HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal AA Hu Honua Bioenergy FacilityJ-0
Hu- I Honua
B 1 0 E N E R G Y L L C
B-J. Leithead Todd
Planning Director
County of Hawaii
Planning Department
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Ms. Leithead Todd:
Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA 221)
Request: Amend SMA No. 221 to Allow Facility Improvements and Change in Fuel Source From
Coal to Biomass
Applicant: Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC
Tax Map Key: 2-8-8-104
Attached is a copy of the final version of the Archeological Review that was completed for the Hu Honua
site by Pacific Consulting Services in February 2010. Please add this report to the subject SSA
Amendment Application. An electronic version has been sent to Mr. Jeff Darrow to facilitate posting on
the Planning Department's web site.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Richard McQuain at 808-218-8416.
Sincerely,
W
-1)
Richard K. McQuain
President
Attachment
City Financial Tower * 201 Merchant Street, Suite 1830 * Honolulu, HI 96813
(P) 808.521.1600 * (F) 808.621.1603 * www.huhonua.com
---------- --- - — ------------------
Report
FINAL REPORT
Literature Review for the Proposed Hu
Honua Bioenergy Facility, Pepe'ekeo,
Kahua Ahupua'a, South Hilo District,
Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii.
TMK: (3) 2-8-008:104
Prepared by
Pacific Consulting Services, Inc.
720 1 wilei Road Suite 424
Honolulu, HI 96817
Prepared for
Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC
City Financial Tower
201 Merchant Street, Suite 1830
Honolulu, HI 96813
February 2010
FINAL REPORT
Literature Review for the Proposed Hu Honua Bioenergy Facility, Pepe ekeo,
Kahua Ahupua'a, South Hilo District, Hawaii Island, State of Hawaii
TM K: (3) 2 -8 -008: 104
Prepared by:
Jesse Yorck, M.A.
of
Pacific Consulting Services, Inc.
720 I wilei Road, Suite 424
Honolulu, HI 96817
Prepared for:
Hu Honua Bioenergy, L L C
City Financial Tower
201 Merchant Street, Suite 1 830
Honolulu, HI 96813
February 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLEOF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. .............................II
LISTOF FIGURES .......................................................................... ............................... ............................III
LISTOF TABLES ............................................................................ ............................... ............................III
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... ............................... 1
PROJECTAREA LOCATION .............................................................................................. ............................... 1
ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... ............................... 1
TOPOGRAPHY& SOILS .................................................................................................... ............................... 1
VEGETATION.................................................................................................................... ............................... 1
RAIN FALL ......................................................................................................................... ............................... 2
HISTORICALBACKGROUND ................................................................................... ............................... 5
LEGENDARY AND TRADITIONAL LAND USE HISTORY ..................................................... ............................... 5
HISTORIC AND RECENT LAND USE HISTORY .................................................................. ............................... 6
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS .......................................... ............................... 13
ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. ............................... 17
REFERENCESCITED ............................................................................................... ............................... 18
APPENDIXI ................................................................................................................. ............................... 20
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT AREA LOCATION ON U.S.G.S. PAPAIKOU, HI QUADRANGLE 1999 (1:24,000) . ....... 3
FIGURE 2. BUILD -OUT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED Hu HONUA BIOENERGY FACILITY . ............................... 4
FIGURE 3. 1950 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HILO COAST POWER COMPANY, PEPE` EKED, HAWAI` I. 10
FIGURE 4. 2006 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HILO COAST POWER COMPANY, PEPE` EKED, HAWAI` I. 11
FIGURE 5. PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PEPE` EKEO SUGAR COMPANY OFFICE BUILDING. ATTRIBUTED TO JOHN
WRIGHT, CA. 1973 ............................................................................................... ............................... 12
FIGURE 6. PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PEPE` EKEO SUGAR COMPANY OFFICE BUILDING. ATTRIBUTED TO JOHN
WRIGHT, CA. 1973 ............................................................................................... ............................... 12
FIGURE 7. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT AREA
LOCATION............................................................................................................. ............................... 16
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. LIST OF PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT
AREA..................................................................................................................... ............................... 15
111
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC, Pacific Consulting Services, Inc.
