towards co-management: the ahupuaʻa o kahana...

TOWARDSCO-MANAGEMENT:THEAHUPUAʻAOKAHANACULTURALLIVINGPARK

PLANNING PRACTICUM – FALL 2012 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA HONOLULU, HAWAI‘I

Fall2012Plan751Practicum–AhupuaʻaOKahana Page1

TOWARDS CO-MANAGEMENT: The Ahupuaʻa ‘O Kahana Cultural Living Park

Planning Practicum Fall 2012 Department of Urban and Regional Planning University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 2013

Practicum Members Alex Broner Hisila Manandhar Hril Siu Lauren Esaki Maile Norman Mika Okuno Priza Marendraputra Rara KC Tamanna Rahman Faculty Participant Professor Luciano Minerbi Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the resource persons or any agency or organization mentioned in this report. While efforts have been made to provide useful and reliable information, the authors of this report, and the University of Hawaii, do not assume liability for any damages, or misrepresentations caused by any inaccuracies in the data, or as a result of the use of the data, and their use on a particular system. No warranty is expressed or implied, nor does the availability of this report constitute such a warranty. The reader is encouraged to go to the original data sources, maps, and their metadata for verification, as they derive from different fields, methods, and tools. This report’s information and data are not for use in litigation. Its intent is only for education and discussion.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report is written by the Fall 2012 Graduate Planning Practicum of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawai’i. Our practicum team consisted of nine students from different educational backgrounds and nationalities. The practicum has provided the students an opportunity to acquire valuable knowledge and experience in collaborative planning and analysis in community development. We learned about Hawaiian history, culture, archaeological sites, land and ocean resources, and the challenges involved in community planning. In particular, we reviewed plans, reports, and surveys about the Ahupuaʻa O Kahana, as well as, conducted site visits, met with key stakeholders and “talked story” with Kahana residents. Ahupuaʻa O Kahana has been an interesting and complex case for us to learn about, and we are very much honored to study this valley for the Kahana Planning Council (KPC). Overall, it has given us a practical learning experience in working together with peers, our professor, and especially the many Kahana residents and the Kahana Planning Council.

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to our professor, Dr. Luciano

Minerbi for guiding us through understanding the essence of the planning practicum. His patience, time, and dedication to this project have helped in creating this report. We are also grateful to the Kahana Planning Council for giving us the opportunities to attend some of their monthly meetings, and to allow us to observe the Ahupuaʻa O Kahana. In particular, we really appreciate all of the help from Renee Kamisugi, the Kahana Park Manager of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and her assistance with our site visit of Kahana. We would also like to extend our deepest mahalo to Aunty May and Uncle Nana for their mana‘o during the site visit. We also gained valuable information from respected guest speakers including: Ululani Beirne (KPC member), Lauren Tanaka (State of Hawai‘i Planner), Sunny Greer (Kahana resident), Ralph Makaiau (Former Chairperson of KPC), Ben Shafer (Current Chairperson of KPC), and Laulani Teale (KPC member).


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Before Western contact, the ahupuaʻa, or Native Hawaiian land division of resources from the mountain to the ocean, of Kahana was one of many ahupuaʻa on O‘ahu. However, after subsequent urban and suburban development, Kahana is one of the physically and functionally most intact ahupuaʻa, and the only State-owned and managed ahupuaʻa on the island.

The circumstances surrounding Ahupuaʻa O Kahana State Park are unique,

and therein lies its many challenges. The 1970 purchase of the entire ahupuaʻa of Kahana by the State of Hawai‘i Legislature served as a way to prevent large scale commercial developments in the area, and also established it as a “cultural living park.” The cultural living park concept aimed to protect Kahana’s natural resources while allowing residents to continue living in Kahana, under the condition that they maintained their traditional Hawaiian culture and shared it with visitors.

Since the establishment of the park, various plans for its management have

been created, though none were formally adopted. In the 1970s and 1980s there was contention over a number of issues which led to the State Legislature intervening in 1987 with Act 5. Act 5 called for DLNR to issue 65-year residential leases to qualified individuals, and for residents to participate in the park’s “cultural interpretive program” in lieu of cash payment for leases.

Act 5 established the fundamental character of the relationship between the

State and Kahana residents and specifies that in exchange for the lease, each household is required to contribute 25 hours a month of labor towards the Cultural Interpretive Program (CIP). However, since the passing of Act 5, a number of issues and controversies have developed.

Over the years, communication difficulties have created challenges between

park personnel and residents to the detriment of the cultural interpretive program. Some residents are fully up to date in their required hours, some have partially fallen behind, while others are not participating in the program at all. Various physical improvement projects such as fishpond restoration, a community center, and stream clearance that were identified in the past have not yet been fully completed for a number of reasons including lack of funding. Furthermore, while Act 5 does address the issue of intergenerational transfer of existing leases, the ability to grant new leases to these households was found to have expired. These households found


themselves living in Kahana under “revocable permits” with no guarantee that they would not be evicted in the future.

For all of these reasons the State Legislature passed Act 15 in 2009. Act 15

provided for:

• A 2 year moratorium (subsequently extended) on evictions for evictions from the park

• Authorized the Department of Land and Natural Resources to issue long-term residential leases to qualified persons; and

• Established the Kahana Planning Council to develop a master plan park that will provide a framework, proposes rules, measurements for success, and planning process. In support of Act 15 and the work of the Kahana Planning Council, a team of

graduate students with the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Hawai‘i conducted research and wrote this report under the guidance of Professor Luciano Minerbi, who is a non-voting member of the Kahana Planning Council. After analyzing numerous documents on Kahana, the team developed a set of conclusions and recommendations that touch on the acknowledgement of Kahana’s complex history and demographics, approaches to natural resources and environmental management, and strategies to effective co-governance. We hope this report can serve as a reference for residents, stakeholders, and decision makers in their efforts to construct a master plan that is reflective of the people, history, and future vision of Kahana.


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AKAC Aha Kiole Advisory Committee BLNR Board of Land and Natural Resources CIP Cultural Interpretive Program CZM Coastal Zone Management DBEDT Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism DOH Department of Health DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources EIS Environmental Impact Statement GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HACBED Hawaii Alliance of Community-Based Economic Development HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules HB House Bill HoLIS Honolulu Land Information System HRS Hawaii Revised Statute KAB Kahana Advisory Board KGC Kahana Governance Council KAC Kahana Advisory Council KPC Kahana Planning Council KVAB Kahana Valley Advisory Board KVLP Kahana Valley Living Park KVSP Kahana Valley State Park LUC Land Use Commission NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ORMP Ocean Resources Management Plan QLCC Queen Lili‘uokalani Children’s Center SIA Social Impact Assessment SB Senate Bill SCR Senate Concurrent Resolution SMA Special Management Area SR Senate Resolution USC United States Code

TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page & Disclaimer 1 Acknowledgements 2 Executive Summary 3 List of Abbreviation 5

CH.1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Purpose of the Report 9 1.2 Structure of the Report 9 1.3 Methodology 10

1.3.1 Data Collection: 10 1.3.2 Data Analysis & Synthesis: 11

1.4 Limitations 11

CH.2 OVERVIEW OF HISTORY, PAST PLANS, BILLS AND ACTS 12 2.1 Pre Park History 12

2.1.1 Pre-Western Contact 12 2.1.2 Western Contact 12 2.1.3 The Great Mahele of 1848 13 2.1.4 The Kuleana Act of1850 13 2.1.5 Land Tenure Transactions 14 2.1.6 Robinson Agency Development Plan for Kahana Valley (1955) 16

2.2 Post Park History 17 2.2.1 The Comprehensive Plan for Hawai‘i State Parks (1962) 17 2.2.2 The Report Covering the Proposed Park Development of Kahana Valley

(1965) 17 2.2.3 Division of State Park commissioned Tongg Association Master Plan 18

for the development of Kahana Valley (1970) 18 2.2.4 Educational Program Plan by Department of Education and DLNR (1972) 19 2.2.5 Mogi Plan for Kahana Valley State Park (1974) 20 2.2.6 Mogi Revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (1978) 21 2.2.7 The Living Park Plan for Kahana People by the ʻOhana Unity Council (1979) 23 2.2.8 Kahana State Park Development Plan (Draft 7) (1985) 24 2.2.9 Kahana Valley Preliminary Project Plans by Hui Mālama ‘Āina o Kahana (1987) 26 2.2.10 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of Kahana Valley State Park by Lewin (1992) 27 2.2.11 Environmental Assessment and Restoration/Revitalization Plan by Carol (1995) 28

2.3 Chronology of Kahana Valley 29 2.3.1 Chronological Table of Pre-Park and Post-Park History 29 2.3.2 Concluding Remarks 33

2.4 Bills and Acts 35 2.4.1 SR # 186 (1970) 35 2.4.2 Act 5 (1987) 36 2.4.3 Act 15 (2009) 38 2.4.4. H.B. # 1210 41 2.4.5 Analysis 41

2.5 Chronology of Bills and Acts 46 2.5.1 Sequential study of the Legislature Bills and Acts of Kahana Valley 46 2.5.2 Concluding Remarks 48

CH. 3 CURRENT CONDITIONS 50 3.1 Kahana’s Environmental Setting 50


3.1.1 Description of Place 52 3.1.2 Land Tenure 58 3.1.3 Ahupuaʻa Zones 61 3.1.4 Conservation District 63 3.1.5 State Coastal Zone Management Program 66 3.1.6 Climate 68 3.1.7 Water Sources 68 3.1.8 Soil 74 3.1.9 Agriculture 83 3.1.10 Fishponds 86 3.1.11 Hazards 90 3.1.12 Population 94 3.1.13 Resource Potential 94

3.2 Socio-Economic Conditions 102 3.2.1 Population/ Demography 102 3.2.2 Socio-Economic Resources 104 3.2.3 Cultural Resources 110 3.2.4 Promotion of Socio-Cultural Resources 114 3.2.5 Challenges 117

CH. 4 GOVERNANCE 119 4.1 Importance of Governing Systems 119

4.1.1 Governance in the Past: A Brief Overview 119 4.2 Working towards Effective Governance 122

4.2.1 Resident Relationship with DLNR: Ho‘oponopono and Negotiation 122 4.2.2 Creating a Clear Understanding between Parties 123 4.2.3 Multi-Party Governance and Cooperation 124 4.2.4 Resident Self-Governance 124

4.3 Ahupuaʻa Management in Modern Times 128 4.3.1 Ahupuaʻa Management and Ecosystems Based Management 129 4.3.2 Developing an Ahupuaʻa Management Model for Kahana in Modern Times: 129

4.4 The ‘Aha Council 131 4.4.1 Reconciling the ʻAha Council with Western Governance Institutions 132 4.4.2 Traditional Ahupuaʻa Economy, Capitalism, and the Interpretive Hour Economy 132 4.4.3 The Market Economy and Traditional Resource Use 135

4.5 CONCLUSION: The Future in the Balance 136

CH. 5 NEXT STEPS 137 5.1 Ahupua´a Management in Modern Times 137 5.2 Hoʻoponopono 139 5.3 Implementation as Adaptation 140 5.4 Community Based Economic Development 141 5.5 Reconciling Ahupuaʻa and Contemporary Management 142 5.6 Finding Allies 145 5.7 Asset Mapping 147 5.8 Summary of Overall Recommendations: 148 5.9 Conclusion: Challenges and Opportunities 148

REFERENCES 149 APPENDIX A: TEMPLATE OF BUSINESS PLAN 154 APPENDIX B GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS OF AHUPUA’A O KAHANA 158 APPENDIX C STUDENTS PRESENTATION 167



LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 Chronological Table of Pre-Park and Post-Park History 29 Table 2 Chronologies of Bills and Acts 44 Table 3 Subzone Descriptions of Conservation Districts 62 Table 4 Soil and Land Condition Map of Kahana (1953) 76 Table 5 Important Laws and Regulations 87

Figure 1 Act 5 and Residential Leases 37 Figure 2 H. B. # 1450: Related to State Park 42 Figure 3 Arial view of Ahupuaʻa O Kahana 48 Figure 4. The ancient land divisions of Oʻahu with Kahana highlighted 49 Figure 5 Park Distribution Map 51 Figure 6 Government Plan 53 Figure 7 Residents Plan 54 Figure 8 Building Structure of Ahupuaʻa O Kahana in 1829, 1936 and 1992 55 Figure 9 Changes in Ownership Pattern 56 Figure 10 Land Tenure of Ahupuaʻa of Kahana 1913 58 Figure 11 Indigenous Management Models and Protection 60 Figure 12 State of Hawaii Conservation District Subzone 61 Figure 13 Special Management Area Map of Kahana 65 Figure 14 Streams in Kahana. (Hammond 1989) 67 Figure 15 Stream Corridor Concept 69 Figure 16 Permit Chart for Non-Governmental Activities in Streams and Wetlands 70 Figure 17 Hand Labor and Equipment Comparison Chart 71 Figure 18 Dominant Soil Types in Kahana 73 Figure 19 Soil Characterstics in Ahupuaʻa O Kahana 74 Figure 20 Sketch Map of 1953 Kahana Land Condition 79 Figure 21 Georeferenced Map of 1953 Kahana Land Condition 80 Figure 22 1953 Archaelogy Map 83 Figure 23 Map of Huilua Fishpond in 1920 (Apple 1975) 85 Figure 24 Location of three Known Fishponds 86 Figure 25 Flood Zones and Contour Lines 89 Figure 26 Tsunami Evacuation Zone 96 Figure 27 Land Use Map in 1953 93 Figure 28 Vegetation Map 1974 94 Figure 29 Household Income Distribution in Kahana Ahupuaʻa 103 Figure 30 Educational Attainment Chart (in Kahana and Hawaii) 106 Figure 31 Kahana Archaelogical Sites Map 110 Figure 32 Archaelogical and Histrocial Structures 111


CHAPTER 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Kahana is a unique place representing the last mostly intact Ahupuaʻa on O‘ahu. Kahana’s residents represent a culture and lifestyle which still has strong links to traditional Hawaiian and plantation era customs. Kahana was established as the State of Hawai‘i’s only “cultural living park” in order to preserve, promote, and learn from Kahana and its residents. The uniqueness of Kahana does however lead to some challenges which must be addressed if the vision of the cultural living park and the aspirations of its residents are to be achieved.

1.1 Purpose of the Report

The primary purpose of this research is to produce a document or some supportive deliverables that would help the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), the Kahana Planning Council (KPC) and the residents of Kahana Valley in making Kahana Valley a thriving cultural living park. We hope that this research will serve as a useful reference in formulating a master plan for the cultural living park.

Additionally, this research assists the students of this Planning Practicum in learning about community planning. The project has helped us in understanding a process that involves local residents, social organizations, and government agencies.

1.2 Structure of the Report

This report consists of five chapters. Chapter one explains the purpose of this report, structure of the report, and

research methodology. Chapter two summarizes and analyzes history, past plans, bills, and acts in

order to contextualize past and current planning efforts in Kahana Valley, while assessing the opportunities and challenges that are also present.

Chapter three describes the existing environmental and social conditions in Kahana in order to identify strengths, areas for improvement.


Chapter four identifies governance topics and makes recommendations for crafting governance institutions within Kahana.

Chapter five is gives recommendations toward more effective co-management in Kahana.

1.3 Methodology This report is the result of analyzing an ample volume of research materials (including maps, pictures, statistics, surveys, and written accounts) collected as part of prior reports and planning efforts, as well as the past and current work of the Kahana Planning Council. The Research Team also received valuable information from informal discussions and email exchanges with residents and others who are knowledgeable of Kahana and its history. Some of these conversations took place while on a guided visit to the valley, while others took place elsewhere. In addition to this research, the team surveyed academic literature regarding the experiences of other places facing similar challenges to those of Kahana.

The methods conducted for the report are as follows:

1.3.1 Data Collection: • Library Research:

To understand the background of Kahana, we assessed its historical timeline through related documents, books, theses, journals, and newspaper articles. Based on the size of our team, we subdivided into groups in order to delve deeper into four topics of history, governance, socioeconomics, and natural resource management. These four topics were necessary to gain a broader understanding of Kahana. Each group did extensive research on their topic and shared the information in the form of power-point presentations. We then developed a number of research questions to form the basis of our written analysis.

• Site Visit: On September 21st, 2012, we visited the site at Ahupuaʻa ‘O Kahana State Park which is located on the windward side of Oʻahu, between Kaneʻohe and Laʻie. The visit lasted for the entire day. We met with local residents in order to gain preliminary insight into the project, as well as to identify relevant topic areas. We were also guided on a tour of the Valley by the same local residents, during which we were able to identify and record the locations of Kahana’s resources and wetlands with a GPS device. Physically visiting the site, as well as the face-to-face interaction with residents, provided us an


important opportunity to recognize additional information that was not documented or easily conveyed through past reports.

• Meeting with Stakeholders: For the duration of the fall semester of 2012, we were able to meet every other week at the University of Hawai‘i’ Department of Urban and Regional Planning with crucial stakeholders of Kahana Valley. In this way, we were able to obtain additional, detailed information from a large variety of perspectives, including local residents, academics, local politicians, lawyers, and several other related parties. Through these discussions, we were able to ask questions and receive clarifications about various aspects of the project. For example, some of these stakeholders held unique positions that granted them access to otherwise unobtainable data.

1.3.2 Data Analysis & Synthesis: We organized our collection of data into the four different fields as written above. For each of these fields, we created conceptual frameworks with the entire group. These were then further analyzed and organized using tools such as geographic information systems (GIS). Our peers and instructors subsequently evaluated the reports multiple times for clarity and comprehensiveness. We also received feedback from the Kahana Planning Council and other stakeholders, after sending them our preliminary reports. Using critiques of existing literature and reports as a guiding factor, we further assessed our data to only include the results that would be part of a coherent report.

1.4 Limitations

The research in this report is primarily based upon reviews of secondary sources. The students had an opportunity to visit Kahana Valley only once and had moderate opportunities to communicate with residents. However, primary data collection and interactions with the residents of the valley were not possible.

Hence, the outcome of this study will have our subjective views on how the situation of Kahana Valley might improve. More work is needed for a management plan for Kahana.


CHAPTER 2

2 OVERVIEW OF HISTORY, PAST PLANS, BILLS AND ACTS

This chapter reviews and analyzes the history of Kahana, based on past plans, secondary literature, and informal meetings with residents and others who are knowledgeable of Kahana and its history. This chapter also summarizes and analyzes bills and acts for the valley. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the strategies that residents and the government have taken to develop the ahupuaʻa while looking at challenges and opportunities.

2.1 Pre Park History

2.1.1 Pre-Western Contact Archeological records indicate Polynesian settlement along the coastline of Kahana from as early as 1000 A.D. By the year 1200, the forests of the valley were cleared and changed to agricultural fields. In 1600, the Huilua fishpond was built (Kam Store’s historical timeline, 2012). The various parts of Kahana were used by residents in an inter-related fashion to form the Hawaiian land division system known as an ahupuaʻa. Like other ahupuaʻa in Hawai‘i, the ahupuaʻa of Kahana was controlled by the high chief named Olopana (controller of ahupuaʻa) and the lesser chief named Palani, also known as the konohiki, or overseer (Belt, Collins and Associates. LTD, 1955).The konohiki also permitted use of resources from the land and ocean within the ahupuaʻa, and received some of the resources of the ahupuaʻa as tribute.

2.1.2 Western Contact After Captain James Cook’s landing in Waimea Bay, Kaua‘i in 1778, the population of Native Hawaiians across the islands declined because of their high susceptibility to foreign diseases brought by Westerners. The population of Kahana Valley in 1776 was estimated at 7201people (Stauffer, 1990). However, after Western contact, the population decreased to an estimated 260 people in 1823 (Stauffer, 1990).

1This number of the population in Kahana was estimated based on a discussion with Marion Kelly in 1989.


The missionary Chamberlain (1826) wrote about Kahana Valley in his book. He stated that the valley was owned by Naihe who was the son of Keawe a Healu, the chief counselor to Kamehameha I (Chamberlain 1826:16, 1828:32, Liliuokalani 1976:2, Beggerly, 1990). Small scale cultivation took place in the valley with the presence of large irrigation systems. People harvested taro and bananas in the lower area of the valley with an abundance of fresh water. Chamberlain also described Kahana as “a beautiful valley” (1826) in his book noting that the valley attracted people with its beauty and abundant natural resources.

According to the missionary census in 1831-1832, the total population of Kahana was 233 (Stauffer, 1990). About 25% of the population consisted of children. The missionary census in the year 1835-36 showed that the percentage of children declined from 25% to 22% (Stauffer, 1990) with a total population of 203 people (Stauffer, 1990).

2.1.3 The Great Mahele of 1848 In 1845, foreign merchants, who were predominantly sugar plantation owners, promoted legislation to privatize Hawaiian lands in order to secure their holdings. In the same year, “the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Claims” was established. King Kamehameha III appointed five people to the board and these board members produced the settlement of claims. By 1848, Hawaiian lands were divided between King Kamehaneha III and about 251 chiefs (Stauffer, 1990). This land tenure information was recorded in the “Mahele Book” from January to February of 1848 (Handy 1953, Patria, 1998). In terms of Kahana Valley, Ane Keohokalole (High Chief) who was a relative of Kamehameha the Great, a wife of Caesar Kapa‘akea and mother of King Kalakaua and Queen Lili‘uokalani, claimed 5,050 acres of the Ahupuaʻa O Kahana as her property (Stauffer, p.34, 1990, Patria, 1998). Less than 200 acres of the valley were divided among other claimants (Stauffer, p. 34, 1990).

2.1.4 The Kuleana Act of1850 Since the Great Mahele was implemented, maka‘ainana (commoners) lost their rights to land. After the Kuleana Act was enforced in 1850, they could obtain only small parcels of land for their subsistence. In order to gain these lands, it was necessary to register their claims with two references or witnesses before August 10, 1854 (Patria, 1998). Thirty-five Kuleana Land Court Awards with Royal Patents were registered to native tenants (Beggerly, p. 74, 1990). Each Kuleana land’s size


averaged 2.75 acres (Indices of Awards 1929:71, Liliʻuokalani 1976:1, Beggerly, 1990).

2.1.5 Land Tenure Transactions In 1857, AhSing who was a Chinese merchant, bought more than 3,000 acres of the Ahupuaʻa O Kahana from Ane Keohokalole for $2,500 (Hawaiian Registry of Conveyances, Book 9, p.300, Beggerly, 1990). In 1868, AhSing and his wife sold the land to another Chinese merchant, AhChuck for $6,000 (Hawaiian Registry of Conveyances, Book 26, p.376, Beggerly, 1990). The ahupuaʻa was sold to Ahnee for $5,500 from AhChuck and. Ahnee was the first owner who lived in the valley (Hawaiian Registry of Conveyances, Book 35, p.15, Beggerly, 1990). Hawaiian members of the Church of Latter Day Saints then formed a“Hui,”which consisted of 95 members and was called “Ka Hui Ku‘ai I ka ‘Aina ‘O Kahana,” to purchase land in the valley from Ahnee. The hui bought the land in Kahana Valley for $6,000 in 1874 (Hawaiian Registry of Conveyances, Book 39, p.490, Beggerly, 1990, Jaworowski, 2001). The valley was divided into 115 shares and each member of the hui held at least one share, with one house lot and lo‘i (Jaworowski, 2001). The rights to fresh water, use of the uplands and pastures, Huilua fishpond, as well as fishing were shared among members of the hui. While some shareholders leased their lo‘i to rice farmers, some shareholders from the hui started to sell their land to Kane‘ohe Ranch (Jaworowski, 2001).

From 1874-1885, the ahupuaʻa of Kahana Valley became an ethnically and culturally diverse place, as European immigrants started to move into the valley following the 10 years of Chinese ownership of land within Kahana. Even though the valley’s ethnic makeup was diverse, the population continued to decline down to 150 people in 1881 (Coulter, 1931, Beggerly, 1990). In the year 1888, 10 of the 115 shares of the valley were held by the hui, 76 shares were held individually by the hui members, 17 shares were given to the members’ heirs, 7 shares went to King David Kalakaua, and 5 shares were held by Harriet “Hattie” Parker. In 1888, 7 shares of King Kalakaua were sold to Thomas Foster who was a Canadian leading businessman and married to a daughter of the successful ship-building Robinson family. Thomas Foster was running an inter-island shipping business; his company’s name was “Matson Navigation Company”. He had a connection to the hui members in the valley because his company had a shipping dock in Kahana Bay. In addition, Thomas’s wife, Mary, was part-Hawaiian. Stauffer (1990) mentions that both his connection to the hui members of the valley and his respect for his wife’s culture were probably his motivations to gain the shares.


In the year 1897, the Kane‘ohe Ranch which was controlled by the Castle

family, approached to the hui members to ask for leasing the common kula (pasture) and uka (upland) areas in the valley with $400/ years (Conveyance 169:270-1, Stauffer, 1990). The ranch also planned to burn native Hawaiian forests and create the pasture land in the leasing lands. Mary Foster strongly objected to the plan (Jaworowski, 2001). Her “bitter economic and legal struggle with the ranch” began, and she and Thomas Foster started to buy shares for the rights of Kahana Valley from the hui (Beggerly, 1990, Jaworowski, 2001). In 1905, 270 acres of lands at Kahana which included valley, mountain, village and fishery areas were registered as Mary Foster’s property (Belt, Collins and Associates, 1995). By 1920, 97% of the valley was owned by her (Jaworowski, 2001).

In 1913, the Japanese-owned, Kahana Agriculture Company leased the

valley and began operations for their sugar cane plantation. The sugar cane was sold to the Kahuku Plantation Company and the Ko‘olau railroad transferred red sugar cane from Kahana Valley to Kahuku, O‘ahu (Dobyns, 1980).

After Mary Foster died in 1930, there were no major land tenure transactions in Kahana (Belt, Collins 1955:9, Dobyns, 1980). In 1931, the plantation era ended and the railroad stopped service to Kahana Valley (Dobyns, 1980). Since the Immigration Act of 19242, the number of immigrants from Asian countries decreased. The global economic depression in the 1930’s would cause the plantation era to end. After the sugar plantation era, many residents in Kahana Valley moved to Honolulu (Jaworowski, 2001). After the attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States entry into World War II, parts of the valley were used for U.S. military training (Dobyns, 1980).

In 1955, Belt, Collins and Associates produced two development plans for

the Robinson Agency which was responsible for the Foster’s property. The plans intended for mixed development including resorts, residential, agricultural, and forest land development.

2 The Immigration Act of 1924 was enforced for regulating the number of immigrants from “Asiatic Barred Zone” except Japan and Philippines. However, Japanese government voluntarily regulated the number of people who migrate to the United States. In terms of Chinese immigrants, the United States regulated the number of immigrants from China under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 at that time (US Department of States, 2013)


2.1.6 Robinson Agency Development Plan for Kahana Valley (1955) Under the Robinson Agency, this plan was aimed to develop a resort with

other facilities to make Kahana Valley a desirable stop for visitors. The plan also included residential development, agricultural development (e.g. animal production, dairying, beef production) and development of forest lands (e.g. fruit trees, tree culture) (Belt Colins and Associates LTD., 1955). This plan also proposed to develop a public park within the valley. The focus on grandiose plans lacked consideration for the culture of the residents of Kahana Valley, and did not discuss whether or how to relocate or compensate them. Furthermore, there was no analysis performed to consider the overall social and environmental impacts the proposed projects would have on Kahana.


2.2 Post Park History

In 1962, the State began to consider Kahana Valley as a potential site for a new State Park in Hawai‘i (The Comprehensive Plan for Hawaii State Park 1962, Hulten 1965, Dobyns, 1980). During 1965-1969, the State purchased the valley for $5 million (Dobyns, 1980). The State government started to make development plans for Kahana Valley as a “living park” (Mogi, 1974). At this time, the valley had 140 residents (Dobyns, 1980).They also developed a number of physical plans (master plan, interpretive programs plan). However, only a few of the plans were approved by DLNR and the Kahana community, as most of the plans pushed Kahana residents to move off of their own land and did not preserve their culture and customs. This section describes and analyzes all of these plans based on the contents of plan, implementation status, success and challenges. 2.2.1 The Comprehensive Plan for Hawai‘i State Parks (1962)

In 1962 the State of Hawai‘i considered Kahana Valley as a possible site for the location of a state park. “The Comprehensive Plan for Hawaii State Park” prepared in 1962 by the Department of Land and Natural Resource recommended park use for the entire valley floor and beach. This particular plan allowed for the use of State parks as a source of income generation and profit for the State from tourism activities. It also addressed the issue of allowing the residents of Kahana Valley to continue their lifestyle in the valley. However, this plan did not give any specific guidelines for this purpose (DLNR, The Comprehensive Plan for Hawai‘i State Park, 1962).

2.2.2 The Report Covering the Proposed Park Development of Kahana Valley

(1965) In 1965 DLNR published a report titled: “The Proposed Park Development of

Kahana Valley.” This report recommended purchasing the entire Kahana Valley. It also provided:

• Methods of land control system to the State with recommendations. • A determination on the types of acquisition. • Value determinations of the rights to be acquired, whether in total or in

increments. • A budget schedule for acquisition to minimize the ultimate cost to the State. • An estimate of the fair market value of the fee simple interest of Kahana

Valley, including water rights, total and minimum necessary for recreational purposes within the park projects.


