ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR KAMEHAMEHA AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION WAILOA BRIDGE TO PONAHAWAI STREET FAP NO. STP-1910(1) COUNTY JOB NO. P-3716 AT SOUTH HILO, ISLAND OF HAWAI‘I COUNTY AND STATE OF HAWAI‘I
NOTICE TO BIDDERS The items listed and described below are made a part of the current contract and shall govern the work, taking precedence over the previously issued specifications and drawings governing the particular item of work mentioned.
ITEM NO. 1 - CHANGES TO CONTRACT DOCUMENT CHANGES TO SPECIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL 1. DELETE Table of Contents dated 7/23/12 in its entirety and REPLACE with the revised Table of Contents dated 1/03/13 (5 pages). 2. DELETE page 2 of Notice to Bidders dated 11/28/12 and REPLACE with the revised page 2 Notice to Bidders dated 1/03/13. The Pre-Bid Conference location has changed to the Department of Parks and Recreation, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 6, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720-4224. 3. DELETE General Information Regarding Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) dated r05/07/04 in its entirety (3 pages). 4. DELETE Regulatory Requirements for Federal Aid Projects Regarding Disadvantage Business Enterprises (DBEs) dated 07/01/04 in its entirety (6 pages) and REPLACE with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Requirements dated 09/27/12 (11 pages). 5. DELETE Special Provision Section 631 – Traffic Control Regulatory, Warning, and Miscellaneous Signs dated 7/20/11 in its entirety and REPLACE with the revised Special Provision Section 631 – Traffic Control Regulatory, Warning, and Miscellaneous Signs dated 1/03/13 (1 page). 6. DELETE Proposal page P-1 dated 11/28/12 in its entirety and REPLACE with the revised Proposal page P-1 dated 1/07/13 (1 page). 7. DELETE Sample Form – DBE Participation Report dated 8/09 in its entirety (1 page) and REPLACE with the revised Sample Form – DBE Participation Report dated 8/17/09 (2 pages). Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Wailoa Bridge to Ponahawai Street FAP No. STP-1910(1) County Job No. P-3716
Addendum No. 1 Page 1 of 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Notice To Bidders Instructions for Contractor’s Licensing Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure Equal Employment Opportunity (Executive Order 11246) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Requirements Required Federal-Aid Contract Provisions Special Provisions Title Page Special Provisions: DIVISION 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS Section
Description
Pages
101
Definitions And Terms
101-1a
102
Bidding Requirements and Conditions
102-1a – 102-7a
103
Award And Execution of Contract
103-1a – 103-5a
104
Scope of Work
104-1a – 104-3a
105
Control of Work
105-1a – 105-5a
106
Material Restrictions and Requirements
106-1a – 106-2a
107
Legal Relations and Responsibility To Public
107-1a – 107-4a
108
Prosecution And Progress
108-1a – 108-5a
109
Measurement And Payment
109-1a – 109-3a
STP-1910(1) -1-
Addendum No. 1 01/03/13
DIVISION 200 EARTHWORK Section
Description
Pages
202
Removal of Structures and Obstructions
202-1a – 202-2a
203
Excavation And Embankment
203-1a – 203-2a
204
Excavation and Backfill for Miscellaneous Facilities
204-1a – 204-2a
206
Excavation and Backfill for Drainage Facilities
206-1a – 206-2a
209
Temporary Water Pollution, Dust, and Erosion Control
209-1a
DIVISION 300 - BASES Section
Description
Pages
301
Hot Mix Asphalt Base Course
301-1a – 301-2a
305
Aggregate Subbase Course
305-1a
315
Triaxial Geogrid
315-1a – 315-6a
DIVISION 400 - PAVEMENTS Section
Description
Pages
401
Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
401-1a – 401-6a
415
Cold Planing of Existing Pavement
415-1a
DIVISION 500 - STRUCTURES Section
Description
Pages
503
Concrete Structures
503-1a
507
Railings
507-1a – 507-2a
511
Drilled Shafts
511-1a
STP-1910(1) -2-
Addendum No. 1 01/03/13
DIVISION 600 - INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION Section
Description
Pages
602
Reinforcing Steel
602-1a – 602-2a
603
Culverts and Storm Drains
603-1a
604
Manholes, Inlets, and Catch Basins
604-1a
610
Reinforced Concrete Driveways
610-1a
617
Planting Soil
617-1a
619
Planting
619-1a
622
Roadway and Sign Lighting System
622-1a – 622-2a
623
Traffic Signal System
623-1a
626
Manholes and Valve Boxes for Water Sewer and Gas System
626-1a – 626-3a
629
Pavement Markings
629-1a – 629-2a
630
Traffic Control Guide Signs
630-1a
631
Traffic Control Regulatory, Warning and Miscellaneous Signs
631-1a
634
Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalks
634-1a – 634-2a
638
Portland Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter
638-1a
641
Hydro-Mulch Seeding
641-1a
645
Work Zone Traffic Control
645-1a – 645-3a
648
Field Posted Drawings
648-1a
650
Curb Ramps
650-1a – 650-2a
660
Telephone Systems
660-1a – 660-10a
670
Archaeological Monitoring
670-1a – 670-4a
690
Unforeseen Conditions
690-1a – 690-2a
694
Office Supplies
694-1a
695
Cellular Phone
695-1a – 695-3a
697
Project Vehicles
697-1a – 697-4a
699
Mobilization
699-1a
STP-1910(1) -3-
Addendum No. 1 01/03/13
DIVISION 700 - MATERIALS Section
Description
702
Bituminous Materials
712
Miscellaneous
Pages 702-1a
Frames, Grates, Covers and Ladder Rungs
712.07-1a
717
Cullet And Cullet-Made Materials
717-1a - 717-2a
750
Traffic Control Sign and Marker Materials
750-1a
755
Pavement Marking Materials
755-1a
760
Roadway and Sign Lighting System Materials
760-1a – 760-4a
770
Traffic Signal Materials
770-1a – 770-35a
Requirement of Chapter 104, HRS Wages and Hours of Employees on Public Works Law Federal Wage Rates Proposal .................................................................................................. P-1 – P-7 Proposal Schedule .................................................................................P-8 - P-17 Supplement to Proposal Schedule ..................................................... P-18 - P-21 Confirmation by DBE Surety Bid Bond Sample Forms Contract Performance Bond (Surety) Performance Bond Labor and Material Payment Bond (Surety) Labor and Material Payment Bond Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Standard Form - LLL and LLL-A STP-1910(1) -4-
Addendum No. 1 01/03/13
Statement of Compliance Form WH-348 DBE Participation Report & Prompt Payment Certification Chapter 104, HRS Compliance Certificate Certificate of Compliance for Final Payment
END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS
STP-1910(1) -5-
Addendum No. 1 01/03/13
per compact disc, in cash or in the form of a certified check, cashier’s check, or company check, made payable to the County of Hawai‘i, Director of Finance, which will be nonrefundable. Prospective Bidders shall use the printed proposal provided by the Department of Public Works and submit their bid proposal in a sealed envelope. Addendums, if issued for said project, will only be available on the State and County Procurement Notices website - http://hawaii.gov/spo/notices. Prospective bidders must file with the Director of Public Works their “Intent to Bid.” The Prospective Bidder’s intent to bid must be received at the Administrative Office, Department of Public Works no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the bid opening date. If the tenth day is on a Saturday, Sunday, State holiday or a Furlough day, the Intent to Bid is due on the next working day following to the due date The Intent to Bid form is available at the Administrative Office, Department of Public Works, Phone: (808) 961-8321 and for electronic download at the Department of Public Works’ website: http://www.hawaiicounty.gov/bids-proposals-contracts. All prospective bidders/offerors are invited to attend a pre-bid conference to be held on January 18, 2013 at 1:00 pm, at the Department of Parks and Recreation, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 6, Hilo, Hawai’i 96720-4224. Attendance at the pre-bid conference is not a condition for submitting a bid. Subcontractors and union representatives are invited, but not required to attend. The meeting is to provide bidders/offerors with an opportunity to ask questions about the contractual requirements and all technical aspects of the project. The original executed and notarized Standard Qualification Questionnaire for Offerors form “SQQO” must be received no less than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the bid opening so it may be evaluated and approved by the County of Hawai‘i, Department of Public Works prior to bid opening. Please submit said form to allow for evaluation and approval by our office if such form had not been evaluated, approved and filed within the twelve (12) months, if there is any Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction County Job No. P-3716 F.A.P. No. STP-1910(1)
Addendum No. 1 Notice to Bidders - 2 1/03/13
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) REQUIREMENTS
I.
GENERAL This project is subject to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, entitled "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs," hereinafter referred to as the ("DBE Regulations") and is incorporated and made a part of this contract herein by this reference. The following shall be incorporated as part of the contract documents for compliance. If any requirements herein are in conflict with the general provisions or special provisions applicable to this project, the requirements herein shall prevail unless specifically superseded or amended in the special provisions or by addendum.
II.
POLICY It is the policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation (“U.S. DOT”), the State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, and all of its political subdivisions (“Department”) that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE”), as defined in the DBE Regulations, have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in federally assisted contracts.
III.
UNDERUTILIZED DBEs An Underutilized DBE (“UDBE”) is a firm that meets the definition of a DBE and is a member of one of the following groups: 1. Hispanic Americans 2. Native Americans (including Native Hawaiians) 3. African Americans 4. Women References to DBEs include UDBEs, but references to UDBEs do not include all DBEs.
IV.
DBE ASSURANCES Each contract signed with a contractor (and each subcontract the prime contractor signs with a subcontractor) shall include the following assurance: “The contractor, sub-recipient, or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of USDOT assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate.” The contractor agrees to include the above statements in any subsequent contracts that it enters into with other contractors, and shall require those contractors to include similar statements in further agreements.
V.
BIDDER RESPONSIBILITIES. All bidders are required to register with the Department’s Office of Civil Rights, DBE Section, using the attached Bidder Registration Form. Certified DBEs are considered registered with the Department and are not required to submit a Bidder Registration form. All other bidders are required to complete this form which may be faxed to 808-587-2025, e-mailed to:
[email protected], or mailed to Office of Civil Rights, DBE Section, 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 112, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. Registered bidders are posted on the Department web page at http://hawaii.gov/dot/administration/ocr/DBE. 1 FED 09.27.12
Bidders, suppliers, and subcontractors shall fully inform themselves with respect to the requirements of the DBE Regulations. Particular attention is directed to the following matters: A.
Bidders shall take all necessary steps to ensure that UDBEs have an opportunity to participate in this contract.
B.
UDBEs may participate as a consultant, prime contractor, subcontractor, trucker, or vendor of materials or supplies. UDBEs may also team with other UDBE or non-UDBE firms as part of a joint venture or partnership.
C.
Agreements between a bidder and a UDBE in which a UDBE promises not to provide subcontracting quotations to other bidders are strictly prohibited.
D.
A UDBE shall be certified and working in their registered field of work by the Department in order for credit to be allowed.
E.
Information regarding the current certification status of UDBEs is available on the Internet at http://hawaii.gov/dot/administration/ocr/DBE.
F.
Commercially Useful Function (“CUF”). A UDBE must perform a CUF. This means that a UDBE must be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work, must carry out its responsibility by actually performing, managing, and supervising at least 30% of the work involved by using its own employees and equipment, must negotiate price, determine quality and quantity, order and install material (when applicable), and must pay for the material itself.1 To determine whether a UDBE is performing a commercially useful function, you must evaluate the amount of work subcontracted, industry practices, whether the amount the firm is to be paid under the contract is commensurate with the work it is actually performing and the UDBE credit claimed for its performance of the work, and other relevant factors. The prime contractor is responsible to ensure that the UDBE performs a commercially useful function.
VI. A.
1
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. UDBEs must be certified by the bid opening date.
B.
UDBE manufacturers, suppliers and any second tier subcontractors shall be listed in the proposal in order to receive credit.
C.
Copies or faxes of all “Confirmation by DBE” forms signed by the DBE for each DBE listed in the proposal shall be submitted to the Project Manager listed in the proposal at the time of bid opening.
D.
The dollar amount of each subcontract (both DBE, UDBE and non-DBE firms) for all subcontractors, manufacturers and suppliers listed in the proposal shall also be submitted within 5 working days of bid opening, in a separate sealed envelope to maintain confidentiality of such amounts. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in bid rejection.
The use of joint checks payable to a DBE subcontractor and supplier may be allowed to purchase materials and supplies under limited circumstances. See VIII USE OF JOINT CHECKS UNDER THE DBE PROGRAM 2 FED 09.27.12
E.
Calculation of the UDBE contract goal for this project is the proportionate contract dollar value of work performed, materials, and goods to be supplied by UDBEs. This UDBE contract goal is applicable to all the contract work performed for this project and is calculated as follows: UDBE contract goal percentage = Contract Dollar Value of the work to be performed by UDBE subcontractors and manufacturers, plus 60% of the contract dollar value of UDBE suppliers, divided by the sum of all contract items (sum of all contract items is the total amount for comparison of bids less mobilization, force account items, and allowance items). The Department shall correct the UDBE contract goal in the proposal if the Bidder fails to meet the UDBE project goal. If the Bidder’s UDBE contract goal exceeds the UDBE project goal, the Department will not adjust the UDBE contract goal.
VII. COUNTING UDBE PARTICIPATION TOWARDS CONTRACT GOAL A. Count the entire amount of the portion of a construction contract (or other contract not covered by paragraph B below) that is performed by the UDBE’s own forces. Include the cost of supplies and materials obtained by the UDBE for the work on the contract, including supplies purchased or equipment leased by the UDBE (except supplies and equipment the UDBE subcontractor purchases or leases from the prime contractor or its affiliate). B.
C.
Count the entire amount of fees or commissions charged by a UDBE firm for providing a bona fide service, such as professional, technical, consultant, or managerial services, or for providing bonds or insurance specifically required for the performance of a DOTassisted contract, toward UDBE goals, provided the Department determines the fee to be reasonable and not excessive as compared with fees customarily allowed for similar services. When a UDBE subcontracts part of the work of its contract to another firm, the value of the subcontracted work may be counted toward UDBE goals only if the UDBE's subcontractor is itself a UDBE. Work that a UDBE subcontracts to a non-UDBE firm does not count toward UDBE goals.
D.
When a UDBE performs as a participant in a joint venture, count a portion of the total dollar value of the contract equal to the distinct, clearly defined portion of the work of the contract that the UDBE performs with its own forces toward UDBE goals.
E.
Count expenditures to a UDBE contractor toward UDBE goals only if the UDBE is performing a commercially useful function on that contract.
F.
The following is a list of appropriate UDBE credit to be allowed for work to be performed by a UDBE subcontractor. Count expenditures with UDBES for materials or supplies toward UDBE goals as provided in the following: 1. 2.
If the materials or supplies are obtained from a UDBE manufacturer, count 100 percent of the cost of the materials or supplies toward UDBE goals. For purposes of determining UDBE goal credit, a manufacturer is a firm that operates or maintains a factory or establishment that produces, on the premises, the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment required under the contract and of the general character described by the specifications. 3 FED 09.27.12
3. 4.
5.
6.
7. 8.
9.
10. 11.
G.
If the materials or supplies are purchased from a UDBE regular dealer, count 60 percent of the cost of the materials or supplies toward UDBE goals. For purposes of determining UDBE goal credit, a regular dealer is a firm that owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the materials, supplies, articles or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold or leased to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must be an established, regular business that engages, as its principal business and under its own name, in the purchase and sale or lease of the products in question. A person may be a regular dealer in such bulk items as petroleum products, steel, cement, gravel, stone, or asphalt without owning, operating, or maintaining a place of business as provided in the DBE Regulations, if the person both owns and operates distribution equipment for the products. Any supplementing of regular dealers' own distribution equipment shall be by a long-term lease agreement and not on an ad hoc or contract-by-contract basis. Packagers, brokers, manufacturers' representatives, or other persons who arrange or expedite transactions are not regular dealers. With respect to materials or supplies purchased from a UDBE which is neither a manufacturer nor a regular dealer, count the entire amount of fees or commissions charged for assistance in the procurement of the materials and supplies, or fees or transportation charges for the delivery of materials or supplies required on a job site, toward UDBE goals, provided the Department determines the fees to be reasonable and not excessive as compared with fees customarily allowed for similar services. Do not count any portion of the cost of the materials and supplies themselves toward UDBE goals, however. If a firm is not currently certified as a UBE in accordance with standards of this part at the time of the execution of the contract, do not count the firm's participation toward any UDBE goals, except as provided for in §26.87(i). Do not count the dollar value of work performed under a contract with a firm after it has ceased to be certified toward your overall goal. Do not count the participation of a UDBE subcontractor toward a contractor's final compliance with its UDBE obligations on a contract until the amount being counted has actually been paid to the UDBE.
The following factors are used in determining whether a UDBE trucking company is performing a commercially useful function: 1.
2. 3.
4.
5.
The UDBE must be responsible for the management and supervision of the entire trucking operation for which it is responsible on a particular contract, and there cannot be a contrived arrangement for the purpose of meeting UDBE goals. The UDBE must itself own and operate at least one fully licensed, insured, and operational truck used on the contract. The UDBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services it provides on the contract using trucks it owns, insures, and operates using drivers it employs. The UDBE may lease trucks from another UDBE firm, including an owneroperator who is certified as a UDBE. The UDBE who leases trucks from another UDBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services the lessee UDBE provides on the contract. The UDBE may also lease trucks from a non-UDBE firm, including from an owner-operator. The UDBE who leases trucks from a non-UDBE is entitled to 4 FED 09.27.12
credit for the total value of transportation services provided by non-UDBE lessees not to exceed the value of transportation services provided by UDBEowned trucks on the contract. Additional participation by non-UDBE lessees receives credit only for the fee or commission it receives as a result of the lease arrangement. If a recipient chooses this approach, it must obtain written consent from the appropriate Department Operating Administration. EXAMPLE: UDBE firm X uses two of its own trucks on a contract, leases two trucks from UDBE Firm Y and six trucks from non-UDBE Firm Z. UDBE credit would be awarded for the total value of transportation services provided by Firm X and Firm Y, and may also be awarded for the total value of transportation services provided by four of the six trucks provided by Firm Z. In all, full credit would be allowed for the participation of eight trucks. With respect to the other two trucks provided by Firm Z, UDBE credit could be awarded only for the fees or commissions pertaining to those trucks Firm X receives as a result of the lease with Firm Z. For purposes of determining whether a trucking firm performs a commercially useful function, a lease must indicate that the UDBE has exclusive use of and control over the truck. This does not preclude the leased truck from working for others during the term of the lease with the consent of the UDBE, so long as the lease gives the UDBE absolute priority for use of the leased truck. Leased trucks must display the name and identification number of the UDBE. H.
The bidder may be a joint venture or partnership that has a certified UDBE as a partner. A “Joint Venture” means an association between a UDBE firm and one or more other firms to carry out a single, for-profit, business enterprise for which the parties combine their property, capital, efforts, skills and knowledge, and in which the UDBE is responsible for a distinct, clearly defined portion of the work of the contract, and whose share in the capital contribution, control, management, risks and profits are commensurate with its ownership interest.
I.
Effects of Decertification of a UDBE. Should a UDBE become decertified during the term of the subcontract for reasons beyond the control of and with no fault or negligence on the part of the contractor, the work remaining under the subcontract may be credited towards the contract goal, but are not included in the overall accomplishments. Should the UDBE be decertified after contract award and before notice to proceed, the contractor must still meet the UDBE goal by either a) withdrawing the subcontract from the UDBE and expending Good Faith Efforts to replace it with a UDBE that is currently certified for that same work or b) continuing with the subcontract with the decertified firm and expending Good Faith Efforts to find other work not already subcontracted out to UDBES in an amount to meet the UDBE goal either by 1) increasing the participation of other UDBES on the project, 2) documenting Good Faith Efforts or 3) by a combination of the above.
VIII. A.
USE OF JOINT CHECKS UNDER THE UDBE PROGRAM The following guidelines apply to the use of joint checks: 1. 2.
The second party (typically the prime contractor) acts solely as a guarantor; The DBE must release the check to the supplier; 5 FED 09.27.12
3. 4.
5. B.
General circumstances to support the use of joint checks include but are not limited to, the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
C.
Standard Industry practice applies to all contractors (federal and state contracts); Use of joint checks must be available to all subcontractors; Material industry sets the standard industry practice, not prime contractors; Short term not to exceed reasonable time (i.e., one year, two years) to establish/increase a credit line with the material supplier; No exclusive arrangement between one prime and one DBE in the use of joint checks that might bring independence into question; Non-proportionate ratio of DBE's normal capacity to size of contract and quantity of material to be provided under the contract; DBE is normally responsible to install and furnish the work item; and DBE must be more than an extra participant in releasing the check to the material supplier.
The Department shall allow the use of joint checks if the following general conditions are met: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
IX.
The use of joint checks is a commonly recognized business practice; The Department will approve the arrangement before it is used. As part of this approval process the Department will analyze industry practice to confirm the use of joint checks is commonly employed outside of the DBE program for nonDBE subcontractors on both federal and state funded contracts. Using joint checks shall not be approved if it conflicts with other aspects of the DBE regulations regarding commercially useful function (CUF); and The Department will monitor this use closely to avoid abuse.
DBE submits request to the Department for action; There is a formalized agreement between all parties that specify the conditions under which the arrangement shall be permitted; There is a full and prompt disclosure of the expected use of joint checks; The Department will provide prior approval; DBE remains responsible for all other elements of 26.55(c)(1); The agreement states clearly and determines that independence is not threatened because the DBE retains final decision making responsibility; The Department will determine that the request is not an attempt to artificially inflate DBE participation; Standard industry practice is only one factor; The Department will monitor and maintain oversight of the arrangement by reviewing cancelled checks and/or certification statement of payment; and The Department will verify there is no requirement by prime contractor that DBE is to use a specific supplier nor the prime "contractors" negotiated unit price
.DEMONSRATION OF GOOD FAITH EFFORTS FOR CONTRACT AWARD A.
