haʿikÜ valley project description: a cultural ......haʿikÜ valley project description: a...

HAʿIKÜ VALLEY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Cultural Preservation Plan for Sites 50-80-10-333 and -332 In the ʿIli of Haʿikü, ahupuaʿa of Heʿeia, Koʿolaupoko district, mokupuni of Oʿahu

TMK: (1)4-6-015:001, 009, 011, 012, and 014

Hälawa-Luluku Interpretive Development Project

August 2014


Honolulu, Hawai‘i

A cooperative program of the Federal Highway Administration,

State of Hawai`i Department of Transportation and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs

ATTACHMENT C PS No. HLID-2015-10

HAʿIKÜ VALLEY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Cultural Preservation Plan for Sites 50-80-10-333 and -332 In the ʿIli of Haʿikü, ahupuaʿa of Heʿeia, Koʿolaupoko district, mokupuni of Oʿahu

TMK: (1)4-6-015:001, 009, 011, 012, and 014


Prepared By: Hälawa-Luluku Interpretive Development Team, Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Jonathan Ching, D. Arch Project Coordinator Kamakana C. Ferreira, M.A. Project Planner Sarah Antone Project Assistant Dane Teves Intern


ii

Table of Contents List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................iii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... v

ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................vii

The HLID Project ...................................................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................................................ 1

Mitigation Areas ...................................................................................................................... 2

Overview of the 1987 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) ..................................................... 6

Overview of the Cooperative Agreement and Description of the Hälawa Luluku Interpretive Development (HLID) Project ................................................................................................... 7

The Interpretive Development Plan (IDP) ............................................................................... 8

Consultation Process .............................................................................................................10

Haʿikü Valley Project Description ...........................................................................................12

Location .................................................................................................................................12

Access ...................................................................................................................................19

Haiku Road ........................................................................................................................................ 19

Access Road ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Prior Archaeological Work .....................................................................................................24

Identified Impacts and Recommendations .............................................................................36

Vision and Working Group Manaʿo: A “Hawaiian Cultural Preserve” .....................................37

Cultural Preservation Plan Scope ..........................................................................................38

Summary and Timeframe of Haʿikü Valley Proposed Mitigation Recommendations ..............42


iii

List of Figures Figure 1: Overview of Interstate H-3 Area. ............................................................................................ 4 Figure 2: USGS Map of Haʿikū Valley Project Area. ......................................................................... 15 Figure 3: Map of other archaeological sites in vicinity of Haʿikü project area ................................ 16 Figure 4: TMK Map of Haʿikü Project Area (HoLIS 2013) ................................................................ 17 Figure 5: Right of Way map for Haʿikü Valley Project Area. ............................................................ 18 Figure 6: Haʿikū Valley Satellite Image ................................................................................................ 21 Figure 7: HDOT Map Showing Access to Project Sites .................................................................... 22 Figure 8: Property Boundaries along Haiku Valley Access Road ................................................... 23 Figure 9: Archaeology Sites in Haʿikü Valley located by Williams and Nees (2002). .................. 26 Figure 10: Williams and Nees (1994), 20 Previously Identified Sites in Haʿikū Valley ............................... 30 Figure 11: Williams and Nees (1994), 5 Newly Discovered Sites ............................................................... 31 Figure 12: LCA Awards in Haʿikū Valley ...................................................................................................... 32 Figure 13: Extent of Loʿi System in Haʿikū Valley ....................................................................................... 33 Figure 14: Site 332 Plan View Map ............................................................................................................ 34

List of Tables Table 1: Chronological List of Prior Archaeological Work................................................................. 24 Table 2: Summary of Archaeological Site Conditions and Recommendations. ............................ 25 Table 3: Haʿikü Valley Proposed Mitigation Recommendations Summary .................................... 42 Table 4: Estimated Project Timeframe and Expected Activities ...................................................... 42


iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS E Ho’omaikaÿi I Nä Alakaÿina me ka Aho Nui ana a me ke Käko’o no käkou apau: (Appreciation for the leadership and patience for those that support this project) The HLID team would like to first acknowledge our kupuna (ancestors), kanaka maoli (Native Hawaiian people), and especially the HLID Working Group for their manaʿo (wisdom), aho nui (patience), and aloha (gratitude). The Working Group:

Ms. Donna Bullard Mr. Walli Camvel Mrs. Donna Camvel Ms. Mahealani Cypher Ms. Phyllis “Coochie” Cayan Mr. Steven Helela

Ms. Lela Hubbard Ms. Marion Kelly Ms. Clara “Sweet” Matthews Ms. Havana McLafferty Mr. Robert “Boot” Matthews Ms. Ella Paguyo Mr. John Talkington Ms. Vienna Nahinu Ms. Laulani Teale

The HLID team is committed to delivering this project to the community with cultural sensitivity. We also acknowledge that many have dedicated their lives to this effort and other efforts like this. We understand the love, passion and commitment that our people put into their work. As such, it continues to be an honor and privilege to serve our community and deliver a project driven by their visions to rehabilitate and mitigate our beloved project sites. We believe that our lands and people are resilient. By doing the right thing, for the right reason (and at the right time), we can collectively overcome any obstacle for the benefit of our future generations.

E ola mau nö nä pua Ko‘olau i ke kü‘ana mai The flowers of the Ko‘olau will thrive in the face of adversity

-The Hälawa Luluku Interpretive Development Team


v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document provides the Hälawa-Luluku Interpretive Development (HLID) team’s description of proposed work to complete a Cultural Preservation Plan for historic sites 50-80-10-333 and -332 in Haʿikü Valley. Unlike a standard Preservation Plan governed by HAR 13-277, the Cultural Preservation Plan will not require SHPD review. Although similarities do exist, the Cultural Preservation Plan will place a greater emphasis on ethnographic research, community outreach, and the establishment of cultural boundaries for targeted archaeological sites. The purpose of the HLID project is to mitigate some of the impacts to cultural and archaeological resources caused by the construction of Interstate H-3. For Haʿikū, mitigation actions will be implemented through the completion of a Cultural Preservation Plan for portions of Sites 333 and 332 located in the highway Right-of-Way (ROW). For this reason a Land Surveyor will first need to be hired to delineate the ROW and Property boundaries. The introduction/background section provides an overview of the 1987 Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) which mandates prescribed mitigation actions for Interstate H-3 construction. The background section discusses how the scope of the project area has been refined over time. In the case of Haʿikü, mitigation has been restricted to portions of Sites -332 and -333 in the Highway Right of Way (ROW). An overview of the Cooperative Agreement between OHA and HDOT which created HLID is next provided to clarify our purpose and role in fulfilling the 1987 MOA. Through years of community outreach and the accumulation of archaeological data, an Interpretive Development Plan was completed in 2008 to clearly identify impacts to cultural and archaeological resources caused by Interstate H-3 and to express the vision of the Working Group for healing the land as well as the community. The document is then divided into 7 subsections describing necessary information needed for a potential archaeological contractor to complete a Cultural Preservation Plan:

1) Location: Clearly identifies possible locations for HLID project area boundaries, who owns the land, conservation subzone assignments, and access points. Tax Map Key, USGS quadrangle, and HDOT right-of-way maps are provided for location reference.

2) Access: Legal access to the archaeological sites is difficult due to the multiple landowners in the valley. This section details two possible routes: 1) Haiku Road; and 2) Access Road. Maps are provided which show routes over TMK Parcels and property boundaries. It is emphasized that whichever route is ultimately selected, that HLID will secure access permits prior to the initiation of contractor work. Currently, the Access Road option is favored.

3) Prior Archaeological Work: Provides an overview of prior archaeology work done within Haʿikü Valley by Williams and Nees (2002 and 1994) and Cultural Surveys Hawai’i (1997). A table is provided listing all sites found during their archaeological inventory survey and suggested mitigation recommendations. Site areas, functions, NRHP criteria, and approximate chronological dates are provided in the table as well. Archaeology inventory maps are included to show where sites are or known to be. A


vi

greater emphasis is placed on Sites 333 and 332 given that they are the focus areas for HLID mitigation in Haʿikü.

4) Identified Impacts and Recommendations: Clearly identifies impacts and recommendations as presented in the 2008 Interpretive Development Plan for Haʿikü Valley project area.

5) Vision and Working Group Manaʿo: Clearly states the vision for the Haʿikü Valley project area as detailed in the 2008 Interpretive Development Plan. A brief historic overview is provided to show how traditional and historic land uses are aligned with the projected vision.

