Appendix E— Section 4(0 Evaluation of Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Properties for the Honolulu Rail Transit Project

Final Supplemental EIS/Section 4(0 Evaluation and Amended Record of Decision Page E - 1 Honolulu Rail Transit Project September 2013

AR00154403

AR00154404

Section 4(f) Evaluation of Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Properties in the Honolulu Rail Transit Project September 30, 2013

1.0 Introduction In June 2010, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Section 4(1) Evaluation for the Honolulu Rail Transit Project (the Project), was completed and approved. The Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in January 2011. Since that time, the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) completed additional studies of traditional cultural properties (TCPs), pursuant to Stipulation II of the project's Section 106 Programmatic Agreement

The project completed its evaluation of TCPs (Figures 1 and 2). On June 6, 2012, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and HART submitted technical reports (Kumu Pono 2012, SRI and Kumu Pono 2012) and a determination of eligibility and finding of effect (FTA 2012) to the Hawail State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding Sections 1-3 of the Project. Technical reports (Kumu Pono 2013, SRI and Kumu Pono 2013) and a determination of eligibility and finding of effect (FTA 2013) for Section 4 were submitted to the SHP() on August 29,2013.

FTA and HART identified 46 sites, within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the Project, in their technical studies, and determined one, Huewaipi, to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One additional site, Kuld'iahu, was found to be a non-contributing element to an historic property (i.e., Sumida Watercress Farm) that was already determined eligible for the NRHP. Kfild'iahu is co-located with (falls within the boundaries of) the Sumida Watercress Farm. Both Huewaipi and Kuld'iahu are located within the Kamehameha Guideway Section (Section 2) of the Project.

For Sections 1-3, FTA and HART found that the Project would have No Adverse Effect on Huewaipi. In addition, FTA and HART found that Kfiki`iahu is a non-contributing element of the Sumida Watercress Farm. Thus, the prior determination that the Project would have No Adverse Effect on the Sumida Watercress Farm remains unchanged. SHPO concurred with all of the FTA's determinations of eligibility and findings of effect for Sections 1-3 on July 3, 2012. For Section 4, FTA determined the Project would have No Adverse Effect on any previously unidentified NRHP-eligible TCPs because no such properties were identified through the TCP studies. SHP° concurred with FTA's Section 4 determinations on September 27, 2013.

This Section 4(f) evaluation considers the potential for the Project to use, as defined in 23 CFR 774.17, any previously unidentified TCPs within the APE of the Project that are eligible for the NUT. Although Kalci`iahu is not a Section 4(f) property, it is also discussed below because it is co-located with (falls within the boundaries of) the Sumida Watercress Farm, a previously evaluated NRHP-eligible property. This Section 4(f) evaluation was conducted pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 774. Additional guidance was obtained from the revised FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2012).

AR00154405

7

16 242,79

X kid Highlands .7 — 13

io 1 4' • • 19

12 14 is. •1

'k

47 4 t.

Pearl ge

4.31 .34'

Miles

Aloha Stadium Slat' • 39 I.

Honolulu International Airport Middle Street transit Center

12 Kukeeki 13 KahO'ai'ai 14 Kama

15 Ha'upu

Kanupo'o

8 Mena Heiau 9 Halaulani

10 Kdlipahre

*35

39 38 •

• 4() .111P

WEST O'AHU FARRINGTON HIGH WAY GUIDEWAY (WOFH) \N• AIRPORT GUIDEWAY

Olfr"fg# Harbor UM ease

0 East Hapolei

UH We3t Oahu

HONOULIIJLI

• 1 Lagoon Drive

Kanehiti*

2 Po'obilo* 1 Kaupe'a,*

4 Waipah0 5 Kapukanawaiokahuku

16 Ka'aimalu "

17 Kanukumanu 18 Napbhakuluahine 19 Ka . oiraomaka"Mulu

20 Kawairiao*

2t Waiakekua"

22 Kaihuukapua'a 23 Kawaili'ula 24 Kah6papa

25 Kalua'olohe

26 Punahinalo" 31 KUkilahu 36 Napeha* 41 Awaawaloa*

27 Napethakululoe 32 Kaluaiwi* 37 Kapukaki* 42 'Au'au 28 Huewaipi 33 Ka'eo 38 Lnolono* 43 Kurnurna'u* 29 Kauhihau 34 KauahipMupu'u*39 Kaleinaaka'uhane*