It is the sole responsibility of the bidder to submit any and all documents, logs, correspondence, and any other records or information to the Department that will demonstrate that the bidder made good faith efforts to meet the UDBE goal. Additionally, for each UDBE that was contacted but not utilized by the bidder for this contract, the bidder shall submit a detailed written explanation for each UDBE regarding 6 FED 09.27.12
the reasons for the bidder’s failure or inability to utilize, or to allow the UDBE to participate in the contract. In its good faith evaluation, the Department may, but shall not be required to perform the following as part of its evaluation: a) request additional information and documents from the bidder; b) compare the bidder’s bid against the bids of other bidders, and compare the UDBEs and UDBE work areas utilized by the bidder with the UDBEs listed in other bids submitted for this contract c) verify contacts by bidders with UDBEs, and d) compare the UDBE and the categories of UDBE work targeted by the bidder for participation in the contract, with the total pool of available UDBEs ready, willing and able to perform work on each particular subcontract targeted by the bidder. Actions on the part of the bidder that will be considered demonstrative of “Good Faith Efforts” include, but are not limited to, the following: B.
Whether the bidder solicited through all reasonable and available means (e.g. attendance at pre-bid meetings, advertising and/or written notices) the interest of all certified UDBEs who have the capability to perform part or all of the work to be included under the contract. The Department will also consider whether the bidder solicited the participation of potential UDBEs in sufficient time to allow the UDBEs to properly inquire about the project and respond to the solicitation, and will also review whether the bidder took appropriate steps to follow up with interested UDBEs in a timely manner to facilitate participation by UDBEs in this project;
C.
Whether the bidder identified and broke up portions of work that can be performed by UDBEs in order to increase the likelihood that a UDBE will be able to participate, and that the UDBE goal could be achieved (e.g. breaking out contract items into economically feasible units to facilitate UDBE participation even when the bidder might otherwise prefer to perform these work items with its own forces);
D.
Whether the bidder made available or provided interested UDBEs with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the project in a timely manner, and assisted them in responding to the bidder’s solicitation;
E.
Whether the bidder negotiated in good faith with interested UDBEs. Evidence of such negotiations includes documenting: a) the names, addresses and telephone numbers of UDBEs that were contacted; b) a description of the information that was provided to UDBEs regarding the plans and specifications; and c) detailed explanation for not utilizing individual UDBEs on the project;
F.
The fact that there may be additional or higher costs associated with finding and utilizing UDBEs are not, by themselves, sufficient reasons for a bidder’s refusal to utilize a UDBE, or the failure to meet the UDBE goal, provided that such additional costs are not unreasonable. Also, the ability or desire of a bidder to perform a portion of the work with its own forces, that could have been undertaken by an available UDBE, does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts to meet the UDBE goal, and to make available and solicit UDBE participation in other areas of the project to meet the UDBE goal;
G.
Whether the bidder rejected UDBEs as being unqualified without sound reasons based on a thorough investigation of their capabilities. The UDBEs standing within the industry, membership in specific groups, organizations or associations, and political or social affiliation are not legitimate basis for the rejection or non-solicitation of bids from particular UDBEs; 7 FED 09.27.12
X.
XI.
H.
Whether the bidder made efforts to assist interested UDBEs in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance;
I.
Whether the bidder made efforts to assist interested UDBEs in obtaining necessary equipment, supplies, materials or related assistance or services; and
J.
Whether the bidder effectively used the services of available minority/women community organizations, minority/women business groups, contractors’ groups, local, state and federal minority/women business assistance offices, or other organizations to provide assistance in recruitment and placement of UDBEs.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSIDERATION. Under the provisions of 49 CFR, Part 26.53(d), if it is determined by the Department that the apparent low bidder has failed to meet the provisions of this subsection, the bidder may submit a protest to request an administrative reconsideration. The bidder must file this request with the Department of Transportation’s Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) within five (5) working days of notification by the Department that the bidder failed to meet the requirements of this subsection. As part of this reconsideration request, it is the bidder’s responsibility to provide to the OCR, any and all written documentation, correspondence, logs, and any other documents or evidence the bidder believes relates to the issue of whether it met the UDBE project goal or made good faith effort to do so. A.
The OCR DBE Liaison Officer (“Liaison Officer”) will be responsible for resolving the reconsideration dispute.
B.
Upon request by the bidder, the bidder will be allowed an opportunity to meet in person with the Liaison Officer to discuss the issue of whether it met the UDBE project goal, or made good faith effort to do so. If a meeting is requested, the bidder must be ready, willing, and able to meet with the Liaison Officer within 5 working days of the bidder’s receipt of written notification that the bidder failed to meet the requirements of this subsection.
C.
The Liaison Officer will render a decision on the reconsideration, and notify the bidder in writing of the decision. The decision will explain the basis for the Liaison Officer’s findings and the reasons for the decision.
D.
The decision is not appealable to the U.S. DOT, but is appealable in accordance with Section 103D-709, Hawaii Revised Statutes.
AWARD OF CONTRACT A. The Department reserves the right to reject any or all bids. The award of contract, if it is awarded, will be to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder who meets or exceeds the UDBE project goal, or who makes good faith efforts to meet or exceed the UDBE project goal, as determined by the Department. B.
If the lowest responsible bidder does not meet the UDBE project goal and does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that it made good faith efforts to meet the UDBE project goal, such bid shall be rejected as non-responsive. The Department will then consider the next lowest responsive and responsible bidder for award in accordance with paragraph A above.
8 FED 09.27.12
XII.
REPLACEMENT OF A DBE The Department will require a contractor to make good faith efforts to replace a DBE that is terminated or has otherwise failed to complete its work on a contract with another certified DBE, to the extent needed to meet the contract goal. HDOT will require the prime contractor to promptly provide written notice to the project manager of the DBE's inability or unwillingness to perform and provide reasonable documentation. The written notice by the contractor must include the following: 1. 2. 3.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9.
The date the contractor determined that the certified DBE to be unwilling, unable or ineligible to perform work on the contract; The projected date that the contractor shall require a substitution or replacement DBE to commence work if consent is granted by HDOT; Documentation of facts that describe and cite specific actions or inactions on the part of the affected DBE that led to the contractor’s conclusion that the DBE is unwilling, unable, or ineligible to perform work on the contract; A brief statement of the affected DBE’s capacity and ability or inability to perform the work as determined by the contractor; Documentation of contractor’s good faith efforts to enable affected DBE to perform the work; The current percentage of work completed on each bid item by the affected DBE; The total dollar amount currently paid per bid item for work performed by the affected DBE; The total dollar amount per bid item remaining to be paid to the DBE for work completed but for which the DBE has not received payment, and with which the contractor has no dispute; and The total dollar amount per bid item remaining to be paid to the DBE for work completed for which the DBE has not received payment, and with which the contractor and DBE have a dispute.
The prime contractor shall send a copy of the written notice to replace a certified DBE on a contract to the affected DBE. The affected DBE may submit a written response within five (5) calendar days to the HDOT to explain its position on its performance on the committed work. HDOT shall consider both the prime contractor’s request and DBE’s stated position before approving the termination or substitution request, or determining if any action shall be taken against the contractor. There shall be no substitution or termination of a DBE subcontractor at any time without the prior written consent of the Department. The Department will provide written consent only if the bidder has good cause, as determined by the Department, to terminate the DBE. Good cause may include, but is not limited to the following circumstances: 1. 2. 3. 4.
The DBE subcontractor fails or refuses to execute a written contract; The listed DBE subcontractor fails or refuses to perform the work of its subcontract in a way consistent with normal industry standards; The listed DBE subcontractor fails or refuses to meet the prime contractor's reasonable, nondiscriminatory bond requirements; The listed DBE subcontractor becomes bankrupt, insolvent, or exhibits credit unworthiness; 9 FED 09.27.12
5.
6. 7. 8. 9.
The listed DBE subcontractor is ineligible to work on public works projects because of suspension and debarment proceedings pursuant to 2 CFR Parts 180, 215 and 1,200 or applicable state law; The Department has determined that the listed DBE subcontractor is not a responsible contractor; The listed DBE subcontractor voluntarily withdraws from the project and provides to the Department written notice of its withdrawal; The listed DBE is ineligible to receive DBE credit for the type of work required; and A DBE owner dies or becomes disabled with the result that the listed DBE contractor is unable to complete its work on the contract;
If a DBE subcontractor is unable to perform work under the contract, and is to be replaced, the contractor’s failure to obtain a substitute certified DBE or to make good faith effort to obtain such a substitute DBE subcontractor to perform said work, may constitute a breach of this contract for which the Department may terminate the contract or pursue such remedy as deemed appropriate by the Department. XIII.
XIV
PAYMENT A. The Department will make an estimate in writing each month based on the items of work performed and materials incorporated in the work and the value therefore at the unit prices or lump sum prices set forth in the contract. All progress estimates and payments will be approximate only and shall be subject to correction at any time prior to or in the final estimate and payment. The Department will not withhold any amount from any payment to the bidder, including retainage. B.
The bidder shall pay all subcontractors within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of any progress payments from the Department. This clause applies to both DBE and non-DBE subcontractors, and all tiers of subcontracts.
C.
The successful bidder shall sign and submit the “DBE Participation Report and Prompt Payment Certification” form concurrently with its invoice to the Project Manager. The Department will not process any invoices without this completed form. The form shall certify all subcontractors have been paid for the work performed and at the completion of the subcontractors work any retainage held on the subcontracts has been returned.
D.
When any subcontractor has satisfactorily completed its work as specified in the subcontract, and there are no bona fide disputes, the bidder shall make prompt and full payment to the subcontractor of all monies due, including retainage, within ten (10) calendar days after the subcontractor’s work is satisfactorily completed. A subcontractor’s work is satisfactorily completed when all the tasks called for in the subcontract have been accomplished and documented, as required by the Department. The bidder must obtain the prior written approval from the Department before it can continue to withhold retainage from any subcontractor who has completed its portion of the work. This clause applies to both DBE and non-DBE subcontractors, and all tiers of subcontracts.
RECORDS A. The bidder shall maintain and keep all records necessary for the Department to determine compliance with the bidder’s DBE obligations. The records shall be available at reasonable times and places for inspection by the Department and appropriate Federal agencies. The records to be kept by the contractor shall include: 10 FED 09.27.12
1.
2. 3. 4.
The names, race/ethnicity, gender, address, phone number, and contact person of all DBE and non-DBE consultants, subcontractors, manufacturers, suppliers, truckers and vendors identified as DBEs (for vendor indicate also if a supplier or manufacturer); The nature of work of each DBE and non-DBE consultant, subcontractor, manufacturer, supplier, trucker and vendor; The dollar amount contracted with each DBE and non-DBE consultant, subcontractor, manufacturer, supplier, trucker and vendor; and Cumulative dollar amount of all change orders to the subcontract.
XV
REPORTS The contractor shall submit the DBE Participation Report form to the Department with its pay request. The Department will not prepare the monthly progress payment unless it receives a completed report.
XVI
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DBE REQUIREMENTS All contractors, subcontractors, manufacturers and suppliers are hereby advised that failure to carry out all DBE requirements specified herein shall constitute a material breach of contract that may result in termination of the contract or such other remedy as deemed appropriate by the Department.
11 FED 09.27.12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
SECTION 631 – TRAFFIC CONTROL REGULATORY, WARNING, AND MISCELLANEOUS SIGNS Make the following amendments to said Section: (I) Amend Subsection 631.03(A)(1) Sign Posts by revising line 24 and line 25 to read as follows: “(1) Sign Posts.
Use square tube posts (12 gage) for the following:”
(II) Amend Subsection 631.03(C) Labeling of Signs, from lines 42 to51 to read as follows: (C) Labeling of Signs. Label back of each sign with sign stickers as directed by the Engineer. Sign stickers will be provided by the Engineer. (III) Amend Subsection 631.04 Measurement by revising line 67 to line 69 to read as follows: “631.04 Measurement. The Engineer will measure regulatory, warning, miscellaneous signs; and relocation of existing regulatory, warning and miscellaneous signs per each in accordance with the contract documents.” (III) Amend Subsection 631.05 Payment by revising line 75 to line 90 to read as follows: “The Engineer will pay for each of the following pay items when included in the proposal schedule: Pay Item
Pay Unit
Regulatory Sign (10 Square Feet or Less)
Each
Regulatory Sign (More than 10 Square Feet)
Each
Warning Sign (10 Square Feet or Less)
Each
Warning Sign (More than 10 Square Feet)
Each
________ Sign
Each
Relocation of Existing ________ Sign
Each”
END OF SECTION 631 STP-1910(1) 631-1a
Addendum No. 1 01/03/13
PROPOSAL TO THE COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT:
Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Wailoa Bridge to Ponahawai Street District of South Hilo Island of Hawai‘i
COUNTY JOB NO.:
P-3716
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO.:
STP-1910(1)
COMPLETION TIME:
350 Working days from the date indicated in the Notice to Proceed from the Department. NOTE: Completion time does not include plant establishment period.
UDBE PROJECT GOAL: 11%
DESIGN PROJECT MANAGER: NAME: ADDRESS:
PHONE NO.: EMAIL: FAX NO.:
Mr. Kason Pacheco County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works Aupuni Center, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 Hilo, HI 96720-4224 (808) 961-8931
[email protected] (808) 961-8630
P-1
Addendum No. 1 1/07/13
GEOLABS, INC. Geotechnical Engineering and Drilling Services
August 24, 2012 W.O. 5475-00
Mr. Glenn Ikeda ParEn, Inc. dba Park Engineering 711 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1500 Honolulu, HI 96813 Subject:
Addendum Additional Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Wailoa Bridge to Ponahawai Street Hilo, Island of Hawaii
Reference: Report by Geolabs, Inc. dated June 13, 2011 “Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Wailoa Bridge to Ponahawai Street Hilo, Island of Hawaii"
Dear Mr. Ikeda: We have prepared this addendum to update the Project Considerations section, Design Traffic Loading Conditions/Traffic Index subsection, Design Pavement subsection, and Subgrade Preparation Below Pavement Section subsection presented in the referenced report prepared for the project. Scope of Work The project site is along Kamehameha Avenue in the Hilo area on the Island of Hawaii. Based on the information provided, we understand that it is planned to improve approximately 0.75 miles along Kamehameha Avenue. The limits along Kamehameha Avenue are between Wailoa Bridge and Ponahawai Street. The project consists of reshaping the road crown (due to the severe cross slopes), reconstruction of sidewalks and driveways, roadside drainage improvements, and addition of bike lanes. In order to achieve the required roadway cross slopes and to maintain adequate clearance over existing utilities, the entire roadway should be reconstructed. The existing sidewalks are also non-ADA compliant and are in a very poor condition east of Pauahi Street intersection.
2006 Kalihi Street • Honolulu, Hawaii 96819 Phone: (808) 841-5064 • Facsimile: (808) 847-1749 • E-mail:
[email protected] Hawaii • California
ParEn, Inc. dba Park Engineering W.O. 5475-00(Addendum) August 24, 2012
Page 2
Design Traffic Loading Conditions/Traffic Index Based on the design guidelines from the revised Pavement Design Manual dated March 2002, we believe that this portion of Kamehameha Avenue may be classified as a “High Volume Rural” roadway. Therefore, the pavements for this project will need to be designed for a pavement life of 30 years. Traffic data to determine the design traffic parameters were provided by the State of Hawaii - Department of Transportation, Highways Division. The traffic data is provided in Appendix A. The following table summarizes the design traffic parameters used in our pavement analyses. DESIGN TRAFFIC PARAMETERS Design Period
30 Years
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Vehicles per day per direction
Year 2011 Year 2041
13,503 21,106
Directional Distribution
40 / 60
24-Hour Truck Traffic
4.0%
Type of Axle 2-axle 3-axle 4-axle 5-axle 6-axle 7-axle
Truck Traffic Distribution 36.88% 21.74% 7.06% 30.90% 1.54% 1.88%
Based on a design period of 30 years, the traffic volume, and the truck distribution information provided, a Traffic Index (TI) of 12.5 has been determined for the proposed project. Design Pavement Section The revised Pavement Design Manual requires a highly permeable drainage layer below the pavements unless the site has a very low annual rainfall or consists of pavement subgrades that are free-draining (permeability greater than 100 feet per day). We understand that the drainage layer may be omitted if inclusion of a drainage layer in the new pavement section could adversely affect the pavement during construction or during its service life.
GEOLABS, INC. Hawaii • California
ParEn, Inc. dba Park Engineering W.O. 5475-00(Addendum) August 24, 2012
Page 3
In the referenced report, we included a drainage layer as part of the new pavement section, since the site is in a high rainfall environment and the subgrade soils are not free-draining. The material for the drainage layer typically consists of open-graded gravel that requires confinement to remain in place. We understand that the new pavement will be constructed in phases. Based on the available plans, some sections of the existing road will be left open to allow the flow of vehicular traffic. The closed sections of the roadway will be removed and new pavements will be constructed. After the new pavements are in place, the adjacent existing road will be removed to allow construction of the new pavements. When the existing pavement adjacent to the newly constructed pavement (which consists of a drainage layer) is removed, there will be no confinement of the drainage layer. Because there will be no confinement, we believe that the drainage layer would not remain in place and will likely migrate to the open excavation where the existing pavement was removed. The migration of the drainage layer would cause undermining of the new pavement, which may result in pavement damage when vehicular traffic traverses near the edge of the new pavement. To reduce potential damage to the new pavement section during the phased pavement construction, we believe that the drainage layer should be omitted for the new pavement section. Based on our pavement analyses, we believe the following new pavement structural sections may be used for preliminary design and cost estimating purposes. Option 1 4.0-Inch Asphaltic Concrete 9.0-Inch Asphalt Concrete Base 6.0-Inch Aggregate Subbase (95 Percent Relative Compaction) 19.0-Inch Total Pavement Thickness on Compacted Subgrade Option 2 12.0-Inch Portland Cement Concrete 6.0-Inch Aggregate Subbase (95 Percent Relative Compaction) 18.0-Inch Total Pavement Thickness on Compacted Subgrade We recently discovered that a slip form paver is not available on the Island of Hawaii. In addition, the length of the roadway reconstruction is relatively short. We believe that it would not be feasible to use PCC pavements due to the high cost to mobilize the slip form paver to Hawaii and the relatively short length of new roadway. Also, the slip form paver also requires greater amount of lane space, which would require shutting down the lanes in the opposite direction.
GEOLABS, INC. Hawaii • California
ParEn, Inc. dba Park Engineering W.O. 5475-00(Addendum) August 24, 2012
Page 4
An economic analysis was performed on the two pavement design options presented above to evaluate the initial construction cost and life cycle cost of the pavement structural sections. Based on our cost comparison of the pavement design options, it appeared that a pavement structural section consisting of 4 inches of asphaltic concrete over 9 inches of asphalt concrete base underlain by 6 inches of aggregate subbase would result in the most economical pavement design. The results of our economic analysis are presented in Appendix B. To reduce the amount of lifts to place the asphaltic concrete and asphalt concrete base layers, we recommend using an equivalent pavement section consisting of 3 inches of asphaltic concrete over 10 inches of asphalt concrete base underlain by 6 inches of aggregate subbase. Subgrade Preparation Below Pavement Section Since the pavement subgrade will likely consist of poorly-graded sand, it may be difficult to obtain the minimum 95 percent relative compaction typically required for the pavement subgrade. We believe that the compaction requirement of the pavement subgrade may be reduced to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction provided that the 6-inch thick aggregate subbase course recommended in the design pavement sections is compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same soil determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Optimum moisture is the water content (percentage by dry weight) corresponding to the maximum dry density.
GEOLABS, INC. Hawaii • California
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC INDEX DETERMINATION Project:
Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Wailoa Bridge to Ponahawai Street Hilo, Island of Hawaii
Street Name:
Kamehameha Avenue
(1)
Design Period (years)
(2)
Current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Per Direction
13503
(3)
Future Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Per Direction
21106
(4)
Average ADT Per Direction Over Design Period
17304.5
(5)
Design Lane Factor Number of Lanes In One Direction 1 2 3 4
(6)
24-Hour Truck Traffic, T 24 (%) Truck Traffic Distribution :
30
1 Design Lane Factor 1 1 0.8 0.75 4 2-axle 3-axle 4-axle 5-axle 6-axle 7-axle
= = = = = =
36.88% 21.74% 7.06% 30.90% 1.54% 1.88%
(7)
Average Daily Truck Traffic Per Direction, ADTT
692
(8)
Equivalent 18-kip Single Axle Loads, ESAL 2-axle : % of 2-axle trucks x No. trucks x 65 3-axle : % of 3-axle trucks x No. trucks x 525 4-axle : % of 4-axle trucks x No. trucks x 1162 5-axle : % of 5-axle trucks x No. trucks x 1462 6-axle : % of 6-axle trucks x No. trucks x 968
= = = = =
16593 79002 56785 312698 22915
Annual ESAL :
=
487992
Total ESAL For Design Period
=
14639769
TRAFFIC INDEX (TI) = 9 (ESAL/1,000,000)EXP(0.119)
12.39 SAY
W.O. 5475-00
GEOLABS, INC. Hawaii California
12.5
PLATE B-1
Project:
Street:
Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Wailoa Bridge to Ponahawai Street Hilo, Island of Hawaii Kamehameha Avenue
Design Parameters Traffic Index R value of ACB R value of ASB R value of Subgrade
12.5
90 60 55
Pavement Section using Asphalt Concrete Base and Aggregate Subbase Trial Thickness of AC + ACB (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
13
Asphalt Concrete (AC) GE required GE with Tolerance = 0.400 Gf of AC GE/Gf =
Asphalt Concrete Base (ACB) GE required = GE of AC = GE required of ACB = Gf of ACB GE/Gf =
Inches
+
0.240
3.78
7.22
SAY USE
0.400 0.640 2.033 4.000 4.000
Inches Inches
SAY USE
1.600 0.438 1.162 1.931 7.50 9.00
Inches Inches
=
Calculate New Gf of AC Thickness of AC + Thickness of ACB New Gf of AC Aggregate Subbase (ASB) GE required = GE of AC = GE of ACB = GE required of ASB = GE less tolerance = Gf of ASB = GE/Gf =
-3.91
1.083 2.033
SAY USE
1.800 0.438 1.448 -0.086 -0.326 1.000 0.00 6.00
Inches Inches
Design Pavement Section 4.0 Inches AC 9.0 Inches ACB 6.0 Inches ASB 19.0 Inches Total Thickness
W.O. 5475-00
GEOLABS, INC. Hawaii California
PLATE B-2
Project:
Street:
Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Wailoa Bridge to Ponahawai Street Hilo, Island of Hawaii Kamehameha Avenue
Design Parameters Traffic Index R value of ACB R value of ASB R value of Subgrade
12.5
90 60 55
Pavement Section using Asphalt Concrete Base and Aggregate Subbase Trial Thickness of AC + ACB (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
13
Asphalt Concrete (AC) GE required GE with Tolerance = 0.400 Gf of AC GE/Gf =
Asphalt Concrete Base (ACB) GE required = GE of AC = GE required of ACB = Gf of ACB GE/Gf =
Inches
+
0.240
3.78
8.28
SAY USE
0.400 0.640 2.033 4.000 3.000
Inches Inches
SAY USE
1.600 0.268 1.332 1.931 8.50 10.00
Inches Inches
=
Calculate New Gf of AC Thickness of AC + Thickness of ACB New Gf of AC Aggregate Subbase (ASB) GE required = GE of AC = GE of ACB = GE required of ASB = GE less tolerance = Gf of ASB = GE/Gf =
-3.81
1.083 2.033
SAY USE
1.800 0.268 1.609 -0.078 -0.318 1.000 0.00 6.00
Inches Inches
Design Pavement Section 3.0 Inches AC 10.0 Inches ACB 6.0 Inches ASB 19.0 Inches Total Thickness
W.O. 5475-00
GEOLABS, INC. Hawaii California
PLATE B-3
W.O. 5475-00
PLATE B-4
ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT:
Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Wailoa Bridge to Ponahawai Street Hilo, Island of Hawaii
Unit Prices: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
In-Place Costs
Asphalt Concrete Pavement (AC) - per ton Asphalt Concrete Base (ACB) - per ton Asphalt Treated Permeable Base (ATPB) - per ton Cement Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) - per cubic yard Untreated Permeable Base (UTPB) - per cubic yard Aggregate Base (AB) - per cubic yard Aggregate Subbase (ASB) - per cubic yard Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCC) - per cubic yard Roadway Excavation - per cubic yard Cold Planing of Existing AC - per cubic yard AC Overlay - per ton
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
200.00 190.00 200.00 200.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 675.00 50.00 72.00 200.00
Assumptions/Limitations: 1. The new pavement sections are based on the current HDOT design guidelines 2. HDOT Conversion Factors: Asphalt Concrete Pavement (Mix IV): Asphalt Concrete Base: Asphalt Treated Permeable Base:
2.07 Tons/cubic yard 2.12 Tons/cubic yard 2.19 Tons/cubic yard
3. Assume cold-plane and overlay 2.0 inches of AC every 7 to 8 years for AC pavement with untreated bases Assume cold-plane and overlay 2.0 inches of AC every 10 to 12 years for AC pavement with treated bases 4. Economic analysis based on excavated pavement sections. 5. Assume rate of inflation at
6
percent per year.