6) Cultural Preservation Plan Scope: Clearly identifies HLID’s procedure for completing the preservation plan in nine steps: Background research; Public Consultation; Ethnographic Work; Archaeological Fieldwork; Document Existing Conditions; Establish Buffer Zones; Long-term Maintenance; Signs; and Executive Summary/Format. Ultimately, a culminating cultural preservation plan will be generated by HLIDin accordance with the procedure put forth in this document.

7) Project Area Summary: This section provides a summary table of recommended mitigation actions and a timeframe for the Haʿikü Valley project area.


vii

ABBREVIATIONS ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AD Anno Domini

BPBM Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

BWS Board of Water Supply

CIA Cultural Impact Assessment

CDUA Cultural District Use Application

CDUP Cultural District Use Permit

CLR Cultural Landscape Report

CSH Cultural Surveys Hawaiʿi, Inc.

DD Design and Development

DHHL Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources

EA Environmental Assessment

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GPS Global Positioning System

HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules

HDOT State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation

HLID Hälawa-Luluku Interpretive Development

HoLIS Honolulu Land Information System

HRHP Hawaii Registry of Historic Places

HRS Hawaii Revised Statutes

MOA Memorandum of Agreement


viii

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Registry of Historic Places

OHA Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Pre DD Pre-Design and Development

ROW (Highway) Right-of-Way

SHPD State Historic Preservation Division

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SMP Stewardship Management Plan

SIHP State Inventory of Historic Places

TMK Tax Map Key

USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation

USCG United States Coast Guard

USGS United States Geological Survey

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

VLF Very Low Frequency

WG Working Group


1

The HLID Project

Background The Hälawa-Luluku Interpretive Development (HLID) team, acting on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, was formed to plan and implement projects that mitigate some of the impacts to cultural resources caused by the construction of Interstate H-3. The HLID project is responsible for recommending actions for mitigation in an “after-the-fact” context and address related concerns of the Native Hawaiian community. The history of Interstate H-3 is diverse with multiple levels of complexity. As such, we are providing a brief introduction to this history. The construction of the 16.1 mile long Interstate started in the early 1960s, after Hawai‘i became a state, by the HDOT with a preliminary planning stage. Historically, Interstate H-3 was also the first project required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement in the state of Hawai‘i. Although physical construction was expected to begin in the 1970s, construction did not begin until circa 1980 due to community protest and a series of legal challenges. Interstate H-3 would later be opened many years later in 1997. The construction of Interstate H-3 has been successful in linking major military installations (Pearl Harbor and Hickam Air Force Base1 with Kaneohe Marine Corps Base Hawaii) on the island of Oÿahu for the purposes of bolstering national defense. It is this purpose that made construction of the Interstate eligible for federal funding through the “National System of Defense and Interstate Highways” created by the Federal Highway Act of 1944. Thus, although not technically an “interstate” per se, the reason for calling H-3 an interstate is now apparent. The Interstate has also created an additional route to quickly and efficiently traverse the Koÿolau Mountain Range. The design and construction of Interstate H-3 has been highlighted as a marvel of modern engineering; as such, it is held in high regard by professionals in related fields. All of these accomplishments and successes came at a monetary and cultural cost. With regard to monetary costs, the Interstate H-3 is considered one of the most expensive Interstate Highways ever constructed, totaling approximately 1.3 billion dollars. The cultural costs however, are both tangible and intangible by nature, making it difficult to be measured by a dollar value. The cultural costs include significant physical, spiritual, cultural, and environmental effects to the ‘äina (land), the cultural resources, and ka po‘e ÿo Hawaiÿi (the people of Hawai‘i). Many Native Hawaiians consistently protested the construction of the Interstate H-3 since the mid-1960s. Originally, the leeward portion of Interstate H-3 was proposed to be routed through Moanalua Valley. However, successful protest by the Moanalua Gardens Foundation resulted in the relocation of the leeward portion of Interstate H-3 from Moanalua Valley to Hälawa Valley.

1 As of 2010, Pearl Harbor and Hickam Air Force Base are now viewed as a single entity: Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam)


2

With regard to the Hälawa realignment, efforts of the Stop H-3 Association during the 70’s managed to stall construction on the Windward portion of the Interstate; subsequently, this forced several portions of the Interstate to be rerouted. The late 70’s were crucial years for Hawaiian nationalist movements as development projects were growing in the state of Hawai‘i. Furthermore, Hawai‘i’s population grew by 25% in the 70’s resulting in an abrupt increase in urbanization. Many Native Hawaiians advocating for similar causes (i.e.: preserving land, property, history, and cultural resources) banded together to strengthen the Native Hawaiian voice. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created out of this “Hawaiian Renaissance” at the 1978 Constitutional Convention. Throughout the construction process associated with Interstate H-3 throughout the 80’s, numerous archaeological sites were encountered which increased community protest. Eventually, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between FHWA, SHPO, and ACHP was created to ensure Section 106 compliance of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). OHA and HDOT are recognized as signatories to this MOA as well with specific roles to fulfill. Fortunately, Native Hawaiians are a people of hope and action. HLID has been blessed with the involvement of a handful of dedicated people that comprise our Working Group (WG) – a group of interested members of the community who were selected to assist in recommending processes, strategies and interpretation for Hälawa, Luluku, Ha‘ikü, and KukuioKāne to OHA. Due to budget constraints and a diversity of land property ownership, the current HLID project is focused on North Hälawa Valley, Luluku, and Haʿikū. The WG has helped to develop visions to enable the long-term healing of these project sites. These visions have become a driving force that has influenced the plans, overall design, and mitigation recommendations associated with the HLID project. The healing process that these plans enable will take root in the mitigation recommendations that HLID is proposing for implementation and is anticipated to evolve over time. The long term implementation of the proposed mitigation actions will be carried out by Stewards who manage the project sites in perpetuity through agreements with HDOT which has delegated authority to oversee the State lands on which the project sites exist. It is HLID’s directive to provide a strong foundation for the Stewards to build upon as it is they, our people who will ultimately serve as the primary vehicle to implement this healing process in perpetuity. This project provides a unique opportunity for a collaborative effort between the community and government agencies to take actions to better the conditions of the natural and cultural resources of public lands. In this regard, HLID’s approach aims to: address multiple-organizational and community-driven objectives; achieve mutual benefits for all parties involved; and comply with Federal, State, and County rules and regulations.

Mitigation Areas Interstate Route H-3 is a trans-Koòlau freeway from Mökapu Peninsula to Hälawa Interchange. The Highway falls within the ahupuaà of Hälawa, Heèia, Käne‘ohe, and Kailua (Figure 1).


3

For the purposes of this mitigation program, an eligible “Project Area” is defined by the FHWA and HDOT to include only the lands within the highway right-of-way or under the purview of HDOT along the Interstate H-3 corridor.


4

Figure 1: Overview of Interstate H-3 Area.

(Reference: 2008 HLID Interpretive Development Plan, Figure 2-2)


5

Although the Interstate H-3 affected a large area, only four distinct areas were initially identified to be included for Interpretative mitigation and Implementation. For reference, all the mitigation areas are described briefly below:

1. Kukui o Käne Heiau (no work required)

The WG and families associated with Kukui o Käne Heiau (Site No. 2038) have expressed that no HLID mitigation efforts are needed as they plan to continue care for the heiau. Therefore, Kukui o Käne Heiau IS NOT currently considered a part of this IDP and Implementation.

2. Ha‘ikü Valley Kane a me Kanaloa Heiau (Site No. 333) and Kanehekili (Kahekili) Heiau (Site No. 332) were identified for mitigation. A Cultural Preservation Plan is to be developed per the 2008 IDP mitigation recommendations by HLID. Property and Right of Way boundaries need to be defined first by a licensed Land Surveyor.

3. North Hälawa Valley Mitigation work for the North Hälawa shall focus on project sites SIHP# 50-80-10-2137 and -2010. All other mitigation work shall occur for the North Hälawa Project Area under HLID’s purview.

4. Luluku Agricultural Terraces Mitigation work for the Luluku project site shall focus on SIHP #50-80-10-1887, Area 1, 2, 3, and 7. All other mitigation work shall occur for the Luluku Project Area under HLID’s purview.

Over the course of the last decade, HLID has been able to move forward with planning for the North Hälawa Valley and Luluku project areas. This was largely made possible by the proper delineation of site boundaries and location. Engineers, architects, archaeologists, and Master Masons are currently being pursued for these specific project areas and are considered mostly separate from the Haʿikü project area. The Luluku and North Hälawa Valley project areas are talked about in detail in a “Project Descriptions: North Hälawa Valley and Luluku Project Areas” document completely separate and distinct from this current project descriptions document regarding Haʿikü Valley. The focus of this particular project description is on mitigation work for Haʿikü Valley. Mitigation work for Ha‘ikü in the form of a Cultural Preservation Plan is the topic of this document. Prior to the initiation of any work by HLID, a licensed Land Surveyor will be contracted to map the property and Rights of Way (ROW) boundaries. After this, fieldwork can be done by HLID to record the condition, location, and boundaries for Sites 50-80-10-333 and -332. Delays in this pursuit of completing the Cultural Preservation Plan have been caused by the lack of detailed information of location and site boundaries in the Archaeological Inventory Survey. However, HLID has realized that when going forward with a Cultural Preservation Plan, locating site boundaries based on cultural input to identify the site and areas that require protection or maintenance must be done first.