• An estimate of minimum rights less than fee necessary to achieve the required uses of steeper areas.

• An analysis of cost-benefit relationship of a State Regional Park at Kahana. • Recommendations relative to the merits of joint action on the part of the

Board of Water Supply, State Department of Transportation, and other Agencies interested in acquisition of portions of Kahana Valley properties (DLNR, 1965). This report proposed a wide range of tourist-oriented activities (e.g.

camping, horse riding, hiking, swimming, cabins for tourist, restaurants, and shops), but did not address the community in Kahana Valley and how their interests could be kept within the plan. As a result of this report, the Legislature of the State of Hawaiʻi spent $5 million to condemn and purchase the entire valley (5,300 acres), as well as, water and fishing rights between 1965 and 1969 (H Mogi Planning & Research Inc., 1974).

2.2.3 Division of State Park commissioned Tongg Associates Master Plan

for the Development of Kahana Valley (1970) In 1969, the Division of State Parks commissioned Tongg Association to

prepare a master plan for the development of Kahana Valley as a major regional state park. This was known as the first Master Plan (1970) for Kahana Valley State Park (H Mogi Planning & Research Inc., 1974). The plan suggested that the valley floor should be developed as a large lake containing “cultural islands” which would be representative of a number of different cultures from the Pacific Basin by dredging, rerouting, widening the river to create three lakes (H Mogi Planning & Research Inc., 1974; Jaworowski, 2001). It suggested adding a ‘Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden’ and to clear vegetation and restore the Huilua fishpond. The plan also recommended that funding for the development should come from admission fees for the park (Jaworowski, 2001).

In early 1970, residents, State legislators, the public, and the media strongly opposed this master plan. Residents of Kahana felt that both they and their culture were ignored for the ultimate goal of commercializing Kahana (Jaworowski, 2001). Due to State ownership of the entire valley, the residents were put on month to month leases and were informed of the State’s intention to relocate them outside of the park boundaries. Many residents, who were financially capable, left the valley rather staying to face eventual evictions. In late 1969, residents formed a group at first called ‘Hui o Kahana’ and later known as ‘Hui o Kanani o Kahana.’This group


began to lobby the legislature to be allowed to stay on their land (H. Mogi Planning & Research Inc., 1974; Jaworowski, 2001).

Facing strong opposition to the Tongg plan, State officials agreed to reduce the commercial flavor of the park and instead have it oriented more towards the residents of Hawai‘i rather than tourists. A ‘Special Kahana Valley Task Force’ was appointed by the Governor in the same year. The primary focus was to address the question of how residents could be permitted to live in a State park. This Task Force recommended the ‘living park concept’ to the Governor as an alternative solution that would permit the residents to live in and be a part of the State park project. (H Mogi Planning & Research Inc., 1974; Jaworowski, 2001)

2.2.4 Educational Program Plan by Department of Education and DLNR (1972)

The “Learning about Living” report prepared by the State Department of Education, and published by DLNR, proposed to use the ‘Kahana Valley Living State Park’ as an integral part (site and resource) of education for the children of Hawai‘i. It suggested a number of educational programs such as an open high school and the study of Hawaiian concepts like micro living, the art of surviving in the world, spiritual values, harmony and balance in living, human potential, understanding of death, and developments of one’s inherent qualities. A few constraints (e.g. financial limitation, lack of program and activities) were identified in the plan, while sustenance of the total ahupuaʻa or ecosystem was documented as an opportunity for development. This plan recommended inspecting existing resources in the park; designing a flexible educational program for students to use the important resources of the people living in the valley as a part of that program, and to protect the “treasures” of the valley: its people, and archaeological remains (Department of Education, 1972).

The guiding principles of this plan included:

• Treating Kahana Valley as an ecological entity (the concept of ahupuaʻa). • Adapting the concept of ʻOhana to the needs of the year 2000 (social

framework). • Using the concept of Aloha as a fundamental bulwark for coping with the year

2000 (the qualities of openness, tolerance, acceptance of others, friendliness and love for others).

• Incorporating the idea of Kokua into a dynamic educational program (the concept of giving that is used so lightly in everyday conversation and observed so infrequently in living).

• Adapting the concept of Ho‘oponopono to the needs of today and beyond (the


concept and practice of “setting to right of wrongs”) and using the concept of environmental education (Department of Education, 1972). Under this plan, six programs were listed: forestry, dry & wet terrace

cultivation, river, fish pond, Heiau/Ko‘a, and Kahana Bay. The main focus of these programs were harmony and balance inherent in nature, which includes human beings an integrated part of the system. The research of this plan also mentioned available skills and tools (e.g. storytelling, demonstration, observation, multi-media use, peer discussion groups, parent participation, Hawaiian resources and environmental resources) in Kahana Valley that could be used to implement the plan (Department of Education, 1972). In the report, it was concluded that Kahana Valley could be used as an educational cultural park as (the report says) the people of the valley are remarkable teachers (the makua). They have everything that is needed for implementing an educational plan and it is necessary for them to pass on their wisdom to the young in an educational program which relates this wisdom to the effectiveness and the quality of life in the future.

The concept, guiding principles, programs of this plan, positively balanced with the ahupuaʻa concept could be incorporated in a new master plan which is underway by the Kahana Planning Council and DLNR. 2.2.5 Mogi Plan for Kahana Valley State Park (1974) The ‘Kahana Valley State Park’ plan was commissioned by DLNR and developed by H. Mogi Planning Research Inc. after the previous Tongg Associates Master Plan (1970) was criticized and rejected by residents, legislators and the press. The Mogi plan offered four different programs: environmental education, Hawaiian culture, a physical plan, and programs for the community of Kahana.

Under the environmental education program, the plan suggested allowing visitors to study and enjoy the natural areas of Kahana; the goals of this being to help park users to perceive nature as a dynamic process, support research to understand the process, and to develop the visitors’ familiarity, respect, and rapport with the natural environment. In the case of the Hawaiian culture program, it was suggested to revive a feeling for the valley’s past and to teach visitors about the pre-contract Hawaiian culture through activities such as agriculture, canoeing, horseback riding, and an


archeological program. For the community program, Mogi suggested “to allow certain freedom of actions for community members, exercise limited control over their private actions; community members’ participation in decision making; common focus; to develop/change conditions over time of community and growth of its individual members.” Mogi also recommended that the park must be reasonably accessible and have an internal circulation system with a variety of routes and modes of transportation which he termed as ‘access circulation’. He also added that the physical plan of the park would need to incorporate a visitor orientation system; general recreational activities; non-fishing water activities; development of drainage and sewerage network; environmental education programs; conservation of agricultural activities; conservation of archeology history; development of utilities. The cost for the implementation of the physical plan and other programs was estimated at approximately $6,700,000 during 1974 and it would have required 60 to 65 staff and associated operational costs. Mogi characterized this plan as inexpensive and flexible. He added that experimental and evolutionary activities and the financial burden of this plan could be overcome by public-private partnership.

Much like the Tongg Associates Master Plan (1970), Mogi’s Plan proposed a

number of programs and economic activities (e.g. visitor’s fee) which focused primarily on visitors rather than on the residents of Kahana. Mogi’s plan mentioned community participation and community building but did not expand on how it would be realized except to say that, a “Konohiki” would be responsible for organizing residents. Finally, the plan required a high annual budget for operations and management, which included a large staff for a more activity-oriented park. Stauffer (1984) suggests that this plan was extremely unrealistic in that it would have been difficult to execute. Indeed after its release, the plan was also rejected by the DLNR. However, the concept of environmental education and conservation of Hawaiian culture could be incorporated into later plans. 2.2.6 Mogi Revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (1978)

In 1978 a Revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Kahana was prepared for DLNR by H. Mogi Planning Research Inc. Jarawoski (2001) observes: “It might be supposed that the State, having rejected the Tongg report, on which Mogi was a named researcher, and Mogi’s prior report, would turn to another source


for reports on Kahana. That was not to be.”

The 1978 EIS proposed a variety of low-density uses. The park plan in the EIS included:

• A development plan to meet educational, cultural and recreational parts of the

plan. • Assigning DLNR to manage and operate Kahana Valley State Park’s policy,

administration and programs. • Assigning a Kahana Valley State Park Manager (Konohiki) to support the

residents. • Establishing a Kahana Valley Advisory Board (KVAB). • Including the Kahana community as an integral part of the park’s operation

and programs. • Providing programs on culture and education, environmental education,

historical preservation and restoration, research, recreation and resource management and on community relations (H. Mogi Planning Research Inc., 1978). DLNR accepted the Revised EIS as the overall plan for Kahana. The bio-

physical and socio-culture conditions of the Kahana Valley had been assessed by this EIS. Rather than establish the KVAB, the State Park Division began construction for physical facilities known as ‘the first phase of development plan’ which allowed the opening of the park for general recreation and cultural programs. Physical development projects included resident housing, infrastructure development, trail development, overnight and picnic areas development, interpretive signing and graphics, ancillary facilities, visitor center and surface drainage improvements were addressed by the first phase of development plan. Hazard areas, natural features, historical areas and areas of minimal environmental impact received special consideration for planning the sites of these the various activity areas. Development areas were discussed individually noting the various planning considerations, intent of the proposed development and the anticipated environmental impacts (H. Mogi Planning Research Inc., 1978; (Farias, 1988).

A numbers of environmental impacts had been anticipated. It also identified

probable direct and indirect positive and negative impacts which could be generated by the park development plan and implementation projects and provided mitigation measures. The EIS report recommended compliance with County and State regulations and incorporation of specific appropriate mitigation measures could minimize short term direct negative impacts (H. Mogi Planning Research Inc., 1978).


The EIS suggested alternatives for the proposed actions including 1) no

action alternative; 2) alternative sites and 3) alternative uses and development concept. However, no action alternative could allow uncontrolled and conflicting uses of the area and also might hinder goals and objectives of plans. In Kahana Valley, there was no alternative site identified for development as the entire Kahana Valley was proposed for development work. The EIS suggested low intensity recreational activities; emphasis on environmental education and Hawaiian culture, and a multi-purpose park approach as alternative uses and development concepts(H. Mogi Planning Research Inc., 1978).

The EIS also identified unsolved issues. It stated that the mixing of hunters,

hikers, and campers could generate conflict within the park and among recreational users. Besides this, the development of the park might also influence decreased arable land due to urban development of the rural and agricultural life system. To solve these issues, it suggested allowing hunting one weekend day per month and exploring the feasibility of establishing an agricultural park within Kahana Valley to keep pace with the general goal of the park (H. Mogi Planning Research Inc., 1978).

This EIS report is generally a good assessment of the bio-physical and

environmental aspects of any proposed development actions in Kahana Valley. It provided a number of suggestions in how to avoid negative impacts, which needs to be taken into consideration for future planning efforts. However, this report did not provide enough evaluation of the social aspects of Kahana Valley. For example, the impacts of resident relocation, incorporating Kahana community in the park’s operations and programs, the appropriate rate of population growth, and types of probable social impacts caused by an increase in visitors were not discussed. These are all important issues that were not addressed. The ‘alternative uses and development’ concepts of this report could be integrated into a new master plan for Kahana Valley.

2.2.7 The Living Park Plan for Kahana People by the ʻOhana Unity Council

(1979) In 1977, there was an attempt to address the problem of defining the ‘Living Park’ concept3. The residents of the Kahana organization ‘Ohana Unity Council’ prepared their own draft of a plan for park development. The ‘Ohana Unity Council

3Nurture and foster native Hawaiian culture and spread knowledge of its values and ways and that in such a living park, the individuals living there shall participate in the purpose of the park by helping in the education of the public and by incorporating into the structure of their daily lives such values and ways.


also called for the establishment of a permanent advisory board of residents and non-residents to initiate the policy and planning processes for Kahana, in order for the park development to proceed (Farias, 1988). This plan is also known as the ‘Residents’ Plan’. The residents’ plan promoted the park as a “living park” which would perpetuate Hawaiian culture and lifestyles and educate visitors regarding these important facets of Kahana (Minerbi, 2003). They documented their resources, traditions, history, skills and tools which included taro planting, fishing, the Huilua fishpond, the old Mormon church, music, hula, preservation of the store, bakery, housing, trails, the canoe club, the genealogy program and a youth council in the plan. This called for location of extended family multi-structure compounds (kauhale) dispersed throughout the valley and close to the resource specific to each project. Residents also developed plans for community projects which included restoration of the fishpond; up-keeping of the old cemetery; establishment of a canoe shed (halau) near the river; restoration of the Mormon Church and its cemetery; renovation of taro patches (lo‘i) in the alluvial plan, and the establishment of agricultural plots in post contact village. This plan allowed Hawaiian experts to be guardians and live as caretakers near the respective projects and pertinent resources (Minerbi, 2003). The strong points of this plan were that it strengthened residents’ power and appointed a resident as a resource person on aspects of the ahupuaʻa. Representatives of residents sat on the Task Force to develop and carry out cultural and education programs and publish their own plan for “Cultural Living Park” (Farias, 1998; p:13). This plan better accommodates the Kahana community within the valley and their development with the concept of a living park, as the project ideas came from the community level. Community projects that had been suggested in this plan could be revised and incorporated in the new plan. 2.2.8 Kahana State Park Development Plan (Draft 7) by Kahana Advisory

Council (KAC) and DLNR (1985) The Kahana State Park Development Plan (Draft 7) was developed by KAC and published by DLNR. The goal of the plan was to develop the Kahana State Park to enrich the lives of the citizens of the state of Hawai’i with the following objectives:

• To develop and maintain Kahana by developing and operating cultural, historical and educational and non-cultural recreational activities in the form of living park.

• To develop programs for park research, resource management and


interpretation; restore, preserve and protect old Kahana’s sites and culture. • To utilize the available natural and human resources and • To create a valuable and unique cultural place for citizens to learn and enjoy

(KAC & DLNR, 1985). The strategies recommended to implement the plans were:

• The entire ahupuaʻa of Kahana would be reaffirmed as the site of a cultural living park by various legislative and administrative acts.

• To establish a private non-profit corporation to develop and manage Kahana State Park.

• To evolve contract and lease between the state and private non-profit corporation to develop and manage Kahana State Park.

• Park development and operation would be guided by this plan and update at regular interval.

• To have the park as a center for interpretation of the Hawaiian ahupuaʻa system, ecology and history of Kahana.

• To use the ahupuaʻa of Kahana for the education, enjoyment and appreciation by citizens of Hawaiʻi (KAC & DLNR, 1985). The concept of ‘Cultural Living Park’ was new during that time and there was

no model to follow (Farias, 1988). Therefore, the State developed principles and guidelines to implement the park development plan based on the new concept. The primary intention was recreational use of the Valley, involving Kahana residents as participants in the development plan, implement the ahupuaʻa concept and low intensity rural setting development and utilize inexpensive methods of development and maintenance (KAC & DLNR, 1985).

This plan also prepared projects including:

• General park development (separate zones for visitors, primary, secondary, Backcountry use, carrying capacity, park management plan).

• Interpretive program (master lease program). • Resident program participation (25 hours per month per residential lease); • Agricultural area; infrastructure and residential improvement. • Resident housing (three options on the housing). • Relocation criteria for the residents who lived in the valley since November 8,

1985(KAC & DLNR, 1985).


This plan also mentioned the nonprofit organizations and that the individual families would be responsible for the costs of the dwellings, although the State would pay for infrastructure. DLNR would monitor the valley, while the nonprofit would monitor the people, and the people would monitor each other (KAC & DLNR, 1985).

The plan was positively balanced with the ahupuaʻa concept (e.g. retained existing features, modified rural lifestyle) compared to other government plans (e.g. comprehensive plan 1962). This plan works to restore a modified rural lifestyle with residents. However, it was rejected by DLNR. DLNR did not provide reasons for its rejection, but others associated with Kahana indicated that a driving reason for the rejection was a dislike of the master lease concept. Further, critics may have concluded that the plans and objectives were not feasible and that the integration of Kahana residents into a cultural living park was complex. The original KAC was eventually disbanded for lack of community participation. It functioned until 1992 (Jaworowski, 2001).

2.2.9 Kahana Valley Preliminary Project Plans by Hui Mālama ‘Āina o Kahana

(1987) Three plans were developed by Hui Mālama ‘Aina o Kahana and published by DLNR. These plans complement the Kahana State Park Development Plan (Draft 7). The Kahana Valley Preliminary Project Plans included:

• Chapel Restoration • Grave Site Repair • Multipurpose Center • Medical Plant Herbarium • Canoe Club and Canoe Builders • Lo’i Restoration (Hui Mālama ‘Āina o Kahana, 1987).

The chapel Restoration, grave site repair, multipurpose center, and the medical plant herbarium programs basically required construction or restoration. The objective of canoe club and canoe builders program were to develop a hālau wa‘a (canoe house) for building and repairing canoes. Visitors and locals could observe ancient Hawaiian canoe building; participate in periodic educational program lectures, and integrate hālau wa‘a activities into overall development program of Kahana Valley. Residents would manage project planning and development (Hui Mālama ‘Āina o Kahana, 1987).


The plans were also positively balanced with the ahupuaʻa concept and should be assessed and incorporated in a future master plan. The goal was physical development oriented. These plans were prepared to support the Kahana State Park Development Plan (Draft 7) and were rejected by DLNR, as well. 2.2.10 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of Kahana Valley State Park by Lewin

(1992) The “Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of Kahana Valley State Park” was developed by Mark J. Lewin and published by Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i, Mānoa. This report gave a brief social and physical description of the Kahana valley, assessed social conditions using Kent’s descriptors (e.g. settlement pattern, public, network, work routine, supporting services, recreational activities, geographic boundaries) and analyzed key possible impacts, and recommendations for mitigating these impacts (Lewin, 1992). This report also described possible social impacts due to park development programs. It noted that relocation will cause “social ramifications” and “psychological impact.” Also, privacy issues due to tourism and visitors would impact residents and the use of the resources (Lewin, 1992).

Two major public groups (government workers and residents), outside communities, recreationists, and minority interest groups were recognized in Kahana Valley. The main objective of government workers was to create a cultural living park reflecting Hawaiian culture, and to stay within the modern rules and regulations imposed by the government. As decision makers, they had control over how policies, programs and projects would take place. This SIA warned that the plan could incite Hawaiian Rights issues with possible claims that the Hawaiian culture is being exploited. On the other hand, most of residents of Kahana Valley were employed outside the valley and few were employed by DLNR for positions in Kahana (such as program director and secretary). It pointed out that residents who lived on month-to-month revocable leases should be included in the decision making process (Lewin, 1992).

The SIA indicated that the outside community, especially from Koʻolauloa,

could be interested in the developments of Kahana as it would affect traffic, the local economy, and use of recreational resources. This place also could also be of interest to different types of recreationists (hunters, hikers and beach goers); a mixture of local people, other island residents, and out-of-state tourists (Lewin,


1992).

The SIA also identified four different types of challenges including: 1) housing issues, 2) cultural program issues, 3) native Hawaiian rights issues, and 4) communication issues. To solve the housing issue, it suggested that government workers need to meet with residents to discuss and justify the relocation, be ensured that the relocation will not affect the “cocoon of social relationships” that the Kupuna have built around them and all the infrastructures are ready before starting the relocation. Cultural programs were described as a contentious issue as the State and the residents were developing their own cultural programs separately. Native Hawaiian rights concerns included exploitation of natural resources and aesthetics. The SIA recommended that key Native Hawaiian practitioners should be consulted regarding the management of a living cultural living park. Besides these issues, the SIA warned that non-communication between the State workers and the residents, Kahana ʻOhana Unity Council and Hui O Kanani O Kahana, may exacerbate existing problems and lead to more park planning setbacks. To resolve this issue, the SIA suggested that the State hire a mediator to bring together key actors and discuss the issues that may hinder park development (Lewin, 1992). This report gave a good picture of the social conditions of Kahana valley, which was missing in the Mogi revised EIS of 1978. Before making a new master plan, these issues should be evaluated and assessed. 2.2.11 Environmental Assessment and Restoration/Revitalization Plan by Carol

(1995) The “Environmental Assessment and Restoration/ Revitalization Plan” was developed by Carol Araki Wyban and published by DLNR for Huilua Fishpond, Kahana Valley State Park, Koʻolauloa, Oʻahu. This plan also complements the Kahana State Park Development Plan (Draft 7) (Wyban, 1995).

The main purpose was to promote a visitors understanding and appreciation of natural resources and cultural heritage. In this plan five goals have been articulated:

1. Care of the ahupuaʻa 2. Care of the culture 3. Care of the ancestors 4. Care of the resources and 5. Care of the people (Wyban, 1995).


Requirements for eligible programs included residents’ interest in the program. This requires programs to be reviewed by a committee working with Park Manager and recommended for action. All aspects of scheduled activities (planning, presenting, clean up, etc.) must be voluntary. Family members over 14 were accepted as eligible to provide counted working hours. In this plan the number of interpretive hours was also fixed to 25 hours per family per month required and a lessee could earn an excess of credit hours (maxing out at 150 hours per year). It also recommended that State should be respectful of residents’ time and work constraints. Also, residents should recognize Kahana Valley as living cultural park, where customs and practices are to be shared with visitors (Wyban, 1995).

2.3 Chronology of Kahana Valley

This section describes the chronological history of Kahana Valley’s landscape, land tenure, population, park development procedures and past plans. Figure (2.3.1) has given the overview of the pre-park and post-park history of Kahana Valley.

2.3.1 Chronological Table of Pre-Park and Post-Park History Table 1 Chronological Table of Pre-Park and Post-Park History

Date (AD)

Historical Event Kahana Land Ownership

Population of Kahana

Kahana Landscape

References

1000 Polynesian settlements

began

People lived along the coastline of

the valley

The Kam Store Historical time line

1600 Huilua Fishpond was built

The Kam Store Historical time line

1778 Captain James Cook landed in Waimea Bay,

Kaua‘i

Estimated at 720 people

(1776)

Stauffer, 1990 (Discussion with

Marion Kelly in 1989)

1823 The Native Hawaiian population

decreased due to western diseases

Estimated at 260 people

Stauffer, 1990


Date (AD)



Kahana Landscape

References

1826 Chamberlain visited Kahana

Valley

Naihe (the son of Keawe A Healu, chief counselor to

Kamehameha I)

Small scale cultivation(Banana

s and Taro)

Chamberlain, 1826, Beggerly, 1990

1836-1836

The United Church of Christ Missions

conducted a census

203 people (158 adults; 81 males;

77females)(45 children: 30 boys; 15

girls)

Stauffer, 1990

1848 The Great Mahele Ane Keohokalole

Beggerly, 1990

1859 The Kuleana Act Ane Keohokalole

and 35 Kuleanas

Beggerly, 1990

1857 AhSing purchased Kahana valley

AhSing Rice cultivation Beggerly, 1990

1868 AhChuck purchased Kahana

valley

AhChuck Rice cultivation Beggerly, 1990

1872 Ahnee purchased Kahana valley

Ane Rice cultivation

Beggerly, 1990

1881 The valley became an ethnically and culturally diverse

place

150 People settled mainly along the coastline west of

the Kahana stream. There was a school house and a

church.

Coulter, 1931, Beggerly, 1990


Date (AD)



Kahana Landscape

References

1874 Hui was formed to purchase the land

of valley.

Ane to hui or the Mormon Church Land

Company

Hawaiian Registry of Conveyances, Book 39, p.490, Beggerly,

1990 Jaworoski, 2001

1888 to

1889

Mary and Thomas Foster started to

buy shares for the rights of Kahana

Valley from the Hui

Hui Beggerly, 1990

1889 to

1903

Several Chinese farmers leased the valley to cultivate

rice paddies

Mary Foster Rice cultivation

1905 270 acres in Kahana which

included valley, mountain, village and fishery areas

were registered as Mary Foster’s

property

Mary Foster Belt, Collins and Associates, 1995

1913 The Kahana Agriculture

Company leased the valley for a

sugar plantation

Mary Foster Sugar cane plantation

Dobyns, 1980

1931 The plantation era ended and the

railroad stopped service to Kahana

Valley

Mary Foster Sugar cane plantation

Dobyns, 1980

1941 The attack on Pearl Harbor

Mary Foster U.S. military training base

Dobyns, 1980

1955 Robinson Agency drafted a

Development Plan for Kahana Valley

Mary Foster Belt, Collins and Associates, 1995

1962 A Comprehensive Plan for Hawaii

State Parks drafted

Mary Foster DLNR, The Comprehensive Plan for Hawaii State Park

1962;Hulten 1965;Dobyns, 1980


Date (AD)



Kahana Landscape

References

1965 to

1969

The State purchased Kahana valley for $5 million

The State of Hawaii

Dobyns, 1980

1962 The State began to consider Kahana Valley for a State

Park; A Comprehensive Plan for Hawaii

State Parks drafted

Mary Foster DLNR, The Comprehensive Plan for Hawaii State Park 1962; Hulten 1965;

Dobyns, 1980

1965 A Report Covering the Proposed Park

Development of Kahana Valley

completed

The State of Hawaii

DLNR, 1965

1970 Division of State Parkcommissioned Tongg Associates todevelop amaster

Plan for Kahana Valley

The State of Hawaii

H Mogi Planning & Research Inc., 1974

1972 Educational Program Plan by

Department of Education and

DLNR

The State of Hawaii

Department of

Education, 1972

1974 Mogi Plan for KahanaValley

State Park

The State of Hawaii

140 H Mogi Planning & Research Inc., 1974;

Dobyns, 1980

1978 Mogi Revised Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS)

The State of Hawaii

H Mogi Planning Research Inc., 1978

1979 The Living Park Plan for Kahana People by the Ohana Unity

Council

The State of Hawaii

Farias, 1988; Minerbi, 2003


Date (AD)



Kahana Landscape

References

1985 Kahana State Park Development Plan

(Draft 7)

The State of Hawaii

KAC & DLNR, 1985

1987 Kahana Valley Preliminary

Project Plans by HuiMālama

‘Āina o Kahana

The State of Hawaii

Hui Mālama ‘Āina o Kahana, 1987

1992 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of Kahana Valley

Park by Lewin

The State of Hawaii

Lewin, 1992

2.3.2 Concluding Remarks

Since Kahana Valley has a rich historical background and abundant natural resources, particularly in water, many people have tried to obtain the rights to the valley. The abundant water resource from high annual rainfall allows agricultural activities to thrive in the valley. During the period of pre-western contact, people of the valley lived in an ahupuaʻa system under the supervision of chiefs. In the mountains, people were involved in cultivation of fruits and taro while at the coastline, people were engaged in fishing. Goods and harvests were exchanged between people who lived in the mountain and those on the coastline. Before initial western contact, the population of Kahana Valley was estimated at720 people in 1776 (Stauffer, 1990).

However, after western contact, the population dropped to 260 people (Stauffer, 1990). According to Chamberlain’s record in 1826, the scale of cultivation was small in the valley. The decrease in human activities in the valley is likely due to the population decline. After the Great Mahele, the ownership of the valley changed and land tenure transactions began. After Ane Keohokalole sold the valley to AhSing (a Chinese merchant) in 1857, foreign influences and rice cultivation were observed in the valley (Lewin, 1992). As the rice cultivation began to thrive, the valley became an ethnically and culturally diverse place. When the Hui purchased the land in the valley, people practiced the ahupuaʻa resource management by sharing fresh water rights, access and use of pasture uplands and the fish pond, and fishing rights. However, the Hui’s control over the valley did not last long due to their financial


foreclosure. Most shares were transferred to the Kane‘ohe Ranch and Mary and Thomas Foster.

Kane‘ohe Ranch had planned to burn several acres of native Hawaiian

forest lands in order to create pasture land. In response, the Fosters started to purchase more shares of the valley to minimize burnings. From these records, the Fosters recognized the value of the environment within Kahana Valley and their efforts to protect the environment are apparent. The Kahana Agriculture Company leased the valley and started to cultivate sugar cane in 1913. Rice paddies and lo‘i were converted to sugar cane plantations, yet no major development took place in the valley.

However, the Belt, Collins and Associates produced a development plan for

the Robinson Agency which was responsible for the Foster’s property in 1955. The plan was intended to develop the valley as a resort for tourists and housing. It went against Mary Foster’s will of trying to protect the valley’s environment.

In 1962, the valley was being considered as the location of a state park. The

Comprehensive Plan (1962) was developed to assist the State in taking ownership of the entire valley for development. The plan’s focus was on profit related activities. Since the State of Hawai‘i took ownership of the valley in 1969, the valley became a unique place due to being the only state park that has official permanent residents (private communication with Lauren Tanaka, December 7, 2012). The State had been required to manage the valley as a public park while dealing with the issue of the privacy of the residents.

Since then, the Tongg Associates master plan (1970) called for the

relocation of the residents from the valley to support tourist oriented activities similar to the ‘Polynesian Cultural Center’ concept. The Mogi Plan (1974) also supported visitor activity rather than resident activities and would have been costly to implement. Mogi Revised EIS (1978) addressed the bio-physical and environmental issues of potential developments but ignored community involvement in park operations and management.

