FEIS Haiku Stairs Study Part 1 (Vol 1+2)

HA‘IKŪ STAIRS STUDY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

VOLUME I
HE‘EIA, KO‘OLAUPOKO, ISLAND OF O‘AHU
Photo: David Brotchie
APPLICANT:
PREPARED BY:
JAN. 2020
Volume I: Final EIS
SECTION PAGE
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................................... vii
Appendices......................................................................................................................................................................... viii
Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................................................... ix
1.0 Project Summary

1.1 Project Information Summary .............................................................................................1-1
1.2 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-10
1.3 Environmental Review Under Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ......................... 1-11
1.4 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................ 1-11
1.5 Alternatives Considered to the Proposed Action ............................................................. 1-12
1.5.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................... 1-12
1.5.2 Partial Removal Alternative .............................................................................. 1-12
1.5.3 Conveyance Alternative ..................................................................................... 1-12
1.6 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ........................................................................... 1-14
1.6.1 Third-Party Operator Alternative
(Formerly Called “Legal Access Alternative” in the EISPN) ............................. 1-14
1.6.2 Subdivision Alternative...................................................................................... 1-14
1.7 Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures
with the Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 1-15
1.7.1 Beneficial Impacts ............................................................................................. 1-15
1.7.2 Adverse Impacts ................................................................................................ 1-15
1.7.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 1-16
1.8 Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................. 1-19
1.9 Agency and Stakeholder Meetings .................................................................................. 1-19
1.9.1 Summary of Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board Meeting .................................... 1-20
1.10 Summary of Compatibility with Land Use Policies and Plans ........................................ 1-21
1.11 Listing of Required Government Permits and Approvals ................................................ 1-22
1.12 Project Schedule and Costs.............................................................................................. 1-22
1.12.1 Anticipated Schedule ........................................................................................ 1-22
1.12.2 Estimated Demolition, Removal, and Disposal Cost ....................................... 1-23
2.0 Purpose and Need of the Project

2.1 Background Information ......................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Trespassing on Ha‘ikū Stairs and in Ha‘ikū Valley .............................................2-1
2.1.2 Public Safety and Emergency Response.............................................................2-3
i
Ha‘ikū Stairs Study
Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.1.3 Protection of the Natural Environment and Watershed .....................................2-4

2.1.4 Eliminating BWS Liability and Resource Commitments .....................................2-4
2.2 Purpose and Need ...............................................................................................................2-5
2.2.1 Project Need .........................................................................................................2-5
2.2.2 Project Purpose ....................................................................................................2-6
2.3 Project Objectives and Evaluation Criteria .........................................................................2-6
2.4 Summary...............................................................................................................................2-9
3.0 Project Description

3.1 Property History ....................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Pre-Contact History ...............................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 History of Land Interest ........................................................................................3-1
3.1.3 History of Ha‘ikū Stairs.........................................................................................3-2
3.2 Existing Conditions ...............................................................................................................3-6
3.2.1 Land Owners and Land Use .................................................................................3-6
3.2.2 Water Resources ..................................................................................................3-8
3.2.3 Ha‘ikū Stairs and Moanalua Saddle Stairs .........................................................3-8
3.3 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................ 3-15
3.3.1 Evaluation of Project Objectives: Proposed Action .......................................... 3-17
4.0 Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Recommended Mitigation Measures

4.1 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources ..............................................................4-2
4.2.1 Archaeological Resources ....................................................................................4-2
4.2.2 Cultural Impact Assessment ................................................................................4-5
4.2.3 Historic Architectural Resources ...................................................................... 4-16
4.3 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-19
4.4 Climate ............................................................................................................................... 4-25
4.5 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 4-28
4.6 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 4-30
4.7 Natural Hazards ................................................................................................................ 4-32
4.7.1 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms ....................................................................... 4-32
4.7.2 Wind ................................................................................................................... 4-32
4.7.3 Landslides and Rock Falls ................................................................................ 4-33
4.7.4 Earthquake ........................................................................................................ 4-33
4.7.5 Flooding.............................................................................................................. 4-34
4.7.6 Tsunami Inundation .......................................................................................... 4-34
4.8 Noise .................................................................................................................................. 4-36
4.9 Public Safety ...................................................................................................................... 4-42
4.10 Public Service .................................................................................................................... 4-43
4.10.1 Police Protection ................................................................................................ 4-43
ii
4.10.2 Fire Protection ................................................................................................... 4-45

4.10.3 Emergency Medical Services & Hospital Services .......................................... 4-47
4.10.4 Schools ............................................................................................................... 4-47
4.10.5 Libraries ............................................................................................................. 4-48
4.10.6 Public Parks ....................................................................................................... 4-48
4.11 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 4-49
4.12 Economic Conditions ........................................................................................................ 4-52
4.12.1 Demographic Information ................................................................................. 4-52
4.12.2 Economic and Fiscal Impacts ........................................................................... 4-53
4.12.3 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................... 4-55
4.13 Traffic and Circulation ....................................................................................................... 4-56
4.14 Utilities ............................................................................................................................... 4-57
4.14.1 Water Supply ...................................................................................................... 4-57
4.14.2 Wastewater ........................................................................................................ 4-57
4.14.3 Drainage ............................................................................................................. 4-58
4.14.4 Power and Telecommunications ...................................................................... 4-58
4.14.5 Gas ..................................................................................................................... 4-58
4.15 Visual Resources and Open Spaces ................................................................................ 4-59
4.16 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 4-61
4.17 Probable Impacts and Other Considerations Under HAR 11-200 ................................. 4-63
4.17.1 Interrelationships and Cumulative Environmental Impacts ........................... 4-63
4.17.2 Potential Secondary Effects .............................................................................. 4-63
4.17.3 Relationship between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ........................... 4-63
4.17.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ............................. 4-64
4.17.5 Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot Be Avoided ................................ 4-64
4.18 Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................. 4-64
5.0 Relationship of the Proposed Project to Land Use Plans, Policies and Controls for the Affected Area
5.1 Federal Controls ...................................................................................................................5-4
5.1.1 Coastal Zone Management Act ...........................................................................5-4
5.2 State of Hawai‘i Plans and Controls....................................................................................5-4
5.2.1 Environmental Impact Statements, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 343.........5-4
5.2.2 Land Use Commission, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 205........................5-5
5.2.3 Hawai‘i State Plan, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 226 ..............................5-5
5.2.4 Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan ..................................................................... 5-21
5.2.5 DHHL O‘ahu Island Plan .................................................................................... 5-24
5.2.6 Coastal Zone Management, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 205A .......... 5-24
5.2.7 Conservation District, Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, Title 13, Chapter 5 ...... 5-27
5.2.8 Conservation District, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 183C ..................... 5-27
5.3 City and County of Honolulu Plans, Policies and Controls .............................................. 5-28
iii
5.3.1 City and County of Honolulu General Plan ....................................................... 5-28

5.3.2 ROH Chapter 21 – City and County of Honolulu Land Use Ordinance ........... 5-38
5.3.3 Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan (August 2017) ........................ 5-38
5.3.4 Board of Water Supply Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan ............ 5-58
6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................6-2
6.1 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Study .............................................6-3
6.1.1 Third-Party Operator Alternative ..........................................................................6-3
6.1.2 Subdivision Alternative.........................................................................................6-5
6.2 No-Action Alternative............................................................................................................6-7
6.2.1 Description: No-Action Alternative .......................................................................6-7
6.2.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives: No-Action Alternative .....................................6-7
6.2.3 Environmental Impacts Overview: No-Action Alternative ...................................6-8
6.3 Partial Removal Alternative .............................................................................................. 6-10
6.3.1 Description: Partial Removal Alternative ......................................................... 6-10
6.3.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives: Partial Removal Alternative........................ 6-10
6.3.3 Environmental Impacts Overview: Partial Removal Alternative ...................... 6-11
6.4 Conveyance Alternative .................................................................................................... 6-13
6.4.1 Legal Access Route ........................................................................................... 6-14
6.4.2 Managed Access................................................................................................ 6-33
6.4.3 Conveyance Alternative: Ha‘ikū Road .............................................................. 6-36
6.4.4 Conveyance Alternative: Kūneki Street ............................................................ 6-47
6.4.5 Conveyance Alternative: Po‘okela Street ......................................................... 6-52
6.4.6 Conveyance Alternative: Preferred Access Route ........................................... 6-60
6.5 Summary Comparison of Proposed Action and Alternatives by Project Objectives ...... 6-67
6.6 Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Impacts ................................. 6-68
7.0 Agencies and Parties Consulted
8.0 References and Preparers of the Draft EIS
iv
List of Figures
Figure Page
1-1 Project Location Map ...................................................................................................................1-3
1-2 Moku and Ahupua‘a Map ............................................................................................................1-4
1-3 Tax Map Key (TMK) (1) 4-6-015:011..........................................................................................1-5
1-4 State Land Use District Designations and Conservation District Subzone Map ......................1-6
1-5 City and County of Honolulu, Land Use Ordinance, Zoning Map ..............................................1-7
1-6 City and County of Honolulu, Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan (2017)
Land Use Map ..............................................................................................................................1-8
1-7 Land Ownership ...........................................................................................................................1-9
3-1 Navy personnel near peak, ca. 1945 (U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records) .................3-2
3-2 Cable Car/Hoist House, ca. 1943 (Fort De Russy Army Museum Archives) ............................3-3
3-3 Hoist, ca. 1944 (U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records) ....................................................3-3
3-4 Communications Control Link Building. The dish was added in approximately 1956,
ca. 1960 (U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records)...............................................................3-4
3-5 Omega Station Ha‘ikū, Project Design 1969
(U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records) ...............................................................................3-5
3-6 Omega Station, Kāne‘ohe, U.S. Coast Guard District 14, 1997 (Chapman, 2018) ................3-5
3-7 Land Ownership Overview ...........................................................................................................3-6
3-8 Typical Ha‘ikū Stairs Module “A” Plan Section and Elevation (Nakoa, 2017) .........................3-9
3-9 Storm-Damaged Modules, 2017 (G70)................................................................................... 3-10
3-10 Figure 3-10 Overgrowth, 2017 (G70) ...................................................................................... 3-11
3-11 Cable Car Building, 2017 (G70)............................................................................................... 3-11
3-12 Communications Control Link Building/Microwave Station (Web Source, 2014) ................ 3-11
3-13 Steel Plate Modules and Metal Post Anchors, 2017 (G70) ................................................... 3-12
3-14 Omega Station, 2017 (G70)..................................................................................................... 3-12
3-15 Topographic View of Ha‘ikū Stairs to Moanalua Saddle Access Trail.................................... 3-13
3-16 Moanalua Saddle Stairs Module Example (Nakoa 14). ......................................................... 3-15
3-17 Illustration of Proposed Action: Full Removal of Stair Modules ............................................. 3-16
4-1 Location of Archaeological Features (Historic Period) ...............................................................4-3
4-2 Feature 8b Platform, Facing Northeast ......................................................................................4-3
4-3 Feature 8e Building Interior, Facing Northwest .........................................................................4-4
4-4 Feature 8f Building Exterior, Facing Southwest .........................................................................4-4
4-5 Traditional Ecological Zones for Hawai‘I Island based on Handy et al. (1972) .......................4-6
4-6 Historical Moku and Ahupua‘a Boundary Map ....................................................................... 4-10
4-7 Varieties of ‘Ōhi‘a found along Ha‘ikū Stairs (From left to right: Metrosideros
polymorpha var. imbricata, M. tremuloides, M. polymorpha hybrid, M. rugosa) .................. 4-19
4-8 Various types of Kōlea (Myrsine spp.) found along Ha‘ikū Stairs .......................................... 4-20
4-9 Alien Species (Left to right: Maile Pilau Smothering a Lama Tree; thick Clidemia
understory; Plantago major) ..................................................................................................... 4-21
v
List of Figures (Continued)
Figure Page
4-10 Citrus and Avocado Trees at the Landings .............................................................................. 4-22
4-11 Trash build up at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs, on Ha‘ikū Stairs, and at another access
point ........................................................................................................................................... 4-23
4-12 (Left) Native forest cleared near summit, now vulnerable to weed establishment;
(Center) Hikers trampling plants; (Right) Heavy erosion from trespassing hikers................ 4-23
4-13 Rainfall Map .............................................................................................................................. 4-27
4-14 Soils Classification Map............................................................................................................ 4-29
4-15 Hazardous Materials Sites Overview Map (EDR, 2018) ......................................................... 4-31
4-16 Flood Insurance Rate Map ....................................................................................................... 4-35
4-17 Helicopter Flight Tracked used for Modeling Helicopter DNL Contours ................................ 4-39
4-18 Helicopter DNL Contours for an Average Flight Day ............................................................... 4-40
4-19 Helicopter DNL Contours for a Heavy Flight Day..................................................................... 4-41
4-20 View of Ha‘ikū Stairs from H-3 Freeway (Source: Google Earth)............................................ 4-59
6-1 Preliminary Legal Access Routes ............................................................................................. 6-19
6-2 Access Route 1: Ha‘ikū Road ................................................................................................... 6-22
6-3 Access Route 2: Kūneki Street ................................................................................................ 6-24
6-4 Access Route 3: Puoni Place .................................................................................................... 6-26
6-5 Access Route 4: Windward Community College (WCC)/State Hospital ................................. 6-28
6-6 Access Route 5: Po‘okela Street .............................................................................................. 6-30
6-7 Conveyance Alternative: Ha‘ikū Road Access Route .............................................................. 6-37
6-8 Parking Payment Kiosk Source: G70 ....................................................................................... 6-39
6-9 Ha‘ikū Road and Kūneki Street Accesses Parking Options ................................................... 6-41
6-10 Examples of Log Type and Wooden Stairs. Web Source. 2018. ............................................ 6-43
6-11 Conveyance Alternative: Kūneki Street Access Route............................................................ 6-49
6-12 Conveyance Alternative: Po‘okela Street Access Route ......................................................... 6-53
6-13 Po‘okela Street Parking Options .............................................................................................. 6-55
6-14 Anchor Church Driveway Section View .................................................................................... 6-56
6-15 Anchor Church Driveway Improvement .................................................................................. 6-57
6-16 Conveyance Alternative: Po‘okela Street Access Route Photo Sequence ........................... 6-63
6-17 Conveyance Alternative: Po‘okela Street Access Route Conceptual Rendering .................. 6-64
6-18 Conveyance Alternative: Conceptual Signage Plan ............................................................... 6-65
vi
List of Tables
Table Page
1-1 List of Required Government Permits and Approvals............................................................. 1-20
1-2 Project Schedule and Costs ..................................................................................................... 1-21
2-1 Monthly Hiker Tallies from 2015-2018 ......................................................................................2-2
2-2 Evaluation Criteria for Proposed Action and Alternatives..........................................................2-8
3-1 Land Owners and Land Users .....................................................................................................3-7
3-2 Existing Concerns with Stairway System ................................................................................. 3-14
3-3 Evaluation of Proposed Action of Stair Removal .................................................................... 3-17
4-1 Summary of Interviewee Perspectives .................................................................................... 4-15
4-2 Background Noise Measurements .......................................................................................... 4-37
4-3 Honolulu Police Department Service Calls and Incident Reports .......................................... 4-44
4-4 Honolulu Fire Department Emergency Response ................................................................... 4-46
5-1 Hawai‘i State Plan, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 226 .....................................................5-5
5-2 Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan ............................................................................................. 5-21
5-3 Coastal Zone Management Program HRS Section 205 A- Objective and Policies ............... 5-25
5-4 City and County of Honolulu General Plan - Objective and Policies....................................... 5-28
5-5 Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan – Objectives and Policies .............................. 5-38
5-6 Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan – Goal and Objectives –
Board of Water Supply and Department of Planning and Permitting .................................... 5-58
6-1 Third-Party Operator Alternative ..................................................................................................6-4
6-2 Evaluation of Subdivision Alternative .........................................................................................6-6
6-3 Evaluation of No-Action Alternative.............................................................................................6-8
6-4 Evaluation of Partial Removal Alternative ............................................................................... 6-11
6-5 Legal Access Route Rating Criteria .......................................................................................... 6-21
6-6 Access Route 1: Ha‘ikū Road ................................................................................................... 6-23
6-7 Access Route 2: Kūneki Street ................................................................................................ 6-25
6-8 Access Route 3: Puoni Place .................................................................................................... 6-27
6-9 Access Route 4: Windward Community College (WCC)/State Hospital ................................. 6-29
6-10 Access Route 5: Po‘okela Street .............................................................................................. 6-31
6-11 Summary Comparison of Top Three Legal Access Routes ..................................................... 6-33
6-12 Evaluation of Conveyance Alternative (All Access Routes)..................................................... 6-44
6-13 Summary Comparison of Conveyance Alternative Access Routes ........................................ 6-60
6-14 Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Project Objectives ................................................. 6-67
7-1 Consulted Parties .........................................................................................................................7-1
vii
Volume II: Appendices
A. Structural Engineering Analysis

B. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
C. Cultural Impact Assessment
D. Intensive Level Survey Report
E. Flora and Fauna Study
F. Acoustic Study
G. Economic Studies
H. Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group
I. Kaneohe Neighborhood Board Ha‘ikū Stairs Resolution: Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30,
Regular Meeting Minutes, Thursday, June 15, 2017
J. Kaneohe Neighborhood Board Ha‘ikū Stairs Public Meeting: Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30,
Regular Meeting Minutes, Thursday, July 19, 2019
K. House Concurrent Resolution 199 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 213
L. HRS 6E-8 Historic Preservation Review, SHPD Comment Letter dated March 14, 2019 re: Ha‘ikū
Stairs Submittal (Log No: 2018.03030)
M. Survey Maps
N. Subdivision Maps
Volume III: EISPN Comment Letters and Responses

Federal, State of Hawai‘i, Elected Officials,
City and County of Honolulu, Organizations, Individuals (A-K)
Volume IV: EISPN Comment Letters and Responses

Individuals (L-Z)
Volume V: DEIS Comment Letters and Responses

State of Hawai‘i, Elected Officials, Organizations
Volume VI: DEISPN Comment Letters and Responses

Individuals
Volume VII: DEISPN Comment Letters and Responses

Individuals
viii
Abbreviations
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ARS Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
BMPs Best Management Practices
BWS Board of Water Supply
CAB Clean Air Branch
CCL Communications Control Link
City City and County of Honolulu
CIA Cultural Impact Assessment
CHU-8 O‘ahu- Wet Cliff- Unit 8 (and) Crimson Hawaiian Damselfly- Lowland Wet- Unit 14 (and)
Oceanic Hawaiian Damselfly- Lowland Wet- Unit 15; Critical Habitat Units
CZM Coastal Zone Management
DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program
DES Department of Enterprise Services
DHHL Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources
DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level
DPP Department of Planning and Permitting
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DOH Department of Health
DOT Department of Transportation
DOFAW Division of Forestry and Wildlife
DTS Department of Transportation Services
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EISPN Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Preparation
EMD Emergency Medical Dispatch
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHA Federal Highway Administration
FINDS Facility Index System
FIRM Floor Rate Insurance Map
ix
FTA Federal Transit Administration

FTTS Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act/ Toxic Substances Control Act Tracking
System
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Site
GPS Geographic Positioning System
H-3 Interstate Route Highway 3 (John A. Burns Freeway)
HAR Hawai‘i Administrative Rules
HECO Hawaiian Electric Company
HEPA Hawai‘i’s Environmental Protection Act
HFD Honolulu Fire Department
HHFDC Hawai‘i Housing, Finance and Development Corporation
HPD Honolulu Police Department
HRS Hawai‘i Revised Statutes
HSWG Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group
HUD Housing and Urban Development
ILS Intensive Level Survey
KPSCP Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan
KPWMP Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan
KMWP Ko‘olau Mountains Watershed Partnership
LCA Land Commission Awards
LUO Land Use Ordinance
MAP Managed Access Plan
MSL Mean Sea Level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAS U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Navy United States Navy
NRT Naval Radio Transmitter
OEQC Office of Environmental Quality Control
OHA Office of Hawaiian Affairs
OMPO Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization
ROH Revised Ordinances of Honolulu
RPZ Residential Parking Zones
SAAQS Station Ambient Air Quality Standards
Sea Grant UH Sea Grant College Program
x
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System

SHPD State Historic Preservation Division
SMA Special Management Area
SOEST UH School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
State State of Hawai‘i
TMK Tax Map Key
UH University of Hawai‘i
USAF United States Air Force
USCG United States Coast Guard
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VHF Very High Frequency
VLF Very Low Frequency
xi
Chapter 1
Project Summary
Chapter 1
Project Summary
This section provides an overview of the contents and purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for Ha‘ikū Stairs project along with a description of the public consultation process. In this section,
Ha‘ikū Stairs project and its potential impacts, the proposed mitigation measures, as well as
alternatives to the Proposed Action, are summarized.
1.1 Project Information Summary

Proposing Agency: City and County of Honolulu (City)
Board of Water Supply (BWS)
630 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96843
Contact: Kathleen Pahinui, Public Information Officer
Phone: (808) 748-5319
Email: haikustairseis@hbws.org
Accepting Authority: Authorized Mayor’s Representative,

City Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP)
650 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawai‘i, 96813
Contact: Raymond Young
Phone:(808) 768-8049
Email: haikustairseis@honolulu.gov
Name of Action: Ha‘ikū Stairs Study
Planning/Environmental Consultant: G70

111 S. King Street, Suite 170
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
Contact: Jeff Overton, AICP
Phone: (808) 523-5866
Email: haikustairs@g70.design
Project Location: Ha‘ikū, He‘eia, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (Figure 1-1)
Tax Map Key (TMK): (1) 4-6-015:011; (1) 4-6-015:007; (1) 4-65-041:005; (1)
1-1-013:003 (Figure 1-3)
Land Area: 224.26 acres (BWS)
City and County of Honolulu Zoning P-1, Restricted Preservation (Figure1- 5)

(Land Use Ordinance (LUO)):
1-1
Haʻikū Stairs Study
Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Portion of parcel within proposed Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural &
Communities Plan (KPSCP) (2017): Nature Preserve, under Parks and Preservation
designations (Figure 1-6)
State Land Use District: Conservation District, Protective Subzone
Special Management Area (SMA): Project site is located outside of the SMA
Flood Management Zone: Flood Zone D (possible but undetermined flood hazard)
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) 343 Project site is located within the Conservation District, and
Triggers: project will utilize both City and State lands and City
funds. (Figure 1-4)
1-2
Figure 1-1 Project Location Map
1-3
Figure 1-2 Moku and Ahupua‘a Map
1-4
Figure 1-3 Tax Map Key (TMK) (1) 4-6-015:011
1-5
Figure 1-4 State Land Use District Designations and Conservation District Subzone Map
1-6
Figure 1-5 City and County of Honolulu, Land Use Ordinance, Zoning Map
1-7
Figure 1-6 City and County of Honolulu, Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan (2017)
Land Use Map
1-8
Figure 1-7 Land Ownership
1-9
1.2 Introduction
This document is prepared in accordance with the requirements of Hawai‘i’s Environmental Protection
Act (HEPA), Chapter 343, HRS as amended, and Chapter 11-200, Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR).
The HAR establishes procedures for EIS preparation and processing as administered by the State
Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC). Revisions to this document are noted in the Ramseyer
format. Ramseyer is a technique of drafting by which changes to the document from a previous version
are indicated by underscoring added material and highlighting deleted material.
The City BWS is the owner in fee of real property recorded as TMK (1)4-6-015:011 in He‘eia, O‘ahu
Hawai‘i. The 224.26-acre parcel that hosts the steel step structure referred to as “Ha‘ikū Stairs” is
located on protected watershed lands under Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) Section 40-3.1 in
a portion of the Waiahole Forest Reserve. Ha‘ikū Stairs is also located on a portion of TMK (1) 4-6-
015:007 owned by the City, and TMKs (1) 4-5-041:005 and (1) 1-1-013:003 owned by the State of
Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). Ha‘ikū Stairs is made up of 3,922 steps that
extend from Ha‘ikū Valley (400 foot (ft.) elevation) and proceeds upslope to ridgeline of the Ko‘olau
Range (2,820 ft. elevation). While originally built in the 1940s by the U.S. Navy (Navy) to access
communications facilities along the ridgeline, Ha‘ikū Stairs have been under restricted access since
1987 due to vandalism and liability concerns. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) operated their Omega
Navigation System worldwide communication facility at this same location, but it was abandoned in
1991 after newer navigational technology was introduced.
With the 1997 construction of Interstate H-3 (H-3), also known as the John A. Burns Freeway, the
subject property containing Ha‘ikū Stairs was bisected, creating two lots, and cutting off a legal access
route to the mauka property.
In 2002, the City refurbished Ha‘ikū Stairs with the intent of formally re-opening it for public use while
it worked to secure legal access. BWS began the process of transferring the parcel and Ha‘ikū Stairs
to the City because it was not needed for the future development water sources. The City Department
of Parks and Recreation (DPR) was poised to take over operation and maintenance responsibilities.
Ultimately, the City Council did not approve the property transfer from BWS to DPR, and the property
since has remained off limits to hikers.
Trespassing is a criminal offense and is punishable by fines and imprisonment. BWS annually spends
approximately $250,000 of water rate payer revenues for security services in efforts to deter
trespassers from accessing Ha‘ikū Stairs. These funds would otherwise be used to deliver water to its
customers. Despite these security measures, illegal access is ongoing, creating conflicts with
neighboring landowners and residents as well as potential liability issues. The Honolulu Police
Department (HPD) and Honolulu Fire Department (HFD) also continue to absorb the costs of
trespassing enforcement and rescue operations.
For example, in late April 2016, a swing was illegally installed near the top end of Ha‘ikū Stairs at the
ridgeline, which presented potential life endangering consequences. BWS contracted removal of the
swing at a cost of $23,000 to ratepayers. Additionally, neighbors that reside near unauthorized
accesses to Ha‘ikū Stairs have experienced years of property damage, some property theft, and in
some cases, physical harm or threats of harm by trespassers crossing through their property. It is
estimated that almost 4,000 people illegally access Ha‘ikū Stairs annually. Due to the ongoing risk
under the current scenario, BWS proposes to remove Ha‘ikū Stairs to eliminate liability, ensure
neighborhood safety, and address environmental degradation associated with trespassing.
1-10
Alternatively, BWS and the City have discussed a potential land transfer and takeover of Ha‘ikū Stairs
which could potentially achieve BWS’ objectives of eliminating the diversion of resources and potential
liabilities associated with Ha‘ikū Stairs, while also addressing trespass, community, and public safety
concerns. However, at the time of this Draft EIS, the City had not made any firm plans or commitments
for such a transfer and therefore removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs remains BWS’ Proposed Action. In order to
arrive at a long-term, viable solution for Ha‘ikū Stairs, BWS decided to develop a comprehensive EIS
to evaluate removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, and evaluate potential alternatives that convey the land to
another entity and wholly or partially keep Ha‘ikū Stairs.
1.3 Environmental Review Under Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised

Statutes
The State of Hawai‘i (State) environmental review process is being administered to fulfill the
requirements of HEPA, Chapter 343, HRS, and Chapter 11-200, HAR (1996). The HAR establish
procedures for EIS preparation and processing as administered by the State OEQC.
The environmental review process for this project was initiated with the publication of the
Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Preparation (EISPN), which underwent a 30-day review
period from April 23, 2017 through May 23, 2017. All substantive comments received during the
review period, as well as copies of response letters from the applicant, are presented in Volume II of
this EIS.
The State Environmental Council in collaboration with the Office of Environmental Quality Control has
been in the process of updating Chapter 11-200, HAR (1996 Rules). According to the proposed
December 2018 rules, Section 11-200.1-32 Retroactivity: “the Chapter 11-200 shall continue to apply
to environmental review of agency and applicant actions which began prior to the adoption of HAR
Chapter 11-200.1, provided that…for EISs, if the EISPN was published by the office prior to the
adoption of this chapter…” As the Ha‘iku Stairs Study EISPN was published in 2017, prior to the
adoption of the revised rules Chapter 11-200.1, this EIS is being processed under the 1996 Rules.
Upon its formal submittal and acceptance by the City, DPP for publication, the Draft EIS underwent will
undergo a 45-day public comment period from June 23,2019 through August 7, 2019. The substantive
comments received during this review period were will be addressed, and written responses provided
and incorporated into the Final EIS.
1.4 Proposed Action

BWS’s objective is to eliminate liability associated with Ha‘ikū Stairs and the on-going security costs
that are passed on to water rate payers. While transferring the property along with Ha‘ikū Stairs to
another City agency may emerge as a viable alternative, it has not yet been adequately
developed. Accordingly, the Proposed Action is to completely remove Ha‘ikū Stairs. Removing Ha‘ikū
Stairs will involve physical extraction of all stair segments from the base of the valley, along the
ridgeline, then to the top of the ridge and beyond to the Moanalua Saddle Stairs. Total removal of the
structure will end future illegal access up the ridgeline from Ha‘ikū Valley and deter access to the
ridgeline from hikers originating in Moanalua Valley. This action will eliminate non-mission critical
liability to BWS and adjoining ridgeline landowners. If a solution for keeping Ha‘ikū Stairs cannot be
achieved, then BWS will have no choice but to remove Ha‘ikū Stairs.
1-11
1.5 Alternatives Considered to the Proposed Action

The EIS is being developed to fully explore viable options including removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs and
transfer of the property, so that agencies may consider all impacts, benefits, and mitigative measures
to make an informed decision. Alternatives to the Proposed Action are discussed and evaluated in
Chapter 6. In developing reasonable alternatives for this EIS, BWS considered the past efforts of Ha‘ikū
Stairs Working Group (HSWG) which issued recommendations in 2014. Besides elimination of liability
and risk for BWS, any alternative scenario that considers the continued use of Ha‘ikū Stairs must
identify a legal access route and ensure that access easement rights can be transferred to a
responsible entity, if proper conditions are met.
The EIS will consider three alternatives to the Proposed Action:

• No-Action Alternative
• Ha‘ikū Stairs Partial Removal Alternative
• Conveyance Alternative
1.5.1 No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, Ha‘ikū Stairs will remain “as-is” with the land and structure remaining
under BWS ownership. As required under the HEPA rules, the No-Action Alternative must be assessed
as the baseline against which all other alternatives are measured. No improvements will be made,
access will remain closed, concerns of liability and risk will remain, and rate payers will continue to
pay $250,000 annually for security. In 2014, the HSWG unanimously held that the status quo was
untenable and that “no-action” was not an option.
1.5.2 Partial Removal Alternative
Partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will involve physically removing approximately 1,000 feet of stair
modules from the base of Ha‘ikū Valley up to the first platform. The rest of the stair segments will
remain in place, including stair segments beyond the top of the ridge. Partial removal of the structure
will end future illegal access up the ridgeline from Ha‘ikū Valley, but will not deter access to the
ridgeline from hikers originating in Moanalua Valley. This action will be a cost-effective solution to
eliminate non-mission critical liability to BWS and adjoining ridgeline landowners.
1.5.3 Conveyance Alternative
The Conveyance Alternative proposes the conveyance of Ha‘ikū Stairs structure as well as the property
the structure is situated on, either through transfer to a more qualified government entity, or by selling
the property to a responsible private interest.
Under the Conveyance Alternative, portions of Ha‘ikū Stairs on non-BWS owned lands may be retained
by the underlying landowner. The sale or transfer alternative presents more challenges than the
Proposed Action. A willing buyer from the private sector or a willing agency from the City or the State
would conduct a formal transfer of BWS Ha‘ikū Stairs lands. Easements, permits, and approvals would
need to be obtained from the City and State. The Conveyance Alternative assumes that the transferee
or buyer will open Ha‘ikū Stairs for public use through a managed access scenario.
1-12
The transfer of public lands to a qualified government entity or sale to a responsible private interest
will have specific conditions that will need to be addressed prior to the land changing hands. For
example, improvements to the access route may be required to provide adequate access to the trail
for public use. Ha‘ikū Stairs may also require improvements to bring previously damaged portions up
to current safety standards.
Two supporting components to the Conveyance Alternative include legal access and managed access,
as discussed in the following sections.
1.5.3.1 Legal Access
As stated previously, there is no current legal access to the property containing Ha‘ikū Stairs. Transfer
of the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel is possible even if legal access is not resolved, however managed access
cannot occur if legal access is not obtained. Legal access will involve securing a legal access route on
public and/or private property through which hikers can arrive by vehicle (private vehicle and/or
shuttle bus), park, and walk to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Legal access will require support and
entitlement coordination from surrounding landowners to provide the public with a long-term, reliable
access path. It is desirable that legal access to the parcel of land Ha‘ikū Stairs is located on be secured
and approved before the transfer of authority and ownership may occur. Potential legal access routes
were examined in this EIS, building from the work of the HSWG, and refined based on meetings with
landowners and stakeholders early in the EIS process. Three candidate legal access routes were
identified in the process and analyzed for viability in the EIS:
• Access via Ha‘ikū Road
• Access via Kūneki Street
• Access via Po‘okela Street
The access route evaluation process is discussed in detail in Chapter 6, Section 6.4, Conveyance
Alternative.
1.5.3.2 Managed Access
The ultimate owner/operator of Ha‘ikū Stairs will be responsible for creating a Managed Access Plan
(MAP) that provides guidelines for managing, operating, and maintaining them. A MAP will need to
consider transportation, parking, entrance fees, carrying capacity, comfort facilities, waste
management, environmental mitigation, cultural education, safety, liability insurance, maintenance,
security features such as gates and fencing, and after-hours security detail to prevent chronic
trespassing. A comprehensive MAP will be required by BWS before the transfer of authority and
ownership, as it will be essential during the transition in order to educate the public in accordance with
the new management system, deter residual trespassing, and prevent disturbance to Ha‘ikū Valley
residents. Managed access is discussed in detail in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2, Managed Access.
The City has indicated a desire to accept the conveyance of the Ha‘ikū Stairs property from BWS,
subject to BWS Board and City Council approval. The City would acquire necessary easements for an
access route, develop a managed access plan, and engage a vendor to operate public access to Ha‘ikū
Stairs.
1-13
1.6 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

For this EIS alternatives analysis, two alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered but
dismissed from further evaluation:
• Third-Party Operator Alternative
• Subdivision Alternative
1.6.1 Third-Party Operator Alternative (Formerly called “Legal Access Alternative” in the
EISPN)
Under the Third-Party Operator Alternative, BWS will retain ownership of the structure and the
underlying parcel, however, a qualified third-party entity will be granted express permission to operate
and manage use of Ha‘ikū Stairs. This alternative will require pre-established easements with
government agency landowners for legal access along the chosen hiking access route to the base of
Ha‘ikū Stairs, as well as provisions for parking and support facilities. Further, the oversight and
implementation of any improvements to or operations and maintenance of the hiking trail will be the
responsibility of the third-party operator.
This alternative will expend significant resources, including staff time and funds, to serve a purpose
outside the BWS core mission. There will be benefit to the community from this alternative in terms of
greater recreational opportunities. These benefits will come at the cost of greater time and budget
commitments from BWS, greater liability exposure for BWS, and resource-consuming legal
coordination with adjacent landowners. The Third-Party Operator Alternative will not meet the basic
purpose and need of the project. Under this scenario, BWS will continue to own the land, risk liability,
and pass security costs on to water rate payers. BWS will still hold land that does not contribute to
their core mission of providing safe, dependable and affordable drinking water. Because of this, the
Third-Party Operator Alternative was dismissed from further consideration and evaluation within the
EIS.
1.6.2 Subdivision Alternative
Under the Subdivision Alternative, BWS will subdivide Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor from the larger TMK (1) 4-
6-015:011 and transfer the subdivided stairs corridor to a more qualified government entity or sell it
to a private buyer. The intention behind this alternative is to make the acquisition of Ha‘ikū Stairs more
manageable for the future owner/operator, since they will only need to acquire and operate the smaller
stairs parcel, as opposed to the whole parcel. To avail these benefits, BWS will bear the additional cost
of having to hire a land surveyor to map and describe Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor, prepare and file a
subdivision application for City approval, and petition the State Land Court to subdivide Ha‘ikū Stairs
corridor from the BWS parcel. This may delay the potential sale or transfer of Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor by
1-2 years, and BWS will incur the subdivision costs as well as the additional security costs during that
time. In addition, BWS will continue to own the majority of TMK (1) 4-6-015:011, and hold liability for
a property for which they have no future use. For these reasons, the Subdivision Alternative was
dismissed from further consideration and evaluation within the EIS.
These alternatives are discussed and evaluated in detail in Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Alternatives
Considered, but Dismissed from Further Study.
1-14
1.7 Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts and Proposed

Mitigation Measures with the Proposed Action
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will benefit BWS in their ability to serve the public. Short-term beneficial
impacts to the City and the State will include construction-related jobs associated with removal of
Ha‘ikū Stairs. Over the long-term, a large reduction in trespassing hikers is anticipated. Reducing illegal
access on Ha‘ikū Stairs will also reduce the associated risks to the public and damage to the
environment. As such, the impacts of the project are anticipated to be largely beneficial, as discussed
below. Mitigative measures are proposed to offset potential adverse impacts.
1.7.1 Beneficial Impacts
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will protect the public and the surrounding natural environment by eliminating
trespassing hikers in Ha‘ikū Valley. Removing the stair modules will eliminate risk of physical injury to
the public from hiking on the aged structure.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will provide a beneficial impact to the flora and fauna in the proximity of the
stair corridor by slowing damage to the natural environment from the continual introduction of non-
native species into the vegetation. Extraction of the stair modules and subsequent weed control and
replanting of native species will allow for the restoration of native habitats on the ridgeline. Fewer
trespassing hikers visiting the stairway will relieve erosion and reduce the introduction of invasive
species that hikers bring in as seeds on their shoes and in food scraps. Hikers will no longer be leaving
behind trash that pollutes and degrades the environment.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will provide a beneficial impact to BWS and the customers they serve. BWS
core mission is to provide residents with safe, dependable and affordable water service to the people
of O‘ahu. The financial and time related resources BWS puts forth towards managing access to Ha‘ikū
Stairs as well as repairs and community engagement related to them are resources that do not
ultimately serve their core mission. The presence of Ha‘ikū Stairs on BWS lands not only strains
resource and budget commitments, but also exposes BWS to greater liability that has the potential to
take even more time and resources away from their core mission to serve the residents of O‘ahu. The
economic impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.12, Economic
Conditions.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will result in the beneficial impact of short-term construction jobs associated
with the physical removal and disposal of stair modules from the ridgeline and any follow-up
restoration efforts. Additional information on production of jobs from the Proposed Action is described
in Chapter 4, Section 4.12, Economic Conditions.
The residential community in the vicinity of Ha‘ikū Stairs will potentially experience a variety of long-
term beneficial impacts from the Proposed Action. Without Ha‘ikū Stairs, the neighborhoods will likely
experience a reduction of illegal access through private residential property, reduced levels of
neighborhood noise from trespassing hikers, and fewer issues with parking and traffic congestion on
local streets.
1.7.2 Adverse Impacts
Implementation of the Proposed Action will produce potential short-term and long-term impacts.
Removal of the existing stair structure will create local short-term construction-related impacts on the
environment. Potential short-term impacts evaluated in the EIS include dust and erosion due to
1-15
demolition, traffic in the project’s vicinity due to construction equipment and trucks, and increased
noise due to the construction-related operations. Ha‘ikū Stairs and the associated ridgeline structures
are considered significant historic properties. Over the long-term, loss of a significant historic property
will be an adverse impact. If removed, Ha‘ikū Stairs will no longer be available as a potential
recreational opportunity. Views of the Ko‘olau Range in Ha‘ikū Valley will also be permanently altered,
as Ha‘ikū Stairs will no longer be visible along the ridgeline from locations such as H-3 or areas in the
valley where Ha‘ikū Stairs is currently visible. Conversely, the alteration of the viewshed is considered
a positive impact by some groups who wish to see the natural state of the mountain restored.
1.7.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures
There are few potential long-term adverse impacts anticipated to result from the planned removal of
Ha‘ikū Stairs. Relative to the various benefits that are expected to result from the project, with
application of the various mitigation measures described in this EIS, the potential adverse impacts are
not considered significant. Potential short-term impacts will be limited to construction effects such as
noise and temporary air quality impacts related to dust and equipment emissions. Long-term impacts
are not expected to be significant and are not expected to alter the purpose of the Conservation
District. Proposed mitigative measures for potential short-term and long-term impacts are discussed
in detail in Chapter 4 and summarized below.
1.7.3.1 Air Quality Mitigation
During the short-term deconstruction of Ha‘ikū Stairs, temporary emissions from helicopter fuel for
stair module transportation along with debris removal equipment in the staging area is expected.
Construction activity on air quality will be mitigated by conforming to strict dust control measures,
particularly those specified in the State Department of Health’s (DOH) State Ambient Air Quality
Standards (SAAQS), Chapter 11-59, HAR. No significant long-term emissions are anticipated from the
Proposed Action that may cause or contribute to any appreciable impact to local or regional air quality.
1.7.3.2 Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Mitigation
Archaeological Resources
The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will significantly impact this historic age feature. Proposed mitigation is
to fully record Ha‘ikū Stairs (Feature 8) whether that be photographic documentation or structural
drawings prior to removal.
Cultural Resources
The community consultants showed a diversity of thoughts and beliefs. Some interviewees viewed
Ha‘ikū Stairs and other structures as worthy to be preserved. On the other hand, some interviewees
found it more important to preserve the natural and traditional environment, and Ha‘ikū Stairs and
other structures were obstructing that preservation. Although no specific mitigation measures are
identified, the input of these parties has been taken into consideration in the EIS scope and analysis.
Historic Architectural Resources
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will cause an effect on a significant historic property and warrant appropriate
mitigation in accordance with HAR §13-275-8. Proposed mitigation includes Architectural Recordation
which consists of measured drawings and photographic documentation of the affected stair modules.
1-16
Associated structures will be mitigated through Preservation, being preserved in place with periodic
maintenance conducted to preserve structural integrity.
1.7.3.3 Biological Mitigation
The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs has the potential to impact endangered plant species. Mitigation is
provided to avoid endangered plant species during decommissioning of the stairs and to restore native
vegetation. Prior to the proposed removal of stair modules, a biologist should search and mark
locations of any endangered plants, with focus on those identified in the biological survey. The area(s)
with plants should be flagged, along with a buffer area, to prevent disturbance of live plants and
potential seedlings. In addition, a native species restoration plan should be developed in consultation
with a biologist that specifies in the removal of invasive species and restoration/replanting of native
species. As the stair modules are extracted, native species will be planted in place to restore the
ridgeline to an identified coverage. Removal and restoration from the top down will minimize the
amount of disturbance to restored areas.
1.7.3.4 Climate Mitigation
During the deconstruction of Ha‘ikū Stairs, there is the potential for generation of short-term impacts
in the form of emissions from helicopter flights, construction traffic, and fugitive dust from construction
activity. Emissions and dust from the project will be mitigated by conforming to dust control measures,
particularly those specified in the DOH SAAQS, Chapter 11-59, HAR.
1.7.3.5 Geology and Soils Mitigation
The removal of Hai‘ikū Stairs involves clearing existing vegetation and minimal excavation to remove
module footings resulting in minor soil erosion. Potential impacts will be mitigated by conforming to
the County’s grading ordinance, DOH’s water quality standards, and standard Best Management
Practices (BMPs).
1.7.3.6 Hazardous Materials Mitigation
The deconstruction of Ha‘ikū Stairs involves disturbances within the stairway corridor and staging of
construction equipment at the former Omega Station property. Multiple sources were researched,
including an hazardous materials report, to assess the potential for exposure of harmful contaminants
to workers and the neighboring community. The Proposed Action does not take place on or propose
any uses on contaminated sites. No impacts or mitigation measures due to hazardous materials
conditions are anticipated.
1.7.3.7 Natural Hazards Mitigation
The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs reduces potential damage to stairs modules along with eliminating safety
risks to hikers in the face of a natural disaster. No additional impact or mitigation measures related to
natural hazards are anticipated.
1.7.3.8 Noise Mitigation
During removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, short-term construction noise levels are expected to increase above
existing conditions due to helicopter operations to remove stair modules. Noise levels will be mitigated
by conforming to State DOH noise limits for preservation/residential areas equal to approximately 55
Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL).
1-17
1.7.3.9 Public Safety Mitigation
The deconstruction of Ha‘ikū Stairs will have beneficial impacts as it will eliminate BWS safety liability
regarding trespassing hikers.
During the deconstruction of Ha‘ikū Stairs, safety considerations are critical to construction crews and
the general public. Mitigation measures in the project area are set to monitor pedestrian traffic and
monitor the safety of construction crew members. Helicopter operations must oblige to Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Honolulu Flight Standards District Office through filing a request for lift
operations, along with notifying the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding operation times.
1.7.3.10 Public Services Mitigation
During the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, short-term construction-related traffic may occur and HPD will
provide police-assisted traffic guidance as necessary. There are no significant long term impacts or
mitigation measures anticipated, as removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will significantly reduce the amount of
HPD manpower and resources will needed to respond to calls regarding trespassing hikers.
No impacts or mitigation measures are anticipated for HFD and Emergency Medical Services (EMS),
aside from the beneficial impact of eliminating calls relating to trespassing hikers.
1.7.3.11 Recreation Mitigation
Even with the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, recreational opportunities on the windward coast are diverse
and plentiful. There is a low likelihood that the redirection of potential illegal hikers to other activities
on the windward coast will overcrowd existing recreational resources to unsustainable levels.
Therefore, adverse impacts to recreation are not anticipated and no mitigation measures are
proposed.
1.7.3.12 Economic Mitigation
The short-term deconstruction of Ha‘ikū Stairs will create jobs for local construction personnel from
the increased construction activities. No specific economic mitigation actions are recommended.
1.7.3.13 Traffic Mitigation
During the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, short-term construction-related traffic is expected in the
surrounding area of Ha‘ikū Valley. A construction traffic mitigation plan will be prepared to manage
construction traffic and ensure safe flow of traffic around the adjacent neighborhood and construction
staging area.
Conflicts or disruption of vehicle traffic flow is not anticipated due to helicopter flyover. Helicopter lifts
require coordination with the FAA Honolulu Flight Standards District Office, who provides guidance to
ensure safety precautions are in place during helicopter operations.
1.7.3.14 Utilities Mitigation
The Proposed Action does not require power, telecommunications, gas, water, and wastewater
services and therefore, no impacts or mitigation measures are anticipated.
1-18
Anticipated stormwater runoff during the deconstruction of Ha‘ikū Stairs may cause erosion due to
suspended sediment washed away in runoff. Runoff will be controlled by temporary and permanent
erosion and sediment controls to lower the potential impact to surface and groundwater.
1.7.3.15 Visual Resources and Open Space Mitigation
The Proposed Action of removing Ha‘ikū Stairs will eliminate the manmade stair structure from the
ridgeline. There are no mitigation measures available for this impact.
1.7.3.16 Water Resource Mitigation
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will create temporary loose soils around areas where stair modules are being
removed. A native species restoration plan will direct re-planting native species in key areas to assist
regrowth of vegetation cover.
1.8 Unresolved Issues

Although no known unresolved issues associated with the Proposed Action, there are unresolved
issues associated with the project alternatives. The primary issue concerns consent to pursue use of
alternative access routes. Consent is contingent upon further agency review and approval, including
but not limited to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), DOT, DOH, and DHHL. Under
the Conveyance Alternative, land transfer would also require approval from the BWS Board and City
Council.
1.9 Agency and Stakeholder Meetings

The following agencies and stakeholders were consulted during the preparation of the Draft EIS. Each
organization was fully briefed on the EIS process and project alternatives. The project team requested
input on issues within the organization’s jurisdiction to inform the EIS analysis.
State
• Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
• Department of Health, Behavioral Health Administration, Adult Mental Health Division, Hawai‘i
State Hospital
• Department of Land and Natural Resources, Chair; Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW);
State Parks Division; Na Ala Hele; Land Division; Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
(OCCL)
• Department of Transportation, Highways Division
• Hawai‘i Housing, Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC)
• Office of Environmental Quality Control
• Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)
• University of Hawai‘i (UH), Windward Community College Chancellor’s Office
City and County of Honolulu

• Department of Planning and Permitting
• Department of Transportation Services (DTS)
1-19
• Department of Parks and Recreation

• Corporation Counsel
• Department of Enterprise Services (DES)
Elected Officials
• State Senator Jill Tokuda, District 24
• State House Representative Ken Ito, District 49
• Mayor Kirk Caldwell
• City Council Chair Ron Menor
• Council District Representative Ikaika Anderson, District 3
• State House Representative Jarrett Keohokalole, District 48
• State House Representative Scot Matayoshi, District 49
Community Organizations
• Anchor Church
• Castle Hills Community Association
• Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs
• Ha‘ikū Village Neighborhood Security Watch
• Hui Kū Maoli Ola, LLC
• Kamehameha Schools
• Ke Kula O Samuel M. Kamakau Charter School
• Ko‘olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club
• Ko‘olau Foundation
• Mo Radke (Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board)
• Papahana Kuaola
1.9.1 Summary of Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board Meeting
As part of the consultation process, a community meeting and presentation was conducted following
publication of the Draft EIS at the Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board (Board) on July 18, 2019. The Board
was given an opportunity to ask questions and provide comment. The meeting minutes were recorded
by the Board and are included in Appendix J. The following is a brief overview of the comments and
responses provided at the neighborhood board meeting.
Neighborhood Board meeting participants mentioned support for finding a solution to alleviate the
issues related to trespassing in the Ha‘ikū Valley residential neighborhoods. There were concerns
about whether the conveyance alternative would be effective at deterring illegal trespassing. Many
attendees shared a sentiment that hikers who are unwilling to pay an entry fee to hike the stairway
would continue to find a means of trespassing. Members also shared a concern for a potential influx
of tourist related traffic in residential areas by creating a new commercial attraction in the back of the
Ha‘ikū Valley neighborhood.
Questions at the Neighborhood Board meeting were primarily related to the technical process of the
EIS, the findings of the Economic and Fiscal Impacts Study, and the proposed access route options.
1-20
The Board asked if the State landowners, whose properties the proposed access routes would pass
through had expressed an interest in allowing hikers access through their land. The State agencies
were notified of the Draft EIS publication and they had the opportunity to comment during the forty-
five-day comment period. The agency comments were published in the Final EIS. A question was asked
if the Draft EIS had resulted in a final recommendation. The Draft EIS is a disclosure document, not a
decision document. After publication of the Final EIS, the final decision will be placed before BWS to
determine how to proceed.
Under the conveyance alternative, the receiving landowner would pay the costs to bring the stairs up
to current safety standards. Any improvement costs borne by the landowner would be reimbursed by
the third-party operator. A meeting attendee asked if the Economic and Fiscal Impacts Study had
considered the costs of invasive species removal and reforestation under the Draft EIS’s proposed
action to remove the Stairs. The proposed action was not intended to include a full landscape
restoration. The Economic and Fiscal Impacts Study did not factor in a large expenditure for
reforestation. It only considered minimal work along the immediate route of the stairs. Another
question was asked whether the Economic and Fiscal Impacts Study had budgeted for an increase in
security to prevent illegal trespassing under the conveyance alternative. The entity who becomes the
new owner or operator of the stairs would become responsible for paying for security personnel and
developing protocols for the management of the stairs.
A comment was raised regarding the location of facilities that may be needed to support the operation
of the stairs under the conveyance alternative. The EIS did not include plans to have facilities located
at the base of or along the stairway corridor. The future operator would be responsible for developing
plans for the construction of any new facilities. Hikers could potentially use the nearby Kāne‘ohe
District Park for use of the comfort station, filling up water bottles, and disposing of trash before or
after hiking.
A meeting attendee questioned if the preferred legal access route was through the Castle Hills
Neighborhood. The Po‘okela Street Access Route was identified by the Draft EIS as the preferred route.
Parking for the access route would be provided on Po‘okela Street. The route begins at the driveway
of Anchor Church where hikers would continue to walk along a footpath located parallel to the church
driveway. This entire access route is located outside of the Castle Hills Neighborhood. Another
attendee commented that Po‘okela Street is often used for parking by a variety of other users, and
questioned whether the designated area had the capacity to accommodate parking for the Ha‘ikū
Stairs. Po‘okela Street can accommodate approximately 112 parking stalls. The street would require
striping and signage to indicate the designated parking spaces. The marked stalls would remain on
the public portion of Po‘okela street and would not encroach on the private portion of the roadway
within the Castle Hills residential neighborhood. Even considering the volume of parked cars on
Po‘okela Street by existing users, there would still be sufficient parking for the projected volume of
hikers visiting the stairway.
For the full minutes of the meeting, please see Appendix J.
1.10 Summary of Compatibility with Land Use Policies and Plans

The planned improvements are compatible with and supportive of State and City land use policies,
plans, and controls related to the natural and social environment. The Proposed Action is consistent
with and permitted by applicable land use designations and, as discussed in Chapter 5. The Proposed
Action will provide benefits consistent with public goals, objectives, and policies.
1-21
1.11 Listing of Required Government Permits and Approvals

Table 1-1 identifies the major State and County land use permits and approvals that are anticipated
to be required for the project, including site, building, construction, and infrastructure approvals.
Table 1-1 Listing of Required Government Permits and Approvals

Permit or Approval Accepting Authorities
Final Environmental Impact Statement City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting
Acceptance (by office of the Mayor)
Authorization of Building Permits, Demolition City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting
Permits Site Development Division Customer Service Office
Construction Management Plan (if applicable) City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting
Highway Use and Access Permit State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation
State of Hawai‘i, Board of Land and Natural Resources

Conservation District Use Permit
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of
Site Plan Approval
Conservation and Coastal Lands
1.12 Project Schedule and Costs

1.12.1 Anticipated Schedule
Implementation of the Proposed Action will commence upon issuance of the required City and State
permits and approvals. The following represents a high-level timetable reflecting the major steps in
the project approval process. Some of the steps will run concurrently.
Table 1-2 Project Schedule and Costs

Implementation Phase Duration Anticipating Timing
Final Environmental Impact Statement 4 months Q4 2019–Q1 2020
Department of Land and Natural Resources 3 months Q2 2020
clearance for demolition and removal
BWS to issue Request for Proposal 4 months Q3 2020
Demolition permit from the City 1 month Q3 2020
BWS to award contract 3 months Q4 2020
Stair Demolition, Removal, and Disposal 12-18 months Q4 2020 – Q2 2022
(provides ample time for
possible weather delays)
1-22
1.12.2 Estimated Demolition, Removal, and Disposal Cost
Nakoa Companies, Inc. prepared a contractor scope and cost estimate for removal and disposal of the
stair modules. The estimate is based on the condition of the stairway modules, railings, and the
surrounding environment. The cost estimate considered disassembling the modules, preparing
modules for air lift, helicopter transportation services, disposal services, transportation, crew, access
and permitting. There is no cost included for recycling as the salvage value of the material is expected
to offset the costs of the rolloff and transportation.
Ha‘ikū Stairs Removal Estimate: $895,781

Moanalua Saddle Stairs Removal Estimate: $90,485
Total Removal Cost Estimate: $986,266
1-23
Chapter 2
Purpose and Need of the Project

Chapter 2
Purpose and Need of the Project

As discussed in the following sections, the purpose and need for the Proposed Action is to protect the
public, eliminate BWS liability, mitigate impacts to the environment, and achieve an end goal of
allowing BWS to focus resources on their core mission of providing safe, reliable drinking water.
2.1 Background Information

2.1.1 Trespassing on Ha‘ikū Stairs and in Ha‘ikū Valley
Ha‘ikū Stairs was built in the 1940s along the south side of Ha‘ikū Valley on the ridgeline of Pu‘u
Keahiakahoe (2,820 feet). It was originally constructed by the Navy to access communications
equipment for the U.S. Naval Radio Station Ha‘ikū, which was established to support the World War II
effort. In 1975, the USCG took over operations of the Navy’s communications facility and allowed
public access to Ha‘ikū Stairs utilizing a sign-in sheet and waiver. The USCG restricted public access
to Ha‘ikū Stairs in 1987 due to vandalism and liability concerns. In 1997, the USCG decommissioned
its facilities and subsequently relinquished its easement rights to BWS in 1999.
BWS began to negotiate with the City shortly afterward toward transferring the property to the
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Starting in 2001, then-mayor Jeremy Harris implemented
improvements for public access and to the stair structure. The transfer to DPR was never finalized,
and BWS found a growing problem with trespassing in the years that followed. In 2008, BWS closed
off the access point and hired security personnel to deter trespassing hikers at the start of the trail
leading to Ha‘ikū Stairs. Despite these security measures, illegal access continued, creating conflicts
with neighboring landowners and residents, and perpetuating potential liability risk for BWS.
With the advent of social media, instructions to illegally access Ha‘ikū Stairs are readily available, and
prolific sharing of panoramic snapshots encourages people around the world to risk the climb.
Consequently, the number of trespassing hikers has increased dramatically, especially among tourists
and military personnel.
Table 2-1 illustrates the number of hiking trips recorded by BWS guards each month between January
2015 and September 2018. Each tally represents an individual going up Ha‘ikū Stairs, or coming down
Ha‘ikū Stairs (i.e., a round trip would equal two tallies). From 2015 to 2017, the annual number of
one-way trips up and down Ha‘ikū Stairs increased by approximately 50 percent, from approximately
5,000 to 10,300, respectively. The red trendline indicates a slow but steady increase. In August 2017,
BWS hired a special duty HPD officer which caused hiker tallies to drastically drop. Since the special
officer was hired, total hiker trips have remained below the trend line. As of September 2018, the
number of one-way trips up and down the stairs was approximately 500 per month.
2-1
Table 2-1 Monthly Hiker Tallies from 2015-2018
Source: Board of Water Supply, 10/22/2018. Data provided from original security guard tally sheets. Tallies are not round trip. Each count
is either a trip up or a trip down Ha‘ikū Stairs. Please note that data is best available and provides a representation only of activity on Ha‘ikū
Stairs.
A legal access route to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs has not been established for public use. Hikers
originating in Ha‘ikū Valley must illegally traverse a combination of state property and privately-owned
residential properties to join with well-worn illegal access trails. Residents of Ha‘ikū Valley have
reported chronic disturbances from trespassing hikers. Nuisance behaviors include the following:
• Nightly disturbances from hikers arriving from 2AM to 4AM to climb Ha‘ikū Stairs to watch the sunrise
• Car doors slamming in the middle of the night
• Loud voices in the middle of the night
• Presence of strangers and nightly noises triggering dogs barking throughout the neighborhood
• Presence of strangers and influx of cars creating safety concerns for young children
• Hikers walking through private property in the middle of the night
• Hikers using water hoses on private property to wash off and leaving the hoses running
• Hikers throwing trash and waste in residential yards
• Hikers disrespecting or threatening property owners
• Hikers vandalizing or damaging private property, such as cutting fences
• Hikers relieving themselves in the street against rock walls or other areas
• Hikers’ parked cars affect the ability for emergency response vehicles to pass through narrow
streets
• Hikers’ parked cars blocking driveways and trash receptacles making it difficult for trash collection
The lure of Ha‘ikū Stairs has precipitated hundreds of hikers per month attempting illegal access.
There is an ongoing need to stop trespassing and reduce disruptions in the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
2-2
2.1.2 Public Safety and Emergency Response
2.1.2.1 Honolulu Police Department
Due to high volume of trespassing and other associated illegal activity in Ha‘ikū Valley, HPD is a first
responder in the event of a 911 call for police assistance. Service calls pertaining to Ha‘ikū Stairs
significantly increased over the past decade, rising from a total of approximately 20 calls in 2011 to
approximately 160 calls in 2017. According to statistics provided by HPD, the majority (approximately
85%) of calls received in the vicinity of Ha‘ikū Stairs from 2015 to 2017 pertain to either trespassing
hikers or requests for additional security. A minority (approximately 15%) of the calls over this same
period pertained to parking violations, noise complaints, property damage, injury, tagging (graffiti),
hikers harassing security or residents, theft, and distress call, among others. One hiker who died of
natural causes was recorded as an unattended death by HPD in 2012. Although 2018 showed a
marked decrease in calls to the police, the previous five years averaged a steady increase in demand
for police presence in the vicinity of Ha‘ikū Stairs (N. Sue, HPD, personal communications, October 11,
2018).
2.1.2.2 Honolulu Fire Department
HFD is also a first responder in the event of a 911 call for emergency assistance. HFD typically does
not respond to trespassing hikers, but rather is sent to help mitigate threats to persons in physical
jeopardy. Response efforts vary, but may include deployment of rescuers on foot to extract a distressed
hiker, helicopter sweeps to locate the distressed hiker, or high angle helicopter rescues on the
ridgeline (Capt. D. Jenkins, HFD, personal communications, November 6, 2017). From 2002 to 2018,
emergency response statistics in the vicinity of Ha‘ikū Stairs provided by HFD shows that total incidents
have risen from one response per year to approximately 11 responses per year in the vicinity of Ha‘ikū
Stairs (C. Cabalo, HFD, personal communication, February 27, 2019).
The data from HPD and HFD show an increased demand for safety and emergency services over the
past decade. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will decrease trespassing hikers and the need for emergency
services. The property has a long history of demand for safety and emergency services, as described
in Chapter 4, Section 4.10, Public Services.
2.1.2.3 BWS Special Duty Police Officer
To supplement existing BWS security measures, BWS hired a special duty HPD officer in August 2017
to patrol Ha‘ikū Valley part-time (approximately five hours per day). The special duty officer was tasked
to monitor the adjacent residential neighborhood, deter hikers, and increase security around the base
of Ha‘ikū Stairs. From August 2017 to September 2018, the special duty officer recorded well over
5,000 hikers in Ha‘ikū Valley, with an average of approximately 435 hikers per month. According to
BWS records, the special duty officer issued a total of 5,532 citations and warnings during that same
time period, with an average of 3 citations and 422 warnings per month. Although the total number of
local hikers has remained somewhat consistent from August 2017 to September 2018, the total
number of military and tourist hikers fell significantly in the same time period, likely due to the
presence of the special duty officer. The composition of hikers was approximately one third local and
two thirds visitor or military. Please note that statistics associated with the special duty officer originate
from a different data set than the hiker tallies discussed above in Section 2.1.1.
2-3
2.1.3 Protection of the Natural Environment and Watershed
Damage to the natural environment in the vicinity of and adjacent to Ha‘ikū Stairs has occurred due
to chronic trespassing. There is evidence of increased erosion, invasive species, and a prevalence of
litter. Protecting the natural environment through promotion of sustainable watersheds is a policy
objective of the BWS Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan (KPWMP). Sub-objectives and
strategies related to promotion of sustainable watershed in the KPWMP relate to protection of
wetlands and streams, mitigating litter and illegal dumping, removing invasive species to support
healthy native forests, and restricting off-road vehicles in mauka watersheds.
Litter has been a chronic problem associated with hikers. Piles of litter have been found throughout
the forest surrounding the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs, as well as along the stairway all the way to the top. It
has also been recorded that invasive species are taking more and more of a hold along Ha‘ikū Stairs
as more and more hikers inadvertently track seeds on their shoes, or more directly leave behind seeds
from citrus and other fruit. At multiple landings, there is now evidence of citrus trees growing as a
result of this problem. Protection of the environment is a priority for BWS, and any planned use of
Ha‘ikū Stairs will consider the objectives to promote sustainable watersheds.
A full description of the Proposed Action’s compliance with federal, State, and City plans and policies
is detailed in Chapter 5.
2.1.4 Eliminating BWS Liability and Resource Commitments
Ha‘ikū Stairs in its current condition is a potential liability for BWS because hikers ignore the “no
trespassing” signs and continue to illegally climb Ha‘ikū Stairs. In February 2015, nine stair modules
were damaged when high winds uprooted trees on the ridge, which slid down the cliff landing on the
stairs. These nine damaged stair modules remain unsafe and potentially hazardous for individuals
attempting to climb them. Risk of injury, harm, or death is a legitimate concern for BWS as a landowner.
As of 2018, approximately 5,000 hikers per year access Ha‘ikū Stairs, and approximately 435 per
month originate in Ha‘ikū Valley. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will eliminate the cause of chronic
trespassing, thereby reducing the risk for physical harm and associated liability exposure for BWS.
BWS manages two watersheds in the Ko‘olau Poko district, and it requires substantial resource
commitments to protect and manage these watersheds. Ha‘ikū Stairs is located on BWS property that
is currently not developed for water resources and not required for future water source development.
Managing this parcel requires commitments outside of the agency’s mission and financial resources
that are not allocated in operational budgets. Security for Ha‘ikū Stairs costs BWS approximately
$250,000 a year in rate-payer funds. In 2014, BWS hired one full-time security guard to monitor Ha‘ikū
Stairs, which at the time of this publication costs approximately $167,000 a year in rate-payer funds.
BWS also hired a special duty HPD officer in August 2017, with yearly costs around $96,000 in rate-
payer funds.
In addition to security expenses, BWS has recently incurred additional expenses to remove liability. In
2016, a swing was illegally installed beside Ha‘ikū Stairs near the top of the climb, and was frequently
used by trespassing hikers. The swing extended beyond the ridgeline and over the valley, presenting
potentially life endangering consequences. BWS contracted workers to remove the supports for the
swing at a cost of $23,000 to rate payers. No injuries or deaths occurred. BWS also relocated the
Puoni Place gate (that provides access to their water tank) for $14,000 due to chronic disturbance of
residents near the old gate.
2-4
Full removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will minimize BWS resource commitments to this financial burden that is
not essential to its core mission. Complete removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will also reduce BWS’s liability
exposure. If Ha‘ikū Stairs remain under BWS ownership, they will continue to draw illegal hikers thereby
putting BWS at risk of potential legal action.
The Proposed Action is described in Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Proposed Action. The environmental
conditions, impacts, and mitigation with implementation of the Proposed Action are described in
Chapter 4.
2.2 Purpose and Need

2.2.1 Project Need
As outlined in Section 2.1, Background Information. There is a need to stop trespassing hikers, and
thereby decrease neighborhood disturbances and increase public safety. To help stop trespassing
hikers, BWS utilizes rate payer revenues to pay for the security guard and special duty police officer.
Water rates and fees established by BWS are mandated for water systems and not for recreational
amenities.
Risk of injury, harm, or death is a legitimate concern of BWS as a landowner. There is a need to
eliminate liability for BWS and adjoining ridgeline landowners due to hikers who ignore posted no
trespassing signs and continue to illegally hike Ha‘ikū Stairs. Neighborhood disruptions, vandalism,
and harassment of local residents have also escalated with the influx of hikers through the residential
community seeking a way to access the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
The core mission of BWS is to provide safe and dependable drinking water at affordable cost to its
customers on O‘ahu. After the military ceased operations and management of Ha‘ikū Stairs,
management responsibilities fell to BWS as primary landowner. Since then, BWS has been responsible
to control trespassing hikers and to bear the liability issues associated with illegal access to Ha‘ikū
Stairs. Because responsibility for Ha‘ikū Stairs utilizes BWS resources, there is need to direct finances
to its core mission.
PROJECT NEED
• Stop trespassing
• Eliminate neighborhood disturbances
• Redirect BWS resources to its core mission
• Eliminate liability
• Increase public safety
• Reduce emergency service calls
• Protect environment
2-5
2.2.2 Project Purpose
The project purpose is for BWS to find a long-term, viable solution for Ha‘ikū Stairs and the
approximately 225-acre parcel on which they are located. A solution will meet the needs of the project
as outlined in Section 2.2.1, Project Need.
PROJECT PURPOSE
Create a long-term, viable solution for Ha‘ikū Stairs.
2.3 Project Objectives and Evaluation Criteria

Eight criteria were developed to evaluate the Proposed Action and alternatives in terms of satisfying
the purpose and need, and achieving the project objectives. The current situation created by
trespassing hikers accessing Ha‘ikū Stairs is untenable for BWS and the surrounding neighborhood.
Ha‘ikū Stairs presents a significant ongoing liability for BWS with the potential for hikers to get injured
or lost on their property. Despite allocation of rate-payer revenues toward security measures, and
clearly visible “No Trespassing” signage, chronic illegal access causes conflicts with neighboring
residential land owners due to trespassing hikers, noise, and property damage, among other issues.
BWS desires to redirect annual Ha‘ikū Stairs security expenses back to serving its core mission of
providing safe, dependable, and affordable drinking water to O‘ahu, along with BWS’ public trust
responsibilities of protecting the water resources. Eliminating liability and supporting the BWS core
mission are the primary project objectives.
PRIMARY PROJECT OBJECTIVES

• Eliminate liability and public safety risk associated with
illegal access to, and from Ha‘ikū Stairs.
• Stop allocating water rate-payer revenues to activities that
do not support BWS’ core mission.
In addition to these primary project objectives, a broader set of objectives and evaluation criteria were
developed to facilitate a comparative analysis of the Proposed Action and alternatives, and provide a
framework for the decision-making process. Although some of these objectives are not intrinsic to the
BWS mission, such as promoting public recreation and providing educational opportunities to the
public, they are held by BWS as important factors to consider in planning for the future of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
Project Objectives and Alternative Evaluation Criteria:

1. Eliminate Board of Water Supply Liability Risk: The alternative’s ability to eliminate BWS exposure
to liability.
2. Support Board of Water Supply Core Mission: Support and align with the BWS core mission to
provide a safe, dependable, and affordable water supply.
3. Improve Public Safety: The alternative’s ability to protect the public through reducing the risk of
public injury and death.
4. Reduce Neighborhood Disturbance: Alternative provides measures to reduce trespassing hikers,
reduce neighborhood traffic, limit hours of operation, control noise, etc.
2-6
5. Mitigate Impacts to Natural Resources: Protects the natural environment surrounding Ha‘ikū
Stairs
6. Promote Public Recreation: Supports recreation opportunities for the public. Although not within
the BWS core mission, the loss of a potential recreation opportunity is a community concern.
7. Provide Long-Term Economic Benefit: Outcome would be economically beneficial to the local
economy when taking a long-term view.
8. Provide Cultural and/or Environmental Education Opportunity: Alternative will support a cultural
and/or environmental education component. Hikers will be able to learn about the culture and
environment of Ha‘ikū Valley and Hawai‘i as part of their Ha‘ikū Stairs experience.
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA
The project objectives are represented as eight criteria. These criteria

are carried forward throughout the EIS to evaluate the Proposed
Action in Chapter 3, and each project alternative in Chapter 6. This
provides a standard of comparison for how each potential future
outcome meets the purpose and need, and project objectives.
These criteria will be used to evaluate and rate the Proposed Action in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1,
Evaluation of Project Objectives: Proposed Action and all alternative actions that are described in
Chapter 6. A full description of the evaluation criteria and the associated rating chart is provided below
is provided in Table 2-2. Each criterion can be assigned a Good, Fair, or Poor rating.
Discussion and evaluation of archaeological, cultural and historic resources in the project area is
described in detail in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources.
Appropriately addressing archaeological and historic resources is of central importance to the EIS and
may impact the feasibility of the Proposed Action or alternatives. However, assessment of
archaeological and historic resources is not included in the above criteria. Evaluation of the historic
nature of historic properties and formulating an appropriate level of mitigation treatment based on the
determined level of significance will be conducted in accordance with a separate HRS 6E consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). No matter which future action or alternative is
chosen for Ha‘ikū Stairs, the determinations of significance, effect and mitigation for significant
historic properties will require the concurrence of the SHPD.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
Archaeological and historic resources are being evaluated in

accordance with HRS 6E through consultation with the SHPD. This
consultation is separate and concurrent to the EIS process.
2-7
Table 2-2 Evaluation Criteria for Proposed Action and Alternatives

Provide Long- Provide Cultural
Supports Mitigate
Eliminates Board of Promote Term and/or
Board of Improve Public Reduce Neighborhood Impacts to
Rating Water Supply Public Economic Environmental
Water Supply Safety Disturbance Natural
Liability Risk Recreation Benefit to City Education
Core Mission Resources
and State Opportunity
Alternative is
Alternative Alternative will provide
Alternative eliminates Alternative is likely likely to have Action creates
divests BWS’s Ha‘ikū Stairs is removed Financial model the opportunity to
liability for BWS on to have beneficial beneficial a public
GOOD liability and as described in the indicates a high implement a cultural
Ha‘ikū Stairs and the impacts on public impacts on the recreation
expense of the Proposed Action. level of benefit. and/or environmental
larger parcel. safety. natural opportunity.
property. education program.
environment.
Ha‘ikū Stairs remain in
place under a managed
It is possible an
Alternative eliminates access scenario. Security
Alternative Financial model educational program
liability for BWS on features such as an There is no
Alternative likely to likely to have indicates a may be implemented;
Ha‘ikū Stairs only, but access gate, security change to
FAIR n/a have no effect on no effect on moderate level however, it will need to
BWS remains liable fencing, privacy screening, recreational
public safety. the natural of benefit/ be an independent
for actions on the signage, and after-hours options.
environment. deficit. action from the Ha‘ikū
larger parcel. security detail are
Stairs project.
provided, but trespassing
may continue.
Alternative No additional security
Alternative does not
does not features are provided as in
eliminate liability and Alternative may Action Alternative will not
eliminate Alternative may the No-Action Alternative.
BWS continues to be have negative removes a Financial model provide the opportunity
liability and have negative Trespassing and security
POOR liable for hiking impacts on the potential indicates a high to implement a cultural
BWS retains impacts on public concerns are anticipated
activities that occur on natural recreation deficit. and/or environmental
liability and safety conditions. to continue and
Ha‘ikū Stairs and the environment. opportunity. education program.
expense of the potentially worsen over
larger parcel.
property. time.
2-8
2.4 Summary
The current situation with Ha‘ikū Stairs is untenable for BWS and for residents located in the
surrounding neighborhood. Ha‘ikū Stairs present a significant ongoing liability for BWS with the
potential for hikers to get lost or injured on their property. Despite security measures and clearly visible
“No Trespassing” signage, chronic illegal access causes conflicts with neighboring residential land
owners due to trespassing hikers, noise, and property damage, among other issues. As discussed, the
purpose of the project is to find a long-term, viable solution for Ha‘ikū Stairs and the associated parcel
where they are located. As discussed in Section 2.3, Project Objectives and Evaluation Criteria, BWS
has developed a list of project objectives to serve as a common set of criteria against which the
Proposed Action and alternatives will be evaluated.
This EIS analyzes the Proposed Action and alternatives, discloses potential environmental impacts,
and provides a decision-making framework to inform and assist BWS and applicable decision makers
when the final disposition for Ha‘ikū Stairs is decided.
2-9
Chapter 3
Project Description
Chapter 3
Project Description
This section provides a site history, overview of existing site conditions, a description of the Proposed
Action, and a summary of project schedule and costs.
3.1 Property History

3.1.1 Pre-Contact History
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe are among the most abundant lands of O‘ahu, with fertile valleys that supported
extensive wetland agricultural fields. The project area extends far above these regions that were
inhabited and farmed, possibly into what was considered the wao akua, or realm of the gods. Mo‘olelo
of the area speak of the god Kāne and other supernatural beings, as well as natural resources of the
land, sea, and streams. Rain is often mentioned in chant and proverb, attesting to the importance of
water in this region.
Historic accounts tell of a landscape well-cultivated with a variety of crops, and many families claimed Land
Court Awards along the streams; several of which are in the project area vicinity. Previous archaeological
research has also provided evidence of active use of the land, with habitation, agriculture, ceremonial, and
many other site types identified, extending from the pre-contact era into the historic period.
3.1.2 History of Land Interest
Ha‘ikū Stairs is located along the upper slopes of the Ko‘olau Mountain range along the south side of
Ha‘ikū Valley, below Pu‘u Keahiakahoe (2,820 feet). Ha‘ikū Stairs was constructed by Navy personnel
to access communications equipment for the U.S. Naval Radio Station Ha‘ikū, which was established
to support the World War II effort. The Navy constructed the original wooden ladder structure for Ha‘ikū
Stairs in 1942 on land owned by Bishop Estate.
In 1943, a transfer of title was issued from Bishop Estate to the City for lands inclusive of the property area
for BWS to establish a watershed area. The final order of condemnation and deed conveying Bishop Estate
lands in Ha‘ikū Valley to the City was signed in 1958 and recorded at the Bureau of Conveyance in 1962.
The deed condemned the parcel for public use by the City and County of Honolulu for the construction,
development, extension and improvement of the Kaneohe-Kailua Water System.
In October 1944, the first steps were taken by the Navy to formally gain possession of the land utilized
by the radio station. With the end of Martial Law, military authorities had begun to reconcile
appropriations of land in Hawai‘i for military purposes. Some parcels were to be returned to their
owners, following estimates of compensation. Other parcels, such as those for Ha‘ikū Radio Station
were to be acquired permanently. The Navy filed a petition for a continuing easement on October 30,
1944. Negotiations for compensation were to extend from December 1945 to November 1947.
Shortly thereafter, an agreement was established between the City and the Navy to allow the Navy
usage of the area for the security and operation of Ha‘ikū Radio Station (Chapman, 2018).
3-1
Military use of Ha‘ikū Stairs and presence in the valley extended far beyond 1947. In 1975, the USCG
took over the Navy facility and commenced operations of their Omega Navigation System, which was
a radio navigational facility for military aviation within an 8,000-mile radius range. It was only in 1987
when the Ha‘ikū Stairs were closed to the public, and 1997 that the USCG ceased their operations
and that Ha‘ikū Stairs remained closed to the public. Due to the USCG decommissioning the facilities,
BWS expressed interest to reacquire the land for water development and management purposes. In
1999, the USCG relinquished its easement rights to the BWS and the State Department of Hawaiian
Home Lands. Since 1999, there have been ongoing discussions regarding the use and management
of Ha‘ikū Stairs which have legally remained closed to the public.
In addition to military influences on the BWS property, the construction of H-3 in the late 1990s
bisected the large BWS watershed parcel to allow the H-3 corridor to run through the middle. DOT
gained ownership of the corridor, and BWS was granted a limited easement under the H-3 freeway to
reach their mauka parcel. BWS had already fully developed water resources on the Kahuku-side parcel
(TMK 4-6-015:001), leaving Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel (TMK 4-6-015:011) with no practical value to BWS
and no legal access route. A more detailed description is provided in Section 3.2.2, Water Resources.
3.1.3 History of Ha‘ikū Stairs
After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the Japanese threat was still a constant fear in the minds of
the U.S. Military and the people of the Territory of Hawai’i. The Hawaiian Islands were under Martial
Law and undergoing a defensive build up to quell Japanese expansion and keep the Axis Powers at
bay in the Pacific Theater. To aid in this push, the construction of the U.S. Naval Radio Station Ha‘ikū,
including what is now known as Ha‘ikū Stairway, aka “Stairway to Heaven,” began in 1942 atop Ha‘ikū
Valley ridge in Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. The radio station was built for long range U.S. military communications
and Hawai‘i defense systems. Ha‘ikū Valley ridgeline was chosen based on its topography, which is
strategically located on the spine of the Ko’olau mountain range near the navel of the island. Ha‘ikū
Valley was selected for its ideal amphitheater configuration: two almost vertical mountain walls each
rising over 2,000 feet with relatively flat land in between opening toward the ocean (Nakoa, 2017).
Construction materials and service personnel

were needed on the ridgeline to build and
service the new radio station facilities. To carry
out this work, the Navy built an access ladder
along the south edge of the valley, reaching
the high peak of Pu‘u Keahiakahoe, located at
the 2,800 foot level. The wooden ladder
system was originally called Ha‘ikū Ladder. In
1943, 3,500 feet of wooden ladders were built
along the southern access of Ha‘ikū Valley.
The ladders were gradually replaced with wood
steps until there were 8,050 feet of wooden
stairway. As the years passed and the war
ended, new technology, aerial transportation
(helicopters), and the material availability of
steel resulted in restoration and upgrade
projects on the stairway. In 1947, a 950-foot
Figure 3-1 Navy personnel near peak, ca. ladder of galvanized stainless steel was built
1945 (U.S. Coast Guard Omega along the ridge by the contractor Walker
Station Records) Moody.
3-2
Once the initial ladder system was in place in 1942, it facilitated access for laborers to begin
construction on the ridge. Features constructed on the ridgeline included concrete structures for the
Cable Car House, Communications Control Link (CCL) Building, and concrete pads for the antennae
anchors at high elevations on steep terrain. Additionally, four (4) main landing platforms were built to
be able to bring materials up in phases. The Cable Car House/Hoist House was the receiving station
for materials sent by gondola on a cable suspended from a platform in the center of the valley to the
top of the ridge. The primary feature of the new radio station, was a series of long, suspended
antennae that stretched from one side of the valley to the other, anchored along the tops of the ridges
by an elaborate series of counterweighted A-frames. The highest antenna spanned 7,500 feet at a
height of 2,800 feet.
Ha‘ikū radio station was unique among the 14th Naval District’s radio stations because it operated a
powerful 200,000-watt (200 kw) Alexanderson alternator, which produced high-frequency alternating
current for use as a radio transmitter. The alternator was housed in the bombproof Transmitter Building
(later the Omega Station), which was constructed on the valley floor. Using the most advanced
communications of the time, the radio signal
from the Communication Control Link building
is said to have reached over 3,800 miles all
the way to Tokyo Bay.
With the war’s end in 1945, the station

remained in use. In April 1958, the Navy
Radio Station at Ha‘ikū (and its 10 civilian and
22 Navy personnel) was deactivated, though
the property remained under the control of
the Navy. In 1963, the Navy gave permission
to the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to replace their
Figure 3-2 Cable Car/Hoist House, ca. 1943 (Fort microwave relay station—modified in 1954—
De Russy Army Museum Archives) with a passive reflective antenna placed on
the roof of the old the microwave relay station.
In the late 1960s, the Radio Station at

Ha‘ikū would enter into a new phase of its
existence. Still in its formative stages, the
new Omega Navigation System was an
experimental global-range radio navigation
system, operated by the U.S. eventually in
partnership with six other countries. The
Omega Navigation System allowed ships,
submarines, and aircraft to determine their
position through the reception of very low
frequency (VLF) radio signals in the range of
10 to 14 kHz. The Navy approved Omega in
1968, with the plan of establishing eight
transmitters, including one at Ha‘ikū. The
Secretary of the Navy transferred operations
of the Omega Station to the USCG in 1971.
Figure 3-3 Hoist, ca. 1944 (U.S. Coast Guard The USCG took over the site in 1972 and
Omega Station Records) conducted repairs on the earlier buildings
and the metal stairway, as necessary.
3-3
The new system required a significant number of

changes to the old facility and its equipment. A
first step was replacement of the four existing
antennae with different wire spans. These were
installed with the help of a helicopter and
balloons. The ground antennae system, located
on poles eight feet above the ground, had to be
replaced by a subterranean ground grid system.
The A-frame anchors were also removed,
replaced by buried anchors along the ridge.
Coast Guard engineers then raised the new
spans and insulators to their place using a
system of pulleys and rigging. Additional changes
included the removal of some 34 buildings and
structures no longer needed at the station. There
were also two additions to the Transmitter
Building and a new room added to the Helix
Building. The new antennae system stretched
7,200 feet across the valley, swinging 1,250 feet
above ground. The total weight was 180,000
pounds. The underground grid system,
consisting of buried copper mesh, rods, and Figure 3-4 Communications Control Link
wires covered 70 acres. The project required Building. The dish was added in
nearly three years for completion, with the approximately 1956, ca. 1960 (U.S.
station becoming operational in February 1975 Coast Guard Omega Station Records)
(Chapman, 2018).
During the time of USCG operations, the public was allowed access to Ha‘ikū Stairs at approximately
75 persons per day. After being featured in an episode of Magnum P.I. in 1981, Ha‘ikū Stairs gained
popularity and hikers increased to approximately 200 persons per day. In 1987, the USCG closed
Ha‘ikū Stairs because of public vandalism and increased liability concerns. With the widespread
availability of Geographic Positioning System (GPS) technology in 1995, the Omega Navigation System
technology became outdated and the station was decommissioned in 1997 (Chapman, 2018).
In 2001, there was renewed interest in opening Ha‘ikū Stairs by Mayor Jeremy Harris’ administration
and the City invested $875,000 to refurbish damaged portions of Ha‘ikū Stairs with the intention of
formally reopening them for public use while it worked to secure legal access. BWS was planning to
transfer Ha‘ikū Stairs to the DPR, however, the City did not approve property transfer.
Due to mounting security costs and liability concerns, BWS is proposing to take down Ha‘ikū Stairs.
BWS decided to develop a comprehensive EIS to fully understand the issues surrounding the Proposed
Action and transfer alternatives. The EIS will provide State and City agencies, adjacent landowners,
and the public with a comprehensive evaluation with which to inform decision-making about the future
of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
3-4
Figure 3-5 Omega Station Ha‘ikū, Project Design 1969

(U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records)
Figure 3-6 Omega Station, Kāne‘ohe, U.S. Coast Guard District 14, 1997
(Chapman, 2018)
3-5
3.2 Existing Conditions

3.2.1 Land Owners and Land Use
Ha‘ikū Valley contains numerous landowners from the Federal, State, City and private sectors. Any
access route leading to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs traverses multiple landowners, which has resulted in
chronic trespassing and adds layers of complexity to any discussion of long-term legal access. In
September 2018, BWS retained Control Point Survey, Inc. to survey the Ha‘ikū Stairs alignment to
determine its location in relation to adjacent landowners (See Appendix M). Figure 3-7 Land Ownership
Overview depicts property ownership along and in the immediate vicinity of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Table 3-1
Land Owners and Land Uses details the existing land uses on these properties and whether that
property is located on a potential legal access route. Potential legal access routes are described in
detail in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.1, Legal Access Route.
Figure 3-7 Land Ownership Overview
3-6
Table 3-1 Land Owners and Land Uses

Map Potential Access
Land Owner TMK Land Use
No. Routes
Kamehameha 4-6-014:001 Hui Kū Maoli Ola native plant nursery;
1 Ha‘ikū Road
Schools/Bishop Estate (58 acres) Papahana Kuaola non-profit
Kamehameha 4-6-029:091
2 He‘eia Preschool None
Schools/Bishop Estate (2 acres)
Department of Hawaiian 4-6-015:014 Kamakau Charter School; Decommissioned Ha‘ikū Road,
3
Home Lands (138 acres) Omega Station and associated structures Kūneki Street
Department of Hawaiian 4-5-041:005
4 Portion of Ha‘ikū Stairs, ridge Stairs
Home Lands (5 acres)
4-6-014:018* Vacant; Overhead utility lines; Ha‘ikū Road,
5 Hui Kū Maoli Ola
(12 acres) *Property is for sale (2018) Kūneki Street
4-6-015:009
6 Federal Government Vacant (old Navy landfill) None
(20 acres)
City and County of Honolulu, 4-6-015:001
7 Vacant, water resource development None
Board of Water Supply (236 acres)
4-6-015:012 Ha‘ikū Road,
8 City and County of Honolulu Vacant (adjacent H-3 Service Road)
(3 acres) Kūneki Street
4-6-015:007* Portion of Ha‘ikū Stairs, ridge
9 City and County of Honolulu Stairs
(12 acres) *Ceded land
4-6-015:013 BWS Ha‘ikū 500 ft. Reservoir No. 2 water
10 City and County of Honolulu None
(not listed) tank
City and County of Honolulu, 4-6-015:011
11 Ha‘ikū Stairs, ridge Stairs
Board of Water Supply (225 acres)
Hawai‘i Housing Development 4-5-023:019 Ha‘ikū Road,
12 Vacant
and Finance Corporation (7 acres) Kūneki Street
State of Hawai‘i, 4-5-023:002
13 Hawai‘i State Hospital None
Department of Health (87 acres)
State of Hawai‘I, Department 4-5-023:003 Vacant valley lands, between State Hospital
14 Po‘okela Street
of Land and Natural Resources (90 acres) and Anchor church, up to ridgeline
4-5-023:017
15 State of Hawai‘i Vacant (adjacent H-3 Service Road) None
(3 acres)
State of Hawai‘i, Department of 4-5-023:012
16 Vacant (adjacent to H-3 Service Road) None
Transportation, Highways Division (not listed)
State of Hawai‘i, Department of 4-5-023:018
17 Vacant (adjacent to H-3 Service Road) None
Transportation, Highways Division (2 acres)
State of Hawai‘i, 4-5-023:014
18 Windward Community College None
University of Hawai‘i (64 acres)
Department of Hawaiian 1-1-013:003 Ridge, portion of Ha‘ikū Stairs at the
19 None
Home Lands (1 acre) terminus (See Appendix N)
State of Hawai‘i, Department 1-1-013:001
20 Vacant (mountains) None
of Land and Natural Resources (2,906 acres)
3-7
3.2.2 Water Resources
BWS’s Ha‘ikū Valley water sources provide approximately 1.8 million gallons per day of drinking water
to Kāne‘ohe and Maunawili. BWS holds land title in the name of the City for the watershed property
on which Ha‘ikū Stairs is located. In the late 1990s, BWS’s large Ha‘ikū Valley property was bisected
by subdivision to allow for the construction of the H-3, leaving Ha‘ikū Stairs on the parcel mauka of
the freeway, and the previously developed BWS water sources on the makai side of the freeway. This
action also resulted in remaining no legal access to the stairs parcel. BWS considers their Ha‘ikū Valley
water sources fully developed and sees no further water resource development on the ridge parcel
containing Ha‘ikū Stairs. Therefore, BWS is seeking to divest property interest and liability associated
with the ridge parcel. At the time of this report, water facilities in Ha‘ikū Valley include Ha‘ikū Tunnel
and Well located on the Kahuku side of the valley on TMK 4-6-015:001 (236 acres), watershed
property which holds Ha‘ikū Stairs on TMK 4-6-015:011 (225 acres), and Ha‘ikū 500 ft. Reservoir No.
2 water tank on TMK 4-6-015:013 off Puoni Place.
3.2.3 Ha‘ikū Stairs and Moanalua Saddle Stairs
Ha‘ikū Stairs (Stairway to Heaven)
By 1955, the Navy had fully replaced the original wooden structure with the steel structure that exists
today. Due to constant exposure to wind and rain, the condition of Ha‘ikū Stairs has deteriorated over
time. As mentioned earlier, a rehabilitation effort was undertaken in 2001 to allow hikers to safely
traverse Ha‘ikū Stairs. Some modules were replaced with an enhanced design to extend the life of
Ha‘ikū Stairs while preserving the historical nature of the hike (Figure 3-8) (Nakoa, 2017). Currently,
the modules look generally intact, apart from damage to nine modules (primarily the hand railings)
sustained from fallen trees due to erosion and high winds in February 2015 (Figure 3-9). Figures 3-10
through 3-14 represent existing conditions circa December 2017.
3-8
Figure 3-8 Typical Ha‘ikū Stairs Module “A” Plan Section and Elevation (Nakoa, 2017)
3-9
Figure 3-9 Storm-Damaged Modules, 2017 (G70)
3-10
Figure 3-10 Overgrowth, 2017 (G70) Figure 3-11 Cable Car Building, 2017 (G70)
Figure 3-12 Communications Control Link Building/Microwave Station (Web Source, 2014)
3-11
Figure 3-13 Steel Plate Modules and Metal Post Anchors, 2017 (G70)
Figure 3-14 Omega Station, 2017 (G70)
3-12
In 2001 The Nakoa Companies, Inc. was contracted by BWS to execute repairs on Ha‘ikū Stairs. The
restoration project consisted of platform and railing module foundation work, structural reinforcement
and repairs for the 593 railing modules of Ha‘ikū Staircase and its surrounding vegetation. The project
broke ground in March of 2001 and was completed in September of that year. In June 2017, The
Nakoa Companies, Inc. prepared a structural engineering assessment of the existing condition of
Ha‘ikū Stairs and the Moanalua Saddle Stairs for this EIS (See Appendix A). Nakoa conducted a
preliminary field assessment and photo documented all 595 stair modules on Ha‘ikū Stairs along with
modules 1-71 along the Moanalua Saddle Stairs.
According to The Nakoa Companies, Inc. review of all railing modules of Ha‘ikū Stairs (Modules 01-
595), the linear section modules at the beginning of the ascent (Modules 01-246) were in poor
condition due corrosion and lack of maintenance, but the upper section modules (Modules 247-595)
were in moderate condition. The assessment presented a summary of structural, environmental and
safety concerns with respect to existing conditions of the stair structure, as outlined in Table 3-2. The
report recommended that attention be given to the entire stairway system, as even small points of
failure could turn into potential structural failures.
Figure 3-15 Topographic View of Ha‘ikū Stairs to Moanalua Saddle Access Trail
3-13
Table 3-2 Existing Concerns with Stairway System

Structural Concerns
1. Rusty Handrails: The handrails keep hikers within its boundaries and form a safe area for hikers. One feels
secure when located within the confines of the handrails. Rust causes two concerns:
• Rigidity and Stability of rail system. Rusty handrails could eventually detach from the rails and could
cause a fall.
• Possible hand trauma when sliding one’s hand down along the rail where rails have frayed and rusted
out sections could cause injury.
2. Deteriorated Connection Points
• Loose handrail connections could eventually fail causing falls
• Loose Tread Bolts could cause mis-steps missteps and falls
• Loose handrail to handrail connection devices could cause railing failure when ultimately detached.
• Loose spikes could cause module failure by detaching from the terrain.
Environmental Concerns
1. Erosion Run Off
• Causes debris in the walkway making it perilous to walk
• Increased Vegetation in walkway making passing through the module difficult and possibly dangerous.
2. Endangered Plant Species – susceptible to repeated use and/or construction activities.
Safety Concerns
1. Deteriorating module parts and vegetation intrusion and storm runoff damage.
• Loose Bolts should be monitored and checked routinely
• Deterioration of Module Parts
• Vandalism
• Construction of apparatus that could pose dangers (e.g., swing)
• Erosion and Runoff
• Debris
2. Safe Passage for Hikers, Maintenance Works and Property Managers are critically important for a safe
hiking experience.
• Hiker Passage on the Stairway Module. At only 24” wide, there isn’t enough room for hikers to pass
within the module, causing one of the hikers to step outside of the rail system to pass through.
• Cloud Cover on the trail obscures the hiking experience and makes it difficult if not impossible for
helicopter rescue if needed. Regular precipitation makes the modules slippery during hikes.
• Vandalism along the trail where modules are compromised is a concern for safe passage.
• High Winds along the trail is also a concern as debris and materials can slide down and impact hikers.
• High Angle of Stairway. Navigating angles that approach vertical can be a challenge for some hikers.
Module maintenance is cited as critically important to continued safe passage. Despite the longevity
of most stair modules, maintenance concerns warrant attention due to potential health and safety
concerns (Nakoa, 2017).
3-14
Moanalua Saddle Stairs (Middle Stairs)
Slightly descending down from the CCL (Summit Peak/Module

545) to the Moanalua Saddle Stairs (N.W. Ridge/2nd Anchor
Point), the stairway was found to be in generally poor condition
and some areas have fallen into disrepair. Moanalua Saddle
Stairs was observed to be critically underused by hikers, over
grown by vegetation and extremely weathered due to its path
which straddles the tip of the summit where trade winds and
moisture exposure are at their strongest.
The Nakoa Companies, Inc. conducted a review of the ridgeline

from the CCL to Anchor Point #2 along the Moanalua Saddle Stairs.
Anything beyond Anchor Point #2 was not surveyed, as the
conditions posed a major risk to the safety and welfare of those
involved in the survey. It is still unknown how far the Moanalua
Saddle Stairs continue beyond the second landing pad surveyed.
The study reported that it was difficult to provide a complete visual
and physical estimate of the condition of the stair modules due to
major overgrowth of vegetation. It was further determined that all Figure 3-16 Moanalua Saddle
the stair modules needed rehabilitation and vegetation removal to Stairs Module
be usable. Most of the modules were covered in plants and were Example (Nakoa 14)
suffering from substantial rust and corrosion. Restoration efforts
would include parts replacement, vegetation removal, and
installation of safety features.
3.3 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is to remove both Ha‘ikū Stairs and the Moanalua Saddle Stairs. Removing Ha‘ikū
Stairs would align with BWS core mission by eliminating liability concern and high yearly security costs
associated with the aging structure. Other alternatives that retain Ha‘ikū Stairs is described in Chapter
6.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs and Moanalua Saddle Stairs
The Proposed Action would involve removing all accessible stair modules in Ha‘ikū Valley side and the
Moanalua Saddle Stairs beyond the CCL. The landing platforms, Cable Car House/Hoist House and
the CCL would not be removed.
Module removal would involve cutting the structure down to the footing so that nothing is holding them
back except gravity. Most of the modules have been in place for decades and are well secured to the
terrain with long metal spikes. Many of the spikes holding down the modules are wedged in crevices
and cracks in rock formations to secure the modules, others are in native soils but are well secured.
Before the modules can be helicopter-lifted out of emplacement, any material securing the module to
the terrain will need to be removed. Heads of the spikes will be cut off, and vegetation and earthen
build up will be cleared. To prepare the structure for helicopter lift, the hand rails will be fully secured
to the ladder structure and modules will be disconnected from each other.
3-15
Figure 3-17 Illustration of Proposed Action: Full Removal of Stair Modules
The detached module weighs approximately 500 pounds, which will be hoisted by a Hughes 500D
Helicopter. The helicopter will pick up the modules via slings attached to the handrails and follow a
designated path to the storage yard on the ground. Ground crews will detach the slings and clear the
Helicopter for the next module pickup. It is anticipated that the cycle to remove one module should
take an average of 30 minutes.
A large cleared area for helicopter landings, temporary storage of modules and module parts as they
await disposal, for roll off cans and crew staging would be necessary. The former USCG Omega Station
site was used for the 2001 repairs and would be ideal, however, it may require vegetation clearing for
safe maneuvering of helicopters and construction vehicles.
Once the modules and concrete debris are on the ground safely, the modules will either be salvaged
or recycled. Under the salvage option, the BWS may consider auctioning and selling the modules,
providing the purchaser with the opportunity for relocation and adaptive reuse of the modules. Under
this option the modules will be made available for the purchaser’s pickup and no further costs would
be incurred. Under the recycle option the modules will be dismantled and loaded in roll-off containers
for recycling at an authorized facility. Metal recyclers typically accept the material at no cost but
transportation and the use of the roll-off containers will be charged to the contractor.
The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will require a design review and a Site Plan Approval from the State DLNR
OCCL. possibly a State DLNR permit. The work will be conducted by an independent structural
engineering firm hired by BWS to allow for the removal of the stair modules. The design review is
assumed to include sufficient information to allow for competitive bidding.
Implementation of the Proposed Action will commence upon issuance of the required City and State
permits and approvals. It is anticipated that the BWS could issue an RFP for the demolition and
removal of the Ha‘ikū Stairs by quarter three of 2020. It would take approximately three months for
BWS to award a contract. During this time, BWS may also seek a Demolition Permit from the City.
Stairway demolition, removal, and disposal could commence upon awarding of the contract as early
3-16
as the fourth quarter of 2020. Construction activities related to the stairway removal may last between
12 to 18 months depending on weather conditions. Complete stairway removal is expected to be
accomplished by quarter two of 2022.
3.3.1 Evaluation of Project Objectives: Proposed Action
Based on the criteria and rating system outlined in Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Project Objectives and
Evaluation Criteria. Table 3-3 evaluates the Proposed Action against the project objectives and
evaluation criteria.
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA
The project objectives and alternative evaluation criteria are described in detail in
Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Project Objectives and Evaluation Criteria. These criteria
are used to evaluate the Proposed Action, below, and each project alternative in
Chapter 6. This provides a standard of comparison for how each potential future
outcome meets the purpose and need, and project objectives.
Table 3-3 Evaluation of Proposed Action of Stair Removal

Project Objective Evaluation and Ratings
1. Eliminate BWS Liability Risk FAIR
BWS will retain ownership of the property. The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will eliminate
illegal access from Ha‘ikū Valley and reduce associated liability.
2. Supports BWS Core Mission POOR
BWS will remain owner of the property that does not support its core mission.
3. Improve Public Safety GOOD
Removing Ha‘ikū Stairs will eliminate illegal access from Ha‘ikū Valley and
significantly reduce illegal access from Moanalua Valley.
4. Reduce Neighborhood GOOD
Disturbance With removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, disturbance to neighborhoods in Ha‘ikū Valley is
expected to stop.
5. Mitigate Impacts to Natural GOOD
Resources The risk of damage to the watershed and natural environment is anticipated to
decrease.
6. Promote Public Recreation POOR
There will be no public recreation opportunity at Ha‘ikū Stairs.
7. Provide Long-Term Economic FAIR
Benefit Long-term financial projection indicates partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would result
in a moderate deficit to the City and State.
8. Provide Cultural and/or POOR
Environmental Education Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will eliminate the opportunity to implement educational
Opportunity programs at the stairs.
3-17
Table 3-3 illustrates how the Proposed Action meets the purpose and need, and most project
objectives with favorable ratings. The Proposed Action will end future illegal access up the ridgeline
from Ha‘ikū Valley and Moanalua Valley, reduce liability for BWS, support the BWS core mission and
reduce neighborhood disturbances. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will not, however, create a public
recreation opportunity under a managed access scenario, or provide an opportunity for cultural or
environmental education.
3-18
Chapter 4
Environmental Setting,
Potential Impacts, and
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Chapter 4
Environmental Setting, Potential

Impacts, and Recommended Mitigation
Measures
This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions and discusses potential impacts of the
Proposed Action. Strategies to minimize impacts and to mitigate any significant impacts are identified.
4.1 Air Quality

Existing Conditions
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) per the requirements of the Clean Air Act (last amended in 1990) to protect public
health and welfare and prevent the significant deterioration of air quality. These standards account
for six major air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOX), ozone (O3), particulate
matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5),
sulfur dioxide (SOX), and lead (Pb). DOH, Clean Air Branch (CAB) has also established SAAQS for these
air pollutants to regulate air quality statewide. The SAAQS for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide
are more stringent than NAAQS. Hawai‘i also has a stringent standard for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which
is a common odorous pollutant associated with wastewater treatment facilities. DOH, CAB regularly
samples ambient air quality at monitoring stations throughout the State and annually publishes this
information.
The State DOH, CAB has 14 monitoring stations on the islands of O‘ahu, Kaua‘i, Maui, and Hawai‘i,
with six monitoring stations on O‘ahu. The Air Monitoring Station nearest to Ha‘ikū Stairs is located on
the roof top of the DOH main building (Kīna‘u Hale) at 1250 Punchbowl Street. Present air quality in
the project area is mostly affected by air pollutants from motor vehicles due to the proximity to the H-
3 Freeway. Natural sources of air pollution emissions that could affect the project area at times but
cannot be quantified very accurately include plants (aero-allergens), wind-blown dust, and perhaps
distant volcanoes on the Hawai‘i Island.
Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The project will involve temporary emissions during the stair removal due to use of helicopter fuel for
stair module transportation and debris removal equipment in the staging area. These emissions will
be temporary in nature and would cease at the end of the stair removal process. No significant long-
term emissions are anticipated from the Proposed Action that may cause or contribute to any
appreciable impact to local or regional air quality.
4-1
4.2 Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources

4.2.1 Archaeological Resources
Existing Conditions
An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey (ARS) was prepared by Keala Pono Archaeological

Consultants in March 2018 and is included in Appendix B.
The Proposed Action would involve removal of stair modules from the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs in Ha‘ikū
Valley to the CCL at the summit of Keahiakahoe, including removal of the “back stairs” on the
Moanalua Saddle ridgeline. The concrete landing platforms and associated structures would not be
removed under the Proposed Action. Ha‘ikū Stairs and associated platforms are identified as Feature
8 on Figure 4-2. Stair modules were originally made of wood in the 1940s and were replaced by a
metal staircase in the 1950s. The most recent refurbishment of Ha‘ikū Stairs occurred in 2005. Ha‘ikū
Stairs is currently in good to fair condition, mostly intact, although some damaged portions were
observed.
There are six structures associated with the current stair modules that lie within the project area.
Features 8a–8d are four concrete platforms with remnants of metal hardware, situated along the route
of the current stairway (e.g., Figure 4-1). The four platforms are mostly intact although the metal
structures that they once supported are missing. Feature 8e is a building approximately 200 meters
down from the top of Ha‘ikū Stairs that functioned as a cable car house (Figure 4-3). Remnants of the
cable car machinery are still located within the structure. This feature is in poor condition, affected by
graffiti and missing its roof. The cable car machinery within the structure is severely rusted. Feature
8f is a building at the top of Ha‘ikū Stairs known as the CCL (Figure 4-4). The building is mostly intact
but severely vandalized by graffiti, particularly in the interior.
Archaeological reconnaissance yielded historic age features associated with Ha‘ikū Stairs, no pre-
historic features were identified. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would significantly impact this historic age
feature. In accordance with HRS 6E, a determination of Effect with Mitigation was put forth in the ARS.
The recommended mitigation is to fully record Ha‘ikū Stairs (Feature 8). Recordation would involve
photographic documentation and structural drawings prior to the removal. Associated structures along
Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor would be avoided and preserved in place.
4-2
Figure 4-1 Location of Archaeological Features (Historic Period)
Figure 4-2 Feature 8b Platform, Facing Northeast
4-3
Figure 4-3 Feature 8e Building Interior, Facing Northwest
Figure 4-4 Feature 8f Building Exterior, Facing Southwest
4-4
4.2.2 Cultural Impact Assessment
Existing Conditions
A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was prepared by Keala Pono Archaeological Consultants in March
2018 and is included in Appendix C.
Traditional Land Uses
The island of O‘ahu is divided into six moku o loko (traditional land districts): Kona, Ko‘olaupoko,
Ko‘olauloa, Waialua, Wai‘anae, and ‘Ewa. These moku are subdivided into smaller traditional land
tracts called ahupua‘a, wherein the composition and qualitative yield of mauka (upland) and makai
(coastal) resources vary. Ha‘ikū Stairs is located in the ahupua‘a of He‘eia, which is in in the moku of
Ko‘olaupoko (Figure 4-1).
Traditional land use in Hawai‘i was founded on the vertical arrangement of a volcanic island’s natural
ecosystems (ahupua‘a), which served as the complete subsistence system for Hawaiian family groups
(the ‘ohana) prior to Western contact in 1778. The ahupua‘a was further stratified by elevation into
ecological resource zones as follows:
Realm of the gods (wao akua): This upland zone included smaller sized trees, was known as the
dwelling place of spirits, and it was common superstition to fear the “forest of ghosts” and to avoid
entry into this realm.
Upland/inland forest Zone (wao nahele): Zone included transitional habitation sites and timber resources.
Agricultural Zone (wao kanaka): This zone included habitation sites, and both the wao kanaka and kahakai
included temples (heiau) and burial places (hē) as well as irrigated terraces (lo‘i kalo) for taro cultivation.
Coastal Zone (wao kahakai): This latter zone included habitation sites, the strand area, fringing reefs,
limu beds, lagoons, fishponds, and estuaries.
Freshwater Zone (kaha wai): The muliwai are mostly on the windward side of the islands and are part
of the biological resource zone of freshwater ecosystems and streams.
These ecological zones were based both on ecology and elevation, and were intrinsically tied to the
Hawaiian worldview. Nine ecological zones on Hawai‘i Island were documented by Handy and Pukui
(1998) as shown in Figure 4-5.
Although the elevation designations would not have been the same for O‘ahu, the resource categories
were likely applied throughout the Hawaiian islands. In the Ko‘olau mountains surrounding Ha‘ikū
Valley, the summit of Keahiakahoe lies at 2,820 ft., yet it would not have been categorized within the
lower resource zones as noted for Hawai‘i Island. Ha‘ikū Stairs traverses the steep mountainside
leading to the Keahiakahoe peak, well above the fertile lowlands of the wao kānaka and wao lā‘au.
Therefore it is likely that Ha‘ikū Stairs passes through the wao akua, ma‘u kele (wao kele), and possibly
even into the kua lono zone. The term wao refers to “inland region,” and wao kele (or ma‘u kele) refers
to a region near a mountain top. Wao akua is the realm of the gods or spirits, and wao kele the
rainforest of tall trees.
Traditionally, people generally did not inhabit the mountainous upland areas of the Hawaiian Islands.
These areas were cold, wet, and not as hospitable as lower elevations. The mountain regions did,
4-5
however, supply important raw materials and were visited to gather these resources. Trees growing in
the mountains were cut for wood used to make canoes, bowls, tools, weapons, musical instruments,
and ki‘i; birds were caught for their feathers; ferns and foliage were collected for decoration; the ‘ie‘ie
vine (Freycinetia arborea), was used to make fish traps, feather helmets, akua images, musical
instruments, and twined baskets, among other things.
Although uninhabited in pre-contact times, the slopes through which Ha‘ikū Stairs traverse were
undoubtedly significant, spiritually as well as for their natural resources (Keala Pono, 2018).
Source: Keala Pono Archaeological Consultants, 2018
Figure 4-5 Traditional Ecological Zones for Hawai‘I Island based on Handy et al. (1972)
Mo‘olelo
Hawaiian place names were connected to traditional stories through which the history of the places
was preserved. These stories were referred to as mo‘olelo, which have been defined as a myth, legend,
or fable, among others.
The god Kāne is also featured strongly in mo‘olelo concerning the inland area of Kāne‘ohe. The heiau
in the Luluku area within Ha‘ikū Valley bears his name, Kukuiokāne. Kāne also kept his best pigs in
the uplands of Kāne‘ohe. The place was called Papua‘a a Kāne.
Above Papua‘a a Kāne, there is a famous peak known as Keahiakahoe, that has an accompanying
mo‘olelo. Kahoe lived with his family on the steep cliffs called Kea‘ahala above the ahupua‘a of
4-6
Kāne‘ohe. Kahoe was a man known for his diligent farming of ‘awa and banana and his irrigated taro
patches in his upland home. Kahoe was generous and a gracious host to visitors. His strong work ethic
kept him busy with weeding and tending his irrigated kalo in the upland precipices of Kea‘ahala.
Kahoe had a younger brother named Pahu was a fisherman that lived at Pu‘upahu near He‘eia. Pahu,
would frequently visit his older brother and bring fish to share with Kahoe. In return, Kahoe would provide
Pahu with poi, the staple food made of kalo, and thus the exchange of goods from those of the uplands
with those of the sea that characterized life in ancient Hawai‘i was established. But later, Pahu’s stinginess
brought an end to this exchange. Eventually, Pahu would only bring the smallest of fish to Kahoe whenever
he saw smoke rising above Kea‘ahala; a sign that Kahoe was cooking taro to make poi. Pahu’s stinginess
caused Kahoe to relocate his family to another area and cook his meal in a cave to hide the smoke that
would bring Pahu calling. From this cave, the smoke would escape from another exit and allowed for Kahoe
to hide his food, an act that was contrary to the expected behavior of the time.
The “fire hill of Kahoe” (Pu‘u ke ahi a Kahoe), became the name of this peak that overlooks Kamananui
and Kamanaiki valleys. The story communicates a moral that if all parties do not follow the expected
behaviors of the land, then societal norms will deteriorate.
‘Ōlelo No‘eau
‘Ōlelo No‘eau are traditional proverbs and wise sayings which often document histories of Hawaiian
places. Only one ‘ōlelo no‘eau is listed for Kāne‘ohe, and only one is listed for He‘eia.
Kini Kailua, mano Kāne‘ohe.