(PCSI) has prepared the following literature review in support of the proposed installation
of a chip processing building and a chip storage building on the grounds of the Hilo
Coast Power Company (HCPQ in Pepe'ekeo, Hawaii Island (Figure 1). HCPC was a
coal burning electric generating power plant which Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC intends to
convert to a renewable electrical power facility fueled by locally grown, renewable
biomass. In order for this conversion to take place, a foundation for a conveyor belt as
well as two structures, measuring 180 x 40, feet will need to be built. The footprint of the
structures will be excavated to a depth of six feet to construct the foundations for each.
The conveyor belt foundation will require an 8 x 8 foot excavation at a depth of 20 feet.
(Figure 2) This literature review has been prepared in compliance with Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS), Chapter 6E, and Title13 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR),
Subtitle 13 (State Historic Preservation Division Rules), Chapter 284 (Rules Governing
Procedures for Historic Preservation Review to Comment on Section 6E -42 Projects).
PROJECT AREA LOCATION
The entire project area lies within Pepe'ekeo in Kahua Ahupua'a, located approximately
10 miles north of Hilo Bay in the South Hilo district of Hawai' i Island. The project area is
bounded by Kulaimano Homestead Road to the west, Bluffview Drive to the north and
Old Mamalahoa Highway to the south. The eastern end of the property also abuts Old
Mamalahoa Highway and terminates at the Pacific Ocean. The proposed earth - altering
activities related to the build -out will take place within the 25.57 acre parcel in the
aforementioned storage and processing locations. The project area consists of the
single parcel: TMK: (3) 2 -8 -008: 104 (formerly TMK: (3) 2 -8 -007: 053).
ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
TOPOGRAPHY & SOILS
The topography of the project area is relatively flat due to extensive grading. The
soils in the area are Hilo Series: HoC, HoD, and HoE, which are all silty clay loams that
were preferred for cane cultivation. The coastline is classified as RB or Rough Broken
land which is a miscellaneous, precipitous land type. There are no Jaucus sand deposits
in the area according to the Hawai' i Island USDA soil survey. (Sato et al. 1973:17 -18,
Sheet 49) .
VEGETATION
Vegetation in the vicinity of the project area falls within two categories. The first
category consists of exotic, invasive species typical of areas formerly used for
commercial sugar cane production (the parcel is on the site of the former Pepe'ekeo
Sugar Mill). These include iron wood (Casuarina equisetifo /ia), monkey pod (Samanea
samara), guinea grass (Panicum maximum), Miconia (Miconia calvescens) and other
noxious grasses and weeds. The second category includes the native species ha /a
(pandanus - Pandanus odoratissimus) and naupaka- kahakai (beach naupaka- Scaevola
serica). The parcel would have been grubbed and graded by the mid -19`" century and
was subsequently modified for industrial use by the HCPC. (Campbell, 1990, Rosendahl
2002b: 1 &Wagner et al. 1990)
RAINFALL
The mean annual rainfall in this part of windward Hawaii Island averages 137.8
inches per year, with most rain falling in the winter months between November and April
(Glambelluca et al. 1986).
P)
7 I N I I
I I
^OU;r+i
w Project Location
Hawai'i Island
ti
I
= 1
y Uh y'a'k
v
1
izsF
10 20 30 40 50
"9
I
Miles
fCbhoiar I I'rI
• � � r l I.. 1 I '
.:
4 r
r�
�k �
'ti?�1 GI � U Tri �i
I, � � U
� I
_ •' ' fir. �L fi��FMd
T -� ii � }• • V .• 5f � 1 f � r
I {�� `� •: - have d
_ 4
h ,
r
1
r I
17 FR I 5I
mat
__ __
ArfUrp
r {
Uim
12U -A
KA
rea
jeCt
1
•� � y I
■ I "y
_
�. .. �'
' 1A _
I _ _ —J I
Tikr '--fir •
nh Se�n+a
. TTn14 I y
--
A; 77T
jrz
- t ' X15
1. +4 Al [ r.
X43tamhal Env
-• T �..�_• � mod• - � I
_ r• I i
_ • �' � �� � �- ~� - I � may.
0.00 0.25 0.50 0. 00
- - — T _,� I •, _ _ _kG '• h I —Mlles
Figure 1. Project Area Location on the Ll.S.G_S_ Papaiicvu, HI Quadrangle 1999 (1:24000 series ).