On the contrary, the Living Park Plan (1979) developed by Kahana

community members, promoted the concept of the ‘living park.’ It also tried to resolve the residents’ relocation issues. Until the local community developed this plan, all previous plans did not materialize the relocation and housing issues, cultural aspects of the valley, or community participation in the park development.


The Kahana State Park Development Plan (1985) supported retaining existing features of the Valley, and recommended involving the local residents’ in cultural and educational activities. The Preliminary Projects Plan (1987) complemented the Kahana State Park Development Plan (1985) and was in tune with the ‘living park’ concept. The Social Impact Assessment (1992) identified four major social issues related to development of the valley and also offered ideas to resolve those issues. The Environment Assessment and Restoration Plan (1995) also matches with the ‘living park concept’ and tried to resolve issues in regarding the involvement of community members in park operation and management.

Both the Living Park Plan (1979) and the Kahana State Park Development

Plan (1985) match well with the living park concept. The Preliminary Projects Plan (1987), the Social Impact Assessment (1992), and the Environment Assessment and Restoration Plan (1995) compliment the Kahana State Park Development Plan.

Minerbi (2003) reported that the valley developed with most of its residents

relocating to the two subdivisions while some residents remained in the old village. However leasing the houses in subdivisions close to the project did not materialize in any plan prepared by State. Some preliminary projects (fishpond, taro project) were implemented in Kahana Valley. Most residents were not evicted from the valley and were allowed to stay and be involved in cultural projects and practices as the valley is opened to visitors. However, due to different ideologies in government and residents’ plans, a number of elements of the ‘Cultural Living Park’ remain unsolved.

Before developing a new master plan, the strengths and weaknesses of all

of the past plans need to re-evaluate and assessed. The government needs to consider the residents’ needs, socio-cultural values, and involve the community in the planning process. The new master plan should also include guidelines to involve the community in the operations and management of the park.. 2.4 Bills and Acts 2.4.1 SR # 186 (1970)

In the 1970 Hawaiian legislative session, a Senate Resolution # 186 was introduced asking the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to initiate a coordinated plan to allow residents to remain at Kahana on leases, if such use was not illegal.


2.4.2 Act 5 (1987)

Act 5 Session Laws of Hawaii 1987 states that the legislature recognizes Kahana as a unique historical and natural resource. Persons long associated with Kahana Valley who are knowledgeable of the area qualify to interpret the significance of these resources for the public’s benefit and enjoyment. Accordingly, the purpose of this Act is to set aside a portion of public lands in Kahana Valley and authorizes the DLNR to negotiate and enter into sixty-five-year residential leases with residents that lived continuously in Kahana Valley since before 1970 or had permits issued by the DLNR allowing them to reside on certain parcels within the valley. In exchange for residential leases, the qualified lessees have to be an essential part of interpretive programs in the Kahana Valley State Park (KVSP), as directed by the DLNR. Act 5, Session Laws of Hawaii 1987, expired on January 1, 1992, and was later amended on July 1993.

In 1993, in accordance to Act 5, Session Laws of Hawaiʻi 1987, the DLNR issued sixty-five-year residential leases to thirty-one qualifying families under the condition that all lessees contribute at least twenty-five hours of service in interpretive programs each month to benefit the park. Each lease had an Exhibit C attached, which set the agreement on the lease rent payment (Jaworowski, 2001). Exhibit C states the program participation requirement for in-kind payment of the lease rent is twenty-five hours per month of services related to scheduled interpretive programs. The participation service hours can be waived for a period of not more than twelve months after the Lessee is notified by the State that the residential housing infrastructure has been completed. Waivers were to be issued only for those residents who are actually participating in the construction of their new homes or renovating existing homes on their new sixty-five year house lots.

Additionally, to provide lessees with money to construct new houses, Act 238, Session Laws of Hawaii 1988, allocated and appropriated funds to provide low-interest home construction and mortgage loans for Kahana Valley State Park lessees. The appropriation was sufficient for twenty-six lessees to receive loans in the amount of $50,000 each. The descendants of six families that did not initially receive sixty-five-year residential leases were allowed to remain in the valley under revocable permits.


Figure 1 Act 5 and Residential Leases


2.4.3 Act 15 (2009)

Besides the 31 long-term leases, six families have been living in Kahana for many years as “residents without leases.” The state attempted several times to work on the lease issues of these six families but finally came to a decision of eviction in 2008. Protest from the residents prompted the idea of enacting legislation that would put the eviction on hold for two more years and propose the establishment of a planning council to develop a master plan for the park.

Since 1970, Kahana residents and the greater community proposed numerous plans to the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) but the BLNR never succeeded in adopting a master plan for Kahana Valley State Park (KVSP). In 2009, a bill (S.B. # 638) was enacted as Act 15 by the Legislature of the State of Hawaiʻi. According to DLNR (2009), the main purpose of Act 15 was to establish a two-year moratorium on eviction of residents who, at the time of the enactment of the act, resided in KVSP and actively participated in interpretive programs of KVSP and continuously lived there since before 1987 or held or have held a long-term lease or permit to reside there. Furthermore, the act established the "Cultural” Living Park Planning Council to develop a master plan for Ahupuaʻa ‘O Kahana State Park. In developing a Master Plan, the Act requires the council to:

• Establish goals and objectives to ensure the living park reaches its full potential

• Set forth standards and timelines that enables the goals and objectives to be met

• Identify programs for enhancement of educational opportunities and cultural awareness.

• Develop plans to secure funding for a land manager, a housing fund, and any other financial needs that may be identified in the park’s Master Plan

• Dialogue with residents, kupuna, community groups and organizations from other ahupuaʻa to share knowledge

• Advise the DLNR on park related matters • Establish the Council’s authority to implement the Master Plan • Establish criteria, policies and control for the management of the living park

leases, including how people are selected for lease, designated land to be leased and terms for monitoring and enforcement of the lease terms and conditions and its renewal criteria.

• Maintain, promote, and perpetuate the Aloha spirit, and • Develop protocol and proposals to encourage caring for kupuna and for

sharing and perpetuating Knowledge.


According to Act 15, the council shall be comprised of five voting members

appointed by the governor. Three shall be representative of families who reside in the park, selected from a list of resident nominees provided by the president of the park’s community association; one member shall be a representative of the general public; and one member shall be a representative of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. In addition, two non-voting members are to be appointed, who have expertise in one of the four strategic areas: land use laws or land use planning, community-based planning, the Environment, or Native Hawaiian culture.

Since 1993, three leases have been terminated by the DLNR for noncompliance with lease conditions. Other families living in Kahana Valley have sought to obtain long-term leases, but the DLNR refuses to issue any further leases, relying on the attorney general's opinion issued on March 24, 2008, asserting that Act 5, Session Laws of Hawaii 1987expired.


2.4.4. H.B. # 1210

In 2012, a bill for an act including an amendment of Act 15, Section 3 and 8 for a Moratorium extension was submitted for approval and enacted to the Legislature of the State of Hawaii for the following purpose:

• To establish a four-year moratorium on evictions of persons who at the time of the enactment of this Act, reside in Kahana Valley State Park, have participated in interpretive programs for Kahana Valley State Park, and have continuously lived there since before 1987, or hold or have held a long-term lease or permit to reside there; (Amending Section 3 of Act 15)

• To authorize the Department of Land and Natural Resources to issue long-term residential leases to qualified persons; and

• To establish a living park planning council to develop a master plan for each State living park that will provide the framework, proposed rules, measurements for success, and planning process to ensure that the living park achieves its purpose and goals."

• The DLNR shall submit to the legislature an initial progress report, including any proposed legislature, regarding the implementation of this Act not later than twenty days prior to the convening of the regular session of 2010 and final report including any proposed legislation, not later than twenty days prior to the convening of the regular session of 2013 (Amending Section 8 of Act 15).

2.4.5 Analysis

In 1987, the legislature implemented Act 5 for the Kahana Valley Cultural Living Park to resolve conflicting interests between the State and the families living in Kahana. However, the legislature decision does not seem to be fair to all those associated with the valley or those who have previously lived in the valley. As the law applies only to qualified residents (i.e. people residing in Kahana Valley since 1970 or issued a permit by DLNR allowing them to reside on designated parcels of land), it does not take care of the other families who do not fall under these categories. For instance, 73 year-old Uncle Nana who was born and raised in Kahana Valley was in the military when Act 5 was mandated. His family had to give up their farm when Kahana Valley was taken over in World War II to become a military training site for soldiers heading to war in the Pacific (Shapiro, 2005). He has been working very diligently on restoring the lo‘i kalo (taro patch) in Kahana Valley for the past nine years, but he is also one of the families without a lease. This


example shows how the definition of what makes a resident “qualified” is not without its problems and needs to be adjusted in order to address the entire population associated with Kahana. One way of solving this issue could include considering all people previously living in the valley and actively taking care of the ‘āina for a lease.

Similarly, Quezon reported that a resident called Act 5 as “A solution that needs fixing.” According to the residents, dividing the population into two clear-cut categories, “qualified” and “unqualified,” fails to take into account the social and cultural reality of people living in close proximity. Thus, limiting the number of residential leases to only 31 families creates a practical reality that pits ‘ohana against ‘ohana. The resident further adds that a cultural Living Park cannot be sustained without its people, and to limit the amount to only 31 families for over 5,000 acres of ahupuaʻa does not make sense (Quezon, 2008). Therefore, the Legislature should take into account how to efficiently manage the carrying capacity of the land, making sure that all families that are living there are included in some fashion, as long as the carrying capacity is not breached.

In addition, there is no legitimate reason behind the DLNR selecting 65 years for the period of the leases, with no option for renewal. By limiting the time period for leases, it seems that the DLNR is acknowledging and limiting the families to only one generation. This raises issues of not considering the later generations of these families with many children, and the potential of cultural transmission across generations within a family. Therefore, future legislature decisions concerning the area need to take into account not only the current generation, but future generations as well.

Evaluating the Act from a different perspective, one of the criteria for

‘qualified resident’ calls for participation in interpretive programs, fulfilling 25 hours per month of services contributing to the cultural landscape of Kahana. However, we suggest that rather than an hourly focus, residents can be expected to participate in a more constructive manner if a different type of requirement is maintained. Instead of counting just hours, it could be a greater incentive for residents to contribute if the assessment of work was in a more goal-oriented approach. For example, residents could be requested to maintain a certain area of taro patches in a given period of time, for which they would receive full responsibility for maintenance. In this way, a more goal-oriented approach while entrusting the residents, with more responsibility and flexibility, could produce a more productive culture than simply counting hours of human labor.


Moreover, Act 15 was enacted to resolve the issue of evicting families without leases by establishing a two-year moratorium on evictions of residents without leases, and establishing a planning council to develop a new master plan with objectives. However, the reality is that those residents without leases (six families) have to move after 2 years. In this way, rather than forming an actual solution, this act seems only to postpone the inevitable evictions.

Analysis from the State perspective, to manage the physical, cultural and above all, human resources of Kahana Valley in an efficient manner is very crucial because of the historical significance of the area. However, some people residing in Kahana may hold dissimilar perceptions towards State goals. Thus, eviction of the non-qualified residents makes the State monopolize its ideas to limit qualified residents or replace non-compliant people with a more task-oriented group.

On the other hand, considering the value of land, the main objective of the Cultural Living Park is to revive the traditional culture of the Valley, where people living there are the stewards of the land and major component of the living park concept. The people living in Kahana have ancestral ties with the land and social bonds with each other. Again, looking at the example of Uncle Nana, a former resident who has been integral part of the Valley working on restoring the taro patch for the last 9 years, illustrates the importance of a people-oriented perspective of managing Kahana. Thus, eviction of these residents or not granting leases is unfair to the land and needs to be taken care of. Furthermore, the State is contradicting the concept of a “Cultural Living Park,” by excluding those who play an integral part of the Valley. How can a living park be sustained if residents and those that volunteer in the valley are evicted or do not qualified for leases because they do not fall into the current “qualified” category? Therefore, it would be beneficial to further distinguish between different categories. The distinction could not only be made between residents and former residents, but also with a third category of newer volunteers, whose contributions could be recognized by granting permits with the possibility of eventually acquiring a lease.


Figure 2 H. B. # 1450: Related to State Park

In this way, a critical analysis of Act 15 in itself shows how it may undermine the social and cultural reality of the people living in Kahana in favor of making rigid distinctions and categorizations. Furthermore, the amendments under “H.B. # 1210” highlight the fact that the purpose of the master plan presented in Act 15 may have been presented in an over-generalized fashion and needs to be refined to be more specific in order to be truly effective. For example, rather than stating simply to “maintain, promote and perpetuate the Aloha spirit,” there is a need to define more clearly what Aloha spirit is, and in what concrete ways this can be promoted and maintained.


Therefore, Act 5 and 15 have not fully addressed the core social issues of Kahana Valley. Instead of solving the lease issues, it has resulted in fragmenting the residents into qualified and unqualified classes and creating divisive line between their own ‘ohana. The main problems and possible solutions can be summarized as follows:

• The definition of what makes a resident “qualified” is problematic, and this can be addressed by letting people previously living in the valley and actively taking care of the ʻāina be considered for a range of leases ( residential as well as agricultural and leases for other projects).

• Future legislature decisions concerning the area need to take into account not only the current generation, but also the future generations.

• Legislature involving voluntary programs should focus more on goal-oriented approaches, rather than just hourly requirements.

• Act 15, with its two-year moratorium for non-qualified residents’ eviction, seems to focus on postponing a solution rather than providing one.

• For more efficient management, DLNR needs to distinguish between three different categories: residents, former residents and thirdly new volunteers whose contributions may be recognized by granting permits and possibly leases.

• The definition of residents in terms of qualified or unqualified creates an unsatisfying social environment, and more families should be included in some way in order to sustain the land, while keeping an eye on the land’s carrying capacity.


2.5 CHONOLOGY OF BILLS/ACTS

2.5.1 Sequential study of the Legislature Bills and Acts of Kahana Valley

Table 2 Chronologies of Bills and Acts

Date (AD)

Category Features/ Activities/ Events Reference

1970 Bills/Acts S.R. # 186, to prepare first plan by DLNR to initiate a coordination plan to allow residents remain at Kahana on

leases

Jaworowski (2001)

1977 Bills/Acts S.R. # 264, to state the purpose of a living park is to nurture and foster native Hawaiian culture and spread knowledge

of its values and ways.

Hawaii State Legislature

1987 Bills/Acts SB # 1753,to issue long term residential leases to qualified resident on the

condition that they participate in KVSP's interpretive program


1987 Bills/Acts H.B. # 1494, to issue long term

residential leases to qualified resident on the condition that they participate in

KVSP's interpretive program

Legislature passed Act 5by issuing long-term leases directly to "qualified

resident" of Kahana and in exchange to the leases they should agree to

participate in interpretive programs directed by DLNR.


1988 Bills/Acts SB # 2744, to allocate $1,360,00.00 for fiscal year 1988-1989 to provide low-

interest housing and calls for residential subdivision and mortgage loans of up to

$50,000 per lease holder


1988 Bills/Acts S.R. # 240,to request the development of a master plan to fully express the concept of the Ahupua’a O Kahana.



Date (AD)

Category Features/ Activities/ Events Reference

1989 Bills/Acts H.B. # 1001, the qualified resident

participation in interpretive program shall be voluntary


1989 Bills/Acts H.B. # 1644, to allocate total funding of $ 400,000.00 for restoration of fishpond, chapel and cemetery and revitalization

of taro lot


1989 Bills/Acts H.B.# 1450, to create six model 'AINA HOOMALU’ which includes Kahana

Valley ahupuaʻa


1989 Bills/Acts S.B.#940, an appropriation of $350,000.00 to implement projects in Kahana valley state park identified by

KAC.


1993 Bills/Acts "Exhibit C”, sets the agreement on the lease rent payment

Jaworowski (2001)

2001 Bills/Acts SCR # 61, requesting a study relating to the management of the ahupuaʻa 'o

Kahana.


2007 Bills/Acts H.B. # 782, to provide residential leases to additional families and establish an

advisory committee to monitor compliance with the agreements


2009 Bills/Acts H.B. # 1552, to establish two year moratorium in eviction, passed as Act

15


2011 Bills/Acts H.B. # 1210, KVLP, Moratorium

extension Hawaii State Legislature

2011 Bills/Acts H.B. # 1403, to authorizes DLNR to create a residential sub division in the park which shall exempt from all laws

and rules regarding zoning and construction standards for subdivisions


2011 Bills/Acts S.B. # 1560, to authorizes DLNR to create a residential sub division in the park which shall exempt from all laws

and rules regarding zoning and construction standards for subdivisions


From the chronological study of the legislature Acts and Bills of Kahana,

basically two important points could be extracted.


2.5.1.1 Power relation of state/DLNR and resident over land The State/DLNR slowly over time seems to be increasing their control over

land as opposed to the residents’ control over their land. One of the ways in which this is done is by enforcing a specified set of tasks to the residents, in order for them to remain qualified, for example in Act 5. This influences not only how the land is being used, but will also be a defining factor of the constitution of the landscape itself. Therefore, through these acts, the state is increasing its control not only over the land’s use by residents, but also over the very characteristics of this land, relative to the residents’ control over this.

2.5.1.2 Definition of Hawaiian Culture Over the years, Hawaiian culture is becoming more pronounced in the way

Kahana Valley is managed. This raises the question, however, of what exactly is “Hawaiian,” and who has the power to define this. It therefore has to be acknowledged that this is ultimately a political issue, and it is critical which policy-making agents have the power to determine what is Hawaiian. Recognizing this, it is thus necessary to not only consider the State’s view of what is or should be Hawaiian, but also let the residents themselves have a say in this to account for local culture. Acknowledging the reality of culture as not a static concept but something that is inherently fluid and historically contingent, as well as something that is always contested by multiple groups and their respective interests, would likely result in a more inclusive and cooperative atmosphere for the project.

2.5.2 Concluding Remarks Looking back at a chronological sequence of legislative decisions involving

Kahana Valley shows that the State has gradually increased its control over the land as opposed to residents’ control. Secondly, it also shows that there is an increase in value placed on “Hawaiian culture” in these lands, however that may be defined. In analyzing the chronological sequence of legislature, in no way can we account for specific individual behavior of policy-making agents and in what ways this has specifically influenced legislature. A full consideration of these will require more specific data and study.

Further, from the historical records, it is observed that most of the plans

proposed by State and private sector have been rejected by either party. This is because they were either in favor of residents or vice-versa, resulting in tensions in the community. According to Keany, M. (2009), state Senator Clayton Hee


mentioned in a 2001 Legislative Reference Bureau Report that the “living park” at Kahana Valley failed for a number of reasons: hourly resident records lack enforcement, the DLNR failing to implement meaningful programs and most importantly, the state has been unable to adopt a master plan—all of which result in a dysfunctional park program borne by poor management, direction and focus by DLNR. In addition he argues that concerned departments should show more positive leadership by paying attention to the valley lessees and should work actively with them to design a master plan for Kahana Valley. Therefore, based on criticism made by scholars and looking at the past history and current scenario of the valley, we believe that the legislature will have to deliberate the best possible solutions and make appropriate decisions for Kahana’s future. One way of approaching this might be revising the rejected bills or mending the existing acts to create a common ground for both residents and the State to create a park that respects the basic foundation of the public’s right to access state park, while keeping the residents’ as an integral part of the park. This could finally fulfill the the potential of Ahupuaʻa O Kahana State Park, in combining a unique blend of historical tradition and vibrant contemporary culture.


CHAPTER 3

3 CURRENT CONDITIONS

This chapter describes current environmental and social conditions in Kahana in order to identify strengths, determine areas that could be improved and develop an understanding of the present setting. Further, the potential of Kahana is analyzed given the current natural and human resources. Previous plans, reports and surveys are reviewed. Suggestions are provided and could be utilized in future plans or projects for the valley.

3.1 Kahana’s Environmental Setting

The ahupuaʻa (ancient Hawaiian land division) of Kahana is nestled in between Kaʻaʻawa and Punaluʻu on the eastern side of the island of Oʻahu in the most isolated chain of islands in the world. It is a place rich in beauty and natural resources. Embraced by the majestic Koʻolau mountain range, Kahana is filled with abundant water sources, fertile soil, fishponds, a beach and a stunning bay. The people of Kahana have, for generations, utilized these resources for subsistence farming and fishing and cultural practices. They have been brilliant stewards of the land, water, and ocean resources. Native Hawaiians were able to find everything necessary for human survival within Kahana’s border. The ʻāina (land or

Figure 3 Arial view of Ahupuaʻa O Kahana. (Source Unknown)


environment) has shaped the world view of the indigenous people of Hawaiʻi (Myer 2001). For kanaka maoli (indigenous people of Hawaiʻi), the surrounding environment was a source of sustenance, growing knowledge and inspiration. Kahana has long been recognized for its ample resources and is among the Polynesian colonizers earliest settlement sites in Hawaii (Kirch 1997).

Figure 4. The ancient land divisions of Oʻahu with Kahana highlighted. Source (Institute of Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa.


3.1.1 Description of Place Kahana is formally referred to as Ahupuaʻa O Kahana and specifically located

in the State of Hawaiʻi at the southern end of the Koʻolauloa District on the island of Oʻahu between the ahupuaʻa of Kaʻaʻawa to the east and Punaluʻu to the west, and extends over four miles from the 2,670 foot crest of Puʻu Pauao on the Koʻolau mountain range to the reefs at the seaward mouth of Kahana Bay. The two points that guard the entrance to Kahana Bay are Makaliʻi and Puʻumahia. Kahana consists of 5,228.7 acres including the submerged lands of Kahana Bay, making it the second-largest state park in Hawaiʻi’s state park system (Jaworowski 2001). It is unique in that it is the only ahupuaʻa in the entire State owned by the government and is relatively intact (Jaworowski 2001). The size of this state park and the amount of cultural and natural assets it holds necessitates an adequate amount of funding and resources to be allocated to Kahana for maintenance and preservation.

The Park Distribution Map (Figure 5) of Oʻahu demonstrates the sheer size of

Kahana compared to other parks on the island.


Figure 5 Park Distribution Map


The division of land in Kahana has changed over time. Native Hawaiian settlement of land generally consisted of the steward of a resource living near that resource, rather than settlement in villages. In Kahana, extended family multi-structure compounds (kauhale) were historically dispersed through the valley and close to the resource specific to that family’s expertise (Minerbi 2003). A plan for Kahana that allows for Hawaiian experts of the different cultural practices to be live-in caretakers and guardians of their specific resource is very consistent with the characterization of pre-contact Hawaiian settlement as a “dispersed community” not living in villages (Minerbi 2003). However, during the 1980s and 1990s many families were moved to the northwestern part of the valley and placed in a manner similar to western residential communities. The relocation of families was initiated by the State to move the residents from flood hazards. This movement inevitably changed the way long-term residents interacted with the resources. Care-takers and guardians were no longer living on-site, making monitoring and enforcement of kapu (prohibitions or tabu) more difficult.

Minerbi (2003) provides an illustration that describes the difference between plans proposed for Kahana. In the “Residents’ Plan,” the people are integrated with the resources much like traditional Native Hawaiian settlement. Contrarily, the “Government’s Plan,” separates caretakers from the resources and is more like a typical western residential settlement. The Building Structures of Kahana Map indicates the change in structures inside the valley between 1929 and 1992. In 1992, there were 41 structures in Kahana compared to 64 structures in 1929. Studies have shown, at the scale of an ahupuaʻa, that human activities were concentrated in the areas of greatest productivity, often along the coast or in fertile, well-watered upland and inland areas (Allen 1994). The compact nature of Kahana’s resources likely minimized the need for mobility, specialization or exchange. Residential units were likely stable since resources in Kahana are abundant, diverse, and geographically compact.


Figure 6 Government Plan


Figure 7 Residents Plan


Figure 8 Building Structure of Ahupuaʻa O Kahana in 1829, 1936 and 1992


3.1.2 Land Tenure

The timeline below describes land tenure in Hawaiʻi and specifically in Kahana over time. Changes in ownership have resulted in different types of utilization of the resources of Kahana.

Figure 9 Changes in Ownership Pattern

Pre-contact:Noownershipor,tlestoland.

AncientTimes:Landbelongstothegods(akua).

Áinaisregardedasaneldersiblingsratherthanacommoditytobebought,sold,and

exploited.

TheKonohikiwastheheadmanofanahupuaá

underthechief.

TheNa,veHawaiianahupuaásystemisintact

inKahana.

Post-Mahele(1848)

Approximately5,050acresintheahupuaáofKahanawasgrantedtoAnnieKeohokaloleaGertheGreatMaheleof

1848.33muchsmallerawardswithinKahanaweregrantedtomakaáinanaandahighaliʹiagenttomakeuptheremaining178.7acres

(Jaworoski2001)

1857:Keohokalolesoldherpor,onofKahanatoAhSing(alsoknownasApakana),aChinese

merchant.

1874:Keohokalole’spor,onwaseventuallypurchasedbyalandhuiofKahana.TheHuimanagedthelandinawaysimilartothepre-

Mahelemanner.However,theMortgageActof1874

resultedinthelandgraduallybeingmortgaged,foreclosed,orsold.MaryFosterandKaneoheRanchbecamethemajorland

ownersinKahana.KaneoheRanchburnedindigenoustreesandgroundcovertocreatepasturageareas

(Jaworoski2001).

1901:FosterboughtoutKaneoheRanchandbecamethe

controllinginterestinKahana.

ModernTimes

1930:FosterdiesandherestateisheldintrustallowingforKahanato

maintainitsrurallifestyle.

1939-1945:DuringWorldWarII,themilitaryusedthevalleytoprac,ce

junglewarfare(Jaworoski2001).

1969:TheStateofHawaiiacquiredtheen,reahupuaáof

KahanafromtheestateofMaryFosterand6individuallesees.

Present:Kahanaiss,llownedbytheStateofHawaiiandmanagedbytheDepartmentofLandandNaturalResources.


Native Hawaiians traditionally practiced exceptional land and natural resource management skills. The culture and social structures fostered extremely sophisticated and efficient methods of cultivations and demanded sustainable practices. Critical events that impacted land tenure and practices in Hawaii (and Kahana) included the deaths of many Hawaiians (many of them agricultural workers) caused by foreign-introduced diseases, the breaking of the kapu system, and the introduction of a competitive barter system (Hollyer 1990). The Great Mahele redistributed some areas utilized to grow kalo and effected its productions. Also, the influx of Chinese immigrants in the 1800’s placed a demand for rice resulting in land used for rice paddies. Current land and water practices on Oahu result in difficulty keeping lowland loʻi under continuously flooded conditions.

There are numerous advantages to Kahana now being owned by one party,

the State of Hawaii. In many ways, it can allow for easier management and enforcement efforts to preserve natural resources. Specifically, the State’s Department of Natural Resources (DLNR) is in a good position to collaborate with other agencies to foster holistic management efforts. There can also be challenges. Residents, whom have a multi-generational relationship with Kahana, may not feel empowered to make decisions for land use in Kahana. Many people are necessary to properly care for all the natural and cultural resources in Kahana. Entrusting many people with the responsibility to do so may be difficult with ultimately one owner.

The Land Tenure of Kahana Map provides the names of the families that held the

parcels of land in Kahana in 1913. Land tenure is distributed throughout the valley. This can be an excellent resource in determining historical land ownership in Kahana or allowing people to confirm their ancestral connection to the land. Further, this source could be utilized when researching future applicant’s eligibility for leases.


Figure 10 Land Tenure of Ahupuaʻa of Kahana 1913


3.1.3 Ahupuaʻa Zones

The land area of the major Hawaiian Islands was originally divided into large districts called moku, and these were further subdivided into manageable units of land known as an ahupuaʻa. Ahupuaʻa management encompasses everything from mauka (mountain) to makai (sea) and integrates natural resource concerns with cultural, human, and spiritual resources. Ahupuaʻa vary in size and shape, however a typical Hawaiian land division is similar to a pie-shaped wedge that extends from the farthest point mauka to makai. Ahupuaʻa land divisions, similar to watersheds, are based upon natural features such as mountain ridges and streams. An ahupuaʻa, as defined by Albert and Pukui (1986), is a “land division usually extending from the uplands to the sea, so called because the boundary was marked by a heap (ahu) of stones surmounted by an image of a pig (puaʻa), or because a pig or other tribute was laid on the altar as tax to the chief. The landlord or owner of an ahupuaʻa might be a Konohiki.”

Kahana possesses the major biological zones that make up an ahupuaʻa. The

wao akua (cloud forest zone), is located in the upland forests and considered the realm of the gods and a place that should only be inhabited by spirits (Pukui 1986). The wao nahele (forest zone) consists of the Koʻolau mountain range with summit elevations of ca 610m (2,000 feet) and Puʻu o Kila at 467 meter at the peak. The wao kanaka (agricultural zone), where people cultivate, has a verdant central marsh and forested bottom lands. The kaha wai and kaha kai(coastal zones) consists of the Kahana Stream (which originates about 300 m elevation behind the ridge extension of Puʻu o Kila), the Kawa Stream (which is located in front of Puʻu o Kila ridge and joins Kahana Stream in the midsection of the valley), the Kahana estuary, and Huilua Fishpond. The freshwater stream system follows a course that relates directly to the topographic pattern of the valley. The kai (sea zone) includes Kahana Bay. There are many subzones within the major zones listed.