6. Assume rate of discount at
6
percent per year.
PAVEMENT COST COMPARISON OPTION 1 2
W.O. 5475-00
TOTAL COST $ 237.09 per square yard $ 260.00 per square yard
GEOLABS, INC. Hawaii California
PLATE B-5
1.
AC Pavement Section with ACB over ASB
New Pavement Section: 4.0" AC, 9.0" ACB, 6.0" ASB (19.0" Roadway Excavation) Initial Cost Items
Thickness Quantity (inches) (cy/sy)
AC ACB ATPB CTPB UTPB AB ASB Roadway Excavation
4 9 0 0 0 0 6 19
0.11 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.53
Unit Price
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Cost Per Square Yard
200.00 190.00 200.00 200.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 50.00
$ 46.00 $ 100.70 $ $ $ $ $ 10.00 $ 26.39
Total Initial Cost
$ 183.09
Maintenance Cost Year
Items
Thickness (inches)
Quantity Present Inflated Inflated Cost Present Cost (cy/sy) Unit Price Unit Price Per Sq. Yd. Per Sq. Yd.
10
Cold-Planing AC Overlay
2.0 2.0
0.06 0.06
$ 72.00 $ 200.00
$ 128.94 $ 358.17
$ $
7.16 41.19
$ $
4.00 23.00
20
Cold-Planing AC Overlay
2.0 2.0
0.06 0.06
$ 72.00 $ 200.00
$ 230.91 $ 641.43
$ $
12.83 73.76
$ $
4.00 23.00
Total Maint. Cost
$
54.00
OPTION 1:
TOTAL COST
$
237.09
W.O. 5475-00
GEOLABS, INC.
Number of Overlay =
2
Hawaii California
PLATE B-6
2.
PCC Pavement with ASB
New Pavement Section: 12.0" PCC, 6.0" ASB (18.0" Roadway Excavation) Initial Cost Items
PCC ACB ATPB CTPB UTPB AB ASB Roadway Excavation
OPTION 2:
W.O. 5475-00
Thickness Quantity Unit Price (inches) (cy/sy) 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 18
0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.50
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
675.00 190.00 200.00 200.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 50.00
Cost Per Square Yard $ 225.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 10.00 $ 25.00
Total Cost
$ 260.00
TOTAL COST
$ 260.00
GEOLABS, INC. Hawaii California
PLATE B-7
Final Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project Pōnahawai, Kūkūau 1&2, and Waiākea Ahupua‘a, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai‘i TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
Prepared for Kimura International
Prepared by Sarah Wilkinson, Aulii Mitchell and Hallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D.
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. Kailua, Hawai‘i (Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3) January 2012 O‘ahu Office P.O. Box 1114 Kailua, Hawai‘i 96734 Ph.: (808) 262-9972 Fax: (808) 262-4950
www.culturalsurveys.com
Maui Office 1993 Main St. Wailuku, Hawai‘i 96793 Ph: (808) 242-9882 Fax: (808) 244-1994
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Management Summary
Management Summary Reference
Date Project Number(s) Investigation Permit Number Project Location Land Jurisdiction Agencies
Project Description
Project Acreage Project Related Ground Disturbance
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project, Pōnahawai, Kūkūau 1&2, and Waiākea Ahupua‘a, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai‘i, TMK [3] 2-2002:003, 004, and 006 (Wilkinson et al. 2012) January 2012 Federal Aid Project (FAP) No. STP-1910 (1) County of Hawai‘i Job No. P-3716 Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i (CSH) Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3 This report was prepared under archaeological permit # 11-17 and # 12-04 issued by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) under HAR 13-282-3. It is likely the monitoring fieldwork will be performed under archaeological permit # 12-04 The project area is located along portions of the existing Kamehameha Avenue and Pauahi Street right-of-ways in coastal Hilo, Hawai‘i. County of Hawai‘i County of Hawai‘i State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT) Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)/(SHPD) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The proposed undertaking is a County of Hawai‘i project to reconstruct and/or rehabilitate a 0.64-mile section of Kamehameha Avenue and a section of Pauahi Street between Kamehameha Avenue and the Hilo Bayfront Highway. The proposed project includes shaping the road crown; sidewalk and driveway repairs; traffic signal, street light, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance upgrades; bike lanes, and drainage improvements. Six traffic signal poles are planned at the Pauahi Street intersection. New street lights will be installed on both sides of the roadway. Two temporary contractor staging areas will be used for the duration of the construction project; each is approximately 75’ long x 50’ wide, located adjacent to the roadway, on the south, or mauka (upslope), side, one just east of Ke‘elikōlani Street and one just east of Bishop Street. Approximately 6.6 acres With the possible exception of staging area preparation, no construction will occur outside the existing and previously disturbed right-of-way. Subsurface excavation will be required for the two proposed traffic signals at the Pauahi Street excavation. One traffic signal pole with mast arm foundation will have a 30” diameter and be about 12’ deep. The second traffic signal pole (without mast arm) foundation is a 24” cube.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 06
i
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Historic Preservation Regulatory Context
Historic Properties Potentially Affected Recommended Monitoring
Management Summary
The proposed development constitutes a project requiring compliance with and review under State of Hawai‘i historic preservation review legislation (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes [HRS] 6E-42 and HAR 13284). Furthermore, given the use of federal funding, this project requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). No historic properties are known to be within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). This archaeological monitoring plan was prepared to meet the general requirements of HAR 13-279-4 governing archaeological monitoring plans. On-site archaeological monitoring is recommended for all ground-disturbance conducted beyond 12 inches (one foot) under the existing ground surface to facilitate the identification and treatment of any burials that might be discovered during project construction, and to mitigate the project’s effect on any non-burial archaeological deposits that may be present. Any departure from this will only follow consultation with and written concurrence from SHPD/DLNR.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
ii
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Table of Contents Management Summary ............................................................................................................ i Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Natural Environment............................................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Built Environment .................................................................................................................. 6
Section 2 Background Research ............................................................................................. 8 2.1 Traditional and Historical Background.......................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Mythological Accounts ........................................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Traditional Accounts............................................................................................................. 16 2.1.3 Pre-contact and Early Post-contact Settlement Patterns for Hilo ......................................... 20 2.1.4 Early Missionary Accounts of Hilo ...................................................................................... 21 2.1.5 Early Visits to Hilo Bay by Foreign Ships ........................................................................... 27 2.1.6 The Māhele of 1848 .............................................................................................................. 28 2.1.7 Early Foreign Residents and Merchants, 1790–1880 ........................................................... 32 2.1.8 Mid Nineteenth Century to the Present................................................................................. 35 2.2 Previous Archaeological Research .............................................................................................. 43 2.3 Background Summary and Predictive Model .............................................................................. 50
Section 3 Archaeological Monitoring Provisions ................................................................ 52 3.1 Specific Provisions ...................................................................................................................... 52 3.2 Research Foci............................................................................................................................... 54
Section 4 References Cited .................................................................................................... 55 Appendix A Section 106 Consultation Letter .................................................................... A-1 Appendix B SHPD Response to Section 106 Consultation Letter ................................... B-1
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
iii
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
List of Figures Figure 1. Portion of the 1995 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic map, Hilo Quad, showing the location of the project area ..............................................................................2 Figure 2. Hawai‘i Tax Map Key (TMK) section map [3] 2-2, showing the location of the project area along Hilo Bay .............................................................................................................3 Figure 3. Aerial photo (GeoEye2001) showing the location of the project area .............................4 Figure 4. Client-provided map showing the current projects’ Area of Potential Effect, which comprises the project area ....................................................................................................5 Figure 5. Aerial photo (GeoEye2001) overlain with Soil Survey data (Sato et al. 1973), showing the project area soils.............................................................................................................7 Figure 6. Portion of Registered Map (RM 1561, Baldwin 1891), showing the LCAs in the vicinity of the project area (shaded in pink), and other features discussed in the text ......29 Figure 7. 1825 chart of Hilo Bay by C. R. Malden, showing fishponds and patches representing cultivated fields in the vicinity of the project area; reprinted in Kelly et al. (1981:21).....39 Figure 8. Portion of a 1912 County of Hawai‘i map, showing the alignment of the proposed Waiolama Canal and other features discussed in the text; reprinted in Wickler and Ward (1992:8) ..............................................................................................................................41 Figure 9. Portion of a 1915 map of Hilo by Walter Wall (RM 1808), showing the location of the project area in relation to features discussed in the text ....................................................42 Figure 10. Portion of the 1977–1978 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Orthophoto of Hilo ........44 Figure 11. Portion of the 1995 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic map, Hilo Quad, showing the location of the project area in relation to previous archaeological studies conducted in Hilo ...................................................................................................45
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
iv
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
List of Tables Table 1. Land Commission Awards in Pōnahawai Ahupua‘a (Parcels Near the Project Area in Bold) ..................................................................................................................................30 Table 2. Land Commission Awards in Kūkūau Ahupua‘a (Parcels Near the Project Area in Bold) ..................................................................................................................................31 Table 3. Land Commission Awards in Waiākea Ahupua‘a (Parcels Near the Project Area in Bold) ..................................................................................................................................31 Table 4. Archaeological Studies in the Vicinity of the Current Project Area................................46
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
v
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Introduction
Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background At the request of Kimura International, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc. (CSH) has prepared this archaeological monitoring plan for the proposed Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project. The project area is located along portions of the existing Kamehameha Avenue and Pauahi Street right-of-ways in coastal Hilo, Hawai‘i. The project area, comprising approximately 6.6 acres, is shown on a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (Figure 1), on a Hawai‘i Tax Map Key (TMK) section map (Figure 2), and on a 2001 GeoEye aerial photograph (Figure 3). The proposed undertaking is a County of Hawai‘i project to reconstruct and/or rehabilitate a 0.64-mile section of Kamehameha Avenue and a section of Pauahi Street between Kamehameha Avenue and the Hilo Bayfront Highway (Figure 4). Kamehameha Avenue is a multilane undivided highway built on an 80-foot wide right-of-way. Pauahi Street is a multi-lane, divided road that connects Kamehameha Avenue with Hilo Bayfront Highway. Both roads have existing concrete curbs and sidewalks and are surrounded by open areas used for park and recreational purposes. The proposed project includes shaping the road crown; sidewalk and driveway repairs; traffic signal, streetlight, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance upgrades; bike lanes; and drainage improvements. Six traffic signal poles are planned at the Pauahi Street intersection. New street lights will be installed on both sides of the roadway. Two temporary contractor staging areas are planned for the project, each approximately 75’ long by 50’ wide. The staging areas are located adjacent to the roadway, on the south, or mauka (upslope) side, one just east of Ke‘elikōlani Street and one just east of Bishop Street. The staging areas are part of the Wailoa River State Recreation Area and were selected because they are relatively unused by the public and away from areas prone to storm water flooding. The staging areas will be used for the duration of the construction project. With the possible exception of staging area preparation, no construction will occur outside the existing and previously disturbed right-of-way. Subsurface excavation will be required for the two proposed traffic signals at the Pauahi Street excavation. One traffic signal pole with mast arm foundation will have a 30” diameter and be about 12’ deep. The second traffic signal pole (without mast arm) foundation is a 24” cube. The proposed development constitutes a project requiring compliance with and review under State of Hawai‘i historic preservation review legislation (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes [HRS] 6E-42 and Hawai‘i Administrative Rules [HAR] 13-284). Furthermore, given the use of federal funding, this project requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Based on the findings and recommendations from the Hilo Bayfront Trails Archaeological Assessment Survey (Rechtman 2009) and Final EA, and preliminary discussions with SHPD staff undertaken during the present projects’ Section 106 Consultation process, an archaeological monitoring program was recommended as mitigation for ground disturbance related to the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction project. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
1
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Introduction
Figure 1. Portion of the 1995 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic map, Hilo Quad, showing the location of the project area
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
2
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Introduction
Figure 2. Hawai‘i Tax Map Key (TMK) section map [3] 2-2, showing the location of the project area along Hilo Bay Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
3
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Introduction
Figure 3. Aerial photo (GeoEye2001) showing the location of the project area Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
4
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Introduction
Figure 4. Client-provided map showing the current projects’ Area of Potential Effect, which comprises the project area Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
5
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Introduction
1.2 Environmental Setting 1.2.1 Natural Environment The project area is located in the South Hilo District of Hawai‘i Island, at an elevation ranging from approximately one (1) foot to seven (7) feet above mean sea level (AMSL); the ground surface within the project area is generally level. According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website (www.prh.noaa.gov/hnl/climate/phto_clim.php), rainfall near the shore in Hilo averages approximately 130 inches per year, and temperatures are characterized by lows and highs ranging from 63 to 83 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively, depending on the season. Hilo experiences a relative humidity averaging approximately 80 percent (Juvik et al. 1998:51). Soils within the project area consist entirely of Keaukaha extremely rocky muck, 6 to 20 percent slopes (rKFD soil type) (Figure 5). The Keaukaha series consists of well-drained, thin organic soils overlying pāhoehoe (smooth) lava bedrock, found low on the slopes of Mauna Loa (Sato et al. 1973:27). The rKFD soil type predominately occurs near the city of Hilo. This soil type supports native forest, which in places has been cleared and used for pasture (Sato et al. 1973:27), or, in the case of the current project area, has been completely obliterated by development. The areas along Kamehameha Avenue and Pauahi Street have been landscaped with grassy lawns and ornamental trees and shrubs. The project should only affect vegetation present within the proposed staging areas. 1.2.2 Built Environment The project area encompasses existing roadways and related infrastructure and open grassy lawns within the staging areas. The subject roadways are integral parts of downtown Hilo, which has experienced commercial and residential development since the early post-contact era. A service station is present at the far eastern end of the project area, on the mauka side of Kamehameha Avenue. Another service station and a car dealership are located on the mauka side of the Kamehameha Avenue and Pauahi Street intersection. Driveways along the mauka shoulder of Kamehameha Avenue access the Wailoa River State Recreation Area, while driveways on the makai side of Kamehameha Avenue access Mo‘oheau County Park and associated parking lots.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
6
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Introduction
Figure 5. Aerial photo (GeoEye2001) overlain with Soil Survey data (Sato et al. 1973), showing the project area soils Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
7
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Section 2 Background Research Since the project area encompasses the makai-most portion of three major ahupua‘a (traditional land divisions) within Hilo, the following section presents an account of the traditional and historical background Hilo town in general. Where possible, specific information pertaining to Pōnahawai, Kūkūau and Waiākea Ahupua‘a is included. A summary of previous archaeological research conducted in the vicinity of the current project area is also given. The results of the background research are then summarized and used to form a predictive model for the extent and types of historic properties that may be present within the project area.