Forty thousand in Kailua, four thousand in Kāne‘ohe.
The Kāne‘ohe proverb alludes to the large populations living in Kāne‘ohe and Kailua. According to this
‘ōlelo no‘eau, many would die by sorcery as vengeful punishment for the murder of a woman’s grandson.
Ka ua kani ko‘o o He‘eia.

The rain of He‘eia that sounds like the tapping of walking canes.
The He‘eia ‘ōlelo no‘eau, on the other hand, references its rain which makes a sound that is likened
to the tapping of a walking stick.
Na pali hāuliuli o ke Ko‘olau.

The dark hills of Ko‘olau.
In this related ‘ōlelo no‘eau, the entire Ko‘olau region is noted for its heavy vegetation which keeps its
hills and cliffs dark green and lush.
Pre-Contact to Early 1800s
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe are situated in the central portion of a network of abundant lands and waters
which made up the Ko‘olaupoko district. Dozens of fishponds and shrines were located throughout
Kāne‘ohe Bay. Inland, there was the ample use of diversified dryland farming and the procurement of
necessary resources from the natural forested areas. The pondfield agriculture for the cultivation of
irrigated taro flourished across the region, following the fresh waterways and ingeniously making use
of terraced slopes. These wetland terrace complexes, or lo‘i, extended upland to the backs of the
valleys and base of the Ko‘olau Mountain Range.
4-7
In 1779, the population of the Kāne‘ohe Bay area was probably between 15,000 to 17,000 people,
however, the population decreased by approximately 50% within the first 50 years of western contact.
Most of this depopulation was attributed to the introduction of foreign diseases to the islands (Keala
Pono, 2018).
One of the first historical accounts of Kāne‘ohe and He‘eia and the entire bay area was from the British
Captain Portlock in 1789. He described a beautiful bay with an inland landscape well-cultivated with
a variety of crops including plantations of taro, sweet potatoes, sugar-cane and many coconut treats.
An 1815 source also documented the presence of extensive fishing grounds and fish ponds. By 1839,
depopulation resulted in many abandoned tracts of taro land. Ranching and large-scale agriculture
operations such as sugar cane had also established in the valley at this time.
Starting in 1820, there was an influx of Christian missionaries to the islands. By the 1840s, a Catholic
church had been built on the Mōkapu Peninsula which was successful and drew followers (Keala Pono,
2018).
1848 Māhele and Transitional Land Use Patterns
In 1848, during the reign of Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III), a reformation of the traditional land tenure
system, known as the Māhele was derived by legislation, specifically by the Organic Acts of 1845 and
1846. The Māhele transformed the traditional ahupua‘a system into a system of possession rights
and private title to land. All lands in the kingdom were classified as Crown Lands, Government Lands,
and Konohiki Lands, “subject to the rights of native tenants.”
Claims and subsequent titles were issued and recorded as Land Commission Awards (LCAs) during the
Māhele. Awards issued by the Land Commission to the maka‘āinana (commoners) were called kuleana
awards. During the Māhele, only 14,195 kuleana claims were made, of which only 8,421 were awarded.
In general, those individuals awarded lands represented a small portion of the overall population. As a
result of a large diminution of the native population with the introduction of foreign diseases after 1778,
many Native Hawaiians were not able to either initiate or follow through on claims. Thus, the registered list
of LCA awardees does not represent all legitimate native claims to land parcels.
According to a source, much of the land in Kāne‘ohe and He‘eia was reserved for the ali‘i and wealthy
Caucasians. It is also reported that less than 1,000 acres of land in Kāne‘ohe were awarded to Hawaiian
farmers. Kalo was an important crop during the historic period and some LCAs awarded along Ha‘ikū
Stream mentioned lo‘i for wetland agriculture practiced in the project area (Keala Pono, 2018).
A few decades after the Māhele, many kuleana land holders in Kāne‘ohe and He‘eia left the traditional
subsistence lifestyle of taro and sweet potato cultivation and converted to commercial agricultural
operations such as large plantations and ranches. Among the major operations in the region were the
He‘eia Sugar Company, the Kāne‘ohe Sugar Plantation, the Kea‘ahala Plantation, the Parker Sugar
Company, the Kāne‘ohe Ranch Company, and the Kāne‘ohe rice mill, the latter of which was built in
1892 to 1893 (Keala Pono, 2018).
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe in the 20th Century
There were widespread changes in Kāne‘ohe and He‘eia in the early 20th century. A network of roads
was developed along with new place names and economic industries. New charcoal, pineapple and
banana farming activities transformed the landscape and contributed to the description and
modification of archaeological features.
4-8
In 1914, 216 acres of Kāne‘ohe land was set aside to create the Kea‘ahala Military Reservation, some of
which was designated for the Territorial Mental Hospital in 1924. Other military activities in the area
included the conversion of the Japanese language school in Lilipuna into a United Service Organizations
(USO) club; the designation of Coconut Island as an Army Air Corps recreation center; and the creation of
military training camps in He‘eia and ‘Ioleka‘a Valley. Mōkapu saw the establishment of the Kuwa‘aohe
Military Reservation in 1918. The construction of a Naval Air Station there began in 1939. And in 1952,
the entire peninsula was handed over to the U.S. Marines, which still occupy it today. Closer to the current
project area, the Navy built a Naval Radio Transmitter (NRT) communications system in Ha‘ikū in the
1940s. An official Declaration of Taking enabled the military to condemn and acquire various private lands
in the area, and all of Ha‘ikū Valley was restricted to the public until 1957. When the NRT became obsolete,
the facility was developed into a military Omega Station, which was the first radio navigation system with
global range. With the transformation into an Omega Station, the facility was turned over to the USCG which
continued its operation until relatively recently. Omega would later become obsolete with the development
of GPS technology (Keala Pono, 2018).
Community Consultation, Ethnographic Interviews
Knowledge is preserved through the stories and experiences of our kama‘āina, kūpuna, and
community members. Ethnographic interviews were conducted as part of the CIA between October
2017 and January 2018 to identify and understand the importance of, and potential impacts to,
traditional Hawaiian and/or historic cultural resources and traditional cultural practices around the
valley and ridges of Ha‘ikū. Eight individuals participated in “talk story” interviews. The background of
these eight individuals include community organization representatives, family members with ties to
the area, cultural and lineal descendants, Hawaiian cultural resource specialist, or Hawaiian traditional
practitioner. Some of the salient themes that were discussed in interviews are briefly described below.
As a whole, the interviewees have extensive knowledge of Ha‘ikū Stairs and structures and the surrounding
area. But as individuals, their knowledge was centered more specifically on either Ha‘ikū Stairs and
structures or the natural surrounding area. Besides Ha‘ikū Stairs and its associated military structures, no
other historic sites were identified within the project area. One interviewee said that there are other sites
in the area but not along the routes. Traditional sites include significant stones near the mango tree grove;
the Kānehekili Heiau atop which sits the maintenance building; a burial cave, and other burials. Burials
were also previously disturbed and reinterred during the construction of Ha‘ikū Road. It was pointed out
that the piko of the valley, at the back center of the amphitheater, is associated with Kāne a me Kanaloa
Heiau. And several interviewees echoed that the higher elevations, including the land that Ha‘ikū Stairs is
set upon; are all sacred lands because they are the dwelling place of the gods, specifically Hina, Haumea,
Lono, and Kāne, in this area. Regarding gathering practices, several interviewees said that gathering is
done in the project area, such as collecting maile and pala‘ā for lei-making; gathering plants for medicine;
collecting bamboo for implement making; and picking mangoes for food. And finally, one interviewee said
that a spiritual gathering is done at the top of Ha‘ikū Stairs twice a week, although that it is not a traditional
cultural gathering.
The natural environment was described as very lush and beautiful and vegetated with many
indigenous and endemic plants but also invasive species. One interviewee pointed out the speciation
process that has taken place along Ha‘ikū Stairs as plants have evolved to adapt to this unique habitat.
Among the plants named were kanawao, kukui, māmaki, ‘ilima, kōlea, and bamboo. The ascent of
Ha‘ikū Stairs was described as very steep, going from 400 to 2,800 feet, leading to a summit that is
very misty and cold. The summit itself allows for an excellent vantage point to see the entire ahupua‘a,
and it connects along the Ko‘olau ridgeline to the summit of Moanalua Valley.
4-9
Figure 4-6 Historical Moku and Ahupua‘a Boundary Map
4-10
When talking about the changes that have occurred in the project area over time, some interviewees
made a point of distinction that Ha‘ikū Stairs and Omega structures themselves are the biggest
markers of manmade change in what had always been a natural pristine place. Going further on that
point, the housing developments and institutional buildings for the college and the State Hospital were
also described as markers of change in the valley, in some places covering former conservation lands.
However, the majority of the discussion about change focused on Ha‘ikū Stairs themselves and the
people who visit Ha‘ikū Stairs and structures. One interviewee shared that in the 1980s, while still
under the care of the military, three portions of Ha‘ikū Stairs were destroyed and thrown over, and in
their place, people installed ropes to help climbers in those sections. When the military turned the land
over to the City, it came with codicils to care for the structures, but instead upkeep was neglected.
In the 1990s, Jeremy Harris became the mayor, and according to one interviewee, the City had a plan
to mālama Ha‘ikū Stairs and create a park in the back of the valley as part of that overall vision. The
interviewee said that volunteers cleared the invasive species, and native plants began to flourish,
while the City spent between $850,000 to $1 million to repair Ha‘ikū Stairs. After plans for
management fell through, stair modules have deteriorated with significant rust damage while the
invasive species have taken over again. In addition to the oxidation of Ha‘ikū Stairs and the overgrown
vegetation, the roadways leading up to it have gone into disrepair. Meanwhile, the structures and the
generators and other things inside the structures have become heavily damaged and vandalized
beyond use by either homeless people or drug users or both, according to the interviewees. The
disrepair and damage has not stopped the visitors from coming illegally, and many interviewees
echoed each other regarding the growing problem of illegal climbing. One interviewee stated that the
hikers have not changed, but rather it is the antagonistic disposition of some of the residents which
has grown into a problem with the hikers. Other interviewees pointed out that the visitors are the ones
who are coming in increasing numbers without respect for the residents and the place. One
interviewee underscored the growing problem of disrespect saying that both visitors and newer
residents no longer care about the culture and history of the place.
The interviewees also voiced their concerns and recommendations for the project. Some concerns
reflect the desire to protect Ha‘ikū Stairs and structures from damage, and in contrast, some concerns
focus on the desire to protect the natural and traditional environment from destruction. Concerns
include:
• The trouble, disturbances, and confrontations between the hikers and the residents
• Ha‘ikū Stairs being blamed for lost hikers
• The visitors’ lack of respect for the neighborhood
• The visitors’ lack of respect for the natural and cultural resources of the area both in the valley
and the wao akua
• The need to address the issue of access
• The need to maintain a balance that is pono
• The lack of understanding that people have concerning the kuleana that comes with accessing
the forest
• The preference for historic resource protection over recreational use
• The possibility of a landslide due to poor soil conditions
• The protection of the watershed from human activity
• The proliferation of invasive species
• The current adverse effects that trespassing hikers are having on the environmental and
cultural resources in the valley on their way to Ha‘ikū Stairs
4-11
• The predilection to protect the natural and traditional environment over Ha‘ikū Stairs and
structures
• The need to listen to the kama‘āina families
• The structures succumbing to vandals and homeless people
• The presence of drug users in the area
• The lack of harmony due to manmade structures out of place in a native Hawaiian forest
• The cost – what are the actual costs of the different project options?
• The cost – who will pay for everything and how?
• The increase of trash in the area
All interviewees agree that the current situation at Ha‘ikū Stairs is not acceptable. Where they differ
greatly are in their recommendations. While many recommendations focused on how to reopen Ha‘ikū
Stairs and bring about managed use, there were adamant recommendations to dismantle Ha‘ikū
Stairs. All recommendations are summarized in this list, organized within the following categories:
access, maintenance, education, the environment, establishing facilities and programs, cost, and the
community.
Summary of Interview Comments by Issue Category
Access Comments
• Take down Ha‘ikū Stairs to provide the most positive impacts for the area
• Close public access to Ha‘ikū Stairs in memory of the ancestors because it is in a sacred and
kapu place
• Focus on managed access for sustainability of Ha‘ikū Stairs
• Whittle down the amount of security to one person and have that person stationed at the base
of Ha‘ikū Stairs
• Allow limited access in certain zoned areas
• Allow only people who plan activities to support and expand the wao akua to ascend Ha‘ikū
Stairs
• Limit climbers to 10 every hour
• Replicate the old system of having climbers sign waiver to climb Ha‘ikū Stairs
• Address capacity limitations
• Utilize the current public roads as access to avoid the inadvertent discovery of potential
archaeological sites
• Use the old road that goes to the transmitter building and use that building as a place for
visitors to sign in
• Set up a shuttle bus system to bring visitors in, and the shuttle bus stop should be away from
the area, such as at the Windward Mall
• Conduct a full cultural inventory survey along all proposed routes of access
• Do not establish “hours of operation” since Ha‘ikū Stairs is safe at all times
4-12
Maintenance Comments
• Institute a system for stewards to take care of the buildings
• Set up a community service component for visitors
• Use the highest quality of metal to repair Ha‘ikū Stairs, preferably the same type as the durable
grease fitting in the machinery
• Do not allow graffiti on Ha‘ikū Stairs or the outsides of the buildings, but graffiti on the interior
of the buildings is okay
Education Comments
• Provide docents to allow for supervised hike
• Provide good and informed guides
• Precede hikes with an introductory instructional orientation
• Transform Ha‘ikū Stairs and structures into an educational facility with intense management
• Distribute informational cards about the area to hikers
• Educate visitors to respect the area through signs and podcasts
• Do not install informational placards because they will detract from the beauty of the place
• Emphasize the need to understand and respect the place from a cultural point of view
• Heed the original report from Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group
Environmental Comments
• Prohibit mechanized equipment and operations on the hill which might spill or create other
environmental damage
• Spread gravel or rocks on the trails to counter erosion
• Address the issue of invasive species in the final plan
• Allow only reusable utensils and containers on Ha‘ikū Stairs so that people will not leave them
as trash; do not allow plastics
Establishing Facilities and Programs Comments

• Improve trails
• Provide bathrooms
• Convert the back of Ha‘ikū Valley into a park or cultural preserve
• Create a Ko‘olau museum which honors the history of the Omega Station and of the surrounding area
• Transform the back of the valley into a native forest with outdoor and indoor classrooms
• Construct a stage at the amphitheater for outdoor performances
• Develop a meditative-reflective spiritual center at the top of Ha‘ikū Stairs
Cost Comments
• Secure money from the Legislature to pay for expenses
• Establish entrance fees and use the money to help care for the area
• Ensure that the entrance fee is not too expensive and that it goes to maintain Ha‘ikū Stairs,
mitigate adverse impacts, and support the community
• Enforce heavy fines for trespassing
4-13
Comments for the Community

• Host a get together for the community every month or quarter to say thank you and to allow
for issues to be resolved
• Bring proponents and opponents of Ha‘ikū Stairs together at the table to find a solution
The information shared in the community interviews showed a conflict of thoughts and beliefs. On one
hand, some interviewees viewed Ha‘ikū Stairs and other structures as worthy to be preserved. On the
other hand, some interviewees found it more important to preserve the natural and traditional
environment, and Ha‘ikū Stairs and structures were obstructing that preservation. As a result, the
concerns and recommendations put forth from the interviewees exhibited some conflicting
information. A summary of interviewee recommendations for the project is provided in Table 4-1.
Due to the dichotomy of perspectives that proponents and opponents of Ha‘ikū Stairs have, a solution
will need to seek a balance between the two groups of thought. As one interviewee advised, the two
sides should be brought together to the table to find a solution that all can live with. There are several
families which have ancestral ties to the area as well, and value should be placed on their input as a
distinct perspective to consider. These as well as any other concerns and recommendations that the
community and stakeholders bring up should be considered during the discussion about the future for
Ha‘ikū Stairs and the Omega Station structures.
4-14
Table 4-1 Summary of Interviewee Perspectives

Interviewee Connection to Project Stance on Ha‘ikū Stairs Concerns/Recommendations/Remarks
Mahealani Cypher Ko‘olau Foundation Keep Ha‘ikū Stairs with Turn the Omega Station buildings into a cultural center; ancient chiefs would approve of
managed access keeping the Omega structures because they were for the protection of the people; although
the ridge is kapu, it was a traditional route messengers used to pass communication over
the mountains; failure to care for the Omega structures is a violation of a covenant between
the military and the state government; numerous places of cultural significance in the area
Kiersten Faulkner Historic Hawai‘i Keep Ha‘ikū Stairs with Omega Station and Ha‘ikū Stairs is on an endangered sites list; the stair modules, structures,
Foundation managed access and area have multiple layers of historical significance; Ha‘ikū Stairs is unmanaged and unsafe
and come with liability issues; any solution needs to respect the resources and the residents of
the area; turn the Omega Station and Ha‘ikū Stairs into an educational and responsible
recreational facility; develop sustainable access and a stewardship system
John Flanigan Friends of Ha‘ikū Keep Ha‘ikū Stairs with Ha‘ikū Stairs is extremely valuable due to its historical military significance; the United States
Stairs managed access Coast Guard handed over Ha‘ikū land and structures to Department of Hawaiian Homelands
with the agreement and responsibility of upkeeping the area; the City was going to incorporate
Ha‘ikū Stairs and the back of Ha‘ikū Valley into a park, but at the last minute the plan fell through
John Goody Friends of Ha‘ikū Keep Ha‘ikū Stairs with Ha‘ikū Stairs is safe and a healthy alternative for family activities; it is a good public
Stairs managed access resource for education (history/culture/environment); it is a special place to learn about
speciation; prefers to utilize the old road (Route 1b or 2b) that goes to the back of the valley
as an access route and use the building there as a sign-in center
Frank Kawaikapuokalani Direct descendant of Remove Ha‘ikū Stairs Summit areas are kapu and should be off-limits; stairs should be closed down in memory of
Hewett the area the kūpuna; numerous places of cultural significance in the area
Daniel Ka‘anana Kāne‘ohe Open to negotiation Both sides of the issue (for/against Ha‘ikū Stairs) need to come to the table with mutual respect
Neighborhood Board for there to be a good decision; Ha‘ikū Stairs is man-made and out of place in a pristine Native
Hawaiian environment; visitors have a lack of care for the local community there and for the host
culture of Hawai‘i; what are the costs of the different alternatives for Ha‘ikū Stairs, and who will
pay for it; Route 1a or 2a along Ha‘ikū Road would be the best route for access
Matthew Kievlan Friends of Ha‘ikū Keep Ha‘ikū Stairs with Use Ha‘ikū Stairs as an educational site for spiritual and social matters; hiking Ha‘ikū
Stairs managed access Stairs leads to healing and joy; the summit’s natural environment has bestowed
transformative benefits from the ancient days (for warriors) until today; use the best metal
to restore Ha‘ikū Stairs; provide ways to use operations and activities at Ha‘ikū Stairs to
give back to the community
Keoni Kuoha Papahana Kuaola Open to negotiation but Stairs is in the wao akua which should not be entered except by those who have kuleana
prefer to remove Ha‘ikū there; much of the current behavior of hikers is not pono; currently experiencing a problem
Stairs with trespassing hikers on his organization’s property in the valley
4-15
4.2.3 Historic Architectural Resources
Existing Conditions
An Intensive Level Survey (ILS) for potential historic architectural features was prepared by Dr. William
Chapman, Architectural Historian, in September 2018 and is included in Appendix D.
This ILS Report assessed the historic and architectural significance of Ha‘ikū Stairs, the Navy and later
Coast Guard radio complex in Ha‘ikū Valley in Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. This report was prepared to assist the
EIS impact evaluation process and to meet the requirements of State historic preservation review
under HRS 6E-8, which identifies historic properties determines their significance, identifies potential
effect and apprises it as applicable.
In the ILS, historic properties identified in the project area include: 1) Ha‘ikū Stairs; 2) concrete
platforms; 3) concrete posts; 4) Communications Control Link (CCL) Building; and 5) the Cable Car
house.
1. Ha‘ikū Stairs: Originally the Navy’s access ladder for their radio station facility, Ha‘ikū Stairs
was constructed along the south edge of Ha‘ikū Valley, reaching the high peak of Pu‘u
Keahiakahoe, located at the 2,800 foot level. The initial wooden ladder system was originally
called Ha‘ikū Ladder. In 1943, 3,500 feet of wooden ladders were built along the southern
access of Ha‘ikū Valley. The ladders were gradually replaced and in 1947, a 950-foot ladder
of galvanized stainless steel was built along the ridge.
2. Concrete Platforms: There are four concrete platforms that served as foundations for steel A-
frames, which were anchor towers supporting the antenna running above Ha‘ikū Valley. The T-
and H-shaped anchor foundations are solid concrete and are embedded 10 feet or more in
the ground
3. Concrete Posts: There are two concrete posts along the stairway. These are located on the
valley side of the stairway, within 10 feet of each other, near the point where the ramped metal
walkway returns once again to steps to make the final ascent to the Communication Control
Link Building. The 2-foot square posts stand approximately 4 feet 10 inches high. Their
functions have yet to be determined.
4. The Cable Car Building: After Ha‘ikū Stairs were complete, ridgeline access was supplemented
by a cable car for taking personnel and equipment to the top of the rearmost ridge of Ha‘ikū
Valley, the 2,800 feet (850 meters) peak of Pu‘u Keahiakahoe. The Cable Car Building, also
known as the hoist house, is located along the stairway at an elevation of 2,440 feet, on the
ridge leading up to the summit. The Cable Car Building housed the cable mechanism which
provided an expedient means of gondola transportation between the valley floor and the ridge.
The Cable Car Building originally served as the point of debarkation for materials and
personnel working on the antenna above Ha‘ikū Valley and its accompanying structures, or
who later were en route to the CCL Building. The building is currently vacant and in ruins.
5. Communications Control Link (CCL) Building: The CCL building is located at the top of the
stairway at an elevation of 2,802 feet at the summit of Pu‘u Keahiakahoe. The CCL Building
originally provided very high frequency (VHF) communication between Kāne‘ohe and Wahiawā,
in the event the regular communications lines failed. In 1954 the Navy allowed the USAF to
use the building as an unattended microwave relay station. USAF made modifications in 1963
as well. Photographs indicate that the present microwave dish dates to sometime prior to
1960. The building is presently vacant and in ruins.
4-16
Historic Properties
The definition of “historic property” in Section 6E-2, HRS is: “‘Historic property’ means any building,
structure, object, district, area, or site, including heiau and underwater site, which is over fifty years
old.”
In accordance with this definition, Ha‘ikū Stairs and the buildings and structures along its path that
are associated with the Navy radio operations are historic properties, as they are more than fifty years
old, having been initially developed in 1942 to 1943, and having the original wooden stairs and ladders
replaced in metal in 1955 to 1956.
Ha‘ikū Stairs is also known for their role in the post-1971 Omega Station. Initiated in the late 1960s
and realized at Ha‘ikū after 1970, the Omega system contributed to postwar communication and
introduced a new level of navigational accuracy for ships and aircraft. The Omega timeframe, however,
falls outside the normal fifty-year cutoff time for the Hawai‘i and National Registers. Because of this,
other than for background information, this period is not central to the significance of the property.
The Omega Station will reach the 50-year historic property threshold in 2020.
Integrity and Significance
Although only a portion of what was once a much larger complex, one that included numerous
supporting structures at the base camp for the facility (of which four concrete buildings and structures
still remain), the stairway and other features along the south and west ridges of Ha‘ikū Valley convey
a strong sense of the World War II-period Navy Radio Station and collectively possess integrity of
location, setting, materials, design, feeling, workmanship, and association to the period between 1942
when the base construction began, to 1956 when the new metal stairway was completed. The Stairway
and associated features possess integrity as well to the post-1970 period, retaining integrity of
location, setting, materials, design, feeling, workmanship, and association to the Omega Station period
as well.
The present stairway primarily follows the original alignment of the 1942-1943 wood stairs and
adheres to a similar design. Its construction date also falls within the time of the Navy’s jurisdiction
over the radar station, so is in keeping with a context focused on World War II and its immediate
aftermath.
In addition to their relatively high level of integrity, Ha‘ikū Stairs and associated resources, namely the
Cable Car Building, the CCL, and the four identified Concrete Antenna foundations appear to meet the
criteria for listing in the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places. Under both HAR 13-198 and HAR 13-275,
they possess significance at the state level under Criterion A for their association with the Navy’s
communication activities in the Pacific during World War II and the Cold War period. Ha‘ikū Stairs also
appears to be significant under Criterion C as an extraordinary construction and engineering feat.
In addition, Ha‘ikū Stairs and its associated structures appear to meet Criterion 3 under HAR 13-198,
in that the site’s educational, and recreational value, “when preserved, presented, or interpreted,
contributes significantly to the understanding and enjoyment of the history and culture of Hawaii, the
Pacific area, or the nation.” The preservation of the stairway would significantly contribute to the
enjoyment and understanding of the history and culture of Hawaii during World War II, and the
tremendous effort exerted to construct the stairs and radio station.
The study concludes Ha‘ikū Stairs and its associated structures are significant historic resources
possessing integrity to the immediate postwar period and reflective of developments during World War
4-17
II. The study presents Ha‘ikū Stairs as a remnant of two significant periods in the history of the United
States and of the Hawaiian Islands. The first is the World War II era, when it supported the
communications operations for the United States in the Pacific. The second is the postwar Cold War
Era after 1945, when the original radio facility at the east end of O‘ahu was updated as part of a
greater network of national defense.
Dr. Chapman recommended that the historic properties identified in this section are considered
significant for the role they played in the development of an advanced radio station during the early
years of the World War II and for the unique character of their construction. The metal stairway retains
a sense of their original setting and design and speak still to the effort undertaken by Navy engineers
and laborers in erecting the original structure.
Determination of Effect
Once a historic property has been determined to be significant, the effects of the Proposed Action upon the
property need to be determine in accordance with HAR §13-275-7. The project effect determination can
be “no historic properties affected” or “effect with proposed mitigation commitments.”
The Proposed Action would involve removal of stair modules from the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs in Ha‘ikū
Valley to the CCL at the summit of Pu‘u Keahiakahoe, including removal of the “back stairs” on the
Moanalua Saddle ridgeline. The concrete landing platforms and associated structures would not be
removed under the Proposed Action.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would constitute an “effect” to a significant historic property due to the fact
that the feature would be dismantled and removed. Pursuant to HAR §13-275-3(b)(3), it is
recommended that the project effect determination is “effect with proposed mitigation commitments.”
Mitigation commitments are discussed in HAR §13-275-8, which states:

“If a project will have an “effect” (impact) on significant historic properties, then a mitigation
commitment proposing the form of mitigation to be undertaken for each significant historic
property shall be submitted by the agency to the SHPD for review and approval.”
Proposed mitigation commitments for the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs includes architectural recordation
of all removed stair modules and preservation of associated structures in the form of avoidance. These
are described in HAR §13-275-8:
A. Preservation, which may include avoidance and protection (conservation), stabilization,

rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction, interpretation, or appropriate cultural use.
B. Architectural recordation, which involves the photographic documentation, and possibly the
measured drawings of a building, structure or object, prior to its alteration or destruction.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would warrant mitigation including Architectural Recordation including
measured drawings and photographic documentation of the affected stair modules. Associated
structures would be mitigated through Preservation, being preserved in place with periodic
maintenance conducted to preserve structural integrity.
4-18
In accordance with State historic preservation review requirements under HRS 6E-8, the ILS was
submitted to SHPD on December 26, 2018, and assigned log number 2018.03030. On March 14,
2019, SHPD replied to BWS regarding HRS 6E-8 review, and concurred with BWS’s determination of
“Effect, with proposed mitigation commitments.” Although the letter did not limit future options for
Ha‘ikū Stairs, SHPD noted preference for preservation of historic resources, and that further
consultation is anticipated upon selection of the final course of action. The response letter from SHPD
can be found in Appendix KL.
4.3 Biological Resources

A Ha‘ikū Stairs Flora and Fauna Survey was conducted by Hui Kū Maoli Ola, LLC in July 2018 and is
included as EIS Appendix E. The survey recorded plant species observed within the stairway modules
and up to ten feet on either side, and on and around the platforms and buildings. Plants were recorded
as native (indigenous and endemic) or alien (Polynesian and post-Captain Cook introduced) from the
H-3 Service road at the base to the CCL at the Pu‘u Keahiakahoe summit, and along the Moanalua
Saddle Stairs section (described in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3, Ha‘ikū Stairs and Moanalua Saddle
Stairs). Incidental observations of animals, birds and insects were noted.
Existing Conditions
Flora along Ha’ikū Stairs
A variety of native ferns, shrubs, and trees are scattered along the length of Haʻikū Stairs, with an
impressive species diversity of ‘ōhi‘a lehua (Metrosideros spp.) and kōlea (Myrsine spp.) that vary with
elevation. The ‘ōhi‘a lehua, Metrosideros polymorpha variety imbracata, is present, with some natural
hybrids present in the higher elevations.
Figure 4-7 Varieties of ‘Ōhi‘a found along Ha‘ikū Stairs (From left to right: Metrosideros
polymorpha var. imbricata, M. tremuloides, M. polymorpha hybrid, M. rugosa)
Natural hybrids of kōlea (Myrsine spp.) are similarly present one-third of the way up Ha‘ikū Stairs. M.
lessertiana, M. fosbergii, M. pukooensis (identification not positive due to distance), and M.
sandwicensis were observed during the ascent along Haʻikū Stairs. One variety of Myrsine (M.
fosbergii) was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2016. Alien plants
such as Clidemia compete and modify habitat, and habitat modification and direct herbivory by feral
pigs from rooting and damage to plants and soils are among the threats to this plant.
4-19
Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor passes through one ecosystem critical habitat unit described in the 2012 Federal
Register Final Rule, Endangered Status for 23 Species on O‘ahu and Designation of Critical Habitat for
124 Species (USFWS, 2012). The O‘ahu-Wet Cliff-Unit 8 habitat is associated with 21 endangered
plant species. The survey conducted for this EIS noted the presence of just one of the federally listed
species associated with the wet cliff unit habitat, Plantago princeps, along the Moanalua Saddle Stairs.
Per 50 CFR 17.99(i), existing manmade features and structures including trails and scenic lookouts
are not included in the critical habitat designation. Therefore, Ha‘ikū Stairs and associated features
built in the 1940s and subsequent improvements are not within critical habitat for any species. If
Ha‘ikū Stairs were to be removed, it is possible that the area under the stairs would be added to critical
habitat.
Figure 4-8 Various types of Kōlea (Myrsine spp.) found along Ha‘ikū Stairs
Non-native vegetation is dominant within and immediately adjacent to the stairway. Over the past
decade, illegal access by trespassing hikers from all over the world has taken a toll on the native biota
and the overall health of the ecosystem. As noted in Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, Trespassing on Ha‘ikū
Stairs and in Ha‘ikū Valley, from 2015 to 2017 the annual number of one-way trips up and down
Ha‘ikū Stairs increased by approximately 50 percent, from approximately 5,000 to 10,300,
respectively. The hikers routinely cut across disturbed lowland areas dominated by alien plants to get
to the stairs, and unknowingly carry seeds of invasive plants into the healthier native forest. In addition,
hikers cause erosion by going off trail. These impacts create a vector that expedites the spread of alien
plant species into an otherwise hard to reach, native-dominated ecosystem.
Low growing, herbaceous alien weeds and vines occur from the bottom of Ha‘ikū Stairs to the summit
and impact the diversity and abundance of native species. Maile pilau (Paedaria scandens), Clidemia
hirta, Arthrostema ciliatum, Ageratina adenofora and Erigeron karvinskianus invade the entire length
of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Larger trees such as the octopus tree (Schefflera actinophylla), guava and strawberry
guava (Psidium spp.), African tulip (Spathodea campanulata) and juniper berry (Citharexylum
caudatum) are also scattered up and down the length of Ha‘ikū Stairs and in some places are
overwhelmingly dominant for hundreds of feet mid-way up the ascent. The aggressive nature of these
species makes it impossible for native vegetation to reclaim these spots, which poses a serious threat
to the native species that remain.
4-20
Hikers have introduced citrus and avocado plants by leaving fruit seeds on the trail, which eventually
germinate. These plants can be seen at each of the landings and buildings, and at the summit where
hikers stop and take a break.
Flora Along Moanalua Saddle Stairs
Approximately 200 feet beyond the summit of Ha‘ikū Stairs towards the back of the valley along the
Ko‘olau mountain ridgeline is a section of old metal stairs and railings composed of 71 separate
modules totaling nearly 850-feet. Known as the Moanalua Saddle Stairs, this section is rarely
traversed as it is only utilized by people hiking the Ko‘olau Summit Trail. Because the trail is seldom
used, the native plant community along this section is relatively intact.
Figure 4-9 Alien Species (Left to right: Maile Pilau Smothering a Lama Tree;
thick Clidemia understory; Plantago major)
Numerous species of native shrubs or small trees are stout or dwarfed in morphology due to the
environmental conditions typical of the windswept summits. Many native plants observed in this area
were also identified along the upper half of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
The Moanalua Saddle portion of the stairs lies adjacent to both the O‘ahu-Wet Cliff-Unit 8 and the
O‘ahu- Lowland Wet- Unit 9 habitats. One plant species federally listed as endangered associated with
both habitats was positively identified within the Moanalua Middle Saddle surveyed area - Plantago
princeps. Its Hawaiian name is ale, laukahi and/or laukahi kuahiwi. A Cyanea species, likely the
endangered C. calycina, was observed but due to the windswept nature of the area and small size of
the plant it was difficult to make a positive identification based on morphological characteristics alone.
Its location is within the species range in the Ko‘olau Mountains, and other plants positively identified
as C. calycina can be seen only a short distance away.
4-21
Figure 4-10 Citrus and Avocado Trees at the Landings
Fauna
Three native species were observed incidentally during the two survey periods on Ha‘ikū Stairs: the
blue Hawaiian butterfly (Udara blackburnii), a white-tailed tropicbird (Phaethon lepturus dorotheae)
and a damselfly most likely Megalagrion sp. Although none were recorded on these two most recent
surveys, ‘apapane (Himatione sanguinea) birds foraging among the blooming ‘ōhi‘a trees have been
witnessed along the stairs in the past. Native forest birds were likely not observed during the survey
as the trees were not in bloom.
The project area lies primarily on the western side of the Ko‘olau Mountains and abuts the 2013
estimated range of the O‘ahu ‘elepaio (Chasiempis ibidis). This endangered monarch flycatcher is
endemic to the island, with related species on the other Hawaiian Islands. The O‘ahu population has
declined 50 percent since the 1990s (VanderWerf et al., 2013). Moanalua Valley is part of the central
Ko‘olau population documented in the USFWS 2006 Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds.
Unlike many Hawaiian forest birds, ‘elepaio have adapted well to disturbed forest composed of
introduced plants which likely reflects its preference for riparian vegetation in valleys. Notable areas
of population decline include three areas on O‘ahu with the highest rainfall. This is likely due to
mosquito-borne diseases, which along with predation by rats are a key contributor to reduced
populations of Hawaiian forest birds.
The landing area at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs intersects with the lowlands of Ha‘ikū Valley. Ha‘ikū Valley
provides typical habitat occupied by mammal species introduced to O‘ahu: cats, rodents, and
mongoose. No introduced mammals were observed during the survey.
The only native terrestrial mammal in Hawai‘i is the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, or ope‘ape‘a
(Lasiurus cinereus semotus). While the ‘ope‘ape‘a has been seen on Hawai‘i, Maui, Moloka‘i, O‘ahu
and Kaua‘i, it may only live on Hawai‘i, Maui, and Kaua‘i. A large population might have lived on O‘ahu
before the early 19th century, but it is based on a single observation of an unknown number of bats
(USFWS 2017). The Hawaiian Hoary Bat, roosts in native and non-native vegetation from one to nine
meters (3 to 29 feet) above ground level (DLNR, ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a or Hawaiian Hoary Bat). The bat is known
to inhabit forested areas, however, this species was not detected during the survey.
4-22
The USFWS identified critical habitat for two O‘ahu damselflies, Crimson Hawaiian Damselfly- Lowland
Wet- Unit 14 and Oceanic Hawaiian Damselfly- Low land Wet- Unit 15 occur in the vicinity of the stair
corridor. While damselfly may transit the area, the stair corridor does not contain any streams or bodies
of water that support damselfly breeding. As noted in the preceding flora section, manmade features
and trails such as Ha‘ikū Stairs is not included in critical habitat for any species.
Human Impact
Significant trash can be seen on various access trails, the Omega Station Access Road, the H-3 Service
Road, on and around Ha‘ikū Stairs, and at the base and summit of Ha‘ikū Stairs. The trash consists of
plastic water bottles, beer bottles, soda cans, food wrappers, clothing and camping gear including
damaged tents that were left behind.
Figure 4-11: Trash build up at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs,

on Ha‘ikū Stairs, and at another access point.
Figure 4-12: (Left) Native forest cleared near summit, now vulnerable to weed establishment;
(Center) Hikers trampling plants; (Right) Heavy erosion from trespassing hikers
4-23
Large swaths of erosion can be seen at various points along the access routes, as well as at the base
of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Due to the number of people on Ha‘ikū Stairs at the same time, hikers encounter each
other traveling in opposite directions. The width of Ha‘ikū Stairs allows one person, so hikers climb
over the railings to yield way and trample and kill native plants. In some areas plants do not rejuvenate,
resulting in erosion and soil runoff. Erosion is also instigated with establishment of make-shift camps
off Ha‘ikū Stair corridor.
Flora
Haʻikū Stairs has become a vector expediting the spread of some of the most invasive plant species
into an otherwise hard to reach, native-dominated environment. Weed control and native plant
restoration should be priority when decommissioning Ha‘ikū Stairs. A native species restoration plan
should be developed in consultation with a biologist that specifies removal of invasive species and
restoration/re-planting of native species back to an identified coverage, within and immediately
adjacent to the Haʻikū Stairs footprint. Restoration from the top down would afford minimal
disturbance to the restored areas. Implementation of restoration alongside deconstruction, and
working from the top down, would minimize disturbance to the restored sections.
Prior to the proposed removal of stair modules, a biologist should search and mark locations of any
endangered plants with focus on those identified in the biological survey. The area(s) with plants
should be flagged, along with a buffer area, to prevent disturbance of live plants and potential
seedlings during stair decommissioning activities. As noted under Existing Conditions, critical habitat
designation only triggers a consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act for
activities that have a Federal nexus, that is, Federal funding or requirement for Federal permits. This
project will not have a Federal nexus; therefore, critical habitat designation has no impact on this
project. Further, actions described above to identify and avoid plants listed as endangered will
minimize damage, and restoration activities will augment native plant cover and mitigate potential
damage to endangered species.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs under the Proposed Action would also conform Hawai‘i State endangered
species laws per HRS §195D, Conservation of Aquatic Life, Wildlife, and Land Plants. In accordance
with State regulations, the project would take positive actions to perpetuate wildlife, land plants, and
their habitats.
Mitigation to identify and avoid endangered plant species during decommissioning of the stairs, along
with native vegetation restoration and prevention of ongoing introduction of alien plant seeds from
trespassing hikers, will benefit the native-dominated habitats along the stair corridor.
Fauna
Ridgeline areas are well suited to capturing views of birds and insects transiting from one valley to
another. Observations of the indigenous white-tailed tropicbird and damselflies transiting the stair
area during the survey reveal the range of habitats used by these species. However, the Proposed
Action would not pose impacts to the habitats used by damselfly, which require streams and still bodies
of waters to complete its lifecycle.
Special care will be taken during construction and when trimming or clearing woody plants taller than
15 feet to minimize any potential adverse effects to the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus
semotus). Between June 1 to September 15, a qualified biologist would survey woody vegetation and
4-24
trees taller than 15 feet for Hawaiian hoary bats. If bats are present, that vegetation is not to be
disturbed during bat pupping season, between June 1 and September 15.
Non-native fauna were not observed during the survey and no future impacts are anticipated. This
project will not have a Federal nexus so critical habitat designation has no impact on this project. And
as documented earlier, manmade features and structures such as Ha‘ikū Stairs are excluded from
critical habitat designation.
Human Impact
Removal of Haʻikū Stairs would curtail the ongoing traffic from trespassing hikers who introduce
invasive species on their shoes and in food scraps, disturb flora and contribute to erosion, and leave
collections of litter behind. Soils disturbance within the construction footprint would be restored with
native species where practicable to prevent encroaching invasive plants. Decommissioning of the
stairs and applying the proposed mitigation measures is anticipated to benefit the area through an
overall reduction in invasive species, prevention of future erosion, and the elimination of trash in the
environment.
4.4 Climate
Existing Conditions
Atmospheric Conditions
The climate of Ha‘ikū Stairs location within the area of He‘eia is very much affected by its windward
and upland location. Throughout the year, winds are predominantly trade winds from the northeast.
generally ranging between 10-20 mph. Temperatures in He‘eia are generally moderate with average
daily temperatures of approximately 74°F. January holds the lowest average temperature at
approximately 70°F and August holds the warmest average temperature at approximately 77°F. This
area of O‘ahu is one of the wetter locations in the State due to heavy moisture from northeasterly trade
winds, with an average annual rainfall of 53.75 inches. The wettest month of the year is November
with an average of 6.91 inches of rain and the driest month of the year is June with an average of 2.45
inches of rain. The mean annual rainfall around Ha‘ikū Stairs is approximately 100 inches due to the
upper elevation location in the Ko‘olau mountains (Figure 4-13).
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
Global warming and climate change are established facts according to the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences (NAS). According to the 2014 “Climate Change Impacts in Hawai‘i – A summary of climate
change and its impacts to Hawai‘i’s ecosystem and communities” report prepared by UH Sea Grant
College Program (“Sea Grant”), Hawai‘i is experiencing climate change impacts in unique ways. The
rapid acceleration observed in globally averaged rates of sea-level rise has not been observed in local
sea-level data for Hawai‘i, whereas O‘ahu’s daily temperature range is changing much more rapidly
than the global mean. It is important to focus on the localized impacts of climate change to adequately
understand and prepare for the changes to come.
The Sea Grant report identifies the primary impacts by ecosystem to show the complex changes
compounding in geographic areas, while recognizing that ecosystems are linked to one another and are
impossible to separate entirely. The report identifies impacts to terrestrial ecosystems, freshwater
resources and human health that could potentially affect the proposed project area. Impacts to terrestrial
4-25
ecosystems would include rising temperature leading to changing habitat ranges, changing rainfall
frequency and intensity and increasing threat of diseases, pests, and invasive species. Climate change
could affect freshwater resources by changing rainfall frequency and intensity and increasing saltwater
intrusion. Human health impacts from climate change potentially include increasing threat of heat-induced
illnesses, increasing threat of pathogens and diseases, decreasing water quality and availability due to
drought, and changing frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones (hurricanes). Some of these impacts
have been observed in Hawai‘i and some are expected to manifest in coming decades.
The warming of our climate and oceans contribute to sea level rise. The global annual sea level rise
average over the last century was roughly two millimeters, with previous studies indicating that this
rate is now approaching three millimeters and may accelerate in coming decades. According to the UH
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST), global mean sea level may reach
approximately 1.0 foot by mid-century and 2.5 to 6.2 feet by the end of the century. For a visual
example of how sea level rise would impact susceptible parts of the island of O‘ahu, the SOEST
provides a fly-through simulation of a 3.0-foot sea level rise scenario (at high tide) for Honolulu. The
SOEST model indicates how vulnerable some of O‘ahu’s most densely populated shoreline areas could
be to sea level rise (SOEST, 2008).
The Proposed Action will have no long-term impact on atmospheric conditions, climate change, or sea
level rise. There will be short-term impacts during the construction period in the form of emissions
from helicopter flights, construction traffic and fugitive dust from construction activity, but these will
return to pre-construction levels, described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, after the project is completed.
Sea level rise will not have future impacts on the project, as it is not located in a shoreline area.
Predictions for future increases in storm frequency and intensity will potentially affect the project area.
4-26
Figure 4-13 Rainfall Map
4-27
4.5 Geology and Soils

Existing Conditions
The geological formation of the Hawaiian archipelago is the result of volcanism. The geologic creation
of O‘ahu is a result of the Earth’s crust, comprised of irregular rigid segments, known as plates, moving
over a hot spot of upwelling lava, which has remained relatively stationary for millions of years. The
plate under which O‘ahu lies has slowly moved towards the northwest. O‘ahu was created through
stages of activity emanating from two volcanic domes. Through various stages of eruptions, erosion
and land movement, the volcanic forms became what are known today as the Wai‘anae and Ko‘olau
mountain ranges (Macdonald, 1983).
Ha‘ikū Stairs is situated on steep Ko‘olau mountain range formations with an elevation ranging from
approximately 480 to 2,700 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Mean annual soil temperature for the
rock-land stony steep lands of the Ko‘olau Range vary from 67 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
The project area consists of six soil types (Figure 4-14). According to the O‘ahu soil survey, the
underlying site soils consist mainly of rock outcrop (rRO), with smaller areas of Lolekaa silty clay 40-
70% slopes (LoF), rock land (rRK), rough mountainous land (rRT), Lolekaa silty clay, 15-25% slopes
(LoD), and Alaeloa silty clay, 40-70% slopes (ALF). rRO consists of areas where exposed bedrock covers
more than 90 percent of the surface, and it occurs on all islands. Rock outcrops are mainly basalt and
andesite. The Lolekaa soil series consists of well-drained soils on fans and terraces on the windward
side of O‘ahu, developed in old colluvium and alluvium. LoD is found along drainageways and on side
slopes of terraces, with medium runoff and moderate erosion hazards. LoF occurs along drainageways
and on fans adjacent to the Ko‘olau Range, with rapid runoff and severe erosion hazards. rRK is made
up of areas where exposed rock covers 25 to 90 percent of the surface, and occurs on all islands. rRT
occurs in mountainous areas on all islands, consisting of very steep land browed up by intermittent
drainage channels. ALF consists of well-drained soils on upland areas developed in material weathered
from basic igneous rock., a most common slope range of 45 to 53 percent, with rapid to very rapid
runoff and a severe erosion hazard (U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1972).
Removing Ha‘ikū Stairs will involve land disturbing activities that result in minor soil erosion, such as the
clearing of vegetation and excavation to remove module footings. The removal effort will avoid soil
disturbance beneath Ha‘ikū Stairs to the extent practicable. During construction, soil erosion will be
minimized through compliance with the City’s grading ordinance and provisions of the DOH’s Water Quality
Standards (Chapter 11-54, HAR) and Water Pollution Control requirements (Chapter 11-55, HAR), as
applicable. Should a grading permit be required, grading All work will comply with the prevailing Rules
Relating to Water Quality (City Administrative Rules 20-3). Standard BMPs to minimize impacts will be
detailed in subsequent construction plans. BMP’s may include phasing of construction activities, limiting
site disturbance, use of temporary silt fencing and screens, and thorough watering of disturbed areas after
construction activity has ceased for the day and on weekends. With implementation of BMPs, potentially
significant impacts due to soil disturbance will be mitigated.
4-28
Figure 4-14 Soils Classification Map
4-29
4.6 Hazardous Materials

Existing Conditions
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would involve disturbance within the stairway corridor and staging of
construction equipment at the former Omega Station property. To assess whether there was an
environmental risk associated with these locations, a search of environmental database records was
obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. A Radius Map Report (2018) provided a map of
existing sites and associated database listing and background information for each site (Figure 4-15).
There are no sites located within Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor. Sites 8, 12, K, I and 33 are the closest to the
project area. Sites 12 and 33 is associated with the former Omega Station location. The former Omega
Station is listed on the following databases: Facility Index System (FINDS), Superfund Enterprise
Management System (SEMS), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act/ Toxic Substances
Control Act Tracking System (FTTS), and Historic FTTS (EDR, 2018).
In 2018, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) issued a Remedial Investigation and Proposed Plan
for the Former Navy Landfill, Ha‘ikū Radio Station. Ha‘ikū Radio Station is also on the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) database (FUDS
Property No. H09HI0120). Within the FUDS, contaminants have been found on the 10-acre former
Navy landfill site, located between Kamakau Charter School and a narrow parcel owned by Hui Kū
Maoli Ola. The former landfill site was associated with historic lead, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
and Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) contamination. Although the property is located within
DERP FUDS with documented historic contamination due to former military use, the Remedial
Investigation found no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment (ACOE, 2018).
There are no hazardous materials conditions known to occur in the proposed project area. The former
USCG Omega Station (Sites 12 and 33) is identified as a potential construction staging area and is
listed on various databases, although no residual contamination is identified. Known contamination
associated with Ha‘ikū Radio Station is located within the former Navy landfill site, and the
contaminants levels identified at these locations are below risk levels by the ACOE Remedial
Investigation.
The Proposed Action does not take place within or propose any uses on the former Navy landfill site.
No impacts or mitigation measures due to hazardous materials are anticipated.
4-30
Figure 4-15 Hazardous Materials Sites Overview Map (EDR, 2018)
4-31
4.7 Natural Hazards

4.7.1 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
Existing Conditions
A hurricane is an intense tropical weather system with wind speeds of 74 miles per hour or more. Once
categorized as a hurricane, intensity of the hurricane is measured by the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane
scale. The scale ranges from 1 (low) to 5 (high) and provides examples of damages and impacts
associated with the category of the hurricane. A tropical storm is an organized system with strong
thunderstorms. A system is categorized as a tropical storm if it sustains wind speeds between 39 to
73 miles per hour. A tropical depression is a system of clouds and thunderstorms with wind speeds of
up to 38 miles per hour.
Actual hurricane strikes in Hawai‘i are relatively rare. Hurricane Iniki (1992) was the strongest and most
destructive hurricane to hit the Hawaiian Islands. Hurricane Iniki hit the island of Kaua‘i the hardest. Wind
speeds were recorded at 130 mph with gusts reaching 160 mph. Approximately 13,000 homes we’re
damaged. Most recently in 2014, Hurricane Iselle made landfall in the southeastern part of Hawai‘i Island,
damaging homes, roadways, and utility lines affecting thousands of people.
Hawai‘i’s topography channels heavy rains from hurricanes and tropical storms onto mountain slopes,
causing flash flooding and landslides.
The conditions of Ha‘ikū stairs have deteriorated over time, with damage to a portion of the lower stairs
due to a landslide from a rain event in February 2015. Section 4.7.3, Landslides and Rockfalls
describes the history of landslides and rockfalls in the project area.
Since 1950, five major hurricanes or tropical storms have caused major damage to Hawai‘i. The
effects of these past storm events have caused varying degrees of damage in the project area, the
most extensive and most recent being the large storm system that destroyed a large section of Ha‘ikū
Stairs in February 2015. The future threat of hurricanes in the area cannot be estimated beyond the
fact that hurricanes will most likely continue to hit Hawai‘i as frequently as they have in the past.
Removal of the stairs will eliminate the risk of hurricane-force winds on the structure or to trespassing
hikers.
4.7.2 Wind
Existing Conditions
Windspeeds vary with height above ground - the higher the elevation, the stronger the wind. It is often
wind pressure, not wind speed, that causes wind damage.
Winds in Hawai‘i originate from three sources: trade winds, Kona winds, and hurricanes. Trade winds
from the Northeast are dominant throughout most of the year (70%) and generally range between 10-
20 mph. However, trade winds between 40 to 60 mph occasionally occur for several days throughout
the year when the sub-tropical high-pressure cell located in the central North Pacific Ocean intensifies.
As a result, east-facing coastlines are most affected by strong trade winds.
4-32
Kona winds refer to the stormy, rain-bearing winds that blow over the islands from the south west, the
opposite direction of trade winds. Kona winds occur (30%) when trade winds aren’t present. Kona winds
are most likely to occur when a low-pressure center is located within 500 miles North West of the islands
and has an unusually low central pressure. Damaging Kona winds can reach velocities of 50 miles per hour
and can last up to two weeks. Because of mountainous topography, winds can accelerate down the slopes
of mountains, hills and escarpments at 100 miles per hour or more. The Kāne‘ohe-Kahalu‘u area on the
Island of O‘ahu, has been known to sustain extensive damage due to strong Kona winds.
In February 2015, part of Ha‘ikū Stairs were damaged due to high winds which generated landslides.
Five hikers were left stranded overnight and were rescued by the HFD the next morning. The damage
to Ha‘ikū Stairs from the landslides puts the safety of hikers at a higher risk.
During periods of high winds, the risk of tree branches falling and damaging Ha‘ikū Stairs or hurting
hikers is increased. With removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, the general public will no longer have access to
Ha‘ikū Stairs which will eliminate the safety risk to the general public due to wind.
4.7.3 Landslides and Rock Falls
Existing Conditions
The island of O‘ahu has experienced many landslides and rock falls incidents due to the essential
component of having steep hillsides, heavy rainfall, and strong pressure for residential development
in upland areas. The project site itself contains essential components for landslides and rock fall
hazards including steep hillsides and heavy rainfall. Natural mechanisms contribute to the alteration
and breakdown of rock, including weathering, erosion, fragmentation of rock faces caused by facture
enlargement, and further destabilization due to seismic activity.
A notable incident occurred on May 9, 1999, a landslide killed seven hikers and injured many more at
Sacred Falls State Park near Hau‘ula on the north shore of the island. One of the injured hikers later
died of injuries received in the landslide. The governor of Hawai‘i at the time, Ben Cayetano, closed
the park due to concern about continuing landslide hazard near the falls.
Located in a steep area with heavy rains, the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will reduce the risk to the public
due to landslides or falling rocks.
4.7.4 Earthquake
Existing Conditions
The majority of earthquakes in Hawai‘i are tectonic or volcanic in nature. Tectonic earthquakes are
earthquakes that occur at or near the shield volcanoes that form the islands. This occurs when the
volcano starts to grow and adds weight to the lithosphere, causing it to bend downwards. The
lithosphere eventually bends back upwards in response to the volcanic load, causing an earthquake.
Today, the only active volcano throughout the Hawaiian Islands is located on the island of Hawai‘i.
Strong earthquakes, while infrequent, may endanger people and property by shaking structures
causing ground cracks, ground settling and landslides. Poorly designed and/or built structures are
generally at risk during an earthquake.
4-33
The last significant earthquake to hit Hawai’i occurred on May 4, 2018, when a magnitude 6.9
earthquake struck Leilani Estates on the Island of Hawai‘i in the afternoon. The cause of the
earthquake was a result of reverse faulting on the south flank of the Kilauea volcano. The earthquake
was felt and affected by neighboring islands, including Maui and Moloka‘i. As of May 2018, Kilauea
Volcano has been active resulting in ongoing earthquakes with no prediction to when the Kilauea
Volcano will subside (United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program, 2018).
Seismic hazards are usually associated with earthquakes causing damage including landslides,
ground cracks, rock falls, and tsunamis. The Island of Hawai‘i is at risk for high magnitude
earthquakes. Any significant earthquake occurring on Hawai‘i could have an impact on the Island of
O‘ahu and could cause damage in the project area. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will reduce risk to the
public due to seismic activity.
4.7.5 Flooding
Existing Conditions
Ha‘ikū Stairs lie within Flood Zone D as designated from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management
Agency) FIRM (Flood Rate Insurance Map). Per FEMA documentation, Zone D is a designated area
where there are possible but undetermined flood hazards (Martin & Chock, Inc., 2013).
The base of Ha‘ikū Stairs is at an elevation of approximately 484 feet above MSL. While FEMA has not
determined flood hazards in this area, due to the elevation and inland location, flooding is not a
significant concern in Ha‘ikū Stairs area.
4.7.6 Tsunami Inundation
Existing Conditions
Tsunamis are series of long-period sea waves that are results from large-scale sea floor displacements
associated with large earthquakes, major submarine slides, or catastrophic volcanic eruptions. An estimate
was reported that 95% of tsunamis are results from earthquakes. Earthquakes generate tsunamis when
the sea floor abruptly deforms and displaces the overlying water from its equilibrium position.
Throughout the Hawaiian Archipelago, tsunamis have cumulatively killed the largest number of people
of all occurring natural hazards. Tsunamis that have hit the State of Hawai‘i have exhibited their
tremendous variability in run-up heights, inundation distances and damages caused. The most
devastating tsunami that hit the State of Hawai‘i occurred in 1946. The tsunami came with no warning
as there were no seismological stations on the Islands. There were over 170 recorded deaths on the
Island of Hawai‘i, mainly in Laupāhoehoe and Hilo where wave heights averaged at 30 feet.
According to existing City and County of Honolulu Tsunami Evacuation Zones Map, the entire area of
Ha‘ikū Stairs land parcel is located outside of the Tsunami Evacuation Zone (Figure 4-16).
Ha‘ikū Stairs are not located within the State Civil Defense tsunami zone. The project area is contained
within the FEMA Zone D, areas in which flood hazards undetermined, but possible (Martin & Chock,
Inc., 2013).
4-34
Figure 4-16 Flood Insurance Rate Map
4-35
In general, all coastal areas of O‘ahu are vulnerable to impacts resulting from a tsunami. A tsunami wave
itself is not predicted to extend to the location of Ha‘ikū Stairs due to the elevation and the remoteness
from the shoreline. The removal of the stairs will not be affected by flood or tsunami natural hazards.
However, the resulting evacuation and after effects of the tsunami will involve areas in the vicinity of Ha‘ikū
Stairs, including the H-3 Freeway and local street traffic in He‘eia through Kāne‘ohe.
4.8 Noise
Existing Conditions
A study of current and projected noise conditions was conducted by Y. Ebisu & Associates in March
2018 and is included in Appendix F.
The most widely used noise descriptor is the DNL method developed by the EPA. The measurement is
weighted so that late night noises are penalized, on the assumption that these noises are more
objectionable because they can disturb sleep.
In Hawai‘i, the DOH is responsible for regulating noise from on-site activities. State DOH noise
regulations are expressed in maximum allowable property line noise limits rather than DNL. Although
they are not directly comparable to noise criteria expressed in DNL, State DOH noise limits for
preservation/residential equate to approximately 55 DNL. Apartment/commercial land equate to
approximately 60 DNL and agricultural/industrial lands equate to approximately 76 DNL. The State
DOH noise regulations only apply to fixed machinery (such as fans or air conditioning units), and do
not apply to aircraft or human voices.
The DNL noise descriptor was used to describe the existing background ambient noise in Ha‘ikū Valley.
Background noise monitoring data obtained in February and March 2018 were used to estimate
current background noise levels at noise sensitive receptors in the project environs. The results of the
background noise measurements are summarized in Table 4-2.
As shown in Table 4-2, existing background noise levels can be characterized as being relatively low
at 40 to 50 dBA between the intermittent and recurring aircraft, motor vehicle and dog barking noise
events, which are clearly audible and between 10 to 25 dBA above the more steady background noise
levels of the quieter periods. At locations E, F, G, and H, traffic on the H-3 viaduct or Likelike Highway
controlled the minimum background noise levels.
At locations A through H, existing background noise levels are well below the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA)/Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standard of 65 DNL for noise sensitive
receptors, mostly in the 50 to 55 DNL range. These DNL levels are relatively low and considered to be
“Unconditionally Compatible” for single family residences, despite the relatively high intermittent noise
events from barking dogs, motor vehicles, and other short duration noise events. By the more stringent
noise impact criteria used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), if the noise from Ha‘ikū Stairs
action does not exceed 54 DNL to 56 DNL, noise impacts at or near locations A through H should not
occur when background noise levels are 50 DNL and 55 DNL, respectively.
4-36
Table 4-2 Background Noise Measurements
Noise impacts are discussed for the short-term during the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, and the over the
longer term after Ha‘ikū Stairs is removed. The DNL noise descriptor was used to describe the short-
term removal period of Ha‘ikū Stairs. A Hughes 500D helicopter would be the primary noise source
during removal. Helicopter DNL noise contours were developed to compare the predicted helicopter
noise exposure levels with noise impact criteria and with the measured background ambient noise
levels. Figure 4-17 depicts the anticipated location of the helicopter staging area and the helicopter
flight tracks to and from the staging area in relationship to existing noise sensitive land uses in the
surrounding area. The helicopter staging area will be used for transporting people and small
equipment to and from the landing zone at the former CCL (shown as “LZ” in Figure 4-17); for launching
helicopter flights to Ha‘ikū Stairs, where stair modules will be lifted and transported via sling back to
the staging area; and for receiving the stair modules for loading onto transport trucks. The maximum
4-37
altitude of the helicopter ingress and egress routes between the helicopter staging area and Ha‘ikū
Stairs iss limited to approximately 500 ft above ground level in order to minimize potential visibility
problems associated with low cloud cover. Helicopter ingress and egress routes between the staging
area and Honolulu are assumed to be via Nu‘uanu Pali.
During the short-term deconstruction of Ha‘ikū Stairs, noise levels are expected to increase above
existing conditions due to helicopter operations to remove stair modules. Removal of approximately
564 stairway modules is expected to last 1.5 years with average 2.5 flights per day. A heavy flight day
can have up to 6 hours of helicopter operations. Noise from helicopter operations associated with
complete removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will be well below the most stringent level of 50 DNL for receptors
in the quietest areas with background noise level of 40 DNL.
Sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity include residents located on Puoni Place, Kūneki Street, Loli‘i
Street and Ha‘ikū Road along with facilities including Windward Community College, Kamakau Charter
School and Hawai‘i State Hospital. Figures 4-18 and 4-19 show helicopter DNL contours for an
annually averaged day and for a busy day, respectively. On an average day, patients at Hawai‘i State
Hospital and residents living on Puoni Place and parts of Kūneki Street are within the 35 DNL contour.
Windward Community College and residents on Ha‘iku Road, Loli‘i Street and the remaining parts of
Kūneki Street are within the 30 DNL contour. The southwest end of Hawai‘i State Hospital and
locations on Puoni Place and the west end of Kūneki Street are within the 45 DNL contour. The
remaining areas of Hawai‘i State Hospital and Windward Community College along with residents
located on Hai‘ikū Road, Loli‘i Street and the remaining parts of Kūneki Street are within the 40 DNL
contour. Kamakau Charter School near Omega Station is expected to be affected the most from
helicopter noise. Kamakau Charter School falls within the 35 DNL contour on an average day and the
45 DNL contour on a busy day of helicopter operations. No significant short-term noise impacts are
anticipated as helicopter noise from removal operations will not exceed 50 DNL on a busy day near
sensitive receptors.
Over the long term, removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs is anticipated to eliminate the presence of trespassing
hikers in Ha‘ikū Valley. This will result in a positive impact to the community, due to the elimination of
pre-dawn disturbance from trespassing hikers walking through properties, slamming car doors, talking
in loud voices, or by dogs barking at hikers before sunrise. No mitigation measures are required over
the short-term or long-term for noise impacts.
4-38
Figure 4-17 Helicopter Flight Tracked used for Modeling Helicopter DNL Contours
4-39
Figure 4-18 Helicopter DNL Contours for an Average Flight Day
4-40
Figure 4-19 Helicopter DNL Contours for a Heavy Flight Day
4-41
4.9 Public Safety

Existing Conditions
Neighborhood Disturbances
Residents of Ha‘ikū Valley have been subject to chronic disturbances from trespassing hikers. The
number of trespassing hikers in the neighborhoods has increased dramatically over the past decade
with the advent of social media. As discussed in Chapter 1, nuisance behaviors include the following:
• Nightly disturbances from hikers arriving between 2 am and 4 am to climb Ha‘ikū Stairs and
watch the sunrise
• Car doors slamming in the middle of the night
• Loud voices in the middle of the night
• Presence of strangers and nightly noises triggering dogs barking throughout the neighborhood
• Hikers walking through private property in the middle of the night
• Hikers using water hoses on private property to wash off and leaving the hoses running
• Hikers throwing trash and waste in residential yards
• Hikers disrespecting or threatening property owners
• Hikers vandalizing or damaging private property, such as cutting fences
• Hikers relieving themselves in the street against rock walls or other areas
• Hikers’ parked cars blocking driveways and trash receptacles making it difficult for trash collection
Residents have consistently dealt with these behaviors on or around their property. They have reported
being threatened or confronted by hikers, and hikers have reported feeling entitled to trespass and
harass landowners (Ferris, 2017). Disturbances and injuries that were reported to the police
department or fire department, are described later in Section 4.10, Public Services.
Liability and Safety Concerns Associated with Trespassing Hikers
Ha‘ikū Stairs in its current condition is a potential liability for BWS because of hikers who ignore posted
no trespassing signs and continue to illegally climb Ha‘ikū Stairs. In February 2015, high winds
uprooted trees on the ridge and nine stair modules were damaged when they slid down the cliff. These
nine damaged stair modules are unsafe and potentially hazardous for any individuals attempting to
climb them. Risk of injury, harm, or death is a legitimate concern for BWS as a landowner. At the time
of this EIS, there are estimated to be 5,000 hikers per year accessing Ha‘ikū Stairs, with approximately
435 per month originating in Ha‘ikū Valley.
It is anticipated that removing Ha‘ikū Stairs will eliminate the reason why hikers access the area
illegally, and neighborhood disturbances are expected to stop. It is further anticipated that because
hikers will no longer access the mountainside, there will be no risks to hikers on that property and
BWS liability exposure will also be eliminated. These are expected to be beneficial impacts of the
Proposed Action. It is possible that hikers will continue to illegally access the trail, even without Ha‘ikū
Stairs. However, due to the extreme difficulty accessing the ridge without the stairs, the number of
hikers is expected to be significantly reduced.
4-42
Safety Concerns associated with Removal of Stairs
During removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, safety considerations are critically important to prevent injury to
construction crews and the general public. It will be necessary to monitor pedestrian traffic in
dangerous areas and secure some areas off limits to the public and. As mitigation, security measures
will be needed at the following locations:
• Ha‘ikū Stairs trailhead: Security will be needed at the trailhead to prevent access to active
construction areas.
• Contractors on-site storage facility: Contractors will utilize a storage facility for construction
supplies with security to prevent theft during non-work hours.
• Helicopter landing zones (when operational): Helicopter operations also pose a danger and the
landing zone/staging area on the ground must be secured from unauthorized public access.
The landing zone on the ridgeline near the CCL must be secured during helicopter operations
to prevent injuries to hikers and workers as well.
• Recycle or salvage operations on the ground: Crew safety is of utmost importance as recycle
or salvage operations are anticipated to be done on the ground during flight operations. If the
modules are salvaged, workers picking up modules will be briefed on safe operation on the
site during varied operations that may be ongoing at the time of pickup.
• Post construction security measures: Provide interim security at the trailhead to deter potential
hikers who seek to climb the mountain trail without Ha‘ikū Stairs, or to deter those who are
unaware that the stairs were removed.
Helicopter Lifts
Once the modules are free individual stairs from the ridgeline, they will be flown by helicopter from the
mountain down to the valley floor suspended on a sling. The travel path will cross the H-3 Freeway to
reach the valley. The FAA has jurisdiction to coordinate flights over the freeway. The helicopter operator
must request an authorization to conduct a “lift” from the FAA Honolulu Flight Standards District Office.
The operator will also submit a Congested Area Plan to ensure a safety plan is in place for the proposed
travel route. FAA will need to review and sign off on the plan before the operation can commence. DOT
Highways will be notified when the flights are scheduled.
4.10 Public Services

4.10.1 Police Protection
Existing Conditions
The He‘eia region is under the protection of the HPD. The area is part of HPD District 4, which extends
from Makapu‘u Point to Kawela Bay. The HPD Kāne‘ohe Police Station covers Sector 3, which
encompasses Kāne‘ohe and Kahalu‘u.
HPD records their incident data by date, location, type of incident, and category, among others. In
order to provide the most relevant data to Ha‘ikū Stairs, HPD pulled reports associated with locations
in the vicinity of Ha‘ikū Stairs, and for disturbances in the area associated with hikers such as
trespassing, noise, parking violations, vandalism, and injuries, among others.
4-43
Table 4-3 illustrates the total number of service calls and incident reports likely associate with Ha‘ikū Stairs
reported to HPD between 2000 and 2018. In the bar chart, the top of each bar represents the total number
of incidents. Each bar is further broken down by color to represent the portion of those incidents associated
with parking violations, trespassing, harassment, vandalism, distressed hikers, or miscellaneous “other”
reports. Please note that the 2018 column is a partial year including data only up to October, 2018.
Table 4-3 Honolulu Police Department Service Calls and Incident Reports
300
250
200
150
100
50
Parking Violation Noise Complaint

Tresspassing Lost/Distressed/Injured Hikers
Harassment/Assault Other
Note: Multiple HPD data categories were consolidated for this graphic.
Source: Honolulu Police Department, October, 2018
Most incidents throughout the years concern trespassing hikers. Prior to 2013, trespassing hiker
reports were typically under 45 per year, however, starting in 2014 trespassing hiker reports
significantly increased to 140 per year, then peaked at 271 per year in 2016. Parking violation was
the second most frequent report category. In 2018, there were 21 reported parking violation incidents,
which is more than any parking violation incidents in previous years (N. Sue, HPD, personal
communications, October 11, 2018).
Removing Ha‘ikū Stairs will reduce illegal access in Ha‘ikū Valley and potentially Moanalua Valley.
Removing Ha‘ikū Stairs will also support public safety and reduce the amount of manpower and
resources HPD will need in the area related to monitor stair activity and/or respond to calls regarding
trespassing hikers. Continued coordination between BWS and HPD will be ongoing to ensure adequate
police coverage is provided during construction activities if police-assisted traffic guidance is required.
4-44
4.10.2 Fire Protection
Existing Conditions
The He‘eia region is in the 3rd Battalion area designated by the HFD. The region is served by seven fire
stations, which include:
• Station 15: The Kahuku Fire Station is located at the corner of Kamehameha Highway and
Kinoa Street. It has an engine company.
• Station 17: The Kāne‘ohe Fire Station is located on Kamehameha Highway, between Paleka
Road and Keaahala Road. It has a boat, a ladder, and engine company.
• Station 189: The Aikahi (Kailua) Fire Station is located at the corner of Kāne‘ohe Bay Drive and
Ilihau Street. It has a ladder and engine company.
• Station 21: The Ka‘a‘awa Fire Station is located at the corner of Kamehameha Highway and
Huamalani Road. It has an engine company.
• Station 27: The Waimanalo Fire Station is located on Kalanianaole Highway, between Inoaole
Street and Moole Street. It has a boat and engine company.
• Station 37: The Kahalu‘u Fire Station is located on Waihee Road, between Ahilama Road and
Waihee Place. It has an engine company.
• Station 39: The Olomana Fire Station is located on Kalanianaole Highway, between Ulupii
Street and the entrance to Olomana School. It has an engine company.
First response for medical and fire emergencies at the project site and the surrounding area is
provided by HFD Station 17. The other stations would respond in case of a need for additional support
for first response or alarm fire.
HFD works with EMS and the City and County of Honolulu Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) in
providing first response to emergencies.
HFD responds to people actively in jeopardy such as for people who are lost, hurt, trapped, or injured.
HFD will respond to mitigate the threat in each situation. They do not respond to reports of typical
trespassing hikers, only if there is a potentially harmful situation.
Types of reported incidents typically associated with Ha‘ikū Stairs include 1) Search for Person on Land, 2)
High Angle Rescue, and 3) EMS call. HFD will dispatch resources appropriate to circumstances. The
location where rescues are performed vary from the high angle ridges to the different trails leading to Ha‘ikū
Stairs at the base of the mountain. Persons could be hiking from Moanalua Valley, whether their destination
is Ha‘ikū Stairs or not. People could also be coming in from residential areas in Ha‘ikū Valley, but crossing
the base of mountain to avoid the guard at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
A search for person on land is conducted when a hiker is missing. HFD could perform search patterns
for hikers in the vicinity of the trail, either through deployment of rescue personnel on foot or in
vehicles. Rescuers may hike up Ha‘ikū Stairs and extricate people down by helping them hike or
carrying them down. Helicopter scouts could also be sent out in a search pattern, typically starting with
the most frequented areas, then moving to a wider radius search.
A high angle rescue indicates a hiker in distress. Distress covers a range of situations, for example,
the person could be lost, disoriented, or experiencing a medical emergency (ranging from dehydration
to heart attack). Persons also could have fallen or been injured by a falling object.
4-45
Helicopters are often utilized by HFD for rescues at higher elevations or locations that are difficult to access
by foot. Helicopter rescues could consist of lowering a basket or harness with rescue personnel to extricate
a patient from the dangerous situation. Patients would then be suspended on a swing while transported to
a designated landing area. The helicopter landing zone and command post is typically located at 1857 Ala
Aolani, Moanalua Valley Neighborhood Park. Tripler Hospital and Kāne‘ohe District Park have also been
used as landing for hikers in distress (Capt. D. Jenkins. HFD, personal communication, November 6, 2017).
Table 4-4 provides an overview of HFD emergency response data for the vicinity of Ha‘ikū Stairs
between 2002 and 2018 (C. Cabalo, HFD, personal communication, February 27, 2019).
Table 4-4 Honolulu Fire Department Emergency Response
Search for Person on Land High Angle Rescue EMS Call Total
12
10
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
0
2002 2003 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
YEAR
Source: Honolulu Fire Department, February 27, 2019
To obtain the results shown in Table 4-4, HFD searched High Angle Rescue, Search for Person on Land,
and EMS call in their records database, and cross referenced with the area of Ha‘ikū Stairs and the
wilderness hiking areas that are connected or close by, including trails in Moanalua Valley. The data
shown in Table 4-4 is not an exact result for Ha‘ikū Stairs only. It could include people on recreational
hikes in other areas.
Over the past 17 years, emergency calls for Ha‘ikū Stairs and the surrounding areas have significantly
increased. Total incidents started to rise in 2014 with a total of five incidents and peaked in 2018 with
a total of 11 incidents. Total incidents fell back to five in 2017, potentially correlating with BWS hiring
a special duty HPD police officer for additional security.
According to HFD, there are no documented deaths on record associated with Ha‘ikū Stairs. The
closest incident was the disappearance of hiker Daylenn Pua in February 2015. Daylenn was never
found, therefore it is a potential death, but never confirmed.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will impact fire protection services by decreasing demand for emergency
response services in the 3rd Battalion area. By reducing the number of rescues, the project will increase
available manpower and resources for HFD throughout their Battalion area.
4-46
4.10.3 Emergency Medical Services & Hospital Services
Existing Conditions
EMS provides pre-hospital emergency medical care and emergency ambulance service on O‘ahu. In
2016, EMS accepted more than 100,000 calls through the 911 system. This led to more than 85,000
EMS responses, where more than 54,000 patients were transported to emergency rooms. EMS is
equipped with 21 ambulance units under three districts on O‘ahu. He‘eia is under District 3 and is
covered by an EMS unit located at the Kāne‘ohe Fire Station #17.
A Straub Family Health Center is located at Windward Mall in Kāne‘ohe. The health center offers a
broad range of outpatient medical care, including diagnosis and treatment of illnesses and injuries,
ob-gyn and physical exams, lab tests and x-rays, and urgent care after regular office hours. The Hawai‘i
State Hospital, a 244 bed facility serving adults with mental illnesses, is located on a parcel adjacent
to the windward side of the property. Additionally, the Kaiser Permanente Ko‘olau Clinic is located at
45-602 Kamehameha Highway, approximately 3.5 miles away from Ha‘ikū Stairs, and offers
comprehensive medical services.
The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will reduce the need for medical services in the area due to elimination
of trespassing hikers at Ha‘ikū Stairs.
4.10.4 Schools
Existing Conditions
The He‘eia community is part of the State Department of Education’s Castle Complex Area. The public
schools closest to Ha‘ikū Stairs include:
• He‘eia Elementary School – 46-202 Ha‘ikū Road
• King Intermediate School – 46-155 Kamehameha Highway
• Castle High School – 45-886 Kāne‘ohe Bay Drive
Kamehameha Schools owns and operates 29 preschools statewide. The preschool operates 10
months out of the year, August to May, and is open from 7:00AM-5:00PM. Current residents of the
State of Hawai‘i may apply for admission to Kamehameha Schools Preschool Program (Kamehameha
Schools, 2018).
Ke Kula ‘o Samuel M. Kamakau Laboratory Public Charter School is a family-based Hawaiian language
immersion school located in the valley of Kāne‘ohe. Established in January 2000, Ke Kula ‘o Kamakau
offers a Hawaiian language immersion education to students PK-12 (Ke Kula ‘o Samuel M. Kamakau
Laboratory Public Charter School, 2018).
These schools are located at:

• Kamehameha Schools He‘eia Preschool - 46-430 Kahuhipa Street
• Ke Kula ‘o Samuel M. Kamakau Laboratory Pcs – 46-500 Kūneki Street
4-47
The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will not increase the demand on the State Department of Education’s
Hawai‘i Complex schools or Kamehameha Schools Preschool and Ke Kula ‘o Samuel M. Kamakau
Charter School. The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will have a positive impact of reducing the number of
trespassing hikers in the vicinity of these schools.
4.10.5 Libraries
Existing Conditions
The state public libraries closest to Ha‘ikū Stairs include:

• Kāne‘ohe Public Library – 45-829 Kamehameha Highway
• Kailua Public Library – 239 Ku‘ulei Road
The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will not increase the demand on state public libraries located near Ha‘ikū
Stairs.
4.10.6 Public Parks
Existing Conditions
Public parks provide open space and a natural outdoor environment for both residents of Hawai‘i and
tourists to enjoy. The following State and City public parks near the project area include:
• He‘eia Neighborhood Park – 46-220 Ha‘ikū Road (2.7 miles from the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs)
• Ho‘omaluhia Botanical Gardens – 45-680 Luluku Road (2.7 miles from the base of Ha‘ikū
Stairs)
• Kāne‘ohe Community Park – 45-529 Kea‘ahala Road (3.6 miles from the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs)
• Kāne‘ohe District Park – 45-660 Kea‘ahala Road (1.6 miles from base of Ha‘ikū Stairs)
• Kapunahala Neighborhood Park – 45-800 Anoi Road (4.5 miles from the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs)
Kāne‘ohe District Park is the closest park to Ha‘ikū Stairs. It operates from 9:00AM-8:30PM Monday
through Friday, 7:30AM-8:30PM on Saturdays and 8:00AM-4:30PM on Sundays. The park’s amenities
include: restrooms, badminton courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, tennis courts, football
fields, soccer fields, baseball fields, softball fields, a skate park, and a pool. There are also recreational
rooms where recreational activities and classes are held.
Removal of Ha‘iku Stairs will reduce impacts on Kāne‘ohe District Park as hikers would no longer utilize
parking spaces and restrooms.
4-48
4.11 Recreation
Existing Conditions
Ha‘ikū Stairs was a permitted ridgeline recreational hiking opportunity with scenic views for decades
until it was closed to the public in 1987. Despite its closure, Ha‘ikū Stairs continues to draw up to
hundreds of daily trespassing hikers. Public input on the EISPN indicated that access to natural
habitats, access to ridgeline and mountain areas, scenic views, historic resources, and cardiovascular
exercise are important aspects of Ha‘ikū Stairs recreation experience.
The Windward side of O‘ahu offers many recreational opportunities that also provide the benefits that
people enjoy at Ha‘ikū Stairs. Recreational opportunities include bicycling, hiking, scenic viewpoints,
ocean activities (boating, sailing, canoe paddling, surfing, diving, swimming), golfing, ziplining, and
cultural enrichment. Each of these recreational activities are detailed below, along with the recreation
objectives of the KPSCP.
Bicycling
The DTS O‘ahu Bicycle Master Plan is in the process of being updated. The Bicycle Master Plan includes
plans for expanding and improving bicycling as a safe transportation mode on the island. An existing
bicycle lane extends along Kahekili Highway from Ha‘ikū Road to Likelike Highway, however, it is slated
for removal. The next closest bicycle infrastructure is a bicycle route along Ha‘ikū Road from the
intersection of Kahekili Highway to Kamehameha Highway, which ends at the intersection of
Kamehameha Highway and Lilipuna Road.
Hiking
The State of Hawai‘i Nā Ala Hele Trail and Access Program is administered by the DLNR and DOFAW.
The statutes and rules are provided under Chapter 198D, HRS and Title 13, Chapter 130, HAR. Nā Ala
Hele was established in 1988, to provide, protect, and maintain public access trails. Hiking trails
nearest the project site include the Kamananui Valley Road trail, Kulana’ahane trail, Maunawili-
Waimanalo Road trail, and Maunawili Ditch trail.
Approximately 14 miles away from the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs, Kamananui Valley Road trail begins in
Moanalua at Moanalua Valley Park. The trail includes bicycling, camping, dog hunting, and hiking, and
features cultural and nature study opportunities, open views, streams, and ecologically sensitive
areas. The trail continues until it reaches the start of the Kulana’ahane trail. The 5.5-mile roundtrip
hike includes stream crossings and open valley and ocean views looking towards the Windward coast.
Permitted activities include camping, hunting, and hiking.
The Maunawili-Waimanalo Road trailhead is located approximately 10.5 miles away from the base of
Ha‘ikū Stairs. A short 2-mile roundtrip hike, Maunawili-Waimanalo Road trail is a dirt road that
continues to Maunawili trail. Permitted activities for this trail include bicycling, horseback riding, and
hiking.
The trailhead for the Maunawili trail is located approximately 5.3 miles away from Ha‘ikū Stairs. The
20-mile roundtrip hike begins off the Pali Highway, and ends in Waimanalo. The hike offers views of
Windward O‘ahu, Olomana, and the Ko‘olaupoko watershed, with wet gulches and open forest
canopies. Permitted activities on this trail include bicycling, horseback riding, pedestrian use, and
tours.
4-49
Ocean Activities
The Windward side of O‘ahu offers many ocean opportunities for recreation such as boating, sailing,
canoe paddling, surfing, diving, and swimming.
Kāne‘ohe Beach Park (2.8 miles makai of Ha‘ikū Stairs) is a City managed park, with a playground,
restrooms, picnic tables, and access to the ocean for boating and kayaking.
Similarly, Laenani Neighborhood Park (5 miles north of Ha‘ikū Stairs), is managed by the City, and
offers an open field, restrooms, picnic tables, and a basketball court on the oceanfront.
He‘eia State Park is managed by the non-profit, Kama‘aina Kids. The park offers waterfront and
environmental education programs at Kāne‘ohe Bay, including kayak rentals, stand up paddle board
rentals, snorkeling, catamaran sailing and youth Summer Day Camps.
Golf
Ko‘olau Golf Club is located 5 miles away from the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs, and offers an 18-hole golf course
and a driving range. Bay View Golf Course is located approximately 3 miles away from the base of Ha‘ikū
Stairs, and offers a par-3 18-hole golf course, driving range, and restaurant. Located next door to Bay View
Golf Course, Bay View Mini Putt and Zipline offers 36 holes of miniature golf, and ziplining.
Cultural Enrichment
Papahana Kuaola is a non-profit organization located in Waipao, He‘eia, a half mile away from Ha‘ikū Stairs.
The organization offers culturally grounded environmental and economic sustainability education
programs. Curriculum includes food sustainability, stream and spring management, and service projects.
Monthly workdays offered to the community include stream restoration and lo‘i kalo management.
Kāko‘o ‘Ōiwi is located less than 3 miles from Ha‘ikū Stairs. This community-based non-profit
organization works to restore agricultural and ecological productivity in He‘eia. Cultural and
educational programs are offered, along with monthly community workdays. Workdays include
invasive weeding, building ‘auwai for kalo cultivation, and lo‘i maintenance.
The non-profit organization, Paepae o He‘eia cares for the ancient He‘eia Fishpond. The organization
also provides restoration, education, and production programs. Family fishing days are open to the
public twice a year in the summer months of May, June, July, and August.
Recreation Guidelines in the Ko‘olaupoko Sustainable Communities Plan
Ha‘ikū Stairs has been identified as a recreational resource in the KPSCP. In the Parks and Recreation
section of the KPSCP, under Guidelines for Passive or Nature Parks, the City lists a guideline to,
“Acquire and develop the proposed Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve, including access to
Ha‘ikū Stairs” (Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan, 2017).KPSCP; 3-23)
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will result in the loss of access to dramatic views, ridgeline ecosystems,
cardiovascular exercise, and historic resources at this location. However, removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will
not significantly impact the availability of recreation opportunities on windward O‘ahu, as discussed
below.
4-50
Bicycling
Slated for completion by the end of Summer 2018, the O‘ahu Bicycle Master Plan Update includes
new bicycle routes throughout the island. DTS is proposing to add bicycle routes throughout Kāne‘ohe
and Kailua for increased continuity and safety. These improvements will provide added recreational
opportunities for residents and visitors of the windward coast.
Hiking
Removing Ha‘ikū Stairs and associated infrastructure will alleviate current trespassing issues that
BWS and neighboring residences regularly face from illegal hikers. The remaining public trails in the
area would offer safer hiking conditions that will provide opportunities to experience native flora and
fauna. The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will also reduce human disruption of native ecosystems in the
upper reaches of the mountain. For hikers, similar views of windward O‘ahu will be available through
the other area hikes, as well as from the Nu‘uanu Pali State Wayside overlook.
Ocean Activities
Ocean activities will not be adversely affected from the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs. It is not anticipated
that diverted hikers from Ha‘ikū Stairs will increase usage of nearby beach parks and activities outside
of current management capacities.
Other Recreational Facilities and Cultural Enrichment Opportunities
Other safe, legal recreational resources such as golf, miniature golf, and ziplining will continue to be
available after the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
Opportunities to engage with the cultural history of the region will remain available to pursue at one of
the many He‘eia based non-profit organization events open to the public.
Similar to the anticipated impacts to ocean activities, it is not anticipated that Ha‘ikū Stairs removal
will cause these recreational activities to experience a large influx of patrons or visitors.
Recreation Guidelines in the Ko‘olaupoko Sustainable Communities Plan
Establishing access to Ha‘ikū Stairs was identified as part of the KPSCP’s guideline to establish a
Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve. Although removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would preclude access
and association with Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve, the preserve will still be established
within Ha‘ikū Valley as a recreational resource.
Overall Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As discussed, recreation opportunities on the windward coast are diverse and plentiful. Even without
Ha‘ikū Stairs, recreators can easily gain access to natural habitats, access to ridgeline and mountain
areas, enjoy scenic views, see historic resources, and get cardiovascular exercise through existing
resources. Further, there is a low likelihood that the redirection of potential illegal hikers to other
activities on the windward coast will overcrowd existing recreational resources to unsustainable levels.
The KPSCP guideline to include Ha‘ikū Stairs as part of a Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve
will not be possible, however, the preserve could still be established without access to the stairs.
Therefore, adverse impacts to recreation are not anticipated from the Proposed Action.
4-51
4.12 Economic Conditions

Two studies were prepared by Plasch Econ Pacific, LLC (PEP) for the Proposed Action: Ha‘ikū Stairs
Demographic and Economic Conditions (June, 2018), and Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Various
Alternatives for Ha‘ikū Stairs (February, 2019). Both studies are included in Appendix G.
4.12.1 Demographic Information
Existing Conditions
Ha‘ikū Stairs is located on the Island of O‘ahu within the Ko‘olau Poko region (defined as the Ko‘olau
Poko Census Subdivision. This district includes the coastal communities of Waimānalo, Kailua,
Kāne‘ohe, Kāne‘ohe Station, He‘eia, Ahuimanu, Kahalu‘u, and Waikāne. The sections below describe
demographic details for both O‘ahu and Ko‘olau Poko.
O‘ahu Population Characteristics and Distribution
In 2018, O‘ahu Island is estimated to have a population of about 997,520 residents, up 4.6% since
the 2010 U.S. census. Residents include those who live full-time or permanently on O‘ahu, and exclude
visitors and part-time residents (i.e., those who reside most of the time in a primary home located
elsewhere). The defacto population, which includes residents and visitors, is higher. In 2016, the latest
year for which data is available, the defacto population of O‘ahu was 1,049,121 due to the large influx
of visitors the island receives.
The total County population amounted to approximately 70% of the State population in the 2010 U.S.
Census—the largest of the four counties. Nearly 45% of O‘ahu residents live in Honolulu (Primary Urban
Center), but the population also concentrates in areas, such as ‘Ewa, Central O‘ahu, and Windward
O‘ahu.
O‘ahu’s population is racially diverse. In 2018, Asians comprised an estimated 40.9% of the County’s
population, while people of two or more races made up 22.7% and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islanders represented 9.0%.
The estimated median age of O‘ahu residents was 37.2 years old in 2018.
O‘ahu Income and Education
The median household income in 2018 is estimated to be at $85,409—an increase of 18.2% since
the period between 2008 and 2012. Between 2008 and 2012, an estimated 9.6% of the County
population was living below poverty level; 85.8% spoke English well or very well. In 2018, 90.8% of
O‘ahu residents are estimated to have a high school degree or higher.
O‘ahu Economic Activities
The principal economic driving forces for the economy of the Island of O‘ahu are education and health
services; trade, transportation and utilities; and leisure and hospitality industries.
O‘ahu hosted over 5.67 million visitors in 2017, and visitor expenditures totaled approximately $7.62
billion, making tourism the dominant industry in the County. Visitors to O‘ahu in 2017 represented
61.3% of the State’s visitor arrivals by air, and 45.6% of Statewide visitor spending.
4-52
Ko‘olau Poko Population Characteristics and Distribution
In 2018, the Ko‘olau Poko region had a resident population of approximately 116,809, or 11.7% of
the O‘ahu population. The population in Ko‘olau Poko grew at a slower rate than the island as a whole,
increasing by 1.4% from 115,164 residents in 2010.
Similar to the island of O‘ahu as a whole, the resident population of the Ko‘olau Poko region is racially
diverse. In 2018, white residents are estimated to comprise higher proportion of the Ko‘olau Poko
population compared to the island as a whole; 33.9% of residents are estimated to be white compared
to 21.9% of residents on the entire island.
The resident profile of the Ko‘olau Poko region is slightly younger than that of the island of O‘ahu. The
median age in Ko‘olau Poko is estimated to be 36.54 years old in 2018, compared to 37.20 years old
on O‘ahu.
Ko‘olau Poko Income and Education
The median household income in Ko‘olau Poko in 2018 is estimated at $101,774, 19.1% higher than
O‘ahu island as a whole. Correspondingly, Ko‘olau Poko has a higher per-capita income and a lower
proportion of residents living in poverty. Between 2008 to 2012, an estimated 6.9% of residents were
living in poverty in the region, compared to 9.6% for the island of O‘ahu.
Ko‘olau Poko Economic Activity
As with the entire island of O‘ahu, primary economic activities in Ko‘olau Poko region are the education
and health services; trade, transportation, and utilities; and leisure and hospitality. The education and
health services in the Ko‘olau Poko region comprises 33.1% of the district wide jobs, compared to
20.4% of the jobs on the entire island.
The project will create short-term benefits by creating jobs for local construction personnel from the
increased construction activities. The project will not affect population growth or public facilities. BWS,
HPD, and HFD budgets that were previously was allocated for Ha‘ikū Stairs and related expenses will
be used for department appropriate costs. No specific demographic mitigation actions are
recommended.
4.12.2 Economic and Fiscal Impacts
Existing Conditions
This section discusses outcomes of the study by PEP, Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Various
Alternatives for Ha‘ikū Stairs, located in Appendix G. In this report, PEP evaluated the economic and
fiscal impacts of the Proposed Action (removal all stairs) and three alternatives including the No-Action,
Partial Removal (remove lower stairs), and Conveyance (restore stairs/managed access) alternatives.
Discussion of impacts associated with the alternatives is included in Chapter 6. The economic and
fiscal impacts discussed below address the changes in the economy associated with the Proposed
Action, including both the direct impacts of the initial expenditures or sales, and the indirect impacts
(i.e., secondary impacts) due to the affected entities and their employees purchasing goods and
services from others. A long-term cost analysis was also conducted for the Proposed Action from the
perspective of the BWS and other government agencies.
4-53
Economic and fiscal impacts associated with the Proposed Action are presented below. A high-level
overview of study methodology, specific areas of analysis, and projected potential financial outcomes
are provided below.
Methodological strategy includes the following data and assumptions. For a full discussion of
methodology, please refer to Appendix G.
• Multipliers: The various economic and fiscal impacts are based on several multipliers, e.g.
indirect sales as a percentage of direct sales, jobs per $1 million in sales, indirect jobs per
direct jobs, and tax rates. These multipliers are based on information from the following
sources: U.S. Census data; the State of Hawai'i Data Book; The 2012 Input-Output Study for
Hawai'i; employment and labor rates from the State Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations (DLIR); County and State tax rates; and revenue and expenditure data from the
County and the State.
• 2017 Dollars: Dollar amounts are expressed in terms of 2017 purchasing power and market
conditions. Values, prices, costs and dollar amounts for prior years are adjusted for inflation
to 2017 dollars based on the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Consumers.
• Present-Value Analysis: The valuation of each alternative to BWS and to others is based on the
calculation of Present Value (PV). The calculation involves (1) projecting the cash flow of
revenues and costs by year; (2) discounting each net revenue/cost to the present; (3) then
summing the discounted values to determine the total PV.
• Analysis Period: The 21-year analysis period is based on (1) 1 year to negotiate agreements
and conduct construction-related activities, if applicable; plus (2) a 20-year remaining life of
the Stairs.
• Accuracy: Generally, economic and fiscal impact estimates are accurate within approximately
20%.
Utilizing this methodology and relevant acquired data, fiscal impacts were considered in the following
categories for the Proposed Action and each alternative. For a full analysis under each category, please
refer to Appendix G.
• Economic impacts related to construction-related activities: Depending on the alternative,
construction-related activities may include: (1) negotiating agreements as needed to take
action; (2) removing all or a portion of the Stairs by one or more construction companies; and
(3) improving the access route by one or more construction companies.
• Economic impacts related to future operations of the Stairs: Impacts to future operations
primarily pertain to either ongoing security costs under No-Action or estimated annual sales
under the Conveyance Alternative.
• Impacts on City revenues and expenditures: Impacts to the City are calculated for BWS only
and for the City as a whole.
• Impacts on State of Hawai‘i revenues and expenditures.
PEP projected potential financial outcomes for City and State agencies for the Proposed Action based
on the 21-year analysis period. This projection represents the professional opinion of the consultant
based on a specific methodology, data source, and set of assumptions. For a full analysis under each
alternative, please refer to Chapter 6 and Appendix G.
4-54
The Proposed Action would provide no recreational benefits after the stairs are removed, and no
employment. Cost to remove the stairs would be nearly $1 million. Construction related expenditures
would also generate indirect sales from construction companies and their families acquiring goods
and services. Values are derived from adjusted net costs over the 21-year analysis period. The PVs for
the Proposed Action would be as follows:
City: negative $981,000

• BWS: negative $986,000
• City excluding the BWS: positive $5,000
State: positive $39,000

• State excluding OHA: positive $39,000
• OHA: $0
Total City and State: negative $942,000
Over the 21-year analysis period, projected aggregate fiscal impact for the Proposed Action would be
approximately negative $942,000 for the City and State. For a summary comparison of economic and
fiscal impacts by alternative, please refer to Chapter 6.
4.12.3 Environmental Justice
Existing Conditions
Following previous federal action under Title VI (of the Civil Rights Act) to examine the distribution and
benefits or burdens related to spending federal dollars, Hawai‘i Governor Linda Lingle passed an Act
in 2006 to minimize disproportionate impacts on the environment, human health, and socioeconomic
conditions of Native Hawaiian, minority, and/or low-income populations. Environmental justice is
defined for Hawai‘i to include:
“...the right of every person in Hawaii to live in a clean and healthy environment, to be treated fairly,
and to have meaningful involvement in decisions that affect their environment and health; with an
emphasis on the responsibility of every person in Hawaii to uphold traditions and customary Native
Hawaiian practices that preserve, protect, and restore the ‘aina for present and future generations.
Environmental justice in Hawaii recognizes that no one segment of the population or geographic area
should be disproportionately burdened with environmental and/or health impacts resulting from
development, construction, operations and/or use of natural resources.”
Act 294 was created to address environmental justice in all phases of the environmental review
process and requires all agencies and applicants identify and address, at the earliest possible time,
any disproportionately adverse human health, environmental, or cultural effects on Native Hawaiian,
minority, and/or low-income populations that would be caused by a Proposed Action or by an agency’s
policies, programs, and activities.
The population of Hawai‘i is racially diverse with a majority of communities dominated by non-whites.
Environmental justice blocks were therefore based on a rationale specific to the ethnic and socio-
economic mix of populations on O‘ahu and are documented in Environmental Justice in the Oahu
Metropolitan Planning Organization (OMPO) Planning Process (OMPO & DPP 2004). For the Ko‘olau
Poko region, environmental justice block groups occur mainly in the Marine Corps Base Hawai‘i due
4-55
to proportionately higher populations of Blacks stationed as military personnel, and in the Waimanalo
area due to lower income levels.
The EPA has developed an environmental justice mapping and screening tool (EJSCREEN) that maps
“variables” affecting health such as sources of pollutents including PM2.5 (air pollution in the form of
fine particulate matter), Ozone, air toxic cancer risks and respiratory hazards, lead paint, and proximity
to Superfund sites (a site contaminated with hazardous waste identified by the EPA as a candidate for
cleanup due to its public health risk) and other hazardous waste. Ha‘ikū Radio Station is located within
DERP FUDS database (FUDS Property No. H09HI0120). Due to Ha‘ikū Radio Station location on FUDS,
the ACOE issued a Remedial Investigation and Proposed Plan for the Former Navy Landfill. Within the
FUDS, the Remedial Investigation found contaminants located between Kamakau Charter School and
a narrow parcel of land owned by Hui Kū Maoli Ola. Although the former landfill site was associated
with historic lead, PCB and DDT contaminants, the Remedial Investigation found no unacceptable risk
to human health or the environment (ACOE, 2018).
The Proposed Action will not impact the region’s demographically diverse residential mix, nor will it
affect the population for the region. Although lead, PCB and DDT have been associated on the former
Navy Landfill Site, the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will not generate any lead contamination, or any of the
other metrics measured for environmental justice – pollutants, Superfund Sites and hazardous waste
that is unacceptable to human health or the environment. The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs is not
anticipated to impact environmental justice in the region.
4.13 Traffic and Circulation