In ancient Hawaiʻi, each zone had a particular purpose or function (Kamakau

1976). The conservation of one of the few remaining intact ahupuaʻa in Hawaii is of critical importance. The perpetuation and revitalization of Kahana resources can provide insight and understanding into Native Hawaiian practices. Further, this understanding has the potential to provide methods of remediating other ahupuaʻa in Hawaii and sustainable systems of living. Minerbi (1998) provides a description of these zones in a diagram of an example ahupuaʻa in Figure 5.

Access to most of the resources from mauka to makai was afforded to common

people as long as kapu were observed and proper protocol given (Kamakau 1961).


Generally, access rights were tied to residency on a particular land and earned by taking responsibility for stewardship of the natural environment and supplying the needs of one’s aliʻi (Boundary Commission Testimonies 1873-1886).

Figure 11 Indigenous Management Models and Protection


3.1.4 Conservation District

Kahana Valley is designated as a State Conservation (C) District in the Resource (R) subzone. Permitted activities within the (C) District include use as a park and (R) subzone can be used for aquaculture.

Figure 12 State of Hawaii Conservation District Subzone


The Hawaiʻi State Land Use Law (Act 187), which has been codified as Hawaii Revised Statute (HRS), Chapter 205, established the State Land Use Commission (LUC), and granted LUC the power to zone all lands in the state into three districts: Agriculture, Conservation, and Urban (the Rural District was added in 1963) (DLNR 2012). A Conservation District has development restrictions on the land in order to conserve, protect, or preserve the important natural resources of the islands. The Department of Land and Natural Resources has jurisdiction over the Conservation District. The Conservation District has five subzones: Protective (P), Limited (L), Resource (R), General (G) and Special (S). With the exception of the “Special” subzone, the remaining four subzones are arranged in a hierarchy of environmental sensitivity (ranging from the most environmentally sensitive (Protective) to the least sensitive (General)). The objective of resource (R) subzone is to develop, with proper management, areas to ensure sustained use of the natural resources of those areas. The following uses are permitted in the (R) subzone: all permitted uses in the (P) and (L) subzone; aquaculture; artificial reefs; and commercial fishing operations.

Table 3 Subzone Descriptions of Conservation Districts

Subzone Objective Protective (P) Protect valuable natural and cultural resources in designated

areas such as restricted watersheds, marine, plant, and wildlife sanctuaries, significant historic, archaeological, geological, and volcanological feature and sites, and other designated unique areas.

Limited (L) Limit uses where natural conditions suggest constraints on human activities. This would include lands susceptible to floods and soil erosion; and lands necessary for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the public by reason of land’s susceptibility to natural hazards.

Resource (R) *Kahana’s designation

To ensure, with proper management, the sustainable use of the natural resource of those areas. This includes lands necessary for providing future parkland and land presently used for national, state, county, or private parks; and lands suitable for growing and harvesting resources.

General (G) To designate open space where specific conservation uses may not be defined, but where urban use would be premature.

Special (S) To provide for sustainable use of areas possessing unique developmental qualities that complements the natural resources of the area.

Kahana’s designation as a Resource subzone permits, with proper management,

the growing and harvesting of resources. Determining the method and type of


resources grown in Kahana is critical to ensuring sustainable practices and preservation of the resources. Management questions should include:

• What crops should be cultivated? • What are high priority plants that promote native culture and support Hawaiian

ecosystems? • What methods of cultivation are sustainable and not harmful to the native

environment? • What restrictions and guidance should be provided to farmers whom lease

agricultural lots and for community led agricultural projects? Subsistence agriculture production of indigenous and culturally significant plants

is consistent with the intent of the park’s purpose of being a cultural living park and works to protect native forests and watersheds. It would be ideal to repair and invigorate loʻi (flooded taro terraces). The building and maintenance of loʻi and the ʻauwai (irrigation ditch system) requires a communal effort and all farmers would share in the use of the water (Krauss 1993). Kalo (taro) is the most important staple food to Native Hawaiians as described in several legends about its origin.

Does Kahana Have the Proper Subzone Designation?

Due to the special resources within Kahana, it is necessary to analyze whether it is appropriate for the entire ahupuaʻa to be designated as a single Resource subzone. The following questions and considerations arise when considering subzones for Kahana:

• Is it possible to designate multiple subzones in one ahupuaʻa? • There are 119 surface archeological sites which include 466 features, a valuable

watershed and sensitive marine, wildlife and plant species in Kahana that possibly warrants a Protective subzone status (Hommon 1972).

• Which subzone designations should different parts of Kahana have? Developing an alternate way to micro-subzone Kahana that incorporates special,

limited and protected subzones along with the resource subzone will allow for greater protection of the valuable natural and cultural resources, sustainable agriculture use, and the recreational enjoyment of visitors.

For example, areas within Kahana that have a high concentration of important

archeological and cultural sites should be designated as a Protected subzone in order to preserve and safeguard these irreplaceable locations. Additionally, Kahana has valuable endemic and native plant species and wildlife, of which, could have an


enhanced opportunity to flourish under a Protected subzone. The marine life found in Kahana’s streams, fishpond and bay are critical elements of the coastal habitat. Zoning that is more restrictive than the Resource subzone may be necessary for their protection. However, some areas within Kahana should certainly continue to be a Resource subzone in order to practice agriculture, inhabit and enjoy.

3.1.5 State Coastal Zone Management Program Kahana Valley is designated as a Special Management Area (SMA) under the

State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. Special controls on development are required in SMAs to avoid the permanent loss of valuable resources and the foreclosure of management options and to ensure adequate access by dedication or other means, to public owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves.

The CZM has initiated the Place-, Culture-, and Community-Based Approaches

to Natural and Cultural Resource Management Project that aims to develop an integrated planning framework for natural and cultural resource management in Hawaii. The framework is based upon principles derived from the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan (ORMP). The ORMP has adopted three perspectives that are very much applicable to management of Kahana’s resources (Hawaii CZM 2008):

• Perspective 1: Connecting Land and Sea. Careful and appropriate use

of the land is directly linked to the preservation of a diverse array of ecological, social, cultural, and economic benefits we derive from the sea.

• Perspective 2: Preserving Our Ocean Heritage. A vibrant and healthy ocean environment is the foundation for the quality of life in Hawaii and the well-being of its people now, now and for generations to come.

• Perspective 3: Promoting Collaboration and Stewardship. Working together and sharing knowledge, experience, and resource will improve and sustain our efforts to care for land and sea.

The CZM program has several community partners and is a wealth of information related to best practices and lessons learned in natural and cultural resource management.


Figure 13 Special Management Area Map of Kahana


3.1.6 Climate Kahana has wet and dry seasons with mild and fairly uniform temperatures (Mogi

1974). There is extreme geographic variation in rainfall ranging from 60 inches per year at the coast to over 300 inches per year at the crest of the Koʻolau Range. The warm climate and consistent rainfall allow for year-round growing conditions. For the native Hawaiian farmer, weather was associated with two seasons: kau (summer), which began in May and was dry and hot; and hoʻoilo (winter), which began in October when it became rainy and chilly (Krauss 1993). The phases of the moon determined when to prepare soil, plant, harvest, and process plant materials (Krauss 1993).

The warm climate also allows for residents and visitors to enjoy the valley’s

natural beauty and outdoor activities any time of the year. There is hiking, camping, historical and sacred sites, as well as an array of ocean activities.

3.1.7 Water Sources

Water is absolutely central to an ahupuaʻa, being the lifeblood of the land. Wai, the Hawaiian word for water, was considered sacred to the ancient Hawaiians. The term waiwai is the equivalent of wealth. Water was historically managed in such a manner that it had long-term benefits to the land itself. Water was distributed through the land, as opposed to being concentrated along stream courses, to increase fertility of the land and percolate into the water table. Native Hawaiian water rights were considered communal and required farmers to participate in the construction and maintenance of irrigation ditches. No person was above contributing to the required maintenance of the vital water supply.

“Fresh water as a life-giver was not to the Hawaiians merely a physical element; it had a spiritual connotation. In prayers of thanks and convocations used in offering fruits of the land, and in prayers chanted when planting, and in prayers for the rain, the “Water of Life of Kane” is referred to over and over again. Kane-the word means “male” and “husband” –was the embodiment of male procreative energy in fresh water, flowing on or under the earth in springs in streams and rivers, and falling as rain (and also as sunshine), which gives life to plants (Handy 1991).” Kahana is one of the wettest places on Oʻahu. The valley possesses a complete

and well-defined watershed ecosystem, ranging from steep mountain headwaters to tidal estuaries. Kahana Stream and its principal tributary, Kawa Stream, are the main


water sources in Kahana. The streams and tributaries of Kahana Valley are classified as inland waters and are given the designation of Class 1.awhich is the highest and most restrictive classification for inland waters in State regulations (Wybam 1995). The Waiahole Ditch/Kahana Development Tunnel diverts water from Kahana and has resulted in all stream channels above 800 feet to be dry except during moderate to heavy rains. Approximately two million gallons of water per day are taken from the Kahana watershed through the Waiahole water system (Jaworowski2001).Despite the diversion into Kahana-Waikane-Waiahole Ditch system which began in 1916, Kahana Valley produces the largest volume of unused runoff of any watershed on Windward Oʻahu (Mogi 1974). This makes it an ideal location for loʻi. Community initiatives have taken place to restore loʻi and the Huilua fishpond. Clearing invasive plant species from streams in the valley is a critical part of the success of these restoration projects.

The below map indicates the major streams in Kahana. Kawa Stream and

Kahana Stream join about one and one-fourth miles from the sea. Kahana Bay is 2400 to 4000 feet wide and nearly three-fourths of a mile long. The waters in it and in the estuary are designated Class AA under the State’s water quality regulations.

Figure 14 Streams in Kahana. (Hammond 1989)


Under Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (HAR) §11-54-3, the objective of Class 1 inland waters is to remain in their natural state as nearly as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution from any human caused source. Efforts are taken to protect the wilderness character of these areas. Waste discharge into Class 1 waters is prohibited. Any conduct which results in a demonstrable increase in levels of point or nonpoint source contamination in Class 1waters is prohibited. Inland, Class 1.a waters are the most protected and restrictive waters in the state. The uses to be protected in Class 1.a waters are scientific and educational purposes, protection of native breeding stock, baseline references from which human-caused changes can be measured, compatible recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, and other non-degrading uses which are compatible with the protection of the ecosystems associated with waters of this class.

Marine waters that are classified as AA are to remain in their natural pristine state as nearly as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution or alteration of water quality from any human-caused source or actions. The wilderness character of these areas shall be protected to the extent practicable. HAR §11-54-3 further describes that no zones of mixing are permitted in this class within a defined reef area, in waters of a depth less than 18 meters, or in waters up to a distance of 300 meters off shore if there is no defined reef area and if the depth is greater than 18 meters. The uses to be protected in this class of waters are oceanographic research, the support and propagation of shellfish and other marine life, conservation of coral reefs and wilderness areas, compatible recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment. The classification of any water area as Class AA does not precludes other uses of the waters compatible with these objectives and in conformance with the criteria applicable to them.

The classifications of inland and marine waters in Kahana are clearly the most

restrictive and protective. This will work to preserve and perpetuate many resources for future generations. However, these classifications could make renovations or restorations of fishponds and boat ramps more difficult. Extensive permitting is likely required for any restoration or alteration involving inland and marine waters.

Stream Maintenance

The influx and reduction to flows and the conditions of streams in Kahana directly impacts agricultural production. Waipiʻo Valley, located on the island of Hawaii, has similar stream maintenance concerns as Kahana.Similar issues regarding management in Waipiʻo include flooding, maintaining the ʻauwai system, native aquatic life, abiding by regulations and attaining permits, and the cost of maintenance (NRCS 2006). Currently, Waipiʻo Valley has a stream management plan that could provide guidance in developing a stream management plan for Kahana. Waipiʻo’s management plan works


to reduce damage caused by flooding by increasing stream stability and improve its recovery ability. Figure 15 depicts the method Waipiʻo Valley uses to restore their streams.

Figure 15 Stream Corridor Concept

Source: NRCS 02/24/2006 Waipi’o Valley Stream Management Plan. Honolulu:

USDA for Fig. 15, 16 and 17.

Further, the process of maintenance and rehabilitation likely requires permitting. The below chart, created by the Waipiʻo Stream Management Plan (2006) can be used as a guide in navigating the complex permitting process.


Figure 16 Permit Chart for Non-Governmental Activities in Streams and Wetlands


Additionally, the Waipiʻo Valley Stream Management Plan (2006) provides a useful hand labor and equipment comparison chart that could be used when implementing maintenance projects and considering budget constraints.

Figure 17 Hand Labor and Equipment Comparison Chart

Source: NRCS, 02/24/2006. Waipi’o Valley Stream Management Plan. Honolulu: USDOA.


3.1.8 Soil

The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has identified seventeen different types of soils in Kahana Valley. The makai(towards the ocean) end of the floor of the lower valley contains sand derived from coralline reefs and the soils found in the flood-plains adjacent to all the major watercourses has relatively high organic content (Wybam 1995). Kahana falls in the inceptisols soil order which is in the following families: very fine, kaolinitic, and isohyperthermic oxic dystrustepts.

Figure 18 describes the dominant soil types found in Kahana and the amount of

acres of that soil type. This corresponds with the Kahana Valley State Park Soils Map, which shows where each soil type is located in the valley. Soils of the “Hanalei Family” are suitable for agricultural and forestry land use. Soils of this family are classified as young soils, formed from recent alluvium in wet regions where rainfall is between 40 and 250 inches (Lennox 1954). Both figures can be excellent resources in determining optimal areas for farming in Kahana.


Figure 18 Dominant Soil Types in Kahana (Mogi, 1974)

Map Symbol

Acres Soil Name Description of Soil and Site

HnA 110 Hanalei silty 0 to 2 percent slopes

Poorly drained silty clay, more than 5 feet thick under-lain by alluvium. Subject to seepage and overflow. HoR 36 Hanalei stony silty

clay. 2 to 5 percent slopes

JaC 33 Jaucas loamy sand. 0 to 12 percent slopes

Excessively-drained loamy sand, underlain by water or wind laid coral sand. Occurs on the coastal plain adjacent to the ocean. JcC Jaucas sand, saline 0

to 12 percent slopes KaC 51 Kaena clay, 6 to 12

percent slopes Poorly-drained clay about 5 feet thick underlain by clayey alluvium soil are subject to seepage.

Kfo 3 Kaloko clay, non calcareous variant

Very poorly-drained clays more than 5 feet thick that developed in fine textured alluvium.

KmA 22 Keaau clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Poorly-drained clay underlain by reef limestone or consolidated sand of 20 to 36 inches.

Mt 29 Mokuleia clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Well-drained clay loam underlain by coral sand at depths between 12 to 30 inches.

TR 80 Tropaquepts Very poorly-drained soils, that are underlain by clayey alluvium.

WiB 102 Waialua Stony clay. 3 to 8 percent slopes

Moderately well-drained silty clay soil that are commonly stony. They are over 50 feet thick and underlain by clayey alluvium.

WpC Waikaine silty clay, 8 to 15 percent slopes

Well drained silty clay soils developed in alluvium weathered from basalt. The depth to highly weathered gravel ranges from 30 to more than 60 inches.


Figure 19 Soil Characterstics in Ahupuaʻa O Kahana (Mogi, 1974)


A survey completed by the Farm Planning Soil Conservation Survey (1953) provides excellent information regarding soil and land conditions in Kahana. This information is displayed in Table 4 and the Kahana Land Conditions Map. The map has been regenerated in GIS to provide easy visualization with corresponding structures. Note that some of the pasture areas with wet conditions are labeled “not suited for cultivation,” however these areas may be ideal for taro cultivation. Moreover, some areas that are labeled “suitable for cultivation” may not protect the resources and ecology of Kahana. It is important to consider the source of the data derived from The Farm Planning Soil Conservation Survey (1953). The intent of the survey may have likely been to utilize Kahana for grazing and farming, but not to maintain an ahupuaʻa in the traditional Hawaiian manner. In fact, grazing can cause significant damages to the land. More appropriate uses may be conservation, planting, and farming. Many of the historical loʻi are in areas in which the survey claims that land capacity is not suitable for cultivation. However, this information is still very valuable in zoning optimal areas for agriculture.


Area Existing Use

*In 1953

Root Feeding Zone

Texture Permeability Slope Associated Land Factors

Land Capacity

Land Condition

Dominant Limitation

1 Pasture Deep Heavy Moderate 1% Wet bottom land; extremely

wet

Not for cultivation

No erosion

Water table within 10” of surface

2 Pasture Deep Heavy Moderate 1% Permanent water table condition

Suited for cultivation

No erosion

High water table

3 Pasture & Taro

Deep Heavy Moderate 1% Permanent water table condition

Not suited for

cultivation

No erosion


4 Pasture & Taro

Moderately Deep

Heavy Moderate 1% Permanent water table condition

Not for cultivation

Very severe erosion


5 Residential Deep Coarse (sandy)

Rapid 1% Permanent water table condition


No erosion

Coarse textured soil

6 Residential Deep Coarse (sandy)

Very Rapid 1% Very frequent overflow


No erosion

Frequent overflow

7 Brush Shallow Heavy Rapid 55% Low, humid; steep forest land; lava

under

Not for cultivation

Severe erosion

Very steep slope

8 Fruit Trees Deep Heavy gravel

Rapid 10% Good farm but needs

treatment; lava under


Slight erosion

Moderate slope


Rapid 5% Good farm land; lava

under


Slight erosion

Gentle slope and potential erosion

Table 4 Soil and Land Condition Map of Kahana (1953

)


Area Existing Use

*In 1953

Root Feeding Zone


Land Capacity

Land Condition

Dominant Limitation

10 Pasture Deep Heavy Moderate 2% Moderately wet; lava under


Slight erosion

Seasonal wetness including flooding


Rapid 10% Good farm but needs

treatment; lava under


Slight erosion

Moderate slope

12 Brush Moderately Deep

Heavy Rapid 30% Rainfall 60-90”; lava under

Not for cultivation

Moderate erosion

Steep slope and stones

13 Woodland Moderately Deep

Heavy

Rapid 50% Low, humid; deep forest land; lava

under

Not suited for

cultivation

Moderate erosion

Steep slope

14 Woodland Shallow Heavy Rapid 70% Lava under Not for suited

cultivation

Severe erosion

15 Fruit Trees Deep Heavy Rapid 15% Lava under Suited for cultivation

Moderate erosion

Steep slope

16 Brush Moderately deep

Medium Moderate 50% Lava under Not suited for

cultivation

Very severe erosion

Steep slope

17 Fruit Trees & brush

Deep Medium Rapid 15% Occasional overflow


Slight erosion

Moderately steep slope

18 Fruit Trees Deep Medium Rapid 10% Occasional overflow


Slight erosion

Moderate slope

19 Fruit Trees Deep Heavy Moderate 10% Suited for cultivation

Slight erosion

Moderate slope

20 Pasture Deep Heavy Moderate 3% Moderately wet land


Slight erosion

Seasonal wetness including flooding


Area Existing Use

*In 1953

Root Feeding Zone


Land Capacity

Land Condition

Dominant Limitation

21 Pasture Deep Medium Rapid 1% Moderately wet land


Slight erosion

Possible flooding

22 Brush Deep Medium Rapid 25% Not suited for

cultivation

Moderate erosion

Steep slope

23 Fruit Trees Deep Medium Rapid 12% Suited for cultivation

Slight erosion

Moderate slope

24 Pasture Deep Heavy Moderate 6% Suited for cultivation

Slight erosion


25 Pasture Deep Heavy Moderate 6% Suited for cultivation

Slight erosion



Rapid 8% Suited for cultivation

Slight erosion

Moderate slope

27 Brush Deep Heavy gravel

Rapid 15% Suited for cultivation

Slight erosion

Moderately steep slope

28 Brush, Fruit Trees,

Truck crops

Moderately deep

Heavy Rapid 30% Lava under Not for cultivation

Moderate erosion

Steep slope

29 Pasture Moderately deep

Heavy gravel

Rapid 3% Gravel under Slight erosion

30 Pasture Moderately deep

Medium Very slow 1% Coral under Not for cultivation

No erosion

Wetness

Table 2 Belt Collins and Assoc. LTD, 1955 (Robinson Agency 1953 Data).


Figure 20 Sketch Map of 1953 Kahana Land Condition


Figure 21 Georeferenced Map of 1953 Kahana Land Condition


3.1.9 Agriculture

Native Hawaiians exhibited an extremely sophisticated level of agricultural engineering that was sustainable and efficient. In particular, there were three main technological advances that resulted in production intensification in pre-contact Hawaii (i.e. prior to Western contact) including walled fishponds, terraced pond-fields with irrigation systems, and systematic dry-land field cultivation organized by vegetation zones (Kelly 1989). The native inhabitants of Kahana demonstrated the knowledge and use of all three technological advances.

There are archeological remnants of 120 small loʻi (extended stone-faced,

terraced pond-fields) and 12 accompanying irrigation systems, ʻauwai, in Kahana (Mogi 1974). Researchers hypothesize that the number of loʻi identified only represents a small fraction of the number that once existed (Mogi 1974). Water brought in ditches from the springs and streams high in the valleys irrigated the terraces, allowing for extensive areas in Kahana to be cultivated. One ʻauwai documented was over 10,000 feet long (Mogi 1974). Cool water was circulated among the taro plants from terrace to terrace without stagnations or overheating as a result of high-level engineering of ditches and pond-fields. Further, the flow of the water was controlled to prevent flooding or erosion. Loʻi was also used to raise freshwater fish and if managed properly, it would not need rest and could cultivate kalo year-round.

Some of Kahana’s traditional loʻi were described by Sterling and Summer in the

book Sites of Oahu (1978):

“In Kahana, according to Earnest Rankin now of Nanakuli there were terraces up the main stream only. A trail follows upstream, and some of the terraces are still planted. 33 years ago, when Rankin was on the Kahana Ranch, a man named Kenui planted extensively in the interior. In 1907, there were also planting along the shore. Nick Peterson, in charge of the Foster Estate lands confirmed Rankin in the statement that there were no old terraces up the valley of the left-hand stream. Following the trail up the broad main stream, the most inland planting area observed was a large level area of about 30 acres east of the ridge trail and about 2.8 miles upstream from the sea. It is now under hau and guava, though it was undoubtedly in terraces formerly. About a quarter of a mile below there is a V-shaped, level area of perhaps 10 to 12 acres, now covered with honohono grass and rushes. This is Hanaiwi, according to Mrs. Kanakaole, and was a taro plantation. A spectacular clump of huge ape grows in one corner, and the whole area can be viewed advantageously from the ridge to westward, where old breadfruit trees and Hawaiian bamboo, growing among the wild forest verdure,


indicate that the locality was once a well-settled dwelling place. On the western slope of this narrow ridge there are breadfruit trees also; a small flatland which may have been planted borders a rivulet below.

Just below Hanaiwi is Puulena, a considerable swampy area along the main stream (Kahawainui). Anciently this swamp was planted in taro by the puʻepuʻe method of mounding in marshland. On the dry land above this swamp and leading to the ridge, more old mangos, breadfruit trees, and Hawaiian bamboos indicate another ancient dwelling place, with the main stream flowing along its western border.

The broad lower part of the valley, about a half mile wide, must have had a

terrace area comparable to that of Manoa Valley. This area is now under sugar cane. Where the cane fields end, about 1.25 miles inland along the trail up the main stream, there is an old taro flat, now plowed up but with some taro still persisting; it is surrounded by bananas. Nearer the sea, a group of small terraces, apparently watered by springs, is under cultivation between the highway and the mountain east of Huilua Pond. From this point up the mouth of the valley from some distance there appears to be terrace flats under the guava and remains of cane plantings. Along the base of the western side of the valley, from a quarter to a half mile from the sea, the old terraced levels are plainly marked under the grass and cut cane.

According to Mrs. Kanakaole and Mrs. Maria Kahawaii, the point farthest

up Kahawainui Stream, where old Kenui used to cultivate terraces, was named Paaku. They knew the names of eight other terrace areas up the main stream, including Hanaiwi and Puulena. At the upper end of the level land on the western side of the valley was a terrace area known as Halii, next to it was a terrace section called Akaka. According to Mrs. Kanakaole, in the lower valley there used to be a fishpond on what is now the site of Nick Peterson’s house, and south and east of this pond were two terrace plantations formerly known as Aiea and Kapaloa. Near these, and extending to what is now Tanaka’s place on the eastern side of the valley, was another terrace area named Kaluakanaka. Three other land sections both above and below this were in terraces. There were also terraces on the land called Pahanahou, where the church now stands, and a small plantation named Puuohua beside the highway east of the bay. Kukuiula is a small gulch running eastward front of the fishpond on this same side of the bay, and according to Mrs. Kahawaii, there used to be terraces up this gulch.” –Handy, Hawaiian Planter, p. 92


Many of these described terrace plantations have been bolded and can be identified on the Mogi (1974) Archaeology map. Please note that on this map “Aiea” is referred to as “Kaaiea” and “Kukuiula” is referred to as “Hukuiula.”

Figure 22 1953 Archaelogy Map


The water that flowed through the loʹ i became highly nutritious and was directed into the fishponds in Kahana. This process made the fishponds an algae growing pasture for herbivorous fish.

The land in Kahana allowed for a subsistence economy, which encouraged

Native Hawaiians to develop extremely efficient and productive cultivation techniques for their crops. Native Hawaiians considered themselves as caretakers of the ʻāina and ensured that agricultural efforts were sustainable. Their relationship with the environment was embedded in their culture and world views. Hawaiians believe that the kalo plant to be a sibling of the first human and provides sustenance and nourishment to Hawaiians in return for respect and care.

Ancient Hawaiians recognized the value of what today is known as “organic

farming”: integrating into their cultivated areas such plant materials as weeds that grew during the fallow periods and unused leafy portions of food plants, a type of green-manuring (Krauss 1993). With this type of composting, no other use of animal excreta was necessary (Krauss 1993). The promotion of diversified agriculture that produces fruits and vegetables for local consumption would work to reach goals of food self-sufficiency and energy independence.

Native Hawaiian agriculture was the only type of agriculture found in Kahana until

around the end of the 1800s when plots of farmable lands were leased to rice planters. Eventually, Kaneohe Ranch leased land used as pasture for the ranch’s cattle. In the 1930s, land was leased for sugar cane farming. Today, some taro farms have been restored and other agricultural lands lay fallow.

3.1.10 Fishponds

The Hawaiian walled fishpond is the most technologically advanced fishpond system in Oceania (Kelly 1989). The utilization of the herbivore link to cultivate fish allowed for an accelerated process of the natural food chain by allowing feeding directly on minute algae, diatoms growing on larger algae at the bottom of the pond, and organic detritus (Kelly 1989). This brilliant process raised the natural food chain efficiency of protein production by 100 times (Kelly 1989). Kahana’s Huilua fishpond is an example of this genius technological achievement.

Huilua fishpond is situated in the southeastern portion of Kahana Bay. It is the

only fishpond on Oʻahu connected to an intact ahupuaʻa (Wybam 1995). Huilua fishpond is a lokokuapa or enclosed seashore fishpond although it shares similarities to puʻuone ponds (inland ponds built behind sand dunes). It is adjacent to Kahana Bay


and Kahana Stream. The fishpond is seven acres in area including water and berms of sand accretion. It is often classified as a kuapa fishpond (ocean reef flat enclosed by a seawall) (Wybam 1995). The fishpond’s shape is similar to a right triangle with its 90° angle at the northwest corner. The west and north walls define the fishpond borders from the adjacent water resources. There are freshwater springs within the pond.

Figure 23 Map of Huilua Fishpond in 1920 (Apple 1975)

It is a historic site on both the Federal and State Registers of Historic Landmarks

(Wybam 1995). A good amount of information on the Huilua fishpond is available including documented operations of the fishpond in the 1920s and oral history. The 1920s estimate of production was 1,000 lbs of product per year (Wybam 1995). Presently, Huilua is in a deteriorated state due to damages by the forces of nature and alteration by modern machinery.


Kahana Valley also has two other known fishponds. Evidence of a loko wai (freshwater pond) referred to as Wailua exists within Kahana Stream inland from Kamehameha Highway (Wybam 1995). Mauka (towards the mountain) of the highway and inland of West Kahana Bay is another inland pond (i.e. puʻuone) referred to as Pukoko. Figure 24 indicates the locations of the three known fishponds.

Figure 24 Location of three Known Fishponds

Source: Wyban, 1995.

There are several laws and regulations that impact the ability to maintain, utilize and enforce the waters located in the fishponds of Kahana. Understanding the different laws and regulations, what it impacts and who has jurisdiction can allow for an easier restoration process and implementation of interpretive programs related to fishponds. Permits must be acquired from federal, state, and county agencies before starting any fishpond restoration. Hawaiian fishponds occur at the shoreline, which is a zone that interfaces land and ocean resulting in a very complex jurisdiction. This zone is heavily regulated, needs many permits to conduct restoration, and likely entails a costly Environmental Impact Statement.