6

Overview of the 1987 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) The 1987 MOA is an Agreement between: the Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) with consultation from the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT) and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). The MOA enables a collaborative approach to the mitigation resulting from the construction of Interstate H-3 and serves as an instrument to ensure satisfactory compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The MOA states that the measures listed in the Stipulations of the agreement are to be carried out in consultation with all signatories. The Agreement states that the mitigation of impacts to cultural resources caused by Interstate H-3 construction shall be implemented in accordance with stipulations addressing the historic properties associated with the construction of Interstate H-3. In summary, the stipulations relevant to the HLID project required: 1) archaeological inventory surveys and data recovery for Hälawa and Luluku; 2) a preservation plan for Luluku; 3) an Interpretive Development Plan (IDP); and 4) Burial Treatment Plan. To date, HLID understands that the conditions of the MOA are close to being met and that all signatories are currently working towards closing out any remaining actions. SHPD has confirmed this understanding and also feels that current mitigation efforts do not require a new Section 106 process to be opened as long as mitigation is confined to the Highway Right of Way. Since the MOA is designed to ensure Section 106 compliance, completion of all MOA stipulations completes the Section 106 process. Reports generated to satisfy specific stipulations in the 1987 MOA have been used to inform HLID’s “Project Descriptions: North Hälawa Valley and Luluku” and “Haʿikū Valley Project Description: A Cultural Preservation Plan for Sites 50-80-10-333 and -332” documents. Stipulation B of the MOA required the creation of the IDP. In the IDP, mitigation recommendations for Sites 333 and 332 is the creation of a Preservation Plan. Guidelines for the development of the preservation plan are set in the “Cultural Preservation Plan Scope” section of this document. Ultimately, the vision is meant to satisfy the desires of the community as represented by HLID’s Working Group. For reference, the roles of the 1987 MOA signatories have been provided below: Hawaii Department of Transportation: Land Owners; State agency which implements FHWA projects. FHWA delegates their authority to DOT to represent FHWA on routine decisions to move the project forward. Federal Highways Administration: Financier; Federal agency with legal and financial responsibility for Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act compliance. Office of Hawaiian Affairs: Retains the responsibility of procuring and coordinating the required services of interested Native Hawaiian organizations to assist with the preparation and implementation of interpretive development planning for North Hälawa Valley, Luluku, and Haʿikū based on FHWA/HDOT financing. This is accomplished through the Hälawa-Luluku


7

Interpretive Development (HLID) coordinator. OHA, as a Native Hawaiian Organization (NHO), also serves as a recognized consulting party for the Section 106 process. State Historic Preservation Officer: as required by Section 106, advises and assists FHWA in carrying out their Section 106 responsibilities. As of the mid 1990s, the Department of Land and Natural Resources created a division tasked with ensuring historic preservation compliance for the State of Hawaiʿi – the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: Federal agency charged with historic preservation leadership within the Federal Government. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and provide the ACHP an opportunity to comment on Federal projects prior to implementation.

Overview of the Cooperative Agreement and Description of the Hälawa Luluku Interpretive Development (HLID) Project HLID is a non-business entity created via a Cooperative Agreement (#1385) between OHA and HDOT signed on August 10th, 1999. HLID was created to design and develop recommendations to mitigate adverse impacts to cultural resources caused by Interstate H-3 for FHWA and HDOT. Throughout the project’s history, HLID has served and acted as a liaison between OHA, HDOT, FHWA and the community. HLID is funded by FHWA (90%) and HDOT (10%). OHA serves as an administrative arm to the project and has the accounting function of tracking and receiving reimbursement for HLID related costs, providing additional support services as needed. Under the conditions of the Cooperative Agreement, HLID and its staff serve to receive expertise from OHA, the community, and other sources to provide sound recommendations to the land owner (HDOT) to enable the implementation of mitigation measures resulting from the construction of Interstate H-3. The Cooperative Agreement specifically states that HLID is to: 1) complete an Interpretive Development Plan (IDP); 2) complete a Stewardship Management Plan (SMP); and, 3) implement select project elements from the IDP. The Cooperative Agreement has been amended twice to adjust to the changing demands of the project: once in 2010 (CA# 2550) and the latest in 2012 (CA# 2550.01) HDOT and OHA have unique missions and very different ways in addressing and achieving goals and objectives. HLID is to serve as the bridge between entities, take into account community needs and develop and implement HDOT approved mitigation projects within designated project areas. Neither organization has completed a project of this nature and its unique conditions will require collaboration, patience, flexibility, innovation, and trust from all parties involved. HLID Purpose: The primary purpose of the Hälawa-Luluku Interpretive Development (HLID) project is to provide consultation and services to make recommendations to our partnering organizations to enable the mitigation of adverse impacts to the cultural resources and archaeological sites affected by the construction of Interstate Highway H-3.


8

Creation of HLID: In 2000, the Hälawa-Luluku Interpretive Development (HLID) Project commenced with the hiring of a Project Coordinator under the auspices of OHA. The Coordinator worked on the creation and compilation of the planning process that resulted in the Interpretive Development Plan (IDP) as required by stipulation of the MOA. The IDP represents the culmination of several years of research, dialog and planning to arrive at an approach to appropriately mitigate the adverse impacts associated with the construction of Interstate H-3.

The Interpretive Development Plan (IDP) The IDP, as required by Stipulation B of the 1987 MOA, was preceded by the Plan to Plan and the Strategic Plan phases done by R.M Towill for HLID in the mid 2000s. These phases included working closely with: the community, the Working Group (community representatives who committed time and energy to the project), Sub-contractors, and representatives from FHWA/HDOT and OHA. Throughout this process, a Cultural Landscape Inventory Report (CLR), various archaeological reviews, and other specialized reports were completed to inform the document from a historical and scientific perspective. Most importantly, in consultation with the Working Group, impacts caused by Interstate H-3 were clearly stated in the IDP with recommended mitigation measures. Thus, the IDP serves as a guide for the implementation of mitigation measures proposed by the public as interpreted by the project’s Working Group (WG). The three phases of the HLID Project are as follows: 1) The Planning Phase; 2) The Design Development Phase; and 3) the Construction and Implementation Phase. The following section gives a brief description of what each Phase includes: 1) The Planning Phase:

The Planning Phase included the Strategic Plan (2004), Plan to Plan (2003) processes and documentation including a Cultural Landscape Inventory Report (2006) and culminated with the Interpretive Development Plan. FHWA and HDOT recognize the December 2008 version as the official final document, though revisions were made and an additional version was prepared but not accepted on May 22, 2009.

2) The Design Development Phase: The Pre-Design and Development (DD) Plan (not required by HLID’s Cooperative Agreement) serves as an addendum to the IDP that adds considerable cultural depth to the plan, history, and guidance for bringing conceptual ideas to fruition. This includes taking a cultural approach towards needed permits and regulatory processes that will enable construction (Environmental permitting including an EA, CIA, CDUA, etc.). The Pre-DD is intended to provide a strong foundation to build upon as we embark on finalizing the plans for the Construction and Implementation component.

HLID has also evaluated the conceptual project suggestions as provided in the December 12th, 2008 Interpretive Development Plan (IDP) and filtered down these abstract concepts into Project Descriptions documents specific for each Project Area. The “Project Descriptions” documents are designed to inform our Contractors of what we intend to implement. Projects identified in the IDP were preliminary suggestions and concepts which included community input. For Haʿikū, a licensed land surveyor will map property and rights of way (ROW) boundaries of HDOT Parcels. Work will also include the mapping of the


9

Access Road. With this information, HLID will attempt to broker long term access agreements for potential stewards and craft a Cultural Preservation Plan for sites SIHP# 50-80-10-333 and -332. Additionally, HLID will continue to develop a Stewardship Management Plan and pursue the selection of a stewarding entity during this phase. The plan will contain HLID’s recommendations and guidelines for long-term stewardship and management of the project sites including: The formal selection of the Stewardship entity(s); Cultural Preservation Plan guidelines for long term maintenance; Cultural Use Guidelines; Land Use and Strategic Activity Guidelines; Access and Risk Management Guidelines; and a Use and Occupancy Agreement in collaboration with the HDOT. HLID is also recommending a stewardship model that is intended to maximize the resources and networks of the stewarding community via our proposed Stewardship Consortium Model.