Existing Conditions
Vehicle trips into Ha‘ikū Valley typically originate from the H-3 or Likelike Highway which connect to
Kahekili Highway, then enter the valley via Kahuhipa Street or Ha‘ikū Road. Hikers would typically park
their vehicles in residential neighborhoods along streets such as Ha‘ikū Road, Kūneki Street, Makena
Street, Loli‘i Street, and Puoni Place. These residential areas are fairly developed with steady
pedestrian and vehicular activity, peaking in the AM between the hours of 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and
during the afternoon between the hours of 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM.
The influx of trespassing hikers into Ha‘ikū Valley neighborhoods can reach over a hundred per day, with a
good portion of hikers arriving in the early morning hours in order to watch the sunrise from the summit.
Hikers that park in residential neighborhoods often disturb local traffic and circulation. Impacts include:
• Parked cars partially blocking driveways
• Parked cars partially blocking or narrowing the right-of-way
• Parked cars blocking mailboxes, impeding USPS mail delivery
• Loss of parking for residents
The Proposed Action will generate short-term construction-related traffic associated with worker vehicles,
transport vehicles for machinery to disassemble Ha‘ikū Stairs, and waste disposal vehicles (including
rolloffs) for disposal or salvage. Vehicles would gather in a construction staging area, currently proposed at
the old Omega Station location, with access to the valley gained via Ha‘ikū Road and the Omega Station
4-56
access road. Utilization of this area for construction staging will require prior approval of the landowner,
DHHL. A construction traffic mitigation plan will be prepared to manage construction traffic and ensure
safe flow of traffic around the adjacent neighborhood and construction staging area.
Helicopters will fly repeatedly over H-3 to remove modules from the ridgeline and bring them to the
valley below. Conflicts or disruption of vehicle traffic flow is not anticipated due to helicopter flyover.
When carrying cargo, helicopters would opt for a flight path where H-3 is covered by a tunnel, to reduce
risks of falling material endangering drivers or interrupting traffic flow. Helicopter lifts require prior
approval from the FAA Honolulu Flight Standards District Office, who will provide guidance to ensure
safety precautions are in place during all helicopter operations. Helicopter lifts from a public safety
standpoint are further discussed in Section 4.9, Public Safety.
Over the long-term, removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will eliminate vehicle trips that currently occur due to the
presence of Ha‘ikū Stairs, therefore reducing traffic and parking impacts on residential streets in Ha‘ikū
Valley. Due to this decrease in trip generation, it is anticipated that there will be a slight decrease in
ambient/background traffic. Parking in residential neighborhoods is anticipated to increase due to
elimination of trespassing hikers, and circulation on neighborhood streets would subsequently improve.
4.14 Utilities
4.14.1 Water Supply
BWS is responsible for managing and distributing O‘ahu’s municipal water resources. Ha‘ikū Stairs is not
located within a BWS service area. The closest service area is Ha‘ikū Village residential neighborhood in
Ha‘ikū Valley below. Ha‘ikū Village is fed from the nearby BWS Ha‘ikū 500 Reservoir No. 2, located along
the H-3 Service Road, approximately half a mile feet east of the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Although Ha‘ikū 500
Reservoir No. 2 tank is located approximately half a mile from the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs along the H-3
Service Road, it cannot serve Ha‘ikū Stairs because they are at the same elevation.
The Proposed Action does not require long-term water service, and no long-term impacts to water supply are
anticipated. Over the short-term, removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will cause limited ground disturbance as necessary,
ground watering could potentially be utilized as a dust and erosion control measure. However, due to the
moist climate and frequent rainfall on the mountain, this short-term use of water may not be required.
4.14.2 Wastewater
The City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services provides wastewater collection,
treatment, and disposal services to its municipal service areas. No sewer collection system currently serves
Ha‘ikū Stairs. The closest service area is in Ha‘ikū Village residential neighborhood in Ha‘ikū Valley.
BWS maintains two portable toilets located at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs adjacent to the H-3 service
road. The toilets are periodically serviced (cleaned and pumped) by a BWS contractor. Service vehicles
use the BWS Ha‘ikū 500 Reservoir No. 2 driveway and H-3 Service road to access the toilets.
The Proposed Action does not require wastewater infrastructure and no impacts to wastewater
services are anticipated.
4-57
4.14.3 Drainage
The western portion of Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel drains to the perennial Ha‘ikū Stream. The middle portion
of the parcel drains to the City storm drain system within Ha‘ikū Village which ultimately discharges to
the intermittent Kea‘ahala Stream. The eastern portion of the parcel drains the State Hospital parcel
to the intermittent Kapunahala Stream. All three streams discharge to Kāne‘ohe Bay.
Stormwater runoff during removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs could cause limited erosion due to suspended
sediment washed away in runoff. Soil destabilization could be mitigated through would be controlled
by temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures to lower potential impacts to
surface and groundwater. Temporary measures may include the use of compost filter socks, and
application of filter fabrics, as needed during construction activities. Permanent erosion control will
include a native species restoration plan as discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. With the
application of these erosion control mitigation measures, the Proposed Action will add a negligible
amount of runoff to the tributary streams over the short-term, but no long-term impacts to drainage
and runoff are anticipated.
4.14.4 Power and Telecommunications
4.14.4.1 Power
Ha‘ikū Stairs and associated buildings do not utilize service from Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO).
A HECO overhead high voltage transmission line runs parallel to and below the H-3. The closest service
area is the Haʻikū Village neighborhood located below Ha‘ikū Stairs.
The Proposed Action will not require power service, and no impacts are anticipated
4.14.4.2 Telecommunications
Haʻikū Stairs is not served by Hawaiian Telcom or Spectrum. The closest service area is the Haʻikū
Village neighborhood located below Haʻikū Stairs.
The Proposed Action does not require a telecommunication service, and therefore, no impacts are
anticipated.
4.14.5 Gas
Haʻikū Stairs is not served by Hawai‘i Gas. The closest service area is the Haʻikū Village neighborhood
below Haʻikū Stairs.
The Proposed Action will not require a gas service, and therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
4-58
4.15 Visual Resources and Open Space

Existing Conditions
Views of the Ko‘olau Range
The Ko‘olau mountains are located on O‘ahu’s windward coast and spectacular views of the Ko‘olaus
are ubiquitous on the leeward side, visible from valleys to coastal areas. The configuration of the
Ko‘olau Range behind the town of Kāne‘ohe formed a bowl shaped geographic area known as Ha‘ikū
Valley. The highest peak in the ridgeline surrounding Ha‘ikū Valley is Pu‘u Keahiakahoe, rising to 2,800
feet. Ha‘ikū Stairs were built up the side of the Ko‘olau mountains in Ha‘ikū Valley and up the ridgeline
of Pu‘u Keahiakahoe. Ha‘ikū Stairs is visible from many locations within Ha‘ikū Valley and from the H-
3 Freeway which passes through the valley. It is an objective of the KPSCP to preserve scenic views of
ridges and upper valley slopes as seen from major roads and trans-Ko‘olau highways, and to keep
them free from land disturbance and the encroachment of structures that would affect scenic
viewplanes (Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan, 2017). Figure 4-20 shows Ha‘ikū Stairs as
they are seen from the H-3 Freeway.
Figure 4-20 View of Ha‘ikū Stairs from H-3 Freeway (Google Earth, 2018)
Scenic Viewpoints
Part of the draw to ascend Ha‘ikū Stairs is to access the panoramic views available from 2,800 feet.
From the CCL at the top of Pu‘u Keahiakahoe, views of He‘eia, Kāne‘ohe, Kailua, and Mokoli‘i Island
are available on the east side, the Ko‘olau Range expanse is visible to the north and south, and views
of Pearl Harbor are available to the west.
Open Space
Mountain areas are a type of open space resource. Open space resources are classified and valued
in different ways by the State and the City, as described below.
4-59
The State has identified the mountain areas where Ha‘ikū Stairs is located as important to protect.
Ha‘ikū Stairs is located in a Protective Subzone of the Conservation State Land Use District. Lands
designated for Conservation are often protecting watersheds, scenic areas, historic areas or open
space. The Protective Subzone classifies the area as environmentally sensitive.
The City sees Ha‘ikū Stairs as an open space resource within a broader vision for Ha‘ikū Valley. Within
the Open Space objectives of the KPSCP, there is an emphasis placed upon improving access to
mountain areas with Ko‘olaupoko. Furthermore, within the Open Space Resources Guidelines for
Mountain Areas, the KPSCP lists an objective to, “Create public access to the former USCG Omega
Station site, including Ha‘ikū Stairs, and combine this parcel site with the adjoining City and County of
Honolulu parcel for the proposed Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve to: Provide recreational,
cultural and educational benefits.”
Views of the Ko‘olau Range
Since World War II, Ha‘ikū Stairs have become an iconic part of Ha‘ikū Valley, valued for their place in
military history, panoramic mountaintop views, and physical recreation challenge. Most can agree that
Ha‘ikū Stairs is a landmark, but interpretation of that landmark on the mountain landscape is
subjective and the public holds divergent opinions. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will eliminate the man-
made stair structures from the ridge. For some, the removal of this structure will have a negative
association, as it will remove an iconic landmark from the H-3 view plane. For others, removal of the
stair modules would have a positive association, as it will return the mountain area back to its natural
state.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will impact views of the Ko‘olau Range in this location by removing the stair
modules. Public views will return close to natural conditions, maintaining and preserving the ridges
and upper valley slopes as they previously looked before construction of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Views from the
H-3 Freeway, and public and private locations around Ha‘ikū Valley will have an altered view of Pu‘u
Keahiakahoe as Ha‘ikū Stairs would no longer be visible trailing up the mountain. From the perspective
of valuing the natural state of the mountain, or from the cultural viewpoint of restricting access to the
wao akua, this is a positive impact. However, from the perspective of placing value on preserving the
historic structure in its original location, removal of the stair modules will be a negative impact. No
mitigation measures are available for this visual impact.
Scenic Viewpoints
With the Proposed Action, Ha‘ikū Stairs would be removed, along with access from Ha‘ikū Valley to the
panoramic views they offer at the top. Despite the loss of access from Ha‘ikū Valley, similar panoramic
views would be available from other locations. Manana Ridge Trail provides similar panoramic views
of O‘ahu. The trail head is located in Pearl City and travels up the valley to the Ko‘olau Mountain Range.
The Kulana‘ahane Trail and the Maunawili Trail offer panoramic views of the H-3 and Kane‘ohe and
Windward O‘ahu, respectively.
Additionally, Nu‘uanu Pali State Wayside offers similar panoramic views of the Windward side of the
island, at 1,200 feet. The lookout, which is accessed off the Pali Highway, offers views of Kāne‘ohe,
Kailua, Mokoli‘i Island, and the coastal fishpond at Kualoa Ranch. Parking fees are $3.00 a car.
Residents park for free.
4-60
Despite the loss of access to windward and leeward views in this one specific location, there are many
other opportunities for similar views. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Open Space
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would not change the characteristic of the associated mountain areas as
open space. Removal would, however, preclude Ha‘ikū Stairs from being a part of the broader vision
of the City to have a Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve with recreational and cultural benefits.
With the Proposed Action, the preserve could still be created, but Ha‘ikū Stairs will not be part of it.
Due to crossover with the topic recreation, this issue further discussed in Section 4.11, Recreation.
Concerning impacts to open space, because removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will not fundamentally change
the fact that the mountain area is considered open space, no impacts are anticipated.
4.16 Water Resources

Existing Conditions
Groundwater
O‘ahu is divided into seven major groundwater areas, each overlapping some of the island’s two major
aquifers, the Ko‘olau Basalt and the Waianae Volcanics. The project area is located in the Ko‘olau rift
zone groundwater area in eastern O‘ahu and the Ko‘olau Basalt is the principal aquifer. The Ko‘olau
rift zone is wet, especially in the mountains that receive substantial rainfall. Basal water movement
flows from rainfall in the mountains seaward to the Ko‘olau basalt aquifer and then to the Pacific
ocean. The groundwater in this area is primarily dike-impounded, and when the dike compartments
reach capacity the water rises to the surfaces and discharges through streams, groundwater outflow
to adjacent groundwater areas, withdrawals from wells, shafts, and springs, evapotranspiration, and
outflow to the ocean (United States Geological Survey, 2018).
Surface Water and Watersheds
A watershed is an area that catches and collects rainwater, such as diverse vegetation that captures
rain and atmospheric moisture from the air and sky. Watersheds in Hawai‘i are typically in high
mountains or valleys and are composed of several layers of dense vegetation referred to as a Hawaiian
rain forest. Multiple layers of vegetation soak up rainfall and retain moisture, and release water into
rivers and streams. Native Hawaiian plants evolved in isolation and thus lost defenses against hooved
grazing mammals such as goats and pigs. Trees and groundcover plants stabilize soils. With the
introduction of grazing animals that eat plants and root in soils, introduced plants have an advantage
and become established thus converting native-dominated to alien-dominated plants. Often alien
plants will form monotypic stands with just one canopy level, thus reducing the function of a watershed.
Invasive plant and animal species, deforestation, and excessive human foot traffic are just a few things
that threaten the watershed.
The BWS completed the Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan in 2012 as a component of the
O‘ahu Watershed Management Plans and the Hawai‘i Water Plan. It provides a long-range plan to the
year 2030 for the preservation, restoration, and balanced management of ground water, surface
water, and related watershed resources in the Ko‘olau Poko District (BWS, 2012). Land use plans and
water use and development plans that support growth and existing communities on O‘ahu must ensure
that watersheds remain healthy through sustainable planning practices, watershed protection projects
4-61
and best management practices that minimize impacts. The long-range plan advances the five major
objectives of the O‘ahu Watershed Management Plans: promote sustainable watersheds; protect and
enhance water quality and quantity; protect native Hawaiian rights and traditional and customary
practices; facilitate public participation, education, and project implementation; and meet future water
demands at reasonable cost.
Only a portion of the prime watershed on O‘ahu is owned by BWS. Therefore, watershed management
plan implementation includes creation of watershed partnerships made from Federal, State and city
agencies, landowners, and organizations that can pool resources towards common objectives. The
Ko‘olau Mountains Watershed Partnership (KMWP) consists of major landowners within the watershed
and associated non-landowner interests. KMWP works across landowner boundaries to eliminate
threats to the watershed such as habitat-modifying weeds and ungulates using a combination of
adaptive management strategies and established conservation practices. These methods include the
installation of ungulate-proof fencing, various weed removal techniques, restoration work, and long-
term monitoring. BWS is a key partner in each of the watershed management partnerships across the
island of O‘ahu.
The closest waterway to the project area is Ha‘ikū Stream, which originates at the back of the valley
and joins with the Loleka‘a Stream to form the He‘eia Stream that eventually flows into Kāne‘ohe Bay.
BWS Water Resources
Ha‘ikū Stairs is located on 225 acres of watershed land, TMK (1) 4-6-015:011. While BWS has no
plans for development of specific water sources on this parcel, it is contiguous with another BWS
parcel containing developed water sources in Ha‘ikū Valley (TMK (1) 4-6-015:001).
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will not affect inflow, quantity or quality of the groundwater in the area. BWS
will continue as a partner in the KMWP and participate in watershed-level management activities.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will create temporary loose soils where the modules are currently anchored.
As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, a native species restoration plan should be
developed in consultation with a biologist. Restoration will involve re-planting native species in key
areas to return vegetation cover to the areas. Use of chemical herbicides will be forbidden during the
removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
Following removal of the stair modules, there will be no significant change to the quantity or quality of
rainfall runoff from the project site. As such, no long-term impacts to water resources are anticipated.
4-62
4.17 Probable Impacts and Other Considerations Under

HAR 11-200
4.17.1 Interrelationships and Cumulative Environmental Impacts
Cumulative impacts refer to potential impacts from the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs in combination with
other regional uses that may cause noise, public safety, population, and/or traffic-related impacts.
After Ha‘ikū Stairs modules are removed from the ridgeline, there will be no new uses proposed and
vegetation will be restored over disturbed soils. Human disturbance of this area will cease.
Over the long-term, removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will alleviate traffic problems in Ha‘ikū Valley and improve
public safety by eliminating neighborhood disruptions from trespassing hikers. Although the project
will involve removal of a historic structure, mitigation will be provided as approved by the SHPD. The
Proposed Action will have no long-term impacts on population, energy consumption, air quality, public
services, or the economy. As long-term negative impacts are not anticipated with the Proposed Action,
accordingly, cumulative impacts in association with other projects are not anticipated.
4.17.2 Potential Secondary Effects
Secondary effects are defined as those caused by the action (project) later in time or farther removed
in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. These effects are also referred to as indirect effect or
indirect impact. The Proposed Action will not involve significant secondary effects such as inducing
growth or causing the need for additional infrastructure or public services. A small increase in jobs will
occur during construction.
4.17.3 Relationship between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity
Narrowing the Range of Beneficial Uses of the Environment
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will narrow the current use of the ridgeline environment, as it will no longer be
used by hikers. Although a recreation opportunity will be lost, 5,000 trespassing hikers per year (August
2017-August 2018, BWS) will no longer infiltrate local neighborhoods and illegally climb Ha‘ikū Stairs.
Long-term Risks to Health and Safety
Ha‘ikū Stairs in its current condition is potentially unsafe for individuals attempting to climb them. Risk
of injury, harm, or death is a concern. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will benefit public health and safety by
eliminating the existing risks to trespassing hikers.
Foreclosure of Future Options
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will foreclose the option for managed public access as discussed in Chapter 6.
Trade-offs Among Short-term and Long-term Gains and Losses
Impacts from removal will occur over the short-term (during the “construction” period). Potential negative
impacts include some increase in dust, helicopter noise, and traffic due to construction vehicles. Positive
short-term economic impacts from construction jobs are anticipated. Long-term gains include decrease in
4-63
neighborhood disturbances, elimination of illegal access, restoration of the natural ridgeline environment.
The long-term benefits outweigh the relatively short-term impacts during the construction period.
4.17.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will involve the irretrievable loss of a historic resource, and commitment
of fiscal resources, labor, and energy.
4.17.5 Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot Be Avoided
Implementation of the project will produce unavoidable effects in the short and long term:
4.17.5.1 Unavoidable Adverse Short-Term Effects
Short-term effects are generally associated with construction and prevail only for the duration of the
construction period.
• Temporary increases in soil erosion will result from construction operations, and small
amounts of soil and dust may be carried beyond construction sites in surface runoff water.
• Unavoidable, but temporary, noise impacts will occur during excavation and removal activities
within the project area, particularly associated with the helicopter lift operations between the
ridgeline and the valley.
• Construction activities are expected to generate short-term impacts to air quality primarily from
exhaust and to a lesser degree, fugitive dust emissions.
• Temporary traffic impacts from construction activities will occur as the result of increased truck
and automobile traffic associated with removal of stair modules.
These traffic impacts may be offset by the decline in private and service vehicles associated with the
closure of Ha‘ikū Stairs and the use of a construction traffic mitigation plan.
4.17.5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Long-Term Effects
Long-term effects associated with the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs include:

• Visual impact due to altered views of the Ko‘olau Range from the H-3 Freeway in Ha‘ikū Valley
that will no longer include the iconic image of Ha‘ikū Stairs trailing up the ridgeline. Some
consider this to be a beneficial impact, as the mountain will be restored to natural conditions.
• The Proposed Action will result in the permanent removal of a historic structure, however,
appropriate mitigation measures as approved by SHPD will be implemented to account for the
loss.
4.18 Unresolved Issues

There are no known unresolved issues associated with the Proposed Action.
4-64
Chapter 5
Relationship of the Proposed Project

to Land Use Plans, Policies and
Controls for the Affected Area
Chapter 5
Relationship of the Proposed Project to

Land Use Plans, Policies and Controls for
the Affected Area
An important consideration in evaluating the potential impacts of a Proposed Action on the
environment is how it may conform or conflict with approved or proposed Federal, State, and County
land use plans, policies and controls for the affected area. The Chapter 5 assesses the relationship of
the BWS Ha‘ikū Stairs project to the following land use plans, policies and regulatory controls is
assessed below. A brief summary of the findings for each is offered below.
Federal
• Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
o The project area is located within the CZM area, but not within the SMA as defined by the State
of Hawai‘i.
o The proposed action would conform to the goals, policies, and objectives of Hawai‘i’s CZM
Program. State of Hawai’i
• Environmental Impact Statements (HRS Chapter 343)
o This Final EIS has been prepared in compliance with environmental requirements outlined in
HRS Chapter 343 and Chapter 11-200, HAR. An EIS is required for this project since the project
lies on City lands and uses City funds as it is a BWS action. The project is also located on lands
designated as State Land Use Conservation District.
o An EISPN was published in the OEQC The Environmental Notice on April 23, 2017.
o A Draft EIS was published in the OEQC The Environmental Notice on June 23, 2019. Comment
letters received during the Draft EIS review period and corresponding response letters are
included in the Final EIS.
• State Land Use Law (HRS Chapter 205)
o Properties on which the Ha‘ikū Stairs are located are within the State Land Use Conservation
District. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs conforms with conservation district standards to protect and
preserve natural resources within the district.
• Hawai’i State Plan (HRS Chapter 226)
o The Proposed Action supports the goals of the State to promote a clean, quiet, stable natural
environment (226-4: State Goals); ensure proper management of water (226-13 Objectives
and Policies for the Physical Environment-Land, Air, and Water Quality), improve quality and
efficiency of water provision systems (226-16 Objective and Policies for Facility Systems-
Water), reduce crime and criminal property damage (226-24 Objective and Policies for Socio-
Cultural Advancement-Individual Rights and Personal Well-Being), improve wellness and safety
5-1
of the public (226-26 Objectives and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement-Public Safety),
and reduce crime (226-105 Crime and Criminal Justice Priority Guidelines).
o The Proposed Action does not support the goals of the State to improve economic
opportunities (226-6 Objectives and Policies for the Economy in General), improve the quality
of an existing visitor destination (226-8 Objectives and Policies for the Economy- Visitor
Industry), preserving scenic vistas and historic properties (226-12 Objectives and Policies for
the Physical Environment- Scenic, Natural Beauty, and Historic Resources), and promote
recreation (226-23 Objective and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement- Leisure).
o The Proposed Action will support a conservation ethic and protection of native habitat (226-
11 Objectives and Policies for the Physical Environment- Land-based, Shoreline, and Marine
Resources) by discouraging illegal access that could potentially damage the natural
environment. However, through the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, the environment will be disturbed
temporarily during extraction of stair segments, and forego multiple potential uses in public
recreational, educational, and scientific purposes.
o The Proposed Action will support policies related to the operation of State government (226-
27 Objectives and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement- Government) by supporting
government sensitivity to the concerns of individuals in the adjacent residential community.
However, the Proposed Action will not be sensitive to individuals in the wider community that
support keeping Ha‘ikū Stairs.
• 2050 Sustainability Plan
o The Proposed Action supports Goal 3 (Our natural resources are responsibly and respectfully
used, replenished and preserved for future generations) by providing greater protection of land
habitat and conservation land.
o The Proposed Action supports Goal 4 (Our community is strong, healthy, vibrant and nurturing,
providing safety nets for those in need) in an effort to reduce crime and violence by removing
Ha‘ikū Stairs and reducing trespassing.
• Department of Hawaiian Homelands O‘ahu Island Plan
o The Proposed Action supports the Conservation designation of the ridgeline parcels
o Any earthwork will be coordinated with DHHL and adhere to all applicable permitting
procedures.
• Coastal Zone Management (CZM) (HRS Chapter 205A)
o The project area is located within the CZM area, but not within the SMA as defined by the State
of Hawai‘i.
o Should the Proposed Action be implemented, Ha‘ikū Stairs will be removed and the project will
not meet objectives to retain, restore, and preserve historic resources.
o Although there is no way to legally access this area, the viewshed from the top of Ha‘iku Stairs
could be considered a valued scenic resource in the coastal zone management area. Access
from Ha‘ikū Valley would be eliminated with the Proposed Action, however, hikers could still
access this view via Moanalua Valley.
City and County of Honolulu

• General Plan
o The project has no planned development components.
o The Proposed Action supports the General Plan regarding economic activity (Part II, Objective
A) by generating short-term construction jobs.
5-2
o The Proposed Action will support the General Plan regarding the natural environment (Part III,
Objective A) by restoring the natural environment that has been degraded due to on-going
trespassing on Ha‘ikū Stairs and surrounding lands. However, the project will not protect
scenic views or provide opportunities for recreation and contact with the natural environment
(Part III, Objective B).
o The Proposed Action supports the General Plan policy regarding public safety (Part VIII,
Objective A) by reducing potentially dangerous situations related to trespassing.
o The Proposed Action is not supportive of the General Plan policy regarding cultural, historic,
architectural, and archaeological resources (Part X, Objective B). Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will
not support recreational facilities, and will not promote educational use of the stairs.
• Land Use Ordinance
• KPSCP
o The Proposed Action will not support the vision for Ko‘olau Poko’s future as removing Ha‘ikū
Stairs will remove a historic resource and a recreation destination that has become a local
landmark and contribution to the “sense of place.”
o The Proposed Action will not support open space preservation policies that encourage
accessibility of recreational open space in mountain areas for public use.
o The Proposed Action will not support the Mountain Area guideline to “Create public access to
the former USCG Omega Station site, including Ha‘ikū Stairs, and combine this parcel site with
the adjoining City and County of Honolulu parcel for the proposed Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and
Nature Preserve…”
o Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will not support the KPSCP vision of a Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and
Nature Preserve.
o The Proposed Action supports policies and guidelines in Section 3.1.4, Protection of Other
Natural Resources. Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts to
flora and fauna.
o The Proposed Action does not support the Guideline for Passive or Nature Parks to “Acquire
and develop the proposed Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve, including access to
Ha‘ikū Stairs.”
o The Proposed Action will not support policies that encourage preservation of significant historic
resources.
o The Proposed Action will support the policy under 4.2 Water Systems to protect watersheds by
retaining existing acreage that is designated for preservation. The Proposed Action will have an
overall positive effect on O‘ahu’s water systems, as funds currently utilized for security at Ha‘ikū
Stairs will be focused back to assist BWS in implementing the water facilities goals of the KPSCP.
• KPWMP
o Removing Ha‘ikū Stairs will not impact watersheds or development of water resources.
o The Proposed Action supports the sub-objectives under Objective #1 Promote Sustainable
Watersheds, by reducing litter, illegal dumping, impacts to local streams, and the introduction
of invasive species associated with the influx of trespassing hikers through the neighborhoods
and the valley.
o The Proposed Action supports the objective of meeting future water demands at reasonable
cost by eliminating expenditures related to Ha‘ikū Stairs that are not a part of the BWS core
mission, and allowing those funds to be reallocated towards projects and programs within the
scope of the BWS core mission.
5-3
5.1 Federal Controls

This section assesses the relationship of the project with primary and applicable Federal regulatory
controls, which include the CZMA.
5.1.1 Coastal Zone Management Act
In 1972, the Federal government enacted the CZMA to effectively manage, use, protect, and develop
coastal areas in the U.S. The CZMA was a government response to increasing and competing demands
upon habitats and resources of coastal lands and waters. Such demands often resulted in a loss of living
marine resources and wildlife; depleted nutrient-rich areas; shoreline erosion; diminished open space for
public use; and permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems. Under the CZMA, States are
authorized to work in a unified manner with Federal and local governments to develop programs, policies,
evaluation criteria, development standards that lend to the effective protection and prudent use of coastal
lands and waters. The enforcement authority for the Federal Coastal Management Program (Public Law
104-150, as amended in 1996) has been delegated to the State under HRS Chapter 205A, CZM Program.
Discussion: The Proposed Action is not located within the coastal zone as defined by the State of
Hawai‘i. The project improvements are designed to conform to the goals, policies, and objectives of
Hawai‘i’s CZM Program. A full discussion of the plan’s compatibility with HRS 205A is provided in
Section 5.2.6, Coastal Zone Management, Hawai‘i Revised Statues Chapter 205A.
5.2 State of Hawai‘i Plans and Controls

This section assesses the relationship of the Proposed Action to the State’s environmental review
process; State Land Use District designations; the Hawai‘i State Plan; the Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability
Plan; the DHHL O‘ahu Island Plan; the CZMA, and HRS Chapter 205A.
5.2.1 Environmental Impact Statements, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 343
Under HRS Chapter 343 (EISs), the State legislature found that the quality of humanity’s environment
is critical to humanity’s well-being, that humanity’s activities have broad and profound effects upon
the interrelations of all components of the environment, and that an environmental review process is
necessary to integrate the review of environmental concerns with existing planning processes of the
State and counties. This process is to alert decision makers to significant environmental effects which
may result from the implementation of certain actions. HRS Chapter 343 states that a process of
reviewing environmental effects is desirable because environmental consciousness is enhanced,
cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and public participation during the review process
benefits all parties involved and society as a whole. As such, the State has established a system of
environmental review to ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration in
decision making along with economic and technical considerations.
Discussion: This Final Draft EIS has been prepared in compliance with environmental requirements
outlined in HRS Chapter 343 and Chapter 11-200, HAR. An EIS is required for this project since the
project lies on City lands and uses City funds as it is a BWS action. The project is also located on lands
designated as State Land Use Conservation District. An EISPN was published in the OEQC The
Environmental Notice on April 23, 2017. Comment letters received during the EISPN review period
and corresponding response letters are included in Volumes 3 and 4. A Draft EIS was published in the
OEQC The Environmental Notice on June 23, 2019. Comment letters received during the Draft EIS
review period and corresponding response letters are included in the FEIS.
5-4
5.2.2 Land Use Commission, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 205
HRS Chapter 205 establishes the State Land Use Commission as well as defines the four major land
use districts in which all lands in the State of Hawai‘i are classified. These districts include the
following: Urban, Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation. Standards for determining the boundaries for
each district and the allowable uses and activities are defined in statute.
Discussion: Properties on which Ha‘ikū Stairs is located are within the State Land Use Conservation
District. Conservation lands are comprised primarily of lands in existing forest and water reserve zones
and include areas necessary for protecting watersheds and water sources, scenic and historic areas,
parks, wilderness, open space, recreational areas, habitats of endemic plants, fish and wildlife, and
all submerged lands seaward of the shoreline. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs conforms with conservation
district standards to protect and preserve natural resources within the district.
5.2.3 Hawai‘i State Plan, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 226
In 1978, the State Legislature found a need to improve the planning process in the state, to increase
the effectiveness of government and private actions, to improve the coordination among different
agencies and levels of government, and to provide for the wise use of Hawai‘i’s resources to guide the
future development of the state. Under HRS Chapter 226 (Hawai‘i State Planning Act), the Hawai‘i
State Plan serves as a guide for the future long-range development of the state. The Hawai‘i State Plan
identifies the goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for the state; provides a basis for determining
priorities and allocating limited resources, such as public funds, services, human resources, land,
energy, water, and other resources; improves coordination of Federal, State, and County plans,
policies, programs, projects, and regulatory activities; and establishes a system for plan formulation
and program coordination to provide for an integration of all major State and County activities.
Table 5-1 assesses and evaluates how the BWS Ha‘ikū Stairs Proposed Action supports the Hawai‘i
State Plan, as promulgated under HRS Chapter 226. Where appropriate, if the State Plan goals are
not applicable, it is so noted.
Table 5-1 Hawai‘i State Plan, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 226
N/A
N/S
S
S = Supportive, N/S = Not Supportive, N/A = Not Applicable
Section 226-4: State Goals.
In order to guarantee, for the present and future generations, those elements of choice and mobility that insure that
individuals and groups may approach their desired levels of self-reliance and self-determination, it shall be the goal of the
State to achieve:
(1) A strong, viable economy, characterized by stability, diversity, and growth, that enables the fulfillment of
X
the needs and expectations of Hawai’i’s present and future generations
(2) A desired physical environment, characterized by beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable natural systems, and
X
uniqueness, that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people.
(3) Physical, social and economic well-being, for individuals and families in Hawai‘i, that nourishes a sense
X
of community responsibility, of caring, and of participation in community life.
Discussion: The Proposed Action supports the goals of the State to promote a clean, quiet, stable natural environment.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs promotes the well-being of individuals and families in Hawai‘i as hikers pursuing illegal access to
Ha‘ikū Stairs have presented physical danger to the public.
Section 226-5: Objective and Policies for Population.
(A) It shall be the objective in planning for the State’s population to guide population growth to be consistent with the
achievement of physical, economic, and social objectives contained in this chapter;
(B) To achieve the population objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
5-5
N/A
N/S
S
(1) Manage population growth statewide in a manner that provides increased opportunities for Hawai’i’s
people to pursue their physical, social and economic aspirations while recognizing the unique needs X
of each county.
(2) Encourage an increase in economic activities and employment opportunities on the neighbor islands
X
consistent with community needs-and desires.
(3) Promote increased opportunities for Hawai’i's people to pursue their socioeconomic aspirations
X
throughout the islands.
(4) Encourage research activities and public awareness programs to foster an understanding of Hawai’i's
limited capacity to accommodate population needs and to address concerns resulting from an X
increase in Hawai’i's population.
(5) Encourage federal actions and coordination among major governmental agencies to promote a more
balanced distribution of immigrants among states, provided that such actions do not prevent the X
reunion of immediate family members.
(6) Pursue an increase in federal assistance for states with a greater proportion of foreign immigrants
X
relative to their state’s population.
(7) Plan the development and availability of land and water resources in a coordinated manner so as to
X
provide for the desired levels of growth in each geographic area.
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies for population growth, they are not directly applicable to the project.
Section 226-6: Objectives and Policies for the Economy in General.
(A) Planning for the State’s economy in general shall be directed toward achievement of the following objectives:
(1) Increased and diversified employment opportunities to achieve full employment, increased income
X
and job choice, and improved living standards for Hawai’i's people.
(2) A steadily growing and diversified economic base that is not overly dependent on a few industries,
X
and includes the development and expansion of industries on the neighbor islands.
(B) To achieve the general economic objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Expand Hawai’i's national and international marketing, communication, and organizational ties, to
increase the State's capacity to adjust to and capitalize upon economic changes and opportunities X
occurring outside the State.
(2) Promote Hawai’i as an attractive market for environmentally and socially sound investment activities
X
that benefit Hawai’i's people.
(3) Seek broader outlets for new or expanded Hawai’i business investments. X
(4) Expand existing markets and penetrate new markets for Hawai’i's products and services. X
(5) Assure that the basic economic needs of Hawai’i's people are maintained in the event of disruptions
X
in overseas transportation.
(6) Strive to achieve a level of construction activity responsive to, and consistent with, state growth
X
objectives.
(7) Encourage the formation of cooperatives and other favorable marketing arrangements at the local or
X
regional level to assist Hawai’i's small scale producers, manufacturers, and distributors.
(8) Encourage labor-intensive activities that are economically satisfying and which offer opportunities for
X
upward mobility.
(9) Foster greater cooperation and coordination between the government and private sectors in
X
developing Hawai’i's employment and economic growth opportunities.
(10) Stimulate the development and expansion of economic activities which will benefit areas with
X
substantial or expected employment problems.
(11) Maintain acceptable working conditions and standards for Hawai’i's workers. X
(12) Provide equal employment opportunities for all segments of Hawai’i's population through affirmative
X
action and nondiscrimination measures.
(13) Encourage businesses that have favorable financial multiplier effects within Hawai’i's economy. X
(14) Promote and protect intangible resources in Hawai’i, such as scenic beauty and the Aloha spirit,
X
which are vital to a healthy economy.
(15) Increase effective communication between the educational community and the private sector to
develop relevant curricula and training programs to meet future employment needs in general, and X
requirements of new, potential growth industries in particular.
(16) Foster a business climate in Hawai’i - including attitudes, tax and regulatory policies, and financial
and technical assistance programs--that is conducive to the expansion of existing enterprises and X
the creation and attraction of new business and industry.
5-6
N/A
N/S
S
Discussion: While the State’s policies for the economy are generally not applicable to the Proposed Action, removal of Ha‘ikū
Stairs will preclude any economic opportunities associated with managing the trail, and will likewise preclude access to well-
known scenic viewpoints along the way.
Section 226-7 Objectives and Policies for the Economy – Agriculture.
(A) Planning for the State's economy with regard to agriculture shall be directed towards achievement of the following
objectives:
(1) Viability of Hawai’i's sugar and pineapple industries. X
(2) Growth and development of diversified agriculture throughout the State. X
(3) An agriculture industry that continues to constitute a dynamic and essential component of Hawai’i's
X
strategic, economic, and social well-being.
(B) To achieve the agriculture objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Establish a clear direction for Hawai’i's agriculture through stakeholder commitment and advocacy. X
(2) Encourage agriculture by making best use of natural resources. X
(3) Provide the governor and the legislature with information and options needed for prudent decision
X
making for the development of agriculture.
(4) Establish strong relationships between the agricultural and visitor industries for mutual marketing
X
benefits.
(5) Foster increased public awareness and understanding of the contributions and benefits of agriculture
X
as a major sector of Hawai’i's economy.
(6) Seek the enactment and retention of federal and state legislation that benefits Hawai’i's agricultural
X
industries.
(7) Strengthen diversified agriculture by developing an effective promotion, marketing, and distribution
system between Hawai’i's producers and consumer markets locally, on the continental United States, X
and internationally.
(8) Support research and development activities that provide greater efficiency and economic
X
productivity in agriculture.
(9) Enhance agricultural growth by providing public incentives and encouraging private initiatives. X
(10) Assure the availability of agriculturally suitable lands with adequate water to accommodate present
X
and future needs.
(11) Increase the attractiveness and opportunities for an agricultural education and livelihood. X
(12) Expand Hawai’i's agricultural base by promoting growth and development of flowers, tropical fruits
X
and plants, livestock, feed grains, forestry, food crops, aquaculture, and other potential enterprises.
(13) Promote economically competitive activities that increase Hawai’i's agricultural self-sufficiency. X
(14) Promote and assist in the establishment of sound financial programs for diversified agriculture. X
(15) Institute and support programs and activities to assist the entry of displaced agricultural workers into
X
alternative agricultural or other employment.
(16) Facilitate the transition of agricultural lands in economically non-feasible agricultural production to
X
economically viable agricultural uses.
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies for the economy regarding agriculture, they are not directly applicable
to the project.
Section 226-8 Objective and Policies for the Economy - Visitor Industry.
(A) Planning for the State's economy with regard to the visitor industry shall be directed towards the achievement of the
objective of a visitor industry that constitutes a major component of steady growth for Hawai’i's economy.
(B) To achieve the visitor industry objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Support and assist in the promotion of Hawai’i's visitor attractions and facilities. X
(2) Ensure that visitor industry activities are in keeping with the social, economic, and physical needs
X
and aspirations of Hawai’i's people.
(3) Improve the quality of existing visitor destination areas. X
(4) Encourage cooperation and coordination between the government and private sectors in developing
and maintaining well-designed, adequately serviced visitor industry and related developments which X
are sensitive to neighboring communities and activities.
(5) Develop the industry in a manner that will continue to provide new job opportunities and steady
X
employment for Hawai’i's people.
(6) Provide opportunities for Hawai’i's people to obtain job training and education that will allow for
X
upward mobility within the visitor industry.
5-7
N/A
N/S
S
(7) Foster a recognition of the contribution of the visitor industry to Hawai‘i's economy and the need to
X
perpetuate the aloha spirit.
(8) Foster an understanding by visitors of the aloha spirit and of the unique and sensitive character of
X
Hawai’i's cultures and values.
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies for the economy regarding the visitor industry, most policies are not
directly applicable to the project. The Proposed Action will not improve the quality of an existing visitor destination.
Section 226-9 Objective and Policies for the Economy - Federal Expenditures.
(A) Planning for the State's economy with regard to federal expenditures shall be directed towards achievement of the
objective of a stable federal investment base as an integral component of Hawai‘i's economy.
(B) To achieve the federal expenditures objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Encourage the sustained flow of federal expenditures in Hawai’i that generates long-term government
X
civilian employment.
(2) Promote Hawai‘i's supportive role in national defense. X
(3) Promote the development of federally supported activities in Hawai’i that respect state-wide
economic concerns, are sensitive to community needs, and minimize adverse impacts on Hawai’i's X
environment.
(4) Increase opportunities for entry and advancement of Hawai’i's people into federal government
X
service.
(5) Promote federal use of local commodities, services, and facilities available in Hawai’i. X
(6) Strengthen federal-state-county communication and coordination in all federal activities that affect
X
Hawai’i.
(7) Pursue the return of federally controlled lands in Hawai’i that are not required for either the defense
of the nation or for other purposes of national importance, and promote the mutually beneficial X
exchanges of land between federal agencies, the State, and the counties.
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to economy and federal expenditures, they are not directly
applicable to the project.
Section 226-10 Objective and Policies for the Economy - Potential Growth Activities.
(A) Planning for the State's economy with regard to potential growth activities shall be directed towards achievement of the
objective of development and expansion of potential growth activities that serve to increase and diversify Hawai’i's
economic base.
(B) To achieve the potential growth activity objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Facilitate investment and employment in economic activities that have the potential for growth such
as diversified agriculture, aquaculture, apparel and textile manufacturing, film and television X
production, and energy and marine-related industries.
(2) Expand Hawai’i's capacity to attract and service international programs and activities that generate
X
employment for Hawai’i's people.
(3) Enhance and promote Hawai’i's role as a center for international relations, trade, finance, services,
X
technology, education, culture, and the arts.
(4) Accelerate research and development of new energy-related industries based on wind, solar, ocean,
X
and underground resources and solid waste.
(5) Promote Hawai’i's geographic, environmental, social, and technological advantages to attract new
X
economic activities into the State.
(6) Provide public incentives and encourage private initiative to attract new industries that best support
X
Hawai’i's social, economic, physical, and environmental objectives.
(7) Increase research and the development of ocean-related economic activities such as mining, food
X
production, and scientific research.
(8) Develop, promote, and support research and educational and training programs that will enhance
X
Hawai’i's ability to attract and develop economic activities of benefit to Hawai’i.
(9) Foster a broader public recognition and understanding of the potential benefits of new, growth-
X
oriented industry in Hawai’i.
(10) Encourage the development and implementation of joint federal and state initiatives to attract federal
programs and projects that will support Hawai’i's social, economic, physical, and environmental X
objectives.
(11) Increase research and development of businesses and services in the telecommunications and
X
information industries.
5-8
N/A
N/S
S
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to economy and potential growth activities, they are not directly
Section 226-10.5 Objectives and Policies for the Economy - Information Industry.
(A) Planning for the State's economy with regard to the information industry shall be directed toward the achievement of
the objective of positioning Hawai’i as the leading dealer in information businesses and services in the Pacific Rim.
(B) To achieve the information industry objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Encourage the continued development and expansion of the telecommunications infrastructure
X
serving Hawai’i to accommodate future growth in the information industry;
(2) Facilitate the development of new business and service ventures in the information industry which
X
will provide employment opportunities for the people of Hawai’i;
(3) Encourage greater cooperation between the public and private sectors in developing and maintaining
X
a well- designed information industry;
(4) Ensure that the development of new businesses and services in the industry are in keeping with the
X
social, economic, and physical needs and aspirations of Hawai’i's people;
(5) Provide opportunities for Hawai’i's people to obtain job training and education that will allow for
X
upward mobility within the information industry;
(6) Foster a recognition of the contribution of the information industry to Hawai’i's economy; and X
(7) Assist in the promotion of Hawai’i as a broker, creator, and processor of information in the Pacific. X
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to economy and the information industry, they are not directly
Section 226-11 Objectives and Policies for the Physical Environment - Land-based, Shoreline, and Marine Resources.
(A) Planning for the State's physical environment with regard to land-based, shoreline and marine resources shall be
directed towards achievement of the following objectives:
(1) Prudent use of Hawai’i's land-based, shoreline, and marine resources. X
(2) Effective protection of Hawai’i's unique and fragile environmental resources. X
(B) To achieve the land-based, shoreline, and marine resources objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Exercise an overall conservation ethic in the use of Hawai’i's natural resources. X
(2) Ensure compatibility between land-based and water-based activities and natural resources and
X
ecological systems.
(3) Take into account the physical attributes of areas when planning and designing activities and
X
facilities.
(4) Manage natural resources and environs to encourage their beneficial and multiple uses without
X
generating costly or irreparable environmental damage.
(5) Consider multiple uses in watershed areas, provided such uses do not detrimentally affect water
X
quality and recharge functions.
(6) Encourage the protection of rare or endangered plant and animal species and habitats native to
X
Hawai’i.
(7) Provide public incentives that encourage private actions to protect significant natural resources from
X
degradation or unnecessary depletion.
(8) Pursue compatible relationships among activities, facilities and natural resources. X
(9) Promote increased accessibility and prudent use of inland and shoreline areas for public recreational,
X
educational and scientific purposes.
Discussion: The Proposed Action will support a conservation ethic and protection of native habitat by discouraging illegal
access that could potentially damage the natural environment. However, through the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, the
environment will be disturbed temporarily during extraction of stair segments. In addition, multiple uses in watershed areas
will be foregone, compatible relationships between facilities and natural resources will not be pursued, and accessibility to
inland areas for public recreational, educational and scientific purposes will not be promoted.
Section 226-12 Objective and Policies for the Physical Environment - Scenic, Natural Beauty, and Historic Resources.
(A) Planning for the State's physical environment shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of enhancement
of Hawai’i's scenic assets, natural beauty, and multi-cultural/historical resources.
(B) To achieve the scenic, natural beauty, and historic resources objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Promote the preservation and restoration of significant natural and historic resources. X
(2) Provide incentives to maintain and enhance historic, cultural, and scenic amenities. X
(3) Promote the preservation of views and vistas to enhance the visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
X
mountains, ocean, scenic landscapes, and other natural features.
5-9
N/A
N/S
S
(4) Protect those special areas, structures, and elements that are an integral and functional part of
X
Hawai’i's ethnic and cultural heritage.
(5) Encourage the design of developments and activities that complement the natural beauty of the
X
islands.
Discussion: The Proposed Action will not meet most of the State’s policies for scenic, natural beauty and historic resources.
The Proposed Action will remove a historic resource, remove an access route to a scenic vista that will promote enjoyment
of the mountains, ocean and scenic landscape, and remove a structure that is part of Hawai’i's heritage.
Section 226-13 Objectives and Policies for the Physical Environment - Land, Air, and Water Quality.
(A) Planning for the State's physical environment with regard to land, air, and water quality shall be directed towards
achievement of the following objectives:
(1) Maintenance and pursuit of improved quality in Hawai’i's land, air, and water resources. X
(2) Greater public awareness and appreciation of Hawai’i's environmental resources. X
(B) To achieve the land, air, and water quality objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Foster educational activities that promote a better understanding of Hawai’i's limited environmental
X
resources.
(2) Promote the proper management of Hawai’i's land and water resources. X
(3) Promote effective measures to achieve desired quality in Hawai’i's surface, ground and coastal
X
waters.
(4) Encourage actions to maintain or improve aural and air quality levels to enhance the health and well-
X
being of Hawai’i's people.
(5) Reduce the threat to life and property from erosion, flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes,
X
volcanic eruptions, and other natural or man-induced hazards and disasters.
(6) Encourage design and construction practices that enhance the physical qualities of Hawai’i's
X
communities.
(7) Encourage urban developments in close proximity to existing services and facilities. X
(8) Foster recognition of the importance and value of the land, air, and water resources to Hawai’i's
X
people, their cultures and visitors.
Discussion: BWS supports the State’s policies related to proper management of water. The core mission of BWS is to provide
a safe, dependable, and affordable water supply for the people of O‘ahu. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will redirect financial
resources currently utilized for security back to support BWS’s core mission and allow for better maintenance and
management of BWS’s existing water resources.
Section 226-14 Objective and Policies for Facility Systems - In General.
(A) Planning for the State's facility systems in general shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of water,
transportation, waste disposal, and energy and telecommunication systems that support statewide social, economic,
and physical objectives.
(B) To achieve the general facility systems objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Accommodate the needs of Hawai’i's people through coordination of facility systems and capital
X
improvement priorities in consonance with state and county plans.
(2) Encourage flexibility in the design and development of facility systems to promote prudent use of
X
resources and accommodate changing public demands and priorities.
(3) Ensure that required facility systems can be supported within resource capacities and at reasonable
X
cost to the user.
(4) Pursue alternative methods of financing programs and projects and cost-saving techniques in the
X
planning, construction, and maintenance of facility systems.
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to facility systems, they are not directly applicable to the project.
226-15 Objectives and Policies for Facility Systems - Solid and Liquid Wastes.
(A) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to solid and liquid wastes shall be directed towards the achievement
of the following objectives:
(1) Maintenance of basic public health and sanitation standards relating to treatment and disposal of
X
solid and liquid wastes.
(2) Provision of adequate sewerage facilities for physical and economic activities that alleviate problems
X
in housing, employment, mobility, and other areas.
(B) To achieve solid and liquid waste objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Encourage the adequate development of sewerage facilities that complement planned growth. X
(2) Promote re-use and recycling to reduce solid and liquid wastes and employ a conservation ethic. X
5-10
N/A
N/S
S
(3) Promote research to develop more efficient and economical treatment and disposal of solid and
X
liquid wastes.
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to facility systems and solid and liquid wastes, they are not
directly applicable to the project.
226-16 Objective and Policies for Facility Systems - Water.
(A) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to water shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of
the provision of water to adequately accommodate domestic, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and
other needs within resource capacities.
(B) To achieve the facility systems water objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Coordinate development of land use activities with existing and potential water supply. X
(2) Support research and development of alternative methods to meet future water requirements well in
X
advance of anticipated needs.
(3) Reclaim and encourage the productive use of runoff water and wastewater discharges. X
(4) Assist in improving the quality, efficiency, service, and storage capabilities of water systems for
X
domestic and agricultural use.
(5) Support water supply services to areas experiencing critical water problems. X
(6) Promote water conservation programs and practices in government, private industry, and the general
X
public to help ensure adequate water to meet long-term needs.
Discussion: As a water supply agency, BWS supports the State’s policies related to water facility systems. Although most
policies are not directly applicable, the Proposed Action will improve quality and efficiency of water provision systems by
freeing up funds that can be refocused back on BWS’s core mission of providing safe, safe, dependable, and affordable
drinking water.
226-17 Objectives and Policies for Facility Systems - Transportation.
(A) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to transportation shall be directed towards the achievement of the
following objectives:
(1) An integrated multi-modal transportation system that services statewide needs and promotes the
X
efficient, economical, safe, and convenient movement of people and goods.
(2) A statewide transportation system that is consistent with and will accommodate planned growth
X
objectives throughout the State.
(B) To achieve the transportation objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Design, program, and develop a multi-modal system in conformance with desired growth and physical
X
development as stated in this chapter;
(2) Coordinate state, county, federal, and private transportation activities and programs toward the
X
achievement of statewide objectives;
(3) Encourage a reasonable distribution of financial responsibilities for transportation among
X
participating governmental and private parties;
(4) Provide for improved accessibility to shipping, docking, and storage facilities; X
(5) Promote a reasonable level and variety of mass transportation services that adequately meet
X
statewide and community needs;
(6) Encourage transportation systems that serve to accommodate present and future development
X
needs of communities;
(7) Encourage a variety of carriers to offer increased opportunities and advantages to inter-island
X
movement of people and goods;
(8) Increase the capacities of airport and harbor systems and support facilities to effectively
X
accommodate transshipment and storage needs;
(9) Encourage the development of transportation systems and programs which would assist statewide
X
economic growth and diversification;
(10) Encourage the design and development of transportation systems sensitive to the needs of affected
X
communities and the quality of Hawai’i's natural environment;
(11) Encourage safe and convenient use of low-cost, energy-efficient, non-polluting means of
X
transportation;
(12) Coordinate intergovernmental land use and transportation planning activities to ensure the timely
delivery of supporting transportation infrastructure in order to accommodate planned growth X
objectives; and
(13) Encourage diversification of transportation modes and infrastructure to promote alternate fuels and
X
energy efficiency.
5-11
N/A
N/S
S
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to transportation systems, they are not directly applicable to
the project.
226-18 Objectives and Policies for Facility Systems - Energy.
(A) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to energy shall be directed toward the achievement of the following
objectives, giving due consideration to all:
(1) Dependable, efficient, and economical statewide energy systems capable of supporting the needs of
X
the people;
(2) Increased energy self-sufficiency where the ratio of indigenous to imported energy use is increased; X
(3) Greater energy security in the face of threats to Hawai’i's energy supplies and systems; and X
(4) Reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions from energy supply and use. X
(B) To achieve the energy objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to ensure the provision of adequate, reasonably
priced, and dependable energy services to accommodate demand.
(C) To further achieve the energy objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Support research and development as well as promote the use of renewable energy sources; X
(2) Ensure that the combination of energy supplies and energy-saving systems is sufficient to support
X
the demands of growth;
(3) Base decisions of least-cost supply-side and demand-side energy resource options on a comparison
of their total costs and benefits when a least-cost is determined by a reasonably comprehensive,
X
quantitative, and qualitative accounting of their long-term, direct and indirect economic,
environmental, social, cultural, and public health costs and benefits;
(4) Promote all cost-effective conservation of power and fuel supplies through measures including: (A)
Development of cost-effective demand-side management programs; (B) Education; and (C) Adoption X
of energy-efficient practices and technologies;
(5) Ensure to the extent that new supply-side resources are needed, the development or expansion of
X
energy systems utilizes the least-cost energy supply option and maximizes efficient technologies;
(6) Support research, development, and demonstration of energy efficiency, load management, and
X
other demand-side management programs, practices, and technologies;
(7) Promote alternate fuels and energy efficiency by encouraging diversification of transportation modes
X
and infrastructure;
(8) Support actions that reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gases in utility, transportation, and
X
industrial sector applications; and
(9) Support actions that reduce, avoid, or sequester Hawai’i's greenhouse gas emissions through
X
agriculture and forestry initiatives.
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to facility systems with regard to energy, they are not directly
226-18.5 Objectives and Policies for Facility Systems - Telecommunications.
(A) Planning for the State's telecommunications facility systems shall be directed towards the achievement of dependable,
efficient, and economical statewide telecommunications systems capable of supporting the needs of the people.
(B) To achieve the telecommunications objective, it shall be the policy of this State to ensure the provision of adequate,
reasonably priced, and dependable telecommunications services to accommodate demand.
(C) To further achieve the telecommunications objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Facilitate research and development of telecommunications systems and resources; X
(2) Encourage public and private sector efforts to develop means for adequate, ongoing
X
telecommunications planning;
(3) Promote efficient management and use of existing telecommunications systems and services; and X
(4) Facilitate the development of education and training of telecommunications personnel. X
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to facility systems with regard to telecommunications, they are
not directly applicable to the project.
226-19 Objectives and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement - Housing.
(A) Planning for the State's socio-cultural advancement with regard to housing shall be directed toward the achievement of
the following objectives:
(1) Greater opportunities for Hawai’i's people to secure reasonably priced, safe, sanitary, and livable
homes, located in suitable environments that satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of X
families and individuals, through collaboration and cooperation between government and nonprofit
5-12
N/A
N/S
S
and for-profit developers to ensure that more affordable housing is made available to very low-, low-
and moderate-income segments of Hawai’i's population.
(2) The orderly development of residential areas sensitive to community needs and other land uses. X
(3) The development and provision of affordable rental housing by the State to meet the housing needs
X
of Hawai’i's people.
(B) To achieve the housing objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Effectively accommodate the housing needs of Hawai’i's people. X
(2) Stimulate and promote feasible approaches that increase housing choices for low-income, moderate-
X
income, and gap-group households.
(3) Increase homeownership and rental opportunities and choices in terms of quality, location, cost,
X
densities, style, and size of housing.
(4) Promote appropriate improvement, rehabilitation, and maintenance of existing housing units and
X
residential areas.
(5) Promote design and location of housing developments taking into account the physical setting,
accessibility to public facilities and services, and other concerns of existing communities and X
surrounding areas.
(6) Facilitate the use of available vacant, developable, and underutilized urban lands for housing. X
(7) Foster a variety of lifestyles traditional to Hawai’i through the design and maintenance of
X
neighborhoods that reflect the culture and values of the community.
(8) Promote research and development of methods to reduce the cost of housing construction in Hawai’i. X
Discussion: Residential development, such as new condominiums or conversion, is not proposed in the BWS Ha‘ikū Stairs
project.
226-20 Objectives and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement - Health.
(A) Planning for the State's socio-cultural advancement with regard to health shall be directed towards achievement of the
following objectives:
(1) Fulfillment of basic individual health needs of the general public. X
(2) Maintenance of sanitary and environmentally healthful conditions in Hawai’i's communities. X
(B) To achieve the health objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Provide adequate and accessible services and facilities for prevention and treatment of physical and
X
mental health problems, including substance abuse.
(2) Encourage improved cooperation among public and private sectors in the provision of health care to
X
accommodate the total health needs of individuals throughout the State.
(3) Encourage public and private efforts to develop and promote statewide and local strategies to reduce
X
health care and related insurance costs.
(4) Foster an awareness of the need for personal health maintenance and preventive health care
X
through education and other measures.
(5) Provide programs, services, and activities that ensure environmentally healthful and sanitary
X
conditions.
(6) Improve the State's capabilities in preventing contamination by pesticides and other potentially
X
hazardous substances through increased coordination, education, monitoring, and enforcement.
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to socio-cultural advancement regarding health, they are not
226-21 Objective and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement - Education.
(A) Planning for the State's socio-cultural advancement with regard to education shall be directed towards achievement of
the objective of the provision of a variety of educational opportunities to enable individuals to fulfill their needs,
responsibilities, and aspirations.
(B) To achieve the education objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Support educational programs and activities that enhance personal development, physical fitness,
X
recreation, and cultural pursuits of all groups.
(2) Ensure the provision of adequate and accessible educational services and facilities that are designed
X
to meet individual and community needs.
(3) Provide appropriate educational opportunities for groups with special needs. X
(4) Promote educational programs which enhance understanding of Hawai’i’s cultural heritage. X
(5) Provide higher educational opportunities that enable Hawai’i’s people to adapt to changing
X
employment demands.
5-13
N/A
N/S
S
(6) Assist individuals, especially those experiencing critical employment problems or barriers, or
undergoing employment transitions, by providing appropriate employment training programs and X
other related educational opportunities.
(7) Promote programs and activities that facilitate the acquisition of basic skills, such as reading, writing,
X
computing, listening, speaking, and reasoning.
(8) Emphasize quality educational programs in Hawai’i’s institutions to promote academic excellence. X
(9) Support research programs and activities that enhance the education programs of the State. X
Discussion: While BWS supports the State’s policies related to socio-cultural advancement regarding education, they are
226-22 Objective and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement - Social Services.
(A) Planning for the State's socio-cultural advancement with regard to social services shall be directed towards the
achievement of the objective of improved public and private social services and activities that enable individuals,
families, and groups to become more self-reliant and confident to improve their well-being.
(B) To achieve the social service objective, it shall be the policy of the State to:
(1) Assist individuals, especially those in need of attaining a minimally adequate standard of living and
those confronted by social and economic hardship conditions, through social services and activities X
within the State's fiscal capacities.
(2) Promote coordination and integrative approaches among public and private agencies and programs
to jointly address social problems that will enable individuals, families, and groups to deal effectively X
with social problems and to enhance their participation in society.
(3) Facilitate the adjustment of new residents, especially recently arrived immigrants, into Hawai’i's
X
communities.
(4) Promote alternatives to institutional care in the provision of long-term care for elder and disabled
X
populations.
(5) Support public and private efforts to prevent domestic abuse and child molestation, and assist
X
victims of abuse and neglect.
(6) Promote programs which assist people in need of family planning services to enable them to meet
X
their needs.
Discussion: BWS supports the policies for government actions for socio-cultural advancement, social services. However, the
Proposed Action is not directly applicable to these policies.
226-23 Objective and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement - Leisure.
(A) Planning for the State's socio-cultural advancement with regard to leisure shall be directed towards the achievement of
the objective of the adequate provision of resources to accommodate diverse cultural, artistic, and recreational needs
for present and future generations.
(B) To achieve the leisure objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Foster and preserve Hawai’i's multi-cultural heritage through supportive cultural, artistic,
X
recreational, and humanities-oriented programs and activities.
(2) Provide a wide range of activities and facilities to fulfill the cultural, artistic, and recreational needs
X
of all diverse and special groups effectively and efficiently.
(3) Enhance the enjoyment of recreational experiences through safety and security measures,
X
educational opportunities, and improved facility design and maintenance.
(4) Promote the recreational and educational potential of natural resources having scenic, open space,
cultural, historical, geological, or biological values while ensuring that their inherent values are X
preserved.
(5) Ensure opportunities for everyone to use and enjoy Hawai’i's recreational resources. X
(6) Assure the availability of sufficient resources to provide for future cultural, artistic, and recreational
X
needs.
(7) Provide adequate and accessible physical fitness programs to promote the physical and mental well-
X
being of Hawai’i's people.
(8) Increase opportunities for appreciation and participation in the creative arts, including the literary,
X
theatrical, visual, musical, folk, and traditional art forms.
(9) Encourage the development of creative expression in the artistic disciplines to enable all segments
X
of Hawai’i's population to participate in the creative arts.
(10) Assure adequate access to significant natural and cultural resources in public ownership. X
5-14
N/A
N/S
S
Discussion: Most State socio-cultural policies focusing on leisure are not applicable to the Proposed Action, however, the
action to remove Ha‘ikū Stair will not support the policy promoting recreational potential of natural resources with scenic
and historical values. Removal will prevent adequate access to significant natural and historic resources in public
ownership. Any potential economic opportunities associated with managing the trail will not be available.
226-24 Objective and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement - Individual Rights and Personal Well-Being.
(A) Planning for the State's socio-cultural advancement with regard to individual rights and personal well-being shall be
directed towards achievement of the objective of increased opportunities and protection of individual rights to enable
individuals to fulfill their socio-economic needs and aspirations.
(B) To achieve the individual rights and personal well- being objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Provide effective services and activities that protect individuals from criminal acts and unfair
practices and that alleviate the consequences of criminal acts in order to foster a safe and secure X
environment.
(2) Uphold and protect the national and state constitutional rights of every individual. X
(3) Assure access to, and availability of, legal assistance, consumer protection, and other public services
X
which strive to attain social justice.
(4) Ensure equal opportunities for individual participation in society. X
Discussion: BWS supports the policies for government actions for socio-cultural advancement regarding individual rights
and personal well-being. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will eliminate illegal access through private property and reduce crime
and criminal property damage, both of which will help provide residents a sense of safety and well-being.
226-25 Objective and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement - Culture.
(A) Planning for the State's socio- cultural advancement with regard to culture shall be directed toward the achievement of
the objective of enhancement of cultural identities, traditions, values, customs, and arts of Hawai’i's people.
(B) To achieve the culture objective, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Foster increased knowledge and understanding of Hawai’i's ethnic and cultural heritages and the
X
history of Hawai’i.
(2) Support activities and conditions that promote cultural values, customs, and arts that enrich the
X
lifestyles of Hawai’i's people and which are sensitive and responsive to family and community needs.
(3) Encourage increased awareness of the effects of proposed public and private actions on the integrity
X
and quality of cultural and community lifestyles in Hawai’i.
(4) Encourage the essence of the aloha spirit in people's daily activities to promote harmonious
X
relationships among Hawai’i's people and visitors.
Discussion: BWS supports the state policies for socio-cultural advancement regarding cultural advancement. However, the
Proposed Action is not directly applicable to these policies.
226-26 Objectives and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement - Public Safety.
(A) Planning for the State's socio- cultural advancement with regard to public safety shall be directed towards the
achievement of the following objectives:
(1) Assurance of public safety and adequate protection of life and property for all people. X
(2) Optimum organizational readiness and capability in all phases of emergency management to
maintain the strength, resources, and social and economic well-being of the community in the event X
of civil disruptions, wars, natural disasters, and other major disturbances.
(3) Promotion of a sense of community responsibility for the welfare and safety of Hawai’i's people. X
(B) To achieve the public safety objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Ensure that public safety programs are effective and responsive to community needs. X
(2) Encourage increased community awareness and participation in public safety programs. X
(C) To further achieve public safety objectives related to criminal justice, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Support criminal justice programs aimed at preventing and curtailing criminal activities. X
(2) Develop a coordinated, systematic approach to criminal justice administration among all criminal
X
justice agencies.
(3) Provide a range of correctional resources which may include facilities and alternatives to traditional
incarceration in order to address the varied security needs of the community and successfully X
reintegrate offenders into the community.
(D) To further achieve public safety objectives related to emergency management, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Ensure that responsible organizations are in a proper state of readiness to respond to major war-
X
related, natural, or technological disasters and civil disturbances at all times.
(2) Enhance the coordination between emergency management programs throughout the State. X
5-15
N/A
N/S
S
Discussion: BWS takes the responsibility of the wellness and safety of the public seriously. The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs
supports these state policies by reducing trespassing hikers on private property, reducing risk of emergencies and unlawful
activities on-site.
226-27 Objectives and Policies for Socio-Cultural Advancement - Government.
(A) Planning the State's socio-cultural advancement with regard to government shall be directed towards the achievement
of the following objectives:
(1) Efficient, effective, and responsive government services at all levels in the State. X
(2) Fiscal integrity, responsibility, and efficiency in the state government and county governments. X
(B) To achieve the government objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to:
(1) Provide for necessary public goods and services not assumed by the private sector. X
(2) Pursue an openness and responsiveness in government that permits the flow of public information,
X
interaction, and response.
(3) Minimize the size of government to that necessary to be effective. X
(4) Stimulate the responsibility in citizens to productively participate in government for a better Hawai’i. X
(5) Assure that government attitudes, actions, and services are sensitive to community needs and
X
concerns.
(6) Provide for a balanced fiscal budget. X
(7) Improve the fiscal budgeting and management system of the State. X
(8) Promote the consolidation of state and county governmental functions to increase the effective and
efficient delivery of government programs and services and to eliminate duplicative services X
wherever feasible.
Discussion: Although most of the policies related to the operation of State government are not directly applicable to the
Proposed Action, Ha‘ikū Valley residents have been asking for the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs for 20 years, and removing them
will support government sensitivity to the concerns of individuals in the adjacent residential community. However, the
Proposed Action will not be sensitive to individuals in the wider community that support keeping Ha‘ikū Stairs.
Hawai’i State Plan - HRS Ch. 226 - Part III. Priority Guideline
226-101 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to establish overall priority guidelines to address areas of statewide concern.
226-102 Overall Direction.
The State shall strive to improve the quality of life for Hawai’i’s present and future population through the pursuit of desirable
courses of action in five major areas of statewide concern which merit priority attention: economic development, population
growth and land resource management, affordable housing, crime and criminal justice, and quality education.
226-103 Economic Priority Guidelines.
(A) Priority guidelines to stimulate economic growth and encourage business expansion and development to provide
needed jobs for Hawai’i’s people and achieve a stable and diversified economy:
(1) Seek a variety of means to increase the availability of investment capital for new and expanding enterprises.
(a) Encourage investments which:
(i) Reflect long term commitments to the State; X
(ii) Rely on economic linkages within the local economy; X
(iii) Diversify the economy; X
(iv) Reinvest in the local economy; X
(v) Are sensitive to community needs and priorities; and X
(vi) Demonstrate a commitment to provide management opportunities to Hawai’i residents. X
(2) Encourage the expansion of technological research to assist industry development and support the
X
development and commercialization of technological advancements.
(3) Improve the quality, accessibility, and range of services provided by government to business, including
X
data and reference services and assistance in complying with governmental regulations.
(4) Seek to ensure that state business tax, labor laws, and administrative policies are equitable, rational, and
X
predictable.
(5) Streamline the building and development permit and review process, and eliminate or consolidate other
burdensome or duplicative governmental requirements imposed on business, where public health, safety X
and welfare would not be adversely affected.
(6) Encourage the formation of cooperatives and other favorable marketing or distribution arrangements at
X
the regional or local level to assist Hawai’i’s small-scale producers, manufacturers, and distributors.
5-16
N/A
N/S
S
(7) Continue to seek legislation to protect Hawai’i from transportation interruptions between Hawai’i and the
X
continental United States.
(8) Provide public incentives and encourage private initiative to develop and attract industries which promise long-term
growth potentials and which have the following characteristics:
(a) An industry that can take advantage of Hawai’i’s unique location and available physical and human
X
resources.
(b) A clean industry that would have minimal adverse effects on Hawai’i’s environment. X
(c) An industry that is willing to hire and train Hawai’i’s people to meet the industry's labor needs at all
X
levels of employment.
(d) An industry that would provide reasonable income and steady employment. X
(9) Support and encourage, through educational and technical assistance programs and other means,
X
expanded opportunities for employee ownership and participation in Hawai’i business.
(10) Enhance the quality of Hawai’i’s labor force and develop and maintain career opportunities for Hawai’i’s people through
the following actions:
(A) Expand vocational training in diversified agriculture, aquaculture, information industry, and other areas
X
where growth is desired and feasible.
(B) Encourage more effective career counseling and guidance in high schools and post-secondary
X
institutions to inform students of present and future career opportunities.
(C) Allocate educational resources to career areas where high employment is expected and where growth
X
of new industries is desired.
(D) Promote career opportunities in all industries for Hawai’i’s people by encouraging firms doing business
X
in the State to hire residents.
(E) Promote greater public and private sector cooperation in determining industrial training needs and in
X
developing relevant curricula and on- the-job training opportunities.
(F) Provide retraining programs and other support services to assist entry of displaced workers into
X
alternative employment.
(B) Priority guidelines to promote the economic health and quality of the visitor industry:
(1) Promote visitor satisfaction by fostering an environment which enhances the Aloha Spirit and minimizes
X
inconveniences to Hawai’i's residents and visitors.
(2) Encourage the development and maintenance of well- designed, adequately serviced hotels and resort
destination areas which are sensitive to neighboring communities and activities and which provide for X
adequate shoreline setbacks and beach access.
(3) Support appropriate capital improvements to enhance the quality of existing resort destination areas and
X
provide incentives to encourage investment in upgrading, repair, and maintenance of visitor facilities.
(4) Encourage visitor industry practices and activities which respect, preserve, and enhance Hawai’i’s
X
significant natural, scenic, historic, and cultural resources.
(5) Develop and maintain career opportunities in the visitor industry for Hawai’i’s people, with emphasis on
X
managerial positions.
(6) Support and coordinate tourism promotion abroad to enhance Hawai’i's share of existing and potential
X
visitor markets.
(7) Maintain and encourage a more favorable resort investment climate consistent with the objectives of this
X
chapter.
(8) Support law enforcement activities that provide a safer environment for both visitors and residents alike. X
(9) Coordinate visitor industry activities and promotions to business visitors through the state network of
X
advanced data communication techniques.
(C) Priority guidelines to promote the continued viability of the sugar and pineapple industries:
(1) Provide adequate agricultural lands to support the economic viability of the sugar and pineapple
X
industries.
(2) Continue efforts to maintain federal support to provide stable sugar prices high enough to allow profitable
X
operations in Hawai’i.
(3) Support research and development, as appropriate, to improve the quality and production of sugar and
X
pineapple crops.
(D) Priority guidelines to promote the growth and development of diversified agriculture and aquaculture:
(1) Identify, conserve, and protect agricultural and aquacultural lands of importance and initiate affirmative
and comprehensive programs to promote economically productive agricultural and aquacultural uses of X
such lands.
(2) Assist in providing adequate, reasonably priced water for agricultural activities. X
5-17
N/A
N/S
S
(3) Encourage public and private investment to increase water supply and to improve transmission, storage,
X
and irrigation facilities in support of diversified agriculture and aquaculture.
(4) Assist in the formation and operation of production and marketing associations and cooperatives to
X
reduce production and marketing costs.
(5) Encourage and assist with the development of a waterborne and airborne freight and cargo system
X
capable of meeting the needs of Hawai’i's agricultural community.
(6) Seek favorable freight rates for Hawai’i's agricultural products from inter-island and overseas
X
transportation operators.
(7) Encourage the development and expansion of agricultural and aquacultural activities which offer long-
X
term economic growth potential and employment opportunities.
(8) Continue the development of agricultural parks and other programs to assist small independent farmers
X
in securing agricultural lands and loans.
(9) Require agricultural uses in agricultural subdivisions and closely monitor the uses in these subdivisions. X
(10) Support the continuation of land currently in use for diversified agriculture. X
(E) Priority guidelines for water use and development:
(1) Maintain and improve water conservation programs to reduce the overall water consumption rate. X
(2) Encourage the improvement of irrigation technology and promote the use of non-potable water for
X
agricultural and landscaping purposes.
(3) Increase the support for research and development of economically feasible alternative water sources. X
(4) Explore alternative funding sources and approaches to support future water development programs and
X
water system improvements.
(F) Priority guidelines for energy use and development:
(1) Encourage the development, demonstration, and commercialization of renewable energy sources. X
(2) Initiate, maintain, and improve energy conservation programs aimed at reducing energy waste and
X
increasing public awareness of the need to conserve energy.
(3) Provide incentives to encourage the use of energy conserving technology in residential, industrial, and
X
other buildings.
(4) Encourage the development and use of energy conserving and cost-efficient transportation systems. X
(G) Priority guidelines to promote the development of the information industry:
(1) Establish an information network that will serve as the catalyst for establishing a viable information
X
industry in Hawai’i.
(2) Encourage the development of services such as financial data processing, products and services
exchange, foreign language translations, telemarketing, teleconferencing, a twenty-four-hour international X
stock exchange, international banking, and a Pacific Rim management center.
(3) Encourage the development of small businesses in the information field such as software development,
the development of new information systems and peripherals, data conversion and data entry services, X
and home or cottage services such as computer programming, secretarial, and accounting services.
(4) Encourage the development or expansion of educational and training opportunities for residents in the
X
information and telecommunications fields.
(5) Encourage research activities, including legal research in the information and telecommunications fields. X
(6) Support promotional activities to market Hawai’i's information industry services. X
Discussion: BWS supports the Hawai‘i State Plan Priority Guideline Policy regarding economic priority guidelines. However,
the Proposed Action is not directly applicable to these policies.
226-104 Population Growth and Land Resources Priority Guidelines.
(A) Priority guidelines to effect desired statewide growth and distribution:
(1) Encourage planning and resource management to iensure that population growth rates throughout the
State are consistent with available and planned resource capacities and reflect the needs and desires of X
Hawai’i's people.
(2) Manage a growth rate for Hawai’i's economy that will parallel future employment needs for Hawai’i's
X
people.
(3) Ensure that adequate support services and facilities are provided to accommodate the desired
X
distribution of future growth throughout the State.
(4) Encourage major state and federal investments and services to promote economic development and
X
private investment to the neighbor islands, as appropriate.
5-18
N/A
N/S
S
(5) Explore the possibility of making available urban land, low-interest loans, and housing subsidies to
encourage the provision of housing to support selective economic and population growth on the neighbor X
islands.
(6) Seek federal funds and other funding sources outside the State for research, program development, and
X
training to provide future employment opportunities on the neighbor islands.
(7) Support the development of high technology parks on the neighbor islands. X
(B) Priority guidelines for regional growth distribution and land resource utilization:
(1) Encourage urban growth primarily to existing urban areas where adequate public facilities are already
available or can be provided with reasonable public expenditures, and away from areas where other
X
important benefits are present, such as protection of important agricultural land or preservation of
lifestyles.
(2) Make available marginal or nonessential agricultural lands for appropriate urban uses while maintaining
X
agricultural lands of importance in the agricultural district.
(3) Restrict development when drafting of water would result in exceeding the sustainable yield or in
X
significantly diminishing the recharge capacity of any groundwater area.
(4) Encourage restriction of new urban development in areas where water is insufficient from any source for
X
both agricultural and domestic use.
(5) In order to preserve green belts, give priority to state capital-improvement funds which encourage location
of urban development within existing urban areas except where compelling public interest dictates X
development of a noncontiguous new urban core.
(6) Seek participation from the private sector for the cost of building infrastructure and utilities, and
X
maintaining open spaces.
(7) Pursue rehabilitation of appropriate urban areas. X
(8) Support the redevelopment of Kaka’ako into a viable residential, industrial, and commercial community. X
(9) Direct future urban development away from critical environmental areas or impose mitigating measures
X
so that negative impacts on the environment would be minimized.
(10) Identify critical environmental areas in Hawai’i to include but not be limited to the following: watershed
and recharge areas; wildlife habitats (on land and in the ocean); areas with endangered species of plants
and wildlife; natural streams and water bodies; scenic and recreational shoreline resources; open space X
and natural areas; historic and cultural sites; areas particularly sensitive to reduction in water and air
quality; and scenic resources.
(11) Identify all areas where priority should be given to preserving rural character and lifestyle. X
(12) Utilize Hawai’i's limited land resources wisely, providing adequate land to accommodate projected
population and economic growth needs while ensuring the protection of the environment and the X
availability of the shoreline, conservation lands, and other limited resources for future generations.
(13) Protect and enhance Hawai’i's shoreline, open spaces, and scenic resources. X
Discussion: BWS Supply supports the Hawai‘i State Plan Priority Guideline Policy regarding population and land growth
priority guidelines. However, the Proposed Action is not directly applicable to these policies.
226-105 Crime and Criminal Justice Priority Guidelines. 226-105 Crime and Criminal Justice Priority Guidelines.
(A) Priority Guidelines in the Area of Crime and Criminal Justice:
(1) Support law enforcement activities and other criminal justice efforts that are directed to provide a safer
X
environment.
(2) Target state and local resources on efforts to reduce the incidence of violent crime and on programs
X
relating to the apprehension and prosecution of repeat offenders.
(3) Support community and neighborhood program initiatives that enable residents to assist law enforcement
X
agencies in preventing criminal activities.
(4) Reduce overcrowding or substandard conditions in correctional facilities through a comprehensive
approach among all criminal justice agencies which may include sentencing law revisions and use of X
alternative sanctions other than incarceration for persons who pose no danger to their community.
(5) Provide a range of appropriate sanctions for juvenile offenders, including community-based programs and
X
other alternative sanctions.
(6) Increase public and private efforts to assist witnesses and victims of crimes and to minimize the costs of
X
victimization.
Discussion: The Proposed Action supports the Hawai‘i State Plan Priority Guideline Policy regarding crime by reducing
trespassing hikers to access Ha‘ikū Stairs.
5-19
N/A
N/S
S
226-106 Affordable Housing Priority Guidelines.
(A) Priority guidelines for the provision of affordable housing:
(1) Seek to use marginal or nonessential agricultural land and public land to meet housing needs of low- and
X
moderate-income and gap-group households.
(2) Encourage the use of alternative construction and development methods as a means of reducing
X
production costs.
(3) Improve information and analysis relative to land availability and suitability for housing. X
(4) Create incentives for development which would increase home ownership and rental opportunities for
Hawai’i's low- and moderate-income households, gap-group households, and residents with special X
needs.
(5) Encourage continued support for government or private housing programs that provide low interest
X
mortgages to Hawai’i's people for the purchase of initial owner- occupied housing.
(6) Encourage public and private sector cooperation in the development of rental housing alternatives. X
(7) Encourage improved coordination between various agencies and levels of government to deal with
X
housing policies and regulations.
(8) Give higher priority to the provision of quality housing that is affordable for Hawai’i's residents and less
X
priority to development of housing intended primarily for individuals outside of Hawai’i.
Discussion: BWS supports the Hawai‘i State Plan Priority Guideline Policy of affordable housing; however, these policies do
not apply to the project.
226-107 Quality Education Priority Guidelines.
(A) Priority guidelines to promote quality education:
(1) Pursue effective programs which reflect the varied district, school, and student needs to strengthen basic
X
skills achievement.
(2) Continue emphasis on general education "core" requirements to provide common background to students
X
and essential support to other university programs.
(3) Initiate efforts to improve the quality of education by improving the capabilities of the education work
X
force.
(4) Promote increased opportunities for greater autonomy and flexibility of educational institutions in their
X
decision-making responsibilities.
(5) Increase and improve the use of information technology in education by the availability of
X
telecommunications equipment for.
(a) The electronic exchange of information. X
(b) Statewide electronic mail. X
(c) Access to the Internet. X
Discussion: BWS supports the Hawai‘i State Plan Priority Guideline Policy regarding quality education; however, these
policies do not apply to the project.
226-107 Sustainability Priority Guidelines.
(A) Priority guidelines to promote sustainability:
(1) Encourage balanced economic, social, community, and environmental priorities X
(2) Encourage planning that respects and promotes living within the natural resources and limits of the State. X
(3) Promote a diversified and dynamic economy. X
(4) Encourage respect for the host culture. X
(5) Promote decisions based on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future
X
generations.
(6) Consider the principles of the ahupua‘a system. X
(7) Emphasize that everyone, including individuals, families, communities, businesses, and government, has
X
the responsibility for achieving a sustainable Hawai‘i.
Discussion: BWS Supply supports the Hawai‘i State Plan Priority Guideline Policy regarding sustainability; however, these
policies do not apply to the project.
226-109 Climate Change Adaptation Priority Guidelines.
(A) Priority guidelines to adapt to climate change:
(1) Ensure that Hawai‘i’s people are educated, informed, and aware of the impacts climate change may have
X
on their communities
(2) Encourage community stewardship groups and local stakeholders to participate in planning and
X
implementation of climate change policies
5-20
N/A
N/S
S
(3) Invest in continued monitoring and research of Hawai‘i’s climate and the impacts of climate change on
X
the State.
(4) Consider native Hawaiian traditional knowledge and practices in planning for the impacts of climate
X
change.
(5) Encourage the preservation and restoration of natural landscape features, such as coral reefs, beaches
and dunes, forests, streams, floodplains, and wetlands, that have the inherent capacity to avoid, minimize, X
or mitigate the impacts of climate change.
(6) Explore adaptation strategies that moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities in response to actual
X
or expected climate change impacts to the natural and built environments.
(7) Promote sector resilience in areas such as water, roads, airports, and public health, by encouraging the
identification of climate change threats, assessment of potential consequences, and evaluation of X
adaptation options.
(8) Foster cross-jurisdictional collaboration between county, state, and federal agencies and partnerships
X
between government and private entities and other nongovernmental entities, including nonprofit entities.
(9) Use management and implementation approaches that encourage the continual collection, evaluation,
X
and integration of new information and strategies into new and existing practices, policies, and plans.
(10) Encourage planning and management of the natural and built environments that effectively integrate
X
climate change policy.
Discussion: BWS supports the Hawai‘i State Plan Priority Guideline Policy regarding climate change adaptation; however,
these policies do not apply to the project.
5.2.4 Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan
In 2005, the State Legislature determined that the state should be responsible not only for resolving
current public needs, but provide also providing guidance to assure that the preferred vision and goals
for our future are met. Recognizing that the present generation must address sustainability issues
essential to maintaining Hawai‘i’s quality of life for future generations, the State Legislature enacted
Act 8 (2005), which provided for the development of a Sustainability Plan to address the vital needs
of Hawai‘i through the year 2050. Act 8 then established the Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Task Force
to review the Hawai‘i State Plan and the State’s comprehensive planning system and promulgated the
creation of the Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan (Hawai‘i 2050). Hawai‘i 2050 has as its main tenants
a respect for culture, character, beauty, and history of the state’s island communities; balance among
economic, community, and environmental priorities; and an effort to meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Hawai‘i 2050 defines
five goals intended to lead toward a sustainable future for Hawai‘i. These goals are accompanied by
specific strategic actions for implementation and indicators to measure the success or failure of these
actions over time. Table 5-2 provides an evaluation and summary of the project’s compatibility with
Hawai‘i 2050.
Table 5-2 Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan

N/A
N/S
(SB2532 HD1, 2010 Legislative Session)

S

The State’s first definition of sustainability:
A. Hawai‘i that achieves the following:
• Respects the culture, character, beauty and history of our state’s island communities
• Strikes a balance among economic, social and community, and environmental priorities
• Meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
GOAL 1: Living sustainably is part of our daily practice in Hawai‘i.
Develop a sustainability ethic. X
Integrate sustainability principles and practices into public and private school curricula. X
Develop a statewide marketing and public awareness campaign on sustainability principles and practices. X
5-21
N/A
N/S
S
Conduct ongoing forums and cross-sector dialogue to promote collaboration and progress on achieving
X
Hawai‘i’s sustainability goals.
Continually monitor trends and conditions in Hawai‘i’s economy, society and natural systems. X
Discussion: BWSupply supports the Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan goal regarding developing a sustainability ethic;
however, this goal does not apply to the project.
GOAL 2: Our diversified and globally competitive economy enables us to meaningfully live, work and play in Hawai‘i.
Develop a more diverse and resilient economy. X
Provide incentives that foster sustainability-related industries, which include, but aren’t limited to
X
renewable energy, innovation and science-based industries, and environmental technologies.
Increase production and consumption of local foods and products, particularly agricultural products. X
Increase commercialization and technology transfer between post-secondary institutions and the business
X
sector.
Support the building blocks for economic stability and sustainability. X
Recognize and support established industries such as the visitor industry, military, construction and
X
agriculture as strong components of the Hawai‘i economy.
Provide incentives for industries to operate in more sustainable ways. X
Attract local and outside capital and investments in Hawai‘i’s economic activities. X
Reduce regulations and lower the cost of running a business. X
Increase the competitiveness of Hawai‘i’s workforce. X
Invest in and improve our public education system to provide for a skilled workforce. X
Create incentives and opportunities for workforce skills upgrade training programs, including the availability
X
of remedial education programs.
Increase student enrollment in post-secondary educational programs. X
Adopt living wage guidelines and measurements. X
Identify, prioritize and fund infrastructure “crisis points” that need fixing. X
Discussion: BWS supports the Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan goals regarding the economy and workforce; however,
these do not apply to the project.
GOAL 3: Our natural resources are responsibly and respectfully used, replenished and preserved for future generations.
Reduce reliance on fossil (carbon-based) fuels. X
Expand renewable energy opportunities. X
Increase energy efficiency in private and public buildings, including retrofitting existing buildings. X
Improve energy efficiencies and options in transportation. X
Encourage the production and use of locally produced bio-fuels. X
Adopt building codes that encourage “green building” technology. X
Encourage all government agencies to adopt sustainable practices, including purchasing hybrid cars, X
buying biodegradable products, and mandating recycling.
Conserve water and ensure adequate water supply. X
Reduce water consumption by means of education and incentives. X
Encourage greater production and use of recycled water. X
Continually review water-conserving technologies for possible incorporation in county building codes. X
Encourage price structures for water use that furthers conservation. X
Require water conservation plans from large private users. X
Increase recycling, reuse and waste reduction strategies. X
Provide greater protection for air, and land-, fresh water- and ocean-based habitats. X
Strengthen enforcement of habitat management. X
Fund public and private conservation education. X
Improve management of protected watershed areas. X
Incorporate the values and philosophy of the ahupua‘a resource management system as appropriate. X
Establish funding for invasive species control and native ecosystems protection. X
Conserve agricultural, open space and conservation lands and resources. X
Create compact patterns of urban development. X
Encourage “smart growth” concepts in land use and community planning. X
Research and strengthen management initiatives to respond to rising sea levels, coastal hazards, erosion
X
and other natural hazards.
5-22
N/A
N/S
S
Develop a comprehensive environmental mapping and measurement system to evaluate the overall health
X
and status of Hawai‘i’s natural ecosystems.
Discussion: BWS supports the Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan goal regarding natural resources; however, most of the
goals do not directly apply to the project. The Proposed Action will provide greater protection of land habitat and
conservation land.
GOAL 4: Our community is strong, healthy, vibrant and nurturing, providing safety nets for those in need.
Strengthen social safety nets. X
Increase affordable housing opportunities for households up to 140% of median income. X
Ensure access to affordable health care for all residents. X
Reduce crime and violence. X
Provide access to elderly housing, care-giving and other long-term care services. X
Invest in greater prevention and treatment of those suffering from substance abuse and mental illness. X
Increase awareness of and competency in financial literacy and asset building. X
Strengthen the nonprofit sector, philanthropy and volunteerism. X
Ensure that persons with disabilities are afforded equal opportunity to participate & excel in all aspects of
X
community life.
Provide after-school and extra-curricular programs to enable Hawai‘i’s youth to broaden their life experiences. X
Improve public transportation infrastructure and alternatives. X
Reduce traffic congestion. X
Encourage and provide incentives for telecommuting. X
Increase and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including multi-use pathways. X
Strengthen public education. X
Support parenting, educational and financial literacy initiatives that span early childhood through lifelong
X
learning.
Increase high school graduation rates. X
Strengthen career pathways for technical and trade schools that enhance Hawai‘i’s workforce. X
Support post-secondary and distance learning programs that broaden personal and professional learning
X
opportunities.
Provide access to diverse recreational facilities and opportunities. X
Discussion: BWS supports the Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan, however, most of the goals do not apply to the project.
The project will support a reduction in crime and violence by removing Ha‘ikū Stairs and reducing trespassing.
GOAL 5: Our Kanaka Maoli and island cultures and values are thriving and perpetuated.
Honor Kanaka Maoli culture and heritage. X
Ensure the existence of and support for public and private entities that further the betterment of Kanaka
X
Maoli.
Increase fluency in Kanaka Maoli language. It is one of the official languages of Hawai‘i. X
Sponsor cross-sector dialogue on Kanaka Maoli culture and island values. X
Protect Kanaka Maoli intellectual property and related traditional knowledge. X
Provide Kanaka Maoli cultural education for residents, visitors and the general public. X
Celebrate our cultural diversity and island way of life.
Identify and protect the places, features and sacred spaces that give Hawai‘i its unique character and
X
cultural significance.
Increase the number of educators who teach cultural and historic education. X
Enable Kanaka Maoli and others to pursue traditional Kanaka Maoli lifestyles and practices. X
Provide Kanaka Maoli mentors with opportunities to pass on Hawaiian culture and knowledge to the next
X
generation of Kanaka Maoli and others. The power of wisdom comes from communication.
Perpetuate Kanaka Maoli food production associated with land and ocean traditions and practices. X
Provide support for subsistence-based businesses and economies. X
Discussion: BWS supports the Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan goal regarding honoring Kanaka Maoli culture and
heritage; however, this goal does not apply to the project.
5-23
5.2.5 DHHL O‘ahu Island Plan
The DHHL O‘ahu Island Plan (2014) assesses DHHL’s 8,154 acres on O‘ahu which represents 4% of
their statewide holdings. Under the DHHL Planning System, there are five components outlined in the
plan:
1. Baseline analysis of existing physical environmental conditions and beneficiary preferences;
2. Preliminary identification of appropriate land use based on those conditions and preferences;
3. Community input and participation on the draft land use plan;
4. Pre-final land use evaluation and public commentary on that evaluation by region; and
5. Final land use analysis and recommendations.
DHHL owns a 5-acre parcel (TMK 4-5-041:005) along the Ko‘olau ridgeline and a 1-acre parcel (TMK
1-1-013:003) at the terminus of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Approximately half the width of Ha‘ikū Stairs modules
encroach on the 5-acre DHHL parcel. In addition, most of the cable car building, a portion of the CCL
Building and portions of four antenna platforms encroach on the 5-acre DHHL parcel. The remainder
of the CCL Building and a portion of a landing platform encroach on the 1-acre DHHL parcel. The 5-
acre parcel has been designated by the O‘ahu Island Plan as Conservation lands under DHHL’s Land
Use Categories. The 1-acre parcel is not indicated on Figure 7-5 He‘eia Ahupua‘a Land Use
Designations of the O‘ahu Island Plan, however, factors indicate it is also designated Conservation.
Discussion: The Proposed Action supports the Conservation designation of the ridgeline parcel(s). Any
earthwork conducted on DHHL property will be coordinated in advance with DHHL and adhere to
applicable permitting procedures. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will temporarily disturb soils and
vegetation, however, the long-term result will substantially limit human access to the parcel, thereby
reducing potential for disturbance. Vegetation is anticipated to regrow and restore any temporarily
lost habitat due to removal activities.
5.2.6 Coastal Zone Management, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 205A
As mentioned in Section 5.1.1 above, the Hawai‘i CZM Program under HRS Chapter 205A is the State’s
response to the Federal Coastal Management Program. Under HRS Chapter 205A, The State CZM
Program is a comprehensive program that establishes and enforces standards and policies to guide
the development of public and private lands within coastal areas. The State CZM objectives and
policies address the following 10 subject areas: (1) recreational resources, (2) historic resources, (3)
scenic and open space resources, (4) coastal ecosystems, (5) economic uses, (6) coastal hazards, (7)
managing development, (8) public participation, (9) beach protection, and (10) marine resources.
Virtually all relate to potential development impacts on the shoreline, near shore, and ocean area
environments.
As defined by HRS Chapter 2.5 A-1, the Hawai‘i CZM area includes “All lands of the State and the area
extending seaward from the shoreline to the limit of the State’s police power and management
authority, including the U.S. territorial sea.” The project area is therefore located within the CZM area.
The State of Hawai‘i’s SMA permitting system is one component part of the CZM Program. The SMA
permit is a management tool to assure that uses, activities, or operations on land or touching water
within an SMA are designed and carried out in compliance with the CZM objectives and policies, and
SMA guidelines (http://planning.hawaii.gov/czm/special-management-area-permits/). As per HRS
Chapter 205A-23, the project area is located outside of the SMA boundary.
5-24
Discussion: The project is located within the CZM area, but not located within the SMA, and is not
subject to the City’s SMA policies and controls. Table 5-3 outlines the objectives and policies of HRS
Chapter 205A and discusses the applicability to the project.
Table 5-3 Coastal Zone Management Program
N/A
N/S
HRS Section 205 A- Objective and Policies
S
OBJECTIVES & POLICIES
(1) Recreational resources;
Provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public.
(A) Improve coordination and funding of coastal recreational planning and management; and X
(B) Provide adequate, accessible, and diverse recreational opportunities in the coastal zone management area by:
(i) Protecting coastal resources uniquely suited for recreational activities that cannot be provided in other areas; X
(ii) Requiring replacement of coastal resources having significant recreational value including, but not
limited to, surfing sites, fishponds, and sand beaches, when such resources will be unavoidably damaged
X
by development; or requiring reasonable monetary compensation to the State for recreation when
replacement is not feasible or desirable;
(iii) Providing and managing adequate public access, consistent with conservation of natural resources,
X
to and along shorelines with recreational value;
(iv) Providing an adequate supply of shoreline parks and other recreational facilities suitable for public
X
recreation;
(v) Ensuring public recreational uses of county, state and federally-owned or controlled shoreline lands
X
having recreational value consistent with public safety standards and conservation of natural resources.
(vi) Adopting water quality standards and regulating point and non-point sources of pollution to protect X
(vii) Developing new shoreline recreational opportunities X
(viii) Encouraging reasonable dedication of shoreline areas with recreational value for public use as part
of discretionary approvals or permits by the land use commission, board of land and natural resources, X
and county authorities; and crediting such dedication against the requirements of section 46-6.
Discussion: The CZM objectives for recreational opportunities do not apply to the project as Ha‘ikū Stairs is not considered
a shoreline recreation opportunity.
(2) Historic resources;
Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore those natural and manmade historic and prehistoric resources in the
coastal zone management area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture.
(A) Identify and analyze significant archaeological resources; X
(B) Maximize information retention through preservation of remains and artifacts or salvage operations; and X
(C) Support state goals for protection, restoration, interpretation, and display of historic resources. X
Discussion: With respect to historic resources, this EIS identifies and analyzes significant archaeological, cultural, and
historic architectural resources. Should the Proposed Action be implemented, Ha‘ikū Stairs will be removed and the project
will not meet objectives to retain, restore, and preserve historic resources.
(3) Scenic and open space resources;
Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources.
(A) Identify valued scenic resources in the coastal zone management area; X X
(B) Ensure that new developments are compatible with their visual environment by designing and locating
such developments to minimize the alteration of natural landforms and existing public views to and along X
the shoreline;
(C) Preserve, maintain, and, where desirable, improve and restore shoreline open space and scenic resources; and X
(D) Encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas. X
Discussion: The CZM objectives for coastal scenic and open space resources do not apply to the project. Although there is
no way to legally access this area, the viewshed from the top of Ha‘iku Stairs could be considered a valued scenic resource
in the coastal zone management area. Access from Ha‘ikū Valley would be eliminated with the Proposed Action, however,
hikers could still access this view via Moanalua Valley.
(4) Coastal ecosystems;
Protect valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems.
(A) Exercise an overall conservation ethic, and practice stewardship in the protection, use, and development
X
of marine and coastal resources;
(B) Improve the technical basis for natural resource management; X
5-25
N/A
N/S
S
(C) Preserve valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, of significant biological or economic importance;
(D) Minimize disruption or degradation of coastal water ecosystems by effective regulation of stream
X
diversions, channelization, and similar land and water uses, recognizing competing water needs; and
(E) Promote water quantity and quality planning and management practices that reflect the tolerance of fresh
water and marine ecosystems and maintain and enhance water quality through the development and X
implementation of point and non-point source water pollution control measures.
Discussion: BWS supports CZM objectives for coastal ecosystems; however, these objectives do not apply to the project as
the project is not located in the SMA or a coastal ecosystem.
(5) Economic uses;
Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's economy in suitable locations.
(A) Concentrate coastal dependent development in appropriate areas; X
(B) Ensure that coastal dependent development such as harbors and ports, and coastal related development
such as visitor industry facilities and energy generating facilities, are located, designed, and constructed X
to minimize adverse social, visual, and environmental impacts in the coastal zone management area; and
(C) Direct the location and expansion of coastal dependent developments to areas presently designated and
used for such developments and permit reasonable long-term growth at such areas, and permit coastal
dependent development outside of presently designated areas when: (i) Use of presently designated X
locations is not feasible; (ii) Adverse environmental effects are minimized; and (iii) The development is
important to the State's economy.
Discussion: The CZM objectives for economic uses do not apply to the project as the project is not located in the SMA or
coastal area.
(6) Coastal hazards;
Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, erosion, subsidence, and pollution.
(A) Develop and communicate adequate information about storm wave, tsunami, flood, erosion, subsidence,
X
and point and non-point source pollution hazards;
(B) Control development in areas subject to storm wave, tsunami, flood, erosion, hurricane, wind, subsidence,
X
and point and non-point source pollution hazards;
(C) Ensure that developments comply with requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program; and X
(D) Prevent coastal flooding from inland projects. X
Discussion: BWS supports CZM objectives for coastal hazards; however, these objectives do not apply to the project as the
project is not located in the SMA or a coastal area.
(7) Managing development;
Improve the development review process, communication, and public participation in the management of coastal
resources and hazards.
(A) Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present
X
and future coastal zone development;
(B) Facilitate timely processing of applications for development permits and resolve overlapping or conflicting
X
permit requirements; and
(C) Communicate the potential short and long-term impacts of proposed significant coastal developments
early in their life cycle and in terms understandable to the public to facilitate public participation in the X
planning and review process.
Discussion: The CZM objectives for coastal hazard do not apply to the project as the project is not proposing any coastal
development in the SMA.
(8) Public participation;
Stimulate public awareness, education, and participation in coastal management.
(A) Promote public involvement in coastal zone management processes; X
(B) Disseminate information on coastal management issues by means of educational materials, published
reports, staff contact, and public workshops for persons and organizations concerned with coastal issues, X
developments, and government activities; and
(C) Organize workshops, policy dialogues, and site-specific mediations to respond to coastal issues and conflicts. X
Discussion: The CZM objectives for public participation in coastal management do not apply to the project.
(9) Beach protection;
5-26
N/A
N/S
S
Protect beaches for public use and recreation.
(A) Locate new structures inland from the shoreline setback to conserve open space, minimize interference
X
with natural shoreline processes, and minimize loss of improvements due to erosion;
(B) Prohibit construction of private erosion-protection structures seaward of the shoreline, except when they
result in improved aesthetic and engineering solutions to erosion at the sites and do not interfere with X
existing recreational and waterline activities; and
(C) Minimize the construction of public erosion-protection structures seaward of the shoreline. X
Discussion: The CZM objectives for beach protection do not apply to the project.
(10) Marine resources;
Promote the protection, use, and development of marine and coastal resources to assure their sustainability.
(A) Ensure that the use and development of marine and coastal resources are ecologically and
X
environmentally sound and economically beneficial;
(B) Coordinate the management of marine, coastal resources and activities to improve effectiveness and efficiency; X
(C) Assert and articulate the interests of the State as a partner with federal agencies in the sound
X
management of ocean resources within the United States exclusive economic zone;
(D) Promote research, study, and understanding of ocean processes, marine life, and other ocean resources
in order to acquire and inventory information necessary to understand how ocean development activities X
relate to and impact upon ocean and coastal resources; and
(E) Encourage research and development of new, innovative technologies for exploring, using, or protecting
X
marine and coastal resources.
Discussion: BWS supports CZM objectives for marine resources; however, these objectives do not apply to the project.
5.2.7 Conservation District, Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, Title 13, Chapter 5
Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-5 regulates land use in the Conservation District for the
purpose of conserving, protecting, and preserving the important natural and cultural resources of the
State through appropriate management and use to promote their long-term sustainability and public
health, safety, and welfare. The properties on which Ha‘ikū Stairs is located are within the State Land
Use Conservation District protective subzone. HAR §13-5-22 identifies land uses and required permits
in the protective subzone.
Discussion: The Proposed Action would be consistent with HAR §13-5-22, P-8 Structures and Land
Uses, Existing (B-1) Demolition, removal, or minor alteration of existing structures, facilities, land and
equipment. B-1 further specifies that removal of the structure would require Site Plan Approval and
historic preservation review under HRS 6E-8.
5.2.8 Conservation District, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 183C
According to HRS §183C-1, the purpose of the Conservation District is to contain important natural
resources essential to the preservation of the State’s fragile natural ecosystems and the sustainability
of the State’s water supply. Additionally, legislature intends to conserve, protect, and preserve the
important natural resources of the State through appropriate management and use to promote their
long-term sustainability and the public health, safety, and welfare.
Discussion: As discussed in Section 5.2.2 above, properties on which Ha‘ikū Stairs is located are
within the State Land Use Conservation District. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs conforms with Conservation
District standards to protect and preserve natural resources within the district.
5-27
5.3 City and County of Honolulu Plans, Policies and Controls