2.1 Traditional and Historical Background 2.1.1 Mythological Accounts Theodore Kelsey, a student of the Hawaiian culture living in Hilo, collected oral histories from local Native Hawaiian residents. Kelsey “reported that [a] Mrs. Kamakakuikalani told him that Waiākea was so named ‘because you could dig any where and find water’ . . . the lands of Pōnahawai and Kukuau were named for two beautiful chiefess sisters” (Walker and Rosendahl 1996:A-11). Kelsey translated a legend, “The Adventure of the Princesses,” in the Hilo Tribune Herald on September 29, 1925 that introduces these “chiefess sisters.” The story was originally written for the Hilo Boarding School and published with the consent of Levi Lyman. The material, Kelsey says, was obtained from the late Mr. Mahaiula, of Ha‘aheo, Hilo, and Mrs. Grace Pa, of the Waiākea Homesteads. This legend and the others told by Kelsey (to follow) give great insight to the place names associated with Hawaiian sites, locations, and past and continuing activities of the Hilo residents in the 1920s. “What a beautiful girl! Let’s go down and make friends with her!” exclaimed a charming princess of the land of the rain that sounds on the lehua trees of HiloOne, (Sandy Hilo) ancient sand of King Hanakahi as she grasped the arm of her lovely royal sister. Rapturously Kukua and Ponaha-wai for they were none othergazed below them. There in the quiet pool of Ala-pahee (ala rock slippery with moss) bathed a maiden of wondrous beauty! Her magnificent wet brown body glistened in the sunlight. Extolling the soft curve of her hips was clinging pa-u [skirt] of red kapa. Like the ruddy end of a rainbow in the sea was she. Yes, down in the somber gorge, with its steep banks clad in dark verdure, relived in places by the light-green of kukui trees, echoing with songs of native birds, now basking in the fitful smile of shifting sunlight and cloud-shadow, now refreshed with warm tropic showers—for the Ua Lani Pili, the continuous rain of Hilo, had drawn up the fallen cords of its calabash-net into the heavens bathed this lehua bower of ancient Hawaii. Too and fro, too and fro she swayed with sinuous grace, in harmony with the beating temple-drums of neighboring ocean, where Wai-naku stream sacrifices its fresh life on resounding altar-stones, and dying white-haired couriers bear away Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
8
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
its sunny spirit, down through the dark depths to the gloomy underworld of notorious King Milu. In and out, in and out she plied, her shapely fingers, through streaming tresses as black as the feather-mantle of Alala, the Raven, that hid a queenly, averted face. Thrusting aside ferns and bushes, down the bank rushed the princesses, but alas the charming bather had vanished! Auwe! It was as though the earth had swallowed her! Ah, little did they dream that she was really a mo‘o, one of the huge crocodile-creatures that sequestered pools in the guise of beautiful women with averted faces, combing their hair with their fingers! All over the stream they searched, but in vain. Ascending the bank on opposite sides they scoured the land. Alas, naught availed their best efforts. “Where have you been?” (“Ihea aku nei oe?”) queried wayfarers who met the bewildered princess on the Hamakua side of the stream. “To the Water of Wandering where I wandered searching” (“I Wainaku wau, kahi i naku hele ai”) she replied evasively. The other princess, overtaken by travelers as she roamed about on the Puna side, was asked the same question. “I have been to the Straying, to the place where I went astray” (“I Kalalau aku nei au, kahi i lalau hele ai.”) was her mysterious answer. From that day to this both the stream and the bank where the first princess wandered, have been know as Wai-naku, though the stream, so the map tells us, is Pohaku Nanaka (Split Stone), the name of a rock makai of the Wai-naku Ave. culvert (below where Sheriff Pua lived) until used for roads. On the Puna side, where the second princess roved, though now called Halau-lani Place, the land is still known to the kamaaina [long-time residents] as Ka-lalau . . . [Kelsey 1925a, published in the Hilo Tribune Herald, courtesy of the Lyman Museum Archives, Hilo, Hawai‘i]. Kelsey continues by including notes at the end of his legend giving more insight into the place names mentioned in his publication. Ku Ua Kani-Lehua, the rain that sounds on the lehua trees, may be heard some distance away. It forms at Lele-iwi Point, goes mauka along the forest to the lava flow at Makau-lele, one of the places where the noted lehua flowers of Hilo were obtained. Mauka of Makau-lele is Kaunuunu-moa, sometimes contracted to Kaunu-a-moa in mele. Then the rain turns toward Maka-hana-loa Point, where Pepe-eke-o (not Pepeekeo) is located. It ceases above Hilo town. This rain is of short duration. Its coming indicates stormy weather on this side of Hawaii. The cliff section of Hilo district is known as Hilo Pali-ku, Hilo of the standing cliffs. Hana-kahi was an ancient king who lived on the Puna side of the Wailoa River where the cocoanut trees are. A large mango tree now grows on a little hill know as Hamakahi on the road to “Dranga Camp.” A portion of sandy Hilo was known as Ke One o Hana-kahi, the sand of King Hana-kahi. Kukuau was so-named, I hear because the princess of that name was once bitten by a large crab called kukuau, while appropriating some fish caught by someone Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
9
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
else. Ponaha-wai literally means “forest-clearing containing water.” There is reason for giving each royal name, and often deep-figurative meaning in such names. The comparison of a beautiful woman to a rainbow in the sea is made in the song He Lei No Ka-iulani. “Me he punohuula aia i ke kai.” In a Hawaiian conundrum the earth is compared to a shallow calabash, the heavens to its cover, the rainbow to red suspending-cords, and rain to the calabash-net falling about it. Hilo was noted for lehuas [Kelsey 1925a, published in the Hilo Tribune Herald, courtesy of the Lyman Museum Archives, Hilo, Hawai‘i]. 2.1.1.1 The Legend of the Hilo Hills Hawaiian legends about the three hills of Hilo were also published by Theodore Kelsey in the Hilo Tribune Herald in 1925. The basis for this story was obtained from the late “Bert” Brown, of Hilo. The versions of Mrs. John Porter, Mrs. Pahau, and Miss Charlotte Hapai, also have aided. The story was first written for the Hilo Boarding School, and it was published with the permission of Levi Lyman. In the farthest seaward of the three hills just above the Hilo Boarding school, is a large crater-like hollow, now covered by a tall clump of bamboo, across the bottom of which the Rev. D. B. Lyman once carried on his shoulders his little son Fred, who grew to be a gray-haired magistrate, through taro so high he couldn’t see over it. This depression, so the story relates, is really a gigantic imu, or Hawaiian-oven. Even yet pieces of porous ala work used to heat this oven, for it would not explode like solid stone, may be found beneath the bamboo. “Dig a large imu in my hill,” said Hina-a-ke-ahi, Fire Hina, eldest daughter of Hina of the falls of Rainbow Water (Wai-anuenue), “Fetch stones and gather wood from the upland to heat it.” Painfully her starving subjects did as she bade them, for it was a time of great famine. When the imu was kindled and the red-hot stones rolled into place the queen told her beloved people that to save them all from death by starvation she would be their human sacrifice, but that they must not fear for she would be victorious over the fire. “You will only die in vain to save us,” protested the kahunas, the sooth-sayers and all the people, but she had made up her mind. “Here you will find pig, dog, fish, awa,” she said as she pointed to the spot in the oven where each would be found, and where the tabu-food (ai kapu) was to be reserved for her when three days hence she should appear from the sea to open the oven with them. “Cover me well,” she commanded as she stepped quickly onto the fiery stones and disappeared in a cloud of steam. Wailing they spread the kauewe of ti-leaves over the imu. They might have used mats, but nothing trodden by the foot of man should cover the queen.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
10
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Escaping from the oven through her power over fire Hina traveled underground till she came to the surface in the spring of Puou near the present reservoir, from which water is piped to town. Again diving underground she reappeared in the spring of Po-po-alaea, just mauka of the road to Hilo jail, by the ancient trail to Rainbow Falls. Again she dove and again reappeared in the spring of the mullet pond Moe-waa (canoe dream, or canoe-burial) the depression of which may still be seen on the Wetmore land behind the county building. Diving for the last time she came to the surface in the spring of Hina-au-au-wai at the foot of Haili Street just above the present track (on John Kai’s boundary) a little to the side toward Hamakua from where water now flows into the sea. Below the tracks and a few yards to the north was an ancient place for hauling up canoes (kau lana waa) named Ka pali iki (the little cliff), a large rock now covered with sand where women of old gathered moss and shell-fish. It is said by one informant that this represents the surfboard of Hina who rode the waves in the early morning returning to the imu. There are some small springs in the ocean but these we will not attribute to Hina. After her bath the queen started overland for her hill. Plucking lehua flowers from the vicinity where the Hilo Boarding School now stands she made leis to adorn her head and neck. Arriving at Puu Nahawele, (a resting place where women might stop to eat some of nahawele shell-fish gathered at the shore) the queen sat on a large stone now carved with several initials, on the Puna side of the trail between the two springs where she first appeared. “Why? She looks just like our beloved Queen Hina!” exclaimed some of her subjects as she sat spreading her beautiful black hair to dry. Quickly a crowd assembled. Behold, their queen, buried in the oven three days before, stood before them! Quickly ascending the hill they tore open the imu. All the food was there just where Queen Hina said it would be. Oh what feasting and rejoicing! All wailing ceased, and so great was the contentment of the people after the terrible scourge of famine that the hill was named in commemoration of this great event, Puu o Hala‘i, Hill of Calm. Envious at the success of her sister, Hina-kulu-i‘ua, or Hina-a-ka-ua, Rain Hina who had power over water, but not fire, foolishly attempted to follow the example of her eldest sister on her own hill just above that of Fire Hina. It was known as Puu Honu, Turtle Hill, for this sister didn’t get any where. Indeed her jealous attempt proved fatal. Seeing the spirit of his auntie in the form of a dark cloud flowing over her hill, the demigod Maui transformed himself into a white rooster, and flying into the air caught the spirit of his aunt in the form of two large drops of rain. Alighting and again assuming the form of a man he ran swiftly toward the pali of Holei at Panau nui, Puna, intending to cook the drops in a huge imu there, and thus lessen the rain of Hilo so that his mother Hina could better dry the tapa that she pounded in her cave under Rainbow Falls. As he ran one of the drops fell from his hand in the forest of Pana-ewa and became the Ua Haleu ‘ole, a swift Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
11
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
rain of Hilo which comes in from the east over the sea. The remaining drop was cooked. In after times when fog descended below the kukui trees that surrounded a big patch of pili grass about this imu the salt-makers by the sea at Kekaha would cover their ti-leaves with sea-water to prepare for a shower, for Maui was still cooking the rain. Puu Honu was the hill from which Princess Ruth (Ke-eli-ko-lani) stopped the lava flow of 1881 which advanced to with a mile of Hilo, Puu o Kamalii, Children’s Hill, the last of the three, was so-called because it was an ancient playground. There was a holua slide (Hawaiian sledge) down this hill extending toward the present Nawahi place [Kelsey 1925b, published in the Hilo Tribune Herald, courtesy of the Lyman Museum Archives, Hilo, Hawai‘i.]. Chester Smith Lyman, a son of the missionaries who settled in Hilo in 1832, recalled that he and his boyhood friends used the eastern side of Hāla‘i Hill (one of the Hilo Hills) for sliding, not on a prepared hōlua (sled course) area, but just on the grassy slopes, using ti leaves or coconut fronds for their sleds. Lyman stated that this was the “identical sliding place of King Kamehameha 1st when in this part of his dominions” (Lyman, Journal June 22, 1846). 2.1.1.2 Maui Lifted Up the Sky Mr. Padraic Colum arrived at Hawai‘i in 1923, where he learned something of the Hawaiian language. He went through the islands seeking out people who still had the tradition of Hawaiian romance and who could relate it in the traditional way. After making a study of all the material that had been collected he went to several other sources. One of the traditions that he collected concerned the Hawaiian demi-god, Maui (Colum 1937:xii). Then he lifted up the sky to where it is now. This was the second of Ma-ui’s great deeds. When he was growing up in his mother’s house the sky was so low that the trees touched it and had their leaves flattened out. Men and women burned with the heat because the sky was so near to them. The clouds were so close that there was much darkness on the earth. Something had to be done about it, and Ma-ui made up his mind that he would lift up the sky. Somewhere he got a mark tattooed on his arm that was a magic mark and that gave him great strength. Then he went to lift up the sky. And from some woman he got a drink that made his strength greater. “Give me to drink out of your gourd,” he said, “and I will push up the sky.” The woman gave him her gourd to drink from. Then Ma-ui pushed at the sky. He lifted it high, to where the trees have their tops now. He pushed at it again, and he put it where the mountains have their tops now. And then he pushed it to where it rests, on the tops of the highest mountains. Then the men and women were able to walk about all over the earth, and they had light now and clear air. The trees grew higher and higher, and they grew more and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
12
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
more fruit. But even to this day their leaves are flattened out: it is from the time when their leaves were flattened against the sky. When the sky was lifted up Ma-ui went and made a kite for himself. From his mother got the largest and strongest piece of tapa cloth she had ever made, and he formed it into a kite with a frame and cross-sticks of hau wood. The tail of the kite was fifteen fathoms long, and he got a line of olona vine for it that was twenty ties forty fathoms in length. He started the kite. But it rose very slowly; the wind barely held it up. Then the people said: “Look at Ma-ui! He lifted the sky up, and now he can’t fly a kite.” Ma-ui was made angry when he heard them say this: he drew the kite this way and that way, but still he was not able to make it rise up. He cried out his incantation— “Strong wind, come; Soft wind, come”— but still the kite would not rise. Then he remembered that in the Valley of Wai-pio there was a wizard who had control of the winds. Over the mountains and down into the valley Ma-ui went. He saw the calabash that the wizard kept the winds in, and he asked him to loose them and direct them to blow along the river to the place where he was going to fly his kite. Then Ma-ui went back. He stood with his feet upon the rocks along the bank of the Wai-lu-ku River; he stood there braced to hold his kite, and where he stood are the marks of his feet to this day. He called out: “O winds, winds of Wai-pio, Come from the calabash—the Calabash of Perpetual Winds. O wind, O wind of Hilo, Come quickly; come with power.” The call that Ma-ui gave went across the mountains and down into the valley of Wai-pio. No sooner did he hear it than the wizard opened his calabash. The winds rushed out. They went into the bay of Hilo, and they dashed themselves against the water. The call of Ma-ui came to them: “O winds, winds of Hilo, hurry, hurry and come to me.” The winds turned from the sea. They rushed along the river. They came to where Ma-ui stood, and then they saw the great, strange bird that he held. They wanted to fall upon that bird and dash it up against the sky. But the great kite was strong. The winds flung it up and flung it this way and that way. But they could not carry it off or dash it against the sky as they wanted to. Ma-ui rejoiced. How grand it was to hold a kite that the winds strove to tear away! He called out again: “O winds, O winds of Hilo, come to the mountains, come.”
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
13
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Then came the west wind that had been dashing up waves in the bay of Hilo. It joined itself with the north winds and the east wind, the two winds that had been tearing and pushing at Ma-ui’s kite. Now, although the kite was made of the strongest tapa, and although it had been strengthened in every cunning way that Ma-ui knew, it was flung here and flung there. Ma-ui let his line out; the kite was borne up and up and above the mountains. And now he cried out to the kite he had made: “Climb up, climb up. To the highest level of the heavens, to all the sides of the heavens. Climb thou to thy ancestor, to the sacred bird in the heavens.” The three winds joined together, and now they made a fiercer attack upon Ma-ui’s kite. The winds tore and tossed it. Then the line broke in Ma-ui’s hands. The winds flung the kite across the mountains. And then, to punish it for having dared to face the heavens, they rammed it down into the volcano, and stirred up the fires against it. Then Ma-ui made for himself another kite. He flew it, and rejoiced in the flying of it, and all who saw him wondered how high his kite went and how gracefully it bore itself in the heavens. But never again did he call upon the great winds to help him in his sport. Sometimes he would fasten his line to the black stones in the bed of the Wai-lu-ku River, and he would let the kite soar upward and range here and there. He knew by watching his soaring kite whether it would be dry and pleasant weather, and he showed his neighbors how they might know it. “Eh, neighbor,” one would say to another, “it is going to be dry weather, look how Ma-ui’s kite keeps in the sky.” They know that they could go to the fields to work and spread out their tapa to dry, for as long as the kite soared the rain would not fall. Maui learned what strong pull the fierce winds had. He used to bring his kite with him when he went out on the ocean in his canoe. He would let it free; then, fastening his line to the canoe, he would let the wind that pulled the kite pull him along. By flying his kite he learned how to go more swiftly over the ocean in his canoe, and how to make further voyages than ever a man made before. Nevertheless, his kite flying is not counted amongst the great deeds of Ma-ui [Colum 1937:40–44]. 2.1.1.3 Maui and the Alae Birds of Hāla‘i Hill Ellen Goodale Lyman was the granddaughter of the original David and Sarah Lyman who settled in Hilo in 1832. She researched and collected many stories relating to the lands of Hilo. The following legend was retold by Ellen Lyman and later archived at the Lyman Museum in Hilo. A long, long time ago there lived in Hilo a person named Hina. She was partly a goddess & partly human, & she loved the people of Hilo. She had three or four sons, but the one we know best was Maui, the youngest. His father was the god Ku. From Ku came to Maui the wisdom and strength of a god; from the mother, Hina, came the kind heart & the love to do good to the people. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
14
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
At that time nobody had any fire; people must eat raw the breadfruit, the sweet potatoes, the fish, and how could they eat kalo (taro) at all? Every one knows how raw kalo stings the mouth & makes it sore. Now, in Hilo, on the southern side of Halai hill, the people often used to see thin white smoke rising among the tall waving ferns. But if two or three children or anybody, ran, no matter how fast, to find that queer little cloud in the bushes, they saw only some alae birds flying frightened away, leaving nothing behind but ashes and blackened sticks. Perhaps the boy Holopaani might get a tiny bit of roasted banana left in the ashes. He would taste, and give to his sister, Makahinuhinu, & then he would say, “Oh, if we could only find how the alae do this—how they make the fire & cook the bananas! How good it tastes!” But it was no use to try; the birds that knew the secret of making fire were too smart. Even Maui, the godman, tried for a long time in vain. The birds knew that he watched them, & they always kept a watch out for him. They called him Maui the Mama, which means Maui the Quick one—& they would not make a fire until they saw him off fishing with his two brothers in the beautiful blue waters of fair Hilo Bay. One day Maui said to his brothers: “I have a thought”—then he paused. “What is your thought?” asked the brothers. Well, you take the long calabash in which we keep our fish lines & put it like a man between you in the canoe, & you go out to fish & leave me on shore. The alaes will say, “Ah, we count three men fishing— now we are safe.” But I will go up slyly to their place to watch for them & give them a fire hoka.” So he crept up under the high bending ama‘u ferns of Hala‘i & hid, before the alaes came. Very soon the birds flew swiftly by with their leader, Huapi (The active) who also knew the fire secret. “Hurry, Alae Huapi! they cried; kindle your fire—let us get the bananas in quick, quick, before Maui Mama can come back from fishing and catch us!” And Maui heard every word, but after all he was not “mama” enough to see the fire started. Though he was fishing so near, behind a big rock. He leaped out to catch a burning stick but the watch bird saw and screamed. “Put out the fire!” “Put out your fire!” & in a moment it was out, & the birds had flown away like the wind—all but the brave little Alae Huapi who stayed a second too long to scratch out the very last spark. Maui grabbed little Alae Huapi, the “Active.” “Ah ha, I’ve caught you!” said he, holding her out in his big hand. “Now tell me how you make fire.” Alae fluttered & struggled & twisted, but could not speak. “Tell it, tell it,” cried Maui, with a pinch for poor Alae; “Tell it or I will kill you.” Then spoke the bird. “Yes—I will tell you go get a stick & a banana leaf, & rub the leaf with the stick, & fire will come.” So big Maui, holding small Alae safely in his hand, went to work with the other hand to rub & rub while Alae looked on. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
15
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