3) The Construction and Implementation Phase: The Construction and Implementation Phase of the project will be fast tracked as allowed by the permitting process and culminate with the construction of the projects elements that are both allowable and within HLID’s project budget. It is anticipated that the Stewarding entity(s) will have been on board allowing for them to build the capacity for perpetual management of the constructed project elements and the natural and cultural resources of the sites. A Construction Management firm will likely be contracted to build and manage the approved design plans put forth by our A&E Prime in Hälawa and Luluku. Additional contractors may also be necessary for the interior (Educational/Cultural) design of the Administrative Centers and initial landscaping. NO SUCH CONTRUTION IS ANTICIPATED TO TAKE PLACE IN THE HAʿIKÜ PROJECT AREA; rather, stewards will begin to implement actions set out in the SMP and Cultural Preservation Plan. HLID and the community may elect to install educational signs/displays at the areas where Sites -333 and -332 once stood.

Currently (as of July 2013), HLID has a permit to operate within North Hälawa Valley and Luluku (H-3/Likelike Interchange) for the purposes of cultural mitigation. In order to continue with our mitigation efforts as required by the 1987 MOA and 2000 CA, we must obtain a permit for all HLID project areas (inclusive of Haʿikū) which will allow for HLID and our contractors to perform necessary work. HLID has a Consent of Entry (COE) with Board of Water Supply (BWS) over properties in Haʿikū, but is currently working with HDOT to obtain legal access over HDOT property. All necessary access will be obtained prior to the hiring of any contractor. Once the HLID project is completed and all requirements of the 1987 MOA and 2000 CA are fulfilled, stewards will be tasked with maintaining any buildings and associated project areas. These stewards will be selected prior to HLID project completion by HDOT and HLID with a set of specific (scored) criteria. The stewards will enter into a stewardship agreement with HDOT through a Revocable Permit (RP) when the HLID project is completed to ensure perpetual maintenance of the project areas. Stewards, operating per HLID’s Stewardship Management Plan (SMP) to ensure maintenance of the sites and contemporary structures, will monitor


10

visitors and cultural practitioners as they utilize the sites for cultural activities, farming, and scenic enjoyment. Consultation Process An interview process was initiated with the release of an HLID Informational Package in 2002. The purpose of the mailing was to seek responses from interested persons who would be willing to serve on the Working Group. Approximately 84 persons were mailed, and 28 responses were received. Interviews (based on an objective questionnaire) were conducted by phone and in-person. The information documented in the interviews was evaluated and recommendations were made for Working Group members. A total of ten pre-Working Group community meetings took place in 2002. To select the Working Group, HLID administrators first compiled a list of interested parties based on initial contact with the community through preliminary presentations to various interested groups and organizations. Selected individuals were also recommended by other persons in the community and by government agencies (OHA, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, HDOT, FHWA, and SHPD). Other community-based groups working to preserve and protect lands affected by the Interstate H-3 project were also identified and consulted. A total of 15 individuals were selected following the interview process to serve on the Working Group: Ms. Donna Bullard Mr. Wali Camvel

Mrs. Donna Camvel Ms. Mahealani Cypher Ms. Phyllis “Coochie” Cayan Mr. Steven Helela Ms. Lela Hubbard Ms. Marion Kelly Ms. Clara “Sweet” Matthews Ms. Havana McLafferty Mr. Robert “Boot” Matthews Ms. Ella Paguyo Mr. John Talkington Ms. Vienna Nahinu Ms. Laulani Teale

Originally, all members attended and participated in 21 meetings over a 25 month period from May 2003 to June 2005. Two separate Advisory Meetings, two focus meetings, and two public meetings also took place during these years. Meeting agendas and minutes are currently archived (electronic and hard copy) by HLID. These meetings planned the process for the major phases of the project including the Plan to Plan, Strategic Plan, and the Interpretive Development Plan. The goal was to provide the Office of Hawaiian Affairs with a recommended Interpretive Development Plan that preserves and interprets the cultural and historical resources of cultural landscapes within the project area. Notification to the general public concerning times and places for scheduled meetings were disseminated via the following:

• Ka Wai Ola O OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs newspaper) • Honolulu Advertiser/Star-Bulletin • MidWeek • Hawai‘i Tribune-Herald


11

• West Hawai‘i Today • Maui News • Garden Island • HLID website, www.HLID.org • Hawaiian Civic Clubs • Alu Like • Papa Ola Lokahi • Kamehameha Schools

Throughout this project, consultation with the community has been a paramount concern. HLID serves to ensure the visions of the Working Group are carried out with integrity. Comments and responses to the Plan-to-Plan (2003), Strategic Plan (2005), and IDP (2008) from the Working Group have also been included in the appendices of the final drafts of said documents. The Working Group is comprised of interested members of the community who are selected to assist in recommending processes, strategies and interpretation for Hälawa and Luluku to OHA, HDOT, SHPD, and FHWA. Planning by the Working Group was done by a consensus and oriented to achieve a strong direction for the project. Periodic meetings with the Working Group have continued since the completion of the IDP in 2008 to ensure their wishes are being incorporated into the planning documents and to offer guidance on the actual implementation of culturally appropriate mitigation. Comments and interviews from the WG between 2009 and 2011 resulted in recommended revisions to the 2008 IDP and the development of the Pre-Design and Development Document. A meeting held on April 23, 2014 with the Working Group focused on the direction for the Haʿikū area. It was understood at this meeting that prior to any work being carried out, a delineation of property boundaries and the Right of Way must be done.


http://www.hlid.org/

12

Haʿikü Valley Project Description

Location The possible area in which Sites 333 and 332 are located lies within the ʿili of Haʿikü, ahupuaʿa of Heʿeia, Koʿolau Poko District, mokupuni of Oʿahu (Figure 2). Essentially, the portions of these sites within the highway right-of-way are to serve as the HLID project area boundaries in Haʿikü Valley. However, at this point in time, their exact locations are unknown. The sites are likely situated mostly at the base of the Koʿolau mountain range in Haʿikü valley, but may extend upward into the Koʿolau slopes. Steep terrain and a dense cover of hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) trees have made prior archaeological surveys difficult in some areas. With an average of over 90 inches of rainfall per year, traversing the upland slopes can become dangerous at times due to the possibility of mudslides. Sites SIHP# 50-80-10-333 and -332 are commonly referred to as Kane ame Kanaloa Heiau and Kahekili or Kehekili Heiau by the community, respectively. McAllister, who first identified the heiau also found several other heiau within the ahupuaʿa of Heʿeia (Figure 3). Figure 3 also provides reference for other archaeological studies done within the project area vicinity. From community verbal testimony and archaeological data, HLID believes the two sites could cross a total of four different TMKs (Figure 4):

1) TMK (1)46015001 – owned by the Board of Water Supply; 2) TMK (1)46015014 – owned by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL); 3) TMK (1)460015012 – owned by the Board of Water Supply (BWS); and 4) TMK (1)46015011 – owned by the Board of Water Supply.

More specifically, Site 332 is believed to be located on TMKs (1)46015001 and (1)46015014, while Site 333 is believed to be located on TMKs (1)46015014, (1)460015012, and (1)46015011. Portions of each site possibly extend under the Interstate H-3 and into existing easements. Some areas under the Interstate H-3 considered part of the highway right of way boundary do not have a TMK. These boundaries extend slightly beyond the physical boarders of the Interstate itself. These include HDOT Parcels 1, 3, 22, 23 (Rev 1), and 24. Two easements exist on HDOT Parcels 22, 23 (Rev 1), and 24 along the corridor to allow for access and maintenance by HDOT (Figure 5). A “Right of Way” map is included in this document because this kind of map is used by the HDOT frequently and has been used to define archaeological investigation limits in the past. When mitigation actions were put forth in the 1987 MOA, no “area of potential effect” was designated as it was not a standard norm at the time. Rather, areas eligible for mitigation were portions of the valley directly impacted by the Interstate H-3 route. As described in the Interstate H-3 archaeological inventory survey (AIS) for Haʿikū Valley (Williams and Nees 2002), this included: the route of the Interstate H-3 corridor from the State Hospital to the Koʿolau Tunnel (inclusive of the highway “right of way”), the construction access road, and the expansion area for the underground radial antenna system used by the U.S Coast Guard Omega Station. As per the 2008 IDP, the mitigation scope was reduced to Sites 333 and 332. Currently, their exact locations are unknown and the sites could possibly span multiple property boundaries.