Table 5 Important Laws and Regulations

Law and/or Regulation: Concerns: Jurisdiction/Enforcer Section 10 Rivers & Harbor

Act, 1899 (33 USC 403) Dredging of fishpond requires

a permit Federal: Army Corps of

Engineers Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 401)

Dredging of fishpond Federal: Army Corps of Engineers; State:

Department of Health, Clean Waters Division

Boating Boating in the fishpond for purposes other than research

and maintenance is prohibited.

State: DLNR

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

guidelines

NPDES guidelines sets a production limit of 100,000

lbs per year. No “point source” discharge of

pollutants into any waterways is permitted without a permit

issued under NPDES guidelines.

Federal

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended 916

USC 1451 et seq

State: Coastal Zone Management

Conservation District Use Permits

State

HRS 183, Title 13 Ch 2 State: Office of Conservation and

Environmental Affairs Special Management Areas

– HRS 205A, Part II, as amended

County: City and County of Honolulu,

Planning Dept. Environmental Impact

Statement (343 HRS) or Environmental Assesment

State permit

Many studies and reports on the fishponds found in Kahana have been completed.

These reports can be excellent resources for developing a fishpond restoration and maintenance plan. Reports on Kahana’s Fishponds:

• McAllister (1933): Information about the fishpond. • Apple & Kikuchi (1975): Discussed Huilua fishpond in a state-wide study of fishponds.


• Kelly, Marion (1979): Anthropological study on Huilua fishpond • Wyban, Carol (1990): Feasibility study on Huilua fishpond. • Rothwell & Madden (1980): Theory of Huilua’s origination. • Carpenter & Yent (1993): DLNR, State Parks Division. Archeological Investigations at

Huilua Fishpond. • Hommon & Barrera (1971): Bishop Museum Archaeological Survey of Kahana Valley • Hommon & Barrera (1972): Excavations in Kahana Valley, Oahu. Bishop Museum. • Sinoto (1979): Archaeological Pre-Stabilization Assessment of Huilua Fishpond.

Bishop Museum. • Oral history & legends

3.1.11 Hazards The number, type and intensity of natural hazards in Kahana impact the likelihood of a disaster occurring in the community. Other factors that impact the probability of a disaster include vulnerability and the capacity to cope with the hazard or potential disaster. Communities can work to minimize vulnerabilities and increase capacity in order to avoid disasters. The major natural hazards that are prevalent in Kahana include flooding and tsunamis. Analyzing the potential impact of these hazards, areas in which Kahana may be vulnerable to hazards and their capacity to deal with disasters will allow for recommended implementation measures.

Disaster = (Vulnerability + Hazard) / Capacity

The Flood Zones and Contour Lines Map indicates areas within the valley of Kahana that are susceptible to flooding. The most vulnerable areas to flooding in Kahana have a 0.2 percent chance of annual flooding. These vulnerable areas generally have low elevations. Flooding in these areas can be caused by tsunami and ocean waves, heavy rain or river stream overflow. Several structures, a large part of the coastal area, and the main highway access to Kahana fall within the 100 year floodplains. Future structures built this area could utilize poles or stilts to provide protection from flooding. Many residential leases were placed at higher elevations outside of the 100 year floodplains. This area is considered suitable for homes since it is relatively safe. However, some residents expressed that the new residential area does experience flooding or mudding conditions during heavy rains. The stream health may need to be analyzed to determine if clearing is necessary to allow for water flow and minimize the hazard of flooding.


Figure 25 Flood Zones and Contour Lines


The Tsunami Evacuation Zone Map indicates areas within the valley of Kahana that are susceptible to tsunamis. There are several structures, homes, and recreational areas within the tsunami inundation zone. Further, the main access road to get in and out of Kahana is within the tsunami inundation zone. Meaning, it could potentially be difficult to get in and out of Kahana if there was a severe tsunami and the coastal road was blocked. Many residents and park users in the tsunami inundation zone would need to evacuate to higher elevations within the valley during a tsunami warning. The evacuation period could take several hours. This could create the situation of having several people, pets and vehicles on one of the higher elevated roads in the upper Kahana residential area. A tsunami evacuation shelter, restroom and parking area outside of the inundation zone would provide a safe refuge for these residents and park users without blocking the road. Tsunami Evacuation Zone Map provides a suggested location for an emergency evacuation shelter. Methods to Increase Community Capacity Increasing a community’s capacity works to decrease the severity of disasters. Preparedness, training, education and response readiness are methods that improve a community’s capacity to disasters. Kahana residents outside of the inundation zone could partner with residents inside of the inundation zone to provide shelter during a tsunami. These partnerships could build community collaboration and provide an opportunity for residents to discuss evacuation and disaster preparedness procedures. All residents should maintain emergency preparedness kits and participate in annual disaster preparedness training. A community emergency preparedness kit could be implemented in the evacuation shelter and include a generator, self-sufficient drinking water systems, and other critical tools to that would mitigate a disaster. Venn Diagram:

ResidentTraining

PreparednessCommunityCollabora6on


Figure 26 Tsunami Evacuation Zone


3.1.12 Population It is estimated that Kahana may have had between 600 and 1,000 people before

Western contact (Jaworowski 2001). Western contact brought many diseases resulting in a decline of the native population. At the time of the Great Mahele, there were an estimated 200 people in Kahana (Jaworoski 2001). Currently, the resident population is an estimated 260. The residents of Kahana are considered the stewards of the valley’s natural resources. Therefore, it is important to analyze whether the current population numbers is sufficient to manage these resources. Community partners are likely play a critical role to maintaining and caring for Kahana’s resources.

3.1.13 Resource Potential Kahana’s resource potential in terms of the land’s usefulness for crop production

is important to analyze to understand carrying capacity and food security capabilities. The carrying capacity of humans in Kahana provides an idea of the maximum population size that the ahupuaʻa can sustain while ensuring the preservation of the ecosystem for future generations. A self-sufficient, sustainable, and effective food production system can prepare the community for natural disasters and economic risks, as well as, promote healthier diets and offer a food sovereignty model for the State of Hawaii.

Currently, Hawaiʻi imports most of its food supply and is at the mercy to global events over which the state has very little influence or control (PingSun2008). For example, oil price surges, food safety, and supply disruptions can greatly impact the cost, quality and amount of food available for import to the islands. Producing more locally grown foods will improve Hawaii’s food security, local economy, and the nutritional content of food. Additionally, it reduces Hawaiʻi’s carbon footprint and potential of introducing harmful invasive species. Most significantly, producing food locally increases Hawaii’s food self-sufficiency.

In order to determine the land’s usefulness for crop production, it is necessary to consider the soil classification, resident vegetation and topography. The historical locations of cultivated crops and pastures are also critical in determining resource potential. According to studies conducted by The Farm Planning Soil Conservation Survey (1953), Beggerly (1990), and the Mogi Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (1974), the areas suitable for farming generally fell in locations with less than a fifteen percent slope. An adaptation of the Robinson Agency Map (1955) below indicates where pastures and taro fields were located. As discussed, this map does have biases towards plantation use and should be used carefully.


Figure 27 Land Use Map in 1953


Figure 28 Vegetation Map 1974


What to Grow?

Culturally significant plants that were brought to Hawaiʻi by the original Polynesians include (Krauss 1993):

• ʻApe (elephant's ear) • ʻAwa (kawa) • ʻAwapuhi Kuahiwi (shampoo ginger) • Ipu (gourd) • Kalo (taro) • Kamani (Alexandrian laurel) • Ki (ti) • Ko (sugar cane) • Kou • Kukui (candlenut) • Maiʻa (banana)

• Milo (portia tree) • Niu (coconut) • Noni (Indian mulberry) • ʻOhe (bamboo) • ʻOhiʻa ʻAi (mountain apple) • ʻOlena (turmeric) • Olona, Pia (Polynesian arrowroot) • ʻUala (sweet potato) • Uhi (yam) • ʻUlu (breadfruit) • Wauke (paper mulberry)

Other important indigenous and endemic plants to Hawaii include (Krauss 1993):

• Aloalo (native hibiscus) • Hala (screw pine) • Hapuʻu (tree fern) • Hau (hibiscus) • ʻIliahi (sandalwood) • ʻIlima • Koa • Koaiʻa (Acacia koaia) • Koali ʻawa (morning glory) • Lauaʻe (maile scented fern) • Kolokolo kahakai (beach vitex)

• Loulu (fan palm) • Maile • Mamaki • Maʻo (Hawaiian cotton) • Milo (Portia tree) • Nanu (native gardenia) • Naupaka kahakai (beach naupaka) • Naupaka kuahiwi (mountain

naupaka) • ʻOhiʻa lehua • Pili (twisted beard grass)

Major plant communities identified in a 1972 botanical survey of Kahana

conducted by Theobold and Wirawan included Hala, Hau, Kalo, Koa, Koaiʻa, Kukui, ʻOhe, ʻOhiʻa Lehua, ʻOhiʻa ʻAi, guava, naupaka, and kamani (Mogi 1974). Stauffer (2004) determined that all Kuleana claimants raised kalo. Additional crops raised included ʻawa, banana, beans, fish, oranges, potatoes, and wauke (Stauffer 2004).


E kanu i ka huli ʻoi haʻule ka ua

Plant the taro stalks where there is rain. i.e. Do your work when opportunity affords

Based upon evidence discussed in the “Agriculture” section of this chapter, it is

apparent that a significant amount of kalo was cultivated on loʻi in Kahana. The abundant water supply and fertility of the soils in Kahana still allows for the cultivation of this staple Hawaiian crop. Kalo is an ideal crop to promote based upon its enormous cultural value, growing capabilities and nutrition.

Kalo is one of the most nutritious and easily digested foods. The corms are high in

carbohydrates in the form of starch and low in fat and protein (Leslie 2001). Also, the corm is an excellent source of potassium (higher than banana), carbohydrate for energy, and fiber. The kalo leaves can be eaten as a vegetable for pro-vitamin A carotenoids, calcium, fiber, and vitamins C and B2.

As of 2011, less than 485 acres of kalo were cultivated in the State of Hawaii on

115 farms (NASS 2012). Most cultivation takes place in flooded terraces in Hanalei on Kauai and Waipiʻo on Hawaii Island (Cho 2007).Annual production of kalo in 2011 was 4.1 million pounds with an average price of $0.67 per pound (NASS 2012). The total sale in 2011 was nearly $2.75 million (NASS 2012).Hawaii’s demand for taro is not met by the supply and taro is actually important to fill the gap (Flemming 1994). Kahana has the potential to be a leading kalo producer on Oʻahu where there is the largest population in the State and thus, a big market of consumers.

Source : NASS (2012)


Source: NASS 2012

Potential of Growing Kalo There are archeological remnants of 120 small loʻi in Kahana (Mogi 1974). Researchers hypothesize that the number of loʻi identified only represents a small fraction of the number that once existed (Mogi 1974). In fact, Stauffer (2004) identified 248 to 251 loʻi claimed in Kahana during the Kuleana Act. Of these claims, 244 loʻi awards were granted. Additionally, 120 to 124 loʻi that were lying fallow were claimed (Stauffer 2004). Only 25 of these 120 claims were awarded.

Historical data supports that the actual acreage of 92 awarded loʻi can be determined. The ascertained acreage of these 92 loʻi is 17.8 acres giving an average size of 0.2 acres per loʻi (Stauffer 2004). However, loʻi in Kahana did range from 0.85 acres to 0.1 acres or less. There were at least 181 loʻi on mixed use lots claimed. The mixed use lots contained loʻi, kula, and pahale. Historical records indicate that the mixed use lots also comprised of 23 to 25 kula and 10 pahale. A total acreage of mixed lots can be estimated from using data on the average size of each type and comparing it to the known total.

Mixed Use Lot Composition

Amount Average Size *Derived from Kuleana Act Data by

Stauffer (2004)

Total Acreage

181 loʻi 0.2 acres 36.2 23-25 kula 1.0 acres 24 10 pahale 0.25 acres 2.5

Total 62.7


The actual total is 61.8 acres, which supports that the average sizes of each type of uses calculated can be a good method to estimate actual acreage

This information can be calculated to estimate the potential of kalo production in Kahana. For example, if there were 248 to 251 loʻi claimed in Kahana the total acreage of loʻi can be estimated to be between 49.6 and 50.2 acres given that the average loʻi is 0.2 acres. Additionally, the 120 to 124 loʻi that were lying fallow during the Kuleana Act claims are estimated to be between 24 and 24.8 acres. The total acreage of loʻi claimed and loʻi claimed that were fallow is 73.6 to 75 acres. Given that Hawaii’s 2011 acreage of taro was 485, a total acreage of loʻi in Kahana could make up 13 percent of the entire states acreage.

Number of Loʻi Claimed Average Size Total Acreage 248 to 251 loʻi 0.2 acres 49.6 to 50.2

120 to 124 fallow loʻi 0.2 acres 24 to 24.8 Total Combined Acreage 73.6 to 75

An average of one acre of wet loʻi can produce three to five tons of food per year (Hawaii Island Journal 2004). Using this data, it can be estimated that 73.6 to 75 acres of lo´i could produce 220.8 to 375 tons of food per year.

Estimated Acres of Loʻi Production per Year Total Tons per Year 73.6 to 75 3 tons 220 to 225 73.6 to 75 5 tons 368 to 375

One acre of taro can yield a year round supply of food to support eight to ten

people (Wislon 2004, Kelly 1989). Given this information, the estimated acres of taro in Kahana could support between 588 to 600 people (with the estimate of eight people per year) or 736 to 750 people (with the estimate of 10 people per year). These numbers support the claim that Kahana may have had between 600 and 1,000 people before Western contact. The food production capacity of the fishponds likely augmented this number. Based upon the 2011 average of $0.67 per pound, the potential sales of taro could be between$294,800 and $502,500.


The table below describes the time to maturity and average yield per acre of

crops that were traditionally cultivated in Kahana:

Crop Average time to Maturity Average yield Wetland Kalo 9-16 months depending on

variety, soil conditions and water conditions (Flemming 1994)

3 to 5 tons/acre/year

Banana 12-15 months 30,000 pounds/acre/year Breadfruit Bears fruit 8-10 months

total each year (Meilleur 2004)

6.25 tons/acre/year (Meilleur 2004)

Coconut 7-12 months 75 fruits/year The Traditional Hawaiian Diet

The traditional Hawaiian diet, prior to the arrival of Westerners to Hawaii in 1778,

was largely plant-based, and consisted of mainly starchy and leafy green vegetables, a few fruits, moderate amounts of protein, and minimal fat (Leslie 2001). The nutritional composition of the traditional Hawaiian diet was approximately 7 to 12 percent fat, 75 to 80 percent carbohydrates, and 12 to 15 percent protein (Leslie 2001). Traditional Hawaiian diets have recently been found to be a culturally appropriate community intervention model for improving the health status of Native Hawaiians (Hughes 1998).

Native Hawaiian adults have the highest prevalence of obesity among the five

major ethnic groups in Hawaii with a reported 43% being obese (DOH 2001). Major risks associated with obesity include chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, some cancers, and diabetes. For these reasons, it is extremely important to restore the health status of Native Hawaiians. Diet, coupled with physical activity, is an effective method to achieve this.

The table below provides a nutrient breakdown of a traditional Hawaiian diet and

what types of food could be used to meet this composition.

Nutrient Composition Examples Carbohydrates (75-80%)

• Starchy Vegetables • Leafy Greens • Other Vegetables • Fruits

Kalo (Taro), sweet potato, breadfruit, yams Taro leaves, sweet potato leaves Fern, seaweed Berries, banana, mountain apple


Protein (12-15%) Fish, shellfish, chicken Fat (7-12%) Coconut, chicken, fish, human milk

The specific caloric content of the staple crops are listed below: Crop Calories/gram Calories/pound Kalo (taro) 1.12 508.02 Yam 1.18 535.23 Banana 0.89 403.70 Breadfruit 1.03 467.20 Coconut milk (liquid) 2.30 1043.26 Coconut meat 3.54 1605.72 The resources in Kahana can be utilized to provide a healthy diet and improve overall well-being. Further, Kahana can serve as a sustainable model for food production that meets the resident’s needs, sustains the resources, and generates revenues to contribute to the management of the valley.

3.2. Socio-Economic Conditions

People are an essential part of a cultural living park. Without the people of Kahana, the place would be a cultural park or just a park, but not living. The residents and caretakers of the park are the keepers of the culture, history, resources and traditions. It is important to seek a better understanding of the residents of Kahana in order to identify their strengths, what they want for their community and how they envision Kahana’s future.

3.2.1 Population/ Demography The historical population of the Ahupuaʻa O Kahana is important to analyze for a variety of reasons. Kahana’s role as a “cultural living park” means that it does and will continue to integrate human activities within a natural and agricultural landscape. Whenever this integration is attempted the issue of carrying capacity becomes apparent. The intent of a cultural living park includes perpetuating Hawaiian culture as well as communicating traditional Hawaiian practices to visitors. This makes the demographic context of past practices particularly important. As the state and the people of Kahana develop a new master plan for the ahupuaʻa, considering the past population levels will be important when evaluating issues such as residential leases and caretaking capacity of the park.


The population of Kahana was about 720 people in 1776, which is an estimate

based upon known data and a private conversation between Marion Kelly and Stauffer in 1989. However, there are other estimates of the contact population in Kahana to be around 1,000 people, based on available archeological work and resource capabilities (Stauffer 1990). In general, the estimates of Kahana’s contact population range between 600 and 1000 people. It should be noted that these figures are not exact unless they are based on a recorded census such as one completed by missionaries. Another method is to calculate the carrying capacity or the productivity of food (i.e. fish and crops) from the valley. However this would include both the subsistence for residents and the supply for the outside population. Hence, more study and research is required in this context.

The population of Kahana declined nearly 70 percent by 1832. Western contact

brought diseases which resulted in a drastic decline in the Native Hawaiian population. Kahana’s population reached a low of 90 people in 1866. In 1878, the population had increased to 120. The estimate increases in population4 in Kahana reflects the additions of new Hui members and Chinese and Japanese immigrants brought to Hawaii to work in plantations. Many of the Chinese resided at rice mill sites in Kahana. By 1920, the population of Kahana was 250.

According to Farias et al (1998), there were around 150 people living in Kahana

during the Great Mahele of 1848. However, there was around 375 loʻi claimed during the Kuleana Act which could indicate that more than 150 people lived or had ancestral ties to Kahana. The potential difference in population estimates could be due to emigration to nearby valleys prior to the Great Mahele or perhaps an inaccurate population count.

In 1962, 70 percent of the 150 residents in Kahana were Hawaiian. A 1974

census completed by the Mogi Planning and Research Company determined that there were 140 permanent residents in Kahana. Of the 140 residents 70 percent were Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian, 10 percent Filipino, nine percent Samoan, five percent Chinese, three percent Caucasian, and two percent Japanese (H. Mogi Planning and Research Inc. 1974).

4The increase in Hawaiian Islands' population after 1878 was largely from Asian immigrants, which were mostly Chinese people. Between 1875 and 1898, there were 46,000 Chinese that came to Hawaii (Yent, 2005). The Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian population declined, as a percentage of the total population, from 81.9% in 1878 to 24.4% in 1900 (Schmitt, 1968).


According to the City and County of Honolulu Profile in 2009, the total area of Kahana is 8.945 square miles, with a population of 260 people, and a population density is 29 people per square mile in 2009 (City-Data.com 2009).

Emerging Questions:

• Is the current population of Kahana adequate to maintain the vast natural and cultural resources? This question could be answered through further research on the required number of people, skills and knowledge, and other resources necessary to take care of the natural and cultural resources present in the Kahana and comparing that to the present population’s characteristics.

• If not, are community partnerships in place to support resource management? This could be determined by reviewing the community partnerships and associations that currently exist in the Valley which work towards the idea of a cultural living park.

• Do the current residents possess the skills and ability to perpetuate culture? To answer this question, a survey must be done in order to determine how many people are willing to work towards the development of the cultural living park, what skills and capacity they possess and what additional resources are needed.

• If not, are training programs in place? This question also depends upon the results of a survey. It will be essential to determine if there are groups or community partners in place that could ensure the training programs.

More detailed Kahana population information is provided in Chapter 2.

3.2.2 Socio-Economic Resources Household Income

The 2008 City Profile of Kahana (provided by City-Data.com), found the median

household income to be $40,178. The 2008 State of Hawaiʻi’s median household


income was $64,098. Thus, the number of household income in Kahana was significantly lower (about 37 percent) than the state’s median household income.

Figure 29 Household Income Distribution in Kahana Ahupuaʻa

Source: City-Data.com

Hawaiʻi’s Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism

(DBEDT) conducted a report on income, employment, education, and housing characteristics in Hawaiʻi in 2007. In this survey, locations on Oʻahu were grouped into categories. Kahana was grouped under “Rural Oʻahu,” which included Waianae, Wahiawa, North Shore and Koʻolauloa.

The median household income in Hawaiʻi in 2007 was $63,746, while Rural

Oʻahu areas had the lowest per capita income in the state at $20,658 (about 27 percent lower than the state level). Rural Oʻahu also had the highest unemployment rate in the state between 2005 and 2007, at 8 percent. This unemployment rate was notably higher than the national average. The percentage of people below the poverty level in Kahana is 21 percent, while the State’s poverty level is 10.7 percent. This indicates that people in Kahana Valley lack sufficient financial resources to manage the maintenance and development of a cultural living park alone. DLNR provides valuable financial, administrative, and management resources necessary for upkeep and organization.

The current interpretive program requires each lease holder to perform 20 hours of interpretive services each month. This may be a low priority or difficult for families with incomes significantly lower than the median household income as they are faced


with several other challenges. Low income families may be eager for opportunities to earn extra income or save money. An interpretive program that involves cultivating food or providing paid guided tours may provide one of these opportunities. Understanding the resident’s challenges can assist in the development of interpretive programs that will benefit both the ahupuaʻa and the resident. Emerging Questions:

• Do the income levels of residents impact their capacity to participate in cultural interpretive programs? Further analysis of income level data and gaining an increased understanding how a resident’s income impacts their daily lives would help to answer this question. If the majority of residents’ time is spent working to meet basic needs then, it would be difficult to participate in the interpretive programs.

• Are there ways to allow for optimal participation in interpretive programs that also support the basic needs of the residents? It is critical that DLNR, the Kahana Advisory Board, and the residents work together to find incentives that meet the requirements of interpretive programs and support the basic needs of residents. An interpretive program that both supports the mission of a cultural park and provides for resident’s needs has the highest probability of participation and success.

Occupations

The following chart describes job profiles and the percentage of male and female population involved in the various occupations in 2009: Occupation Male Population Female

Population Management 6.1% 3.1% Business and Financial Operations 3.3% 7.5% Computer & Mathematical 1.6% Architectural & Engineering 1.7% Life, Physical & Social Sciences 1.3% 1.1% Community & Social Services 1.4% 1.2% Education, Training & Library 1.8% 9.7% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media 2.3% Healthcare Practitioners & Technical 2.3% 8.6%


Occupation Male Population Female Population

Service 23.8% 20.2% Sales & Office 14.5% 37.4% Construction, Extraction & Maintenance 14.4% 1.1% Production 5.0% 5.0% Transportation & Material moving 13.3% 1.8% Farming, Fishing & Forestry 1.8% Total 100% 100% Source: City-Data.com

The majority of people work in the service, sales, office, construction, extraction,

and maintenance industries. These skills could be utilized in maintaining facilities and resources within Kahana. It is important to note that a very low percentage of people work in the farming, fishing, and forestry industry. This is concerning since skills involved in these industries are critical to perpetuating a cultural living park. There are limited jobs available in the farming, fishing and forestry industries. Also, many jobs in this industry do not meet the demands of the high cost of living on Oahu. However, these skills can be taught or practiced.

Educational Attainment

There is not a recent survey that captures the educational attainment of Kahana’s residents. However, it can be ascertained from past surveys and meeting with individuals from Kahana that there is a wide range of educational attainment. Some residents have high school, bachelors, graduate, doctorates or law degrees, and others have not graduated from high school.

The following graph depicts the profile of Kahana residents’ educational

attainment in 2009 (City-Data.com, 2009):


Figure 30 Educational Attainment Chart (in Kahana and Hawaii)

Figure 30 Source: City-Data.com 3 years & older in K-12 Schools: 22.2% 3 years & older in Undergraduate Colleges: 6.2% 3 years & older in Graduate or Professional Schools: 0.0% Students K-12 enrolled in Private Schools: 10.5%

The wide range in education levels indicates that there is a variety of talents, skills and assets among the residents. By properly harvesting these capabilities, Kahana could fulfill the mission of a cultural living park. Social organizations

In terms of social infrastructure groups, there has been, and continues to be, various community associations and organizations in Kahana. For example, Rosskam (1989) noted that Kahana Valley ʻOhana Unity Council is a not for profit group comprised of valley residents interested in the State Cultural Living Park. +It functioned since the early 1970s and received input from the Kahana Valley Youth Council, Kahana Valley Fisherman's Club, Hui Malama ʻAina o Kahana, Hui ʻo Koʻolauloa Canoe Club and Canoe Builders. The different groups that are mentioned above were formed in order to work on the particular areas of concern in Kahana and provide expertise. Lewin’s (1992) SIA report has listed a number of formal networks:


Hui O Kanani O Kahana

• Interested in cooperating with the State to develop a cultural program. • Benefits in the realization of a cultural park and sharing knowledge about

Hawaiian culture. • Questionable as to how many members belong to this hui, and if it represents the

residents’ needs. Kahana ʻOhana Unity Council

• Non-profit that has functioned since the early 1970’s. • Acts as a watchdog organization and is instrumental in lobbying. • Approximately 82 members. • It serves to question the decision-making of the State, and relate any state

planning decisions to the impacts on the Kahana residents. • Recommends actions to the Kahana Advisory Council for submittal to DLNR. • A master plan development was made by the council in 1985 but has been

ignored by DLNR. Kahana Advisory Council

• Formed as a result of recommendations in the 1978 Environmental Impact Statement and has functioned since 1984.

• Consists of 15 representatives: 5 from various state and county government organizations, 5 Kahana residents, and 5 community members.

• Acts as the official communication line between the DLNR and the Kahana community.

• Proposes policies for implementation of plans for Kahana. • It has seemingly failed as a mutual meeting ground for the residents and the

state to discuss and resolve policy, program or project issues.

There are three not for profit organizations that have been mentioned in Chapter 4. The organization, Friends of Kahana attempts to look at traditional agricultural restoration and fishpond restoration in the Valley. Another organization, Hoʻala ʻĀina Kupono was formed in 2008 with an objective of providing visitor services and interpretive programs at the Kam Mon Store (Visitor Center). Hoʻala ʻĀina Kupono

• Established in 2008 for the purpose of caring for Kahana, including its culture, ancestors, resources, and people.


• Main objectives are to restore, protect, perpetuate, and revitalize Ahupuaʻa O Kahana State Park for all of Hawaiʻi's residents and visitors and to educate all persons on the cultural traditions about their land.

• Consists primarily of Kahana residents who work closely with other Kahana residents and the community in providing visitor services and interpretive programs at the Store on a regular basis.

• Active in coordinating interpretive and educational programs, hosting groups in restoration projects, and organizing workshops/classes to educate the community and the public (E-SP Submittals-E2, 2012).

DLNR is in a position to create synergy amongst the many existing organizations

and associations. A strategic effort to support these organizations and properly utilize their assets would better support a cultural living park.

3.2.3 Cultural Resources

Kahana is very rich in aspects of cultural resources. Several assessments and reports describe Native Hawaiian cultural practices that have been and continue to be practiced in the valley, as well as archeological sites (State Department of Education 1972; Mogi 1974) including:

• Kapa making (fabric made by fibers of certain trees) • Lauhala weaving (baskets, mats, hat weaving from leaves) • Coconut frond weaving • Hula practice and making hula implements • Fishing and navigation practices • Taro farming practices • Canoe paddling

Kahana’s abundant cultural, historical and archeological sites have been

researched and studied in several reports. There are 119 known surface archeological sites and likely many more unknown. The map of archeological sites below is the result of an Environmental Impact Statement completed by Mogi for DLNR. It identifies habitations structures (hale), wet and dry terraces (i.e. locations where plants were cultivated), graves, walls, and ʻauwai, among other sites.

Several studies and reports support the importance of preserving and restoring

cultural resources. Cultural resources can be utilized to continue practicing a culture and to educate and develop a deeper understanding of a culture. The State


Department of Education (1972) asserted the necessity of the perpetuation of traditional practices such as hula, fishing, navigation, and farming practices to preserve the culture of Native Hawaiians and local people. Section 205A-2(b)(2)(A), sets up the objectives and policies of the coastal zone management program and provides that the protection, preservation and restoration of natural and manmade historic and prehistoric resources in the coastal zone management area are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture (Hawaiʻi Coastal Zone Management Program 2002).

Kahana’s cultural resources can serve many purposes. After western contact,

many aspects of Hawaiian culture were banned resulting in the near extinction of many Hawaiian practices including the language and hula. Restoration, education, and maintenance of Kahana’s cultural resources can work to preserve and prevent extinction of cultural practices.