So you think he got fire that way? No you want to try? No, indeed, he didn’t—he got angry instead & he shook the plucky little bird till she could hardly speak. “Now then,” said he “look out what I’ll do to you next time, if you do not tell the truth!” Alae answered, “So bring kalo stalks & rub them with your stick; and again she watched. It seemed that Maui was getting the “fire hoka” just then. When he found he could get only water, he slapped & shook her harder yet, but still she kept her secret, & went on telling him more foolishness. At last Maui turned to her. “Now,” said he. I will try rubbing your head, & see what I shall get; & he scraped away till the blood flowed down (and ever since the Hilo mud hens, & all of their sort, have a red mark on their heads). The mud hen told him to rub the stick on the dry hau stick. But nothing happened. The mud hen then told him to rub harder and faster. Maui finally made a fire [Lyman 1936, Lyman Museum Archives, Hilo]. 2.1.2 Traditional Accounts The districts of Hilo and Hāmākua were once ruled by the descendants of paramount chief ‘Umi after the death of Kulukulu‘ā, chief of Hilo. After Kulukulu‘ā, great chiefs of Hilo ruled the districts of Hilo and Hāmākua. The following excerpt is found in Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii by Samuel Kamakau. Hilo and Hamakua [districts] were held by descendants of Keawe-nui-a-‘Umi by Kamola-nui-a-‘Umi, Kumalae-nui-a-‘Umi by Ku-nu‘u-nui-a-‘Umi, and Kumalaenui-a-‘Umi by Ku-nu‘u-nui-pu‘awa-lau. Their children and grandchildren were the rulers of Hilo and Hamakua [Kamakau 1992:61]. Samuel Kamakau’s documentation of the early ruling chiefs of Hawai‘i Island records traditional native Hawaiian customs, beliefs, and cultural practices during the battle between ‘Umi-a-Līloa and Kulukulu‘ā, the chief of Hilo. The details presented in the following text give the reader an idea of the cultural significance of the lei niho palaoa, or the whale’s tooth necklace, and establish the early residence of Hilo chiefs. Umi-a-Liloa broke the tongue of the wiliwili wood, and when the daughter of Kulukulu‘a’ saw this she ran quickly to her father and said, “My husband broke my necklace in pieces.” He asked, “Why did he break it?” His daughter answered, “The man said that he was ashamed of it, and that wiliwili pendants are worn by their commoners, from children to old women. The necklaces worn by their chiefs are made of the teeth of whales (niho kohola a me ka niho palaoa). Kulukulu‘a’ said to his daughter, “Have those men bound with ropes, and if the ivory palaoa of chieftainship is not produced, then they shall be slaughtered and offered as sacrifices in the heiau of Kanoa.” Kulukulu‘a’ commanded his warriors to bind three of the men with ropes, ‘Umia-Liloa, ‘Oma‘o-kamau, and Ko‘i. Pi‘i-mai-wa‘a was sent to Waipi‘o for the palaoa, because it was ordered that only one day be given them to secure it, or else they should die. Pi‘i-mai-wa‘a ran and in a short time arrived at Waipi‘o, and told the chiefs that ‘Umi and his companions were in trouble in Hilo. It did not Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
16
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
take long for Pi‘i-mai-wa‘a, on that selfsame day, to return and give the ivory into the hands of Kulukulu‘a’’s daughter. She leaped and laughed with glee over her luck, but ‘Umi-a-Liloa was sad at the thought of parting with the heirloom of his father Liloa. He uttered a prayer to his god, Kuka‘ili-moku to let the chiefs of Hilo take care of the palaoa of chieftainship, Nani-koki, until the day when they should become his captives. When the ivory was received, ‘Umi and his companions were freed from being held prisoners in the house of his parents-in-law. As soon as they were released in Hilo, ‘Umi and his companions returned to Hamakua and went down to Waipi‘o. There he conferred with his chiefs and his father’s old war leaders. It was decided to make war on the chiefs of Hilo and to go without delay by way of Mauna Kea. From back of Ka‘umana they were to descend to Hilo. It was shorter to go by way of the mountain to the trail of Poli‘au and Poli‘ahu’s spring at the top of Mauna Kea, and then down toward Hilo. It was an ancient trail used by those of Hamakua, Kohala, and Waimea to go to Hilo. They made ready to go with their fighting parties to Mauna Kea, descended back of Hilo, and encamped just above the stream of Waianuenue without the knowledge of Hilo’s people that war was coming from the upland. Hilo’s chiefs were unprepared. A certain fisherman of Pu‘ueo was at sea, catching nehu fish, and he noticed that the water in the ocean was dirty. He was surprised and guessed that there was war in the mountain, and it was that which caused the water to be so dirty. Some [of his companions] denied this and declared that it was a cloudburst instead of war, and that was the cause of the dirt and the reddening of the water flowing into the sea. He would not believe them and insisted that this dirt was stirred up by the feet of men. He hauled up his drawnets at once and went ashore. He did not stop to dry his nets, but cooked taro and some nehu fish, picked up his war spear, draped his cape of ti leaves over his back, and departed for the upland. The name of this man was Nau. When Nau arrived away up in the upland of Ka‘umana, he remained at a narrow pass, and the other side of it was the camp [of ‘Umi]. He sat on a flat stone beside the stream and after opening his bundle of nehu fish, ate some with the cooked taro (kuala). ‘Umi-a-Liloa’s warriors noticed Nau, the noted fisherman of Pu‘ueo, eating taro and nehu fish. It was difficult for ‘Umi-a-Liloa’s men to pass through to the trail. They came in single file to go through the pass, and at the narrowest part a leg had to reach out first. The spot in which he sat was comfortable and was in a depression. When someone on the other side reached out to go through, he was stabbed with a spear and fell over the cliff, dead. This was continued until many were destroyed by the lone man who hoarded the narrow pass of Ka‘uamoa. Forty were killed. Pi‘i-mai-wa‘a climbed over the cliff and saw but one man against its side. He said to himself, “I shall kill you,” and leaped over. [A cry went up] “Pi‘i-mai-wa‘a is dead! He has fallen over the cliff.” It was Nau who died, and so there was no one to warn the chief of Hilo. When night came, the war party reached Hilo. They were supplied with torches and saw the chief’s residences and the house of Kulukulu‘a’s daughter. ‘Umi-a-Liloa’s warriors Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
17
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
surrounded them, and the chiefs of Hilo were destroyed. Kulukulu‘a’s daughter was spared, and Nani-koki, the famous palaoa, was restored. Regret for the loss of the palaoa was the cause of the war. After the battle, the districts of Hilo and Hamakua were united under the rule of ‘Umi-a-Liloa [Kamakau 1992:16, 17]. Early Hawaiian scholars began collecting and writing about Hawai‘i’s history in the mid 1800s. Both John Papa ‘Ī‘ī (1959) and Samuel Mānaiakalani Kamakau (1992) describe events that occurred in the Hilo region during the life of Kamehameha I: Alapai, ruler of Hawaii [from 1730–1754] and great uncle of Kamehameha, and his wife Keaka took charge of him [Kamehameha]. Some years later, Alapai and his chiefs went to Waiolama in Hilo, where Keoua Kupuapaikalani, the father of Kamehameha, was taken sick and died. Before Keoua died he sent for Kalaniopuu, his older half brother and the chief of Kau, to come and see him. Keoua told Kalaniopuu that he would prosper through Kamehameha’s great strength and asked him to take care of the youth, who would have no father to care for him. Keoua warned Kalaniopuu, saying, “Take heed, for Alapai has no regard for you or me, whom he has reared.” After this conversation, Keoua allowed his brother to go, and Kalaniopuu left that night for Puaaloa [situated in the ahupua‘a of Waiākea, in the area called Pana‘ewa]. As Kalaniopuu neared Kalanakamaa [in Waiākea], he heard the death wails for Keoua and hastened on toward Kalepolepo [between Mohouli and Kāwili] where he had left his warriors. There they were attacked by Alapai’s men, who had followed Kalaniopuu from Hilo. First the warriors from the lowland gained, then those from the upland. . . . Kalaniopuu continued his journey, and at midnight reached Puaaloa, where he arranged for the coming battle. The next day all went as he had planned; his forward armies led the enemy into the forest of Paieie, where there was only a narrow trail, branchy on either side and full of undergrowth. There his men in ambush arose up against the enemy warriors, and his rear armies closed in behind them. . . . When news reached Alapai that his warriors had been destroyed, he sent another company of warriors to meet Kalaniopuu at Mokaulele on the outer road, which was an ancient road, known from the time of remote antiquity [‘Ī‘ī 1959:3–4]. According to Kelly et al. (1981:3), the lands fronting Hilo were portioned off into named land sections, consisting of the ahupua‘a of Pu‘u‘eo, Pi‘ihonua, Punahoa, Pōnahawai, Kūkūau and Waiākea, although it is not known when or by what chief. It is assumed that this had been accomplished by the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. Note that the ahupua‘a of Kaūmana is not included in this list, since it was often considered part of Pōnahawai. Samuel Kamakau (1992) recorded the events occurring in Hilo during the life of Kamehameha I, and he identified the location of the death of Keoua, father of Kamehameha. Keoua, called Ka-lani-kupu-a-pa-i-ka-lani-nui, fell ill of a lingering sickness at Pi‘opi‘o [the site of the present Kamehameha Statue in Hilo] adjoining Wailoa in Waiakea and died there in 1752. . . . His older brother Ka-lani-opuu was with his kahu [guardian-attendant] Pua, above Kalepolepo at the time [Kamakau 1992:75]. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
18
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Following the death of Kalani‘ōpu‘u in 1782, the island of Hawai‘i was to be ruled by Kīwala‘ō, Kalani‘ōpu‘u’s son. The god Kūka‘ilimoku was given to Kamehameha I. Disagreement arose about the division and redistribution of land in the Hilo District. The ahupua‘a of Waiākea and Pōnahawai were among the contested lands. Keoua Kuahu-‘ula heard that the land was being divided. He was a twin son of Ka-lani-‘opu‘u, his twin brother being Keoua Pe‘e-‘ale. The beautiful chiefess Kane-kapo-lei was their mother. Keoua was a handsome man, tall and broad of body, with fine features: a distinguished looking figure with strands of hair so long that they hung down his back. That day about nine o’clock he came to the ruling chief, Kiwala‘o, and said, “Are Ola‘a and Kea‘au ours?” The chief answered, “They have been given away; they are not ours.” “How about Waiakea and Ponahawai?” “They have been given away; they are not ours” [Kamakau 1992:119–120]. After the death of Kīwala‘ō, the island of Hawai‘i was controlled by three chiefs: Keawema‘uhili, controlled Hilo and Hāmākua; Kēoua-kū‘ahu‘ula, controlled and resided in Ka‘ū; and Kamehameha controlled Kohala and Kona. Kēoua divided the lands of Hilo District between his chiefs and warriors, and “the fat Mullet of Waiakea and Pi‘opi‘o became theirs” (Kamakau 1992:152). Keawema‘uhili ruled out of Hilo Bay as chief of the Hilo District, dating back to the reign of his brother Kalani‘ōpu‘u. It is likely that the center of rule was at Waiākea Ahupua‘a in Hilo Bay. It was probably the same center of court used by previous rulers and by Kamehameha after unification of the island in 1791. Once Kamehameha had full control of Hawai‘i Island, Kamehameha planned to invade the neighboring islands. Kelly et al. (1981:8) believes that “An important part of his preparation was the building of war canoes, and for this Hilo seems to have become his headquarters for considerable periods of time.” When Captain George Vancouver, in his ships the Discovery and the Chatham, visited Hawai‘i in 1793, they first met up with Kamehameha at Hilo Bay, as he was at that time residing at Waiākea to preside over the Makahiki festival (Menzies 1920:140–141). In 1795, Kamehameha sailed from Hawai‘i to O‘ahu for further conquests. According to John Papa ‘Ī‘ī (1959:15), on his way to O‘ahu Kamehameha took possession of the islands of Maui and Moloka‘i. In 1795 at the Battle of Nu‘uanu, he conquered the island of O‘ahu. Only one island remained outside of his power, the island of Kaua‘i. Kamehameha’s canoe fleet was driven back during his attempt to invade Kaua‘i, and he had to quickly return to the island of Hawai‘i to quell a rebellion. Namakehā, a Maui chief living in Ka‘ū, fomented a rebellion amongst the people of Ka‘ū, Puna, and Hilo. In 1796, returning to Hawai‘i, Kamehameha defeated Namakehā in a battle near Hilo (‘Ī‘ī 1959:15–16). Namakehā’s body would be sacrificed by Kamehameha on the heiau (shrine) of Kaipalaoa in Pi‘ihonua, Hilo (Kamakau 1992:174). Strong-willed to conquer the island of Kaua‘i, Kamehameha prepared to invade Kaua‘i yet again. Kamakau (1992:187) recorded that Kamehameha had over 800 canoes, called the peleleu (extended, broad) fleet. His determination to overcome Kaua‘i would be ill fated. He embarked with his peleleu fleet in 1809 to the island of Maui. After a year, the fleet moved on to O‘ahu. On Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
19
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
O‘ahu, an epidemic, possibly cholera or the bubonic plague, took the lives of three of Kamehameha’s principal warriors and nearly took his own life. He, therefore, temporarily renounced his plans to invade Kaua‘i. Kamehameha never gave up his ambition to unite all of the islands under his rule, and finally, in 1810, Kaumuali‘i, the paramount chief of Kaua‘i, met with Kamehameha in O‘ahu and acknowledged Kamehameha’s sovereignty over all of the Hawaiian Islands (Kamakau 1992:188–196). After Kamehameha’s death, some of the lands of Hilo, including Pi‘ihonua, Punahoa, and Waiākea, were given to his son Liholiho (Kamehameha II), heir to the kingdom. The ‘ili kūpono [a nearly independent ‘ili (land section) land division within an ahupua‘a] of Pi‘opi‘o was granted to his most favored wife Ka‘ahumanu. His chief advisors, John Young and Isaac Davis, were given Kūkūau ‘ekahi (one/1) and Kūkūau ‘elua (two/2). Another favored wife, Kaheiheimalie, was given the ahupua‘a of Pu‘u‘eo. Pōnahawai Ahupua‘a, Kamehameha gave to his warrior chief Keawe-a-heulu, who lost his life to the epidemic on O‘ahu (‘Ī‘ī 1959:70). 2.1.3 Pre-contact and Early Post-contact Settlement Patterns for Hilo The U.S. Army Engineer Division contracted for an archaeological and historical literature search as part of the Lava Flow Control Study for Hilo, Hawai‘i (McEldowney 1979). The search included Kea‘au and surrounding ahupua‘a in the Hilo and Puna districts. Relevant to the present project are the geographic and ecological zone classifications for early historic-period land use, which are presented in the report. These five zone classifications (McEldowney 1979:64) are listed below. I: II: III: IV: V:
Coastal Settlement Upland Agricultural Lower Forest Rainforest Subalpine/Montane
20–50 feet in elevation 0–1.5 miles inland 50–1,500 feet in elevation 1.5–4.5 miles inland 1,500–2,500 feet in elevation 2,599–5,500 feet in elevation Over 5,500 feet in elevation
The coastal settlement zone contained both temporary and permanent habitations, with associated garden plots. The gardens were bordered by banana plants, sugarcane, and wauke. Dryland taro, sweet potatoes, and other vegetables were grown within the gardens. Groves of breadfruit and coconuts were interspersed between the houses and the gardens. Wetland taro was grown along the streams, along the coastal fishponds, and in the swampy land near the coast. The current project area essentially lies at sea level, likely part of the beach that traditionally buffered the concentration of settlements and associated agricultural plots starting at 20 feet in elevation from the bay itself. The upland agricultural zone contained scattered agricultural features and some temporary residences. The main cultivated plants were dryland taro and bananas, with groves of kukui, pandanus, and mountain apples. The lower forest was used to gather resources such as wood, bird feathers, fiber, and some food crops. The upland rainforest was used mainly by bird catchers to collect feathers and to gather other resources not available at the lower elevations. In the postcontact era, the forest areas were also used for the collection of resources that could be sold as trade items to foreigners, such as sandalwood and pulu. Pulu is the soft substance at the base of hāpu‘u ferns, which was shipped to California to be used for furniture and mattress stuffing Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
20
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
(Baxley 1865:596). Trails from one district to another were the major features found in the subalpine subzone. The settlement pattern of the South Hilo area is best summed by Handy and Handy (1972:538–539) in their study on the traditional agricultural patterns of the Hawaiians. The population of Hilo was anciently as now concentrated mostly around and out from Hilo Bay, which is still the island’s principal port. . . . In lava-strewn South Hilo there were no streams whose valleys or banks were capable of being developed in terraces, but [taro] cuttings were stuck into the ground on the shores and islets for many miles along the course of the Wailuku River far up into the forest zone . . . on the lava–strewn plain of Waiakea and the slopes between Waiakea and the Wailuku River [including Pōnahawai and Kūkūau], dry taro was formerly planted wherever there was enough soil. 2.1.4 Early Missionary Accounts of Hilo 2.1.4.1 William Ellis of the London Missionary Society, 1822 In April 1822, members of the London Missionary Society came to Hawai‘i via Tahiti, among them a Tahitian convert named Auna. He was the first missionary to preach in Hilo (Kelly et al. 1981:26). The delegates from the society were hosted by Queen Ka‘ahumanu and her husband Kaumuali‘i, who were making a tour of the islands. The delegates landed in Hilo Bay on May 28, 1822. Auna recorded in his diary the following observation of Hilo. Tues. 28th . . . we went on shore at a place called Nukukamanau [Ka-nuku-o-kamanu], by the side of a very large and rapid stream of water. The place appeared well covered with trees and there was a great deal of taro under cultivation. The houses were thick, and the people very many . . . [Auna, in Kelly et al. 1981:27]. The Reverend Ellis, with three American missionaries, returned to Hilo in July and August of 1823 during a walking/canoe tour of the island. Ellis’s party was in Hilo for five days in August, staying in a house at Waiākea provided for them by the konohiki (headman of an ahupua‘a land division under the chief), Ma‘alo. They preached at Waiākea, Pōnahawai, and Pu‘u‘eo to more or less responsive audiences (Ellis 1963: 213–229). The following descriptions were documented by Rev. Ellis on the district of Hilo. In the evening, many natives, attracted by curiosity, came to our house. We conversed some time with them and when they went away, invited them to attend public worship on the morrow. Dense fogs and heavy rains are more frequent at Waiakea, and over the whole division of Hiro [Hilo], than in any other part of the island. We were, therefore, not surprised at beholding, on the morning of the 10th, the district and coast enveloped in mist, and experiencing frequent showers of rain through the earlier part of the day. Between nine and ten in the forenoon, however, the fog cleared off, and the sun shone brightly on the glowing landscape [Ellis 1963:215].
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
21
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
The country, by which we sailed, was fertile, beautiful, and apparently populous. The numerous plantations on the eminences and sides of the deep ravines or valleys, by which it was intersected, with the streams meandering through them into the sea, presented altogether a most agreeable prospect. The coast was bold, and the rocks evidently volcanic. We frequently saw the water gushing out of hollows in the face of the rocks, or flowing in cascades from the top to the bottom [Ellis 1963:244]. In another account, Ellis describes his “tramping” through the lands of Hilo District. Hilo, which we had now left, though not so extensive and populous as Kona, is the most fertile and interesting division on the island. The coast from Waiakea to this place is bold and steep, and intersected by numerous valleys or ravines; many of these are apparently formed by the streams from mountains, which flow through them into the sea. The rocks along the coast are volcanic, generally a brown vesicular lava. In the sides and bottoms of some of ravines, they were occasionally of very hard compact lava, or a kind of basalt. This part of this island, from the district of Waiakea to the northern point, appears to have remained many years undisturbed by volcanic eruptions. The habitations of the natives generally appear in clusters at the opening of the valleys, or scattered over the face of the high land. The soil is fertile, and herbage abundant. The lofty Mauna-Kea, rising about the center of this division, forms a conspicuous object in every view that can be taken of it. The base of the mountain on this side is covered with woods, which occasionally extend within five or six miles of the shore [Ellis 1963:251]. Ellis provided a more detailed description of Waiākea, the largest of the South Hilo ahupua‘a. The face of the country in the vicinity of Waiakea is the most beautiful we have yet seen, which is probably occasioned by the humidity of the atmosphere, the frequent rains that fall here, and the long repose which the district has experienced from volcanic eruptions. The light fertile soil is formed by decomposed lava, with a considerable portion of vegetable mould. The whole is covered with luxuriant vegetation, and the greater part of it formed into plantations, where plantains, bananas, sugar-cane, taro, potatoes, and melons, grow to the greatest perfection. Groves of Cocoa-nut and breadfruit trees are seen in every direction loaded with fruit or clothed with umbrageous foliage. The houses are mostly larger and better built than those of many districts through which we had passed. We thought the people generally industrious; for in several of the less fertile parts of the district we saw small pieces of lava thrown into heaps, and potato vines growing very well in the midst of them, though we could scarcely perceive a particle of soil. There are plenty of ducks in the ponds and streams, at a short distance from the sea, and several large ponds or lakes literally swarm with fish, principally of the Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
22
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
mullet kind. The fish in these ponds belong to the king and chiefs, and are tabued [sic] to the common people. . . . The district of Waiakea, though it does not include more than half the bay, is yet extensive. Kukuwau [Kūkūau] in the middle of the bay is its western boundary, from which, passing along the eastern side, it extends ten or twelve miles towards Kaau [Kea‘au], the last district in the division of Puna [Ellis 1963:239–240]. Ellis describes a unique “market place” for the Hilo area, of which is incomparable to any other place in the islands The river of Wairuku [Wailuku] was also distinguished by the markets or fairs held at stated periods on its banks. At those times the people of Puna, and the desolate shore of Kau, even from the south point of the island, brought mats, and mamake tapa, which is a remarkably strong black or brown native cloth, for the manufacture of which the inhabitants of Ora [‘Ōla‘a] and some of the inland parts of Puna, are celebrated. . . . These, together with vast quantities of dried salt fish, were ranged along on the south side of the ravine. The people of Hiro and Hamakua, as far as the north point, brought hogs, tobacco, tapa of various bundles of ai pa [‘ai pa‘a; hard food], which were collected on the north bank. From bank to bank the traders shouted to each other, and arranged the preliminaries of their bargains. From thence the articles were taken down to the before-mentioned rock in the middle of the stream, which in this place is almost covered with large stones. Here they were examined by the parties immediately concerned, in the presence of the collectors, who stood on each side of the rock, and were the general arbiters. . . . According to the account of the natives, this institution was in force till the accession of Rihoriho [Liholiho], the late king, since which time it has been abolished [Ellis 1963:229–230]. Based on his observations, Ellis recommended that Hilo was “a most eligible spot for a missionary station” (Ellis 1963:240). 2.1.4.2 The American Missionaries Hilo Station, 1824 The pioneer company of missionaries, sponsored by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in New England, arrived in Hawai‘i in 1820 aboard the Brig Thaddeus. With the consent of Liholiho (Kamehameha II) and his chiefs, a missionary couple from the first company of missionaries, Samuel and Nancy Ruggles, and Joseph and Martha Goodrich, a couple from the second company of missionaries, which arrived in the island in 1823, were allowed to set up a new mission in Hilo on the island of Hawai’i. Hiram Bingham, pastor of Kawaiaha‘o Church in Honolulu relates the first days of this new mission. . . . the mission took a station there [Hilo] in the early part of 1824. To accomplish this at some sacrifice, Mr. and Mrs. Ruggles, freely leaving Kauai, where they had happily labored three years, and Mr. and Mrs. Goodrich, of the reinforcement, were associated and employed to commence the new station at Waiakea, central for the large districts of Hilo and Puna, which extend along the seaboard about eighty miles. They embarked from Honolulu about the middle of January, on Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