13

The work to be performed by HLID for this project will be limited to the highway right of way boundaries regardless of how large the sites may be. The ROW will be delineated physically on the ground in some way by a licensed land surveyor prior to the initiation of HLID field work. With so many property owners involved, HLID will coordinate additional access if necessary to complete the Cultural Preservation Plan for Sites 333 and 332. The actual procedures for completing the Cultural Preservation Plan can be found in the “Cultural Preservation Plan Scope” section of this document. The AIS in Haʿikū done for Interstate H-3 provides only an approximate location of where the sites may be; but, these locations do concur with approximate locations provided by the community. No approximate area sizes are given in the AIS either. The community maintains that these sites are there and that at one time were quite large. The proposed Koʿolau Foundation plan for Haʿikü Valley (separate from the HLID mitigation project) suggests that the sites are possibly 8 to 9 acres. Regardless of how large the sites may be, at this time the scope of work for the Cultural Preservation Plan is to be limited to portions of the two sites located within the highway right of way. Some community testimony claims that rocks significant to the defining character of the heiau were destroyed during the construction of the Interstate H-3. Williams and Nees (2002) suggest that some of the rocks of the heiau may have been used during the historic era to construct walls during the 1940s. In fact, it is suggested that Site -1904 may have been built with rocks taken from Kane Ame Kanaloa Heiau. Currently, the community believes that the old boundaries of the heiau are delineated by a series of ti, mango, and guava trees. Furthermore, they also contend that the sites were optimally situated at visual vantage points in the valley to overlook the area. Referencing Cachola-Abad2 (1996), Williams and Nees (2002) do suggest that it is possible that Kahekili Heiau was a type of heiau that never had substantial stone architecture. The currently decommissioned United States Coast Guard Omega Station encapsulated by Haiku Road was used as a radio transmitter facility specifically designed to transmit VLF (Very Low Frequency) signals to submarines in the Pacific during the 1940s. Construction of the station was done in secret by the military and necessitated the destruction and relocation of many archaeological sites and burials. David O. Woodbury’s3 1946 account specifically describes the removal of burials and historic features within the valley by the military. For this reason, the Cultural Landscape Inventory Report generated by R.M. Towill4 (2006) for HLID has suggested that “additional research is required to fully understand the features in the valley and their association to one another”. Similarly, Williams and Nees (2002) suggested that further investigations in the valley beyond Site 332 could yield useful information. Haʿikü Valley is also situated in a conservation district; subsequently, activities within the area are restricted to uses specified in HAR 13-5 and require a Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP). Thus, any work (ie: survey, archaeological) may require a Site Plan Approval from the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL). Specifically, the possible locations of sites 333 and 332 may fall into the Limited, Protected, or General Conservation Subzones. 2 Kehaunani C. Cachola-Abad (1996). The Significance of Heiau Diversity in Site Evaluations. CRM 8:11-16. 3 Woodbury, D.O 1946. Builders for Battle. New York, E.P Dutton and Company.

4 RM Towill Corporation 2006. Cultural Landscape Inventory Report: Volume 2, Strategic Plan, Halawa-Luluku Interpretive Development Plan. Honolulu, Hawaii.


14

Conservation district subzone classifications have the potential to greatly impact HLID’s Cultural Preservation Plan and any potential cultural or education activities that could take place at the sites. Since boundaries of the current project sites are unknown, it is difficult to estimate which conservation district subzone the sites fall into. To counter this problem, once land survey work and community interviews are complete, HLID will delineate the site boundaries.


15

*Note: Locations for Sites 333 and 332 are approximations only Figure 2: USGS Map of Haʿikū Valley Project Area.


16

Figure 3: Map of other archaeological sites in vicinity of Haʿikü project area

Reference: Williams and Nees (2002). Moʿolelo Haʿikū: Archaeological and Historical Investigations for the Interstate Highway H-3 within Haʿikū Ahupuaʿa, Koʿolaupoko District, Island of Oʿahu.


17

Figure 4: TMK Map of Haʿikü Project Area (HoLIS 2013)


18

Figure 5: Right of Way map for Haʿikü Valley Project Area (yellow highlights delineates Interstate “right of way”). Project site locations are approximations only.


19

Access Access into the valley is made possible via two ways: 1) Haiku Road (Figure 6 and 7); or 2) Access Road (Figure 8).

Haiku Road To access the sites via Haiku Road, it is necessary to pass over four different TMK owned by four different land owners: (order of TMK parcels is East to West)

1) TMK (1) 46014001 – Bishop Estate; 2) TMK (1) 46014018 – Hui Ku Maoli Ola, LLC; 3) TMK (1) 46015014 – Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL); and 4) TMK (1) 46015001 – Board of Water Supply.

After driving into the residential area (Haiku Village) on Makena or Kuneki Street, Haiku Road5 can be accessed by turning left (west bound) after 46 Kuneki Street. A gate owned by Bishop Estate at the border of TMK (1) 46014001 and (1) 46014018 blocks public access into the valley interior from the residential area in Haʿikū. This route is currently not favored as DHHL is denying all access requests at this time. Once past the gate, Haiku Road connects to a road that loops around the entire Omega Station. The loop permits access to the Main Transmitter and Maintenance buildings of the Omega Station. Kamakau Charter School, who has a 65 year lease with DHHL, is also located near the beginning of the loop road to the south. Currently, the Koʿolaupoko Foundation has been parking at the Omega Station Maintenance (Mx) Building and hiking up to Kahekili Heiau via a trail on BWS Property, TMK (1) 46015001. HDOT has an existing easement (HDOT Parcel 22) on this TMK. If access is ever to be granted this way, HLID will recommend to DHHL that parking be allowed at the Maintenance Building for any visitors. To access Kane Ame Kanaloa Heiau, volunteers from the Koʿolaupoko Foundation traverse under the Interstate H-3 from Kahekili Heiau to access the Haiku Valley Access Road. Once on this road, Kane Ame Kanaloa Heiau can be reached by traversing over Board of Water Supply TMK Parcel (1)46015011 and (1) 460015012. HDOT has easements with HDOT Parcel numbers on each of these TMK, respectively: HDOT Parcel 23 (Rev 1) and 24. The Access Road meanders under the Interstate and into HDOT property, Parcels 1 and 3. Kane Ame Kanaloa Heiau also possibly extends back to DHHL Parcel-TMK (1) 46015014. The Koʿolaupoko Foundation utilizes an unmapped gravel road on DHHL property which extends from the Haiku Valley Access Road to get back on to the loop road surrounding the Omega Station. Sometimes this gravel road is used to access Kane Ama Kanaloa Heiau directly when not visiting Kahekili Heiau first.

Access Road An old construction access road exists which meanders in and out from under the Interstate H-3 (Figure 8). At this time, this is the preferred method of access that will be utilized by HLID and any respective contractors. The access road is paved and consists of several wooden bridges. Direct access to this road can be made via an access corridor off of 45 Puoni Place in the Haiku

5 At one time, Haiku Road was continuous and the interior of the valley could be accessed solely by traversing Haiku Road from Kahekili Highway. However, when Bishop Estate took control of TMK Parcel (1)46014001, Haiku Road became discontinuous with the addition of gates at the back of Heʿeia Preschool (46-430 Kahuhipa Street).


20

Village residential area. Portions of this road span multiple TMK. Below is a break -down of Property owners by TMK when accessing the Access Road via 45 Puoni Place: (order of TMK Parcels is East to West)

1) TMK (1) 45023011 – Hawaii Housing Finance & Development Corp (HHFDC) 2) TMK (1) 46015013 – Board of Water Supply 3) TMK (1) 46015014 – Department of Hawaiian Homelands 4) TMK (1) 46015012 – Board of Water Supply 5) TMK (1) 46015011 – Board of Water Supply

The Haiku Valley Access Road actually extends further east and terminates somewhere on TMK (1) 45025001 owned by Sacred Hearts Church. However, accessing the road any further east would be impractical and would require additional access agreements. Due to the large amount of landowners involved in granting access to this road, this access option was previously not preferred. Board of Water Supply currently contracts Wackenhut Security to patrol access onto their TMK parcels on the Haiku Valley Access Road. The security guard accesses the area via the gated access corridor off of 45 Puoni Place. HLID has obtained a Consent of Entry (COE) for access to BWS TMK Parcels and has received verbal consent to cross over HHFDC property. A formal letter from HHFDC will be obtained prior to the commencement of contractor work. Any time HLID or their contractors utilize the access road, conditions of the COE must be met. HDOT also has an easement (101) over DHHL property; HLID is currently exploring ways to utilize this easement for access to the Haʿikü sites. The Haʿikū Stairs (aka “the Ridge Ladder” or “Stairway to Heaven”), which are commonly trespassed upon, are on BWS TMK Parcel (1) 460015012. During the 1940s, these stairs were used by U.S Coast Guard personnel to reach a radio antennae station located atop the Koʿolau ridge. If this route is selected, necessary access will be obtained by HLID from the proper landowners prior to award of any contract to potential contractors. If utilized, it may be possible to drive a four wheel vehicle on the Access Road to reach both sites.