5.3.1 City and County of Honolulu General Plan
The General Plan for the City was adopted in 1977 and subsequently amended (most recently in
2002). The 2002 General Plan is a statement of long-range socio-economic, environmental, and
design objectives and policies to be achieved for the general prosperity and welfare for the people of
the O‘ahu. It is intended to serve as a guide for all levels of government, private enterprise,
neighborhood and citizen groups, organizations, and individual citizens (City and County of Honolulu
Revised Charter, 2000). The General Plan consists of 11 subject areas and provides the framework
for the City’s expression of public policy concerning the needs of the people and the functions of
government. The subject areas address all aspects of health, safety, and welfare for O‘ahu’s
communities, and include: population trends and growth, economic activity, the natural environment,
housing, transportation and utilities, energy, physical development and urban design, public safety,
health and education, culture and recreation, and government operations and fiscal management.
Table 5-4 discusses how the project addresses the applicable objectives and policies of the City’s
General Plan.
A Draft Oʻahu 2035 General Plan update was published for public review in November 2012 and the
Revised General Plan was submitted to the City Council in April 2018 for approval. A Final Revised
General Plan update is still pending final approval. Accordingly, the project must address its
consistency with the existing 2002 amended version. The Proposed Action’s consistency with the
applicable objectives and policies of the existing City General Plan as amended in 2002 is described
below.
Table 5-4 City and County of Honolulu General Plan -
N/A
N/S
Objective and Policies
S
PART I: POPULATION
OBJECTIVE A: To control the growth of O‘ahu’s resident and visitor populations in order to avoid social, economic, and
environmental disruptions.
Policy 1: Participate in State and Federal programs which seek to develop social, economic, legal, and
X
environmental controls over population growth.
Policy 2: Seek a balance between the rate of in-migration and the rate of out-migration by reducing in-migration. X
Policy 3: Support Federal policies providing for a more even distribution of immigrants throughout the country. X
Policy 4: Seek to maintain a desirable pace of physical development through City and County regulations. X
Policy 5: Encourage family planning. X
Policy 6: Publicize the desire of the City and County to limit population growth. X
OBJECTIVE B: To plan for future population growth.
Policy 1: Allocate efficiently the money and resources of the City and County in order to meet the needs of
X
O‘ahu's anticipated future population.
Policy 2: Provide adequate support facilities to accommodate future growth in the number of visitors to O‘ahu. X
OBJECTIVE C: To establish a pattern of population distribution that will allow the people of O‘ahu to live and work in harmony.
Policy 1: Facilitate the full development of the primary urban center. X
Policy 2: Encourage development within the secondary urban center at Kapolei and the ‘Ewa and Central O‘ahu
urban-fringe areas to relieve developmental pressures in the remaining urban-fringe and rural areas and X
to meet housing needs not readily provided in the primary urban center.
Policy 3: Manage physical growth and development in the urban-fringe and rural areas so that: (a) An
undesirable spreading of development is prevented; and (b) Their population densities are consistent with X
the character of development and environmental qualities desired for such areas.
Policy 4: (Amended, Resolution 02-205, CD1): Direct growth according to Policies 1, 2, and 3 above by providing
land development capacity and needed infrastructure to seek a 2025 distribution of O‘ahu’s residential X
population as follows:
5-28
N/A
N/S
S
Location % Share of 2025 Island-wide Population
Primary Urban Center 46.0%
‘Ewa 13.0%
Central O‘ahu 17.0%
East Honolulu 5.3%
Ko‘olaupoko 11.6%
Ko‘olauloa 1.4%
North Shore 1.7%
Wai‘anae 4.0%
Discussion: BWS supports the City and County of Honolulu General Plan regarding population; however, the policy is not
directly applicable to the project. The project has no planned development components.
PART II: ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
OBJECTIVE A: To promote employment opportunities that will enable all the people of O‘ahu to attain a decent standard of
living.
Policy 1: Encourage the growth and diversification of O‘ahu's economic base. X
Policy 2: Encourage the development of small businesses and larger industries, which will contribute to the
X
economic and social well-being of O‘ahu residents.
Policy 3: Encourage the development in appropriate locations on O‘ahu of trade, communications, and other
X
industries of a nonpolluting nature.
Policy 4: Encourage the development of local, national, and world markets for the products of O‘ahu-based
X
industries.
Policy 5: Encourage the wider distribution of available employment opportunities through such methods as
X
shortening the work-week and reducing the use of overtime.
Policy 6: Encourage the continuation of a significant level of Federal employment on O‘ahu. X
OBJECTIVE B: To maintain the viability of O‘ahu's visitor industry.
Policy 1: Provide for the long-term viability of Waikīkī as O‘ahu's primary resort area by giving the area priority
X
in visitor industry related public expenditures.
Policy 2: Provide for a high quality and safe environment for visitors and residents in Waikīkī. X
Policy 3: Encourage private participation in improvements to facilities in Waikīkī. X
Policy 4: Prohibit major increases in permitted development densities in Waikīkī. X
Policy 5: Prohibit further growth in the permitted number of hotel and resort condominium units in Waikīkī. X
Policy 6: Permit the development of secondary resort areas in West Beach, Kahuku, Makaha, and Lā’ie. X
Policy 7: Manage the development of secondary resort areas in a manner which respects existing lifestyles and
the natural environment, and avoids substantial increases in the cost of providing public services in the X
area.
Policy 8: Preserve the well-known and widely publicized beauty of O‘ahu for visitors as well as residents. X
Policy 9: Encourage the visitor industry to provide a high level of service to visitors. X
OBJECTIVE C: To maintain the viability of agriculture on O‘ahu.
Policy 1: Assist the agricultural industry to ensure the continuation of agriculture as an important source of
X
income and employment.
Policy 2: Support agricultural diversification in all agricultural areas on O‘ahu. X
Policy 3: Support the development of markets for local products, particularly those with the potential for
X
economic growth.
Policy 4: Provide sufficient agricultural land in ‘Ewa, Central O‘ahu, and the North Shore to encourage the
X
continuation of sugar and pineapple as viable industries.
Policy 5: Maintain agricultural land along the Windward, North Shore, and Wai‘anae coasts for truck fanning,
X
flower growing, aquaculture, livestock production, and other types of diversified agriculture.
Policy 6: Encourage the more intensive use of productive agricultural land. X
Policy 7: Encourage the use of more efficient production practices by agriculture, including the efficient use of
X
water.
Policy 8: Encourage the more efficient use of non- potable water for agricultural use. X
OBJECTIVE D: To make full use of the economic resources of the sea.
Policy 1: Assist the fishing industry to maintain its viability. X
Policy 2: Encourage the development of aquaculture, ocean research, and other ocean- related industries. X
5-29
N/A
N/S
S
Policy 3: Focus the development of ocean related economic activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands on
X
those, which are compatible with preserving the area's unique environmental, marine, and wildlife assets.
OBJECTIVE E: To prevent the occurrence of large-scale unemployment.
Policy 1: Encourage the training and employment of present residents for currently available and future jobs. X
Policy 2: Make full use of State and Federal employment and training programs. X
Policy 3: Encourage the provision of retraining programs for workers in industries with planned reductions in
X
their labor force.
OBJECTIVE F: To increase the amount of Federal spending on O‘ahu.
Policy 1: Take full advantage of Federal programs and grants which will contribute to the economic and social
X
well-being of O‘ahu's residents.
Policy 2: Encourage the Federal government to pay for the cost of public services used by Federal agencies. X
Policy 3: Encourage the Federal government to lease new facilities rather than construct them on tax exempt
X
public land.
Policy 4: Encourage the military to purchase locally all needed services and supplies which are available on
X
O‘ahu.
OBJECTIVE G: To bring about orderly economic growth on O‘ahu.
Policy 1: Direct major economic activity and government services to the primary urban center and the
X
secondary urban center at Kapolei.
Policy 2: Permit the moderate growth of business centers in the urban-fringe areas. X
Policy 3: Maintain sufficient land in appropriately located commercial and industrial areas to help ensure a
X
favorable business climate on O‘ahu.
Policy 4: Encourage the continuation of a high level of military-related employment in the Hickam-Pearl Harbor,
X
Wahiawā, Kailua-Kāne‘ohe, and ‘Ewa areas.
Discussion: Board of Water Supply supports the City and County of Honolulu General Plan regarding economic activity and
the viability of agriculture. The Proposed Action may generate some short-term construction jobs, however, the policies are
PART III: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
OBJECTIVE A: To protect and preserve the natural environment.
Policy 1: Protect O‘ahu's natural environment, especially the shoreline, valleys, and ridges, from incompatible
X
development.
Policy 2: Seek the restoration of environmentally damaged areas and natural resources. X
Policy 3: Retain the Island's streams as scenic, aquatic, and recreation resources. X
Policy 4: Require development projects to give due consideration to natural features such as slope, flood and
X
erosion hazards, water- recharge areas, distinctive land forms, and existing vegetation.
Policy 5: Require sufficient setbacks of improvements in unstable shoreline areas to avoid the future need for
X
protective structures.
Policy 6: Design surface drainage and flood-control systems in a manner, which will help preserve their natural
X
settings.
Policy 7: Protect the natural environment from damaging levels of air, water, and noise pollution. X
Policy 8: Protect plants, birds, and other animals that are unique to the State of Hawai‘i and the Island of O‘ahu. X
Policy 9: Protect mature trees on public and private lands and encourage their integration into new
X
developments.
Policy 10: Increase public awareness and appreciation of O‘ahu’s land, air, and water resources. X
Policy 11: Encourage the State and Federal governments to protect the unique environmental, marine, and
X
wildlife assets of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
OBJECTIVE B: To preserve and enhance the natural monuments and scenic views of O‘ahu for the benefit of both residents
and visitors.
Policy 1: Protect the Island's well-known resources: its mountains and craters; forests and watershed areas;
X
marshes, rivers, and streams; shoreline, fishponds, and bays; and reefs and offshore islands.
Policy 2: Protect O‘ahu’s scenic views, especially those seen from highly developed and heavily traveled areas. X
Policy 3: Locate roads, highways, and other public facilities and utilities in areas where they will least obstruct
X
important views of the mountains and the sea.
Policy 4: Provide opportunities for recreational and educational use and physical contact with O‘ahu’s natural
X
environmental.
Policy 5: Identify all areas where priority should be given to preserving rural character and lifestyle. X
5-30
N/A
N/S
S
Policy 6: Utilize Hawai‘i's limited land resources wisely, providing adequate land to accommodate projected
population and economic growth needs while ensuring the protection of the environment and the X
availability of the shoreline, conservation lands, and other limited resources for future generations.
Policy 7: Protect and enhance Hawai‘i's shoreline, open spaces, and scenic resources. X
Discussion: The Proposed Action will help to restore the natural environment that has been degraded due to on-going
trespassing on Ha‘ikū Stairs and surrounding lands. However, the project will not protect scenic views of O‘ahu from Ha‘ikū
Stairs or provide opportunities for recreation and contact with the natural environment.
PART IV: HOUSING
OBJECTIVE A: To provide decent housing for all the people of O‘ahu at prices they can afford.
Policy 1: Develop programs and controls, which will provide decent homes at the least possible cost. X
Policy 2: Streamline approval and permit procedures for housing and other development projects. X
Policy 3: Encourage innovative residential development, which will result in lower costs, added convenience
X
and privacy, and the more efficient use of streets and utilities.
Policy 4: Establish public, and encourage private, programs to maintain and improve the condition of existing
X
housing.
Policy 5: Make full use of State and Federal programs that provide financial assistance for low- and moderate-
X
income homebuyers.
Policy 6: Expand local funding mechanisms available to pay for government housing programs. X
Policy 7: Provide financial and other incentives to encourage the private sector to build homes for low and
X
moderate-income residents.
Policy 8: Encourage and participate in joint public- private development of low- and moderate- income housing. X
Policy 9: Encourage the preservation of existing housing which is affordable to low- and moderate-income
X
persons.
Policy 10: Promote the construction of affordable dwellings, which take advantage of O‘ahu’s year-round
X
moderate climate.
Policy 11: Encourage the construction of affordable homes within established low-density communities by such
X
means as “‘ohana” units, duplex dwellings, and cluster development.
Policy 12: Encourage the production and maintenance of affordable rental housing. X
Policy 13: Encourage the provision of affordable housing designed for the elderly and the handicapped. X
Policy 14: Encourage equitable relationships between landowners and leaseholders, between landlords and
X
tenants, and between condominium developers and owners.
OBJECTIVE B: To reduce speculation in land and housing.
Policy 1: Encourage the State government to coordinate its urban-area designations with the developmental
X
policies of the City and County.
Policy 2: Discourage private developers from acquiring and assembling land outside of areas planned for urban
X
use.
Policy 3: Seek public benefits from increases in the value of land owing to City and State developmental policies
X
and decisions.
Policy 4: Require government-subsidized housing to be delivered to appropriate purchasers and renters. X
Policy 5: Prohibit the selling or renting of government-subsidized housing for large profits. X
OBJECTIVE C: To provide the people of O‘ahu with a choice of living environments which are reasonably close to employment,
recreation, and commercial centers and which are adequately served by public utilities.
Policy 1: Encourage residential developments that offer a variety of homes to people of different income levels
X
and to families of various sizes.
Policy 2: Encourage the fair distribution of low- and moderate-income housing throughout the Island. X
Policy 3: Encourage residential development near employment centers. X
Policy 4: Encourage residential development in areas where existing roads, utilities, and other community
X
facilities are not being used to capacity.
Policy 5: Discourage residential development where roads, utilities, and community facilities cannot be
X
provided at a reasonable cost.
Policy 6: Preserve older communities through self-help, housing-rehabilitation, improvement districts, and
X
other governmental programs.
5-31
N/A
N/S
S
Discussion: The City and County of Honolulu General Plan policies regarding housing are not directly applicable to the
project. Although the Proposed Action does not relate to residential development, retaining Ha‘ikū Stairs and formalizing an
access agreement on DHHL property could affect long-term DHHL housing plans for the valley.
PART V: TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
OBJECTIVE A: To create a transportation system which will enable people and goods to move safely, efficiently, and at a
reasonable cost; serve all people, including the poor, the elderly, and the physically handicapped; and offer a variety of
attractive and convenient modes of travel.
Policy 1: Develop and maintain an integrated ground-transportation system consisting of the following
X
elements and their primary purposes:
Public transportation-for travel to and from work, and travel within Central Honolulu; X
Roads and highways-for commercial traffic and travel in non-urban areas X
Bikeways-for recreational activities and trips to work, schools, shopping centers, and community facilities;
X
and
Pedestrian walkways-for getting around Downtown and Waikīkī, and for trips to schools, parks, and
X
shopping centers.
Policy 2: Provide transportation services to people living within the ‘Ewa, Central O‘ahu, and Pearl City-Hawai‘i
Kai corridors primarily through a mass transit system including exclusive right-of-way rapid transit and
X
feeder-bus components as well as through the existing highway system with limited improvements as may
be appropriate.
Policy 3: Provide transportation services outside the ‘Ewa, Central O‘ahu, and Pearl City-Hawai‘i Kai corridors
primarily through a system of express- and feeder-buses as well as through the highway system with X
limited to moderate improvements sufficient to meet the needs of the communities being served.
Policy 4: Improve transportation facilities and services in the ‘Ewa corridor and in the trans-Ko‘olau corridors
X
to meet the needs of ‘Ewa and Windward communities.
Policy 5: Improve roads in existing communities to reduce congestion and eliminate unsafe conditions. X
Policy 6: Consider both environmental impact as well as construction and operating costs as important factors
X
in planning alternative modes of transportation.
Policy 7: Promote the use of public transportation as a means of moving people quickly and efficiently, of
X
conserving energy, and of guiding urban development.
Policy 8: Make available transportation services to people with limited mobility: the young, the elderly, the
X
handicapped, and the poor.
Policy 9: Promote programs to reduce dependence on the use of automobiles. X
Policy 10: Discourage the inefficient use of the private automobile, especially in congested corridors and during
X
peak-hours.
Policy 11: Make public, and encourage private, improvements to major walkway systems. X
Policy 12: Encourage the provision of separate aviation facilities for small civilian aircraft. X
Policy 13: Facilitate the development of a second deep-water harbor to relieve congestion in Honolulu Harbor. X
OBJECTIVE B: To meet the needs of the people of O‘ahu for an adequate supply of water and for environmentally sound
systems of waste disposal.
Policy 1: Develop and maintain an adequate supply of water for both residents and visitors. X
Policy 2: Develop and maintain an adequate supply of water for agricultural and industrial needs. X
Policy 3: Encourage the development of new technology, which will reduce the cost of providing water and the
X
cost of waste disposal.
Policy 4: Encourage a lowering of the per-capita consumption of water and the per-capita production of waste. X
Policy 5: Provide safe, efficient, and environmentally sensitive waste-collection and waste- disposal services. X
Policy 6: Support programs to recover resources from solid-waste and recycle wastewater. X
Policy 7: Require the safe disposal of hazardous waste. X
OBJECTIVE C: To maintain a high level of service for all utilities.
Policy 1: Maintain existing utility systems in order to avoid major breakdowns. X
Policy 2: Provide improvements to utilities in existing neighborhoods to reduce substandard conditions. X
Policy 3: Plan for the timely and orderly expansion of utility systems. X
Policy 4: Increase the efficiency of public utilities by encouraging a mixture of uses with peak periods of demand
X
occurring at different times of the day.
OBJECTIVE D: To maintain transportation and utility systems which will help O‘ahu continue to be a desirable place to live
and visit.
5-32
N/A
N/S
S
Policy 1: Give primary emphasis in the capital- improvement program to the maintenance and improvement of
X
existing roads and utilities.
Policy 2: Use the transportation and utility systems as a means of guiding growth and the pattern of land use
X
on O‘ahu.
Policy 3: Encourage the study and use of telecommunications as an alternative to conventional transportation
X
facilities.
Policy 4: Evaluate the social, economic, and environmental impact of additions to the transportation and utility
X
systems before they are constructed.
Policy 5: Require the installation of underground utility lines wherever feasible. X
Policy 6: Seek improved taxing powers for the City and County in order to provide a more equitable means of
X
financing transportation and utility services.
Discussion: BWS supports the City and County of Honolulu General Plan regarding utilities, especially those under Objective
B, however, the policies are not directly applicable to the project.
PART VI: ENERGY
OBJECTIVE A: To maintain an adequate, dependable, and economical supply of energy for O‘ahu residents.
Policy 1: Develop and maintain a comprehensive plan to guide and coordinate energy conservation and
X
alternative energy development and utilization programs on O‘ahu.
Policy 2: Establish economic incentives and regulatory measures which will reduce O‘ahu’s dependence on
X
petroleum as its primary source of energy.
Policy 3: Support programs and projects which contribute to the attainment of energy self- sufficiency on O‘ahu. X
Policy 4: Promote and assist efforts to establish adequate petroleum reserves within Hawai‘i's boundaries. X
Policy 5: Give adequate consideration to environmental, public health, and safety concerns, to resource
limitations, and to relative costs when making decisions concerning alternatives for conserving energy X
and developing natural energy resources.
Policy 6: Work closely with the State and Federal governments in the formulation and implementation of all
X
City and County energy-related programs.
OBJECTIVE B: To conserve energy through the more efficient management of its use.
Policy 1: Ensure that the efficient use of energy is a primary factor in the preparation and administration of
X
land use plans and regulations.
Policy 2: Provide incentives and, where appropriate, mandatory controls to achieve energy- efficient siting and
X
design of new developments.
Policy 3: Carry out public, and promote private, programs to more efficiently use energy in existing buildings
X
and outdoor facilities.
Policy 4: Promote the development of an energy- efficient transportation system. X
OBJECTIVE C: To fully utilize proven alternative sources of energy.
Policy 1: Encourage the use of commercially available solar energy systems in public facilities, institutions,
X
residences, and business developments.
Policy 2: Support the increased use of operational solid waste energy recovery and other biomass energy
X
conversion systems.
OBJECTIVE D: To develop and apply new, locally available energy resources.
Policy 1: Support and participate in research, development, demonstration, and commercialization programs
X
aimed at producing new, economical, and environmentally sound energy supplies from:
a. solar insulation; X
b. biomass energy conversion; X
c. wind energy conversion; X
d. geothermal energy; and X
e. ocean thermal energy conversion. X
Policy 2: Secure State and Federal support of City and County efforts to develop new sources of energy. X
OBJECTIVE E: To establish a continuing energy information program.
Policy 1: Supply citizens with the information they need to fully understand the potential supply, cost, and other
X
problems associated with O‘ahu’s dependence on imported petroleum.
Policy 2: Foster the development of an energy conservation ethic among O‘ahu residents. X
Policy 3: Keep consumers informed about available alternative energy sources and their costs and benefits. X
Policy 4: Provide information concerning the impact of public and private decisions on future energy use. X
5-33
N/A
N/S
S
Discussion: The City and County of Honolulu General Plan policies regarding energy are not directly applicable to the project.
PART VII: PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN DESIGN
OBJECTIVE A: To coordinate changes in the physical environment of O‘ahu to ensure that all new developments are timely,
well-designed, and appropriate for the areas in which they will be located.
Policy 1: Plan for the construction of new public facilities and utilities in the various parts of the Island according
to the following order of priority: first, in the primary urban center; second, in the secondary urban center X
at Kapolei; and third, in the urban- fringe and rural areas.
Policy 2: Coordinate the location and timing of new development with the availability of adequate water supply,
X
sewage treatment, drainage, transportation, and public safety facilities.
Policy 3: Phase the construction of new developments so that they do not require more regional supporting
X
services than are available.
Policy 4: Require new developments to provide or pay the cost of all essential community services, including
roads, utilities, schools, parks, and emergency facilities that are intended to directly serve the X
development.
Policy 5: Provide for more compact development and intensive use of urban lands where compatible with the
X
physical and social character of existing communities.
Policy 6: Encourage the clustering of developments to reduce the cost of providing utilities and other public
X
services.
Policy 7: Locate new industries and new commercial areas so that they will be well related to their markets and
X
suppliers, and to residential areas and transportation facilities.
Policy 8: Locate community facilities on sites that will be convenient to the people they are intended to serve. X
Policy 9: Exclude from residential areas, uses which are major sources of noise and air pollution. X
Policy 10: Establish danger zones to exclude incompatible uses from hazardous areas surrounding airfields,
X
electromagnetic- radiation sources, and storage places for fuel and explosives.
Policy 11: Prohibit new airfields, electromagnetic-radiation sources, and storage places for fuel and explosives
X
from locating on sites where they will endanger or disrupt nearby communities.
OBJECTIVE B: To develop Honolulu (Wai‘alae-Kāhala to Halawā), ‘Aiea, and Pearl City as the Island’s primary urban center.
Policy 1: Stimulate development in the primary urban center by means of the City and County's capital
X
improvement program and State and Federal grant and loan programs.
Policy 2: Provide for the expanded development of low-rise multi-unit housing. X
Policy 3: Encourage the establishment of mixed-use districts with appropriate design and development controls
X
to insure an attractive living environment and compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Policy 4: Provide downtown Honolulu and other major business centers with a well-balanced mixture of uses. X
Policy 5: Encourage the development of attractive residential communities in downtown and other business
X
centers.
Policy 6: Maintain and improve downtown as the financial and office center of the Island, and as a major retail
X
center.
Policy 7: Provide for the continued viability of the Hawai’i Capital District as a center of government activities
X
and as an attractive park-like setting in the heart of the City.
Policy 8: Foster the development of Honolulu's waterfront as the State's major port and maritime center, as a
X
people-oriented mixed-use area, and as a major recreation area.
Policy 9: Facilitate the redevelopment of Kaka‘ako as a major residential, as well as commercial and light
X
industrial area.
OBJECTIVE C: To develop a secondary urban center in ‘Ewa with its nucleus in the Kapolei area.
Policy 1: Allocate funds from the City and County's capital-improvement program for public projects that are
X
needed to facilitate development of the secondary urban center at Kapolei.
Policy 2: Encourage the development of a major residential, commercial, and employment center within the
X
secondary urban center at Kapolei.
Policy 3: Encourage the continuing development of Barbers Point as a major industrial center. X
Policy 4: Coordinate plans for the development of the secondary urban center at Kapolei with the State and
X
Federal governments and with the sugar industry.
Policy 5: Cooperate with the State and Federal governments in the development of a deep water harbor at
X
Barbers Point.
5-34
N/A
N/S
S
Policy 6: Encourage the development of the ‘Ewa Marina Community as a major residential and recreation area
emphasizing recreational boating activities through the provision of a major marina and a related maritime X
commercial center containing light-industrial, commercial, and visitor accommodation uses.
OBJECTIVE D: To maintain those development characteristics in the urban-fringe and rural areas which make them desirable
places to live.
Policy 1: Develop and maintain urban-fringe areas as predominantly residential areas characterized by
generally low rise, low density development which may include significant levels of retail and service
X
commercial uses as well as satellite institutional and public uses geared to serving the needs of
households.
Policy 2: Coordinate plans for developments within the ‘Ewa and Central O‘ahu urban-fringe areas with the
X
State and Federal governments and with the sugar, pineapple, and other emerging agricultural industries.
Policy 3: Establish a green belt in the ‘Ewa and Central O‘ahu areas of O‘ahu in the Development Plans. X
Policy 4: Maintain rural areas as areas which are intended to provide environments supportive of lifestyle
choices which are dependent on the availability of land suitable for small to moderate size agricultural
pursuits, a relatively open and scenic setting, and/or a small town, country atmosphere consisting of X
communities which are small in size, very low density and low rise in character, and may contain a mixture
of uses.
OBJECTIVE E: To create and maintain attractive, meaningful, and stimulating environments throughout O‘ahu.
Policy 1: Prepare and maintain a comprehensive urban-design plan for the Island of O‘ahu. X
Policy 2: Integrate the City and County's urban-design plan into all levels of physical planning and
X
developmental controls.
Policy 3: Encourage distinctive community identities for both new and existing districts and neighborhoods. X
Policy 4: Require the consideration of urban-design principles in all development projects. X
Policy 5: Require new developments in stable, established communities and rural areas to be compatible with
X
the existing communities and areas.
Policy 6: Provide special design standards and controls that will allow more compact development and
X
intensive use of lands in the primary urban center.
Policy 7: Promote public and private programs to beautify the urban and rural environments. X
Policy 8: Preserve and maintain beneficial open space in urbanized areas. X
Policy 9: Design public structures to meet high aesthetic and functional standards and to complement the
X
physical character of the communities they will serve.
Policy 10: Establish a review process to evaluate the design of major development projects. X
OBJECTIVE F: To promote and enhance the social and physical character of O‘ahu's older towns and neighborhoods.
Policy 1: Encourage new construction to complement the ethnic qualities of the older communities of O‘ahu. X
Policy 2: Encourage, wherever desirable, the rehabilitation of existing substandard structures. X
Policy 3: Provide and maintain roads, public facilities, and utilities without damaging the character of older
X
communities.
Policy 4: Seek the satisfactory relocation of residents before permitting their displacement by new
X
development, redevelopment, or neighborhood rehabilitation.
Discussion: The City and County of Honolulu General Plan policies regarding physical development and urban design are
PART VIII: PUBLIC SAFETY
OBJECTIVE A: To prevent and control crime and maintain public order.
Policy 1: Provide a safe environment for residents and visitors on O‘ahu. X
Policy 2: Provide adequate criminal justice facilities and staffing for City and County law- enforcement agencies. X
Policy 3: Emphasize improvements to police and prosecution operations which will result in a higher proportion
X
of wrongdoers who are arrested, convicted, and punished for their crimes.
Policy 4: Keep the public informed of the nature and extent of criminal activity on O‘ahu. X
Policy 5: Establish and maintain programs to encourage public cooperation in the prevention and solution of
X
crimes.
Policy 6: Seek the help of State and Federal law- enforcement agencies to curtail the activities of organized
X
crime syndicates on O‘ahu.
Policy 7: Conduct periodic reviews of criminal laws to ensure their relevance to the community's needs and
X
values.
Policy 8: Cooperate with other law-enforcement agencies to develop new methods of fighting crime. X
5-35
N/A
N/S
S
Policy 9: Encourage the improvement of rehabilitation programs and facilities for criminals and juvenile
X
offenders.
OBJECTIVE B: To protect the people of O‘ahu and their property against natural disasters and other emergencies, traffic and
fire hazards, and unsafe conditions.
Policy 1: Keep up-to-date and enforce all City and County safety regulations. X
Policy 2: Require all developments in areas subject to floods and tsunamis to be located and constructed in a
X
manner that will not create any health or safety hazard.
Policy 3: Participate with State and Federal agencies in the funding and construction of flood- control projects. X
Policy 4: Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to provide tsunami warning and protection for O‘ahu. X
Policy 5: Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to provide protection from war, civil disruptions, and other
X
major disturbances.
Policy 6: Reduce hazardous traffic conditions. X
Policy 7: Provide adequate fire protection and effective fire prevention programs. X
Policy 8: Provide adequate search and rescue and disaster response services. X
Policy 9: Design safe and secure public buildings. X
Policy 10: Provide adequate staff to supervise activities at public facilities. X
Policy 11: Develop civil defense plans and programs to protect and promote public health, safety and welfare
X
of the people.
Policy 12: Provide educational materials on civil defense preparedness, fire protection, traffic hazards and
X
other unsafe conditions.
Discussion: BWS supports the City and County of Honolulu General Plan policy regarding public safety. The removal of Ha‘ikū
Stairs supports public safety policies by removing access to Ha‘ikū Stairs with the intention to reduce potentially dangerous
situations due to trespassing. The project will be conducted following all Occupational Safety and Health
Administration/Hawai‘i Occupational Safety and Health standards to ensure public health and safety during any
construction activities.
PART IX: HEALTH AND EDUCATION
OBJECTIVE A: To protect the health of the people of O‘ahu.
Policy 1: Encourage the provision of health-care facilities that are accessible to both employment and
X
residential centers.
Policy 2: Encourage prompt and adequate ambulance and first-aid services in all areas of O‘ahu. X
Policy 3: Coordinate City and County health codes and other regulations with State and Federal health codes
X
to facilitate the enforcement of air-, water-, and noise-pollution controls.
OBJECTIVE B: To provide a wide range of educational opportunities for the people of O‘ahu.
Policy 1: Support education programs that encourage the development of employable skills. X
Policy 2: Encourage the provision of informal educational programs for people of all age groups. X
Policy 3: Encourage the after-hours use of school buildings, grounds, and facilities. X
Policy 4: Encourage the construction of school facilities that are designed for flexibility and high levels of use. X
Policy 5: Facilitate the appropriate location of learning institutions from the preschool through the university
X
levels.
OBJECTIVE C: To make Honolulu the center of higher education in the Pacific.
Policy 1: Encourage continuing improvement in the quality of higher education in Hawai’i. X
Policy 2: Encourage the development of diverse opportunities in higher education. X
Policy 3: Encourage research institutions to establish branches on O‘ahu. X
Discussion: The City and County of Honolulu General Plan policies regarding health and education are not directly applicable
to the project.
PART X: CULTURE AND RECREATION
OBJECTIVE A: To foster the multiethnic culture of Hawai‘i.
Policy 1: Encourage the preservation and enhancement of Hawai‘i's diverse cultures. X
Policy 2: Encourage greater public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of cultural heritage and
X
contributions to Hawai’i made by the City's various ethnic groups.
Policy 3: Encourage opportunities for better interaction among people with different ethnic, social, and cultural
X
backgrounds.
Policy 4: Encourage the protection of the ethnic identities of the older communities of O‘ahu. X
OBJECTIVE B: To protect O‘ahu's cultural, historic, architectural, and archaeological resources.
5-36
N/A
N/S
S
Policy 1: Encourage the restoration and preservation of early Hawaiian structures, artifacts, and landmarks. X
Policy 2: Identify, and to the extent possible, preserve and restore buildings, sites, and areas of social, cultural,
X
historic, architectural, and archaeological significance.
Policy 3: Cooperate with the State and Federal governments in developing and implementing a comprehensive
X
preservation program for social, cultural, historic, architectural, and archaeological resources.
Policy 4: Promote the interpretive and educational use of cultural, historic, architectural, and archaeological
X
sites, buildings, and artifacts.
Policy 5: Seek public and private funds, and public participation and support, to protect social, cultural, historic,
X
architectural, and archaeological resources.
Policy 6: Provide incentives for the restoration, preservation, and maintenance of social, cultural, historic,
X
architectural, and archaeological resources.
OBJECTIVE C: To foster the visual and performing arts.
Policy 1: Encourage and support programs and activities for the visual and performing arts. X
Policy 2: Encourage creative expression and access to the arts by all segments of the population. X
Policy 3: Provide permanent art in appropriate City public buildings and places. X
OBJECTIVE D: To provide a wide range of recreational facilities and services that are readily available to all residents of
O‘ahu.
Policy 1: Develop and maintain community-based parks to meet the needs of the different communities on
X
O‘ahu.
Policy 2: Develop and maintain a system of regional parks and specialized recreation facilities. X
Policy 3: Develop and maintain urban parks, squares, and beautification areas in high-density urban places. X
Policy 4: Encourage public and private botanic and zoological parks on O‘ahu to foster an awareness and
X
appreciation of the natural environment.
Policy 5: Encourage the State to develop and maintain a system of natural resource-based parks, such as
X
beach, shoreline, and mountain parks.
Policy 6: Provide convenient access to all beaches and inland recreation areas. X
Policy 7: Provide for recreation programs which serve a broad spectrum of the population. X
Policy 8: Encourage ocean and water-oriented recreation activities that do not adversely impact on the natural
X
environment.
Policy 9: Require all new developments to provide their residents with adequate recreation space. X
Policy 10: Encourage the private provision of recreation and leisure-time facilities and services. X
Policy 11: Encourage the after-hours, weekend, and summertime use of public school’s facilities for recreation. X
Policy 12: Provide for safe and secure use of public parks, beaches, and recreation facilities. X
Policy 13: Encourage the safe use of O‘ahu's ocean environments. X
Policy 14: Encourage the State and Federal governments to transfer excess and underutilized land to the City
X
and County for public recreation use.
Discussion: Most of the objectives under the City and County of Honolulu General Plan policy on culture and recreation are
not directly applicable to the project. However, the Proposed Action is not supportive of several policies under Objective B.
Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will not support preservation of a historic site, will preclude government cooperation for a
comprehensive preservation program for historic resources, will not promote educational use of a historic site, and will not
seek public funding to protect historic resources.
PART XI: GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT
OBJECTIVE A: To promote increased efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness in the provision of government services
by the City and County of Honolulu.
Policy 1: Maintain City and County government services at the level necessary to be effective. X
Policy 2: Promote consolidation of State and City and County functions whenever more efficient and effective
X
delivery of government programs and services can be achieved.
Policy 3: Ensure that government attitudes, actions, and services are sensitive to community needs and
X
concerns.
Policy 4: Prepare, maintain, and publicize policies and plans which are adequate to guide and coordinate City
X
programs and regulatory responsibilities.
OBJECTIVE B: To ensure fiscal integrity, responsibility, and efficiency by the City and County government in carrying out its
responsibilities.
Policy 1: Provide for a balanced budget. X
5-37
N/A
N/S
S
Policy 2: Allocate fiscal resources of the City and County to efficiently implement the policies of the General
X
Plan and Development Plans.
Discussion: BWS supports the City and County of Honolulu General Plan regarding Government Operations and Fiscal
Management. The Proposed Action is supportive of efficient government use of financial resources, as it reduces ongoing
costs for security at Ha‘ikū Stairs. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will also show sensitivity to some community concerns, as some
Ha‘ikū Valley residents have been asking for the removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs for over 20 years. However, removing Ha‘ikū Stairs
will not show sensitivity to members of the community and greater public that advocate for keeping them.
5.3.2 ROH Chapter 21- City and County of Honolulu Land Use Ordinance
The purpose of the LUO is to regulate land in a manner that will encourage orderly development in
accordance with adopted land use policies, including the City and County of Honolulu's general and
development plans. LUO is also intended to provide reasonable development and design standards.
Discussion: The project area is located in the LUO designation of P-1, restricted preservation district.
The purpose of the preservation district is to preserve and manage major open space and recreation
lands and lands of scenic and other natural resource value. Within the P-1 district, all uses, structures,
and development shall be governed by the appropriate state agency. As the property on which the
Ha‘ikū Stairs are located upon is also within the State Conservation District, the State DLNR Office of
Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) is the appropriate governing agency. The Proposed Action
would be consistent with the purpose of the restricted preservation district to preserve open space
and lands of natural resource value. The removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will require a design review and a
Site Plan Approval Application from the OCCL. A Conditional Use Permit minor may also be required
for the extraction and disposal of stairway units.
5.3.3 Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan (August 2017)
The KPSCP is one of eight community-oriented plans intended to help guide public policy, investment,
and decision-making through the 2035 planning horizon. Its vision statement and supporting
provisions are oriented towards maintaining and enhancing the region’s ability to sustain its unique
character and lifestyle.
Regional Development Plans and Sustainable Communities Plans such as the KPSCP form the second
tier of the City’s three tier system of objectives, policies, planning principals, guidelines and
regulations. The General Plan forms the first tier and implementing ordinances such as the Land Use
Ordinance compose the third tier. Recommendations and guidelines of the KPSCP are summarized in
Table 5-5.
Table 5-5 Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan –

N/A
N/S
Objectives and Policies

S

Chapter 1: Ko‘olau Poko’s Role in O‘ahu’s Development Pattern
• Limit the potential for new housing in the region so that significant residential growth is directed
instead to the Primary Urban Center and ‘Ewa Development Plan Areas, as well as the Central
X
O‘ahu Sustainable Communities Plan Area, in accordance with the population distribution policy
set forth in the General Plan, which currently provides that Ko‘olau Poko’s share of the 2025
distribution of O‘ahu’s resident population is to be about 11.6 percent.
5-38
N/A
N/S
S
• Revitalize existing commercial centers and limit the expansion of commercial centers and
economic activity in the region to promote the development and growth of employment in the
Primary Urban Center, and the designated secondary urban center at Kapolei.
• Maintain the predominantly low-rise, low-density, single-family form of residential development in
the urban fringe and rural communities depicted on Exhibit 1-1.
• Maintain and promote small-scale agricultural uses in the mauka areas of Waimānalo and from
Kahalu‘u north to Kualoa.
• Encourage continuation of small-scale agricultural uses in urban areas, provided that there are
standards for compatibility between adjacent uses.
• Avoid urbanization of flood- and erosion-prone areas and seek to restore the natural filtering, flood
control, recreational, biological and aesthetic values of streams, fishponds and wetlands.
• Preserve scenic views and the scenic beauty of the ocean, bays and beaches.
• Preserve scenic views of ridges, upper-valley slopes, shoreline areas from trans-Ko‘olau and
coastal highways; from coastal waters looking mauka; and from popular hiking trails that extend
toward the Ko‘olau Mountain Range and mauka from Kawainui Marsh.
• Discourage the use of shore armoring structures.
• Promote access to mountain and shoreline resources for recreational purposes and traditional
hunting, fishing, gathering, religious, and cultural practices.
• Promote restoration of fish population in near-shore waters.
Discussion: The growth policies of the KPSCP Chapter 1 are not applicable to the Proposed Action.
Chapter 2: The Vision for Ko‘olau Poko’s Future
2.1 Key Elements of the Vision
The vision for Ko‘olau Poko’s future is implemented through the following key elements:
• Adapt the concept of ahupua‘a in land use and natural resource management;
• Preserve and promote open space and agricultural uses;
• Preserve and enhance scenic, recreational and cultural features that define Ko‘olau Poko’s sense
of place; X
• Emphasize alternatives to the private passenger vehicle as modes for travel;
• Protect and enhance residential character while adapting to changing needs;
• Define and enhance existing commercial and civic districts; and,
• Maintain the Community Growth Boundary to protect agricultural, open space, and natural
resources.
Discussion: The Proposed Action will not fully support the goals of KPSCP Chapter 2 as removing Ha‘ikū Stairs will remove
a historic resource and a recreation destination that has become a local landmark and contributes to a “sense of place.”
Chapter 3: Land Use Policies and Guidelines
3.1 Open Space Preservation
3.1.1 Policies
• Provide both active and passive open spaces. Active areas include community-based parks, golf
courses, cemeteries and intensive agricultural uses. Passive areas include lands in the State
Conservation District, drainage and utility corridors, nature parks, preserves and wetlands, and
agricultural lands such as pastures, aquaculture ponds and fallow fields. Beach parks, which may
be either active or passive, depending on the extent to which the landscape has been modified by
grading and construction of facilities and the intensity of public use, are also part of the open
space system. X
• Improve the accessibility of recreational open space for public recreational use, especially in
shoreline and mountain areas (as required by City ordinance and State law). Address the need for
parking and emergency vehicle access.
• Protect endangered species and their habitats.
• Enhance the visual and physical definition of urban areas, particularly where topographic features
are less pronounced, with contrasting forms of open space and landscaping.
• Promote the dual use of roadway and drainage corridors to create linear open space that is also
a more inviting environment for walking, jogging and biking. Where physical modification of natural
drainageways is necessary to provide adequate flood protection, design and construct such
5-39
N/A
N/S
S
modifications to maintain habitat and aesthetic values, as well as to avoid degradation of the
stream, coastline and nearshore water quality.
• Protect scenic beauty and scenic views and provide recreation.
• Promote access to shoreline and mountain areas.
• Define the boundaries of communities.
• Prevent urban sprawl.
• Provide buffers between agricultural uses and residential neighborhoods.
• Create a system of linear greenways along roadways and drainage channels.
• Prevent development in areas susceptible to landslides and similar hazards.
3.1.2 Guidelines
• Require surveys to identify endangered species habitats and require appropriate mitigation
measures to address impacts due to new developments.
• Allow outdoor lighting at the minimum level necessary for public safety, security, and community X
aesthetics consistent with the goals of energy conservation and environmental protection.
• Adopt outdoor night lighting standards that encourage efforts to minimize glare and stray light,
and reinforce the difference between urban and rural communities.
3.1.3.1 Mountain Areas
Guidelines for Mountain Areas
• Improve access to mountain areas and enhance the physical condition and recreational and
educational value of Ko‘olau Poko’s hiking trails by fully implementing the recommendations in
the State of Hawai‘i’s Na Ala Hele Program Plan. Accompany access improvements with funding
for management of associated problems through increased trail maintenance, weed control and
eradication of non-native predators.
• Create public access to the former U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station site, including Ha‘ikū Stairs,
and combine this parcel site with the adjoining City and County of Honolulu parcel for the proposed
Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve in order to:
o Provide recreational, cultural and educational benefits; and
o Help protect resources in the makai portion of the He‘eia watershed, including a high-quality
perennial stream, a significant wetland habitat for waterbirds, migratory waterfowl and
shorebirds, and an ancient Hawaiian fishpond.
• Improve the sites that have been acquired for Waihe‘e Valley Nature Park and Waikāne Nature
X
Preserve in a manner that preserves the area’s natural scenic quality and provides educational
and passive recreation opportunities.
• Promote the preservation of remaining undeveloped lands at the foot of the Ko‘olau Mountain
Range through protective regulatory measures, tax incentives for the establishment of
conservation easements and management programs on private properties, and public acquisition
of fee simple or partial interest, where necessary to create the Ko‘olau scenic resource area or
“greenbelt” from Waimanālo to Kualoa. (See Ko‘olau Greenbelt under Section 3.1.3.3)
• Locate structures at higher elevations of slopes only for purposes of public safety when there is
no feasible alternative, and when adequate mitigation measures have been taken to reduce or
avoid impact on the scenic and natural environment.
• Maintain, protect, and/or restore native forests in the State Conservation District, especially by
identifying and protecting endangered species habitats and other sensitive ecological zones from
threats such as fire, alien species, feral animals, and human activity and disturbance.
• Provide access to existing mountain trails through acquisition of easements or rights-of-way, if
necessary. Work with property owners to provide access over their lands to mountain trails.
3.1.3.2 Shoreline Areas
Guidelines for Shoreline Areas
• Maintain existing makai view channels along Kalaniana‘ole Highway between Makapu‘u Point and
Waimanālo Beach Park; along Kawailoa Road and North Kalāheo Avenue in Kailua; along Lilipuna
Road in Kāne‘ohe; and along Kamehameha Highway north of Kāne‘ohe. Avoid visual obstructions, X
such as walls and dense landscaping.
• Create and maintain new makai view channels along Kamehameha Highway and Kahekili Highway
north of Kāne‘ohe by:
5-40
N/A
N/S
S
o Acquiring shoreline properties along the highway either in fee or by obtaining easements and
maintenance agreements with private landowners, giving priority to locations where there are
actual or potential vistas of perennial streams, wetlands, fishponds and off-shore islands;
and
o Selective clearing of dense vegetation and the removal of structures.
• Maintain the untamed landscape quality of the Makapu‘u viewshed, with any modification to this
area being done for the purpose of health and safety and in a manner that continues the
landscape character of the scenic shoreline corridor on the East Honolulu side of Makapu‘u Point.
• Establish buffer zones for the protection of rare coastal resources and recognition that such
resources should be defined and identified.
• Increase opportunities for physical access to the shoreline areas of Kāne‘ohe and Kailua by
acquiring additional shorefront areas, with following locations as priorities:
o The site of the Kāne‘ohe Wastewater Pre-Treatment Facility, to be named Waikalua Bayside
Park, with possible expansion into Kokokahi YWCA facility through either acquisition or joint
use agreement;
o King Intermediate School and an area north of He‘eia Kea Landing, which may require some
realignment of a portion of Kamehameha Highway to create adequate land area makai of the
roadway; and
o A site in either the Oneawa Beach area, near the surf spot known as “Castles” or in the
frontage along Kalaheo Avenue between Kailua Beach Park and Kalama Beach Park.
• Improve existing pedestrian rights-of-way to the shoreline by providing onstreet or off-street
parking nearby; secured bicycle racks where the access point adjoins an existing or planned
bikeway, such as along Mokulua Drive in Lanikai and Kāne‘ohe Bay Drive in Kāne‘ohe; and
provisions for emergency vehicle access and lateral access along the shoreline.
• Prepare beach management plans to maintain lateral access along popular beaches that are
subject to long-term and seasonal erosion, particularly at Lanikai and Kualoa, emphasizing non-
structural approaches and prevention of adverse effects on adjacent coral reef ecosystems such
as greater shoreline setbacks for new structures along these and other unstable shoreline areas.
The Kailua Beach and Dune Management Plan could serve as a prototype for beach management
plans at other locations. Effective beach management plans are very location-specific and
incorporate the consideration of long-term effects such as climate change and sea level rise, as
well as seasonal and long-term erosion and accretion.
• Locate and design exterior lighting to avoid disturbance to seabirds and marine mammals, using
DLNR guidelines.
• Designate the Alāla Point to Wailea shoreline as an erosion-prone area and prepare a beach
management plan for this area, focusing beach restoration activities on the Bellows Air Force
Station beach and Kaupō beach.
• Designate the shoreline along Kamehameha Highway adjacent to Kualoa Ranch to Kualoa Point
as an erosion-prone area and prepare a beach management plan for this area.
• Pursue measures to render all shoreline accretion as public (State) property in perpetuity in order
to preserve shorelines as a public resource.
• Prohibit the use of shore armoring structures, considering alternative measures such as beach
replenishment.
• Modify shoreline setbacks as needed to protect the natural shoreline, lessen the impact to coastal
processes, and address sea level rise.
• Analyze the possible impact of sea level rise for new public and private projects in shoreline areas
and incorporate, where appropriate and feasible, measures to reduce risks and increase resiliency
to impacts of sea level rise.
3.1.3.3 Wetlands, Wildlife Preserves and Nature Parks
Guidelines for Wetlands, Wildlife Preserves, and Nature Parks
• Prepare use and management plans for He‘eia Marsh, Waihe‘e Valley Nature Park, Ha‘ikū Valley
Cultural and Nature Preserve, and Waikāne Nature Preserve and develop those sites pursuant to X
those plans.
• Encourage owners of private wetlands, such as Waihe‘e Marsh (also known as “Haia Moa”), and
other wildlife habitats, to prepare and abide by use and management plans for those resources,
5-41
N/A
N/S
S
and to investigate the various State and Federal programs that provide incentives for landowners
to manage their lands for the benefit of wildlife.
• Prepare and implement a plan to establish a Ko‘olau Greenbelt.
• Prohibit encroachment or intensification of residential or other urban uses near wildlife
sanctuaries and nature parks.
• Prepare wildlife preserve management plans emphasizing conservation and restoration of native
plants, birds, fish and invertebrates.
• Minimize the adverse effects of artificial lighting on wildlife and human health by balancing the
need of outdoor lighting for night utility, security, and desire for reasonable architectural
expression with the need to conserve energy and protect the natural environment.
3.1.3.4 Natural Gulches, Streams and Drainageways
Guidelines for Natural Gulches, Streams and Drainageways
• Preserve the natural aesthetic and biological values of gulches, streams and drainageways as part
of the open space system by implementing the stream classifications, design guidelines and
actions contained in the Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan for the protection of natural
stream beds and habitat and the restoration of degraded streams.
• Alter natural drainageways only when necessary to provide flood protection for existing developed
areas, and in a way that preserves aesthetic and biological values, and avoids degradation of X
stream, coastline and nearshore water quality. For example, impacts on biological conditions may
be mitigated, as appropriate, by using v-shaped bottom channels for periods of low stream flow,
rip-rap boulder lining of stream banks, streamside vegetation and similar strategies to shade, cool
and aerate the waters of the stream and provide riparian and stream bottom habitat.
• Incorporate erosion control measures and best management practices, as cited in the Hawai‘i’s
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Management Plan to prevent pollution of wetlands,
streams, estuaries and nearshore waters.
Guidelines for Other Open Space Elements
Agriculture
• Design and locate buildings and other facilities that are accessory to an agricultural operation in
a way that minimizes visual impacts within the view corridors identified in Appendix Map A-1. X
• Retain the open space character of pastures adjacent to Kawainui Marsh and within the Hawai‘i
Youth Correctional Facility to visually separate and define the edges of the Maunawili, Olomana
and Pohakūpū and Kukunono residential neighborhoods.
Golf Courses
Policies relating to golf courses:
X
• New golf courses are not recommended for Ko‘olau Poko.
Guidelines relating to golf courses:
• Maintain golf courses to provide view amenities for adjacent urban areas, especially from well-
used public rights-of-way, parks and vista points. Where necessary, redesign golf course facilities
or layouts to reduce the visual prominence of large accessory buildings.
• Design and maintain existing golf courses to avoid or minimize environmental impacts, such as
siltation, pesticide and fertilizer runoff, destruction of coastal, riparian and wetland habitat, etc.
• Optimize the function of golf courses as passive drainageways, maximizing their potential to retain X
or detain stormwater runoff.
• Provide safe access through golf courses, as necessary, for regional continuity of pedestrian and
bicycle systems.
• When necessary for safety reasons, use landscape screening, setbacks and modifications to the
course layout rather than fencing or solid barriers.
• Provide appropriate buffers between golf courses and surrounding residential areas.
Cemeteries
Guidelines for Cemeteries:
• Maintain the open space character of the cemeteries through very low lot coverage ratios. X
• Where located in the State Conservation District or in preservation area designated by this Plan,
above-grade structures shall be limited to maintain the open space character of the cemetery.
5-42
N/A
N/S
S
• Limit above-grade structures to grave markers of modest size; and necessary administrative and
maintenance support buildings that are minimally visible from public rights-of-way, entries and
vista points.
• Where direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts of any proposed cemetery expansion will affect rare,
threatened, or endangered species; or where direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts of any
proposed cemetery expansion on sensitive areas are identified in any environmental setting;
measures to mitigate, reduce, or rectify any adverse impacts shall be formulated.
• Any proposed expansion by Hawaiian Memorial Park must include a 150-foot buffer from
residential homes, a 2,000-foot buffer from the Pohai Nani senior living community, and a phased
approach to sales and marketing to ensure that the land adjacent to the residential homes on
Lipalu Street is the last portion of land used for cemetery interment, in order to minimize potential
impacts to neighboring residents.
• Hawaiian Memorial Park shall record with the State of Hawai‘i Bureau of Conveyances or the State
of Hawai‘i Land Court, or both, as appropriate, a conservation easement on the entirety of the
156-acre undeveloped portion of its Pikoiloa Tract property (TMK No. 4-5-033: 001) that would
limit any other future development on the property, except for the 28.2-acre portion of the property
that encompasses the proposed Hawaiian Memorial Park expansion site, and the 14.5-acre
portion of the property that encompasses the proposed Kawa'ewa'e Heiau cultural preserve.
3.1.4 Protection of Other Natural Resources
3.1.4.1 Policies
• Protect endangered species and their habitats.
• Balance the need for public safety, the protection of property, and the desire for architectural X
embellishments with the need to conserve energy and the protection of wildlife and human health
from adverse effects of outdoor night lighting.
3.1.4.2 Guidelines
• Require surveys to identify endangered species habitat, and require appropriate mitigation and
protection measures to address impacts due to developments.
• Minimize glare and obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or
X
unnecessary by fully shielding lighting (no light above the horizontal plane) fixtures and using lower
wattage.
• Adopt outdoor night lighting standards that help reinforce the difference between urban and rural
communities.
3.2 Parks and Recreation
3.2.1 Island-Wide Parks
Policies
• Increase the inventory of island-wide parks by giving priority to the acquisition of shorefront
properties primarily in Kāne‘ohe and secondarily in Kailua. (Note that expansion of the inventory
of island-wide parks is of lower priority than expansion of the inventory of community-based parks
in Ko‘olau Poko as provided in Section 3.3.2.)
• Maintain and enhance present island-wide parks by utilizing land area not fully developed for
recreation use. Island-wide parks are part of the region’s abundance of natural and scenic
resources and contribute to the attractiveness of Ko‘olau Poko to both residents and visitors.
• Carefully site active playfields and supporting facilities intended for intensive use, and use X
appropriate landscape screening to reduce the potential impacts on surrounding areas.
• Construct park facilities in a manner that avoids adverse impacts on natural resources or
processes in the coastal zone or any other environmentally sensitive area. In the design of
recreation areas, incorporate natural features of the site and use landscape materials that are
indigenous to the area in order to retain a sense of place.
• Integrate and link recreational attractions, which may be designed to have distinct identities and
entries, with surrounding areas through the use of connecting roadways, bikeways, walkways,
landscape features and/or architectural design.
Guidelines
Passive or Nature Parks
• Acquire and develop the proposed Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve, including access to X
Ha‘ikū Stairs.
5-43
N/A
N/S
S
• Improve the Waikāne Nature Preserve and Waihe‘e Valley Nature Park.
Active Recreation Areas
• Acquire additional shorefront land for parks in Kāne‘ohe and Kailua with particular attention to
increasing shoreline access in Kāne‘ohe.
• Locate bus stops and loading areas at principal entries and adjacent to convenient pedestrian
accesses to main activity areas within the park.
• Provide amenities and service facilities to accommodate “tailgate” picnics in parking areas for
sporting events, including shading canopy trees within the parking lot as well as nearby picnic X
tables and outdoor grills.
• Locate areas designed for sporting events that attract high numbers of people along major
collector streets and separate them as much as possible from residential areas and significant
wildlife habitats.
• Expand active recreational facilities by incorporating facilities such as playfields and playcourts in
regional and beach parks and in the former sanitary landfill site at Kapa‘a.
Community-Based Parks
Policies
• Increase the inventory of community-based parks to provide sports and recreation facilities for
Ko‘olau Poko residents in appropriate locations in Kailua, Kāne‘ohe, Kahalu‘u, and Waimanālo
with land acquisition to reduce the existing deficit of such parks in these areas.
• Increase recreation facilities in existing parks and increase access to public school facilities in
areas where there is limited opportunity to expand park space.
• Require new residential development provide land for open space and recreation purposes in lieu X
of payment of a fee for park dedication purposes, if the project is of sufficient size to set aside
usable land to meet neighborhood recreational needs.
• Pursue the development of greenways along the following streams and drainage channels: Kāne‘ohe
Stream, from Kāne‘ohe Bay to Kamehameha Highway; Kea‘ahala Stream, from Kāne‘ohe Bay to
Kahekili Highway; Kawainui Stream, from Kailua Bay to Kawainui Marsh; Kawa Stream, from Mokulele
Drive to Kāne‘ohe Bay Drive; and Ka‘elepulu Stream, from Kailua Bay to Ka‘elepulu Pond.
Guidelines
• Design and site structural improvements and landscaping in community-based parks in such a
way as to enhance the aesthetic value of these open space elements.
• Mitigate visual impacts of large recreation buildings or structures, lighting, parking lots, perimeter
fencing along major collector streets and other utilitarian elements through building design,
plantings or other appropriate visual screens adjacent to residential areas and major roadways.
• Encourage multi-use and/or modest expansion of existing facilities over the construction of new
structures to minimize impacts on open space.
• Prepare a functional plan for the acquisition of new community-based parks in Kailua, Kāne‘ohe, X
Kahalu‘u, and Waimanālo.
• Have master plans for development of new parks or redevelopment of existing parks provide for
facilities and accessible pathways from surrounding streets to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle
access to parks.
• The DPR should explore ways, through cooperative agreements and mutual indemnifications with
the UH, DOE and non-profit organizations, to design and operate facilities to achieve efficiencies
and reduce duplication in the development and use of athletic, recreation, meeting, and parking
facilities.
3.3 Historic and Cultural Resources
3.3.1 Policies
• Emphasize physical references to Ko‘olau Poko’s history and cultural roots.
• Protect existing visual landmarks and support the creation of new, culturally appropriate
landmarks.
• Preserve significant historic features from earlier periods. X
• Retain significant vistas associated with archaeological features.
• Implement in situ preservation and appropriate protection measures for sites that have high
preservation value because of their good condition or unique features.
5-44
N/A
N/S
S
• Determine the appropriate treatment for a historic site by the particular qualities of the site and
its relationship to its physical surroundings. Carefully plan and design adjacent uses to avoid
conflicts or abrupt contrasts that detract from or destroy the physical integrity and historic or
cultural value of the site since the context of a historic site is usually a significant part of its value.
• Establish the degree of public access and interpretation that would best promote the preservation
of the historic, cultural and educational value of the site, recognizing that economic use is
sometimes the only feasible way to preserve a site. Public access to a historic site can take many
forms, from direct physical contact and use to limited visual contact. In some cases, however, it
may be highly advisable to restrict access to protect the physical integrity or cultural value of the
site.
3.3.2 Guidelines
Native Hawaiian cultural and archaeological sites:
• Require preservation in situ only for those features that the State Historic Preservation Officer has
recommended such treatment.
• Determine the appropriate preservation methods on a site-by-site basis in consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer.
• Determine appropriate delineation of site boundaries and setback restrictions for adjacent uses based
X
on whether a site is listed and/or eligible for listing on the State and/or National Register of Historic
Places and on a site-by-site basis in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office.
• Include sight lines that are significant to the original purpose and value of the site in criteria for
adjacent use restrictions.
• Determine the appropriateness of public access on a site-by-site basis in consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer and the owner of the land on which the site is located.
Historic sites and landmarks the following guidelines apply:
• Promote the identification, survey and listing of sites that are eligible for the Hawai‘i or National
Registers of Historic Places.
• Preserve the architectural character, landscape setting and visual context of historic and cultural
landmarks through appropriate zoning standards and development controls, as necessary, and
public outreach programs such as design guidelines for the maintenance, renovation or expansion
of older dwellings.
• Provide incentives for the preservation and maintenance of historic sites and buildings, and allow
for adaptive re-use of historic buildings through a permit review process.
3.4 Agricultural Use
3.4.1 Policies
• Encourage agricultural use of small lots.
• Adopt development and public works standards that are appropriate and cost effective for rural,
agricultural areas.
• Provide support infrastructure, services and facilities to foster and sustain agricultural operations.
• Implement tax policies and easements that promote active, long-term agricultural uses.
• Encourage organic and sustainable agriculture.
• Encourage self-contained land-based aquaculture in appropriate locations.
• Prevent the conversion of agricultural lots to residential or other nonagricultural uses.
• Modify standards for public infrastructure in rural and agricultural areas in accord with the
character and needs of such areas. X
• Develop and apply use standards to provide for all agricultural activities and uses customarily
associated with agricultural areas, including ranching and plant nurseries (crop production with
on-site retail or wholesale sales).
• In agricultural districts, craft nuisance regulations in zoning and environmental codes to give
preference to agriculture use over residential use.
• Limit non-agricultural uses to those that provide support services for agricultural operations or
operations related to public renewable energy sourcing, provided it does not remove high quality
agricultural land.
• Provide tax incentives, technical and financial assistance, and public land or facilities that support
agricultural operations and/or the marketing of products.
5-45
N/A
N/S
S
• Promote land trusts, conservation easements, agricultural dedications, and other mechanisms as
incentives to preserve agricultural land use.
• Promote and provide opportunities for small family farms.
3.4.2 Guidelines
• Limit the floor area of dwellings and prevent inappropriate urban uses, such as meeting facilities
and conditional uses that have no direct relationship to agricultural or local community needs.
Permit a dwelling only if it is accessory to a verifiable agricultural use on the same lot.
• Require new residential development to maintain an adequate buffer when adjacent to
agricultural lands, giving consideration to topographic barriers, prevailing winds, and the noise
and air-borne emissions associated with the type of agricultural operation.
• Adopt standards for roadway and other infrastructure design that are appropriate and intended
for continued agricultural use rather than residential use.
• Require the acknowledgement of agricultural standards in the subdivision process and in all deeds
to lots.
• Focus performance standards for agricultural zoning districts on preventing degradation of the
natural environment, maintaining the viability of agricultural uses, and protecting the health and
safety of agricultural workers rather than on disturbance to residential uses.
• Encourage development proposals of more than two lots to apply for cluster housing which X
provides a larger, contiguous area reserved for agriculture use.
• Structure property tax assessments and rates to encourage long-term leases for agricultural
operations. Also, adopt lower development fees and standards for agricultural subdivisions that
do not involve the construction of dwellings.
• Adopt zoning standards that promote the use of natural energy sources to support agricultural uses.
• Permit revenue-producing activities on lots where a commercial agricultural operation is being
conducted, as ancillary uses. Allow these activities only if they do not interfere with surrounding
agricultural uses. Examples of compatible activities include camping, picnicking, horseback riding,
training and instruction, rodeos, polo matches, and tours of botanical gardens, fishponds, and
kalo lo‘i. Private parties promoting agricultural production or agriculture-related educational
activities may be compatible, depending on the intensity of use and the location and size of the
property. Recreational activities involving motorized vehicles and thrill craft are generally not
considered compatible.
3.5 Residential Use
3.5.1 Policies
• Protect the character of existing residential areas and enhance desirable residential amenities.
• In accordance with the General Plan, increase housing capacity and address the trend toward
decreasing household size through the development of new homes on lots presently designated
for low-density residential use, and the expansion of existing homes in existing residential
neighborhoods.
• Respond to the special needs of an aging population by providing future housing development for
the elderly in a variety of living accommodations that are affordable to low- and moderate-income,
gap group, and other elderly households; such as multi-generation households, group homes,
assisted living units, and continuing care retirement communities.
• Provide greater emphasis on safe, accessible, convenient and comfortable pedestrian routes, bus
stops, and bike routes in residential areas, even if this requires somewhat slower travel speeds or X
less direct routes.
• Allow community facilities such as schools, churches and meeting halls, as well as home-based
occupations, with appropriate limitations on scale, siting and intensity of activity to respect
adjacent residential uses and the prevailing character of the surrounding neighborhood.
• Encourage bus, pedestrian, and bicycle travel, particularly to reach neighborhood destinations
such as schools, parks, and convenience stores, recognizing the need for accessible design and
safe travel conditions for elderly and/or disabled people. Implement passive and active
automobile traffic calming measures on residential neighborhood streets and plant street trees to
provide shading for sidewalks and bus stops. Provide sufficient area within the public right-of-way
to accommodate bus stop shelters.
5-46
N/A
N/S
S
• Encourage energy efficient features, such as the use of solar panels for heating water or electricity,
and passive solar design, such as the use of window recesses and overhangs and orientation of
openings to allow natural cross-ventilation. Also, incorporate resource conservation measures,
such as water flow constrictors and facilities for the sorting of waste materials for recycling, in the
design of new development and expansions of existing dwellings. Minimize the visual impacts of
such measures.
• Avoid safety and health problems inherent in the development of land with steep slopes and/or
potentially unstable soil conditions. Reevaluate and revise development standards governing such
conditions to reflect the most current civil, soils, structural engineering and geological findings
related to this subject as well as the analysis of historical experience on O‘ahu. Development
within the 100 year floodplain needs to conform with regulations and guidelines of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
• Regulate nuisance in zoning and environmental codes such that residential uses are given
preference over non-residential uses within residential zoning districts.
• Evaluate the impact or large vehicles on residential streets and implement its recommendations,
where warranted.
3.5.2 Guidelines
3.5.2.1 Rural Communities
• Adopt development standards and design guidelines for residential designated areas within the
Community Growth Boundary in order to:
o Minimize impervious surfaces;
o Require greater building setbacks than in suburban residential zoning districts;
o Generally limit building heights to two stories;
o Allow relatively narrow roadway widths;
o Allow alternative sidewalk designs, as compared to suburban communities, providing they
comply with public safety and ADA standards;
o Allow the use of detention basins and grassed swales for stormwater drainage instead of X
concrete curbs and gutters;
o Encourage the retention of a neighborhood’s character by avoiding a concentration of group
living facilities and group homes;
o Promote passive solar design, such as the use of sloped roof forms with wide overhangs, and
residential-scaled energy conservation and natural energy harnessing devices;
o Promote water conservation measures, such as flow constrictors, xeriscaping, and use of non-
potable water sources for irrigation; and
o Achieve an overall residential density of no greater than four principal dwelling units per acre.
3.5.2.2 Suburban Communities
• Adopt development standards and design guidelines for lots designated for residential use within
the Community Growth Boundary in order to:
o Retain the physical character and definition of neighborhoods and minimize long-term
adverse impacts of expansions of existing homes and new infill development on surrounding
neighborhoods;
o Enhance the identities of neighborhoods through the use of landscaping, natural features,
and building form and siting;
o Encourage appropriate scale and privacy with respect to surrounding residential properties
when infill development such as new homes or expansion of existing homes occurs;
o Provide a range of housing at varying densities, depending on the characteristics of the X
surrounding neighborhood and the physical features of the site, but not to exceed six dwelling
units per acre;
o Limit building height to two stories;
o Reduce the visual dominance of vehicular parking on residential lots and discourage the
paving of yards;
o Discourage the use of solid barrier walls that obscure views of the front yard and dwelling
entrances from the street;
o Prohibit development on slopes of 20 percent or greater that have soil characteristics
indicating potential instability for building purposes;
5-47
N/A
N/S
S
o Avoid the geographic clustering or concentration of group living facilities and group homes
that are licensed by the State and/or allowed by federal laws;
o Promote passive solar design, such as the use of sloped roof forms with wide overhangs, and
residential-scaled energy conservation and natural energy harnessing devices; and
o Promote water conservation measures, such as flow constrictors, xeriscaping, and use of non-
potable water sources for irrigation.
• Implement traffic safety measures for streets in residential neighborhoods, including:
o Install traffic calming modifications at selected street locations where speeding is a chronic
problem;
o Install additional lighting or more visually prominent crosswalks at selected intersections
where pedestrian safety is a concern;
o Post signs or install striping for designated bike routes and bike lanes; and
o Make sidewalk or pathway improvements and undertake operational measures that are
identified as part of a Safe Routes to Schools or Complete Streets program, or other
pedestrian safety initiatives.
• Adopt zoning maps that recognize existing residential apartment developments, but allow new
apartment development only under the following circumstances:
o The site is at least one acre in size and is located in close proximity to a Regional Town Center;
o The building height does not exceed three stories; and
o The density does not exceed 30 units per acre.
3.6 Commercial and Industrial Uses
3.6.1 Policies
3.6.1.1 Rural Community Center
Policies pertaining to Rural Commercial Centers are as follows:
• Promote a more concentrated, but small-scale center for commercial activities and services for
rural communities and agricultural enterprises in Kahalu‘u and Waimanālo.
• Maintain consistency in architecture and scale between the building mass of a commercial center
and its rural setting. Ensure that the architectural character of commercial centers respects the X
surrounding context, particularly when located adjacent to a residential area or significant natural
or historic feature. Commercial centers lend themselves to the application of urban design
features that provide distinctiveness to each center and strengthen the characteristics of the
communities they serve.
3.6.1.2 Suburban Commercial Center
Policies pertaining to Suburban Commercial Centers are as follows:
• Designate commercial properties within the Community Growth Boundary that are not defined as
Community Commercial Centers or Regional Town Centers as Suburban Commercial Centers.
• Maintain the present scale and purpose of the Suburban Commercial Centers, but allow minor
expansions of floor area on lots that are presently zoned for commercial use.
• Emphasize retail stores, personal services and public facilities designed to serve the needs of the X
surrounding community, i.e., typically residents within a one- to two-mile radius.
• Incorporate site design and facilities to promote pedestrian and bicycle access.
• Maintain compatibility in architectural design and scale between the building mass of a
commercial center and its urban and natural setting, particularly when located adjacent to a
residential area or significant natural or historic feature.
3.6.1.3 Community Commercial Center
Policies pertaining to Community Commercial Centers are as follows:
• Retain the present purpose and approximate size of Community Commercial Centers.
• Allow modest additions of floor area and parking through redesign of site.
• Prohibit expansion of commercial zoning to additional lots in the vicinity of these centers, except
for those near Windward City that are presently zoned heavy industrial, but are predominantly in
X
commercial-type uses.
• Incorporate site design and facilities to promote pedestrian and bicycle access.
• Maintain compatibility in architecture and scale of commercial centers and their urban and natural
settings, particularly when located adjacent to a residential area or significant natural or historic
feature.
5-48
N/A
N/S
S
3.6.1.4 Regional Town Center
Regional Town Center policies are as follows:
• Designate the centers of Kāne‘ohe and Kailua as the focal points for regional shopping and
services. This may include small to medium-sized office buildings and “service-industrial”
establishments.
• Allow low-density apartment and special needs housing uses in the commercial district to
stimulate business activity and create a livelier environment, but not to the extent that it is
inconsistent with General Plan population policies, nor to the extent that a net loss of commercial
floor area is realized in the affected Regional Town Center.
• In the centers of Kāne‘ohe and Kailua, integrate the pedestrian circulation system with linkages
through blocks to public sidewalks and transit stops. Encourage the design of storefronts and
entries to business establishments to support this pedestrian orientation.
• Encourage shared use of parking to reduce the dominance of parking lots. Implement a parking
improvement district in Kāne‘ohe and expand the parking improvement district in Kailua.
• Scale and site buildings to be consistent with the surrounding context. Provide appropriate
setback and height transitions. X
• Incorporate site design and facilities to promote pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access.
• Promote efficiencies and other improvements in traffic and parking conditions by redesigning or
re-siting parking lots, driveways (particularly in the Kailua Regional Town Center) and walkways
and providing shuttle bus services within the Kailua and Kāne‘ohe communities and their
respective Regional Town Centers.
• Maintain consistency in architecture and scale between the building mass of a commercial center
and its urban and natural setting, particularly when located adjacent to a residential area or
significant natural or historic feature. The Regional Town Centers may reflect a more urban
architectural character, with emphasis on pedestrian-scaled design and features.
• Encourage environmental compatibility via use of energy efficient features, such as solar panels
for heating water or electricity, and passive solar design, such as the use of arcades, window
recesses and awnings and orientation of openings to allow natural cross-ventilation. Also,
incorporate resource conservation measures, such as water flow constrictors and facilities for the
sorting of waste materials for recycling, in the design of new development.
3.6.1.5 Light Industrial and Extractive Industries
Policies pertaining to light industrial and extractive industries are as follows:
• Promote a re-use plan for the Kapa‘a quarry sites that emphasizes the restoration of natural
conditions rather than urban uses. Use fill material that is engineered and generally consists of
natural materials or non-toxic construction debris. Limit the quantity of fill material to the amount
necessary to simulate the original topographic conditions of the site. Provide a suitable depth of
X
topsoil to establish plant material similar to that in the surrounding area.
• Promote a re-use plan for the Kapa‘a quarry that includes an expansion of light industrial use, if
sufficient demand can be demonstrated.
• Promote a re-use plan for the quarry site in Waimanālo that supports the development of Hawaiian
Home Lands residential lots and a neighborhood mini-park.
3.6.2 Guidelines
3.6.2.1 Rural Commercial Centers
Architectural Character and Building Mass
• Encourage the rustic appearance in building forms, with pitched roof forms or “false-front”
parapets characteristic of rural towns in Hawai‘i.
• Promote Individual business establishments that are relatively small and focused on provision of
goods and services primarily to the surrounding rural community or agricultural activities.
• Site buildings close to the roadway in the manner of a traditional rural village. X
• Keep meeting facilities, other than schools or service facilities, relatively small in area and focused
on accommodating the needs of the surrounding rural community or agricultural activities.
• In Kahalu‘u, improve the commercial center in the vicinity of the Kamehameha Highway-Kahekili
Highway intersection in accordance with the design recommendations of the Kahalu‘u Community
Master Plan (2007).
Visual Screening, Lighting and Signage X
5-49
N/A
N/S
S
• Encourage informal landscaping, subdued road signage and lighting, and parking lots that are
visually subordinate to the buildings and landscaping.
• In Kahalu‘u, implement the landscape, fencing and signage improvements in public rights-of-way
and in lands recommended in the Kahalu‘u Community Master Plan (2007).
Vehicular Access
• In Kahalu‘u, implement the traffic calming and transportation measures, i.e., roadway treatments,
X
bus stop relocation, bikeway, that are recommended in the Kahalu‘u Community Master Plan
(2007).
Outlying Commercial Uses
• Outside of the Rural Commercial Centers, allow structures occupied by existing commercial, light
industrial or community facility uses to be rebuilt or remodeled within their present floor area,
X
provided they meet the design guidelines for Rural Commercial Centers.
• Further explore and define the needs for a community baseyard and vocational training center in
Waimanālo, as part of the implementation of the Waimanālo Business Plan.
3.6.2.2 Suburban and Community Commercial Center
Architectural Character and Building Mass
• Retain the residential character; height, size, and massing of buildings to be compatible with
adjacent residential areas.
• Limit the total floor area of Suburban Community Centers to a maximum of 100,000 square feet,
and limit the aggregate floor area of all properties within Community Commercial Centers to
X
350,000 square feet.
• Encourage gable and hip-form roofs, using breaks in the roof line to reduce the apparent scale of
large roof plates.
• Express residential character by using exterior materials and colors that are contextual with the
neighborhood character.
Vehicular Access
• Provide access to the parking and loading areas from a collector street, when available.
• Encourage use of shared driveways to access parking areas between buildings. X
• Permit access to a local residential street only if it is for emergency or secondary access and would
not encourage through traffic along the local street.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
• Provide pedestrian access from the public sidewalk or other off-site pedestrian pathway to the
entrance of establishments in the commercial center that does not require crossing a traffic lane
or parking lot aisle or driveway.
X
• Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the interior walkways in the commercial center to a
bus stop, if a bus stop is nearby.
• Provide bicycle racks for security. Locate bicycle racks to be visible and readily accessible from
the street entry.
Visual Screening, Lighting, and Signage
• Visually screen parking and service areas from streets and residential areas.
• Include a landscaped screen of trees and hedges along the street frontages and property lines.
• Use only fully-shielded lighting which does not exceed the minimum standards necessary to meet X
safety and security requirements in parking lots.
• Ensure compatibility between the type, size, design, placement, and color of signage and the
context of adjacent facilities and uses.
3.6.2.3 Regional Town Centers (Kailua and Kāne‘ohe)
Mix of Uses
• Locate public uses serving a regional purpose -- such as Satellite City Halls, regional libraries,
police substations, post offices, and civic centers - within or adjacent to Regional Town Centers
and not in outlying areas. Public facilities that have smaller service areas or that are an integral
part of a regional network, such as elementary schools, fire stations, pump stations, and utility X
substations, may be located in outlying areas.
• Locate service industrial uses within enclosed buildings.
• Locate, design, and operate uses that generate undue noise levels in a way that will keep noise
to an acceptable level in adjacent areas.
5-50
N/A
N/S
S
Architectural Character and Building Massing
• Allow variation in architectural character, depending on the context and theme for the particular
center. For portions of commercial center buildings that are adjacent to, or readily visible from,
residential areas, encourage architectural character that reflects and are compatible with the
residential character; or screen from view from such areas by landscaping.
• Avoid blank facades on portions of buildings visible from public areas by using texture, articulation,
color, and fenestration to create visual interest.
• Limit building heights to 40 feet, as is currently established, with height setback transitions from
X
street frontages, the shoreline, and adjacent residential areas.
• Limit the total floor area belonging to a single business to 90,000 square feet.
• Locate street facades of buildings at or near the street property line and incorporate display
windows. Orient the primary entries to commercial establishments toward the sidewalk.
• Locate parking for individual commercial structures behind or to the side of the building.
Secondary entries to business establishments may be provided from parking areas.
• Encourage the development of cooperative parking agreements among neighboring businesses
and landowners.
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
• Provide street frontage improvements for bus stops, including bus shelters and dedicated loading
lanes, along all abutting streets that have bus routes.
• Provide a pedestrian pathway from the bus stop to an entrance to the main building of the
commercial center. Clearly indicate the pathway with special paving or markings and provide X
weather protection, where feasible, if the commercial center building is not directly connected to
the bus shelter.
• Design and place bicycle parking in secure places that are visible from the main street or parking
entry to the commercial center.
Visual Screening, Lighting and Signage
• Buffer noise and other adverse impacts related to parking, loading and service areas from
adjacent residential areas with proper siting and by landscaped berms or solid walls fronted by
landscaping.
• Plant a landscape screen, consisting of trees and hedges, along streets fronting parking lots or
garages. X
• Visually screen storage areas for vehicles, equipment, and supplies from the street and adjacent
lots by privacy walls and buildings, fronted by landscaping to soften the appearance of large solid
walls.
• Signage may be directly illuminated, but discourage the use of direct illumination of building
features. Use only fully-shielded lighting to avoid direct visibility from residential areas.
3.6.2.4 Light and Extractive Industry
• Buffer noise and other adverse impacts from quarrying operations from adjacent urban uses,
wildlife preserves and public roads by a combination of landscaped berms and setbacks.
• For light industrial uses, buffer noise and other adverse impacts from parking, loading and service
areas from adjacent urban uses, wildlife preserves and public roads by a combination of solid
walls or berms and landscaped setbacks.
• Plant a landscape screen, consisting of trees and hedges, along roads fronting parking lots or X
garages.
• Visually screen storage areas for vehicles, equipment, and supplies from adjacent roads, wildlife
preserves and urban uses by privacy walls and by building orientation. Soften the appearance of
screening walls by landscaping in front.
• Use fully-shielded lighting that balances the needs for public safety, security, energy conservation,
and wildlife protection.
Drainage and Waste Material
• Manage stormwater runoff through application of Best Management
• Practices or containment or filtering onsite. To minimize the creation of impervious surfaces, X
alternatives to hardscape are encouraged. Avoid discharge into adjacent wildlife preserves, water
resources, sanitary sewage systems, or other urban use areas.
5-51
N/A
N/S
S
• Prevent leachates from underground storage tanks or fill material from migrating offsite, applying
particularly stringent measures to sites near wildlife preserves. Where practicable, institute
leachate management systems from existing and closed quarries and landfills.
• Prevent litter and other waste material from encroaching into adjacent sites through the use of
proper operational means, as well as landscaping.
3.7 Institutional Uses
3.7.1 Policies
• New Campuses. The decrease in population forecast for 2035 for Ko‘olau Poko does not warrant
major new schools, hospitals, or similar institutions to serve these communities. No new
institutional campuses are proposed in this Plan, although they may be appropriate if they respond
to or advance the vision for the region.
• Existing Campuses. Existing institutions may expand facilities and programs within the campuses
they presently occupy; however, because the major institutions are located adjacent to significant
scenic resources, ensure that the campuses retain an open space character. Design and site
buildings and facilities on the campus to respect the scenic context. Ensure that the architectural X
character of institutional buildings and structures respect the surrounding urban and natural
features, particularly when located adjacent to a residential area or significant natural or historic
feature.
• Environmental Compatibility. Encourage energy efficient features, such as the use of solar panels
for heating water, and passive solar design, such as the use of window recesses and overhangs
and orientation of openings to allow natural cross-ventilation. Also, incorporate resource
conservation measures, such as water flow constrictors and facilities for the sorting of waste
materials for recycling, in the design of new development.
3.7.2 Guidelines
• Reflect in the site plan a campus-like environment with a relatively low building coverage ratio and
low profile, emphasize open space and landscaping.
• Vary the architectural character, depending on theme and purpose of the use. Design portions of
X
buildings that are adjacent to or readily visible from residential areas to reflect that residential
character or be screened from view from such areas by landscaping.
• Limit building heights to two to three stories or 40 feet, including the roof form. Provide height
setback transitions from street frontages, the shoreline, and adjacent residential areas.
• Provide street frontage improvements for bus stops, including a bus shelter and a dedicated
loading lane, along all abutting streets that have bus routes.
• Provide a pedestrian pathway from the bus stop to an entrance to the main building of the X
institution. Clearly indicate the pathway with special paving or markings.
entry to the institution.
• Buffer the noise and other adverse impacts from parking, loading, and service areas from adjacent
residential areas by a combination of walls or berms and landscaped setbacks.
garages. Plant shade trees throughout parking lots.
X
lots by privacy walls and buildings, fronted by landscaping used to soften the appearance of large
solid walls.
• Signage is non-illuminated or indirectly illuminated. Outdoor lighting is fully-shielded to avoid light
trespass over residential areas.
3.8 Military Uses
3.8.1 Policies
• The State of Hawai‘i should continue to pursue the release of surplus federal lands, including
X
those at Bellows, for civilian use. When such is released, reserve beachfront area for recreational
use in perpetuity. Mauka areas could also be used for recreational purposes or for other purposes.
5-52
N/A
N/S
S
Discourage any residential or commercial uses unless they constitute a minor portion of the total
site area and are located outside of flood hazard areas and adjacent to existing similar uses.
• Encourage energy efficient features, such as the use of solar panels for heating water and
electricity, and passive solar design such as the use of window recesses and overhangs and
orientation of openings to allow natural cross-ventilation. Also, incorporate resource conservation
measures, such as water flow constrictors and facilities for the sorting of waste materials for
recycling, in the design of new development.
• Encourage pro-active and periodic communication between the military and neighboring
community organizations, including affected residences of military activities, to disclose and
address adverse impacts attributed to military operations. Share in advance with the community
and affected residences, schedules for training exercises anticipated to have a significant noise
impact and provide contact information for its Public Affairs Office or the Community Plans and
Liaison Officer.
3.8.2 Guidelines
• When buildings and structures are visible from an adjacent nonmilitary use, reflect the scale and
design character of the adjacent non-military use or screen from view from such areas by
landscaping. X
• Limit building heights to two to three stories or 40 feet, including the roof form, except to meet
specific mission-critical design requirements. Height setback transitions are provided from streets,
the shoreline, and adjacent residential areas.
• Provide street frontage improvements for bus stops, including a bus shelter and a dedicated
loading lane along all abutting streets that have bus routes.
• Provide a clearly indicated pedestrian pathway, such as special paving or marking, from the bus X
stop to the base’s main entrance.
entry.
• Buffer the noise and other adverse impacts from parking, loading, and service areas from adjacent
residential areas by a combination of solid walls or berms and landscaped setbacks.
• For parking lot lighting, use fully-shielded fixtures and low intensity lamps.
garages. Plant shade trees throughout parking lots. X
lots by privacy walls and buildings, fronted by landscaping used to soften the appearance of large
solid walls.
• Use non-illuminated or indirectly illuminated signage. Fully shield lighting to avoid light trespassing
into residential and public areas.
Discussion: KPSCP policies and guidelines from Chapter 3.1 Open Space Preservation, Chapter 3.2 Island-Wide Parks,
and Chapter 3.3 Historic and Cultural Resources are discussed below. The remaining KPSCP Land Use Policies and
Guidelines are not applicable to the Proposed Action.
Chapter 3.1 Open Space Preservation
The Proposed Action will not support open space preservation policies that encourage accessibility of recreational open
space in mountain areas for public use. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will also preclude access to scenic views available from
along the hike and from the Ko‘olau ridgeline.
Section 3.1.3.1 describes Mountain Areas as an open space resource and provides guidelines for implementing their
preservation. The Proposed Action will not support the Mountain Area guideline to “Create public access to the former
USCG Omega Station site, including Ha‘ikū Stairs, and combine this parcel site with the adjoining City and County of
Honolulu parcel for the proposed Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve…” Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will not support
the KPSCP vision of a Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve. A cultural and nature preserve could still be formed,
but based on the Proposed Action, Ha‘ikū Stairs and possibly the City parcel will not be included.
5-53
N/A
N/S
S
The Proposed Action supports policies and guidelines in Section 3.1.4, Protection of Other Natural Resources. A flora
and fauna survey was conducted for the Proposed Action to determine the presence of critical habitat and endangered
species. Mitigation measures, as outlined in the survey, will be implemented to minimize potential impacts.
Chapter 3.2 Parks and Recreation
In Section 3.2.1, Island-Wide Parks, the first Guideline for Passive or Nature Parks is to “Acquire and develop the
proposed Ha‘ikū Valley Cultural and Nature Preserve, including access to Ha‘ikū Stairs.” The Proposed Action does not
support this guideline, as Ha‘ikū Stairs will be removed and could no longer be a component of a future nature preserve.
Chapter 3.3 Historic and Cultural Resources
The Proposed Action will not support historic and cultural resources policies that encourage preservation of significant
historic resources. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will remove a physical reference to Ko‘olau Poko’s history, remove an
existing visual landmark, remove a significant historic structure with unique features, and public access to the structure
will not be established. The architectural character and visual context of Ha‘iku Stairs will not be preserved.
4. Public Facilities and Infrastructure Policies and Guidelines
4.1 Transportation Systems
4.1.5 Policies
• Reduce reliance on the private passenger vehicle by promoting transportation system
management and travel demand management measures for both commuting and local trips.
• Encourage the provision of infrastructure to support alternative fuel vehicles.
• Improve adequate and improved mobility between communities, shopping, and recreation
centers; especially by enhancing transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and other forms of personal mobility X
vehicle modes of travel.
• Reduce conflicts between pedestrian travel and vehicular travel and improve pedestrian safety.
• Promote connectivity in the design of new or enhancement of existing roadway networks.
• Maintain adequate person-carrying capacity for peak-period commuting to and from work in the
Primary Urban Center.
4.1.6 Guidelines
Commuter Travel
• Encourage the Department of Transportation’s Highways Division to construct new bridges that
do not flood at Waiāhole and Waikāne stream crossings at Kamehameha Highway.
• Provide improved services and facilities for express buses, such as more frequent, larger-capacity
and more comfortable vehicles.
• Provide park-and-ride and bus transfer facilities as a joint or modified use of an existing parking
area or adjacent to uses that are related to commuter trips, such as child-care centers and
X
convenience stores.
• Establish transit centers to function as collector or distribution hubs which provide an interface
between “circulator” shuttle and trunk bus routes.
• Promote ridesharing, vanpooling, and bicycle-sharing.
• Increase person-carrying capacity on trans-Ko‘olau highways and Kalaniana‘ole Highway for
commuter travel without expanding rights-of-way or exacerbating delays in access to the highway
from collector streets during peak periods.
Local Trips
• Identify and take measures to reserve the option for potential future right-of-ways acquisitions at
locations where minor connections between existing local street would improve mobility and
reduce congestion on collector streets;
• Implement roadway modifications recommended in the Kahalu‘u Community Master Plan (2007)
and the Kāne‘ohe Town Plan (2009);
• Modify rights-of-way by changes to travelway widths, curb radii, pavement width, pavement X
texture, installation of appropriate signage, and more generous landscape planting in selected
areas; especially along designated bike lanes and routes, principal pedestrian routes and street
crossings, and near bus stops.
• Expand the bikeway network by implementing the proposals in the State of Hawai‘i Bike Plan
Hawai‘i Master Plan (2003) and the City and County of Honolulu O‘ahu Bike Master Plan (2012).
Safety is an important concern.
5-54
N/A
N/S
S
• Design streets to accommodate personal mobility vehicles for travel within and between town
cores and residential areas.
4.2 Water Systems
4.2.3 Policies
• Integrate management of all potable and non-potable water sources, including groundwater,
stream water, storm water, and water recycling, following State and City legislative mandates.
• To protect watersheds, retain existing acreage that is designated as Preservation Area. X
• Adopt and implement water conservation practices in the design of new developments and the
modification of existing uses, including landscaped areas.
• Encourage all new development to install and use dual water systems.
4.2.4 Guidelines
• Where new reservoirs and other above-ground infrastructure is necessary, avoid impacts to
significant scenic resources; where such impacts are unavoidable, implement appropriate
mitigation measures. Design and locate new water supply facilities to be compatible with the
scenic environment.
• Require installation of low-flush toilets, flow constrictors, and other water conserving devices in
commercial and residential developments.
• Investigate the feasibility of bulk-heading Waiāhole Ditch to restore water in the natural dikes.
• Utilize climate-appropriate, indigenous plant material and drip irrigation systems in newly installed,
X
smaller-scale landscaped areas.
• Use recycled (R-1 or R-2) water for the irrigation of golf courses, as well as for landscaping, and
agricultural areas where this would not adversely affect potable groundwater supply or other
aspects relating to public health.
• Investigate the feasibility of small-scale rain catchment systems in agricultural areas to use for
irrigation, groundwater recharge and filtering of stormwater runoff sediments. (See related
discussion in Section 4.6.2.)
• Confirm that adequate potable and non-potable water is available prior to approval of new
residential and commercial development.
4.3 Wastewater Management
4.3.3 Policies
• Direct all wastewater produced within the Community Growth Boundary to municipal or military
sewer service systems.
• Treat and recycle, where feasible, wastewater effluent as a water conservation measure.
• Mitigate visual, noise, and odor impacts associated with wastewater collection and treatment X
systems, especially when they are located adjacent to residential designated areas.
• Use reclaimed water for irrigation and other uses, where feasible, in accordance with the
Guidelines for the Treatment and Use of Recycled Water (May 15, 2002) by the State Department
of Health and the No Pass Line established by the Board of Water Supply.
4.3.4 Guidelines
• Complete planned improvements to the Kailua Regional Waste Water Treatment Plan service area
facilities.
• Complete planned improvements to the Waimānalo Waste Water Treatment Plan service area
facilities.
X
• Replace outdated individual cesspools with septic tanks and individual wastewater systems in
areas outside of planned municipal wastewater service areas, employing public programs or
policies to support private conversion efforts.
• Provide adequate horizontal separations and landscape elements (e.g. berms and windrows)
between wastewater facilities and adjacent residential designated areas.
4.4 Electrical and Communications Systems
4.4.1 Policies
• Design system elements and incrementally replace facilities such as substations, transmission
lines and towers to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse impacts on scenic and natural resource
X
values and to enhance system reliability.
• Place new utility distribution lines underground and implement a long-range program for
systematically relocating existing overhead lines underground.
5-55
N/A
N/S
S
• Encourage co-location of antennas; towers should host the facilities of more than one service
provider to minimize their proliferation and reduce visual impacts.
• Mount antennas onto existing buildings or structures so that public scenic views and open spaces
will not be negatively affected. However, except for the occupant’s personal use, antennas on
single-family dwelling roofs in residential districts are not appropriate.
• Use stealth technology (i.e. towers disguised as trees) especially on freestanding antennas towers
in order to blend in with the surrounding environment and minimize visual impacts.
4.4.2 Guidelines
• Initiate a region-wide program to place utility lines underground and relocate and/or streamline
existing overhead utility and communications lines, focusing on the following priority areas:
o Streets within Regional Town Centers, especially where overhead utility lines conflict with
existing or planned street tree canopies;
o Locations where overhead utility lines are prominently visible within a scenic viewshed
identified in Appendix Map A-1.
o Locations where major construction projects within rights-of-way present the opportunity to
coordinate the undergrounding of facilities through shared trenching and to minimize
construction-related disruptions. X
• Where full undergrounding of utility lines is cost-prohibitive or impractical due to disruption of
existing uses and utility connections, utility poles may be visually streamlined by undergrounding
lower-hanging communications lines and related equipment, if this would result in substantial
visual improvement at a much lower cost.
• Promote the use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation measures through both
regulatory and tax incentive measures.
• Co-locate communications and power equipment and devices with similar facilities in order to
minimize the number of supporting structures and dispersal sites.
4.5 Solid Waste Handling and Disposal
4.5.1 Policies
• Continue efforts to establish more efficient waste diversion and collection systems. X
• Promote waste reduction, re-use and recycling.
4.5.2 Guidelines
• Promote the recycling of waste materials by providing expanded collection facilities and services,
and public outreach and education programs.
• Expand the use of automated refuse collection in residential areas.
• Develop programs for reducing the production of solid waste.
X
• Provide a convenience refuse transfer station, including a green-waste drop off site, to serve
Kahalu‘u at a location close to the Kamehameha Highway in the area between ‘Āhuimanu and
Waikāne.
• Analyze and approve siting and/or expansion of sanitary landfills based on island-wide studies
and siting evaluations.
4.6 Drainage Systems
4.6.1 Policies
• Promote drainage system design that emphasizes control and minimization of non-point source
pollution and the retention of storm water on-site and in wetlands.
• Develop a comprehensive study of local flooding and drainage problems, including a phased plan
for improvements.
• Design and construct modifications needed for flood protection in a manner that maintains habitat
and aesthetic values, and avoids and/or mitigates degradation of stream, coastline and nearshore
water quality. X
• Include where practical, the integration of pedestrian and bicycle connections for the regional
open space network as part of drainageway improvement planning.
• View storm water as a potential irregular source of water that should be retained for recharge of
the aquifer rather than quickly moved to coastal waters.
• Select natural and man-made vegetated drainageways and retention basins as the preferred
solution to drainage problems wherever they can promote water recharge, help control non-source
pollutants, and provide passive recreation benefits.
5-56
N/A
N/S
S
• Keep drainageways clear of debris to avoid the flooding problems that have occurred in the past.
• Low Impact Development strategies are recommended.
4.6.2 Guidelines
• Emphasize retaining or detaining storm water for gradual release into the ground as the preferred
strategy for management of storm water.
• Prevent the blocking of downstream channels during major storm events by properly maintaining
large-capacity boulder and debris basins in upper valleys above urbanized areas.
• Integrate planned improvements to the drainage system into the regional open space network by
emphasizing the use of retention basins, creation of passive recreational areas, and recreational
access for pedestrians and bicycles without jeopardizing public safety.
• In places where the hardening of stream channels is unavoidable or highly desirable to prevent X
significant loss of property or threat to public health and safety, design improvements in a manner
which protects natural resource and aesthetic values of the stream, consistent with the guidelines
expressed in Section 3.1.3.4.
• Require periodic maintenance of stream channels and stormwater detention basins, including
natural wetlands, to improve and retain their capacity for flood conditions while taking care to
maintain their biological and aesthetic values.
• Designate a public agency to assume jurisdiction over abandoned irrigation ditches and reservoirs
for the purpose of maintaining them as important elements of the flood control system.
4.7 School and Library Facilities
4.7.1 Policies
• Approve new residential developments only after the State Department of Education confirms that
adequate school facilities, either at existing schools or at new school sites, will be available at the
time new residential units are occupied. X
• Have developers pay their fair share of costs to ensure provision of adequate school facilities.
• Consider schools as community resources for learning about specialized environmental, cultural
and historic subjects related to Ko‘olau Poko and each of its communities.
4.7.2 Guidelines
• Encourage coordination between the Department of Parks and Recreation and the DOE regarding
the development and use of athletic facilities such as playgrounds, play fields and courts,
swimming pools, and gymnasiums where the joint use of such facilities would maximize use and
reduce duplication of function without compromising the schools’ athletic programs. X
• Support the Department of Education’s requests for fair share contributions from developers to
ensure that adequate school facilities are in place.
• Apply the guidelines for institutions in Section 3.7.2 when a new public or private school campus
or a significant increase in enrollment capacity at one of the existing campuses is proposed.
4.8 Civic and Public Safety Facilities and Community Resilience
4.8.1 Policies
• Provide adequate staffing and facilities to ensure effective and efficient delivery of basic
governmental service and protection of public safety.
X
• Locate regional civic facilities in the Regional Town Centers of Kāne‘ohe and/or Kailua.
• Encourage the development of more emergency shelters.
• Encourage disaster resilient communities.
4.8.2 Guidelines
• Locate permanent Satellite City Halls in the Regional Town Centers of Kāne‘ohe and Kailua to
reinforce these areas as a regional focal point or gathering spot for activities and services.
• Design new public buildings such as schools and recreation centers to serve a secondary function
as an emergency shelter.
• Design new City buildings which are used for public assembly and able to serve as emergency X
shelters such that they can withstand a Category 3 hurricane.
• Survey and retrofit, as appropriate, existing public buildings to serve a secondary function as
hurricane-resistant emergency shelters.
• Provide incentives for private organizations to create hurricane-resistant shelter areas in their
facilities and for homes to include hurricane-resistant safe rooms.
5-57
N/A
N/S
S
Discussion: The majority of the KPSCP Chapter 4 Public Facilities and Infrastructure policies and guidelines are not
directly applicable to the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action will support the policy under 4.2 Water Systems to protect
watersheds by retaining existing acreage that is designated for preservation. The Proposed Action will have an overall
positive effect on O‘ahu’s water systems, as funds currently utilized for security at Ha‘ikū Stairs will be focused back to
assist BWS in implementing the water facilities goals of the KPSCP.
5.3.4 Board of Water Supply Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan
The KWMP is a long-range, 20-year plan to the year 2030 for the preservation, restoration, and
balanced management of ground water, surface water, and related watershed resources in the
Ko‘olau Poko District, Island of O‘ahu. The DPP and the BWS have jointly prepared the KPWMP, in
accordance with the State Water Code, the Hawai‘i Water Plan, and City Ordinance 90-62 that
established the O‘ahu Water Management Plan. The KPWMP is one of eight district-specific plans that
together will form the updated O‘ahu Water Management Plan.
The goal and objectives of the KPWMP are summarized in Table 5-5.
Table 5-6 Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan –

Goal and Objectives – Board of Water Supply and Department of Planning and Permitting
Board of Water Supply and Department of Planning and Permitting established an overall GOAL and five major
OBJECTIVES for all of the watershed management plans:
GOAL: To formulate an environmentally holistic, community-based, and economically viable watershed management plan
that will provide a balance between: (1) the preservation and restoration of O‘ahu’s watersheds, and (2) sustainable
ground water and surface water use and development to serve present and future generations.
Discussion: The overall goals of the KPWMP are not applicable to the Proposed Action. Removing Ha‘ikū Stairs will not
impact watersheds or development of water resources.
OBJECTIVE #1: PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE WATERSHEDS
• Sustainable watersheds are bio-diverse, renewable, and resource productive land and water ecosystems extending from
the mountains to the coral reefs, that meet present needs without compromising those of future generations. In a
sustainable watershed, there is a holistic interrelationship among watershed resources including geologic structures, soil
characteristics, forest communities, endemic and indigenous animals, introduced species, ground water aquifers, streams
and wetlands, reefs and near-shore waters, traditional and cultural practices, land use and land development. Healthy,
sustainable watersheds should be the foundation for both land use and water resources management planning.
Discussion: The KPWMP sub-objectives under Objective #1 Promote Sustainable Watersheds include protecting
wetlands and streams, mitigating impacts of litter and illegal dumping, and removal of invasive species to restore native
forests. Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs will reduce litter, illegal dumping, impacts to local streams, and the introduction of
invasive species associated with the influx of trespassing hikers through the neighborhoods and valley as they try to
reach Ha‘ikū Stairs.
OBJECTIVE #2: PROTECT AND ENHANCE WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
In conjunction with State Commission on Water Resource Management, University of Hawai‘i Water Resources Research Center
and U.S. Geological Survey , Board of Water Supply is advancing analytical methods and modeling tools to increase
understanding of recharge and ground water aquifers and streams. The agencies will work together to fund, construct and
utilize 3-dimensional solute transport ground water modeling calibrated with new deep monitor wells in basal aquifers to:
• Evaluate individual source yields to prevent upconing and salt water intrusion during normal rainfall and drought events.
• Optimize existing source pumpages to meet water system demands and avoid detrimental impacts to the aquifer’s
utility (quality and quantity); ensure adequate aquifer recovery after long drought periods.
• Evaluate aquifer sustainable yields as allocations and pumpage approach sustainable yield limits to ensure new
sources are sustainable.
• Site and size new wells to develop remaining ground water and minimize impacts to adjacent and down-gradient
sources and surface waters.
5-58
Table 5-6 Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan –

Goal and Objectives – Board of Water Supply and Department of Planning and Permitting
Discussion: A sub-objective under the KPWMP Objective #2 Protect and Enhance Water Quality and Quantity is to
recognize the connection between land and sea by improving stream and coastal water through and reduction in land-
based sources of pollution. Existing activities on Ha‘ikū Stairs do not directly affect the water quality of drinking water
sources in the vicinity. There is no threat of chemical contamination or microbial contamination from hiking activity or
removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
OBJECTIVE #3: PROTECT NATIVE HAWAIIAN RIGHTS AND TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES
• Native Hawaiian water rights are set forth in the State Constitution, Section 221 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission
on Water Resource Management Act and Section 174C-101 of the State Water Code, providing for: a) Department
of Hawaiian Home Lands water; b) traditional and customary gathering rights; and c) appurtenant water rights of
kuleana and kalo lands. Native Hawaiian water uses also include cultural uses for spiritual/religious practices, kalo
and other traditional agriculture, as well as adequate flows of fresh water into the nearshore water ecosystem.
• The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that title to the water resources is held in trust by the State for the benefit of its
people and established the exercise of Native Hawaiian and traditional and customary practices as a public trust
purpose, along with the maintenance of waters in their natural state, domestic water use, and reservation of water
for Hawaiian Home Lands. Some of the objectives proposed for implementing the public trust purposes include the
provision of adequate stream flows, riparian restoration, and control of alien species. These WMP objectives strive
to ensure there are healthy and plentiful water resources available.
• Protecting Native Hawaiian rights and traditional and customary practices must be done in conjunction with the
setting of measurable instream flow standards (IFS), for all perennial streams and stream segments, balancing in-
stream uses, domestic uses, and Native Hawaiian and traditional and customary uses with off-stream reasonable
and beneficial uses. In developing those standards a precautionary order, consisting of instream studies such as
stream hydrology and bio-assessments for habitat and gathering, is proposed. Studies of water for public trust
purposes are also needed and only after completing this evaluation of stream water can a determination of
availability of surface water for additional agricultural uses and urban nonpotable uses be accomplished.
Discussion: The KPWMP objective of protecting Native Hawaiian rights and traditional and customary practices is not
OBJECTIVE #4: FACILITATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EDUCATION, AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
• Planning and managing our island's water and related resources involves a variety of stakeholders from end users,
landowners, public and private water purveyors and government agencies. A collaborative process can result in innovative
planning and implementation that incorporates local knowledge and directly involves area residents. Public education
involving water resource issues can support collaboration with informed stakeholders. Directed water resource curriculum
for schools will ensure knowledge and respect for water resources will extend to future generations. Ultimately public
participation will result in benefits to the water resources, water users and the related ecosystems.
Discussion: The KPWMP objective of facilitating public participation and education is not directly applicable to the
project.
OBJECTIVE #5: MEET FUTURE WATER DEMANDS AT REASONABLE COST
• Water is essential to all life. O‘ahu’s population relies on an abundant and reliable water supply for drinking,
irrigation, agriculture, commercial and industrial use and fire protection. O‘ahu’s residents are educated in
watershed management practices; water conservation is not just a message, but a way of life. Efficient water
systems promote public health and safety and deliver water to meet current and future demands at reasonable
costs. Reasonable costs encompass a balancing of the other plan objectives and are not necessarily the lowest
economic costs. Capital improvements and operations and maintenance costs should not place an unreasonable
burden on water rate payers. Water systems are flexible yet secure to account for uncertainties, and are expanded
concurrent with land use plans and growth forecasts. Withdrawal rates are precautionary with respect to the
resource and are well within established sustainable yields and instream flow standards, which protect the long-
term viability of the water resource and do not detrimentally impact cultural uses and natural environments.
• The allocation of water to land use considers a full range of alternative water sources. Water quality should be
matched with appropriate use. Thus, high quality water is used for drinking and lower quality water, such as recycled
water, is used for irrigation and industrial processes. New technology allows cost effective, diversified, drought proof
water systems that develop ground water, surface water, recycled and seawater resources that meet water demands
while balancing the other plan objectives.
Discussion: The Proposed Action supports the KPWMP objective of meeting future water demands at reasonable cost
by eliminating expenditures related to Ha‘ikū Stairs that are not a part of the BWS core mission, and allowing those
funds to be reallocated towards projects and programs within the scope of the BWS core mission.
5-59
Chapter 6
Alternatives to the Proposed Project

Chapter 6
Alternatives to the Proposed Project

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.1 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Study .................................................... 6-3
6.1.1 Third-Party Operator Alternative ..................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.2 Subdivision Alternative ................................................................................................... 6-5
6.2 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 6-7
6.2.1 Description: No-Action Alternative ................................................................................. 6-7
6.2.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives: No-Action Alternative................................................ 6-7
6.2.3 Environmental Impacts Overview: No-Action Alternative .............................................. 6-8
6.3 Partial Removal Alternative .................................................................................................. 6-10
6.3.1 Description: Partial Removal Alternative ..................................................................... 6-10
6.3.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives: Partial Removal Alternative ................................... 6-10
6.3.3 Environmental Impacts Overview: Partial Removal Alternative ................................. 6-11
6.4 Conveyance Alternative ........................................................................................................ 6-13
6.4.1 Legal Access Route ....................................................................................................... 6-15
6.4.1.1 Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group (2014) ............................................................ 6-16
6.4.1.2 Preliminary Legal Access Routes.................................................................. 6-17
6.4.1.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Access Routes ..................................................... 6-18
6.4.1.4 Candidate Legal Access Routes ................................................................... 6-33
6.4.2 Managed Access ........................................................................................................... 6-33
6.4.3 Conveyance Alternative: Ha‘ikū Road .......................................................................... 6-36
6.4.3.1 Concept of Operations: Ha‘ikū Road ............................................................ 6-36
6.4.3.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives: Conveyance Alternative .......................... 6-43
6.4.3.3 Environmental Impacts Overview: Conveyance Alternative ........................ 6-45
6.4.4 Conveyance Alternative: Kūneki Street ....................................................................... 6-47
6.4.4.1 Concept of Operations: Kūneki Street ......................................................... 6-47
6.4.4.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives ................................................................... 6-52
6.4.4.3 Environmental Impacts Overview ................................................................. 6-52
6.4.5 Conveyance Alternative: Po‘okela Street..................................................................... 6-52
6.4.5.1 Concept of Operations: Po‘okela Street ....................................................... 6-52
6.4.5.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives ................................................................... 6-58
6.4.5.3 Environmental Impacts Overview ................................................................. 6-58
6.4.6 Conveyance Alternative: Preferred Access Route ....................................................... 6-60
6.4.6.1 Summary of Rationale for Selection of Po‘okela Street as the Preferred Access Route 6-61
6.5 Summary Comparison of Proposed Action and Alternatives by Project Objectives .............. 6-67
6.6 Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Impacts ....................................... 6-68
6-1
Introduction
The main objective of BWS is to eliminate liability associated with Ha‘ikū Stairs and eliminate ongoing
costs for security that are passed on to water rate payers. For BWS, if a solution to divest Ha‘ikū Stairs
and its underlying parcel was not found, removing Ha‘ikū Stairs was the only option within their control
to eliminate security costs and liability exposure. In order to arrive at a long-term, viable solution for
Ha‘ikū Stairs, BWS decided to develop a comprehensive EIS to fully understand the issues surrounding
the Proposed Action (removal) and alternatives. The EIS will provide State and City agencies, adjacent
landowners and the public with a comprehensive evaluation in which to inform decision-making about
the fate of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
Chapter 3 describes and evaluates the Proposed Action to remove Ha‘ikū Stairs, however, Chapter 6
describes and evaluates alternatives to the Proposed Action. Each alternative is evaluated according
to its ability to address the project purpose and need, and attain project objectives as discussed in
Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Project Objectives and Evaluation Criteria.
Two alternatives are discussed that do not address the project purpose or meet the project objectives.
These alternatives are presented in Section 6.1, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further
Study. The EIS Rules, HAR Chapter 11-200 require a discussion of a No-Action Alternative to disclose
the potential future impacts resulting if no action is taken at the project site. The No-Action Alternative
is presented in Section 6.2, No-Action Alternative. Section 6.3, Partial Removal Alternative presents
the alternative scenario of partially removing Ha‘ikū Stairs, and Section 6.4, Conveyance Alternative
presents three variants of the Conveyance Alternative: 1) Conveyance Alternative with access via
Ha‘ikū Road, 2) Conveyance Alternative with access via Kūneki Street, and 3) Conveyance Alternative
with access via Po‘okela Street. As discussed in Section 6.4, the City has expressed an interest in the
Conveyance Alternative and a desire to acquire the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel via transfer from BWS, pursue
required permits and easements, and engage a vendor to provide public access to Ha‘ikū Stairs.
A comparative overview of alternatives with respect to the project objectives and environmental
impacts is presented in Section 6.5, Summary Comparison of Proposed Project Alternatives by Project
Objectives and Section 6.6, Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Impacts,
respectively.
6-2
6.1 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Study

Two alternatives were considered in the initial alternatives analysis, including the Third-Party Operator
Alternatives and the Subdivision Alternative. Although these alternatives are potentially reasonable,
each fails to fulfill the basic purpose and need of the project, as described in the following summary
analyses.
6.1.1 Third-Party Operator Alternative
Under the Third-Party Operator Alternative, BWS would retain ownership of Ha‘ikū Stairs and the
underlying parcel. In this scenario, a qualified third-party entity would be granted express permission
to operate and manage use of Ha‘ikū Stairs. BWS would issue a request for proposal for future
operators. Potential third-party operators or vendors would be required to respond to the request for
proposal with a thorough plan for managing access and operating Ha‘ikū Stairs. The operators would
be required to meet an established set of qualifications, such as maintaining a liability insurance policy
and holding BWS harmless should anything occur on the property, and go through a vetting process
prior to selection. The third-party operator would also be required to pay maintenance, security, and
structural upkeep costs for Ha‘ikū Stairs. The operation and maintenance costs associated with Ha‘ikū
Stairs would likely get passed on to hikers through ticket sales.
As landowner, this alternative would require BWS to expend additional management time and funding
which would not be directed towards its core mission. This alternative would require BWS coordination
to establish easements in favor of the City with government agencies and/or private landowners for
legal access along the chosen hiking access route to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs, as well as provisions
for parking and support facilities. The third-party operator would be responsible for a managed access
plan as described in Section 6.4.2, Managed Access. Responsibility for improvements to the access
route and hiking trail prior to start of operations would be negotiated between BWS and the third-party
operator.
Under this alternative, there would be benefit to the community in terms of greater recreational
opportunities, but incur greater costs to BWS in time and resource commitments, along with legal
coordination with the adjacent landowners and third-party operator. In addition, BWS would have
residual liability exposure due to its continued ownership of the property, which does not meet the
primary objective of eliminating BWS liability.
Table 6-1 presents an evaluation of the Third-Party Operator Alternative in the context of the project
objectives and evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are described in Chapter 3.
6-3
Table 6-1 Third-Party Operator Alternative