3
%ilk a:-
d
_Wpm" L
OIC
D
'0 00,
L7
fl
4&m
J$]
11 WM
Ij Mfl
ir
3F
n 10
Ce
N I IL
Vd
C3
Figure 2. Build-Out Plan for the Proposed HO Honua Bioenergy Facility.
0
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
LEGENDARY AND TRADITIONAL LAND USE HISTORY
According to Place Names of Hawaii, Pepe ekeo was formerly referred to as
Pepe e -ke -6, literally meaning "the food crushed, as by warriors in battle" (Pukul et al.
1974:183) . As mentioned earlier, Pepe ekeo and Kahua AhupuaI a are located in the
South Hilo district of Hawai' i Island.
In Exalted Sits the Chief, Cordy explains that "Hilo district too is a windward
district with 32 miles of shoreline. It also is focused on Mauna Kea's eastern slopes and
similarly exposed cliffs, rough seas, narrow reefs, rain - shrouded thick - soiled slopes with
upper ' 6hi' a -koa forests and deep gulches. But Hilo also includes the large, fertile
flatlands of Hilo Bay formed by Mauna Loa flows. These flatlands with swamps and the
wide lower Wailoa River and the calm waters of the bay played a dominant role in the
history of Hilo district and the island" ( Cordy 2000: 22).
The South Hilo district, positioned on the windward side of Hawai' i Island,
experiences heavy downpour in the winter months and is known for its verdant
landscape and productive agricultural fields. In /Native Planters of Old Hawal"% the
authors Handy and Handy describe Hilo as "one of the rainiest inhabited localities on the
island of Hawaii" (Handy et al. 1972: 361). The chant Hi' u o Lani is discussed as a
beckoning to the heavens for rain:
Heaven magic, fetch a Hilo -pour from heaven!
Morn's cloud -buds, look! They swell in the East.
The rain -cloud parts, Hilo is deluged with rain,
The Hilo of King Hana -Kahi
Surf breaks, stirs the mire of Pi' ilani
The bones of Hilo are broken
By the blows of the rain.
Ghostly the rain -scud of Hilo in heaven;
The cloud -forms of Pua -lani grow and thicken.
The rain - priest bestirs him now to go forth,
Forth to observe the stab and thrust of the rain,
The rain that clings to the roof of Hilo
As seen above, the relationship between the climate and flora of Hilo is seen as
a physical manifestation and result of chanting and prayer. It is not surprising then that
Hilo is known for its past and present ability to grow large amounts of flora that was and
is quintessential in the Hawaiian diet and lifestyle. Breadfruit (Artocarpus a /ti /is), kalo or
taro (Colocasia esculenta), sweet potato (1pomoea batatas) and yams (Di6scorea alata)
are all noted as growing quite successfully in the Hilo region. (Handy et al. 1972: 153,
283, 128 & 182)
Pepe'ekeo is mentioned briefly in the book The Epic Tale ofHi'iakaikapo /lope %.
In one of the passages, Hi'iakaikapoliopele, sister of the goddess Pele, explains to the
5
maka- ainana (commoners) of Honoli' i that she intends to depart the area via canoe after
a great earthquake destroys her foes, the mo' o (lizard) women. In the book she states
that "This is a prayer already memorized by some, but there is no wrong with
memorizing it anew so that it is securely and profoundly set, to avoid misfortune. And
listen, all of you, if we sit a bit and there comes the rumbling of an earthquake, and the
earth is atremble, you should all recognize it as the last gaping breath of the mo' o
women, my adversaries, whom this woman here saw tonight. At that point we shall take
our leave of you, for the Milky Way has turned toward the west" (Nogelmeler 2007:101).
Soon after an earthquake struck and 'gently rumbled, dry thunder crashed,
booming once, twice and a third time, at which Hi' iaka said, "My opponents have indeed
died" ' (2007: 101). To the disappoint of the commoners, Hi' iakaikapoliopele and her
entourage departed Honoli' i. They traveled "until they had passed Pauka' a and reached
Pahoehoe, passing it and coming to Pu' u' eopaku, then continuiiing to Papa ikou,
Keapoko, Paiha' aloa, Ka' ie' ie, Kalaloa, and all the way to Pu' umoi, and from there
onward to Onomea, Kawainui, Kukuikea, Pepe ekeo and on to Makahanaloa" (2007:
101).
