe o Kōloa Project, Kōloa Ahupuaʻa, Kōloa District, Kauaʻi, TMK: [4] 2-8-
014:032 Lot 1, Cultural Surverys Hawaii, December 2021.
Gomes, Andrew
2002 “Three golf courses sold: Local developer will keep staff, may also purchase
two hotels.” Honolulu Advertiser, January 29, 2002: D1-D2
Hammatt, H.
1989 Data Recovery and Preservation Plan for the Kiahuna Golf Club, Prepared for
Sports Shinko Group/Kiahuna Golf Club, Cultural Surveys Hawaii, April 1989
2021 Letter to Dave Hutchinson, Vice President of Land Development, Kukui‘ula
Development Company Hawaii. FINAL Archaeological Final Inspection Letter
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
181
Report for Parcel HH of the Kukui‘ula Community Development Project, TMK
(4) 2-6-015:029, Kōloa Ahupua‘a, Kōloa District, Kaua‘i, Cultural Surverys
Hawaii, June 8, 2021.
Hammatt, H., Chiogioji, R., Shideler, D., Borthwick, D., McDermott, M., Masterson, I.
1998 Archaeological Data Recovery Report for the Kukui‘ula Planned Community
Phase I Development, Kōloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kauai, Hawaii.
(TMK 2-6-04:16, 22, 38, 44, 45) Volume 1, Prepared for A&B Properties,
Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc., June 1991, Revised June 1998.
Hammatt, Hallett H., David Shideler, Constance R. O’Hare, and William H. Folk
2005 Kiahuna Project: Kiahuna Golf Village and KMP Development Project in
Approximately 400 Acres at Koloa Ahupuaa Kona District, Kauai Island
Volume III Summary of Inventory Survey and Data Recovery Results and
Archaeological Interpretations TMK: (4) 2-8-14:07, 08, 28, 31-36; and (4) 2-
8-15:77. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., March 2005.
Handy, E.S.C., Handy, E.G., and Pukui, M.K.
1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii, Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Honolulu:
Bishop Museum Press.
Hawai’i, State of, Office of Planning and Development.
2001 Ahupuaʻa of Kauaʻi. Hawaiʻi Statewide GIS Program.
https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/HiStateGIS::ahupuaa/explore?location
=21.887952%2C-159.452555%2C15.00
Hoʻoulumāhiehie
1905 “Ka Moolelo o Hiiakaikapoliopele, ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o ka Ui
Palekoki Uwila o Halemaumau.” Ka Naʻi Aupuni.
Indices of Awards
1929 Indices of Awards Made by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in
the Hawaiian Islands. (Copy in Hawaii State Archives)
Kamakau, S.M.
1869 Ka Moolelo Hawaii. Ke Au Okoa, October 21, 1869.
1961 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Mary Kawena Pukui, trans. Honolulu: Kamehameha
Schools Press.
1976 The Works of the People of Old. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Kamano, P.
1922 “Na Anoai o Koloa.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, June 1, 1922.
Kaualilinoe, J. K. K.
1870 Ka Moʻolelo no Kamaakamahiʻai. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, November 12, 1870.
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
182
Keaweamahi, D.
1876 “Huakai Makaikia ia Kauai.” Ka Lahui Hawaii, August 10, 1876.
Kekahuna, H.
1959 “A Genuinely Authentic Hawaiian Village for Kauai.”
https://www.kaneiolouma.org/assets/docs/Authentic_Hawaiian_Village.pdf
Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, Supreme Court
1884 Maikai v A. Hastings & Co., 5 Haw. 133, 133, 1884 WL 6659.
Krauss, B.
1993 Plants in Hawaiian Culture. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Mahu, Mr. & Mrs. A. R. & J. H. Hewlett Jr.
1923 “He Hoalohaloha no Kuu Mama Heleloa.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, March 29,
1923.
Mahu, N.
1920 “He Hoomaikai.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, November 19, 1920.
Malo, D.
1951 Hawaiian Antiquities. B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi.
Maly, K.
2001 Mālama Pono i ka ʻĀina—An Overview of the Hawaiian Cultural Landscape.
Hilo: Kumu Pono Associates.
Nakuina, M.K.
1902 Moolelo Hawaii o Pakaa a me Ku-a-Pakaa na Kahu Iwikuamoo o
Keawenuiaumi Ke Alii o Hawaii, a o na Moopuna hoi a Laamaomao! Honolulu:
n.p.
1992 The Wind Gourd of Laʻamaomao. E.T. Mookini and S. Nakoa, trans. Honolulu:
Kalamakū Press.
Nogelmeier, M.P.
2010 Mai Paʻa I Ka Leo: Historical Voices in Hawaiian Primary Materials, Looking
Forward and Listening Back. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Nogelmeier, M.P. and Stillman, A.K.
2003 Introduction. Buke Mele Lahui (Book of National Songs) reprint. Honolulu:
Hawaiian Historical Society
Parker, H.
1922 A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language. Honolulu: Board of Commissioners
for Public Archives.
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
183
Poepoe, J. M.
1908 “Ka Moolelo Kaao o Hiiakaikapoliopele.” Kuokoa Home Rula, April 24, 1908.
Pukui, M.K.
1983 ‘Ōlelo No‘eau: Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings. Honolulu: Bishop
Museum Press.
Pukui, M.K., and S.H. Elbert
1986 Hawaiian Dictionary, revised edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Pukui, M.K., S.H. Elbert, and E.T. Mookini
1974 Place Names of Hawaiʻi. Revised and Expanded Edition. Honolulu: University
of Hawaiʻi Press.
State of Hawai‘i
Ms. Files cited in text from the collections of the:
Hawai‘i State Archives.
Department of Land and Natural Resources — Land Division.
Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Survey Division.
USGS
n.d. Water Data. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/16053000/
W., R.
1907 “Ka Ua Noe o Koloa.” Ka Naʻi Aupuni, March 29, 1907.
Wichman, F. B.
1998 Kauaʻi Ancient Place Names and Their Stories. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi
Press.
Wichman, F. B.
2003 Nā Pua Ali‘i o Kaua‘i, Ruling Chiefs of Kaua‘i. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
Press.
Wilcox, C.
1998 Sugar Water. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Wilson, W.
n.d. “Mokupuni o Kauai.” Island Breath.
http://www.islandbreath.org/hawaiinei/hawaiinei.html
Young, P. T.
2019 “Kāneiolouma.” Images of Old Hawaiʻi, April 21, 2019.
https://imagesofoldhawaii.com/kaneiolouma/
Glossary of Hawaiian Terms
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
184
Appendix I: Glossary of Hawaiian Terms
The following list of terms were used frequently throughout this report. All definitions were
compiled using Pukui and Elbert’s Hawaiian Dictionary (1986).
Ahupua‘a Land division usually extending from the uplands to the sea, so called
because the boundary was marked by a heap (ahu) of stones
surmounted by an image of a pig (pua‘a), or because a pig or other
tribute was laid on the altar as tax to the chief.
ʻĀina Land, earth. Lit. That which feeds.
Akua 1. God, goddess, spirit, ghost. 2. Divine, supernatural, godly.
Ala Path, road, trail.
Ali‘i 1. Chief, chiefess, ruler, monarch. 2. Royal, regal. 3. To act as chief,
reign.
ʻAumakua Family or personal gods, deified ancestors who might assume the shape
of sharks, owls, hawks, dogs, plants, etc. A symbiotic relationship
existed; mortals did not harm or eat them, and the ‘aumakua warned or
reprimanded mortals in dreams, visions, and calls.
‘Aumākua Plural of ‘aumakua.
‘Auwai Irrigation ditch, canal, waterway.
Hālau 1. Long house, as for canoes or hula instruction; meeting house. 2.
Large, numerous; much.
Hale pili House thatched with pili grass.
Heiau Pre-Christian place of worship, shrine. Some heiau were elaborately
constructed stone platforms, other simple earth terraces.
Hoʻi 1. To leave, go or come back; to cause to come back. 2. To enter, as an
institution or last resting place. 3. A parting chant to which hula dancers
dance as they leave the audience. 4. Marriage of a chief with the
daughter of a brother or sister; to do so (a means of increasing
offspring).
Hula A Hawaiian dance form accompanied by chant or song.
ʻIli Land section, next in importance to ahupuaʻa and usually a subdivision
of an ahupuaʻa.
ʻIli kū Shorted form of ʻili kūpono.
ʻIli kūpono A nearly independent ʻili land division within an ahupuaʻa, paying tribute
to the ruling chief and not to the chief of the ahupuaʻa. Transfer of the
ahupuaʻa from one chief to another did not include the ʻili kūpono
located within its boundaries. Sometimes shorted to ʻili kū.
Kanaka Human being, person, individual, party, humankind, population; often
used for man.
Kānaka Plural of kanaka.
Glossary of Hawaiian Terms
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
185
Kāne Male, husband, male sweetheart, man; brother-in-law of a woman.
Kanikau 1. Dirge, lamentation, chant of mourning, lament. 2. To chant, wail,
mourn.
Kapu 1. Taboo, prohibition. 2. Special privilege or exemption from ordinary
taboo. 3. Sacredness, prohibited, forbidden, sacred, holy, consecrated.
4. No trespassing, keep out.
Kuleana Right, privilege, concern, responsibility, title, business, property, estate,
portion, jurisdiction, authority, liability, interest, claim, ownership,
tenure, affair, province.
Kupuna Grandparent, ancestor, relative or close friend of the grandparent’s
generation, grandaunt, granduncle.
Kūpuna Plural of kupuna.
Limu A general name for all kinds of plants living under water, both fresh and
salt, also algae growing in any damp place in the air, as on the ground,
on rocks, and on other plants; also mosses, liverworts, lichens.
Lo‘i Irrigated terrace, especially for taro, but also for rice and paddy.
Loko i‘a Traditional Hawaiian fishpond.
Makai On the seaside, toward the sea, in the direction of the sea.
Mālama To take care of, tend, attend, care for, preserve, protect, beware, save,
maintain.
Mauka Inland, upland, towards the mountain.
Mele 1. Song, anthem, or chant of any kind. 2. Poem, poetry. 3. To sing, chant.
Mele mākaʻikaʻi Travel chant.
Mō‘ī King, sovereign, monarch, majesty, ruler, queen.
Moku 1. District, island, islet, section, forest, grove, clump, fragment. 2. To be
cut, severed, amputated, broken in two.
Mo‘o Lizard, reptile of any kind, dragon, serpent.
Mo‘olelo Story, tale, myth, history, tradition, literature, legend, journal, log, yard,
fable, essay, chronicle, record, article.
Moʻowahine Female lizard deity.
Nī‘aupi‘o Offspring of the marriage of a high-born brother and sister, or half-
brother and half-sister.
‘Ōlelo no‘eau Proverb, wise saying, traditional saying.
Oli Chant that was not danced to, especially with prolonged phrases
chanted in one breath, often with a trill at the end of each phrase; to
chant thus.
Piʻo Marriage of full brother and sister of nīʻaupiʻo rank, presumably the
highest possible rank. Their offspring had the rank of naha, which is less
than piʻo but probably more than nīʻaupiʻo. Later piʻo included marriage
with half-sibling.
Glossary of Hawaiian Terms
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
186
Pueo Hawaiian short-eared owl (Asio flammeus sandwichensis), regarded
often as a benevolent ʻaumakua.
ʻŪniki Graduation exercises, as for hula, lua fighting, and other ancient arts
(probably related to niki, to tie, as the knowledge was bound to the
student).
Wahi pana A legendary place; a place made special celebrated in stories
associated with it. Often sacred.
Wahine Woman, lady, wife; sister-in-law, female cousin-in-law of a man, female.
Wao 1. Realm. 2. A general term for inland region usually forested but not
precipitous and often uninhabited.
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey, and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis of Three
Developments in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
Prepared for
Prepared by
June 2022
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
ii
Authors and Lead Researchers
Trisha Kehaulani Watson, J.D., Ph.D.
Assistant Authors and Researchers
kuʻualoha hoʻomanawanui, Ph.D.
Fern Holland, M.S.
Catharine Thetford, B.S.
Kepā Maly
Onaona Maly
Amy Kalili, J.D.
Note on Hawaiian Language Use
In keeping with other Hawaiian scholars and current Indigenous language style guidelines, we
do not italicize Hawaiian words. Hawaiian is both the native language of the paeʻāina
(archipelago) of Hawai‘i and an official language of the State of Hawai‘i. Some authors will
leave Hawaiian words italicized if part of a quote; we do not. In the narrative, we use diacritical
markings to assist our readers, except in direct quotes, in which we keep the markings used
in the original text. We provide translations contextually when appropriate. Unless otherwise
noted, all translations are by Honua Consulting authors.
Front Cover Credit
1854 Bates, G.W. (photographer), “Sandwich Islands Notes. By a Haole [i.e., G. W. Bates.],”
British Library Digital Store 10491.d.25, Monograph, New York.
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
iii
Executive Summary
This cultural impact assessment and ethnographic survey looked to identify cultural resources
and practices in Kōloa. Numerous interviews were conducted in preparation of this survey.
Interviewees identified numerous practices in the Kōloa region, many of which have been
practiced for numerous generations, extending back to the time before foreign contact.
Research in preparation of this report consisted of a thorough search of Hawaiian language
documents, including but not limited to the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Mele Index and
archival documents, including the Hawaiian language archival caché. All Hawaiian language
documents were reviewed by Hawaiian language experts to search for relevant information to
include in the report. Documents considered relevant to this analysis are included herein, and
translations are provided when appropriate to the discussion. Summaries of interviews with
lineal and cultural descendants with ties to the project area are included in the study, and
information on other past oral testimonies are also provided herein. Data was extrapolated
from these sources that provide an unprecedented comprehensive look at the previous
cultural resources on this ʻāina.
This assessment thoroughly identified valued cultural, historical, and natural resources in the
project area, including the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights
are exercised in the project area. It also identifies the impacts that may potentially result from
the proposed action. The primary cultural activities identified in the ethnographic data for the
area were ceremonial access, trail access, and gathering. Some interviewees identified some
activities to occur in the Project Areas, while other interviewees identified the activities as
occurring in the larger Kōloa region.
Based on the information gathered and the assessment of the resources conducted, the
project has the potential to affect cultural resources, traditions, customs, or practices, and
the County should work with the project applicant to identify best management practices,
conditions, and other measures to serve as the feasible action required under law to protect
Native Hawaiian rights.
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................... VII
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. VII
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................... 8
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................... 8
1.2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT ........................................................................................................................................... 13
1.4 GOAL OF ETHNOGRAPHIC SURVEY .......................................................................................................................... 19
1.5 COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................... 21
2.1 IDENTIFYING TRADITIONAL OR CUSTOMARY PRACTICES .............................................................................................. 24
2.2 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, OR ETHNOSCIENCE, AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................. 25
2.3 MOʻOLELO ʻĀINA: NATIVE TRADITIONS OF THE LAND ................................................................................................. 26
2.4 HISTORIC MAPS ................................................................................................................................................... 26
2.5 ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 27
3.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 28
3.1 TRADITIONAL PERIOD ............................................................................................................................................ 28
3.1.1 Mo‘olelo ................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.1.1 Pele and Hi‘iakaikapoliopele ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.1.2 He Kaao no Kapunohu ...................................................................................................................................... 30
3.1.2 Inoa ‘Āina ................................................................................................................................................ 33
3.1.2.1 Maulili ................................................................................................................................................................. 43
3.2 KINGDOM AND HISTORIC ERA ................................................................................................................................ 44
3.2.1 Kōloa Plantation ..................................................................................................................................... 52
4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 57
4.1 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC SITES – KAUANOE O KŌLOA .............................................................................................. 58
4.1.1 Compliance with Land Use Commission Condition No. 7 .................................................................... 67
4.2 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC SITES – KUKUI‘ULA .......................................................................................................... 71
4.2.1. Parcel HH ............................................................................................................................................... 74
4.2.2 Parcel H: Lots 18 and 19 ....................................................................................................................... 76
4.3 NATURAL RESOURCES WITH CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................................... 77
4.2.1 Plants – Kauanoe o Kōloa ..................................................................................................................... 78
4.2.2 Wildlife – Kauanoe o Kōloa ................................................................................................................... 78
4.3 INTANGIBLE CULTURAL RESOURCES – KŌLOA AHUPUA‘A ........................................................................................... 79
4.3.1 ‘Ōlelo No‘eau ...................................................................................................................................... 79
4.3.2 Mele (Songs) ....................................................................................................................................... 81
5.0 ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA ......................................................................................................................................... 84
5.1 INTERVIEW WITH ANA MO DES ............................................................................................................................... 86
5.2 INTERVIEW WITH CHADLEY (CHAD) SCHIMMELFENNIG ............................................................................................... 89
5.3 RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS FROM ELIZABETH OKINAKA ........................................................................................ 93
5.4 RESPONSES FROM ELVIRA KIMOKEO ...................................................................................................................... 98
5.5 RESPONSES FROM GLENN SILVA ......................................................................................................................... 100
5.6 INTERVIEW WITH KEAO NESMITH ......................................................................................................................... 106
5.7 INTERVIEW WITH MALIA CHUN ............................................................................................................................. 110
5.8 INTERVIEW WITH MASON CHOCK .......................................................................................................................... 116
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
v
5.9 INTERVIEW WITH PELEKE FLORES ......................................................................................................................... 122
5.10 INTERVIEW WITH PUALIʻILIʻIMAIKALANI ROSSI-FUKINO ........................................................................................... 127
5.11 RESPONSES FROM ROSLYN CUMMINGS ............................................................................................................. 132
5.12 INTERVIEW WITH RUPERT HENRY ROWE ............................................................................................................. 137
5.13 RESPONSES FROM BLYTH KAHOKULE‘A BLAKE .................................................................................................... 143
5.14 RESPONSES FROM TERRY KURIBAYASHI ............................................................................................................ 146
5.15 RESPONSES FROM VAL KANE TURALDE .............................................................................................................. 151
5.16 RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS FROM LLEWELYN H. KAOHELAULI‘I ......................................................................... 154
6.0 TRADITIONAL OR CUSTOMARY PRACTICES HISTORICALLY IN THE STUDY AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA
................................................................................................................................................................................... 159
6.1 MO‘OLELO ........................................................................................................................................................ 159
6.2 HABITATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 159
6.3 TRAVEL AND TRAIL USAGE ................................................................................................................................... 160
6.4 CEREMONIAL PRACTICES ..................................................................................................................................... 162
6.5 FARMING AND FISHING ....................................................................................................................................... 162
6.6 TRADITIONAL CLOTHING (CLOTHES MAKING, DYEING, AND LEI MAKING) ................................................................... 162
6.7 HAKU MELE, HAKU OLI, AND HULA ...................................................................................................................... 165
7.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 166
8.0 FINDINGS AND KA PA‘AKAI ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 171
8.1 IDENTIFY WHETHER ANY VALUED CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, OR NATURAL RESOURCES ARE PRESENT WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA,
AND IDENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS ARE EXERCISED ..................... 172
8.2 IDENTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE IDENTIFIED RESOURCES AND RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED OR IMPAIRED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................. 177
8.3 SPECIFY ANY MITIGATIVE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO REASONABLY PROTECT NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS IF THEY ARE FOUND TO
EXIST ...................................................................................................................................................................... 178
9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 179
APPENDIX I: GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS ....................................................................................................... 184
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Meridian Pacific, Ltd. project map showing the current and future developments in
Kōloa (provided to Honua Consulting, LLC by Meridian Pacific, Ltd.) ........................................ 9
Figure 2. 1901 historic map showing the Project Areas. .......................................................... 15
Figure 3. 1903 historic map showing the Project Areas. .......................................................... 16
Figure 4. 1912 historic map showing the Project Areas. .......................................................... 17
Figure 5. 1918 historic map showing the Project Areas. (This registered map shows the
mauka portion of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project to include a portion of Land Commission
Award 2668 R.A. Walsh for [Roman Catholic] Mission Church.) .............................................. 18
Figure 6. Diagram of elements that contribute to traditional or customary practices (Honua
Consulting) ................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7. Registered Map 148 showing Kōloa Village (Metcalf 1849) .................................... 34
Figure 8. Registered Map 155 showing portion of Kōloa (Kalama 1874) .............................. 35
Figure 9. Registered Map 156 showing Kōloa Village (Metcalf 1849) .................................... 36
Figure 10. Portion of Registered Map 2963 showing Kōloa (Aiu 1934) ................................. 37
Figure 11. USGS Map of Koloa (USGS 1910) ............................................................................ 48
Figure 12. 1950 Aerial Image of Kōloa (USGS 1950) .............................................................. 49
Figure 13. 1959 USGS Aerial image of Kōloa (USGS 1959) .................................................... 50
Figure 14. 1963 USGS Map of Kōloa (USGS 1963) ................................................................. 51
Figure 15. USGS 1965 Aerial Photo of Kōloa (USGS 1965) .................................................... 52
Figure 16. Registered Map 1372 (n.d.) ..................................................................................... 54
Figure 17. Portion of map showing Koloa Plantation Leases (Alexander 1937) .................... 55
Figure 18. Map of Koloa (Alexander 1937) ............................................................................... 56
Figure 19. CSH (Figure 1 of LRFI) showing the location of project area (Folk et al. 2022: 2) 59
Figure 20. CSH (Figure 6 of LRFI) showing the LCA claims in the area (Folk et al. 2022: 13)
...................................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 21: CSH (Figure 9 of Volume III) showing locations of Archaeological Preserves
outlined in red, all of which are beyond the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area. (Hammat,
Shideler, O’Hare, and Folk 2005:42); Blue outline and label for project area added for
reference. ..................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 22. CSH (Figure 9 of LRFI) showing previously identified historic properties in
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area (Folk et al. 2022:31). ............................................................... 64
Figure 23: CSH (Figure 2 of LRFI) showing the TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1 project area
location (Google Earth 2013); note the modern structure at the southeast corner of the
parcel, bulldozing cuts throughout, and the bulldozer road across the north end of the parcel
(Folk et al. 2022:3). ..................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 24: Map (courtesy of client) showing Kukuiʻula Preservation Areas, none of which are
located within Parcels H or HH. (Project Area Labeling added for clarity.) .............................. 72
Figure 25: CSH (Figure 11 of Field Letter; Parcel H outline removed) showing LCAs, shaded
in purple, in the vicinity of the Kukuiʻula Development area. ................................................... 73
Figure 26. TMK (4) 2-6-019:029 which is to be subdivided. Parcel HH is located on a portion
of this TMK. .................................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 27. TMK map showing Parcel H Lots 18 and 19. .......................................................... 76
Figure 28. Document provided by interviewee .......................................................................... 96
Figure 29. Document provided by interviewee .......................................................................... 97
Figure 30. Document provided by interviewee ........................................................................ 103
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
vii
Figure 31. Document provided by interviewee. ....................................................................... 104
Figure 32. Document provided by interviewee. ....................................................................... 105
List of Tables
Table 1. Agency action requiring analysis .................................................................................. 10
Table 2. Selected Inoa ‘Āina of Kōloa ........................................................................................ 38
Table 3. Identified Historic Properties within TMK [4] 2-6-015:029 based on review of maps
in Archaeological Data Recovery Report for Kukui‘ula Bay Planned Community Phase I
Development, Kōloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, Volume 1, referenced in the
June 8, 2021 Letter Report. ....................................................................................................... 75
Table 4. Table listing OEQC compliance requirements and their corresponding sections in
this assessment ......................................................................................................................... 169
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AIS: Archaeological Inventory Survey
BMP: Best Management Practice
CIA: Cultural Impact Assessment
CoK: County of Kaua‘i
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
ESP: Environmental Review Project, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development
HAR: Hawaii Administrative Rules
HRS: Hawaii Revised Statutes
ILK: Indigenous Local Knowledge
Ka Pa‘akai: Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Āina v. Land Use Commission, 94 Haw. 31 (2000)
LCA: Land Commission Award
LRFI: Literature Review and Field Inspection
LUC: State Land Use Commission
NRHP: National Register of Historic Places
OEQC: Office of Environmental Quality and Control
ROI: Range of Influence
SHPD: State Historic Preservation Division
SIHP: State Inventory of Historic Places
SLH: Session Laws of Hawaii
SMA: Special Management Area
TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge
TMK: Tax Map Key
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
8
1.0 Project Description and Compliance
Honua Consulting, LLC is preparing this Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey,
and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis analysis for three proposed developments in Kōloa, Kaua‘i. This
analysis is anticipated to be used by the County of Kaua‘i in making findings of fact as to the
projects’ impacts to cultural resources and practices as required under law.
1.1 Project Description and Proposed Action
Meridian Pacific, Ltd. (Meridian) is currently developing the Kauanoe o Kōloa project in Kōloa
Ahuapaʻa, Kona District, on the Island of Kaua‘i (TMK: [4] 2-8-014-032 Lot 1.) Kauanoe o
Kōloa will eventually extend to additional Lots in this same area. Meridian acquired this parcel
in June of 2021.
Meridian also has additional planned developments in the Kukuiʻula Development area of
Kōloa. Parcell HH (TMK: [4] 2-6-019-029) and Parcel H: Lots 18 and 19 (TMKs: [4] 2-6-022-
054 and [4] 2-6-022-055.) These developments are located seaward and west of the
Kauanoe o Kōloa project (Figure 1). Meridian acquired Parcels H and HH in August and
December of 2021, respectively.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i 9
Figure 1. Meridian Pacific, Ltd. project map showing the current and future developments in Kōloa (provided to Honua
Consulting, LLC by Meridian Pacific, Ltd.)
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
10
1.2 Background
Articles IX and XII of the State Constitution, other state laws, and the courts of the state require
government agencies to protect and preserve cultural beliefs, practices, and resources of
Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups. To assist decision makers in the protection of
cultural resources, Chapter 343, HRS and Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (HAR) § 11-200.1
rules for the environmental impact assessment process require project proponents to assess
proposed actions for their potential impacts to cultural properties, practices, and beliefs.
This process was clarified by the Act 50, Session Laws of Hawaiʻi (SLH) 2000. Act 50
recognized the importance of protecting Native Hawaiian cultural resources and required that
some environmental review documents include the disclosure of the effects of a proposed
action on the cultural practices of the community and state, and the Native Hawaiian
community in particular. Specifically, the Environmental Council suggested the CIAs should
include information relating to practices and beliefs of a particular cultural or ethnic group or
groups. Such information may be obtained through public scoping, community meetings,
ethnographic interviews, and oral histories.
There is no statutory requirement however for CIAs on these any of applicant’s projects, as
the environmental impact statements completed for the Kiahuna Development area (that
encompasses applicant’s Kauanoe o Kōloa project) and the Kukuiʻula Development area (that
encompasses applicant’s two Kukuiʻula projects) were completed in 1976 and 1989,
respectively, prior to the passage of Act 50. While this CIA is being undertaken voluntarily by
the applicant, it is nonetheless being prepared under applicable regulatory standards.
The County of Kaua‘i has however requested that a Ka Pa‘akai analysis be completed for the
Parcel HH project in the Kukui‘ula Development Area (Table 1).
Table 1. Agency action requiring analysis
County of Kaua‘i Agency
Action
Applicant(s) Project and Parcel
Information
Subdivision Application No.
S-2022-6
Kukui‘ula Development
Company, LLC / MP Kaua‘i
HH Development Fund, LLC
Kukui‘ula Parcel HH
Subdivision
Proposed 51-lot Subdivision
TMK: (4) 2-6-019: 026, 029,
&031
Kōloa, Kaua‘i
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
11
In the Agency Requirements section of its tentative approval of Subdivision Permit Application
S-2022-6, the County of Kauaʻi’s Planning Department included requirement 1.p. that for the
most part mirrors the three-part analytical framework referred to as the Ka Paʻakai analysis
that was an outcome of Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Āina v. Land Use Commission, 94 Haw. 31 [2000]
(Ka Pa‘akai). The County went on, in this particular Permit Application S-2022-6, to add 8 sub-
components to part one of the framework such that the requirement reads:
1. p. In Ka Pa‘akai o Ka‘āina v Land Use Commission, the Hawaii Supreme Court
established a three-part analytical framework to fulfill the constitutional duty to
preserve and protect traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights and resources
while reasonably accommodating competing private interests. Prior to the final
subdivision approval, the Applicant shall describe the actions taken and examination
conducted to analyze the following:
1) Identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources are
present within the project area, and identify the extent to which traditional and
customary Native Hawaiian rights are exercised. This part may include but not
be limited to the following analyses:
o Describe the project area in relation to traditional and customary
practices that occurred in the region or district.
o Describe the extent that traditional and customary practices
were practiced in the ahupuaʻa and project area.
o Describe the community members you consulted with including
their genealogical ties, long-standing residency, and relationship
to region, ahupuaʻa and project area.
o Describe the Land Commission Awards provided on the
property?
o Describe the prior archaeological studies that were conducted
for the property.
o Are you aware of any resources that found any evidence of
subsurface habitation or excavation on the property?
o Does the property contain any evidence that trails were in
existence on the property?
o Have any individuals ever requested access to the property for
any reason?
2) Identify the extent to which the identified resources and rights will be
affected or impaired by the proposed project.
3) Specify any mitigative actions to be taken to reasonably protect native
Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
12
This report is intended to directly address the three main parts of this requirement that mirror
the Ka Pa’akai framework (discussed further below). We will also directly address the first
three sub-components of part one and cover all the others, save the last which is best
addressed by the applicant. This survey will be submitted to the County of Kaua‘i for
consideration during the entitlement process specific to the Parcel HH, Kukuiʻula project.
As discussed further in section 1.3 Geographic Extent, given agency guidance, case law, and
existing policy, the Ka Paʻakai analysis herein – that aligns with the approach being followed
for Parcel HH, Kukuiʻula project – will coverall all three of the applicant’s projects that are
within in the Kōloa ahupuaʻa.
While four of the sub-components of part one (bulleted below) will be referenced throughout
this report, they will be more directly addressed as part of Agency Requirement 5 in the same
tentative approval of Subdivision Permit Application S-2022-6 that reads:
5. Requirements of the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD):
a. The subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the State Historic
Preservation Department (sic), if any, prior to final subdivision approval.
Regarding the following sub-components of the Ka Paʻakai framework of the County of
Kauaʻi’s Planning Department requirement 1.p. of Subdivision Permit Application S-2022-6,
SHPD – in alignment with Requirement 5 above - would be the appropriate governing entity
with the prerequisite expertise to determine if these conditions have been satisfactorily
addressed.
• Describe the Land Commission Awards provided on the property.
• Describe the prior archaeological studies that were conducted for the property.
• Are you aware of any resources that found any evidence of subsurface habitation or
excavation on the property?
• Does the property contain any evidence that trails were in existence on the property?
It is important to note that while similar in their areas of studies, archaeological surveys and
CIAs are concerned with distinct and different foci. Archaeological studies are primarily
concerned with historic properties and tangible heritage, whereas CIAs, or ethnographic
surveys, look at cultural practices and beliefs, which can be associated with a specific
location, but are also often intangible in nature. Archaeological studies are referenced in this
report, particularly in the Cultural Resources section, to the extent that they inform historic
practices and beliefs in particular locations and potential impact to those practices and
beliefs. However, this CIA – like most - is not meant to be an exhaustive review of all prior
archaeological studies.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
13
Ka Pa‘akai analyses take these completed studies and assessments into consideration to
evaluate both tangible and intangible cultural resources and cultural practices and beliefs,
and as such, typically both archaeological studies and ethnographic studies or cultural impact
assessments are utilized to complete a Ka Pa‘akai analysis.
As further referenced in the 1.5 Compliance section below, the State and its agencies have
an affirmative obligation to preserve and protect Native Hawaiians’ customarily and
traditionally exercised rights to the extent feasible.1 In Ka Pa‘akai, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court
provided government agencies an analytical framework to ensure the protection and
preservation of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights while reasonably
accommodating competing private development interests. This is accomplished through:
1) The identification of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the project area,
including the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are
exercised in the project area;
2) The extent to which those resources—including traditional and customary Native
Hawaiian rights—will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and
3) The feasible action, if any, to be taken to reasonably protect Native Hawaiian rights if
they are found to exist.
The appropriate information concerning Kōloa has been collected, focusing on areas near or
adjacent to the Project Area(s). A thorough analysis of the projects and potential impacts to
cultural resources, historical resources, and archaeological sites is included in this
assessment.
This cultural impact assessment and ethnographic survey provide an overview of cultural and
historic resources in the Project Area(s) via a thorough literature review, community and
cultural practitioner consultation, and high-level, project-specific surveys. The survey will focus
on identifying areas in which disturbance should be avoided or minimized to reduce impacts
to historic properties or culturally important features. The paramount goal is to prevent
impacts through avoidance of sensitive areas and mitigating for impacts only if avoidance is
not possible.
1.3 Geographic Extent
The geographic extent for impacts to cultural resources and historic properties includes the
Project Area(s) and localized surroundings. This survey also reviews some of the resources
primarily covered by the regulatory review. It primarily researches and reviews the range of
1 Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawai‘i State Constitution, Ka Pa‘akai O Ka ‘Āina v. Land Use
Commission, 94 Haw. 31 [2000] (Ka Pa‘akai), Act 50 SLH 2000.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
14
biocultural resources identified through historical documents, traditional knowledge,
information found in the Hawaiian language historical caché, and oral histories and
knowledge collected from cultural practitioners and experts.
There is clear guidance from the Office of Environmental Quality and Control (OEQC), now
known as the Environmental Review Project, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development
(ESP), that recommends a geographic extent beyond the identified or typical boundaries of
the geographic project area. The recommended area is typically the size of the traditional land
area (ahupua‘a) or region (moku), but this can be larger or smaller depending on what best
helps to identify the resources appropriately.
The geographic extent of this survey is based on the position that the Project Area(s) are part
of a cultural landscape or cultural landscapes and therefore it is most appropriate to set and
study the proposed alternatives within that cultural context. In this case, the Project Area
includes the three discontiguous Project Area(s) and surrounding area(s) in the lands
considered part of the Kōloa ahupua‘a, which is located in the Kona moku of Kaua‘i.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
15
Figure 2. 1901 historic map showing the Project Areas.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
16
Figure 3. 1903 historic map showing the Project Areas.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
17
Figure 4. 1912 historic map showing the Project Areas.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
18
Figure 5. 1918 historic map showing the Project Areas. (This registered map shows the mauka
portion of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project to include a portion of Land Commission Award 2668
R.A. Walsh for [Roman Catholic] Mission Church.)
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
19
Some of the interviewees contested the use of a single analysis for three discontiguous
projects and project areas, yet, unlike other analyses which are bound to geographic area,
cultural impact assessments, ethnographic surveys, and Ka Pa‘akai analyses are intended to
look at practices within a cultural landscape. As such, existing policies on these surveys
recommend a geographic extent that considers practices throughout the entire ahupua‘a
instead of a geographically limited project area. Additionally, many of the informants spoke to
potential impacts the individual projects could have on the entire Kōloa area and its collective
community of practitioners or practices. Given, therefore, per the agency-directed guidelines,
that the geographic extent is the ahupua‘a of Kōloa, we maintain that it is important to
transparently identify all the applicant’s potential development activities in said geographic
extent and look at the potential cumulative and indirect impacts of their actions, in addition
to considering the potential impacts of the projects individually.