1. Eliminate Board of Water Supply POOR
Liability Risk Board of Water Supply would continue to own the underlying parcel and therefore
retain exposure to liability. This does not fulfill the project purpose and need to
eliminate Board of Water Supply liability.
2. Supports Board of Water Supply POOR
Core Mission Continued ownership of the underlying parcel would not support Board of Water
Supply core mission to provide a safe, dependable, and affordable water supply
because the parcel is not needed for future water development purposes. This
option would not fulfill the project purpose and need for Board of Water Supply to
allocate their resources toward its core mission.
A third-party operator would improve public safety by fixing damaged portions of
Ha‘ikū Stairs, provide hiking guides, and improve neighborhood security. Additional
safety measures would be detailed in their managed access plan.
4. Reduce Neighborhood FAIR
Disturbance Ha‘ikū Stairs would remain in place and be open for public use, leaving the
potential for ongoing neighborhood disturbances. However, as part of a managed
access plan, the Third-Party Operator would be responsible for security measures to
protect surrounding neighborhoods from potential impacts of hiking operations and
trespassing.
5. Mitigate Impacts to Natural FAIR
Resources Providing legal access to Ha‘ikū Stairs including stair repair work would reduce the
risk of damage to natural resources and the watershed, but this access would
continue to pose the potential for inadvertent damage, such as introduction of
invasive species.
6. Promote Public Recreation GOOD
A third-party operator would introduce managed access to Ha‘ikū Stairs and
establish a public recreation opportunity.
7. Provide Long-Term Economic N/A
Benefit Cost analysis was not conducted because the alternative was dismissed.
8. Provide Cultural and/or FAIR
Environmental Education A Third-Party Operator would have the option to integrate an educational
Opportunity component into their operations. The degree to which education would be
emphasized could greatly vary.
The Third-Party Operator Alternative does not meet the basic purpose and need of the project. Under
this scenario, BWS would continue to own the land, be exposed to liability, and have to divert resources
from its core mission. Because of this, the Third-Party Operator Alternative was dismissed from further
consideration and evaluation within the EIS.
6-4
6.1.2 Subdivision Alternative
The Subdivision Alternative would be very similar to the Third-Party Operator Alternative, differing only
in that BWS would not own Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor. Under the Subdivision Alternative, BWS would
subdivide the Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor from the larger TMK (1) 4-6-015:011 and transfer the subdivided
stairs corridor to a more qualified government entity, or sell it to a responsible private buyer. The
corridor would be defined as extending approximately 5 ft. out on either side from the centerline of
Ha‘ikū Stairs, except where portions extend into parcels not owned by the City.
The intention behind this alternative would be to make the acquisition of Ha‘ikū Stairs more
manageable for the future owner/operator, since they would only acquire and operate the smaller
stairs parcel (approximately 1 acre), as opposed to the entire 224-acre parcel. This alternative would
theoretically make the transfer or sale more financially affordable and logistically manageable from
the transferee/buyer’s perspective.
The Subdivision Alternative would require the following actions and approvals prior to implementation.
• Land survey
• Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §343 environmental review compliance (EA or EIS)
• Conservation District Use Permit
• Ridgeline landowner agreements
• Subdivision application and map
• Access easements
• Land appraisal
• RFP process
• Land transfer/sale
Under this alternative, completion of a land survey, land use entitlements, easement agreements,
subdivision map, appraisal and RFP process would be required.
To avail the benefits of this alternative to the transferee or buyer, prior to sale, BWS would bear the
cost to hire a land surveyor to map and describe Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor. The surveyor would prepare
and file a subdivision application for City approval in accordance with ROH Chapter 22 Subdivision of
Land, and petition the State Land Court to subdivide Ha‘ikū Stairs corridor from the BWS parcel. Other
ridgeline landowners such as DHHL and the City, own of portions of Ha‘ikū Stairs and their level of
participation would be determined prior to the subdivision process. Establishing easements and
agreements for a legal access route to Ha‘ikū Stairs, and gaining approval from the City for this route
would be part of the process. Per subdivision regulations, construction plans would be submitted for
approval. The City would have the discretion to require certain improvements be constructed as a prior
condition of approval.
After evaluation of land value, an agency or private buyer would complete the proper land transfer
procedures, including signing over existing agreements and easements to provide full property rights
to the new entity. This alternative scenario would require finding a willing buyer of the property, who
would be responsible for finding a reliable operator or vendor.
The conveyance subdivision process could delay the potential sale or transfer of Ha‘ikū Stairs by 2-3
years, and BWS would incur the permit and subdivision costs as well as the additional security costs
during that time. Table 6-2 evaluates the Subdivision Alternative with respect to the project objectives.
6-5
Table 6-2 Evaluation of Subdivision Alternative

Project Objective Subdivision Alternative
1. Eliminate Board of Water Supply Liability FAIR
Risk Although Board of Water Supply would divest liability for Ha‘ikū Stairs, Board
of Water Supply would remain the majority owner of the surrounding parcel
and therefore carry some liability. This scenario partially fulfills the project
purpose and need to eliminate Board of Water Supply liability.
2. Supports Board of Water Supply Core FAIR
Mission A benefit of this alternative is that Board of Water Supply would divest some of
its liability for Ha‘ikū Stairs. However, the continued ownership of most of the
underlying parcel would not support Board of Water Supply core mission
because the parcel is not needed for future water development purposes. In
addition, subdivision would be a long and costly process, and Board of Water
Supply would continue to pay for security for the duration of the permitting
process. This option would not fulfill the project purpose and need for Board of
Water Supply to allocate their resources toward their core mission.
If Ha‘ikū Stairs were subdivided and conveyed to another party, an operator would
still need to take steps to improve public safety by fixing damaged portions of
Ha‘ikū Stairs providing hiking guides, and improving neighborhood security.
Additional safety measures would be detailed in their managed access plan.
4. Reduce Neighborhood Disturbance FAIR
Under a managed access plan, the new owner and/or operator would be
responsible for additional security measures to protect surrounding
neighborhoods from potential impacts of hiking operations, however, residual
trespassing would be anticipated.
5. Mitigate Impacts to Natural Resources FAIR
Providing legal access to Ha‘ikū Stairs including stair repair work would reduce the
risk of damage to natural resources and the watershed, but legal access would
provide the potential for inadvertent damage, such as introduction of invasive
species.
6. Promote Public Recreation GOOD
The new owner and/or operator would introduce managed access to Ha‘ikū
Stairs and establish a public recreation opportunity.
7. Provide Long-Term Economic Benefit N/A
Cost analysis was not conducted because the alternative was dismissed.
8. Provide Cultural and/or Environmental GOOD
Education Opportunity The new owner and/or operator would have the opportunity to integrate a
cultural and/or educational component into their operations.
Under the Subdivision Alternative, BWS would continue to own the majority of TMK (1) 4-6-015:011. BWS
does not require the remainder of this parcel for water source development, yet it would be responsible for
ongoing security costs and liability exposure. The Subdivision Alternative would also require BWS to incur
the cost of surveying, subdivision, and legal access easements from adjoining landowners. Conveying the
parcel along with Ha‘ikū Stairs would meet more project objectives for BWS. For these reasons, the
Subdivision Alternative was dismissed from further consideration and evaluation within the EIS.
6-6
6.2 No-Action Alternative

6.2.1 Description: No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative is the baseline against which all other alternatives are measured. Under this
scenario, the existing stairs structure and land ownership would remain with BWS as described in
Chapter 3, Section 3.2, Existing Conditions.
The No-Action Alternative would preclude development of a legal access route to the base of Ha‘ikū
Stairs. There would be no entity that would repair damaged portions, offer managed access, or provide
a more robust security detail to Ha‘ikū Stairs. Without these management initiatives, the condition of
Ha‘ikū Stairs would steadily decline and pose an increasingly greater danger to public safety.
Current on-going illegal access would continue, the safety of the public would continue to be put in jeopardy.
BWS would continue to devote time and resources to control the attractive nuisance of the closed stairs.
The No-Action Alternative would also perpetuate BWS’ liability risk due to chronic trespassing.
6.2.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives: No-Action Alternative
Chapter 2 describes that the project purpose is to provide a long-term, viable solution for Ha‘ikū Stairs
that meets a series of immediate needs, including: 1) stopping trespassing, 2) eliminating
neighborhood disturbances, 3) redirecting BWS resources back to its core mission, 4) eliminating BWS
liability for the property, 5) increasing public safety, 6) reducing emergency service calls, and 7)
protecting the environment. As described in Section 2.3, evaluation criteria were developed to help
determine whether the Proposed Action and alternatives met the purpose and need, and a set of eight
project objectives, including:
1. Eliminate Board of Water Supply Liability Risk
2. Support Board of Water Supply Core Mission
3. Improve Public Safety
4. Reduce Neighborhood Disturbance
5. Mitigate Impacts to Natural Resources
6. Promote Public Recreation
7. Provide Long-Term Economic Benefit
8. Provide Cultural and/or Environmental Education Opportunity
Table 6-3 evaluates whether the No-Action Alternative meets the purpose and need, and project
objectives.
6-7
Table 6-3 Evaluation of No-Action Alternative

1. Eliminate Board of Water Supply POOR
Liability Risk Board of Water Supply would retain ownership of the property and associated
liability.
Core Mission No action would result in the continuation of Board of Water Supply retaining
liability along with the time and resources spent on Ha‘ikū Stairs, reducing Board of
Water Supply’s ability to meet its core mission to provide safe, dependable, and
affordable water supply.
3. Improve Public Safety POOR
No action would result in further on-going illegal access on the site by the public.
4. Reduce Neighborhood POOR
Disturbance There would be no change to existing neighborhood disturbance levels, except for
the likelihood that they may increase over time.
5. Mitigate Impacts to Natural POOR
Resources No action would result in further on-going illegal access on the site, which would
increase the risk of damage to the watershed and natural environment from
uninformed, unmanaged, and disrespectful trespassers.
There would be no public recreation opportunity.
7. Provide Long-Term Economic POOR
Benefit Long-term financial projections indicate no action would result in a significant
financial loss to the City and State. Board of Water Supply would continue to pay for
security along with liability risk of potential lawsuits from trespassing hikers.
Environmental Education There would be no funding mechanism to implement educational programs.
Opportunity
Table 6-3 illustrates that the No-Action Alternative would fail to meet the objectives of the project.
Under this scenario, BWS would continue to own Ha‘ikū Stairs and the underlying parcel (TMK (1) 4-6-
015:011). BWS would continue to be liable for Ha‘ikū Stairs and would still own land that they do not
need for water development purposes. The No-Action Alternative would not meet project objectives,
nor would it meet the purpose and need of the project, as BWS would continue to hold liability for
Ha‘ikū Stairs and the associated expenditures would detract from its core mission of providing safe,
reliable drinking water.
6.2.3 Environmental Impacts Overview: No-Action Alternative
While certain short-term impacts of construction for rehabilitation or removal would be avoided, the
significant economic and safety benefits of removing Ha‘ikū Stairs would not occur. If Ha‘ikū Stairs
remain in place, their condition would slowly decline, and illegal access, environmental degradation,
emergency response efforts, and potential for accidents would likely increase over time. A summary
evaluation under environmental review categories is presented below.
6-8
Atmospheric. There would be no change in existing effects to air quality, such as dust emissions from
construction.
Terrestrial Environment. Soils would not be disturbed, as no new grading or excavation would occur.
There would be no new effects to groundwater resources in the valley. The slow infiltration of invasive
species would continue with no beneficial landscape enhancements, such as replacement with native
species. There would be no program to educate hikers how to reduce their potential of carrying invasive
species up Ha‘ikū Stairs. Impacts to native flora and fauna would increase over time as trespassing
hikers would carry more and more invasive species up the trail, either through seeds hitchhiking on
hiker’s shoes or through discarding seeds from the consumption of fruits or vegetables.
Natural Hazards. A portion of Ha‘ikū Stairs was damaged in 2015 when high winds uprooted a stand
of octopus trees upslope from a set of stair modules. The trees landed on several interlocking stair
sections located downslope at the approximately 1050-ft. elevation mark. Lack of trail maintenance
would increase the chances of similar events occurring in the future.
Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources. Unmanaged trespassing could result in damage to
archaeological, historic, and cultural resources. There would be no mechanism to manage trespassing
onto the property or to educate hikers how to avoid and protect existing archaeological, historic, and
cultural resources. Continued vandalism from trespassing hikers and neglect to the stair structure
would result in the ongoing degradation and deterioration of the significant historic property, Ha‘ikū
Stairs.
Noise. Noise conditions on Ha‘ikū Stairs and in adjacent neighborhoods would likely continue to
increase due to trespassing hikers. This would include cars and loud voices starting in the very early
hours of the morning, and the subsequent trigger of dogs barking throughout the neighborhood.
Helicopter noise from HFD emergency response efforts would also likely increase over time. The
presence of the stairs may also contribute to the presence of commercial tour helicopter noise.
Roadways and Traffic. Trespassing hikers would continue to use neighborhood roads to park,
contributing to parking shortage and circulation issues.
Infrastructure and Utilities. There would be no potable water use or wastewater produced on site. No
storm water management controls are located on the property. Runoff water would be comparable
quality as with the existing conditions.
Public Services. Emergency and 911 call responses from the police and fire departments would be
anticipated to continue at similar levels to existing conditions.
Recreation and Public Safety. Ha‘ikū Stairs would remain as an illegal recreational resource, an
attractive nuisance for the community and residents. Under the No-Action Alternative, existing views
of Ha‘ikū Stairs from Ha‘ikū Valley and H-3 would be unaffected. Ha‘ikū Stairs would continue to be a
place where hikers could illegally access views of the ocean, coastline and mountains. The condition
of Ha‘ikū Stairs would steadily decline and pose greater danger to public safety over time.
6-9
Economic Conditions. Projected potential financial outcomes for City and State agencies based on the
were calculated by PEP based on a 21-year analysis period. Under the No-Action Alternative, the cost
of security would continue to increase over time, requiring the dedication of more BWS rate payer
revenues. The No-Action Alternative would provide recreation to about 3,000 trespassing hikers per
year who avoid the on-duty security guard. There would be no associated construction-related
activities, indirect sales, or negotiation costs. Also, this alternative would continue to provide about 6
direct and indirect jobs. The estimated Present Values (PVs) would be as follows:
City: negative $4 million

• BWS: negative $4 million
• City excluding the BWS: $0
State: $0
• State excluding OHA: $0
• OHA: $0
Total City and State: negative $4 million
Over the 21-year analysis period, projected aggregate fiscal impact for the No-Action Alternative would
be approximately negative $4 million to the City and State. For additional discussion of the economic
and fiscal impacts of this alternative, please refer to Appendix G.
The No-Action Alternative option fails to protect the public, creates more liability for BWS, and fails to
support the BWS core mission to provide a safe, dependable, and affordable water supply. Therefore,
the No-Action Alternative is not considered a reasonable solution for Ha‘ikū Stairs.
6.3 Partial Removal Alternative

6.3.1 Description: Partial Removal Alternative
This alternative includes elements of the No-Action Alternative, as part of Ha‘ikū Stairs would remain
with no further action, and of the Proposed Action for Full Removal, as part of Ha‘ikū Stairs would be
removed. Partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would involve physically removing the first one thousand
(1,000) feet of stair modules from the base of Ha‘ikū Valley up the ridgeline to the first landing
platform. The stair modules would be detached from the terrain and helicopter-lifted out of
emplacement. This would involve cutting the spikes that are deep within the rock and mountain soil
down to the surface and removing soil and vegetation prior to hoisting. Each stair module would be
lifted out individually by a Hughes 500D Helicopter via slings attached to the modules and taken to a
staging area on the ground. Spikes left in the ground would be cut off for safety (Nakoa, 2017). The
upper section of the stair modules, platforms and structures (CCL and Cable Car House) would remain
in place, including the Moanalua Saddle Stairs beyond the top of the ridge.
6.3.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives: Partial Removal Alternative
As shown in Table 6-4, the Partial Removal Alternative would only partially meet the purpose and need
and project objectives. Partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would endeavor to end future illegal access up
the ridgeline from Ha‘ikū Valley, but would not deter access to the ridgeline from hikers originating in
Moanalua Valley without significant hardening of all access points. The portion of the Ko‘olau Summit
Trail between Moanalua Saddle and the top of Ha‘ikū Stairs is closed and prohibits hiking due to
6-10
unsafe trail conditions. It is also possible that some hikers may still attempt to access the Ha‘ikū Stairs
by hiking to the first platform structure via an alternate route in Ha‘ikū Valley. Alternate routes are
dangerous and should not be attempted.
Table 6-4 Evaluation of Partial Removal Alternative

1. Eliminate Board of Water Supply FAIR
Liability Risk Board of Water Supply would retain ownership of the property, the remainder of
Ha‘ikū Stairs, and associated liability.
Core Mission With partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs the Board of Water Supply would therefore
Board of Water Supply would retain title to the property and therefore retain liability.
3. Improve Public Safety FAIR
Partial removal would curb trespassing from Ha‘ikū Valley. Hikers could still access
Ha‘ikū Stairs from the more perilous routes from Moanalua Valley.
4. Reduce Neighborhood GOOD
Disturbance With the partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, access from Ha‘ikū Valley would be
eliminated and disturbance to existing neighborhoods would be expected to stop.
5. Mitigate Impacts to Natural FAIR
Resources Some trespassing would continue from hikers originating in Moanalua Valley,
however, overall the risk of damage to the watershed and natural environment from
uninformed hikers would be anticipated to decrease.
There would be no public recreation opportunity.
7. Provide Long-Term Economic FAIR
Benefit Long-term financial projection indicates partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would result
in a small deficit to the City and State.
Environmental Education Partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would eliminate a possible funding mechanism to
Opportunity implement educational programs.
The project purpose and need and BWS objectives are not fully met under the Partial Removal
Alternative. Liability risk for BWS would decrease because access to Ha‘ikū Stairs would be effectively
eliminated from Ha‘ikū Valley, but not be eliminated due to ongoing access to Ha‘ikū Stairs from trails
originating in Moanalua Valley. Under this scenario, BWS would also continue to own and hold liability
on a parcel of land that is not needed for water resource development and does not contribute to its
core mission.
6.3.3 Environmental Impacts Overview: Partial Removal Alternative
Under the Partial Removal Alternative, approximately the first 1,000 feet of Ha‘ikū Stairs, from the
base of Ha‘ikū Stairs to the first platform, would be removed. The Moanalua Saddle Stairs, landings,
and structures would not be removed. The cost of removing the stair modules from the trail head to
the first platform is estimated at approximately $139,440 plus additional insurance and contingency
6-11
costs up to $60,000. Partial removal of the lower stair modules would involve fewer short-term
construction impacts than the Proposed Action, which is removal of the entire length of Ha‘ikū Stairs
corridor (approximately 3,705 feet) along with the Moanalua Saddle Stairs. Some economic and safety
benefits would occur due to lack of access from Ha‘ikū Valley, however, the condition of the remaining
stairs would slowly decline. Access to Ha‘ikū Stairs from Moanalua Valley could perpetuate illegal
access, environmental degradation, and emergency response efforts. As conditions decline, the
potential for accidents would likely increase over time.
Land Use. The parcel that hosts Ha‘ikū Stairs is located in the City P-1, Restricted Preservation zone,
and the State Conservation District. Future partial removal of the stairs could potentially trigger the
need for a Site Plan Approval (SPA) from DLNR.
Atmospheric. Short-term dust emissions would occur from construction activities associated with
removal of the lower portion of stairs. No impacts anticipated over the long term.
Terrestrial Environment. Soils would be disturbed during extraction of approximately the first 1,000
feet of stairs. Short-term construction runoff would occur. There would be no other new effects to
groundwater resources in the valley. Flora and fauna would be affected over the short term by
construction activities at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
of octopus trees upslope from a set of stair modules. The trees landed on several interlocking stair
sections located downslope at the approximately 1,050-ft. elevation mark. Lack of trail maintenance
would increase the chances of similar events occurring in the future.
Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources. Partial removal would impact Ha‘ikū Stairs as a
historic property. Mitigation would be required as determined with SHPD through the HRS §6E review
process.
Noise. Short-term noise impacts would occur from helicopter trips during the stair removal process.
Noise conditions on Ha‘ikū Stairs and in adjacent neighborhoods would likely improve. With closure of
the access from Ha‘ikū Valley, neighborhood noise should significantly decrease. Helicopter noise from
HFD emergency response efforts would occur on occasion if hikers access Ha‘ikū Stairs from
Moanalua Valley. The presence of the stairs may also contribute to the presence of commercial tour
helicopter noise.
Roadways and Traffic. After partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs, availability of parking for Ha‘ikū Valley
residential neighborhoods is anticipated to increase and circulation would likely improve with the
decrease in hikers infiltrating neighborhoods.
Infrastructure and Utilities. There would be no potable water use or wastewater produced on site. No
storm water management controls are located on the property. Runoff water reaching the ocean would
be comparable quality as with the existing conditions.
Public Services. Emergency and 911 call responses from the police and fire departments would be
anticipated to decrease.
Recreation and Public Safety. Ha‘ikū Stairs would not be a recreational resource, except for
trespassers. With the first 1,000 feet removed, Ha‘ikū Stairs would no longer be visible from Ha‘ikū
Valley and H-3. Hikers could access similar views of the ocean, coastline and mountains from the
Moanalua Valley trail system. For the ridgeline stair modules, platforms, and buildings that remain
6-12
under the Partial Removal Alternative, their condition would steadily decline and pose greater danger
to public safety.
Economic Conditions. Projected potential financial outcomes for City and State agencies based on the
were calculated by PEP based on a 21-year analysis period. The Partial Removal Alternative would
eliminate the yearly security costs currently required to address trespassing, however, BWS would
have ongoing expenses due to site ownership and liability. This alternative would provide no
recreational benefits after the stairs are removed, and no employment. The cost to partially remove
the stairs would be approximately $200,000. There would be some indirect sales due to construction
related expenditures. The PVs would be as follows:
City: negative $198,000

State: positive $8,000

• OHA: a positive $0
Total City and State: negative $190,000
Over the 21-year analysis period, projected aggregate fiscal impact for the Partial Removal Alternative
would be approximately negative $190,000 to the City and State. For additional discussion of the
economic and fiscal impacts of this alternative, please refer to Appendix G.
The Partial Removal Alternative would eliminate trespassing and decrease neighborhood disturbance
in Ha‘ikū Valley, while being cost effective for BWS and have minimal environmental impact. However,
it would not prevent trespassing from Moanalua Valley and Ha‘ikū Stairs could continue to be an
attractive nuisance. This alternative also would not divest BWS from ownership and liability for the
remaining portion of Ha‘ikū Stairs and the underlying parcel, and therefore would only partially meet
the project purpose and need.
6.4 Conveyance Alternative

The Conveyance Alternative proposes the conveyance of the Ha‘ikū Stairs structure as well as the
property the structure is situated on. The This would be accomplished either through a land transfer
to a more qualified government entity, or by selling the property to a responsible third-party entity. The
BWS approved process for disposing of real property requires that said real property be offered to
other City agencies before being disposed of through auction, transfer or negotiated sale to a private
entity. The City has indicated a desire to accept the real property conveyance of the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel
from BWS, subject to approval of the BWS Board and City Council. In order to allow public access to
Ha‘ikū Stairs, the City new owner must acquire easements for an access route and develop a managed
access plan, as outlined below. Transfer of the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel is possible even if legal access is
not resolved. It will be incumbent on the new owner to negotiate and obtain legal access. Managed
access cannot occur if legal access is not obtained. Conveyance could potentially achieve BWS’
objectives of eliminating the diversion of resources and potential liabilities associated with Ha‘ikū
Stairs, while also addressing trespass, community, and public safety concerns.
6-13
Segments of Ha‘ikū Stairs on non-BWS owned lands could be retained by the underlying landowner
(DHHL), by agreement. The Conveyance Alternative would present greater difficulties than the
proposed project due to the need to find a willing agency from the State or City that would accept a
transfer of lands, or a willing buyer from the private sector. The Conveyance Alternative assumes that
the transferee or buyer would open Ha‘ikū Stairs for public use through a managed access scenario
described in Section 6.4.2, Managed Access.
Under this alternative, before the land could be sold to a private entity, an appraisal would be
conducted to determine land value. A Request for Proposal would be issued, and potential buyers
would submit their plan for managing access and operating Ha‘ikū Stairs. Potential buyers would be
required to meet an established set of qualifications such as maintaining a liability insurance policy
and holding BWS harmless should anything occur on the property, and complete a vetting process
prior to selection. After evaluation of land value, an agency or private buyer would complete the proper
land transfer procedure, including the signing over of existing agreements and easements, to provide
full property rights to the new entity.
BWS understands that the future transferee or future buyer may request conditions to be met prior to the
property transfer. For example, both parties would need to agree on commitments toward improving Ha‘ikū
Stairs and a future access route to ensure safe, adequate access of Ha‘ikū Stairs for public use. Likewise,
landowners granting property access rights may require conditions of approval, waivers of liability, hold
harmless and defend clauses, and liability insurance. Conditions of purchase are likely to be in the form of
access improvements, such as path maintenance, signage, walking path or wall improvements. Provision
of security in the interim phase during property transfer would also be considered.
There are several important components to the Conveyance Alternative, each of which is highlighted
below and discussed in the following subsections.
• Section 6.4.1, Legal Access Route describes the process required to identify a Legal Access
Route to Ha‘ikū Stairs.
• The need for Managed Access Plan under a future operations scenario is discussed in Section
6.4.2, Managed Access.
• Three Conveyance Alternatives are described in the following sections: Section 6.4.3,
Conveyance Alternative with access via Ha‘ikū Road, Section 6.4.4, Conveyance Alternative
with Access via Kūneki Street, and Section 6.4.5, Conveyance Alternative with access via
Po‘okela Street. Section 6.4.6, Conveyance Alternative: Preferred Access Route discusses the
selection of Po‘okela Street as the preferred access route.
• Section 6.5, A Summary of Comparison of Alternatives by Project Objectives, provides a
comparison of the Proposed Action and alternatives with respect to the project objectives.
• Section 6.6, A Summary of Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Impacts provides a
comparison of the Proposed Action and alternatives with respect to environmental impacts.
6-14
6.4.1 Legal Access Route
Legal access pertains to the right to use a

physical path to access the base of Ha‘ikū LEGAL ACCESS ROUTE ANALYSIS
Stairs. There is currently no legal access
route from public roads to the parcel This section of the EIS examines multiple potential
underlying Ha‘ikū Stairs. Although not access routes in this sequence:
required for conveyance to occur, as 1. Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group (10 Routes)
discussed in Chapter 1, it is desirable that
legal access to Ha‘ikū Stairs be secured 2. Preliminary Access Routes (6 Routes)
before the property is transferred or sold to 3. Candidate Access Routes (3 Routes)
another entity. To secure legal access, each
landowner along a given potential access
route must agree to an easement, right-of-
entry and use agreement for hiking-related activities and supporting facilities on their property.
State Department of Transportation
The State DOT plays a critical role in any discussion of legal access. BWS acquired the large crescent
shaped parcel in Ha‘ikū Valley from Bishop Estate as a single lot through condemnation in 1958 for
water development purposes. BWS developed Ha‘ikū Well and tunnel on the Kahuku side of the valley.
The legal access of this parcel is through an easement to the Ha'ikū Road right-of-way. The
construction of the H-3 Freeway (completed in 1997) subsequently split this land into two parcels,
TMK (1) 4-6-015:001 and (1) 4-6-015:011.
Prior to construction of H-3, BWS owned a large single parcel comprised of TMK (1) 4-6-015:001 and
TMK (1) 4-6-015:011 that spanned the area currently occupied by the H-3. The BWS parcel was split
in two by its deeding of land to the State DOT for the H-3 Freeway right-of-way. After splitting the larger
parcel, BWS retained an access easement on the Ha‘ikū Road right-of-way to pass from the Kahuku
side parcel (TMK (1) 4-6-015:001) to the adjacent DHHL property. The Kahuku side parcel had no pre-
existing road access to the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel (TMK (1) 4-6-015:011).
To accommodate the construction of the H-3 Freeway, the BWS parcel was subdivided into two parcels
TMK: 4-6-15: 01 (the Kahuku side of the valley) and TMK: 4-6-15: 11 (the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel) at the
request of the State DOT. Unfortunately, the State DOT did not provide legal access to a public right-
of-way for TMK: 4-6-15: 11, the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel in the subdivision. This parcel remains landlocked.
Resolution of this landlocked situation will be necessary to accommodate access to the parcel.
Currently, the only way for BWS to reach the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel is to access the H-3 Service Road,
but there is no dedicated easement or Use and Occupancy Agreement to use it.
If the conveyance alternative is pursued, then legal access is needed. The EIS describes the
conveyance alternative in detail with the proposed Po‘okela Street access route being the highest
ranked. The City and County of Honolulu is interested in accepting the transfer of the Ha‘ikū Stairs
parcel with the intent of opening the Ha‘ikū Stairs for public access under a managed access plan.
Access easements for the Po‘okela Street access route to the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel would require
easements from existing landowners, including DOT and potentially DHHL, DOH, and/or DLNR. Future
access easements to the Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel would require easements from existing landowners,
including DOT and potentially DHHL, DOH, and/or DLNR.
6-15
The H-3 Service Road is the most direct route connecting to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs and use of it is
considered in several legal access route options. The H-3 Service Road is utilized by the State DOT to
inspect, maintain, and repair the H-3 columns, as needed. Co-use of the maintenance road by DOT
and the City and County of Honolulu and assignments to a future owner/operator, if permitted, will be
conditioned to ensure any DOT maintenance activities will not be affected. During DOT maintenance
activities, other access would be temporarily closed to allow DOT unimpeded access for the duration
of their work to ensure any DOT maintenance activities will not be affected.
Section 6.4.2 of the EIS describes liability concerns and the need for hiker waiver forms, sufficient
operator vendor insurance and indemnification from any and all liability to hold harmless and defend
the underlying landowners. It is also understood that future use within the H-3 Service Road right-of-
way would be subject to DOT agreements, including but not limited to a Use and Occupancy Agreement,
waiver of legal liability to landowners, indemnification, liability insurance requirements, and
addressing safety concerns.
State Legislature
Another factor to consider in the discussion of legal access is legislative history. In 2004, the State
Legislature adopted House Concurrent Resolution 199 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 213
requesting that DLNR, DHHL, DOT and OHA cease issuance of any easement to the City for access to
Ha‘ikū Valley until such time that all required permitting, necessary approvals, and conditional
agreements are identified by the respective agencies and adhered to by the City. These approvals
would include but are not limited to an indemnification agreement, a memorandum of agreement to
share the cost of maintaining the H-3 access road, requirements for preservation of cultural and burial
sites, and a modification to the Conservation District Use Permit for the H-3 Service Road. The H-3
access road, which is presently limited to maintenance operations, and without provisions for
recreational use which must be approved by the Board of Land and Natural Resources. These
resolutions are provided in Appendix JK.
Legal access routes have also been a topic of discussion among advocates of retaining Ha‘ikū Stairs.
This section evaluates the potential access routes, including information from:
1. The most recent work by the HSWG, that evaluated 10 potential access routes in 2014;
2. The six preliminary routes that the EIS team discussed with agencies and stakeholders during
a series of meetings in 2017; and
3. The three candidate routes that emerged for evaluation within this EIS in 2018.
6.4.1.1 Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group (2014)
The HSWG was convened in 2014 by Honolulu City

Council Member Ikaika Anderson (District 3) to discuss HA‘IKŪ STAIRS WORKING GROUP
issues relating to Ha‘ikū Stairs and develop a (10 Routes)
recommendation for future use. Comprised of various
local community organization representatives, state and Preliminary access route analysis
county agencies, neighborhood board members, and started with the 10 routes put forward
adjacent property owners, HSWG met from July to by the HSWG in 2014. The research of
October 2014 to discuss potential access routes and HSWG was utilized as a basis for inquiry
engage landowners regarding access through their into legal access alternatives at the
property. HSWG identified 10 access points to Ha‘ikū start of the EIS process.
Stairs, developed a list of pro and con subjects for each
access point, and selected three access points as potential options. The work done by the HSWG is
6-16
provided in Appendix H: Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group Final Report. Their top three access points are
presented, in order of preference, as follows:
1. Windward Community College/State Hospital – chosen by HSWG because parking and
restroom facilities were available at Kāne‘ohe Regional Park, the access path through the
campus and state hospital properties would avoid residential areas, and managed access
features such as gates and fencing could be accommodated as a crime deterrent.
2. Hope Chapel (previously Anchor Church) – chosen by HSWG because parking was available
away from residential areas and there was access to the H-3 Service Road through a back gate
on their property.
3. Privately owned portions of “Old Ha‘ikū Road” – chosen by HSWG because it reduced traffic
through residential areas and Kūneki Street, and managed access could be accommodated
at Ha‘ikū Road gate to reduce impacts to neighbors.
6.4.1.2 Preliminary Legal Access Routes
The work of HSWG was utilized as a basis for inquiry into legal access alternatives at the start of the
EIS process. The EIS team carried forward the three routes recommended by the HSWG and added
three more routes for consideration.
• Access via Kūneki Street was added as an alternative to Ha‘ikū Road to move the initial access
route off of private property (“Old” Ha‘ikū Road) on to a public access road (Kūneki Street).
• Access via Puoni Place was included as an access route only because it connects to an existing
BWS reservoir access road built for the subdivision’s water system, which is the road the
security guards use to access the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. The reservoir access road is located
behind a gate just off Puoni Place, and leads to the H-3 Service Road and BWS’ Ha‘ikū 500
Reservoir No. 2 water tank. The access road is located on an easement through land owned by
HHFDC.
• Access via hiking trail from Moanalua Valley was also introduced as a potential access route
because the DLNR Na Ala Hele Access and Trail System has official trails ending at the ridgeline
that could be used to access Ha‘ikū Stairs.
With these three additional routes, the EIS team put forth six preliminary legal access routes that were
discussed through the course of agency and stakeholder meetings (conducted approximately between
June 2017 and January of 2018). Figure 6-1 shows the location of these potential access routes.
PRELIMINARY LEGAL ACCESS ROUTES

(6 Routes)
Six preliminary legal access routes were discussed through the

course of agency and stakeholder meetings:
1. Ha‘ikū Road
2. Kūneki Street
3. Puoni Place
4. Windward Community College/ State Hospital
5. Po‘okela Street (formerly Hope Chapel)
6. Moanalua Valley (DISMISSED)
6-17
Moanalua Valley Access Considered but Dismissed
Access to Ha‘ikū Stairs via Moanalua Valley was evaluated as a preliminary access route, however,
this access route was dismissed early in the process for the reasons outlined below.
The Moanalua Valley access route originates at Moanalua Valley Park and follows the Na Ala Hele trails
“Kamananui Valley Road” then the “Kulana‘ahane” Trail on State lands to climb approximately three
quarters of the way to Ha‘ikū Stairs. The last section on the ridgeline is still on State land but is not an
official managed trail. Hiking conditions along this route are difficult and potentially treacherous,
extending along sheer cliff edges that drops off approximately 1,000 feet. The ridgeline trail eventually
joins the top of Ha‘ikū Stairs at the CCL. The Moanalua Valley trail system is erroneously gaining
popularity as the “legal” way to access Ha‘ikū Stairs and to avoid the security guard and special duty
HPD officer in Ha‘ikū Valley. A steady flow of hikers access Ha‘ikū Stairs from Moanalua Valley every
day utilizing this route outside of the Na Ala Hele trail system. The Moanalua Saddle ridgeline
comprises the boundary between two parcels: one owned by BWS (TMK 4-6-015:011) on the Kāne‘ohe
side, and the other owned by DLNR DOFAW (TMK 1-1-013:001) on the Moanalua side (see Figure 3-
7). The DLNR DOFAW parcel is designated as Forest Reserve lands and public access is permitted,
however, public access is prohibited on the BWS parcel.
Access from Moanalua Valley would have some advantages, in that it is located away from Ha‘ikū
Valley residents and neighborhood disturbance would be reduced there. However, the activity and
disturbance would be transferred from the Ha‘ikū area to residential neighborhoods close to Moanalua
Valley Neighborhood Park and the trail head for the Kulana‘ahane Trail.
Parking and restrooms for the route would be available at Moanalua Valley Neighborhood Park. There
would be limited parking at the park and the lot is often full. Overflow parking would be accommodated
on Ala Aolani and other neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the park.
Due to public safety concerns over treacherous ridgeline trail conditions, this access route was
dismissed and not carried forward for further analysis in the EIS.
6.4.1.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Access Routes
The remaining five preliminary access routes were evaluated according to a set of criteria and given a
rating of “Good,” “Fair,” or “Poor” based on how the criteria were met. Please note the criteria for
evaluating preliminary access routes are different than the criteria for evaluating the Proposed Action
and alternatives. The access route is a component of one alternative (Conveyance Alternative).
During consultation with the agencies and stakeholders, four issues were identified as most important
as related to legal access routes:
1. Impacts to the community
2. Traffic and parking
3. Access to public facilities
4. Disposition of landowners
These four issues became the basis for the evaluation criteria for the legal access routes, as shown in
Tables 6-5 to 6-10.
6-18
Figure 6-1 Preliminary Legal Access Routes
6-19
This page left intentionally left blank.
6-20
Table 6-5 Legal Access Route Rating Criteria

Criteria GOOD FAIR POOR
The potential access route to Ha‘ikū Stairs Residential areas, businesses, schools and/or
The potential access route is adjacent to
would provide separation from residential organizations are partially visible from the potential
residential areas, businesses, schools and/or
areas, businesses, schools and organizations. access route, however, and/or there is some form of
Impacts to organizations and there is no separation or
Residences and schools would not be visible separation from property lines, such as setbacks,
Community screening. Due to the close proximity, hiker
from the access route and there is little to no fencing, or vegetation screening. Hikers may be visible
visibility and interaction is possible and impacts
potential for interaction with hikers. Impacts to and there is some potential for interaction with hikers.
to the community are anticipated.
the community are not anticipated. Some impacts to the community are possible.
A designated parking area could be created for
hiker parking on existing streets, away from
Existing street parking is available with some overlap Existing street parking is available in front of
residential neighborhood on a wide 50-foot
into residential neighborhoods on a 40-foot road right- residential homes on a narrow 30-foot road right-
Traffic and wide or greater road right-of-way. Could include
of-way. The parking area can accommodate 30 to 40 of-way. Space can accommodate 20 to 30
Parking permit, metered, or kiosk-based paid parking.
vehicles per day. Some street crowding is likely. Space vehicles per day, but crowded streets are likely.
Space can accommodate 40 to 50 vehicles per
for shuttle drop off/turn around is limited. Shuttle drop off and turn around is not feasible.
day. Space is available for shuttle drop off and
turn around.
Public facilities such as bus stops, restaurants, Public facilities such as bus stops, restaurants, Public facilities such as bus stops, restaurants,
Access to
restrooms, trash receptacles, and spigot for restrooms, trash receptacles, and spigot for washing restrooms, trash receptacles, and spigot for
Public
washing off mud would generally be located off mud would generally be located within a quarter to washing off mud would generally be located over
Facilities
within a quarter mile of the access route. half a mile from the access route. half a mile from the access route.
Public and private landowners expressed One or more public and/or private landowners
Public and private landowners were willing to discuss a
Landowners interest in supporting a legal access route to were not interested in allowing a legal access
legal access route to Ha‘ikū Stairs on their property.
Ha‘ikū Stairs on their property. route to Ha‘ikū Stairs on their property.
6-21
Figure 6-2 Access Route 1: Ha‘ikū Road
6-22
Table 6-6 Access Route 1: Ha‘ikū Road

This route would originate on “old” Ha‘ikū Road, and traverse through Kamehameha Schools property behind He‘eia Preschool and land leased to Hui Kū Maoli Ola for its
nursery operations to Kūneki Street. The route continues on Ha‘ikū Road through Ha‘ikū Road gate to property owned by Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Option A
continues on the Omega Station access road through Department of Hawaiian Homelands property to the Omega Station, then on an existing trail to the H-3 Service Road,
which leads to Ha‘ikū Stairs trailhead. Access Option B avoids Department of Hawaiian Homelands property and turns left after Ha‘ikū Road gate and travels through the Hui Kū
Maoli Ola and Hawai‘i Housing Financing and Development Corporation property before joining the H-3 Service Road.
Criteria Rating Discussion
Ha‘ikū Road access route is located adjacent to private residences and disturbances could potentially occur. Prior to reaching Ha‘ikū
Road gate, the route passes approximately 24 townhouses, the front of He‘eia Preschool, Hui Kū Maoli Ola plant nursery, and Papahana
Impacts to Community Fair
Kuaola non-profit organization. The route also passes approximately 16 single family residences; however, the route is separated from
these homes by existing fencing and in some places a grade separation.
Ha‘ikū Road between Kahuhipa Street and Kūneki Street is narrow (less than 20 feet in some places) and in disrepair. He‘eia Stream is
eroding a section of the roadway creating a safety situation. Roadway widening is not possible due to proximity to the stream. Public
Traffic and Parking Fair
street parking would be available on Ha‘ikū Road makai of Kahuhipa Street, within a 44-foot right-of-way or on Kahuhipa Street within a
50-foot right-of-way with four lanes.
Access to Public There are no public restroom facilities along this route, Kāne‘ohe District Park has the closest facility. This route runs adjacent to He‘eia
Poor
Facilities Preschool and the school is fully visible. Kamakau Charter School is over 300 feet away from the route and the school is not visible.
This access route traverses land owned by Kamehameha Schools and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and passes near two
educational facilities. There is concern that existing landowners may not be amenable to providing hikers access on their properties. The
Landowners Poor portion of Ha‘ikū Road located between Kahuhipa Street and Kūneki Street is privately owned by Kamehameha Schools. In discussions
with Kamehameha Schools, they may not provide access to hikers on their property which is now adjacent to a pre-school. Vehicular
access to their property is blocked by a gate on Ha‘ikū Road.
Candidate for Because this route is associated with traditional access to valley and Ha‘ikū Stairs, impacts fewer residential properties, and could
Environmental Impact Yes potentially accommodate necessary facilities for hikers, including parking on Kahuhipa Street, this access route alternative was carried
Statement Analysis? forth for further analysis within this Environmental Impact Statement.
6-23
Figure 6-3 Access Route 2: Kūneki Street
6-24
Table 6-7 Access Route 2: Kūneki Street

The route would originate from on-street parking along Kahuhipa Street, which joins Kūneki Street then continues through Ha‘ikū Road gate to property owned by Department of
Hawaiian Homelands. Option A would continue on the Omega Station access road through Department of Hawaiian Homelands property to the Omega Station, then on an
existing trail to the H-3 Service Road, which leads to Ha‘ikū Stairs trailhead. Access Option B would avoid Department of Hawaiian Homelands property and turn left after Ha‘ikū
Road gate, and extend through the Hui Kū Maoli Ola and Hawai‘i Housing Finance and Development Corporation property before joining the H-3 Service Road.
The access route would be located adjacent to private residences and there would be a high potential for disturbance. Private residences
along Kūneki Street, and especially near Ha‘ikū Road gate, currently report a high level of disturbance due to trespassing, noise, trash,
Impacts to Community Poor
and crowded street parking. The access route would travel through residential neighborhoods, past approximately 49 houses and the
edge of He‘eia Preschool.
Kūneki Street is only 27-feet wide and would be too narrow for street parking. Kūneki Street runs at an approximately 5% grade, which is
Traffic and Parking Fair relatively steep, and could cause safety concerns with fast moving traffic. Public street parking would be available on Kahuhipa Street
within a 50-foot right-of-way with four lanes or on Ha‘ikū Road, makai of Kahuhipa Street, within a 44-foot right-of-way.
There would be no public restroom facilities along this route, Kāne‘ohe District Park has the closest facility. This route would run adjacent
Access to Public
Poor to He‘eia Preschool and the school would be fully visible. Kamakau Charter School would be over 300 feet away from the route and the
Facilities
school would not be visible.
This access route would traverse land owned by Department of Hawaiian Homelands, passing near one educational facility, and would be
Landowners Poor located adjacent to approximately 49 private residences. There is concern that existing landowners may not be amenable to providing
hikers access adjacent to the boundary of their properties.
Candidate for This potential access route alternative was carried forward for further analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement because it would
Environmental Impact Yes provide a well-known access route into the valley, with parking and access available on Kūneki Street, that could potentially
Statement Analysis? accommodate necessary facilities for hikers.
6-25
Figure 6-4 Access Route 3: Puoni Place
6-26
Table 6-8 Access Route 3: Puoni Place

This route originates from on-street parking located on Kahuhipa Street. Hikers would travel along Loli‘i Street in the Hokulele residential subdivision and join Puoni Place. From
Puoni Place, the route follows the Board of Water Supply reservoir access road across Hawai‘i Housing Finance and Development Corporation property and joins the H-3 Service
Road which leads to trailhead.
The access route would extend 0.5 mile through residential neighborhoods in the Hokulele subdivision, past approximately 75 private
residences. Out of all the access routes, the Puoni Place access route would affect the greatest number of homes and would have the
Impacts to Community Poor
highest probability for neighborhood disturbances. Residents along Loli‘i Street and Puoni Place near the BWS gate and fence currently
report a high level of disturbance due to trespassing, noise, trash, and crowded street parking.
Loli‘i Street and Puoni Place are both only 27-feet wide and too narrow for street parking. Public street parking would be available on
Kahuhipa Street on a 50-foot right-of-way with four lanes. Loli‘i Street is steep with an 8% grade. The steep grade along with narrow
Traffic and Parking Poor
streets could contribute to potential pedestrian and child safety issues, as it can be hard to brake quickly when traveling down Loli‘i
Street.
Access to Public There are no public restroom facilities along this route, Kāne‘ohe District Park has the closest facility. This route would not have access to
Good
Facilities other public facilities.
This access route would traverse City-owned streets and land owned by Hawai‘i Housing Finance Development Corporation. The route
Landowners Poor
would follow local streets lined with private residences on either side for half a mile.
Access through Puoni Place would have advantages such as close proximity to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. However, due to the narrow
width of the surrounding streets, the streets would not have the capacity to accommodate quantities of hikers without the potential for
Candidate for
conflict with adjacent residences. Also, pedestrian safety would be a concern due to the steep grade of Loli‘i Street. The potential would
Environmental Impact No
also be high for neighborhood disturbance with hiker access passing directly next to approximately 75 private residences. The proximity
Statement Analysis?
to these many residences in combination with other risk factors was viewed as untenable for sustainable future operations, and this
access route was not carried forward for further analysis.
6-27
Figure 6-5 Access Route 4: Windward Community College (WCC)/State Hospital
6-28
Table 6-9 Access Route 4: Windward Community College (WCC)/State Hospital

The WCC access route alternative would originate at Kāne‘ohe District Park, then traverse the northern boundary of the Windward Community College campus and State
Hospital grounds, ultimately joining the H-3 Service Road which leads to trailhead.
The Windward Community College/State Hospital route would not be located directly in residential areas, but is rather within three
separate public facilities, Kāne‘ohe District Park, Windward Community College and the Hawai‘i State Hospital. The proposed route
Impacts to Community Fair
would be separated by existing fencing from residential areas. Conflicts are not anticipated with residential areas, however, similar
issues could occur on the premises of public institutions.
Parking would be provided at Kāne‘ohe District Park, however, conflicts would be anticipated as the park is heavily used for sports, and
Traffic and Parking Poor
parking lots are often full.
This route would originate in Kāne‘ohe District Park, providing the advantages of restroom and trash facilities. The route would pass
Access to Public
Good through campuses of a public recreation area (Kāne‘ohe District Park), public educational facility (Windward Community College), and a
Facilities
public medical facility (State Hospital).
This access route would traverse land owned by the City and the State. Kāne‘ohe District Park is owned by the City, and Windward
Landowners Poor
Community College and the Hawai‘i State Hospital are on State lands.
The advantages that would be provided by this route include restroom and other facilities at Kāne‘ohe District Park, and an access route
Candidate for
that provides separation from private residences. However, according to conversations with organization representatives from Windward
Environmental Impact No
Community College and the state hospital, some policies regarding security and privacy could not be upheld while allowing a public
Statement Analysis?
access easement on their property. Therefore, this access route was not carried forward for further analysis.
6-29
Figure 6-6 Access Route 5: Po‘okela Street
6-30
Table 6-10 Access Route 5: Po‘okela Street

This access route would originate on Po‘okela Street, traverses the Anchor Church (formerly Hope Chapel) access road, then join a new trail on State property to join the H-3
Service Road.
The Hope Chapel access route would have few impacts on residential neighborhoods. The access route would pass approximately eight
residences visible along the Anchor Church access driveway that are not separated from the driveway by the existing thick vegetation. As
Impacts to Community Good
shown on the conceptual walking access route (see Figure 6-14), residences adjacent to the Anchor Church driveway would be separated
from the proposed walking path by the 32-foot road right-of-way, proposed fencing, and a row of screening trees.
Public street parking was proposed by the HSWG in the church parking lot, however, Hope Chapel found that this parking use would
Traffic and Parking Fair disrupt Church services, especially on Sundays. The successor Anchor Church would not allow parking on their property. Parking will be
proposed on Po‘okela Street which would sufficiently accommodate hiker vehicle parking.
Access to Public There would be public restroom and trash facilities near the Po‘okela Street parking area. Kāne‘ohe District Park would be the closest
Good
Facilities public restroom, and this route would not pass other public facilities.
The Anchor Church driveway is owned by the State of Hawai‘i with a dedicated easement to Anchor Church. Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group
Landowners Good planned for this route to pass through the Anchor Church facility. The Environmental Impact Statement looks at routing an access route
path from the top of the driveway through State land to the H-3 Service Road.
This route was initially not carried forward by Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group due to conflicts with the church facility.
Candidate for
Environmental Impact Yes For Ha‘ikū Stairs Environmental Impact Statement, the reused route would bypass the church campus. This access route alternative was
Statement Analysis? subsequently carried forward for further analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement because it would affect few private residences,
with ample street parking, and could provide a relatively direct connection to the H-3 Service Road.
6-31
6-32
6.4.1.4 Candidate Legal Access Routes
Based on the analysis above, site evaluations, and

meetings with agencies and stakeholders, three CANDIDATE LEGAL ACCESS ROUTES
candidate access routes were chosen for evaluation in (3 Routes)
the EIS as shown in Table 6-11. These three candidate
access routes were advanced in the EIS as three variants Three candidate access routes were
of the Conveyance Alternative: 1) Conveyance Alternative advanced for evaluation as part of the
with Access via Ha‘ikū Road, 2) Conveyance Alternative Conveyance Alternative:
with Access via Kūneki Street, and 3) Conveyance 1. Ha‘ikū Road
Alternative with Access via Po‘okela Street. These three
variants of the Conveyance Alternatives are evaluated 2. Kūneki Street
later in Section 6.4.3, Conveyance Alternative: Ha‘ikū 3. Po‘okela Street
Road, Section 6.4.4, Conveyance Alternative: Kūneki (formerly Route 5; Hope Chapel)
Street, and Section 6.4.5, Conveyance Alternative:
Po‘okela Street. Table 6-11 shows the criteria and ratings
comparison for the top three legal access routes.
Table 6-11 Summary Comparison of Top Three Legal Access Routes

Route 1: Route 2; Route 3:
Criteria
Ha‘ikū Road Kūneki Street Po‘okela Street
Impacts to Community Fair Poor Good
Traffic and Parking Fair Fair Fair
Access to Public Facilities Poor Poor Good
Landowners Poor Poor Good
6.4.2 Managed Access
Another component of the Conveyance Alternative is managed access. Managed access refers to the
scenario of an operator (public or private) taking on the activities of operating Ha‘ikū Stairs. The future
operator would be responsible for envisioning and implementing a Managed Access Plan (MAP) to
manage all aspects of operating public access to Ha‘ikū Stairs. The MAP would address transportation,
parking, comfort facilities, structural preservation, maintenance, security, insurance, liability,
management, safety docents, facilitating hikes, carrying capacity, educational program, environmental
preservation, marketing and other aspects of operations as needed. A viable long-term business plan
for sustaining operations would be a vital component of the managed access program.
Prior to implementation of the MAP, Ha‘ikū Stairs would be refurbished in preparation for public use.
Restoration work would be conducted for select platforms, stair modules and railings as determined
by a structural condition assessment, replacement of deteriorated floor sections and handrails, and
clearing vegetation overgrowth. Restoration work would be negotiated with the owner and operator.
As discussed in Section 6.4.1, Legal Access Route, legal access would be secured and improvements
made to the selected route. Key aspects of a proposed MAP are described below.
Management Program Overview. Management program components would include maintenance of

stairs and access route, staffing, sales, education, transportation/parking plan, volunteer
coordination, contract management, safety, liability, and obligations for ceded lands. There are many
different operations models that could be emulated, both locally and beyond. Hanauma Bay Nature
6-33
Preserve and Diamond Head State Park are two local models
that include parking, entrance fees, rest facilities, and MANAGED ACCESS PLAN
trail/resource management programs.
Note that discussion of MAP
Sales. Sales would encompass ticketing and reservations, and content is notional, and the final
management of any electronic platform used for concession or MAP will be the responsibility of
advertising. A tiered rate structure should be considered for the owner/operator.
tickets, including the availability of kama‘aina (Hawai‘i resident)
rates.
Purchasing tickets for entrance should be strictly enforced under managed access. A ticket would be
purchased and presented at a guard/ticket verification location prior to ascent. Affordable ticket prices
would reduce motivation to trespass by providing residents and visitors the ability to hike the stairs
legally. Hikers without a ticket would be refused entrance.
Transportation and Parking. Transportation would be a key issue for the MAP. Neighborhood parking
shortage and circulation problems due to the influx of hikers’ cars on narrow residential streets would
need to be properly planned and managed. The MAP would need to designate parking areas for hikers
with the capacity to accommodate the maximum number of vehicles anticipated and strictly enforce
the use of this area. Parking solutions vary and would be specific to the access route that is ultimately
chosen. For example, one scenario would include parking at Windward Mall and shuttle transported
to the trail access point. Another system could be provision of a designated paid parking area. Parking
fees would be exacted through parking meters, a payment kiosk, or a paid parking permit system.
Residential neighborhoods would have the option to apply to the DTS for a Residential Parking Zone
to enforce a “residents only” parking environment.
Carrying capacity. Ha‘ikū Stairs modules are narrow, measuring approximately 2 feet 9 inches in width.
This narrow dimension does not allow adequate space for hikers to pass each other on the stair
modules. Hikers passing each other must either step outside the rail momentarily or wait on the
concrete landing platforms until stair modules are clear. A structural evaluation for weight capacity
would also assist in determining a safe ratio of hikers per module. The USCG hoped to keep hikers at
75 per day or less, but when Ha‘ikū Stairs grew in popularity, they recorded up to 200 hikers per day
on weekends (Chapman, 2018). A community group has suggested that a sustainable hiking number
would be 80 hikers per day (FHS, 5/19/17, EISPN comment letter). Others have suggested limiting
the use level to 60 hikers per day. The future operator would be responsible for determining the
carrying capacity, or, the maximum number of hikers per day that the structure can support without
causing safety concerns or degrading the ecosystem. It is anticipated that a critical aspect of the MAP
would be to evaluate the practical carrying capacity, and specify the maximum number of hikers per
day, with coordinated hike times to avoid passage conflicts on the narrow stairs. It is anticipated that
Ha‘ikū Stairs would not be open every day due to weather constraints such as heavy rain or wind.
Security. A security plan would address security services during and after normal hours of operation.
Ensuring future security will be a particularly challenging aspect of the MAP. Under current conditions,
trespassing is the only way for anyone to access Ha‘ikū Stairs, and there are many routes people have
created through different properties, even repeatedly cutting fences for access. If one route is officially
established as the legal access to Ha‘ikū Stairs, and an affordable fee system is established for hiking,
the majority of hikers would utilize the legal access. This would largely reduce trespassing, however,
there is a concern that chronic trespassers would try to circumvent the new management and access
system to avoid paying a fee.
6-34
A new security plan would be necessary to prevent access from the many entry points that have been
illegally established. For example, posting a guard/ticket verification station to ensure there is no
illegal access to Ha‘ikū Stairs, even when it is closed. The guard station would need to be staffed 24/7
and be located to prevent entry by anyone trying to bypass the station due to steep terrain. A security
system would also assist with deterrence of trespassing and vandalism. This system would help screen
paid hikers from trespassers and reduce trespassing.
Security plans would also provide separation and visual screening from private residences along the
new legal access route. Currently, a good portion of illegal access happens in the in the dark. Noise
disturbances are exacerbated in residential areas during the quiet pre-dawn hours when residents are
asleep and dogs bark at the slightest disturbance. One option to curb pre-dawn trespassing would be
to offer a limited number of small groups access prior to sunrise, with the requirement of complete
silence en route through residential neighborhoods.
The MAP would also need to consider how to protect neighborhoods after the new managed access
program is activated and while the public mindset shifts toward the new access system. Security would
need to be bolstered while the public becomes fully informed on the procedures with requirements for
execution of managed access.
Liability. The land owner and operator would need to address liability concerns, which would include
liability waiver forms for hikers, and the provision of adequate liability insurance for owners, managers
and operators.
Education and Preservation. Ha‘ikū Valley is a setting with rich cultural history and biological
resources. Under managed access, there would be an opportunity for an educational program with
cultural and environmental components. Local non-profit organizations have envisioned such
programs for Ha‘ikū Valley that create a cultural and environmental preserve, provide education
programs, and revitalize the valley as a place of learning. The MAP would accommodate guided hikes,
instructional programs, and educational signage.
Comfort Facilities. Provision of comfort facilities would be important for hiker use prior to embarking
on a 5-hour round trip hike, where no restrooms are currently available. Portable restrooms or a
composting toilet would be provided at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs under all access scenarios. Use of
the facilities at Kāne‘ohe District Park would be considered in addition to portable restroom facilities
at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Trash collection and disposal would also be planned for.
Vegetation Management. Periodic vegetation maintenance would be conducted to manage

overgrowth along the access route and to keep the stairs route free from plants that may interfere with
the route or create tripping hazards. Removal of invasive species and restoration of native species
could also be included in plans for vegetation management.
Ceded Lands. Ceded lands refer to lands once owned by the Hawaiian monarchy, that during the 1893
overthrow were illegally taken by the United States government. TMK 4-6-015:007 owned by the City
and County located along Ha‘ikū Stairs route is confirmed as ceded lands. Research also indicates
that ceded lands may be present on one or more of the access routes. In accordance with HRS §10-
13.5, the OHA is entitled to receive a portion of revenue earned from use of ceded lands. The economic
aspect of the MAP would need to be coordinated with OHA on proposed activities, and the operator
would need to provide accommodations for use of ceded lands, as required. OHA requested to be
consulted during the development of the MAP in order to collaborate on issues such as cultural
sensitivity and ceded lands.
6-35
Through the process of releasing the EISPN and meeting with agencies, landowners and community
groups, several entities came forward expressing potential interest in being a future operator of Ha‘ikū
Stairs. These entities include but are not limited to:
• Ko‘olau Foundation
• Discover Tours Hawai‘i
• Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs
• Bob Twogood
• Kualoa Ranch
Potential future operators would go through a vetting process prior to selection, meet an established
set of qualifications, and be expected to provide a plan for managing access and operating Ha‘ikū
Stairs. Potential future operators would work directly with the new landowner.
The exact details of the MAP are not part of the EIS and would be provided as a condition in the RFP
by the future operator to the appropriate reviewing entity. Approval of the MAP may be a condition of
the operator agreement.
6.4.3 Conveyance Alternative: Ha‘ikū Road
6.4.3.1 Concept of Operations: Ha‘ikū Road
Under this alternative, BWS would convey TMK (1) 4-6-015:011 to a public agency or sell the parcel
to a private entity. Ha‘ikū Stairs and the Moanalua Saddle Stairs would remain in place. An operator
would be expected to arrange public hiking through a managed access scenario (not including access
to the Moanalua Saddle Stairs). Ha‘ikū Road is one of the potential legal access routes. Ha‘ikū Road
access route (Figure 6-7) originates at Ha‘ikū Road and Kahuhipa Street, with parking options on both
streets (Figure 6-9). Where Ha‘ikū Road meets Ha‘ikū Road gate, there are two route options for access
to Ha‘ikū Stairs. Ha‘ikū Road access Option A aligns with the traditional route into the valley. From
Ha‘ikū Road gate , access Option A follows an existing paved road through DHHL property and back to
the Omega Station. Past the Omega Station, the route follows an unpaved path through the vegetation
that leads across the existing DOT access easement under the H-3 Freeway which heads east and
connects to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Ha‘ikū Road access Option B travels southeast primarily through
Hui Kū Maoli Ola property, then traverses corners of HHFDC and City properties before meeting up
with the DOT H-3 Service Road, which leads west to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. A new walking path
would need to be forged through the Hui Kū Maoli Ola property, which is currently undeveloped, aside
from periodic vegetation clearing for overhead power lines (Figure 6-1). For both access options a DOT
easement over the H-3 Service Road would be required.
6-36
Figure 6-7 Conveyance Alternative: Ha‘ikū Road Access Route
6-37
6-38
Legal Access. Legal access would require coordination with

landowners including the City, State of Hawai‘i, Kamehameha
Schools, DHHL, Hui Kū Maoli Ola, HHFDC and DOT. Each of
these landowners was consulted directly to elicit comments
regarding use of this potential route. Landowners along the
selected access option would need to agree to provide access
in order for this route to be viable. Future use of the property
would be subject to liability concerns and the need for
landowner protections such as a waiver of legal liability to
landowners, indemnification, and liability insurance
requirements.
Land Use. The parcel that hosts Ha‘ikū Stairs is located in the
City P-1, Restricted Preservation zone, and the State
Conservation District. Future improvements on the access
route and stairs parcel could potentially trigger the need for a
Site Plan Approval (SPA) or State Conservation District Use
Permit (CDUP). If The State Office of Conservation and Coastal
Lands (OCCL) determines an SPA or CDUP is necessary,
Figure 6-8
improvements pursued by the operator of Ha‘ikū Stairs will
Parking Payment Kiosk
need to be covered under an SPA or CDUP and consistent with
(Source: G70)
the development principles of the Conservation District and
applicable subzones. The Ha‘ikū Road access route would be
located across City AG-2 and City P-1, Restricted Preservation
zones, and the State Conservation District. It is anticipated that
the public would transit these lands by means of an easement. In addition to an SPA or State
Conservation District Use Permit, future uses along the Ha‘ikū Road access route would be subject to
the City Land Use Ordinance and applicable regulations of the P-1 and AG-2 zoning districts. Per ROH
Chapter 2: LUO Sec. 21-3.40, “the purpose of the preservation districts is to preserve and manage
major open space and recreation lands and lands of scenic and other natural value.” According to
Table 21-3 of the LUO, Master Use Table, outdoor recreation facilities are an allowable use for lands
designated AG-2. A Conditional Use Permit minor may be required for any new development within the
P-1 and AG-2 district.
Parking. Parking along Ha‘ikū Road would be constructed within the existing roadway right-of-way
which can accommodate 27 parallel parking stalls at 22 feet each. Parking improvements along Ha‘ikū
Road include paving the south roadside shoulder for parking stalls, a possible parking payment kiosk
(Figure 6-8), and striping of the parking spaces. Public parking is also possible along Kahuhipa Street
within a 50-foot right-of-way near the intersection with Kūneki Street and would be within a portion of
the existing road right-of-way that can accommodate 24 parallel parking stalls at 22 feet each (Figure
6-9 Ha‘ikū Road Parking Options). Another option that does not rely on parking in residential areas
would be for remote shuttles to drop hikers off at Ha‘ikū Road gate from a designated off-site location.
Parking at the Omega Station would only be an option if an agreement is reached with DHHL for public
vehicle access. Discussion of parking agreements with DHHL is premature at this time and parking
options in this EIS were limited to public rights-of-way.
6-39
6-40
Figure 6-9 Ha‘ikū Road and Kūneki Street Accesses Parking Options
6-41
6-42
Conceptual Walking Path Improvements and Security: Ha‘ikū Road
Access Option A: From the parking area, hikers would walk along Ha‘ikū Road shoulder within the City
right-of-way to the He‘eia Preschool gate. From there, hikers would continue on Ha‘ikū Road along
private property owned by Kamehameha Schools to Ha‘ikū Road gate (see Figure 6-1). The public
access route would include fencing improvements to segregate the public walking path from private
residences and He‘eia Preschool. After the Kamakau Charter school turnoff, hikers would utilize the
existing paved portion of the Omega Station access road.
Just past the Omega Station, an existing foot path leads across BWS’ DOT H-3 access easement to
Ha‘ikū Stairs parcel. The footpath would be improved with wooden stairs leading up to an elevated
section of the H-3 Service Road. Improving the path and installing the wooden stairs would require
excavations up to 3 feet deep. Once on the H-3 Service Road, hikers would follow this paved road to
the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Vegetation overgrowth on the H-3 Service Road would need to be removed.
Starting from the parking area, hikers would walk a total of approximately 1.25 miles to reach the base
of Ha‘ikū Stairs via access Option A by the Omega Station.
Access Option B: This access would utilize

the same parking and path to the Omega
Station access road (Figure 6-1 Ha‘ikū Road
Access). Shortly after Ha‘ikū Road gate,
hikers would turn left onto a new footpath
through the Hui Kū Maoli Ola property and
the HECO Easement. This path
intermittently follows along the existing
fence line for the federal government
property to the south. Vegetation removal
would be required to clear the pathway
through the Hui Kū Maoli Ola property and
up the steep areas near the H-3 Service Figure 6-10 Examples of log type and wooden
Road. Ascent up the bank to the H-3 Service stairs. (Web Source, 2018)
Road could utilize either log type stairs or formal wooden stairs which require grading and excavations
up to 3 feet (Figure 6-10). Once on the H-3 Service Road, hikers would follow this paved surface to the
base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. The total distance from the parking area to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs via access
Option B would be approximately 0.65 miles.
Facilities. A portable or composting toilet could be constructed at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. New gates
would be proposed at key locations along the access routes such as Ha‘ikū Road Gate, Kamakau
Charter School, H-3 Service Road, and at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
6.4.3.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives: Conveyance Alternative
Table 6-12 evaluates the Conveyance Alternative in relation to the project purpose and need, and the
eight project objectives. Evaluation ratings for the Conveyance Alternative are the same for all three
potential legal access routes (Ha‘ikū Road, Kūneki Street, and Po‘okela Street). Subsequent sections
that evaluate project objectives for the Conveyance Alternative under the Kūneki Street and Po‘okela
Street access routes will refer back to this table.
6-43
Table 6-12 Evaluation of Conveyance Alternative (All Access Routes)

1. Eliminate Board of Water GOOD
Supply Liability Risk Board of Water Supply would no longer own the property and liability risk would be eliminated.
2. Supports Board of Water GOOD
Supply Core Mission The Conveyance Alternative would support the Board of Water Supply core mission by
divesting liability and removing financial responsibility associated with Ha‘ikū Stairs.
The Conveyance Alternative would be predicated on an operator taking responsibility for the
management of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Prior to start of operations, the deteriorated sections of Ha‘ikū
Stairs would be repaired and safety checks performed to ensure structural integrity. The
future operator would have a safety education program and docents leading the hike. Public
safety would be improved.
4. Reduce Neighborhood FAIR - Kūneki Street and Hai‘kū Road
Disturbance With implementation of managed access, disturbances to Ha‘ikū Valley residential
neighborhoods would decrease, but chronic trespassing behaviors would be difficult to
eliminate. With legal access to Ha‘ikū Stairs, and security features, at illegal access and
neighborhood disruptions would diminish.
GOOD - Po‘okela Street
With implementation of managed access at the Po‘okela Street access route and the
reduction of chronic trespassing behaviors, this access route would have the least impact to
residential neighborhoods.
5. Mitigate Impacts to FAIR
Natural Resources The public would continue to access Ha‘ikū Stairs which would allow for the importation of
invasive biota on footwear. However, the addition of a public environmental education
component and/or vector control devices would decrease the risk of damage to the
watershed and natural environment.
6. Promote Public GOOD
Recreation Ha‘ikū Stairs would become a public recreation opportunity.
7. Provide Long-Term GOOD
Economic Benefit Long-term financial projection indicates the Conveyance Alternative would financially
benefit to the City and State.
8. Provide Cultural and/or GOOD
Environmental Education Through managed access, a cultural and environmental education component could be
Opportunity included in Ha‘ikū Stairs experience.
As shown in Table 6-12, the Conveyance Alternative would meet most project objectives with “Good”
ratings. The Conveyance Alternative will support the BWS core mission, improve public safety, and
eliminate liability risk for BWS. Despite substantial improvements under these criteria, reduction of
neighborhood disturbance and protection of natural resources are considered “Fair” for Ha‘ikū Road
and Kūneki Street because of proximity to numerous private residences and the difficulty of
eliminating chronic trespassing. The Po‘okela Street access route scores a “Good” for reduction in
neighborhood disturbance, as it would involve least impact to private residences.
Among the three alternatives (No-Action, Partial Removal, and Conveyance), the Conveyance
Alternative best meets the project purpose and need and best meets the eight project objectives.
6-44
6.4.3.3 Environmental Impacts Overview: Conveyance Alternative
The Conveyance Alternative would involve short-term construction impacts associated with repair work on
Ha‘ikū Stairs. In general, the managed access scenario would increase control of public activities and
decrease environmental impacts on the project site. Disturbance to Ha‘ikū Valley residential areas would
also decrease because most people would not trespass with a legal way to access Ha‘ikū Stairs.
Atmospheric. Short-term dust emissions would occur from construction activities associated with
repair of deteriorated sections of stair modules and construction of access improvements. No long-
term impacts would be anticipated. The Conveyance Alternative will have no long-term impact on
atmospheric conditions, climate change, or sea level rise.
Terrestrial Environment. Minor short-term soils disturbance would occur during stairs repair work and
access improvements. Short-term construction runoff may occur. Areas with sensitive species would
be avoided during the short-term construction, repair, and maintenance activities.
of octopus trees upslope from a set of stair modules. Ha‘ikū Stairs would continue to be susceptible
to storm conditions and landslides along the mountain slope. Regular trail maintenance and
monitoring would decrease the chances of stair damage or personal injury due to natural hazards
occurring in the future.
Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources. Ha‘ikū Road and Kūneki Street access routes would
have minimal impact to archaeological features. For features along these routes as discussed in the
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey (Appendix B), it is recommended they are either 1) fully
recorded with an archaeological inventory survey and data recovery or 2) avoided and preserved in
place. However, Site 333, Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau, is outside the project area and would not be
impacted, a preservation plan should be prepared for this significant site in advance of construction
activity in the area. Repeated use of Ha‘ikū Stairs under managed access would constitute an effect
to that historic property, however, mitigation would include restoration and reconstruction of the
damaged stair modules and maintenance to the associated structures. Use of the property under a
managed access program would include instructions for hikers to mitigate impacts on historic and
archaeological resources, including Ha‘ikū Stairs structure itself.
Noise. Short-term noise impacts would occur during the stair repair and access improvement
processes. Noise conditions on Ha‘ikū Stairs and in adjacent neighborhoods would likely improve with
heightened control of night hikers. Helicopter noise from HFD emergency response efforts would likely
continue, but with less frequency. The presence of the stairs may also contribute to the presence of
commercial tour helicopter noise.
Roadways and Traffic. With the use of designated hiker parking areas, availability of parking in Ha‘ikū
Valley residential neighborhoods and circulation would improve under the managed access. Route-
specific impacts which could result under the Conveyance Alternative Ha‘ikū Road and Kūneki Street
routes are anticipated as follows:
• Ha‘ikū Road – If hikers do not utilize the designated parking areas, potential parking and
circulation conflicts could occur along Ha‘ikū Road and with Hui Kū Maoli Ola and Papahana
Kuaola.
• Kūneki Street - If hikers do not utilize the designated parking, Kūneki Street could experience
parking and circulation issues.
6-45
If use of residential streets continues to be a problem, congested circulation and parking conditions
may remain. To reduce neighborhood traffic and parking conflicts, Residential Parking Zones (RPZ)
could be established which require proof of home ownership to utilize street parking. Although Ha‘ikū
Valley residents have not historically been favorable to RPZs, this would be a viable option for
mitigation. Shuttling hikers in from a remote location would be another option to mitigate parking
issues.
Infrastructure and Utilities. There would be no potable water use on site. Wastewater would be handled
by a portable or composting toilet at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs which would require periodic
maintenance. No storm water management controls are located on the property.
Public Services. Emergency and 911 call responses from the police and fire departments would
decrease under managed access due to the repair of Ha‘ikū Stairs and increased safety and hiker
screening measures.
Recreation and Public Safety. Ha‘ikū Stairs would be established as a new, legal, managed
recreational resource on O‘ahu. The condition of Ha‘ikū Stairs would greatly improve with repairs and
regular maintenance. Existing views of Ha‘ikū Stairs from Ha‘ikū Valley and H-3 would be virtually
unaffected, as Ha‘ikū Stairs would remain in place. Hikers could still access the panoramic views of
the ocean, coastline and mountains from the top of Ha‘ikū Stairs. A public access path would be
located in the vicinity of private residences, education facilities and private businesses. The potential
for conflict exists among these uses. However, with the implementation of managed access, measures
such as dedicated parking areas, designated walking routes, hiker education measures, safety
features and physical screening, public safety is anticipated to increase.
Economic Conditions. Projected potential financial outcomes for City and State agencies were
calculated by PEP based on a 21-year analysis period. The Conveyance Alternative would eliminate the
yearly security costs paid by BWS to address trespassing. Managed access under a new operator would
afford a government or reliable private entity a business opportunity resulting in the creation of new
jobs for operations, security, construction and maintenance. The Conveyance Alternative would
provide access to approximately 80 hikers per day, which would average to less over time due to forced
cancellations from inclement weather, among other factors. Hiking fees would be needed to pay for
improving the access route, restoring the stairs, and paying operational costs. Operating employment
would total about 21 direct and indirect jobs. This alternative would require negotiation time and
agreements among multiple parties. Agency expenditures to improve the legal access route would
exceed $800,000. Construction-related expenditures would also generate indirect sales from
construction companies and their families acquiring goods and services. The cost of restoring the
stairs, estimated at approximately $840,000, is assumed to be borne by the non-governmental
organization and the ecotour operator. The PVs for the Conveyance Alternative would be as follows:
Overall City: positive $148,000

Overall State: positive $1.1 million

• OHA: $174,000
Total City and State: positive $1.2 million
6-46
Over the 21-year analysis period, projected aggregate fiscal impact for the Conveyance Alternative
would be approximately positive $1.2 million to the City and State. For additional discussion of the
economic and fiscal impacts of this alternative, please refer to Appendix G.
The Conveyance Alternative would also support the project purpose and need, through the creation of
a new public recreation opportunity on the island and increased public safety. This alternative would
decrease trespassing in Ha‘ikū Valley, control neighborhood disturbances, and mitigate environmental
impacts. However, the lack of controlled access to Ha‘ikū Stairs from Moanalua Valley could
perpetuate some trespassing, environmental degradation, and emergency response efforts.
6.4.4 Conveyance Alternative: Kūneki Street
6.4.4.1 Concept of Operations: Kūneki Street
The Conveyance Alternative with access via Kūneki Street would have many of the same elements as
the Conveyance Alternative via Ha‘ikū Road. The route would originate at Kūneki Street and Kahuhipa
Street, with parking options on both Kahuhipa Street and Ha‘ikū Road. BWS would convey TMK (1) 4-
6-015:011 to a public agency or sell the parcel to a responsible private entity. The main difference
would be that the access route follows Kūneki Street. When the route passes Ha‘ikū Road gate, there
would be two access route options, Access Option A and Access Option B, as described in Section
6.4.3, Conveyance Alternative: Ha‘ikū Road. The Kūneki Street access route is shown in Figure 6-11.
6-47
6-48
Figure 6-11 Conveyance Alternative: Kūneki Street Access Route
6-49
6-50
Legal Access. Legal access would require coordination with landowners including the City, State,
DHHL, Hui Kū Maoli Ola, HHFDC and DOT. Each of these landowners was consulted directly to elicit
comments regarding use of this potential route. Landowners along the selected access option would
need to consent to access in order for this route to be viable. Future use of property would be subject
to landowner protections such as a waiver of legal liability to landowners, indemnification, and liability
insurance requirements.
and the State Conservation District. The State OCCL would determine whether future site
improvements on the access route and stairs parcel would be subject to a SPA or CDUP. If so,
improvements pursued by the operator of Ha‘ikū Stairs would need to be consistent with the
development principles of the Conservation District and applicable subzones. The Kūneki Street
access route would be located across City AG-2, R-7.5, and P-1, Restricted Preservation zones, and
the State Conservation District. It is anticipated that the public would transit these lands by means of
an easement. In addition to a State CDUP or SPA, future uses along the Kūneki Street access route
would be subject to the City Land Use Ordinance and applicable regulations of the AG-2, R-7.5, and P-
1 zoning districts. According to the Master Use Table (ROH Chapter 21: LUO Sec 21-3.40, Table 21-3),
outdoor recreation facilities are an allowable use for lands designated in the AG-2 district. A
Conditional Use Permit minor may be required for any new development within the P-1 and AG-2
district. Outdoor recreation facilities are not an allowable use in R-7.5 districts.
Parking. As with Ha‘ikū Road access route, there would be two parking options for the Kūneki Street
access route. One option would be located on Kahuhipa Street near the intersection with Kūneki
Street, and would be within a portion of the existing 50-foot road right-of-way that would accommodate
24 parallel parking stalls at 22 feet each on both sides of the road and still allow two-way traffic. The
other option would be to park along Ha‘ikū Road where 27 parallel parking stalls would be constructed
within the existing roadway right-of-way (Figure 6-6). Improvements would include striping of the
parking spaces, and potentially a parking payment kiosk. As with Ha‘ikū Road access route, an option
would not rely on parking in residential areas is to utilize shuttles to drop hikers off at Ha‘ikū Road
gate from a designated off-site location. Hikers would then use City walking paths through the
neighborhood to get to the Omega Station access road. Parking at the Omega Station would only be
an option if an agreement is reached with DHHL for public vehicle access and use of the Omega Station
property.
Conceptual Walking Path Improvements and Security: Kūneki Street
Kūneki Street Access Option A: From the parking area on Ha‘ikū Road or Kahuhipa Street, hikers would
walk approximately half a mile along Kūneki Street on City right-of-way to the Kūneki Street gate, and
continue 1.6 miles total to reach the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. From the Kūneki Street gate, the route to
the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs, proposed improvements, and security features would be the same as
described under Ha‘ikū Road access route Option A access.
Kūneki Street Access Option B: This access route would utilize the same parking and path to the
Kūneki Street gate as Option A. Option B would follow the same proposed new footpath through the
Hui Kū Maoli Ola property. This path intermittently follows along the existing fence line on the US
Government property to the south. The total distance from the parking area to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs
via access Option B would be approximately 0.7 miles. From the Kūneki Street gate, the route to the
base of Ha‘ikū Stairs, proposed improvements, facilities, and security features would be the same as
described under Ha‘ikū Road access route.
6-51
6.4.4.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives
The evaluation of project objectives under Kūneki Street variation of the Conveyance Alternative would be the
same as under the Ha‘ikū Road access route variation in Section 6.4.3.2. Please refer to Table 6-12, for the
evaluation of project objectives under the Conveyance Alternative. As discussed earlier, the Conveyance
Alternative would meet most project objectives with “Good” ratings. Reduction of neighborhood disturbance
and protection of natural resources are considered “Fair,” because hikers would still need to walk through
the Ha‘ikū Village neighborhood, past the edge of He‘eia Preschool, and approximately 49 houses.
The Conveyance Alternative best meets the project objectives and purpose and need among the three
alternatives to the Proposed Action.
6.4.4.3 Environmental Impacts Overview
The Conveyance Alternative with access via Kūneki Street would involve nearly identical anticipated
environmental impacts to those occurring under Ha‘ikū Road access scenario. Please refer to Section
6.6, Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Environmental Impacts for the environmental impacts
summary discussion. In general, despite some short-term construction impacts associated with repair
work, the managed access scenario would be anticipated to increase control of public activities and
mitigate environmental impacts.
6.4.5 Conveyance Alternative: Po‘okela Street
6.4.5.1 Concept of Operations: Po‘okela Street
As with the other variations of the Conveyance Alternative, BWS would convey TMK (1) 4-6-015:011
to a public agency or sell the parcel to a responsible private entity. Parking for this access route would
be provided on Po‘okela Street. Hikers would continue and walk up the Anchor Church driveway on
walking path parallel to the road. Prior to the church’s main entrance gate, the path would diverge to
the north on a new separate trail approximately 350 ft. long, constructed on DLNR land between the
end of the church driveway and the H-3 Service Road (Figure 6-12).
Legal Access. Legal access would require coordination with landowners including the City, DOH, DLNR,
and DOT. The Anchor Church driveway is a dedicated easement owned by the State of Hawai‘i. Each
of these landowners have been consulted to elicit comments regarding the use of this potential route.
Landowners must agree to provide access in order for this route to be viable. Future use of property
would be subject to landowner protections such as a waiver of legal liability to landowners,
indemnification, and liability insurance requirements.
and the State Conservation District. The State OCCL would determine whether future site
improvements on the access route and stairs parcel would be subject to a SPA or CDUP. If so,
improvements pursued by the operator of Ha‘ikū Stairs would need to be consistent with the
development principles of the Conservation District and applicable subzones. The Po‘okela Street
access route would be located across City AG-2 and City P-1, Restricted Preservation zones, and the
State Conservation District. It is anticipated that the public would transit these lands by means of an
easement. In addition to a State CDUP or SPA, future uses along the Po‘okela Street access route
would be subject to the City Land Use Ordinance and applicable regulations of the AG-2 and P-1 zoning
districts. According to the Master Use Table (ROH Chapter 21: LUO Sec 21-3.40, Table 21-3), outdoor
recreation facilities are an allowable use for lands designated in the AG-2 district. A Conditional Use
Permit minor may be required for any new development within the P-1 and AG-2 district.
6-52
Figure 6-12 Conveyance Alternative: Po‘okela Street Access Route
6-53
6-54
Parking. Parking for the access route could be provided through street parking within the existing 50-
foot road right-of-way. The Po‘okela Street right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate street parking
on both sides and still allow two-way traffic. Po‘okela Street would accommodate 112 parallel parking
stalls at 22 feet each, while avoiding street areas heavily used for parking at the Hina Mauka facility
(Figure 6-13 Po‘okela Street Parking Options). The street would require striping for parking spaces.
Parking management options would include use of a paid parking kiosk, or shuttles bringing in hikers
from a remote location and dropping them off at a designated area on Po‘okela Street. Po‘okela Street
along this section is a State-owned road, but becomes a private roadway just past the Anchor Church
driveway in the Castle Hills residential neighborhood (on the Kailua side of the driveway).
Image is for conceptual purposes only. Actual design may vary.
Figure 6-13 Po‘okela Street Parking Options
6-55
Conceptual Walking Path Improvements and Security: Po‘okela Street
From the parking area along Po‘okela Street, hikers would use City walking paths to access an existing
security gate at the base of the Anchor Church driveway. It is possible that shuttle buses could bring
hikers in from a different location and drop them off at the base of the driveway.
This driveway is within a 32-foot easement on State land (TMK: 4-5-023:002). Utilization of the
driveway as an access route would require a separate easement from the DLNR. A 4-foot-wide
pedestrian walking path could be installed on the Kahuku side of the driveway. An option for pedestrian
access along the Anchor Church Driveway is shown on Figure 6-14 Anchor Church Driveway Section
View). A screening fence could be provided on the Kahuku side of the walking path, to provide privacy
screening and separation from the Castle Hills residential area.
At the top of the driveway, a new security gate to the Church campus and parking area would be
installed to separate church facilities from the public access area. Near the top of the driveway, a new
footpath would diverge from the road and extend 350 feet into the forest to connect with the H-3
Service Road (Figure 6-15 Anchor Church Driveway Improvements). The access route would then
follow the existing H-3 Service Road to the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Along the way, fencing improvements
would be made to the existing fencing adjacent to the Hawai‘i State Hospital property and water tank.
The existing fencing is often cut by trespassing hikers, and would be upgraded with non-climbable
expanded metal fencing.
Figure 6-14 Anchor Church Driveway Section View
6-56
Figure 6-15 Anchor Church Driveway Improvements
6-57
6.4.5.2 Evaluation of Project Objectives
The evaluation of project objectives under the Po‘okela Street variation of the Conveyance Alternative
is the same as under the Ha‘ikū Road variation discussed in Section 6.4.3.2. Please refer back to
Table 6-12, for the evaluation of project objectives. As discussed earlier, the Conveyance Alternative
meets most project objectives with “Good” ratings, and best meets the purpose and need for the
project among the three alternatives to the Proposed Action.
6.4.5.3 Environmental Impacts Overview
The Conveyance Alternative with the Po‘okela Street access route would involve very similar impacts
to those associated with Ha‘ikū Road and Kūneki Street access routes. The primary difference with
the Po‘okela Street access route is use of the Anchor Church driveway easement and the construction
of a new 350-ft. trail between the driveway and the H-3 Service Road. This alternative would result in
short-term construction impacts associated with repair work on Ha‘ikū Stairs and construction of a
new trail. Long-term benefits to the neighborhood and environment are anticipated.
Atmospheric. Short-term dust emissions would occur from construction activities associated with the
repair of deteriorated sections of stair modules, as well as with clearing and construction of a new
350-ft. trail through dense vegetation in the vicinity of Anchor Church. The Conveyance Alternative will
have no long-term impact on atmospheric conditions, climate change, or sea level rise.
Terrestrial Environment. Minor short-term soils disturbance would occur during stairs repair. Trail
construction would involve clearing a path for approximately 350 feet between the Anchor Church
Driveway and the H-3 Service Road. Short-term construction runoff may occur. Standard BMP’s may
include limiting site disturbance, use of temporary silt fencing and screens, and thorough watering of
disturbed areas after construction activity has ceased for the day and on weekends.
Flora and fauna could be affected over the short-term by repair activities and during trail construction.
Endangered plants should be identified and avoided in areas where soil disturbance will occur. A
prevention plan should be developed to curb the ongoing introduction of alien plant seeds from hikers.
Removal of invasive species and native vegetation restoration could be incorporated into vegetation
maintenance standard practices.
of octopus trees upslope from a set of stair modules. Ha‘ikū Stairs would continue to be susceptible
to storm conditions and landslides along the mountain slope. Regular trail maintenance and
monitoring could decrease the chances of stair damage or personal injury due to natural hazards
occurring in the future.
Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources. An archaeological reconnaissance survey was

conducted for the Po‘okela Street access route and no archaeological features were identified. The
only historic property to be affected is Ha‘ikū Stairs themselves. Site 333, Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau,
is outside the project area and would not be impacted, however, a preservation plan should be
prepared for this significant site in advance of any construction activity in the area. Repeated use of
Ha‘ikū Stairs under managed access would constitute an effect to that historic property, however,
mitigation would include restoration and reconstruction of the damaged stair modules and
maintenance to the associated structures. Use of the property under a managed access program could
include a cultural education program and best management practices for hikers which would mitigate
impacts on historic and archaeological resources, including Ha‘ikū Stairs structure itself.
6-58
HRS §6E-8 review with SHPD was conducted for the project looking at impacts to Ha‘ikū Stairs under
the Proposed Action and the Conveyance Alternative. In accordance with SHPD’s March 14, 2019
letter to BWS regarding HRS §6E-8 review, SHPD concurred with BWS’s determination of “Effect, with
proposed mitigation commitments.” SHPD noted preference for preservation of historic resources, and
that further consultation would be required upon selection of the final course of action.
Noise. Short-term noise impacts may occur during the construction activities. Noise conditions on
Ha‘ikū Stairs and in adjacent neighborhoods would likely improve with heightened control of night
hikers. Helicopter noise from HFD emergency response efforts would likely be heard on occasion
during emergencies under managed access, or emergencies associated with the Moanalua Valley
access. Use of a new walking path along the Anchor Church driveway would pose the potential to
disturb approximately eight homes in Castle Hills along the lower section of the driveway. It would be
essential for the managed access operator to mitigate noise at these residences. Quiet Zone signage
could inform hikers to respect the adjacent neighbors, and the fencing could provide for additional
noise attenuation at these residences.
Roadways and Traffic. Utilization of Po‘okela Street for public parking would reduce availability of
parking on Po‘okela Street during the hours of operation for hikers at Ha‘ikū Stairs. However, field visit
observations and consultations indicate that this section of Po‘okela Street is generally void of parked
vehicles due to the adjacent large tracts of undeveloped land along both sides of the street and the
distance between the proposed parking area and the Castle Hills neighborhood or the Hina Mauka
Center. Availability of parking and circulation in currently affected Ha‘ikū Valley neighborhoods would
improve with parking along Po‘okela Street. Hikers parking on the streets could increase in the Castle
Hills community. To discourage hiker parking in the Castle Hills community, an option would be to
establish restricted parking zones that require proof of home ownership to utilize street parking.
Shuttling hikers in from a remote parking location would be another option to mitigate parking issues.
Shuttle schedules could be coordinated with the Anchor Church to avoid conflict with existing high
traffic periods associated with church events.
Po‘okela Street is a State-owned right-of-way and becomes a private roadway beyond the Anchor
Church driveway on the Kailua side.
Infrastructure and Utilities. There would be no potable water use on site. Wastewater would be handled
by a portable or composting toilet at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs which would require periodic
maintenance. No storm water management controls are located on the property.
Public Services. Emergency and 911 call responses from the police and fire departments would likely
decrease under a managed access program due to repair of Ha‘ikū Stairs and increased safety
measures. The future operator would coordinate with HPD to ensure adequate police coverage is
provided during construction activities and the transition period to managed access.
The potential exists that Kāne‘ohe District Park would experience increased use for restrooms,
washing, trash disposal, and parking. Ample hiker parking could be provided on Po‘okela Street and
restrooms and trash facilities could be provided at the base of the stairs to mitigate potential impacts
to the park.
Recreation and Public Safety. Ha‘ikū Stairs would be established as a new, legal, managed
recreational resource on O‘ahu. The condition of Ha‘ikū Stairs would greatly improve with repairs and
regular maintenance and public safety would increase. Existing views of Ha‘ikū Stairs from Ha‘ikū
Valley and H-3 would be unaffected, as Ha‘ikū Stairs would remain in place. Hikers would be able to
access the panoramic views of the ocean, coastline and mountains from the top of Ha‘ikū Stairs. Use
6-59
of a new walking path along the Anchor Church driveway could potentially be visible from homes in
Castle Hills along the lower section of the driveway. A row of screening trees and fencing between the
homes and the hiking path could provide visual screening from hikers.
To deter unauthorized access into the Anchor Church property, security fencing and a new gate at
Anchor Church entrance would be installed. Along the H-3 Service Road, fencing could upgraded to
non-climbable expanded metal fencing adjacent to the Hawai‘i State Hospital property and water tank
to prevent hiker trespassing on hospital property.
Economic Conditions. Conveyance would eliminate the yearly substantial security costs paid by BWS
to address trespassing hikers. Managed access under a new operator would afford a government
agency or reliable private entity a business opportunity that would create jobs for operations, security,
construction and maintenance.
6.4.6 Conveyance Alternative: Preferred Access Route
The Conveyance Alternative would support the project purpose and need, create a new public
recreation opportunity on the island, and increase public safety. This alternative would decrease
trespassing in Ha‘ikū Valley, decrease neighborhood disturbances, and have positive environmental
impacts. Access route alternatives have been evaluated, resulting in three possibilities. Access routes
via Ha‘ikū Road, Kūneki Street, and Po‘okela Street are compared and scored below in Table 6-13
according to how they would meet the access route criteria.
Table 6-13 Summary Comparison of Conveyance Alternative Access Routes

Route 1: Route 2; Route 3:
Criteria
Ha‘ikū Road Kūneki Street Po‘okela Street
Impacts to Community Fair Poor Good
Traffic and Parking Fair Fair Fair
Access to Public Facilities Poor Poor Good
Landowners Poor Poor Good
TOTALS Good=0 Good=0 Good=3
Fair=2 Fair=1 Fair=1
Poor=2 Poor=3 Poor=0
The Po‘okela Street alternative access route scored the highest when compared to the other two
alternative access routes. The Po‘okela Street route was scored with three Good ratings for the least
potential impacts to the community, good access to public facilities, and the least impact to existing
landowners. This access route alternative also offered the most parking and it is the least intrusive in
residential areas. Because of these factors, Po‘okela Street is identified as the preferred access route
for the Conveyance Alternative.
6-60
With the identification of Po‘okela Street as the preferred access route,

BWS completed additional studies of the access route sequence PO‘OKELA STREET IS
including a preliminary design concept and a conceptual signage plan. THE PREFERRED
As shown in Figure 6-16, the sequence of the Po‘okela Street legal ACCESS ROUTE FOR
access route would start with hikers having the option to use the THE CONVEYANCE
restroom facilities at nearby Hokulele Park or Kāne‘ohe District Park. ALTERNATIVE
Parking would be located along Po‘okela Street in designated areas for
street parking. At the Anchor Church driveway, a walking path would be constructed along the Kahuku
side of the driveway and fenced for visual screening from residents and for the protection of hikers.
Near the upper section of the driveway, a new foot path would be cleared through the forest on State
land to join with the H-3 Service Road. A significant amount of vegetation clearing would be required
to remove the overgrowth from along the H-3 Service Road. The roadbed is covered with weeds and
the albizia and octopus trees have encroached into the right-of-way. Some trees have fallen into the
road making passage difficult. Where the H-3 Service Road runs adjacent to the Hawai‘i State Hospital
Property, fencing improvements are proposed to prevent vandalism and fence climbing, especially in
the vicinity of the hospital water tank. Improvements implemented at the base of Ha‘ikū Stairs would
include a security gate and a portable or composting toilet.
Figure 6-16 provides a conceptual rendering of the future Po‘okela Street access route improvements,
if implemented under the Conveyance Alternative. Improvements shown on Figure 6-16 include a new
pedestrian gate at the bottom of the Anchor Church driveway and new fencing to provide visual
screening from nearby residences. Screening trees could be planted between the driveway and the
nearest residences in Castle Hills. Landscape screening could also be planted at the trailhead toward
the H-3 Service Road. A new vehicle gate is also proposed for Anchor Church at the top of the driveway
at the Church’s property line.
The interface between public access and existing residential communities must be properly addressed
for the Conveyance Alternative. Figure 6-16 shows a conceptual signage plan for the Po‘okela Street
access route. At minimum, signage is recommended to address parking, litter, trail location, quiet
zones, restroom location, and hiker education. The managed access operator would be responsible
for implementing compliance with signage, such as for designated parking areas and quiet zones.
6.4.6.1 Summary of Rationale for Selection of Po‘okela Street as the Preferred Access Route
The Po‘okela Street access route rose to the top during the evaluation of the three potential access
routes. A summary of the reasons and rationale for selecting Po‘okela Street as the preferred access
route is provided below.
• The access route is entirely on State land, and, in preliminary discussions with affected State
agencies, access easements are possible with conditions.
• The Anchor Church driveway entrance is off of the State-owned segment of Po‘okela Street, not
off the privately-owned section.
• Po‘okela Street from Keaahala Road to the Anchor Church driveway is a 50-foot right-of-way
which is wide enough to allow street parking on both sides while allowing two-way unimpeded
traffic.
• The Kāne‘ohe District Park area along Keaahala Road is the community center for Kāne‘ohe,
and is the entrance to the Windward Community College and the Kāne‘ohe District Court. As
such there is ample roadway widths, traffic signals and crosswalks, available street parking,
access to bus lines, and public restrooms.
6-61
• In the past, Hope Chapel (now Anchor Church) allowed the City to construct a concrete stairway
with railings and a gate from the church parking lot to access the H-3 Service Road and
ultimately Ha‘ikū Stairs. This suggests a precedent for using the driveway for pedestrian access
to Ha‘ikū Stairs, subject to State approval.
• The EIS established clear evaluation criteria to rank alternative access routes and found that
with the Po‘okela Street access route, impacts to the community are the lowest among all
alternative access routes and can be mitigated with the concept plans provided.
• The Po‘okela Street access route passes only eight homes, compared with 16 on Ha‘ikū Road
and 49 along Kūneki Street. In addition, there would be at least a 22-foot buffer between the
Castle Hills residential property lines and the proposed hiking trail along the Anchor Church
driveway.
• Proposed fencing separating the walking trail and the Anchor Church driveway would provide
visual screening from adjacent residences. Screening trees would diffuse inadvertent noise and
visual impacts between the driveway and the residences, including softening impacts from
church traffic.
• Access route signage is proposed to address parking, litter, trail location, quiet zones,
trespassing, restroom location, and hiker education.
CONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVE WITH PO‘OKELA

STREET ACCESS ROUTE
 Best meets the project purpose and need
6-62

Figure 6-16 Conveyance Alternative: Po‘okela Street Access Route Photo Sequence
6-63
Figure 6-17 Conveyance Alternative: Po‘okela Street Access Route Conceptual Rendering
6-64
Figure 6-18 Conveyance Alternative: Conceptual Signage Plan
6-65
6-66
6.5 Summary Comparison of Proposed Action and Alternatives by

Project Objectives
This section evaluates potential alternatives by project objective. Table 6-14 compiles the ratings from
all four alternatives into one table for a side-by-side comparison.
Table 6-14 Summary Comparison of Alternatives by Project Objectives

PROJECT Proposed Action No Action Partial Removal Conveyance
OBJECTIVE Alternative
1. Eliminate Board GOOD FAIR POOR FAIR GOOD
of Water Supply
Liability Risk
2. Supports Board GOOD POOR POOR POOR GOOD
of Water Supply
Core Mission
3. Improve Public GOOD POOR FAIR GOOD
Safety
4. Reduce GOOD POOR GOOD GOOD*
Neighborhood
Disturbance
5. Protect Natural FAIR GOOD POOR FAIR FAIR
Resources
6. Promote Public POOR POOR POOR GOOD
Recreation
7. Provide Long- FAIR POOR FAIR GOOD
Term Economic
Benefit
8. Provide Cultural POOR POOR POOR GOOD
and/or
Environmental
Education
Opportunity
TOTAL Good=4 3 Good=0 Good=1 Good=7
Fair=2 Fair=0 Fair=4 Fair=1
Poor=2 3 Poor=8 Poor=3 Poor=0
*Good rating is for the preferred access route, Po‘okela Street. Kūneki Street and Ha‘ikū Road access routes received a Fair rating.
The No-Action Alternative rates poorly in all eight categories, and represents the lowest overall score
compared to the other three actions that were evaluated.
The Partial Removal Alternative has a single Good rating for reduce neighborhood disturbance; four
Fair ratings for eliminate BWS liability risk, improve public safety, protect natural resources, and
provide long-term economic benefit; and three Poor ratings for supports BWS core mission, promote
public recreation, and provide cultural and/or environmental education opportunity. The scoring of this
alternative has the second lowest compared to the other three alternatives.
6-67
The Proposed Action was scored with four three Good ratings for the elimination of BWS liability risk,
improvement to public safety, support for BWS core mission, and reduction in neighborhood
disturbance, and protection of natural resources; two Fair ratings for protection of natural resources
the elimination of BWS liability risk and providing long-term economic benefit, and two three Poor
ratings for supporting the BWS core mission, promoting public recreation, and providing cultural
and/or environmental education opportunity. The scoring of the Proposed Action is the second highest
overall score compared to the other three alternatives.
The Conveyance Alternative was scored with six Good ratings for eliminate BWS liability risk, supports
BWS core mission, improve public safety, promote public recreation, provide long-term economic
benefit, and provide cultural and/or environmental education opportunity; and two Fair ratings for
reduce neighborhood disturbance and protect natural resources. The scoring for the Conveyance
Alternative does not include a single Poor rating. This option has the highest overall score compared
to the Proposed Action and the other alternatives that were evaluated.
6.6 Summary Comparison of Alternatives by

Environmental Impacts
The following discussion provides a comparison of environmental impacts by resource between the
Proposed Action and alternatives.
Atmospheric: There would be no change in existing effects to air quality under the No-Action
Alternative. The stairs would remain in place and there would be no construction activities. The
remaining alternatives would result in a less than significant impact. The Proposed Action and the
Partial Removal Alternative would generate short-term dust emissions during construction activities.
Construction activities involving the repair of deteriorating portions of the stairs and the development
of access routes to the stairs would also generate short-term dust emissions. No atmospheric impacts
will be expected in the long-term under the Proposed Action or the alternatives.
Terrestrial Environment: The No-Action Alternative may result in a significant impact to the terrestrial
environment. Under No-Action, invasive species would continue to infiltrate the area either by natural
propagation or through introduction by trespassing hikers. Lesser impacts would be expected from the
Partial Removal and Conveyance Alternatives. Under the Partial Removal Alternative, trespassing
hikers would no longer be introducing new species from hiking up through Ha‘ikū Valley. The
Conveyance Alternative would provide beneficial landscape improvements and educational programs
to inform hikers how to reduce carrying in alien species. The Proposed Action would involve short-term
impacts such as ground disturbance and construction runoff due to the extraction of the stairs.
Mitigation strategies would include removal of invasive species and restoration/re-planting of native
species back to an identified coverage within the disturbance area.
Natural Hazards: There are no impacts to natural hazards expected under any of the alternatives. The
No-Action Alternative would involve a lack of trail maintenance and repairs. As such, future hazards
would cause further deterioration of the stairs and increase the risk of harm to trespassing hikers.
Conversely, the Conveyance Alternative would restore the stairs, improving their safety for public use.
The Proposed Action would eliminate the hazard risk by removing Ha‘ikū Stairs from the property.
Archaeological/Cultural/Historic: Each of the alternatives would result in significant impacts to Ha‘ikū

Stairs historic property. The No-Action Alternative would expose the stairs to continued vandalism from
trespassing hikers and the stair structure would continue to deteriorate. The Proposed Action and
Partial Removal Alternative would involve full or partial removal of the stair structure. Mitigation would
6-68
be required as determined by SHPD through the HRS §6E review process. The recommended
mitigation is to fully record Ha‘ikū Stairs with photographic documentation and structural drawings
prior to the removal. The Conveyance Alternative would also involve a significant impact to the historic
property through ongoing repeated use of the stairs under a managed access scenario. Mitigation
under the Conveyance Alternative would include restoration and reconstruction of damaged stair
modules, and periodic maintenance of associated structures.
Economic Conditions: Over the 21-year analysis period, the least long-term value to the City and State
would occur with the No-Action Alternative (approximately negative $4 million), and most value would
occur with the Conveyance Alternative (approximately positive $1.2 million). Falling in between would
be the Proposed Action (approximately negative $940,000) and the Partial Removal Alternative
(approximately negative $190,000).
Noise: Significant impacts are expected under the No-Action Alternative as noise conditions on Ha‘ikū
Stairs and in adjacent neighborhoods would likely continue to increase due to trespassing hikers.
Lesser impacts are anticipated under the remaining alternatives. Short-term noise impacts would
occur from helicopter trips during the removal or partial removal of the stair modules. Long-term noise
pollution would likely decrease with the closure of access from Ha‘ikū Valley. Under the Conveyance
Alternative, short-term noise impacts may occur during the construction activities, however noise
conditions in the long-term would likely improve on Ha‘ikū Stairs and adjacent neighborhoods.
Roadways and Traffic: Significant impacts would be anticipated under the No-Action Alternative.
Trespassing hikers would continue to use neighborhood roads to park, contributing to parking shortage
and circulation issues. Lesser impacts are expected under the remaining alternatives. Construction
activities during the Proposed Action or Partial Removal Alternative could cause a short-term increase
in traffic due to construction vehicles transiting through the neighborhood during the stairway
extraction process. Over the long-term under the Proposed Action, Partial Removal Alternative, and
Conveyance Alternative, circulation and parking availability would likely improve in nearby residential
areas with the decrease in trespassing hikers infiltrating the neighborhood.
Infrastructure and Utilities: There would be no significant impacts anticipated under the Proposed
Action or any of the alternative scenarios.
Public Services: Significant impacts to public services would be anticipated under the No-Action
Alternative. Emergency and 911 call responses from the police and fire departments are anticipated
to continue at similar levels to existing conditions or increase. Conditions are expected to improve
under the Conveyance Alternative as 911 calls to the police and fire departments are anticipated to
decrease due to managed access and increased safety and security measures. Impacts are also
anticipated to decrease under the Proposed Action and Partial Removal Alternative. Fewer illegal
trespassers would be traversing through the neighborhood, disturbing residents, and needing
emergency assistance on the stairs.
Recreation and Public Safety: Significant impacts would be expected under the No-Action Alternative.
The trail would continue to attract trespassing hikers; posing a safety risk to the trespassing hikers
and a nuisance for the community. Public safety risks would be greatly reduced under the Proposed
Action as access to the stairs would be eliminated from Ha‘ikū Valley and all the associated
disturbances would also be eliminated. The Proposed Action and Partial Removal Alternative would
involve removal of a potential future public recreation opportunity. Under the Partial Removal
Alternative, the ridgeline stair modules, platforms, and buildings that remain would not be maintained
and their condition would steadily decline and pose greater danger to public safety. Under the
6-69
Conveyance Alternative, Ha‘ikū Stairs would become a public recreation resource, and public safety
would increase due to repairs and regular maintenance of Ha‘ikū Stairs and the associated structures.
Visual Resources and Open Space: Under the No-Action Alternative, existing views of Pu‘u
Keahiakahoe and views from the ridgeline would not be affected. Under the Proposed Action, Ha‘ikū
Stairs would be removed and views of Pu‘u Keahiakahoe from Ha‘ikū Valley or H-3 would be altered,
as the stairs structure would no longer be visible along the ridgeline. In this scenario, although the
vantage point from the top of Ha‘ikū Stairs would no longer be accessible from Ha‘ikū Valley, hikers
could access comparable views of the ocean, coastline and mountains from the Moanalua Valley trail
system and other trails in the vicinity. With implementation of the Conveyance Alternative and a
managed access plan, hikers would be able to access the viewpoints along the ridgeline, and existing
views of Pu‘u Keahiakahoe from Ha‘ikū Valley or H-3 would remain the same.
Unresolved Issues
The following issues associated with the project Alternatives are unresolved.
• Under the Conveyance Alternative, three candidate legal access routes are identified. However,
for managed access to occur, each of the landowners must consent to pursue the future use
of any of these alternative access routes. Consent is contingent upon further agency review and
approval, including but not limited to DLNR, DOT, DOH, and DHHL. These four landowners have
been engaged directly during the EIS process.
• Under the Conveyance Alternative, land transfer to the City is dependent on approval by the
BWS Board and City Council.
6-70
Chapter 7
Agencies and Parties Consulted