In Abraham Fornander's Ancient History of the Hawaiian People he discusses a
fallen chief of Hilo named Hilo - Hamakua. His death, collectively with the deaths of other
Hawaii Island chiefs, led to the reconsolidation of power on the Island: "War followed,
but the revolted chiefs seem to have been deficient in organization or co- operation, for
Kea wenui-a- Umidefeated each and all of them, killed them and kept their bones ... as
trophies... In the legend and chant of Lonoikamakahik% the son of Keawenu% the names
of the six district chiefs whom his father defeated are given" (Fornander 1996: 111).
Among those names was Hilo- Hamakua, son of Kulukulua of Hilo.
In Thrums Hawaiian Folk Tales it is explained that "Another temple of their
erection was at Pepeekeo, Hilo, the peculiarity of the work being that the stones had
been brought together by the residents of that part of the district, by direction of the
chief, but that in one night, the Menehunes gathered together and built it. The chief and
his people were surprised on coming the next morning to resume their labors, to find the
heiau completed" (Thrum, 1907: 71) This story, although mythological, may be related to
another account told by A. E. Hudson in his circa 1932 book Archaeology in East Hawaii
in which he was told by an informant that a heiau was located at the Pepe ekeo
plantation managers house. (also see the Previous Archaeological Investigations
section)
HISTORIC AND RECENT LAND USE HISTORY
By the late 18th century, and after at least two violent attempts to occupy the
district of Hilo, Kamehameha had taken control over all of Hawai' i Island's districts:
"Evidently, in 1789 and 1790, Kamehameha had been preparing an invasion of Maui. At
some point, he asked Keawema' uhili of Hilo to supply him with canoes, men and feather
capes for this invasion. Keawema' uhili consented, sending canoes and warriors with
three of his sons -a stunning change in the Hawaii Island alliances, with a shift of the
Hilo kingdom from Ke6ua and the Ka' u kingdom to Kamehameha and the Kohala -Kona
kingdom" (Cordy 2000: 331) .
In the mid -19th century, Hawai' i was a monarchy with various international
treaties and a vibrant cash economy. After the decline of Hawai' is two former cash
industries, whaling and the export of sandalwood, Hawaii was reliant largely on cattle
ranching and commercial sugar cane production. The latter was particularly true in the
Hilo and Hamakua districts of Hawaii Island. Pepe'ekeo in particular was important for
Hawai' i Island's sugar industry as it housed the main sugar mill for the Hilo region for
over 100 years. Portions of the Pepe Iekeo Sugar Mill were located on the current HCPC
parcel. The following is a brief history of the sugar cane plantation at Pepe ekeo taken
from the plantation archives of the Hawaii Sugar Planters Association:
Pepeekeo Sugar Company, located on the windward side of the island of Hawaii
between Onomea and Honomu, held the majority of its land in fee simple. The
plantation occupied approximately four miles along the ocean cliffs and extended
from three to 18 miles mauka to 1600 feet in elevation on the slopes of Mauna
Kea.
The company, called the Metcalf Plantation, was started at Kaupakuea in 1857
by Theophilus Metcalf and the first crop was harvested in 1859. Mr. Metcalf's
was the first factory in Hawaii to use the vacuum pan in 1863.In 1874, after Mr.
Metcalf's death, the plantation was purchased by Messrs. Afong and Achuck and
the name changed to Pepeekeo Sugar Company. By 1881 the crop was
estimated at 1800 tons and the factory was constructed of corrugated iron
buildings with machinery manufactured by Honolulu Iron Works.
In 1882, Mr. Akana became the plantation manager and Mr. C. Afong was the
company owner as well as the agent. 1886 saw a new mill from Honolulu Iron
Works in place and in 1888, Mr. Wong Tuck became the new manager. Mr. H.
Deacon and Mr. Alexander Young, manager of Honolulu Iron Works, purchased
Pepeekeo Sugar in 1889. The Company was incorporated on October 14, 1889,
with Mr. Deacon as manager and H. Hackfeld & Co. as agents. T.H. Davies &
Co. served as agents from 1892 to 1904, when C. Brewer & Co. purchased
control from Mr. Young, who used the funds to build the Alexander Young Hotel
on Bishop Street in Honolulu.