1.4 Goal of Ethnographic Survey
This survey looks to partially fulfill the requirement of taking into account the Projects’
potential impacts on historic and cultural resources and, at a minimum, describe: a) any
valued cultural, historic, or natural resources in the areas in question, including the extent to
which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the area, b) the extent
to which those resources – including traditional and customary native Hawaiians rights – will
be affected or impaired by the Project; and c) the feasible action, if any, to be taken to
reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist.
1.5 Compliance
As noted previously, the State and its agencies have an affirmative obligation to preserve and
protect Native Hawaiians’ customarily and traditionally exercised rights to the extent feasible.
State law further recognizes that the cultural landscapes provide living and valuable cultural
resources where Native Hawaiians have and continue to exercise traditional and customary
practices, including hunting, fishing, gathering, and religious practices. The Ka Paʻakai
framework is a means to ensure the protection and preservation of traditional and customary
Native Hawaiian rights while reasonably accommodating competing private development
interests.
While not attached to an HRS Chapter 343 action, this ethnographic survey was prepared
under HRS Chapter 343 and Act 50 SLH 2000 as those are the prevailing standards and best
practices for CIAs. These standards have been applied to this ethnographic survey, as there
are currently no state standards for ethnographic surveys. The appropriate information
concerning the ahupuaʻa of Kōloa has been collected, focusing on areas near or adjacent to
the Project Area(s). A thorough analysis of this project and potential impacts to cultural
resources, historical resources, and archaeological sites is included in this assessment.
Project Description and Compliance
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
20
The present analyses of archival documents, oral traditions (oli or chants, mele or songs,
and/or hula or dance texts), and Hawaiian language sources including books, manuscripts,
and newspaper articles, are focused on identifying recorded cultural and archaeological
resources present on the landscape, including: Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian place names;
landscape features (ridges, gulches, cinder cones); archaeological features (kuleana parcel
walls, house platforms, shrines, heiau or places of worship, etc.); culturally significant areas
(viewsheds, unmodified areas where gathering practices and/or rituals were performed); and
significant biocultural resources. The information gathered through research helped to focus
interview questions on specific features and elements within the Project Area(s).
Interviews with lineal and cultural descendants are instrumental in procuring information
about the Project Area(s)’ transformation through time and changing uses. Interviews
conducted with recognized cultural experts and summaries of those interviews are included
herein.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
21
2.0 Methodology
The approach to developing the ethnographic survey and Ka Pa‘akai analysis is as follows:
1) Gather Best Information Available
a) Gather historic cultural information from stories and other oral histories about the
affected area to provide cultural foundation for the report;
b) Inventory as much information as can be identified about as many known cultural,
historic, and natural resources, including previous archaeological inventory
surveys, CIAs, etc. that may have been completed for the possible range of areas;
and
c) Update the information with interviews with cultural or lineal descendants or other
knowledgeable cultural practitioners.
2) Identify Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources
3) Develop Reasonable Mitigation Measures to Reduce Potential Impacts
a) Involve the community and cultural experts in developing culturally appropriate
mitigation measures; and
b) Develop specific Best Management Practices (BMPs), if any are required, for
conducting the project in a culturally appropriate and/or sensitive manner as to
mitigate and/or reduce any impacts to cultural practices and/or resources.
While numerous studies have been conducted on this area, few have utilized Hawaiian
language resources and Hawaiian knowledge. This appears to have impacted modern
understanding of this location, as many of the relevant documents are native testimonies
given by Kanaka Hawaiʻi (Hawaiians) who lived on this land.
While hundreds of place names and primary source historical accounts (from both Hawaiian
and English language narratives) are cited on the following pages, it is impossible to tell the
whole story of these lands in any given manuscript. A range of history, spanning the
generations, has been covered. Importantly, the resources herein are a means of connecting
people with the history of their communities—that they are part of that history. Knowledge of
place will, in turn, promote appreciation for place and encourage acts of stewardship for the
valued resources that we pass on to the future.
OEQC (now ERP) provides guidance on properly scoping the range of cultural practices. In their
guidance documentation, they explain:
In scoping the cultural portion of an environmental assessment, the geographical
extent of the inquiry should, in most instances, be greater than the area over which the
proposed action will take place. This is to ensure that cultural practices which may not
occur within the boundaries of the project area, but which may nonetheless be
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
22
affected, are included in the assessment. Thus, for example, a proposed action that
may not physically alter gathering practices but may affect access to gathering areas
would be included in the assessment. An ahupua'a is usually the appropriate
geographical unit to begin an assessment of cultural impacts of a proposed action,
particularly if it includes all of the types of cultural practices associated with the project
area. In some cases, cultural practices are likely to extend beyond the ahupua'a and
the geographical extent of the study area should take into account those cultural
practices (OEQC 2012: 11).
Background research for the literature review was conducted using materials obtained from
the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) library in Kapolei and the Honua Consulting
LLC. report library. Online materials consulted included the Ulukau Electronic Hawaiian
Database (www.ulukau.com), Papakilo Database (www.papakilodatabase.com), the State
Library online (http://www.librarieshawaii.org/ Serials/databases.html), and Waihona ‘Āina
Māhele database (http://www.waihona.com). Hawaiian terms and place names were
translated using the online Hawaiian dictionaries (Nā Puke Wehewehe ‘Ōlelo Hawaiʻi)
(www.wehewehe.com), Place Names of Hawaiʻi (Pukui et al. 1974), and Hawaiʻi Place
Names (Clark 2002). Historic maps were obtained from the State Archives, State of Hawaiʻi
Land Survey Division website (http://ags.hawaii.gov/survey/map-search/), UH-Mānoa Maps,
Aerial Photographs, and GIS (MAGIS) website
(http://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/magis). Maps were geo-referenced for this report
using ArcGIS 10.3. GIS is not 100% precise and historic maps were created with inherent
flaws; therefore, geo-referenced maps should be understood to have some built-in
inaccuracy.
M. P. Nogelmeier (2010) discusses the adverse impacts of methodology that fails to properly
research and consider Hawaiian language resources. He strongly cautions against a mono-
rhetorical approach that marginalizes important native voices and evidence from
consideration, specifically in the field of archaeology. For this reason, Honua Consulting
consciously employs a poly-rhetorical approach, whereby all data, regardless of language, is
researched and considered. To fail to access these millions of pages of information within the
Hawaiian language caché could arguably be a violation of Act 50, as such an approach would
fundamentally fail to gather the best information available, especially considering the
voluminous amounts of historical accounts available for native tenants in the Hawaiian
language.
Hawaiian culture views natural and cultural resources as largely being one and the same:
without the resources provided by nature, cultural resources could and would not be procured.
From a Hawaiian perspective, all natural and cultural resources are interrelated, and all
natural and cultural resources are culturally significant. Kepā Maly (2001), ethnographer and
Hawaiian language scholar, points out, “In any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
23
Hawaiʻi, one must understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its
natural environment. Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where
culture ends and nature begins” (Maly 2001:1). As a leading researcher and scholar on
Hawaiian culture, Maly, along with his wife, Onaona, have conducted numerous ground-
breaking studies on cultural histories throughout Hawai‘i. A substantial part of the archival
research utilized in this study was previously compiled and published by Kepā and Onaona
Maly, who have granted their permission to use this important work and are identified properly
as associated authors and researchers of this study.
This study also specifically looks to identify intangible resources. Tangible and intangible
heritage are inextricably linked (Bouchenaki 2003). Intangible cultural resources, also
identified as intangible cultural heritage (ICH), are critical to the perpetuation of cultures
globally. International and human rights law professor Federico Lenzerini notes, “At present,
we are aware on a daily basis of the definitive loss—throughout the world—of language,
knowledge, knowhow, customs, and ideas, leading to the progressive impoverishment of
human society” (Lenzerini 2011:12). He goes on to warn that:
the rich cultural variety of humanity is progressively and dangerously tending towards
uniformity. In cultural terms, uniformity means not only loss of cultural heritage—
conceived as the totality of perceptible manifestations of the different human groups
and communities that are exteriorized and put at the others’ disposal—but also
standardization of the different peoples of the world and of their social and cultural
identity into a few stereotyped ways of life, of thinking, and of perceiving the world.
Diversity of cultures reflects diversity of peoples; this is particularly linked to ICH,
because such a heritage represents the living expression of the idiosyncratic traits of
the different communities. Preservation of cultural diversity, as emphasized by Article
1 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, ‘is embodied in the
uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up
humankind’. Being a ‘source of exchange, innovation and creativity’, cultural diversity
is vital to humanity and is inextricably linked to the safeguarding of ICH. Mutual
recognition and respect for cultural diversity—and, a fortiori, appropriate safeguarding
of the ICH of the diverse peoples making up the world—Is essential for promoting
harmony in intercultural relations, through fostering better appreciation and
understanding of the differences between human communities. (Lenzarini 2011:103)
Therefore, tradition and practice, as elements of Hawaiian ICH, are essential to the protection
of Hawaiian rights and the perpetuation of the Hawaiian culture.
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
24
2.1 Identifying Traditional or Customary Practices
It is within this context that traditional or customary practices are studied. The concept of
traditional or customary practices can often be a challenging one for people to grasp.
Traditional or customary practices can be defined as follows:
Figure 6. Diagram of elements that contribute to traditional or customary practices (Honua
Consulting)
The first element is knowledge. This has been referred to as traditional ecological knowledge
(TEK), Indigenous local knowledge (ILK), or ethnoscience. In the context of this study, it is the
information, data, knowledge, or expertise Native Hawaiians or local communities possessed
or possess about an area’s environment. In a traditional context, this would have included
information Hawaiians possessed in order to have the skills to utilize the area’s resources for
a range of purposes, including, but not limited to, travel, food, worship or habitation. This
element is largely intangible.
The second element is the resources themselves. These are primarily tangible resources,
either archaeological resources (i.e., habitation structures, walls, etc.) or natural resources
(i.e., plants, animals, etc.). These can also be places, such as a sacred or culturally important
sites or wahi pana. Sometimes these wahi pana are general locations, this does not diminish
their importance or value. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that potential eligibility as
a “historic site” on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would require identifiable
boundaries of a site.
The third element is access. The first two elements alone are not enough to allow for
traditional or customary practices to take place. The practitioners must have access to the
resource in order to be able to practice their traditional customs. Access does not just mean
the ability to physically access a location, but it also means access to resources. For example,
if a particular plant is used for medicinal purposes, there needs to be a sufficient amount of
that plant available to practitioners for use. Therefore, an action that would adversely impact
the population of a particular plant with cultural properties would impact practitioners’ ability
to access that plant. By extension, it would adversely impact the traditional or customary
practice.
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
25
Traditional or customary practices are, therefore, the combination of knowledge(s),
resource(s), and access. Each of these individual elements should be researched and
identified in assessing any potential practices or impacts to said practices.
2.2 Traditional Knowledge, or Ethnoscience, and the Identification of Cultural Resources
The concept of ethnoscience was first established in the 1960s and has been defined as “the
field of inquiry concerned with the identification of the conceptual schemata that indigenous
peoples use to organize their experience of the environment” (Roth 2019). Ethnoscience
encompasses a wide range of subfields, including, but not limited to, ethnoecology,
ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnoclimatology, ethnomedicine and ethnopedology. All of these
fields are important to properly identify traditional knowledge within a certain area.
Traditional Native Hawaiian practitioners were scientists and expert natural resource
managers by necessity. Without modern technological conveniences to rely on, Hawaiians
developed and maintained prosperous and symbiotic relationships with their natural
environment for thousands of years. Their environments were their families, their homes, and
their laboratories. They knew the names of every wind and every rain. The elements taught
and inspired. The ability of indigenous peoples to combine spirituality and science led to the
formation of unique land-based mythologies that spurred unsurpassed innovation. Therefore,
identifying significant places requires a baseline understanding of what made places
significant for Hawaiians.
Hawaiians were both settlers and explorers. In Plants in Hawaiian Culture, B. Krauss explains:
“Exploration of the forests revealed trees, the timber of which was valuable for building houses
and making canoes. The forests also yielded plants that could be used for making and dying
tapa, for medicine, and a variety of other artifacts” (Krauss 1993). Analysis of native plants
and resource management practices reveals the depth to which Hawaiians excelled in their
environmental science practices:
[Hawaiians] demonstrated great ability in systematic differentiation, identification,
and naming of the plants they cultivated and gathered for use. Their knowledge of the
gross morphology of plants, their habits of growth, and the requirements for greatest
yields is not excelled by expert agriculturists of more complicated cultures. They
worked out the procedures of cultivation for every locality, for all altitudes, for different
weather conditions and exposures, and for soils of all types. In their close observations
of the plants they grew, they noted and selected mutants (spores) and natural hybrids,
and so created varieties of the plants they already had. Thus, over the years after their
arrival in the Islands, the Hawaiians added hundreds of named varieties of taro, sweet
potatoes, sugarcane, and other cultivated plants to those they had brought with them
from the central Pacific (Krauss 1993).
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
26
Thus, Native Hawaiians reinforced the biodiversity that continues to exist in Hawaiʻi today
through their customary traditional natural resource management practices.
The present analyses of archival documents, oral traditions (oli or chants, mele or songs,
and/or hula dances and haʻi moʻolelo or storytelling performances), and Hawaiian language
sources including books, manuscripts, and newspaper articles, are focused on identifying
recorded cultural resources present on the landscape, including: Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian
place names; landscape features (ridges, gulches, cinder cones); archaeological features
(kuleana parcel walls, house platforms, shrines, heiau [places of worship], etc.); culturally
significant areas (viewsheds, unmodified areas where gathering practices and/or rituals were
performed); and significant biological, physiological, or natural resources. This research also
looks to document the wide range of Hawaiian science that existed within the geographic
extent.
2.3 Moʻolelo ʻĀina: Native Traditions of the Land
Among the most significant sources of native moʻolelo are the Hawaiian language newspapers
which were printed between 1838 and 1948, and the early writings of foreign visitors and
residents. Most of the accounts that were submitted to the papers were penned by native
residents of areas being described and by noted native historians. Over the last 30 years,
Kepā Maly has reviewed and compiled an extensive index of articles published in the Hawaiian
language newspapers, with particular emphasis on those narratives pertaining to lands,
customs, and traditions. Many traditions naming places around Hawaiʻi are found in these
early writings. Many of these accounts describe native practices, the nature of land use at
specific locations, and native moʻolelo (history, narrative, story). Thus, these resources are a
means of understanding how people related to their environment and sustained themselves
on the land.
2.4 Historic Maps
There are also numerous, informative historic maps for the region. Surveyors of the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries were skilled in traversing land areas and capturing important
features and resources throughout Hawaiʻi’s rich islands. Historic maps were carefully
studied, and the features detailed therein were aggregated and categorized to help identify
specific places, names, features, and resources throughout the study area. From these,
among other documents, new maps were created that more thoroughly capture the range of
resources in the area.
Methodology
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
27
2.5 Ethnographic Methodology
Information from lineal and cultural descendants is instrumental in procuring information
about the Project Area(s)’ transformation over time and its changing uses. The present
analyses of archival documents, oral traditions (including oli or chants, mele or songs), and/or
hula dance), and Hawaiian language sources including books, manuscripts, and newspaper
articles, are focused on identifying recorded cultural and archaeological resources present on
the landscape, including: Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian place names; landscape features
(ridges, gulches, cinder cones); archaeological features (kuleana parcel walls, house
platforms, shrines, heiau or places of worship, etc.); culturally significant areas (viewsheds,
unmodified areas where gathering practices and/or rituals were performed); and significant
biocultural resources. The information gathered through research helped to focus interview
questions on specific features and elements within the Project Area(s).
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
28
3.0 Historic Background
The purpose of this section is to characterize the Hawaiian cultural landscape within which
the Project Area(s) are located, which is the ahupua‘a of Kōloa. This includes a description of
Kōloa’s relevant and representative inoa ‘āina (place names), mo‘olelo (oral-historical
accounts), wahi pana (legendary places), and other natural and cultural resources.
3.1 Traditional Period
Kaua‘i is “the oldest geologically of the major islands of the Hawaiian chain” (Handy et al.
1972: 391). This difference in geological time accounts for notable differences between Kauai
in comparison to the other inhabited islands, specifically “[its] interior mountains are less
rugged and its streams have carved out real river beds” (Handy et al. 1972:391).
Kōloa is in the Kona moku (district) of Kaua‘i, which includes fourteen (14) ahupua‘a. Handy
et al. describe Kōloa and its neighboring areas as:
... Pa‘a is very dry. Breadfruit, yams, and bananas were planted in the gulches.
Weliweli is about like Pa‘a. Both of these narrow land sections lie on a slight seaward
promontory, Makahuena Point. W.C. Bennett (1931, p. 118) found an irrigation ditch
and terraces, indicating that there used to be some wet taro grown in the area which
is now dry. Desiccation may have been partly caused by clearing the woodland when
the first sugar plantation on Kauai was established there.
Koloa had a stream which at its seaward end was called Waikomo (Hidden-water),
suggesting that the stream much have gone underground. Three streams in upper
Koloa may have watered some taro terraces, since they flow through relatively flat land,
although a kama‘aina told us he knew of none. However, there were a few terraced
areas, whose names we obtained, in localities now dry because the water is diverted
upstream for sugar-cane irrigation. There were extensive terraces on land now planted
with sugar cane near what is now Kuhio Park, seaward of Koloa Valley. There were
fresh-water ponds in both Weliweli and Koloa. Possibly this was why Koloa was so
named, for koloa means duck, and duck were attracted to fresh water (Handy et al.
1972: 427-428).
Handy et al. identify two important impacts of early contact in Kōloa: desiccation from clearing
vegetation and water diversion.
3.1.1 Mo‘olelo
Moʻolelo (traditional narratives, stories, history) were once passed down through oral tradition
and later recorded in print upon the arrival of the printing press in the 1830s. One of the
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
29
beautiful elements of Hawaiian storytelling is that many versions of mo‘olelo exist, told from
the perspective of storytellers who are native to varying areas. By collecting and celebrating
the multiple versions of mo‘olelo, the depth and breadth of Kānaka ʻŌiwi perspective about
‘āina can be understood. Information about culture, language, and places are held within
those stories, and can continue to live on through those mo‘olelo.
Portions of many famous mo‘olelo take place in the Kōloa area, some sections of which will
be presented in this section in order to demonstrate the cultural significance of this ‘āina. It
should be noted that this is not a comprehensive list of mo‘olelo, but a selection of mo‘olelo
to demonstrate the use of this practice in the region.
Kōloa is long-standing traditional name that has been retained into the present, while other
place names in the region have largely been lost in the rapid development of mass agricultural
plantations at the beginning of the 20th century when Hawaiʻi became a U.S. Territory. Kōloa
has a rich and interesting cultural history, and there are numerous of mele and moʻolelo
associated with this region. Kōloa alternatively means long sugar cane [stalk(s)] or to make a
long roaring sound. One moʻolelo says the region “was named for a steep rock called Pali-o-
kō-loa [cliff of long sugar cane]” (Pukui, Elbert, and Mookini1974: 116). Koloa is also the
name of a native Hawaiian duck (Anas wyvilliana) now called koloa maoli to distinguish it from
foreign and introducted duck species which are also called koloa. Koloa were prevelant on
Kauaʻi and their presence is suggested in the kaona (poetic referencing) of this inoa ʻāina
(place name). Pīwai is one species of ducks common to the Kōloa area (Wichman 1998: 40).
Multiple interpretations of Hawaiian place names are not only common, they are sometimes
intentional because of the Hawaiian penchant for kaona. As H. Kekahuna observed:
The literal translation of the name Ko-loa is Long (loa) Sugarcane (ko). The name of
the Hawaiian duck is koloa pronounced as a single word with a lighter o. The full-
sounded word ko means success, or to succeed, as well as sugarcane, which is
symbolic of success. With the same full sound the word also means the movement of
a wind or current, or the drawing of the tide (ko’ ke au). Thus, through the astoninging
versatility and flexibility of the Hawaiian language there is for a project in Ko-loa an
augury of success (ko’) that is long-enduring (loa), like the moving of a current (ko’)
that flows afar (loa). (Kekahuna 1959: 2)
The traditional knowledge imbedded in place names reveals the history of place, people, and
the depth of their traditions. Although fragmented, the surviving place names describe a rich
culture. On these lands are found many place names that have survived the passing of time.
The occurrence of place names demonstrates the broad relationship of the natural landscape
to the culture and practices of the Hawaiian people. In A Gazetteer of the Territory of Hawaii,
J. W. Coulter observed that Hawaiians had place names for all manner of features, ranging
from “outstanding cliffs” to what he described as “trivial land marks” (1935:10). In 1902,
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
30
W.D. Alexander, former Surveyor General of the Kingdom (and later Government) of Hawai‘i,
wrote an account of “Hawaiian Geographic Names.” Under the heading “Meaning of Hawaiian
Geographic Names” he observed:
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to translate most of these names, on account of
their great antiquity and the changes of which many of them have evidently undergone.
It often happens that a word may be translated in different ways by dividing it
differently. Many names of places in these islands are common to other groups of
islands in the South Pacific, and were probably brought here with the earliest colonists.
They have been used for centuries without any thought of their original meaning. (395)
Moreover, historically named locations were significant in past times and it has been observed
that “Names would not have been given to [or remembered if they were] mere[ly] worthless
pieces of topography” (Handy et al. 1972: 412).
In traditional (pre-western contact) culture, named localities served a variety of functions,
informing people about: (1) places where the gods walked the earth and changed the lives of
people for good or worse; (2) heiau or other features of ceremonial importance; (3)
triangulation points such as ko‘a (fishing markers) for fishing grounds and fishing sites (4)
residences and burial sites; (5) areas of planting; (6) water sources; (7) trails and trail side
resting places (o‘io‘ina), such as a rock shelter or tree shaded spot; (8) the sources of
particular natural resources/resource collections areas, or any number of other features; or
(9) notable events which occurred at a given area. Through place names knowledge of the
past and places of significance was handed down across countless generations. There is an
extensive collection of native place names recorded in the mo‘olelo (traditions and historical
accounts) published in Hawaiian newspapers. The mo‘olelo provided below is only a very small
sample of the larger body of work created by kānaka about Kōloa.
3.1.1.1 Pele and Hi‘iakaikapoliopele
In the famous epic tale of the two sisters, Pele, the renowned goddess of the volcano, sends
her youngest Hi‘iaka sister, Hiʻiakaikapoliopele, on a journey across the island chain to fetch
the young lover that Pele discovers in a dream, the handsome chief of Kaua‘i named
Lohi‘auipo. On her journey, Hi‘iaka grows into her goddess nature by facing many obstacles
including mo‘o or dangerous reptilian water guardians, lethal storms, and countless other
challenges, only to find that she must revive her sister’s lover using her powers to bring him
back to life.
3.1.1.2 He Kaao no Kapunohu
Kōloa serves as part of the setting for the mo‘olelo of Kapunohu, who was a chief from Hawai‘i
Island. Kapunohu was famed for possessing a spear said to have magical powers called
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
31
Kanikawi. Kapunohu was also the brother of Konahuanui, who was the wife of the O‘ahu chief
Olopana. Kapunohu travels to O‘ahu to meet with his sister. Olopana, upon seeing Kapunohu
and the powers held by Kanikawi, recruits Kapunohu to be one of his warriors and sets out to
battle Kakuhihewa. Kapunohu defeats Kakuhihewa, after which all of O‘ahu is ruled by
Olopana (Fornander 1918).
A make o Olopana, haalele iho la o Kapunohu ia Oahu nei, holo aku la ia ma ka waa a
pae ma Poki i Waimea, Kauai, hele aku la ia malaila aku, a hiki i Wahiawa, malaila aku
a Lawai i Koloa noho. I laila o Kemamo kahi i noho ai, he koa ia, he kanaka ikaika i ka
maa ala, aohe ona lua ma ia hana o ka lima hema kona oi loa, e hiki ia ia ke maa i ka
ala hookahi, i na mile eono, a i ka hiku o ka mile, pio ka ikaika o ka ala. Aolc he kanaka
aa o Kauai, e hakaka me Kemamo aole alii, aole koa. Nolaila, ua makau loa ia ka hele
ana mai Koloa aku a Nawiliwili, aole hiki i ko Koolau ke hele mai maanei o Nawiliwili
a pela ko Kona nei, aole hiki ke hele aku ma o o Koloa. No ka mea, e noho ana o
Kemano ma waena o Koloa a me Nawiliwili, me kana wahine o Waialeale.
A hiki o Kapunohu i laila, moe iho la ia a ao ae, i kau hale kamaaina, hoeu ac la o
Kapunohu e hele, olelo mai kamaaina: “Mai hele oe, o make auanei oe i ke koa o
makou nei.” Ninau aku o Kapunohu: “Owai ia koa?” “O Kemamo.” “Pehea kona
ikaika?” “He maa ala kona ikaika, aole e hala ka ala ke lele mai, aole hoi e nawaliwali
i na mile elima, nolaila mai hele oe, o make auanei.” I aku o Kapunohu: “Aole hoi ha
he ikaika, he mea paani ka maa ala, na ko makou kamalii mai lewalewa, a he mea
ikaika ole no.” No keia olelo a Kapunohu, kaulana aku la ia a lohe o Kemamo, i iho o
Kemamo: “Ae, akahi mea nana i hoole kuu maa, oia, ina he manao kona e hele mai e
hoike i na ikaika o maua, e hele mai no.” A lohe o Kapunohu, hele aku la ia a hiki, i
mai la o Kemamo: “Ea! O oeke kanaka nana i hoole kuu ala?” I aku o Kapunohu: “Ae,
owau no, no ka olelo mai a lakou nei, he ikaika oe i ka maa i ka ala. Nolaila, olelo aku
au, he mea paani ia na ko makou kamalii mai lewalewa.”
A lohe o Kemamo, huhu iho la ia ia Kapunohu, a olelo mai la: “E! Heaha kau
pili,ekamalihini?” I aku o Kapunohu: O na iwi ka’u pili.” Ae mai o Kemamo: “Ae, a heaha
hou ae?“ I aku keia: ”O ka waiwai iho la no ia a kamahele o na iwi, ina wau e eo, alaila
make au, a ina hoi oe e eo, make oe ia’u.” Ae mai la o Kemamo: “Ae ua mau ia pili
ana.” Olelo aku o Kemamo: “O ka pahu a kaua, e ku ai a maa, mai Koloa a Moloaa i
Koolau ka pahu ia ma waena o laila ka kaua hana, a i puka ma o o Moloaa eo kekahi
o kaua.” Ae aku la o Kapunohu. I aku nae o Kapunohu: “O ka’u hana i ike o ka pahee,
malaila no wau, o kau hana hoi i ike o ka maa, malaila no oe.” Ae mai la o Kemamo. I
aku o Kemamo: “Ia wai mua, i kamaaina paha, i ka malihini paha?” I aku o Kemamo:
“I kamaaina ka mua, he hope ka ka malihini.”
Ia wa, maa o Kemamo a pau eono maila, a i ka hiku nawaliwali, pela ka nawe hele ana
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
32
a hiki i Anahola waiho, ilaila loaa i ke kukini mama o Kauai, o Kawaikuauhoe kona
inoa. Pahee o Kapunohu i kana ihe, holo aku la kana ihe mai Koloa aku a Niumalu, o
ka malu o ka la i ka ihe a Kapunohu, kapaia ia aina o Niumalu a hiki i keia la. Mailaila
aku ka holo ana, a hiki i Kawelowai mauka o Wailua, nolaila keia inoa, e pili la, o
Kawelowai, a me Waiehu, no ke komo ana o ka ihe i loko o ka wai, a lele hou, mailaila
aku a Kalalea i Anahola, o ia keia puka e hamama ala a hiki i keia la, malaila aku a
hiki i Moloaa, malaila aku a Waiakalua a Kalihikai maalili ka ihe, a Hanalei pau ka holo
o ka ihe. A eo ae la o Kemamo hooko ia ka laua pili, a lilo ae la o Kapunohu i al holo.
Kauai.
After the death of Olopana, Kapunohu left Oahu and journeyed to Kauai. Boarding his
canoe he set sail and first landed at Poki, in Waimea; from this place he continued on
to Wahiawa and then on to Lawai in Koloa where he settled down. There lived at this
place a great warrior, by the name of Kemamo, who was noted for his great strength
and skill in the use of the sling; he was without equal in its practice; his left hand was
considered better than his right, and he could throw a stone for a distance of six miles
and in the seventh mile its force ceased. No person in Kauai was found who could face
him, not from amongst the chiefs or soldiers. Because of this man people were afraid
to travel between Koloa and Nawiliwili; those on the Koolau side could not pass over
to Nawiliwili and those, from the Kona side were afraid to travel toward the Koloa side,
for the reason that Kemamo and his wife Waialeale lived between Koloa and Nawiliwili.
When Kapunohu arrived at Lawai he was entertained that night by some of the people
of the place, and on the next day he prepared to continue on his journey. When he was
ready to start, the people said: “You must not go by this way or you will get killed by our
great warrior.” Kapunohu then asked: “Who is this warrior?” “Kemamo.” “In what is his
strength?” “He is very skilful in the use of the sling. He never misses a shot, and the
strength of his flying stone will go over five miles. Therefore you must not go for you
will get killed.” Kapunohu said: “Then he is not strong. The sling is only a plaything for
the boys of our place and it is not considered of any consequence.” These remarks
made by Kapunohu were carried around until they reached Kemamo; so Kemamo
made the remark: “Yes, this is the first time that my strength in the use of the sling has
been denied. Well and good; if he desires to come and test as which of us is the
stronger, let him come on.” When Kapunohu heard this, he went out to meet Kemamo.
Upon seeing Kapunohu, Kemamo asked: “Are you the man that has said that I have
no strength in the use of the sling?” Kapunohu replied : “Yes, I am the man. It is
because these people said that you are very skilful in the use of the sling, so I said,
that it is the plaything with the small boys at our place.”
When Kemamo heard this he became very angry toward Kapunohu and said: “What
will the stranger bet on the proposition?” Kapunohu replied: “My life will be my stake.”
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
33
“Yes,” said Kemamo, “and what else?'' Kapunohu replied: “That is all a traveler takes
with him. If you beat me my life shall be forfeited, and if I should beat you your life shall
be forfeited.” Kemamo agreed to this and the bet was declared made. Kemamo then
said: “The course over which we shall compete in throwing the stone with the sling,
shall be from Koloa to Moloaa in Koolau. We must make our throws over these points
and toward Moloaa; whoever throws the greatest distance beyond Moloaa wins.”
Kapunohu replied: “Yes, I will agree to that, but I am going to use my spear while you
use your sling.” Kemamo agreed to this. Kemamo then asked: “Who shall take the first
chance? Shall it be the stranger, or shall it be the native son?” Kapunohu answered:
“Let the native son take the first chance and the stranger the last.”
Kemamo then took up his sling and threw his stone, which went six miles and over,
and it only fell and rolled after it had entered into the seventh mile, stopping at
Anahola, where it was picked up by the best runner of Kauai, a man by the name of
Kawaikuauhoe. Kapunohu then threw his spear, darting along from Koloa and over
Niumalu, and as it shielded the sun from the coconut trees at this place the land was
given the name of Niumalu, as known to this day; then it went on and into the water in
upper Wailua, giving the place the name of Kawelowai as well as the land next to it
which is called Waiehu; from this place it again took an upward flight flying along till it
pierced through a ridge at Anahola, which is called Kalaea, leaving a hole through it,
which can be seen to this day; from this place it went on past Moloaa, then past
Waiakalua, then into Kalihikai, where it grew weaker and finally stopped at Hanalei.
Kemamo was therefore beaten and the conditions of their bet were carried out.
Kapunohu became thereby king of Kauai (Fornander 1918).
3.1.2 Inoa ‘Āina
Honua Consulting developed a list of place names from the ahupuaʻa of Kōloa in the vicinity
of the Project Area(s), which includes but is not limited to the following places and terms, to
help guide research and analyses (Table 1). The development of this list stemmed from
extensive research into a wide range of documents related to the project area. In many cases,
land divisions would be referred to as both ahupuaʻa and ‘ili, depending upon the document.
It was also unclear from documents where land was identified as ‘ili as to if the ‘ili were simply
a subdivision of larger ahupua‘a or if they were ‘ili kūpono, distinct land areas unto
themselves.
Historic maps were also reviewed to help identify specific place names within the region.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
34
Figure 7. Registered Map 148 showing Kōloa Village (Metcalf 1849)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
35
Figure 8. Registered Map 155 showing portion of Kōloa (Kalama 1874)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
36
Figure 9. Registered Map 156 showing Kōloa Village (Metcalf 1849)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i 37
Figure 10. Portion of Registered Map 2963 showing Kōloa (Aiu 1934)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
38
From the historical land records, there appeared to be little concern for specific boundaries,
as foreigners, many of them missionaries who converted to businessmen, eagerly
maneuvered their relationships with the new formalized government to acquire themselves
strategically located parcels of land that proved valuable as new capitalist economic
industries like sugar developed across the islands, including on Kauaʻi; Kōloa is the location
of the first successful commercial sugar plantation, which began in 1835 (Pukui, Elbert, and
Mookini 1974: 116).
Table 2. Selected Inoa ‘Āina of Kōloa
Selected Place Names of Kōloa Ahupua‘a in Vicinity of the Project Area(s)
Inoa ʻĀina (Place
Name)
Description Meaning Reference
ʻĀlanapō Heiau where the
Kauaʻi hero Palila
was taken by his
grandmother to be
raised by the gods.
Night offering Fornander; Wichman
1998
ʻĒkaha Bay to the east of Ka
Lae Kīkī
ʻĒkaha (birdʻs nest
fern) bay; also, a
kind of seaweed
Google maps,
Google Earth
Hālauakalena Heiau dedicated to
the moʻowahine
Kihawahine
Shed [to store]
ʻōlena (tumeric)
[roots]
Wichman 1998
Hanakāʻape A small harbor or
bay along the
shoreline later called
Whalers’ Bay and
now Kōloa Landing
Bay of the ʻape
(Alocasia
macrorrhiza,
Xanthosoma
robustum) plant;
headstrong bay
Wichman 1998
Hanakalauaʻe Heiau located at
Mahaulepu;
destroyed by
Frendenberg to build
cattle pens (Thrum)
Bay of the lauaʻe
fern
Bennett 1931
Hōʻai Beach near Kaheka
and Kolopā
To feed Google map
Hoʻoleinakapuaʻa Located next to a
small pond along
Waikomo stream
Place to throw the
pig
Wichman 1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
39
above the pond of
Mauhili
Humuʻula Land area in Kōloa
where the heiau
ʻĀlanapō was
located
Red jasper stone
used for adze
making
Fornander; Wichman
1998
Kāheka Land area; n.d. Shallow pool Google maps
Kāhili 3,016 ft. high
mountain peak on
Waiʻaleʻale that
marks the mauka
boundary of Kōloa
ahupuaʻa; waterfall
The royal feather
standard
PNH
Ka Lae Kīkī Point Spouting; name of a
bird
Google Earth
Kamoʻoloa Mauka plains area
below Kāhili; site of
many battles
The long ridge or
lizard
Wichman 1998
Kānehāʻule Heiau located at
Kaunuʻieʻie where
“rites of
circumcision" were
preformed (Thrum)
Kāne falling Bennett 1931
Kāneiolouma Heiau for sports and
food. Located just
inland of Poʻipū
beach. Part of a
larger complex
documented by
Kekahuna.