21

Figure 6: Haʿikū Valley Satellite Image (Google Earth 2013)


22

Map modified from Figure 2-11, Hawaii Department of Transportation November 1998, “Interstate Route H-3 Retention of Construction Access Roads: North Halawa Valley and Haiku Valley Oʿahu, Hawaiʿi”

Figure 7: HDOT Map Showing Access to Project Sites


23

Figure 8: Property Boundaries along Haiku Valley Access Road


24

Prior Archaeological Work

Below is a chronological list of archaeological work that has taken place near the Project Area:

Table 1: Chronological List of Prior Archaeological Work

Date Author Type of Work 1933 McAllister Survey 1976 Cleghorn and Jourdane Reconnaissance Survey 1977 Dye Phase I Survey 1993 Williams and Schilz Reconnaissance Survey and Limited Sub-surface

testing 1994 Williams and Nees Reconnaissance Survey and Limited Sub-surface

testing 1997 Cultural Surveys Hawaii Inventory Survey 2002 Williams and Nees Inventory Survey, Data Recovery, and Monitoring The archaeological inventory survey (AIS) of Haʿikü Valley by Williams and Nees (November 2002) done for Interstate H-3 mitigation (which was restricted to the area directly impacted by Interstate H-3) located a total of 18 archaeological sites (Figure 9). Sites were assessed for integrity and subsequent mitigation actions were recommended (Table 2). No UTM or GPS coordinates were provided in the report. The two sites relevant to HLID mitigation efforts, SIHP# 50-80-10-332 and -333, are not well defined. The status of Site 333 is listed as “undetermined” and both sites did not have plan view maps (see highlighted cells in Table 2). Despite not having UTM (or GPS) locational data or site boundaries, Williams and Nees still recommend the sites as eligible for the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) per criteria A and D. The mitigation action for Site 332 is listed as “preservation” whereas no mitigation was recommended for Site 333. However, Williams and Nees claim that their recommendation for Site 333 was made because they could not locate the site. In their conclusion, they did not imply that the site wasn’t there; rather they simply could not locate it.


25

Table 2: Summary of Archaeological Site Conditions and Recommendations.

Site# 50-80-

10-

Area (m2)

NRHP Criteria Condition Date Function

Williams and Nees

Recommendation 331 * B, D Intact Traditional,

and Historic Kaulehu Cave (Burial)

Preservation

332 * A, D Approximate location only

Traditional? Kahekili Heiau Preservation

333 * A, D Undetermined Traditional? Kane Ame Kanaloa Heiau

No mitigation

1904 75.2 D Portions remain

Historic Boundary Wall No mitigation

2041 940.0 A, D Intact Traditional and Historic

Habitation Preservation

2042 1610.0 A, C, D Portions remain

Traditional and Historic

Agriculture Preservation

2078 4250.0 A, D Intact Traditional and Historic

Habitation Preservation

2079 36.0 A, D Portions remain

Traditional? Unknown No mitigation

2080 A, D Destroyed Traditional? Religious No mitigation 2081 80.0 D Destroyed Traditional

and Historic Temporary Habitation

No mitigation

2082 2.1 D Destroyed Traditional Temp. Habitation No mitigation 2083 990.0 D Intact (Poor) Traditional? Agriculture Preservation 2323 1.4 D Destroyed Traditional Temp. Habitation No mitigation 2324 .5 D Destroyed Traditional? Temp. Habitation No mitigation 4506 * A, D Good Historic Transmitter No mitigation 4507 * A, D Good Historic Substation No mitigation 4508 * A, D Good Historic Retaining Wall No mitigation 4509 * A, D Good Historic Retaining Wall No mitigation Note: (*) No area size provided in report

(?) no radiocarbon dates generated; approximate date only. (*) Areas not provided.


26

Figure 9: Archaeology Sites in Haʿikü Valley located by Williams and Nees (2002).


27

The AIS done by Williams and Nees was approved by SHPD in December 2002 (Log No. 31252; Doc No. 0212SC03). With such an approval, the necessity for a re-inventory is not currently warranted. However, since the original AIS does not provide clear information regarding site boundaries and location, this information will need to be ascertained prior to the completion of HLID’s Cultural Preservation Plan. Completion of community interviews and background/historic research should allow the HLID to adequately move forward with the cultural preservation plan by establishing site boundaries. Information on Sites 333 and 332 from the Williams and Nees (2002) is provided below for reference:

Site 50-80-10-332: Kehekili or Kahekili Heiau

When McAllister visited the valley in 1930 all that remained of this heiau was a very large “peculiarly weathered” basalt boulder which had tumbled down the side of a small knoll overlooking Haiku Stream (McAllister 1933: 176). The boulder is still on the knoll, which is overgrown by hau. When in use, this heiau would have overlooked the loʿi of Site 2042, recorded during the current project. McAllister cites two slightly different names for this heiau, which was shown to him by one of his informants. In his description of Site 332 he refers to it as Kehekili Heiau, while his description of the heiau itself lists both names. A check of McAllister’s field notes (McAllister 1929-30: Notebook 3:2) suggest that he originally recorded the name as Kehekili, then changed it to Kahekili. Kahekili was a Maui chief who ruled for 27 years on Maui and nine years on Oahu. He lived in Koʿolau Poko District when he was on Oahu, so it is possible the heiau was built or rededicated by him or was in some way associated with him. Because McAllister’s field notes imply that he preferred the name Kahekili over Kehekili, the heiau will be referred to as Kahekili.

Site 50-80-10-333: Kane ame Kanaloa Heiau

No architectural remains were present when McAllister was shown this site area by an informant “except an old stone wall which may have been built subsequently from the rocks of the heiau” (McAllister 1933:176). The wall was recorded as Site 1904 by Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdane (1976). Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdane (1976) and Dye (1977) describe Site 1904 as an historical (post-Contact) wall. It is on the south side of the valley in the area where McAllister noted an “old wall” at the site of Kane ame Kanaloa Heiau. He states that this wall may have been built from the stones of the heiau, but did not appear to be part of the heiau (McAllister 1933: 176). The majority of the wall was destroyed during the construction of the Interstate Route H-3 access road, leaving only the southern portion intact.

Although not referenced by Williams and Nees 2002, two prior studies had taken place: 1) Williams and Nees 1994; and 2) Cultural Surveys Hawaiʿi 1997. The lack of cross-referencing in the Williams and Nees 2002 report may imply that different authors penned the document rather than those who performed the field work in the early 1990s.


28

Williams and Nees 19946 In 1993, Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., was contracted by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers to do a reconnaissance and inventory survey in Haʿikū Valley in preparation for the development of a construction pond, recreation area, animal quarantine station, and two access roads. Prior to initiation of the survey, Williams and Nees reported that 20 sites had existed in lower Haʿikū Valley (Figure 10). To HLID’s knowledge, these proposed structures were never built. The survey work done in 1993 revealed 5 new sites near the entrance to the Omega Station: 1) -4787 (associated with Naval Radio Station); 2) -4788 (associated with Naval Radio Station); 3) 4789 (stone faced pondfield terrace); 4) -4790 (stone faced pondfield terrace); and 5) -4791 (stone faced pondfield terrace) ( Figure 10). Williams and Nees also identified LCA awards indicating that a loʿi system was part of lower Haʿikū Valley (Figure 12). The extent of the loʿi system is shown in Figure 12. Of particular relevance to this study, was that limited subsurface testing was done at Site 332. A summary of the findings are provided below:

Three 50 cm2 units (TU1 to TU3) were excavated on the top of the knoll to thest for the presence of subsurface deposits related to the heiau (Figure 14). Scattered charcoal flecking was noted in two of the three units (TU1 and TU3), and pieces of volcanic glass debitage and metal were recovered from on unit (TU1), but no features or well-developed cultural layers were found. Two test units (TU2 and TU3) revealed two stratigraphic layers representing the A and B horizons; TU1 revealed three layers, including the A and B horizons and a probable buried A horizon. Sample 67375 was taken from a cultural layer at Site 332 in TU1 at a depth of 10-20 cm below surface. The layer contained wood and kukui endocarp charcoal, volcanic glass debitage, and metal fragments. The C14 age of the sample was calibrated using Calib 3.0.3 and yielded a multi-calendrical conventional date range of A.D. 1474-1683, 1744-1807, and 1933-1954. To possibly narrow the date range, the probability distribution program in Calib 3.03 was used. The results, at a confidence level of 78% at +/- 2 standard deviations, suggest that the sample was from the pre-Contact period (A.D. 1465-1685); the presence of metal in the same deposit, however, suggests the date is later or the deposit is mixed. The higher probability date range does correspond with age ranges of radiocarbon samples from other sites in the valley, including the pondfields surrounding the heiau. Sample 67376 was taken from the same cultural later as 67375 at Site 332 in TU3, also at a depth of 10-20 cm below surface. In this unit, cultural material included wood charcoal and a basalt flake. The sample produced a modern date and could not be run on the Calib 3.0.3. This also indicates mixing of the deposits at Site 332

6 Scott S. Williams and Richard C. Nees (1994). Draft: Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Limited Testing, Omega Transmitter Site He’eia, Ko’olau Poko District Island of O’ahu, Hawai’I (TMK 4-6-15).