23
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
board the schooner Waterwitch, a vessel of thirty tons, owned by J. Hunnewell, Esq., who kindly volunteered to accompany them, and navigate the vessel for them. They were accompanied by Dr. and Mrs. Blatchley, for a temporary stay, by Messrs. Ellis and Chamberlain, on a missionary excursion, and Mr. and Mrs. Ely, bound to Kona. . . . They anchored in Hilo bay about sun-set, and landed before dark with a few necessary articles. They at once prepared their lodging in a large thatched building, seventy feet by thirty, designed as a shelter for canoes, timber, and other articles, and, by order of the chiefs at Oahu, appropriated to their use. It was without floor, partitions, or windows; and though the canoes were removed, a large pile of long timber still occupied the central part of the building, near the rude posts that supported the ridge-pole. . . . The next day, the duties of preaching and public worship engaged their attention. To favor this, Kaahumanu had offered the use of another building of similar structure. It was well filled by the people and missionary company, to whom Mr. Ellis preached. In the midst of the service, a large pet hog, black and fat, asserting equal or superior right to occupancy, marched in, swinging her head armed with huge tusks. The native crowd, not daring to resist her, gave way, forcing the preacher and his friends from their position. The murmurs of surprise and apprehension among the natives rose to boisterous shouting, and the congregation, retreating through the great doors at each end, left the hall of audience to the persecuting beast, whose rights were regarded, by high and low, as superior to those of the people, having been tabued, and often fed from the mouth of a native. Her feeder, more bold or skilful than the rest, approached the animal, and by repeated, gentle passes of the fingers on her bristly back, composed her to a sort of mesmeric sleep, more easily than leviathan is tamed. The congregation then resumed their places, and the preacher was allowed to finish his discourse. This hog was a tabu, pet of Queen Kaahumanu, and bore her name [Bingham 1847:207–208]. The mission did not prosper at first and the natives seemed indifferent to the sermons of Ruggles and Goodrich. This changed in late 1824, when the high chiefess Kapi‘olani came to Hilo to help the missionaries. Goodrich met her party at the Kīlauea Volcano, where Kapi‘olani descended into the crater, defying the goddess Pele. She returned with Goodrich to Hilo and stayed for ten days. After that, the missionaries had greater success in converting the Hawaiians to Christianity (Kamakau 1992:379–385). In 1825, Ka‘ahumanu visited the mission, and gave the land of Punahoa 2 (ahupua‘a adjacent and to the north of Pōnahawai) for the use of the mission (Kelly et al. 1981:36). The ownership of this land was confirmed in 1849 during the Māhele and listed as Land Commission Award 387. The missionaries used this land to raise goats and cultivate vegetables so that they could furnish their own food. Goodrich also experimented with making sugar and molasses from sugarcane at his own small mill (Goodrich 1829, in Kelly et al. 1981:36). Other visitors to the mission included Kamehameha III, who visited several times between 1828 and 1830, and Kuakini, governor of Hawai‘i, in 1829. Kuakini helped the missionaries Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
24
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
build a church near the coast and helped plan for a sawmill at the forest edge. This sawmill was erected by a group of foreigners who also sold beef, from the wild cattle in the mountains, to the missionaries (Lyman 1970:59). The Reverend David Beldon Lyman and his wife Sarah Joiner Lyman were members of the Fifth Company of missionaries. They arrived in Hilo, Hawai‘i in 1832 and were stationed at Hilo until their deaths. The Reverend Lyman founded the Hilo Boarding School for Hawaiian Native Boys in the 1830s. Henry Lyman, the son of Reverend David Lyman, remembered the Hilo Boarding School as such. . . . [A] large thatched building of native construction was erected for the accommodation of the boarding school. Its pupils numbered thirty-five [in 1836] of the brightest Hawaiian boys, chosen from the different primary schools over the whole island. They lived in the big schoolhouse where they were taught by my parents; but their mornings and evenings were spent in manual labor on a little farm nearby, where they raised the vegetables that formed the greater part of their daily food [Lyman 1906:21–22]. The Lymans were joined in 1835 by Reverend Titus Coan, who converted hundreds of natives during “The Great Revival.” He took his first tours through Hilo and Puna with his fellow preacher Lyman in the same year. Coan reported the following. Soon after, I made a tour with him into Puna, one wing of our field, and then through the district of Hilo, in an opposite direction. These tours introduced me to the people for whom I was to labor, and with whom I had a burning desire to communicate freely, and helped me greatly in acquiring the language. . . . For many years after our arrival there were no roads, no bridges, and no horses in Hilo, and all my tours were made on foot. These were three or four annually through Hilo, and as many in Puna; the time occupied in making them was usually ten to twenty days for each trip [Coan 1882:20]. Reverend Coan described the November 7, 1837 tsunami that struck Hilo in a letter to Reverend Bingham. . . . God has recently visited this people in judgment as well as mercy. . . . [A]t 7 o’clock P.M., as we were calling our domestics together for evening prayers, we heard a heavy sound as of a falling mountain upon the beach. This noise was followed by loud wailing and cries of distress, extending for miles around the shores of the bay. . . . House furniture, calabashes, fuel, timber, canoes, food, clothing, everything floated wild upon the flood. The waters rushed up valleys, carried away fish-ponds, and swept over many plantations of food. . . .(Coan in Bingham 1847:519). McEldowney (1979:36) describes the 1837 tsunami as sparking a religious revival in Hilo, which ultimately impacted Hawaiian residency patterns. During the revival’s height [1837–1840], as many as 10,000 people congregated in Hilo at one time. Among other consequences, this led to a severe alteration of Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
25
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
traditional habitation and garden within the Hilo area, the permanent or temporary abandonment of entire villages in outlying area, and a deeper disruption of traditional Hawaiian beliefs and subsistence patterns. 2.1.4.3 Missionary Accounts of the 1880–1881 Mauna Loa Lava Flow On November 5, 1880, lava began to erupt on Mauna Loa’s northeast rift zone; it fed an ‘a‘ā (rough lava) flow that began to move down slope from an elevation of 11,000 feet. Two weeks later, the nature of the eruption changed. A new vent opened about 500-foot upslope of Pu‘u ‘Ula‘ula. This eruption was pāhoehoe, not ‘a‘ā. Quiet pahoehoe eruptions of this sort are more dangerous than spectacular fountain-fed ‘a‘a flows however; the steady eruption of pahoehoe lava quickly builds internal “pyroducts” (lava tubes), and these well-insulated tubes can conduct lava for long distances down gentle slopes. This happened in 1880–81, and pahoehoe lavas moved steadily northeastward, mostly supplied by subterranean lava tubes. . . . [U.S. Geological Survey 1995]. In the early months of 1881, the lava flow moved slowly, but by late March the flow was seven miles from the town of Hilo. In June, the lava flow encountered gullies and stream channels, which allowed it to move faster. The Hilo Station missionary, Titus Coan, was in the Hilo area in 1881 and was one of the first to describe the flow and the reactions of the Hilo residents. This [pāhoehoe] stream crossed the flow of 1855–56, followed its south-east margin, and felt into our great upland forest in a column from one to two miles wide. There was the sound as of a continuous cannonading as the lava moved on, rocks exploding under the heat, and gases shattering their way from confinement. We could hear the explosions in Hilo; it was like the noise of battle. Day and night the ancient forest was ablaze, and the scene was vivid beyond description. By the 25th of March the lava was within seven miles of Hilo, and steadily advancing. . . . It now began to appear that should these [lava] streams unite no trace of Hilo, or of Hilo harbor, would remain. Some of our people were calm; others were horrorstricken. Some packed up their goods and sent them to Honolulu or elsewhere, and some abandoned their houses [Coan 1882:328–329]. The eruption began to slow on August 10, 1881, when the lava flow was only a mile from the beach. In a reversal of Princess Kapi‘olani’s trip to the volcano in 1824, Princess Ruth Ke‘elikōlani, great-granddaughter (or great grand-niece) of Kamehameha I, traveled to Hilo to appease, rather than defy, the volcano goddess Pele. Some accounts say that she traveled to the edge of the flow and threw in a bottle of brandy and some silk scarves as offerings to Pele. Two days later, the flow stopped, and Hilo was saved. Ke‘elikōlani was accredited for the village’s deliverance, to the dismay of the local missionaries (Zeilinga de Boer and Sanders 2002:44–46; Gordon-Cumming 1883:267). One of the 1881 lava flow conduits is Kaūmana Cave; one opening for this cave is northeast of Kaūmana School. A 1917 visitor to Hilo described the delights of this attraction. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
26
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Four miles back from Hilo, into the edges of the great forest belt, is the Kaumana Cave, a tube extending for miles under an old lava flow. The stalactites and stalagmites, the folds of rock that look like crumpled velvet, the tree roots pushing downward through the rock in their work of breaking up the solid lava, the brilliant colours where the water has filtered through, the streaks of iridiscent enamel on the cave sides-all make it intensely interesting [Castle 1917:186]. 2.1.5 Early Visits to Hilo Bay by Foreign Ships In 1824, the English ships H.M.S. Blonde traveled to Hawai‘i to return the bodies of Liholiho and Kamāmalu, the Hawaiian king and queen who had died on a visit to London. On a tour of the islands, the Blonde anchored in Hilo Bay, which was then renamed Byron Bay for the ship’s commander, Lord Byron. The ship’s company stayed at the village of Waiākea for about three weeks. On their departure, Lord Byron noted the following. Byron Bay will, no doubt, become the site of the capital of Hawaii. The fertility of the district of Hido [sic] . . . the excellent water and abundant fish-pools which surround it, the easy access it had to the sandal-wood districts, and also to the sulphur, which will doubtless soon become an object of commerce, and the facilities it affords for refitting vessels, render it a place of great importance [Byron 1826:192–192]. Another member of the expedition, Charles Stewart, noted the upland agricultural area above Hilo town as open grassland, with interspersed houses and gardens. For the first four miles the country was open and uneven, and beautifully sprinkled with clumps, groves, and single trees of the bread-fruit, pandanus, and plane tree. We then came to a wood, about four miles in length [Stewart 1970:369]. Captain Charles Wilkes, of the U.S. Exploring Expedition, stopped at the Hawaiian Islands between December 9, 1840 and March 5, 1841. One of the goals of this scientific expedition was to ascend to the top of Mauna Loa to observe the volcano. To carry out this goal, they anchored at Hilo Bay, which Wilkes described. The scene which the island presents as viewed from the anchorage in Hilo Bay is both novel and splendid: the shores are studded with extensive groves of cocoanut and bread-fruit trees, interspersed with plantations of sugar-cane; through them, numerous streams are seen hurrying to the ocean; to these succeeds a belt some miles in width, free from woods, but clothed in verdure; beyond is a wider belt of forest, whose trees, as they rise higher and higher from the sea, change their character from the vegetation of the tropics to that of polar regions; and above all tower the snow-capped summits of the mountains. Hilo is a straggling village, and is rendered almost invisible by the luxuriant growth of the sugar-cane, which the natives plant around their houses. A good road has been made through it for the extent of a mile, at one end of which the mission establishment is situated [Wilkes 1849:484]. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
27
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
2.1.6 The Māhele of 1848 The Organic Acts of 1845 and 1846 initiated the process of the Māhele, the division of Hawaiian lands, which introduced private property into Hawaiian society. In 1848, the crown and the ali‘i (royalty) received their land titles. The common people (maka‘āinana) received their kuleana awards (individual land parcels) in 1850. It is through records for Land Commission Awards (LCA parcels) generated during the Māhele that the first specific documentation of daily activities in Pōnahawai, Kūkūau, and Waiākea Ahupua‘a, as it had evolved up to the mid nineteenth century, come to light. A total of 61 LCAs were granted to individuals within the subject ahupua‘a. Generally, these LCAs were located near the coast and/or the fishponds of Hilo and tended to represent relatively small portions of the ahupua‘a, which were largely awarded to ali‘i (Hunt and McDermott 1994:14). Hunt and McDermott (1994:17–18) summarize the pattern of land use typified by the smaller kuleana awards found in coastal Hilo. The Native and Foreign Registers and Testimonies identify many of the small coastal claims as houselots. Parcels were frequently enclosed and included from one to five houses. Usually the claimant occupied a house on the parcel, but occasionally persons with no claim to the land were also resident. In a few cases, the records indicate a traditional Hawaiian residential pattern was in place, with household units composed of separate dwelling and cook houses. Many of the claims with houselots also included small kihapai or garden plots. Non-residential farm lands were also claimed. Taro (Colocasia esculenta) and bamboo are the only crops specifically mentioned. LCA 4239-B, which was located on the coast near to Waiolama Stream and Iaina fishpond [abutting the present project area], included several lo‘i. Some parcels were enclosed by ti (Cordyline tenninalis) “fences.” In several cases, the adjacent land was referred to as “idle” and belonging to the konohiki. The testimonies also mention near-coastal “fishponds” that belonged to the konohiki. . . . . . . In sum, the LCA evidence shows that claims were heavily concentrated on the coast, reflecting the continuation of the Hawaiian settlement pattern documented by early foreign visitors to Hilo. The LCAs awarded within each of the subject ahupua’a are presented in respective tables below. In each table, the LCAs directly adjacent to the present project area have been highlighted for easy reference; these can be seen on Registered Map (RM) 1561 (Figure 6), drawn in 1891. It should be noted that land grants nearly comprised the remainder of the land areas surrounding the project area; these include large grants to the Hilo Mercantile Company and Bishop Estate along the beach, a grant to the Hilo Boarding School near the present Kamehameha Avenue and Pauahi Street intersection (see figure), and grants to other smaller parties. Together with the kuleana awards, these grants underscore the variety of activities undertaken at and near the project area in the mid to late nineteenth century.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
28
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Figure 6. Portion of Registered Map (RM 1561, Baldwin 1891), showing the LCAs in the vicinity of the project area (shaded in pink), and other features discussed in the text Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
29
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
2.1.6.1 Pōnahawai Before the Māhele, the ahupua‘a of Pōnahawai had been given to Keawe-a-Heulu, the warrior chief of Kamehameha I. It was given up in the Māhele by Kinimaka, a son of Keaweaheulu’s brother Kapīiwi (Barrère 1994:367–368). Pōnahawai then became a Crown Land, lands set aside for the monarch. Twenty-two (22) kuleana claims in Pōnahawai were awarded to individuals (www.waihona.com); nineteen of these LCA parcels were all clustered near the coast, as can be seen on Figure 6 and in Table 1. The remaining three parcels were located mauka of Hāla‘i Hill. The ahupua‘a of Kaūmana became part of the Bishop Estates lands, though the trustees of the Bishop Estate quitclaimed Kaūmana to the Government in 1890. No kuleana claims in Kaūmana Ahupua‘a are mentioned in the Māhele books. This is probably because Kaūmana was considered part of Pōnahawai; it is often not labeled as a separate ahupua‘a on historic maps (Hunt and McDermott 1994:14). B. Pitman was awarded a 354.2-acre portion of Pōnahawai Ahupua‘a under Land Grant 252. Table 1. Land Commission Awards in Pōnahawai Ahupua‘a (Parcels Near the Project Area in Bold) Awardee
LCA Number
Acreage
Anderson, J. Hewahewa Hiona Kaapa Kahalehau/Kahalehou Kaiaua/Kalana Kaiu Kanoa Kapuaa Kaulua Keaniho Keawehano Keawekukane Kukeleau Lahaina Lumaina Nahalelepo Paakaua Peleula Perkins, J. G. Puaa Puniana
2257 2578 1096 2228 11048 or 11948? 2281 5701 2406 4994 1098 2404 1334 5122 4983 1107 1108 3996 1097 1095 242 1100 1099
0.66 1.82 1.02 3.69 1.56 2.87 1.41 0.28 5.80 0.77 1.94 2.16 1.29 12.8 1.53 2.76 0.63 0.47 1.04 0.49 0.97 0.82
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
30
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
2.1.6.2 Kūkūau Under the Māhele, Kūkūau was divided into two ahupua‘a, Kūkūau 1 and 2 (Rechtman 2009:16). Fourteen kuleana parcels were awarded within these two ahupua‘a (Table 2). According to Hunt and McDermott (1994:14), “[m]ost of Kukuau 1 Ahupua‘a (LCA 8515) was awarded to Keoni Ana (son of John Young and Kaoanaeha, the daughter of Keli‘imaika‘i). LCA 8521-B included most of Kukuau 2 Ahupua‘a and went to G. D. Hueu, son of Isaac Davis (companion of Kamehameha I).” Table 2. Land Commission Awards in Kūkūau Ahupua‘a (Parcels Near the Project Area in Bold) Awardee
LCA Number
Acreage
Aiko, Y. Haai/Hoae Haoleopunui Hio Hoomoo Kahue Kaiwi Kanaina Kanakaole Kauanui Keone Ana
3205 1106 3206 1091 3993 2664 1104 4239-B 11045-B 234-B 8515 8515 8521-B 11144 2606
1.01 4.66 2.47 3.19 2.05 0.33 4.33 2.90 1.52 0.55 4840 4520 3540 1.15 0.98
Hueu, G. D. Ouluihi Puniono 2.1.6.3 Waiākea
Excepting house lots, agricultural parcels awarded to lesser chiefs and commoners, and the ‘ili of Pi‘opi‘o, which was given as LCA 7713:10 to Chiefess Victoria Kamāmalu (overlapping the present project staging areas—see Figure 6), the entire ahupua‘a of Waiākea was awarded to the monarch Kauikeaouli (Board of Commissioners 1929:26). Twenty-five (25) LCAs were made in Waiākea (Table 3); the kuleana parcels awarded to native tenants were concentrated around the ponds and lower flat lands of Hilo (Walker and Rosendahl 1996:A-18). Table 3. Land Commission Awards in Waiākea Ahupua‘a (Parcels Near the Project Area in Bold) Awardee
LCA Number
Acreage
Barenaba Halai, L. K. Hale Kahue Kaiana, J. B. Kaihenui
2337 1279 4004 2663 2281 11050-B
12.25 0.60 4.25 3.75 10.25 5.19
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
31
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Awardee
LCA Number
Acreage
Kalolo Kalua Kaluhikaua Kamamalu, V. Kamanuhaka Kapu Kealiko Keaniho Keawe
1333 8854 1738 7713 8803 1-F 11174 2402 5018 10505 4344 9982 4738-B 1-E 4737 4785 2603 4737-B 11173 10004
2.25 3.40 2.98 ‘Ili ‘aina 1.02 1.60 1.00 5.00 0.24
Kuaio Leio Lolo Mahoe Moealoha Nakai Napeahi Wahine Wahinealua Wahinenohoihilo
1.22 0.80 1.27 4.46 1.03 1.05 1.30 1.01 2.50 1.69
2.1.7 Early Foreign Residents and Merchants, 1790–1880 2.1.7.1 The Northwest Trade, Sandalwood, and Whale Ships In the late 1700s and early 1800s, ships involved in the trade between the fur outposts of the Northwest coast and the markets of China and the far East stopped in the Hawaiian Islands to get needed food, fresh water, salt, and other supplies needed for the long voyage ahead. This limited exchange began to increase when sandalwood was discovered on the forest slopes of the islands, in 1790 or earlier (Kuykendall 1938:85). Soon sandalwood became an important export item for the island, gathered by the people for the great chiefs to pay off their debts to foreign traders. Ellis saw one of these early sandalwood expeditions returning from the mountain above Hilo in 1823 under the konohiki Ma‘alo. Presumably the sandalwood would have been transferred to a ship anchored off Hilo Bay at Waiākea. During the same journey we overtook Maaro [Ma‘alo], the chief of Waiakea, and three or four hundred people, returning with sandal wood, which they had been cutting in the mountains. Each man carried two or three pieces, from four to six feet long, and about three inches in diameter. . . . It is sold by weight, and the merchants, who exchange for it articles of European or Chinese manufacture, take it to the Canton market, where it is bought by the
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
32
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Chinese for the purpose of preparing incense to burn in their idol temples [Ellis 1963:214–215]. Supplying foreign ships with food and water continued when whaling ships began to visit the islands. The earliest foreign born merchants of Hilo town were established to cater to this trade. Sometime after the Wilkes expedition in 1838, Henry Lyman was out walking with his father, the missionary David Lyman, and met some interesting early residents of Hilo. Here we were welcomed by a short, stout, gray-headed old gentleman, whose kindly features were handsomely set off by an elegant pair of white mutton-chop whiskers. This was Mr. Benjamin P. [Pitman], formerly a resident of Boston, who, years before, left his home to seek a fortune among the merchants of Canton. For some reason, after a time he ceased writing to his family; and his wife, naturally growing anxious, sent their only son, Benjamin, Jr., to find out what had become of his father. Arriving in the Orient, he learned that his parent had gone to the Sandwich Islands; and accordingly he followed him thither. There he discovered the old gentleman, but was unable to dislodge him from the tropical paradise in which he was established. The young man, being only nineteen or twenty years old, also soon yielded to the charm of the place, forgetting the maternal home, and marrying a handsome young Hawaiian princess, who made for him an excellent wife and mother of his children. The father and son, not long before the visit of Commodore Wilkes, opened a little shop for the sale of general merchandise; and having the haole field to themselves were very successful in trade [Lyman 1906:68–69]. Samuel Hill traveled to Hawai‘i on the whaleboat Josephine in 1848 (Judd 1929:39), and he stopped in Hilo to make an expedition to the volcano Kīlauea. On the way back, he noted the landscape on the lower slopes in back of the town. This would have been within the upland agricultural zone, possibly within or near the project area. . . . [I]t was not until near sunset that we discovered any signs of our approach to the little port of Hilo, when we came suddenly upon a piece of meadow land, on which were feeding several head of cattle, with letters marked upon their skins, which as plainly revealed the fact of their captivity as it assured us of the near termination of our journey. In another half-hour we opened a view of Byron’s bay [Hilo Bay]; after which, we crossed some further meadow land, which brought us to the village of Hilo, seated upon the bay near the shore. The place appeared to consist merely of a few scattered huts, among which it was easy to distinguish the residence of a European; and we rode immediately up to that of Mr. Pitman, to whom I had brought the letter of introduction, and from whom we now met a hearty reception [Hill 1856:290]. It [Hilo] consists, at present, of thirty or forty scattered huts, a Protestant church, a small Romish chapel, the dwellings of the missionaries, a school-house, and several houses belonging to Mr. Pitman, by whom all the proper commerce of the place is carried on [Hill 1856:292].