Kāne who drove and
pushed
Kekahuna map;
kaneiolouma.org; P.
Young blog
Kaʻōleloohawaiʻi Rock located just
below Waihānau
rock at Mauhili pool.
Brought to this
location by the
Kauaʻi chief
Kaweloleimakua
from Hawaiʻi Island.
The language of
Hawaiʻi
Wichman 1998
Kapōhakau 1,4000 ft. Peak on
Kāhili mountain;
The placed or set
rock
Wichman 1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
40
mauka boundary
point separating the
ahupuaʻa of Lāwaʻi
from Kōloa.
Kapunakea Pond, Mahaulepu The white coral Bennett 1931
Kauhuʻula Ridge on Kāhili that
divides the East
Kona from the Puna
moku
The red uhu (parrot)
fish
Wichman 1998
Kaunuʻieʻie Land area near a
small east branch of
ʻŌmaʻo stream. Site
of Kānehāʻule heiau
n.d. Bennett 1931
Keoneloa Beach, petroglyph
site
The long sand Bennet 1931
Kiahuna Beach; no data n.d.
Kihouna Point; walled heiau
(130 by 89 feet)
Bennet 1931
Kōloa Ahupuaʻa, town,
stream, reservoir.
Long sugar cane
stalk or long roaring
sound
PNH
Kolopā n.d. Google Earth
Kūʻia Stream Obstructed
Kukuiʻula Bay, surf site Red kukui (light) PNH, HPN
Lae o Kāhala Point, immediately
west of Hanakāʻape
and Waikomo
stream
Point (cape) of the
kāhala (Seriola
dumerilii) or
amberjack fish
Google Earth
Lae o Kaʻōpua Point; n.d. Google Earth
Lāwaʻi Ahupuaʻa bordering
Kōloa to the west;
gulch, stream;
considered part of
Kōloa district in
some sources
Day to end fishing
kapu
PED, PNH
Louma A small heiau
dedicated to Lono
and built by
Kapueomakawalu
with stones brought
n.d. Wichman 1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
41
from Oʻahu. Also
attributed to
menehune.
Offerings of pigs, red
fish, and vegetable
were given here.
Possibly the same
as Kāneiolouma.
Makahūʻena Point at Poʻipū Eyes overflowing
heat; very angry eyes
or face
PNH, HPN
Manini A koʻa (fishing
shrine) dedicated to
the shark deity
Kūhaʻimoana
located along the
Kōloa shoreline
A silverreef surgeon
fish (Acanthurus
triostegus) with
black stripes; also
varieties of kalo,
ʻuala, and kō
Wichman 1998
Mauhili Fresh water pool
located in Waikomo
stream; sleeping
forms of the gods
Kāne and Kanaloa
are found here.
Wichman renders
the name as
“Maulili.”
Entangled;
interwoven
PNH (HM 65)
Maulili Alternate name for
Mauhili, a deep pool
located in Waikomo
stream about
midway through the
ahupuaʻa. Home of
the moʻowahine
Kihawahine; when
she was there, the
water turned red,
warning of her
presence.
Constant jealousy Wichman 1998
Maulili Heiau built by
Kapueomakawalu,
who used it as a
Wichman 1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
42
luakini for human
sacrifice. Location
was lost, until
‘Aikanaka sought it
out and had the
heiau rebuilt.
Nahumāʻalo Point, west of
Hanakāʻape
Bite in passing PNH
Nukumoi Tomobolo or point,
west side of Poʻipū
beach
Moi or threadfish
(Polydactylus
sexfilis) snout
HPN
ʻŌmao Stream Green Wichman 1998
Paʻa Small ahupuaʻa
once part of Kōloa;
sand dune burial
site
Secure Bennett 1931
Pāʻōhiʻa Stream ʻŌhia log fence
Pihakekua n.d. The full back Google maps
Pōʻeleʻele Stream Black night Wichman 1998
Poʻipū Beach Completely overcast;
crashing, as waves
PNH, HPN
Punahoa Land area (fresh
water spring?), just
inland of
Hanakāʻape bay;
n.d.
Companion spring Google Earth
Puʻu o Hewa Hill, inland of Kōloa
town. Location of a
hōlua sled site
Hill of wrongdoing Bennett 1931
Waihānau Stone located on the
eastern bank of
Mauhili pond.
Birthing waters Wichman 1998
Waihohonu Hill, stream. A “hole”
was formed here
when the hero Palilo
felled a tree with a
single stroke.
Deep fresh water PNH (HM 414-415)
Waikomo Stream; both ʻŌmao
and Pōʻeleʻele
streams join to
Entering fresh water PNH; Wichman
1998
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
43
create Waikomo;
named “because
from time to time
the stream
disappears for a bit
before reappearing
farther down the
slope” (Wichman
1998: 40)
Waiʻohai Beach, surf site,
fresh water spring
ʻOhai nectar Kekahuna map; HPN
Waiopili Heiau, Mahaulepu,
northeast of
Kapunakea pond
Bennett 1931
Waitā Fresh water
reservoir, originally
called Kōloa
PNH
Weliweli Ahupuaʻa bordering
Kōloa to the east;
poʻokanaka heiau
located along the
shore
Revered, respected;
feared, dreadful;
immense, prolific
PED; Bennett 1931
Weoweopilau Stream below the
plains of Kamoʻoloa
Rotten big eye
(ʻāweoweo) fish or
sugar cane; spoiled
red banana
Wichman 1998
3.1.2.1 Maulili
In Place Names of Hawaiʻi, Elbert, Pukui and Moʻokini identify a fresh water pool located in
Waikomo Stream as Mauhili. The note that it is the location where the gods Kāne and Kanaloa
come ashore, and that “sleeping forms of the gods” are found here (224). In Kauaʻi Place
Names, F. B. Wichman says this place name is Maulili, “a deep pool located in Waikomo
stream about midway through the ahupuaʻa” ( ). Maulili is a home of the moʻowahine
Kihawahine, and that she was present, the water turned red ( ). This story of Kihawahine is
similar to one for her river mouth home on the other side of the island in Kīlauea river.
Wichman also says that Maulili is the name of a luakini heiau built here by the ancient chief
Kapueomakawalu, and that its location was lost until the later chief ʻAikanaka searched for it,
found it, and had the heiau rebuilt ( ). In an 1876 article in the newspaper Ka Lahui Hawaii,
D. Keaweamahi describes Maulili on a visit to Kauaʻi.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
44
Aia no hoi ma keia wahi, he kawa auau no na 'lii, o Maulili ka inoa, aia no hoi i keia
kawa ke alelo o Hawaii, he pohaku, a maluna ae o keia kawa he mau oawa, oia ka kahi
o Kane a me Kanaloa i moe ai, he mau kanaka, aia no hoi ilaila na koi pohaku a laua
i oki ai i ka puu pahoehoe a kahe ai ka wai i Maulili. A mahope iki aku olaila kahi i
kauia'i o Kawelo i ka lele mahope iho o kona hailukuia ana i ka pohaku i Wahiawa, me
ka manao ia ua make, aka, i ka wa i manao ia ai e make, ua ala mai la kela a hele, a
o ke ola no ia o Kawelo. Ua kokoke loa keia wahi ma ka hale noho o Rev. Mahoe. A ma
keia aina no hoi he hui mahiko, aole nae e wili ana ke ko i ko'u wa ilaila, a o ka ona
nona keia mahiko, o Charman. (Keaweamahi, “Huakai Makaikai ia Kauai,” Ka Lahui
Hawaii, August 10, 1876: 3)
Here at this place is a leaping place into a pool for the chiefs called Maulili. This leaping
stone is a tongue of Hawaiʻi, a stone, and above this stone are valleys, the place where
[the gods] Kāne and Kanaloa slept, two men, there are located adze stones they cut
so that in the smooth lava hill so that the fresh water flowed into Maulili. Right above
this place is where [the chief] Kawelo hid from being stoned by the rocks of Wahiawa,
where it was believed he was dead, however, he escaped with his life. This place is
close to the house of Rev. Māhoe. This is the land indeed of the sugar plantations,
although no sugarcane was being harvested while I was there; the owner of this
plantation is [Mr.] Charman.
3.2 Kingdom and Historic Era
Kōloa would be impacted by foreign contact within a few decades of the time in which Captain
Cook first happened upon the Hawaiian Islands. There are accounts of Chinese immigrants
and other foreigners to the islands growing and cultivating sugar in Kōloa in the early 1800s
(Alexander 1937:1-2). Kōloa would already be largely under the control of settlers when the
Kingdom began to adjust its land tenure system to suit the needs of foreign business who
steadily pressured the Kingdom to westernize its government.
The Kingdom Government passed modern boundaries outlined in the 1859 Civil Code “For
taxation, educational, and judicial purposes…”(Civil Code of 1859, Section 498). In this, it
specifically stated of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau:
The islands of Kauai and Niihau shall be divided into six districts, as follows: I. From
Nualolo to Hanapepe. inclusive, to be styled the Waimea district; 2. From Wahiawa to
Mahaulepu, inclusive, to be styled the Koloa district; 3. From Kipu to Kamalomalo.
inclusive, to be .styled the Lihue district; 4. From Anahola to Kilauea, inclusive, to be
styled the Anahola district; 5. From Kalihiwai to Honopou, inclusive, to be styled the
Hanalei district; 6. Niihau.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
45
This was the beginning of the district known as the modern Kōloa district. From historic
records, identifying the differences between which land areas were consider ahupua‘a versus
‘ili can be challenging.
This determination mattered not only in regard to disposition of land, but for tax purposes.
The Laws of 1848 called for property taxes to be paid to the Kingdom accordingly:
All landed divisions, denominated Ili, through the islands, shall pay a yearly tax, as
follows:
Ili No. 1, five dollars.
Ili No. 2, three dollars.
Ili No. 3, one dollar and a half.
In those parts of the islands were there is no distinct division into ilis, but merely into
ahpuaas, each ahupuaa shall pay a yearly tax for support of the government, as
follows:
Ahupuaa No. 1, ten dollars.
Ahupuaa No. 2, five dollars.
Ahupuaa No. 3, three dollars.
This tax however, may be diminished, at the discretion of the tax officer, he keeping
in view, not merely the size of the land, but also the number of its occupants and its
value, and preserving a just proportion between said value and the taxation.
This shift to the use of the ‘auhau tax system and away from a ho‘okupu tribute system
marked a significant social and political change for the young monarchy. Until approximately
1839, kānaka effectively paid taxes to the chiefly class through the sharing of crops or crafts.
In the early to mid-1800s, the kingdom began to codify this tax, and it changed from food and
materials goods into the need to pay the tax in cash. The new government’s need for money,
particularly against the influx of foreigners, motivated this change (Woods 2011).
Eventually, the growing pressure from Westerns began to erode the authority of the Kingdom,
Woods explains: “Unlike previous laws, these new laws from 1850 to 1852 completely
separated the Kingdom from its traditional kapu laws and weakened the monarchy as the
Kingdom conformed to a constitutional government and Western-style law. The tax law of
1850 reflected this rush toward Westernization. In a major change, for the first time, the
Kingdom required payment of taxes in currency only (Woods 2011: 27). A 1935 description
explained the resulting changes:
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
46
The system of land tenure which prevailed in ancient times was radically changed in
the reign of Kamehameha III by the Mahele of 1848, yet the boundaries of the ancient
subdivisions of land remain unchanged to the present day. This applies particularly to
the ahupua‘a which has been termed the unit of land in Hawaii; the boundaries of
ahupua’a are said to have been “fixed about twenty generations back in Hawaiian
tradition,” or about five hundred years ago if the Stokes based of chronology is used.
The district boundaries were fixed at the same time as that of the ahupua‘a, and there
is no known instance where an ahupua‘a boundary overruns an ancient district
boundary.
Since the advent of legislative government, or from about 1846, many modifications
have been made of the ancient district boundaries and there are many instances
where other names have been substituted for the old district names. Some of these
changes were made for political reasons and others for convenience, but the principal
changes in boundaries were caused by movements in population reflecting new uses
of the land areas. These new district boundaries did not always conform to the
ahupua‘a boundary and there are examples today of an ahupua‘a being situation in
more than one district where no such condition existed in ancient times (King in Coulter
1935).
The changes to Kaua‘i would impact the districts’ boundaries:
On Kauai the ancient district of Kona was divided into two, namely Waimea and Koloa,
each named from an ahupuaa and important town within its confines: the name of the
ancient district of Puna was changed to Lihue, a place name borrowed from
Oahu11 and used subsequently for the name of an important town in that district: the
name of the ancient district of Koolau was changed to Anahola, the name of
an ahupuaa within its boundaries: the ancient districts of Halelea and Na Pali were
merged and called Hanalei after an ahupuaa and town in Halelea. The island of Niihau
was made a separate district of Kauai.
No changes were made in the names or boundaries of districts until 1878 and 1880
and then only with respect to the island of Kauai. By an act approved August 1. 1878,
a new district was created by re-subdividing Lihue and Anahola districts, reducing
Lihue district about a third, and adding to what was then known as Anahola district
the ahupuaas of Olohena, Waipouli, Kapaa, Kealia, and Kamalomalo, the act,
however, changing the name of this newly created district to Kawaihau. The reason for
this change forms an interesting page in the history of the reign of King Kalakaua, the
details of which may be found in The Friend of April. 1920, a monthly, published in
Honolulu, and re-published in The Honolulu Advertiser of Oct. 21, 1929.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
47
The amendment to Chapter 498 of the Civil Code of 1859, made in 1878, reads as follows:
The Islands of Kauai and Niihau shall be divided districts as follows: 1. From Nualolo
to Hanapepe, inclusive, to be the Wai-mea district; 2. From Wahiawa to Mahaulepu
inch the Koloa district; 3. From Kipu to Wailua. Lihue district; 4. From Waipouli to
Kilauea. Kawaihau district; 5. From Kalihiwni to styled the Hanalei district; 6. Niihau.
The changes in 1880 included a slight between the districts of Waimea and Koloa.
Koloa by boundary of Koloa to include the ili of forms the east boundary of Waimea:
and aecing (sic) Lihue, Kawaihau and Hanalei dist reduced by taking from it and adding
to Kawai Wailua: and Kawaihau district was reduced by taking from it and adding to
Hanalei district, the ahupuaas of Lepeuli, Waipake. Pilaa, Waiakalua, Kahili and
Kilauea.
That portion of Chapter XI Laws of 1880 enacting these changes reads as follows:
The islands of Kauai and Niihau shall be divided into six districts as follows: 1. From
Nualolo to Hanapepe inclusive, to be styled the Waimea district; 2. From ili of Eleele to
Mahaulepu inclusive, to be styled the Koloa district; 3. From Kipu to Hanamaulu to be
styled the Lihue district; 4. From Wailua to Moloaa inclusive, to be styled the Kawaihau
district; 5. From Lepeuli to Honopou inclusive, to be styled the Hanalei district; 6.
Niihau.
The changes up to 1884 are consolidated in the Compiled Laws of 1884 as an amendment
to Section 498 of the Civil Code of 1859. The compiled laws were a compilation, not enacted
(King in Coulter 1935).
It is likely that many of the changes that specifically applied to Kōloa were the result of
lobbying by the foreign businessmen who settled in the area. Sugar would dominate the Kōloa
region for well over 100 years and significantly shape its cultural environment.
Despite the growing inflence of sugar, Kōloa would continue to be an important place for the
Kingdom. In 1871, Prince Kūhiō Kalaniana‘ole was born in Kōloa to the House of Kalākaua,
the ruling family of the sovereign Kingdom of Hawai‘i. He was the child of Princess Kinoiki
Kekaulike and Chief David Kahalepouli Pi‘ikoi. Kekaulike was the daughter of Kauai’s revered
King, Kaumuali‘i, and as such Kūhiō enjoyed lineage to both the reigning dynasty of the
Kingdom of Hawai‘i and to the independent Islands of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau.
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
48
Figure 11. USGS Map of Koloa (USGS 1910)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
49
Figure 12. 1950 Aerial Image of Kōloa (USGS 1950)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
50
Figure 13. 1959 USGS Aerial image of Kōloa (USGS 1959)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
51
Figure 14. 1963 USGS Map of Kōloa (USGS 1963)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
52
Figure 15. USGS 1965 Aerial Photo of Kōloa (USGS 1965)
3.2.1 Kōloa Plantation
In the early half of the 19th century, Kōloa became the location of the first commercially
successful sugar plantation not only on Kauaʻi, but in the Hawaiian archipelago. Kōloa
Plantation officially formed in 1835, but according to accounts from the first plantation
manager, William Hooper, “sugar cane was grown and sugar and molasses were
manufactured in the District of Koloa, in a small way, prior to 1835” (Alexander 1937:1).
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
53
Like many other foreigners of the time, the founders of Kōloa Plantation traveled from the
United States to the Kingdom of Hawai‘i to start private businesses. The three founders
were Peter Allan Brinsmade, William Ladd, and William Hooper, all in their 20s when they
arrived in Hawai‘i (Alexander 1937:2-3). Arthur Alexander would write of the original
partners:
The partners, after their arrival, conducted a profitable commission and mercantile
business in Honolulu. However, they were eager to expand their business. Convinced
that the greatest business opportunities here at that time lay in the development of
agriculture, they selected a tract of land at Koloa, Kauai, for the cultivation of sugar
cane on the east side of the Koloa, or Waihohonu, Stream. Stephen Reynolds on June
5th, 1835, wrote in his Journal: “[Brig. Velocity went out for Hanalei, Kauai, Mr. Ladd
and Dr. Peabody passengers. Ladd & Co. went to view the place and lay out a large
cane plantation. I hope they will succeed and put it in operation with success.”
After Mr. Laddʻs return they leased from King Kamehameha III this tract of land,
together with a mill site, 360 ft. By 360 ft. At the Maulili pool, with the use of the
waterfall for power. The lease was for fifty years from July 29th, 1835, at an annual
rental of $300.00. It contained a clause giving them the privilege of building a road to
the landing and the free use of the latter. From Kaikioewa, the Governor of Kauai, they
later leased a warehouse site at the landing, at a place called Hanakaape. The land
covered by the original lease has an area of 980 acres, of which 303 acres have since
been demonstrated to be good cane land (Alexander 1937: 3-4).
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
54
Figure 16. Registered Map 1372 (n.d.)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
55
Figure 17. Portion of map showing Koloa Plantation Leases (Alexander 1937)
Historic Background
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
56
Figure 18. Map of Koloa (Alexander 1937)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
57
4.0 Cultural Resources
This section reviews and references archaeological studies and results in and around the
Project Area(s) in order to identify resources that may be of significance to the community.
Honua Consulting, LLC is an archaeology firm but did not complete any of the archaeology
fieldwork for these Projects, neither did we conduct any archaeological field or site visits for
this report. The cultural resource information is extrapolated from other archaeology reports,
and primarily those recently completed by Cultural Surveys Hawaii (CSH).
The historical reports are numerous, voluminous and – as with most large-scale
development projects – include surveys, remapping, data recovery and preservation plans,
monitoring plans, and reports on completed recovery, preservation, and monitoring work.
The archaeological studies on the development projects that encompass the applicant’s
Project Area(s) span decades, with the seminal survey for Kauanoe o Kōloa being completed
in 1978 and in 1988 for the Kukuiʻula projects. Those reports covered over 1400 acres –
1000 in Kukuiʻula and 460 in Kiahuna – and identified over 700 archaeological features –
150 in Kukuiʻula and 583 in Kiahuna. All three of the applicant’s projects were entitled by
previous owners and have been included in multiple development plans over the last 45
years. The resulting historical record is therefore both substantial and complex.
Although Honua is not the archaeological firm of record for these projects and an exhaustive
analysis of every study and report is beyond the scope of this report, upwards of 100
documents, equating to multiple thousands of pages, were reviewed to provide a foundation
for assessing cultural resources and impact. Mapping was conducted as part of this report
and estimates regarding historic properties in the areas are provided below. These
estimates should not however supersede the reporting completed by CSH or the reviews
conducted by SHPD.
It is commonly understood that once grading is permitted and begins, any previously
identified sites within the project area that were not set aside under SHPD-accepted plans
for preservation will be destroyed; hence the preservation plans. The reports discussed
below do adequately show that: (a) none of the sites set aside for preservation are within the
applicant’s Project Areas; (b) all of the Project Areas had been grubbed and graded prior to
applicant taking ownership; (c) and no surface sites were visible in the Project Areas by the
time the applicant took ownership.
It is important to note that while the reports reviewed are thorough and have been accepted
by SHPD, an administrative history tracing when and where the 700+ sites were identified,
and when those that no longer exist were lost, is not part of the record nor is it easily
compiled. This is understandable given the substantial and complex historical record.
However, when dealing with such a large number of sites, many of which represent
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
58
treasured cultural resources, the loss of the majority of these sites has and will continue to
cause distress in the community without this clear administrative history.
While it may not entirely satisfy the community’s concern, contemporaneous documentation
could prove extremely beneficial especially if it includes: comprehensive maps of historical
sites (overlaid on current parcel maps) that note preserves and sites that still exist;
corresponding tables listing site numbers (both SHIP #’s and CSH #’s); as well as a historical
listing of owners and developers, including an indication as to when they were granted
grading permits.
4.1 Cultural and Historic Sites – Kauanoe o Kōloa
Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc. (CSH) prepared a Literature Review and Field Inspection report
(LRFI) for Lot 1 of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project in August of 2021 (Figure 19).
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
59
Figure 19. CSH (Figure 1 of LRFI) showing the location of project area (Folk et al. 2022: 2)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
60
Figure 20. CSH (Figure 6 of LRFI) showing the LCA claims in the area (Folk et al. 2022: 13)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
61
The Archaeological Investigations within the Project Area and in the Vicinity section of the
LRFI speak to the voluminous record of archaeological identification, assessment, and
preservation work that has been done and accepted by SHPD that deal directly with the
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area dating back to a 1978 archaeological survey that covered
460 acres. The project area includes less than 28 of those 460 acres in the extreme
northeast corner of the surveyed area.
One of the many reports historical reports referenced in the LRFI, is the Kiahuna Project:
Kiahuna Golf Village and KMP Development Project in Approximately 400 Acres at Koloa
Ahupuaa Kona District, Kauai Island Volume III Summary of Inventory Survey and Data
Recovery Results and Archaeological Interpretations. (Volume III) The LRFI references this
Volume III report noting:
Volume III summarizes and brings together the findings of both the inventory survey
and data recovery for Project Areas 1 and 2. Included are an analysis of the sites
involved, summary discussions of the artifacts and midden found, summarization
and interpretation of the Kōloa Field System, significance, and recommendations
regarding development and preservation in the area, and the areas designated as
preserves (Folk et al. 2022:3).
The Hammat, Shideler, O’Hare, and Folk 2005 report details the five preserve areas, all of
which are well outside of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area (Figure 21).
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
62
Figure 21: CSH (Figure 9 of Volume III) showing locations of Archaeological Preserves
outlined in red, all of which are beyond the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area. (Hammat,
Shideler, O’Hare, and Folk 2005:42); Blue outline and label for project area added for
reference.
Kauanoe o Kōloa
project area
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
63
The project area was part of numerous development plans by several entities that did
extensive grubbing and grading to the project area before the current applicant’s acquisition
of the property in June, 2021.
A field check of 16 June 2003, related to reporting in the Hammatt et al. (2004)
inventory survey noted previous grubbing in the parcel resulting from the parcel
receiving clearance for construction development, based on a letter dated 22 August
1991, from Dr. Don Hibbard of SHPD approving the end of data recovery fieldwork for
this parcel. The survey report relates that ten SIHP-numbered sites of the Kōloa Field
System documented in the original 1978 survey (Hammatt et al. 1978) were still
present during the 2003 field check in the southern portion of the project area.
These former historic properties’ locations are shown in Figure 9 and they are listed
in Table 1. SIHP #s 50-30-10-3841 and -3851 were excavated during the data
recovery field work completed in 1989–1991 and are reported on in Hammatt,
Cordy, Rainalter, Gomes, Shideler, and Folk (2005B) as well as in the Hammatt et al.
(2004) inventory survey report; no further archaeological work was recommended.
None of the sites in the project area, TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1, were
recommended for further archaeological work and all data was collected prior to
grubbing of the project area. (Folk et al. 2022:20)
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
64
Figure 22. CSH (Figure 9 of LRFI) showing previously identified historic properties in
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area (Folk et al. 2022:31).
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
65
The LRFI goes on to note that:
The results of the 22 February 2021 field inspection conducted in the proposed
Kauanoe o Kōloa Lot 1 project area (TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1) found that the parcel
has been completely grubbed with evidence of grading and substantial bulldozing,
probably multiple times since 1991. The most recent clearing is illustrated by the
uniform height of ground cover in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Previous ground
disturbance occurred during construction of the Kiahuna Golf Course, the construction
of Kiahuna Plantation Drive, and during preparation for former proposed projects that
never materialized, e.g., the turf farm proposed for the parcel by two previous owners.
The integrity of, and in most cases the entire former historic properties, have been
destroyed. The southeast corner of Lot 1 also appears to have been filled and graded,
and supported a modern structure visible in 2013 aerial photos but which is no longer
present. These findings are consistent with the literature review demonstrating
documentation of the former historic properties and SHPD concurrence with the
archaeological documentation. (Folk et al. 2022:34).
The entire project area has been grubbed and bulldozed with some filling and grading
in the southeast corner of the lot. All former archaeological sites have been removed
(Folk et al. 2022:46).
One of the 2013 aerial photos referenced above is included below as Figure 23.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
66
Figure 23: CSH (Figure 2 of LRFI) showing the TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1 project area
location (Google Earth 2013); note the modern structure at the southeast corner of the
parcel, bulldozing cuts throughout, and the bulldozer road across the north end of the
parcel (Folk et al. 2022:3).
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
67
CSH also points out that:
The entire 460 acres of the Kōloa Field System in Kiahuna, including the proposed
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area, were an agricultural and habitation complex notable
for lack of human burials. There are no burial finds in the project area comprising
TMK: [4] 2-8-014:032 Lot 1 and none are anticipated (Folk et al. 2022:46).
4.1.1 Compliance with Land Use Commission Condition No. 7
An ongoing concern for the community, directly related to historical and cultural resources,
has been compliance with the State Land Use Commission (LUC) Decision and Order (D&O)
issued in 1977 for the subject parcel2. In 1977, the LUC issued a D&O In the Matter of the
Petition of MOANA CORPORATION, For Reclassification of Certain Lands Siutated at Poipu,
Island of Kauai (Docket No. A 76-418). Findings of Fact related to Reclassification No. 31
reads:
31. The presence of extensive archeological remains on and in the area of the subject
property is generally known. Petitioner, therefore, commissioned the Bernice P.
Bishop Museum to conduct an archeological survey of the area which was filed in this
proceeding as Petitioner's Exhibit "X" and is entitled Archeological Reconnaissance
Survey Of Knudsen Trust Land At Koloa, Poipu, Kauai. That survey reveals and the
Commission therefore finds as follows:
(a) A substantial number of archeological sites exist on approximately 200
acres within the southern and eastern portions of the subject property;
(b) These sites fall within the categories of platforms or varied forms;
enclosures; modified actual features .such as outcrops and sinkholes; large
wall structures; agricultural complexes with varied mounds, terraces and plots;
lava tubes; simple stone structures with no definite functions; irrigated
pondfields (lo'i) and irrigation ditches (auwai); foot trails and historic sites such
as houses, tombs, and ovens;
(c) These sites appear to be the remains of extensive agricultural complex that
at one time stretched from Koloa Town to the Coast. There is a general paucity
of information on aboriginal agriculture, and because most of the central,
northern, and western portions of the subject property were cleared in the past
2 The full LUC Docket is available online at https://luc.hawaii.gov/completed-
dockets/boundary-amendments/kauai/a76-418/
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
68
for agricultural activity such as sugar cane cultivation and grazing, these sites
represent the only substantially intact complex of sites remaining;
(d) Further archeological investigation will be necessary to determine the
significance of these sites and the feasibility of their salvage or preservation.
As a condition upon General Plan Amendment, the Kauai County Council has
required that a more detailed and comprehensive archeological study be
conducted and submitted to the County of Kauai Planning Department for
approval prior to actual development of the proposed project. That
comprehensive study will cost a minimum of $40,000 and will take three to
four months to complete;
(e) The Petitioner has represented that he is committed to a more detailed and
comprehensive archeological study of the subject property and that he would
preserve those areas or sites within the subject property which the Bernice P.
Bishop Museum determines to be archeological significant and worthy of
preservation (LUC 1977: 19-20).
As part of their D&O granting the reclassification of lands, the LUC placed conditions on the
reclassification. Condition No. 7 as originally ordered by the LUC read:
7. That prior to application for rezoning and before any grading of the subject property
begins, Petitioner commission and complete a comprehensive archeological and
biological study with actual inventories of archeological sites and flora and fauna on
the subject property, and that the Petitioner preserve any archeological sites which the
Bernice P. Bishop Museum believes to be significant and worthy of preservation and
protect and preserve the present habitats of any blind, eyeless, big-eyed, hunting
spiders and blind terrestrial sandhoppers which the Bernice P. Bishop Museum
believes to be worthy of preservation (LUC 1977: 37).
This condition, Condition No. 7, was amended by the LUC one year later on July 5, 1978. The
amended Condition No. 7 reads:
7. That Petitioner commission and complete a comprehensive archaeological and
biological study with actual inventories of archaeological sites and flora and fauna on
the subject property, and that the Petitioner preserve any archaeological sites which
archaeologist conducting such archaeological study believes to be significant and
worthy of preservation and protect and preserve the present habitats of any blind,
eyeless, big-eyed, hunting spiders and blind terrestrial sandhoppers which the
biological conducting the biological sutdy believes to be worthy of preservation. The
Petition may commission such archaeological and biological study to any
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
69
archaeological and biological or firm connected therewith who is qualified to conduct
such a study to satisfy the foregoing condition. The Petitions may apply to the County
of Kauai for rezoning of the subject property before the completion of the study,
provided that no actual work on any portion of the subject property begins until the
archaeological and biological study for that portion to be worked on has been
completed. Actual work on any portion of the subject property may be commenced by
the Petitioner upon certification by the archaeologist and biologist that the area for
which work is to commence does not contain any archaeological sites deemed
significant and worthy of preservation, nor contains any habitats of any blind, eyeless,
big-eyed, hunting spiders and blind terrestrial sandhoppers deemed worthy of
preservation” (LUC 1978: 2).
The most recent annual report filed under the docket (2020-2021 Annual Report, filed March
10, 2022), regarding Condition No. 7 states:
Current Status: As shown in the 2009 Amended Status Report, the 2010 Annual
Status Report, the 2011 Annual Status Report, and the 2012 Annual Status Report,
this condition has been fulfilled. As noted in the prior Annual Status Reports, a
comprehensive Archaeological and Biological Survey of the Proposed Kiahuna Golf
Village Area, dated September 1978, was prepared for the petitioner Moana
Corporation by Archaeological Research Center of Hawaii, Inc., towards meeting this
condition.
Additionally, an Inventory Survey Report, Data Recovery Report and Preservation
Plans for identified Preserves were submitted and approved by the State Historic
Preservation Division of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (herein
“SHPD”).
This resulted in four archaeological preserves, totaling approximately 11 acres, and
their metes and bounds descriptions were established pursuant to agreement with
SHPD and the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission.
Preservation Plans were prepared for these four Preserves, and those plans have
been approved by SHPD, as well, fully completing the archaeological requirements for
the project. An easement granting public access, as required by SHPD, has been
recorded, and actual implementation of public access to and interpretive signage of
Preserve 1 is available and is used by the public.
A flora survey and a fauna survey, covering all project sites, was completed and
submitted to the County of Kauai on or about March 29, 2004. As no endangered or
threatened species were found, no further work is planned in this area. With respect
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
70
to the habitats of any blind, eyeless, big-eyed hunting spiders and blind terrestrial
sandhoppers, and despite finding none of these spiders and sandhoppers in at least
the past eight years, the Project has established areas identified as critical habitats
to support these species should they reappear (Kiahuna Mauka Partners, LLC, 2022:
5-6).
Additionally, as related to the archaeological condition, CSH Principal Hallett H. Hammatt
submitted a letter dated May 12, 2022 regarding Kauanoe o Koloa [TMK (4) 2-8-014:032],
which the Planning Department found to sufficiently meet the preceeding condition.
Based on the public filings submitted to and accepted by the LUC, Condition No. 7, as related
to archaeological resources, has long been fulfilled. Additionally, the County of Kaua‘i Planning
Department contemporaneously affirmed that this condition has been fulfilled. As such, the
conditions and mitigation for the archaeological sites as called for under state and county
authorities have been met. It is not the role of this assessment to revisit these agency
decisions.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
71
4.2 Cultural and Historic Sites – Kukui‘ula
A total of 58 archaeological sites comprising 150 features were located, mapped, and
described in CSH’s June 1988 ß. (Hammat et al. 1988). The 1988 AIS notes the marked
difference between the Kiahuna Complex (where Kauanoe o Kōloa is located) and Kukuiʻula,
due to the extensive amount of cane cultivation in Kukuiʻula.
This picture of the Kiahuna complex and its high degree of preservation is in sharp
contrast to the present study area. Both areas were probably equally as heavily
inhabited and used for intensive irrigated Hawaiian agriculture. However, the Kukuiula
study area the last hundred years or so has seen heavy land modification which has
destroyed many sites. Even areas presently in pasture were formerly under cane
cultivation and the process of field clearing described elsewhere resulted in the
survival of mere remnants of former sites.
So while the Kukuiʻula Development covered more than double the acreage of Kiahuna,
because a majority of that land had been cleared for sugar cultivation, there was a quarter of
the number of archeological features identified in Kuukiʻula (150) as in Kiahuna (583).
Of the 58 sites (that encompassed the 150 features), 16 of those sites were identified in a
series of preservation plans that established the four Kukuiʻula archaeological preserves
(Figure 24).
As with the applicant's Kauanoe o Kōloa project in Kiahuna, none of the Kukuiʻula
archeological preserves are within either of the applicant’s Kukuiʻula project areas and as
detailed below, no surface sites were visible in the Project Areas by the time the applicant
took ownership.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i 72
Figure 24: Map (courtesy of client) showing Kukuiʻula Preservation Areas, none of which are located within Parcels H or HH.