By 1910 the annual yield was 8,000 tons processed by a 9- roller mill with a
capacity to grind 60 tons of cane per day. The warehouse could store 24,000
bags of sugar, which were loaded onto interisland steamers by steel cables from
the sea cliff. Plantation fields were connected by good dirt roads and the
harvested cane was delivered to the mill by railroad cars and 15 miles of
stationary flumes. There were 700 employees at Pepeekeo Sugar, all of whom
worked on the day labor system, there being no contract laborers at the
plantation. By 1914, homesteaders were using 625 acres to grow cane that was
processed at the company mill.
Manager James Webster had become noted for his farming methods; in 1904 he
initiated plowing under cane trash for fertilizer instead of burning it off. The
improvement in soil prompted HSPA to take up the method and expand it to
other plantations. Another innovation, made during mill improvements, was to
place the grinding machinery some 60 feet below the boiling house. This
facilitated the delivery of cane by flume and the flume water was used
extensively in the mill. The Gartley clarification system, developed by Brewer
engineer A.A. Gartley, was also an innovation at Pepeekeo Sugar. By 1923 Mr.
Webster's good farming practices had increased the yield from 3.1 tons to 4.6
tons per acre in 15 years. Most of the cane of the plantation was Yellow
N
Caledonia and Pepeekeo Sugar kept some ratoon crops for as long as 12 to 18
years. The soil was improved annually with 50,000 tons of Waianae coral sand
as well as bone meal and guano. Eucalyptus trees were planted as windbreaks,
protecting the fields near the ohia forests.
Water sources at Waiaama Stream and Kauku Hill provided clear water from
natural filter beds for all plantation uses including turning a water wheel to
generate power. Cultivation inventions included the Webster's careful farming
dictated deep plowing at 18 -20 inches, which improved the soil each year. The
manager continued to live in the old Afong residence just above the mill.ln 1930,
machinery was installed to dry, sift, and sack bagasse from the mill to be used for
livestock feed. The product was sold in Los Angeles through Grace Brothers in
Honolulu. Because the land was bumpy with many winding gulches, road
improvement was ongoing, using a rock crusher brought from Scotland in the
1890s. There were 120 mules and 25 horses used on the plantation in 1932,
providing transport for the fields split by ridges and gulches. Tractors with
caterpillar tracks were used for plowing and trucks now hauled mud press, stable
manure, and lime to the fields. 20 miles of permanent flumes brought cane to the
mill.
At age 80, after 32 years at Pepeekeo manager, Mr. Webster retired in 1936 and
Mr. Andrew T. Spalding, manager at Honomu Sugar, succeeded as manager of
Pepeekeo on January 1, 1937.
In 1941, harvested cane was trucked to the mill for the first time, due to a
shortage of water for fluming. Though water shortages continued for the next two
years, a record crop was produced in 1944.March 1946 saw Hanomu Sugar Co.
merged with Pepeekeo and Mr. A. Douglas Ednie became manager of the
combined plantations. Mr. Ednie had a difficult year, however, as Pepeekeo
Sugar showed a loss of $141,430, the first loss in 10 years. An industry -wide
strike, higher labor costs, unfavorable weather, and the April tidal wave that
destroyed the railroad and terminals in Hilo added to the problems of 1946.
In 1947, the Pepeekeo mill was shut down for extensive modernization to
accommodate the addition of the cane from the Honomu fields. Reconstruction of
over $2,000,000 required an agency overdraft and a loan from Bank of Hawaii in
1948.In the early 1950s a number of lots and houses on the plantation were sold
to residents, as was the Honomu company store. Due to the increase in
mechanical harvesting, the labor force of 460 was reduced to 400 in 1956. The
late 1950s brought numerous union slowdowns, walkouts, and shutdowns to
Pepeekeo.
Mr. Ednie retired as manager in 1960, replace by Mr. L.S. McLane from Hilo
Sugar Co. The merger of Pepeekeo and Hakalau sugar companies was affected
in 1963, with Mr. Herbert M. Gomez becoming manager of the combined
company. 1963 was also the year in which the Hilo office of C. Brewer & Co.
instituted a computer system to service plantation automotive equipment.