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
33
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
2.1.7.2 Chinese Sugar Masters and Early Sugarcane Planters The early-to-mid 1800s marked the establishment of several plantations around Hilo Bay, as large tracts of land came under the control of foreigners and children of missionary families. The readying of these lands for commercial agriculture necessitated a massive expenditure of energy in clearing and burning the dense vegetation and plowing the virgin ground (Rosendahl and Walker 1996:A-28). Stones also had to be cleared from the fields; while some of “[t]hese stones were used for plantation-related construction projects” (Rosendahl and Walker 1996:A-28), to this day “clearing mounds” can be found in old cane field areas. Benjamin Pitman, Jr.’s wife was the chiefess Kino‘ole-o-Liliha, whose father was the high chief Ho‘olulu, an uncle of Kamehameha I. She had extensive lands in ‘Ōla‘a 1 and around Hilo (Pitman 1931). In addition to his wife’s lands, Pitman purchased several other large tracts from Kamehameha III in 1846 and became the owner of a large area of Pōnahawai comprising 3,541 acres, under Grant 252, as can be seen on the 1891 map of Hilo (off of Figure 6 to the southwest). Some of this land he rented to several Chinese entrepreneurs, who had come to Hilo to set up sugarcane fields and sugarcane mills. Henry Lyman, walking with his father in the late 1830s also met up with these Chinese on the Pitman lands. On another day, walking a little farther, we found the new road extended beyond a dense grove of breadfruit trees to a considerable enclosure where a number of thatched houses had been recently erected. Two or three almond-eyed gentlemen, with long braids of hair coiled about their heads, were persuading a yoke of halftamed oxen to walk in a circle, dragging after them a beam that rotated three vertical wooden rollers, between which a native boy was insinuating slender stalks of sugar-cane drawn from a pile by his side. . . . This was the first sugarmill established on the island of Hawaii [Lyman 1906:70–71]. Samuel Hill also noted these early Chinese entrepreneurs on Pitman’s estate. Mr. PITMAN introduced us, during our stay at Hilo, to a fine estate he had himself planted in the rear of the bay, . . . We found the estate situated upon elevated ground, between one and two miles from the port, commanding a fine view of the bay and the ocean, and in the midst of a country still rising as it recedes from the shore, and comprehending one of the most fertile districts in the island. It produced chiefly sugar as an article of export, at present; but it was in a fair way of adding the profits of a large coffee plantation [Hill 1856:303]. Here our attention was arrested by the presence of two of the Chinese who were superintending the works, which led to Mr. Pitman informing us of the plan he had adopted in the management of his estate, and the especial use he was making of the yellow men. . . . upon finding his estate wonderfully thriving under their [the Chinese] management, he had determined to go farther than this, and to give them a direct interest in its prosperity. . . . [H]e let his estate to the same men he had advanced from labourers to be overseers, at a fixed annual rent, from which arrangement he was reaping great benefit [Hill 1856:305–306]. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
34
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
By 1839, Governor Adams Kuakini established a sugar plantation and constructed a sugar mill on Pōnahawai Hill (Hāla‘i Hill) (Lum 1988:26). Sugarcane was planted on the Puna side of the Hāla‘i Hills, within Pōnahawai Ahupua‘a, reaching as far down as the present location of Kīlauea Avenue. Early sugarcane mills in the Hilo area were run by several early Chinese “sugar masters” who settled in Hilo and married Hawaiian women. Peggy Kai (1974:45–53) has identified at least seven Chinese men who resided in Hilo before 1852. The sugar plantation and mill were a fairly small endeavor, but by 1851, about 20,000 pounds of sugar was produced on the 55-acre plantation (Kai 1974:61). The plantation was watered from an ‘auwai (irrigation ditch) that ran through the Hilo Boarding School (Kai 1974:43). Pitman left the islands in 1860 to return to his home in Boston (Merry 2000:156). He sold much of his property, including the Hilo stores and his agricultural land, to a Mr. Thomas Spencer, a former ship’s captain. Thrum (1923:123–126) reprints material from a pamphlet on this early Hilo resident, which was probably written by Thomas Spencer himself. Thomas Spencer . . . Formerly carried on the ship-chandlery business in Honolulu, but is now in Hilo, having lately purchased a large estate at that place of B. Pitman, where he is extensively engaged in the country store line, having three or more stores. Is interested largely in pulu, and according to his own statement is making money fast. Attempted while in Honolulu to make himself popular through being noisy but failed in it and became notorious as a braggart, making a great cry and little wool [Thrum 1923:123]. Thrum adds additional information on this Hilo sugar plantation. Among the lands Spencer acquired from Pitman was a tract under lease to the Chinese and planted to cane, known as the Amauulu plantation [in Pu‘u‘eo Ahupua‘a, north of Pōnahawai]. This eventually came under Spencer’s control and gradually won him away from merchandising. Just when he withdrew from the store is not definite, but probably about 1870. . . . On devoting himself to the sugar business, the old style system of Chinese mill and boiling-house work was done away with, grinding then being done by an overshot water wheel-and a new and modern plant of Watson’s Scotch sugar machinery installed. Very naturally the name changed to Spencer’s Plantation [Thrum 1923:123–124]. Rufus A. Lyman signed a lease encompassing all of the Crown lands of Waiākea in 1874. Five years later, the Waiākea Mill Company acquired the lease, and soon several companies were cultivating sugar throughout the ahupua‘a. By 1890, 1,500 acres in were under sugarcane in Waiākea, employing approximately 350 laborers (Kelly et al. 1981:89, 92). 2.1.8 Mid Nineteenth Century to the Present 2.1.8.1 Coffee Cultivation in Hilo The first coffee trees in the islands were planted by Don Paulo Marin on his O‘ahu estate in 1817. An attempt to grow the trees on a plantation was made by Mr. John Wilkinson in 1825 in 1825. Other early plantations were at Kona and Hilo on the island of Hawai‘i. Thrum (1875:46– Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
35
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
47) comments on the successful growth by, “. . . the Rev. Mr. Goodrich [the missionary] planting the first slips in Hilo,” which grew luxuriantly in Hilo. This planting was probably near Goodrich’s house near Hilo town. It was soon decided, however, that coffee grew better at higher elevations. Thrum (1875:48) reports that at Hilo in 1847, a “Dr. Maxwell and Mr. Miller, officers of the U.S.S. Cyane, leased of the government 100 acres of the best land for fifty years for the purpose of establishing a coffee plantation, and were to commend operations within six months, but of any after result we have no information.” Another early coffee grower in Hilo was Mr. Pitman, who wrote a letter to the agricultural society in 1852 about the coffee blight of that year that was destroying the crop. Samuel Hill, after observing Pitman’s sugarcane lands and mill in his 1848 visit, also toured his coffee plantings. From the sugar works we proceeded, still rising, towards the more elevated ground of the coffee plantation. Arrived here, we found ourselves at an elevation which on one side commanded a noble view of the sea beyond the bays with a portion of the coast, and on the other, the mountainous land in the interior of the island. A broad way conducted through an extensive plantation, sown with 22,000 young coffee trees, and producing a considerable number of breadfruit, and tall and fine tamarind, trees. The greater part of the coffee trees were very young, and were rearing beneath the broad leaves of the hardier plantain, which protected them from the too-scorching rays of the sun [Hill 1856:317]. The government began to sell land to homesteaders in the 1880s, and coffee was grown on many of these homesteads. An 1899 book on the agricultural resources of the island reported on the coffee producing areas of Hawai‘i in a time when it was thought that Hilo would become the dominant coffee producing region. There is some coffee-land on all the islands, but Hawaii is the only one of the group that has land for public settlement. The principal coffee districts in Hawaii are Kona, 48,000 acres; Puna, 67,000 acres; and Hilo, 195,000 acres, but a comparatively small percentage of this acreage is planted with coffee or suitable to its cultivation. In all three of these districts, and especially in Hilo, the government is surveying and opening land for settlement as rapidly as possible. And as fast as the land is put on the market it is being taken up. . . . [Whitney 1899:218]. Eventually, the coffee industry of Hilo could not compete with similar growers in the Kona region, and coffee operations in Hilo declined between 1905 and 1937. These independent homesteaders would soon be swallowed by larger companies, who uprooted the coffee trees to plant the new king crop, sugar (Cordy 1977:4). 2.1.8.2 Sugarcane Plantations In 1880, Claus Spreckels, known as the “Sugar King,” formed a partnership with William Irwin to form the Hilo Sugar Company. They bought a number of small parcels near Hilo, including the Pōnahawai lands, and lands at the base of Mauna Kea. In 1884, they added the lands of Spencer’s Plantation and the Wainaku Plantation to their own. At its greatest extent, the Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
36
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
plantation was 4,800 acres in size, although some of the land was leased to individual sugarcane growers living in the Hilo area (Dorrance and Morgan 2000:102–103). In 1901, the Hawaii Mill Company was formed, with a small mill at Pōnahawai in Hilo Town. The company leased out 1,776 acres to small, individual sugarcane cultivators (Kelly et al. 1981:124). The Hawaii Mill Company had to close in 1920 due to debts, and it was taken over by the Hilo Sugar Company, for which C. Brewer & Company became the agent in 1910. The homesteaders lived along the coast and in the former upland agricultural zone, within the project area. A 1900 article on the growth of Hilo mentioned these upland inhabitants. Kaumana and Kaiwiki, two districts near Hilo, are populated by homesteaders, many of them growing cane, others vegetables. These people get their supplies of Hilo and take their products there. Both places are off the line of railway, but it is understood that one of the two Electric Companies will ask for a franchise for an electric road and will build to both sections. A few years ago, less than five, Kaumana and Kaiwiki were forests; to-day they are veritable garden spots producing, really, the vegetables which supply Hilo [Stacker 1900:131]. The Waiakea Mill Company remained one of the primary Hilo sugar plantations into the 1940s, though it was plagued by a “stormy history,” as reported in a July 2, 1941 article by Jared Smith printed in The Honolulu Advertiser. Waiakea Mill company has had a stormy history for the last 30 years. Cane was grown here before the Civil War period and in 1865 or thereabouts a 50-year lease was negotiated from the reigning Monarch at a very low rental covering the entire government land of Waiakea from its frontage on Hilo harbor to the mountains. The advantage of nominal rentals and low taxes made Waiakea a gold mine. Annexation brought land hunger and increasing demands for the breaking up of huge plantation holdings into smaller pieces. A movement which culminated in 1912, almost succeeded in breaking up the Waiakea cane lands into homesteads. In 1916 the Governor of Hawaii issued a proclamation canceling an extension of a lease to the sugar company which it charged, had been illegally secured form the Commissioner of Public Lands. This restored title to the government. . . . The proposed homesteading venture smoldered during World War I, then flared after the armistice, the outcome being that the legislature of 1919 authorized the project and provided for a public drawing, or land lottery open to all citizens. More than 5,000 applications were received and in due time the 250 or more cane farms were parceled by lot among as many holders of the lucky numbers. . . . [Since 1938 the] Waiakea plantation extends into the suburbs of Hilo. . . . Already, homesteaders who have paid their debts, observed residence requirements and acquired title from the government, are subdividing their properties into city lots. The lower end of the plantation is . . . looking down on City and harbor. . . . Owners are building streets into their subdivisions. City water is available and gas and electricity.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
37
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Other homesteaders who have acquired titles are raising poultry or pigs, and growing flowers and vegetables instead of cane. The plantation will lose more cane land as Hilo grows [The Honolulu Advertiser July 2, 1941:1, 15]. The destruction wrought by the 1946 tsunami in Hilo resulted in the closure of the Hawaii Consolidated Railway, which had functioned as the primary transporter of cane throughout eastern Hawai‘i. This event essentially marked the end of operations for the Waiakea Mill Company as well. Walker and Rosendahl (1996:A-30) report that “[b]y December 31, 1948 Theo. H. Davies’ Waiakea Mill Company completed cancellation of all its General Leases of Cane Lots and Mill operations.” Hilo sugar plantations that survived the effects of the 1946 tsunami were subjected to mergers throughout the remainder of the century. After World War II, the residential areas of Hilo began to expand, and, in 1965, C. Brewer & Company sold the sugarcane fields around Hilo and merged their remaining lands with the Onomea Sugar Company to form the Mauna Kea Sugar Company. Production of sugarcane in the Hilo area ended in 1994, when the Hilo Coast Processing Company, a subsequent company of several merged plantations, shut down (Dorrance and Morgan 2000:104–105). The former sugarcane lands were covered with subdivisions and small towns, such as Upper Kaūmana. 2.1.8.3 Changes to the Hilo Landscape Foreign visitors to Hawai‘i in the late nineteenth century remarked on the extent of the black sand beach at Hilo Bay and the daily activities observed there. The length and width of the beach at Hilo Bay today represents only a portion of its original extent. According to Clark (1985:14), “[t]he beach formerly stretched from the Wailuku River to the Wailoa River and served the city of Hilo as an unofficial community center.” Isabella Bird, who travelled to Hawai‘i in the early 1870s, noted such activities as canoeing, swimming, surfing, and horseback riding at Hilo Bay (Bird 2007:37). Bird’s contemporary, the American journalist Charles Nordhoff, also wrote of “[m]en bathing in the surf, and men and women dashing on horseback over the beach, [which] make up the life of the scene” (Nordhoff 1873 in Clark 1985:14). The beach also served as the primary landing for passenger and cargo vessels, until a landing at the makai end of Waianuenue Avenue was constructed in 1863; this landing was in use until the turn of the century (Clark 1985:14–15). An 1825 map of Hilo by C. R. Malden (Figure 7) depicts rectangular patches representing taro fields and fishponds fronting the beach in the vicinity of the current project area. According to Kelly and Athens (1982:3), “[t]he absence of any cultivated areas behind the bay on an 1882 map of Hilo suggests that taro cultivation may have ceased by this time as a result of urban growth or other factors.” Similarly, RM 1561 of 1891 (see Figure 6) does not depict cultivated plots, though it does appear to indicate marshland surrounding the Waiolama stream or river. In its natural state, “. . . the mouth of the Waiolama River, which represented the former mouth of Alenaio Stream prior to construction of the Waiolama Canal [and which crossed the present project area], was often blocked by a sand barrier and a considerable extent of marshland existed behind the sand beach which was fed by large springs” (Kelly et al. 1981:13). At times, the stream would overflow, thus creating “an obstacle to traffic between Hilo and Waiakea, as it periodically washed out the bayfront road” (Clark 1985:15). To mitigate this problem, the Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
38
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Figure 7. 1825 chart of Hilo Bay by C. R. Malden, showing fishponds and patches representing cultivated fields in the vicinity of the project area; reprinted in Kelly et al. (1981:21) Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
39
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
construction of a diversion into the nearby Wailoa River and a landfill at the marsh was undertaken by the Department of Public Works beginning in the early 1900s. The Waiolama Canal began as a relatively small canal, first dredged in 1899 (Wickler and Ward 1992:5). A 1912 map (Figure 8) depicts the natural course of the Waiolama Stream in relation to the much larger proposed “Sanitary Canal” running through the “Waiolama Swamp,” the “Old Waiolama Bridge” along Front Street (to the far right), and proposed adjacent streets, some never constructed, including the “Relocated Ponahawai Street.” A spur of the Hilo Railroad line is also visible along the west bank of Waiolama Stream and the railroad bridge to be constructed over the inland end of the canal. Clark (1985:15) summarizes the project undertaken to alter the canal and marshland. The project was begun in 1915 and completed in 1917. Unfortunately, it was directly responsible for the disappearance of a major portion of the black sand beach at Hilo Bay. Although the contractor had used the excavated material from the canal’s construction for some of the wetland fill, the bulk of the 33 acres was filled with sand dredged directly off of the beach and pumped inland. The project so completely exhausted the supply of beach sand at the pump’s location that by mid-1916 the job came to a halt and was delayed until the winter storms of that year began to transport more sand ashore from the natural reservoirs in the bottom of Hilo Bay. In 1917, when the Waiolama project was nearing completion, plans were completed for the Pōnahawai project—to fill in the taro lands in the adjacent area and on the Hāmākua side of the Waiolama landfill. This project spanned the years 1921 to 1923 and also used fill pumped directly from the beach, further depleting the black sand from the already devastated shoreline. In addition, the Waiolama sand-mining project undermined a section of the Hawaii Consolidated Railway’s tracks, which ran along the backshore of the beach. The route of the railroad passed very near or possibly even overlapped the present project area, as indicated by its location on RM 1591 (see Figure 6) and RM 1808, a 1915 map by Walter E. Wall (Figure 9). Significantly, RM 1808 appears to reflect the newly-altered landscape of the project area, in that it does not indicate the presence of marshlands or the Waiolama Stream. Citing Kelly et al. (1981), Wickler and Ward (1992:6) write the following. A photograph taken in either 1915 or 1916 of dredged sand being deposited along the completed or nearly completed Waiolama Canal clearly shows that the area was not an open marsh but had the appearance of pasture land. . . . A second photograph of the western end of the Waiolama Canal taken the following year, after completion of the dredge and fill operation, shows a flat, open, grassy landscape with horses grazing and scattered wooden structures. . . . Indeed, a 1914 fire insurance map of the vicinity notes the presence of a large hack stable “. . . . which was probably located in this area because of the grazing land available for horses in the ‘swamp’ areas along Alenaio Stream” (Wickler and Ward 1992:9). This map, included in the 1992 report, also exhibits the commercial expansion of this part of Hilo. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
40
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Figure 8. Portion of a 1912 County of Hawai‘i map, showing the alignment of the proposed Waiolama Canal and other features discussed in the text; reprinted in Wickler and Ward (1992:8) Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
41
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Figure 9. Portion of a 1915 map of Hilo by Walter Wall (RM 1808), showing the location of the project area in relation to features discussed in the text Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
42
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
The tsunami of 1946 caused considerable damage to Hilo town up to the present Kīlauea Avenue. Wickler and Ward (1992:9) note that “it is probable that the structural debris left by the tsunami was leveled and used as fill within the project area. It does not appear that many of the structures in the project area were rebuilt. . . .” The 1960 tsunami caused similarly extensive devastation and served as the catalyst for the creation of a buffer zone designed to minimize the potential for future tsunami-related damages. Clark explains (1985:16). . . . [A] redevelopment project called Project Kaiko‘o (“rough seas”) was initiated to revitalize the town of Hilo. Aware of the vulnerability of Hilo Bay, the planners decided to clear the disaster area and relocate all residents and businesses. Land acquisition began in 1961 and was completed in 1965. The project also called for the development of an oceanside greenbelt buffer zone [including the present project staging areas] of lawns, lagoons, gardens and recreational facilities which would protect the inland areas by absorbing the impact of future tsunami. The Wailoa River State Recreation Area comprises the heart of the buffer zone. A 1977–1978 U.S. Geological Survey Orthophoto of Hilo (Figure 10) shows the buffer zone discussed above; this part of Hilo has only undergone minor changes over the last four decades (see Figure 3).
2.2 Previous Archaeological Research Archaeological studies in and above Hilo town (Figure 11 and Table 4) have been widely scattered. The density of finds is quite low, and the majority of sites date to the historic era, as can be seen in Table 4. Of some of the first formal archaeological surveys of Hilo, Susan Goodfellow (1991:2–3) writes the following. The earliest archaeological survey of the Hilo region was performed by Hudson in the 1930s. . . . Hudson’s contention that no archaeological remains were present in the city of Hilo has been largely supported by archaeological field work undertaken in the South Hilo District during the last decade. In 1982, Kelly and Athens conducted a survey of the Alenaio Stream Flood Damage reduction project area (Kelly and Athens 1982) on behalf of the Bishop Museum, for the Army Corps of Engineers. The survey, which investigated two alternate project routings around Aienaio Stream, failed to locate prehistoric or early historic remains, although it did identify the remains of a historic cane house. Kelly’s historical documentary research for the project uncovered an 1825 map of the Hilo area by C. R. Malden which showed extensive taro pondfields extending from Hilo Bay inland to Halai Hill [see Figure 7]. The map did not show any villages in the Hilo area, leading Kelly to suppose that house sites were situated throughout the cultivated lands (Kelly and Athens 1982:12). Based on the findings, Athens recommended subsurface testing to determine the presence/absence of buried deposits; however, archaeological reports archived at the DLNR-SHPD and HCPD indicate that no subsurface archaeological testing has been conducted in the Hilo area.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
43
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Figure 10. Portion of the 1977–1978 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Orthophoto of Hilo Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
44
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Figure 11. Portion of the 1995 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic map, Hilo Quad, showing the location of the project area in relation to previous archaeological studies conducted in Hilo Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
45
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
Table 4. Archaeological Studies in the Vicinity of the Current Project Area Source Rosendahl 1988
Rosendahl and Talea 1988
Pietrusewsky 1989
Project Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Hilo Judiciary Sites, TMK [3] 22-002:001, 054, 055, 056, and 062; [3] 2-2-010:016; [3] 2-2-033:011, 012, 013, 014, 019, and 020; [3] 2-3015:001; 2-3-044:009 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Proposed Irradiation Plant Site, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i, TMK [3] 2-1-12:106 [Potential Site A]; [3] 2-1-12:Var. [Potential Site B];[3] 2-1-25:Por. 86 [Potential Site C] Documentation of Human Remains Found Near the Wailoa Bridge, Lihiwai Street, Waiākea, TMK [3] 2-1-001:012
Smith and Tourtellotte 1988
Removal of Human Remains Found Near the Wailoa Bridge, Lihiwai Street, Waiākea, TMK [3] 2-1-001:012
Goodfellow 1991
Archaeological Inventory Survey Noelani Gardens Project, TMK [3] 26-002:001 and 002
Kennedy 1992
Archaeological Inventory Final Report, TMK [3] 2-6-08:26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39; and TMK [3] 2-6-29:09, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15; Located at Pu‘u‘eo on the island of Hawai‘i Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations for Alenaio Stream Flood Control Project, TMK [3] 2-2-006 and 007
Wickler and Ward 1992
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
Findings (SIHP # 50-10-35-)* No finds
No finds
Documentation of a single set of human remains in the area near the mouth of the Wailoa Stream, in the vicinity of the current Suisan Fish Market. This burial was named SIHP 11115 Excavation and study of SIHP 11115 Diffuse prehistoric hearths and historic refuse (SIHP 15415) located at the beach west of the Wailuku Bridge Rock mound (SIHP 18074) interpreted as a possible burial
Historic artifacts found out of context in sand fill layers adjacent to present project area; no site number(s) assigned
46
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Source Walker and Rosendahl 1996
Background Research
Project Assessment Study of Hilo Judiciary Complex Project, 7 locations, TMK [3] 2-2-015:033; [3] 2-3-032:001; [3] 2-6015:001and 002; [3] -016:002; [3] 24-049:018 and 019; [3] 2-4-001:012; 2-3-036:003; [3] 2-4-057:001 Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Hilo Harbor, Waiākea, TMK [3] 21-09:2, 12, 41, and 42 and [3] 2-107:20–37
Findings (SIHP # 50-10-35-)* C-shape (SIHP 19431), Ushape (SIHP 19432), complex (SIHP 19433), complex (SIHP 19434), sugarcane mill (SIHP 21133)
Wolforth 2006
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Expansion of the existing Reed’s Bay Beach Park, TMK [3] 2-1-6:13 and 15
Rechtman 2009
Archaeological Assessment Survey for the Proposed Hilo Bayfront Trails Project, Pi‘ihonua, Punahoa, Pōnāhawai, Kūkūau, and Waiākea Ahupua‘a, South Hilo District
Two previously identified sites, Kanakea Pond (SIHP 18896, a Hawaiian fishpond) and a small portion of the historic railroad (SIHP 7413); three new historic properties were identified: Reed’s Bay Beach (SIHP 24917), the ScottLegionnaire-Orchid Hotel (SIHP 24918) and three pecked basins (SIHP 24919) No new findings; reports the findings of Pietrusewsky 1989, Smith and Tourtellotte 1988, DMH, Inc. 1990 (an inventory of fishponds in Hilo), Wolforth 2004, and Wolforth 2006
Haun and Henry 2000
SIHP 22486, early 1900s U.S. engineer facilities
In 1988, Margaret Rosendahl (see Figure 11) reported on the results of an archaeological reconnaissance of five proposed locations for the Hilo Judiciary Complex. No finds were reported. Rosendahl conducted a second reconnaissance survey in Hilo in 1988 with Lawrence Talea (see Figure 11); nothing was found in three proposed locations for a plant irradiation center. In both cases, the lack of finds was attributed to a history of extensive land transformation. That same year, a single set of human remains was identified near the mouth of the Wailoa Stream across from the Suisan Fish Market, which is located less than one mile west of the current project area. The remains were documented (Pietrusewsky 1989; see Figure 11) and then excavated and studied (Smith and Tourtellotte 1988; see Figure 11). As Rechtman (2009:27) writes, “[t]his discovery, while only that of a single set of remains, does indicate that the possibility exists for additional remains, especially in coastal areas of former dune deposits along the Hilo bay front.” Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
47
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
During Goodfellow’s 1991 inventory survey for the Noelani Gardens Project (see Figure 11), one site was identified (SIHP 15415). “Site 15415 consists of two components: (a) several diffuse prehistoric hearths, and (b) historic refuse and recent structural remains . . . the boundaries of the site are the same as the project area boundaries. The prehistoric component is apparently restricted to the [40-foot] beach access area immediately above and behind the pebble beaches (c. 9,600 square feet in area),” (Goodfellow 1991:25). No further work was recommended for this site (Goodfellow 1991:25). In 1992, Joseph Kennedy conducted an inventory survey covering a substantial section of upland Pu‘u‘eo Ahupua‘a (see Figure 11). He identified one site, Site 50-10-35-18074, described as being a rock mound measuring 2.7 meters (m) long, 1.8 m wide and 50 centimeters (cm) high. According to the report for this project, “The exact function of this structure is undetermined at this time, however we suspect that Site #18074 may be a grave,” (Kennedy 1992:17). It was recommended that more precise determination about function be made prior to any disturbance, though none was planned in that area. Most relevant to the current project area is a study conducted that same year by the International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. (Wickler and Ward 1992; see Figure 11). The study was conducted at the parcel located directly adjacent to the mauka, western end of the present project area; this was the parcel reported on a decade earlier by Kelly and Athens. Following recommendations for subsurface testing set forth in the earlier study, the Wickler and Ward (1992) investigation included the excavation of 30 backhoe trenches, from which core samples were collected for analysis. Kelly and Athens (1982:8) had suggested that the sand landfill within the project area might have been placed over earlier taro fields and house sites, essentially preserving them. Wickler and Ward (1992:43) summarize the results of their investigations. No evidence of pondfield agriculture or fishponds was found within the project area. The potential for such features in the vicinity exists although location will be difficult due to the significant depth of historic volcanic sand till which extends below the water table. Excavation in the loose sand till matrix below the water table was extremely difficult due to slumping which rapidly undercut the excavation unit walls. The most significant result of archaeological field work was the successful recovery of two sediment cores from a former wetland deposit. Although the pollen sequence is distorted to some degree by the presence of historic introductions, a significant shift from a marshland to a drier environment was documented. The recent age of the wetland sediments and minimal thickness indicate that the main wetland deposit lies outside of the project area or possibly beneath the historic sand fill in the seaward portion of the levee inspection trench area. . . . [R]ecovery of a substantial sediment core from the main wetland deposit may prove to be extremely difficult given the difficulty of penetrating the overlying historic sand till. Although no prehistoric or early historic artifacts were recovered during archaeological testing, glass bottles and ceramics from the late 1800s to early 1900s (ca. 1870–1920) were found in a number of trenches in the proposed access Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
48
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
road and levee inspection trench testing areas. Artifacts from the 1940s and later was present over the entire project area [likely spread by or after the 1946 tsunami]. In 1996, Alan Walker and Paul H. Rosendahl conducted an assessment study at seven newly proposed locations for the Hilo Judiciary Complex (see Figure 11). A total of five historic sites were documented, including 47+ features relating to sugarcane cultivation and production (Sites 50-10-35-19431 through 19434) and the old Hilo Sugar Company mill (Site 50-10-35-21133) (Walker and Rosendahl 1996:20, 22). Site 50-10-35-19431 is a c-shaped structure. While the architectural remains are historic, a subsurface prehistoric firepit and volcanic glass artifact were discovered at the site, indicating “prehistoric occupation prior to early historic sugar cane cultivation,” (Walker and Rosendahl 1996:22). In 2000, Haun and Associates undertook a survey of two parcels near the Hilo Harbor: one parcel just west of the Hilo Bay breakwater, and the second parcel at the Ocean View Lease Lots and within the lands abutting the eastern end of Ocean View Drive (see Figure 11). A concrete slab complex, SIHP 50-10-35-22486, is located in this latter parcel. According to Haun and Henry (2000:22), “[t]he [sites’] features consist of two concrete slabs (Features A and B), a set of parallel concrete curbs (Feature C), and two displaced sections of concrete slab located at the water’s edge (Feature D). These features are in fair condition and are altered. Piles of bulldozed materials bound the structural remains to the west, south, and east.” In 2006, Wolforth identified five sites during an archaeological study at Reed’s Bay, two of which were recorded in his 2004 study at the same location (see Figure 11). In addition to SIHP 7413 and 18896, SIHP 24917 (Reeds Bay Beach), SIHP 24918 (location of Scott-Legionnaire Hotel), and SIHP 24919 (Pecked Basins) were identified. No further work was recommended for three of the sites, and preservation was recommended for SIHP 7413 and 18896. Rechtman Consulting conducted what may represent the largest contiguous archaeological study in Hilo town in 2009 (see Figure 11), encompassing the present project area. The study, extending from Pi‘ihonua to Waiākea Ahupua‘a, comprised an assessment for the Proposed Hilo Bayfront Trails Project. The lack of documentation of new archaeological features was ascribed to cycles of development and tsunami devastation that have affected the area throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Rechtman 2009:30). The report stated the following. While no specific archaeological features were identified that would be impacted by the project, there is a small potential for yet undiscovered buried features (in either a disturbed or pristine context) to be encountered during subsurface development activities. The archaeologists recommend that an archaeological monitor be present during all potential ground-disturbing activities associated with currently undisturbed segments of the proposed trail alignment. It also recommended an archaeological monitoring plan be submitted and approved by DLNR-SHPD prior to the commencement of any such activities [Rechtman 2009:30].