Figure 31 Kahana Archaelogical Sites Map (Mogi, 1978)


The Archeological Map below shows historical structures and cultural sites located within Kahana.

Figure 32 Archaelogical and Historical Structures


Emerging Questions:

• What are the high priority interpretive programs that perpetuate culture? This question is very useful for construction of a program that perpetuates culture in Kahana. DLNR should identify and prioritize which interpretive programs should be implemented or continued in Kahana. The report Learning about Living: Kahana Valley Living State Park, prepared by State Department of Education has proposed numerous educational programs that could be revived and reinstated by DLNR.

• What is necessary to maintain these programs (people, funding, resources)? Determining the number of people, skill sets required, funding, and resources can be achieved through data collection, analysis and a survey.

• How can these programs be used to educate people outside of the valley? Once the interpretive programs becomes sustainable, it can be determined if it is appropriate and useful in educating non-residents. The State Department of Education’s report mentioned above has outlined methods to provide outreach education. A review of this report can provide steps to achieve this.

3.2.4 Promotion of Socio-Cultural Resources

Reports, studies, plans and organizations indicate that many residents are interested in promoting the cultural activities and practices. Several preliminary project plans have been prepared by residents to compliment the Kahana Advisory Council’s “Kahana State Park Development Plan of 1985”. The Development Plan identified three major programs that support a cultural living park: the research program, the resources management program and the interpretive program. Various projects were suggested to be part of the resources management and interpretive programs including:

• Chapel Restoration • Grave Site Repair & Marking • Multi-Purpose Center Construction and Management • Medicinal Plant Herbarium Development.

In 1977, Hui Mālama ʻĀina O Kahana obtained a revocable permit from DLNR for

the four-acre parcel fronting Kamakaniau Road, encompassing the old Mormon church


and gravesites with the intent of planning and developing it for several projects that support the interpretive program. The individual projects complemented each other to support the overall goal of making the Hui Mālama ‘Āina O Kahana’s parcel a useful and important part of Kahana’s community development. The projects are described below:

• Construction of hālau wa´a (canoe house)

o The halau wa´a was to be developed by Hui O Koʻolauloa Canoe Club and local canoe builders as part of the state's "living park" concept for Kahana Valley. The location for the project was designated in the area currently known as the "Banana Patch" fronting Kahana Bay. The project’s goal was to develop a place for making and repairing canoes and educating and sharing canoe building skills with visitors and locals. The objectives formulated were to construct a proper hālau, develop an interpretive program (periodic educational programs and lectures) and to integrate hālau waʻa activities into overall development program of Kahana Valley. The project planning and development were supposed to be overseen by resident families themselves. However, the State prohibited the construction of ahālau waʻa.

• Loʻi restoration project

o This project expands upon the Development Plan and focuses on

restoring loʻi to their once productive nature. The end objective is to have loʻi as productive economic unit and develop a poi-making capacity in the valley. A lack of resources (funding, people, and time) and capacity have limited the potential of this project. However, there are a few private individuals and residents that have spearheaded this project and continue to perpetuate the traditional practices of growing kalo.

Education Projects

The Department of Education’s 1972 “Learning about Living” study provides several recommendations in which Kahana can educate students regarding important Hawaiian practices that (the report argues) are relevant today. The purpose of the education program suggested was to develop those attributes which will best prepare Hawaiʻi’s children for the year 2000 and beyond by using Kahana Valley as a site and resource for student learning. A number of educational concepts were suggested under this initiative:


• Open a public high school in Kahana • Conduct a study of micro-living (study of the value of smallness as

contrasted with largeness) • Lessons on the art of surviving in the world • Privacy (learning what it means in today’s and previous civilizations) • Spiritual values • Harmony and balance in living • Human potential • Understanding of death • Development of one’s inherent qualities

The tools and skills required for the educational program initiatives listed were

demonstrations, storytelling, observation, multimedia, peer discussion groups, parent participation, Hawaiian resources and environmental resources. The educational programs suggested various visits to the valley designed for different age groups. Further, the appendix of this report suggested numerous activities including hiking, exploring, canoeing-boating, canoe building, crafts making, cooking, tasting and eating, music, dancing, archaeology, agriculture, aquaculture, scientific observation and learning, Hawaiian history and culture lectures, camping, fishing, swimming, surfing, scuba diving and snorkeling, pageantry, horseback riding and rodeo-type activities, feral pig activity (hunting) and a roadside market. The Visitor’s Center

The interpretive plan for the Visitor Center (Kam Mon center) was developed in 2005 by the State. The store was envisioned as a park facility where visitors can get information on Kahana, including natural and cultural resources available, as well as, recreational activities. Kahana residents expressed an interest in operating the store both as cultural information center and as place to sell arts, crafts and agricultural products created or produced by the residents. The State Parks Division of DLNR encouraged residents to form a non-profit hui to organize the retail services. The Interpretive Exhibit Plan outlined the details for the construction and additional features for the store. The Visitor Center was renovated and is currently in excellent condition. At present, the store operates as a Visitor Information Center and provides a display area for arts and crafts created by Kahana residents. However, it does not yet operate as a retail outlet.

In DLNR’s report on the Interpretive Exhibit Plan for the Visitor Center, Yent

(2005) affirmed that goods can be sold in and outside of Kahana for income generation.


The DLNR’s “Amendments to Chapters 13-146, Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules” (2009, p. 146-31) states that: “No person shall engage in or solicit any business, except in accordance with the provisions of a permit, contract, license, lease, concession, or other written agreement with the board or its authorized representative, or as allowed by chapter 13-7”. The DLNR’s “Adoption of Chapter 13-7, Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules” (1996, p. 7-3) states that: “Soliciting and the sale of gifts, money, goods, or services on DLNR land is prohibited, except pursuant to:

(1) Section 13—7—7; (2) A concession, lease, or contract issued by DLNR; or (3) A permit issued by DLNR, valid as of the effective date of these rules”.

The 13-7-7 affirms that the sale and distribution of literature is permitted on

DLNR property, however structures are not allowed. Permits are required for the use of portable tables and chairs for the purpose. It could be interpreted that business operations are permitted with special permission from DLNR in the Valley. Permitting the sales of arts, crafts and agricultural products created or produced by the residents would be an excellent way to meet the goals of a cultural living park, requirements of interpretive services, and the needs of the residents.

3.2.5 Challenges

There are challenges in promoting and achieving the interpretive and educational programs and the recreational and economic activities discussed. There is a great need to increase resident involvement in the communal life of the valley, particularly with the interpretive program. Attitudes and participation levels vary among residents. A number of people are interested in and actively participate in cultural interpretive programs and associated traditional practices, while others have not. People familiar with the valley attribute the shortage of participation with lack of motivation, time, ability and incentives. According to some of the residents we spoke to, young people are more interested in activities related to the ocean such as surfing and swimming rather than land related activities as they require more labor and effort. Additionally, programs and permitting should be conducted in a manner that supports the residents.

A Social Impact Assessment done by Lewin (1992) confirms that the promotion

of cultural programs is a contentious issue since the State and the residents are developing cultural programs separately. Many people expressed that they do not feel the ownership to the programs and some even fear that Kahana would become like a Polynesian Cultural Center, where exploitation of culture is given priority over continuation of traditions. The report concludes that local people desire a sense of


ownership to any programs and activities that are intended to support their culture and traditions. In addition, there is a communication gap between the State and the residents which seems to be an overwhelming issue for the implementation of the Master plan. The SIA report suggests employing a mediator to arbitrate the issues between the State and the people (Lewin, 1992).

Recommendations and methods to overcome challenges are discussed in

Chapter 5.


CHAPTER 4

4 GOVERNANCE

4.1 Importance of Governing Systems “Governance” is shorthand for describing how groups of people make decisions.

Given the many different challenges and opportunities in Kahana, it is important to realize that no single governance arrangement can cover all of the different decisions that need to be made. Instead it is important to think in terms of “governances,” which is to say a variety of different institutions and arrangements designed to deal with different types of decisions. Just as no single governance arrangement can deal with all the many different areas of decision-making, nor can we assume that any given governance arrangement should stay static and unchanged through time. Times change, challenges come and go, and governance institutions need to adapt accordingly. Ideally governance institutions should have within themselves the means to alter themselves. This section will identify governance topics and make recommendations regarding how to go about crafting governance institutions. These are only suggestions; please look at these with a critical eye, keep the ones that are good, modify the ones that need fixing, and throw out the ones which may not be applicable given the sensitive social, cultural, and political conditions of Kahana we may not have been aware of.

4.1.1 Governance in the Past: A Brief Overview Governance in Kahana has been neglected by past plans. Early plans either

omitted it or dealt with it in a cursory manner. Later plans included elements designed to empower residents but these plans were not fully adopted. What follows is a brief overview of past governance in Kahana:

The “Mogi plan” of 1974 called for the valley to be managed by a “konohiki”.

Prior to the disruptions that occurred after Western contact, the konohiki was an expert practitioner who managed and coordinated resource use in the ahupuaʻa and ensured a portion of it went to the chief. Mogi adapted this concept, stipulating that residents should have veto power over who gets appointed as konohiki. Instead of reporting to a chief, the konohiki would report to the DLNR. As we mentioned in Chapter 2, the Mogi


plan was given a poor reception by residents and the legislature. Mogi however was retained to author the 1978 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Kahana. (Jarawoski, 2001, p. 16):

The 1978 EIS for Kahana called for a konohiki like the 1974 report did, but it also “… called for the creation of a Kahana Advisory Board as the major policy initiating board for the Valley. (Jarawoski 2001, p. 64) It would be composed of one representative from each family in valley, plus State Park representatives, the park manager, and outside community members. The KAB was to continue for five years, after which the Department of Land and Natural Resources could continue the board, discontinue the board, or establish an independent organization to manage and direct the park (Jarawoski, 2001, p. 17). In 1979 a group of Kahana residents released what they called the “Living Park

Plan of Kahana’s People.” This plan focused on many elements of physical planning which the residents found either objectionable or lacking in the prior State commissioned plans. It also addressed governance, stating “A key part of our Park plan includes having the people of Kahana be the ones who do the planning, construction, and operation of the Park.” The Peoples Plan goes on to put forward the idea of running the valley as “true ahupuaʻa system of mutual respect, mutual dependence, and self-sufficiency.” It also suggested either individual leases or a master lease to the ʻOhana Unity Council (p. 29).

“The Kahana Advisory Board (KAB) met for the first time on May 30, 1984. State Parks finally established the KAB in February 1984. It varied from the board suggested in the EIS. The EIS had called for one representative from each family, but State Parks appointed just thirteen members, of whom only three were family representatives. The EIS said the KAB is to be the central initiating agency, but State Parks told the board to meet for just six months, provide advice, and disband. State Parks also sought to limit the board input to just the educational and cultural programs, where the original idea for the KAB, as stated in the EIS, was to be in charge of initiating all planning and development in the park…At the first three meetings of the KAB, a group of residents known as the Unity Council tried to set the record straight on the board's duties and composition with direct references to the EIS. State workers, three of which were on the board, copied only selected pages of the EIS to try to uphold the truncated powers of the KAB. The KAB chair gave State Parks an ultimatum: either State Parks had to reform its thinking on the duties of the KAB, or the KAB would have to resign. The KAB was expanded by


adding another two family representatives, but downgraded from a board to a committee, significantly decreasing its authority. It was now known as the Kahana Advisory Committee. Instead of planning and developing itself, it was now merely an advisory group to the State Parks Division.” (Jarawoski, 2001, p. 19).

The KAC eventually published a report titled, “Kahana State Park Development Plan” in 1985. This plan suggested a master lease concept in which a non-profit managed the park on contract with the DLNR. The Board of Land and Natural Resources rejected the master lease concept and only pieces of the overall plan were adopted as part of official policy for the park. The KAC itself eventually dissolved due to waning community participation. (Jarawoski, 2001, p. 20-21). In 1987 the State Legislature passed Act 5 which instituted a lease structure by which qualified individuals would be allowed to have 65-year leases. In exchange for these leases, each lease-holding household would be required to contribute 25 hours a month to the “cultural interpretive program.” DLNR would be responsible for determining which activities counted towards this requirement and for holding residents accountable for meeting the requirement. Since being enacted, Act 5 formed the basis for resident tenure in Kahana. This is not to say there have been no difficulties and conflicts. The authority to grant new leases under Act 5 was short lived and this lead to six families living in the valley without leases. Additionally, while the DLNR administered the valley based on some ideas developed in past plans, no master plan was every formally adopted, leading to confusion and a lack of direction. Finally, people familiar with Kahana report that the interpretive program has faced difficulties including lack of participation from residents, lack of funding, and poor communication between residents and the DLNR. For all of these reasons the Legislature passed Act 15 in 2009. Act 15 created the Kahana Planning Council (KPC), charged with the task for developing a master plan for Kahana. A moratorium on evictions would be in place until the council finished its work. This moratorium (and the time limit for developing the plan) were subsequently extended in order to give the council more time to develop the plan.


4.2 Working towards Effective Governance

4.2.1 Resident Relationship with DLNR: Ho‘oponopono and Negotiation

The relationship between the DLNR and Kahana residents is important for shaping the kind of decisions that are made and essentially who is invited to the table to make decisions. The process is not only important for immediate concerns regarding the perceived legitimacy of, and compliance with, decisions, but also the long term health of the park. The decision-making structure for the park overtime influences the culture of the park’s residents and the ability of the “cultural living park” to achieve its goals.

Ho‘oponopono: With capacity building as the broader goal, ho‘oponopono is an essential Hawaiian concept of conflict resolution that has been mentioned in past plans and studies on Kahana, such as the Queen Lili‘uokalani Children’s Center report, Socio-cultural Research: Kahana Valley Living Park. We feel ho‘oponopono, or to set right, “to correct, restore, and maintain good relationships among family members” is an important preliminary step that should be taken in Kahana’s master plan process (QLCC 1972). Before working towards the goals of capacity building and successful co-governance, forgiveness and agreement to move forward collaboratively need to be worked out among all involved parties. Employing ho‘oponopono strategies in Kahana can have the powerful potential to ease the past hurt felt by residents. Moreover, it can ignite the important collaborative aspects of planning that are needed to identify and realign the collective goals and visions of both the DLNR and Kahana residents. As defined by the Pu‘a Foundation, traditional ho‘oponopono has five basic conditions:

1) All participants must be committed to the problem-solving process 2) All words and deeds must be shared in an atmosphere of ‘oia‘i‘o (absolute

truthfulness and sincerity) for healing and problem resolution to occur. 3) The ‘ohana (or in this case, all residents and state agencies) must share a

common sense of aloha for one another or be committed to reinstating the spirit. 4) Everything said in ho’oponopono must be held in absolute confidence and must

not be repeated outside of the sessions 5) A haku (medium, leader) must be commonly agreed on as a fair and impartial

channel through which the ho’oponopono will be conducted.


As DLNR is the authoritative body conducting the master plan for Kahana, we suggest that DLNR takes on the responsibility of organizing a series of meetings for the sole purpose of working towards a collaborative framework with residents and the broader community. With a history as rich as Kahana’s, it is important to tease out the intricate dynamics amongst those who identify with the Kahana community. Chrislip, author of The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook (Chrislip, 2002), brings up provocative and necessary questions for a meaningful discussion around stakeholder agreement. Some of these questions include: Have stakeholders agreed that there are concerns that should be addressed? Have stakeholders agreed to work together to address the concerns? Have stakeholders agreed on how to work together to address the concerns (Chrislip, 2002, p. 65). Beyond answering these questions, delving deeper into the political dynamics of the community will be the necessary catalyst for any type of constructive change within Kahana. The process of ho‘oponopono and collaboration will initially be the most challenging in gaining momentum. Therefore, we recommend that DLNR contracts a local facilitator that has proper training in conducting meetings and also possesses an acute cultural & local knowledge, and who also will be able to conduct collaborative meetings in an unbiased and constructive manner. Negotiation While ho‘oponopono can provide a useful framework for building the relationship between Residents and the DLNR, the relationship changing process can also be understood as a form of a negotiation. The goal of this negotiation process is to identify the goals of the various parties and how those goals can be reconciled and harmonized, or, when this is impossible, prioritized so that all involved get as much out of the relationship as possible.

4.2.2 Creating a Clear Understanding between Parties

A strong relationship between the DLNR and residents is necessary for constructive and effective management of Ahupuaʻa o Kahana. In order to build and maintain these strong relationships, the goals, interests and strategies of DLNR and Kahana should be worked out and explicitly stated in a clear mission statement.

We believe the processes in producing an all-encompassing mission statement should be tailored to fit the unique circumstances surrounding Kahana. The following are some examples of what could be used as guidance for a meaningful discussion:


1. DLNR needs to identify what its critical interests are and delegate other areas

and the details of implementation of these critical goals to residents (i.e. for the cultural interpretive program, DLNR can require that residents as a group must do 24 hours per household per month but otherwise step back and let residents decide who does the hours. (Please see more on this concept in Chapter 5.)

2. Residents need to identify what their critical interests are. If the list does not overlap with DLNR, then the residents should be able to achieve wide latitude in decision making. If the two do overlap then negotiation will have to take place with regards to who should have what power in what area and how disputes should be resolved. For example, in the Mogi plan residents could veto the DLNR’s choice of “konohiki”. Even though the state retained the right to make the initial selection, the power of veto was meant to ensure that residents could vet the proposed appointee.

4.2.3 Multi-Party Governance and Cooperation Related to creating a clear understanding between DLNR and residents, a

greater governing body should be established for the multiplicity of stakeholders to convene, identify issues, and to develop new relationships. Coordination among the various parties involved in Kahana can have the ability to foster and strengthen relationships, while also assuring that any new or unresolved issues are presented and dealt with before they have the time to escalate. While this should be decided on among DLNR and Kahana governing bodies after ho‘oponopono and collaborative relationships have developed, we suggest that scheduled meetings should occur on a regular basis –whether it be quarterly or bi-annually.

4.2.4 Resident Self-Governance Resident self-governance depends in large part upon the outcome or outcomes

of negotiations with the DLNR. As we recommended previously, DLNR should work with residents to vest as much decision-making power in residents as they are able to take on. This section is on the subject of how residents can self-organize to achieve good outcomes for themselves and for the mission of the park.

Residents need a democratic council to represent them. Like other democratic

bodies this council should have the following features: * Regularly scheduled elections

* An odd number of members to avoid tie votes * Public meetings with agenda and meeting minutes published online and in print


* Defined authority to appropriate money and make decisions (see below): For our purposes we will refer to this body as the “Kahana Governance Council” (KGC). It is imperative that this governing body is seen as both legitimate and effective. Legitimacy will come from being transparent and adequately representative of diverse viewpoints among residents. Effectiveness is more complicated, but necessary preconditions for effectiveness are adequate funds to appropriate a KGC and authority to make decisions. The following is a list of suggestions regarding the kinds of decisions the KGC should consider. Implicit in these suggestions is that the KGC would have some authority to make such decisions. 1. Carrying Capacity

Develop an idea of how many residents the valley can support without

compromising its rural character, the interpretive program, or overloading available infrastructure. In Chapters 2 and 3, we provide evidence with regard to the historic population of Kahana Valley. This information should be taken into consideration, but ultimately the decision will hinge on the community’s vision of itself and what it would like to be in the future. The carrying capacity may vary in part with what kind of physical footprint is imagined for new leases. If new leases are for relatively compact dwellings clustered closely together and even sharing various facilities, then more residents may be accommodated within a given footprint. Lease decisions should be made in accordance with these considerations. 2. Fairness and impartiality in lease decisions

If, after deciding that the carrying capacity would allow for additional residential

leases, then a fair and impartial way of assessing whether leases should be granted needs to be developed. Of equal if not greater importance is the need to develop a fair and impartial process for warning, providing remediation steps, and ultimately if unsuccessful, processing evictions of those who violate lease terms. The process should have multiple safeguards and a level of review but should also ensure that leaseholders don’t feel they can break lease terms with impunity. 3. Consider the possibility of new lease terms

Consider the possibility of creating a new lease structure for new leases and residents with the old lease terms who opt in. Existing leaseholders should not have to


sign on to the new leases but may if they want to and the new lease terms are more beneficial. 4. Consider the possibility of a “debt jubilee” for hours, or the possibility for payment for interpretive hours

With the creation of a new governing body (and possibly new lease regulations), consider the possibility of a “lease deficit jubilee” in which those who are behind in their hours are allowed to reset their “balance” to zero. As a one-time event, this gives incentive for those who at the moment may be (or feel) hopelessly behind to be able to catch up and stay ahead. On the flip side, if said people are communicated with and understand the lease terms but do not follow them even after being given this break, the community will be in a better position to begin the process towards eviction (see step #3). 5. Consider making hours transferable Alternatively, given that many households also face difficulties in setting aside time to contribute hours, an option could also be given for residents to pay/outsource others to contribute to their interpretive hours. The value of Kahana’s cultural living aspect is in the programs and activities that perpetuate Hawaiian culture. Residents’ extensive networks with other cultural practitioners could be tapped into in the event that they cannot contribute the hours themselves, so as to still meet the objectives of the cultural programs in Kahana. 6. Consider a new measurement system for the interpretive requirement

The current residential lease rules require households to contribute 25 hours a week towards the cultural interpretive program. Hours provide a useful tool by which to compare dissimilar activities. It does however create problems. For example, in the past, residents who engaged in projects which required many months to complete were found to have a deficit in hours until they completed the activity in question. Another problem is that being rewarded based on ““hours spent” does not necessarily lead to quality outcomes. In the current system, some observation or documentation of outputs is used for accountability, but the primary measurement is still the hour, and the quality of the activity is secondary. We would like to suggest that those governing. Kahana consider switching to an achievement-based system with hours becoming a secondary measure. Under this system, residents would submit a written or recorded “action plan” which outlines the kinds of activities they will perform in a given period and what kind of observable outputs will result. This plan will be reviewed by the approval authority which


has the option of suggesting revisions. After the action plan is accepted by the approval authority, residents will be graded based on their adherence to the plan. Changes to the plan go through a similar approval process. Residents would present their progress/accomplishments to the community on a quarterly basis as was suggested by the 1999 Kahana Advisory Council report. This presentation would be compared with what was agreed to and if found wanting, a plan to rectify this will have to be drawn up. There are advantages and disadvantages of both the current structure and this idea for a revised structure. We cannot pick between them but with a greater say in their own governance, Kahana residents will be better able to make such decisions. 7.. Reconsider what should count towards lease obligations

Regardless of whether a new measurement system for lease obligations is

adopted or not, what counts towards lease hours should be reconsidered. The KAC in its 1999 report recommended allowing residents with children to be able to count their kids’ learning of the Hawaiian language towards up to ¼ of their lease obligation. This point towards a more holistic understanding of the role of culture in this “cultural living park.” The unique Hawaiian culture of Kahana will only continue to exist if it is passed on to the next generation. Time spent passing on this culture to the next generation(s) is an investment in the survival of Kahana’s culture so that it will be there to interpret in the future. Any changes to what counts or does not count towards lease obligations should first be implemented on a trial basis, e.g. for 6 months or a year. If the effect is positive it can then be made permanent.

8. Create and oversee an ‘Aha Council (see 4.x)

An umbrella or “bridging organization” is essential for achieving good outcomes.

A bridging organization consists of a broad collection of stakeholders who meet periodically to discuss issues of interest. By bringing together as many different stakeholders as possible, information sharing is increased. From meetings of this bridging, relationships and meetings involving a subset of parties can develop in order to address specific tasks (Berkes 2009 pg 1695-1696).

This bridging organization designed around the needs of Kahana already exists to a certain extent under the current Kahana Planning Council (KPC), the State-appointed council made up of members from the community as well as the DLNR. However, we believe that this particular ‘aha council (see later section 4.4) should have representatives from organizations with vested interests in education, Hawaiian culture, and environmental conservation. Under these conditions, the current KPC can then determine the appropriate steps to broaden its scope of council members and meeting


tasks. The meetings could be conducted under the same schedule as KPC. In order to be accountable to the Kahana constituency (residents and the larger community), we highly recommend that the Council create and maintain an accessible website, in order to update the community with its mission, meeting minutes, and upcoming events. Currently, the private nature of KPC in terms of its publicity within the greater O‘ahu community detracts from it garnering important guidance and feedback for improvement.

4.3 Ahupuaʻa Management in Modern Times

Kahana’s natural and cultural value stems in part from the fact that it is Kahana is unique in that it is one of Hawaii’s few remaining relatively intact ahupuaʹa and owned entirely by one owner (the State of Hawaii). Traditional culture and natural resource management are intertwined to such an extent that one can’t really speak of them as separate. This section recommends a natural resource management framework appropriate for Kahana based upon academic research, interviews, and analysis of Native Hawaiian land management.


Introduction Native Hawaiians and their ancestors share a deep cultural attachment with their

environment and understanding that all things within the environment are interrelated (DLNR 2003). Kahana is a place in which Native Hawaiians historically lived and practiced ahupuaʻa resource management. For the native residents, Kahana represented a complete ecosystem in both the physical and cultural sense of the term in which everything necessary to survive was found within the ahupuaʻa (Mogi 1974). The ahupuaʻa, as the primary land unit, was the thread which bound all things together in Hawaiian life (Maly 2001). Today, Kahana is unique in that it is one of Hawaii’s few remaining mostly intact ahupuaʻa and owned entirely by one owner (the State of Hawaii). It embodies all of the resources (mountain, upland, shoreline, and ocean) that the ancient Hawaiians used for survival (Jaworoski 2001). Because of this, Kahana is an exceptional opportunity to serve as Hawai‘i’s model of the traditional concept of ahupuaʻa management in a contemporary context. An ahupuaʻa management plan in Kahana is capable of fostering stewardship of the land and sea and an understanding of the interconnectedness of the health of the environment and its residents. Furthermore, Kahanahas the potential to lead the state in sustainable resource management and promotion of community access to natural resources.

4.3.1 Ahupuaʻa Management and Ecosystems Based Management

Ecosystem-based management has emerged as a holistic approach to resource management during a time of increasing pressures on natural resources and obvious necessity for sustainable practices. Resource management that addresses individual environmental issues separately without recognizing the inherent interconnectedness of ecological components has proven insufficient. Ecosystem-based management acknowledges that resource management plans require acceptance and commitment from community members in order to be effective. An ecosystem-based management approach shares similarities with the traditional Hawaiian concept of ahupuaʻa management. This model can empower communities to assess the health and vulnerability of their surrounding environment in order to develop the most effective practices for sustainable, long-term land and natural resource management.

4.3.2 Developing an Ahupuaʻa Management Model for Kahana in Modern Times:

The protection of natural resources and the traditional practices associated with those assets are of vital importance to the State of Hawaii (AKAC 2009). However, some areas of Native Hawaiian ahupuaʻa management are not compatible with modern, western laws and culture. This has been a major challenge in realizing a sustainable


ahupuaʻa concept. In today’s setting in Hawaii, ahupuaʻa management can best be achieved through consultation of native Hawaiian practitioners (similar to an Aha Moku council), collaboration of partnerships with government and non-governmental agencies, community commitment, and exemption from statewide regulations if the community self-manages within a given framework. Barriers to this holistic approach will likely be the contemporary practice of compartmentalizing issues (i.e. air, water quality, waste management, fisheries, etc.) rather than addressing the actual symptoms that are common to all, and conflicts between indigenous practices and western law. Further, water quality and quantity is central to maintaining a sustainable environment. Modern water diversion techniques coupled with land alteration has proven destructive to ecosystems.

Traditional resource management is centered on food and sustainability. Hawaii’s local community was dependent on the health of the food resources ecology and thus, dedicated to its preservation and protection (AKAC 2009). The traditional resource management system fostered a healthy, sustainable ecosystem for over 1700 years (AKAC 2009). In contrast, today’s management is governed by a central authority that allows for ease of enforcement, consistency of regulations, and public access to public resources (AKAC 2009). Modern (western) resource management practices that have been introduced to Hawaii 234 years ago have resulted in an abrupt decline in Hawaiian environment and ecosystems. Differences between traditional and contemporary natural resource management are summarized in the table below. These differences will likely be areas of divergence when developing an adaptive ahupuaʹa management model for Kahana in modern times.