In 1971 Wainaku, Hakalau, Pepeekeo, and Papaikou sugar companies were
consolidated in a processing cooperative that also included independent cane
growers. Two years later, Pepeekeo Sugar merged with Mauna Kea Sugar to
form Mauna Kea Sugar Co., Inc., the state's fourth largest sugar company with
18,000 acres of cane. The mills at Wainaku and Hakalau were closed as the
Pepeekeo mill was modernized to double its capacity by 1974. (Campbell et al.
1990: 1 -3)
At some point in the 1970s, the Pepe'ekeo Sugar Mill was closed and the land
was modified to house the HCPC coal -to- energy plant. Currently, none of the structures
associated with the Mill exist on the subject parcel. (Figures 3 and 4) A search of the
correspondence files at the State Historic Preservation Division of the Department of
Land and Natural Resources (SHPD /DLNR) Kapolei office turned up five pictures of the
mill circa 1973. (Figures 5 and 6)
A
r
4 F+
y 1
F
{
1 i i
df
1p
Ito �J"
•.i
i•
y 'rt
r
per '
i mot#
IL
y
S Ir
,� Y 'F
r L a.
IMP
pqt
A'-
i y
T+r
t
.r
•t rI ' } F T
i
IL
JL
jr
too %P
fl _
? ■
y�{� i
ddd.
IL
do
,� x •
t . - - r • f 1. + ytiG zr r
qO
0.
did
z
F i
Figure 3. 1950 Aerial Photograph of the Hilo Coast Power Company, Pepe'ekeo,
Hawai' i.
10
}
t
Vb -
r
j(qvLq'
I �
46
1
r #
0!000,L
Jv
9ft
_ r
r
If
W.
# F a ti
1 ■ � r } I OF
' I 0 r . 4'
it y � N. IN
• a *
Ilk
66 F _ *0
Ar
I
- � .J Ir '
J 1
J . Op
L9 %Ir ■ �. r
}.
_ ' r It } 6 - J
I
r ,
- 7 ,
NIP 4�
J' �
*rte J
X + J�
A
I -
- - 90
L L 4W - �L i
r - r - -
_ � ' #
P6
a y
f
t� +
-
h.6 TT
J JT • .
Figure 4. 2006 Aerial Photograph of the Hilo Coast Power Company, Pepe'ekeo,
Hawai' i.
11
M
Figure 5. Photograph of the Pepe'ekeo Sugar Company Office Building, (attributed to
John Wright, CA. 1973).
Figure 6. Photograph of the Pepe' ekeo Sugar Company Office Building, (attributed to
John Wright, CA. 1973).
12
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Table 1 summarizes the previous archaeological investigations in the immediate
vicinity of the current project area. Figure 7 illustrates the locations of these previous
archaeological investigations on a topographic map. Somewhat surprisingly, as Hilo is a
vibrant locus of modern Hawaiian culture, there is a relative paucity of archaeological
studies in the vicinity of Pepe ekeo and the South Hilo district. This may be due to the
vast amount of earth - altering activities that have taken place in Hilo since the mid -19th
century, which have destroyed much of the archaeological surface architecture in the
region. Of the few archaeological surveys that have taken place in Pepe ekeo, only one
of them covered the entirety of the subject parcel, TM K: (3) 2 -8 -008: 104 (formerly TM K:
(3) 2 -8 -007: 053) .
In what may have been East Hawai' is first archaeological study, A.E. Hudson,
an employee of B.P. Bishop Museum, undertook a research project that led to the book
Archaeology in East Hawaii being written circa 1932. Although the book has remained
an unpublished manuscript, portions of it can be found in Rosendahl 2002a. In the
manuscript, Hudson interviewed two men named Henry Lyman and Olin Wilson. Mr.
Lyman informed Hudson that he believed that "there may have been a heiau at the site
of the managers house at Pepe ekeo plantation" (Hudson n.d.: 221) Mr. Wilson, who
lived in the house at that time, knew nothing of a heiau.
Hudson also noted that a previous study by H.W. Kinney in 1913 referred to a
'former burial cave' at Pepe ekeo Landing. Kinney's use of the term 'former' indicates
that, to his knowledge, there were no longer burials in the cave in the early 20th century.
It is also possible that the cave itself was impacted or demolished when the landing
infrastructure was established. In any case, the Landing is located north of the subject
property at TM K: (3) 2 -8 -8: 151.