(Project Area Labeling added for clarity.)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i 73
Figure 25: CSH (Figure 11 of Field Letter; Parcel H outline removed) showing LCAs, shaded in purple, in the vicinity of the
Kukuiʻula Development area.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
74
4.2.1. Parcel HH
Figure 26. TMK (4) 2-6-019:029 which is to be subdivided. Parcel HH is located on a portion
of this TMK.
Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc. (CSH) prepared an Archaeological Field Inspection Letter Report
for Parcell HH of the Kukuiʻula Community Develop Project, TMK [4] 2-6-015:029 on June 8,
2021. (Field Inspection Letter Report) Regarding the field inspection that was completed on
May 6, 2021, CSH states that:
No historic properties were identified during this field inspection and there are no
archaeological concerns. SIHP #’s -01947, -01949, and -01950 identified by Hammatt
et al. (1988) has been since destroyed per Borthwick et al. (1990). The Parcel HH
project will not have any adverse effects to historic properties.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
75
Table 3. Identified Historic Properties within TMK [4] 2-6-015:029 based on review of maps
in Archaeological Data Recovery Report for Kukui‘ula Bay Planned Community Phase I
Development, Kōloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kaua‘i, Volume 1, referenced in the
June 8, 2021 Letter Report.
Site Number Description Citation Current Status
(as of July 2022)
SIHP 50-30-10-01947 Habitation and
agricultural sites
Hammatt 2021: 2 Destroyed prior to
1990
SIHP 50-30-10-01949 Habitation sites Hammatt 2021: 2 Destroyed prior to
1990
SIHP 50-30-10-01950 Habitation sites Hammatt 2021: 2 Destroyed prior to
1990
SIHP 50-30-10-01946
(per CSH June 8, 2021
Letter Report, located
outside Parcel HH)
Permanent
Habitation;
Enclosures,
Platforms
Hammatt et al.
1998: 5, 7
Unknown, assumed
destroyed prior to
1990
SIHP 50-30-10-01939
(per CSH June 8, 2021
Letter Report, located
outside Parcel HH)
‘Auwai Hammatt et al.
1998: 5, 8
Unknown, assumed
destroyed prior to
1990
While the Field Inspection Letter Report does not reference SIHP #s -01946 nor -01939,
they are located within TMK [4] 2-6-015:029 and therefore included in the table above.
Based however on the green areas in Figure 24 that denote mass grading that took place
before 2014, it can arguably be presumed that these two sites, like the other four in
TMK [4] 2-6-015:029, were destroyed prior to 1990, at minimum prior to 2014.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
76
4.2.2 Parcel H: Lots 18 and 19
Figure 27. TMK map showing Parcel H Lots 18 and 19.
CSH completed a Final Archaeological Assessment Report for the Kukuiʻula Community
Development Parcel H Project date December 2015 (AA 2015). The title of the report in and
of itself is an indication of the parcel being clear of any historic sites.
No historic properties were identified within the project area during the initial AIS
investigation, therefore this report is termed an archaeological assessment, per HAR
§13-13-284-5(b)(5)(A): “Results of the survey shall be reported either through an
archaeological assessment, if no sites were found, or an archaeological survey report
which meets the minimum standards set forth in chapter 13-276-5.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
77
4.3 Natural Resources with Cultural Significance
To employ the Hawaiian landscape perspective and emphasize the symbiosis of natural and
cultural resources, Honua Consulting uses the term ‘biocultural’ to refer to natural and cultural
resources, with additional sub-classifications by attributes.
A brief further discussion of environmental zones and traditional Hawaiian land management
practices is necessary to understand the tangible and intangible aspects of the Hawaiian
landscape. Additionally, it is important to point out once again that in the Hawaiian landscape,
all natural and cultural resources are interrelated and culturally significant. Natural unaltered
landscape features such as rocky outcrops, cinder cones, intermittent streams, or an open
plain can carry as much significance as a planted grove of wauke (Broussonetia papyrifera)
or a boulder-lined ‘auwai (canal).
The large districts (moku-o-loko) and sub-regions (‘okana and kālana) were divided into
manageable units of land that were tended to by the maka‘āinana (people of the land).
Perhaps the most significant management unit was the ahupua‘a. Ahupua‘a are subdivisions
of land that were usually marked by an altar with an image or representation of a pig placed
upon it (thus the name ahu-pua‘a or pig altar). In their configuration, the ahupua‘a may
generally be compared to wedge-shaped pieces of land that radiate out from the center of the
island, extending to the ocean fisheries fronting the land unit. Their boundaries are defined
by topographic or geological features such as pu‘u (hills), ridges, gullies, valleys, craters, or
areas of a particular vegetation growth (cf. Malo 1951: 16-18; Lyons 1875; and testimonies
recorded before the Boundary Commission).
The ahupua‘a were also divided into smaller manageable parcels of land (such as the ‘ili,
kō‘ele, māla, kīhāpai, mo‘o and paukū etc.), generally running in a mauka-makai orientation,
and often marked by stone wall alignments. In these smaller land parcels, the native tenants
cared for and cultivated crops necessary to sustain their families and the chiefly communities
they were associated with. As long as sufficient tribute was offered and kapu (restrictions)
were observed, the common people, who lived in a given ahupua‘a, had access to most of the
resources from mountain slopes to the ocean. These access rights were almost uniformly tied
to residency on a particular land and earned as a result of taking responsibility for stewardship
of the natural environment and supplying the needs of ones’ ali‘i (see Malo 1951:63-67 and
Kamakau 1992:372-377).
Entire ahupua‘a, or portions of the land were generally under the jurisdiction of appointed
konohiki or lesser chief-landlords, who answered to an ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a (chief who controlled
the ahupua‘a resources). The ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a in turn, answered to an ali‘i ‘ai moku (chief
who claimed the abundance of the entire district). Thus, ahupua‘a resource supported not
only the maka‘āinana and ‘ohana who lived on the land, but also contributed to the support
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
78
of the royal community of regional and/or island kingdoms. This form of district subdividing
was integral to Hawaiian life and was the product of strictly adhered to resources
management planning. In this system, the land provided fruits and vegetables, and some
meat in the diet, and the ocean provided a wealth of protein resources. Also, in communities
with long-term royal residents, divisions of labor (with specialists in various occupations on
land and in procurement of marine resources) came to be strictly adhered to (Malo 1951: 63-
67).
4.2.1 Plants – Kauanoe o Kōloa
A biological assessment conducted by Tetra Tech in December 2021 only identified a single
native plant in the Project Area for the Kauanoe o Kōloa project: ‘uhaloa. ʻUhaloa is primarily
a medicinal plant. The leaves, stems and roots were pounded, strained and used as a gargle
for sore throats, which is a practice that continues today (Abbott 1992). ʻUhaloa was also
combined with other plants to create a tonic for young and older children, and seldom adults
(Krauss 1993). Canoe builders would also occasionally add the sap of ʻuhaloa to a concoction
of kukui root, ʻakoko, and banana inflorescence to create a paint that would stain the hull
(Krauss 1993). This native plant remains abundant throughout the Hawaiian Islands and is
still treasured as a natural and safe tonic for bodily ailments today.
4.2.2 Wildlife – Kauanoe o Kōloa
A number of different species of native wildlife were identified in the biological assessment
for the Kauanoe o Kōloa project as being in, adajacent to, or potentially using the ahupua‘a
(geographic extent) as habitat:
• Kōlea (Pacific golden-plover)
• Ae‘o (Hawaiian stilt)
• Nēnē (Hawaiian goose)
• ‘Alae kea (Hawaiian coot)
• ‘Alae ‘ula (Hawaiian gallinule)
• Koloa (Hawaiian duck)
• ‘Ua‘u (Hawaiian petrel)
• A‘o (Newellʻs shearwater)
• ‘Akē‘akē (Band-rumped storm-petrel)
• ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a (Hawaiian hoary bat)
• Pinao (Globe skimmer dragonfly)
• Pe‘e pe‘e maka ‘ole (Kaua‘i cave wolf spider)
• Kaua‘i cave amphipod (possibly ‘ami kai in Hawaiian)
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
79
The non-native pig was also identified in the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area. Pig hunting is a
legally recognized customary practice. Pigs are hunted and then used as a food resource
throughout the islands.
There are numerous practices associated with birds in Hawaiian culture, including lei making
and other traditional practices. The birds identified in the area are all protected by various
state and federal laws, limiting contemporaneous cultural practices.
All of the species could potentially be ‘aumākua, spiritual guardians, and interviewees
identified these species as such in the ethnographic data. Additionally, the larvae of the pinao,
called lohelohe, is used in hula and heiau ceremonial practices.
4.3 Intangible Cultural Resources – Kōloa Ahupua‘a
It is important to note that Honua Consulting’s unique methodology divides cultural resources
into two categories: biocultural resources and built environment resources. We define
biocultural resources as elements that exist naturally in Hawai‘i without human contact. These
resources and their significance can be shown, proven, and observed through oral histories
and literature. We define built environment resources as elements that exist through human
interaction with biocultural resources whose existence and history can be defined, examined,
and proven through anthropological and archaeological observation. Utilizing this
methodology is critical in the preparation of a CIA as many resources, such as those related
to akua, do not necessarily result in material evidence, but nonetheless are significant to
members of the Native Hawaiian community.
Hawaiian culture views natural and cultural resources as being one and the same: without the
resources provided by nature, cultural resources could and would not be procured. From a
Hawaiian perspective, all natural and cultural resources are interrelated, and all natural and
cultural resources are culturally significant. Kepā Maly, ethnographer and Hawaiian language
scholar, points out, “In any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in Hawaii, one must
understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its natural environment.
Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where culture ends and nature
begins” (Maly 2001:1).
4.3.1 ‘Ōlelo No‘eau
‘Ōlelo noʻeau are another source of cultural information about the area. ‘Ōlelo noʻeau literally
means “wise saying,” and they encompass a wide variety of literary techniques and multiple
layers of meaning common in the Hawaiian language. Considered to be the highest form of
cultural expression in old Hawaiʻi, ‘ōlelo no‘eau bring us closer to understanding the everyday
thoughts, customs, and lives of those that created them.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
80
While Mary Kawena Pukui’s important collection of ʻōlelo noʻeau does not contain proverbs
for Kōloa, Kauaʻi, there are but a small sampling of the numerous poetic sayings and epithets
Hawaiians had for important places. One such saying for Kōloa is “ka ua noe o Kōloa,” or “the
misty rain of Kōloa.” A variation of this ʻōlelo noʻeau is “ka ua noe kaulana o Kōloa,” (the
famous misty rain of Kōloa) (Ka Puuhonua o na Hawaii, September 7, 1917: 4). There are
nearly one hundred references to this ʻōlelo noʻeau found in articles between 1900-1920s
published in various Hawaiian language newspapers (for examples, see Peter Kemamo in Ka
Nupepa Kuokoa, June 1, 1922: 4, and “Ka Ua Noe o Koloa, Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, July 12,
1918: 8). Another variation is, “e mau ana nō ke kilihune o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the fine drizzle
of the misty rain of Kōloa endures) (Oliver Kua, “Ike i ka Nani o Poipu,” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa,
January 21, 1921: 8) and “ke kilihune mai nei nō ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the misty rain of Kōloan
continues to drizzle down) (Kiu Hana Meahou, “Na Me[a]hou Ono o Koloa,” Ka Nupepa
Kuokoa, May 8, 1924:6). In another article, Mrs. Nani Mahu includes another variation, “ʻo ka
ua noe o Kōloa ka helu ʻekahi” (the misty rain of Kōloa is number one [the best]), and utilizes
a varient of the chorus of the mele “Ka Ua Noe o Kōloa” ([he] nani maoli nō ka ua noe o Kōloa
/ He makalapua i ka waokele / Ka hiona o kuʻu ipo / Ua like me ka ʻanoʻi) as an ʻōlelo noʻeau
(Mahu, “He Hoomaikai,” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, November 19, 1920: 8).
Many of these references are utilized by Peter Kemamo Sr. of Kōloa, Kauaʻi. In a number of
published articles, he references similar ʻōlelo noʻeau for his homeland, including:
“Ka ʻoʻopu kalekale o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the soft ʻoʻopu fish of the misty rain of
Kōloa) (“Moses Puahi Keoua o ia mau na Oopu Kalekale o ka Uanoe o Koloa,” Ka
Nupepa Kuokoa, October 7, 1921: 3).
“[Ka] iʻo nenue ʻono o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the delicious meat of the the nenue fish of
the misty rain of Kōloa) (“Oia mau no na Kuhina o Koloa,” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, May
11, 1922: 3).
“Nā Iʻo Wana Momona o ka Ua Noe” (the fat, delicious sea urchin flesh of the misty
rain) (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, June 8, 1922:5).
He also variously references the concept of ʻono (delicious, primarily referring to food, but also
applicable to other kinds of enjoyment): “nā ʻono huikau o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the surprising
flavors of the misty rain of Kōloa) (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, April 28, 1922: 3); “nā kuhinia ʻono o
ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the rich flavors of the misty rain of Kōloa) (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, August
10, 1922: 3); “nā mea hou ʻono o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (the new delicious things of the misty
rain of Kōloa) (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, September 27, 1923: 6); and “hoʻoheno mau nō nā ʻono
o ka ua noe o Kōloa” (forever cherished are the delicious flavors of the misty rain of Kōloa)
(Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, February 14, 1924: 2).
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
81
4.3.2 Mele (Songs)
The Buke Mele Lahui (Hawaiian National Songbook), published in 1895, is “the largest
number of political and patriotic Hawaiian songs ever printed in one place,” featuring mele
that “echo the steadfast resilience of Hawaiians of that time as they weathered the political
turbulence of the 1880s and 1890s that completely altered their world” through the
overthrow and establishment of a foreign-led provisional government and subsequent
annexation to the U.S. (Nogelmeier and Stillman 2003:xii). There are numerous mele and oli
composed for and inspired by the larger project area, and there is at least one mele
specifically composed in or for the project area of Kōloa. Nonetheless, Kōloa3 is referenced in
mele ‘āina of Kaua‘i.
In 1907, a mele for Kōloa, “Ka Ua Noe o Koloa” (The misty rain of Kōloa) was published in the
Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Naʻi Aupuni by R.W.
Ka Ua Noe o Koloa
Nani Haupu kilakila i ka laʻi
Hanohano Kilohana i ka nahele
Aia i laila ka maka o ka ʻōpua
Kīhene i ka wai o Kemamo
Chorus:
He nani maoli nō ka ua noe o Kōloa
He makalapua i ka waokele
Nā hiona o kuʻu ipo ua like me ka ʻanoʻi,
Nā kulu kēhau o ke aumoe
Ka hana a ka manaʻo lihi lau i ke pili
Makamaka pua o ka ʻōhiʻa
Ua hoʻohie nā manu o ka nahele
Kilipohe i ka ua nāulu
The Misty Rain of Kōloa
Beautiful is Hāʻupu standing majestic in the
calm,
Kilohana (hill) is glorious bedecked by the
forest
There is the eye of the cloudbanks (gathered)
Where the fresh waters of the heights of
Kemamo are gathered
Truly beautiful is the misty rain of Kōloa
Beautiful in the forest
The beauty of my beloved sweetheart with my
love,
In the drowsy mist of midnight
The desire on the leaf blade of the pili grass
The buds of the ʻōhiʻa blossom
The birds of the forest are made attractive
By the well-shape droplets of the nāulu rain
(R.W., Ka Naʻi Aupuni, March 29, 1907: 3)
3 It is important to note for this survey that there is also another place named Kōloa on Hawai‘i
Island. There are also mele that speak of this place, which were not included in this survey as
they are not related to Kaua‘i.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
82
This mele is referenced in a 1925 article as an entry in a song contest by the women of Kōloa
(“Ku i ka Nani ka Ahamele a ko Kauai Poe,” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, June 25, 1925: 2).
Kōloa - Robert Waialeale
Nani Hāʻupu kū kila i ka laii
Hanohano kilohana i ka nahele
Aia i laila ka maka e ka ʻōpua
Kihene i ka wai o Kemamo
Hui:
He ani maoli no ka ua noe o Kōloa
He makalapua i ka wao kele
Nā hiʻona o ku`u ipo ua like me ka ‘ano‘i
Nā dews kēhau o ke aumoe
Beautiful Haupu, rising in the calm
Magnificent is the view of the forest
There the cloudbanks
Gather over the waters of Kemamo
Chorus:
Beautiful indeed, the misty rain of Kōloa
Bringing forth blossoms in the upland forest
The appearance of my sweetheart awakens
my desire
Like the dews at midnight
In this mele, the composer, Robert Waialeale, father of famed Hawaiian musician Lena
Machado, writes this mele ‘āina (song about the land) for Kīpukai, located within Kōloa.
Waialelae writes of different places and resources in this mele, specifically Kemamo, which
was a spring said to be reserved for ali‘i in the Kōloa area. The notes for this composition also
state that some kūpuna believed Kōloa to be named for the steep rock feature in the area
called Pali-o-Kōloa.
Nani Kauaʻi - Traditional
A he nani Kauaʻi ʻeā
ʻO kuʻu ʻāina
Ke one Nohili ʻeā
E kani mai nei
Ka wai ʻanapanapa ʻeā
I ke kula o Mānā
ʻO ke kaupoku hale ʻeā
Lau aʻo Limaloa
A he nani Hāʻupu ʻeā
Ka ua noe o Koloa
Beautiful Kauaʻi
My homeland
The sand of Nohili
Makes sound
The sparkling water
On the plain of Mānā
The roofs of houses
Are many of Limaloa
Beautiful is Hāʻupu
The misty rain of Koloa
Cultural Resources
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
83
A he nani Lihuʻe ʻeā
I ka ua Pāʻupili
A he nani Hanalei ʻeā
I ka wai o Nāmolokama
A he nani Haʻena ʻeā
I nā pali ʻo ahi
A he nani Kalalau ʻeā
Nā pali o Koʻolau
Haʻina ka puana ʻeā
A he nani Kauaʻi
Beautiful is Lihuʻe
In the Pāʻupili rain
Beautiful is Hanalei
With the falls of Nāmolokama
Beautiful is Haʻena
With the cliffs where the firebrands were hurled
Beautiful is Kalalau
And the cliffs of Koʻolau
The end of my song
Beautiful is Kauaʻi
There are many songs that speak to the beauty of Kaua‘i. There are also more than one mele
titled, “Nani Kaua‘i.” This traditional composition above is less commonly known than another
mele, also called “Nani Kaua‘i.” Both mele speak of many famed placed across the island;
this mele in particular references Kōloa and its famed rain, the hā‘upu rain.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
84
5.0 Ethnographic Data
As discussed previously in Section 2.5 (Ethnographic Methodology), information was collected
from a wide range of individuals and sources. The findings of those efforts are discussed in
this section. Ethnographic data is utilized to supplement the other research methods utilized.
It is one in a range of research tools employed to gather information about the project area.
Honua Consulting was tasked with gathering information from individuals with lineal and
cultural ties to the area and its vicinity regarding regional biocultural resources, potential
impacts to these biocultural resources, and mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid
these impacts.
The bulk of the information available from practitioners and kūpuna were drawn from native
testimonies and Hawaiian language sources and integrated into the cultural and historic
overview section of this assessment. Those sources, along with responses to this project, were
considered when researching the traditional or customary practices discussed in a previous
section. Interviews were conducted with sixteen (16) individuals. This data helped to identify
additional resources and practices in the area; this information also helped to confirm
research conducted for this report.
Each participant was asked or provided the same questions:
Interview Questions
1. Please provide your name.
2. What is your profession?
3. Where were you born and raised?
4. Where do you live now?
5. What is your association, if any, with the Project Area(s)? Based on the provided
map, what place names do you know for the project area(s) or near the project area(s)?
6. Are you aware of any cultural resources in the Project Area(s) or near the Project
Area(s)? And have you ever accessed those resources?
7. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may take place near the Project
Area(s) or are otherwise associated with the Project Area(s)?
8. Is there anything about the project area that’s particularly significant you would like
to share?
9. Are there any stories associated with the project area we should be aware of?
10. The proposed project includes three new developments in Koloa. Are you aware
of any resources that may be impacted by such a project or projects? What might those
impacts be? Can you think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized,
mitigated, or avoided?
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
85
11. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may be impacted by such a project,
including your ability to access cultural resources? What might that impacts be? Can
you think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or
avoided?
12. Do you have any recommendations for conditions or best management practices
for the project, should it proceed?
13. Is there anything else you would like to share?
14. Is there anyone else we should talk with about the projects or the Project Areas?
15. Is there anything in this interview you would like us to omit from the summary?
Participants were invited to respond or participate in whatever manner was most comfortable
for them. Some participants elected to be verbally interviewed while others chose to respond
in writing.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
86
5.1 Interview with Ana Mo Des
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Ana Mo Des
Date: June 10, 2022
Location: Written / Phone
Biography
Ana Mo Des was born and raised in Miami, Fl and currently lives in Kalaheo. Ana has lived on
Kauaʻi since 2007 and is a full-time mom and instructor.
While Ana does not practice Hawaiian cultural practices in this area herself, she is connected
with those that do and has been following this issue and concerns over development at the
Kauanoe o Koloa location for over a year now.
Overview
Ana’s engagement and concern has been based around the Kauanoe o Kōloa project site
particularly, but she is concerned overall with the developers actions. She is a concerned
resident that has supported efforts by Hawaiian friends to bring attention to what they believe
is significant destruction of cultural sites on the property.
General Discussion
Ana walked the Kauanoe o Kōloa property in February 2021, just after it was freshly mowed.
She saw many sites worth exploring with a data recovery survey (the second part of a three-
part process that is involved in a proper cultural survey). She saw a large heiau, ancient stone
pilings that easily provide habitat for endangered species and what could very well be a burial
mound among many lava tubes easily identified as she walked throughout the property. She
also saw the native protected nēnē living comfortably in what she described was overgrown
lush habitat at the time.
Ana believes that these areas should instead be preserved in perpetuity so we may regain
access to what the island culture has to provide, not only for its people but for visitors and
resident transplants alike. She sees the value of these sites and the cultural resources they
could again provide in the future.
Cultural Resources
Ana sees the remnants of these rock structures and these important caves as cultural
resources worth protecting.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
87
Traditions and Customs
Ana is not personally aware or connected to traditions and customs in this area but
emphasizes that she believes the sensitivity of the site warrants full deep investigation prior
to any approvals.
Impacts
Ana sees the impacts of complete destruction of potential cultural sites, caves and other
artifacts as chipping away at the soul of the kanaka people. She sees the blasting, bulldozing
and works that have occurred as severely impacting the site and those connected to it and
believes that cannot be undone and the developer must answer for this destruction.
She sees the larger impacts of this development as displacement since it is in a visitor
destination area and the starting price is over $1,000,000 for a two bedroom. There is no way
local residents can attain that.
Ana is particularly concerned about the impacts developments like these will continue to have
on economic disparity. Ana said she quietly paid attention and observed for 10 years before
stepping forward to testify before Council about the economic disparity caused by exploitation
which results in drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, crime, homelessness, survival
trafficking and eventual suicide in 2017.
This has motivated her engagement in an attempt to make a difference in this area. Ana sees
these results coming from the failure of the State and County level governments who allow
these types of developers to disregard the rules. She believes the County and State and
decision makers are responsible for the aforementioned impacts.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Ana believes that these developers claiming that nothing of significance is on the property is
completely false and fraudulent. She also points out that the evidence on the property that
has been documented and photographed would have triggered a merited data recovery
survey.
She explains that Missy Kamai after her initial inventory survey said that her recommendation
will be to have a large team come in to do the data recovery portion of the survey and that all
mowing would be done by hand since the area is so sensitive. It is not clear what led to it
being reported completely different and Ana can only wonder if threats or bribes were made
for the report to conclude that nothing of significance is present.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
88
By logic standards how could such a large parcel right next to HAPA trail not have enough
triggers to do a full and complete investigation.
Ana’s biggest issue with the developer is that they are not following due process and feels it
is a complete disregard for the Rule of Law and what appears as evident corruption that has
been unveiled since these lies ensued.
She believes that instead of Poverty Awareness Week or Suicide Prevention Month, elected
and appointed officials need to ensure developers follow the Law and best practices. She
specifically referred to the Law that was quoted in the first page she read of this Ka Paʻakai
packet.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
89
5.2 Interview with Chadley (Chad) Schimmelfennig
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Chadley (Chad) Schimmelfennig
Date: June 3, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Chad is the Executive Director of Kawaikini Charter School. He was born and raised on Kauai
and currently resides in Hanapēpē.
Chads association to the project area is through genealogy. Kōloa and Poʻipū area is where
his family lineage descends as far back as his family can recall. Currently he works on
restoration efforts on Kamaloʻula heiau and is familiar with the history and sites in Po‘ipū and
Koloa.
Overview
Chad explains that while a great deal of the cultural sites in this area and the resources that
were associated have been destroyed over the last century, there is a lot of rich culture and
history in this area and significant coastal ecosystems that are continuing to be impacted.
Chad likes to stay neutral and factual and has concerns about recent activism mislabeling
some of these significant sites and is concerned that when sites are renamed to suit agendas.
He has an issue with names being ascribed to different names to fit something else that is
not based in historical research.
General Discussion
Chad explains that while he doesn't recall all the names of the specific sites in this area there
are quality records of the original place names and maps that can provide this. He explains a
lot of these areas were created in the 1400s under the reign of Manokalanipō. There are
records of that and structures like Kamaloʻula heiau is a smaller section of the greater heiau
structure that has been demolished.
There are at least two heiau in this area Chad is aware of. The Kukuiʻula area is significant
because it has several heiau and it has another area that is a koʻa and connects to Prince
Kuhio or Hoʻai Park. As far as what this area was, it was significant, but as far as what it is
now, is really nothing, because almost all of it has been lost. He describes it as simple
carelessness of resource protections when building golf courses and developments. There are
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
90
a handful of heiau that are accessible and being managed and restored in this area, which he
is thankful for.
Cultural Resources
Chad says that unfortunately he really doesn't have any immediate resources to gather from
the project sites, only because the plantation during the latter part of the 1800s and early
1900s wiped out the natural resources in this area leaving only sugarcane. At one time Chad
explains there were cultural resources associated with having a large population in that area.
Chad speaks of the shoreline area as a cultural resource that has been impacted over time.
He talks about the shoreline area being impacted by the developments and poor land use
choices. He mentions particularly the impacts to the reef and coastal ecosystem, emphasizing
the huge difference in his lifetime and species he saw prevalent as a child, which are now
harder to find.
He particularly mentions remembering harvesting fish and ʻopihi along this shore that are no
longer common in this area.
Chad included that one of the heiau in this region is commonly called the wrong name. He
said while he has heard people refer to the heiau at Kiahuna as laka heiau, because the name
of the street is Pāʻū a Laka, he clarifies that the site is registered to his 5 great grandparents
and is a house site that is still registered to Nāhinu and ʻAuhea in the state archives. It was
their home site. Chads great grandparents would take his father there to show him where they
lived and ate. The developers had a kumu hula name the streets during the building of the
area, and they named it Pāʻū a Laka. Now, people keep calling it the incorrect name. The true
name that it’s registered as is Mauna Pōhaku. It was their site that they lived in after the
rebellion of Kaumualiʻi. They retained their status as aliʻi only because ʻAuhea was aunt to
Kamehameha II.
Traditions and Customs
Theoretically there were significant traditions down here but the earliest western records are
from the 1920s and a large percentage of this area was a village then. There were absolutely
at one time abundant agricultural resources in this area. He explains that there were
absolutely structures and with them traditions and customs associated with this highly
populated area but much of this has been destroyed with the destruction of the sites. He also
mentions that now specifics about locations are hard to pinpoint.
Chad mentions the birthplace of Prince Kūhio is in this area and that there is history
associated with aliʻi here. He explains that the area where Prince Kūhio was born was also the
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
91
area of previous aliʻi and could be dating back to Manokalanipō and Kukona because that
was as far back as we could find in any history books the sites of aliʻi.
He describes the traditions and customs most practiced in this area as being based around
agriculture. He explains since the 1800s these systems have been impacted and continue to
be. Chad explains that the whole area was an agriculture complex with 10 miles of ʻauwai
system. This started at the tree tunnel, Kahili, spawning out to the south end of Kauaʻi and
branching off for another 10 miles of ʻauwai branches.
He describes any practices and traditions as subjective now since it is hard to know what was
whereas the sites are largely gone and demolished and the memory of those practices largely
lost with it. He clarifies there is no one here today to explain what the specific practices were
and where. He does say there are some old audio recordings of his kupuna in the 1930s and
1940s that tell stories of the area and what the practices were and what the various places
were, but all are no longer existent.
Chad mentions that his kupuna had many old style moʻolelo that were recorded. His great
great grandma was one of the influential people in that area in the 1920s and before and she
had these old stories that talk about the folklore of the Kōloa area. Some of these do correlate
to the areas where these projects are planned. One speaks of a flying turtle and certain caves
that were dedicated to a specific turtle.
Impacts
The Kauanoe o Kōloa development is close to a lot of cave systems that still exist in that area.
Most of these have been closed in or blocked off according to Chad. He believes the level of
impact varies depending on the specific site. He explains some areas were just caves and
shelters but some could have been used for other things, like burial sites. This practice of
burial ways still happens on Hawaiʻi Island.
Chad says that where Kauanoe o Kōloa is proposed was another portion of the agricultural
complex. He says he met people in the 1960s that saw the bulldozing of a lot of these areas
that resulted in these large rock mounds and there are over 3 dozen mounds in the area that
were from bulldozed rock piles. Whatever wasn't collected for use locally for rock walls in
peoples’ yards were just left in piles and a lot of that is the ancient walls and ʻauwai structures
that were a part of this system.
Chad mentions the massive impacts to these areas in the past and the dynamiting that
happened in the 1990s. He explains that the entire area was leveled and the cave systems
and lava tubes were largely destroyed along with that. He specifically remembers closer to the
Hoʻai area the land was dynamited for at least a year straight. He remembers this destruction
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
92
and the leveling that happened. He describes most of those structures as now flat and
destroyed. He mentions one site in that immediate area that was spared and it is a hale aliʻi
site and a cooking area that was blocked off and preserved.
Since most of this area was agriculture and provided food a lot of the drastic impacts already
happened in the 1870s and the real use has already been lost, and impacts continue.
Chad sees the impacts of these additional developments as potential continued destruction
to what remains. He clarifies that the specific impacts of what is being impacted varies from
site to site. He explains some of the sites are demolished and some have remained intact.
Disturbance to these sites therefore has different impacts because some have been sitting
there for 30 years untouched but exploded and dead and some areas have existing structures
that are now being pushed to the side that are intact, especially the ʻauwai system, which is
unique within the Hawaiian Islands.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Chad isn’t comfortable suggesting measures that would be appropriate. He feels that would
be speculation on his part and he likes to look at the facts and specifics before making those
recommendations and specific suggestions.
He said everyone on all sides needs to do what is right. He believes that there needs to be
communication and transparency and a process of healing.
He said that concerned community members need to focus on saying the things we know to
be true about these places because if we do not use correct resources and facts, it does a
disservice. He sees some of this as taking everything and giving nothing back and that
requires a process for healing to move through.
Chad recommended we reach out to some of the older families that are still living today. He
mentions his Aunt Betsy Ludington who has been there for a long time and has some great
stories and knows things that normally people don't know. He suggests that Randy Wichman
be engaged because of his records and maps of historical knowledge of this area.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
93
5.3 Responses and Documents from Elizabeth Okinaka
1. Elizabeth Okinaka - Spiritual indigenous woman
2. Stay at home mother/Cultural Practitioner
3. Born in CA raised in Koloa, HI and have lived there through the present
4. Koloa, HI
5. I used hapa trail as a child and frequently use the trail today with my children for beach
access.
6. Yes spring water, native plants, indigenous species who is revered to as a ‘aumakua.
Endangered species, the blind cave spider and amphipod found no where else in the
world.
7. Yes prayer and spiritual practice took place on subject property daily. Many cultural
practitioners access this site prior to development happening. I practiced protocol here
daily and am now threatened with arrest by developer if I step foot off hapa trail.
8. This entire parcel is significant. The birthing stone, the alter which I visited daily and
prayed at is now destroyed. The burial sites and chiefs sitting area are now being
destroyed. Chief Palikua is buried underneath this property within a burial cavern and
a part of the cave system. Laka heiau and the cave directly behind this property shows
the lack of preservation for this entire area. This property has lava tubes and caves
exposed since blasting which developer is denying. 3 caves were destroyed in Wainani
subdivision which is directly next to this lot. The developer of Wainani admitted to the
LUC and there are LUC records that confirm the destruction of the 3 caves in Wainani,
destroyed with bulldozers during development. See attached. The developer of Pili Mai,
the parcel just below the project area, had problems with its foundation as it was also
built over a cave system. There are at least 3 designated habitat caves in the area
immediately adjacent to the project site and knowing about the caves under Wainani
and Pili Mai, it is unlikely that they are not also under the project area. Hal Hammett
and Cultural Survey's Hawaii advertise the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) on
their website and claim to have trained personnel with the technological ability to use
GPR. Yet no GPR was used on the project area prior to extensive grading, excavating,
blasting and filling with dozens of truck loads of dirt and rock being delivered to the
project area.
9. I have read stories of great events held by Kaikioewa here, the procession of helpers he
was followed by and also his Spanish friend who traveled with him often was present.
10. Yes, in answering this survey, I am responding the the questions relating to the project
area on Kiahuna Plantation Drive, 5425 Pau a Laka. I object to the developers effort
to secure answers to these questions for the cottages near Kukuiula boat harbor and
the luxury homes in Kukuiula. If I am expected to answer Ka Pa`akai questions for
other developments, I should receive a questionnaire with more details about those
developments so that I can proper respond. Since my young childhood and to present
I have been a frequent visitor to the Kukuiula boat harbor, beach and Lawaii coast and
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
94
am requesting that I be allowed to comment on a separate questionnaire for any
development in that area. I refuse to combine 2 completely separate areas into this
single question. Kukuiula is almost entirely in a different ahupua’a. I believe developer
should have to conduct 3 surveys, One for each project area. Impacts for substantial
destruction of cave system and lava tubes. Continued desecration of burial sites and
culturally significant sites in Koloa. Why not give a more in-depth explanation or TMK
number for every property? 2 species found no where’s else which reside in the the
Koloa cave ecosystem consider to be one of the 10 most endangered cave systems in
the world.