Table 6 Comparison between Traditional and Contemporary Management

Traditional Management Contemporary Management

People are an integrated part of the natural ecosystem

Communities are divorced from resource harvesting

Continuous observation of the resource, substantial cumulative knowledge

Short term studies of the resource, brevity of data

Source of knowledge was experiential (generational and empirical)

Source of knowledge is documentation, data and literature

Fishery access rights were tied to customary tenure system

Public ownership of the resources, (i.e. fisheries part of the commons)

Management of resources at the community level

Management of resources through a remote bureaucratic authority

Fishing methods used proper conduct at specific times and places

Fishing methods often use codified harvest and effort limits-where there are no regulations harvest is open

Long management planning horizons (spanning generations)

Short management planning horizon (political appointments of managing agency heads)

Tightened and relaxed controls on the resource used to match low or high cycles of resource productivity and social needs

Conserve each species at its present abundance

Conservation and utilization integral, conservation built into culture

Conservation and utilization are different agendas- meeting social needs is often secondary to the conservation model

Source: AKAC 2009

4.4 The ‘Aha Council In ancient Hawaiʻi, each ahupuaʻa was governed by an ‘Aha Council consisting of

practitioners who had specialized knowledge in medicine, agriculture, home and canoe building, and fishing among other expertise (Blane n.d.). The ‘Aha Council served as a governing board that maintained and enforced the laws of the land in order to ensure the beneficial use and sustainability of resources required for the community to survive (Blane n.d.). The “laws of the land” were sustainable measures like returning diverted water for wetland agriculture to the stream in order to maximize nutrients from the fields into the fishponds (Blane n.d.). Other regulations included restrictions on the types of fish caught during certain season so as to not deplete stocks and cutting of trees. The penalty for breaking these laws of the land included removal of the person from the


land, becoming an outcast, and death. The council consulted on major activities that would impact the land and

resources. For example, the council would advise on the best area for water diversion for agriculture and mitigation measures necessary for the loss of plants. The ahupuaʻa concept conforms to the existing geography and its resources rather than altering them for human convenience. The need to alter the land and divert water was minimized and efforts to replenish harvested resources were implemented.

4.4.1 Reconciling the ʻAha Council with Western Governance Institutions

Given the Hawaiian values embodied within the ‘Aha Council concept, it is important to develop an “interface” that allows for the Aha Council and western institutions to co-exist. Fortunately, western concepts of democratic governance and bureaucracy allow for responsibility to be devolved to groups of experts who shall have primary responsibility in this area. In this way, the DLNR and the residents’ representatives (previously referred to as the KGC) can hand over primary decision-making regarding ahupuaʻa management to the council while at the same time assuming an oversight role. As a general rule, DLNR and the KGC should maintain a “light touch” with regards to the ‘Aha Council but also avoid merely making decisions on a one-size-fits-all basis. The tension between these two ideas may cause conflict but it also will ensure that decisions are made with consideration of different stakeholders and different traditions/cultures.

4.4.2 Traditional Ahupuaʻa Economy, Capitalism, and the Interpretive Hour Economy From an economic perspective an ahupuaʻa represents a complete economic

system. This is not to say that trade did not occur between ahupuaʻa residents and outsiders but rather that such trade was supplemental to the basic necessities which could all be found within a given ahupuaʻa. Contrasting this system with the way that many urban dwellers experience life within the modern capitalist system, most if not all goods are gathered, processed, and transported from a variety of distant places. Furthermore, the urban dweller who is the user of these resources tends to not have relationships with those doing the extraction and processing: they probably know little about who produces the product, where, and under what conditions.

Residents of Kahana are required to participate in the cultural interpretive

program as an in kind payment for their residential leases. This is to say that the cultural interpretive program constructs a parallel economy where “interpretive hours”


serve as a limited form of currency which is both issued and absorbed by the Department of Land and Natural Resources. This currency is limited in the sense that it can’t be transferred from one household to another and can only be exchanged for residential leases. Currently the DLNR allows for limited “banking” of hours so that residents who do more than 25 hours in a given month can count a certain number of those hours towards meeting a future month’s requirement. Residents have also have been allowed to go into debt from month to month.

There is an inherent contradiction between the idea of Kahana as preserving

traditional culture and livelihood and the creation of this new economic system in which residents work in part for “interpretive hours.” If culture is in part a reflection of economic relationships, then the creation of this system has a direct impact on the culture of those involved. The creation of the hours system is understandable from the perspective of the State, as ownership of the land is the primary source of leverage over residents. However, based on past reports such as that of the Kahana Advisory Council (1999) and our conversations with residents and others familiar with the valley, residents appear to have a range of opinions on the interpretive hours ranging from enthusiasm to utter indifference and even hostility. Similarly, there are a range of behavioral responses ranging from full and total participation to complete non-participation.

Residents who we spoke to expressed the sentiment that young people of their

community seemed less interested in the traditional culture of Kahana. For the State’s purpose of running the cultural living park, this should be of great concern. Those residents we spoke to were also concerned about this trend, but expressed a somewhat fatalistic attitude as if this process were inevitable. They did however express interest in the idea of having education and participation of Kahana youth count towards the interpretive requirement.

One of the implications of the limits on how interpretive hours can be used is that

it exacerbates the already hierarchal relationship between the residents and the State. In the traditional ahupuaʻa, residents had a relationship with each other based on a reciprocal gift economy. People who fished exchanged fish with those who raised taro along with those who gathered wood and vice versa. There was no currency and little ability to store wealth so there was no incentive to hoard wealth or attempt to “own” things. There was a concept of “kokua” or duty which described what people owed to the chief and/or to the community. The chief delegated management of the ahupuaʻa to his konohiki who coordinated communal labor so as to ensure large scale tasks such as fish pond construction and repair and irrigation projects were constructed. The konohiki, in a sense, served both to expand community production and to make sure that the chief received their share. Their power over residents was limited however by the fact


that residents were not strictly tied to the land and could leave if the konohiki displayed despotic tendencies. What the konohiki owed the chief was a certain amount of resources such as food and wood. The chief did not have a particular interest in which subject produced how much of each resource. If we compare this to Kahana, this is in contrast to the current system in which each household’s contribution is separated and counted individually. Residents have no ability to transfer hours between each other. Within the parallel economy of “interpretive hours” there is only one hierarchical relationship, whereas the traditional ahupuaʻa economy was made up of both lateral relationships between residents and hierarchal elements between the residents and the chief.(National Park Service, 2012)

A start towards reimagining the interpretive program, and by extension the whole

Kahana park relationship, would involve allowing residents to exchange hours between each other. The ability to contract for the exchange of hours can be quite simple: A standard contract can be drawn up with residents filling in the blanks of “I will exchange x in exchange for y.” In which x represents goods, services, or money and “y” represents the transfer off interpretive hour(s) between two residents. Related to this concept is expanding the number of hours that a resident may “bank.” This exchange could also be expanded to include those who may not necessarily be legitimate “residents” of Kahana, but who are cultural practitioners with the knowledge and skills necessary to carry out the traditional interpretive hours for those residents who are unable to.

The above proposal acts to make the interpretive hour economy less hierarchal.

In order to do so, it copies the similar institutions in the capitalist economy of banking and contractual exchange. While this would be an improvement in terms of reducing the hierarchical nature of the interpretive hour economy, it leaves behind a major and important contradiction: that between the informal traditional culture that the cultural living park is meant to preserve and the formal relationships created by currency exchange and contract law.


4.4.3 The Market Economy and Traditional Resource Use In addition to reimagining “interpretive hour” economy, it’s also important to re-

imagine the economic relationship of residents with regards to the capitalist economy. As we covered in Chapter 3, residents of Kahana have a variety of professions. These jobs tend to take place outside of the valley and often do not involve traditional resource use. Residents in turn spend some of their money on acquiring the products of the modern capitalist economy: food, cars, electronics, etc. Residents are, in short, drawn into the market economy on both the income and spending side.

In our visits to the valley and in conversations with residents and other

stakeholders we examined the idea of allowing economic activity within the valley in the form of traditional resource use and sales to visitors. Residents responded positively to this idea but indicated that they thought this was forbidden. Our research into the administrative rules pertaining to economic activity in the park indicated that it was forbidden unless a “concession, lease, or contract [was] issued by the (DLNR). “ HAR 13-7 (1996). However, in our discussions with DLNR personnel familiar with the valley, we were told that economic activity was in fact permitted, so long as it was conducted through a non-profit. Clearly this is an area which requires increased communication and clarification between DLNR and residents with clear policies set in paper.

Assuming that economic activity is permitted within the valley, it must be

organized in a culturally and environmentally sensitive manner. Considering that many early plans for the valley were rejected because their economic development plans were considered too grandiose, destructive, and unrealistic, economic development is potentially risky. Nevertheless it is important to revisit this subject because it has the potential to create economic opportunities for geographically constrained working residents.

Consider the need for supporting traditional resource use: if residents can grow

taro and sell it, or engage in traditional crafts and sell them, or open a restaurant with traditional dishes, this may help keep these traditions alive. If conducted through, or in support of a nonprofit, these activities can also provide needed funding for communal projects and thereby empower the resident’s governing council.

If economic activity is to take place in the valley what kind of place or places are

appropriate for this? The existing store is an obvious choice for initial use but residents should also

consider whether, in the long term, a multi-use community facility multi-use space could be a possibility. A kitchen facility may prove beneficial for both economic development


and community purposes as residents may enjoy having a place with fresh food in which to meet in planned and chance encounters. This could be the center of social life, drawing together residents and helping them achieve unity of identity and purpose. In the case of a restaurant the food serves as a reason and an excuse to gather and also encourages what James C Whyte calls, “triangulation”: the process of socialization resulting from two people being able to discuss some object or event which they are experiencing together.

4.5 Conclusions: The Future in the Balance Kahana holds a great potential to serve as a catalyst and source of knowledge about living within the rich and important ecology of the O‘ahu. The flip side of this is that there is great danger in the fact that if Kahana is given insufficient attention and resources, or is continuously mismanaged, then this potential will be squandered and much that is valuable, lost. The above suggestions are just that –suggestions. More important than any given suggestion is that the issues that have been raised be given critical thought, and that those who have the power to act do so in a conscientious manner. It is important for residents and DLNR to put their differences behind them and to move forward in cooperation with each other and other stakeholders. Through the strategies we have briefly reviewed on ho‘oponopono and negotiation in this chapter, we hope that collaboration between all parties can begin catalyzing a step in the right direction for Kahana. If this can be accomplished, we are confident that the potential of Kahana can be realized in the years and decades to come as a well-managed, socially, economically, and ecologically thriving ahupuaʻa.


CHAPTER 5

5 Next Steps

5.1 Ahupua´a Management in Modern Times

Among Kahana residents and other stakeholders we spoke to there is a strong desire to protect, preserve, and sustain the precious natural, cultural, and historical resources found in Kahana. Furthermore, there is a hope that people can maintain a rural lifestyle and continue practicing and perpetuating Hawaiian culture in Kahana. At the same time, it is widely acknowledged that residents must support their families and make a living, all while trying to enjoy the fullness of life.

While we must not forget the needs and contributions of the residents of Kahana. It is worth taking a step back and considering the future of Kahana from the standpoint of looking at the ahupuaʻa as a whole. In an ideal future, the ahupuaʻa functions as an intact entity similar to the ways it once did. Residents benefit from the resources of Kahana, and residents of the island benefit from learning about what Kahana has to offer. In between the present and the future of Kahana lies the steps which much be taken in order to achieve this future.

CurrentstateofKahana.

Stepstoachievethe"ideal"state.

VisionforKahana'sfuture.


For example, the below figure could serve to summarize Kahana’s direction:

Kahanaisabundantincultural,historical,andnaturalresources.Someoftheseresourceslayfallow,needmaintenanceorrepair.TheresidentsholdpreciousknowledgeofKahanaandHawaiianculture.Thecurrentstructureofinterpre=veprogramsisnoteffec=ve.

1.Restructuretheinterpre=veprogramrequirementtofostersuccessfulresidentpar=cipa=on.2.Allowfornon-profiten==estosaleKahanaproducts,ofwhich,theproceedsaredirectedtosustainKahanaprogramsandresident'sneeds.3.Restoreculturalandhistoricalsites.4.Remediatenaturalresourcesincludingstreams,loí,andfishponds.5.Supportculturalprogramsincludingcanoebuildingandpaddling,hula,andagriculture.

KahanasymbolizesanancientHawaiianahupuaá.Thecultural,historical,andnaturalresourcesofKahanaareintactandflourishing.Theresidentscontributetothemaintenanceoftheahupuaáand,inturn,theahupuaáprovidessustenancetotheresidents.Kahanatrulyembodiesaculturallivingpark.HawaiiancultureisperpetuatedandsharedwithKahana'svisitors.


Major decisions impacting Kahana requires participation from all the stakeholders. Stakeholders should have the expectation that their views, ideas, and thoughts will be heard, but they may not always get what they want. Stakeholders should be open to compromise and listening to other stakeholder’s input.

Key stakeholders include:

• Kahana residents • Department of Land and Natural Resources • Other government entities (e.g. Department of Education) • General public • Native Hawaiian community

(You will note that many of these groups overlap.)

There have been several extensively researched plans and reports written for Kahana that have captured many of the visions and dreams of these stakeholders. Studies have extensively assessed the natural, cultural, and historical resources; as well as the human potential and needs of Kahana. The history of the valley has been adequately documented and mapped. Still, there continues to be difficulty in approving and implementing a master plan for Kahana. Plans were either not approved in a timely manner, were inappropriately drawn up, or lacked funding, support and stakeholder buy-in. In many ways all of these problems are inter-related: plans which lack stakeholder buy-in are harder to get approved and still harder to implement, and lack of funding is both a cause and a result of plan inappropriateness. Clearly more attention needs to be given to plan implementation.

5.2 Hoʻoponopono

Many of the plans and projects in Kahana require support and participation from multiple people in order to implement and execute. If all stakeholders are involved during the development stages of plans and projects, then there will likely be a greater likelihood of support and investment. In the past however, stakeholders have committed time and efforts towards past plans only to find their efforts for naught. Action and inaction by various parties have resulted in less than optimal collaboration and relationships that need healing. A real hoʻoponopono process is needed to restore relationships and foster optimal cooperation. As discussed in Chapter four, all stakeholders would need to be ready to discuss past issues and willing to move forward. Restoring relationships is a critical initial step that will foster capacity building and future collaborative efforts by meeting the five basic conditions proposed by the Puʻa Foundation and already listed earlier in Section 4.2.1.


5.3 Implementation as Adaptation Hoʻoponopono is a necessary first step in moving forward in Kahana, but it is just

a first step. In order to successfully implement any plan we must expand on our understanding of implementation from the simple 3 step model shown previously. Instead of a linear process, we should understand the implementation process as a continuous cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring/evaluation and modification of both the plan and implementation. A plan, which is continuously monitored and modified in this way is much more likely to effectively manage the ahupuaʻa. (AKAC 2009).

(adapted from Umemoto, 2006)

ImplementthePlan

Check,Monitor,Analyze

RevisePlanasNecessary

ModifyManagement

DesignaPlan


5.4 Community Based Economic Development As we pointed out in Chapter 4, economic development is potentially a source of

income for residents, a potential funding source for attaining plan goals, and a goal unto itself insofar as it helps re-establish traditional resource use activities in Kahana. Care should be taken that economic development supports the goals and programs of the cultural living park program as laid out by the park master plan.

One of the recommendations would be creating a ‘hybrid’ organizational structure using some innovative approaches to tap into the strengths of both for profits and not for profits organization. Non-profits with wholly owned business subsidiaries, donated equity models and emerging for benefit business structures are all good examples of this type of thinking. An example of such a hybrid organizational structure is Lanakila Pacific, which was established in 1939 as a non-profit organization for people with disabilities. It started a for-profit customs product division to generate more revenue for social service programs. It started an online store in September 2012 to sell products such as shirts, mugs, pens and flash drives to companies. The revenue from these efforts are used to help in providing training and employment for people with disabilities. It has also been building its consumer products division to create more job opportunities for disabled persons and to rely less on grants and donations. In addition to its custom products business, it has also been operating a for-profit catering company, Lanakila Kitchen, which provides services for weddings and other events. The main objective is to successfully train the employees and give them opportunities to work at bigger companies through the job placement service.

Fortunately for Kahana, there is already a non-profit in place called “Friends of

Kahana” which has express interest of restoring the Huilua Fishpond and other projects. (Kahana Palapala, 2005). Whether implementing the master plan involves adapting an existing non-profit or developing a new one, we encourage making use of the bountiful materials available regarding economic development. In particular, we suggest using materials made available by HACBED (Hawaii Alliance of Community-Based Economic Development) on the subject of non-profits and cooperatives. Also see the appendices of this report for a business plan template which may prove useful to form profit and non-profit organizations alike.


5.5 Reconciling Ahupuaʻa and Contemporary Management

Developing and implementing a comprehensive management approach for the ecology of the ahupuaʻa is essential for the future of Kahana. As we explained in chapter 4, cultural use of the valley, economic development, and resource extraction are inter-linked. Economic development will place increased pressure upon the ecology of the valley. This in turn will lead to tensions between traditionally derived ahupuaʻa management and contemporary management. Resolving this tension is critical for the success of Kahana.

Embracing the previously mentioned adaptive approach to planning may be a practical way to overcome conflicts between ahupuaʻa management and contemporary management. An adaptive approach would require public confidence in the State’s ability and commitment to make necessary corrections responsive to real environmental information free of political bias (Umemoto 2006). Working with a community, the State would develop a management framework that allows for community initiated rules and regulations regarding natural resources to be quickly adopted (AKAC 2009). In Kahana, this would consist of a DLNR approved framework that is utilized by the community. The framework needs criteria for the adoption of management rules and regulations such as council approval, supporting data, and prescribed review intervals. The community would participate and consult in the collection of data and environmental information. Community recommendations and environmental conditions would drive management decisions.

For example, a framework for community-driven management in Kahana similar to the framework suggested by the Aha Kiole Advisory Committee could look like this:


The community is an integral part of the monitoring and management of the natural and cultural resources. This responsibility and participation builds awareness of natural cycles, patterns, and processes through community monitoring and discussion. The awareness of these natural cycles, patterns, and processes fosters sustainable thinking. Members of the community inevitably gain an understanding of the consequences and benefits of individual actions. Committed community members need training on monitoring and reporting on the resource by the expert of that resource. During this process, educational needs and partnerships with universities can be implemented.

An important part of place-based natural resource management involves the inventory and prioritization of resources by the community. Efforts to restore important species and provide protection can be achieved by giving communities power to manage and establish rules and regulations (adapted from AKAK 2009).

CommunityofKahana•  InventoriesandpriorBzesnaturalresourcesimportanttothecommunity(throughcommunityparBcipaBonandpartnershipswithNGOs,University,etc.).

• Monitorstheresource.• EstablishesrulesandregulaBonsforthemanagementoftheresources.

• Enforces(ciBzenenforcementwithStateenforcementsupport)rulesandregulaBons.

• ProvidesDLNRwithmanagmentplanandnaturalresourcedata.

State(DLNR)• AssiststheKahanacommunitybyprovidingandorganizingstandardsformonitoringresourcesandanalysisoftheinformaBon.

• Providesnaturalresourcemonitoringsupport.

• SupportsenforcementofcommunityrulesandregualBons.Providesenforcementofnaturalresources.

• SupportseducaBononnaturalresourcemanagement.

• StategainsdataandinformaBonthewouldnototherwisebeavailable.


A community that self-manages may need to be exempt from some statewide regulations, given that it has established a cooperative plan with the State that includes regulations and enforcement capabilities. First, values that promote good decision making for the community needs to be instilled. Next, collaborative efforts must involve key stakeholders in decision making processes. Partnerships that can synthesize western governmental and legal structures with ahupuaʻa principals should be established. These practices can then be perpetuated on to future generations. The figure below summarizes this method.

1.AgreethataspeciesisimportantforthecommunitythroughtheinventoryandprioriBzaBonofnaturalresourcesbythecommunity.

2.UnderstandthebehaviorofthespeciesinthespecificlocaBon(biologyandlifecyclesspecifictotheareadeterminedbydirectmonitoringofthestockbythecommunityorthecommunity'srepresentaBves).

3.Agreetocomplywiththerulesofbehaviorandconductestablishedbythecommunity(voluntarycompliance).*SinceKahanadoeshavemanyoutsidevisitors,complianceofconductcouldbegainedthrougheducaBon,signage,andDLNRenforcementofficers.


Adapted from Blane (n.d.)

5.6 Finding Allies

As mentioned above, in order to sustain any project or plan there is need for time, effort, and energy from many people. Much of this effort will continue to come from Kahana residents. Additionally, DLNR may be able to commit some resources. In a time of scarce resources however it is important to acknowledge the need for further help beyond that which DLNR can provide. Volunteers

Development of a deep, diverse volunteer pool has become possible with social media. For example, outsiders to Kahana have expressed interest in participating in programs or learning more about Hawaiian culture. But, it is difficult to find information on programs that support the mission of a cultural living park and when these programs are open to the public. Creating a volunteer website or facebook page that would allow for updates and events to be posted immediately and reach the volunteer pool works to better inform the public. Social media can be utilized to maximize participation in

InsBllappropriatevaluesthatallow

peopletomaketherightchoicesfornotonlythemeselvesbut

forsociety.

IniBatecommunity-basedeffortsthatinvolveahupuaá

tenantsorpeoplewithlocalizedknowledgeinthedecisionmakingprocessandwhohavepersonalstakein

theirahupuaá.Createpartnershipsbetween

stakeholdersthat,united,canbegintoexamineexisitng

westerngovernmental&legalstructuresinordertosynthesizeahupuaáprincipals.

PerpetuatethispracBce

fromgeneraBontogeneraBon


cultural programs and maintenance of natural resources. Websites and social media can be expanded to support a virtual meeting place, administrative and operational support, and an on-line database to track projects.

Ally Organizations Building networks is an effective way to encourage the sustainability of programs and provides mutual benefits between community organizations. Several community groups, non-profits, and schools could benefit from supporting and contributing to initiatives and projects in Kahana. For example, education programs in Kahana could teach students about ecosystems, Hawaiian culture, or farming. A program similar to MA´O Farms could work to address the needs of youth and provide a sustainable economic development enterprise through agriculture that promotes health and Hawaiian culture at the same time. Community groups interested in eradicating invasive species could work to restore natural resources. Hunters could contribute to removing feral pigs. Practitioners could teach and harvest resources for cultural use. Hiking groups could restore trails. The potential of network building is huge. Establishing and maintaining relationships with these groups can provide enormous benefits for both Kahana and its partners. Grants Securing grants and partnering with donors can provide funding for programs. There are many grant opportunities available. Applying for and attaining grants takes time and specific skills. Still, dedicating efforts towards obtaining grants is worthwhile. It is not recommended that any program rely solely on funding. Nevertheless, grants can offer a critical avenue to resources for non-profits and community groups. The natural resources in Kahana have the potential to provide sustenance to its residents and caretakers. Further, there is a demand for products produced in Kahana (such as poi) by people outside of Kahana. Allowing for Kahana products and services to be sold is critical to fostering community based economic development. Residents need to earn an income to support themselves and their families, yet there is no method in which one can earn an income inside Kahana. So, it follows that completing interpretive hours and maintaining resources becomes difficult. However, incentives that meet both the needs of the residents and that of Kahana’s resources (like profits) have the highest probability of success.


5.7 Asset Mapping

Much like natural resources must be kept track of and utilized wisely, so must other assets including “human resources” such as time, skills, and relationships. Asset mapping is the process of cataloguing the resources of a community. Once community strengths and resources are inventoried and depicted in a map, one can more easily think about how to build on these assets to address community needs. Finally, asset mapping promotes community involvement, ownership, and empowerment. A community asset or resource is anything that improves the quality of community life. They could be:

• The capacities and abilities of community members. • A physical structure or place. For example, a school, hospital, or church. Maybe

a library, recreation center, or social club. • A business that provides jobs and supports the local economy. • Associations of citizens. For example, a Neighborhood Watch or a Parent

Teacher Association. • Local private, public, and nonprofit institutions or organizations.

Following are the steps to do asset mapping:

• Define community boundaries • Identify and involve partners • Determine what type of assets to include • List the assets of groups • List the assets of individuals • Organize assets on a map

As Kahana already possesses many community assets that have been listed in the report, asset mapping for Kahana would prove to be useful for:

• Identify possible resources • Provide a foundation for strategic planning and implementation • Deepen understanding of key regional systems and linkages • Become a catalyst for new partnerships • Be an organizational and motivational tool for implementation

Surveys of human resources of Kahana can be updated.


5.8 Summary of Overall Recommendations:

• Hoʻoponopono: Reconcile differences and set the groundwork for moving forward.

• Utilize an Adaptive Planning process: Recognize that implementation has been a weak point in the past and overcome this by continuously revising plans and their implementation in an iterative fashion.

• Economic development is critical for Kahana’s future, but only if its done in a sensitive manner.

• Reconcile ahupuaʻa management with contemporary resource management. • Reach out to allies with steps such as online outreach to recruit volunteers and

building relationships with other organizations. • Secure Grants. • Map Assets in order to better utilize existing physical and social resources and

identify those which are needed.

5.9 Conclusion: Challenges and Opportunities The Ahupuaʻa of Kahana has many challenges and opportunities before it. On

the one hand, there has been trouble in the past with developing a plan and a program for the park which is realistic yet simultaneously meets the high expectations of those who care deeply about Kahana. On the other hand, despite these past setbacks, the promise of Kahana remains that of a place that contains an amazing bounty of ecological and cultural resources. If this promise is carefully nurtured, it will allow the ahupuaʻa of Kahana to act not only as an important link to the past, but a leading example into the future.


References

1. Aha Kiole Advisory Committee (AKAC) (2009). Best practices and specific structure for the cultural management of natural resources in Hawaii. Report to the Twenty-Fifth Legislature 2009 Regular Session. State of Hawaii.

2. Apple, R.A. and Kikuchi, W.I. (1975). Ancient Hawaii Shore Zone Fishponds. U.S. National Park Service.

3. Armstrong, L. (2010). In Search of a Management Structure for Kahana Valley: A Review of Community-Based Models. Research Paper. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

4. Asset Mapping: The Process of Cataloging the Resources of a Community. Retrieved October 20th, 2012 from http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/health/physicalactivity/Sites/Community/CoalitionCapacity/AssetMapping.pdf

5. Barrere, D.B., Puku’I M.K, and Kelly, M. (1980). Hula, Historical Perspectives. Pacific Anthropological Records (30). Honolulu, Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press.

6. Belt Collins and Associates LTD. (1955). Beautiful Kahana: A report prepared for the Robinson Agency. Honolulu, Hawaii: The Robinson Agency.

7. Blane, D. W. and Chung, C. G. (n.d.). The Ahupua’a as a Traditional Hawaiian Resource Management Model for a Sustainable Coastal Environment. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program.

8. Carpenter, A. and Yent, M. (1993). Archaeological Investigations of Huilua Fishpond, Kahana Valley, Koolauloa, Oahu. TMK: 5-2-05-21.

9. Ching, J. (year). Modern Hawaiian Planning Practices for Rural Communities in Hawaii. Waipa Community Plan.

10. Cho, J., Yamakawa, R., and Hollyer, J. (2007). Hawaiian Kalo, Past and Future. Cooperative Extension Service. Honolulu, Hawaii: College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

11. Chrislip, David D. (2002). The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

12. Department of Education. (1972). Educational Program Plan. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).

13. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). (1962). The Comprehensive Plan for Hawaii State Park. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Land and Natural Resource (DLNR).

14. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). (1965). The report Covering the Proposed Park Development of Kahana Valley. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).

15. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). (1996). Adoption of Chapter 13-7, Hawaii Administrative Rules. State of Hawaii.

16. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), (2003). Management Plan for the Ahupua’a of Pu’u Wa’awa’a and the Makai Lands of Pu’u Anahulu. Honolulu, Hawaii: Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Division of State Parks.

17. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). (2005). Interpretive Exhibit Plan & Report on Exhibit Installation: Visitor Center (Kam Mon Store), Ahupua‛a ‛o Kahana State Park, Kahana, Ko‛olauloa, O‛ahu. State of Hawaii.


18. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). (2009 a). Amendments to Chapters 13-146, Hawaii Administrative Rules. State of Hawaii.

19. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). (2009 b). Progress report on the Implementation of Act 15, First Special Laws of Hawaii.

20. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), (2012). Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands. Retrieved December 2012 from www.state.hi.us/dlnr//occl.com.

21. Dobyns, S. (1980). Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Proposed Reservoir, Kahana Valley, O‘ahu. Honolulu, Hawaii: R.H.Towill Corp.

22. Donoho, M. L. (2001). Ahupua’a Planning Guidelines: Ancient Elements in a Modern Framework. M.A. Area of Concentration Paper. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

23. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Watershed Protection Approach Framework. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov.

24. Farias, T. (1998). Ahupua'a O Kahana: The study of the history, the people, the land and the administrative influences towards the development of a cultural living park in Kahana Valley. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Public Administration, University of Hawaii.

25. Fleming, K. (1994). The Economics of Commercial Wetland Taro Production in Hawaii. Agribusiness (7). Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

26. Handy, E.S. and Handy, E. G. (1972). Native Planters in Old Hawaii Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin (233). Honolulu, Hawaii: The Bishop Museum Press.

27. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program (2008). Toward the Development of an Integrated Planning Framework for Natural and Cultural Resources Management in Hawaii: Place-, Culture-, and Community-Based Approaches. Office of Planning, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, State of Hawaii pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

28. Hawai‘i Supreme Court. 1879. Boundaries of Pulehunui. Haw. (4) 239-241. 29. Hawaii State Legislature. (1977). S.R.#264: Relating to Public Lands. 30. Hawaii State Legislature. (1987 a). S.B.# 1753: Relating to Public Lands. 31. Hawaii State Legislature. (1987 b). H.B.# 1494: Relating to Public Lands. 32. Hawaii State Legislature. (1987 c). Act 5: Relating to Public Lands. 33. Hawaii State Legislature. (1988 a). H.B.#2744: Relating to Public Lands. 34. Hawaii State Legislature. (1988 b). H.B.#2744: Relating to Public Lands. 35. Hawaii State Legislature. (1988 c). S.R.#240: Senate Resolution requesting the

Development of a Master Plan fully express the concept of the Kahana Valley Cultural Living Park.