Chapter 7
Agencies and Parties Consulted

Notification that an EIS was to be prepared, known as an EISPN, was published in the OEQC The
Environmental Notice on April 23, 2017 to solicit input on topics of interest. Table 7-1 identifies those
agencies, organizations, and individuals that were consulted as a stakeholder, received a
presentation, provided input on project design or are part of an ongoing consultation effort throughout
the environmental review process. Comments received during the 30-day EISPN public response
period are listed, whether via letter, email, or received during a community meeting. The comments,
along with the response provided, were addressed in the Draft EIS are reproduced in this chapter. The
Draft EIS was made available Availability of the Draft EIS will be provided to those listed in conjunction
with the publication of the Draft EIS in The Environmental Notice. Publication initiates a 45-day public
comment period for the Draft EIS which was held from June 23, 2019 through August 7, 2019. The
substantive comments received during this review period were addressed, and written responses
provided and incorporated into the Final EIS.
Table 7-1 Consulted Parties

Vols. Comments Draft EIS Comments Final EIS
Provided
III & IV Respondents and Distribution Received Notification Received Notification
EISPN
Pg. EISPN Sent Draft EIS Sent
A. Federal Agencies or Affiliates
EISPN United States Department of the Interior,
Comments Geological Survey, Pacific Islands Water X
Vols. II&IV Science Center
Pg. 1-3
United States Department of the Interior,
X X X X
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEIS
Comments Department of Commerce National X
Vol. V Marine Fisheries Service
Department of the Interior, National
X
Parks Service
Department of Agriculture, National
X
Resources Conservation Service
Department of the Navy (Pacific Division,
X
Naval Facilities Engineering Command)
Department of Transportation, Federal
X
Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation, Federal
X
Transit Administration
United States Coast Guard, Department
X
of Homeland Security
7-1

Provided
EISPN
B. State Agencies
EISPN Department of Accounting and General
X X X X
Comments Services
Vols. II&IV
Pg. 5-30 Department of Agriculture X X
Department of Business,
DEIS Economic Development & Tourism X X X X
Comments (DBEDT)
Vol. V DBEDT - Office of Planning X X X X X
DBEDT – Strategic Industries
X
Division
Department of Defense X X X X
Department of Education X X
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands X X X X X
Department of Health X X
Department of Health Behavioral
Health Administration, Adult Mental
X X
Health Division, Hawai‘i State
Hospital
Department of Health, Environmental
Health Administration
(As the Environmental Planning Office closed X X X X
May 2, 2018, response to the EPO comment is
being sent to DOH Environmental Health
Administration)
Department of Health, Office of

X X X X
Environmental Quality Control
Department of Land and Natural
X X
Resources
Resources, Commission on Water X X X X
Resource Management
Department of Land and Naturals
Resources, Division of Forestry and X X X X X
Wildlife
Resources, Division of Forestry and X X X X
Wildlife, Nā Ala Hele
X X
Resources, Engineering Division
7-2

Provided
EISPN
Resources, Historic Preservation X X
Division
X X X
Resources, Land Division
Resources, Office of Conservation X X X X X
and Coastal Lands
Department of Transportation X X X X
Department of Transportation,
X X X X
Highways Division
Office of Hawaiian Affairs X X
University of Hawai‘i, Water Resources
X X
Research Center
University of Hawai‘i Environmental
X X
Center
Windward Community College,
X X
Chancellor’s Office
Windward Community College, Hawaiian
X X
Studies Coordinator
C. City and County of Honolulu
EISPN Board of Water Supply X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Department of Design and Construction X X X X
Pg. 33-36 Department of Environmental Services X
Department of Facility Maintenance X X X
DEIS
Comments Department of Land Management X
Vol. V Department of Parks and Recreation X X X X X
Department of Planning and Permitting X X X X
Honolulu Fire Department X X X X X
Honolulu Police Department X X X X
Department of Transportation Services X
D. Elected Officials
EISPN City and County of Honolulu, Office of the
X X X
Comments Mayor
Vols. II&IV
Pg. 31-32 U.S. Senator Brian Schatz X
U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono X
7-3

Provided
EISPN
U.S. Representative Ed Case, 1st District X
DEIS
Comments U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard, 2nd X
Vol. V District
State Senator Jill N. Tokuda, District
24 X
(no longer in office)
State Senator Jarrett Keohokalole,

X
District 24
State House Representative Ken Ito,
District 49 X X X
(no longer in office, response sent to Scot
Matayoshi)
State House Representative, Scot

X X X
Matayoshi, District 49
Council District Representative Ikaika
X X X X
Anderson, District 3
E. Media
n/a Honolulu Star Advertiser X
Hawai‘i Tribune Herald X
West Hawai‘i Today X
The Garden Island X
Maui News X
Moloka‘i Dispatch X
City and County of Honolulu, Department
X
of Customer Services, Municipal Library
Kāne‘ohe Public Library X X
Hawai‘i State Library, Hawai‘i Documents
X X
Center
Legislative Reference Bureau X X
University of Hawai‘i Thomas H. Hamilton
X
Library
University of Hawai‘i at Hilo Edwin H.
X
Mo‘okini Library
University of Hawai‘I Maui College Library X
University of Hawai‘i Kaua‘i Community

X
College Library
7-4

Provided
EISPN
I. Community Interest Groups
EISPN American Hiking Society X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Anchor Church X X
Pg. 37-59 Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs X X X X X
Friends of Loli‘i Street X X X
DEIS
Comments Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group c/o Mo X X X
Vol. V Radke
Ha‘ikū Village Neighborhood Security
X X
Watch Group
Hakipu‘u Learning Center Public Charter
X X
School
Hawaiian Trail & Mountain Club X X
Historic Hawaii Foundation X X
Hui Kū Maoli Ola X X
Kahalu‘u Neighborhood Board, No. 29 X X
Kailua Neighborhood Board, No. 31 X X
Kāko‘o ‘Ōiwi X X
Kamakau Association (Kai Loa, Inc.) X X
Kamehameha Schools X X X X
Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board, No. 30 X X X X
Ke Kula 'o Samuel M. Kamakau Charter
X X
School
Ko‘olau Poko Hawaiian Civic Club X X X X
Ko‘olau Foundation X X X X X
Kualoa Ranch Hawai‘i, Inc. X X X
Paepae o He‘eia X X
Papahana Kuaola X X
Queen Emma Land Company X X
Sierra Club of Hawai‘i X X
Sierra Club, O‘ahu Group X X X X X
Waimānalo Neighborhood Board, No. 32 X
7-5

Provided
EISPN
J. Individuals
EISPN Aaron X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Abe, Maureen X X
Pg. 61-98 Abelmann, Rick X X X
Abraham, Jim X X
DEIS
Comments Ahern, Kevin X X X
Vol. VI&VII Ahmad, Eyad X X X
Ahorseses X X X
Akamine, Barbara X X
Aki, Kalani X X X
Akiyama, Ann X X X
Alatasi, Ginny X X
Alcos, Alyssa X X X
Alford, John X X X
Alki X X X
Allen, Emily X X X
Almeida, Amber X X
Ambrose, Donna X X X
Among, Melita X X X
Anda, Michael X X X X
Anderson, Beth X X X X
Anderson, Erik X X X X
Andrade, Sherre X X
Anneken-Nall, Barbara X X X
Anonymous X X
Anzai, Guy X X
Anzai, Kathleen X X
Aoki, William X X X
Aquino, Donna X X
Arakaki, Kris X X
Ardito-Ng, Nancy X X
Arensmeyer, Frederick X X X
7-6

Provided
EISPN
Asmus Fred X X X
Atwood, Seth X X X
Avila, Chimo X X X
EISPN B., Cindy X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Babydoll X X X
Pg. 99- Bacera, Paul X X X
191
Bachstein, Robert X X
DEIS Bachstein, Shaina X X

Comments Baehr, Robert Brooks X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Baese, Eric X X X
Baird, Allison X X
Baker, M.D., Mark X X X
Baldwin, Sylvia X X X
Baley, Kelsey X X X
Banks, Allison X X X
Barbes, Belinda X X
Barenaba, Rob X X
Bartlett, Randall X X X
Basch, Matt X X X
Bassut, Bozena X X
Bates, Mike X X X
Bautista, Menchie X X X
Bautista, Steve X X X
Baxter, Kim X X X
Baze, Ronald X X X
Beasley, Laura X X X
Beason, Mike X X X
Beattie, Janell X X X
Becera, Joseph X X
Bee, Lisa X X X
Belaski-Farias, Marisa X X X
Belcher, Amy X X
7-7

Provided
EISPN
Bell, David X X
Bennett, Kyle X X X
Bennett, Tailina X X
Bentosino, Harmony X X
Beyer, Dee X X X
Bhatnagar, Dhruv X X X
Bitonio, Joy X X
Black, Linda J. X X X
Bleadon, Sam X X X
Bledsoe, Tobi X X X
Blichfeldt, Peer X X X
Bloom, Gary X X X
Blume, Jonathan X X X
Bodenbender, Phil X X
Boland, Patrick X X X
Bornhorst, Heidi X X X
Botero, Adriana X X X
Bowen, Tammy X X
Bowman, Peter X X X
Boyce, Sherry X X X
Boyd, Nancy X X
Bradley, James X X
Brasher, Ronald X X
Brayall, Kari X X X
Breslin, Jannica X X X
Brianna X X X
Briggs, Paul X X
Britten, Angela X X X X
Brodsky, Ethan X X X
Broughton, Tiffany X X X
Brown, Ian X X
Brown, Philip X X X
7-8

Provided
EISPN
Brown, Veronica X X
Brown, Weston X X X
Brunk, Matt X X X
Bruns, Dawn X X X X
Bryant, Elena X X
Buccigrossi, Deborah X X X
Bueche, James X X X
Bulaong, Gertie X X X
Bullock, Kelli X X X
Burgage, Lora X X X
Burford, Jon X X X
Burnett, Jacqueline X X
Butcher, Blake X X
Buxton, Stephanie X X
Byrnes, Brad X X X
EISPN C., Kim X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Cabalo, Camille X X X
Pg. 192- Cabebe, Jeffrey X X
295
Cabrera, Ray X X X X
DEIS Cabrera, Tennye X X

Comments Callan, Dennis X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Campbell, Jean X X X
Campbell, Malia X X X
Canham, Ph.D., Stephen X X X
Cardwell, Ron X X
Carey, G. Viginia & Helen D. X X X
Carey-Goo, Pamela X X X
Carlile, Jane X X X X
Carney, Robert X X X
Carper, Philip X X X X
Carr, Steven X X X
Carrie X X X
7-9

Provided
EISPN
Carsey, Renee X X X
Carson, Ellen X X X
Carvalho, Christine (Ryan) X X X
Carver, Jeff X X X
Casken, Damien X X X
Caster, Denise X X X
Castro, Cherise X X X
Catoni, Charlotte X X
Caveney, Rob X X
Cbasconis X X X
Chapman, Maria X X X
Charlie X X X
Cheatham, Charlotte X X
Chen, Gordon X X X
Cheng, Dennis X X
Chiba, Teiji X X
Chico, Nicholas X X
Chinen, Christian X X
Chinen, Stephen X X X
Ching, Kevin X X
Ching, Vernon X X
Chock, Al Keali‘i X X X
Chong, Leslie X X X
Choo, Shelby X X
Chosy, Julia X X
Chris X X X
Chun, Laurene X X X
Chun, Ryan X X X
Christe, Anthony X X X
Circle, Norma X X X
Chung, Kristine X X X
Clark, Barbara X X X
7-10

Provided
EISPN
Clark X X X
Clark, Shari X X
Cody, Lara X X
Cohen, Amber X X
Collins, Bill X X X
Collins, Deborah X X X
Collins, S. X X X
Conner, Renee X X X
Conrad, Amanda-Paige X X X
Cooke, Lachlan X X
Cortez, Beverly X X X
Counsell, Travis X X X
Cox, Shanen X X X
Crawford, Cassandra X X X
Crawford, Stewart X X X
Cresencia, Angela X X X
Cressman, Ronald X X X
Crosby, Christine X X X
Crowe, William X X X
Csimao X X X
Cullen, Matthew X X X
Cunliffe, Regan X X X X
Cunningham, Justin X X X
Cunningham, William X X
Czlonkas, Lisa X X X
EISPN Damico, John X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV D’Angelo, Carol X X
Pg. 295- D’Araujo, Dawn X X X
334
darsaw9 X X X
DEIS Das, Rohit X X X

Comments Das, Vijay X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Davis, John X X X
7-11

Provided
EISPN
Davis, Mary Lou X X X
Davis, Skyler X X
Dawson, Ruth X X X
Dawson, Steve X X X
de Cordoba, Heather Arias X X X
de Vos, Madeleine X X X
Deasy, Mark X X X
DeCosta, Monica X X
DeCosta, Richard X X
Deez, Alex X X
Denton, Jerry X X X
Deters, Phil X X X
Diamond-Casey, Danielle X X X
Dias, Tammy X X X
Diaz, Edgardo X X
Diaz, Michelle X X X
Dilkens, Drew X X
Dobrowansky, Amy X X
Dodge, Sean X X X
Domingo, Hannah X X
Dontigny, Mike X X
Doran III, Jim X X X
Dowsett, Jesse X X
Dowsett, Leah X X
Drake, Diane X X X
Dubach, Dean X X
Dudley, Dr. Kioni X X X
Dumas, Sharon X X X
Dunn, Jr., Sheldon T. X X X
EISPN E., Kelly X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Eames, Caleb X X X
Eberlein, Michael X X X
7-12

Provided
EISPN
Pg. 334- Edwards, Bruce X X X
355
Egami, Troy X X X
DEIS Ehrhorn, Erick Peter X X X
Comments
Eliason, Evan X X
Vol. VI&VII
Ellis, Jeremy X X X X
Emmons, Brian X X X
Emsley, Denise X X
Egleston, Ann X X X
Enos, Deanne X X
Eric X X X
Esecson, Matt X X
Esposito, Dayton X X
Estavillo, M. X X X
EISPN Fagan, Brian X X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Fahy, Carol X X X X
Pg. 356- Fairhurst, Doug X X X
408
Fee, Todd X X X
DEIS Feeley, Edward X X X

Comments Ferge, Rose X X
Vol. VI&VII
Ferguson, Greg & Tandee X X X
Fermin, Shyla X X
Fern, Timothy X X X
Fernandez, Ging Ging X X X
Fernandez, Susan Lehua X X X
Field, Neil X X X
Fields-Poasa, Karen X X X
Fienhold, Justin X X
Filbert, Frederic X X
Fink, Todd X X
Finnegan, Colleen X X
Finnegan, Sarah X X
Firestine, Bryce X X X
7-13

Provided
EISPN
Fitch, Pete X X X
FitzGerald, Ronald X X
Fitzsimmons, Sash X X X
Flanigan, John X X X X
Flartey, Mike X X X
Fo, Denise X X X
Fondy, D. X X X
Fong, Jean X X
Fong, Marian X X
Fontanive, Carol X X X X
Ford-Wagner, Amy X X X
Fort, Bob X X X X
Fosket, Cassie X X X
Fox, Jonathon X X
Frank, Kalena X X
Franklin, Erik X X X
Freitas, Jade X X
Freitas, Troy X X X
Friedman, Jeffrey X X
Frizzell, Forest X X X
Frobel, Puanani X X X X
Fu, Howard X X
Fuentes, Josh X X
Fujimoto, Judy X X X
Fujioka, Sranley X X
Fuller, Takako X X
Fullmer, Jana X X X
Funasaki, Kimberly X X X
Furukawa, Alyssa X X
Furukawa, Renee X X
EISPN Gabriel, Darrin X X
Comments
Gallagher, Christina X X X
7-14

Provided
EISPN
Vols. II&IV Gallagher, Denise X X X
Pg. 408-
460 Gallemore, Daniel X X X
Galut, Karen X X X X
DEIS
Gambhir, Aaron X X
Comments
Vol. VI&VII Gamiao, Glory X X X
Garcia, Caitlin X X X
Garsva, Michael X X X
Gasiciel, Denise X X X X
Gatchalian, Nomer X X
Gaudey, Carol X X X
Gayagas, Christine (Crissy) X X X
Geiger, Heidi X X
Germann, Barbara X X X
Gerrine X X X
Geske, Kimo X X X
Gilbert, Matt X X X
Gilding, Damien X X
Gilson, Grace and Dave X X X
Giron, Sasha X X X
Glassco, Jeremy X X
Godfrey, Daphne X X
Goebert, Deborah X X
Gomes, Emily X X
Gomes, Julia X X
Gomes, Jr, Vernon X X
Gonzaga, Georgia X X
Goody, John B. X X X X
Gookin, Becki X X X
Goolia, Julia X X X
Gordon, Melanie X X
Grado, Christian X X X
Graham, Joan X X X
7-15

Provided
EISPN
Graham, Toni & Walter X X X X
Graves, Carrie X X
Graves, Charles X X
Greer, Gerald X X
Grenert, Briana X X
Grenert, Korynn X X X
Guard, Allison X X
Guevarra, Chelsea X X X
Gum, William X X
Guthrie, Elizabeth X X X
Gutierrez, Felise X X X
Guzman X X X
EISPN Haderlie, Brooks X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Hall, John X X
Pg. 461- Hamidati, Anis X X X
545
Hampton, Randy X X X
DEIS Hanakawa, Stanley X X X

Comments Hanish, Jenny X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Hanson, Lena T. X X X
Haque, Aaron X X
Harada, Robert X X X X
Hardie, Lydia X X X
Hardy, Amy X X
Hardy, Linda X X X
Harjo, Cheyenne X X
Harlan-Fortucci, Anne X X X
Harold X X X
Harpstrite, M.D., J. Kim X X X
Harpstrite, Patricia X X
Harrer, Tiffany X X X
Harris, Britt X X X
Harrison, Gretchen X X X
7-16

Provided
EISPN
Harrison, Kaleb X X X
Harrison, Marika X X X X
Hart, June X X
Hassler, Keiko X X X
Hau, Skippy X X X
Haumschild, Steve X X
Hays, Burl X X
Heinrich, Tom X X X
Heinrichs, Carsten X X
Hemmings, Fred X X X
Henderson, Ashley X X X
Hendrickson, Lisa X X X
Herman, Kevin X X
Herrmann, Theanne X X X
Heu, Moana X X X
Hewett, Jorene X X
Hiel, Richard X X X
Higa, Christine X X
Higa, David X X
Higa, Emmett T. X X
Higa, Jordon X X X
Higashi, Blaine X X
Hill, Randy X X X
Hill, Steve X X
Hincapie, Maria Elena X X
Hinen, JoAnne X X
Hinson, Kristina X X X
Hirata, Vernon X X X
Holladay, Chelsea X X
Holter, Timothy X X X
Holz, Cintia X X X
Homen, Chris X X
7-17

Provided
EISPN
Hopkins-Moniz, Natasha X X X
Horn, Elizabeth X X X
Horne, Randy X X X
Hourihan, Arlin X X X
Howell, Blake X X X
Howell, Laurie X X X
Howell, Steven X X X
Hu, Joe X X
Huarcaya, Frank X X
Hudman, Barbara X X X
Hughes, Michael X X X X
Huitt, Heather X X
Humphrey, Terri X X
Humphreys, Tyler X X X
Hupper, Cliff X X X
Hura, Justine X X X
Hura, Leo X X X
Hurlburt, Anita X X X
EISPN I., Jo Ann X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Ibrahim, Alexandra X X X
Pg. 545- Ida, Shann X X X
565
Ikeda, Glenn X X X X
DEIS Imaye, Brenan X X

Comments Imaye, Kris X X
Vol. VI&VII
Inafuku, Jill X X X
Irvine, Lelemia X X X
Ishizaki, Wayne X X
Ito, Russell X X X
Iwamoto, Lance X X
Iwasa, Natalie X X X
Izumoto, Charles X X X
Izutsu, Christie X X X
7-18

Provided
EISPN
EISPN J., Jo X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV J.M. X X X
Pg. 566- James X X X
605
James, Mark X X X
DEIS James, Victoria X X X

Comments Janice X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Jardine, Belinda X X X
Jay, Jeffrey X X X
Jeffery, Carissa X X X
Jeffery, Julie, Tony & Carissa X X X
Jensen, Paul X X
Jepsen, Cindy X X X
Jernigan, Drew X X X
jiggerman456 X X X
Johnson, Hunter X X X
Johnson, Kate X X X
Johnson, Kayla X X X
Johnson, Mark X X X
Johnson, Sandy X X X
Jones, Fay M. X X X
Jones, Jesse X X X
Jones, Robert X X X
Jones, Sally X X X
Jordan, Jo X X X
EISPN K8 X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Kaahaaina, Frederick X X X
Pg. 606- Kabins, Chad X X X
689
Kahanaoi, Bridgette X X X X
DEIS Kahue, Jodi X X X

Comments Kai Dang, Courtney X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Kaiama, Manu X X
Kalai, Lesley X X
7-19

Provided
EISPN
Kalilikane, D. X X
Kalilikane, W. X X
Kaloi, Kira X X X
Kaluhiokalani, Keola X X X
Kam, Alison X X X
Kamaka, Sylvia X X X X
Kamiya, Joni X X
Kanaly, Steve X X
Kandul, G. X X X
Kanekoa, Adam X X X
Kaneshiro, Ryan X X
Kania, Rafal X X X
Kaniaupio, Lei X X
Kanzic, Lisa X X X
Kaohelaulii, Anna X X X
Kaohu, Rachel X X X
Kapiko, Irene X X
Kapule, Olivia X X X
Karaffa, Paul X X X
Karr, Gary X X X X
Katahara, Emily X X X
Kawai, Yuki X X
Kawauchi, Virginia X X X
Kawelo, Rodney X X X
Kelley, Ashley X X
Kelley, Kimberlee X X
Kelly, Afton X X X
Kennedy, Katrena X X
Kennedy, Randall X X
Keola, Kellyann X X
Kienle, Eric X X
Kievlan, Matthew X X X X
7-20

Provided
EISPN
Kikuta, Roy X X X
Kinghorn, Brian X X X
Kinikini, Danielle X X X
Kinoshita, Michael X X
Kinro, Gerald X X X X
Kirstein, Mona X X X
Kitabayashi, David X X
Kitabayashi, Frances X X X X
Knight, Kira X X X
Koch, Quentin X X X
Kodama, Conan X X
Koike, Paul X X
Koizumi, Connie X X
Koizumi, Craig X X
Kong, Clayton X X X X
Koran, Nicole X X X
Kravchuk, Natasha X X
Kreitzer, Jim X X
Krog, Vincent E. X X X
Krzyzanowski, Russell X X X
Kumabe, Elizabeth X X X X
Kumashiro, Bryson X X X
Kumashiro, Joann X X X X
Kumashiro, Keane X X X
Kuniyoshi, Jan X X
Kunstman, Zachary X X X
Ku-Tangonan, Stephanie X X
Kyle, Tom X X X
EISPN L, Marie X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV La Mont, Robert X X X
Pg. 701- LaBatte, Lorena X X
792
LaBranch, Jason X X
7-21

Provided
EISPN
Lacar, Charlene X X
DEIS
Comments Lacar, Darrol X X
Vol. VI&VII Laffin, Robert X X
Lagareta, Bruce X X X
Lagareta, Wendy X X X
Lambert, Haley X X
Lancaster, Annette X X X X
Lancaster, Craig X X X X
Landry, Marc X X
Lauer, Adam X X X
Laufer, Jack X X X
Lavota, Randy X X X
Law, Randy X X
Lawrence, Melissa X X X
Lawrence, Peter X X
Lawrence, Tom X X X
LC X X X
Leake, David X X
Lee, Al X X X
Lee, Lester X X
Lee, Mary Alice X X X X
Lee, Merleen X X X X
Lee, Spencer X X
Lee, William X X
Leek, Bill X X X
Leenman, James X X
Legros, Gale X X
LeGros, Summer X X
Lehardy, Bob X X X
Lenz, Jeanette X X X
Leon, Jaron X X X
Leonard, Raphael X X X
7-22

Provided
EISPN
Leong, Leah X X
Leong, Rae X X X X
Lesperance, Edwin X X X X
Lessary, Janishya X X
Layshon, Curt X X X
Li, Ricky X X
Lillig, Alex X X X
Lin, Susan X X X
Lincoln, Noa X X X
Linden, Carl X X X
Lindenberger, Darren X X
Lindstrom, Katrina X X
Linghor, Craig X X X
Lisa X X X
Logan, Cindy X X X
Logan, Leilani X X X
Long, John Keawe X X
Long-Chang, Belinda X X X X
Lopez, Joel X X
Lopez, Kawika X X X
Loui, Lyvonne X X X X
Louis, Ron X X
Love, Gregg X X X
Love, Lawren X X
Lovell, James X X X
Loventhal, Jenna X X X
Lowry, Patrick X X X
Lubin, Annie X X X
Lucas, Jess Kēhau X X X
Ludewig, James X X X
Lum, Jeff X X X
Lum, Natalie X X X X
7-23

Provided
EISPN
Lunt, Berkley X X X
Luter, Adrienne X X
Lyman, Carrie X X
Lyman, Kelli X X X X
Lyman, Michael X X X X
Lynch, Kay X X X
Lynch, Tim X X X
Lynn, Karin X X X
EISPN Ma, Kent X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Macmillan, Mary X X X
Pg. 793- Madden, Pam X X X
897
Maddock, Sally X X X
DEIS Makainai, Ernest Kalani X X X

Comments Malecki, Steve X X
Vol. VI&VII
Malin, Dan X X X
Malphurs, Linda X X X
Mammo, Tigist X X
Manning, Marie X X
Manzano, Lorie X X X
Mara, Janelle X X X
Marcial, David X X X
Marenco, Fernando X X X
Marron, Lindsay X X X
Marshall, Amy X X X
Marshall, Patti X X
Marshall, Richard X X X X
Martin, Cindy X X
Martin, David X X
Martin, Leslie X X X
Masagatani, Jesse X X X
Mather, Ian X X
Matsudo, Susan X X
7-24

Provided
EISPN
Matsumoto, Mark X X
Matthews, Kristian X X
Matthews, Michael X X X
Mattos, Noreen X X
May, Kikue X X X
McBirnie, Ann X X X
McClellan, Jean Mahealani X X X X
Mccomas, John X X
McCormick, Caroline X X X
McCreary Duprey, Susan X X X
McDaniel, Darryln X X X
McDermott-Valenzuela, Jean X X X
McDougall, Melanie X X X
McDowell, Claudia X X X
McEvoy, Brad X X X
McIntosh, Claudette X X X
McKenna, Jeremy X X
McMahon, Richard X X X
McManus, Marla X X
McMullin, Paige X X X
McSpedden, Justin X X
Meadows, Jack X X X
Meller, Douglas X X
Melohn, Bill & Trudi X X X
Mench, Alexander X X X
Merkel, Eric X X X
Merry, Kelsey X X X
Mersino, Edwin X X X
Meyer, Richard X X
Mezzacapo, Michael X X
Michael, Don X X X
Michelle X X X
7-25

Provided
EISPN
Milisen, Jeffrey X X X
Miller, Brad X X X
Miller, Ron X X X
Mills, Kinga X X
Minakami, Melvin X X
Mitchell, Jessie X X X
Mitchell, William X X
Miyasato, June X X X
Miyashiro, Wayne X X X
Miyata, Danny X X
Miyata, Diane X X
Miyata, Michael X X
Miyata, Randy X X
Moniuszko, Jordan X X X
Montgomery, Ken X X X
Mooney, Heidi X X
Moore, Chad X X X
Moore, Danielle X X X
Mora, Sarah X X X
Morgan, Keoki X X
Moriarty, Linda X X X
Morimoto, Alvin X X X
Morinaga, Pamela X X X X
Morita, Robert X X
Moskowitz, Dave X X X
Moskowitz, David X X X
Mosley, Sandra X X X
Motosue, Stanley X X X
MS, S. X X X
Muir, James X X X
Mulkern, Kevin X X X
Mullen, Steven X X X
7-26

Provided
EISPN
Mumper, Micah X X X
Murakami, Norman X X
Myers, Laura X X X
Myers, Malia X X
Myers, Michael X X X
Myette, Valerie X X X
EISPN Nachtigall, Paul X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Nagami, Brian X X X
Pg. 898- Nagata, Michelle X X X
937
Nakahara, Bette Jo X X
DEIS Nakamura, Robert X X X

Comments Nakapaahu, Ronalda X X
Vol. VI&VII
Nakashima, Lerma Jean X X X
Naki, Linda X X X
Naone, Janelle X X X
Napoleon, Sue Ann X X
Nash, Paul X X X
Nathan, Christy X X X
Naun, Christopher X X X
Neal, Chelsey X X
Nedry, Jeffrey X X X
Neece, Gary X X X
Nelken, Giulia X X
Nelson, Elizabeth X X
Nelson, Jeremy X X
Nelson, Paul X X X
Neuer, Joe X X X
Newman, Alicia X X X
Newman, Leinell X X X
Nicholls, Kerry X X X
Nicole X X X
Nicolow, James X X
7-27

Provided
EISPN
Nicosia, Sal X X X
Noelle, Shannon X X X
Nolley, Timothy X X
Norrie, Dave X X X
nuisan105, G. X X X
EISPN Oberholzer, Kanani X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Oborski, Melanie X X X
Pg. 937- O’Brien, Mary Louise X X X
969
O’Connell, Jason X X
DEIS O’Connor-Phelps, Kathleen X X X

Comments Okamoto, Courtney X X
Vol. VI&VII
O’Kelly, Amanda X X X
Okouchi, Richard X X X
Okuda, Jan X X X X
Okumura, Jacqueline X X
Olivares, Alice X X X
Olson, Ryan X X X
O’Mahony, Karin X X X
OMalley, Tom X X
ONeill, Meagan X X
Ontai, Damien X X X
Orman, Lindsay X X X
Orozco, Ivan X X X
Orsulic, Adriana X X
Osborn Mullen, Kim X X X
Osei-Akoto, Kobe X X X
Oshiro, Larry X X
Oshiro, Priscilla X X
Ostergard, Ryan X X X
Ostrow, Stosh X X
Otani, Courtney X X X
Ouchi, Sharon X X
7-28

Provided
EISPN
Owen, Nadine X X X
EISPN Padua, Rachelle X X X

Comments
Vols. II&IV Paekukui, John X X
Pg. 969- Page, William X X X
1018
Palicte, James X X
DEIS Palmatier, Charity X X X

Comments Palmer, Christian X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Palmer, Jesse X X X
Pang, Lisa-Ann X X
Pangilinan, Michael X X X
Paresa, David X X X
Park, Annie X X X
Parker, Angela X X
Parrish, Frank X X
Pascua, Russell X X X
Pateras, Andrea & Alexi X X X
Pateras, Andrea X X X
Paterson, Kirk X X
Peck, Aimee X X
Peck, Ted X X X
Peltier-Low, Dionne X X
Penrose, Philip X X
Pepper, Lennard J. X X
Peralta, Liberty X X
Perreira, Cherylee X X
Perry, Sara X X X
Perry, Tracie X X X
Peters, Jonnetta X X
Peterson, Barbara X X
Peterson, Haley X X
Petriatos, Martha X X
7-29

Provided
EISPN
Philippe, Dukes X X X
Phillips, Joseph X X
Phillips, Kawena X X X
Phillips, Nelson X X
Philpott, Margaret and Richard X X X
Picayo, Robert X X X
Pickard, Tom X X X
Piercy, Steve X X
Piimauna, C X X
Pires, Darlene X X
Plasch, Bruce S. X X X
Platunova, Marina X X
Pohlman, Kurt X X
Polhemus, Dan X X X
Polhemus, Hunter X X X
Pong, Kathryn X X
Pong, Randall X X
Poole, Kristin X X
Poole, Nathan X X X X
Porter, Stephen X X X
Preece, Ferre X X
Prete, Brian X X X
Price, Jezza X X
Prindle, Thomas X X X
Pry, Phillip X X
Pushaw, Jim X X X X
EISPN
Comments
Vols. II&IV
Pg. 1018-
1019 Quattrone, Richard X X X
DEIS
Comments
Vol. VI&VII
7-30

Provided
EISPN
EISPN radar49, jh X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Radke, Mo X X X
Pg. 1020- Rainaud, Simone X X X
1085
Ralston, Gary X X X
DEIS Ramey, Forrest X X X

Comments Rebman, Alethea X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Reed, Casey X X X
Rego, Candas X X X
Reichelderfer, Jan X X X X
Reilly, Blake X X X
Reilly, James X X X
Reyes, Crystal X X
Richie, Mary X X X
Richmond, Keith X X X X
Richmond, Theresa X X
Riggins, Jason X X X
Riggs, Michael X X X
Riley, Dion X X X
Rinehart, Douglas X X X
Rippert, Alexander X X X
Ritzi, Brittany X X X
Rizer, Andrew X X
Rizer, Tiffany X X
Roberts, Wendy X X X
Rodgers, Conor X X X
Rogers, Brian X X X
Rogers, M.D, Casey X X X
Rogers, Joel X X
Rogue Veggie X X X
Rolla, David X X X
Ronco, Michele X X X
Rooks, Veronica X X X
7-31

Provided
EISPN
Rose, Ken X X X X
Ross, Carswell X X X
Rouse, Robert X X X
Routh, Ryan X X X X
Roy, Tim X X
Royal, Jovielyn X X
Ruark, Renea X X X
Russell, Nikki X X X
Ryan X X X
EISPN S, Jesse X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Sabas, John R. X X X
Pg. 1086- Sabei, Halle X X
1201
Sageleaman X X X
DEIS Sager, Bill X X

Comments Sakamoto, Dorothy X X
Vol. VI&VII
San Miguel, Paulina X X
Sanchez, Roy X X X
Sandahl, Michelle X X X
Sanders, Eric X X X
sandi05 X X X
Sanfino, Caleb X X
Santos, James X X
Santos, Joshua-James X X
Santos, Lorrie X X
Santos, Rory-James X X
Santos, Tina X X X
Santos, Zachary-James X X
Sapla, George X X
Sapla, Starr X X
Sapp, Jesse X X
Savara, Sid X X X
Sawyer, Tim X X
7-32

Provided
EISPN
Scarborough, Randall X X
Schade Poole, Kristin X X X
Schilling, Liam X X X
Schmandt, Dennis X X
Schneider, Natalie X X X
Schnitzer, David X X
Schoja, Viktoria X X X
Schriefer, Julia X X X
Schulte, Jr., Jeffrey X X X
Schultz, Carson X X X
Sclarandis, Giovanni X X X X
Seals, Christoper X X
Seiple, Ingrid X X X
Senelly, Richard X X
Serkis, Fabian X X X
Sevier, Holly X X X
Sewald, Ramona X X
Shaffer, Corey B. X X X
Sharpe, Marshall X X X
Shih, Ernest X X X X
Shimabukuro, Terry X X
Shimizu, Sawako X X
Shimoda, Stanley X X X X
Shinbara, Gay X X
Shishido, Karen X X X
Shively, Christopher X X
Shizuma, David X X X
Shizuma, Gary X X
Shoppell, San X X X
Shultz, Daniel X X X
Silva, Teri X X X
Simeona, Lugene X X
7-33

Provided
EISPN
Sims, William (Bill) X X X
Singlehurst, Darci X X X
Slay, Hudson X X X
Smart, Jim X X X
Smith, Catrina X X
Smith, Frank W. X X X
Smith, Garry X X X
Smith, Dr. Robert X X X
Sobala, Mario X X X
Sofio, David X X X
Soo, Brandon X X
Sorrell, Roger X X
Soto, Jeff X X X
Sovich, Barbara X X X
Speck, Cora X X X
Spector, Laura X X X
Speidel, Janine X X X
Spoehr, Hardy X X X
Spurrier, Jessica X X
Staib, Brett X X X X
Stanley, Greg X X X
Stauffer, Bob X X X
Stephen X X X
Sterling, Erik X X X
Stewart, David X X
Stoecker-Sylvia, Zack X X X
Stohler, William X X
Stone, Trish X X X
Stosh X X X
Strain, Nathan X X
Strickland, Alvah X X X
Suarez, Cindy X X X
7-34

Provided
EISPN
Sue, Linda X X X X
Suehiro, Cici X X X
Suganuma-Carlson, Raynette X X
Sullivan, Garrett X X X
Sullivan, Leah X X X
Sullivan, Richard X X
Sunio, Iris X X X
Sutherland, Jewel X X X
Swain, Colleen X X X
Switzer, Paul and Gail X X
Syverson, Jesse X X
EISPN Tabor, Jeremy X X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Tachibana, P. X X X X
Pg. 1201- Tagawa, Ira X X X X
1278
Tagore-Erwin, Navin X X X
DEIS Tai See, Anita X X

Comments Tai See, George X X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Taira, Adam X X
Takahashi, Linda X X X X
Takahata, Christine X X X
Takamiyashiro, Joann X X
Takara, Sarah X X
Takasaki, Susanna X X X
Tamasese, Donna X X X
Tamayori, Dean X X
Tamayori, Deena X X
Tamayori, Leila X X
Tandaguen, Liberty X X X
Tangney, Mike X X X
Tanji, Alexander X X X
Taulung, Frank X X X
Tavares, Sammy X X
7-35

Provided
EISPN
Taylor, Alexandra X X
Taylor, James X X X
Taylor, Kate X X X X
Taylor, Rhiannon X X X
Teff, Kim X X X
Tello, Jon X X X
Teraoka, Brent X X
Thain, Kirsten X X X
Tharp, Chris X X X
Tharp, JuWan X X X
Thenabadu, Shiyana X X X X
Thomas, Michael X X
Thompson, Chris X X
Thompson, Emily X X
Thompson, Jessica X X X
Thornburgh, Angela X X
Thornley, Harriet X X
Thourson, Peter X X X
Tibbetts, Paul X X
Tipton, Christopher X X
Tiwanak, Eric X X
Tokunaga, Leslie X X X
Tolentino, Tina X X
Tollefsen, Willy X X X
Tong, Caitlin X X
Tootell, Tammy X X
Torres, Alfred X X
Torres, Misty X X
Torres, Roland X X
Torresin, Angala X X X
Tran, Ly X X X
Tribble, Aiden X X X
7-36

Provided
EISPN
Tribble, David X X X
Trojacek, John X X X
Troutt, Russ X X X
Tryon, Sarah, Jason & Matthew X X X
Tsubata, Linda X X
Tsubata, Sid X X
Tuggle, Richard M. X X X X
Turner, Darcy X X X
Twigg-Smith, Ryan X X X
Twito, John X X
Twogood, Robert X X X
Twomey, Lani X X X
Tyler, Shannon X X X
Tyner, Robin X X X
EISPN Ueda, Les X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Uehara, Chester X X
Pg. 1278- Uehara, Chester X X X
1289
Uherek, Angel X X X
DEIS Umiamaka, Barbara X X

Comments Umiamaka, Barbara X X X
Vol. VI&VII
UNNAMED X X X
Unnamed Letter X X X
Uyeda, Jina X X
Uyeshiro, Glenn X X X
EISPN VanDerKamp, Barbara X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Van Risseghem, Colleen X X X
Pg. 1290- Venegas, Sydney X X X
1300
Vibell, Jonas X X X
DEIS Vallianos, Christina X X

Comments Vallianos, Christopher X X
Vol. VI&VII
Villiard, Arnaud X X X
Villiers, Katy X X X
7-37

Provided
EISPN
Viswanathan, Christine X X
EISPN vwjaques X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Wainscoat, Richard X X X X
Pg. 1301- Wainwright, Richard X X
1387
Waite, Josephine X X X
DEIS Waiwaiole, Brandi X X

Comments Wallace, Douglas X X X X
Vol. VI&VII
Wallace, Silke X X X
Wallenstrom, Heather X X X
Walterman, Allen X X X X
Wang, Pilialoha X X
Waracka, Scott X X X
Washington, Freddie X X X
Watkins, Mark X X X
Watt, Graham X X X
Watumull, Jared X X X
Wayson, Adam X X
Weaver, Mouna X X
Weber, Tom X X X
Webster, Elise X X
Weisman, Bret X X
Wells, Kelsea X X X
West, Kristi X X X
Wester, Lyndon X X X
Weyant, D. X X X
Whalley, Bill X X X
Whelen, Chris X X X
Whetten, Brady X X X
Whitaker, Barbara X X X X
White, Calvin X X X
White, Carol X X X
Whittaker, Kylie X X X
7-38

Provided
EISPN
Whittington, Lindsay X X
Widmann, Michael X X X
Wiegand, Josh X X X
Wilkinson, Alan X X
Williams, Dan X X X
Williams, John C. X X X
Wilson, Aprill X X X
Wilson, Patricia X X X
Winchester, Melody X X
Winter, Norman X X X
Wise, Oliva X X X
Wolcott, Dr. Louise X X X
Wolf, Dianne X X X
Wolfinger, Jon X X X
Wolfson, Scott X X X
Wolod, Drew X X
Wong, Cyndi X X X
Wong, Donald X X X
Wong, Nimai X X X
Wong, Rachel X X X
Wong, Rachel X X X
Wood, Sarah X X
Wooddell, Allen X X X
Woodstock, Linda C. “Dusty” X X X
Woodward, Thalia X X X
Worth, Angela X X X
Wright, Lindsay X X X
Wright, Stan X X
Wright, Stanley X X X
Wurtzburg, PhD, Susan J. X X X
EISPN Yamamoto, Tiffany Anne X X
Comments
Yamane, Erle X X
7-39

Provided
EISPN
Vols. II&IV Yamashiro, Claire X X
Pg. 1388-
1403 Yamashiro, Clyde X X X
Yanagi, Randall X X X
DEIS
Yanagida, Alan X X
Comments
Vol. VI&VII Yang, Franklin K. X X X
Yokono, Robert X X
Yokotake, Carleen X X X X
Yong, Darlene Lilinoe X X X X
Young, Jennifer X X X
Young, Lauren X X X
Yoza, Richard X X X
EISPN Zahn, Dan X X X
Comments
Vols. II&IV Zhang, Yang X X
Pg. 1404- Zhang, Zoe X X X
1412
Zott, Kassie X X X
DEIS Hardy, Melinda S. X X X

Comments
Vol. VI&VII (Anonymous), Adam X X
7-40
Chapter 8
List of References and

Preparers of the Draft EIS
Chapter 8
References and Preparers of

the Draft EIS
8.1 References
Documents
Architects Hawai‘i Limited (AHL). Hawai‘i State Hospital 2015 Master Plan Update. Prepared for the
Department of Health.
City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning & Permitting. 1992. General Plan.
_______, Board of Water Supply (BWS). 2012. Ko‘olau Poko Watershed Management Plan. Prepared
by Townscape Inc. September.
_______, Department of Planning & Permitting. Administrative Rules, Title 20, Chapter 3, Rules
Relating to Water Quality.
_______, Department of Planning & Permitting. 2017. Ko‘olau Poko Sustainable Communities Plan.
_______, Department of Planning & Permitting. 1999. Land Use Ordinance.
_______, Honolulu Emergency Services Department. 2019. Inside the Ambulance.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2018. Ha‘ikū Stairs Vicinity. The EDR Radius Map™ Report.
Prepared for G70.
Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group. 2014. Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group Final Report. Prepared for the City
Councilmember Ikaika Anderson.
Helber Hastert & Fee Planners 2008. Ke Kula ‘O Samuel M. Kamakau Laboratory Public Charter
School Relocation Final Environmental Assessment. Prepared for: Ke Kula ‘O Samuel M.
Kamakau Laboratory Public Charter School.
Hui Kū Maoli Ola, LLC. 2018. Flora and Fauna Surveys Conducted for Ha‘ikū Stairs, He‘eia and
Kāne‘ohe, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Prepared for G70. July 2018.
Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting, LLC. 2018. Cultural Impact Assessment, He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe
Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i. Prepared for Board of Water Supply.
March 2018.
8-1
_______. 2018. Ha‘ikū Stairs Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey. Prepared for G70. December
2018.
_______. 2018. Ha‘ikū Stiars Historic and Architectural Assessment, Ha‘ikū Valley, Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu
Island, Hawai‘i. Prepared for G70. September 2018.
Martin & Chock, Inc. 2013. State of Hawai‘i Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013 Update. Prepared for
State of Hawai‘i. August 2013.
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. 2017. Ha‘ikū Stairs Structural Assessment. Prepared for G70.
November 2017.
PBR Hawaii. 1995. Hope Chapel Kāne‘ohe Access Driveway Final Environmental Assessment.
Prepared for Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Plasch Econ Pacific, LLC. 2018. Ha‘ikū Stairs: Demographic and Economic Study. Prepared for G70.
_______. 2019. Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Various Alternatives for Ha‘ikū Stairs. Prepared for
G70.
State of Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 205, Land Use Commission.
_______. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 226, Hawai‘i State Plan.
_______. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 205-A, Coastal Zone Management Act.
_______. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 226, Hawai‘i State Plan.
_______. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 343, Environmental Impact Statements.
_______. Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan.
_______, Department of Education. 2015. Hawai‘i Public Schools Map.
_______, Department of Health. 2015. Annual Summary 2015 Air Quality Data.
_______, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. 2014. O‘ahu Island Plan.
United States Army Corps of Engineers 2018. Fact Sheet Former Navy Landfill, Ha‘ikū Radio Station,
Ha‘ikū Valley, Kāne‘ohe, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.
_______, 2018. Proposed Plan for Former Navy Landfill, Ha‘ikū Radio Station, Ha‘ikū Valley,
Kāne‘ohe, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.
United States Coast Guard. 1997. Base Closure Omega Station Hawai‘i Final Environmental
Assessment. Prepared for Department of Transportation.
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in Hawai‘i - A summary of climate
change and its impacts to Hawai‘i’s ecosystems.
8-2
Van Wyck Gazette. 2017. Stairway to Heaven: Climbing the Infamous Ha‘ikū Stairs of O‘ahu.
Prepared by Samara Ferris.
Y. Ebisu & Associates. 2018. Acoustic Study for the Ha‘ikū Stairs Managed Access and Use Plan,
Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Prepared for G70. March 2018.
Websites
City and County of Honolulu, Department of Parks and Recreation. Center Detail Kaneohe District
Park. Retrieved from: http://parks.honolulu.gov/cD.sdi?center_id=146 Accessed June
2018.
_______, Department of Parks and Recreation. Staffed Parks City and County of Honolulu. Retrieved
from http://www.honolulu.gov/parks/default/park-locations.html Accessed June 2018.
_______, Honolulu Emergency Services Department. Inside the Ambulance. Retrieved from:
http://www.honolulu.gov/esdems/emsambulance.html. Accessed February 2019.
_______, Honolulu Police Department. Police District Data. Retrieved from:

http://www.honolulupd.org Accessed June 2018.
Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau. The Constitution of the State of Hawaii, Article XI:
Conservation, Control and Development of Resources. Data retrieved from:
http://lrbhawaii.org/con/conart11.html. Accessed February 2019.
Hawai‘i State Public Library System. All 51 Branches. Retrieved from:

https://www.librarieshawaii.org/visit/branches/all-branches/ Accessed June 2018.
Huffington Post, Travel. Hawai‘i’s Most Epic and Illegal Hike May Be Gone Forever. Prepared by Carla
Herreria. Retrieved from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/21/haiku-stairs-
closed_n_6714386.html Accessed July 2018.
Kamehameha Schools. Kamehameha Schools Preschools. Retrieved from:

http://blogs.ksbe.edu/preschool/ Accessed June 2018.
Ke Kula o’ Samuel M. Kamakau Laboratory Public Charter School, School Profile. Retrieved from:
https://www.kamakau.com/ Accessed June 2018.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Education. School District data. Retrieved from:

http://doe.k12.hi.us/index.php Accessed June 2018.
_______, Department of Health. Air Quality data. Retrieved from: http://hawaii.envi-beta.com/

Accessed June 2018.
The Hiking HI. Manana Ridge Trail. Retrieved from: https://www.thehikinghi.com/single-

post/2018/08/01/Manana-Ridge-Trail Accessed November 2018.
United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder. He‘eia CDP Census Data. Retrieved from:
http://factfinder.census.gov/ Accessed October 2018.
8-3
United States Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program. M 6.9 – 19km SSW of Leilani
Estates, Hawai‘i. Retrieved from:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us1000dyad#executive Accessed
October 2018.
_______, Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Retrieved from:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_n/N-HItext3.html Accessed June 2018.
University of Hawai‘i, Geography Department. Climate of Hawai‘i. Retrieved from:

http://climate.geography.hawaii.edu/interactivemap.html Accessed June 2018.
_______, Geography Department. Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. Retrieved from:

http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu/interactivemap.html Accessed June 2018.
_______, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology. Retrieved from:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/sealevel/index.html Accessed October 2018.
GIS
City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Land Information Systems (HoLIS). Tax Map Key (2016).
Retrieved from: http://honolulu-
cchnl.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/3216a20b21fd438495716a78c4642737_1?geometr
y=-158.792%2C21.308%2C-156.812%2C21.692
City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Land Information Systems (HoLIS). Zoning (2016). Retrieved
from: http://honolulu-
cchnl.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/b34c3a3de35f4eecbe87c4a6953571c3_12
City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Land Information Systems (HoLIS). State Land Use Districts
(2016). Retrieved from: http://honolulu-
cchnl.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/43a398d3acb846498bb604134fdda5f6_5
City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Land Information Systems (HoLIS). Special Management
Areas (2011). Retrieved from: http://honolulu-
cchnl.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/b164a5df74f9492c94d0a15ed4db97fe_4
City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Land Information Systems (HoLIS). Tsunami Evacuation Zone
(2015).DataRetrievedfrom:http://honolulu-
cchnl.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/3cbc6253ee8441aa84a67697ae5291b7_7
City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Land Information Systems (HoLIS). City and County Parks
(2015).Retrievedfrom:http://honolulu-
cchnl.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/8741314267104512b9d50570dfecc99b_2
City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Land Information Systems (HoLIS). Street Centerline (2015).
Retrievedfrom:http://honolulu-
cchnl.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/180028bc33ad42c699d2b3e4742ee1cc_0
City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Land Information Systems (HoLIS). Flood Hazard Zones
(2014). Retrievedfrom:http://Honolulu-
cchnl.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/aaf74f29e2bc428781ca415e890fb9db_3
8-4
State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry & Wildlife. Nā Ala
Hele Trail & Access Program. Retrieved from: https://hawaiitrails.hawaii.gov/trails/#/
State of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program. Agricultural Land of Importance to the State of
Hawai‘i(ALISH)(1977).Retrievedfrom:http://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/alish?geometry=-
165.171%2C18.762%2C-149.328%2C22.361
State of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program. Conservation District Subzones (2015). Retrieved
from: http://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/conservation-district-subzones
State of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program. Important Agriculture Lands (IAL) (2015). Retrieved
from: http://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/important-agricultural-lands-ial
State of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program. Large Landowners (2013). Retrieved from:
http://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/large-landowners-statewide
State of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program. Land Study Bureau (LSB) (1972). Retrieved from:
http://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/lsb
State of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program. Soils (2014). Retrieved from:
http://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/soils-sf-state-of-hawaii
Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program.
8-5
8.2 Preparers of the Draft EIS

Below is a list of individuals that contributed to the preparation and completion of this Draft EIS. The
list includes the name of the individual and their role, or the name of the company and the subfield of
professional expertise utilized to conduct and complete the EIS.
Board of Water Supply
Ernest Lau Manager and Chief Engineer

Barry Usagawa Program Administrator, Water Resources Division
Kathleen Pahinui Information Officer
Mike Matsuo Civil Engineer, Land Division
Group 70 International, Inc.
Jeffrey H. Overton, AICP, LEED AP Principal Planner

Paul. T Matsuda, P.E., LEED AP Principal, Director of Civil Engineering
Kawika McKeague, AICP Principal, Director of Cultural Planning
Rachel Shaak, AICP, LEED AP Senior Environmental Planner
David Brotchie Civil Engineer
Barrie Morgan, AICP Senior Environmental Planner
Lauren Esaki Environmental Planner
Cody Winchester Environmental Planner
Silas Haglund Graphics and Document Specialist
Stephanie Saephan, GISP GIS Specialist
Reyna DePonte Administrative Support
Kiralee Ramos Environmental Planning Intern
Technical Consultants Area of Specialty
Hui Kū Maoli Ola, LLC Biological Survey

Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting, LLC Archaeological Inventory Survey
Cultural Impact Assessment
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. Structural Engineering Analysis
Plasch Econ Pacific, LLC. Demographic and Economic Analysis
William R. Chapman, Ph.D. Historic Architecture Study
Y. Ebisu & Associates Acoustic Study
8-6
VOLUME II: TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Photo: David Brotchie
APPLICANT:
PREPARED BY:
JAN. 2020
VOLUME II: TECHNICAL APPENDICES
TMK (1) 4-6-015:011; (1) 4-6-015:007;
(1) 4-6-041:005; (1) 1-1-013:003
APPLICANT:
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
630 SOUTH BERETANIA STREET
HONOLULU, HAWAI‘I 96843
ACCEPTING AUTHORTITY:
AUTHORIZED MAYOR’S REPRESENTATIVE
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING
650 SOUTH KING STREET
HONOLULU, HAWAI‘I 96813
PREPARED BY:
111 S. KING STREET, SUITE 170

HONOLULU, HI 96813
JAN. 2020
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
VOLUME 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A Structural Engineering Analysis

Ha‘ikū Stairs Structural Assessment
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. November, 2017.
B Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey

Ha‘ikū Stairs Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting, LLC. December, 2018.
C Cultural Impact Assessment

Cultural Impact Assessment, He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu,
Hawai‘i.
Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting, LLC. March, 2018.
D Intensive Level Survey Report

Ha‘ikū Stairs, Ha‘ikū Valley, Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i.
William Chapman, Architectural Historian. September, 2018.
E Flora and Fauna Study

Flora and Fauna Surveys Conducted for Ha‘ikū Stairs, He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe, Island of O‘ahu,
Hawaiʻi.
Hui Kū Maoli Ola, LLC. January, 2018.
F Acoustic Study
Acoustic Study for the Ha‘ikū Stairs Managed Access and Use Plan, Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.
Y. Ebisu & Associates. March, 2018.
G Economic Studies
Ha‘ikū Stairs: Demographic and Economic Studies. Plasch Econ Pacific LLC. June, 2018.
Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Various Alternatives for Ha‘ikū Stairs. Plasch Econ Pacific LLC.
February, 2019.
H Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group

Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group Final Report
Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group. October, 2014.
I Kaneohe Neighborhood Board Ha‘ikū Stairs Resolution: Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30,
Regular Meeting Minutes, Thursday, June 15, 2017
J Kāneʻohe Neighborhood Board No. 30, Regular Meeting Minutes, Thursday 18, 2019
i
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
K House Concurrent Resolution 199 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 213
L HRS 6E-8 Historic Preservation Review

SHPD Comment Letter dated March 14, 2019 re: Ha‘ikū Stairs Submittal (Log No: 2018.03030)
M Survey Maps
N Subdivision Maps
ii
Appendices
Appendix A
Structural Engineering Analysis

HAIKU STAIRS STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
Haiku Stairs Structural Assessment

The NAKOA Companies, Inc.
2017
austin@nakoaco.com
HAIKU STAIRS STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT 1

SIGNATURE PAGE

Company: The Nakoa Companies, Inc.
Signature: ______________________________
Name: Austin P. Nakoa
Title: President
Comments
Company: Distributed Energy Architecture, LLC
Signature: ______________________________
Name: Parker Lau, D.Arch
Title: Architect/Team Leader
Company: Delta Engineering
Signature: ______________________________
Name: Bahman Kheradpey, PE (Structural & Civil)
Title: Structural Engineer
November 2017


Table of Contents

Signature Page ...................................................... 1
Table of Contents ................................................... 2
Executive Summary Outline ................................... 3
Executive Summary ............................................... 4
I. Historical Overview ............................................ 6
II. Module Design ................................................ 15
III. Options Under Review ................................... 22
IV. Summary Review ………….……………………32
APPENDICIES:
Appendix A Haiku Assessment Estimate

Appendix B Photo Log
Appendix C Haiku Stairs Drawings
Appendix D Price Proposals
Appendix E Resumes

November 2017


Executive Summary
I. Historical Overview
A. Brief History of Haiku Stairs:
1. Primary Purpose of the Haiku Stairs
2. Previous Restoration Projects
B. Recent Restoration Circa 2001

C. Moanalua Saddle Access Trail:
II. Module Design

A. Haiku Stairs Modules
1. Types of Modules (A, B, C & D) as Designed Circa 2001
2. Engineering Analysis of Module Designs
3. Structural Concerns of Design
4. Environmental Concerns
5. Maintenance of Stairway Module Parts/Vegetation/Safe Access
6. Safe Passage
III. Options under Review

1. Haiku Stairs
a Refurbishment Modules 1-593
b. Removal of Entire Stairway Modules 1-593
2. Moanalua Saddle Access Trail

a. Refurbishment of modules 1-71
b. Removal of remaining Stairway Module 1-71
IV. Summary Review
November 2017


Executive Summary
The Haiku Stairs, also known as the Stairway to Heaven has been an icon for Hikers in
Hawaii for many decades. Because of its provocative views, hikers continue to risk
injury from hiking the trail and face possible fines for trespassing. This study evaluates
the potential cost for refurbishment of the stairs along with an estimate of costs for
removing it altogether. Two sections are being considered: Haiku Stairs from Module 1
through Module 593 at the Microwave Station at the summit of Haiku; Moanalua Saddle
Trail from the Microwave Station to the Mountain Saddle that eventually leads to the
valley access.
The stairway, originally called the Haiku Ladder, was first built using a wooden ladder
system. Eventually the ladder was replaced with a steel module system that is anchored
to the ground with spikes. Built in
circa 1947, the modules were
rehabilitated in 2001, conceptually
to allow hikers to safely traverse the
stairs since it had deteriorated
significantly. Upon completion in
2001, the stairway was
permanently closed down due to
concerns over litigation coincident
with the tragedy at Sacred Falls
where 8 people lost their lives and
50 others were injured. Security
Guards have been posted at the
trail head ever since but hikers
continue to find ways to access the
trail.
This study evaluates two distinct options and provides a cost estimate for each. A photo
survey was conducted during the summer to determine the general conditions of the
stairs. The engineering team evaluated the general cohesiveness of the module system
and found the Haiku Stairway Modular system to be generally intact. Much of the
improvements done in 2001 continue to be in good shape even after 17 years of hikers
traversing the stairs despite it being closed. Storm events have mangled about 9
modules but the remainder of the modules are generally intact. Vegetation continues to
be invasive and intrusive amongst many areas along the trail. The Moanalua Saddle
Access Trail Modular System is in extremely poor condition and not worthwhile
rehabilitating. In order to keep the system or what’s left of it about 71 modules will need
to be replaced.
November 2017


The estimate for the rehabilitation of Haiku Stairs was done consistent with the repair
work done in 2001 but cost-escalated to 2017. All considerations given during this repair
work was applicable to the current repair estimate based on the number of modules that
were completed during this time verses the number of modules that should be done at
this time. The removal of all modules as an Option Under Consideration was studied for
all cost factors, means and methods, access and other salient factors.
Haiku Stairs Refurbishment:
Estimated Cost of Refurbishment $ 648,832
Estimated Cost of Design & Review: $ 90,000
Allowance for Additional Insurance: $ 15,000
Contingency Allowance: $ 85,000
Total Refurbishment Estimate: $ 838,832
Subject to Notes & Assumptions included in the estimate.
Haiku Stairs Demolition:
Estimated Cost of Demolition: $ 735,781
(Cost of Demolition from Trail Head to Abandoned

Anchor 1 {First Observation Point} $ 139,440
Estimated Cost of Design & Review: $ 25,000
Allowance for Access/Add’l Insure.: $ 15,000
Contingency Allowance: $ 45,000
Total Demolition Estimate: $ 895,781
Moanalua Saddle Access Trail:
Refurbishment Estimate: Not Considered
Removal of Stairway Estimate: $ 90,485
November 2017


The basis of the Refurbishment study is centered on the number of modules needing to
be worked on since not every module requires attention. In the demolition study all
modules were to be removed from the trail.
The options under review have not considered land ownership issues, access concerns,
weather and other intangibles. Managed Access to the stairway was also not
considered in this study as well.

I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
After the attack on Pearl Harbor (1941) the Japanese threat was still a constant fear
in the minds of the U.S. Military and the people of the Territory of Hawai’i. The
Hawaiian Islands were under Martial Law and undergoing a defensive build up to
quell Japanese expansion and keep the Axis Powers at bay in the Pacific Theater.
To aid in this push, the construction of the US Naval Radio Station, what is now
known as the Haiku Stairway, aka “Stairway to Heaven”, began in 1942 atop the
Haiku Valley ridge in Kaneohe, Oahu.
The purpose of the Haiku Stairs was to deliver materials and people to build and
service two main buildings: The Cable Car Building and the Microwave Station.
Additionally, four (4) main landing sections were also built to be able to bring
materials up in phases. The final Omega Building was built at the bottom of the
Haiku Valley to act as the base building which delivered materials. All of this was
built for long range U.S. military communications and Hawaii defense systems. The
Haiku valley ridgeline was chosen based on its topography, which is strategically
located on the spine of the Ko’olau mountain range near the navel of the island.
It was stated that, “In order to build the facility a site was needed that had two
mountain walls rising as vertically as possible, both similar height over 2,00 feet, and
with flat land in between…it was determined that the walls of Haiku Valley eroded
into a series of cliffs like an amphitheater open towards the ocean, would be ideal.”
(Building the Stairs, para #3 of 4/12). During WWII the construction of the Haiku
Stairway was held top secret, that even “the Army, the territorial board of agriculture
and forestry or other relevant parties were even unaware of its construction.”
(Building the Stairs, last para of 7/12).
The stairway, originally called the Haiku Ladder, was first built using a wooden
ladder system. While the exploration continued on the ridge, efforts were ongoing to
improve the climb up the south wall of the Haiku Valley. The ladders were replaced
with wood steps and catwalks. The ladders were constructed in 6-foot sections
(modules) using 1″ x 6″ sections of steps fitted into carved sections of long side
boards to form a flush ladder section. Eventually there was 8,050 feet of stairway.
3,500 feet of wood ladders were built by the Contractors Pacific Naval Air Base
(CPNAB) in 1943 along the southern access of Haiku Valley. Previous restoration
projects occurred on the stairway as its building materials evolved over the years as
upgrades in technology and aerial transportation (Helicopters) advanced militarily
and commercially. Additionally, material availability of steel opened up after WWII so
a more durable Galvanized Stainless Steel could be used to secure the longevity of
the stairway.
November 2017


A 950 foot ladder of galvanized steel was built along the ridge in 1947 by the
contractor Walker Moody. 3600 feet of galvanized steel ladder was built in 1952
along the northern access by contractor A.W. Yee (U.S. Dept. Navy, 1955). Records
indicate that this northern portion of stairway was originally slated to be built as a
wood stairway in 1944 (Klepper, 1944:1). Fig.#01.
Original wooden stairs of the Haiku Stairway.
In 1944 continued interest by the Navy Department & Land Divisions Department in
the Haiku Stairway and its strategic access way, stated that “…continued possession
of said lands [Haiku Ridge] is necessary to aid in the prosecution of the War, for
naval purposes, by determination of the Secretary of the Navy…” (District court,
1944:1). Using the most advanced communications at the time, the Microwave
station’s radio signal, when operational, is said to have reached over 3800 miles all
the way to Tokyo Bay.
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to determine the current conditions of the stairway modules
and the surrounding area of the Haiku Stairway including the landing points along the
Moanalua Saddle Access Trail and develop an estimate for refurbishment.
This report features a review of the last restoration undertaken in 2001, the current
condition of the railings modules of the Haiku Stairway thru the 2nd landing point of the
Moanalua Saddle Ridge Access Trail. An engineering refurbishment estimate along with
a module removal and disposal estimate is also included in this report. This was done to
provide the most up to date reference on the conditions of the stairway, its railing
modules and its surrounding environment.
November 2017


Land Division of the Haiku Valley
In terms of cultural memory and historical significance, Haiku Stairs and the Moanalua
Saddle has stood as the Mount Olympus of Hawai’i, offering clouded glimpses of a
ghostly tower at the top of its mountain ridge. This experience is further enhanced by the
steep and sublime Ko’olau Mountain Range which forms a natural amphitheater looping
from one end of the valley to converging into the other. This view of Windward Mauka is
quintessentially the local identity felt by anyone living within its towering shadow.
November 2017


Original Survey and Scope of Haiku Stairway c. 2001
In 2001 The Nakoa Companies, Inc. was awarded the contract to execute repairs on the
Haiku Stairs; (see figure above). The restoration project consisted of platform and railing
module foundation work, structural reinforcement and repairs for the 593 railing modules
of the Haiku Staircase and its surrounding vegetation. The project broke ground in
March of 2001, at total cost of $795k and was completed in September of that year, six
(6) months ahead of schedule.
In June of 2017 a preliminary assessment was conducted where approximately 666

photos were taken of Modules 1 to 593 on Haiku Stairs to the Microwave Station along
with modules 1-71 along the Moanalua Saddle. This photo survey was done to
document the current conditions of the modules and provide the most up to date and
accurate estimate for the refurbishment of the railing modules covered.
As there are additional railing modules and their system(s), at the top of the Haiku
Stairway and its surrounding ridgeline, this survey is only covering the aforementioned
railing modules (Haiku Stairs 1-593 + Moanalua Saddle Access Trail 01- 71) sections
and their current physical condition.
In this current report the entire Haiku Stairway module will be analyzed and extrapolated
as in the 2001, but will include a survey from the top of Haiku Stairs Microwave Station
running NW along the ridge of the Moanalua Saddle Access Trail terminating at its 2nd
Anchor Point.
November 2017


CURRENT CONDITION OF MODULES

After review of all railing modules of Haiku Stairs
(Modules 01-595), it was discovered that the modules
at the beginning of the ascent (Modules 01-246) were
in poor to a dilapidated shape. The rest of the
stairway (Modules 247-593) was in mild to decent
shape. However, attention should be paid to the
entire stairway system as even small points of failure
can even turn into potential structural failures.
Slightly descending down from the Microwave Station

(Summit Peak/Module 545) to Moanalua Saddle
(N.W. Ridge/2nd Anchor Point), the stairway was
found to be in generally poor shape and in some areas fall under category of disrepair.
At the time of the writing Moanalua Saddle Ridge was observed to be critically
underused by hikers, over grown by vegetation and extremely weathered due to its path
which straddles the tip of the summit where trade winds and moisture exposure are at
their strongest.
View of Haiku Valley
November 2017


As the graphic above illustrates, the red line trails from the Microwave station to the
Moanalua Saddle. It shows the trail meandering to the Moanalua valley floor near the
mid-ridge of the Moanalua Valley Trail and ultimately to the bottom of the Moanalua
Neighborhood.
The H-3 Freeway can be seen at the foothill of the mountain as it penetrates Red Hill
Ridge. Haiku Valley Floor can also be seen to the right of the freeway structure. The
anchor point (A.P. #1) of the Haiku Stairs was used as a landing zone during the
restoration activities in 2001. Other anchor points formed a pully system along the
periphery of the valley walls, which were used to construct the radio transmission
facilities during World War II.
Topographical view of Haiku Stairs to Moanalua Saddle Access Trail
In the figure above the survey undertaken is represented. To hikers the Microwave
Station is the reason why you hike Haiku Stairs and major point on the list of every hiker.
In the next figure, the Moanalua Saddle can be entered via Moanalua Valley on the
North or South mountain ridge. From observation, approach from the south ridge of the
Moanalua Valley seemed to be the most used pathway to gain access to the Microwave
Station at the top of the Haiku Stairway. This access is used by hikers entering from the
back end of Haiku Stairs from Moanalua Valley.
November 2017


Approach from the north appeared to be more dangerous as the crest of the ridge(s)
narrowed at points of 4’ or less. Additionally, the surveyor could not descend beyond the
second anchor point (A.P. #2) on the Moanalua Saddle Access Trail, as the hike risked a
higher rate of danger that threatened life safety measures for those participating in the
survey.
Moanalua Valley Trail to the Moanalua Saddle
Moanalua Saddle Ridge Trail

A.P.#2 – M.S.: Railing Modules A, 01-71 & B
Elevation: 2630 ft. – Unknown
Situated North West of the Microwave Station, the
Moanalua Saddle Ridge Trail descends along the rim
of the entire Haiku Valley spanning towards the North-
East end of its rim. In the survey of Moanalua Saddle
Ridge Trail it proved highly difficult to descend and
transverse the entire rim of the saddle, as it proved too
unsafe due to unforeseen conditions: too steep and
slippery. Because of this, data and elevation marks
where not as accurate in recorded detail and scope as
in the initial Haiku Stairway survey.
It was discovered through various hikers we

interviewed that most hikers entered and ascended
thru the south side of the Moanalua Valley Trail. When
November 2017


presented with a fork in the trail about 1/3 through the hike, it seemed this was the more
preferred way of travel. In the exploration down the ridge, the surveyors only descended
only as far as Anchor Pad #2. Anything beyond that posed a major risk to the health,
safety and welfare of those involved in the survey. It is still unknown how far the
Moanalua Saddle stairway continues beyond the second (2) landing pad we surveyed.
When viewed from above (Google Earth) it is still difficult to get an entire rendering of the
ridge guideway and its modules. However, from a basic observation there seems to be
more modules but they are hidden from plain view, as they are over grown with
vegetation. Below presents an array of 71 railing modules, with two (2) special
conditions, which when grouped together form the Moanalua Saddle leading from the
Microwave Station.
Moanalua Saddle Ridge Anchor Points #1 & 2
A.P. #02
A.P. #01
November 2017


MODULE A (A.P.#1): #3 & 5 DESCENT FROM A.P. #1 DESCENT FROM A.P. #1
A detailed photo survey is shown in the Appendices.
Summary:
Based on the overall review of the ridgeline leading from Microwave Building to Anchor
Point #2 of the Moanalua Saddle Ridge Trail, it was established that:
 Modules A, 1-71 & B (73): Due to the major overgrowth of plants engulfing the
modules, it was difficult to get a complete visual and physical estimate of the entire
condition of all the railing modules. However,
o It can be assumed that due to the underuse and neglect of the stairway
all the modules need site rehabilitation and landscaping (#4) done to
bring this section to functional use.
o Since the majority of modules are covered with landscaping, it was
observed in the ones that weren’t covered that a most of their nuts and
bolts were covered in algae and rusting away. Parts Restoration (1) and
Parts Replacement (#2) are needed in these instances.
o In between the descent from Anchor Point #1 to Module 01 there is a
cable wire that is acts as a make shift guard rail which is not to code nor
is safe in any measurable standard.
 Modules in critical need of landscaping: Modules A, 1-6, 8, 12-27, 29-40, 42-52,
55-60, 62-68, 70-71 and Module B.
 Modules A, B and 5-27, 29-71: Major issue observed was rust to the point of
corrosion. Most rusting occurred on the right side of the railing modules. It is
assumed that this phenomenon is occurring do to it facing the windward side,
thereby receiving more moisture content, which is leading to the weatherizing effect
of rusting.
 Modules 28: Missing
 Spectrum Category: Very High (90%) at #1 - 5.
November 2017


II. Module Design
The Haiku Stair Modules have evolved from its initial design circa 1947-1952 by
Contractors Walker Moody and A.W.Yee built along the northern access. This design
was slightly improved
upon by Vince Que,
PE, of Consulting
Structural Hawaii
in 2000.
Essentially
following the
earlier designs four
separate modules
were delineated.
Module “A” is the
most used along
the trail. Module
“B” varies
significantly from
Module “A” and is used intermittently throughout the stair system. Very adaptable, this
module allows flexibility in accommodating
various terrain grades by rotating the
treads for proper elevation. This module
has a C4x5.4 section that provides for a
1”Ø x 2’ long spike to secure it to the
terrain. Further the modules are tied to
each other by a 3/8” Ø round bar hairpin.
In addition the handrails are connected
with a channel bracket with U shaped
clips. Finally the handrails have a top
connection bar that ties in the handrails.
The system is well designed and very
adaptable to changing slope conditions.
Module “B” allows the use of a

5/16” steel plate in steep areas
needing a platform to access the
trail. Modules 535-540 uses this
design to traverse across a ridge
top before the steep slope
section leading to the microwave
station. New Steel plates were
November 2017


installed in 2001 to replace deteriorated floor sections and handrails. Intermediate rails
were also added as an increased safety measure. This design incorporates steel spikes
securing the module section that’s inside the handrails, providing for a compact solution.
To remove these modules the steel plate has to be taken off to allow access to the steel
pins. Handrail bolts can be accessed easily for tightening and or replacing.
Module “C” utilizes a design similar to Module B but accommodates a checkered steel
tread that is “U” bolted to the pipe support.
Module “D” is
different than “C” by
incorporating a
slightly taller handrail
system at 3’-1” from
the top of the Angle
Rail. The module
hooks are 1” Ø bar
connectors.
Handrails are bolted
similarly to the
Modules “A”-“C”.
These modules are
used predominantly
on the upper sections
of the trail. In some cases this module
is placed atop a structural steel bridge
structure as shown below. This
photograph was taken prior to the
refurbishment of 2001 but illustrates the
design integrity.
Haiku Stairs Bridges
There are two bridges on the Haiku Stairs that span the gapi n the terrain that modules
couldn’t address without such a system. Bridge 2 is located at Module 581-585 and
carries 5 modules. The
support structure is made
up of structural steel and
concrete footings and
abutments. In 2001 a
new footing was installed
to replace one that was
deteriorated and a new
abutment was added as
well. Spalls were also
November 2017


repaired in the abutment structure. Footings were backfilled to keep the water away
from its faces. The structural steel system is currently intact as is the foundation
structure. Modules were tied down to the stringer sections. In this photo transmission
cables are shown on either side of the bridge formation. Spall Repairs can be seen. Tie
Downs were re-secured and intermediate handrails were installed.
Bridge 2 (Module 590) is only 3 modules away from the Microwave Station. The photo
below taken in 2002 shows the
generally completed module section.
The poles to the left were removed in
2017 as hikers had erected a swing
that was subsequently removed which
became an attractive nuisance to
hikers.
November 2017


Haiku Stairs Landings/Anchor Points
To provide access during the construction of the Haiku Stairs and the transmitter
antenna that spanned the valley concrete anchors were placed at strategic points along
the stairway. Cable cars transported men and
materials up to a total of 500 lbs. These
anchors provided the embedment for
winches, derricks and hoisting devices.
The cable cars were ultimately dismantled

and the hoisting equipment was removed.
However, the concrete emplacements
remained.
As a part of the refurbishment in 2001, these

anchors were used as temporary landing
zones for the Hughes 500D chopper. When
the landing zones were no longer

needed, handrails were placed around
the anchor points to provide an
observation point for future hikers.
Railings were fabricated on the ground
and flown up where they were placed
into post holes and concreted. Today
these Landing/Anchor Points provide a
place for relaxing prior to taking on the
next set of stairs.
Engineering Analysis of Module Designs
The Design of the modules are founded in history and in the previously designed work in
2000 when Consulting Structural Hawaii enhanced the design with state of the art
means and methods to extend the life to the stairs while preserving the historical nature
of the hike.
The design has withstood the elements and the test of time. After 17 years most of the
modules look intact and doesn’t appear to suffer from deterioration. Storm events seem
to be causing the most serious concerns. No significant design changes are
recommended. Modules A-D are well designed and well-constructed.
November 2017


Structural Concerns
Structural Concerns on the Haiku Trail vary in severity.
1. Rusty Handrails: The handrails keep hikers within its boundaries and form a safe
area for hikers. One feels secure when located within the confines of the
handrails.
2. Rust causes two concerns:

a. Rigidity and Stability of rail system. Rusty handrails could eventually
detach from the rails and could cause a fall.
b. Possible hand trauma when
sliding one’s hand down
along the rail where rails
have frayed and rusted out
sections could cause injury.
3.Deteriorated Connection Points

c. Loose handrail connections
could eventually fail causing
falls
d. Loose Tread Bolts could
cause mis-steps and falls
e. Loose handrail to handrail
connection devices could
cause railing failure when
ultimately detached.
f. Loose spikes could cause
module failure by detaching
from the terrain
November 2017


Mitigation Effort and Possible Solutions to Structural Concerns
Handrails throughout the entire Haiku Module system must be inspected for
structural integrity caused by rust and other weather-related events. Replace any
rails not permanently affixed to the module base. Assure Rails are free from rust.
Inspect rails periodically to assure deterioration is not present. Rail connectors
unitize the system. Make sure connectors are intact and no loose bolts and nuts
exist. Assure all connection points are tight and not loose. Assure that all spikes are
in firm ground and anchored tight and not loose.
Environmental Concerns
1. Erosion Run Off

a. Causes debris in the walkway making it perilous to walk
b. Increased Vegetation in Walkway making passing through the module
difficult and possibly dangerous.
2. Environmental Concerns
a. Endangered Plant Species have been encountered on the trail and is
susceptible to possible extinction.
b. Trail Head and Trail Erosion
Mitigation Effort and Possible Solutions to Environmental Concerns
Heavy Storm events have the propensity of depositing debris down the trail and can
dislodge parts of the Module System. Inspection teams must remain vigilant in
assuring the integrity of the stairs following storm events. Assure that debris that is
deposited on the walkways are cleared off to allow safe passage. Erosion Measures
can help divert some of the flows where possible.
Endangered Plant species should be documented and protected along the trail by
adding plastic fences and signage to identify them.
Maintain areas on each side of the modules to allow passage since only one hiker
can be on the trail at a time.
Module Maintenance
Module Maintenance is critically important to continue safe passage, safe access

from deteriorating module parts and vegetation intrusion and storm runoff damage.
1. Loose Bolts should be monitored and checked routinely

2. Deterioration of Module Parts
3. Vandalism
4. Erection of improved apparatus that could pose dangers
5. Erosion and Runoff
6. Debris
Mitigation Effort and Possible Solutions to Module Maintenance Concerns
Handrails and Module integrity are keys to safe passage of hikers. All component
parts must be checked periodically to assure safe passage. In addition, the modules
are susceptible to acts of vandalism, mischief, and nuisance that can ultimately
November 2017


cause safety issues. Weather related events could also disturb the integrity of the
modules. Routine Inspections will assure the integrity of the module system.
Safe Passage
Safe Passage for Hikers, Maintenance Works and Property Managers are critically
important for a safe hiking experience.
1. Hiker Passage on the Stairway Module. At only 24” there isn’t enough room
for hikers to pass within the module, causing one of the hikers to step outside
of the rail system to pass through.
2. Cloud Cover on the trail obscures the hiking experience and makes it difficult
if not impossible for helicopter rescue if needed. In addition, cloud cover
usually brings precipitation making the modules slippery during hikes.
3. Vandalism along the trail where modules are compromised is a concern for
safe passage.
4. High Winds along the trail is also a concern as debris and other materials can
travel at high speeds and impact hikers.
5. High Angle of Stairway. Steep angles on the stairway can be a challenge for
some hikers.
Mitigation Effort and Possible Solutions to Safe Passage Concerns
Hiking the Haiku Stairway is not for the faint of heart. Steep stairway angles in
several places along the trail can be intimidating. There are many days when the fog
November 2017


cover blankets the stairway causing visibility problems and obscure the views. High
winds also make passage precarious, if not perilous. Hiking the trail should be
limited to good weather conditions for safe passage. Limiting hikers to seasoned
individuals will also assure no negative incidents are experienced.
III. OPTIONS UNDER REVIEW
The purpose of this study to provide two approaches for deciding how to address the
Haiku Stairs as well as the Moanalua Access Saddle Trail—Refurbishment or
alternatively Demolition/Disposal/Salvage.
Refurbishment would consist of Stairway repairs to allow safe access for hikers
in up bound or down bound directions. Consideration would be given to handrails and
handrail connectors, module connectors, pins holding the module in place, bridge
foundations and structure, steel plate platforms and all connections. Rusty handrails
would be changed out; loose connections would be tightened (with new bolts, nuts and
washers if necessary); loose pins would be re-driven; eroded concrete foundations
would be re-poured and module frames would be re-leveled. These requirements were
included in the contract awarded in 2001 and would be extended into the current
refurbishment project.
In the demolition approach all modules would be removed from its present location,
flown down via helicopter and either recycled or salvaged. The recycle alternative would
consist of cutting up the modules, loading them into recycle cans and ultimately taken to
a metal recycler. In the salvaging alternative, the modules would be provided to vendors
who would take possession of the modules for alternative uses (with the consent of BWS
and or the City and County of Honolulu).
HAIKU STAIRS
A. Rehabilitate Modules 1-593 (See Estimate Worksheet in Appendix A entitled

Haiku Assessment Estimate.
Work Method Approach
The Refurbishment of Haiku Stairs completed in 2002 incorporated a

design done by an independent Structural Engineering firm (Consulting
Structural Hawaii) hired by the City. Under these premises each module was
scrutinized for needed changes and specified in the contract documents.
These documents identified replacement of selected parts, tightening of
selected bolts and leveling and or aligning of needed treads or module rails.
Only those modules requiring attention were specified for needed repairs. A
graphic depicting the work that was specified in this contract is shown in the
Appendix A (page 6). In analyzing the work that was needed for each
specified module, a study was done by The NAKOA Companies, Inc. that
estimated the general amount of work that was necessary to accomplish the
required tasks (see ESTIMATED MANHOURS worksheets in Appendix A
(pages 7-31).
November 2017


The work method anticipated for the rehabilitation option is considered to

be the same amount of work that was done in 2001 for newly identified
modules requiring work. In the
work done in 2001 from the
trailhead to the first
abandoned anchor, only 135
modules were actually worked
on. The graphic depicting the
work done marked by Xs
indicates that those modules
required no work. Determining
a unit price for the work that
was done and escalating the
unit price for modules
anticipated to requiring work
was used to determine the
estimated costs. Modules that
were identified as needing
work are shown on Appendix B-Photo Log

and is highlighted in Blue. Approximately 94
modules were identified to require some
amount of work. This is due to the fact that
the work done 17 years ago is intact. Some
modules were destroyed by storm events and
full modules are needed to replace damaged
ones. Costs to fabricate new modules are
shown in Appendix A-Haiku Assessment
Estimate.
Storm Events
Storm events caused some major damage to modules that will require full
replacement (see Photos in Appendix B-Photo Log). In other areas, mud and
other debris were transported to the modules and need to be cleaned out for
safe passage. Some of the photos are annotated to illustrate the nature of
the storm events. No consideration has been given to design and install
devices to prevent or control future erosion. Stair Maintenance has to be
planned for routine care in the future to control mud runoff onto the trail.
November 2017


Vegetation
Vegetation is found to be abundant and is quite intrusive both inside the

modules as well as outside. The estimate includes clearing of the vegetation
to the extent needed to either rehabilitate the stairs or remove it. A botanist is
estimated to survey the trail to establish, identify and preserve endangered
species along the trail.
Design
The specific changes needed will require a similar design initiative to identify
and plan for rehabilitation of the stair module parts. An allowance is included
as a part of this estimate. Since a lot of work has already been done on the
design elements (see Appendix C Haiku Stairs Drawings on Module Types)
most of the effort will be needed to identify modules that need parts change
out. This work is beyond the scope of this study.
Helicopter Services
Helicopter Services were contacted for price proposals for hoisting modules
along the trail (see Appendix D-Price
Proposals). A Hughes 500D was
chosen since it had excellent
performance on the previous
project as it is able to handle the
ever changing wind patterns and

updrafts/downdrafts along the ridge.
The key for safety and production
performance is the experience of the
pilot. Today’s cost per hour of flight
time is $1200/hour compared to
$750/hour in 2001.The flight route for transporting module parts will be along
the base of the mountain ridge alongside of the H-3 Viaduct, over the tunnels
to a landing zone having sufficient space to store modules. The former Coast
Guard Facility Building was used in 2001.
Access and Landing Zones
A large area capable of storing roll off cans, modules awaiting disposal and
new module parts awaiting transportation will need to be identified for safe
November 2017


working conditions. The former Coast Guard Facility is ideal but may need to
be cleared of some vegetation to allow the Chopper to land safely to pickup
crews and for loading and unloading of materials. In addition, roll offs
entering and leaving the access area will be needed for efficiency. Provisions
in the estimate have been provided for right of entry permits, insurances and
other requirements. It is anticipated that refueling of the chopper may be
necessary from time to time so fuel truck access will be essential as well.
Should refurbishment be selected as the viable option, fenced storage for
modules will be necessary to prevent vandalism prior to transportation along
the trail.
Permits
Following Design Approvals from the City, Permits may be required

depending on the authority granted for construction. Generally, City &
County Municipal projects do not require the same kind of permits that
Commercial Projects must adhere to. A Demolition Permit is generally not
required. However, the Construction Manager may require that a demolition
plan be prepared to best understand the specific methods being employed.
Other Permits are required for access to different properties. Use of

premises and Right of Entry Permits may be required. The trail traverses
through several properties and access to the trail will require access permits
in addition to Insurance Certificates to protect the respective parties.
Cost Factors
Davis Bacon Wages (State or City Equivalent) are assumed for City
and County on site work. Fabrication of module parts is will be done off site
at a metal shop. Laborers are assumed to be the prevailing trade for this
effort on site. It is not anticipated that Structural Iron Workers will be required
unless on site welding work is considered. In 2001 laborers did all of the
work on site.
Proposals for Module Fabrication is shown in the Appendix D.
Proposals for Helicopter Services is shown in the Appendix D.
General Assumptions & Studies
Period of Performance should be considered for this effort. Because

weather conditions are difficult to anticipate this factor has not been
considered. It is recommended that a period of one and a half years be
allowed for this work to provide ample time for possible weather delays.
Public interest should also be considered. The Haiku Stairs continues

to be a subject of high public interest. It is recommended that the City
consider a Public Relations professional to provide timely information to the
public to prevent thrill seekers from overtaking the stairs during this work.
November 2017


Also, public relations could prevent the public from blocking access for
workers. No allowance has been specifically provided for this service
Security is also considered to be of high importance. It is assumed

that the City will continue to maintain security at the trailhead. The City may
also want to consider security at the access points to the Contractors on site
storage facility and landing zones for this work as well.
Safety Considerations are critically important to prevent injury to the

crews and the general public. Helicopter Operations are inherently
dangerous and must be secured from unauthorized public access. The
Landing Zone near the microwave station must be secured during helicopter
operations to prevent injuries to hikers and workers as well.
B. Removal of All Stair Modules 1-593
The removal of Haiku Stairs will require a design review and possibly a permit
to be done by an independent Structural Engineering firm hired by the City to
allow for the removal of the stair
modules. This is assumed to be
necessary to be consistent with the
approach of leaving anchor
landings in place, access to the
hoist house and microwave station
and other improvements that are
planned to be left intact during the
demolition option. The design
review is assumed to include
sufficient information to allow for
competitive bidding.
The Demolition estimate is included

in Appendix A-pages 3-4 and
assumes that all modules can be removed intact following preparation of the
modules for removal.
Preparation of the Modules for Removal
Virtually all of the modules have been in place for decades and are well
secured to the terrain. Many of the spikes holding down the modules have
found crevices and cracks in rock formations to secure the modules. Others
are in native soils but are well secured. The preparation of the modules for
removal will require freeing up the modules to be chopper-hoisted out of its
emplacement. Digging around the rails, removing any vegetation and other
materials securing the module will be necessary. Cutting off the heads of the
spikes and module connections will also have to be removed and secured to
November 2017


the rails for flight. Checking to make sure the handrails are secured to the
rails so they don’t come off in flight. In essence the preparation of the
modules will require that nothing is holding it back except gravity. The
modules weigh approximately 500 lbs. and should be no problem for the
Hughes 500D Helicopter to hoist them out individually.
Removal of Modules Cycle Time
Once the modules are freed and ready to be flown, the helicopter should
be able to pick up the modules via slings attached to the handrails and follow
its designated path to the storage yard on the ground where ground crews
can detach the slings and clear the Helicopter to return and pickup the next
module. It is anticipated that this cycle should take approximately 30 minutes
on an average basis.
Salvage or Recycle
Once the modules are on the ground safely, consideration must now be
given as to whether the modules will be salvaged or recycled. Under the
Salvage Option, the City may consider giving the modules to someone who
could use it—essentially providing someone with the opportunity to use the
modules for their own use. Under this scenario the modules will be made
available for the organization’s pickup and no further costs would be incurred.
Under the Recycle Option the modules would be dismantled and loaded in
roll offs for recycling at an authorized facility. Metal Recyclers typically
accept the material at no cost but transportation and the use of a roll off is
charged to the contractor.
Cost Factors
and County on site work. It is assumed that laborers will do all of the work on
site.
Proposals for Helicopter Services is shown in the Appendix D.
There is no costs for recycling anticipated as the salvage value of the

material is expected to offset the costs of the rolloff and transportation.

considered. It is recommended that a period of one year be allowed for this
work to provide ample time for possible weather delays.

November 2017




Recycle or Salvage operations are anticipated to be done on the

ground during flight operations. Consideration should be given to provide a
safe environment for crews to do this work. The Landing Zone near the
microwave station must be secured during helicopter operations to prevent
injuries to hikers and workers as well. If the Salvage Option is chosen,
workers picking up modules will need to be briefed on safe operation on the
site during varied operations that may be ongoing at the time of pickup.
MOANALUA SADDLE ACCESS TRAIL
The Moanalua Saddle Access Trail once consisted of a module based

system that partially encircled the Haiku Valley Bowl. It allowed access for
workers to maintain the radio tower at the anchor level. Over the years some of
the modules have disappeared, leaving large gaps where modules once were
tied together. There are also access ladders that lead to the anchor locations
that has been used as a landing zone for the Helicopters.
A Rehabilitate Modules 1-71
This option was not considered for a variety of reasons:
1. There is no reason to rehabilitate these modules as they serve no

known purpose other than to provide some access for hikers from
Moanalua Valley. Rehabilitating these modules is only conducive
to increasing hiker access to the stairs.
2. Rehabilitating the stairs will require complete replacement, as the
existing modules need to be condemned.
B. Removal of All Stair Modules 1-71

The Work method identified in the removal section for the Haiku Stairs
applies to this section as well. The removal will also require a design review
November 2017


and possibly a permit to be done by an independent Structural Engineering
firm hired by the City to allow for the removal of the stair modules. The design
review is assumed to include sufficient information to allow for competitive
bidding as well.
The Demolition estimate is included in Appendix A (page 5) and assumes

that all modules can be removed intact following preparation of the modules
for removal.
Preparation of the Modules for Removal
Virtually all of the modules have been in place for decades and is well
secured to the terrain. Many of the spikes holding down the modules have
found crevices and cracks in rock formations to secure the modules. Others
are in native soils but are well secured. The preparation of the modules for
removal will require freeing up the modules to be chopper-hoisted out of its
emplacement. Digging around the rails, removing any vegetation and other
materials securing the module will be necessary. Cutting off the heads of the
spikes and module connections will also have to be removed and secured to
the rails for flight. Checking to make sure the handrails are secured to the
rails so they don’t come off in flight. In essence the preparation of the
modules will require that nothing is holding it back except gravity. The
modules weigh approximately 500 lbs. and should be no problem for the
Hughes 500D Helicopter to hoist them out individually.
Removal of Modules Cycle Time
Once the modules are freed and ready to be flown, the helicopter should
be able to pick up the modules via slings attached to the handrails and follow
its designated path to the storage yard on the ground where ground crews
can detach the slings and clear the Helicopter to return and pickup the next
module. It is anticipated that this cycle should take approximately 30 minutes
on an average basis.
Recycle
Once the modules are on the ground safely it needs to be recycled.

(Since the modules are severely deteriorated it is not possible that these
modules can be reused. The modules would be dismantled and loaded in roll
offs for recycling at an authorized facility. Metal Recyclers typically accept
the material at no cost but transportation and the use of a roll off is charged to
the contractor.
November 2017


Cost Factors
and County on site work. It is assumed that laborers will do all of the work on
site.
Proposals for Helicopter Services is shown in the Appendices.
There is no cost for recycling anticipated as the salvage value of the

material is expected to offset the costs of the roll off and transportation.

considered. It is recommended that a period of six months be allowed for this
work to provide ample time for possible weather delays.



Recycle operations are anticipated to be done on the ground during

flight operations. Consideration should be given to provide a safe
environment for crews to do this work.
November 2017


IV. SUMMARY REVIEW
Understanding the options involved from a purely economic standpoint can best
summarize the fate of the Haiku Stairway and the Moanalua Saddle Access Trail.
Refurbishing the stairway suggests that a managed access arrangement is being
considered and providing safe access is key to such an arrangement. If that can be
developed then the refurbishing of the stairway as developed in this study will cost
something less than $1 million.
In the event that managed access is not possible then the removal of the stairway is
necessary to prevent the liability of trespassers on the trail. Under that scenario the cost
to remove and dispose of the stairway modules should cost approximately $1million as
well. The removal of the Moanalua Saddle Access Trail will cost less than $100,000 to
remove.
The Haiku Stairway at the Haiku Valley Nature Preserve is indeed an engineering
marvel from a historical standpoint. Offering rewarding and spectacular views of the
windward side of the island, the Haiku Stairs has been a magnet to visitors and residents
alike. Sometimes shrouded in clouds, it continues to be a mysterious draw to people
who want to discover it, despite its inherent danger in hiking the trail.
November 2017

APPENDICIES
Appendix A Haiku Assessment Estimate

Appendix B Photo Log
Appendix C Haiku Stairs Drawings
Appendix D Price Proposals
Appendix E Resumes
APPENDIX A
Haiku Assessment Estimate
Summary HAIKU ReFurbish
HAIKU STAIRWAY STUDY and EVALUATION 2001 Bid Proposal 2017 Estimate of Repair/Rehab Work
Total Total Modules % of Total Modules
Modules Modules % of Total Unit Price Modules Modules Needing $ x Escalation
Needing
this Worked Modules per Module this Needing Work (2001 Factor 17 years REMARKS
Work (see
Description of item Qty UOM 2001 BID section on Worked on Worked on section Work $) (4%/Yr.)
takeoffs)
Bid Item No. 1: Repair Stringers, Treads, Factored in additional funding of $8500/module
Bar Hooks, Spikes, and re-level Stairs to provide for complete module replacement
(Start to Aband. Anchor No. 1) 1 LS $ 70,105.77 249 135 54.22% $ 519.30 249 94 37.75% $ 48,814.39 $ 141,508.18 119-127
Bid Item No. 2: Repair Handrails (Start to
Aband. Anchor No. 1) 1 LS $ 41,483.94 249 135 54.22% $ 307.29 249 94 37.75% $ 28,885.11 $ 48,526.99 Complete Replacement for modules 119-127
Bid Item No. 3: Construct Handrails at Allowance of $5,000 for general Maintenance of
Abandoned Anchor No. 1 70 Feet $ 23,508.62 249 135 54.22% $ 174.14 0 0 $ - $ 5,000.00 Handrails
Bid Item No. 4: Construct the Trail from
Edge of Access road to Start of Stairs 1 LS $ 10,736.35 249 135 54.22% $ 79.53 249 94 37.75% $ 7,475.68 $ 12,559.14
Bid Item No. 5: Helicopter Services to
Support BIs 1, 2, 3 1 LS $ 7,536.32 249 135 54.22% $ 55.82 249 94 37.75% $ 5,247.51 $ 8,815.82
Bid Item No. 6: Provide Guard Services for
Basic Bid 1 LS $ 11,134.93 249 135 54.22% $ 82.48 0 0 0 0 Guard Services provided by City
Bid Item 7: Provide Botanist to record and
ID plants from Start to Aband. Anchor No. Endangered Plant Protection along
1 1 LS $ 2,151.07 249 135 54.22% $ 15.93 249 94 37.75% $ 1,497.78 $ 2,516.27 trail
TOTAL BASIC BID $ 166,657 $ 1,234 $ 91,920 $ 218,926
Bid Item No. 8: Install Int. rails, H/R conn.

Bars & conn. Channels (Start to Aband.
Anchor No. 1) 1 LS $ 68,808.81 249 135 54.22% $ 509.69 249 94 37.75% $ 47,911.32 $ 80,491.01
Bid Item No. 9: Cut/Clear Overgrown
Shrubs 2 stiars and Trees w/i stairs (Start Added additional $15000 for extraordinary
to Aband. Anchor No. 1) 1 LS $ 15,146.04 249 135 54.22% $ 112.19 249 94 37.75% $ 10,546.13 $ 32,717.50 Vegetation Clearing
Bid Item No. 10: Remove Obstructions
from Start of Stairs to Abandoned Anchor Added additional $20000 for extraordinary
No. 1 1 LS $ 6,117.88 249 135 54.22% $ 45.32 249 94 37.75% $ 4,259.86 $ 27,156.57 Clearing of Rocks & Debris
Bid Item No. 11:Helicopter Services to
support BI 8, 9 & 10 1 LS $ 5,694.00 249 135 54.22% $ 42.18 249 94 37.75% $ 3,964.71 $ 6,660.71
Bid Item No. 12: Provide Guard Services
for Alternate No. 1 1 LS $ 12,229.44 249 135 54.22% $ 90.59 249 0 0.00% $ - $ - Guard Services provided by City
TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 1 $ 107,996 $ 1,245 $ 675 $ 3 $ 800 $ 66,682 $ 147,026
BASIC BID PLUS ALTERNATE NO. 1 $ 274,653 $ 365,952
Bid Item No. 13: Repair Handrails from
Aban. Anchor No. 1 to Abandoned
Microwave Station 1 LS $ 104,238.13 347 177 51.01% $ 772.13 347 72 20.75% $ 55,593.67 $ 93,397.36
Bid Item 14: Construct Handrails at New Handrails not required at Anchors 2, 3, &
Abandoned Anchor Nos. 2, 3 and 4 210 FT $ 62,477.08 347 177 51.01% $ 462.79 0 0 $ - $ 10,000.00 4..Add $10,000 for Minor Maint.
Bid Item No. 15: Repair the two bridges
near the end of the stairs 1 LS $ 15,266.24 347 177 51.01% $ 113.08 347 72 20.75% $ 8,142.00 $ 13,678.55
Bid Item No. 16: Cut/Clear the overgrown
shrubs on sides and trees w/i stairs from
Abandoned Anc. 1 to Abandoned
Microwave Station 1 LS $ 13,539.06 347 177 51.01% $ 100.29 347 72 20.75% $ 7,220.83 $ 12,131.00
Bid Item No. 17: Remove Miscellaneous
Obstructions from Abandoned Anchor No.
1 to the Microwave Station 1 LS $ 5,891.39 347 177 51.01% $ 43.64 347 72 20.75% $ 3,142.07 $ 5,278.69
Bid Item No. 18: Helicopter Services for
Alternate No. 2 1 LS $ 19,085.27 347 177 51.01% $ 141.37 347 72 20.75% $ 10,178.81 $ 17,100.40
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. Confidential Summary HAIKU ReFurbish Page 1

Summary HAIKU ReFurbish
HAIKU STAIRWAY STUDY and EVALUATION 2001 Bid Proposal 2017 Estimate of Repair/Rehab Work
Total Total Modules % of Total Modules
Modules Modules % of Total Unit Price Modules Modules Needing $ x Escalation
Needing
this Worked Modules per Module this Needing Work (2001 Factor 17 years REMARKS
Work (see
Description of item Qty UOM 2001 BID section on Worked on Worked on section Work $) (4%/Yr.)
takeoffs)
Bid Item No. 20: Provide Botanist for Endangered Plant Protection along
Alternate No. 2 1 LS $ 2,973.53 347 177 51.01% $ 22.03 347 72 20.75% $ 1,585.88 $ 2,664.29 trail
TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 2 $ 233,553 $ 1,730 $ 85,863 $ 154,250
BASIC BID PLUS ALTERNATES 1 & 2 $ 508,206 $ 520,202
Bid Item 21: Repair Stringers, Treads, Bar

Hooks, Spikes adn Re-Level Stairs from
Aband. Anch 1 to Abandoned Anchor 2 1 LS $ 29,794.80 200 137 68.50% $ 220.70 200 45 22.50% $ 9,931.60 $ 16,685.09
Bid Item No. 22: Install Intermediate Rails,
Handrail Connection bars and Connection
Channels from Abandoned Anchor 1 to
Abandoned Anchor 2 1 LS $ 110,286.42 200 137 68.50% $ 816.94 200 45 22.50% $ 36,762.14 $ 61,760.40
Bid Item No. 23: Helicopter Services to to
remove construction debris and to support
BI 21 & 22 1 LS $ 19,384.90 200 137 68.50% $ 143.59 200 45 22.50% $ 6,461.63 $ 10,855.54
TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 3 $ 164,836 $ 1,221 $ 53,155 $ 89,301
BASIC BID PLUS ALTERNATES 1, 2 & 3 $ 673,042 $ 53,155 $ 609,504

Hooks, Spikes adn Re-Level Stairs from
Aband. Anch 2 to Abandoned Microwave
Station 1 LS $ 40,275.55 144 137 95.14% $ 298.34 144 27 18.75% $ 8,055.11 $ 13,532.58
Channels from Aband. Anch 2 to
Abandoned Microwave Station 1 LS $ 59,407.38 144 137 95.14% $ 440.05 144 27 18.75% $ 11,881.48 $ 19,960.88
remove construction debris and to support
BI 25 & 26 $ 17,366.69 144 137 95.14% $ 128.64 144 27 18.75% $ 3,473.34 $ 5,835.21
TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 4 $ 126,097 $ 934 $ 23,410 $ 39,329
BASIC BID PLUS ALTERNATES 1, 2, 3 &
4 $ 799,139 $ 76,565 $ 648,832
$ 90,000 Allowance for Design Work & Review

Allowance for Access & Add'l
$ 15,000 Insurance
$ 85,000 Contingency Allowance
Estimated Cost of Refurbishment for Stairway $ 838,832
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. Confidential Summary HAIKU ReFurbish Page 2

Summary HAIKU Demo
HAIKU STAIRWAY STUDY and EVALUATION 2001 Bid Proposal 2017 Estimate of Demo Work (Removal of Stairway)
Total Total Module Crew Hoist
Modules Modules % of Total Unit Price Modules Modules to Salvage
Removal
this Worked Modules per Module this REMARKS
Preparatio Ground/Modul Modules for Recycle
Description of item Qty UOM 2001 BID section on Worked on Worked on section e Re-Use Modules Total/Module TOTAL
n/Module
Bid Item No. 1: Repair Stringers, Treads, Bar Two Crew plus Supt. On Trail; 2 Ground Crew
Hooks, Spikes, and re-level Stairs (Start to Staging Modules plus 1 Forklift operator;.4-.5
Aband. Anchor No. 1) 1 LS $ 70,105.77 249 135 54.22% $ 519.30 249 $135 $ 350.00 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 560.00 $ 139,440.00 crew hours/module
Bid Item No. 2: Repair Handrails (Start to
Aband. Anchor No. 1) 1 LS $ 41,483.94 249 135 54.22% $ 307.29
Bid Item No. 3: Construct Handrails at Assumes Handrails at all anchor
Abandoned Anchor No. 1 70 Feet $ 23,508.62 249 135 54.22% $ 174.14 points to remain
Bid Item No. 4: Construct the Trail from Edge of
Access road to Start of Stairs 1 LS $ 10,736.35 249 135 54.22% $ 79.53 No work to be done at Trail Head
Bid Item No. 5: Helicopter Services to Support Assume Chopper at $1200/hr (Hughes 500D
BIs 1, 2, 3 1 LS $ 7,536.32 249 135 54.22% $ 55.82 249 $ 600.00 $ 25.00 $ 625.00 $ 155,625.00 can hoist 500 lbs. per Module
Basic Bid 1 LS $ 11,134.93 249 135 54.22% $ 82.48 0 0 0 0 Guard Services provided by City
Bid Item 7: Provide Botanist to record and ID Endangered Plant Protection along
plants from Start to Aband. Anchor No. 1 1 LS $ 2,151.07 249 135 54.22% $ 15.93 249 $ 1,828.41 trail
TOTAL BASIC BID $ 166,657 $ 1,234 $ 296,893
Bid Item No. 8: Install Int. rails, H/R conn. Bars

& conn. Channels (Start to Aband. Anchor No.
1) 1 LS $ 68,808.81 249 135 54.22% $ 509.69
Bid Item No. 9: Cut/Clear Overgrown Shrubs 2
stairs and Trees w/i stairs (Start to Aband.
Anchor No. 1) 1 LS $ 15,146.04 249 135 54.22% $ 112.19 249 $ 25.00 $ - $ 25.00 $ 6,225.00
Bid Item No. 10: Remove Obstructions from
Start of Stairs to Abandoned Anchor No. 1 1 LS $ 6,117.88 249 135 54.22% $ 45.32 249 $ 45.00 $ 15.00 $ 60.00 $ 14,940.00
Bid Item No. 11:Helicopter Services to support
BI 8, 9 & 10 1 LS $ 5,694.00 249 135 54.22% $ 42.18 249 $ 35.00 $ 35.00 $ 8,715.00
Alternate No. 1 1 LS $ 12,229.44 249 135 54.22% $ 90.59 Guard Services provided by City
TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 1 $ 107,996 $ 1,245 $ 675 $ 3 $ 800 $ 29,880
BASIC BID PLUS ALTERNATE NO. 1 $ 274,653 $ 326,773
Bid Item No. 13: Repair Handrails from Aban.