29

Kahekili Heiau is significant under the National Register criterion b, even though no structure remains. Criterion b applies to things or objects “that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past”. The name Kahekili is associated with the rule of Maui who later extended his rule to the island of O’ahu. Under the State of Hawaii Criteria, the site is significant under criteria B and E. Criterion B states “association with famous people or Hawaiian deities”; Criterion E applies to sites that “have traditional cultural significance to an ethnic group”. Heiau and the former locations of heiau are cultural significant to Native Hawaiians.


30

Figure 10: Williams and Nees (1994), 20 Previously Identified Sites in Haʿikū Valley


31

Figure 11: Williams and Nees (1994), 5 Newly Discovered Sites


32

Figure 12: LCA Awards in Haʿikū Valley


33

Figure 13: Extent of Loʿi System in Haʿikū Valley


34

Figure 14: Site 332 Plan View Map


35

Cultural Surveys Hawaiʿi 1997 The study by Cultural Surveys Hawaiʿi (1997) classified Site 332 as significant per HRHP criteria E7. Data from the CSH report is also short, but a summary is provided below:

The Kahekili heiau (332) is located on a knoll approximately 600 feet northwest of the project site of the installation access road and Haiku Stream. The heiau is considered a remnant site in 1930 when McAllister and his informant came through Haʿikū Valley (McAllister reported that nothing remains of the site “except a very large stone tumbled halfway down the hill which has been peculiarly weathered”). The knoll associated with Site 332 is covered by hau and guava today but the remains of military modifications to the knoll are clearly visible. The site is significant because it has the potential to yield important information regarding prehistory or history (NRHP Criteria D). It is also important as a traditional cultural place associated with native Hawaiian religion (HRHP Criteria E).

7 Cultural Surveys Hawaiʿi (1997). Archaeological Inventory Survey of the United States Coast Guard Omega Transmission Station, Haʿiku Valley, Heʿeia Ahupuaʿa, Koʿolaupoko, Island of Oʿahu (TMK 4-6-26).


36

Identified Impacts and Recommendations The impacts found within the IDP are provided below for reference. These IDP mitigation recommendations came with a set of recommended actions. However, many of the recommendations were found to be beyond the scope of the current HLID mitigation project. Thus, mitigation became limited to sites directly impacted by Interstate H-3 construction. These limited recommendations are provided below the identified impacts. Highlighted in red are the recommendations that HLID intends to implement.

Impacts: • Destruction of cultural sites • Removal of artifacts from the Valley • Loss of access to cultural sites • Impacts to unmarked burials • Introduction of non-native plant species • Impacts to flora and fauna • Visual impacts on the environment (trash, night lights, noise) • Changes to the landform • Reduction of access into the valley • Impacts on dike water • Alterations of stream environment; reduced stream flow • Erosion of soil from graded areas • Grading of mid-slopes to place Highway footings • Introduction of tunnel structure at the back of the valley • Closing of the OMEGA Station and Haiku Stairs

Recommendations: • Conduct an Archaeological Inventory Survey • Prepare interim preservation measures • Prepare a Cultural Impact Assessment Report • Implement the site preservation recommendations • Prepare a site preservation plan • Implement the recommendation of the Preservation Plan • Secure Omega Station from vandalism • Clear debris from interior and exterior of Omega Station • Re-establish power and water to Omega Station to make it usable • Interior renovation of ground floor Omega Station • Resurface parking area • Landscaping of building exterior • Second floor renovation


37

Vision and Working Group Manaʿo: A “Hawaiian Cultural Preserve” Haʿikü Valley serves current and future generations by preserving the history and heritage of Native Hawaiians through its collection of literature, artifacts, and cultural practices. The vision for the Valley is to transform it into a gathering place for knowledge, learning, conservation (of artifacts, etc.); and a place where there is an opportunity to teach culture. Practitioners, students, and visitors are immersed into an environment that has been transformed over the years into an example of an “impact zone” that is trying to heal itself through the efforts of volunteers working on restoration projects that will transform the ecology and preserve links to the past. Haʿikü serves as a place for renewal of the spirit and re-connection with the ʿāina. Conservation projects to preserve formal agricultural features and places of honor and worship continue through the efforts of volunteers under the guidance of knowledgeable kupuna and professionals.

It has been previously mentioned in the 2008 IDP that many of the identified impacts in Haʿikü Valley cannot be mitigated because they are outside the scope of the HLID project. In fact, it is stated that implementation of mitigation beyond the HLID scope would require the formation of an operating and programming body (i.e.: a not-for-profit organization) to partner with various agencies and organizations to obtain funding for mitigation recommendations. As previously, mentioned, with SHPD’s approval of the Haʿikū AIS, doing another AIS is not favored by SHPD, FHWA, or HDOT. The need for a Cultural Impact Assessment has also been deemed unnecessary by the HLID team as no development is being planned for Haʿikū within the HLID scope. Other work proposed by organizations like the Koʿolau Poko Foundation may require a CIA in the future which is beyond HLID funding.

The completion of the Cultural Preservation Plan put forth in this document is but one of a series of actions designed to bring the Working Group’s vision to fruition through suggested mitigation recommendations in the 2008 IDP. The Cultural Preservation Plan will contain maintenance practices and use guidelines to ensure that the historical integrity of the sites is maintained. A Stewardship Management Plan can then be generated by HLID to guide cultural practitioners on what types of activities can take place on the archaeological sites that supports cultural knowledge, learning, and conservation as prescribed in the Working Group vision for the area.


38

Cultural Preservation Plan Scope HLID interprets preservation as the stabilization and maintenance of specified areas to preserve and protect them from further degradation. These areas will be manicured and maintained to relay the appropriate experiences, feeling and sense of place. After the reinclusion of Haʿikū into the HLID project in November 2012, throughout 2013 and early 2014, HLID met with SHPD, FHWA, HDOT, and members of the Koʿolau Poko Foundation in a series of meetings and site visits to develop a strategy for defining the boundaries of Sites 333 and 332. Typically, locations and well defined boundaries are required for the completion of a Preservation Plan. However, in the meetings, SHPD expressed that they do not have purview over the archaeological sites because there are no physical remnants remaining. They also emphasized that McAllister had reported that the sites had no architectural remains in the 1920s.

As a result of SHPD’s comments, HLID has decided to still move forward with a Preservation Plan; however, it will be called a “Cultural Preservation Plan” and not require the review of SHPD. This Cultural Preservation Plan will place a much greater emphasis on community opinion and ethnographic data. HLID feels this work is necessary as so little has been documented about the sites in the past. Furthermore, future efforts may utilize the data gathered by HLID should anyone choose to do more work within Haʿikū Valley. Primarily, the Cultural Preservation Plan will: establish cultural boundaries; incorporate ethnographic work and background research about the sites; include location maps; provide details on maintenance, access, signage, and proposed cultural activities; and an assessment of current site conditions. HLID will collaborate with our archaeological contractor to complete this plan. In a lot of ways, much of the scope put forth by HLID is not so different than what would be expected from an actual Preservation Plan reviewed by SHPD under HAR 13-277. The process our contracted archaeologist must follow to complete the Preservation Plan is presented below:

1) Background Research: The Preservation Plan is to include an extensive historical overview of Haʿikü Valley; the history of land use (prehistoric, early historic, land commission awards, and Post 1850); a listing and summary of prior archaeological work (inclusive of maps showing where prior archaeology has taken place and a chronological table); moʿolelo or oral histories associated with the area and place names; description of the environment (topography, vegetation, geology, climate, hydrology); maps depicting location. A summary detailing current land ownership within the Haʿikü Valley project area will also be provided (this information to be extracted from Land Survey contractor work). All previous archaeological reports and historical literature owned by HLID may be loaned to the archaeologist writing the Preservation Plan. The Cultural Preservation Plan background section will also apprise the reader about the purpose of the HLID project and the 1987 MOA. HLID is then to list the 2008 IDP impacts, recommendations, and vision for Haʿikü Valley to properly establish context and Cultural Preservation Plan purpose.