30 Nifulaamaihea" 35 Kapu'ukapu 40 16walo*

Black indicates Wahl Parra

Blue indicates km Ailla Btown indicates pioximity

f,qh7Q kft 'uhone Pathway' " indicates Wahi Pana outside of

the Area of Po teutiat Effect

KAMEHAMEHA HIGHWAY GUIDEWAY (KHG)

Legend

— Guideway

• Station

11.11 Mainteaance and Storage facility

Palk and Ride

- Athipua'a Boundaiy

— H istoi it Shoreline

• WahiPana

Stream&

tlin of Potential Ertel

o 5 0

6 KonekuilimalaulWewa* 11 Piliamn'o

Figure 1. Sites identified in Sections 1-3 of the BRTP

AR00154406

FiTtddle Street a ns it Center Station i

Chinatown Station

418;3 r") rt.

*-•

a

I.

I

Kalihi StAtion

Kapalarna Station

Rail Transit Data = Transe Mignment

Aortitional Ltultty Contd.

Transit Facility

Ar ea of Potential Effect APE V

Rail

Scala 500 i 333 Foe

• 121111:2111=1

•0:

1

—Iwilel Station

! •

Historical Data

— Historic Shoreline

Stream

— 4hupua'a Boundary /Appro.

Ftshpond 1 Pond

Salt Pan

• Warn Pana

• Wahl Pans !outside APE)

a • b a

1 ...

69 I a •

EICI .. C a i

iala' al ,P11019

:

., _ ▪ ' '"IPU:1

• gD Q6 effi 60

r

crY • r ' 5

* I

Downtown Station

Civic Center Station

Kaka`ako Station— tation—

Wahl Pans 1, Niuhelewai 19. Kuloiara

Lek.* 21. Hail Katrrata

5. Waikahaltru 22. Kou

8 Kapuukolo 23. Kau spa

10, Kaiktapak °nano 24. Ho or0k0

11. Kaaba 25. Honualralla

12. POlaholahu 25. Kak2ako

13. Nthoa 27, Pu'ukea

14. Pakaka 28. KuIrduaeo

15, Hale Hui 29 Kerrato

17. Hate o Lena 31 Kotowatu

18, Prarunb Mika 32 Kalia

Wahl Pane (outside , APE) 3. Kati u

4, POehvellu

5, Walcahalulu

6, Katavialloe

. Kfl,Thale

9 K2131111,3h.

16 Kauanono ula

20. Honolw upu

30, Kearla

• ECI

Ala Moana Center Station—

Figure 2. Sites identified in Section 4 of the HRTP

AR00154407

2.0 Regulatory Context 23 CFR 774.17 defines a Section 4(f) property as "publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance."

FTA may not approve the use of a Section 4(f) property, unless it determines the following:

• There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, as defined in Section 774.17, to the use of land from the property.

• The action includes all possible planning, as defined in Section 774.17, to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use.

A use occurs when:

• When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;

• When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute's preservation purpose as determined by the criteria in § 774.13(d); or

• When there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property as determined by the criteria in § 774.15.

However, the Administration may approve a use if it determines that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm (such as any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) committed to by the applicant, will have a de minimis impact, as defmed in § 774.17, on the property.

For historic sites, de minimis impact is defined in 23 CFR 774.17 as follows:

For historic sites, de minimis impact means that the FTA has determined, in accordance with 36 CFR 800, that no historic property is affected by the project or the project would have "no adverse effect" on the property in question. SHPO and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), if involved, must be notified that the FTA intends to enter a de minimis finding for properties where the project results in "no adverse effect."

3.0 The Proposed Action The Project is the construction and operation of a 20-mile, elevated fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center. The details of the route are provided in the Final EIS.