Anchor No. 1 to Abandoned Microwave Station 1 LS $ 104,238.13 347 177 51.01% $ 772.13 344 $135 $ 250.00 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 460.00 $ 158,240.00
Bid Item 14: Construct Handrails at Abandoned

Anchor Nos. 2, 3 and 4 210 FT $ 62,477.08 347 177 51.01% $ 462.79
Bid Item No. 15: Repair the two bridges near Additional Cost for removal of
the end of the stairs 1 LS $ 15,266.24 347 177 51.01% $ 113.08 8 $100 $ 300.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 concrete Bridge Foundations
Bid Item No. 16: Cut/Clear the overgrown
shrubs on sides and trees w/i stairs from
Abandoned Anc. 1 to Abandoned Microwave
Station 1 LS $ 13,539.06 347 177 51.01% $ 100.29 344 $ 25.00 $ - $ 25.00 $ 8,600.00
Bid Item No. 17: Remove Miscellaneous
Obstructions from Abandoned Anchor No. 1 to
the Microwave Station 1 LS $ 5,891.39 347 177 51.01% $ 43.64 344 $ 45.00 $ 15.00 $ 60.00 $ 20,640.00
Bid Item No. 18: Helicopter Services for
Alternate No. 2 1 LS $ 19,085.27 347 177 51.01% $ 141.37 344 $ 600.00 $ 25.00 $ 625.00 $ 215,000.00
Alternate No. 2 1 LS $ 10,082.17 347 177 51.01% $ 74.68 Guard Services provided by City
Bid Item No. 20: Provide Botanist for Alternate Endangered Plant Protection along
No. 2 1 LS $ 2,973.53 347 177 51.01% $ 22.03 344 $ 2,527.50 trail
TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 2 $ 233,553 $ 1,730 $ 409,008
BASIC BID PLUS ALTERNATES 1 & 2 $ 508,206 $ 735,781
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. Confidential Summary HAIKU Demo Page 1

Page 3
Summary HAIKU Demo
HAIKU STAIRWAY STUDY and EVALUATION 2001 Bid Proposal 2017 Estimate of Demo Work (Removal of Stairway)
Total Total Module Crew Hoist
Modules Modules % of Total Unit Price Modules Modules to Salvage
Removal
this Worked Modules per Module this REMARKS
Preparatio Ground/Modul Modules for Recycle
Description of item Qty UOM 2001 BID section on Worked on Worked on section e Re-Use Modules Total/Module TOTAL
n/Module
Hooks, Spikes adn Re-Level Stairs from Aband.
Anch 1 to Abandoned Anchor 2 1 LS $ 29,794.80 200 137 68.50% $ 220.70
Channels from Abandoned Anchor 1 to
Abandoned Anchor 2 1 LS $ 110,286.42 200 137 68.50% $ 816.94
remove construction debris and to support BI
21 & 22 1 LS $ 19,384.90 200 137 68.50% $ 143.59
Alternate No. 3 1 LS $ 5,370.07 200 137 68.50% $ 39.78
TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 3 $ 164,836 $ 1,221
BASIC BID PLUS ALTERNATES 1, 2 & 3 $ 673,042

Hooks, Spikes adn Re-Level Stairs from Aband.
Anch 2 to Abandoned Microwave Station 1 LS $ 40,275.55 144 137 95.14% $ 298.34
Channels from Aband. Anch 2 to Abandoned
Microwave Station 1 LS $ 59,407.38 144 137 95.14% $ 440.05
remove construction debris and to support BI
25 & 26 $ 17,366.69 144 137 95.14% $ 128.64
Alternate No. 4 1 LS $ 9,047.13 144 137 95.14% $ 67.02
TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 4 $ 126,097 $ 934 $ 735,781
BASIC BID PLUS ALTERNATES 1, 2, 3 & 4 $ 799,139 $25,000 Allowance for Design Srvcs for Demo
$ 15,000 Insurance
Estimated Cost of Demo & Disposal for Stairway $ 895,781
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. Confidential Summary HAIKU Demo Page 2

Page 4
Summary SADDLE Demo
HAIKU STAIRWAY STUDY and EVALUATION 2017 Estimate of Demo Work (Removal of Stairway)
Total Module Crew Hoist
Modules Removal Modules to Salvage
this Ground/Modul Modules for Recycle REMARKS
Preparatio
Description of item Qty UOM section n/Module e Re-Use Modules Total/Module TOTAL
Two Crew plus Supt. On Trail; 2
Remove Modules on Trail SE of Microwave Ground Crew Staging Modules plus 1
Station Forklift operator;.4-.5 crew
1 LS 71 $135 $ 250.00 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 460.00 $ 32,660.00 hours/module
Assume Chopper at $1200/hr
Bid Item No. 5: Helicopter Services to Support (Hughes 500D can hoist 500 lbs. per
BIs 1, 2, 3 1 LS 71 $ 550.00 $ 25.00 $ 575.00 $ 40,825.00 Module
Guard Services provided by City
Basic Bid 1 LS 0 0 0 0
Bid Item 7: Provide Botanist to record and ID Endangered Plant Protection along
plants from Start to Aband. Anchor No. 1 1 LS 71 $ 2,000.00 trail
TOTAL BASIC BID $ 75,485
Allowance for Design Srvcs for Demo
$7,500
$ 2,500 Insurance
Estimated Cost of Demolition & Removal of Moanalua Saddle Modules $ 90,485
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. Confidential Summary SADDLE Demo Page 1

Page 5
WORK SUMMARY OF HAIKU STAIR REHAB WORK COMPLETED IN 2001
Module No.‐‐> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Modules Estimated Estimated
No Work MHs HRs,etcConn. Etc. MHs/module
L Railing (Top Only) ℗ 36
L Railing (Intermediate) = = ℗ Rotate1 ℗ ℗ Rotate2 Rotate2 Rotate2 60.00%
R Railing (Top Only) = = ℗ ℗
R Railing (Intermediate) ℗ ℗ ℗
20 15 25 47 36 38 41 44 38 26
Module No.‐‐> 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
 Replace Missing Module 19
L Railing (Top Only)     ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ®® ℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ = = = ℗℗ 31.67%
L Railing (Intermediate) Ω Ω Ω ℗
R Railing (Top Only) Ω Ω Ω
R Railing (Intermediate)  ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗ ℗ ℗® ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗℗ = = = ℗
Module No.‐‐> *121* 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
L Railing (Top Only)  28 550 260

L Railing (Intermediate) ℗  ℗   ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗ ℗   ℗          ℗℗ ℗ 46.67% 550
R Railing (Top Only)  ℗℗ ℗℗ ℗ ℗     ℗℗  ℗℗ ℗   ℗℗    ℗ ℗ ℗ ℗
=
R Railing (Intermediate) ℗℗
Module No.‐‐> 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
L Railing (Top Only) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 22 100 100

L Railing (Intermediate) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ℗  ℗℗ 36.67% 100
R Railing (Top Only) ℗ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ℗ ℗ ℗ 43.75%
R Railing (Intermediate) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 105 1300 360 1660 15.81
Module No.‐‐> 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 *300* 135
  Anchor No. 1-First Landing
L Railing (Top Only) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 6
L Railing (Intermediate)     ℗℗= ℗℗= ℗ = = = = =  = ℗ = = =  = ℗ = ℗ = ℗℗= = = = = = ℗ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 10.00%
R Railing (Top Only)     ℗ ℗℗= ℗ = = = =   = = = = = ℗ = = ℗ ℗ ℗ = ℗ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ℗ = = = = =
R Railing (Intermediate) = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
600 MHs
Module No.‐‐> 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
L Railing (Top Only) = = = = = ℗ = = = = = = = = = = = = = ℗ = = = = = = = ℗ = = = = = 21
L Railing (Intermediate) ℗ ℗ ℗ = = = = = = = = = = = = ℗ ℗ ℗ = ℗ = ℗ = ℗ = ℗ = = = = = = = = = 35.00%
R Railing (Top Only) = = = = = = = = = = = = = ℗ = = = = = = = = = ℗ = = = =
R Railing (Intermediate) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ℗ = = ℗ ℗ ℗ = = = =
=
Module No.‐‐> 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 *391* 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 *405* 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
L Railing (Top Only) = = = = = ℗ ℗ = ℗ = = ℗ = ℗ = = ℗ = ℗ = = = = = = = = = = = = 16
L Railing (Intermediate) = = = = ℗ ℗ ℗ ℗ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 26.67%
R Railing (Top Only) ℗ = = = = ℗ ℗ = ℗ = = ℗ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R Railing (Intermediate) = = = = ℗ ℗ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Module No.‐‐> 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
  Anchor No. 2: Second Landing
L Railing (Top Only) = ℗ = = ℗ = ℗ = ℗ = = = = = 20
L Railing (Intermediate) = = ℗ ℗ ℗ ℗ ℗ ℗ ℗ = ℗ ℗ ℗ = = 33.33%
R Railing (Top Only) ℗ = = ℗ ℗ ℗ = =
R Railing (Intermediate) = ℗ ℗ = = = ℗ ℗ = ℗ = = = = = = =
Module No.‐‐> 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540
0
L Railing (Top Only) = ℗ = p= p p p p p = = = = p p p p p = = = p = = = = = = p p p p p p = = PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL 0.00%
L Railing (Intermediate) ℗ pppp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp = = = p pp= = p= p pp p p p pp p pp pp pp = = p p p p
R Railing (Top Only) ℗ = = = = = = = = p = = p= = p pp p p p p = = pp = 63 No work 240‐593
R Railing (Intermediate) = ℗ p= p p p p pp = = = = p p p p== p= p= p= p= p= = p = = p= pp p pp p p p p p = = = = = 177 Modules worked on
Module No.‐‐> 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593
L Railing (Top Only) PL PL PL PL PL PL p = = MICROWAVE STATION
L Railing (Intermediate) = =
R Railing (Top Only) = = =
R Railing (Intermediate) = = =
Remove Octopus Tree Ω Clips to conncect adj. Module
= Rail connectors ‐ top & intermediate
Top rails ℗ 2' Long pins * on Modules #1 to #484
Intermediate rails p 2' Long pins * on Modules #485 to #594
No work on Module
PL Plates on Walkway
Page 6
MH Est BI 01
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
Tread 1 Tread 2 Tread 3 Tread 4 Tread 5 Tread 6 Tread 7 Bar Hooks Spikes
Module Module Stringer Right Right Right Right Right Right Right
Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Left Right UL UR DL DR Re-Level
Number Type Assembly Bolt Bolt Bolt Bolt Bolt Bolt Bolt
1 A 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.4
2 A 0.35 0.4
4 A 0.5 0.4
8 A 0.4 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.75
9 A 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.35 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.75
10 A 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.75

11 A 0.4 0.5 0.5
12 A 0.5 0.5
13 A 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
15 A 0.5 0.5
16 A 0.5 0.5
20 A 0.35
21 A 0.4
22 A 0.4
34 A
40 A 0.4
44 A
46 A 0.4 0.75
50 A 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5
52 A 0.4 0.5 0.5
54 A 0.5 0.5
60 A 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5
61 A 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5
68 A
70 A 0.4 0.5 0.5
73 A
74 A 0.4
75 A
76 A
77 A
78 A
79 A
81 A
84 A
85 A 0.4 0.5 0.5
86 A
89 A 0.4
91 A
92 A 0.75
93 A 0.75
95 A 0.4 0.5 0.5

100 A 0.4 0.35 0.4
101 A 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
102 A 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
103 A 0.4 0.4 0.4
104 A 0.4 0.4 0.4

105 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.4
106 A 0.35 0.35 0.4
107 A 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
108 A 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Part
109 A 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

110 A 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4
111 A 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.35
112 A 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
113 A 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
114 A 0.4 0.4

115 A
116 A 0.75
117 A 0.35 0.4 0.75
118 A 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
119 A 0.4 0.4 0.75

120 A 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.75
121 A 0.35 0.75
122 A 0.35 0.75
123 A 0.35 0.75
124 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.75
Page 7
MH Est BI 01
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
125 A 0.4 0.75
126 A 0.35 0.35 0.75
127 A 0.4 0.35 0.75
128 A 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.75
129 A 0.4 0.4 0.75

130 A 0.4 0.4 0.75
131 A 0.4 0.4
132 A 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.35
133 A 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.35
136 A 0.35 0.35 0.35

137 A 0.35 0.35 0.75
138 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.75
139 A 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.35 0.35 0.75
140 A 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.75
141 A 0.35 0.35 0.4

142 A 0.35 0.4 0.4
143 A 0.35 0.4 0.4
144 A 0.24 0.75
145 A 2 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 0.35 0.35 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
146 A 2 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 0.75 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
147 A 0.35 0.35

150 A 0.35
151 A 0.35 0.35
152 A 0.35 0.35
153 A 0.35 0.35 0.75
154 A 0.35
156 A 0.35
162 A 0.35
163 A 0.35
164 A 0.35
180 A 0.35
181 A 0.75 0.4 0.4
182 A 0.75 0.4 0.4
183 A 0.35 0.4 0.4
186 A 0.35
190 A 0.75
191 A 0.75
192 A
193 A
194 A
195 A
196 A
197 A
198 A
199 A
200 A
201 A
202 A
203 A
204 A
205 A
206 A
207 A
208 A
209 A
210 A
211 A
212 A
213 A
214 A
Part
215 A
216 A
217 A
218 A
219 A
220 A
Page 8
MH Est BI 01
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
225 A 0.75
228 A 0.35 0.35
229 A 0.35
235 A 0.35
236 A
237 A
238 A 0.35
239 A
240 A 0.35 0.4 0.4
241 A 0.35 0.35
242 A 0.35 ,25 0.35 0.35 0.35 ..25 0.35
243 A MHS MDS 2 MEN 3 men 12 days
Part 4.5 6.65 7.2 7.9 5.45 5.3 5.3 5.6 4.4 4.4 4.65 4.2 4.1 3.6 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.5 3.85 4.75 4.65 4.6 9.89 10.4 10.3 10.2 10 12.3 21.75 188.09 23.5113 11.7556 Say 288 Mhs
1 hr. in 1 hr. out per

day per man
Mobilize to Site 72
Overtime 72 20%
Mob/Spot Materials 24 1 hr. per day 2 men
Other Lost time 48 10%
504
3 men 21 days Say 25 Days
Forman 200 MHs

Laborers 400 MHs
Page 9
MH Est BI 02
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
Handrails Assembly Bolts

Module Module
Left Right UL UR DL DR
Number Type
1 A 1 0.5 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.15
2 A 0.5 0.15 0.15
4 A
8 A 1 0.5 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.15
9 A
10 A
11 A
12 A
13 A
15 A
16 A
20 A 0.5 0.25 0.25
21 A
22 A
34 A 0.5 0.15 0.15
40 A
44 A
46 A 0.5 0.15 0.15
50 A
52 A
54 A 0.5 0.25 0.25

60 A
61 A
68 A 0.5 0.25 0.25
70 A
73 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

74 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
75 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
76 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
77 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
78 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

79 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
81 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
84 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
85 A 0.5 0.25 0.25
86 A 0.5 0.25 0.25

89 A 0.5 0.25 0.25
91 A 0.5 0.25 0.25
92 A 0.5 0.25 0.25
93 A 0.5 0.25 0.25
95 A
100 A
101 A
102 A
103 A
104 A
105 A
106 A
107 A
108 A
Part
109 A
110 A
111 A
112 A 0.25
113 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
114 A
115 A
116 A
117 A
118 A
119 A 0.5 0.25 0.25

120 A
121 A 0.25 0.25
122 A
123 A
124 A
125 A
126 A
127 A
128 A
129 A
130 A
131 A
132 A
133 A 1
136 A
137 A
138 A 0.5 0.25 0.25
139 A
140 A
Page 10
MH Est BI 02
MANHOUR ESTIMATE

Module Module
Number Type
141 A
142 A
143 A
144 A
145 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

146 A 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
147 A
150 A
151 A
152 A
153 A ,25 0.25
154 A
156 A
162 A
163 A
164 A
180 A
181 A
182 A
183 A
186 A
190 A
191 A
192 A
193 A
194 A
195 A
196 A
197 A
198 A
199 A
200 A
201 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
202 A
203 A
204 A
205 A
206 A
207 A
208 A
209 A
210 A
211 A
212 A
213 A
214 A
Part
215 A
216 A
217 A
218 A
219 A
220 A
225 A
228 A
229 A
235 A
236 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
237 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
238 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
239 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

240 A
241 A
242 A
243 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 MHS MDS 2 MEN 3 men 6 Days
12.75 12 5.3 6.95 5.55 6.7 49.25 6.15625 3.07813 Say 144 MHs
1 hr. in 1
hr. out
per day
Mobilize to Site 36 per man
Overtime 36
Mob/Spot Materials 12
276
3 men 11.5 days say 15 days
Forman 120 MHs

Laborers 240 MHs
Page 11
MH Est BI 08
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
INTERMEDIATE RAILS HANDRAIL CONNECTION CHANNEL HANDRAIL CONNECTION BAR
Rail Inserts Bolts CHANNEL PLATE BOLTS CONNECTION BOLTS
Module Module
Left Right DL DR UL UR DL DR Left Right UL UR DL DR UL UR DL DR Left Right UL UR DL DR
Number Type
1 A
2 A
4 A
8 A
9 A
10 A
11 A
12 A
13 A
15 A
16 A
20 A
21 A
22 A
34 A
40 A
44 A
46 A
50 A
52 A
54 A
60 A
61 A
68 A
70 A
73 A
74 A
75 A
76 A
77 A
78 A
79 A
81 A
84 A
85 A
86 A
89 A
91 A
92 A
93 A
95 A
100 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
101 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
102 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
103 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
104 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
105 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
106 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
107 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
108 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Part
109 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
110 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
111 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
112 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
113 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
114 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
115 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
116 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
117 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Page 12
MH Est BI 08
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
Module Module
Number Type
118 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
119 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35

120 A
121 A
122 A
123 A
124 A
125 A
126 A
127 A
128 A
129 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35
130 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
131 A
132 A
133 A
136 A
137 A
138 A
139 A
140 A
141 A
142 A
143 A
144 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25
145 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
146 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
147 A 0.35 0.35

150 A
151 A
152 A
153 A
154 A
156 A
162 A
163 A
164 A
180 A
181 A
182 A
183 A
186 A
190 A
191 A
192 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
193 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
194 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
195 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
196 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
197 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
198 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
199 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
200 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
201 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
202 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
203 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
204 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
205 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
206 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Page 13
MH Est BI 08
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
Module Module
Number Type
207 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
208 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
209 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
210 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
211 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
212 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
213 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
214 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Part
215 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
216 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
217 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
218 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
219 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
220 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
225 A
228 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
229 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

235 A
236 A
237 A
238 A
239 A
240 A
241 A
242 A
243 A MHS MDS 2 MEN 3 Men 16 days
Part 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9.25 9.25 12.8 12.45 12.8 12.45 17.5 17.05 18.1 17.4 2.3 1.95 16.95 16.25 16.7 16 233.2 29.15 14.575 384
1 hr. in 1
hr. out
per day
Overtime 48 0..1
2 men 1
hour per
Mob/Spot Materials 16 day
608
3 men 25 days say 25
Forman 200 MHs

Laborers 400 MHs
Page 14
MH Est BI 13
MANHOUR ESTIMATE

Module Module
Number Type
245 A
246 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
247 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
248 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
249 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
250 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

251 A
252 A
253 A
254 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
255 A
256 A
257 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
258 A
259 A
260 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

261 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
262 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
263 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
264 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
265 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

266 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
267 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
268 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
269 A
270 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

271 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
272 A
273 A
275 A
276 A
277 A
278 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
279 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
280 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
281 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

282 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
283 A
284 A
285 A
286 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

287 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
288 A
289 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
290 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
291 A
292 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
293 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
294 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
295 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
296 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

297 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
298 A
299 A
300 A
301 A
302 A
303 A
304 A
305 A
306 A
307 A
308 A
309 A
311 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
312 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

313 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
314 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
315 A
316 A
317 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

318 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
319 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
320 A
321 A
Page 15
MH Est BI 13
MANHOUR ESTIMATE

Module Module
Number Type
322 A
323 A
324 A
325 A
326 A
328 A
331 A
332 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
334 A
340 A
341 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

342 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
343 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
344 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
345 A
346 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

347 A
348 A
349 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
350 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
352 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

353 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
354 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
356 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
357 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Part
358 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

359 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
360 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
362 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
364 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
365 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

366 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
367 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
368 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
369 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
371 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

372 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
373 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
374 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
375 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
376 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

377 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
378 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
379 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
380 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
381 A
382 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
383 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
385 A
386 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
387 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

388 A
390 A 0.15 0.15
391 A
394 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
396 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

397 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
398 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
399 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
400 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
401 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

402 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
403 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
404 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
405 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
406 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

407 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
409 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
410 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
411 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
412 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

413 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
414 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
416 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
417 A
Page 16
MH Est BI 13
MANHOUR ESTIMATE

Module Module
Number Type
Part
422 A 0.25 0.25 0.25

423 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
424 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
429 A
432 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
437 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

438 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
439 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
440 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
445 A
Part
449a D
450 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

451 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
452 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
453 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
454 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
455 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

456 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
457 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
458 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

459 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
460 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
461 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
462 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
463 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

464 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
465 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
466 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
467 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
468 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

469 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
470 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
471 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
472 C 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

473 C 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
474 C 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
475 C 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
476 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

477 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
478 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
479 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
480 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
481 B 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
482 C 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
483 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

484 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
485 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
486 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
487 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

488 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
489 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
490 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

491 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
492 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
493 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
494 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
495 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

496 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
497 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
498 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Page 17
MH Est BI 13
MANHOUR ESTIMATE

Module Module
Number Type
499 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
500 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

501 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
502 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
503 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
504 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
505 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

506 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
507 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
508 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
509 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
510 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

511 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
512 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
513 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
514 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
515 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

516 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
517 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
518 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
519 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
520 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

521 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
522 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
523 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
524 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
525 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Part
526
527
528
529
530
530a
531 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

532 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
533 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
534 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
535 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
536 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

537 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
538 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
539 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
540 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
541 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

542 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
543 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
544 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
545 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
546 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Part
547 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

548 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
549 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
550 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
551 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
552 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

553 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
554 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
555 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
556 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
557 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

558 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
559 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
560 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
561 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
562 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

563 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
564 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
565 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
566 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Page 18
MH Est BI 13
MANHOUR ESTIMATE

Module Module
Number Type
567 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
568 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
569 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
570 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
571 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
572 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

573 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
574 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
575 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
576 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
577 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

578 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
579 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
580 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
581 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
582
583
584
585
586 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

587 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
588 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
589 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
590 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
591 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
592 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

593 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 MHS MDS 2 MEN 3 men 19 days
56 50.5 56 50.7 56 50.7 319.8 39.975 19.9875 456
1 hr. in 1
hr. out
per day
Overtime 63 10%
2 men 1
hour per
741
Forman 240 MHs

Laborers 480 MHs
Page 19
MH Est BI 21
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
Module Module Stringer Right Right Right Right Right Right
Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Right Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Left Right UL UR DL DR Re-Level
Number Type Assembl Bolt Bolt Bolt Bolt Bolt Bolt
245 A 0.35 0.35
246 A 0.35 0.35 0.35
247 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
248 A 0.35 0.35
249 A
250 A
251 A
252 A 0.35
253 A
254 A 0.35
255 A
256 A 0.35
257 A
258 A
259 A
260 A 0.35
261 A 0.35
262 A
263 A
264 A 0.35 0.35
265 A
266 A 0.35 0.35 0.35
267 A 0.35 0.35 0.35
268 A
269 A 0.35
270 A
271 A
272 A
273 A 0.35
275 A 0.35
276 A
277 A
278 A
279 A
280 A 0.35
281 A 0.25
282 A 0.25
283 A
284 A
285 A 0.25 0.35
286 A 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25

287 A 0.25
288 A 0.25
289 A
290 A 0.25
291 A 0.25
292 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
293 A
294 A 0.35
295 A
296 A
297 A 0.25
298 A 0.25
299 A 0.25
300 A 0.25
301 A 0.25
302 A 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35
303 A 0.25 0.25
304 A 0.35
305 A
306 A
307 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
308 A 0.25 0.25
309 A 0.25 0.25
311 A 0.35
Page 20
MH Est BI 21
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
312 A
313 A
314 A
315 A 0.25
316 A
317 A
318 A 0.25
319 A
320 A 0.25 0.25
321 A
322 A
323 A
324 A
325 A 0.35
326 A
328 A 0.25 0.25

331 A 0.25
332 A 0.25
334 A 0.25
340 A
341 A
342 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
343 A 0.25
344 A 0.35
345 A
346 A 0.35
347 A 0.35 0.35
348 A
349 A
350 A
352 A
353 A
354 A
356 A
357 A 0.35
Part
358 A 0.35
359 A
360 A
362 A
364 A
365 A
366 A
367 A
368 A
369 A 0.25
371 A
372 A 0.35 0.35
373 A
374 A 0.25 0.25
375 A 0.25 0.25 0.25
376 A
377 A
378 A
379 A
380 A
381 A
382 A
383 A 0.25
385 A
386 A
387 A
388 A
390 A 0.25
Page 21
MH Est BI 21
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
391 A 0.25
394 A
396 A
397 A
398 A
399 A
400 A
401 A
402 A
403 A
404 A
405 A
406 A
407 A
409 A
410 A
411 A
412 A
413 A
414 A
416 A
417 A 0.25
Part
422 A
423 A
424 A
429 A 0.25
432 A
437 A 0.25
438 A
439 A
440 A 0.25
445 A 0.25 MHS MDS 2 MEN 3 men 5 days
6.3 0 0 0.75 0.35 0 1.25 0 0 0.75 0 0 1 0.35 0 1.75 0.35 0 3.25 0.35 0 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.75 3.15 3.85 0 30.8 3.85 1.925 120
1 hr. in 1
hr. out
per day
449a D BID ITEM 25 Overtime 30 20%
2 men 1
hour per
230
Forman 96 MHs
Laborers 192 MHs
Page 22
MH Est BI 22
MANHOUR ESTIMATE

Module Module
Number Type
245 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
246 A 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
247 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
248 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
249 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
250 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
251 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
252 A 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25
253 A 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
254 A 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
255 A 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
256 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
257 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
258 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
259 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
260 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
261 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
262 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
263 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
264 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35
265 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
266 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
267 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
268 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
269 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
270 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
271 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
272 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
273 A 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25
275 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
276 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
277 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
278 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
279 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
280 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
281 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
282 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
283 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
284 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
285 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
286 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
287 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
288 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
289 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
290 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
291 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
292 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
293 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
294 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
295 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
296 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
297 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
298 A
299 A
300 A
301 A
302 A
303 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
304 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
305 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Page 23
MH Est BI 22
MANHOUR ESTIMATE

Module Module
Number Type
306 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
307 A
308 A
309 A
311 A
312 A
313 A
314 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
315 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
316 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
317 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
318 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
319 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
320 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
321 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
322 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
323 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
324 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
325 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
326 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
328 A
331 A
332 A
334 A
340 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
341 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
342 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
343 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
344 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
345 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
346 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
347 A
348 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
349 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
350 A
352 A
353 A
354 A
356 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
357 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35
Part
358 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
359 A
360 A
362 A
364 A
365 A
366 A
367 A
368 A
369 A
371 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
372 A
373 A
374 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
375 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
376 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
377 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
378 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
379 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
380 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Page 24
MH Est BI 22
MANHOUR ESTIMATE

Module Module
Number Type
381 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
382 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
383 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
385 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
386 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
387 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
388 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
390 A
391 A
394 A
396 A
397 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
398 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
399 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
400 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
401 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
402 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
403 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
404 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
405 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
406 A 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
407 A
409 A
410 A
411 A
412 A
413 A
414 A
416 A
417 A
Part
422 A
423 A
424 A
429 A
432 A
437 A 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

438 A
439 A
440 A
445 A
593 MDs 2 men 3 men 45 days
0 28.7 30.45 28.7 30.45 20.5 21.75 20.5 20.75 32.55 32.2 32.9 31.85 32.55 32.2 25.55 25.8 25.55 25.8 32.55 31.85 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 688.75 86.0938 43.0469 860
1.5 hr. in
1 hr. out
per day
Overtime 160 20%
2 men 1
hour per
1464
3 men 61days say 65
Forman 440 MHs

Laborers 840 MHs
Page 25
MH Est BI 25
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
Tread 1 Tread 2 Tread 3 Tread 4 Tread 5 Tread 6 FLOOR PLATE-J BOLTS Bar Hooks Spikes
Module Module Stringer Right Right Right Right
Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Right Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt Treads Left Bolt UL UR DL DR Left Right UL UR DL DR Re-Level
Number Type Assembl Bolt Bolt Bolt Bolt
449a O 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35
450 A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

451 A 0.25 0.25
452 A 0.35 0.35
453 A 0.25 0.45 0.35
454 A
455 A 0.45
456 A 0.45 0.45
457 A
458 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

459 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
460 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
461 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
462 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
463 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

464 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
465 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
466 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
467 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
468 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

469 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
470 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
471 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
472 C
473 C
474 C 0.25
475 C 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
476 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

477 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
478 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
479 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
480 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
481 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
482 C
483 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

484 B 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
485 C 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25
486 D 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25
487 C
488 C
489 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
490
491
492
493
494 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
495
496
497
498 0.35
499 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
500 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Page 26
MH Est BI 25
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
501 0.45 0.45
502 0.45
503
504
505
506
507 0.35 0.35 0.35
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
517 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
518 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
519 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
520 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 ,45 0.45 0.45 0.45
521
522
523
524
525 8 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Part
526
527
528
529
530
530a
531 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

532 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
533 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
534 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
535 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
536 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

537 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
538 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
539 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
540 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
541 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

542 1 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
543 1 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
544 1 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
545 1 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
546 1 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

Part
547
548
549 0.45 0.45 0.45
550
551
552
553
554 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 45 0.45
555
556 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
557 0.45
558 0.35 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
559 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Page 27
MH Est BI 25
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
560 0.45
561 8 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
562 0.45 0.45

563 0.45
564 0.35 0.35
565 0.35 0.35 0.35
566
567
568
569 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
570
571
572
573 0.45 0.45 0.45
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

587
588
589 0.45
590 0.45
591
592 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

593 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 MHS MDS 2 MEN 3 men 13 days
16 3.35 4.8 5.25 3.05 4.8 5.7 2.9 5 5.25 3.6 48.4 4.1 2.7 5.25 5.25 7.15 9.35 20.05 18.9 18.9 18.9 0.8 1.6 0.35 0.45 0.35 0 0 222.2 27.775 13.8875 260
1 hr. in 1
hr. out
per day
90 per man
Overtime 45 20%
2 men 2
hour per
485
Forman 140 MHs

Laborers 280 MHs
Page 28
MH Est BI 26
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
Module Module
Number Type
449a O
450 A
451 A
452 A
453 A
454 A
455 A
456 A
457 A
458 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

459 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
460 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
461 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
462 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
463 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

464 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
465 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
466 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
467 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
468 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
469 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
470 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
471 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
472 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

473 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25
474 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
475 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
476 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
477 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
478 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
479 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
480 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
481 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
482 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
483 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

484 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
485
486 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
498
499
500
501 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Page 29
MH Est BI 26
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
Module Module
Number Type
502
503 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
504 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
505 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
506 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
507 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
508 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
509 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
510 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
511 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
512 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
513 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
514 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
515 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

516 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
517 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
518 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
519 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
520 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

521 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
522 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
523 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
524
525 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Part
526
527
528
529
530
530a
531 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

532 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
533 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
534 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
535 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
536 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

537 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
538 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
539 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
540 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
541 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

542 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
543 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
544 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
545 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Page 30
MH Est BI 26
MANHOUR ESTIMATE
Module Module
Number Type
546 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Part
547 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

548 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
549 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
550 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
551 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
552 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

553 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
554 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
555 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
556 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
557 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

558 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
559 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
560 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
561 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
562 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

563 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
564 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
565 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
566 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
567 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

568 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
569 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
570 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
571 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
572 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

573 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
574 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
575 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
576 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
577 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

578 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
579 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
580 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
581 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
582 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

583 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
584 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
585 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
586 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
587 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
588 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
589 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
590 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
591 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
592
593 MHS MDS 2 MEN 3 men 22 days
37.8 38.15 37.8 38.15 27 27.3 27 27.3 5.3 7.75 5.25 7.7 5.15 7.6 4.15 6.6 4.15 6.6 4.9 7.35 3.9 6.35 3.9 6.35 353.4 44.175 22.0875 444
1 hr. in 1
hr. out
per day
Overtime 75 20%
2 men 2
hour per
761
Forman 200 MHs

Laborers 450 MHs
Page 31
APPENDIX B
Photo Log
HAIKU MODULES
MODULE 01 MODULE 02 MODULE 03
Excessive Rock Debris Excessive Rock Debris
Modules needing work 1‐249 (1st Landing)

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES
STORM RUNOFF
STORM RUNOFF STORM RUNOFF

STORM RUNOFF
Modules needing work 250‐593 (from Microwave Station to top)

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES

HAIKU MODULES
MODULE 592 MODULE 593

Pg. 1/8
Pg. 2/8
Pg. 3/8
Pg. 4/8
Pg. 5/8
Pg. 6/8
Pg. 7/8
MODULE 70 MODULE 71
Pg. 8/8
APPENDIX C
Haiku Stairs Drawings
APPENDIX D
Price Proposals
Kreative Manufacturing LLC
Estimate
240 Puuhale Road Suite 208
Honolulu, HI 96819 Date Estimate #
10/27/2017 200
Name / Address
The Nakoa Companies, Inc.

P.O. Box 75302
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707
Project
Description Qty Rate Total
Haiku Valley stairs assessment 8,500.00 8,500.00T

- Fabrication of ( Module "C" ) as per drawing (S102 / S103 )
Subtotal $8,500.00
Sales Tax (0.5%) $42.50
Total $8,542.50
Helicopter Lift Quote
Pacer Aviation LLC dba Oahu Helicopters

P.O. Box 75619 Kapolei, HI. 96707 / Main: 808.255.1700 / Fax: 808.239.7573
DATE: August 28, 2017 TO: The Nakoa Companies Inc FROM: Pacer Aviation
P.O. Box 75302 P.O. Box 75619
Kapolei, HI. 96707-0302 Kapolei, HI 96707
ATTENTION: Debz Galindo / Austin Nakoa
PAOH BID DATE OF LIFT JOB LOCATION NO. OF MAXIMUM

NUMBER JOB LOADS WEIGHT
PAOH7264-050 TBD Haiku Stairs (Stairway to Heaven) Assessment Multiple 880 lbs
JOB DESCRIPTION DURATION ACTUAL NO. OF LOADS AMOUNT
The removal and/or replace of stair way and Multiple day Multiple loads up
passenger transport of the above location. call outs and down
Due to location, job is based on an hourly pricing $1,200.00 hr
Quote is based on an hourly price. The total

amount of hours will be discussed later.
**TOTAL INCLUDES COST FOR ALL CLOSURES AND PERMITS AS WELL AS ANY REQUIRED CITY, STATE,
AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND ITS OFFICERS**
MAHALO FOR YOUR BUSINESS

Appendix B
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey

PO Box 1645
Kāne‘ohe, Hawaiʻi 96744
December 3, 2018
Jeff Overton
G70
925 Bethel Street, 5th Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Overton,
This is to inform you that as of March 13, 2018, fieldwork for the Ha‘ikū Stairs (Stairway to Heaven)
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey is complete. The project area is located on portions of TMK: (1) 4-5-023,
(1) 4-6-014, and (1) 4-6-015 in He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, on the island of O‘ahu.
This work was done at the request of G70 to assess potential access routes to the Ha‘ikū Stairs, as well as the stairs
themselves.
The project area consists of the three alternative access routes and the stairs themselves. The alternative access
routes have been designated as Route 1, 1a, 1b, 2, 2a, 2b, and 3 (Figure 1). Note that the two “a” routes follow
the same path, and the two “b” routes follow the same path.
Fieldwork consisted of a 100% surface survey of the access routes and the stairs. Fieldwork was conducted on
February 21, February 28, and March 13, 2018. Two to four archaeologists were present per day for the survey,
including myself, Dietrix Duhaylonsod, BA, Steven Eminger, Robin Keli‘i, BA, and Danielle Shemesh, BA. A
total of eight archaeological features were identified (Figures 2 and 3). They are briefly described below:
 Feature 1 is Ha‘ikū Road, previously identified as SIHP 50-80-10-6709. The first written records of the
road come from Māhele testimony for LCA 3307 and 3349, and the road is thought to date to as early as
1839 (Tulchin et al. 2006:33). Another source found the road illustrated on a 1902 map (Ferreira and
Gouveia 2017:47). The road is in good condition today, appearing to be maintained regularly. Two
additional features associated with the road were located within the project area:
- Feature 1a is a concrete bridge observed only on the west side of Ha‘ikū Road, fronting the Haiku
Woods townhome complex. The bridge is marked by a low wall that runs along the west edge of the
sidewalk, with a short chain-link fence installed on top of the wall. It is in good condition, mostly
intact.
- Feature 1b is a stone and concrete culvert just off the side of the road fronting Papahana Kuaola. The
culvert is in fair to poor condition, partially filled with mud and debris, with the upper portion broken
in pieces while the lower portion is mostly intact (Figure 4).
 Feature 2 consists of two pillars built of stone and concrete, one on either side of the Omega Station
Access Road, approximately 100 m past the Kuneki Street gate. The feature is likely historic in age,
probably constructed around the same time as the Naval Radio Station, which was the predecessor of the
Omega Station (ca. 1942) (Barton 1997). The pillars are in fair condition, with a few rocks missing
(Figure 5). Also possibly associated with the pillars are a series of three short metal posts filled with
concrete. They are on the west side of the access road, just northeast of the pillars. The age and function
of the posts are undetermined.
1

 Feature 3 consists of the Omega Station Access road and eight utility or water control features located
along the road. The road dates to roughly the same time period as the Naval Radio Station (ca. 1942). It
is currently in fair condition, drivable but with numerous potholes and other evidence of wear. It is
possible that all of the associated features were built during the time the road was constructed, which
would make them historic in age. The eight associated features observed within the project area are as
follows:
- Features 3a–3c are three concrete water control features that tunnel beneath the paved road. The
tunnels are in good to fair condition; they are mostly intact although overgrown and littered with
debris (e.g., Figure 6).
- Feature 3d is a concrete utility box situated on the southeast side of the road. The feature is in good
to fair condition, overgrown and littered with debris, but intact (Figure 7).
- Feature 3e is a set of concrete utility structures located on the south side of the road. One of the
structures is a concrete pad that supports a fire hydrant, while the other consists of short concrete
walls that form an open rectangle. Within the rectangle is a utility cover that likely leads to a water
valve. Near the concrete utility features are two buildings— one a CMU structure and the other a
former shipping container (Figure 8). It is unclear if these two buildings are historic in age. The
concrete foundation of the CMU structure appears to post-date the access road. Feature 3e is in good
condition, with the utility structures remaining intact.
- Feature 3f consists of a small concrete foundation with a possible earthen ditch located on the south
side of the road, approximately 20 m west of Feature 3e This feature is in fair condition. The
foundation is partially buried, and the ditch is not well defined (Figure 9).
- Feature 3g is a concrete slab located across the street from Feature 3f. Its function is undetermined.
The feature is in good condition, remaining largely intact.
- Feature 3h is a rectangular concrete utility or water control structure located on the west side of the
road. The feature is in fair condition, well defined but partially filled with soil (Figure 10).
 Feature 4 consists of a concrete wall and stairs and associated building remains located on the north side
of the access road, just west of a juncture with a gated Board of Water Supply road that leads to structures
to the north. This wall/stairs portion of this feature has been previously identified as SIHP 50-80-10-4509
(Williams and Nees 1994). The feature was later described as follows:
…Served both as a retaining wall for the built up ground area that was used for construction of
the mess hall and barracks and as the name place for the Naval Radio Station at Haiku Valley…
The concrete retaining wall was made in 1942–43. It is two sections with a centered stairway
that led up to the barracks and mess hall of the Naval Radio Station. The wall was made with the
use of curved forms and poured concrete. The name of the station ‘USNRS, Haiku Valley’ was
molded into the south side section of the retaining wall. (Barton 1997:58)
West of the wall/stairs are the remains of the demolished buildings that once occupied the area. Among
the material observed are brick and concrete rubble, as well as a metal pole that is still standing. The wall
and stairs are in good condition, mostly intact though covered in graffiti (Figure 11), while the building
remains are in poor condition, as the structures there have been reduced to rubble. Also in this general
vicinity is a wooden shack (Figure 12); it is unclear if the shack is more than 50 years old.
2

 Feature 5 is an L-shaped concrete wall located on the northwest side of the access road. The wall currently
barricades a sign post, which is likely a more recent addition. The original function of the wall is
undetermined, although it may have been associated with the buildings of the early Naval Radio Station.
The feature is in good condition, mostly intact but affected by graffiti (Figure 13).
 Feature 6 consists of a concrete stairway and water control feature located on the west side of the access
road. This structure is situated near the Transmitter Building [previously identified as SIHP 50-80-10-
4506 (Williams and Nees 2002)] and was probably associated with it (note that the Transmitter Building
itself is outside the project area). The stairs lead outside the project area through a thicket of bamboo. The
water control feature exhibits a wooden lid that is partially open, with water dripping into a rectangular
concrete box below. This feature is likely historic in age and is in fair condition. It is overgrown and the
stairs have been vandalized with graffiti (Figure 14).
 Feature 7 is a CMU structure with wooden support beams, a wooden roof, and no walls. The structure is
located on the west side of the access road, just south of Feature 6. This feature is also situated near the
Transmitter Building (SIHP 4506) and may have been associated with it. The structure is likely historic
in age and its function is undetermined. The feature is in fair condition, with visible damage and graffiti.
 Feature 8 includes the Ha‘ikū Stairs (Figure 15) and associated structures along the stairs. The stairs were
originally made of wood in the 1940s and were replaced by a metal staircase in the 1950s. The most
recent refurbishment of the stairs occurred in 2005. The stairs are currently in good to fair condition,
mostly intact, although some damaged portions were observed. Also noted were remnants of old wooden
stairs at various locations just off the current metal stairs (Figure 16). These were not assigned feature
numbers, as they occur just outside the project area. There are six structures associated with the current
stairs that lie within the project area:
- Features 8a–8d are four concrete platforms with remnants of metal hardware, situated along the route
of the current stairway (e.g., Figure 17). The four platforms are mostly intact although the metal
structures that they once supported are missing.
- Feature 8e is a building approximately 200 m down from the top of the stairs that functioned as a
cable car house (Figure 18). Remnants of the cable car machinery are still located within the
structure. This feature is in poor condition, affected by graffiti and missing its roof. The cable car
machinery within the structure is severely rusted.
- Feature 8f is a building at the top of the stairs known as the Communications Control Link Building
(Figure 19). The building is mostly intact but severely vandalized by graffiti, particularly in the
interior.
It should also be noted that a large traditional site lies just outside the Omega Station Access Road to the south
and east of the road. This is Site 333, Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau (McAllister 1933). The site location is illustrated
on Figures 2 and 3, well outside the current project area. Also of note is that several water control/utility features
were observed along the service road that runs beneath the H-3 Freeway [on Access Route 3 (see Figure 1)]. This
road was built by HDOT as an access for construction of the H-3 Freeway. Construction for the road started after
1987 and it was completed in June 1990 (HDOT 1998), therefore the H-3 service road and its associated features
are less than 50 years old and will not be considered further. Also observed were a stone retaining wall and upright
boulder at the entrance to the Hui Ku Maoli Ola native plant nursery on Ha‘ikū Road. These features were
constructed in 2010 (Rick Barboza, personal communication) and are not of archaeological significance.
3

In sum, archaeological reconnaissance of the project routes yielded eight features that are likely historic in age.
They consist of 1) Ha‘ikū Road, previously identified as SIHP 6709 (and two associated features); 2) two stone
and cement pillars; 3) the Omega Station Access Road (and eight associated features); 4) a concrete wall and
stairway previously identified as SIHP 4509; 5) an L-shaped concrete wall; 6) a concrete stairway and water
control feature possibly associated with SIHP 4506; 7) a CMU and wooden structure possibly associated with
SIHP 4506; and 8) the Ha‘ikū Stairs themselves and six structures associated with it.
The project will impact all or some of these features, depending on which access route is chosen. The route with
the least impact to archaeological features is Route 3. If this route is chosen, the only archaeological feature to be
affected is Feature 8, the Ha‘ikū Stairs themselves. Route 1a/2a would also have minimal impact, with only
Feature 1 (Ha‘ikū Road) and Feature 8 (the Ha‘ikū Stairs) being affected. If Route 1b/2b is selected, all features
(Features 1–8) would be affected. Because of these impacts, a determination of “effect with proposed mitigation
commitments” is put forth.
Mitigation measures will vary according to the access route that is chosen. For any of the access routes, mitigation
must be implemented for the Ha‘ikū Stairs, as they are a significant historic property (Chapman 2018). The type
of mitigation that is recommended is based on the future outcome of the Ha‘ikū Stairs. Chapman (2018:78–79)
outlines three potential future outcomes, along with corresponding proposed mitigation for each outcome:
Potential Future Proposed Mitigation Commitment Justification for proposed Treatment

Outcome
Full Removal of  Architectural Recordation of all Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would
Ha‘ikū Stairs removed stair modules. warrant mitigation including measured
 Preservation of associated drawings and photographic
structures in the form of documentation of the affected stair
avoidance. modules. Associated structures would
be preserved in place.
Partial Removal of  Architectural Recordation of Partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would

Ha‘ikū Stairs removed stair modules. warrant mitigation including measured
 Preservation of remaining modules drawings and photographic
and associated structures in the documentation of the affected stair
form of avoidance. modules. The remaining stair modules
and associated structures would be
preserved in place.
Keep Ha‘ikū Stairs  Preservation in the form of The stairs would be preserved and
under Managed restoration/reconstruction of restored/reconstructed for planned
Access damaged stair modules. hiking operations in order to insure the
 Preservation of associated existing form, integrity, and materials
structures with periodic of the historic property are maintained.
maintenance as needed for Associated structures would be
structural stability. preserved in place and maintained as
needed.
In addition, if Routes 1a/2a or 1b/2b are selected, it is recommended that the other features are either 1) fully
recorded with an archaeological inventory survey and data recovery or 2) avoided and preserved in place. And
although Site 333, Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau, is outside the project area and will not be impacted, a preservation
plan should be prepared for this significant site in advance of any construction activity in the area.
4

Thank you for the opportunity to carry out this important work.
Windy Keala McElroy, PhD

Principal, Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting
References:
Barton, D. 1997 Historic Preservation Survey and Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places of the
U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station O‘ahu Island, Hawaii. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Honolulu.
Chapman, W. 2018 Intensive Level Survey Report Ha‘ikū Stairs Ha‘ikū Valley, Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i.
William Chapman, Architectural Historian, Honolulu.
HDOT (Hawaii Department of Transportation). 1998 Final Environmental Assessment. Interstate Route H-3
Retention of Construction Access Roads: North Halawa Valley and Haiku Valley O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. HDOT,
Honolulu.
McAllister, J.G. 1933 Archaeology of O‘ahu. Bishop Museum Bulletin 104. Bernice P. Bishop Museum,
Honolulu.
Tulchin, T., M. McDermott, and O. O’Leary. 2006 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigation for Two
Kamehameha School Parcels, He‘eia Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu, TMK: [1] 4-6-014:001,
006. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.
Williams, S.S. and R. Nees. 1994 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Limited Testing for Proposed
Sites of Construction Pond, Installation Recreation Areas, Animal Quarantine Station, and Road Access
Alternatives for Family Housing Construction, U.S. Coast Guard Omega Transmitter Site He‘eia, Ko‘olau
Poko District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, TMK: [1] 4-6-15. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services,
Honolulu.
Williams, S.S. and R. Nees. 2002 Mo‘olelo Ha‘ikū Archaeological Inventory Survey, Data Recovery, and
Monitoring Investigations for the Interstate Highway H-3 within Ha‘ikū Valley, He‘eia Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olau
Poko District, Island of O‘ahu. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Honolulu.
5

Figure 1. Alternate access routes to Ha‘ikū Stairs.
6

Figure 2. Location of archaeological features, north side of project.
7

Figure 3. Location of archaeological features, south side of project.
8

Figure 4. Feature 1b stone and concrete culvert, facing south.
Figure 5. Feature 2 stone and concrete pillars, facing southeast.
9

Figure 6. Feature 3a concrete water control feature, facing northeast.
Figure 7. Feature 3d concrete utility box, facing southeast.
10

Figure 8. Feature 3e concrete utility features (center and left) and two buildings, facing southeast.
Figure 9. Feature 3f concrete foundation (left) and earthen ditch (right). Orientation is to the
northeast.
11

Figure 10. Feature 3h concrete utility or water control structure, facing southwest.
Figure 11. Feature 4 concrete wall and stairs, facing west.
12

Figure 12. Wooden shack in the vicinity of Feature 4, facing west.
Figure 13. Feature 5 L-shaped concrete wall, facing southwest.
13

Figure 14. Feature 6 concrete water control feature (left) and concrete stairs (right). Orientation is
to the southwest.
Figure 15. Feature 8 Ha‘ikū Stairs, facing south.
14

Figure 16. Example of a wooden stairway remnant, facing northwest.
Figure 17. Feature 8b platform, facing northeast.
15

Figure 18. Feature 8e building interior, facing northwest.
Figure 19. Feature 8f building exterior, facing southwest.
16
Appendix C
Cultural Impact Assessment

FINAL—Cultural Impact Assessment for Proposed Trail Routes to
the Ha‘ikū Stairs (Stairway to Heaven), He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe
Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i
Portions of TMK: (1) 4-5-023, (1) 4-6-014, and (1) 4-6-015
Prepared For:
630 S Beretania Street,
Honolulu, HI 96843
March 2019
Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting, LLC ● PO Box 1645, Kaneohe, HI 96744 ● Phone 808.381.2361
FINAL—Cultural Impact Assessment for Proposed Trail Routes to
the Ha‘ikū Stairs (Stairway to Heaven), He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe
Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i
Portions of TMK: (1) 4-5-023, (1) 4-6-014, and (1) 4-6-015
Prepared For:
630 S Beretania Street,
Honolulu, HI 96843
Prepared By:
Windy Keala McElroy, PhD
and
Dietrix Duhaylonsod, BA
March 2019
Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting, LLC ● PO Box 1645, Kaneohe, HI 96744 ● Phone 808.381.2361
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was conducted for proposed trail routes to the Ha‘ikū Stairs
(Stairway to Heaven) and the stairs themselves. These are located in He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a,
Ko‘olaupoko District, on the island of O‘ahu on portions of TMK: (1) 4-5-023, (1) 4-6-014, and (1)
4-6-015. This CIA was designed to identify any cultural resources or practices that may occur in the
area and to gain an understanding of the community’s perspectives on the proposed project. It will
also help to inform decisions for management of the stairs, which could include reopening the stairs
to the public. The current study took the form of background research and an ethnographic survey
consisting of eight interviews, all of which are included in this report.
Background research synthesizes traditional and historic accounts and land use history for the project
area, centering on Ha‘ikū, an ‘ili of He‘eia, but also including the adjacent Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a.
Community consultations were performed to obtain information about the cultural significance of
the trail routes and the region as a whole, as well as to address concerns of community members
regarding the effects of the proposed project on places of cultural or traditional importance.
As a result of this work, the cultural significance of the project area has been made clear. The
background study revealed that He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe were traditionally among the most abundant
lands of O‘ahu, with fertile valleys that supported extensive wetland agricultural fields. The project
area extends far above these regions that were inhabited and farmed, into the wao akua, or realm of
the gods. Mo‘olelo of the area speak of the god Kāne and other supernatural beings, as well as natural
resources of the land, sea, and streams. Rain is often mentioned in chant and proverb, attesting to
the importance of water in this region.
Historic accounts tell of a landscape well-cultivated with a variety of crops, and many families
claimed lands along the streams during the Māhele, several of which are in the project area vicinity.
Previous archaeological research has also provided evidence of active use of the land, with
habitation, agriculture, ceremonial, and many other site types identified, extending from the pre-
contact era into the historic period.
In the early 20th century, the U.S. military established its presence in the region, and the Navy built
a radio transmitter at the top of the Ko‘olau Mountains that was later developed into an Omega
Station. A wooden ladder was built to access the facility, and this was later replaced by the metal
stairway now known as the Ha‘ikū Stairs, or Stairway to Heaven.
Interviews with individuals knowledgeable about Ha‘ikū produced information on its rich history,
and several archaeological resources and cultural practices were identified for the particular project
area. The interviewees also voiced their concerns and recommendations for the project. Some
concerns reflect the desire to protect the stairs and structures from damage, and in contrast, some
concerns focus on the desire to protect the natural and traditional environment from destruction. All
interviewees agree that the current situation at the stairs is not acceptable. Where they differ greatly
are in their recommendations. While many recommendations focused on how to reopen the stairs
and bring about some kind of managed use, there were adamant recommendations to dismantle the
stairs. There are several families which have ancestral ties to the area as well, and value should be
placed on their input as a distinct perspective to consider. These as well as any other concerns and
recommendations that the community and stakeholders bring up should all be considered during the
discussion about the future for the Ha‘ikū Stairs and the other Omega Station structures.
i
ii
CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. i

FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. v
TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. v
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Location .............................................................................................................................1
The Project .....................................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 7
The Natural Setting ........................................................................................................................7
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe in Traditional Times .................................................................................... 9
Subsistence and Traditional Land Use .....................................................................................12
Traditional Ecological Zones ................................................................................................... 13
Moʻolelo ................................................................................................................................... 16
Oli and Mele ............................................................................................................................. 18
‘Ōlelo No‘eau ........................................................................................................................... 19
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe in the Historic Era...................................................................................... 20
Early Historical Accounts of He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe ................................................................. 22
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe and the Changes in Land Tenure ........................................................... 23
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe in the 20th Century and Beyond ............................................................. 28
Previous Archaeology .................................................................................................................. 33
Early Archaeological Work ...................................................................................................... 33
Studies Associated with Construction of the H-3 Freeway ...................................................... 42
Other Studies in the Project Area Vicinity ...............................................................................46
Settlement Patterns ....................................................................................................................... 47
Summary of Background Research .............................................................................................. 48
ETHNOGRAPHIC SURVEY ................................................................................................................. 49
Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Interviewee Background .............................................................................................................. 50
Mahealani Cypher .................................................................................................................... 50
Kiersten Faulkner ..................................................................................................................... 51
John Flanigan ........................................................................................................................... 51
John Goody .............................................................................................................................. 51
Frank Hewett ............................................................................................................................ 51
Daniel Ka‘anana ....................................................................................................................... 52
Matthew Kievlan ...................................................................................................................... 52
Keoni Kuoha ............................................................................................................................ 52
Topical Breakouts ........................................................................................................................ 53
Connections to the Project Lands ............................................................................................. 53
Archaeological Sites and Cultural Practices .............................................................................56
Natural Environment ................................................................................................................ 57
Background and History of the Project Area............................................................................ 58
iii
Contents
History of the Ha‘ikū Stairs and Structures ............................................................................. 61

Change Through Time ............................................................................................................. 64
Concerns and Recommendations............................................................................................. 67
Summary of Ethnographic Survey .............................................................................................. 79
Access ...................................................................................................................................... 81
Maintenance ............................................................................................................................ 82
Education ................................................................................................................................. 82
The Environment ..................................................................................................................... 82
Establishing Facilities and Programs ....................................................................................... 82
Cost .......................................................................................................................................... 83
The Community ....................................................................................................................... 83
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 84
Cultural Resources, Practices, and Beliefs Identified .................................................................. 84
Potential Effects of the Proposed Project .................................................................................... 85
Confidential Information Withheld ............................................................................................. 85
Conflicting Information ............................................................................................................... 85
Recommendations/Mitigations .................................................................................................... 85
GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................... 88
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX A: AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE ................................................................................. 101
APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM ....................................................................................................... 105
APPENDIX C: TRANSCRIPT RELEASE ............................................................................................. 109
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW WITH MAHEALANI CYPHER .................................................................. 113
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW WITH KIERSTEN FAULKNER................................................................... 125
APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW WITH JOHN FLANIGAN ........................................................................... 137
APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW WITH JOHN GOODY ............................................................................... 153
APPENDIX H: INTERVIEW WITH FRANK HEWETT ........................................................................... 163
APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW WITH DANIEL KA‘ANANA ....................................................................... 169
APPENDIX J: INTERVIEW WITH MATTHEW KIEVLAN ..................................................................... 183
APPENDIX K: INTERVIEW WITH KEONI KUOHA ............................................................................. 201
iv
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project location on a 7.5 minute USGS Kaneohe quadrangle map (1998). ....................... 5
Figure 2. Project area on TMK plat (1) 4-5:023 (also see Figures 6 and 7). ..................................... 6
Figure 3. Soil types in the vicinity of the project area....................................................................... 8
Figure 4. Place names in the vicinity of the project area................................................................. 10
Figure 5. Traditional ecological zones for Hawai‘i Island based on Handy et al. (1972) ............... 14
Figure 6. Article from Ka Nonanona, Oct. 1841:32........................................................................ 24
Figure 7. LCA awards in relation to the project routes, TMK plat (1) 4-6-014. ............................. 26
Figure 8. LCA awards in relation to the project routes, TMK plat (1) 4-6-015. ............................. 27
Figure 9. Portion of a historic map of O‘ahu (Wall 1902) annotated to show the project area. ...... 29
Figure 10. Portion of a historic map of O‘ahu (Baldwin and Alexander 1913) .............................. 30
Figure 11. Photo of early wooden stairway (courtesy of John Flanigan). ....................................... 32
Figure 12. Construction of the transmitter building in January 1943 (adopted from Baton 1997). 32
Figure 13. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area. ............................... 34
Figure 14. Previously recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project. ......................... 38
Figure 15. McAllister’s (1933:175–176) map of Leleahina Heiau. ................................................ 40
Figure 16. Portion of TMK plat (1) 4-6-014, showing Leileiahina Heiau in the lower left corner. 41
TABLES
Table 1. Project Area TMK Parcels (Courtesy of G70) .................................................................... 2

Table 2. LCAs in the Project Area Vicinity .................................................................................... 25
Table 3. Previous Archaeological Studies in the Project Area Vicinity .......................................... 35
Table 4. Archaeological Sites in the Immediate Vicinity of the Project ......................................... 39
Table 5. List of Individuals Contacted ............................................................................................ 50
Table 6. Summary of Interviewee Perspectives .............................................................................. 86
v
vi
INTRODUCTION
At the request of G70, on behalf of the Board of Water Supply (BWS), Keala Pono Archaeological
Consulting conducted a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for proposed trail routes to the Ha‘ikū
Stairs (Stairway to Heaven) in He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, on the island
of O‘ahu on portions of TMK: (1) 4-5-023, (1) 4-6-014, and (1) 4-6-015. This CIA was designed to
identify any cultural resources or practices that may occur in the area and to gain an understanding
of the community’s perspectives on the proposed project. It will also help to inform decisions for
management of the stairs, which could include reopening the stairs to the public.
The report begins with a description of the project area and a historical overview of land use and
archaeology in the area. The next section presents methods and results of the ethnographic survey.
Project results are summarized and recommendations are made in the final section. Hawaiian words,
flora and fauna, and technical terms are defined in a glossary. Also included are appendices with
documents relevant to the ethnographic survey, including full transcripts of the interviews.
Project Location
The project area is located in He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, on the island
of O‘ahu (Figures 1 and 2). The Ha‘ikū Stairs lie within a portion of TMK: (1) 4-6-015:011, which
is a 225-acre (91.05 ha) parcel owned by the City and County of Honolulu Board of Water Supply.
Possible trail routes to the base of the stairs cross multiple parcels (see discussion of alternatives in
The Project section below). These are listed in Table 1. The project area consists of the three
alternative trail routes and the stairs themselves. The alternative trail routes have been designated as
Route 1, 1a, 1b, 2, 2a, 2b, and 3 (see Figure 1). Note that the two “a” routes follow the same path,
and the two “b” routes follow the same path.
The Project
The proposed action for the project is to remove the Ha‘ikū Stairs. There is currently a major
trespassing problem involving hikers attempting to access the stairs illegally, which poses liability
issues to BWS. BWS currently employs security guards at the base of the stairs to control access,
although this is a cost that is not in line with the BWS mission of providing safe, dependable, and
affordable drinking water to O‘ahu residents. Removal of the stairs would consists of the physical
extraction of all stair segments.
Three alternatives to the proposed action are also being considered:

 No-Action Alternative
 Ha‘ikū Stairs Partial Removal Alternative
 Conveyance Alternative
The following descriptions of the alternative actions were prepared in the Environmental Impact
Statement for the project (G70 2017:1-10–1-12):
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, Haʻikū Stairs would remain “as-is” with the land and
structure remaining under BWS ownership. As required under the Hawaiʻi Environmental
Protection Act (HEPA) rules, the No-Action Alternative must be assessed as the baseline
against which all other alternatives are measured. No improvements would be made, access
would remain closed, and concerns of liability and risk would remain. In 2014, the Haʻikū
1
Table 1. Project Area TMK Parcels (Courtesy of G70)
Route 1a Route 1b Route 2a Route 2b Route 3

Old Ha‘ikū Road Old Ha‘ikū Road via Kūneki Street Kūneki Street Po‘okela Street
via DHHL HKMO Via DHHL via HKMO
TMK Owner TMK Owner TMK Owner TMK Owner TMK Owner
46014001 B P Bishop 46014001 B P Bishop Kūneki unknown Kūneki unknown 45023002 State of
Trust Trust Street Street Hawaii
Estate Estate (no TMK) (no TMK)
46014018 Hui Kū 46014018 Hui Kū 46014018 Hui Kū 46014018 Hui Kū 45023003 State of
Maoli Ola Maoli Ola Maoli Ola Maoli Ola Hawaii
LLC LLC LLC LLC
46015014 Hawaiian 45023019 HHFDC 46015014 Hawaiian 45023019 HHFDC 45023017 State of
Home Home Hawaii
Lands Lands
46015009 USA 45023003 State of 46015009 USA 45023003 State of 45023012 SOH DOT
Hawaii Hawaii Highways
DIV
46015012 CCH 46015013 CCH 46015012 CCH 46015013 CCH 45023018 SOH DOT
Highways
DIV
46015014 Hawaiian 46015014 Hawaiian 46015013 CCH
Home Home
Lands Lands
2
Stairs Working Group unanimously held that the status quo was untenable and that “no-
action” was not an option.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, Haʻikū Stairs would remain “as-is” with the land and
structure remaining under BWS ownership. As required under the Hawaiʻi Environmental
Protection Act (HEPA) rules, the No-Action Alternative must be assessed as the baseline
against which all other alternatives are measured. No improvements would be made, access
would remain closed, and concerns of liability and risk would remain. In 2014, the Haʻikū
Stairs Working Group unanimously held that the status quo was untenable and that “no-
action” was not an option.
Ha‘ikū Stairs Partial Removal Alternative
Partial removal of Haʻikū Stairs would involve physically removing the first several
hundred feet of stair segments from the base of the Haʻikū Valley up the ridgeline. The rest
of the stair segments would remain in place, including the “back” stairs beyond the top of
the ridge. Partial removal of the structure would end future illegal access up the ridgeline
from Haʻikū Valley, but would not deter access to the ridgeline from hikers originating in
Moanalua Valley. This action would be a cost-effective solution to partially eliminate non-
mission critical liability to BWS and adjoining ridgeline landowners.
Conveyance Alternative
The Conveyance Alternative proposes the conveyance of the Ha‘ikū Stairs structure as well
as the property the structure is situated on, either through transfer to a more qualified
government entity, or by selling the property to a private interest. Segments of the stairs on
non-BWS owned lands could be retained by the underlying landowner. The sale or transfer
alternative presents greater difficulties and obstacles than the proposed project due to the
need to find a willing buyer from the private sector or a willing agency from the County to
agree to a formal transfer of BWS Ha‘ikū Stairs lands. The Conveyance Alternative
assumes that the transferee or buyer would open the stairs for public use through a managed
access scenario. There are several supporting components to the Conveyance Alternative:
 Legal Access
 Managed Access
Legal Access
Legal access would involve securing a legal access route through public and/or private
property interests by which hikers can arrive by vehicle (private vehicle and/or shuttle bus),
park, and walk to the base of the stairs. Legal access would require support and entitlement
coordination from surrounding land owners to provide the public with a long-term, reliable
access path to the stairs. Legal access to the parcel would have to be secured and approved
before the transfer of authority and ownership could occur. Potential legal access routes
were examined in this EIS, building from the work of the of the Haʻikū Stairs Working
Group, and refined based on meetings with landowners and stakeholders early in the EIS
process. Three candidate legal access routes were identified in the process and analyzed
for viability in the EIS:
 Access via Ha‘ikū Road
 Access via Kūneki Street
 Access via Po‘okela Street
Managed Access
The ultimate owner/operator of the stairs would be responsible for creating a managed
access plan that provided guidelines for managing, operating, and maintaining the stairs.
3
A managed access plan would need to consider transportation, parking, entrance fees,
carrying capacity, comfort facilities, waste management, environmental preservation,
cultural education, safety, liability insurance, maintenance, security features such as gates
and fencing, and after-hours security detail to prevent chronic trespassing. A
comprehensive managed access plan will be essential during the transition in order to
educate the public in accordance with the new management system, deter residual
trespassing, and prevent disturbance to Ha‘ikū Valley residents.
4
Figure 1. Project location on a 7.5 minute USGS Kaneohe quadrangle map (1998).
5
Figure 2. Project area on TMK plat (1) 4-5:023 (also see Figures 6 and 7).
6
BACKGROUND
A brief historic review of the project vicinity is provided below, to offer a better holistic
understanding of the use and occupation of the area. In the attempt to record and preserve both the
tangible (i.e., traditional and historic archaeological sites) and intangible (i.e., mo‘olelo, ‘ōlelo
no‘eau) culture, this research assists in the discussion of anticipated finds. Research was conducted
at the Hawai‘i State Library, the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa libraries, the SHPD libraries, and
online on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs website and the Waihona ‘Aina, Huapala, and Ulukau
databases. Archaeological reports and historical reference books were among the materials
examined.
The Natural Setting
The project area starts in Ha‘ikū Valley and ascends the steep eastern ridgeline of the southern
Ko‘olau Mountain Range crossing from He‘eia Ahupua‘a to Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a. Both He‘eia and
Kāne‘ohe, along with Kailua, form the central region of the district of Ko‘olaupoko. Geologically
speaking, this area sits in the center of the giant caldera that formed the Ko‘olau Mountain Range in
ancient times. It is a region of consistent rain and trade winds:
Carrying the burden of the trade wind rains, the windward side of O‘ahu is more weathered
than the leeward areas of the island, and now this vast caldera wall is reduced to a line of
sheer cliffs… The flat valley floors are extensively eroded, and are now mostly joined,
studded here and there with isolated remnant peaks and ridges connected to the central
massif. (Klieger et al. 2005:5)
The project site consists almost entirely of Alaeloa silty clay, 15 to 35 percent slopes (AeE) with
lesser amounts of Lolekaa silty clay, 8 to 15 percent slopes (LoC) and Lolekaa silty clay, 15 to 25
percent slopes (LoD) (Figure 3). The Alaeloa silty clay is described as follows:
This soil occurs on smooth side slopes and toe slopes in the uplands... In a representative
profile the surface layer is dark reddish-brown silty clay about 10 inches thick. The subsoil,
about 48 inches thick, is dark-red and red silty clay that has subangular blocky structure.
The substratum is soft, weathered basic igneous rock. The soil is medium acid in the surface
layer and strongly acid in the subsoil. Permeability is moderately rapid. Runoff is medium,
and the erosion hazard is moderate. The available water capacity is about 1.2 inches per
foot in the surface layer and 1.6 inches per foot in the subsoil. Roots penetrate to a depth
of 5 feet or more in places. Workability is difficult because of the slope. (Foote et al. 1972:
26)
Furthermore, the USDA Soil Conservation Service categorizes the Alaeloa silty clay, 15 to 35
percent slopes, as “Capability Subclass VIe, nonirrigated.” The capability classification is explained:
Subclass Vie soils are severely limited by the hazard of erosion. The soils are well drained,
are more than 20 inches deep, and have slopes of 6 to 40 percent. (Foote et al. 1972:154)
Soils from the Lolekaa series are described as follows:
This series consists of well-drained soils on fans and terraces on the windward side of the
island of Oahu. These soils developed in old, gravelly colluvium and alluvium. They are
gently sloping to very steep. Elevations range from nearly sea level to 500 feet. The annual
rainfall amounts to 70 to 90 inches and is well distributed throughout the year. The mean
annual soil temperature is 71° F. Lolekaa soils are geographically associated with Alaeloa
and Waikane soils. (Foote et al. 1972:83)
7
Figure 3. Soil types in the vicinity of the project area. Note that the selected survey work is pending landowner consent.
8
The Lolekaa silty clay with 8 to 15 percent slopes has a Capability classification of IIIe, nonirrigated.
This classification is explained:
Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special
conservation practices, or both. Subclass IIIe soils are subject to severe erosion if they are
cultivated and not protected. In most places the soils are more than 20 inches deep and have
slopes of 0 to 15 percent. (Foote et al. 1972:154)
The Lolekaa silty clay with 15 to 25 percent slopes has a capability classification of IVe,
nonirrigated. This classification is explained:
Class IV soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very
careful management, or both. Subclass IVe soils are subject to severe erosion if they are
cultivated and not protected. The soils are well drained to moderately well drained, are
more than 20 inches deep, and have slopes of 0 to 25 percent. (Foote et al. 1972:154)
The closest waterway to the project area is the Ha‘ikū Stream, which originates at the back of the
valley and joins with the Loleka‘a Stream to form the He‘eia Stream which eventually flows into
Kāne‘ohe Bay. With a well-watered landscape, the upland vegetation provided resources for food,
housing, clothing, tools, and medicine. Plants in the region since traditional times, cultivated and
uncultivated, included kalo, mai‘a, wauke, kī, ‘ohe, kukui, hau, hala, ‘ōhi‘a lehua, and koa. In
addition, the lands also provided animals for food such as the ‘īlio, pua‘a, and moa, as well as other
birds (Klieger et al. 2005). Rainfall is high within the project area, with mean annual rainfall ranging
from 2,400 mm (95 in.) at the top of the stairs to 1,900 mm (75 in.) in the lower portions of the
project (Giambelluca et al. 2013).
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe in Traditional Times
Native traditions describe the formation (literally the birth) of the Hawaiian Islands and the
presence of life on and around them, in the context of genealogical accounts… As this
Hawaiian genealogical account continues, we find that these same god-beings, or creative
forces of nature who gave birth to the islands, were also the parents of the first man (Hāloa),
and from this ancestor, all Hawaiian people are descended. It was in this context of kinship,
that the ancient Hawaiians addressed their environment. (Maly and Maly 2003)
The history of He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe begin with the history of O‘ahu Island:
O‘ahu is also a new name, given in memory of an ancestor of the people of O‘ahu. Lolo-
imehani, Lalo-waia, and Lalo-oho-aniani were the ancient names of O‘ahu. O‘ahu was the
child of Papa and Lua… and because O‘ahu was a good chief and the people lived
harmoniously after the time of Wākea mā, O‘ahu’s descendants gave the name of their
good chief to the island --- O‘ahu-a-Lua. (Kamakau 1991:129)
Traditionally, He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe are two of eleven ahupua‘a which make up the east O‘ahu moku
of Ko‘olaupoko. From north to south, these ahupua‘a are Kualoa, Hakipu‘u, Waikāne, Waiāhole,
Ka‘alaea, Waihe‘e, Kahalu‘u, He‘eia, Kāne‘ohe, Kailua, and Waimānalo. One often overlooked
source of history is the information embedded in the Hawaiian place names. Hawaiian place names
“usually have understandable meanings, and the stories illustrating many of the place names are well
known and appreciated… The place names provide a living and largely intelligible history” (Pukui
et al. 1974:xii). The names of the places associated with the current project area are illustrated in
Figure 4. The place names listed in Pukui et al.’s (1974) Place Names of Hawaii are defined below.
9
Figure 4. Place names in the vicinity of the project area.
10
Alamihi. [Note that while Pukui et al. (1974:9) list this as two places in Mānoa, Wall (1902)
illustrated a place named Alamihi on a map of the Kāne‘ohe area] …On the death of a
Mānoa native, a rainbow spanned the valley from one Alamihi to the other. Lit., path [of]
regret.
Ha‘ikū.…Valley, Kāne‘ohe qd., O‘ahu. Lit., speak abruptly or sharp break. (Pukui et al.
1974:34)
He‘eia….Village, elementary school, playground, land divisions, stream, and fishpond

covering 88 acres, Kāne‘ohe and Mōkapu qds., O‘ahu. During a battle with people from
Leeward O‘ahu, a tidal wave is said to have washed (he‘e ‘ia) the natives out to sea and
back, after which they were victorious, thus fulfilling a prophecy. In ancient times, souls
were judged here and divided into two groups: the white, who went to He‘eia-kea, and the
black, who went to He‘eia-uli. He‘eia is also the name given by the goddess Haumea to
her foster child, the grandson of ‘Olopana. (Pukui et al. 1974:43–44).
‘Ioleka‘a. Valley and stream, He‘eia, O‘ahu. Lit., rolling rat. (Rats of the area lured other
rats to a slippery stone on the pali and caused them to fall to their deaths in the pool below.
In another version, a rat shot by Pikoi-a-ka-‘Alalā, a legendary hero, rolled down a cliff
and lodged on a ledge know as ‘Iole-ka‘a.) (Puku‘i et al. 1974:57)
Kamo‘oali‘i….Stream, Kāne‘ohe qd., O‘ahu, site of a subdivision flooded in February

1969. Sometimes spelled Kamoalii. Lit., the chiefly mo‘o. (Many mo‘o stories concern this
area. In one, a chiefess from Maui was to meet a local chief here. A handsome man
approached who she thought was the chief; but the chief arrived and the stranger turned
into a mo‘o and carried her into the stream…) (Pukui et al. 1974:82)
Kāne‘ohe. Quadrangle, land section, playground, village, bay, beach, park, harbor, school,
ranch, stream, country park, Marine Corps Air Station, and golf course, O‘ahu. Lit.,
bamboo husband (according to one account, a woman compared her husband’s cruelty to
the cutting edge of a bamboo knife). (Pukui et al. 1974:85)
Kapunahala. Land section, road, elementary school, subdivision, stream formerly called
Ano-lani, and playground, Kāne‘ohe qd., O‘ahu. Lit., the pandanus spring. (Pukui et al.
1974:90)
Kea‘ahala. Stream, land sections, and playground, Kāne‘ohe qd., O‘ahu. Lit., the pandanus
root. (Pukui et al. 1974:100)
Keahiakahoe. Same as Pu‘u-ke-ahi-a-Kahoe. (Pukui et al. 1974:100)
Keapuka. Land section and stream, Kāne‘ohe qd., O‘ahu.[listed by Pukui et al. (1974:104)
as pronunciation and meaning uncertain]
Ko‘olau….Windward mountain range, O‘ahu… Lit., windward. (Pukui et al. 1974:117)
Luluku. Land section and stream, Kāne‘ohe area, O‘ahu. Lit., destruction. (Pukui et al.
1974:136)
Mahinui. Mountain, fishpond, and stream, Mōkapu qd., O‘ahu, named for a legendary hero
who was defeated by Olo-mana, and whose body was cast from Mount Olo-mana to the
present location of the mountain. Lit., great champion. (Pukui et al. 1974:140)
11
Punalu‘u….Fishpond, Kāne‘ohe qd., O‘ahu. Lit., spring dived for…. (Pukui et al.
1974:194)
Pu‘ukahuauli. Peak, Moanalua, Honolulu. Lit., dark site hill. (Pukui et al. 1974:197)
Pu‘ukeahiakahoe. Cliff, Kāne‘ohe qd., O‘ahu that overlooks Kamana Nui and Kamana Iki
valleys. Lit., the fire of Kahoe Hill. (Kahoe lived inland and traded vegetables for fish from
his brother who lived by the sea. Because his brother was stingy, Kahoe in retaliation
cooked his vegetables in a cave; the smoke went out the other end, and so when people
came looking at the smoky end, he could hide his vegetables…). (Pukui et al. 1974:199)
Waipao. [note that Pukui et al. (1974:227) list this as places on Kaua‘i and Maui, a map by
Baldwin (1913) illustrates it as a place in Kāne‘ohe]…Lit., scooped water. (Pukui et al.
1974:227)
Handy et al. (1972) provide further information on the naming and early history of He‘eia:
He‘eia was named for the “washing away” of the primordial ancestor, Wakea, his wife
Haumea, and all their followers, in a tidal wave which overwhelmed them their
encampment at this place, during epic wars with Kane-kumu-honua…It was near the small
islet of Kapapa, in the bay, that the kahuna who had foretold the cataclysm taught Wakea
to make a “heiau” of his clasped hands and an offering therein of a “pig” — a humuhumu
fish caught in the waters beside him. In this district also lived at one time Ma-‘eli‘eli,
known as the Dragon Woman of He‘eia… (Handy et al. 1972:454–455)
Subsistence and Traditional Land Use
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe are situated in the central portion of a network of abundant lands and waters
which made up the Ko‘olaupoko district. Dozens of fishponds and shrines were located throughout
Kāne‘ohe Bay. Inland, there was the ample use of diversified dryland farming and the procurement
of necessary resources from the natural forested areas. The pondfield agriculture for the cultivation
of irrigated taro flourished across the region, following the fresh waterways and ingeniously making
use of terraced slopes. These wetland terrace complexes, or lo‘i, extended upland to the backs of the
valleys and base of the Ko‘olau Mountain Range.
In the Bishop Museum publication, The Hawaiian Planter, various streams that watered the lo‘i of
He‘eia were described and named:
The extensive salt marshes of Heeia inland from the fishponds were not cultivable, but
fringing them on the south and flanking both sides of Heeia Stream, from which they are
irrigated, lie the vats terraced lowland flats of this ahupua’a, still largely planted in
commercial taro. The southern portion of these terraces is irrigated from Kalimukele
stream, which turns southward and flows into Kaneohe. The small stream named Puolena
supplements Heeia Stream for irrigation on the north. The terraces extend up the main
stream to the junction of Haiku Stream and Iolekaa. A small stream named Kaiwikee flows
into Iolekaa from the southwestward in the Koolau Range. (Handy in Sterling and
Summers 1978:197)
In Sites of Oahu, several fishponds throughout the ahupua‘a are documented, such as He‘eia
Fishpond, O‘ohope Fishpond, and others. In addition, several heiau throughout He‘eia are also
recorded: Kalaeulaula, Kaualauki, Leleahina, Apili, Kahekili, and Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau.
Likewise, for Kāne‘ohe, its important fishponds and ceremonial places are also recorded and
described. Among the heiau are: Kukuiokāne, Kalaoa, Ahukini, Kawa‘ewa‘e, Pu‘umakani, and
Pu‘uwaniania. Among the many fishponds of Kāne‘ohe are: Muliwaiolena, Kaluapuhi, Nu‘upia,
12
Halekou, Hanalua, Kea‘alau, Mahinui, Kaluoa, Mikiola, Keana, Kalokohanahou, Waikalua,
Punalu‘u, and Kanohuluiwi. The large number of fishponds and heiau in Kāne‘ohe suggest that it
supported a great population (Sterling and Summers 1978).
More detailed description of the traditional land use in Kāne‘ohe is found in The Hawaiian Planter:
Kaneohe is one of the most complicated terrace areas in the islands… The flatlands of
Kaneohe are broken up between hills into chains of pockets connecting along its stream
channels. On the north side of the ahupua‘a ear the boundary of Heeia, Keaahala Stream
flows into Kalimukele, coming out of Heeia. Some of the best terraces now in use are
inland of the highwayman are irrigated by Keaahala… Wailele (formerly Paniohelele)
Stream, and Hiilaniwai, which joins it just above the highway an eighth of a mile east of
Kaneohe town, watered terraces both above and below the highway… There were formerly
a few terrace sections farther up Wailele, which, however was but a short stream.
Hiilaniwai is a very long stream running back to the slopes draining Puu Lanihuli. There
were only a few small terrace sections along this stream above Wailele. There was no
systematic terracing along the upper course of Hiilaniwai and along the joint stream formed
Kahuaiki and Mamalahoa streams, because here the hillsides rise too steeply from the
stream beds. The lowland terrace areas of Wailele and Keaahala were so extensive that it
was evidently found unnecessary by the old Hawaiians to terrace the interior slopes to the
degree that this was done in Waianae. The kula lands between the streams were planted in
pandanus, wauke, bananas, and sweet potatoes. Hawaiian kalo maloo was not planted here.
The number of names of ili and kuleana on kula lands along the Hiilaniwai and its
tributaries, however, indicates intensive cultivation of products other than taro. (Handy in
Sterling and Summers 1978:205)
Traditional Ecological Zones
Traditional land use in Hawai‘i was founded on the vertical arrangement of a volcanic island’s
natural ecosystems, with subsistence systems based on several ecological resource zones, including
the upland/inland forest zone, or the wao nahele, the agricultural zone, or the wao kanaka, and the
coastal zone, or the kahakai. This latter zone included the strand area, fringing reefs, limu beds,
lagoons, fishponds, and estuaries. The muliwai are mostly on the windward side of the islands and
are part of another biological resource zone, the kaha wai or freshwater ecosystems and streams. The
ocean (kai), near the shore can also be considered a biological resource zone (Mueller-Dombois
2007).
Since the ahupua‘a served as the complete subsistence system for Hawaiian family groups (the
‘ohana) prior to Western contact in 1778, many important features would be inherent within the
resource zones. Besides habitation sites in the kahakai and wao kanaka, there were also transitional
habitation sites near and in the wao nahele. Both the wao kanaka and kahakai included temples
(heiau) and burial places (hē) as well as irrigated terraces (lo‘i kalo) for taro cultivation (Mueller-
Dombois 2007).
These ecological zones were based both on ecology and elevation, and were intrinsically tied to the
Hawaiian worldview. Maly provides more detail on the Hawaiian perspective of the
ecological/environmental zones:
Hawaiian customs and practices demonstrate the belief that all portions of the land and
environment are related, like members of an extended family, each environmental zone
was named, and their individual attributes were known. Acknowledging the relationship of
one environmental zone (wao) to another, is rooted in traditional land management
practices and values. Just as place names tell us that areas are of cultural importance, the
13
occurrence of a Hawaiian nomenclature for environmental zones also tells us that there was
an intimate relationship between Hawaiians and their environment. (Maly 2001:3)
Handy and Pukui (1998) list nine of the ecological zones on Hawai‘i Island as follows:
Piko - (13,000 ft.) Moku‘āweoweo Crater, Summit

Kua lono - (11,000–10,000 ft.)
Maʻu kele or Wao kele - (8,000–7,000 ft.)
Wao akua - (6,000–5,000 ft.)
Wao nahele or Wao lāʻau - (5,000–4,000 ft.)
Wao ʻamaʻu or Wao kānaka - (3,000 ft.)
Wao ʻilima - (2,000 ft.)
Kula uka - (1,000 ft.)
Kula kai - (1,000–500 ft.)
Although the elevation designations would not have been the same for O‘ahu Island, it is likely that
the same resource categories were applied throughout the Hawaiian chain. The summit of
Keahiakahoe lies at 2,820 ft., yet it would not have been categorized within the lower resource zones
as noted for Hawai‘i Island. The Haiku Stairs traverse the steep mountainside leading to the
Keahiakahoe peak, well above the fertile lowlands of the wao kānaka and wao lā‘au. Therefore it is
likely that the stairs pass through the wao akua, ma‘u kele (wao kele), and possibly even into the kua
lono zone (Figure 5). The term wao refers to “inland,” and wao kele (or ma‘u kele) refers to a region
near a mountain top (Mueller-Dombois 2007:26). Wao akua is the realm of the gods, and wao kele
the rainforest. Mueller-Dombois (2007) gives a short description of the wao akua:
Figure 5. Traditional ecological zones for Hawai‘i Island based on Handy et al. (1972) (adopted
from Mueller-Dombois 2007:24).
14
The wao akua is described as the zone in which smaller sized trees grew. The reduced
tree size together with the distinction of this forest as being the realm of the gods (akua)
and thus probably feared as a forest of ghosts, most likely points to wao akua implying
what ecologists call “cloud forest.” (Mueller-Dombois 2007:26)
The wao akua was known as a dwelling place of spirits, both good and bad. It is clear that
superstitions regarding the mountain summit regions were still prevalent in the post-contact period:
Early accounts from the mid-19th century by William Ellis, James Jarves and James Macrae
write that their Hawaiian guides would not go near Mauna Kea’s summit due to
“superstitious dread of the mountain spirits or gods.” (Hitt 2015:28)
Native Hawaiian historian David Malo points out that wao kele is also the area where “the monarchs
of the forest grew” (1997:38). The monarchs were the tall endemic acacia koa trees, which grew as
high as 100 feet (30 m). They thrive in the mesic higher elevation rainforests on Mauna Loa, Mauna
Kea, and Haleakalā (Hawai‘i and Maui Islands). This was not as apparent in the Ko‘olau Mountains
of O‘ahu, however; thus it is unclear if the Keahiakahoe area would have been considered the wao
kele or the even higher Kua lono zone.
The ecological zones have also been further expanded into 23 categories (Maly 2001:3). The
upland/inland regions were given distinctive names as elevations reached higher toward the summit.
A full list from mauka to makai is reproduced here:
1–Ke kuahiwi; 2–Ke kualono; 3–Ke kuamauna; 4–Ke ku(a)hea; 5–Ke kaolo; 6–Ka wao;
7–Ka wao ma‘u kele; 8–Ka wao kele; 9–Ka wao akua; 10–Ka wao lā‘au; 11–Ka wao
känaka; 12–Ka ‘ama‘u; 13–Ka ‘āpa‘a; 14–Ka pahe‘e; 15–Ke kula; 16–Ka ‘ilima; 17–Ka
pu‘eone; 18–Ka po‘ina nalu; 19–Ke kai kohola; 20–Ke kai ‘ele; 21–Ke kai uli; 22–Ke kai
pualena; 23–Kai
1–The mountain; 2–The region near the mountain top; 3–The mountain top; 4–The misty
ridge; 5–The trail ways; 6–The inland regions; 7 and 8– The rain belt regions; 9–The distant
area inhabited by gods; 10–The forested region; 11–The region of people below; 12–The
place of ‘ama‘u [fern upland agricultural zone]; 13– The arid plains; 14–The place of wet
land planting; 15–The plain or open country; 16–The place of ‘ilima growth [a seaward,
and generally arid section of the kula]; 17–The dunes; 18–The place covered by waves
[shoreline]; 19–The shallow sea [shoreline reef flats]; 20–The dark sea; 21–The deep blue-
green sea; 22–The yellow [sun reflecting– sea on the horizon]; and 23–The deep purplish
black sea of Kāne at Tahiti. (Ka Hoku o Hawaii, September 21, 1916 in Maly 2001:3)
Traditionally, people generally did not inhabit the mountainous upland areas of the Hawaiian Islands.
These areas were cold, wet and not as hospitable as lower elevations. The mountain regions did,
however, supply important raw materials and were visited to gather these resources. Trees growing
in the mountains were cut for wood used to make canoes, bowls, tools, weapons, musical
instruments, and ki‘i; birds were caught for their feathers, which were used in capes, helmets, kāhili,
and lei; ferns and foliage were collected for decoration and other purposes; the ‘ie‘ie vine
(Freycinetia arborea), was used to make fish traps, feather helmets, akua images, musical
instruments, twined baskets, and other such things (Krauss 1993).
Handy and Pukui expand on the varieties of plants were significant to the upland regions:
Wao means the wild—a place distant and not often penetrated by man. The wao la‘au is
the inland forested region, often a veritable jungle, which surmounts the upland kula slopes
on every major island of the chain, reaching up to very high elevations… The Hawaiians
15
recognized and named many divisions or aspects of the wao: first, the wao kanaka, the
reaches most accessible, and most valuable, to man (kanaka); and above that, denser and
at higher elevations, the wao akua, forest of the gods, remote, awesome, seldom penetrated,
source of supernatural influences, both evil and beneficent. The wao kele, or wao ma‘u
kele, was the rainforest. Here grew giant trees and tree ferns (‘ama‘u) under almost
perpetual cloud and rain.
The wao kanaka and the wao la‘au provided man with the hard wood of the koa for spears,
utensils, and logs for boat hulls; pandanus leaves (lau hala) for thatch and mats; bark of the
mamaki tree for making tapa cloth; candlenuts (kukui) for oil and light; wild yams and
roots for famine time; sandalwood, prized when shaved or ground as a sweet scent for
bedding and stored garments. These and innumerable other materials were sought and
found and worked by man in and from the wao. (Handy and Pukui 1998:216–219)
Although uninhabited in pre-contact times, the slopes through which the Haiku Stairs traverse were
undoubtedly significant, spiritually as well as for their natural resources.
Moʻolelo
Hawaiian place names were connected to traditional stories through which the history of the places
was preserved. These stories were referred to as mo‘olelo, which the Hawaiian Dictionary defines
as “Story, tale, myth, history, tradition, literature, legend, journal, log, yarn, fable, essay, chronicle,
record, article; minutes, as of a meeting. (From moʻo ʻōlelo, succession of talk; all stories were oral,
not written.)” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:254). In The Epic Tale of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, Nogelmeier
further explains the definition of mo‘olelo as “a term embracing many kinds of recounted
knowledge, including history, legend, and myth. It included stories of every kind, whether factual or
fabulous, lyrical or prosaic. Mo‘olelo were repositories of cultural insight and a foundation for
understanding history and origins, often presented as allegories to interpret or illuminate
contemporary life… Certainly many such [oral] accounts were lost in the sweep of time, especially
with the decline of the Hawaiian population and native language” (Nogelmeier 2006:429,430).
Among their stories, both He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe have mo‘olelo which mention the natural resources
of its land, sea, and fresh waterways.
Pertaining to its sea, the people of He‘eia had a guardian named Meheanu who looked after their
fishpond. Meheanu lived at Luamo‘o, and the color in the hau trees indicated whether Meheanu was
present there in the bay or off visiting somewhere else. Further out into the sea, there was a famous
reef known as Koamano. This reef was well known for the great number of sharks which dwelled in
its many caves. The caretaker of the sharks was a man named Makanui who had been discovered
feeding the sharks the bodies of the dead (Sterling and Summers 1978).
There is also the story of the siblings Hiluuli and Hiluula, who are associated with the wrasse fish
that is found in He‘eia’s waters. According to the mo‘olelo, it was the sister, who in fish form,
brought the large school of wrasse, or hilu, to He‘eia’s shores. Unbeknownst to the people, they
caught the many hilu and were feasting when the brother arrived in the area and recognized the fish
as his sister. In anger, he took the form of a strong wind and blew all the hilu fish back into the sea
where they can be found to this day in large numbers (Sterling and Summers 1978).
Other supernatural beings associated with He‘eia are the rats, Makaiolenanawai and ‘Ioleka‘a.
Makaiolenanawai was the rat of Ko‘olaupoko, and ‘Ioleka‘a was the rat of ‘Ewa. They met at the
ridgeline along the Ko‘olau cliffs of He‘eia, and depending on the version of the story, the ‘Ewa rat
was either defeated in a fight, or he slipped by accident. Either way, he fell and rolled down the
mountain, and to this day that inland area bears his name, ‘Ioleka‘a, It is said that the feet of the
‘Ewa rats are red, while the feet of the Ko‘olaupoko rats are white (Sterling and Summers 1978).
16
Perhaps one of the most famous stories of He‘eia was that it was divided into two regions, He‘eia
Kea and He‘eia Uli. According to the mo‘olelo, He‘eia was where the souls of the dead leaped into
the next world, and depending upon how they were judged, that is, if they lived good lives or bad
lives, that would determine whether they spent the afterlife in He‘eia Kea or He‘eia Uli. One was
likened to a heaven, and the other was likened to a hell (Sterling and Summers 1978).
Both He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe shared portions of the peninsula of Mōkapu. This, too, was a storied
place. Both portions of Mōkapu were where temples and shrines were located. On the He‘eia side,
there were the stone representations of the gods Kū and Hina. They eventually moved to Kona but
left behind their daughter Kuau, a legendary “disappearing stone… [which] held back the sea from
washing away Mokapu peninsula” (Sterling and Summers 1978:204).
On the Kāne‘ohe side of Mōkapu, there was a shark god named Kuhaimoana. He lived in a cave on
the leeward side of Mokumanu Island. But arguably the most significant of the stories associated
with Mōkapu is the creation of man on the eastern (Kāne‘ohe) side of the peninsula. It was here that
the gods Kāne, Kū, and Lono created the first man and woman. According to this mo‘olelo, the first
man was made from the earth, and the first woman was made from his shadow (Sterling and
Summers 1978).
The god Kāne is also featured strongly in mo‘olelo concerning the inland area of Kāne‘ohe. The
heiau in the Luluku area bears his name, Kukuiokāne. Three wives of Kāne, Hi‘ilaniwai, Kahuaiki,
and Mamalahoa, take the form of three streams in the uplands of Kāne‘ohe. It was said that rather
than meet them separately and spur jealousy, Kāne would meet them where the three streams met,
at a junction called Hookuianakeiaonawaiakane, and the three wives would agree on how best to
provide the Kāne‘ohe people with fresh water. Kāne also kept his best pigs in the uplands of
Kāne‘ohe. The place was called Papua‘a a Kāne. And with his wife Mamalahoa, Kāne cultivated
‘awa in the uplands, an area which became known for its exceptional ‘awa (Sterling and Summers
1978).
Above Papua‘a a Kāne, there is a famous peak known as Keahiakahoe, that has an accompanying
mo‘olelo. Kahoe lived with his family on the steep cliffs called Keaʻahala above the ahupuaʻa of
Kāneʻohe. Kahoe was a man known for his diligent farming of ʻawa and banana and his irrigated
taro patches in his upland home. Kahoe’s work ethic reveals the nature of work and land use; from
sunrise to sundown he kept himself busy with weeding and tending his irrigated kalo in the upland
precipices of Keaʻahala. The religious aspect of agricultural pursuits is revealed in this story. Kahoe
would show his appreciation to Kāne, the god of fresh water by placing ceremonial offerings of
banana on the family altar named Pōhakuokāne (the stone of Kāne). Kahoe’s cultivation of banana
and his use of it as a religious offering establishes the area’s cultivation of banana, which continues
today.
Kahoe also had two brothers and a sister. Kahuauli, an older brother from Luluku, was a farmer. A
younger brother named Pahu was a fisherman that lived at Puʻupahu near Heʻeia. Loʻe was Kahoe’s
sister, who lived on an island in Kāneʻohe Bay which later became known as Mokuoloʻe (the island
of Loʻe) (Harmon 2000:11). During this time on Oʻahu, the great chiefs of the land had a universal
treaty that required all residents to feed and give water to any stranger that appeared at one’s
dwelling. This was never a problem for the people of this area as water was abundant, as was
cultivated kalo, maiʻa (banana), and ʻawa. Kahoe’s generosity was well known as was his reputation
as a gracious host. In fact, he was never known to deny a person a place to sleep. The abundance of
his land allowed him to care for visitors that came to him, as was the custom of the day.
Pahu, the fisherman brother would frequently visit his older brother and bring fish to share with
Kahoe. In return, Kahoe would provide Pahu with poi, the staple food made of kalo, and thus the
17
exchange of goods from those of the uplands with those of the sea that characterized life in ancient
Hawaiʻi was established. But later, Pahu’s stinginess brought an end to this exchange.
Eventually, Pahu would only bring the smallest of fish to Kahoe whenever he saw smoke rising
above Keaʻahala; a sign that Kahoe was cooking taro to make poi. Kahoe’s generosity continued for
a time and whenever Pahu would see smoke rise, he would hurry to get more poi. Pahu’s stinginess
caused Kahoe to relocate his family to another area and cook his meal in a cave to hide the smoke
that would bring Pahu calling. From this cave, the smoke would escape from another exit and
allowed for Kahoe to hide his food, an act that was contrary to the expected behavior of the time.
The “fire hill of Kahoe” (Puʻu ke ahi a Kahoe), became the name of this peak that overlooks
Kamananui and Kamanaiki valleys. The story communicates a moral that if all parties do not follow
the expected behaviors of the land, then societal norms will deteriorate. Here, Kahoe’s own
generosity became compromised by his own efforts to avoid Pahu, his stingy brother.
Finally, there is one other important figure mentioned in the mo‘olelo of Kāne‘ohe, and that is
La‘amaikahiki. He is credited as being the one who introduced the traditional drums to Hawai‘i from
his home in Kahiki. According to one story, La‘amaikahiki “heard that Hawaii was a fertile land,
and that the people were great farmers and keepers of fish in fish ponds,” so he sailed to Hawai‘i
and landed in Kāne‘ohe at a place called Naoneala‘a, or “The Sands of La‘a” (Sterling and Summers
1978:209–210).
Oli and Mele
The noteworthiness of specific locales in Hawaiian culture is further bolstered by their appearances
in traditional chants. An oli refers to a chant that is done without any accompaniment of dance, while
a mele refers to a chant that may or may not be accompanied by a dance. These expressions of
folklore have not lost their merit in society today. They continue to be referred to in contemporary
discussions of Hawaiian history, identity, and values.
The Ko‘olaupoko region is featured in the epic journey of the goddess Hi‘iaka on her way from
Hawai‘i Island to Kaua‘i. Particularly noted is the description of the stormy weather of the southern
Ko‘olau Mountains. In one of Hi‘iaka’s chants about the area, she mentions that He‘eia is pounded
by the rain:
Ino Koolau, e, ino Koolau!
Ai kena i ka ua o Koolau;
Ke ua mai la i Maelieli,
Ke hoowa‘awa‘a mai la i Heeia,
Ke kupa la ka ua i ke kai.
Ha‘a hula le‘a ka ua
I Ahuimanu, ka ua hooni…
Vile, vile is this Koolau weather;

One soaks in the rain till he’s full.
The rain, it pours at Maelieli;
It gutters the land at Heeia;
It lashes the sea with a whip.
18
The rain, it dances in glee
At Ahuimanu, moving… (Emerson 1997[1915]:90)
In another oli, a chant of Paumakua, both He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe are mentioned by name. The
significance of this oli is that Paumakua is an ancestor of La‘amaikahiki, and being of chiefly rank,
this chant underscores the chiefly lineage connected to these areas of Ko‘olaupoko. Paumakua was
born in Kāne‘ohe and was noted to be a great ancient voyager who sailed to many foreign lands
(Klieger et al. 2005). Here is an excerpt of Paumakua’s chant:
‘O Paumakua, ‘o Kekumakaha;
‘O ka maka ‘ia o Puna ‘o Kakumakaha.
‘O ke ‘li‘i o Ko‘olau, o Mokapu, o ‘Ulupau;
I hānau no i Kuaa‘ohe,
‘Ō Ki‘i la ke kahua,
‘Ō Mololani ke ēwe,
‘Ō Halekou ka piko,
‘Ō Mahinui ke a‘a.
I Kapa‘a i Holoholomakani,
I Pu‘iwa la i Waihaukalua,
I Moelana la i Luluku,
I Kāne‘ohe la i He‘eia…
Paumakua, Kekumakaha;
A “bud” of Puna was Kekumakaha.
The chief of Ko‘olau, of Mokapu, of ‘Ulupa‘u;
He was born at Kuaa‘ohe,
Ki‘i was the site,
At Mololani the placenta,
At Halekou the navel cord,
At Mahinui the caul.
[He lived] at Kapa‘a, at Holoholomakani,
At Pu‘iwa there at Waihaukalua,
At Moelana there at Luluku,
In Kāne‘ohe there, at He‘eia… (Kamakau 1991:150–151)
‘Ōlelo No‘eau
Like oli and mele, traditional proverbs and wise sayings, known as ‘ōlelo no‘eau, have been another
means by which the history of Hawaiian places has been recorded. In 1983, Mary Kawena Pukui
published a volume of close to 3,000 ‘ōlelo no‘eau that she collected throughout the islands. The
introductory chapter of that book reminds us that if we could understand these proverbs and wise
sayings well, then we would understand Hawai‘i well (Pukui 1983).
19
Only one ‘ōlelo no‘eau is listed for Kāne‘ohe, and only one is listed for He‘eia. The Kāne‘ohe
proverb alludes to the large populations living in Kāne‘ohe and Kailua. According to this ‘ōlelo
no‘eau, many would die by sorcery as vengeful punishment for the murder of a woman’s grandson.
The He‘eia ‘ōlelo no‘eau, on the other hand, references its rain which makes a sound that is likened
to the tapping of a walking stick. In a related ‘ōlelo no‘eau, the entire Ko‘olau region is noted for its
heavy vegetation which keeps its hills and cliffs dark green and lush. The sayings are presented
below as they appear in Pukui’s publication:
Kini Kailua, mano Kāne‘ohe.

Forty thousand in Kailua, four thousand in Kāne‘ohe.
A great number. Said by a woman named Kawaiho‘olana whose grandson was ruthlessly
murdered by someone from either Kailua or Kāne‘ohe. She declared that this many
would perish by sorcery to avenge him. Another version credits Keohokauouli, a kahuna
in the time of Kamehameha, for this saying. He suggested sorcery as a means of
destroying the conqueror’s O‘ahu enemies.
Ka ua kani ko‘o o He‘eia.

The rain of He‘eia that sounds like the tapping of walking canes.
Na pali hāuliuli o ke Ko‘olau.

The dark hills of Ko‘olau.
The hills and cliffs of the windward side of O‘ahu are always dark and beautiful with trees
and shrubs. (Pukui 1983:168, 193, 249)
Ka Makani a me Ka Ua: The Wind and the Rain
With their lives closely connected to the natural environment and physical surroundings, Hawaiian
winds and rains were individually named and associated with a specific place, region, or island. In
Hānau Ka Ua, Akana and Gonzalez (2015:xv) explain that kūpuna “knew when a particular rain
would fall, its color, duration, intensity, the path it would take, the sound it made on the trees, the
scent it carried, and the effect it had on people.” The following wind and rain names associated with
Kāne‘ohe and He‘eia offer further insight on kūpuna perspectives of the project area.
‘Āpuakea is a rain of Hāna, Maui; Hilo, Hawai‘i; and Ko‘olaupoko, O‘ahu, as well as a place name
in Ko‘olaupoko. This rain was named for ‘Āpuakeanui, who was the most beautiful woman of Kailua
(Akana and Gonzalez 2015:xvi). The ‘Āpuakea of the Ko‘olau are noted as follows:
E ho‘i e ka u‘i o Ko‘olau
‘Oiai ua malu nāpali
‘O ka ne‘e a ka ua ‘Āpuakea
Kāhiko i ke oho o ka palai
Let the youth of Ko‘olau return home
For the cliffs are shaded
The creeping of the ‘Āpuakea rain
That adorns the fronds of the palai ferns (Akana and Gonzalez 2015:7)
Regarding the ‘Āpuakea of the project area, the places Kekele and Luluku are mentioned
specifically:
Hele ha‘aheo ka ua ‘Āpuakea
Holo ‘aui i ke kai o Maluaka ē, i laila
20
Ka‘a ‘ōlelo ka ua i luna o ka hala
Ke po‘o o ka hala o ‘Āhulimanu
From that name, ‘Āpuakeanui, came the name of the famous rain of Kailua that pummels
the hala groves of Kekele and Luluku, namely the ‘Āpuakea, which goes like this in song:
The ‘Āpuakea rain moves proudly along
Slipping off into the sea of Maluaka, ah there
Words are spoken by the rain on the hala
The uppermost hala of ‘Āhulimanu (Akana and Gonzalez 2015:6–7)
Kālepa is a quiet rain of He‘eia that is said to destroy the coral offshore:
Ke nihi a‘ela ka ua Kālepa
Ka ua ‘oki‘oki ko‘a o He‘eia
Ke hehi maila i ka maka o ke ko‘a
A luhi ē—Luhi i ka ua ke ko‘a
O He‘eia Kea ē
The Kālepa rain moves quietly
The coral-breaking rain of He‘eia
Trampling on the bud of the coral
Until weary—Weary for the rain is the coral
Of He‘eia Kea (Akana and Gonzalez 2015:47)
Kaniko‘o is another rain of He‘eia. It is named for the tapping sound made by a cane:
A ku‘u hoa e noho lā i ka la‘i
I walea i ka ua Kaniko‘o o He‘eia
I ka ua Pō‘ailau‘awa o Moelana
And my companion who resides in the calm
Relaxing in the Kaniko‘o rain of He‘eia
In the Pō‘ailau‘awa rain of Moelana
Ka ua Kaniko‘o, ua o ke Ko‘olau
Ua kani ko‘o i ke kai a mālie
The Kaniko‘o rain, rain of the Ko‘olau
Rain tapping on the sea like a cane until it is calm (Akana and Gonzalez 2015:49)
Līpoa is another He‘eia rain, as well as the name of a seaweed.