2) HAR 13-277-3 (4) Public Consultation: A detailed overview of the public consultation process will be provided to ensure community opinions support the


39

selected preservation treatment. The 1987 MOA has listed OHA (a recognized Native Hawaiian Organization) as an official consulting party. HLID, on OHA’s behalf, has continually been working with the community and the Working Group since 2003. This process has been accompanied with a list of meeting attendees and meeting minutes. HLID will supply this information to the archaeologist for inclusion in the Cultural Preservation Plan. OHA Compliance will also review all of the Cultural Preservation Plan upon completion. Additional community consultation (at least 1 meeting) will be done to assist in delineating site boundaries for Sites 333 and 332 from a cultural perspective.

3) Ethnographic Work (Interviews): HLID is requiring ethnographic work (community interviews) be done to ascertain community and Native Hawaiian informant stories and data about Sites 333 and 332 in a systematic fashion. A focus will be placed on believed traditional uses and what happened to the sites over time. This information will assist in delineating the site boundaries of Site 333 and 332 from a cultural perspective.

4) Fieldwork: HLID will physically locate the boundaries of sites with GPS to ascertain exact area sizes and obtain exact locations for geo-referencing future maps. Guides from the community may aid in the location of site boundaries. HLID will perform a site condition assessment and generate plan view maps showing the extent of the sites. HLID will clear vegetation (less than 1 acre) to locate archaeological features detrimental to defining the sites. The boundary of the sites will be flagged. An interim buffer zone will be established at the discretion of HLID. This area will also be flagged. HLID will also assess whether any immediate actions are necessary to ensure the protection of the site from any eminent danger. All interim protection measures will be fully detailed din a designated section within the Cultural Preservation Plan.

Photographs will also be included to augment drawings and show key archaeological features.

5) HAR 13-277-3, Document Existing Conditions: Based on the fieldwork, the Cultural Preservation Plan is to include a description about the current condition of the sites following the background and ethnographic sections. HLID will clearly delineate site boundaries and location on a USGS (1:24,000) and TMK map with geo-referenced points within the highway right of way. HLID will include photos, plan view maps (with clearly delineated site boundaries), and a table of site features (inclusive of function, approximate chronological date, size, condition). HLID may also make recommendations for acquiring more data in the future; however, these are only to be considered “recommendations” and will not be implemented during the HLID project.


40

6) HAR 13-277-4, Buffer Zones: Based on community outreach and ethnographic work HLID will delineate buffer zones around both sites and depict the buffer on a map of sufficient scale. The rationale for buffer size will be based on terrain, surrounding land use, site function, and history. The actual buffer will likely be delineated with natural endemic plant species to minimize impact to the sites and surrounding landscape. All site maps and drawings will clearly depict the approved buffer zone. Upon an assessment of the surrounding area, details on landscaping may be required to maintain the buffer zone.

7) HAR 13-277-6, Long Term Preservation: Long term preservation measures are to include: a vegetation clearing program; litter control measures; access details; site integrity maintenance program; and public outreach strategy. The vegetation clearing program is to discuss removal and maintenance. The vegetation removal discussion will outline: which areas require clearing for maintenance; eradication focus (in agreement with Conservation District guidelines); buffer zones delineating where machine tools are not to be used; temporary access trails to facilitate removal; allowed equipment outside the buffer zone; protocol for the removal of large trees; greenwaste on-site disposal spots and off-site collection facilities; whether archaeological or cultural monitors are necessary for removal activities; necessity for any kind of interim measures. Maps will be required to properly delineate buffer zones, vegetation clearing areas, disposal routes, and greenwaste pick-up areas.

Vegetation maintenance and litter control can both fall under a general category of “maintenance”. HLID will determine how best to ensure long term maintenance is carried out. Long term preservation plan measures are to be crafted in such a way that they can be carried out in perpetuity. The 2008 IDP lists “preservation plan implementation” as a recommended action. Essentially, HLID will focus on ensuring this recommendation is carried out in accordance with the Cultural Preservation Plan. This may necessitate the creation of a stewarding entity that is beyond the scope of work for the archaeologist. A “Stewardship Management Plan” will also be developed (as required by Cooperative Agreement #2550.01) to communicate responsibilities clearly to potential caretakers. Essentially this will be driven by recommendations in the Cultural Preservation Plan. Appropriate land owners will need to be contacted to generate a Use and Occupancy Agreement for any potential caretakers and visitors. Maps generated by the Land Survey contractor will greatly aid in this task. HLID will obtain necessary agreements and detail such information in the Cultural Preservation Plan. HLID foresees that these sites have the potential to serve as educational or cultural areas for the community. Specific portions of the site will be given suggested land uses and strategic activity guidelines. HLID has outlined suggested activities and guidelines in the HLID Pre-Design and Development Plan. HLID will determine where these areas


41

are within the site boundaries. All designations must comply with activities acceptable to conservation district subzone assignments (HRS 13-5). Although not expected, depending on the suggested activities to take place, a Conservation District Use Permit or Site Plan Approval may be required. .

8) HAR 13-277-7, Signs: HLID, in consultation with the Working Group, plans to prescribe culturally appropriate sign typology. Signs could likely be placed along the buffer zone boundaries and in potential activity areas. The construction of the signs is to be carried out by HLID. Pictures and brief descriptions of the signs are to be placed in the Cultural Preservation Plan.

9) Format/Executive Summary: Prior to submitting the draft of the cultural preservation plan, an executive summary section is to be included which outlines the form and intent of the document. The entire document (inclusive of front matter and bibliography) is to comply with the Chicago Style format used in the archaeology journal “American Antiquity”.


42

Summary and Timeframe of Haʿikü Valley Proposed Mitigation Recommendations Table 3: Haʿikü Valley Proposed Mitigation Recommendations Summary

Proposed Action Priority Prepare site preservation plan for Sites 333 and 332 1

Implement recommendations of Preservation Plan for Sites 333 and 332 (inclusive of access agreements)

1

To reiterate, the current scope of work put forth in this document is only the first step of a larger mitigation effort that goes beyond the HLID Project. HLID intends to implement whatever recommendations are made within the Cultural Preservation Plan. It is unclear at this time, however, when mitigation beyond HLID’s scope will be initiated. In sum, work will include: 1) Land Survey Work; 2) Site Condition Assessment (surface survey transects, recordation, photography); 3) vegetation clearing (less than 1 acre); 4) ethnographic work (inclusive of possible on-site interviews); and 5) site visits (SHPD, HLID, Steward Selection). An estimated time table for these activities is provided on the next page. Total project time is expected to take up to 3 to 4 years. HLID understands that renewal of the District Permit is done annually unless otherwise stated on the permit itself.

Table 4: Estimated Project Timeframe and Expected Activities

Land Survey

6 Months

Site Condition Assessment: 8 to 12 Months

Steward Selection and Permitting:

12 to 18 Months

• Prep Boundary Study

Report • Delineate Property

Boundaries • Map Access Road • Generate Maps • File w/Bureau of

Conveyances

• Site Assessment • Ethnographic Work • Vegetation Clearing

(<1 acre) • Site Visits (research)

• Select Stewards • Create Cultural

Preservation Plan • Create Stewardship

Management Plan • Conservation District

Use Permit (additional studies and site visits may be necessary)*

Note: (*) It is unclear at this time if a Conservation District Use Permit will be required for activities recommended in the forthcoming Preservation Plan.


43

Estimated Total Project Time: 3 to 4 Years

Once the HLID project is completed and all requirements of the 1987 MOA and 1999 CA are fulfilled, stewards will be tasked with maintaining the project area. These stewards will be selected prior to HLID project completion by HDOT and HLID with a set of specific (scored) criteria after the Site Condition Assessment period for Haʿikū Valley. These stewards will likely be visiting the Project Area prior to project completion. The stewards will later enter into a stewardship agreement with HDOT through a Revocable Permit (RP) or Use & Occupancy Agreement when the HLID project is completed to ensure perpetual maintenance of the project areas. Stewards, operating per HLID’s SMP, will monitor visitors and cultural practitioners as they utilize the sites for cultural activities, farming, and scenic enjoyment. Long-term permits for stewards will also need to be negotiated with other land owners if primary access should cross their property.


44

END


haʿikÜ valley project description: a cultural ......haʿikÜ valley project description: a...

Documents