11. Yes I am being threatened by arrest daily if I try to access my once daily prayer site.
KPD is being privately hired by developer and has given out trespass warning for the
property and the adjacent road that the public uses to enter Kiahuna development and
Wainani subdivision. Even though this road is accessed by the public, I and other
practitioners have been told that we are not allowed to walk on the public road and we
will be arrested if we step foot off of Hapa Trail. The difficulty is that no one has ever
determined where Hapa Trail begins and ends. In fact, there are rock formations on
Hapa Trail that abut the fence recently built by the developer which raises serious
questions about whether or not the developer is actually fencing us off of parts of Hapa
Trail. Colin Thompson the VP has been harassing us as we document the desecration
from Hapa Trail. He calls out and yells at us and asks why we are there. Recently, he
started flying a drone right next to us as we stand on Hapa Trail. I took pictures of his
drone and strongly object to this threatening and harassing behavior by this developer.
12. No it should NOT proceed. This developer has blatantly and repeatedly broken the law.
He is pending IRS charges for a similar instance of depreciation of value of land. He is
blocking cultural and lineal descendants from accessing this culturally significant site.
I do not trust this process. I do not believe in this process, how can you ask for our
input of such a culturally significant site while the developer is grading with bulldozers
and front end loaders and blasting, destroying the resources? I was on site the day
Missy Kamai conducted her survey for cultural surveys Hawaii. She herself told me she
could see the cultural significance in this property and promised us that the lot would
be cleared by hand before a full team came in and concluded a final archaeological
survey This never happened. I was also approached by Rick Paul Cassiday the same
day Missy came, I was on site when he attempted to bribe me offering a payout for
each child I had and a donation to each school my children attended if, in return, I stop
being vocal against this project. I declined his offer. I told him I was not interested in
money.
13. I do not trust cultural surveys Hawaii and I do not trust Honua consulting and have
been made aware that they have been a part of burial desecration on Oahu and Kauai.
This entire process is wrong and there are still pending burial registration for this land.
With multiple ex-county attorneys and employee working for developer of this project
and the developer who is relying on a Christmas Eve county agreement that was never
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
95
approved by the LUC. The Decisions and Orders by the LUC affecting the project area
have not been followed and the developer applicants and County are jointly obligated
to follow the LUC decisions. See attached for 3 party agreement between County and
developers with no LUC approval.
14. Yes there are many community members who did not get a chance to give input. This
process is completely being done backwards and the wrong way, how is the county of
Kauai now asking for our input on this property when we have been trying for almost 2
years to protect this site? County of Kauai was required to conduct this analysis before
granting the grading and grubbing permit that was illegally given without a final
biological or archaeological report. (grading permit granted 3/22 final biologic survey
not done until 5/12/2022 and alleged archeological clearance from Cultural Survey's
Hawaii is dated 5/9/2022, more than a month following excavation and extensive
grading.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
96
Figure 28. Document provided by interviewee
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
97
Figure 29. Document provided by interviewee
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
98
5.4 Responses from Elvira Kimokeo
1. Please provide your name.
Elvira (Ella) Kimokeo
2. What is your profession? Retired
3. Where were you born and raised? Born and Raised in Koloa on family parcel in Poipu, Nalo
Rd
4. Where do you live now? Hanapepe, Kauai
5. What is your association, if any, with the Project Area(s)? Based on the provided map,
what place names do you know for the project area(s) or near the project area(s)? Walked
regularly to the Catholic Church from our home in Poipu on Hapa Trail with my Grandmother
and Mother Mary Costa Kimokeo
6. Are you aware of any cultural resources in the Project Area(s) or near the Project Area(s)?
And have you ever accessed those resources? We would visit the Lava Tubes and Caves near
Hapa Trail and we would pick mauna loa and black-eyed susan for lei making.
7. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may take place near the Project Area(s)
or are otherwise associated with the Project Area(s)? Yes for lei making and cultural practices
seeds for lei’s and keawe wood for kaula pig. Moho lived in lava tubes and we were told by
Kupuna that the Ali`I were buried in the caves under or near the project area.
8. Is there anything about the project area thatʻs particularly significant you would like to
share?
It was my way to the get to Church with grandma Mary Kimokeo, to Koloa town and school.
We used Hapa Trail almost every day. It has now been fenced and access is much more
difficult.
9. Are there any stories associated with the project area we should be aware of? We all learned
from our elders that the mo`o lived in the cave and traveled the cave to the fish pond near
the coast to keep the fish pond clean and then return to the cave in the Kiahuna area of the
project where he lived and propagated to preserve the fish ponds like the one at kaneiolouma.
The mo`o was a lizard like creature that lived in the water and on land. The parcel that is now
being developed was known to have underground springs and water that traveled through
lava tubes to the ocean. The explosions that are being done we know from our elders are not
good for the health of the ocean because of the debris that travels in the water underground
to the coast contaminating the Limu, Opihi and Ayukuki/Wana.
10. The proposed project includes three new developments in Koloa. Are you aware of any
resources that may be impacted by such a project or projects? What might those impacts
be? Can you think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or
avoided? No one talks to us. The property is already graded. Mounds that used to be on the
property are now flat. Many rock formations have been blown up or crushed. How do we get
that back? I don’t know how to mitigate this damage except to ask that you please stop the
development and allow the kupuna buried there to rest in peace.
11. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may be impacted by such a project,
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
99
including your ability to access cultural resources? What might that impacts be? Can you
think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or avoided? Ali`i iwi
will be impacted. Plants that we used to gather can no longer be gathered as they have been
cleared away. Our sacred trail is now fenced with barbed wire on one side and fence posts
that are sunk in concrete. A worker was seen adding dirt to the top of the concrete to hide all
the concrete that is poured in the ground right next to Hapa Trail. This is a desecration of our
environment. The amakua underground has been permanently violated.
12. Do you have any recommendations for conditions or best management practices for the
project, should it proceed? Stop the projects, make it a park. A place that people can enjoy.
We don’t need more people and more cars to compete with to get to our coastline and
beaches. Developer greed is changing the life we’ve known and the land we love.
13. Is there anything else you would like to share? No, other than to ask you to please consider
and change your plan to keep so many more people from being hurt.
14. Is there anyone else we should talk with about the projects or the Project Areas? Families
and descendants that still live on Kuai Rd
15. Is there anything in this interview you would like us to omit from the summary? No
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
100
5.5 Responses from Glenn Silva
Interview Questions
1. Please provide your name.
Glen Silva
2. What is your profession?
Retired - Land Title Research
3. Where were you born and raised?
Born Oakland, CA; Raised Koloa
4. Where do you live now?
Puhi, Kauai
5. What is your association, if any, with the Project Area(s)? Based on the provided map,
what place names do you know for the project area(s) or near the project area(s)?
Family Land ties. Please see deed that granted my family more than 3,300 acres between
Wiliwili tract and Kukuiula harbor. I went with my grandparents to a family burial sites that
were in the property along what is now Kiahuna Plantation Drive. We accessed the property
from Hapa Trail and I went with my Aunt and grandparents to take ho 'okipa to grave sites in
tribute to our kupuna. Place Names - Kana Moku and my family name was Kukona which my
great grandfather changed to just Kana. Because the Kana family was deeded so much land
on the South Shore, the family name was used for the name of the Moku. My great
grandmother signed the Pala pa la Hoopii Kue Hoohuianina Petition Against Annexation, copy
which she gave me attached which bares her signature, last on the list.
6. Are you aware of any cultural resources in the Project Area(s) or near the Project Area(s)?
And have you ever accessed those resources?
On the lot being developed now in Kiahuna I remember going to honor kupuna that were
buried there. There used to be a mossed rock formation on the part of the property nearest
the golf course. It had a rock wall nearby that was broken by bulldozers that worked on the
property in January 2021. I was visiting family in Koloa and saw the damage to what was an
ancient Heiau. I have walked Hapa Trail many times and it was used most by young people on
their way to the beach to fish, throw net and swim when I was growing up in Koloa. We used
to collect plants for my grandmother and aunt who would make medicine for our family. I also
collected lima kohu, threw net and fished from the shore which several of my friends still do.
7. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may take place near the Project Area(s)
or are otherwise associated with the Project Area(s)?
From my family, I know there was a long history of loi and sweet potato planting in the area.
There were ceremonial practices for the planting and harvest season that we remember today
when we walk the historic Hapa Trail. I would like my children and grandchildren to know of
these practices like walking Hapa Trail which is now much more difficult because the access
on the east and west side has been fenced. The Kiahuna property was an area for hunting as
well and also a place for births and deaths with burials in the caves that we believe go
throughout and connect all the parcels.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
101
8. Is there anything about the project area that's particularly significant you would like to
share?
My aunt and grandmother took to the graves of our ancestors but with the recent changes on
the property with the fencing that keeps me from walking on the parcel I am not sure I can
find their graves today.
9. Are there any stories associated with the project area we should be aware of?
I had family members who would connect spiritually with the Kupuna in the Kukona and Kon
a family. I recall auntie Stella telling me it is important to remember and try and preserve the
family stories.
10. The proposed project includes three new developments in Koloa. Are you aware of any
resources that may be impacted by such a project or projects? What might those impacts
be? Can you think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or
avoided?
Yes, Koloa is a small community with many older plantation families, 2 small grocery stores
and 1 post office. I'm concerned that the proposed development will impact my friends and
family being able to get to the beach. It is already difficult, if not impossible, to find a place to
park when we want to swim, fish or enjoy our coastline. It's not that we don't want to share
but we have 3 large resorts in the area and more vacation rental properties than properties
for Koloa residents. There are already many more tourist here than local families and these
planned developments will bring even more traffic, waste, runoff to the ocean during
construction directly changes my families ability to enjoy this community which has been
home to most of my family for hundreds of years. The size of the proposed developments are
too large for this community. The 3 planned developments will add more than 400 cars to our
roads which are all single lane and the tree tunnel is the only way in or out unless we are
routed to Omao Rd which is a windy residential road. We already have problems when there
are threats of hurricanes or tsunami and our single lane roads become gridlocked as people
try to exit and head for higher ground. Any natural disaster requiring evacuation is already a
problem for Koloa and Poipu. Adding so many more units is only going to add to the problem.
11. Are you aware of any traditions or customs that may be impacted by such a project,
including your ability to access cultural resources? What might that impacts be? Can you
think of ways in which any potential impacts can be minimized, mitigated, or avoided?
Yes, Absolutely Access, Access, for all traditional and customary practices (see #7) =
Destruction of Kanaka way of life. STOP! Now!
12. Do you have any recommendations for conditions or best management practices for the
project, should it proceed?
Recommend you respect and honor all customs, traditions and access to our lands and the
ocean. Hapa Trail has been open for years and could be accessed from its east and west side
which are now fenced. Developer said the fencing was temporary. I saw the fence going in
and there were concrete footings for each fence post that went at least 2 feet into the ground.
Some workers cave back and put dirt on top of the concrete to disguise that it's built in
concrete but we saw it being built.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
102
13. Is there anything else you would like to share?
It scares me to think of more than 300 new homes in this small community. With the added
people and cars, Koloa and the people that have enjoyed its small-town culture and traditions
will be lost. That make me very sad for my children and grandchildren.
14. Is there anyone else we should talk with about the projects or the Project Areas?
Hopefully others in my community like uncle Billy, Rupert and Kane will send in their
responses. We all know that these developments are going to limit our access to Kukuiula
boat harbor, Koloa landing, Sheraton beach, Waiohi beach and Poipu Beach.
15. Is there anything in this interview you would like us to omit from the summary?
No, and I would recommend that you contact and consult the Wichman family, Kauai Historical
Society, and read Na Pua Ali'i o Kauai which will help you understand how important this area
is to our people and the local residents.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
103
Figure 30. Document provided by interviewee
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
104
Figure 31. Document provided by interviewee.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
105
Figure 32. Document provided by interviewee.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
106
5.6 Interview with Keao NeSmith
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Keao NeSmith - kumukeao@gmail.com
Date: June 9, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Keao NeSmith is an independent researcher and consultant. He was born in Waimea, Kauaʻi
and raised in Kekaha. He currently resides in Honolulu.
Keao grew up in the project area and is a local who accessed and utilized resources along this
area throughout his life. He is a Hawaiian researcher and has an interest as such in this area.
He has worked to clean and restore Kāneiʻolouma heiau.
Overview
Keao’s particular interest is the area is mostly around Kāneiʻolouma heiau and complex. His
interest is based around his research and ongoing discussions about the sites in this area
and their uses in the past and their potential uses today and in the future.
Keao is opposed to further development of this area and points out it is already so heavily
impacted. Keao mentions the rich history this area has spanning centuries. He talks about
the overall importance of this area and the important educational opportunities it offers and
solutions for the future. He describes the impacts he sees because of these developments.
General Discussion
Keao says he, and many Kauaʻi residents, don't want more development in general. He says
Kauaʻi roads are jammed packed and there are already too many cars. He describes the over
development as drowning out Kauaʻi and its people with foreigners. He feels people need to
do whatever they can to slow down this displacement of locals and bring the population to
sustainable levels.
Cultural Resources, Traditions and Customs
The Kāneiʻolouma complex was along the coast. He explains the significance of Kāneiʻolouma
complex and the extensive network that runs along the coast, much of which he notes has
already been destroyed by existing development and commercial projects. He explains that,
looking at the archeological record all these cultural sites are a connected network, all the
way to Lāwaʻi Beach Resort and Kūhiō Park to Māhāʻulepū in the other direction, is one
system. We don't know specifically some of the uses of certain areas. A lot of it was mixed
use, a lot of it was heiau, some villages, even rock quarrying. A lot of the rocks in the stories
of menehune were taken from this area.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
107
Another form of cultural resource Keao points out is the study of the old aquaculture systems
in this area. Kāneiʻolouma has raised aqueducts, which is an amazing feat of engineering and
these troughs are still there that were raised above the ground in order to use water through
a gravity fed system. He says we don't completely understand how these systems worked and
if they are even aqueducts, but it appears this way. This would have been part of a system
that went mauka that would have been connected to the streams in this area.
Keao says another important resource is access to important land for agriculture. He explains
the mauka areas were extensively farmed for ʻuala, kalo, etc and the records show there were
loʻi kalo up there and the fields were planted in ʻuala in other areas.
Kukona, father of Manokalanipō, in the 1400s, was involved in a battle here and Kamapuaʻa
was involved. This battle was with the aliʻi of Maui and they fought a really bloody battle along
this coastline. It ended with Kamapuaʻa jumping in to support Kukona and the Kauaʻi army to
defeat the Maui army. Then there was the time of peace under the reign of Manokalanipō.
This was about 400 years of peace and prosperity for Kauaʻi that followed this battle. This
could be the time these complexes were built. Later, Kamehameha landed here in this area
also.
These are events that he believes memorials should be created for in these areas.
Limaloa is an aliʻi that became best friends with Kamapuaʻa. Limaloa was the aliʻi of this area,
not sure if it was the aliʻi of the ahupuaʻa or a moku, but according to legend he would hang
out with Kamapuaʻa and at some point, he fell out of favor with the people of the area and
they kicked him out and he ended up in Mānā. Limaloa became a kakua, god, in Mānā and
he is connected to the story La'ieikawai, goddess of the rainbows, which always followed her.
La'ieikawai was the goddess of the lake of Mānā area and the mirage of the Mānā. Limaloa
became her lover. There are lots of chants and hula that reference Limaloa, Lāʻieikawai and
other aliʻi and important figures. Limaloa is originally from this area.
Salt beds were once in that coastal area but those have been destroyed. Uncle Billy
Kaohelauliʻi would have more insight on the locations of salt beds and traditions related to
this.
Impacts
Much of this area has already been destroyed from existing developments, particularly since
statehood, 1959. This was the beginning of the era of large-scale developments. Many sacred
grounds and aliʻi estates were rapidly developed post 1959. The destruction of a lot of these
sites like Kāneiʻolouma then occurred, to create roads. County and state departments should
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
108
have maps and records of the developments of the road systems and that means they should
have maps that show these cultural sites in this area.
Keao says this development is the continuation of the destruction of these cultural sites. He
notes that the destruction is already extensive and he feels we should not be piling onto it.
He explains if these agricultural systems are destroyed, we have lost all opportunity to study,
understand and learn from them. If Hawaiians are further restricted from these agricultural
areas and these sites convert from important agricultural features to commercial venture
projects, it prevents the possibility of Kauaʻi becoming independent and self-sustaining
agriculturally.
He is concerned there isn’t proper recognition of the important treasures we have in these
valuable sites. He believes all of these sites should be considered national treasures instead
of ventures for capitalism.
For locals, he sees it as a chain reaction that's been happening since occupation. He notes
one of the first things to go in colonization was the aspects of the education system that taught
the value of these places. This disregard for education about these cultural sites led to lack
of knowledge among locals about these sites and their importance. In turn this lends to
ambivalence to developments like this, like they don't matter, which extends from a previously
existing, decades long, exclusion from the education system.
In order for Hawaiians to arrive at a common understanding development like this need to be
stopped and education needs to happen.
There are many ways to look at the impacts to resources. If we are talking about resources we
use on a daily basis today, he thinks immediately of water primarily.
Many projects do not write into their plans to make sure locals don’t have access, but it is the
natural result of developments such as these.
Cultural practices returning to these areas could be impacted. Just because Kāneiʻolouma is
protected and being restored doesn't mean we are asking that locals return to that practice.
The fact that this exists and the stories continue is a resource.
Projects like this aren’t built for or to attract locals, they attract foreigners by their very nature.
The more we edge out the local population and allow in the foreign population the less
appreciation there is for all of this and these resources. Locals in turn feel less connected to
their history, land and culture by actual segregation and developing them out of the area. He
compares it to the overdevelopment of Kīhei on Maui, and does not look kindly on over
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
109
development of the south shore such as this. He sees Kīhei as totally overdeveloped and not
resembling Hawai’i anymore and believes the problem is projects like this.
Keao struggles with the rationale behind these types of projects. He does not want more
developments such as these. He says he speaks for many on Kauaʻi when he says Kauaʻi
roads are already jam packed, there are already way too many cars and we are drowning out
Kauaʻi locals with foreigners of all kinds. He feels we need to do whatever we can to slow
down that change and bring the population down to sustainable levels. The problem is already
severe when it comes to the overpopulation and over use of commercial spots and the
beaches in this area and these developments will further exacerbate this problem.
Keao believes that projects like these also result in an increasing economic divide on Kauaʻi.
He explains these developments keep locals with few options but low paying jobs that are
hard to survive on here anymore. Developments like these like to brag about job creation, but
they are often offering only low paying jobs, without security. Projects like these do not provide
opportunities for highly educated residents, who have to go elsewhere to find jobs that suit
their educational background. He does not feel like it is brag worthy for developers to boast
to the community about their job creation, especially at the cost of what is lost. All things
considered, when he looks at the pros and cons, it seems to Keao that the advantages are to
the mega rich and developers, but not for locals who do not obtain secure and economically
sustainable lives for themselves through these developments.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Speaking of mitigation, Keao feels like if they are going to mitigate the project it would have
to be significant. He described it like, if they want to take some, they have to give some and it
has to be equal. It cannot be take a lot and give a little. He explains that if these developers
are going to take, they need to provide in equal proportion.
This is an extremely sensitive cultural area because it is so packed with historical events that
took place centuries ago. Really Keao is against the project and would rather it not happen
altogether.
He suggests further conversation with Canen Hoʻokano & Members of the Knudsen Trust,
Kumu Leinaʻala Jardin, Uncle Billy Kaohelauliʻi, Andre Perez and Momi Kapahulehua.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
110
5.7 Interview with Malia Chun
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Malia K Chun
Date: June 1, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Malia Chun from is the Program Director for Nā Pua No‘eau. Nā Pua No‘eau is a keiki cultural
enrichment program, which is a program of the University of Hawaiʻi. Malia was born and
raised in the Moku of Puna, in the ahupuaʻa of Wailuanuiahoʻāno on Kauaʻi. She currently
resides in the Moku of Kona in the ahupuaʻa of Waiawa.
Overview
Although Malia grew up in the Moku of Puna, when she was like 1-4 years old she lived on the
south side, while her father was the sous chef at the Waiohai. She explains that back then all
that surrounding area was still sugarcane. There were also still fishing families there
beachside that were sustaining themselves and their families from resources along the
shoreline there. Her family gathered and fished from this coastline and her connection is one
that was fed and nurtured by this area and its resources.
This project area is extremely significant to her, as well as this whole south shoreline, not just
because of its rich history for her as a kanaka but because of the potential for what it could
be restored to in the future and what that would mean for the survival of future Hawaiians
and everyone that lives here. The site is significant to Malia as a kanaka and as a mother and
as a connection to her identity.
General Discussion
Malia explained that these types of questions and processes seek forms of additional proof
of the cultural and historical significance of an area when it is already blatantly there in our
history. She explains it is true that there is cultural and historical significance in this entire
Koloa area. She tells of how it is well known that this area housed an ancient elaborate and
unique Hawaiian agricultural system, numerous heiau and burials and ʻauwai and stream
systems that fed this area in a unique manner.
She explains that the problem from a kanaka, indigenous, perspective is that the proof comes
in the form of moʻolelo and genealogy and cultural practices. She mentions that these forms
of evidence are not considered relevant in a western system of occupation. She feels that
these forms of evidence do not count as enough under American law, unless it is validated by
a white man.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
111
Malia explains that the cultural significance of this entire area has already been thoroughly
established and that the complete desecration by development of this entire area is also clear.
Cultural Resources
Malia mentioned that there are too many site names to mention in this area.
Malia says that despite the destruction of these areas and over development of Koloa, the
remnants of this ancestral blueprint of her people still exist. Malia talks about the many
relevant moʻolelo that refer to this area and feels that these historical accounts should be
enough to warrant deep investigation and due diligence for any disturbance.
She goes on to explain that for her to pinpoint exactly what is in a specific location would take
too long and a lot of deep research, if provable at all. Malia stresses that what we need to
consider is what we value. To Malia this ancestral blueprint to self-sufficiency is a priceless
part of her history and culture that will lead us into the future. She asks what is more of
“value”? Is it multimillion dollar homes and condos or this ancient and historic blueprint to
self-sufficiency and sustainability and food production for Kauaʻi? She feels that with every
additional development though this area we are bulldozing this important blueprint.
Malia mentions the HAPA Trail exists in this area and that it had an ancient name, even before
the times of the HAPA trail, she believes it was named Luahine Alapa'i. This highlights the
need to look at the various layers of history in this area.
Kāneiʻolouma nearby was also mentioned and Malia mentioned that it has so much mana
and relevance to Hawaiian traditions and customs and yet it is completely surrounded by
development. Kāneiʻolouma heiau housed navigation, agriculture, makahiki games and was
a dynamic and elaborate complex.
Malia recalls that the whole shoreline along the coast as a child was covered in koʻa, or fishing
ahus or markers. These were used to mark important places and specific resources, traditions
and places of religious practice. As a child she remembers some of these koʻa and seeing
practitioners utilize these fishing traditions. She says it may be irrelevant or not noticeable to
foreigners, but for kanaka this is a story of the prized value of the fishing resources in this
area. Malia explains also that this is matched by moʻolelo about the fishing gods and legends
that relate to these fishing resources along this coastline.
She emphasizes the uniqueness of the once thriving dry land agricultural complex in this area.
Malia explains that Hawaiian natural scientists and engineers were developing and
maximizing the lands with this complex system. She mentions the ingenuity that it took of her
ancestors to maximize the limitations of this area to sustain such a large population.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
112
Traditions and Customs
Malia mentions that makahiki traditions and customs were practiced in this area. She also
explains that unique fishing, agriculture and navigation history and traditions occurred in this
area and that a great deal of the ancient moʻolelo is largely neglected. Many practices
occurred in this immediate area associated with these important features.
Malia knows general stories about this area and explains that many moʻolelo are general in
nature and it can be hard to pinpoint the exact spaces where some of these things happened
based on moʻolelo, but we know it is in this area.
She specifically referred to the stories associated with the wars that happened along this
coastline. She mentions that 500 years before Kamehameha united the islands there was a
huge war during the time of Kukona’s reign. She explained that this war called on warriors
from the two biggest moku on Kauai and that many of them perished in this area. This
incredible moʻolelo talks of perseverance and what it means to care for people. It speaks of
grace and dignity. This is one of Malia’s favorite moʻolelo about this area and its history and
specifically relates to the areas closer to Māhāʻulepū where the actual battles ensued.
The other specific stories from this area that she is aware of relate to the incredible
agricultural complex which is a huge moʻolelo in itself.
Impacts
To Malia it is sickening that this desecration is continuing today. She acknowledges it is just
one small example of the desecration that happens daily in the islands and explains that she
feels like despite all the marching and screaming, things will not change until the paradigm
shifts and this ancestral knowledge is valued by western society.
Malia says that she thinks that the bulldozing, blasting and development happening in this
area poses a threat to many things. She describes that for some kanaka, whether it has been
proven or not, their ancestors still reside and are at rest in these areas. For others these areas
are places of worship and where they gather and practice traditional customary rights. Malia
asks how one can consciously build over these important sites. She talks about the existing
impacts and how developments that have already been built in the area do not want to give
practitioners access or work with Hawaiian practitioners. She does not feel this will be
different with these new proposed developments.
Malia talks about how she has tried to access some of these cultural sites and has to try to
get access through people’s yards. She is appalled that this is still happening today. She
compares it to developers still going by the old rules and mentality when they have new tools
and understandings to go by these days. Malia believes something is really wrong if Hawaiians
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
113
have to go through gated communities and multimillion dollar homes to practice their culture
because their places of worship are in someone's backyard.
Malia believes these developments in particular, pose a huge threat to the cultural landscape
of this place. She says the big question is when is enough, enough and how much more abuse
can a place and people take before they break. She goes on to ask who are we serving with
these projects? She does not believe it serves the health and wellbeing of this ʻāina and
certainly doesn't have the future of our keiki in mind.
Malia sees the impacts of the destruction and erasing of these sites as something that will
lead to further displacement and restricted access to places of historical and cultural
significance for Hawaiians. She sees it as isolation from important places to practice and
exercise which in turn completely strips kanaka of their identity while erasing their history.
She mentions that kanaka fail to exist without ʻāina, yet ʻāina can thrive without people. If a
people are connected to a place and they are no longer given access to those places that
shape and grow their identity as an individual and as a people then we lose the essence of
Hawaiʻi.
When she looks at how far we have come in such a short time, away from sustainability and
instead to luxury condominiums, it hurts her heart. She points out that we as a society must
reobtain these skills and knowledge to survive in our changing world. She feels that the next
generations are being robbed of what should be their opportunity to revitalize this agricultural
system to help us thrive in this remote place. She continues to point out that the next
generations can’t eat the dollars that come from cleaning multimillion dollar condos and gated
communities. Malia thinks about it as what kind of future will her children and their children
have and she sees these developments as greatly impacting this future.
Malia talks about the imminent food crisis we are facing and the housing crisis and how we
should be doing what we can to address these issues but instead are bulldozing these gifts
our ancestors gave us to deal with these challenges. She believes the impacts of this will leave
the next generations bankrupt in every aspect of their lives.
Malia talked about the many cases of desecration that have occurred to date on the south
shore. She lists many examples like the Hyatt where the surrounding area is the location
where many battles happened and it was no surprise that they would uncover hundreds of iwi
to develop there. She mentioned they paved right over a heiau to make a parking lot for the
golf course. She also mentioned Kōloa landing as another example and yet feels like
Hawaiians are still wrongfully tasked with continuing to prove that this area is significant and
will result in further desecration.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
114
She asks, if as a society are we blind? Did we not learn from all the other developments that
have happened on the south shore, in which hundreds and hundreds of iwi and the
destruction of these valuable ancient blueprint, is that not proof enough to halt development
in this area and reassess.
Malia understands that if these sites are lost her keiki will no longer have this important
blueprint to refer to about how to survive and sustain themselves in their homeland and in
return they will continue to be prisoners of this system, where the only way to sustain
themselves is to be servants to the wealthy. She finds it mind boggling that it is being allowed.
Malia said as a kanaka and as a makua the impact on a personal level is discouraging and
upsetting. She believes it is important to create spaces that native intelligence, genealogy and
moʻolelo are relevant and unfortunately does not feel those spaces exist currently.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Malia wants the desecration of this area to stop. Malia does not think the project should
proceed. She does not think they have engaged the community or practitioners or done their
due diligence.
As far as luxury housing, luxury condominiums and luxury multimillion dollar homes, that are
inaccessible to her keiki and the next generation of Hawaiians, Malia does not see any
solution besides stopping these kinds of ridiculous developments. Malia believes we need to
address the issues at hand, the houselessness and lack of food security on Kauaʻi before
such foolish developments. She points out we have enough luxury accommodations that sit
empty half the time while our local Hawaiian people struggle to put food in their mouth and
roof over their head. She believes until we have addressed these critical issues, we should
not be allowing developments such as these to even be considered.
Even if these sites were being developed for local housing needs, she does not feel it would
be right to desecrate these significant sites. She said, whatever affordable housing means in
this day in age it would at least make more sense than luxury condos. Malia does not support
development on cultural sites at all but definitely not for the development of luxury vacation
homes and transient accommodations, which feels like another layer of adding insult to injury.
She feels the development of these areas means that the reference point for Hawaiian
moʻolelo genealogy and history are erased. The impact of erasing important things that
connect kanaka to this space erases self-identity as a kanaka. She sees the bulldozer as an
eraser of identity.
Malia feels that as long as the wrong people are in positions of power and decision making
this abuse and desecration will continue. She believes that Hawaiians need to understand the
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
115
laws and loopholes and learn the process to use it to their advantage to stop this type of
desecration and foolish development.
(This area intentionally left blank.)
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
116
5.8 Interview with Mason Chock
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Mason Chock
Date: June 2, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Mason Chock is a Kauaʻi Council Member. He was born and raised in Wailua, Kauaʻi as well
as Kapaʻa and Kōloa. He currently resides in the Wailua Homesteads. Mason is familiar with
the Koloa and Poʻipū area from his time growing up there as a child.
Overview
Masons emphasizes the unique structures, complexes and practices that occurred in this area
and his connection to them. Mason discusses the potential impacts he sees of these
developments and the recommendations he has.
General Discussion
Mason discussed the significance of this area to him, as a Hawaiian, and to all Hawaiians and
its rich history. Mason describes the importance of these fishing resources and the structures
that were associated with them along this coastline. He also mentioned that the unique
structures and complexes in this area are extremely significant and have a great deal to teach
us about ways to live sustainably in Hawaiʻi.
Mason described his involvement with the site as one of visiting and participating in some
cultural events in the Kāneiʻolouma area and also along HAPA trail and the heiau that is closer
to the coast by the Kukuiʻula parcels. From a practitioner's standpoint, Mason accesses these
areas to gather, and has his whole life and monitored that coastline closely for many years.
Mason has participated in rituals and celebrations that acknowledge his kupuna along this
area from Kukuiʻula to Makahūʻena.
Mason mentions the resources from this area he has personally used include surfing,
collecting limu (mentions Kohu, ʻEleʻele, Wāwaeʻiole and others) and fishing in these historic
and prized fishing areas. He notes the changes in his lifetime and how many of these
resources are now depleted and heavily impacted. He mentioned that as a child moi was
extremely plentiful, especially along the Māhāʻulepū side. He notes the big caves along
Makena. At one time there was a huge abundance and assemblage of species and Masons
fished daily along this area. He has specifically caught menpachi and even pelagic fish and
tako are prevalent in this area. Opihi used to be prevalent along the coast. He also notes high
shark populations here.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
117
Cultural Resources
Mason sees the area as providing a wide range of cultural resources and spiritual sites
important to Hawaiian practitioners. Mason points out that near these projects there are a
multitude of significant sites and a rich history and lots of coastal resources.
He mentions the important cave systems in this area. He mentions the environmental and
cultural significance of the presence of the endemic endangered spiders that are found only
in Koloa and notes there should be US Fish & Wildlife protective measures to avoid impacts
to these populations of spiders.
Mason mentions Kāneiʻolouma and the larger complex that runs from mauka to Kāneiʻolouma
and transverses multiple properties. Mason describes this system as a rich cultural resource
and an elaborate complex of sporting activities, community-based fishing traditions and rich
with canoe history. Mason compared the Kāneiʻolouma system to acting like its own self-
sufficient ahupua'a incorporating a wide range of land uses and forms of agriculture and land
management together in a small area.
Mason describes this entire area as being well used in ancient times. He marveled at the
complexities of the system his ancestors developed, describing the level of engineering skill
and land management understandings that would have established these agricultural
complexes within this largely dry and arid area. He specifically noted the amazing rock
structures that were used to move and manage water in this area.
There are significant loko iʻa and water management systems that were in this area, he notes
that these would have specific names that should be able to be researched.
There are significant cultural sites around Kukuiʻula and some of these sites reference to
burials, including for aliʻi burials hidden in these areas. As far as he understands some of
these have already been destroyed and developed over.
Mason mentions that the proposed Kauanoe o Kōloa development is near the HAPA Trail.
Mason shared that growing up in this area he was aware of historic sites and heiau related to
fishing along the coastline. Mason participated in cultural events at some of these sites and
at a heiau in Kōloa. As a practitioner from an access perspective, Mason has and will continue
to use these areas and resources.
Traditions and Customs
Mason referred to the rich moʻolelo that comes from this area that would likely describe more
of the traditions and customs associated with this area. In addition to the ceremonial aspects
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
118
He talked about the traditions that would have occurred for aliʻi in this area. Mason explained
that aliʻi were known to have resided in this area and some of their burials are referred to but
their location is not known. He said so much of this area was frequented by aliʻi and there
were specific structures related to aliʻi that are worth noting.
Mason shared that this area was rich in makahiki traditions and customs. He described the
unique custom to pull together a wide range of purposes into a small area.
Mason reiterated that this was an extremely unique area and incorporated a wide range of
ingenuity that would have been associated with a wide range of its own traditions and
customs.
Mason mentioned the agricultural importance of this area and that he thought a lot of this is
very significant for the future of Hawaiʻi. He explained this area can provide important
education and understanding about the traditions and customs of our ancestors regarding
engineering and land management that will allow us to plan for the future.
Impacts
Mason feels it is quite possible that cultural resources, caves and burials could be present on
these parcels or immediately adjacent given the significance of this entire project area. He
emphasizes the need to exhaust due diligence for a project like this.
Mason explains that the Kōloa and Poʻipū area have always had issues with managing water.
Whether it’s not enough access to water and how you get it there or in terms of development
and how you manage what is coming off of it. There is no significant response to how runoff
and drainage has affected and continue to affect our low-lying areas such as our beaches or
coastal resources and fisheries. It also impacts health and safety. He explains the land use
and developments above these coastlines greatly impact the resources and health of the
coastal ecosystem and fishing grounds as well as the safety of recreational swimmers and
subsistence fishermen.