In the early 1970s, circa 1973, Hawai' i State Parks employee John C. Wright
documented a number of historic buildings in Pepe ekeo, creating Pepe ekeo Historic
District. Wright drafted a plan view map of the Pepe ekeo Clinic and described and
photographed several buildings in the District. The buildings included the Pepe ekeo
clinic, Mill office, landing platform, gym, Catholic Church, plantation store, the mill
housing and a plantation -era flume. (Figure 5, 6 and Appendix 1) For whatever reason,
the district was not placed on the Hawai' i Register of Historic Places; however, it does
remain on the State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) as SIHP 50 -10 -26 -7390. At least
one of the historic buildings, the Mill office, was documented as being situated on this
study's subject parcel. However, Hawai' i County's real property database states that the
parcel currently only contains a single building which was erected in 2001.
In 2002, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D, Inc. (PHRI) conducted two field checks in the
vicinity of the subject parcel. The field checks included surveying the Pepe ekeo Sugar
Plantation Parcels at (3) 2 -8 -07: 1, 2 & 53 as well as TM K: (3) 2 -8 -08: 3 and (3) 2 -8 -09:
1, which were a coastal surveys of the makai lands between Pepe ekeo and
Pohakumanu Bay. Two plantation era cemeteries, which can be found on modern TMK
maps, were encountered during the coastal inspection: a 'Japanese Cemetery' south of
Alia Stream, and a 'Chinese Cemetery' north of Makea Stream. Both the historic
13
Japanese and Chinese Cemeteries are located well away from the subject project area
(0.5 m and 0.75 m respectively). Other than the two historic cemeteries, Rosendahl
reported that no historic properties were encountered during the field checks (which
included the subject parcel). (Rosendahl 2002a &b) Rosendahl recommended a
determination of 'no historic properties affected' with which SHPD concurred. (LOG NO:
2003.1914, DOC NO: 0309PM09)
14
Table 1. List of Previous Archaeological Studies in the Immediate Vicinity of the
Project Area.
15
SIHP#
Author & Date
50-80 -
of Publication
TMK
Nature of Study
15-
Results
Possible burial cave at
Kinney 1913
Pe e' ekeo Landing
Interviews indicate a destroyed
Archaeological Study
heiau at plantation manager's
Hudson n.d.
Various
and Interviews
house.
Historic Building
50 -10-
Created Pepe'ekeo Historic
Wri ht 1973
Various
Inventor
26 -7390
District
Rosendahl
Archaeological Field
2002a
2 -8 -07: 1
Inspection
No historic properties found
2 -8 -07: 1,2&53
Rosendahl
2 -8 -08: 3
Archaeological Field
2002b
2 -8 -09: 1
Inspection
Two historic cemeteries
15
. I �•� Kohola Point YID E
i
� L -
tY BOA
- - - - - - - -- - -- - -
� 4
+�
fnna Pa J
t
- 91�
Lose Pbint
20 y�
- -
,310
y -
r '
I a F _ _ All Point
-
' r
bmflaw
T— -.
eekeo Mill F
z
_�
_ �' }
if
At
a
fou
? • ^ k
412
fad
1 L � _ _ •ter_ ���
■
- - 4 r -- i
ic an OF J
Legend i
Previous Archaeological Survey
Previous Archaeological urge i I.
H10 Honua Project Area
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 r
w -- y
Mlles �
Figure 7. Previous r ha l o i al Studies in the Immediate Vicinit of the Project Area.
IR
ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS
The potential for archaeological resources /historic properties within the current
project area is considered to be minimal in the subject area. A previous site inspection
established that no surface archaeological remains are present within the boundaries of
the current project area and a search of Hawai' i County's real property database shows
that the single building located on the parcel was built in 2001. Review of previous
archaeological studies reveals that no archaeological sites are known to exist within the
project area. Although the parcel lies within the Pepe'ekeo District (SlHP 50- 10 -26-
7390), it no longer includes any of the historic resources associated with the District.
Archival literature and historic documents show that the subject parcel has been heavily
impacted by grading and the on -site construction of industrial facilities. Thus, it is highly
unlikely that subsurface historic sites or cultural layers are present.