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
49
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
2.3 Background Summary and Predictive Model The districts of Hilo and Hāmākua were once ruled by the descendants of paramount chief ‘Umi after the death of Kulukulu‘ā, chief of Hilo. After Kulukulu‘ā, great chiefs of Hilo ruled the districts of Hilo and Hāmākua. By the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century, the lands fronting Hilo were portioned off into named land sections, including the present project ahupua‘a. Following the death of Kalani‘ōpu‘u (uncle of Kamehameha I) in 1782, the island of Hawai‘i was ruled by Kīwala‘ō, Kalani‘ōpu‘u’s son. After his death, the island was ruled by three chiefs, until Kamehameha I united it under his rule alone in 1791. It is likely that Kamehameha’s court at Waiākea at Hilo Bay was the same center of rule used by previous rulers of Hilo. After Kamehameha began his campaign for control of all the islands of Hawai‘i, Hilo became his headquarters. Based on historic documents and maps, Holly McEldowney presented a settlement and land use model for the Hilo and Puna Districts. This model uses elevation, distance from the coast, vegetation, and land use to subdivide the land into five zones: a coastal settlement zone, an upland agricultural zone, a lower forest zone, a rainforest zone, and a subalpine zone. The project area is situated just above sea level, placing it in between the shoreline and the lower bounds of the coastal settlement zone. It would have been the setting of daily activities related to ocean resource gathering and recreation and served as access to fishponds and the coastal habitations and associated garden plots in which dryland taro, sweet potatoes, and other vegetables were grown. The gardens were bordered by banana plants, sugarcane, and wauke. Groves of breadfruit and coconuts were interspersed between the houses and the gardens. Wetland taro was grown along the streams, along the coastal fishponds, and in the swampy land near the coast. Handy and Handy (1972:538–539) write of the concentration of population around the bay here and that dry taro was “planted wherever there was enough soil.” Early foreign visitors and residents who recorded information on Hilo included the English missionary William Ellis (1963:239–240) who, in 1823, noted the rainy and fertile nature of Hilo. Ellis also observed the “luxuriant vegetation . . . the greater part of it formed into plantations,” the thriving Hilo market, and that the houses of Hilo “. . . are mostly larger and better built than those of many districts through which we had passed” (Ellis 1963:239–240). Ellis’s impressions of Hilo led him to recommend it as a prime location for a missionary station. That same year, a mission was set up in Hilo and in the ensuing years thrived, in large part because of its support by high chiefess Kapi‘olani and later Queen Ka‘ahumanu (Kamakau 1992:379–385, Kelly et al. 1981:36). In 1824, Hilo Bay was renamed Byron Bay after the commander of the H.M.S Blonde, which anchored there en route to O‘ahu with the bodies of King Liholiho and Queen Kamāmalu. Lord Byron noted that Hilo would likely become the capital of Hawai‘i, given its abundant resources including “excellent water and abundant fishpools”, sandalwood and sulphur” (Stewart 1970:369). Hilo had already become a notable shipping port and layover for ships travelling between the Americas and Asia. As industry developed in Hilo, the “Beach Road,” also called Front Street, was constructed in the vicinity of the project area to facilitate travel along the waterfront; this route would later become the present Kamehameha Avenue. The tsunami of 1837 sparked a religious revival in Hilo and ultimately impacted Hawaiian residency patterns, further concentrating the population near the town and causing the Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
50
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Background Research
abandonment of more upland settlements (McEldowney 1979:36). Under the Māhele of 1848, which introduced the concept of private land ownership to Hawai‘i, the subject project ahupua‘a were awarded to royalty. Within each of these, ahupua‘a kuleana parcels were awarded, typically clustered along the coast. Chinese sugar masters began to plant and mill sugarcane in the upland Hilo area by the 1830s. There were also experiments with coffee cultivation in the early nineteenth century. Most of these early small plantations were near the coast or near Hāla‘i Hill (elevation 348 feet). Sugarcane and coffee began to be planted in the upper elevations by the late nineteenth century, some by individual homesteaders scattered in the upland area. It was around this time that the Waiākea Mill Company began operations as well, sparking a widespread interest in sugar production in that part of Hilo. A railroad was constructed to transport the sugar, and a track was installed along the beach at Hilo Bay, in the vicinity of the project area. With the termination of the large sugar plantations in the Hilo District, the homestead areas gradually became residential subdivisions and communities, while large portions of land comprising the lower elevations were developed into commercial centers. A review of reports on previous archaeological work in coastal Hilo shows that few precontact features have been found. Many of the features that have been identified are associated with the historic railroad, sugarcane operations, or other aspects of historic life. However, a subsurface human burial has been documented along the coast near the project area, and out-ofcontext historic artifacts have been found in fill strata directly adjacent to the current project area. Therefore, despite its location in an area that has been subjected throughout time to tsunamis, high seas, large-scale land alteration and development, it is possible that subsurface cultural deposits or human remains (disturbed or not) are present within the project area. Cultural deposits could include traditional artifacts related to pre- or early-contact daily life, or historical artifacts related to post-contact daily life, trade or the railroad operations.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
51
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Monitoring Provisions
Section 3 Archaeological Monitoring Provisions In consultation with SHPD, on-site archaeological monitoring is recommended for all ground disturbance conducted beyond 12 inches (one foot) below the existing ground surface to facilitate the identification and treatment of any burials that might be discovered during project construction, and to alleviate the project’s effect on non-burial archaeological deposits. Under Hawai‘i State historic preservation legislation, “Archaeological monitoring may be an identification, mitigation, or post-mitigation contingency measure. Monitoring shall entail the archaeological observation of, and possible intervention with, on-going activities which may adversely affect historic properties” (HAR Chapter 13-279-3). For this project, the proposed monitoring program will serve as a mitigation measure that insures proper documentation should historic properties be encountered during the road reconstruction/rehabilitation work. The archaeological monitoring firm would need to be permitted to conduct archaeological studies in the State of Hawaii and compliant with any federal regulations governing archaeological monitoring.
3.1 Specific Provisions Hawai‘i State historic preservation legislation governing archeological monitoring programs requires that each monitoring plan discuss eight specific items (HAR Chapter 13-279-4). The monitoring provisions below address those eight requirements in terms of the archaeological monitoring for the construction within the project area. 1. Anticipated Historic Properties: The project area has the potential, however low, for pre-contact and historic cultural deposits, as well as human burials. 2. Locations of Historic Properties: Historic properties may be encountered anywhere within the project area. 3. Fieldwork: On-site archaeological monitoring is recommended for all ground disturbing activities conducted beyond 12 inches (one foot) below the existing ground surface. A qualified archaeologist will monitor all ground disturbance associated with the project’s construction. Any departure from this will only follow consultation with, and written concurrence from, SHPD/DLNR. The monitoring fieldwork may encompass the documentation of subsurface archaeological deposits (e.g. trash pits and structural remnants) and will employ current standard archaeological recording techniques. This will include drawing and recording the stratigraphy of excavation profiles where cultural features or artifacts are exposed as well as representative profiles. These exposures will be photographed, located on project area maps, and sampled. Photographs and representative profiles of excavations will be taken even if no historically significant sites are documented. As appropriate, sampling will include the collection of representative artifacts, bulk Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
52
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Monitoring Provisions
sediment samples, and/or the on-site screening of measured volumes of feature fill to determine feature contents. If human remains are identified, no further work will take place, including no screening of back dirt, no cleaning and/or excavation of the burial area, and no exploratory work of any kind unless specifically requested by the SHPD. All human skeletal remains that are encountered during construction will be handled in compliance with HRS Chapter 6E-43 and HAR Chapter 13-300 and in consultation with SHPD/DLNR. 4. Archaeologist’s Role: The on-site archaeologist will have the authority to stop work immediately in the area of any findings so that documentation can proceed and appropriate treatment can be determined. In addition, the archaeologist will have the authority to slow and/or suspend construction activities in order to insure that the necessary archaeological sampling and recording can take place. 5. Coordination Meeting: Before work commences on the project, the on-site archaeologist shall hold a coordination meeting to orient the construction crew to the requirements of the archaeological monitoring program. At this meeting the monitor will emphasize his or her authority to temporarily halt construction and that all historic finds, including objects such as bottles, are the property of the landowner and may not be removed from the construction site. At this time it will be made clear that the archaeologist must be on site during subsurface excavations, if warranted. 6. Laboratory work: Laboratory work will be conducted in accordance of HAR 13-279-5-(6). Laboratory analysis of non-burial related finds will be tabulated into table form and standard artifact and midden recording will be conducted as follows: artifacts will be documented as to provenience, weight, length, width, type of material, and presumed function. Photographs of representative artifacts will be taken for inclusion into the archaeological monitoring report. Bone and shell midden materials will be sorted down to species, when possible, then tabulated by provenience and presented in table form. As appropriate, collected charcoal material obtained within intact cultural deposits will be analyzed for species identification. Charcoal samples ideal for dating analyses will be sent to Beta Analytic, Inc. for radiocarbon dating. If appropriate, artifacts may be sent to the University of Hawai‘i-Hilo Geoarchaeology lab for Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) analysis in order to identify and possibly geographically locate the source material. All analyzed samples, provenience information, and results will be presented in table form within the archaeological monitoring report.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
53
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Monitoring Provisions
7. Report Preparation: One of the primary objectives of the report will be to present a stratigraphic overview of the project area, which will allow for predictive assessments of adjacent properties and which may be the subject of future development. The report will contain a section on stratigraphy, description of archaeological findings, monitoring methods, and results of laboratory analyses. The report will address the requirements of a monitoring report (HAR section 13-279-5). Photographs of excavations will be included in the monitoring report even if no historically significant sites are documented. Should burial treatment be completed as part of the monitoring effort, a summary of this treatment will be included in the monitoring report. Should burials and/or human remains be identified, then other letters, memos, and/or reports may be requested by the Burial Sites Program. 8. Archiving Materials: All burial materials will be addressed as directed by the SHPD/DLNR. Materials not associated with burials will be temporarily stored at the contracted archaeologist’s facilities until an appropriate curation facility is selected, in consultation with the landowner and SHPD.
3.2 Research Foci Background research suggests that the project area was situated along the transitional area between the shore of Hilo Bay and the taro pondfields of the traditional coastal settlement zone in Hilo. This area would have been utilized in pre-contact times for activities related to ocean resource gathering and recreation, and access to the fishponds, taro fields, and residences of the coastal settlement zone. Beginning in the late 1700s, the bay served as a port and point of resupply for commercial vessels travelling between North Americas and Asia. Later, sandalwood and sugarcane experienced large-scale export from Hilo Bay. The “Beach Road,” also called Front Street, was constructed in the vicinity of the project area to facilitate travel along the waterfront and would later become the present Kamehameha Avenue; a railroad was also constructed in the immediate vicinity. The lands of the project area have been completely altered as Hilo has developed over the last 200 years from a traditional village to a modern municipality. Despite it subjection to high seas, tsunamis, a lack of known historic properties, and a high level of development-related disturbance, there remains some potential for the presence of subsurface cultural deposits and/or human burial remains (disturbed or not) in the current project area. Cultural deposits could include traditional artifacts related to pre- or early-contact daily life, or historical artifacts related to post-contact daily life, trade or railroad operations. Identification of subsurface deposits related to past land use would have predictive value for future studies.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
54
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
References Cited
Section 4 References Cited Baldwin, E. D. 1891 Hawaii Territory Survey Map of Hilo Town and Vicinity. Registered Map No. 1561. Hawaii Land Survey Division, State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General Services. Electronic document, http://dags.hawaii.gov/survey/ search.php, access date unknown. Barrère, Dorothy B. 1994 The King’s Mahele: The Awardees and Their Lands. Ms. on file, Historic Preservation Division, State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Baxley, H. W. 1865 What I Saw on the West Coast of South and North America and at the Hawaiian Islands. D. Appleton, New York. Bingham, Hiram 1847 A Residence of Twenty-One Years in the Sandwich Islands or the Civil, Religious, and Political History of Those Islands. H. Huntington, Hartford, Connecticut. Bird, Isabella 2007 Six Months in the Sandwich Islands: Among Hawaii’s Palm Groves, Coral Reefs, and Volcanoes. Mutual, Honolulu. Byron, Lord 1826 Voyage of the H.M.S. Blonde to the Sandwich Islands in the Years 1824–1825. Compiled by Martha Graham. John Murray, London. Castle, William R. Jr. 1917 Hawaii Past and Present. Revised and enlarged edition. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York. Clark, John R. K. 1985 Beaches of the Big Island. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Coan, Titus 1882 Life in Hawaii: An Autobiographic Sketch of Mission Life and Labors, 1835– 1881. Randolph, New York. Colum, Padraic 1937 Legends of Hawaii. New Haven and Yale University Press, Murray Printing Company, Westford, Massachusetts. Goodfellow, Susan T. 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Noelani Gardens Project, TMK [3] 2-6002:001 and 002. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Gordon-Cumming, G. F. 1883 Fire Fountains–The Kingdom of Hawaii, Its Volcanoes, and the History of its Missions. Volume II. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
55
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
References Cited
Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Elizabeth G. Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Haun, Alan E., and Dave Henry 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey Hilo Harbor Facilities Expansion, TMK [3] 2-109:2, 12, 41, and 42 and TMK [3] 2-1-07:20–37; Located at Waiākea, South Hilo District island of Hawai‘i. Haun and Associates, Kea‘au, Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i TMK Service, on file at Hawai‘i TMK Service, 222 Vineyard Street, Suite 401, Honolulu, Hawai‘i Tax Map Key [3] 2-2. Hill, S. S. 1856 Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands. Chapman and Hall, London. ‘Ī‘ī, John Papa 1959 Fragments of Hawaiian History. Pukui translation. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Judd, Bernice 1929 Voyages to Hawaii before 1860: A Study Based on Historical Narratives in the Library of the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society. Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society, Honolulu. Juvik, Sonia P., James O. Juvik, and Thomas R. Paradise (editors) 1998 Atlas of Hawai‘i. Third ed. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Kai, Peggy 1974 Chinese Settlers in the Village of Hilo before 1852. Hawaiian Journal of History 8:39–75. Kamakau, Samuel M. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Revised edition. Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate, Honolulu. Kelly, Marion, Barry Nakamura, and Dorothy B. Barrère 1981 Hilo Bay: A Chronological History: Land and Water used in the Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kelly, Marion, and Stephen J. Athens 1982 Archaeological and Historic Studies for the Alenaio Stream Flood Damage Reduction Study, Hilo, Hawai‘i. In Archaeological and Historic Studies for the Alenaio Stream Flood Damage Reduction Study, Hilo, Hawai‘i, by Marion Kelly, Barry Nakamura, and Dorothy Barrère. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kelsey, Theodore 1925a The Adventure of the Princesses. Hilo Tribune Herald, September 29, 1925. Lyman Museum Archives, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Kelsey, Theodore 1925b Hawaiian Legends Surrounding the Three Hills and the Region of the Hilo Boarding School. Hilo Tribune Herald. Lyman Museum Archives, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
56
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
References Cited
Kennedy, Joseph 1992 Archaeological Inventory Final Report, TMK [3] 2-6-08:26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39; and TMK [3] 2-6-29:09, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15; Located at Pu‘ue‘o on the island of Hawai‘i. Archaeological Consultants of Hawai‘i, Hale‘iwa, Hawai‘i. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1778–1854, Foundation and Transformation, Vol. I. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Lucas, Paul F. Nahoa (editor) 1995 A Dictionary of Hawaiian Legal Land-Terms. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and the University of Hawai‘i Committee for the Preservation and Study of Hawaiian Language, Art, and Culture, Honolulu. Lum, Arlene (editor) 1988 Sailing for the Sun: The Chinese in Hawaii, 1789–1989. Three Heroes, Honolulu. Lyman, Chester Smith 1846–1847 The Hawaiian Journals of Chester Smith Lyman. Typescript copy in the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library, Honolulu. Lyman, E. G. 1936 Legends of Hawaii. Compiled by E. G. Lyman. Lyman Museum Archives, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Lyman, Henry M. 1906 Hawaiian Yesterdays: Chapters from a Boy’s Life in the Islands in the Early Days. A. C. McClurg, Chicago. Lyman, Sarah Joiner 1970 Sarah Joiner Lyman of Hawaii: Her Own Story. Edited by Martha Greer Martin. Revised 1979. Lyman House Memorial Museum, Hilo, Hawai‘i. McEldowney, Holly 1979 Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Menzies, Archibald 1920 Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago. Edited by W. F. Wilson. New Freedom Press, Honolulu. Merry, Sally Engle 2000 Colonizing Hawai‘i: The Cultural Power of Law. Princeton University Press, Princeton. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2005 Hilo, Hawai‘i First Order Observing Station Information. Electronic document, www.prh.noaa.gov/hnl/climate/phto_clim.php, accessed October 25, 2011. Pietrusewsky, Michael 1989 Human remains Found at Wailoa Bridge Renovation Project, Waiakea, South Hilo. Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai‘i. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
57
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
References Cited
Rechtman, Robert B. 2009 Draft Archaeological Assessment Survey for the Proposed Hilo Bayfront Trails Project, Pi‘ihonua, Punahoa, Pōnāhawai, Kūkūau, and Waiākea Ahupua‘a, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai‘i. Rechtman Consulting, LLC, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Rosendahl, M. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for EIS, Hilo judiciary Complex Sites, Hilo, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Rosendahl, M. L., and T. Lawrence 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Proposed Irradiation Plant Site, Land of Waiākea, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i. Sato, Harry H., Warren Ikeda, Robert Paeth, Richard Smythe, and Minoru Takehiro 1973 Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture and University of Hawai‘i’s Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu. Smith, Jared 1941 Waiakea Mill Has Had Long, Stormy Career. The Honolulu Advertiser, July 2, 1941. 1948 Sale of Waiakea Mill Finale of 70-Year Saga. The Honolulu Advertiser, June 19, 1948. Smith, M., and P. Tourtellotte 1988 Wailoa Bridge Renovation Project, Site No. 50-10-11115 Burial Removal. DLNR Historic Sites Section, Honolulu. Stacker, J. T. 1900 Hilo: Its Changing Conditions And Outlook. The Hawaiian Annual for 1901, pp. 128–132. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. Stewart, Charles. S. 1970 Journal of a Residence in the Sandwich Islands, During the Years 1823, 1824, and 1825. Facsimile reproduction of the third edition of 1830. Index by Margaret Apple, University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Thrum, Thomas G. 1875 Notes on the History of Coffee Culture in the Hawaiian Islands. Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual for 1876, pp. 46–52. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. 1923 Captain Thomas Spencer. Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual for 1924, pp. 117–125. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. U.S. Geological Survey 1995 Hilo’s Closest Encounter with Pele: the 1880–81 Eruption. Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, Volcano Watch, October 27, 1995. Electronic document, http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1995/95_10_27.html, accessed May 21, 2007.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
58
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
References Cited
U.S. Geological Survey Maps/U.S. Department of War Maps, available at USGS Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, Colorado 1995 USGS 7.5 Minute Hilo Quadrangle Map Waihona ‘Āina 2000 The Māhele Database. Electronic Document, http://waihona.com, access date unknown. Walker, Alan, and Paul Rosendahl 1996 Archaeological Assessment Study Hilo Judiciary Complex Project. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Whitney, Caspar 1899 Hawaiian America: Something of Its History, Resources, and Prospects. Harper and Brothers, New York. Wickler, Stephen, and Jerome Ward 1992 Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations for Alenaio Stream Flood Control Project, Hilo, Hawai‘i Island. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu. Wilkes, Charles 1849 Voyage Round The World, Embracing The Principal Events Of The Narrative Of The United States Exploring Expedition. Geo. W. Gorton, Philadelphia. Wolforth, T. 2006 Inventory Survey for the Proposed Reed’s Bay Beach Park, Hilo. Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. Report Prepared for the County of Hawai‘i Department of Parks and Recreation, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Zeilinga de Boer, Jelle, and Donald Theodore Sanders 2002 Volcanoes in Human History: The Far-Reaching Effects of Major Eruptions. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
59
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Appendix A: Section 106 Consultation Letter
Appendix A Section 106 Consultation Letter
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
A-1
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
Appendix A: Section 106 Consultation Letter
A-2
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
Appendix A: Section 106 Consultation Letter
A-3
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Appendix B: SHPD Response to Section 106 Consultation Letter
Appendix B SHPD Response to Section 106 Consultation Letter
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
B-1
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Job Code: PONAHAWAI 3
Appendix B: SHPD Response to Section 106 Consultation Letter
Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Kamehameha Avenue Reconstruction Project TMK [3] 2-2-002:003, 004, and 006
B-2