Mason points out that the impacts of previous developments in this area are clear. He
explains, if you look at the parcels and talk to the old-timers the loko iʻa that was there helped
serve an important function to manage the drainage. He explains that loko iʻa were prevalent
along the coast and acted as filters and basins to protect water and coastal water quality. This
loko iʻa was covered by the County, and now the runoff literally has to be pumped out of the
Sheraton and parking lots. Mason explains the costs associated with the destruction of these
ancient water management systems that we do not often consider. These other parcels could
have major impacts on the long-term restoration efforts of these fishponds and cultural sites.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
119
The impacts to water quality Mason said is already prevalent offshore in this area. The data
is clear that what we have done and are doing is having a huge impact on the coastal
resources from a health and safety standpoint. The coastal waters and the adjacent water
bodies are known to be polluted with human waste. To add more development in this area
without a regional plan that takes into consideration the existing degradation and the
compounded impacts on future restoration efforts. He sees additional development without
these concerns being addressed first as the certain destruction of the remaining reef
ecosystem and fisheries.
In relation to access Mason says we have to do better than just recognizing the site is there
but then also connect it to the practice and access needs for the site to be honored properly.
Mason talks about the impacts to practitioners who are unable to make those connections
and use these sites as they are meant to be used. He explains if the site is enclosed in a hotel,
or surrounded by multimillion-dollar homes, it loses its relevance and when we don't
acknowledge the connections and purpose of the site, it is not really protected. He feels that
while we have started looking more to preserving these sites, it is not enough, we need to look
at restoring their purpose and the knowledge that came with it.
He goes on to explain that if, for example, he is going to utilize a historical navigational point
and honor the movement of celestial bodies in some way, imagine how difficult it will be with
a multi-story building blocking the view. He points out it becomes impossible for some of these
practices to continue.
As Mason explained the correlation of sites to each other with the navigation perspective,
regarding access specifically in Koloa, he spoke of the interconnected relationship of specific
heiau and ʻauwai systems. He described these as having been broken or dismantled over time
leaving gaps in Hawaiian history and its significance as a complex agricultural and religious
system. Cultural stewardship organizations are working hard to make those reconnections
and to support this effort. Mason believes we need to more clearly outline the whole region
and protect the access between them for when we are ready and able to restore it.
He addressed that continued access for practitioners is always an issue. He mentioned golf
courses that surround important ceremonial sites and how we have to do better in recognizing
and honoring the true purpose of the site and providing the right kind of access. It's
understanding the connections a site has to what is around it that he says matters.
Mason believes we should be looking at all developments appropriately and investigating how
they fit into the surrounding landscape in a way that works with nature rather than against it
and questions the goals we have and if they revolve around community, and honoring
traditional land uses. Mason points out that as we are looking more at the land management
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
120
of the past in an attempt to find balance, these sites will become more and more important
to learn from.
Mason said that human impact is always prevalent, regardless of how intent we are on
preservation and protection. When we look at it from a standpoint of how we encourage those
that don't understand the significance and impact they create, it becomes amplified. That is
what we seem to be supporting here, exploitation of our resources just by the nature of the
properties we are developing.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Mason points out that historically we have seen a lot of illegal activity around this area and a
lot of destruction of significant sites in this area. Mason said that while regulatory frameworks
have somewhat changed to better protect some of these resources the development practices
and processes seem to remain the same.
Mason spoke of the complexity of this area in the sense of cultural and historical significance
and suggested it may even need a specific progress with the highest level of due diligence.
Because of its uniqueness Mason believes we should be even more cautious than usual of
how we move forward and revisit and exhaust our resources and assessment methods before
we clear the way for developments.
Mason pointed out that in the case of Kauanoe o Kōloa, the community does not have faith
that due diligence was undertaken. They have lost faith in the regulatory process that has
occurred and getting clarity on the findings and mitigating measures have not been easy, even
for him as a council person. He explains that while some of the boxes may have been checked
off, in the eyes of the community there are significant holes in what was presented and the
developer has clearly not engaged with the Hawaiian practitioners in this area or combed
through available resources. It highlights how important it is to conduct good thorough
assessments and outreach especially in sensitive areas like this.
Mason suggested we revisit the process if it's not addressing the impacts in a regional
manner. He says we need stronger wider coordination from a regional perspective relating to
collective impacts. Mason explains we too often look only at a subject parcel rather than with
a lens of the wider impacts to the entire region.
Mason said that we should be mapping and marking out the remnants of this major complex
before it is entirely lost. One of the regional pieces we are lacking, he explains, is connecting
these cultural sites and looking at the system as a whole. There is important connectivity
between the structures in this area and there is a correlation to each one that is significant
and our processes are not recognizing that.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
121
Mason suggested we need a regional watershed plan and we have a responsibility to
understand the added impact of various developments and ensure due diligence when
approving projects such as these. We need to think beyond swales and a single property or
project best management practices and think on a larger scale collectively about how to
manage discharge of all kinds. We need to include the way over land flow moves and plan
accordingly to limit the impacts not just to human infrastructure but to the coastal waters and
environment.
Mason mentioned that detailed drainage plans that mitigate impacts from waste water is
crucial. Managing all waste and runoff in a way that not only avoids further negatively
impacting the environment but works in correlation with the cultural restoration projects
needed in this area would be key.
Mason feels like the regulating agencies need to do their job and apply extra due diligence in
this sensitive area. He says we need developers to consider these things holistically, for
example, considering the uses of a place and incorporating such uses into its preservation. In
doing this we help things not just become relics and sites that are for aesthetics but instead
we are protecting the connections and the importance of the place and its purpose.
Mason is disappointed that we cannot have better smoother communications relating to the
surveys and assessments that are used to determine impacts in this area. He notes that
departments and overseeing regulatory bodies don’t have the resources to manage
everything they need to, and this needs to change.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
122
5.9 Interview with Peleke Flores
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Peleke Flores
Date: May 25, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Peleke Flores was born in Hilo, Hawai‘i and raised in Waimea, Kaua‘i where he still lives today.
Peleke currently works for Mālama Hulēʻia on Hulēʻia Kaua'i as a Field Operations Manager
and Community Outreach Coordinator, currently working to restore Alakoko Fishpond. He has
experience in traditional hale building, Uhau Humu Pōhaku (Hawaiian dry set) and restoring
traditional Hawaiian food systems such as loʻi kalo, loʻi paʻakai, koʻa/limu, and loko iʻa.
Overview
In his ʻāina based land restoration role(s) Peleke has a special interest in the historical sites
and their restoration, not just protection. His interest is in trying to learn more about what
specifically is still here that could be restored and what the impacts are to these sites.
Peleke spoke about being on site to pay his respects and see the project site and his interest
to learn more about what is going on and learn the facts for himself. He mentioned he has
been unable to access or inspect the site. He mentioned a consistent pattern of lack of trust
in archeological determinations that say no archeological findings when major concerns are
being voiced by Hawaiians. He was concerned that the investigations into the sites and
potential archeological sites on and in the area may not have looked deep enough. Peleke
mentioned that he wished he had the time, in addition to what he is already doing with his
full-time job, volunteer positions and family responsibility, to check all those records and
resources himself. It was clear he felt like due processes are often not being followed correctly.
General Discussion
Peleke described his association with the site and current developments as one of mostly
curiosity. He explained that he has been trying to learn more about the specifics of the cultural
surveys to date and what is recorded in this area and how any significant sites are being
impacted. He said he was trying to investigate if due diligence was done but was unable to
get the reports or surveys that showed what was surveyed and the findings.
Peleke said he felt it was wrong of the developer to start breaking down rock structures, and
grading and grubbing, given the cultural significance of this area and concerns without
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
123
thoroughly exhausting cultural resources and clearly demonstrating that no sites are being
impacted.
Peleke talks about his view of the resources that are here in the sense of restoration and not
just historical preservation but the restoration and reuse of these sites for practicing
Hawaiians and for their intended purpose again in the future.
He described the entire area surrounding these projects as a footprint of what his kupuna left
behind and a knowledge of how Hawaiian people thrived in this area. He mentioned the entire
area surrounding these developments is rich with culture and history and hopes, what can be,
is restored in his lifetime.
Place Names & Sites
Peleke mentions the Kōloa Complex, and the unique style of agriculture practices and
structures that were built in this area for a significant dryland food production system.
Peleke pointed out sites in the area like Kāneiʻolouma Heiau. He mentioned that there are old
villages in this area and different makahiki sites. He also mentioned the unique water system
ditch that connected across the road and then climbed up mauka from there. He explained
that a lot of those systems and sections and the large fishpond in front of Kāneiʻolouma has
been cut off and the system requires the water that runs down and through that site.
He also mentioned the presence of HAPA trail and koloa flats area and the historic nature of
this entire site.
Peleke mentioned the presence of unique caves and burials and a unique raised ʻauwai
system that all had specific names he is not familiar with offhand.
Cultural Resources
Peleke described the resources in these areas as old structures and cultural sites where a
range of practices from spiritual to agricultural and sustainable living occurred. He talked in
general of sites expected in this area that would include unique caves, burials and water and
food production systems that he considers cultural resources for spiritual practice and
facilitating a return to our native foodways. Peleke referred to the ʻauwai system that
connected through the areas all connected to growing food and irrigation.
He mentioned that it is hard to prove every cultural site every time, knowing enough that there
was stuff in that spot, it shouldn't be the community's job to identify them, the developers
should exhaust the resources available and prove without a doubt no harm will come. A unique
system especially with moving water and amplifying.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
124
Peleke mentioned that the resources in this area today are used mostly for spiritual practice,
given its rich history there is a desire to restore whatever can be. To him, and he said to others,
this is a place of rich culture and worthy of protection and thorough investigation.
Peleke talked about the historic nature of the HAPA trail and importance to be protected.
Traditions and Customs
Peleke spoke about the makahiki games and gatherings that happened in that area and the
traditions and customs that were practiced associated with makahiki. Kāneiʻolouma Heiau
was a place of makahiki celebrations and the best and biggest games and gatherings on
Kauaʻi.
He mentioned again the presence of old villages in this area and the traditions that were used
for the waterways that produced food and the desire to restore these sites. There were many
traditions and customs that were done in this area relating to fishing and aquaculture and
agricultural fields.
Peleke knows of people that are spiritually practicing at these specific sites and trying to
restore and maintain cultural sites in this area and the areas that are sitting surrounded by
development now or poised for future development. He also spoke of the many known burial
areas and caves and the traditions of using these places for burials and worship.
Peleke mentioned that he is aware that there are a lot of stories that are written about this
area in general and he would have to do the research to list the names of them. Personally,
he also spoke of family stories from his tutu about respecting this place and lessons he
learned as a kid about the history and presence of a village connected to fishponds, above
ground ʻauwai and the marvels of this ancient system his ancestors built.
Impacts
Peleke explained that some of the sites have largely been destroyed already. He said that now
people that are trying to restore and protect these sites and are hoping to be honored, and
respected but instead are being disrespected and threatened.
Peleke sees the impacts of these projects as potentially being ones that further degrades the
remaining infrastructures that we have to restore which will make it harder to recreate some
of these systems and knowledge and properly manage our resources along this coastline.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
125
Peleke described the impacts of disturbing desecrating iwi kupuna burial sites and defiling
Hawaiian graveyards as another layer of impact and trauma to those that are trying to
preserve their iwi kupuna.
Peleke described the overall impact of these developments as a destruction of our history,
which is a major resource especially in the uncertain times that we face and the enhanced
need to look to our ancient food and land management ways to bring us back to self-
sufficiency.
He talked about the loss of self-identity should these sites be destroyed further. He mentioned
that people can still connect their genealogy back to this place and once it is erased, he feels
like they are floating souls and unable to trace back their history to these sites and restore
them. Given the history of illegal land grabs and displacement, the destruction of the sites
becomes a way that people are completely cut off from their access to self-identity.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Peleke mentioned he felt that developers had the responsibility to prove without a doubt that
there are no impacts to these resources. He mentioned modern Lidar technology, mahele,
kipuka database and other existing record sources (kuleana records, maps, stories eventually
and moʻolelo) that can be searched. He felt that developers and people associated with the
projects should be able to clearly identify or prove the absence of significant sites on the
project sites and surrounding areas and present this to the community.
It is ridiculous and abusive to him that Hawaiians have to struggle through life, and then also
stop and prove these places exist despite all these resources developers could exhaust to
determine that nothing is there and prove it sufficiently. He felt like it was Hawaiians that care
that end up having to do the work for the developers to prove why they cannot build in a certain
place instead of these developers doing the work to prove to Hawaiians, using good resources
and facts, that they can build in a place without any impacts. He felt like this treatment is a
way that Hawaiians are being abused and disrespected and killed slowly over generations. He
pointed out that with full time jobs and busy lives trying to survive already and then they are
expected to also be the ones to do the work for developers to prove to the developers why
they can’t build on something significant seems absurd.
He said there should be a template for every resource they go through, for all places not just
Koloa, to ensure that due diligence is followed. If it was there should be no impact, and there
should be facts to show it.
Peleke mentioned that we should be attempting to reconnect these old place names back to
places that have been renamed and reconnect in the process with the history and purpose of
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
126
those places. If no sites of significance exist it should be clearly able to be demonstrated by
exhausting these resources.
His main recommendation was that developers use resources, due diligence and follow the
existing laws completely and ensure that significant sites are not being destroyed or else the
project should not go ahead. He mentioned looking through cultural research, papers, mahele
records, kuleana reports, census, internet, museums, maps, moʻolelo and pictures to really
be clear about what is and isn't impacted and make sound assessments about what should
go ahead where.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
127
5.10 Interview with Pualiʻiliʻimaikalani Rossi-Fukino
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Pualiʻi Rossi-Fukino
Date: May 31, 2022
Location: Zoom
Biography
Pualiʻiliʻimaikalani Rossi-Fukino (Pua) is a Hawaiian Studies Instructor and Program
Coordinator for University of Hawaiʻi at Kauaʻi Community College campus in Līhuʻe, Kauaʻi.
She was born in Kalāheo and raised in Wailua Kauaʻi. She currently still lives in Wailua. Pua
does have ancestral ties to Koloa and her grandmother was born where Kukuiʻula market is
now. Her family names associated with the area include Kaio, Hipa and Kiheihipa.
Overview
Pua provided general information about the region and the history and unique nature of the
structures there. She shared some of the stories and legends she was familiar with and her
overall thoughts about the importance of this area.
General Discussion
Pua is less familiar with place names outside of what is documented and familiar with multiple
legends from this area. She feels that the area is very culturally significant and shared about
the isolation of important sites in this area and the potential for continued displacement with
this development and others in the area.
Place Names & Sites
There is a ‘forgotten’ ahupuaʻa that is named Aepo that she recalled in this area. This is a land
district that is close to where parcel H development is planned. Aepo cuts through near the
Lodge at Kukuiʻula is marked on the map. This is an old name and not referred to on many
maps.
There are several heiau in this area she mentioned. One sits where the golf course is now,
mauka of the Lodge at Kukuiʻula, closer to parcel H. Some say it was lamakū, or a navigational
point for canoes. Makai of the site there is supposed to be another of these points closer to
the shore.
Pua mentioned that this entire area was significant for aliʻi and while Wailua and Waimea are
commonly considered the most royal sites on Kauaʻi but that aliʻi frequented and had history
and significant presence in Kōloa too. From Aepo to Pāʻā, Weliweli, area particularly has
significant aliʻi history. It was a site of a lot of activity both aliʻi and makaʻāinana.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
128
According to modern history as well she recounts that we had aliʻi living there in the
1870s. The original site of Queen Emma was also relatively close to this area and was moved
to the NTBG site later. Pua shared that her home was near where the Kukuiʻula golf course
ends and where you start overlooking the road to National Tropical Botanical Gardens (NTBG).
Up mauka of that is where her home was located. Queen Emma renamed that area Mauna
Kilohana around that time. Her house site suggests further significant sites for aliʻi also.
Queen Emma had ancestral ties to Kōloa, and obtained that during the mahele. Queen Emma
established there in the 1860’s. People think of the house, but the house was moved. This
original site is above where Parcel H is mapped.
Within the Parcel H area, she said that there is Niukapukapu Heiau. She describes it as right
on the cusp of where NTBG starts, and slightly west of parcel H.
Makai of the Kauanoe O Kōloa development area there is also a heiau dedicated to Kāne.
Kihahouna Heiau, Nukumoi surf spot and Kāneiʻolouma Heiau are also in the surrounding
areas, more toward the Grand Hyatt, but in the wider area surrounding these developments.
Pua shared that the site is associated with the unique dry land field system; there were also
fishponds, and loʻi. There is one heiau (Mauna Pōhaku) that was once cared for by Nāhinu
and ʻAuhea, who lived there around the 1800s, I believe. There was an ʻauwai system going
through that heiau. There is also another heiau (Kamaloʻula) which I was told had the only
untouched above-ground ʻauwai. They used these irrigation ditches as part of the heiau. There
is some really unique architecture that is not seen elsewhere.
Really significant fishing resources and cultural practices.
There were really different styles of heiau structures in this area. Very unique systems like the
raised ʻauwai systems. Kāneiʻolouma Heiau is another example of these rarer designs of
heiau, which is very unique and significant to Hawaiian history.
Cultural Resources
There used to be impressive bird populations, loʻi and fishing grounds that were significant in
this area. Lots of important fishing grounds. To the north of these developments there are
also some sites she mentioned including Waikomo stream which was a major cultural
resource and site in this area. There are stories of moʻo, like Kihawahine where the Maulili
pool is.
Pua shared that there was a dry land field system in this area. Dry land systems we know the
least about and were incredibly important where there wasn't an abundance of water. Right
now there are very few areas that have this and this is the only one known on Kauaʻi. It was a
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
129
rotating crop system. It was a very unique system and I know that in the Kauanoe koloa area
was where it was identified.
Traditions and Customs
Pua discussed the unique styles of architecture and with them traditions and customs that
would have occurred with them.
The area is known for moʻo traditions and legend. She shared about the history of spouting
horn, which was associated with a moʻo tradition and a unique story of the salt water moʻo.
This is located makai of Parcel H. She shared the history of the destruction of the original
Spouting Horn which was blown up leaving the existing one today that people call Spouting
Horn. Tradition says that there were certain fishing grounds that were guarded by this moʻo. A
young boy was said to have trapped the moʻo in the old spouting horn. The spout used to go
very high and then the sugar industry blew it up to stop water flowing back into the fields and
killing the cane.
Maulili Pool is tied to Waikomo stream along Kukuiʻula area. This site is associated with
Kihawahine, probably one of the most dominant moʻo who was known to frequent Waikomo
area. Certain traditions that are specific to the worshiping of Moʻo. Traditions associated with
worship of moʻo included building of certain hale structures, giving certain offerings, practicing
customs associated with the kapu system that restricted various types of fishing and access
at some times. There was a definite moʻo relationship with the people there and with it
significant unique practices and traditions.
Impacts
Pua was definitely concerned about the impacts to fishing grounds and underground water
systems that feed them Pua is concerned about. She understands that historically, because
of less outfall points and the dry nature of the coastline, water quality was very clear and clean
in the past. She is concerned that the development will further degrade and add to continued
degradation of the water quality along the coastline.
Pua mentioned the potential impacts to a returning bird population and the stifling that these
developments could result in for the restoration of these cultural sites and systems that the
future bird habitat that could be restored in this area.
She was concerned about the potential for impacts to HAPA Trail, burial sites and caves and
lava tubes which are hugely present in this immediate area and culturally significant burial
sites and hiding locations historically. Pua discussed the presence of many in this area and
their importance and her concern about them being damaged or impacted during works.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
130
Having access to heiau, fishing sites, cultural practice sites and historical agricultural sites
was some Pua was definitely concerned about the impacts to. Pua discussed the potential for
future displacement and how families she knows are being impacted from surrounding
existing development. She said these families who were caretakers for some of these heiau
have been unable to access the sites and practice their kuleana to mālama them. She is
concerned that the proposed development will negatively impact families who have a
generational responsibility to care for these sites and restore them as they were tasked. Pua
was specifically concerned with having access to these sites further limited or cut off
altogether.
Pua mentioned the impacts around access but also stressed the impacts associated with the
loss of these sites altogether. She described the overall impacts of the loss of these sites as
generations who will lose their history and knowledge that was passed down from generations
of her ancestors that practiced and lived in this area. She described the impacts of this loss
as a loss of cultural identity, connection and family history. She is concerned about the loss
of culture and knowledge should this important area continue to be developed for luxury
homes and tourism.
Pua said she believes the place has reached maximum capacity and it’s not beneficial to local
families to proceed with these developments. She is worried about the overdevelopment for
hotels and transient accommodation while the affordable housing crisis for local families
worsens.
There are families that are now unable to access or use sites they were entrusted to care for.
While legally Pua acknowledged that she knew she had a right to supposedly have that access
and practice she pointed out that it doesn't feel that way, and it is not really enforced or
allowed in many cases including some places in Kōloa.
There are reasons they were there. Within this small area there are a significant number of
these important sites and stories which means this significant site meant a lot to our people.
To me it's glaringly obvious that this site should not be used for luxury housing.
She sees the impacts as one of loss of generational history and knowledge, and a loss of
cultural identity, connection and family history. Pua sees this as a potential significant loss of
knowledge and cultural identity.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Pua does not think the project should go ahead, and doesn't see reasonable mitigation
measures that could be taken to avoid major impacts to the sites she is concerned about.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
131
She did say should it proceed; her advice is that the right Hawaiian families need to be
included in the conversation and the developer needs to be educated on the significance of
the site and the necessary protections of all of the areas mentioned. She mentioned cultural
monitors there as advisors and independent oversight to ensure that these sites are not being
impacted and that the works respect the cultural significance of that area.
She talked about planning for any future development having the cultural significance built in
with respect to its history and the traditional owners from the beginning.
She suggested that it was wrong to blast, crush or break through the rocks and recommended
avoiding such works. She said overall that any development in this area would need to tread
lightly and work around the many significant sites and cultural uses of this area.
She suggested working with the community, with the kahuna of the area and lineal
descendants of Kōloa and she talked about the long-term responsibility to educate visitors
and people that move to these sites about the rights, practices and significance of these areas
to Hawaiians.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
132
5.11 Responses from Roslyn Cummings
Pule, Prayer
E IʻO mahalo no kēia lā,
mahalo no kō mākou ola,
no kō mākou ea a kō mākou mana.
Aia no mākou i nei ʻĀina ʻO Kauai ke kū nei no ka palekana o nā iwi k ūpuna, ‘āina, na kamali’i,
wahine, kane
He noi haʻahaʻa kēia no kou palekana i luna o mākou pākahi a pau.
E mālama i ka pono ma ke aō a me ka pō.
E kōkua iā mākou e kū me ka haʻaheo no kō mākou kūpuna a no kō mākou lau manamana.
Me ke aloha pau ʻole, ʻāmama ua noa, ʻamene.
Kou Inoa Manawaiakea, noho Kalaheo Ahupua’a, Kona Moku, Mokupuni Kauai
(Manokalanipo, Kamawaelualani),
Wahine Maoli (Women) taught to me by my tutu Kane
Kalani Paiʻea Wohi o Kaleikini Kealiʻikui Kamehameha o ʻIolani i Kaiwikapu kauʻi Ka Liholiho
Kūnuiākea he called me a- “Wahine Maoli”
Kuleana: Kahuna Papakulo, Mana Lomi, Kahea, Kea
(Child of God) Alo to be present in Hā life essence as equals (not above, nor below) as equals
He āina Ha Wai ‘I I am of Hawaii
Home of our ancestors, those that walk before us.
Kou hanau Waimea, Kauai (Ka Ua ‘I)
Hapai ‘ia Pokiikauna, Kauai, Makaweli, Kauai, Ko’ula Kauai, Polihale Kauai, Nualolo Kauai,
Lawai, Kauai, Kalaheo, Kauai, Kōloa, Kauai, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Ike Papalua
Kukuiula is a place where our ancestral burials and cave systems are so vast we hold near
and dear the secrets of their passage. Palekana (DO NOT TRESPASS)
To forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those we trespass against us. Modern day Kukuiula
is known for its reinterment site amongst high end luxury homes. Specifically the Kapu burials
of our tutu wahine chiefess along with the burial that had been desecrated back in the 2000’s
of George Humehume our tutu kane through Eke, Ese Oponui. He aligns with the birthing place
of Prince Kuhio the one of whom descends from those that are buried in these vast burial
systems which hold a large amount of our wealth (waiwai) wai (waters) a large part of our
sustenance. Without it we are malnourished. As our ancestors were in the times of disease
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
133
and famine. Bought to our lands by greed. The area host a large amount of spiritual, cultural,
religious significance. To each a kuleana, to have respect and be responsible for. It seems
that kanaka maoli in the past 50-60 years have failed their kuleana.
Kamakahelei would summon her warriors at the heiau of Kanaloa. A large voyaging Heiau
dedicated to Kanaloa, redeficated to ‘I’O ‘I supreme, ‘O earth, universe ever revolving. In the
time of ‘I’O, the great awakening, the reckoning (knowing what is right by doing what is right)
Amongst our Ali’i (Ali ‘I) are the warriors and it’s people. The villagers. Held in high respect,
regard is the Ahupua’a. Where many thrived.
Koloa borders the ahupuaa of Lawai to the west and Weliweli to the east.
Developments are detrimental to our people, kanaka maoli. Its effects are felt for generations.
I am here as you should be to stop the progress of DEVELOPMENT. Damaging our eco-system.
Kukuiula as wetlands. Depleted by the unset of large luxury homes. Waste and Water usage
damaging our waters from Mauka to Makai. Water needing to be diverted to feed into these
man made systems what is protected under law! Effecting our wai. Our reefs which host a
large amount of our healthy iron (limu) is being depleted on the entire coastline throughout
Kona Moku.
We fish here, we gather here. We pray here. We visit our ancestral burials here.
The original name prior to Prince Kuhio Birthplace was Kualu a name carried down through
my Great grandfather William Waikaka Kanakanui Kualu. A name Kapu to most. A name that
came before our time. Since time immemorial- Kualukiniakua of the Mu,
Kualunuikupaumokumoku of the Wao, and Kualunuiaola of the Menehune.
The developer, limited warranty deed holder Gary Pinkston if Meridian Pacific Ltd. A brand of
MP Financial (Nevada based Corporation of investors) removed the surface layers of the
seating house of Kualunuikupaukokumoku. He removed the birthing stone of
Kamawaelualani son of Wakea and Papanuihanaumoku Haumea I am a descendant as we
are, kanaka maoli.
Kiahuna in the 1950’s it was shared that a mummified burial surrounded by shrunken skulls
were found.
In Ike papalua that area from modern time going back in history: host a lot of our waiwai;
collective. Kaikioewa the first governor of Kauai elected at the time by his hanai son
Kauikeaouli is kanu in the proposed area we call Palikua lot. He is also known as Palikua.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
134
There is a piko that is present day in that particular development. Where all souls exit when it
leaves the outer islands. They enter through here. ‘O oio spirit pathway. The heiau is shaped
in the creation symbol. Like a labyrinth. On the west side of the fraudulent tmk is the cave
system that has been collapsed during Kiahuna development. You can still see the tree trunk
and the lauhala tree which sits in the collapsed cave, lava tube, cavern. Bars within tells-
burials!
On the north side of the āina the Catholic Church built an altar right over a known cave, cave
systems as shown in previous maps. To the east of said property there is also a preserve area.
So, how can slap, dab in the middle not be significant as KAUAI COUNTY, DLNR, SHPD, and
numerous Agencies have made claims to. Accountability goes a long way.
On the southwest you have Pa’u a Laka Heiau and to the southwest of that another preserved
area. Both are surrounded by development. Homes of foreign investors.
I say foreign because there is no pilina in the area. It’s culture and history. Not even to our
practices. To the south there are the remnants of the Kōloa field system of which Hallett
Hammett of Culural Survyes Hawaii speaks so highly of and later claims “no significance”. To
whose belief?
Our people come from oral history. Āina is our foundation. You cannot build a house where
one is already standing.
In the story of Kawelo whose villagers are buried kanu in these lands and its surrounding. The
heiau is part of the Kiahuna development which the archeologists stated somewhere along
the lines of- it’s just landscape for the golf course. So, I ask- what was here first? Our ancestors
the kanaka maoli or the golf course. There are many Kalweo make sure what you perceive
comes from the source- Ike papalua
Right above you have maulili a well known historical site of the legends of Kane and Kanaloa
There are waterways underground of this property and using our natural resource foreigners
call Blue Rock. Again, depleting resources that do not belong to foreigners. Resources that
need to be preserved and protected.
The blind eyed spiders and the amphipods they feed on are FEDERALLY protected species.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife claim they do not have a full survey of the area. Then why is the County
of Kauai, SHPD, and DLNR permitting projects over preserved lands. Lands that since the
1970’s have been monitored and written about. Desecration of burials documented but
controlled narratives. Large amount of burials have been taken out, destroyed and sold in the
history of Kōloa!
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
135
Mainly, Ike papalua will share that these lands is a huge part of the battle, war in the time of
Kukona and his son Manokalanipo. Why would we allow such history to be erased for modern
day process by the hands of those who are greedy. Which only see on the surface. Not below
nor above. They only see the view. Sooner or later we won’t have the practice of papakulo if
this does not stop.
Kauai cannot be another Oahu. These projects are a stem from Moana Corporation Kiahuna
Land Commission Use. Where from the early 2000’s through the mid 2015 lahui fought
against development. Knudsen trust who in a 1970’s newspaper article admitted to
“stewards” of the land not ownership. Their title is held through a 1920’s Anne Sinclair
(Knudsen) land grant after the unlawful overthrow of our Hawaiian Kingdom Government.
These people control our waters and sold our lands including our ancestral burials and
artifacts.
History cannot repeat itself.
the Hawaiian Kingdom
On May 28, 1892, in her opening address to the last lawful Legislature, her Majesty Queen
Liliuokalani declared her intentions and legislative agenda:
‘…I shall firmly endeavor to preserve the autonomy and absolute independence of this
Kingdom and to assist in perpetuating the rights and privileges of all who are subject to our
laws and in promoting their welfare and happiness…’
On November 25, 1892 ‘An Act, To Reorganize The Judiciary Department’ was enacted by the
Hawaiian Kingdom Legislature, and became law on January 1. 1893:
‘The common law of England, as ascertained by English and American decisions, is hereby
declared to be the common law of the Hawaiian Islands in all cases, except as otherwise
expressly provided by the Hawaiian Constitution or laws, or fixed by Hawaiian judicial
precedent, or established by Hawaiian national usage, provided however, that no person shall
be subject to criminal proceedings except as provided by the Hawaiian laws’ [Section 5.
Chapter LVII. An Act, To Reorganize The Judiciary Department, enacted on November 25,
1892, effect on January 1. 1893]
In no way can this interview over email be altered. In no way will it bring harm upon my ‘Ohana.
I pray this will help the next 7-21 generations in a way that they are provided a foundation of
sustenance. An end to systematic failures upon our people. To our children I pray you find
peace of what I am giving. To stand in protection of āina!
Aloha No,
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
136
Manawaiakea
Roslyn Nicole Manawaiakea Malama mare Cummings
General Delivery [Box 315]
Kalaheo Station, [U.S.P.Z. Exempt- 96741]
roslyncummimgs@ymail.com
E Ola Kakou Hawaii
The United States of America must uphold:
On December 20, 1849, the Treaty between the United States of America and the Hawaiian
Kingdom was concluded and signed in Washington, D.C. Ratifications by both countries were
exchanged in Honolulu on the Island of O‘ahu, on August 24, 1850. Article VIII of the treaty
provides:
“…each of the two contracting parties engages that the citizens or subjects of the other
residing in their respective States shall enjoy their property and personal security in as full
and ample manner as their own citizens or subjects, or the subjects or citizens of the most
favored nation, but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively.”
In addition, Article XVI of the said treaty provides that any:
“…citizen or subject of either party infringing the articles of this treaty shall be held responsible
for the same, and the harmony and good correspondence between the two governments shall
not be interrupted thereby, each party engaging in no way to protect the offender, or sanction
such violation.”
Neither the United States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention
to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVI of the 1849 Treaty.
Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
137
5.12 Interview with Rupert Henry Rowe
Interviewer: Fern Holland
Interviewee: Rupert Henry Rowe
Date: June 7, 2022
Location: Kapahi at his home on Kawaihau Rd
Biography
Rupert’s lineage dates back to Wailuanuiahoʻāno, Koloa and Hulēʻia areas. He is 80 years old
and is a retired fireman. Rupert was born at Kapiʻolani after traveling by steamer to Oʻahu
from Kauaʻi while his mother was at full term. He was born an hour after arriving in Honolulu.
Rupert was raised in Kōloa, Kauaʻi in his younger years but then in 1949 was sent to Oʻahu
to learn the western ways. He spent most of his time in ʻIolani Palace until 1959. At the time
his mom worked for the territory and his uncle was the genealogist for Hawaiian Homelands,
which was in the basement of the palace. He did not officially move back to Kauaʻi until 1978.
He now resides in Kapahi on the east side of Kauaʻi.
Rupert’s relationship to the project area is one of deep cultural connection, ancestral lineage
and past involvement intervening in previous developments and restoration works in the area,
particularly for Kāneiʻolouma complex, which he began working to protect and restore in
1998. He is very familiar with longer term impacts and changes to this region and how past
officials and the county have incorrectly built infrastructure and developments across
important cultural sites in the past, some of which have still not been corrected or moved.
Overview
Rupert expressed concern with the amount of development in this area and referred multiple
times to carrying capacity for both the island as a whole and as individual smaller sections,
such as the south side or Koloa area. He is very concerned about the continued loss of identity
that colonization results in and sees the project as a part of the ongoing process of
displacement. Rupert mentions stories from kupuna that engrained common sense and
respect for this place into him as a child.
General Discussion
Rupert shared that at some point in the 1990s he testified against land use changes for a
rezoning attempt for 475 acres in this area. He spoke of the previous failures by planners and
developers to provide drainage plans and adequate water and wastewater management for
projects in the area.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
138
He repeatedly shared his disappointment in government departments and land developers
who approved and continue to approve these projects that result in the destruction of
important cultural sites in Kōloa, for what he sees as simply greed and money. He described
the immense loss to self-identity, important structural features, history and ancient knowledge
that overdevelopment has caused in Koloa to date and sees the project as a continuation of
this. Rupert described a lifetime of changes to this coastline and Hawaiʻi land use and
management in general. He believes that some of these initial approvals and development
plans came from as far back as 1962.
Rupert understands the hesitancy for Hawaiians to share their secrets about what is taken
and used and from where because he feels it is often appropriated and used against them.
He feels that sometimes the sharing of that culture helps to rob the self-identity of Hawaiians
because those that come to get it try to become it and then it becomes a stranger to its original
people and warped. He feels that this is a form of displacement in his own lands.
He mentioned the impacts on Hawaiians when archeologists check off boxes and make
statements of no significance on places that Hawaiians know are important but that so much
has been lost through the loss of language and cultural practice that sometimes it is hard to
prove every time.
Cultural Resources
Rupert shared that there are lots of heiau in this area. He talked about the already impacted
and destroyed sites, although believing with the right efforts some of them could be restored.
He mentioned the Waiohai side of the Poʻipū Beach parking lot area was built in the fishpond
that was a part of this larger system. He describes the larger Kāneiʻolouma complex as being
from where Kalapaki Joes is today to Kiahuna down to the fence line to the Waiohai all the
way back to Nukumoi Surf Shop and back up to Kalapaki Joes.