36. Hawaii State Legislature. (1989 a). H.B.#1001: Relating to Public Lands. 37. Hawaii State Legislature. (1989 b). H.B.# 1644: Relating to capital Improvement

projects for the benefit of the Fifteenth Representative Districts. 38. Hawaii State Legislature. (1989 c). H.B.# 1450: Relating to Public Lands. 39. Hawaii State Legislature. (1989 d). S.B.# 940: Making an appropriation for

Kahana State Park .


40. Hawaii State Legislature. (2001). S.C.R.# 61: Relating to Public Lands. 41. Hawaii State Legislature. (2007). H.B.# 782: Relating to Public Lands. 42. Hawaii State Legislature. (2009 a). H.B.#1552: Relating to Public Lands. 43. Hawaii State Legislature. (2009 b). Act 15: Relating to Public Lands. 44. Hawaii State Legislature. (2011 a). H.B. #1210: Relating to Public Lands. 45. Hawaii State Legislature. (2011 b). H.B. #1403: Relating to Public Lands. 46. Hawaii State Legislature. (2011). S.B. #1506: Relating to Public Lands. 47. H Mogi Planning & Research Inc. (1974). Kahana Valley State Park. Honolulu,

Hawaii: Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 48. H Mogi Planning Research Inc. (1978). Revised Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS). Honolulu, Hawaii: Division of State Park. 49. Hoenle, S. (2008). Re-thinking the Way We Live: Sustainable Development and

Design Strategies for Communities in Hawaii. Case Study Site: Ka’ala Farms Cultural Learning Center, Wai’anae. Honolulu, Hawaii: School of Architecture, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

50. Hollyer J.R. and Sato D. M. (1990). Proceedings of Taking Taro into the 1990s: A Taro Conference. 1989 Aug 17; Hilo, Hawaii. Honolulu (HI): University of Hawaii.

51. Hommon, R. and Barrera, W. (1972). Excavations in Kahana Valley, Oahu. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

52. Hue, N.V, Uehara, G., Yost, R.S. and Ortiz-Escobar, M. (2006). Distribution of Soil Orders in Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Science, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Univesity of Hawaii at Manoa.

53. Hui Mālama ‘Āina o Kahana. (1987). Kahana Valley Preliminary Project Plans. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Land and Natural Resources.

54. Jaworowski, S. (2001). Kahana: What Whas, What Is, What Can Be. Honolulu, Hawaii: Legislative Reference Bureau, State Capitol.

55. Kahana Advisory Council (1985). (1985). Kahana State Park Development Plan (Draft 7). Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Land and Natural Resources.

56. Kahana Palapala. (Issue of March, 2005) 57. Kamakau, S. M. (1976). The works of the people of old: Na hana a ka po‘e

kahiko. Bernice P. Bishop Museum special publication; 61. Honolulu, Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press.

58. Kelly, M. (1989). Dynamics of Production Intensification in Precontact Hawai‘i. In What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation, ed. Sander van der Leeuw and Robin Torrence, 82-106. London , Boston : Unwin Hyman.

59. Kelly, M. (1979). Background History of Huilua Fishpond, Kahana Bay, Koolauloa, Oahu. Prepared for Oceanic Institute by Bishop Museum, Department of Anthropology.

60. Kirch, P. V. (1997). Feathered gods and fishhooks: An introduction to Hawaiian archaeology and prehistory. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

61. Krauss, B. (1993). Plants in Hawaiian Culture. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

62. Lennox, C.G. (1954). Waipio Valley, Island of Hawaii. Report to the Trustees Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Honolulu, Hawaii.


63. Leslie, J. (2001). Uli’eo Koa Program: incorporating a traditional Hawaiian dietary component. Pacific Health Dialogue, Vol. 8:2 pp. 401-406.

64. Lewin, M. J. (1992). The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of Kahana Valley State Park. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i, Mānoa.

65. Margouluis, R. and Slafsky, N. (1998). Measure of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects.

66. McAllister, G. (1933). Archaeology of Oahu. Bishop Museum Bulletin 104. Honolulu, Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press.

67. Meilleur, B., Jones, R., Titchenal, C. and Huang, A. (2004). Hawaiian Breadfruit: Ethnobotany, Nutrition, and Human Ecology. Honolulu, Hawaii: College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

68. Minerbi, L. (1999). Indigenous Management Models and Protection of the Ahupua’a. Social Process in Hawai’i, Vol. 39: Honolulu.

69. Minerbi, L. (2003). Divergent "Cultural Living Park" Plans for Kahana Valley, O'ahu, Hawai'i. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii.

70. Myer, M. (2001). Our Own Liberation: Reflections on Hawaiian Epistemology. The Contemporary Pacific, pp.124-148.

71. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2012). Hawaii Farm Facts. USDA in cooperation with the State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, February 2012.

72. Natural Park Service, A Cultural History of Three Traditional Hawaiian Sites on the West Coast of Hawai'i Island: Chapter 1 Before the Written Record <accessed 3-16-2016> http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/kona/history1g.htm

73. Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS). (2006). Waipio Valley Stream Management Plan. Hawaii.

74. Patria, B. P. (1998). Kahana: The Land and The People. Research paper. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

75. PingSun, L. and Loke, M. (2008). Economic Impacts of Increasing Hawaii’s Food Self-Sufficiency. Honolulu, Hawaii: Cooperative Extension Service, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

76. Pukui, M. K. and Elbert, S. (1986). Hawaiian Dictionary. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

77. Queen Liliuokalani Children Center (1972). Social Culture Research: Kahana Living Park. Submitted to the Department of Land and Natural Resources

78. Quezon, T. (2008). Community stands with Kahana Valley families facing eviction. The Hawaiian Independent. Retrieved on December 20th, 2012 from http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/community-stands-with-kahana-valley-families-facing-eviction/www.la2hawaiilani.com#.UN4zaqVIrd4

79. Rosskam, C. (1989). Case Study: Kahana Valley - An Illustration Of Citizen Participation By Native People In Tourism Related Planning Processes. Research paper. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii at Manoa.


80. Rothwell, G. and Madden, W. (1980). Prestablization Survey of Huilua Fishpond Kahana Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Prepared for the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

81. State Department of Education (1972). Learning About Living In The Kahana Valley State Living Park. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, State of Hawaii.

82. Stauffer, R. H. (1990). Land Tenure in Kahana Hawai‘i: 1846-1920. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii at Manoa.

83. Stauffer, R. H. (2004). Kahana: How the land was lost. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

84. Sterling, E. P., and Summers, C. C. (1978). Sites of Oahu. Honolulu, Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press.

85. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Section 1: Asset Mapping. Retrieved on 10/20/2012 from http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/healthdata/ttt_prog21.pdf

86. Umemoto, K. and Krisnawati S. (2006). Technology, Culture and Environmental Uncertainty: Considering social Contracts in Adaptive Management. Journal of Planning, Education and Research 25: 264-274.

87. Wilson, J. (2004). Maximum Kauai Population. Island Breath. 88. Wilson, S. (2003). Business Planning for Rural Alaska Utilities. Alaska

Department of Community and Economic Development, Rural Utility Business Advisor Program.

89. Wyban C.A. (1990). Feasibility Study and Implementatoin Plan for Huilua Fishpond, Kahana, Oahu. Prepared for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Parks Division.

90. Wyban, Carol A., (1995). Environmental Assessment and Restoration/Revitalization Plan for Huilua Fishpond; Kahana Valley State Park, Koolauloa, Oahu. Prepared for State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Parks Division.

91. U.S. Department of State, The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act), Retrieved from http://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/ImmigrationAct on Feburary, 17th, 2013

Websites:

1. http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/ruba/busplan/busplan.htm (accessed on 10/22/2012)

2. http://web.sba.gov/busplantemplate/BizPlanStart.cfm# (accessed on 10/22/2012) 3. http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Kahana-Ahupua-a-Kahana-HI.html

(accessed on 10/28/2012)


Appendix A: Template of Business Plan TEMPLATE OF BUSINESS PLAN:

1. Executive Summary

This part should be written at last and be less than 2 pages in length. It should consist of: • Fundamentals - what is the project, who are your customers, who are the

owners, and what you think the future holds for the project and the community? It needs to “Sell” the idea that the proposed project is realistic, needed and sustainable. The scope of the project needs to be defined and if the project is a large project, the phases and timelines for each fiscal year need to be described as well.

2. Community Overview

• Location – describe the location relative to the entire State, relative to major rivers or mountains, nearest municipality.

• Population served – local economy, stability of economy, number of households being served, current demand for the proposed utility, anticipated growth and population trends, seasonal activities.

• Selected Statistics - Discuss selected statistics that demonstrate the organization’s ability to provide services.

• Available Transportation o Primary transportation to the community o Local road system o Vehicles and equipment available locally o Shipping cost

• Current Infrastructure - Describe the facility that is being repaired or replaced by this project: Condition, Adequacy, Suitability for continued use, other pertinent information and other related utilities.

• Key Assumptions o Beliefs that you have related to the community that you are “taking for

granted” or “assuming”. o It may be that while one industry is growing, another is stable or even on the

decline.

2. Management Structure The management structure should provide the information on the legal form of ownership for your business, who are the leaders in the business as well as their roles and the general flow of operations within the firm. It should include:

• Topics that will affect the future management and operation of the utility such as:

o Number of employees needed o Type of labor o How and where you will find new employees o Quality of the existing staff o Pay structure


o Training requirements o Projected new positions

(This assures that tasks are identified and helps you address time constraints and skill abilities of present staff as well as possible training needed.)

• Organizational Chart

o An organizational chart describes in picture format the supervisory and reporting relationships in a business.

o It creates a better understanding of the supervisory responsibilities, relationships, and flow of information in your organization.

• Staffing and Training

o Outlining of duties and powers for all employees. o Describe the duties of the administrator in outline format. o Discuss any required training programs - may be in-house, provided by

funding agencies, or part of a certification program provided by the State.

o Describe who will be the key personnels for the ongoing operations.

• Key Assumptions

3. Financial Data This section should provide a good understanding regarding the financial capacity and/or projections for the company. It should provide information on how the project will receive revenues, expenditures, and what anticipated maintenance costs may be. It is recommended that the community insert a comment that the amounts in the financial data sections are estimates. Following should be included in financial data:

• Revenue Source o Revenue to support the proposed improvements normally comes from user

fees including commercial, residential, and school user fees. o Revenue generated from user fees funds the annual operations and

maintenance costs to operate the system. o Estimate needed revenue based on the projected annual costs for the

preferred system.

• Estimated Annual Expenses o Two cost categories – ‘Operations & Maintenance’ and ‘Repairs &

Replacement’. o Operations & Maintenance - expenses that are incurred on a regular basis to

sustain the operation of the utility. o Repairs & Replacement - capital costs that will be depreciated over the useful

life of the item rather than expensed in the year incurred. The goal of R&R costs is to set aside adequate funds to repair items that are going to wear out over a short period.


o Timeline/ Design life of the facility – This will provide a fairly accurate idea of the time line for replacing the facility as well as the equipment within it.

o Annual Profit - The annual profit is all sources of revenue, less all expenses and amounts set aside for replacements (both capital and repair).

o Annual Estimated Operating Cost Flow - Annual estimated operating cash flow reflects the annual flow of money received minus the cost of operations over the course of a fiscal year.

• Key Assumptions 5. Capital Replacement Schedule A capital replacement fund is the amount of money that should be saved each year to completely replace the project at the end of its estimated useful life or design life. It is important as business plans require to demonstrate a community’s ability to sustain a facility once it’s built. It should incorporate:

• Funding o Funding of major components o Available resources for the infrastructure o Emergency and Contingency plans

• Key Assumptions 6. Legal Authority And Issues

• Ownership - Identify the owner of the project and clearly state who owns it and who will manage it.

• Ordinances related to the new project - Review the utility ordinance and address utility rates, and collections.

• Special Permits, Licenses and Regulations – Any special permits required for the project.

• Key Assumptions 7. Intra Agency Relationships

• Involvement of other agencies o Involvement in construction phase - Discuss involvement of all funding and

oversight agencies for the construction of the project. Discuss who manages the construction, hiring, purchasing, and scheduling. Will there be accounting for the project to be managed by your community, an agency, or an outside organization hired by the agency?

o Involvement in ongoing operations - Who will be involved in the ongoing operations of the project? Are reports required, and how often will the reports need to be submitted? Discuss the involvement of all funding and oversight agencies in the ongoing operations of the enterprise.

o Replacement Agencies - What agencies or funding sources have you identified as a potential source for replacing the utility at the end of the design life?

o Regulatory Agencies – Discuss the responsibilities of the community and the regulatory agency.


• Phase of larger project This needs to be included in the utility master plan or the guiding document being used during the completion of the project. It is necessary so as to examine each phase of the project construction year and determine other impacts. It should include: o What segments will come on-line at what point? o When will the customers begin to be charged for services or when will

charges need to be increased? • Key Assumptions

8. Summary The final summary section should summarize other elements of the project not discussed in the prior sections. It should incorporate the following:

• Wrap-up • Timelines • Effect on Community • Cost of living/ residents ability to pay • Key Assumptions


APPENDIX B GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS OF AHUPUA’A O KAHANA

Title Parks Distribution Map of Oahu Problem Statement Determine the size of Kahana Valley State Park compared to other

parks on Oahu. Data Source(s) Vector Data from the Honolulu Land Information System,

Department of Land and Permitting. Shapefiles obtained and used for this map are :

• Oahu Shoreline Data • Parks Data of Oahu • Topographic Base Map from ESRI Resources Center.

Analysis Vector and attribute data analysis were conducted to create this map.

Findings Oahu has 424 parks. This includes public and private parks. The average size of a park on Oahu is 41.75 acres. Kahana Valley State Park has an area of 5,326.67 acres.

Recommendation Kahana Valley State Park is clearly the largest park on Oahu. It is 127 times larger than the average size park. Adequate resources and findings should be allocated to Kahana Valley State Park due to its immense size and number of resources it holds.

Explanation / Narratives The total area of all parks on Oahu is 17,702.02 acres. The size of Kahana Valley State Park makes up 30.09% of the total area of parks on Oahu. Sacred Falls State Park is the second largest on Oahu, making up 7.75% of the total area, followed by Koko Head Regional Park, which is 6.9% of the total area.


Title Conservation District Subzones of Oahu Problem Statement Determine the Conservation District Subzone classification of

Kahana. Data Source(s) Raster (map) data from the State of Hawaii, Department of Land

and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands. Published in 2005. Interpretation and explanation of the map is provided by the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Adoption of Chapter 13-5, Hawaii Administrative Rules.

Analysis N/A Findings The entire area of Kahana Valley is classified as a Resource

subzone. Recommendation Several cultural, historical, and natural resources are located in

Kahana that would warrant a Protective or Limited subzone. While some areas are appropriately categorized as a Resources subzone to allow for subsistence farming. The current zoning of Kahana is too general and doesn’t properly account for Kahana’s valuable resources. Determining a micro-subzone of Kahana that includes Protective, Limited, and Resource subzones would optimize use and ensure sustainability of its assets. Kahana consists of different topographic layers and ecological subzones that need to be reclassified to a more protective conservation subzones. This would limit the ability to develop certain areas within the valley.

Explanation / Narratives The Conservation District has five subzones: protective, limited, resource, general and special. Omitting the special subzone, the four subzones are arranged in a hierarchy of environmental sensitivity, ranging from the most environmentally sensitive (protective) to the least sensitive (general). The special subzone is applied in special cases specifically to allow a unique land use on a specific site. Each subzone has a unique set of identified land uses. A brief summary of each zone is listed below : • Protective (P) subzone is to protect valuable resources in

designated areas such as restricted water-sheds, marine, plant, wildlife sanctuaries, significant historic, archaeological, geological features, and other designated unique areas.

• Limited (L) subzone is to limit uses where natural conditions suggest constrains on human activities.

• Resources (R) subzone is to develop, with proper management, areas to ensure sustained use of the natural resources of those areas.

• General (G) subzone is to designate open space where specific conservation uses may not be defined, but where urban use would be premature.


Title Kahana Topographic Appearance Over Time Problem Statement Identify the changes in Kahana’s topographic appearances in over

time. Data Source(s) Kahana Quadrangle Maps from USGS in 1929, 1936, and 1992. All

three maps are provided by Maps, Aerials, and GIS (MAGIS) of University of Hawaii’s Hamilton Library. The explanation of the maps refers to Topographic Map Information by USGS.

Analysis Raster Analysis, and Comparison Analysis Findings The wall of Huilua Fishpond is intact and completely encloses the

pond in the 1929 and 1936 maps. The 1992 map depicts a break in the fishpond’s wall. The uniform color of different topographic features in the 1929 map makes it difficult to analyze. In 1936, the map has been provided with several colors for different features. Structures are clear to see, and the unimproved roads are drawn with two dotted lines. By 1992, the road has been paved, as indicated by one clear line that represents the street. The detail of the changes in structures is shown and described in the building structures map.

Recommendation Topographic maps from several other years are needed to provide a more detailed analysis. The USGS maps should be used as base maps in overlay analysis due to its well-visualized topographic information and also the easiness to interpret the data.

Explanation / Narratives USGS Maps are very useful in determining the conditions of topographic surfaces of an area. These maps show several aspects that are often clearer than aerial photos. Aerial photos are sometimes covered by weather, clouds and also thick forest.


Title Building Structures of Kahana in the year 1929, 1936, and 1992 Problem Statement Identify the changes in Kahana building structures over time. Data Source(s) The 1929, 1936, and 1992 USGS Kahana Quadrangle Maps. Also,

vector data from Honolulu Land Information System, Department of Planning and Permitting. Shapefiles obtained and used for this map are : • Oahu Shoreline Data • World Topographic Base Map Data from ESRI Web Sources

Analysis Raster and Vector Analysis of GIS. Findings Number of buildings/structures in Kahana:

• Year 1929: 64 Units • Year 1936: 68 Units • Year 1992: 41 Units

Recommendation A current USGS Kahana Quadrangle Map is necessary to conduct proper analysis. As of 1992, the number of buildings and structures in Kahana has decreased since 1929. The analysis of the habitation of Kahana overtime could be augmented with other topographic maps of different years.

Explanation / Narratives There aren’t many changes happening between 1929 and 1936, compared within the year 1992. This is likely due to short time span between 1929 and 1936. Some structures remain in the same place, but the number of buildings is decreasing over time. There are four more buildings in 1936 than in 1929. In 1992, there are 27 less buildings than in 1936.


Title Flood Zones with Contour Lines of Kahana Problem Statement Determine areas in Kahana that are vulnerable to flooding. Data Source(s) Elevation Map from Pabitra Study Site on Oahu; The Kahana Valley

Ahupua´a by Dieter Mueller Dumbois and Nengah Wirawan (2005). The building structures are extracted from 1992 USGS Kahana Quadrangle Maps. The vector data is obtained from Honolulu Land Information System, Department of Planning and Permitting. Shapefiles used for this map are as follow: • Oahu Shoreline Data • World Elevation Topographic Base Map Data from ESRI Web

Sources. • FEMA Flood Zone Map of Oahu • Kahana Line Boundaries • Oahu Street Data • Ahupua’a Map of Oahu

Analysis Raster, Vector, and Attribute Data Analysis of GIS Findings Kahana has four flood zones, from the most vulnerable (near the

ocean), to the least vulnerable (further from ocean). The area within 100 year floodplains contains most of the buildings (based on the 1992 building structures).

Recommendation Residential structures are safe when located outside of the zone of 0.2% chance of annual flood and outside the 100 year floodplains area.

Explanation / Narratives Kahana has four flood zones determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The most vulnerable are locations that have 0.2% chance for annual flood. Areas that have 0.2% chance for annual flood are located throughout the valley. Overlaying the elevation on this map indicates that these locations are lower in elevation compared to the surrounding area. Causes of flooding include tsunami, ocean tides and waves, and overflow from the streams. The second flood zone is the area within the 100 year floodplains. Areas within the 100 year floodplains include most of the open space and areas near the beach. A 100 year flood is rare, however still a hazard. Most of the structures are found within the 100 year floodplain. Any plans to conduct residential development in this area should consider this hazard. The hazard can be mitigated by building structures on poles or stilts. The third flood zone is the area that has a possible, but undetermined flood hazard. This area is rather safe, with a slight possibility of flood hazard. It would be suitable for residential sites. The last flood zone is the area outside of 100 year floodplains. These areas are located on high ground, with the elevation not less than 200 feet, mostly in the hills or mountainous area.


Title Kahana Tsunami Evacuation Zone Problem Statement Assess the areas in Kahana that are vulnerable to tsunamis. Data Source(s) Elevation Map is extracted from Pabitra Study Site on Oahu; The

Kahana Valley Ahupua´a by Dieter Mueller Dumbois and Nengah Wirawan (2005). Vector data from the Honolulu Land Information System, Department of Planning and Permitting. Shapefile needed for this map are as follow : • Tsunami Evacuation Zone Map • Oahu Shoreline • Ahupua´a Map of Oahu • Street Data

Analysis Vector and Raster Analysis of GIS, Google Earth

Findings The tsunami inundation zone in Kahana includes the beach area and also some open space area further inland from the beach. Many structures are within the tsunami inundation zone. The mauka residential area outside tsunami of the tsunami inundation zone and safe to evacuate to.

Recommendation Many residents and visitors would need to evacuate from the makai areas in the event of a tsunami since it lies within the inundation zone. Evacuation routes would be towards the mountains near the mauka residential area. There needs to be adequate space to park cars and accommodate evacuees. A parking lot, shelter and bathrooms would increase the capacity of Kahana to accommodate tsunami alerts and actual tsunamis.

Explanation / Narratives This map is accompanied by the evacuation route, and several measurement points detailing the elevation. The evacuation route is in line with the existing street. The proposed shelter is near the residential area and outside of the from the tsunami inundation zone. Elevation information and the detailed corresponding contour lines were not included in the tsunami evacuation map metadata. The elevation value of the boundaries of the line that separate the area outside and inside the inundation area could not be determined. In response to this, we conducted GIS analysis with the support of GPS and Google Earth to determine the detailed elevation and contour lines less than 200 feet. The safe height starts after 12 feet, but the recommended shelter is found at 25 feet. The reason why the tsunami evacuation zone of Kahana reaches the land inland from the beaches is because that portion of the valley is flat. The open space of Kahana close to the beach has a variety of elevations. Some areas, near the river buffer zone, are shaped like a basin and tend to be lower in elevation than the surrounding area. Some areas more inland are not necessarily higher than areas closer to the coast. While other elevation measurement points indicate the contour lines at the boundaries. Elevation vary with the presence of small cliffs in certain locations.


Title Vegetation Map of Kahana (1974) Problem Statement Illustrate the different types of vegetation areas in Kahana from the

1974 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of Kahana completed by Mogi Planning Consultant.

Data Source(s) Elevation Map is extracted from Pabitra Study Site on Oahu; The Kahana Valley Ahupua´a by Dieter Mueller Dumbois and Nengah Wirawan (2005). Vegetation shapefile is derived from EIS and Mogi Plan (1974). Other vector data is from the Honolulu Land Information System, Department of Planning and Permitting. Shapefiles used for this map are:

• Oahu Shoreline Data • Ahupua´a of Oahu • World Topographic Elevation Base Map by ESRI Web

Sources Analysis Vector and Raster Analysis of GIS. Findings Five Vegetation Zones are mapped using information from the EIS.

Each Zone can be measured. Forest / Woodlands is the largest vegetation zone in Kahana

Recommendation Some of the mixed forest, mixed grass and open space areas may be ideal for cultivation, have been utilized, or continue to be utilized for cultivation. The map shows the value and integrity of the forest ecosystem, identifies optimal areas for cultivation and gardening. This map can be utilized for future agricultural projects that support interpretive programs.

Explanation / Narratives The map indicates that the forest or woodlands have a total area of 4448.9 acres, more than 80% of total area of Kahana. Open Space areas (where all of the activities and structure are located) account for 311.5 acres. The mixed forest and mixed grass zones make up 305.9 and 220.1 acres, respectively. Strands located alongside the beaches, have a total area of 46.1 acres.


Title Land Tenure of Kahana in 1913 Problem Statement Show the ownership of land in Kahana in the year 1913. Data Source(s) Map of 1913 Land Tenure created by Monsarrat and Harvey.

Vector Data, obtained from Honolulu Land Information System, Department of Planning and Permitting, includes:

• Oahu Shoreline Data • Ahupua´a of Oahu • World Topographic Base Map from ESRI Web Source.

Analysis Vector, Raster, and Attribute Data Analysis of GIS Findings The land tenure in Kahana is identified by number and location

along with the family name of the owner. Recommendation This is a good reference to trace the historic ownership of land in

Kahana and can be utilized to verify future lease eligiblity and provide cultural insight to Native Hawaiians that lived in the area. Further, the size and location of each parcel can be analyzed.

Explanation / Narratives The map provides the name of the family that holds the ownership of the land in Kahana. The names of these owners are listed on the table next to the map.


Title Existing Land Use in 1953 Problem Statement Illustrate the 1953 land use of Kahana by utilizing a study

providing by The Robinson Agency. Data Source(s) The information and location of each zoning area are obtained

from the Kahana Plan Report by The Robinson Agency in 1954. Vector data is obtained from the Honolulu Land Information System, Department of Planning and Permitting. Shapefiles include:

• Coastline of Oahu • Kahana Valley Boundaries • Ahupua´a in Oahu • World Base Elevation Map from ESRI Website • 1992 Building Structures of Kahana Valley.

Analysis Georeference, Geocoding, Digitizing of Layer, and Attribute

Data Analysis of GIS. Findings Overlaying the Robinson study with the 1992 building structures

shows that most of the residential areas are built within the residential zoning of the 1953 land use. Other houses are built within the pasture area.

Recommendation This map can be utilized to determine the carrying capacity and to optimal land use in Kahana. Further, this map can provide insight into the suitability of houses and plantations in different areas of the valley.

Explanation / Narratives The location and size of several zones are identified from the map. The total area of each zone is provided in the table on the map. The Brush zone makes up a total area of 109.13 acres; Brush, Fruit Trees, and Truck Crops Zone is 69.24 acres; Fruit Trees Zone is 61.71 acres; Household Zone is 62.75 acres; Pastures Zone is 97.08 acres; Pastures and Taro zone is 124.09 acres; and the Woodlands zone is 37.85 acres


APPENDIX C STUDENTS PRESENTATION List of presentations done by students:

1. PLAN751_2012_KV_preliminary_project_plans: Chapel Restoration, Grave Site Repair, Multipurpose Center, Medical Plant Herbarium; Halau Wa’a: Hui ‘o Ko‘olauloa Canoe Club and Canoe Builders; and Lo’i Restoration (1987)

2. PLAN751_2012_KSPDP:

Kahana State Park Development Plan (Draft 7) (1985)

3. PLAN751_2012_KV_Interpretive_Progs: Report on Interpretive Programs, Ahupua’a O Kahana (1999)

4. PLAN751_2012_Learning_about_living:

Learning about Living: Kahana Valley Living State Park (1972)

5. PLAN751_2012_EA_Huilua_fishpond: Environmental Assessment and Restoration/ Revitalization Plan for Huilua Fishpond, Kahana Valley State Park, Koolauloa, Oahu (1995)

6. PLAN751_2012_Mogi_1974:

Kahana Valley State Park (1974)

7. PLAN751_2012_Outside_examples: ALASKA NATIONAL PARKS,ALASKA, USA KON KA KINH NATIONAL PARK & KON JA RANG RESERVE, VIETNAM

8. PLAN751_2012_prepark_history:

Kahana valley pre-park history

9. PLAN751_2012_history_1870-2010: Kahana valley history 1870 – 2010

10. PLAN751_2012_Lewin_SIA:

Social Impact Assessment of Kahana Valley State Park; Oahu, Hawaii (1992)

11. PLAN751 Comprehensive plan_1962: A comprehensive Plan for Hawaii State Parks: Report to the First Legislature (1962)

12. PLAN751 Mogi Revised EIS_1978:

Kahana Valley State Park: Revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (1978)

13. PLAN751_2012_Laws:Laws and Acts for Kahana

MapsofoutofTextM.D.Monsarrat,Surveyor,October1901KahanaMap

Legend:KuleanaLandsSchoolLotHuiLandHuiLandDivisionbyBurreysHuiLandNoDivisionbyBurreysRoadsStreamsDitches,PondsEdgeofRiseFencesWallsHouses

AerealphotosofKahana(Belt&CollinsandAssoc.LTD,1955)Acomparisonofthetwomapshelpsinidentifyingsomecontinuityandchangeinthelanduseutilizationandparcellayoutsin54years.

towards co-management: the ahupuaʻa o kahana...

Documents