No historic properties were found within the boundaries of the current project
area. A finding of no historic properties affected by the proposed project activities is
recommended. No further work (e.g. archaeological monitoring) is recommended;
however, in the event that historic properties are found during construction, the
contractor shall stop work, protect the find, and notify SH PD.
17
REFERENCES CITED
Beckwith, Martha
1970 Hawaiian Mythology. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Campbell, Susan M., & Patricia M. Ogburn
1990 Register of the Hilo Coast Processing Company (Pepeekeo Sugar Company)
1889-1946. Hawaii Sugar Planters' Association Plantation Archives. Honolulu.
Cordy, Ross
2000 Exalted Sits the Chief.- An Ancient History of Hawaii /s /and. Mutual Publishing,
Honolulu.
Fornander, Abraham
1990 Ancient History of the Hawaiian People. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu.
Giambelluca, Thomas W., Michael A. Nullet, Thomas A. Shroeder
1986 Rain/a//Atlas of Hawaii. Hawai' i Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Water and Land Development. Honolulu, Hl.
Museum Bulletin No. 233. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Handy, E.S.Craighill & Elizabeth Green Handy, with Mary Kawena Pukui
1972 /Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore,, and Environment. Bishop
Museum Bulletin No. 233. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Hudson,. A. E.
n.d. Archaeology of East Hawaii. Unpublished Manuscript. Department of
Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum (1932), Honolulu.
Kamakau, S.M.
1961 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. The Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu.
1964 Ka Po'e Kahiko: The People of O /d. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Kepler, Angela Kay
1990 Trees of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Nogelmeier, M. Puakea
2007 The Epic Tale of Hi'Jakaikapo /iopele. Awaiaulu Press, Honolulu.
Pratt, H. Douglas
1998 A Pocket Guide to Hawaii's Trees and Shrubs. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hl.
Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert & Esther T. Mookini
1974 Places /Names of Hawaii. Revised & Expanded Edition. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Rosendahl, Paul H.
m
2002a Archaeological Field Inspection, Former Pepeekeo Sugar Plantation Parcel,
Land of Makahanaloa, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TVK: 3- 2 -8 -07: 1).
PHRI Letter Report 2292 - 100702, Hilo.
2002b Archaeological Field Inspection of Immediate Coastline Areas, Former
Pepeekeo Sugar Plantation Parcels, Land of Makahanaloa, Kahua and
Kaupakuea, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TVK: 3- 2 -8 -07: 1, 53; 3- 2 -8 -08:
3, 3- 2 -8 -09: 1). PHRI Letter Report 2292 - 110702, Hilo.
Sato, Harry H., Warren Ikeda, Robert Paeth, Richard Smythe, & Minoru Takehiro, Jr.
1973 Soil Survey of the Island of Hawai"i" State of Hawai"% United States Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C..
Thrum, Thomas G.
2008 Hawaiian Folk Tales. Republished by Forgotten Books (originally published in
1907), A.C. McClurg Co., Chicago.
Wagner, Warren L., Derral R. Herbst & S.H. Sohmer
1990 Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. University of Hawai' i Press /Bishop
Museum Press, Honolulu.
19
APPENDIX I
The following photographs, descriptions and form were taken from the SHPD
Kapolei correspondence file for TMK: (3) 2 -8 -007: 053. According to the file, the pictures
were taken circa 1973 of the structures comprising SIHP 50 -10 -26 -7390. The file
indicates that an effort was made to add the Pepe ekeo District to the Hawai'i' Register
of Historic Places by Hawai' i State Parks staff. According to the Form CC -1, the
descriptions of the buildings and district were 'much too brief'. It is not clear why SIHP
50 -10 -26 -7390 was not added to the Hawaii Register, but it is possible that this is due to
lack of thorough documentation or technical complications in the nomination process.
20
SO
b6o
rd
r�
r
t
JAI
F SO—
y {',��` iT^; � Vii• � ,��1� 1`� � rf —' — �
.r
21
116q 2
ruO
a
-J'
�r
TL
LA
�, s�� '�� y��CaI�'y�y sti�.�,�,•i
r
FORM -1
Number /J- q q - ^7 3 �
Name 02 �s .
4', r
Id I
Review Board Action
Files
Original
Certification
Working
Certification
Form 51
Comm. ent a, -7j1
sw f
ri
23