Rupert spoke of the cultural sites in this area that provide an important connection for him
and other Hawaiians. He sees these as sites as important parts of self-identity and as
important sites for us to restore and regain that connection to Hawaiian heritage and ancient
knowledge. Rupert describes the cultural resources that this area had, and estimated roughly
70% are probably destroyed with only 30% remaining in this area. He feels the 30% remaining
are more important than ever to protect and that their restoration is a way of reconnecting
that Hawaiian cultural practice, land management knowledge and self-identity.
Rupert shared that the HAPA Trail, while commonly referred to as such, is actually the royal
pathway with its own royal patent. He describes the extensive nature of that royal pathway
that went all the way through Koloa Town to Lihue and beyond.
Rupert also mentions burial caves are located throughout the project area.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
139
Rupert mentions the largely destroyed Kōloa irrigation system that was coming down from
Waita and the extensive nature of this system. While he said much of this has been destroyed,
there are sections and areas that remain that can be protected and restored.
Rupert says this entire coastline was rich in resources but that most of those are gone due to
impacted water quality due to development over the last 50 years.
Traditions and Customs
Throughout the interview Rupert mentions reference to Makahiki games and festivals that
occurred in this area.
Rupert refers to the high population that resided in this area and the traditions and customs
that were associated with their burial, food production, and unique traditions that went along
with the unique structures and systems Kōloa is known for.
There would have been specific fishing traditions and food production traditions associated
with the fishpond(s) in the surrounding area also.
Impacts
Rupert mentioned that injury to ʻāina anywhere feels like an injury to all kanaka because what
we see today, we will not see tomorrow and once we lose these sites they are gone. He
mentioned society's failure to appreciate the infrastructure and legacy laid down for the
betterment of those that come after us. He felt that this project continues to impact all future
Hawaiians. That mentality was ingrained in him growing up but he said seems largely
forgotten.
Rupert spoke of the drastic changes he has seen in his life and was concerned that these
were continuing to accelerate with this additional development.
He was concerned about the impacts of current and future injection wells in the Koloa area.
He referred to the impacts of too many people being present in an area without the proper
management of all forms of waste. He was particularly concerned about injection wells from
the existing Kiahuna property.
He talked about the compounding impacts that we are not considering from climate change
and rising sea levels. He questioned if we are thinking 25 years or so into the future about
how we will deal with all of these impacts with the changes coming.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
140
Rupert was particularly concerned about the solid waste concerns and where we will be
putting all the waste coming out of these growing developments and pointed out there is no
plan on how we will be dealing with our waste in the coming decades.
Rupert questioned the initial authorities that granted the right to develop this area and rezone
these important agricultural systems for luxury and transient development and pointed out
the impacts of these careless decisions as a form of genocide and an attempt to erase
Hawaiian history and knowledge. He says he sees this as the result of intentional
brainwashing that has happened in his lifetime to convince Hawaiians that the selling of their
lands and tourism and western social structure were somehow going to provide a better life
for them. He also said that 80 years later he sees that as a continued lie that has resulted in
the displacement of Hawaiians from their own land and no one is better off, except those who
have profited on the backs of these land grabs.
He mentioned Kiahuna had burial and cultural sites on their property, but the project pushed
ahead and the continued pain that this causes for kanaka maoli. He described that these
impacts of loss of identity happen when we lose language, cultural practice and important
places and infrastructure such as what has happened and continues to happen in Kōloa.
Rupert mentioned that for anyone to recite specifics of the impacts to what burials and
features is hard offhand and that there is so much has already been lost.
Rupert was concerned about the loss of cultural sites and the further loss of self-identity which
he sees as a form of genocide and to him this project is a part of that perpetuated colonization
which is to blame. He sees the impact as kanaka losing an understanding of where they come
from and the connection to place. He sees these developments as also being a perpetuation
of colonization with more foreigners moving here and changing the culture and impacting
Hawaiian practice and way of life.
Rupert understands that if we mālama the ʻāina and work with it, it will give back to us; but
when we instead continue to just take whatever we can, we all lose. Hawaiian culture teaches
us the land will reject us if we do not properly care for it.
Impacts to access were referred to as an ongoing struggle and Rupert mentioned that the
system and processes as are clearly not functioning that are meant to allow Hawaiians access
to important places and cultural sites.
Mitigation Measures and Recommendations
Rupert did not mention specific mitigation measures that can be taken but instead asked the
larger questions relating to why this project was able to go ahead considering there are no
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
141
clear answers provided by developers. He feels that there aren’t easy mitigation measures
that could stop the problems happening with this project because no clear answers have been
provided about the impacts and how the projects will deal with waste, carrying capacity for
Koloa and other important planning issues and again mentioned climate change and the
rising oceans as an added challenge.
Rupert feels that one of the sad parts of this is that royal patents are not given the respect
they deserve. He describes the differences between royal patent land titles and corporate
warranty titles and how this is part of the overthrow of Hawaiian lands and lifestyle by bringing
in the American property ownership model. He does not feel that this westernized land
ownership and management model is appropriate or sustainable for our small island.
He believes the mentality of our county employees and officials needs to change to value the
true worth of sites like those in Koloa. He mentioned that previous county department heads
and employees are hired by land developers and the concerns he has with the ‘revolving door’
on a local county level that sees people in important regulatory positions then go to work for
developers and private interests. He mentioned the ongoing trust issues these patterns have
created in the community and feels like it is a form of local corruption when conflicts of interest
are ignored on this level.
Rupert mentions how overpopulation of this area and poor planning has resulted in excessive
impacts already to this area and that he doesn't see ways that this area could cope with more
development. Rupert suggested a plan for assessing how many people can this area, and
others on our small island, responsibly handle. He referred to the loss of environmental quality
and resources when development continues to not only destroy important ancient
infrastructure but then fails to protect environmental quality. He pointed out there is no plan
for how we can responsibly accommodate this kind of growth.
One of the things he specifically mentioned was solid waste concerns. He feels there are no
good answers for how we will manage the increase in not just construction waste but the long-
term waste production from these additional sites at a time when our solid waste situation is
already dire. He does not see a responsible way we can continue to develop without first
addressing our waste issue. He asked who is liable for the production and poor disposal of all
the waste associated with these developments.
He also mentioned he did not see viable ways to avoid impacts when these condos continue
to perpetuate colonization and the loss of local lifestyle and ways through displacement of
Hawaiians. He sees the destruction as two-fold, both in the physical destruction but also in
the destructive nature of the continued colonization by more foreigners coming here who then
in turn change this place to be more like their home rather than Hawaiʻi. He sees this as further
displacement and does not have a mitigation measure to address it.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
142
Rupert sees the goal as one of restoring as many of these sites as possible. He sees the
reconstruction training the next generation has undertaken as a path to not just protect these
sites but to restore them and learn from them and he sees this revival in restorative
knowledge as originating from Kāneiʻolouma protection and restoration efforts in the Kōloa
area.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
143
5.13 Responses from Blyth Kahokule‘a Blake
1. ‘O Blythe Kahokule’a Blake (hoku) ko’u inoa. - my name is Blythe Kahokule’a Blake.
2. Full time mother, full time Hawaiian Studies student at Kaua’i Community College,
Kia’I of Kōloa.
3. I was Born in Lihue at Wilcox Hospital, I was raised in Kōloa.
4. Noho au ma Kōloa. - I live in Kōloa
5. My association as Hawaiian practitioner who prays and teaches my keiki in these
areas. E kala mai but I don’t see how one questionnaire can answer for multiple
projects as each area has different cultural purposes. I’ll try my best but I believe
there would need to be specific questions for each project separately.
6. Kiahuna -the upper part of Kiha Honua wasn’t always easily accessible. Growing up,
Kiahuna drive stopped at the golf course entry/ restaurant. My ohana used to go for
brunch on the weekends so when the development for Pili mai and the housing
started it was very obvious. I remember driving up as far as could go with my great-
uncle Heartwel “Hanalei” Blake and my great-grandmother Thelma Blake, they spoke
about how “back in the day” assuming pre-missionary contact, there was a village, an
ohana system that belonged to this area, even a Heiau we could only see if we went
in the golf course, Laka Heiau. I was also baptized at St.Raphael so I’m familiar with
the church property and was told by my grandfather Dennis Blake when he was a kid
they would walk down near the church, on Hapa trail to go to the beach. So being the
curious kid I was I took my bike to the trail yet saw the pastures and gate up so I
decided not to head down. It wasn’t until my great-uncle Ted “teddy” Blake restored
Hapa trail did I actually walk it. Talking about this area with my uncle Blake, he told
me there is an ahu - Hawaiian altar, along the hapa trail. I asked him to take me but
he didn’t remember exactly where it was, being this was almost 30 years ago when
he stumbled upon it.
7. Kiahuna- protocol is something that is done within these wahipana - significant area,
upon entry and before exiting. Protocol is when the person/persons offer an Oli-
chant followed by their mo’okuauhau - genealogy, intention of why they are there is
stated, ho’okupu may also be given, closed with an oli.
8. Kiahuna- or it’s original inoa Kiha Honua, getting shortened over time by newcomers
is believed to be a resting area of a Kihawahine, Mo’o goddess, with the cave system
beneath kiahuna drive. (Along the shore front of this area there’s a plaque dedicated
to the “remaining” pohaku of a Heiau dedicated to her and a couple more gods. Yet it
wasn’t just the shore that was important. It was the whole surrounding area. Going
inland There is Literally houses surrounding a Heiau. Surrounding Laka Heiau, in a
very disrespectful manner). It is without a doubt to say this area in general is
significant irregardless of the current development.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
144
9. Pali Kua, Laka Heiau, hapa trail, the beginning of the sugar era, the blind spiders, the
nene who call this area home, or did. Pueo, the aquifer beneath it, the cave system
Pu’u wanawana is not even a mile away. The missing Heiau.
10. I can’t speak for three spectate areas in one.
11. The tradition of honoring the dead within this area will be lost. Honoring gods at their
Heiau, teaching keiki of the wahipana, Hawaiians won’t be able to access, let alone
get near those sites, when it becomes occupied. We can’t even get there now. This
can all be prevented by bringing an immediate halt to the current plans of
development.
12. There should actually be cultural monitors, burial council member present, on site
the ENTIRE time of operation. I also believe The department of Land and Natural
Resources should also be present considering the cave system. There also needs to
be revised or simply new environmental impact reports. Let’s not forget the brackish
water or the redirection of Waikomo stream. There has always been nene around the
kiahuna area, I would see many ohana and now just a few birds themselves. Their
disappearance is obvious. Isn’t it a law that any construction / development has to
stop or isn’t allowed in the nene’s habitat, or does that not apply to multi million
dollar companies.
13. The south side is already over developed and overcrowded with tourists. Where are
the Kanaka maoli ? Most of us got pushed out of the south side. Excluding myself I
only know two other households in Kōloa that are actually Hawaiian. The County of
Kaua’i should be ashamed of themselves for putting visitors above residents. Putting
visitors above the families who actually took care of this land so they the county can
profit money. Not only is our community not built for this, where am I supposed to go
for my cultural practices when access to those areas are being taken away? Where
am I supposed to teach my kids how to be Hawaiian when there’s nowhere to
practice. Where are we all gonna do grocery shopping ? Big save can barely keep the
shelves full with the amount of people we have on the south side, right now.
Sueoka’s got sold and now Sells souvenirs, Kukuiula store never has parking
available (not the store's fault, just too many tourists). Where are all the cars gonna
go? Anytime poipu road or Ala kalanikaumaka has work being done the cars are
bumper to bumper. Where will my kids go to swim? I can’t even put a mat down at
poipu beach because there is simply no room let alone find a stall to park in. You
can’t even get a plate lunch in Kōloa without waiting 30+ minutes because
everywhere is always packed with tourists. There is simply no room and I refuse to be
pushed out of my hometown.
14. There should be a survey done by residents within the south side, If we oppose or
support these developments. Where was the public meetings, when do residents
actually get to speak up without being dismissed as protesters?
15. The county of Kaua’i should listen to the people and not allow themselves to be
bought out by companies who will displace the local community. The county of Kaua’i
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
145
should be protecting endangered species all over our island and not choose what
species gets to be important and what gets to die off. The actions done by the county
of Kaua’i and by the Kaua’i police department all contribute to the continues
displacement of Kanaka Maoli and local residents. Their actions comite cultural
genicide. Our Mayor Derek Kawakami is not fit to fulfil his duties and role of our
leadership. He can put an end to all of this and his words were “ when the bones are
found, they’ll stop”. No they won’t because if that was the case Pili mai wouldn’t exist
and neither would, Kōloa landing, Kuku’i’ula club, the Sheraton, the Hyatt, the point
at poipu, whaler’s cove, kiahuna, the Waioahi, all those rentals along Pe’e road. The
Kōloa estates, or Kiahuna golf course. They are selling our culture while killing it off
at the same time, where is the “paradise” going to be if it’s all dug out.
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
146
5.14 Responses from Terry Kuribayashi
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
147
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
148
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
149
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
150
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
151
5.15 Responses from Val Kane Turalde
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
152
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
153
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
154
5.16 Responses and Documents from Llewelyn H. Kaohelauli‘i
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
155
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
156
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
157
Ethnographic Data
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
158
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
159
6.0 Traditional or Customary Practices Historically in the Study Area and Surrounding Area
In traditional (pre-western contact) culture, named localities served a variety of functions,
informing people about: (1) places where the gods walked the earth and changed the lives of
people for good or worse; (2) heiau or other features of ceremonial importance; (3)
triangulation points such as ko‘a (fishing markers) for fishing grounds and fishing sites (4)
residences and burial sites; (5) areas of planting; (6) water sources; (7) trails and trail side
resting places (o‘io‘ina), such as a rock shelter or tree shaded spot; (8) the sources of
particular natural resources/resource collections areas, or any number of other features; or
(9) notable events which occurred at a given area. Through place names knowledge of the
past and places of significance was handed down across countless generations. There is an
extensive collection of native place names recorded in the mo‘olelo (traditions and historical
accounts) published in Hawaiian newspapers.
This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all the practices that historically or
contemporaneously occur in Kōloa. This is meant to show the range of traditional or customary
practices that took place in the larger geographic extent. Many of these practices may not
have taken place within the specific confines of the Project Area(s), and many of those that
may have do not currently take place within the Project Area(s), although that may actively
occur within the larger region.
6.1 Mo‘olelo
Mo‘olelo is the practice of storytelling and developing oral histories for the purpose of
transmitting knowledge information and values intergenerationally. Mo‘olelo are particularly
critical in protecting and preserving traditional culture in that they are the primary form
through which information was transmitted over many generations in the Hawaiian Islands
and particularly in the Native Hawaiian community.
Storytelling, oral histories, and oration are widely practiced throughout Polynesia and
important in compiling the ethnohistory of the area. The Native Hawaiian newspapers were
particularly valued for their regular publication of different mo‘olelo about native Hawaiian
history. Were it not for the newspapers having the foresight to allow for the printing and
publication of mo‘olelo, far less information about the cultural history of the Hawaiian people
would be available today.
There are numerous mo‘olelo about Kaua‘i and specifically the Kōloa area. Two of these
mo‘olelo are provided in Sections 3.1 (Traditional Period). Additionally, multiple informants
note that there are many, significant stories about the area.
6.2 Habitation
Hawaiians lived extensively throughout the islands. Handy, Handy, and Pukui (1991) identify
how different kānaka and their ‘ohana lived in accordance with what the authors termed
“occupational contrasts” (286), meaning that based on occupation (i.e., planter or fisherman,
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
160
for example), habitation systems differed. They describe, “The typical homestead or kauhale…
consisted of the sleeping or common house, the men’s house, women’s eating house, and
storehouse, and generally stood in relative isolation in dispersed communities. It was only
when topography or the physical character of an area required close proximity of homes that
villages exist. There was no term for village. Kauhale meant homestead, and when there were
a number of kauhale close together the same term was used. The old Hawaiians, in other
words, had no conception of village or town as a corporate social entity. The terrain and the
subsistence economy natural created the dispersed community of scattered homesteads”
(284). Traditionally, as shown in historic maps and through ethnographic data, kānaka
inhabited areas throughout Kōloa. Some of the informants still have lineal ties to their familyʻs
lands.
6.3 Travel and Trail Usage
The ability to travel was essential to Hawaiians and enabled their sustainability. Travel, and
the freedom to move throughout different areas, had different names, including huaka‘i,
ka‘apuni, or ka‘ahele. Traveling by sea had distinct names as well, like ‘aumoana. Traveling
through the mountains was sometimes referred to as hele mauna. Travel, and moving
throughout various places and regions was an essential practice and way of life in traditional
Hawai‘i.
The freedom to travel safely was so important that Kamehameha I would come to pass a well-
known law protecting travelers, Ke Kānāwai Māmalahoe (The Law of the Splintered Paddle).
It is explained by the William S. Richardson School of Law as follows:
As a young warrior chief, Kamehameha the Great came upon commoners fishing along
the shoreline. He attacked the fishermen, but during the struggle caught his foot in a
lava crevice. One of the fleeing fishermen turned and broke a canoe paddle over the
young chief’s head. The fisherman’s act reminded Kamehameha that human life was
precious and deserved respect, and that it is wrong for the powerful to mistreat those
who may be weaker.
Years later when Kamehameha became ruler of Hawai‘i, he declared one of his first
laws, Ke Kānāwai Māmalahoe (the Law of the Splintered Paddle), which guaranteed
the safety of the highways to all. This royal edict was law over the entire Hawaiian
kingdom during the reign of Kamehameha the Great. Considered one of the most
important kānāwai (royal edict), the law gave the Hawaiian people an era of freedom
from violent assault (William S. Richardson School of Law 2021).
The kānāwai (law) reads:
E nā kānaka O my people
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
161
E mālama ʻoukou i ke akua
A e mālama hoʻi
Ke kānaka nui a me kānaka iki
E hele ka ʻelemakule
Ka luahine, a me ke kama
A moe i ke ala
Aʻohe mea nana e hoʻopilikia
Hewa no, make
Honor thy god
Respect alike, the rights of
All men great and humble
See to it that our aged,
Our women, and children
Lie down to sleep by the roadside
Without fear of harm
Disobey, and die
The law would have such long-lasting resonance that it would be expressly incorporated into
the Hawai‘i State Constitution.4
As traveling through traditional trails was the primary means by which people traveled on land
throughout most of Hawaiian history, the traditional trail system is particularly important
throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Throughout the islands, there were numerous trails that
allowed for people to access different locations. This trail system was critical not only for
maintaining a healthy population and managing this population, but it was also important for
the traditional economic system of bartering. The trail system allowed for different localized
communities to engage and interact. This also allowed for the trade of goods throughout
island communities.
Traditionally, trails were widely used, as there was no other means of land transportation. This
meant that these trails were essential to the ability of different ahupua‘a communities to
interact. There were also important to allow for the governance of different ahupua‘a by
konohiki and ali‘i.
From the historic maps provided in Section 3.1, it is clear that kānaka traveled extensively
throughout this area. Figures 6-9 in particular show trails that routed through Kōloa.
Additionally, Hapa Trail, State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) # 50-30-10-00992, is
immediately east of Lot 4 of the Kauanoe o Kōloa development. Multiple interviewees spoke
to the cultural importance of this site and its continued usage.
The historic trail was previously known as Hapa Road and was the government road that
connected Kōloa and Poipu.
4 Article IX. Section 10 of the Hawaii State Constitution reads: “The law of the splintered
paddle, mamala-hoe kanawai, decreed by Kamehameha I--Let every elderly person, woman
and child lie by the roadside in safety--shall be a unique and living symbol of the State's
concern for public safety.”
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
162
6.4 Ceremonial Practices
There are numerous heiau located in Kōloa. While numerous heiau were destroyed following
foreign contact, there are also contemporaneous efforts to protect and preserve heiau in the
region. Numerous informants identified the importance of heiau in Kōloa. Some even
identified their ongoing work on heiau, specifically Kamaloʻula and Kāneiʻolouma heiau.
In this area, there are numerous preservation and restoration activities associated with Uhau
Humu Pōhaku, as this region of Kaua‘i enjoys numerous practitioners skilled in this traditional
practice. There are numerous practitioners in this area, some of whom were interviewed for
this survey, who are familiar with the customary practices associated with building and
consecrating traditional structures.
6.5 Farming and Fishing
Since poi was the staple food for Native Hawaiians, it was of the utmost priority for the first
settlers to establish loʻi. Kalo’s prominence in the Hawaiian diet derived from its nutritional
value, but even more so from its mythological significance. According to Hawaiian traditions,
the first human (male) was born from the taro plant:
The first-born son of Wakea and Papa was of premature birth and was given the name
Haloa-naka. The little thing died, however, and its body was buried in the ground at
one end of the house. After a while, a taro plant shot up from the child’s body, the leaf
of which was named lau-kapa-lili, quivering leaf; but the steam was given the name
Haloa.
After that another child was born to them, whom they called Haloa, from the stalk of
the taro. He is the progenitor of all the peoples of the earth. (Malo 1951:244)
As discussed in Section 3.1 (Traditional Period), the area has an extensive history of farming
that extends well back into the pre-European contact era. Informants also identified important
fishing practices in the coastal waters off Kōloa.
6.6 Traditional Clothing (Clothes Making, Dyeing, and Lei Making)
Kapa (commonly known as bark cloth) was the traditional material made through a traditional
method of gathering, treating, and beating plant fibers, often, but not limited to, wauke
(Broussonetia papyrifera) to make fabric that was used to make lole (clothing). Pacific and
Hawaiian kapa was known for its wide range of colors and the application of watermarks.
One article describes the process for making kapa:
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
163
The finest kapa came from the paper of the mulberry tree. These trees were cultivated
on plantations and grew to heights of more than twelve feet. As the tree grew, the
branches were nipped off along the main trunk, ensuring a long piece of bark which
was easily peeled from the tree.
The manufacture of kapa was an important occupation for women. After the bark had
been peeled from the tree, the inner bark was separated and soaked in sea water to
make it soft and pulpy. The softened bark was placed on an anvil and beaten with a
cylindrical wooden beater. The first beating separated the fibers and produced strips
about eight or nine feet long and ten to fourteen inches wide. These strips could be
dried and stored until needed. When needed, the strips were soaked in water, placed
in layers between banana leaves, and left for about ten days to mature by "retting"
which is the decomposition and removal of softened tissues, leaving the finer fibers.
These partially decomposed layered strips were beaten a second time with specially
carved four-sided beaters. The patterns carved on the beaters were functional as they
produced the necessary characteristics in the kapa for its end use. These carved
designs left the equivalent of a watermark on the kapa.
Kapa which was to be extremely soft and pliable, such as that used for the malo or
loincloth, was subjected to an additional softening process. This process, which
produced a finely ribbed fabric, was done by dampening the cloth, stretching it over a
grooved board, and running a wooden grooving tool along the indentations in the
board. When the cloth dried, permanent ribs remained. The hand was very similar to
our crinkle gauze of today (Furer 1981:109-110).
Hawaiians were skilled at utilizing plants and materials to dye their clothing and other
materials. Different methods would be employed to hō‘awa, extract dye colors from their
source material(s). These dyes would be placed in a cup, known as a kā kāpala. Even foreign
or exotic plants were utilized for this practice. Hawaiians used different words for the various
types of dyeing activities and methods.
• We‘a – a red dye or to print or dye red
• Hili – bark dye, as hili kukui, hili kōlea, hili noni; also kapa dyed with bark or the name
for dyeing with the use of bark
• Kūhili – to dye (or stain) by soaking in water containing mashed bark, such as used for
nets; also mulberry bark before it is beat into kapa
• Kūpenu – to dye by dipping material
• Ki‘olena – to dye kapa
• Hōlei –native tree (Ochorosia compta) related to the hao (Rauvolfia), which yields a
yellow dye for kapa
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
164
• Kīhe‘ahe‘a pala‘ā – dye made from the pala‘ā (Sphenomeria chinensis syn. chusana)
fern; pala‘ā also references a kapa made from the māmaki (Pipturus spp.) bark which
is then dyed a brownish-red with pala‘ā fern
Hawaiians also had a lexicon for the various colors that could be achieved through this
traditional practice.
• ‘Ōlenalena – yellow
• Hili – Dark-brown dye made from bark
• Puakai – red
• Nao – dark red
• Pōkohukohu – color made from the noni (Morinda citrifolia) root
• ‘Ākala – color made from raspberry or thimbleberry juice
• ‘Ōma‘oma‘o – light green color made from ma‘o leaves
Similarly, lei making was a regular occurrence in traditional Hawaii. Anderson-Fung and Maly
(2009) write about the traditional practice:
In old Hawai‘i, lei could have important ceremonial functions, such as in religious
offerings and for chiefly regalia, but lei were also enjoyed as personal adornment by
Hawaiians of all levels of society. The ali‘i (chiefs) and the maka’āinana (the common
people who tended the land) all wore lei. Even the akua (gods, deities, spirits), it was
believed, sometimes wore lei when they walked the land in human form. The following
observation by the French botanist Gaudichaud, who visited the islands in 1819,
paints a picture of Hawai‘i as a place where the lei was an integral part of everyday life:
“It is indeed rare to encounter one of the natives of this archipelago who does
not have an ornamental plant on his head or neck or some other part of his
body…[The] women … change [the plants they wear] according to the seasons,
[and for them] all the fragrant plants, all flowers, and even the colored fruits,
serve as attire, one after another. …The young girls of the people, those of the
island of Hawai‘i especially, seem to be fond of the [kou, Cordia subcordata], a
tree very abundant in all the cultivated areas… The young girls of the
mountains, who live near the forests, give their preference to the flowers of the
[Erythrina (wiliwili) and a species of Canavalia, called ‘awikiwiki], the lively
color of which makes magnificent garlands. Such natural attire is much more
rich, much more striking, than all the dazzling creations of the elegant European
ladies.”
This account and others like it suggest that lei worn for personal adornment were
fashioned from the favorite plant materials that were readily available and abundant
in the lei maker’s environment (4).
Traditional or Customary Practices
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
165
Lei making continues as an important practice today, as the making and giving of lei as an
expression of aloha to loved ones still regularly occurs throughout the Hawaiian Islands.
Practitioners of these crafts actively practice in the project area, especially hula practitioners
who use the forest to gather plants for their ceremonial purposes. In the ethnographic data,
informants also identified lei making as a practice that occurs in the area.
Additionally, historic records show that these ethnobotanical practices occurred in the Kōloa
ahupua‘a. Bernice Juddʻs 1936 piece in the Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Hawaiian
Historical Society for the Year 1935 clearly states, “The Hawaiians planted pia (arrowroot) as
well as wauke (mulberry) in patches in the hills wherever they would grow naturally with but
little cultivation. In the uplands they also gathered the leaves of the hala for mats and the nuts
of the kukui for light” (Judd 1936: 53).
6.7 Haku Mele, Haku Oli, and Hula
This practice is related to the composition of song and chants. this is a practice that has
existed for many centuries in the Hawaiian culture. When the Hawaiian culture primarily relied
on an oral tradition to pass on knowledge and information, the ability to create songs and
chants was essential to pass information from one generation to the next. As Donaghy (2013)
notes, Hawaiians had hundreds of terms associated with this practice.
Songs and chants are largely influenced by the environment around them. As a pedagogical
device it was important if not imperative that these songs or chants effectively captured data
from the environment around the composer and passed on this information for others to
utilize when managing natural resources. In a very real sense, the land and natural resources
act as a muse for composers. The category of songs that provide information on or speak to
natural resources are called mele ‘āina (songs of the land). As shown in the previous section,
there are numerous traditional chants and songs about the area.
Much like mele and oli, hula serves as a way of both honoring place and telling the story of
place. Many hula, especially those based on mele ʻāina, require intimate understanding of the
place where the mele was composed, including the natural elements of that ʻāina. Hula hālau
will regularly take huaka‘i, or journeys, to visit and honor the place a particular mele speaks
of. The ability to visit the place and learn about it is important to the practice of hula.
Hula, as well as mele or oli, are also offered as gifts to kupuna or gods. This practice also
requires access to traditional sites. Associated with hula would have been the practices of lei
making and the use of plants to dye clothing (see Section 5.6 for additional information on
ethnobotanical practices related to clothing, weaving, and lei making).
Section 4.3.2 provided mele that were composed for Kōloa or in part for Kōloa. Additionally,
the area enjoys haku mele (composers) who contemporaneously write mele for Kaua‘i.
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
166
7.0 Impact Assessment
As previously mentioned, CIAs are not required for the applicant’s Project Area(s) as the
environmental impact statements completed for the Kiahuna Development area – that
encompasses applicant’s Kauanoe o Kōloa project - and the Kukuiʻula Development area –
that encompasses applicant’s two Kukuiʻula projects - was completed in 1976 and 1989,
respectively, prior to the passage of Act 50. Nonetheless, this CIA is being prepared under
applicable regulatory standards.
When the Hawai‘i State Legislature passed Act 50 in 2000, the purposes of the Act were clear:
“1) Require that environmental impact statements include the disclosure of the effects of a
proposed action on the cultural practices of the community and State; and 2) Amend the
definition of “significant effect” to include adverse effects on cultural practices” (Act 50, SLH
2000).
HRS 343-2, as amended per Act 50, defines an “Environmental impact statement” as “an
informational document prepared in compliance with the rules adopted under 343-6 and
which discloses the environmental effects of a proposed action, effects of a proposed action,
effects of a proposed action on the economic welfare, social welfare, and cultural practices
of the community and State, effects of the economic activities arising out of the proposed
action, measures proposed to minimize adverse effects, and alternatives to the action and
their environmental effects” (emphasis added) (HRS Chapter 323-2).
Under the same part, “Significant effects” is defined under state law as “the sum of the effects
on the quality of the environment, including actions that irrevocably commit a natural
resource, curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment, are contrary to the State’s
environmental policies or long-term environmental goals as established by law, or adversely
affect the economic welfare, social welfare, or cultural practices of the community and State”
(emphasis added) (HRS Chapter 323-2). Therefore, an adverse effect to cultural practices of
the community or State constitutes a “significant effect” under Chapter 343.
Any tangible or physical impacts to historic sites are addressed in the work completed for HRS
Chapter 6E by Cultural Surveys Hawaii and as reviewed by SHPD and are not covered by this
CIA. This separate review is necessary to meet both the statutory requirements of HRS Chapter
6E and the conditions set forth by the County of Kaua‘i.
Similarly, any tangible physical impacts to flora or fauna are address in the biological section
of the SMA application and other entitlement processes and not covered by this CIA. This CIA
focuses on affects to cultural practices of the community.
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
167
The role of this assessment is to primarily identify effects of the proposed action on cultural
practices. Cultural practices historically and contemporaneously associated with the project
area fall into three general eras: a traditional pre-contact era, a historic post-contact era (i.e.,
plantation era), and a contemporaneous era during which these lands have been under
primate ownership.
As shown through the preceding discussions regarding traditional and customary practices,
the project area saw different cultural practices through the different eras. During the
traditional era, cultural practices would have only been limited by the kapu system. The kapu
system was the widely employed political system that allowed for chiefs to oversee their
people and manage resources. Under the kapu system, access to and use of the resources in
the project era were generally allowed under Kaua‘i chiefs. The area would have also enjoyed
extensive traditional habitation, due to its abundance of fresh water. The Hawaiian Kingdom
would undergo a series of significant changes after foreign contact in 1778. From the
unification of the Kingdom under Kamehameha I to the end the kapu system. Once foreigners
arrived, changes came quickly.
Liholiho’s reign, while significant for the end of the kapu system, would ultimately be short, as
he and his wife, Kamāmalu, would succumb to the measles while visiting London in 1824. His
younger brother Kauikeaouli, Kamehameha III, succeeded Liholiho as mōʻī (high chief or king).
It was under the rule of Kauikeaouli that the Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy with
the promulgation of the 1840 Constitution. Further changes under his governance included
changes to the land title system. A land commission that served to quiet land titles was first
formed in February of 1846. The Māhele, which occurred in 1848, “was a division of nearly
all the lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom” (Beamer 2014: 142). Beamer further explains, “The
Māhele – which established distinct land bases for the mōī, the government, and the chiefs
and ultimately made large-scale private ownership possible – was nevertheless still subject
to the rights of makaʻāinana to make their claims for land” (Beamer 2014: 142). Many native
tenants failed to make successful claims for their ancestral lands, and this would open the
door to land ownership by foreigners.
Changes in cultural practices within the project area pre-dated the political changes that
would take place within the Kingdom in the 19th century. As discussed in Section 3.2, and in
more detail in Section 3.2.1, of this assessment, sugar and the plantation economy would
move into Kōloa in the early 1800s. This would have a significant impact on the area, as it
would change land ownership, land and resource management, water usage, and the
demographics of the area.
In Hawaiian culture, natural and cultural resources are largely viewed as being one and the
same. Without the resources provided by nature, cultural resources could not and would not
be procured. From a Hawaiian perspective, all natural and cultural resources are interrelated,
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
168
and all natural and cultural resources are culturally significant. Ethnographer and Hawaiian
language scholar Kepā Maly observed, “In any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in
Hawaii, one must understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its
natural environment. Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where
culture ends and nature begins” (Maly, 2001:1).
The kinship between Hawaiians and their land extends back across many generations, and it
was the depth and intimacy of this relationship that enabled Hawaiians to thrive sustainability
in the islands for hundreds of years prior to the arrival of Westerners. Therefore, Hawaiians
are entitled to the pain and anguish they feel at the loss of their lands and resources. There
is no gain from ignoring the fact that the acquisition of lands by foreigners, including the U.S.
Military, has caused and continues to cause Hawaiians pain and even trauma.
This loss lies at the heart of Hawaiian struggles for traditional or customary access. Therefore,
the obligation of the state to ensure that these rights are protected is much more than a legal
obligation, as such rights are a necessity of indigenous human life. Recognition and respect
for these rights also enables a more mutually respectful and beneficial relationship between
the military and Hawaiians.
Act 50 was passed by the State recognizing:
… the past failure to require native Hawaiian cultural impact assessments has resulted
in the loss and destruction of many important cultural resources and has interfered
with the exercise of native Hawaiian culture. The legislature further finds that due
consideration of the effects of human activities on native Hawaiian culture and the
exercise thereof is necessary to ensure the continued existence, development, and
exercise of native Hawaiian culture (Act 50, SLH 2000).
Despite Act 50 not be applicable in to this project, the legislative intent quoted above is critical
to the due consideration of the effects the proposed action has and will have on cultural
practices, because it specifies the importance of ensuring “the continued existence,
development, and exercise” of culture. This recognizes that culture is not static; it is dynamic.
It changes over time. And Act 50 specifically calls for consideration of the effects a proposed
action may have on the continued “development” of native Hawaiian culture. Which means it
is insufficient to simply look back to historic practices. Considering effects to the continued
development of culture means the State, specifically the County of Kaua‘i in this case, must
contemplate how an action may affect a culture’s ability to evolve, innovate, and develop.