Both Huewaipi and Kfilci`iahu are located along Kamehameha Highway, Section 2 of the Project (Figures 3 and 4). In this vicinity, the Project will be built entirely within Kamehameha Highway, with the top of the rail being approximately 40 feet above grade. The Project within Section 2 will consist of guideway columns supporting the fixed guideway. No stations or ancillary buildings are planned within the vicinity of Huewaipi and Kukilahu. All utility work will stay within Kamehameha Highway.

AR00154408

4.0 Section 106 Consultation Section 106 consultation has been on-going since the beginning of the Section 106 process. Consultation particular to this effort has solicited input regarding previously unidentified TCPs and the Project's potential effects on those types of TCPs. The consultation effort included six meetings held on:

• February 12, 2011 • June 23, 2011 • April 13, 2012 • May 4, 2012 • May 8,2013 • May 9,2013

In addition to these specific meetings, HART and FTA held quarterly meetings on the Section 106 PA in general. All consulting parties were invited to those quarterly meetings. The April 13, 2012 quarterly meeting included a presentation and discussion of the TCP effort. An informal Kako`o meeting was held on September 19, 2013 which provided a status update of the TCP effort in Section 4 and directed people to the website for all of HARTs TCP information.

The TCP analysis for Sections 1 through 3 of the Project is documented in: (1) Honolulu Rail Transit Project, Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Properties in Sections 1-3, May 25, 2012; (2) Study to Identify the Presence of Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Properties in Sections 1-3 for the Honolulu Rail Transit Project, Management Summary, SRI Foundation & Kumu Pono Associates LLC, April 20, 2012; and (3) He Mo `olelo `Aina — Traditions and Storied Places in the District 'Ewa and Moanalua (in the District of Kona), Island of 0`ahu; A Traditional Cultural Properties Study — Technical Report, Kumu Pono Associates LLC, April 20, 2012. The TCP analysis for Section 4 of the Project is documented in: (1) Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Properties in Section 4, Honolulu Rail Transit Project; (2) Study to Identify the Presence of Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Properties in Section 4 for the Honolulu Rail Transit Project, Management Summary, The SRI Foundation and Kumu Pono Associates LLC, April 24, 2013; and (3) He Mo `olelo `Aina — Traditions and Storied Places in the District of Kona — Honolulu Region (Lands of Kalihi to Waikiki), Island of 0`ahu; A Traditional Cultural Properties Study — Technical Report, Kumu Pono Associates LLC Study No. 131, March 28, 2013. All of these reports were made available for review and comment by public, including representatives of the Native Hawaiian community, ACHP and other consulting parties identified in the Programmatic Agreement. Further, as discussed, meetings were held, consistent with 36 CFR 800.4 and 800.5.

For Section 1-3, FTA determined, on June 6, 2012, that there was one TCP within the APE that was eligible for the NRHP (Huewaipi), but that the Project would have no adverse effect on that property. Another potential TCP (Kuld'iahu), co-located with the NRHP-eligible Sumida Watercress Farm, was identified through the TCP analysis, but FTA determined that Kuki`iahu lacked integrity. SHPO concurred with those determinations. For Section 4, FTA determined, on August 28, 2013, that there were no previously unidentified TCPs within the APE that were eligible for the NRHIP and, thus, the Project would have no adverse effect on any such TCPs. SHPO concurred with those determinations.

AR00154409

SO Section 4(f) Evaluation The TCP studies discussed above resulted in the identification of one property as eligible for the NRHP. That property, HuewaipT, is a Section 4(f) property. A second site, KUkilahu, is not a Section 4(f) property, but it is discussed here because it is co-located with (within the boundaries of) an existing, previously evaluated Section 4(f) property, the Sumida Watercress Farm.

11 Huewaipi Huewaipi includes the spring that feeds Waiau wetlands in Waimalu, and is currently used for subsistence farming and gardening. Historic maps indicate that the wetland site was also once a lo`i. The spring, wetland and lo`i are make up one larger, single site. The su:Po concurred with FTA's determination that the Project would have No Adverse Effect on Huewaipi.

At Huewaipi the Project would construct piers within the median of Kamehameha Highway to support the guideway. There would be no acquisition of right-of-way and no station or ancillary buildings in or near the site. The site has been marked as a no work zone, and so no temporary staging will occur at the site.