Additionally, OEQC offers specific guidelines for what elements and issues a CIA should
address. They are detailed in Table 4, and the section of this CIA which addresses that element
is also provided.
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
169
Table 4. Table listing OEQC compliance requirements and their corresponding sections in this
assessment
OEQC notes that in addition to the content requirements for the draft environmental
impact statement, which are set out in HAR §11-200.1 et seq., the assessment
concerning cultural impacts should address, but not necessarily be limited to, the
following matters:
A. A discussion of the methods applied and
results of consultation with individuals and
organizations identified by the preparer as
being familiar with cultural practices and
features associated with the project area,
including any constraints or limitations
which might have affected the quality of the
information obtained.
A detailed methodology section is provided
in Section 2.
B. A description of methods adopted by the
preparer to identify, locate, and select the
persons interviewed, including a discussion
of the level of effort undertaken.
A discussion of the effort to gather into from
persons familiar with the area or other
stakeholders is provided in Section 2.5.
C. Ethnographic and oral history interview
procedures, including the circumstances
under which the interviews were conducted,
and any constraints or limitations which
might have affected the quality of the
information obtained.
A discussion of procedures, including
constraints or limitations, is provided in
Section 2.5.
D. Biographical information concerning the
individuals and organizations consulted,
their expertise, and their historical and
genealogical relationship to the project
area, as well as information concerning the
persons submitting information or
interviewed, their particular knowledge and
cultural expertise, if any, and their historical
and genealogical relationship to the project
area.
Biographical information was provided in
and through the surveys in Section 5.0.
E. A discussion concerning historical and
cultural source materials consulted, the
A discussion of the materials consulted are
provided in Section 2. An extensive cultural
Impact Assessment
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
170
institutions and repositories searched and
the level of effort undertaken. This
discussion should include, if appropriate,
the perspective of the authors, any
opposing views, and any other relevant
constraints, limitations or biases.
and historical overview, which uses both
Hawaiian and English language resources is
also provided in Section 2.
Stakeholders are given significant
consideration. Petitions and other materials
by project opponents are included in the
appendices and are addressed in the
context of this assessment.
F. A discussion concerning the cultural
resources, practices and beliefs identified,
and, for resources and practices, their
location within the broad geographical area
in which the proposed action is located, as
well as their direct or indirect significance
or connection to the project site.
In addition to the cultural and historical
overview, an extensive discussion
concerning cultural resources, practice and
beliefs are provided throughout the
document, specifically in Section 6.0.
G. A discussion concerning the nature of
the cultural practices and beliefs, and the
significance of the cultural resources within
the project area affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed project.
A thorough discussion concerning the
nature of traditional or customary practices
and the significance of the cultural
resources affected directly or indirectly by
the proposed alternatives are provided in
Section 7.0 and Section 8.0.
H. An explanation of confidential
information that has been withheld from
public disclosure in the assessment.
There has no confidential information
withheld from public disclosure, except for
personal emails, addresses, or phone
numbers.
I. A discussion concerning any conflicting
information regarding identified cultural
resources, practices and beliefs.
There was no conflicting information
regarding cultural resources, practices, or
beliefs.
J. An analysis of the potential effect of any
proposed physical alteration on cultural
resources, practices or beliefs; the potential
of the proposed action to isolate cultural
resources, practices or beliefs from their
setting; and the potential of the proposed
action to introduce elements which may
alter the setting in which cultural practices
take place.
Thorough analyses are provided in Section
7.0 and Section 8.0.
K. A bibliography of references and
attached records of interviews which were
allowed to be disclosed.
References are included in Section 9.0
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
171
8.0 Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
It has long been the law of the land that the State of Hawaiʻi has an “obligation to protect the
reasonable exercise of customary and traditionally exercised rights of Hawaiians to the extent
feasible” Public Access Shoreline Hawai‘i v. Hawai‘i County Planning Commission (“PASH”)
79 Hawaiʻi 425, 450 n. 43, 903 P.2d 1246, 1271 n. 43 (1995). In 2000, in the Ka Pa‘akai
decision, the Court established a framework “to help ensure the enforcement of traditional
and customary Native Hawaiian rights while reasonably accommodating competition private
development interests.” 94 Hawai‘i 31, 35, 7 P.3d 1068, 1972 (2000). This analysis is used
here to fulfill the goals of this survey and assessment (Section 1.4).
Based on the guidelines set forth in Ka Pa‘akai, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court provided
government agencies an analytical framework to ensure the protection and preservation of
traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights while reasonably accommodating competing
private development, or other, interests. The Court has stated: “that in order to fulfill its duty
to preserve and protect customary and traditional Native Hawaiian rights to the extent
feasible, as required by Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution, an administrative
agency must, at minimum, make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the
following:
1) The identification of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the project area,
including the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are
exercised in the project area.
2) The extent to which those resources—including traditional and customary Native
Hawaiian rights—will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and
3) The feasible action, if any, to be taken to reasonably protect Native Hawaiian rights if
they are found to exist. Ka Pa‘akai, 94, Hawaii at 47, 7 P.3d at 1084. Cited in Matter
of Contested Case Hearing Re Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) HA-3568
for the Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, Ka‘ohe Mauka,
Hāmākua, Hawai‘i, 143 Hawai‘i 379, 431 P.3d 752 (2018) (“Mauna Kea II”).”
In order to complete a thorough analysis that complies with statutory and case law, it is
necessary to fully consider information available from, and provided by, Native Hawaiian
cultural practitioners and cultural descendants from the Project Area(s).
The Ka Pa‘akai analysis is largely a legal analysis, as the applicable tests are legal standards.
Therefore, a strong analysis will be conducted by someone with sufficient legal training.
Additionally, at the core of a thoughtful Ka Pa‘akai analysis is a comprehensive understanding
of traditional and customary practices. In breaking down the Court’s tests, it is important to
the different elements that contribute to each test.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
172
8.1 Identify whether any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources are present within the
project area, and identify the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights
are exercised
In addition to the language taken from the Ka Pa‘akai decision, the County also identifies
additional criteria for review:
o Describe the project area in relation to traditional and customary practices that
occurred in the region or district.
o Describe the extent that traditional and customary practices were practiced in the
ahupuaʻa and project area.
o Describe the community members you consulted with including their genealogical ties,
long-standing residency, and relationship to region, ahupuaʻa and project area.
o Describe the Land Commission Awards provided on the property?
o Describe the prior archaeological studies that were conducted for the property.
o Are you aware of any resources that found any evidence of subsurface habitation or
excavation on the property?
o Does the property contain any evidence that trails were in existence on the property?
o Have any individuals ever requested access to the property for any reason?
The first part of the Ka Paʻakai test – “The identification of valued cultural, historical, or natural
resources in the project area, including the extent to which traditional and customary Native
Hawaiian rights are exercised in the project area” – actually consists of two separate
elements.
The first element is the simple identification and existence of valued cultural, historical, or
natural resources. These resources are tangible in nature. They can include sacred places,
culturally valuable plants, or a religious or historic site. This assessment sought to exhaustively
identify the multitude of resources that may exist in the Project Area(s) or adjacent areas.
As to this test, and as to the County’s inquiries: 1) “[d]escribe the project area in relation to
traditional and customary practices that occurred in the region or district”, and 2) “[d]escribe
the extent that traditional and customary practices were practiced in the ahupua'a and project
area,” this assessment shows there are potentially resources within or immediately outside
the Kauanoe o Kōloa and Parcel H project areas. Interviews indicate that practitioners made
use of the plants in the Kauanoe o Kōloa area for lei making, specifically “mauna loa and
black-eyed Susan” (see Section 5.4). Neither of these plants were identified in the biological
assessment as being in the Kauanoe o Kōloa Project Area, but it does not mean that these
resources are not in the surrounding region.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
173
A full listing of community members consulted and their biographies are included in Section
5.0, meeting the county requirement to: “Describe the community members you consulted
with including their genealogical ties, long-standing residency, and relationship to region,
ahupua'a and project area.”
The second element of the first part of the Ka Pa‘akai framework is access. There are two
critical components of access. One is the existence of a resource. Whether a plant, an animal,
a place, or site, the resource must exist in order for a practitioner to access it. The second
component is physical access. This includes, but it is not limited to, the ability to physically
access a plant, animal, site, or location associated with a particular practice. This can also
include the traditional and customary route or path taken to access the resource. This can
also include cultural protocols that existed in accessing a resource. These are often temporal,
in that access protocols can be at a certain time of day or year. Makahiki would be a good
example of a traditional custom that has specific cultural protocols associated with access. In
the case of Makahiki, the custom takes place at a certain time of year.
Therefore, the first element under Ka Pa‘akai should include not only a listing of resources,
but the identification of ways in which those resources are accessed and utilized in
association with a traditional and customary practice. In this case, the resources include
access to the ocean and the various plant resources utilized by practitioners located on
property. One informant identified that they access the area for prayer: “Yes prayer and
spiritual practice took place on subject property daily. Many cultural practitioners access this
site prior to development happening.” (responses from Elizabeth Okinaka).
Okinaka also claims there are numerous significant resources in the Project Area(s):
This entire parcel is significant. The birthing stone, the alter which I visited daily and
prayed at is now destroyed. The burial sites and chiefs sitting area are now being
destroyed. Chief Palikua is buried underneath this property within a burial cavern and
a part of the cave system. Laka heiau and the cave directly behind this property shows
the lack of preservation for this entire area. This property has lava tubes and caves
exposed since blasting which developer is denying. 3 caves were destroyed in Wainani
subdivision which is directly next to this lot. The developer of Wainani admitted to the
LUC and there are LUC records that confirm the destruction of the 3 caves in Wainani,
destroyed with bulldozers during development. See attached. The developer of Pili Mai,
the parcel just below the project area, had problems with its foundation as it was also
built over a cave system. There are at least 3 designated habitat caves in the area
immediately adjacent to the project site and knowing about the caves under Wainani
and Pili Mai, it is unlikely that they are not also under the project area. Hal Hammett
and Cultural Survey's Hawaii advertise the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) on
their website and claim to have trained personnel with the technological ability to use
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
174
GPR. Yet no GPR was used on the project area prior to extensive grading, excavating,
blasting and filling with dozens of truckloads of dirt and rock being delivered to the
project area (responses from Elizabeth Okinaka).
It is understandably concerning that an area that once enjoyed: “583 interconnected
archaeological features were identified, including 175 stone enclosures, 108 stone house
platforms, ten habitation caves, a heiau extensive ‘auwai networks, ponded fields, terraced
plots, and mounds” appears to now be entirely absent significant historic sites. While the
myriad of surveys and reports done over the last 40+ years might not yield an easily-traceable
record of the small subset of these sites that were directly within the boundaries of the
Kauanoe o Kōloa project area, nor when, how and why they were removed, the surveys and
reports do reflect that none remained on Lot 1 of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area as of
2013.
The complexities of the administrative history of the Kukuiʻula and Kiahuna Developments,
given the massive archive of archaeological work that has been done for numerous
developers in these areas for the past 40+ years, was a concern for respondents. Mason
Chock noted his disappointment that we cannot have better smoother communications
relative to the surveys and assessments that are used to determine impacts in the area.
Peleke Flores mentioned that he wished he had the time, in addition to what he is already
doing with his full-time job, volunteer positions and family responsibility, to check all those
records and resources himself.
There is no doubt that there were extensive archaeological features throughout the Kōloa
area. There is also no doubt that many of these sites have been destroyed over time,
particularly those that were not slated for preservation, which includes all of those that were
located within the applicant’s Project Areas. In its March 1, 2022 letter to the County, SHPD
concurred with the findings of the December 2021 LRFI, stating:
The Folk et al. (2021) archaeological literature review and field inspection (LRFI) report
prepared in support of the proposed development of Lot 1 indicates that previous
archaeological studies within the (Lot 1) project area and vicinity include Hammatt et
al. (1978), Hammatt (1989), and Hammatt et al. (2003, 2004, 2005). Hammatt et al.
(1978) documented 583 interconnected archaeological features were identified,
including 175 stone enclosures, 108 stone house platforms, ten habitation caves, a
heiau extensive ‘auwai networks, ponded fields, terraced plots, and mounds. These
features were recognized as an intensive pre-Contact and early post-Contact Hawaiian
settlement with a focus on irrigated and dryland agriculture; together they reflected “a
complex Hawaiian adaptation of intensive agriculture and settlement to a dry, rocky
leeward environment” (Hammatt et al. 1978:vii) now referred to as the Kōloa Field
System; notably absent are human burials.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
175
Folk et al. (2021) LRFI report indicates that previously recorded sites within the Lot 1
project area are: Site #50-30-10-3857 (complex) which includes Site #50-30-10-3656
(agricultural field), 50-30-10-3657 (C-shaped temporary habitation), 50-30-10-3658
(temporary habitation enclosure), 50-30-10-3659 (C-shaped temporary habitation),
50-30-10-3764 (permanent platform habitation), 50-30-10-3789 (field catchment
basin), 50-30-10-3841 (permanent platform habitation), 50-30-10-3851 (two
agricultural mounds) and 50-30-10-3853 (cattle wall system). None of these sites
were recommended for preservation by Hammatt et al. (1978) or subsequent survey
and/or testing studies.
The Folk et al. (2021) LRFI included a 100-percent coverage pedestrian survey which
occurred on February 22 and March 20, 2021 and documented that the
archaeological sites previously recorded within the southeastern portion of Lot 1 had
been destroyed by bulldozing and other ground disturbing activities that occurred over
the last several decades. Nine surface features were identified during the field
inspection: three remnant sections of ranch walls, two bulldozed boulder piles, one
pile of asphalt debris, and one pile of concrete debris, and two outcroppings of
boulders in the southeast corner (likely associated with the leveled fill where a former
trailer and shed roof structure were visible in a 2013 aerial photo). The three remnants
of the cattle walls no longer have integrity except in location, and the seven other
features are modern remnants of previous grubbing and bulldozing activities in the
project area since the 1990s. The bulldozed and dispersed rock and rock piles may
have been portions of some of the previously recorded historic properties within the
project area. The cattle wall remnants were not assigned site or feature numbers.
Based on the field inspection findings, Folk et al. (2021) recommend no further
archaeological work within Lot 1. Additionally, the USDA (Foote et. al 1972) identifies
the soils within Lot 1 as Waikomo very rocky silty clay (Wt), and Waikomo extremely
rocky silty clay (Wu). Low potential exists to encounter subsurface historic properties
(SHPD 2022: 2).
Similar to the what the archaeological record for Kiahuna reveals regarding remaining sites
in the vicinity of the Kauanoe o Kōloa project area, many of the previously identified sites in
Kukuiʻula were not slated for preservation and no longer exist. In its January 21, 2022 letter
to County of Kauaʻi, SHPD concurred with the findings in the 2021 Field Inspection Letter
Report for Parcell HH, stating:
An archaeological inventory survey (AIS) conducted for the Kukuiʻula Bay Community
(Hammatt et al. 1988) identified 58 archaeological sites, including 150 features within
a 1,000-acre area from Poipu Rd. on the east to the edge of Lawai Valley to the west.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
176
Three previously identified historic properties were documented in the western portion
of the project area: a habitation and agricultural site (Site # 50-30-10-01947), and two
habitation sites (Site # 50-30-10-01949 and Site # 50-30-10-01950). Additional work
within the Kukuiʻula development included data recovery (Hammatt 1998, Hammatt
1989) and the establishment of five archaeological preserves. No preserves are within
the current Parcel HH project area. The three sites (Site #s 50-30-10-01947, 50-30-
10-01949, and 50-30-10-01950) were not slated for preservation and the 2021
archaeological field inspection conducted in support of the current project (Hammatt,
June 2021) indicates the three sites are no longer present and that they likely were
removed during permitted mass grading activities in the 1980s. No historic properties
are present in the current project area.
Similary, in its lettter dated January 11, 2016, SHPD concurred with the Final Archaeological
Assessment Report for the Kukuiʻula Community Development Parcel H Project stating:
The AA is an Archaeological Inventory Survey with negative findings. The AA was
conducted for 26 acres of the 270.1 acre property, and is not intended to represent
the findings of the entire subject property, which contains historic properties. Dave
Hutchinson and Lindsay Crawford of Kukuiʻula Development Company contacted our
office and clarified that the grading permit is for Parcel H - the 26 acres designated
as the Kahela Subdivision. We have determined that no historic properties will be
affected by the proposed grading.
In answering the first part of the Ka Paʻakai test: this survey finds there to be valued cultural,
historical, or natural resources within the larger geographic extent of Kōloa. Ethnographic data
shows that traditional or customary practices take place particularly around the Kauanoe o
Kōloa Project Area and in the surrounding Kōloa ahupua‘a. These specifically include Native
Hawaiian beliefs, ceremonial practices, and ethnobotantical practices.
As to the remainder of the countyʻs inquiries:
o Describe the Land Commission Awards provided on the property?
o This information is provided in the archaeological reports, although based on
the LCA-related maps provided in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, there is only one LCA
located within the entirety of the Project Areas, which is a portion of Land
Commission Award 2668 R.A. Walsh for [Roman Catholic] Mission Church
(Figure 20).
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
177
o Describe the prior archaeological studies that were conducted for the property.
o This information is provided in the archaeological reports.
o Are you aware of any resources that found any evidence of subsurface habitation or
excavation on the property?
o This information is provided in the archaeological reports.
o Does the property contain any evidence that trails were in existence on the property?
o This information is provided in the archaeological reports.
o Have any individuals ever requested access to the property for any reason?
o Honua would not have knowledge of this information, it should be provided to
the county by the project applicant.
8.2 Identify the extent to which the identified resources and rights will be affected or impaired
by the proposed project
The second test – “The extent to which those resources — including traditional and customary
Native Hawaiian rights — will be affected or impaired by the proposed action” – also looks at
two separate elements. The first element seeks to determine whether the proposed action
and its alternatives have an adverse impact on the existence of resources. This would include
the alteration, destruction, modification, or harm of sites, including biological resources,
sacred places, burial sites, etc. It also includes a loss of species. Any adverse impact or harm
to resources is alone an affect or impairment caused by the proposed action.
Based on this test, should any of the tangible cultural resources identified by the practitioners
be present in the Project Area(s) and impacted by the development, that would be an affect
to traditional or customary practices. Additionally, should access be denied to practitioners
for spiritual practices, include offering prayer, that would also constitute an affect to those
traditional or customary practices that would require the County to identify feasible action that
would reasonably protect these Native Hawaiian rights.
Many of the informants also spoke to how expansive development in Kōloa not only poses an
immediate threat to traditional or customary practices, but poses a threat to the future
restoration of practices. This is best addressed by the County through a holistic consideration
of the applicant’s proposed activities, which is why the transparent disclosure of all potential
development proposed by the applicant for consideration is the appropriate approach under
a Ka Pa‘akai analysis.
Findings and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
178
8.3 Specify any mitigative actions to be taken to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if
they are found to exist
The third part of the Ka Pa‘akai test aims to identify “[t]he feasible action, if any, to be taken
to reasonably protect Native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist.” Determining whether
or not action is suitably “feasible” is a matter reserved by the Court as the exclusive
jurisdiction of the State, or in this case, the County. Nonetheless, from the ethnographic data
gathered for this assessment, the County would be justified in finding such action appropriate
for the applicantʻs proposed project(s).
As to potential impacts to historic properties, appropriate mitigation would be determined
jointly by the SHPD and County of Kaua‘i under HRS Chapter 6E.
Such feasible action to mitigate impacts to traditional or customary practices could potentially
include designated access areas and/or times to conduct traditionally or customary practices,
including offering prayer. Additionally, feasible action could also include implementing best
management practices and/or monitoring measures to ensure that cultural resources,
including but not limited to plants, animals, or historic sites, in the Project Area are not
adversely impacted by project activities. It is the responsiblity of the County to identify these
actions and properly implement them in their decision making.
The County should also carefully consider how development in Kōloa may cumulatively impact
traditional or customary practices throughout the entire region. The ethnographic data
showed a strong concern for how development may force kānaka out of the area. Therefore,
in identifying feasible action to reasonably project Native Hawaiian rights in Kōloa, the County
would be best served to consider a holistic approach that protects resources and practices
throughout this entire region and significant cultural landscape.
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
179
9.0 References
Abbott I.A.
1992. Lāʻau Hawaiʻi: Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants. Honolulu, HI: Bishop
Museum Press.
Akana C.L. and Gonzalez K.
2015. Hānau Ka Ua: Hawaiian Rain Names. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Publishing.
Akiu R.
2015. Hualālai. Huapala Hawaiian Music and Hula Archives. Available at:
http://www.huapala.org/Hu/Hualalai3.html
Alexander, W.D.
1891 A Brief History of Land Titles in the Hawaiian Kingdom. In Thrum’s Hawaiian
Almanac and Annual for 1891. Honolulu: Thomas G. Thrum.
1902 Hawaiian Geographic Names. Appendix No. 7 Report 1902. Washington, DC:
Treasury Department, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.
Ashdown I.
1976. Ha‘ilono Mele, June 1976. Vol II. No. 6. Honolulu, HI: The Hawaiian Music
Foundation. Available at: http://ulukau.org/gsdl2.80/collect/hailono/cgi-
bin/hailono?a=pdf&d=DHMN002006.1.5&dl=1&sim=Screen2Image
(Accessed October 10, 2017).
Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds & Their Aquatic Resources (Atlas)
2008. Kalialinui Gulch, Maui. Honolulu, HI: Department of Land and Natural
Resources.
Beckwith, M.
1970 Hawaiian Mythology. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Belluomini, Scott A., Hammatt, Hallett H.
2015 Final Archaeological Assessment Report for the Kukuiʻula Community
Development Parcel H Project, Kōloa Ahupuaʻa, Kōloa District, Kauaʻi, TMK:
[4] 2-6-015:014 por., Cultural Surveys Hawaiʻi, Inc., December 2015
Bennett, W. C.
1931 Archaeology of Kauai. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Board of Commissioners
1929 Indices of Awards made by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in
the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: Star Bulletin Press.
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
180
Boundary Commission Testimonies
1864-1920 Digitized collection from Microfilms of the Hawai‘i State Archives (Kumu Pono
Associates LLC).
Buke Māhele
1848 Buke Kakau Paa no ka mahele aina i hooholoia iwaena o Kamehameha 3 a
me Na Lii a me Na Konohiki ana Hale Alii Honolulu. Ianuari 1848. (Ke Kope
1864).
Clark, J.R.K.
2002 Hawaiʻi Place Names, Shores, Beaches, and Surf Sites. Honolulu: University of
Hawaiʻi Press.
Coulter, J.W.
1935 A Gazetteer of the Territory of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi.
Desha, S. L.
1924 “He Moolelo Kaao no Hiiakaikapoliopele, ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, ao ka
Uʻi Palekoko Uwila o Halemaumau.” Ka Hoku o Hawaii, November 13, 1924.
DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources)
2002 Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Subtitle 13 (Chapters 275-284), State Historic Preservation
Division Rules (October 31, 2002).
Fornander, Abraham
1916-1917 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore, volume 4.
Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
1919 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore, volume 5.
Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Folk, William H., Kamai, Nancine “Missy,” Hammatt, Hallett H.
2021 Final Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection of the Proposed
Kauanoe o Kōloa Project, Kōloa Ahupuaʻa, Kōloa District, Kauaʻi, TMK: [4] 2-8-
014:032 Lot 1, Cultural Surverys Hawaii, December 2021.
Gomes, Andrew
2002 “Three golf courses sold: Local developer will keep staff, may also purchase
two hotels.” Honolulu Advertiser, January 29, 2002: D1-D2
Hammatt, H.
1989 Data Recovery and Preservation Plan for the Kiahuna Golf Club, Prepared for
Sports Shinko Group/Kiahuna Golf Club, Cultural Surveys Hawaii, April 1989
2021 Letter to Dave Hutchinson, Vice President of Land Development, Kukui‘ula
Development Company Hawaii. FINAL Archaeological Final Inspection Letter
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
181
Report for Parcel HH of the Kukui‘ula Community Development Project, TMK
(4) 2-6-015:029, Kōloa Ahupua‘a, Kōloa District, Kaua‘i, Cultural Surverys
Hawaii, June 8, 2021.
Hammatt, H., Chiogioji, R., Shideler, D., Borthwick, D., McDermott, M., Masterson, I.
1998 Archaeological Data Recovery Report for the Kukui‘ula Planned Community
Phase I Development, Kōloa Ahupua‘a, Kona District, Island of Kauai, Hawaii.
(TMK 2-6-04:16, 22, 38, 44, 45) Volume 1, Prepared for A&B Properties,
Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc., June 1991, Revised June 1998.
Hammatt, Hallett H., David Shideler, Constance R. O’Hare, and William H. Folk
2005 Kiahuna Project: Kiahuna Golf Village and KMP Development Project in
Approximately 400 Acres at Koloa Ahupuaa Kona District, Kauai Island
Volume III Summary of Inventory Survey and Data Recovery Results and
Archaeological Interpretations TMK: (4) 2-8-14:07, 08, 28, 31-36; and (4) 2-
8-15:77. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., March 2005.
Handy, E.S.C., Handy, E.G., and Pukui, M.K.
1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii, Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Honolulu:
Bishop Museum Press.
Hawai’i, State of, Office of Planning and Development.
2001 Ahupuaʻa of Kauaʻi. Hawaiʻi Statewide GIS Program.
https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/HiStateGIS::ahupuaa/explore?location
=21.887952%2C-159.452555%2C15.00
Hoʻoulumāhiehie
1905 “Ka Moolelo o Hiiakaikapoliopele, ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o ka Ui
Palekoki Uwila o Halemaumau.” Ka Naʻi Aupuni.
Indices of Awards
1929 Indices of Awards Made by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in
the Hawaiian Islands. (Copy in Hawaii State Archives)
Kamakau, S.M.
1869 Ka Moolelo Hawaii. Ke Au Okoa, October 21, 1869.
1961 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Mary Kawena Pukui, trans. Honolulu: Kamehameha
Schools Press.
1976 The Works of the People of Old. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Kamano, P.
1922 “Na Anoai o Koloa.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, June 1, 1922.
Kaualilinoe, J. K. K.
1870 Ka Moʻolelo no Kamaakamahiʻai. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, November 12, 1870.
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
182
Keaweamahi, D.
1876 “Huakai Makaikia ia Kauai.” Ka Lahui Hawaii, August 10, 1876.
Kekahuna, H.
1959 “A Genuinely Authentic Hawaiian Village for Kauai.”
https://www.kaneiolouma.org/assets/docs/Authentic_Hawaiian_Village.pdf
Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, Supreme Court
1884 Maikai v A. Hastings & Co., 5 Haw. 133, 133, 1884 WL 6659.
Krauss, B.
1993 Plants in Hawaiian Culture. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Mahu, Mr. & Mrs. A. R. & J. H. Hewlett Jr.
1923 “He Hoalohaloha no Kuu Mama Heleloa.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, March 29,
1923.
Mahu, N.
1920 “He Hoomaikai.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, November 19, 1920.
Malo, D.
1951 Hawaiian Antiquities. B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi.
Maly, K.
2001 Mālama Pono i ka ʻĀina—An Overview of the Hawaiian Cultural Landscape.
Hilo: Kumu Pono Associates.
Nakuina, M.K.
1902 Moolelo Hawaii o Pakaa a me Ku-a-Pakaa na Kahu Iwikuamoo o
Keawenuiaumi Ke Alii o Hawaii, a o na Moopuna hoi a Laamaomao! Honolulu:
n.p.
1992 The Wind Gourd of Laʻamaomao. E.T. Mookini and S. Nakoa, trans. Honolulu:
Kalamakū Press.
Nogelmeier, M.P.
2010 Mai Paʻa I Ka Leo: Historical Voices in Hawaiian Primary Materials, Looking
Forward and Listening Back. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Nogelmeier, M.P. and Stillman, A.K.
2003 Introduction. Buke Mele Lahui (Book of National Songs) reprint. Honolulu:
Hawaiian Historical Society
Parker, H.
1922 A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language. Honolulu: Board of Commissioners
for Public Archives.
References
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
183
Poepoe, J. M.
1908 “Ka Moolelo Kaao o Hiiakaikapoliopele.” Kuokoa Home Rula, April 24, 1908.
Pukui, M.K.
1983 ‘Ōlelo No‘eau: Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings. Honolulu: Bishop
Museum Press.
Pukui, M.K., and S.H. Elbert
1986 Hawaiian Dictionary, revised edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Pukui, M.K., S.H. Elbert, and E.T. Mookini
1974 Place Names of Hawaiʻi. Revised and Expanded Edition. Honolulu: University
of Hawaiʻi Press.
State of Hawai‘i
Ms. Files cited in text from the collections of the:
Hawai‘i State Archives.
Department of Land and Natural Resources — Land Division.
Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Survey Division.
USGS
n.d. Water Data. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/16053000/
W., R.
1907 “Ka Ua Noe o Koloa.” Ka Naʻi Aupuni, March 29, 1907.
Wichman, F. B.
1998 Kauaʻi Ancient Place Names and Their Stories. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi
Press.
Wichman, F. B.
2003 Nā Pua Ali‘i o Kaua‘i, Ruling Chiefs of Kaua‘i. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
Press.
Wilcox, C.
1998 Sugar Water. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Wilson, W.
n.d. “Mokupuni o Kauai.” Island Breath.
http://www.islandbreath.org/hawaiinei/hawaiinei.html
Young, P. T.
2019 “Kāneiolouma.” Images of Old Hawaiʻi, April 21, 2019.
https://imagesofoldhawaii.com/kaneiolouma/
Glossary of Hawaiian Terms
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
184
Appendix I: Glossary of Hawaiian Terms
The following list of terms were used frequently throughout this report. All definitions were
compiled using Pukui and Elbert’s Hawaiian Dictionary (1986).
Ahupua‘a Land division usually extending from the uplands to the sea, so called
because the boundary was marked by a heap (ahu) of stones
surmounted by an image of a pig (pua‘a), or because a pig or other
tribute was laid on the altar as tax to the chief.
ʻĀina Land, earth. Lit. That which feeds.
Akua 1. God, goddess, spirit, ghost. 2. Divine, supernatural, godly.
Ala Path, road, trail.
Ali‘i 1. Chief, chiefess, ruler, monarch. 2. Royal, regal. 3. To act as chief,
reign.
ʻAumakua Family or personal gods, deified ancestors who might assume the shape
of sharks, owls, hawks, dogs, plants, etc. A symbiotic relationship
existed; mortals did not harm or eat them, and the ‘aumakua warned or
reprimanded mortals in dreams, visions, and calls.
‘Aumākua Plural of ‘aumakua.
‘Auwai Irrigation ditch, canal, waterway.
Hālau 1. Long house, as for canoes or hula instruction; meeting house. 2.
Large, numerous; much.
Hale pili House thatched with pili grass.
Heiau Pre-Christian place of worship, shrine. Some heiau were elaborately
constructed stone platforms, other simple earth terraces.
Hoʻi 1. To leave, go or come back; to cause to come back. 2. To enter, as an
institution or last resting place. 3. A parting chant to which hula dancers
dance as they leave the audience. 4. Marriage of a chief with the
daughter of a brother or sister; to do so (a means of increasing
offspring).
Hula A Hawaiian dance form accompanied by chant or song.
ʻIli Land section, next in importance to ahupuaʻa and usually a subdivision
of an ahupuaʻa.
ʻIli kū Shorted form of ʻili kūpono.
ʻIli kūpono A nearly independent ʻili land division within an ahupuaʻa, paying tribute
to the ruling chief and not to the chief of the ahupuaʻa. Transfer of the
ahupuaʻa from one chief to another did not include the ʻili kūpono
located within its boundaries. Sometimes shorted to ʻili kū.
Kanaka Human being, person, individual, party, humankind, population; often
used for man.
Kānaka Plural of kanaka.
Glossary of Hawaiian Terms
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
185
Kāne Male, husband, male sweetheart, man; brother-in-law of a woman.
Kanikau 1. Dirge, lamentation, chant of mourning, lament. 2. To chant, wail,
mourn.
Kapu 1. Taboo, prohibition. 2. Special privilege or exemption from ordinary
taboo. 3. Sacredness, prohibited, forbidden, sacred, holy, consecrated.
4. No trespassing, keep out.
Kuleana Right, privilege, concern, responsibility, title, business, property, estate,
portion, jurisdiction, authority, liability, interest, claim, ownership,
tenure, affair, province.
Kupuna Grandparent, ancestor, relative or close friend of the grandparent’s
generation, grandaunt, granduncle.
Kūpuna Plural of kupuna.
Limu A general name for all kinds of plants living under water, both fresh and
salt, also algae growing in any damp place in the air, as on the ground,
on rocks, and on other plants; also mosses, liverworts, lichens.
Lo‘i Irrigated terrace, especially for taro, but also for rice and paddy.
Loko i‘a Traditional Hawaiian fishpond.
Makai On the seaside, toward the sea, in the direction of the sea.
Mālama To take care of, tend, attend, care for, preserve, protect, beware, save,
maintain.
Mauka Inland, upland, towards the mountain.
Mele 1. Song, anthem, or chant of any kind. 2. Poem, poetry. 3. To sing, chant.
Mele mākaʻikaʻi Travel chant.
Mō‘ī King, sovereign, monarch, majesty, ruler, queen.
Moku 1. District, island, islet, section, forest, grove, clump, fragment. 2. To be
cut, severed, amputated, broken in two.
Mo‘o Lizard, reptile of any kind, dragon, serpent.
Mo‘olelo Story, tale, myth, history, tradition, literature, legend, journal, log, yard,
fable, essay, chronicle, record, article.
Moʻowahine Female lizard deity.
Nī‘aupi‘o Offspring of the marriage of a high-born brother and sister, or half-
brother and half-sister.
‘Ōlelo no‘eau Proverb, wise saying, traditional saying.
Oli Chant that was not danced to, especially with prolonged phrases
chanted in one breath, often with a trill at the end of each phrase; to
chant thus.
Piʻo Marriage of full brother and sister of nīʻaupiʻo rank, presumably the
highest possible rank. Their offspring had the rank of naha, which is less
than piʻo but probably more than nīʻaupiʻo. Later piʻo included marriage
with half-sibling.
Glossary of Hawaiian Terms
Cultural Impact Assessment, Ethnographic Survey and Ka Pa‘akai Analysis for Three Development
Projects in Kōloa, Kaua‘i
186
Pueo Hawaiian short-eared owl (Asio flammeus sandwichensis), regarded
often as a benevolent ʻaumakua.
ʻŪniki Graduation exercises, as for hula, lua fighting, and other ancient arts
(probably related to niki, to tie, as the knowledge was bound to the
student).
Wahi pana A legendary place; a place made special celebrated in stories
associated with it. Often sacred.
Wahine Woman, lady, wife; sister-in-law, female cousin-in-law of a man, female.
Wao 1. Realm. 2. A general term for inland region usually forested but not
precipitous and often uninhabited.