Thus, no land will be permanently incorporated into a transportation facility and no temporary occupancy of land will occur. Further, the Project will not result in a constructive use of Huewaipi. Under 23 CFR 774.15(f)(1), "[t]he Administration has reviewed the following situations and determined that a constructive use does not occur when: (1) Compliance with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.5 for proximity impacts of the proposed action, on a site listed on or eligible for the National Register, results in an agreement of 'no historic properties affected' or 'no adverse effect;" As discussed, the SHP() concurred with FTA's determination that the Project would have No Adverse Effect on HuewaipT. Therefore, the Project will not result in the constructive use of Huewaipi; the Project will not create proximity impacts so severe that the activities, features or attributes that qualify Huewaipi for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. This "no use" determination is also consistent with Question 7D of the FHWA 2012 Section 4(f) Policy Paper.

For these reasons, the Project will not result in a Section 4(f) use of Huewaipi.

5.2 Kiikriahu & Sumida Watercress Farm

Kfiki`iahu is the site of a 1794 battle between the warriors of Ka' eokulani and Kalanikapule. Ka'eokalani was killed in this battle. The dead were gathered and taken down to the shore at Pa'aiau. Although the site meets other NRHP criteria, the SHP() concurred that it does not retain integrity. Because it does not retain integrity, Kuki`iahu is not eligible for the NRHP. Therefore, Section 4(f) does not apply to Kaki`iahu because it is not a Section 4(f) property. Kfikilahu is, however, co-located with (within the boundaries of) the Sumida Watercress Farm, which was previously identified as NRITP-eligible and evaluated under Section 4(f) in the original EIS and prior Section 4(f) evaluation. But, Kuki`iahu is a non-contributing element of the Sumida Watercress Farm. As a result, the prior determination that the Project would have No Adverse Effect on and would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the Sumida Watercress Farm remains unchanged.

AR00154410

Wahl Pana

26 Punahinalo

27 tfaphakuloloa

28 Huewaipi

29 Kauhihau

30 Nalulaamaihea

31 Kkilahu

Legend

Old Government Road

- Guideway _

Construction Footprint

TCP Study Area

Ahupua'a Boundary

Historic Shoreline

Stream

Figure 3. Huewaipi (Site 28).

AR00154411

0.25

Old Government Road

Guideway

TCP Study Area

Construction Footprint

Ahuoua'a Boundary

Historic Shoreline

Stream

, * , Fish Pond

0.125

4011. Kalauao

*

Legend Wahi Pana

31 Klakillahu

32 Kaluaiwi

Inoa 'Aina

33 K3eo

34 Kauahipuluptru

0.5 Mlles A,

Figure 4. Kfild'iahu (Site 31)

AR00154412

6.0 References

FTA 2012 Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Properties in Sections 1-3, Honolulu Rail Transit Project, May 25, 2012.

FTA 2013 Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Properties in Section 4, Honolulu Rail Transit Project.

Kumu Pono 2012 Mo`olelo `aina –Traditions and Storied Places in the District of 'Ewa And Moanalua (In The District of Kona), Island of 0`ahu. A Traditional Cultural Properties Study – Technical Report. Kumo Pono Associates, LLC. April 20, 2012.

Kumu Pono 2013

SRIF and Kumo Pono 2012

He Mo`olelo `Aina — Traditions And Storied Places In The District of Kona — Honolulu Region (Lands Of Kalili To Waikiki), Island Of 0`ahu.

A Traditional Cultural Properties Study – Technical Report. Kumo Pono Associates, LLC. April 24, 2013

Study to Identify the Presence of Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Properties in Sections 1-3 for the Honolulu Rail Transit Project. Management Summary. The SRI Foundation, Rio Rancho New Mexico and Kumo Pono Associates, LLC, Kane'ohe, Hawai`i. April 20, 2012.

SRIF and Kumo Study to Identify the Presence of Previously Unidentified Traditional Cultural Pono 2013 Properties in Section 4 for the Honolulu Rail Transit Project. Management

Summary. The SRI Foundation, Rio Rancho New Mexico and Kumo Pono Associates, LLC, Kaneohe, Hawai`i. April 24, 2013.

AR00154413

AR00154414