Aloha nō ‘oe, e ka Mālualuakele
E ka makani anu o ku‘u ‘āina
He ‘āina, he hoa aloha no ka pali
He kāne ho‘i, he ipo no ka ua Līpoa
Beloved are you, O Mālualuakele
The cold wind of my homeland
A home, a friend for the cliffs
A mate, a sweetheart for the Līpoa rain
21
‘Ino ma kō hana ē
He ua ka Līpoa wai‘ole
Ale Mahiki i ke kēhau
I ka luna i Kanikū ē, aloha
I ho‘i mai nei lā
E ku‘u kaikua‘ana ē
Foul because of your deed
The waterless Līpoa rain
Mahiki is swallowed up in the mist
To the top to Kanikū; greetings
Come back here
My older brother (Akana and Gonzalez 2015:163–164)
‘Ōninipua‘i‘a is an ocean rain of Kahananui, Maui but is also associated with the Ko‘olau Mountains
of O‘ahu:
Ku‘u hoa mai ka ua ‘Ōninipua‘i‘a
Hoa hele no‘u i ka ua me ka makani
Hoa hele no‘u i nā pali o Ko‘olau
My dear companion from the ‘Ōninipua‘i‘a rain
Traveling companion of mine in the rain and wind
Traveling companion of mine over the Ko‘olau Mountains (Akana and Gonzalez 2015:216)
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe in the Historic Era
When the first Westerners arrived in the Hawaiian archipelago in 1778, the islands were not yet
united under one sovereign. At that time, the entire island of O‘ahu was under the rule of Chief
Kahahana. In 1783, Chief Kahahana’s reign was ended with the invasion and victory of Chief
Kahekili of Maui. This would forever be the end of O‘ahu’s independence as a separate island
kingdom. When Chief Kahekili died in 1794, control of O‘ahu went to his son Kalanikūpule. The
following year, Chief Kamehameha of Hawaiʻi Island invaded O‘ahu to engage Kalanikūpule in
battle. Kamehameha overwhelmed Kalanikūpule’s warriors, effectively gaining control of all the
islands from Hawaiʻi to O‘ahu. Eventually, Kamehameha would make a peaceful agreement with
Chief Kaumuali‘i of Kauaʻi, bringing that island and Ni‘ihau into the fold and thereby uniting the
Hawaiian archipelago under one rule (Kamakau 1996, Kanahele 1995).
Early Historical Accounts of He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe
According to estimates, “The 1779 population of the [Kāne‘ohe] Bay area was probably somewhere
between 15,000 to 17,000 people” (Devaney et al. 1976:7). However, the population plummeted by
about one-third within the first 25 years of western contact and decreased an additional estimated
25% in the following 25 years after that. Most of this depopulation was attributed to foreign-
introduced diseases to the islands (Devaney et al. 1976).
One of the first historical accounts of Kāne‘ohe and He‘eia and the entire bay area was from the
British Captain Portlock in 1789. He described a landscape well-cultivated with a variety of crops:
22
The bay all round has a very beautiful appearance, the low land and vallies being in a high
state of cultivation, and crowded with plantations of taro, sweet potatoes, sugar-cane, etc.
interspersed with a great number of cocoa-nut tree. (Portlock in Devaney et al. 1976:35)
An 1815 account also made mention of the vast taro lands and also pointed out the abundant fishing
grounds in the area, especially focusing its description on a large fishpond in He‘eia:
This is a large district [Koolau Poko] on the NE extremity of the Island embracing a large
quantity of taro land, many excellent Fishing grounds, and several large Fish Ponds. One
of which deserves particular notice for its size and the labour bestowed in building the wall
which encloses it. This wall is about one mile in length and extends from the southern part
of a small bay to a point of land [Kealohi Point] jutting out about one mile into the sea. It
is wide enough on the top for 4 men to walk abreast, and over the wall, we passed several
gates of strong wicker work through which the water had free passage. Here we observed
thousands of fish, some of which were apparently three feet long. A small hut at one end
of the wall is the residence of an old man who guards the fish. This Pond is the property of
the King [Kamehameha I] and no fish are allowed to be taken out of it without his orders,
and there had not at this time been any taken out for several years. (Whitman in Klieger et
al. 2005:63)
Within a few decades, depopulation took its toll on the productivity of the Kāne‘ohe and He‘eia
lands. By 1839, “There were many large abandoned tracts of taro land in the Kaneohe area because
of the diminished population” (Devaney et al. 1976:37). By that time, the traditional landscape had
also evolved due to ranching and large scale agricultural operations. Kāne‘ohe in the mid-1840s was
already experiencing the destruction of croplands tended by commoners due to the roaming cattle
which belonged to rich land holders (Devaney et al. 1976:70). In addition, the introduction of the
sugar industry encouraged a capitalist economy. An 1840 account described the operation in brief:
The king leased a large tract of land at Kaneohe to a few natives and though there was
injustice done to the original land holders yet I have strong hope that it will eventually be
a great advantage to [the area]… They have already several acres of cane planted [and]
have sent to the States for an iron sugar mill. They work with their own hands and employ
natives at a meal a day cash. They also lease land in small quantities to natives. (Mission
Station Report in Devaney et al. 1976:42)
Another significant change in the region was spurred by the influence of Christian missionaries in
the islands. Leading the cause to evangelize the Pacific were the American Board of Commissioners
for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) and the London Mission Society. The landing of the ABCFM on
Hawai‘i’s shores in 1820 could not have come at a more opportune time. Just a year earlier, Liholiho,
or Kamehameha II, became the new king following the death of Kamehameha I, and soon after that,
he abolished the ancient traditional religion (Ellis 1963[1827]). By the 1840s, a Catholic church had
been built on Mōkapu Peninsula (Klieger et al. 2005). An article from the Hawaiian language
newspaper, Ka Nonanona, in 1841 points out that praying continued in Kāne‘ohe and that the church
was filled with people ready to listen (Figure 6). It states that the Catholic teachers were doing a
good job, and many people were choosing to follow God. By 1846, “The first Catholic school in the
Islands was [opened and] located in Ahuimanu… [which] by 1864 had 50 students, all boys”
(Mitchell in Devaney et al. 1976:9).
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe and the Changes in Land Tenure
In the mid-1800s, during the reign of Kamehameha III, the Hawaiian kingdom became increasingly
exposed to outside influences, and the Hawaiian monarchy faced a crossroads of major change. “The
Constitution of 1840 confirmed that only two offices could convey allodial title. These were the mōʻī
23
Figure 6. Article from Ka Nonanona, Oct. 1841:32.
and the kuhina nui. The Māhele was an instrument that began to settle the constitutionally granted
vested rights of three groups in the dominium of the kingdom—mōʻī, aliʻi, and the makaʻāinana”
(Beamer 2014:143). However, the king felt the difficulty of governing a land where the influence of
foreigners had been growing. Dr. David Keanu Sai describes this predicament:
Kamehameha III’s government stood upon the crumbling foundations of a feudal autocracy
that could no longer handle the weight of geo-political and economic forces sweeping
across the islands. Uniformity of law across the realm and the centralization of authority
had become a necessity. Foreigners were the source of many of these difficulties. (Sai
2008:62)
“Several legislative acts during the period 1845–1855 codified a sweeping transformation from the
centuries-old Hawaiian traditions of royal land tenure to the western practice of private land
ownership” (Moffat and Fitzpatrick 1995:11). Most prominent of these enactments was the Māhele
of 1848 which was immediately followed by the Kuleana Act of 1850.
The Mahele was an instrument that began to settle the undefined rights of three groups with
vested rights in the dominion of the Kingdom --- the government, the chiefs, and the
hoa‘āina. These needed to be settled because it had been codified in law through the
Declaration of Rights and laws of 1839 and the Constitution of 1840, that the lands of the
Kingdom were owned by these three groups… Following the Mahele, the only group with
an undefined interest in all the lands of the Kingdom were the native tenants, and this would
be later addressed in the Kuleana Act of 1850. (Beamer 2008:194,195)
Although the Māhele had specifically set aside lands for the King, the government, and the chiefs,
this did not necessarily alienate the maka‘āinana from their land. On the contrary, access to the land
was fostered through the reciprocal relationships which continued to exist between the commoners
and the chiefs. Perhaps the chiefs were expected to better care for the commoners’ rights than the
commoners themselves who arguably might have been less informed of foreign land tenure systems.
Indeed, the ahupua‘a rights of the maka‘āinana were not extinguished with the advent of the Māhele,
and Beamer points out that there are “numerous examples of hoa‘āina living on Government and
Crown Lands Post-Mahele which indicate the government recognized their rights to do so” (Beamer
2008:274).
Hoa‘āina who chose not to acquire allodial lands through the Kuleana Act continued to live
on Government and Crown Lands as they had been doing as a class previously for
generations. Since all titles were awarded, “subject to the rights of native tenants.” The
hoa‘āina possessed habitation and use rights over their lands. (Beamer 2008:274)
For those commoners who did seek their individual land titles, the process that they needed to
follow consisted of filing a claim with the Land Commission; having their land claim surveyed;
24
testifying in person on behalf of their claim; and submitting their final Land Commission Award
(LCA) to get a binding royal patent. However, in actuality, the vast majority of the native population
never received any LCAs recognizing their land holdings due to several reasons such as their
unfamiliarity with the process, their distrust of the process, and/or their desire to cling to their
traditional way of land tenure regardless of how they felt about the new system. In 1850, the king
passed another law, this one allowing foreigners to buy land. This further hindered the process of
natives securing lands for their families.
Klieger et al. (2005:78) assert that, “The vast bulk of land in Kāne‘ohe and He‘eia was reserved for
a few individuals, basically ali‘i and wealthy Caucasians.” Queen Kalama, the consort of
Kamehameha III, was the major landowner of Kāne‘ohe, minus the Crown lands and Kuleana lands
awarded. For He‘eia, the major royal landowner was Abner Pākī, the father of Bernice Pauahi; and
another was Victoria Kamāmalu, the sister of the future Kamehameha IV and Kamehameha V
(Klieger et al. 2005). In He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe, there was a marked difference between the total land
area awarded to commoners and the total area awarded to the chiefs:
The result of the Great Mahele of 1848 and the Kuleana Act of 1850 on the lands in the
Kaneohe Bay area was that less than one thousand acres of land were awarded as personal
property to Hawaiian farmers, and this to only two-thirds of the total adult male population
of the area, thus leaving one-third of the adult males landless and dependent on others…
In contrast to the relatively small acreage of kuleana awards to commoners, over eighteen
thousand acres in large pieces (whole ahupua‘a and ‘ili) were awarded to 25 chiefs and
their agents, and a substantial number of acres, also in large sections, went into Crown and
Government Lands. (Devaney et al. 1976:32)
There were a few LCAs awarded in the project area vicinity, all located along Ha‘ikū Stream (Table
2, Figures 7 and 8, also see Figure 10). There were two claims in which land resources could not be
determined from the Māhele records; however, many of the other claims mentioned lo‘i, as would
be expected for this area and along the stream. This is further evidence that wetland agriculture was
practiced in the project area, and that kalo continued to be an important staple crop in the historic
period. Other resources noted in Māhele testimony are house lots and kula.
Table 2. LCAs in the Project Area Vicinity
LCA Claimant ‘Ili Resources

3307:3 Malalawalu Pulama House Lot
3308:1 Mamakehau Kalimukele Kula
3393:1 Pueokahi Kalimukele Undetermined
3579B:2 Naihepahee Hoi 7 Lo‘i
3849:2 Paaiea Waipao House Lot
4240B Kauhane, wahine Waipao 7 Lo‘i
5530:3 Kauhane Waipao House Lot
5969:2 Moalea Haiku 24 Lo‘i
6039:3 Elemakule Hoi 4 Lo‘i
6047:3 Wahine Kumupali 2 Lo‘i
7511 Kuweloula Hoi 3 Lo‘i, 1 Kula
10613:1 Paki, Abner Undetermined Undetermined
25
Figure 7. LCA awards in relation to the project routes, TMK plat (1) 4-6-014. Note that the selected survey work is pending landowner consent.
26
Figure 8. LCA awards in relation to the project routes, TMK plat (1) 4-6-015. Note that the selected survey work is pending landowner consent.
27
Within a few decades after the Māhele, many kuleana holders “had begun to leave their lands and
the traditional subsistence lifestyle of taro and sweet potato cultivation…concurrently, many
investors began to recognize the importance and great potential of commercial agriculture within the
Hawaiian Islands. Although the majority of the fallow lands became amalgamated into large
plantations and ranches, some of the fields were eventually put back into cultivation with rice, and
others were converted to vegetable, flower, and fruit cultivation…and the open countryside was used
for the commercial raising of livestock and sugarcane” (Klieger et al. 2005:96–97). Among the major
operations in the region were the He‘eia Sugar Company, the Kāne‘ohe Sugar Plantation, the
Keaahala Plantation, the Parker Sugar Company, the Kāne‘ohe Ranch Company, and the Kāne‘ohe
rice mill, the latter of which was built in 1892–1893 (Klieger et al. 2005).
The 19th century ended with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and the U.S. claim of
annexation of the Hawaiian Islands. Throughout the islands, former government lands and crown
lands were no longer under the oversight of the monarchy. The political change facilitated a stronger
military presence in the He‘eia-Kāne‘ohe region, and in addition, new industries entered the market.
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe in the 20th Century and Beyond
An early 20th century map illustrates widespread changes in the project area vicinity, particularly
with the development of a network of roads in Kāne‘ohe (Figure 9). Also shown on this map are a
multitude of place names. The project area passes through Kalimukele and Keaahala, the latter of
which was labeled as Crown lands. Other place names nearby include Kapunahala, Alamihi, Kapalai,
and Punalu‘u. The green portions of the map were designated as public lands, while the blue striped
portions were wetland fields of rice and taro.
Among the new industries in the area was charcoal production, ‘ōkolehao distillation, pineapple
cultivation, and banana farming. These activities continued to transform the Kāne‘ohe landscape and
contributed to the destruction and modification of archaeological features. A 1913 map shows more
place names, including the ‘ili of Waipao, where several LCA lots are shown along the stream
(Figure 10).
In 1914, 216 acres of Kāne‘ohe land in Kea‘ahala was set aside to create the Kea‘ahala Military
Reservation. Some of that land was designated as the site for the Territorial Mental Hospital in 1924
while the rest of the land was given back to the territorial government in 1949. Other military
activities in the area included the conversion of the Japanese language school in Lilipuna into a
United Service Organizations (USO) club; the designation of Coconut Island as an Army Air Corps
recreation center; and the creation of military training camps in He‘eia and ‘Ioleka‘a Valley. Mōkapu
saw the establishment of the Kuwaaohe Military Reservation in 1918. The construction of a Naval
Air Station there began in 1939. And in 1952, the entire peninsula was handed over to the U.S.
Marines, which still occupy it today.
Closer to the current project area, the U.S. Navy built a Naval Radio Transmitter (NRT)
communications system in Ha‘ikū in the 1940s. An official Declaration of Taking enabled the
military to condemn and acquire various private lands in the area, and all of Ha‘ikū Valley was
restricted to the public until 1957. When the NRT became obsolete, the facility was developed into
a military Omega Station, Omega being the first radio navigation system with global range. With
the transformation into an Omega Station, the facility was turned over to the U.S. Coast Guard,
which continued its operation until relatively recently (Klieger et al. 2005). Omega would later
become obsolete with the development of GPS (Global Positioning Systems) technology.
28
Figure 9. Portion of a historic map of O‘ahu (Wall 1902) annotated to show the project area. Note that the selected survey work is pending landowner
consent.
29
Figure 10. Portion of a historic map of O‘ahu (Baldwin and Alexander 1913) annotated to show the project area. Note that the selected survey work is
pending landowner consent.
30
The Ha‘ikū site was chosen as follows:
Choosing the site was comparatively simple and was done from a coast and Geodetic map.
They needed two adjacent mountain walls, facing each other, rising as nearly vertical as
possible, with flat land in between. The windward side of the island, the map showed,
answered this requirement exactly. Facing Kaneohe Bay was the towering rock wall of the
Koolau Range…Between these hogbacks were a number of extraordinary amphitheaters,
almost semicircular in plan, deep, fairly level, and reasonably accessible from the highway.
There were six of them strung along in a line reaching from the Pali road northwest for
fifteen miles…Right away it was evident which was the best: Haiku Valley, next but one
to the Pali, with sides rising dizzily around a perfect horseshoe curve. (Woodbury
1946:350–351)
In 1942, while all the military construction was going on throughout He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe, a wooden
ladder was constructed to allow the military access to the peaks behind Ha‘ikū Valley (Figure 11).
[By 1955] the wooden ladder was replaced by a galvanized steel stairway. In 1957… the
stairway was no longer needed for ridge access and was opened to the public for hiking on
a permission-only basis…When the Coast Guard assumed full charge of Ha‘ikū Valley in
1972, that responsibility included maintenance of the popular stairway… Soon after,
helicopters replaced the stairway as the primary means of access for maintenance, leaving
the stairway for use mainly by hikers. (Klieger et al. 2005:153)
In addition to the wooden ladder/stairway, several structures were built between 1942 and 1943.
These include a transmitter building (Figure 12), cable car (hoist) building, storage building,
commercial power building, helix building, radio control building, and a concrete retaining wall
(Barton 1997). Along with the stairs, these structures were nominated to the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) together as the Ha‘ikū Valley Historic District (Barton 1997).
Further information on military use of the site is provided in the historic preservation report and
NRHP nomination for the Omega Station (Barton 1997:23):
In 1954 the Navy entered into an agreement with the U.S. Air Force giving them permission
to use approximately 130 feet of the interior of the building built on the pinnacle of the
ridge for the purpose of an unattended microwave relay station with antenna mountings.
On May 24, 1963, the Air Force notified the Navy that the interior of the building was
vacated by them and the microwave relay system was replaced by passive and reflector
antenna on the roof of the building (SECNAVNOTE 5450). Eventually the permit was
transferred to the Coast Guard and the Marine Corps Base in Kaneohe. The unit was used
as a passive transceiver to relay fire alarm signals between MCBH Kaneohe Bay and the
Federal Fire Department at Pearl Harbor. Recently the Marine Base entered into a contract
with NISE West (now renamed ‘NRAD Act Pac’, Naval command, Control and Ocean
Surveillance Center Research Development Test and Evaluation Activity Pacific) to install
an active repeater to Pearl Harbor which eliminated the need for the existing fire alarm
relay station at Haiku (Kakesako 1996:1).
BWS obtained the steep slopes of the valley from Bishop Estate in 1958 through condemnation. The
purpose of the condemnation was for water development, and the Ha‘ikū Well was constructed on
the Kahuku side of Ha‘ikū Valley. The stairway was closed to the public after it was vandalized in
1987, and since then, access issues have not been resolved.
The stairs were refurbished in 2005 in hopes of reopening them to the public, with BWS planning to
transfer the land to the City Department of Parks and Recreation. The City Council did not approve
the land transfer, however, and BWS remains in possession of the land, absorbing all costs for
31
Figure 11. Photo of early wooden stairway (courtesy of John Flanigan).
Figure 12. Construction of the transmitter building in January 1943 (adopted from Baton 1997).
32
security to keep trespassers from the stairs, and rescue operations when illegal hikers require
emergency assistance. Both tourists and locals continue to use the stairs, now known as “The
Stairway to Heaven,” and although it has been off-limits to the public it remains a popular hike
today. For further information on the history of the stairs, the reader is referred to the architectural
report associated with this project (Chapman 2018).
Previous Archaeology
In summarizing the previous archaeological work conducted near the project area, the following
narrative concentrates on the upland portions of He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a (Figure 13). Reports
were found in the SHPD Kapolei library or were on file with the authors. Table 3 lists the previous
archaeological projects and their results chronologically. Bishop Museum numbers and/or State
Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) numbers are provided where available; Bishop Museum
numbers are prefaced with 50-OA, while SIHP numbers are prefaced with 50-80-10. Figure 14
illustrates archaeological site locations in and around the general area of the project; sites in the
immediate vicinity of the project routes are listed in Table 4.
Early Archaeological Work
An early archaeological survey by McAllister (1933:172–176) recorded several sites in the project
vicinity, including a terrace, five heiau, a pool, a cave, two springs, a lo‘i system, a pigpen, and
notable rivers.
Site 308 is a terrace located in Kuaola at the foot of the ridge. It was described as 98 feet long, 4 feet
high, and paved with dirt (McAllister 1933:167). When it was observed by McAllister (1933:167),
the terrace was partially damaged by flooding, and it was noted that other features were “obliterated
by cattle.”
Site 328 is Kaualauki Heiau. During the time of McAllister’s survey, all that remained of the
structure was one terrace, 115 feet long and 10 feet high. McAllister (1933:173) noted that the rest
of the heiau was destroyed by pineapple cultivation and it “must have been of good size.”
Site 329 is Leleahina Heiau, another large structure, 110 feet by 115 feet in area. The main features
of the heiau were likely two platforms, one of which had been repurposed into a graveyard by the
time of McAllister’s survey (Figure 15). McAllister (1933:173) recorded “partial foundations of
many walls which have been so badly disturbed that it is impossible to determine their former
position.” A probable lele or anu‘u tower was noted in the southeast corner of the lower platform.
The site was mislabeled as “Leileiahina Heiau” on a 1964 TMK plat map that shows the heiau
situated near the end of Haiku Plantation Place (Figure 16).
Site 330 is a pool of fresh water that is a wahi pana. A mo‘olelo regarding the pool relates that the
rats of He‘eia had a long standing feud with rats of other areas (McAllister 1933:176). The outsider
rats would take a trail to the mountains overlooking He‘eia but would then depend on the He‘eia rats
to lead them down the treacherous path into Kāne‘ohe. Halfway down the mountain, the He‘eia rats
would trick the newcomers at a slippery rock, where the unsuspecting newcomers would fall into
this pool at the base of the mountain and drown.
Site 331 is Kaualehu Cave. It is a site that is nearly inaccessible on the cliff face and is thought to
contain human burials. The cave is associated with Wahinekapu, a renowned woman mentioned in
mo‘olelo, such as the epic Pele and Hi‘iaka (Emerson 1997[1915]).
33
Figure 13. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of the project area. Note that the selected survey work is pending landowner consent.
34
Table 3. Previous Archaeological Studies in the Project Area Vicinity
Author(s) and Year Location Work Completed Findings
McAllister 1933 Island-Wide Survey Identified 13 sites in the project vicinity: a terrace,
five heiau, a pool, a cave, two springs, a lo‘i system, a
pigpen, and notable rivers.
Cleghorn and H-3 Freeway Reconnaissance Recorded four sites, including terraces, mounds,
Rogers-Jourdane Corridor Survey platforms, and walls. Bishop Museum site numbers
1976 were designated: G5-67 through 70.
Dye 1977 H-3 Freeway Inventory Survey Mapped and excavated the sites recorded by Cleghorn
Corridor and Rogers-Jourdane (1976). Found one site to be
natural and the others historic in age.
Streck 1982 H-3 Freeway Reconnaissance Identified 12 sites, mostly agricultural. Bishop
Corridor Survey Museum site numbers were designated: G5-73
through 84.
Neller 1985 H-3 Freeway Reconnaissance Revisited previously recorded sites and designated the
Corridor Survey entire habitation-agricultural-ceremonial complex as
Site 50-OA-2914.
Allen-Wheeler 1984, H-3 Kāne‘ohe Inventory Surveys Revisited G5-75 (later designated as SIHP 1887) and
1985a, 1985b, Allen Interchange G5-86 (later designated at SIHP 1888). Identified 15
et al. 1987 new sites: G5-68, 71, and 87–99.
Sinoto 1986 H-3 Freeway Reconnaissance Noted previously documented sites.

Corridor Survey
McMahon 1988 Kahekili Reconnaissance Identified two previously recorded sites: the Punalu‘u
Highway Survey Mauka Cemetery (G5-88) and the boundary wall
between Punalu‘u and Kapalai (G5-89).
Anderson and H-3 Freeway Archaeological Recorded 11 new sites: G4-39 through 44 and G5-111
Williams 1989 Corridor Monitoring through 115. They included habitation features,
agricultural features, an imu, a platform, and a rock
wall.
Williams 1989 H-3 Freeway Excavation Report Reported on test excavations at Sites G5-106 and G5-
Corridor 110. It was concluded that G5-106 was the remains of
Kukuiokāne Heiau.
Neller 1990 H-3 Freeway Review of Reported that G5-86, not G5-106, was the remains of
Corridor Williams (1989) Kukuiokāne Heiau.
Allen 1990 H-3 Freeway Excavation Report Reported on test excavations at Sites G5-88 and 89.
Corridor G5-88 dated to the late pre-contact era and spanned
the historic period; G5-89 dated to the 19th century.
Lutfy and Williams Proposed Reconnaissance Identified five sites, including rock alignments, a rock
1990 Hope Chapel Survey mound, an ‘ili wall, and a wooden outhouse.
Department of the Kāne‘ohe Field Inspection None.

Army 1991 District Park and Survey
Allen 1992 H-3 Freeway Inventory and Recorded SIHP 2462, an agricultural-habitation
Corridor Reconnaissance complex composed of 22 pre-contact and post-contact
Surveys features.
35
Table 3. (Continued)
Hammatt et al. 1992 Dept. of Inventory Survey None.
Transportation
Base Yard
Nakamura et al. 1993 Ha‘ikū Valley Inventory Survey None.
Animal
Quarantine
Import Center
Duncan and Hammatt Po‘okela to Archaeological Identified a historic trash pit, SIHP 4523.
1993 Kea‘ahala St. Monitoring
Williams 1993 U.S. Coast Reconnaissance Recorded SIHP 4495, a habitation site.
Guard Omega Survey with
Transmitter Subsurface Testing
Station
Williams and Nees U.S. Coast Reconnaissance Identified three lo‘i complexes (SIHP 4789–4791)
1994a Guard Omega Survey with and two WWII-era military sites (SIHP 4787 &
Transmitter Subsurface Testing 4788).
Station
Williams and Nees Ha‘ikū Valley Archaeological Recorded SIHP 1904, 2041, 2042, 2078–2083, 2323,
1994b and Historical and 2324: habitational complexes, ceremonial sites
Investigations and features, an agricultural complex, and five
cooking features.
Spear 1995 Hope Chapel Inventory Survey None.
Athens and Ward Hope Chapel Sediment Coring Suggested traditional land use ca. 450–550 B.P.
1996
McDermott et al. U.S. Coast Reconnaissance Recorded a terrace complex (SIHP 5498), two
1997 Guard Omega Survey with enclosures (SIHP 5601 and 5603), a wall (SIHP
Transmitter Subsurface Testing 5602), and an irrigation ditch (SIHP 5604).
Station
Williams and Nees U.S. Coast Inventory Survey Identified six new sites, including a heiau, a lo‘i
1997 Guard Omega complex, an enclosure, and a ditch.
Transmitter
Station
Allen et al. 2002 H-3 Freeway Supplemental Discussed site use settlement patterns for previously
Corridor Survey and identified sites: SIHP 2463 (G5-146) and SIHP 4483–
Archaeological 4485 (G5-152–G5-154).
Monitoring
Williams and Nees Ha‘ikū Valley Inventory Survey, Discussed settlement patterns, chronology, and
2002 Data Recovery, significance of ten sites: SIHP 1904, 2041, 2042,
Monitoring 2078–2083, 2323, and 2324. Also mentioned World
War II structures (SIHP 4506–4509), a possible
shrine (SIHP 4667), and a possible burial ground that
could not be located (no SIHP number).
Dockall et al. 2003 H-3 Freeway Synthesis Discussed chronology and site function for 49
Corridor previously identified sites. Sites in the vicinity of the
current project include: SIHP 1891, 1893,1894, 1901,
1903, 2039, 2040, 2077, 2084, 2085, 2086, 2087,
2156, 2251, and 2260.
Leidemann et al. H-3 Freeway Synthesis Discussed chronology and site function for 11
2003 Corridor previously identified sites.
36
Leidemann et al. H-3 Kāne‘ohe Synthesis Discussed chronology and site function for SIHP
2004 Interchange 1887, an agricultural complex.
Klieger et al. 2005 H-3 Freeway Ethno-Historical Utilized oral and archival sources to discuss
Corridor Report chronology and land use.
McElroy 2006 Castle Hills Inventory Survey None.

Subdivision
McElroy and Orr Castle Hills Cultural Impact Community members had concerns regarding effects
2006 Subdivision Assessment of the project on Kapunahala Stream.
Tulchin et al. 2006a Kamehameha Inventory Survey Identified nine new sites: historic roads, an
and 2006b Schools Parcels agricultural complex, a terrace, a ditch, and a
in He‘eia habitational feature (SIHP 6706–6714). Recorded a
previously documented ditch (SIHP 5604).
Leidemann et al. H-3 Kāne‘ohe Synthesis Discussed chronology and site function for four
2007 Interchange previously identified sites.
Hammatt and Windward Inventory Survey None.

Shideler 2008 Community
College
Runyon et al. 2010 Leleahina Archaeological Re-identified 16 of 18 site features.
Heiau Monitoring
McElroy et al. 2016 H-3 Kāne‘ohe Preservation Plan Outlined preservation measures for six previously
Interchange identified sites.
Shideler and Farley Kahekili Hwy. Literature Review None.

2016 and Field
Inspection
Sims et al. 2016 Ha‘ikū Naval Archaeological Documented secondary landfill deposits that
Radio Station Monitoring contained mid-20th century material.
Ferreira and Gouveia Ha‘ikū Valley Ethno-Historical Assessed the condition of Sites 332 and 333 and
2017 Study gathered community input for the area.
Site 332 is known as Kehekili or Kahekili Heiau. The heiau was once located on an oblong knoll,
but at the time of McAllister’s (1933) survey, nothing of the site remained, aside from a large stone
that had eroded in an unusual way.
Site 333 is Kane ame Kanaloa Heiau. The site was reported as destroyed at the time of McAllister’s
(1933) survey, although he did mention a rock wall that may have repurposed stones from the site.
Site 334 is a spring named Kapuna. It is said that Kane and Kanaloa obtained water for drinking
from this spring.
Site 335 is a system of lo‘i terraces that McAllister (1933:176) describes as “now neglected.” He
related that “the land is now swampy and full of weeds, but the rectangular terraces can still be seen”
(McAllister 1933:176).
37
Figure 14. Previously recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project. Sites located south of the H-3 interchange are off the map to the south.
Note that sites are labeled with SIHP numbers where possible; the corresponding SIHP numbers could not be found for all Bishop Museum sites.
38
Table 4. Archaeological Sites in the Immediate Vicinity of the Project
Site No. Description Reference

333 Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau McAllister 1933
1893 Kea‘ahala Platform and Stone Mounds, Part of Luluku Dockall et al. 2003
Discontiguous Archaeological District
1894 Pa‘u/Kea‘ahala Boundary Wall, Part of Luluku Dockall et al. 2003

1899 Luluku Rectangular Alignment, Part of Luluku Dockall et al. 2003

1902 Luluku Rock Mounds, Part of Luluku Discontiguous Dockall et al. 2003
Archaeological District
2039 Post-Contact Charcoal Kiln Dockall et al. 2003
2041 Pre-Contact Habitation Complex Williams and Nees 1994b
2042 Lo‘i System Williams and Nees 1994b
2082 Pre-Contact Imu Williams and Nees 1994b
4495 Habitation Site Williams 1993
4508 Electric Substation, Part of Naval Radio Station Reported as previously documented
site in Williams and Nees 1994a
4509 Concrete Retaining Wall, Part of Naval Radio Station Reported as previously documented
site in Williams and Nees 1994a
4523 Historic Trash Pit and Cement Box Duncan and Hammatt 1993
4787 Winch Building Part of Naval Radio Station Williams and Nees 1994a
4789 Lo‘i System Williams and Nees 1994a
4791 Lo‘i System Williams and Nees 1994a
6707 Lo‘i System Tulchin et al. 2006b
6709 Ha‘ikū Road Tulchin et al. 2006b
6713 Historic Irrigation Ditch Tulchin et al. 2006b
Site 338 is known as Papuaa a Kane, or the pigpen of Kane. It is located on the side of the cliff just
beneath Pu‘u Keahiakahoe. It is described as follows:
A small flat area where it is said that Kane kept his best pigs. Certainly they were safe, for
owing to the contours of the land only one with supernatural powers could carry off a pig
from such a height.
At the foot of the pali is a small swale, now covered with a heavy growth of kukui, where
Kane and his wife, Mamalahoa, grew awa. It is said that exceptionally good awa can still
be gathered there. (McAllister 1933:177)
Site 339 consists of three wahi pana located beneath Pu‘u Keahiakahoe on the mountainside.
McAllister (1933:177) provides further information on the site:
39
Figure 15. McAllister’s (1933:175–176) map of Leleahina Heiau.
40
Figure 16. Portion of TMK plat (1) 4-6-014, showing Leileiahina Heiau in the lower left corner.
41
Three streams of water which come together and at present form the chief water supply of
Lanikai and Kaneohe are known as pana. They are all feminine and wives of Kane. Their
names in order from the southeast to northwest are Hiilaniwai, Kahuaiki, and Mamalahoa.
Their junction is known as Hookui a na keia o na wai a Kane. Here Kane meets the three
women and he can not meet any one of them separately, for otherwise they will become
jealous of each other. If they became jealous they would probably divert the course of their
water and the people in the valley would suffer. At their place of meeting they enjoy each
other’s company and decide on how they can best supply the people with water.
Site 340 is Kukuiokāne Heiau in the ‘ili of Luluku. It was said to be the largest and most important
heiau of the region, and when it was damaged by Libby, McNeill & Libby Co. their pineapples were
plagued by disease and their undertaking failed (McAllister 1933:177). McAllister (1933:177) noted
“ploughed-up remains” and “many stones, some several feet in thickness, scattered throughout the
area.” It was also noted as destroyed by Thrum:
Kaneohe furnished us with several names to the list of heiaus, as evidence of the rivalry
once existing among the kahunas of that berg in ancient times; Maunahuia, a structure in
ruins just below the foot of the pali on the government land of Waikaluawaho;
Kaluaolomana, at Puuwaniania, a walled structure of medium size, reported to be still
standing; and Kukuiokane, at Luluku, of platform character and large size, now being
destroyed. (Thrum 1915:90)
Site 341 is a spring known as Kumukumu that was associated with Kukuiokāne Heiau. It is said that
on certain nights, drums can be heard from the spring (McAllister 1933:177). A mo‘olelo tells of a
man named Konomokai who claimed that he could dry up the spring with a tap of his cane. However,
when he dipped his cane into the spring, the cane turned to salt, demonstrating that the power of the
water was greater than the power of humans (McAllister 1933:177).
Studies Associated with Construction of the H-3 Freeway
A wealth of archaeological studies were conducted in association with the H-3 Freeway construction
in upland Kāne‘ohe. The earliest of these was an archaeological reconnaissance survey along the
windward portion of the proposed H-3 corridor from Ha‘ikū to the Halekou Interchange (Cleghorn
and Rogers-Jourdane 1976). Four sites were identified, consisting of terraces, mounds, platforms,
and walls, all dating to the pre-contact period, but no official interpretation of the sites was given.
Bishop Museum site numbers G5-67 through 70 were assigned. Site G5-70 was later designated as
SIHP 1904. Recommendations from this survey called for more intensive work involving the
detailed mapping and testing of archaeological sites in the area with a literature review of relevant
ethno-historical records.
The Phase I survey and work prescribed in 1976 was carried out the following year, but it was
concluded that no sites were significant enough for NRHP nomination (Dye 1977). One of the sites
(G5-68, a crude platform) was thought to be natural, and the others were cultural and historic in age.
In 1982, an archaeological reconnaissance was undertaken along the windward corridor’s proposed
Alternative Alignment A (Streck 1982). During this survey 12 archaeological sites were identified,
most of which appear to be agricultural in nature due to the many irrigation channels and agricultural
terraces. Other features include numerous stone alignments, walls, platforms, and at least one road.
Bishop Museum site numbers G5-73 through 84 were designated. Three additional possible sites
were also noted but required more definitive identification.
Additional archaeological surveys were conducted in the Luluku area along the windward corridor
of the H-3 (Neller 1985). Previously recorded sites were revisited. Multiple terraces, walls, and
42
ditches were noted in good condition in the area of the Luluku banana patch. Therefore, the entire
habitation-agricultural-ceremonial complex, designated 50-OA-2914, was recommended for
preservation and nomination to the NRHP.
Other surveys were conducted to identify surface archaeological sites in the area of the H-3 Kāne‘ohe
Interchange (Allen et al. 1987, Allen-Wheeler 1984, 1985a, 1985b). During these surveys, two
previously identified sites were revisited and recorded more thoroughly: Site G5-85 (later designated
SIHP 1887), a wetland agricultural complex; and Site G5-86 (later designated SIHP 1888), a dryland
agricultural complex. Also during this work, 15 newly identified sites were recorded. Together, the
17 sites were later nominated to the NRHP, and they were named the “Luluku Discontiguous
Archaeological District.” The discontiguous district is situated across the five ‘ili of Luluku,
Punalu‘u Mauka, Kapalai, Pa‘u, and Kea‘ahala, and the sites include:
50-OA-G5-68 (SIHP 1902) Luluku Rock Mounds

50-OA-G5-71 (SIHP 1905) Luluku Ridgetop Site
50-OA-G5-85 (SIHP 1887) Luluku Field Complex
50-OA-G5-86 (SIHP 1888) Punalu‘u Mauka Terraces/Historic Features
50-OA-G5-87 (SIHP 1889) Luluku/Punalu‘u Boundary Wall
50-OA-G5-88 (SIHP 1890) Punalu‘u Mauka Cemetery/Historic Compound
50-OA-G5-89 (SIHP 1891) Punalu‘u Mauka/Kapalai Boundary Wall
50-OA-G5-90 (SIHP 1892) Punalu‘u Mauka Historic Refuse Dump
50-OA-G5-91 (SIHP 1893) Kea‘ahala Platform and Stone Mounds
50-OA-G5-92 (SIHP 1894) Pa‘u/Kea‘ahala Boundary Wall
50-OA-G5-93 (SIHP 1895) Luluku Historic Refuse Dump
50-OA-G5-94 (SIHP 1896) Luluku Historic Refuse Cache
50-OA-G5-95 (SIHP 1897) Luluku Feature Cluster
50-OA-G5-96 (SIHP 1898) Luluku Mound and Artificial Cave
50-OA-G5-97 (SIHP 1899) Luluku Rectangular Alignment
50-OA-G5-98 (SIHP 1900) Luluku Clearing Mound Cluster
50-OA-G5-99 (SIHP 1901) Pa‘u Charcoal Kiln Cluster
Site G5-105 (SIHP 1967), a possible agricultural mound, was later added to the Luluku
Discontiguous Archaeological District bringing the total number of sites covered to 18.
Documentation of this addition can be found in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the H-
3 project.
Of site G5-85 (SIHP 1887) and G5-86 (SIHP 1888), 17 features were selected for subsurface testing
(Allen et al. 1987). Numerous pre-contact basalt, volcanic glass, and other artifacts were recovered
during the excavations. Also identified were various historic-era glass, ceramic, metal, plastic, and
rubber items. Analysis suggests that portions of Site 1887 were utilized as early as the 5th century
A.D. and continued to be used for agriculture into the 19th century. The one date gleaned from Site
1888 suggests its establishment in the 11th century.
43
A reconnaissance survey was conducted for a portion of the proposed H-3 corridor along Ha‘ikū
Valley and up to the Kāne‘ohe Interchange (Sinoto 1986). Previously documented sites were noted,
but no new sites or features were identified.
Archaeological monitoring was conducted during construction activities along the windward
corridor of H-3 near Hospital Rock, and near the Ha‘ikū Bridges, Access Road, and Radial Antenna
areas (Anderson and Williams 1989). A mix of 11 pre-contact and post-contact sites were newly
identified by archaeological monitors. Six of these were situated in the Ha‘ikū area [Sites G4-39
through 44 (SIHP 2078–2083)], and the other five sites were located in upland Kāne‘ohe [Sites G5-
111 through 115 (SIHP 2077, 2084–2086, 2156)]. Among the sites were habitation and agricultural
features, an imu, a platform, and a rock wall.
Further archaeological investigations were completed at Sites G5-86 (SIHP 1888), G5-87 (SIHP
1889), G5-106 (identified as a heiau and later designated as SIHP 2038), and G5-110 (an agricultural
site later designated as SIHP 2076) (Williams 1989). Excavation of these sites had been conducted
but were not yet reported, since laboratory analyses were still ongoing. However, site functions were
discussed, and it was concluded that G5-106 was the remains of Kukuiokāne Heiau. The Office of
Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Cultural Resources staff responded to this by invalidating the G5-106
analysis and claiming that G5-86, not G5-106, was instead the remains of Kukuiokāne Heiau (Neller
1990).
Excavations at Sites G5-88 (SIHP 1890) and G5-89 (SIHP 1891) suggested that the former
functioned as a heiau and the latter as an ‘ili boundary wall (Allen 1990). G5-88 consists of a house
site with a cemetery superimposed on agricultural terraces. G5-89 demarcates the ‘ili Punalu‘u
Mauka from Kapalai. Use of the heiau spanned the later pre-contact to historic eras, and the wall
was likely built during the 19th century. Recommendations were made to ensure that the modified
route of the Likelike Highway avoids these two sites.
An archaeological inventory survey was conducted in the KM ramp area of the H-3 Freeway, and a
reconnaissance survey took place at an adjacent parcel called the Lower Area (Allen 1992). SIHP
2462, an agricultural-habitation complex, which is composed of 22 pre- and post-contact features
within the ‘ili of Kapalai, was recommended for further data recovery and determined eligible for
the NRHP due to its potential to yield more information.
Archaeological investigations throughout the greater Ha‘ikū Valley area identified 11 archaeological
sites, (SIHP 1904, 2041, 2042, 2078–2083, 2323, and 2324) (Williams and Nees 1994b). They are
both pre- and post-contact, and include habitation complexes, ceremonial sites and features, an
agricultural complex, and five cooking features. Buildings related to WWII activities were also
documented. Radiocarbon dating revealed traditional land use in Ha‘ikū from as early as the 13th
century.
Many years after the initial work presented above, several reports were published presenting further
analysis of the H-3 sites and synthesis of the work conducted there. The first of these covers four of
the previously recorded sites (Allen et al. 2002). These include: 1) Site 2463, a road network also
known as G5-146; 2) Site 4483, also known as G5-152, an extensive site consisting of firepits,
postmolds, and lithic scatters; and 3) Sites 4484 and 4485, two extensive sites also known as G5-
153 and G5-154 situated on the upland ridges and determined to function as work stations and/or
habitation areas. The textual summary discussed the change in site use and activities over time as
well as the area’s broader residence patterns.
A report documenting archaeological inventory survey, data recovery, and monitoring was
completed for sites in Ha‘ikū Valley (Williams and Nees 2002). The report discussed settlement
44
patterns, chronology, and significance for 11 sites: SIHP 1904, 2041, 2042, 2078–2083, 2323, and
2324. SIHP 1904 is a previously documented boundary wall; SIHP 2041, 2078, 2081, 2082, 2323,
and 2324 are habitation sites; SIHP 2042 and 2083 are agricultural sites; SIHP 2080 is a possible
religious site; and the function of SIHP 2079 is unknown. All sites within the H-3 corridor aside
from SIHP 2078 were “partially or completely destroyed by construction activities” (Williams and
Nees 2002:31).
Williams and Nees (2002:14) also mention a possible large burial ground that was discovered while
the access road for the radio station was constructed. They were unable to find any records of the
location of the burial ground and were unable to locate it during survey and testing of the area. Also
noted briefly are SIHP 4506–4509, which are World War II-era structures. These consist of the
Transmitter Building (SIHP 4506), a small electric substation (SIHP 4507), another electric
substation known as Building 6 (SIHP 4508), a retaining wall that once supported other building
foundations (SIHP 4509), and a possible shrine (SIHP 4667).
A report was completed on the cumulative archaeological investigative work done through surveys,
data recovery efforts, and monitoring activities for the windward portion of Interstate H-3 Highway
(Dockall et al. 2003). A total of 49 sites consisting of pre-contact and post-contact features were
covered in this report. Included in the report was the discussion and documentation of the project
area’s chronology; its habitational, agricultural, and other site functions; and its landscape
development and expansion. Sites in the vicinity of the current project area are SIHP 1893, 1894,
1899, 1902, and 2039 (see Table 4).
The results of data recovery investigations from the windward corridor of H-3 were presented in
another report that pertained to the ‘ili of Luluku, Kapalai, and Punalu‘u Mauka (Leidemann et al.
2003). Specifically, findings from 11 archaeological sites were reported, covering a timespan of
approximately 1,000 years. The investigations shed light on burial practices, tool manufacture,
resource utilization, and other activities. Also discussed were changes in architecture, material
culture, landscape and landscape use, and settlement chronology and patterns. Investigations
concerning an additional site, SIHP 1887, were later added in a separate report (Leidemann et al.
2004).
A report was published giving an ethno-historical account of the Ko‘olaupoko areas affected by the
construction of the H-3 Freeway; this included portions of Kāne‘ohe, He‘eia, and Kailua (Klieger et
al. 2005). The chronology of the region was divided into four eras: the pre-contact period; the period
from Native Hawaiian settlement to the mid-19th century; and the periods of extensive ranching and
agricultural enterprises from the late-19th and 20th centuries. Information for this project was
synthesized from a comprehensive mix of oral and archival resources.
Field investigations and laboratory analyses were reported for sites in the area of the H-3 Kāne‘ohe
Interchange (Leidemann et al. 2007). The four sites addressed in this project were SIHP 1888 (a site
of undetermined function but possibly habitation), 1889 (a property boundary wall), 2038 (a complex
of mixed habitation, ceremonial, and agricultural use), and 2076 (a complex possibly used for
temporary habitation, tool manufacture, and food preparation). The sites yielded information
spanning a period of approximately 500 years. To provide answers to community concerns, data
recovery was evaluated to see if any or all of these sites could be linked to Kukuiokāne Heiau, but
the evidence gathered was insufficient to make definitive conclusions.
The most recent work associated with the H-3 Freeway consists of preparation of a preservation plan
for six sites in the H-3 Kāne‘ohe Interchange (McElroy et al. 2016). The plan discusses the current
condition and proposed preservation measures for six previously identified sites: SIHP 1887, 1895,
1897, 1900, 1905, and 4483.
45
Other Studies in the Project Area Vicinity
A reconnaissance survey was conducted for proposed construction activities and widening of
Kahekili Highway (McMahon 1988). No new sites were identified, but two previously recorded sites
were noted, the Punalu‘u Mauka Cemetery [G5-88 (SIHP 1890)] and the boundary wall between
Punalu‘u and Kapalai [G5-89 (SIHP 1891)].
A reconnaissance survey for the proposed Hope Chapel Foursquare project documented five
archaeological sites (Lutfy and Williams 1990). These consisted of rock alignments, a rock mound,
an ‘ili wall, and a wooden outhouse. A later archaeological inventory survey was conducted for
proposed construction activities at Hope Chapel (Spear 1995). As part of the study, coring was done
to analyze the sediments at the parcel. No archaeological resources were identified. The results of
the coring were written up in a separate report (Athens and Ward 1996). This analysis suggested
traditional land use in the area by 450–550 years B.P.
A field inspection and survey were conducted at the Kāne‘ohe District Park, which was part of the
former Keaahala Military Reservation (Department of the Army 1991). No archaeological or cultural
properties were identified.
An archaeological inventory survey for a Department of Transportation base yard and a proposed
road was carried out between Po‘okela and Kea‘ahala Streets (Hammatt et al. 1992). No
archaeological resources were identified.
In 1993, an archaeological inventory survey was completed for the Ha‘ikū Valley Animal
Quarantine Import Center (Nakamura et al. 1993). No significant archaeological resources were
identified.
Archaeological monitoring for the construction of a road between Po‘okela and Kea‘ahala Streets
identified one site (Duncan and Hammatt 1993). It consisted of a trash pit and associated cement
box, both from the post-contact era. They were recorded as SIHP 4523.
Several studies were conducted at the U.S. Coast Guard Omega Transmitter Station in Ha‘ikū. A
reconnaissance survey with subsurface testing for a proposed housing project identified one
archaeological site (Williams 1993). This was a habitation site containing both pre-contact and post-
contact artifacts (SIHP 4495). Charcoal from a hearth at the site yielded a radiocarbon date range of
A.D. 1260–1450. Another reconnaissance survey with subsurface testing at the Omega Station
identified five archaeological sites (Williams and Nees 1994a). These were three pre-contact lo‘i
complexes consisting of stone-faced terraces (SIHP 4789–4791); and two WWII-era military sites
(SIHP 4787 and 4788). Also noted were several previously identified sites for which the original
reports could not be located for the present study. Of particular note are SIHP 4508 and 4509, which
are in the immediate vicinity of the current project (see Table 4).
An archaeological inventory survey at the Omega Station located 16 previously recorded sites and
identified six new sites (Williams and Nees 1997). The newly identified sites included a heiau, a lo‘i
complex, an enclosure, and a ditch. A reconnaissance survey with subsurface testing was conducted
elsewhere at the Omega Station (McDermott et al. 1997). Five new sites were identified: a terrace
complex (SIHP 5498), two enclosures (SIHP 5601 and 5603), a wall (SIHP 5602), and an irrigation
ditch (SIHP 5604).
In 2006, an archaeological survey was conducted at the Castle Hills subdivision for proposed State
and County drainage improvements (McElroy 2006). No archaeological resources were identified.
46
A Cultural Impact Assessment was completed for the project as well (McElroy and Orr 2006).
Community members had concerns regarding effects of the project on Kapunahala Stream.
Phase I and II cultural resource investigations for Kamehameha Schools parcels in He‘eia identified
nine new sites (Tulchin et al. 2006a and 2006b). They included historic roads, an agricultural
complex, a terrace, a ditch, and a habitation feature (SIHP 6706–6714). In addition, a new segment
of a previously documented ditch (SIHP 5604) was located.
An archaeological survey was conducted for proposed construction activities on the Windward
Community College campus (Hammatt and Shideler 2008). No archaeological sites were identified,
but it was determined that the campus was eligible to be nominated to the NRHP.
Archaeological monitoring was carried out for vegetation clearing in Ha‘ikū Valley at the Leleahina
Heiau, Site 329 (Runyon et al. 2010). During the work, the condition of the heiau was determined
to be fair to good, and of the 18 features previously recorded at the site, 16 were re-identified.
A literature review and field inspection were completed for construction activities related to sewer
improvements along Kahekili Highway (Shideler and Farley 2016). No new archaeological sites or
features were identified.
Archaeological monitoring was conducted at the Naval Radio Station in Ha‘ikū for a remedial
investigation and feasibility study (Sims et al. 2016). Secondary landfill deposits were encountered
that contained mid-20th century material associated with the radio station. No site numbers were
given to these deposits.
Most recently, an ethno-historical study was conducted for Ha‘ikū Valley that focused on Sites 332
and 333, Kahekili/Kānehekili Heiau and Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau (Ferreira and Gouveia 2017).
This study compiled archival research for the area, assessed the current condition of the sites, and
gathered community recommendations.
Settlement Patterns
In his book Feathered Gods and Fishhooks, Kirch (1985) theorized that the initial colonization of
Hawai‘i occurred around AD 300–600. The time period of roughly 500 years after initial
colonization is known as the Developmental Period, and the era of about 500 years after that is the
Expansion Period (Kirch 1985). The end of Hawai‘i’s Expansion Period slightly precedes the arrival
of Western explorers in the 1700s. However, in light of more recent and more reliable radiocarbon
dating using better controlled samples, Kirch has since revised this chronology putting the initial
colonization of Hawai‘i at AD 1000–1200 (Kirch 2011). Older radiocarbon dates taken from
unidentified wood samples should thus be looked at critically.
It is believed that during Hawai‘i’s initial colonization, its culture probably closely mirrored the
homeland culture of Hawai‘i’s earliest settlers. Cultural change does not appear in the archaeological
record of Hawai‘i until the Developmental Period. The ‘ulu maika, the lei niho palaoa, and other
uniquely Hawaiian artifacts, tools, and fishing gear show up in the archaeological record during this
time (Kirch 1985). According to research done by the Bishop Museum, it is suggested that He‘eia,
Kāne‘ohe, and their neighboring Ko‘olaupoko districts would have been heavily populated during
O‘ahu’s earliest years of settlement, and in addition to that, would be connected to the ruling class:
The role of Ko‘olau Poko in the political affairs of the island of O‘ahu may at times have
been dominant, although it is still not well understood. Handy et al. (1972:457) suggest
that because of the attractive living conditions, Kailua “presumably had been the seat of
47
the high chiefs of Ko‘olaupoko from very early times.” By contrast, the ahupua‘a to the
north, including Kāne‘ohe and He‘eia, although not noted traditionally or historically as a
seat of political power (Handy et al. 1972:271–272), served to provide the abundant food
and other resources necessary to support an evidently large Native Hawaiian population.
(Klieger et al. 2005:47,48)
The Hawaiian Islands consisted of several sovereign island kingdoms independent of each other for
many centuries. During this time, different islands were consolidated under one ruler, and at other
times, the chiefdoms consisting of several islands were splintered, this fluidity due to inter-island
wars and alliances. From traditional times to the post-contact era, He‘eia, Kāne‘ohe, and the other
districts of Ko‘olaupoko sustained a large native population. After the islands were united, during
the reign Kamehameha III, commoners were allowed ownership rights to the land. By then,
generations of families had already been established in He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe, so many land claims
were staked there from the upland valleys to the coast.
After the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 the native Hawaiian connection to the
ahupua‘a of He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe was disrupted. In the first two decades of the 20th century, lands
in both ahupua‘a were taken by the military for various purposes. Mōkapu was designated a military
reservation as early as 1918, while Coconut Island (Moku o Lo‘e) was designated a military
recreation center. The mauka areas of Kāne‘ohe saw the development of another military reservation
in Kea‘ahala and a USO club in Lilipuna, while the interior valleys of He‘eia became military
training camps. In the 1940s construction began for a Navy communications systems center in
Ha‘ikū, and an official military directive declared all of Ha‘ikū Valley off-limits to the public until
1957. It was during this time that the military ambitiously constructed a ladder, then steel stairs, to
access the peaks and ridgeline behind Ha‘ikū Valley. When the military no longer needed the
“Stairway to Heaven,” the public was allowed to use the stairs. Eventually, the stairs became closed
to the public after its use became correlated with vandalism and even fatalities.
Today, except for a sizeable U.S. Marines presence in Mōkapu, most of the He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe
lands which the military took in the 20th century have been given back or converted to residential,
commercial, or agricultural use. The “Stairway to Heaven” however continues to be restricted to the
public, and access to the structure remains a contentious talking point.
Summary of Background Research
He‘eia and Kāne‘ohe are among the most abundant lands of O‘ahu, with fertile valleys that supported
extensive wetland agricultural fields. The project area extends far above these regions that were
inhabited and farmed, possibly into what was considered the wao akua, or realm of the gods.
Mo‘olelo of the area speak of the god Kāne and other supernatural beings, as well as natural
resources of the land, sea, and streams. Rain is often mentioned in chant and proverb, attesting to
the importance of water in this region.
Historic accounts tell of a landscape well-cultivated with a variety of crops, and many families
claimed LCA awards along the streams; several of which are in the project area vicinity. Previous
archaeological research has also provided evidence of active use of the land, with habitation,
agriculture, ceremonial, and many other site types identified, extending from the pre-contact era into
the historic period.
In the early 20th century, the U.S. military established its presence in the region, and the Navy built
a radio transmitter at the top of the Ko‘olau that was later developed into an Omega Station. A
wooden ladder was built to access the facility, and this was later replaced by the metal stairway now
known as the Ha‘ikū Stairs, or Stairway to Heaven.
48
ETHNOGRAPHIC SURVEY
A portion of significant information cannot be found in the archives, in textbooks, or at the library.
Instead, it is preserved through the stories, knowledge and experiences of our kama‘āina, kūpuna,
and other community members. Through these experiential narratives, we are able to better
understand the past and plan for our future. With the goal to identify and understand the importance
of, and potential impacts to, traditional Hawaiian and/or historic cultural resources and traditional
cultural practices around the valley and ridges of Ha‘ikū, ethnographic interviews were conducted
with community members who are knowledgeable about the project area.
Methods
This Cultural Impact Assessment was conducted through a multi-phase process between October
2017 and January 2018. Guiding documents for this work include The Hawai‘i Environmental
Council’s Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts, A Bill for Environmental Impact Statements,
and Act 50 (State of Hawai‘i). Personnel involved with this study include Windy McElroy, PhD,
Principal Investigator of Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting and Dietrix Duhaylonsod, BA,
Ethnographer.
Interviewees were selected because they met one or more of the following criteria: 1) was referred
by Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting or G70; 2) had/has ties to the project area or vicinity; 3)
is a known Hawaiian cultural resource person; 4) is a known Hawaiian traditional practitioner; or 5)
was referred by other cultural resource professionals. Eight individuals participated in the current
study. Mana‘o and ‘ike shared during these interviews are included in this report.
Interviews were taped using a digital MP3 recorder. During the interviews, each person was provided
with a map or aerial photograph of the subject property, the Agreement to Participate (Appendix A),
and Consent Form (Appendix B), and briefed on the purpose of the Cultural Impact Assessment.
Research categories were addressed in the form of open questions which allowed the interviewee to
answer in the manner that he/she was most comfortable. Follow-up questions were asked based on
the interviewee‘s responses or to clarify what was said.
Transcription was completed by listening to recordings and typing what was said. A copy of the
edited transcript was sent to each interviewee for review, along with the Transcript Release Form.
The Transcript Release Form provided space for clarifications, corrections, additions, or deletions
to the transcript, as well as an opportunity to address any objections to the release of the document
(Appendix C). When the forms were returned, transcripts were corrected to reflect any changes made
by the interviewee. One interviewee provided a written statement in lieu of participating in an in-
person interview. Frank Hewett submitted written answers to emailed interview questions, and this
statement serves as his transcript.
Several potential interviewees were contacted, resulting in the eight interviews (Table 5). The
ethnographic analysis process consisted of examining each transcript and organizing information
into research themes, or categories. Research topics include connections to the project lands,
archaeological sites and cultural practices, the natural environment, background and history of the
project area, specific history of the Ha‘ikū Stairs and structures, change through time, and concerns
and recommendations for the project. Edited transcripts are presented in Appendices D–K.
49
Table 5. List of Individuals Contacted
Name and Affiliation Method of Contact Result of Contact
Teresa Bright- Descendant of the Area Email No reply
Declined (via Keoni
Kealaula Cockett - Papahana Kuaola Waipao
Email, Phone Kuoha)
Mahealani Cypher- Ko‘olau Foundation Email, Phone Interviewed
Kirsten Faulkner- Historic Hawai‘i Foundation Email, Phone Interviewed
John Flanigan- Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs Email, Phone Interviewed
John Goody - Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs Email, Phone Interviewed
Frank Hewett- Kumu Hula, Descendant of the Area Email, Phone Interviewed
Daniel Ka‘anana – Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Board Email, Phone Interviewed
Matthew Kievlan- Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs Email, Phone Interviewed
Keoni Kuoha- Papahana Kuaola Waipao Email, Phone Interviewed
John & Jennifer Sabas- Area Residents Email, Phone Declined
Interviewee Background
The following section includes background information for each interviewee, in their own words.
This includes information on the interviewee’s ‘ohana and where the interviewee was born and
raised. The interviewees are Mahealani Cypher, Kiersten Faulkner, John Flanigan, John Goody,
Frank Hewett, Daniel Ka‘anana, Matthew Kievlan, and Keoni Kuoha. Of this group, four are
connected to the project area due to their ‘ohana ties to Ha‘ikū, Kāne‘ohe, and the greater
Ko‘olaupoko District. Of these four, one interviewee is a lineal descendant of the project area who
grew up in the area, and another interviewee has been working for a non-profit organization located
in the valley for a decade. The other four interviewees are connected to the project area because of
their historical knowledge of the stairs or their involvement with community group Friends of Ha‘ikū
Stairs; one of these four bought a home in Ha‘ikū Valley in 1977.
Mahealani Cypher
My name is Mahealani Cypher. I was born and raised here in Kāne‘ohe in 1946. And I was
adopted by my grandparents when I was a toddler, George and Elizabeth Cypher. Papa
Cypher was a policeman for the whole windward side, from Makapu‘u to Waimea. Mama
Cypher was just a homemaker, took care of all of us, and my cousins and my foster uncles
and aunties and everybody else, we all grew up on Waikolua Road in Kāne‘ohe.
When my grandpa was retired from the police force, he was a distributor for the Star
Bulletin newspaper. And so he had this big truck that he drove the newspapers all over
town, delivering them to the newspaper boys and taking newspapers to some of the
government agencies. So I would ride with him on the truck, and I remember him taking
us into Ha‘ikū Valley to deliver newspapers to the Coast Guard Station, the Omega Station
in Ha‘ikū. So that’s my earliest memories of Ha‘ikū Valley and how beautiful and lush it
was even back then in the 1940s.
50
Kiersten Faulkner
I’m Kiersten Faulkner. I’m originally from Colorado. I’ve been here in Hawai‘i for about
12 years, and I’m the Executive Director of Historic Hawai‘i Foundation, and our mission,
of course, is to help people save places that are important to the history of Hawai‘i.
John Flanigan
I’m John Flanigan, born in Indiana in 1933, grew up in Southern Indiana, served in the Air
Weather Service in Korea and Germany, earned degrees in mathematics from Indiana
University. But after spending 12 years down in American Samoa, teaching at American
Samoa Community College, my wife and I and kids moved up here, took a job at Hawai‘i
Loa College. When Hawai‘i Loa College got absorbed by HPU [Hawaii Pacific
University], we left them and went over to Kapi‘olani Community College, where Anne
and I were both professors of math. And we’ve both retired and still live here, very happy.
I was always a hiker and a cave explorer and those kind of things. In fact, in my childhood
in Indiana, in fact I was a cave guide for a while for a couple of summers in one of the big
commercial caves there. I was a big hiker. I worked with the Scouts. I was an assistant
leader for senior scouts, so we would go on hikes quite often. Indiana is a big place for
hiking. There’s a lot of good hills and valleys and trees and things. And in Samoa, when
we went to Samoa, I was a scuba instructor. So I did a lot of scuba diving there. That’s just
the kind of life that I enjoyed living, out in nature.
John Goody
My name is John Goody. I was born in January, 1943… when we moved to Hawai‘i in
1977, I was a Marine captain, and a company commander at Kāne‘ohe. And we bought a
house in Ha‘ikū Valley, and it turned out to be at the end of Kuneki Place, very close to
the bottom of the stairs.
Frank Hewett
My name is Kawaikapuokalani Hewett… I am from Kāne‘ohe… where I have lived all of

my life… I was born in Honolulu Territory of Hawai‘i in 1954… I first went to St. Ann’s
School in Kāne‘ohe… from there to He‘eia Elementary School… King Intermediate
School… Castle High School… Windward Community College… and graduation with a
B.A. from University of Hawai‘i… Hilo Campus.
Our family… Komomua Akona… are the founding families of Kāne‘ohe… we have been
there perhaps for 9 or 10 generations… still holding title to kuelana lands… part of our
family migrated from Kohala, Hawai’i to help build the first Catholic Church in
‘Āhuimanu… and then later… St. Ann’s Church in Kāne‘ohe… The families that descend
from Wahineali‘i Komomua and Akona include Jones… Adams… Rowan… Scott…
McCabe and others… Wahineali‘i Komomua and Akona have almost 3,000 descendants
of which the majority still live in the windward area.
Also from the Olopana Heiau at Hawai‘ian Memorial Park…our family descends from my
mom and dad…21 generations…me 22 generations…my children 23 generations…my
grandchildren 24 generations…that is how old our family is in this area.
51
Daniel Ka‘anana
My full name is Daniel Kawika Yoshio Ka‘anana. I was actually born at my house in
Kāne‘ohe, but I was raised in Pearly City. I went to Kamehameha Schools and graduated
from there in 2008. I was raised in Pearl City, but did a lot of my education and a lot of my
childhood townside. I’ve spent more of my adulthood over the last 4 or 5 years in Kāne‘ohe.
I spent a little bit of time on the Mainland as well, out in Las Vegas. As soon as I finished
high school, I lucky enough to receive a football scholarship. I played up at UNLV, a
couple of years up there, and then moved back. I’ve been lucky, lucky that I have seen the
world, especially through my job flying.
As far as Kāne‘ohe and the neighborhood involved, my family has been in Kāne‘ohe just
a little over 40, 45 years. It started with my grandparents. My grandparents moved there
from Kailua side. Then my mom and her siblings, they grew up in the house, the same
house that we’re in today. So I was born there, and raised there when I was really little.
Then we moved to Pearl City. I was fortunate enough to come back to Kāne‘ohe. Other
than that, my family is from Maui.
Matthew Kievlan
My name is Matthew Kievlan, I was born in Houston, Texas, homeschooled from

kindergarten through 12th grade. I attended University of Houston and joined the Navy in
2004. I left as a diver in the SEAL team in Pearl City, and I’ve been out for over four years
now.
Family background... my parents had a big emphasis on wholesome values, but it was my
mother who had an interest in healthy dieting. She taught us how to select healthy foods,
make carrot juice, etc. We didn’t get any exposure to intentional exercise, but we ran
around - as kids do. My father was overweight because of bad knees and poor diet and
passed away suddenly of a heart attack in 2012. That was a shock to his wife, the three
girls and four boys he left behind. As the oldest child and a Navy Diver in the SEAL team,
I asked myself why I couldn’t have given back to my father, before he passed on, the
healthy ways I’d lived by. So that love I had left to give him, I have instead shared with
my community.
A year after his passing I brought Spartan Race to Hawaii. It was a 3-mile long race through
an obstacle course behind Kualoa Ranch designed to help us find joy in exercise. 6,500 of
our Ohana [sic] enjoyed a ‘peak’ moment together that day. Even after selling the franchise,
I continued to introduce wholesome products to Hawaii through a storefront on Kapiolani
Blvd and in local media. At every turn I’ve sought to distill the passion I have for life into
hacks I can share. I believe the stairs are a gold mine for crafting “teachable moments” at
the top where people get in touch with their innate nature, away from civilization and a
little closer to heaven.
Keoni Kuoha
Keoni Kuoha, born and raised in Waimānalo, on the homestead side, went to school there
and then went to Kamehameha, also, I went away for four years, got my B.A., and then
came back and got an M.A. in Hawaiian Studies and spent quite a bit of time in and around
the Center for Hawaiian Studies.
And at the same time, oh actually, starting in high school, really got involved in hiking,
from freshman year in high school, I was in the hiking club. I’ve been on every island in
52
Hawai‘i, hiked most of the mountains, been to some amazing places. That started my
education on how to act in the forest and also how to care for forest resources, continued
that education, cultural education specifically through John Lake, whom I started with in
the mid-’90s, and learned chant from him, primarily protocol. And then also studied with
John Ka‘imikaua for five years after John Lake, and I currently continue to learn from my
aikāne, Pueo Pata, who’s also a Kumu Hula. So I guess [it’s] kind of a general background,
all over the place.
My father is Hawaiian. His mother was born in Ke‘anae, his father, in Kahalu‘u, Kona. My
Ke‘anae family were some of the first homesteaders in Waimānalo. And my grandparents
essentially started the family in Honolulu, and that’s where my dad was mainly raised. And
then we got a plot out in Waimānalo before I was born.
Topical Breakouts
The following sections are extended quotations from the interviews, organized by topic.
Interviewees provided information on connections to the project lands, archaeological sites and
cultural practices, the natural environment, history of the project area, history of the Ha‘ikū Stairs,
and change through time. They also shared their concerns and recommendations for the proposed
project.
Connections to the Project Lands
Our family kuleana lands are located on Haiku Rd…in the area known as Waipao…from
the time of my great grandparents…to my grandparents…to my parents…to me…
Land from Kelekia Ha‘aeoholani Komomua Akona great grandmother…to Eva Rowan
Kanae (grandmother)…to my mother Alice Pualeilani Kāna‘e…to me Kawaikapuokalani
Kāko‘omaioiaonalaninuiamāmao Hewett…I was raised on this property…now my brother
owns this property…there are adjoining lots that belong to other family members. [Hewett]
Because we were raised there in that area…we often hiked to the river to swim…play in
the valley…and visit the many historical places in the area of Ha‘iku Valley…we knew the
stairs was there…but no one during our time ever ventured up the stairs…it was in the
military area that was gated…and although we often walked up there through the
stream…we never climbed the stairs…it was kapu or forbidden by our grandparents.
[Hewett]
The stairs were not well-known then [when he moved to Ha‘ikū Valley in 1977], but you
could see them, and of course we had a lot of curiosity about it. We went up and talked to
the Coast Guardmen, who at that time were allowing people to go up and down the stairs,
just sign a waiver and walk over to the stairs and go up and down. And we did that many
times. I took my young elementary school sons with me on many occasions, and they
enjoyed it quite a bit and learned a lot. It’s both an opportunity to learn a lot about the
environment of Hawai‘i, it’s a great place to view an entire ahupua‘a from the very top to
the outer edge of the reef, one of the few places where you can actually do that, and it’s
another place to learn about fitness and health and about getting in good physical shape…
As an old guy, I’m not sure if I can get up Ha‘ikū Stairs again anymore, much to my
detriment. So what I’m about to tell you is based on my years of experience, starting in
1977 going up and down the stairs, and my work organizing maintenance activity on the
stairs over a period of about a ten or fifteen years, which we did several times a year, to
eliminate alien plants from along the stairway and foster return of the native plants after
the aliens had been removed. And we did that for many years with volunteer groups of 30
to 40 people, and in all that time, never experienced a serious injury or accident with people
53
working on the stairs to remove alien species of plants. The stairs can be very safe with
common sense and organized use. [Goody]
We got involved with Ha‘ikū Stairs, I guess you want this on, when we first got here in
1984, we had a faculty meeting out at Ho‘omaluhia Park. And after the meeting, one of the
faculty members said, “Okay, how many people wanna climb the Stairway to Heaven?”
And I had no idea what that was so I asked about it. I didn’t go that time, but I was interested
about it. And the next time he invited people to climb, I went with him. And I got really
interested. It was such a magnificent thing. He was a. science professor. So he liked to go
up there and point out the geology of the island and explain where the volcano collapsed
and how all these different valleys got formed and all of this, just really, really interesting.
My uncle was a professor of geology at Indiana University, so I come by my interest in
geology very properly. Well we hiked in every time anybody would come up. It was
obviously the most interesting thing to do on the island for those of us who like hiking, and
any time we had a visitor here, we’d go up and climb. [Flanigan]
I’ve done a lot of research regarding the Kāne‘ohe Bay region. In researching the impacts
of the Interstate H-3 on Ko‘olaupoko, I learned a lot about all of our communities, and
Ha‘ikū Valley and He‘eia were some places that I did a lot of research on. So I learned
some of the information from that study. But I also learned from my travels up into the
valley with my grandpa and from kūpuna in the area, people like Aunty Carol Bright,
whose family had kuleana lands in the valley, and her daughter Teresa Bright, who still
collects information, has old maps of kuleana lands in the valley. I learned from them. I
learned from other kūpuna of the Kāne‘ohe area. [Cypher]
And I actually learned a lot from being in the valley. We do a lot of work on the wahi kapu
and wahi pana of Ha‘ikū. And I learned from the kūpuna of the area. I’m inspired by the
‘āina and the spirit of Ha‘ikū Valley. So it’s not something that you can learn in a book.
It’s something that you absorb from being in a place. That’s what I have learned from
Ha‘ikū. [Cypher]
I was probably first told about this from Mahealani Cypher from Ko‘olaupoko Hawaiian
Civic Club. And she had been involved in efforts to identify and protect and preserve the
entire Omega Station, and before that, all of the issues around H-3 [freeway], and
identifying the cultural sites there. Mahealani had made me aware of this broader history,
this deeper history, and also some of the early plans that would preserve and make it
publicly available but in a less intensive way than I think the hiking has evolved. So she
was talking about using the buildings for heritage centers or for visitor centers or ways to
help tell the history of the area ‘cause there aren’t a lot of buildings up in the mountains.
And so it could serve as a way to tell of a broader history of the entire area, not just the
military history or the Coast Guard history. So that’s how I first learned about it. Since
then, we’ve had discussion with Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs, with other people who are
interested in the area. [Faulkner]
I would say my association starts just by being born and raised on this side. And I always
took note of the mountains and what was there, what was growing there, the different
moods, you know, morning time, the way the clouds move up the mountains. At the same
time, I do remember when H-3 was going through there, and it was being built, and much
of the issues with that. I’ve noticed from that time, that was probably in the ’90s, from that
time until now, I’ve seen a significant change in some of the vegetation growing up in
Ha‘ikū Valley. A lot of the octopus tree really has spread quickly through that area.
[Kuoha]
Also in the early 2000s, I climbed Ha‘ikū Stairs, around early 2000, maybe even late ’90s,
and got to see that space. It wasn’t a popular hike at that time. I forget how I even knew
54
about it. And I haven’t been up there since. So I haven’t seen that area. I’ve just maintained
hiking and just accessed the forest in all kinds of other areas, mainly for gathering
[resources] as well as just for a quiet, peaceful place to be. [Kuoha]
Currently I work as Executive Director of Papahana Kuaola which is a non-profit in Ha‘ikū

Valley. I was one of the co-founders, and we moved to that parcel, that KS [Kamehameha
Schools] parcel that we currently work on, right around 2005-2006. And so I’ve been
connected with that work ever since then, specifically in the valley, and though in the past
two years, I’ve taken on work on-site as opposed to program development and board
work… Actually, proposed “Route 1,” it goes through our property. And again, the
leaseholder is Hui Kū, the landowner is Kamehameha Schools, but we manage and develop
programming in that area. And so that route, currently we have school buses that utilize
part of that route, and a bus drop off area, as well as a lot of other community users utilize
Route 1, which is the old Ha‘ikū Road. [Kuoha]
I’ve been on the Board for about 4, 5 months now, and being a new face to the board, I
decided that I wanted to participate on was the Ha‘ikū Stairs committee. Because I’m so
fresh to this, and I wanted to make sure that I came in and I was knowledgeable about what
I’m talking about, I wanted to make sure I left no stone unturned as far as trying to find out
my resources. I went over numerous newspaper articles, interviews. There’s also a
document that was prepared by, I don’t know if you might’ve seen, if not I can get it to
you, but it was a document on the stairs, it was made couple years ago. But this document
is a study, kind of like what you guys are doing, they did a study of the different
stakeholders. They proposed different solutions. That’s why, actually looking at this now,
it looks kind of familiar because some of the solutions they proposed are similar to what’s
being proposed here. And I know Aunty Mahealani was a member of that study. That was
a big one for me that I kind of dove in, read cover to cover, to learn about the stairs.
[Ka‘anana]
Another way I was learning was just to ask, word of mouth. I feel like the best way to learn
is to learn from those that are actively involved, whether it’s local residents, even other
board members, some of the veteran board members that have been a part of this for a
couple of years now, chatted with them, got their opinion. I guess along the way, whatever
information I could find, even maps, like this [referring to the map on the table]. Like we
were talking about who owns what land. And again, it was something that I knew about,
but to actually see it, it’s definitely helping me to learn. [Ka‘anana]
So I first climbed the stairs in 2010 and fell in love with hiking Hawai‘i. Since then, I’ve
gained an appreciation for the transformative opportunity of immersion in nature. I’ve seen
people end drug addiction on stairway hikes, I find deeper truth every day in the mountains.
Human beings in that environment gain a sense of their innate truth - something
unadulterated by industry and civilization. They get back to the real roots. When we climb
the stairs, we enjoy the deep beauty in nature which heals our souls. I call this ‘medicine
of mana’… You only know what you know, until you go. I would encourage anyone
considering a future for the stairs to entrust me with one of their days. Let me make this
experience possible for you too. Doing it matters, because there are no English words for
it, besides, perhaps, ‘unspeakable’. People think they’re going for the epic view of morning
colors, painting the landscape with divine creativity. But what they discover along the way
is they’re going up to find themselves. To recognize the blueprint of their soul in nature, to
feel the heartbeat of paradise, and to realize they are inextricably part of that majesty…
Sometimes I skip a week, other times I go twice a day, but no matter how sore I am from
my last climb, once I start, I’m lost in joy. The experience never disappoints, no matter
what the weather, no matter what the environment, no matter how tired I am. [Kievlan]
55
Archaeological Sites and Cultural Practices
I think Ha‘ikū Valley was very productive in the Hawaiian days. There’s a lot of water.
There’s a lot of lo‘i. I think Mahealani may have told you there’s a big grove of mango
trees that seems to shelter a significant organization of stone objects. I’m not sure what
their significance is except that it’s one of those places that when you walk back there, and
you kinda can feel it, a special place. This is located nearby in the valley below the stairs,
not up the stairs. [Goody]
The Ha‘ikū Stairs and the Omega Station are both more than 50 years old. They are both
deserving of historic preservation to some degree because they were built during the second
World War to protect the islands, so they’re important. The structures at the top of the
mountain that are associated, but not as critical, can be used for certain things. It’s just that
that plan has not been developed, and it needs to have more collaboration with other groups
to decide how it can be used. [Cypher]
You know, I have one comment there, the site at the Kānehekili Heiau, which the Navy
calls the maintenance building, which is the top building right below the freeway, we would
like to renovate that and make it a multi-purpose center, mainly for the kahuna lā‘au lapa‘au
to use, but also for visiting groups, for hula hālau, for any kinds of group that can use that
because it’s got long rooms that are ideal for groups to gather for different activities.
[Cypher]
Now in the middle of the amphitheater farther back is a site that we believe is connected to
Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau. It comes all the way down. All these huge mango trees mark it
all the way down to the middle. There’s a big pōhaku. And when you stand on that pōhaku,
and you look towards the Omega Station itself, you see there’s a glade surrounded by
planted tī leaf, like a circle of tī leaf around this huge glade. It’s now filled with ginger, but
you can still see the tī leaf. And so one of our kūpuna said that the kahu or the po‘o for that
area would stand on top of that pōhaku and address the gathering in that glade. So they feel
that’s the piko of the valley. [Cypher]
There’s a burial cave, but I think the iwi were removed by the families at the time of the
building of the Omega Station because there were too many maha‘oi people looking at it,
so I think there are some artifacts in there, but the iwi were removed. [Cypher]
The upper areas of the mountains are sacred to the gods…The specific god/goddess is
Haumea…Her home…a cave in the cliffs is located on the other side of the valley…There
are many legends as well as historical places associated with Haumea in the He‘e‘ia
area…Also Wākea the husband of Haumea was washed out to sea at He‘e‘ia…(washed
away)…There are several gods/goddesses associated with
He‘e‘ia…Hina…Haumea…Lono…Kāne…Their sacred homes at the tops of the
mountains…therefore we were not allowed to travel up the higher elevations and we were
not allowed to climb the stairs. [Hewett]
On the lower parts of the stairs we often went to gather traditional plants to make
lei…maile…pala‘ā and other traditional lei making plants… We also went there to gather
bamboo for making small kā‘eke‘eke as well as ohe hano ihu and pū‘ili… There were also
quite a bit of common mango trees in the area and we would go up there to pick mango…
This area was not open to the public…only the local people in that area went there…other
things that we gathered there were ti leaves and laua‘e. [Hewett]
There were a few graves or burials that we did come across there…They were located near
the mango trees. [Hewett]
56
We do know of one lady who was there when I was there, a lady who was doing Hawaiian
cultural gathering, using the stairs as access, but I don’t know enough about that to say any
more about it. [Flanigan]
Not along the [project] routes, but within the area. [Flanigan] (This is a reply to the question
of whether or not there are archaeological/cultural sites in the project area)
Did you see a copy of the nomination? It names five different structures, the stairs, the
transmitter building, and three other structures that are all eligible for listing as historic
structures. [Flanigan]
So the only route that I know of is the one that goes up Ha‘ikū Road. It sort of cuts up
toward Kamakau School. I am not familiar with any traditional structures in that area. I
know there are buildings that are over 50 years old, both that comprise the campus of
Kamakau, some of the gate, some of the driveway up, of course the stairs itself and the
building at the top of the stairs, are all older than 50 years old. Yeah, I’ve never walked
these other routes, these proposed routes that you have on this map. [Kuoha]
Historically I can say that the Navy built this for the war in ‘42. So this place has much
historical significance. [Kievlan]
Natural Environment
I remember someone mentioning that there are different species of indigenous and endemic
plants either on the stairs, or maybe like growing alongside the stairs in that area. But at
present there are native plants, and I know that those plants must be significant. Yeah, I
have no doubt because, I mean, you drive through the H-3, it’s easy to see, especially the
trees, different native trees along the way. [Ka‘anana]
It was just the sheer marvelousness of the climb. I mean, you climb up through several
different degrees of change in climate because you’re going from 400 feet up to 2800 feet.
So there are plants up there that grow in a certain way that don’t grow down here. So for a
botanist, once this became a cause to them, and everybody started writing to us about why
they wanted it to get opened again, we got the botanist that would say, you know Heidi
Barnhorst? [Flanigan]
From the stairs, you could look down and do a geography study of the windward side.
You’ve got all the ahupua‘a that you can see. You can see which lands belong to this
ahupua‘a, be a great place to do that kind of thing. [Flanigan]
Everything needs to be regulated…like the kapu system to ensure that the resources that
are there are there for a long time…The area has always been lush and beautiful…it should
remain that way…to us…that valley has always been sacred…There is a special feeling
about the area. [Hewett]
To me, the most significant thing has been going up and down the stairs learning about the
plants and speciation from nearest relatives from which the Hawaiian variation derived.
There’s a kind of tree called māmaki which is prevalent along certain parts of the stairs,
which is derived from the nettle plant which grows on the mainland. Ours is a tree. It
doesn’t sting, but it still has some of the same chemical characteristics which are thought
to have medicinal properties. If you grab a nettle on the Mainland, you know it, it really
hurts. So this tree is related, but it doesn’t sting. It lost its ability to sting, but it still has
some of the same basic chemicals in it that I think were known for their medicinal
properties to Hawaiians. I’m not sure what those properties were… There’s lots of evidence
57
of speciation in the plants that you see and how they’ve adapted to what’s a pretty harsh
environment up there, windy, intense solar radiation, a lot of rain, and probably the soil
drains off pretty quickly, so it must go from dry to wet a lot, so I see an interesting range
of plants. An interesting one to me, I’m trying to remember the Hawaiian name, is a
hydrangea. “Kanawao,” you can look it up, it’s the Hawaiian hydrangea. It doesn’t look at
all like a Mainland hydrangea. You can tell it’s different. But these arrived here in the
islands, and they changed genetically, so now they’re their own species. And Ha‘ikū Stairs
is a good place to learn about things like that. [Goody]
This is very steep [pointing to bottom part of stairs on map], a lot of bamboo. This is very
dense and quite steep back here. This ridge kinda comes all the way up to here, and it gets
steeper and steeper. So there’s not really a good access way there. I mean, you can climb
it, but it’s hard, and the rock is not good. We used to do that in my younger days when we
lived down there. [Goody]
You can also get to the summit from Moanalua Valley which is a very arduous and kind of
a dangerous way to go. So however people got there before the Ha‘ikū Stairs, it was a hard
way to go… It’s very difficult and dangerous. You can easily get lost. In the mist, you can’t
see anything. You don’t know where you are. You do know where you are, but as the mist
comes in, it’s really hard to find your way as you go along. [Goody]
Now that [H-3 service road] goes through an area that is becoming overgrown with
bamboo, it’s hard to say what may have been there before. In the gulley at the base of the
stairs on the right side at the bottom there are a number of kukui trees and a lone hala pepe.
I think that the presence of kukui may indicate a potential cultural use, since it is a useful
Hawaiian introduced species. [Goody]
Background and History of the Project Area
This whole area, of course, includes a lot of, a lot of native Hawaiian historic sites as well
as World War II historic sites. And then farther down the valley, near the State Hospital is
Windward Community College, [with sites from] the more Territorial Period as well. So
we’ve been involved with all of those. [Faulkner]
I think originally it was just a nice hike, and a few people could go and do it with really no
harm. And in the past probably decade or so, it’s just gained in popularity. I think the
explosion on social media has brought a lot of attention to it. It’s unmanaged and unsafe. I
think the swing issue really brought attention to people really behaving badly honestly, that
they’re doing unsafe and very stupid things. And so these YouTube videos [laughs] of
people swinging out over the valley are absolutely careless. [Faulkner]
You know, every site has layers and layers of history, and this one is no different. The top
layer is what was built the most recently. So I’d say that’s the Omega Station, which
includes the buildings, the retaining wall, the tracks that are now called the stairs, which
has a military history, has a World War II history. Of course that was built on a site, and
that site is part of a deeper Hawaiian history, which itself is a layer on top of a natural
resource or an environmental site and history. So all of those come into play here. The
historic significance is usually described as what made it historic in the first place. So in
this case it’s the Omega Station with its association with World War II and how this site
fits into the War in the Pacific, how it affected Hawai‘i, how that affected global wartime
activities. Of course, from this site, you could also have this amazing view of the valley,
of looking back in time almost to the pre-contact and native Hawaiian cultural significance.
And if you look the other way going out towards Kāne‘ohe, you can see modern history
58
and land use and development there. So it’s a really special site because it brings all that
together. And I think that’s one of the really nice things about it, actually. [Faulkner]
In the two years that I’ve been on [Papahana Kuaola] site, the Ha‘ikū Stairs has been an
issue that’s come up, both with Hui Kū Maoli Ola, the leaseholder of our parcel, as well as
some of our neighbors. We do manage on-site a lot of people who are just kind of roaming
around, looking for the access to the stairs… So we are located on the Kamehameha
Schools property, and that property actually includes, I believe, the land across the fence
that will allow you to drive into the back of the valley. So there’s a fence there at the corner
of Kuneki and Ha‘ikū Road, and so that fence is KS property. Our non-profit doesn’t
manage that specifically because of the leaseholders, Hui Kū. But we are programming,
and the focal point of our project is essentially right there. Our parking areas are sometimes
used as parking areas for folks that are looking for access to the stairway, right there on the
corner. [Kuoha]
It’s [the trail and stairs] going up to Keahiakahoe. That’s really the only wahi pana that I’m
familiar with right along the stairway area. I think the boundary between Kāne‘ohe and
He‘eia, the stairs actually move along one of those ridges, yeah… in He‘eia, there’s the
story of Kahoe and his generosity. And I don’t know how, ‘cause when you asked that, I
was like, “Oh, is there sort of a theme of Kahoe’s generosity?” His generosity was certainly
taken advantage of by brother Pahu until he [Kahoe] got sort of smart to it and had to sort
of cut his brother off in certain ways. You can draw connections between the mo‘olelo and
this. [Kuoha]
I really feel like the most significant part of that area is the story of the Hawaiian warriors’
passage - that a young man would venture into the mountains to complete this journey as
part of becoming a warrior. That story, to me, resonates the transformative, impactful
power of mana, and not just that the mountain gives you something, but that it is the
something to be revered. It’s [pause] majestic. And I don’t think that you really appreciate
how majestic it is until you have entered that presence, until you feel that mountain as
something alive, and you realize how powerful it is. So I think the most significant part of
the history of that place is the passage of these warriors. [Kievlan]
One thing that I always keep in the back of my head with regards to Kāne‘ohe is the
significance of Kāne‘ohe to the O‘ahu people. And I’m talking more of the pre-Western
contact days. From that perspective, I do realize that there are certain things about
Kāne‘ohe that are very sacred with regards to Kāne‘ohe’s ability to produce agriculture,
even a little bit further down the neighborhood, one of the biggest fishponds on the island,
Kawainui. [Ka‘anana]
Honestly I’m not familiar with the specific story, but I do remember growing up, I was in
elementary school, right when they finished up H-3, but I’ll never forget the spiritual
energy of that event. I don’t know if you felt this, but when I was young, they opened up
the H-3 and had it on the news, and I knew that there were a lot of native Hawaiians that
were against the H-3, not just through Kāne‘ohe, but also through Hālawa. And I knew that
there were a lot of spiritually significant places, and I guess in some ways the stairs are
also reminiscent, to me, I guess for a lack of a better way to say it, of the westernization of
our native lands, like it’s a western intrusion on sacred lands. I’m not trying to get political
on this at all, but what I’m saying is that these are very heavy spiritual and culturally
connected areas. And you look at the stairs, when you drive past it, it’s obviously man-
made stairs, through a native Hawaiian forest. And I think from a more Hawaiian
perspective, just that itself, you don’t need to have any kind of mo‘olelo, like you just see
it, and you get it, you know? This is westernization in a Hawaiian area. That’s my thought.
[Ka‘anana]
59
My own personal feeling is that Ha‘ikū Valley has a very powerful mana and that people
who are sensitive to mana have felt it when they’ve been in the valley. And they feel it
every time they return to the valley. So there’s mana, mana is, I call it the god force in all
things. There’s a lot of mana there. I’ve come up here with the kūpuna from Ha‘ikū Valley,
Aunty Twyla, Aunty Carol Bright, and they speak of these places, these wahi kapu, these
wahi pana and the mana. [Cypher]
I think that from the 1900s when there was very little activity in the valley. Prior to that,
prior to the 1900s, the valley was used mainly for medicinal purposes. They had Hawaiian
medicinal plants in there. Kāhuna lā‘au lapa‘au would go there to gather Hawaiian
medicine. So it was a fairly quiet place, and with the coming of World War II and the
construction of the Omega Station, there was a lot of activity that transformed the whole
valley. So there were heiau in there that were altered by the grading that took place with
the construction of Omega. They installed underground cables in the ground, so that
probably disturbed a lot that was there… But the kūpuna kahiko of Ha‘ikū, the ‘aumākua
that watch over Ha‘ikū, all waiting for the valley to be cleaned up, so that is part of what
we are trying to do with the cultural preserve of Ha‘ikū Valley and the work that we do at
the heiau. [Cypher]
I just want to let you know that I was part of a working group that was appointed by
Councilmember Anderson a couple years ago to discuss all the alternative access points
into Ha‘ikū Valley, the pros and cons and possible solutions. So I did have a chance to
participate in that discussion, but one of the things that I need to emphasize is that the
traditional Hawaiian access into the valley was on a trail that was covered up when they
built Ha‘ikū Road. There was a trail going into Ha‘ikū Valley, and Ha‘ikū Road was built
over that trail. Now when they built the road into Ha‘ikū Valley for the Omega Station,
they encountered burials, and so the old Hawaiians walked off the job. So the Navy had to
promise to relocate the burials out of the way of the road, and only in that way were they
able to get the Hawaiians back to work. So what they did was they reburied the burials
alongside the road, so alongside Ha‘ikū Road there are burials…. And they relocated the
burials that were alongside the road to mauka of the road right away. [Cypher]
When the charter school [Kamakau] was built, and they did do some digging for that sewer
line or whatever, I was concerned because I don’t know that they monitored for burials.
That was a worry because alongside the road, but then we don’t know where the burials
are, maybe they were further up mauka from where the school installed their sewer pump
station. [Cypher]
I know that we have gone into the valley over the years to gather lā‘au, but the ancient
knowledge that the kūpuna taught us was that they went to gather plants from the uplands
of Ha‘ikū. They would mix those plants with plants from the ocean to make medicine. That
is direct knowledge of the kūpuna that they passed on to us. I’m trying to think what else
they may have gathered there. I don’t know of anything else that they gathered other than
medicinal plants. The uplands were kind of kapu for the chiefs anyway. So very few people
could go up there in the old days. [Cypher]
In my view, ‘cause others might have a different view, well first of all, the wao akua is the
place of the gods. But we walk alongside them. They walk alongside us. And in ancient
times, when the chief was the chief of Hālawa and the chief of Ha‘ikū, their people went
back and forth regularly. So they traveled on that ridgeline, and actually, along the entire
Ko‘olau Ridge there are stories of our people running the whole distance, carrying
messages to take help to somebody, or for defense purposes. So the ridge, although it is a
place where we consider kapu to some degree, was also used for purposes that were
acknowledged at the time. [Cypher]
60
History of the Ha‘ikū Stairs and Structures
Then the Coast Guard, who was letting everybody go, you just go up to the Coast Guard
Station and sign a waiver and park your car there, walk up, and then go back and sign out,
and for years that went on. There were never any serious injuries, never any rescues or
anything like that, no neighbor problems because at that time, you could just go up through
the Coast Guard access, which was completely away from all the houses and everything.
It didn’t bother anybody. [Flanigan]
And then, a new Coast Guard commander came in and recognized that not all the hikers
behaved the way they should, ‘cause there was no management. The Coast Guard just let
people climb on their own, and once in a while they’d leave graffiti. One of the worst things
they would do would be to climb up, they had these great big antennae that stretched across
the valley. I understand that at one time they put a coat hanger on the antenna, put a weight
on it, and slid the coat hanger down, which is very clever except that they had to hire a
helicopter to go up there and take it off because it interfered with the transmissions. So the
new Coast Guard commander came in, and he said, “Well we don’t want that. We don’t
want civilians climbing up in our area doing vandalism.” And he made it clear to
everybody. I’m being very careful how I say this. This comes from Coast Guard people
that I know. After [the commander] telling everybody that they should think of some good
excuse for him to shut it down, sometime later, magically, there were three full sections of
steps that got taken off and thrown over the sides. Vandalism, I won’t say more than that.
You can draw your own conclusions. That gave him an excuse. And he said, “Okay, close
[the stairs] for good, not gonna ever climb again, close it down.” [Flanigan]
Well there was a great huge cry because it was a very, very popular hike, and the papers
were full of comments about it. And a fellow named Frank Stong wrote a letter to the editor.
He was particularly angry about it, and he put his phone number in there. He said,
“Anybody interested in doing something about this, call me up.” Well I called him up. And
we decided to organize and see if we could prevail on the Coast Guard to reopen it or to
give it away to the city or something. And meanwhile, another lady who lived out in
Hawai‘i Kai, was also interested. She had not climbed it, had always wanted to, was
annoyed that it got closed. So she got with Mike McCartney, who contacted us, and let us
know that somebody else was interested. So to make a long story a little bit shorter, the
three of us, Suzanne Hieb and Frank Stong and myself, decided that we would have a
meeting, call interested people to a meeting. I’m not a good organized person. I’m very
poorly organized. I’m not good at doing that kind of thing. I want to just be a facilitator.
So since I was on the faculty at Hawai‘i Loa College, I managed to provide a room for the
meeting. So in two successive days, we had meetings after publicizing it considerably. And
we had a lot of interesting people. Abercrombie was there, for example, and several
kama‘āina politicians, and a lot of people, 35, 40, 50 people each night. And the Friends of
Ha‘ikū Stairs was organized. And we went from there. So I’ll pause at this point ‘cause
there’s obviously more to it than that. [Flanigan]
And Ha‘ikū Stairs had the advantage of being extremely historically valuable. They’re a
major part of the U.S. effort during the war. They got credit that the transmitter station, it
wasn’t Coast Guard, it was Navy, the Navy transmitter station [at Ha‘ikū] had this
remarkable Alexanderson transmitter. I never had heard of it before. It’s a great big
machine that they used to transmit signals over long distances because back then the radio
technology wasn’t anywhere like it is now. And I found out that the Alexanderson
alternator that was used by General Electric in Massachusetts was the primary means of
communicating with Europe during and after the first World War. So they brought one of
those big transmitters, they’re huge big things, you probably have access to pictures of it.
They brought one here and hooked it up. And that was what they used to transmit, at very
low frequency. Very low frequency is good for transmitting along the surface of the earth.
61
So they had this very low frequency transmitter. It could transmit to a submerged
submarine at the bottom of Tokyo Bay. That’s the story. But they received signals from it
[the transmitter in Ha‘ikū] in India, Australia, it was very, very useful because it just had a
longer range. So they transmitted in code of course. And there were signals sent and
generated in other places, that were sent into this transmitter [here], mostly weather reports
and things like that. So it was quite an important aspect. [Flanigan]
It’s interesting that early on it was virtually a hundred percent, everybody wanted it [the
stairs] open again. How can you get it open? And Jeremy, who was the Mayor at the time,
Jeremy Harris, he had this wonderful stars-in-the-eyes idea. The City would take over the
valley, and they would make a big park. It was a really wonderful idea. Unfortunately the
City didn’t get the property because the property went to DHHL because they’re a
government organization, they’re higher on the list of people that GSA can give, transfer
the property to something local, but they go down a hierarchy. And even though DHHL
had no use for it, they still wanted it. And so they got it. [Flanigan]
And the stairs, of course, kept being used. Even though they were closed, people knew
about it. People who would come from Argentina, Germany, and wherever would want to
climb. So they naturally would try to find a way to get in. But the proper access, the access
that didn’t bother anybody, was closed off. So they didn’t have that. So the natural thing to
do was to find another way in. And they found other ways to go in, many of which went
through private property. [Flanigan]
Initially, see this always was on Board of Water Supply land. But that was kind of, you can
look at the map and see that was the case, but that never really factored into our decision
making. We thought, “This is a hiking place. Parks and Recreation are the ones that ought
to take care of this.” So we were working with Parks and Recreation people assuming that
they had responsibility. I’m not going to commit myself here because I don’t know who
hired the guards initially. The City thought, whether it’s Parks and Rec, or just the City,
they hired the guards initially, and they just had them morning to evening, I’d say morning
to afternoon. And so people started going at times other than that. And if you wanna prevent
danger, you don’t fix it so that people are gonna be hiking through wilderness, woods, in
the dark. That’s not how you, even so, even though they did that, they still [hiked].
[Flanigan]
When Board of Water Supply finally realized that it was their land, then they took over
providing security. And they made a hard rule, see the security guys, if you’ve been out
there, they’re out there all by themselves, a very boring situation. They don’t even get any
excitement unless somebody comes and tries to climb the stairs. And the stories that I get
from people who have climbed the stairs, under that condition, talk about how the pretty
girls get to go. But there was one guard there that we knew very well. He wouldn’t let
anybody go. And if somebody sneaked around him, and he saw ’em, he’d run up the stairs
and chase ’em back, chase ’em down. But they fired him because he gave an interview
with the tv station. So they fired him, the best guard they had. [Flanigan]
We formed a work group, got together with the local hiking group, two consecutive
Saturdays, constructed a nice trail. And that was because we were going to open it, Jeremy
Harris thought, we were planning to open it, getting all the plans. Invitations were made
and everything. On Friday, we were gonna open on Monday, but Friday, they said, “No,
we can’t do it,” because the access that they had developed, and this is a new issue, the
way they were gonna do it was to go up through Hope Chapel. They had made a deal with
the head of Hope Chapel that they could park in the Hope Chapel area and go through a
gate. And the City spent, I don’t know how many thousands of dollars to build a gate there
so they could go in through the gate. Well Hope Chapel, it turns out, he didn’t own Hope
Chapel, Hope Chapel is owned by the Brothers of the Sacred Heart. And they said, “Wait,
62
wait, wait, wait, wait, you don’t have the right to make a deal like that.” And their lawyers
got together with the City lawyers, and they decided that there’s no way they could agree
to do it. So that went by. So since we didn’t open, we said, “Well, we’re gonna open. We’re
optimistic. It’s gonna open. Let’s keep this thing maintained.” So four times a year, every
quarter, we get a group of volunteers together and go up there and pick weeds and kill
invasive species, repair any erosion, those kind of stuffs so we just kept on doing it forever.
And we had to beat people away with a stick. I mean, to get volunteers, you just had to
whisper that you were gonna do it, and volunteers would come. [Flanigan]
I should say, in terms of getting people to sign the comments, the very first time that we
were trying to get support and everything, we set up little tables in front of shopping centers
and things, we got more than 3,000 signatures, which we gave to the City Council. They’ve
got it in their archives somewhere. And today, my truck’s parked out here, I’ve got a
magnet on the door. It says, “Haiku Stairs.” People roll down their window when I’m
stopped at stop lights, [they ask] “Is it open yet?” It’s still a very popular thing. [Flanigan]
For the Omega Station and stairs, we placed it on our most endangered historic places list
in 2015 with the intention of helping people understand its historic significance and come
up with solutions for saving it. [Faulkner]
My understanding is the Omega Station was built in World War II. The stairs were part of
the access system to get personnel and equipment to the station, and then it was, of course,
part of the war effort. So the assessment that we’ve seen from other sources shows the
entire area as being historically significant, and not just the stairs on their own, but how
they relate to the development and use of that area. So the stairs weren’t, of course,
originally stairs. They were originally a railroad or like a monorail, I think, and provided
access. So the entire compound is considered historically significant with the stairs as one
element or one contributing feature of that. [Faulkner]
So these printouts were provided to me by Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs, and I’m not entirely
sure if they were drafts or if they were actually executed. But one of them was actually a
deed restriction that was meant to protect the historic properties at the time the federal
government turned over the land. So it should be part of a long-term preservation
commitment. And I again don’t have the provenance. I don’t know where they [the
printouts] came from. I don’t know how legitimate they are or valid, but they do refer to
this long-term preservation commitment by way of restricting what can and can’t happen
on the land. It would be enforceable by the Coast Guard and the State Historic Preservation
Office. So it’s intriguing information there, no maps associated with it, but it does refer to
those five historic properties which include the stairs as one of them. So we just need to
know about, was it executed and what does it cover. [Faulkner]
It’s interesting that during World War II, the transmitter antennas went across the valley
from point to point, which was the whole purpose of Ha‘ikū Stairs, to put those up and
service the antennas. The reason Ha‘ikū Valley was chosen was the direction it faced
(north) and its distance across which allowed the proper length antennae, which were able
to transmit very long wave, very low frequency radio transmissions that could be picked
up by submarines under water a long distance away. And the whole fact of how that came
about and the transmitter building and all of that was extremely interesting to me. The idea
was that signals from Kunia where the Navy had their communications center were sent
around O‘ahu by cable, went up to the transmitter building where it was amplified and sent
out through the antenna. The structure at the very top of the stairs with two prominent dish
antennas was for backup communications with Kunia. One of ’em points right toward
Kunia. So you go up there today, and that’s where it’s pointed. There used to be two smaller
supplementary dish antennas. I don’t know what they were for, but they were removed and
are long gone. The old pictures will show four antennas up there, the two big ones that are
63
up there now and two smaller ones that are now removed. I never knew what they did. I
would like to know. So this was the back up, the microwave transmission was a back up to
the cable that went around the island, so that was primary, these were back up. There are
some old residual segments of cable going up the stairs today, I don’t know which of them
was for electric power to the microwave antennas, and which carried the signal. Interesting
to speculate how all that worked as you climb. [Goody]
I know of one story where, it has to do with Ha‘ikū Stairs actually, the Hawaiian crew that
was brought in to help build the Ha‘ikū Stairs, they were working on the construction of
the Omega Station in the 1940s. And they had climbed the stairs to the top. One of the men
fell from the top of the stairs all the way to the bottom. And when he fell, the rest of the
crew rushed down thinking either he would have died from the fall or would need to be
rushed to emergency. So they all rushed down the stairs to his aid, and when they got to
the bottom, he was walking around with just a few scratches. This is the only story of
anyone that I know of who have fallen from the stairs, and he survived the fall. And so I
think there is something special about Ha‘ikū which is why that story of that Hawaiian man
resonates. [Cypher]
The stairs are a part of the Omega Station. It’s part of the infrastructure. They built the
stairs so that they could erect cables from the top of the pali to connect with the Omega
Station. So there are all these antenna cables that connected from the top of the mountains
up around Ha‘ikū, they all drape down the valley to connect with the station building
itself… All of these cables, copper cables. [Cypher]
Change Through Time
So since 2010 when I first was on the stairs until now, 7 years, I have seen significant rust
damage. They were re-done in 2002. But the rust is the real thing. And it’s beginning to eat
through many sections of the handrails, especially the handrails so I wear gloves to avoid
any trouble there. [Kievlan]
There was a codicil that went with the deed, that they were supposed to take care of these
historical monuments and the historical things. There were five different parts of that that
were listed as historical. They were supposed to take care of them, make sure that they
were maintained. Of course they didn’t. They left it open. The transmitter station, which
got all this electric equipment in it, just really beautiful, they went in there, I don’t know
who “they” was, but people went in there, just ripped it all apart, stole all the copper out of
it, set a fire in one of the sinks. It was just destroyed. So that made me cry, literally. The
first time I went out there, and I saw what had happened, and I thought, ‘cause there was
just no care taken of it at all. [Flanigan]
When we first started climbing the stairs, they hadn’t been repaired for many years. They
were built in ’42 and out of wood. And then in ’53 or ’55, they were replaced by metal
stairs. And from ’55 until I’ve climbed the first time in ’84, there’s some areas that had
kind of tilted over to the side, couple places where two sections were hooked together and
just kind of hanging between the two, still solid but one was tilted over so far that you
actually had to walk on the outside of the rail instead of on the inside. But they were solid.
Nobody worried about it. After the sections were thrown over in ’87, we continued
climbing. But the Marines had, I was told it was the Marines, I don’t know who it is, put
ropes. And so when you got to the place where the stairs were missing, you just climbed
up the ropes. And that place is still called “First Ropes” and “Second Ropes.” [Flanigan]
And then Jeremy Harris spent a million dollars repairing the stairs with his idea of opening
the valley. The number itself was given is $850,000. That was the original bid. But the
64
contractor was giving a talk to the architect group on the island, and he said that the final
cost was $950,000. So I say a million, and that made ’em solid. Everything that was shaky
was straightened up. The corroded arms, corroded railings, were replaced. And it was just
put back into pristine condition, and it is still in pristine condition. Right now, ‘cause that’s
been 10, 12, 15 years, since that was done, there’s been some more deterioration of the
metal. Some of the metal railings are getting holes in ’em, and so they need to be replaced,
but that’s a matter of unscrewing ’em, putting new ones in. That’s something a volunteer,
in fact, the Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs agreed to pay for the new railings, to do that. [Flanigan]
And then Board of Water Supply found out that they owned it. And they shut it down. They
said, “No, you can’t do it anymore. You can’t get on our property unless you have a million
dollar insurance.” And we didn’t have a million dollar insurance. So they didn’t let us go
up maintain it. So we looked around, and we found a million dollars insurance. They still
wouldn’t let us go up. So the maintenance that we had done, and the good that had been
done by killing all the invasive species, it’s all undone. It’s all going back to what it was.
[Flanigan]
The whole station and Ha‘ikū Stairs were built in World War II. So since World War II, of
course H-3 is new, so that was a major infrastructure change that cut through the valley.
Suburban development in Kāne‘ohe has really taken off so you’ve got a lot more housing,
a lot more residential use, just more density, more people, greater population growth. There
are other institutional uses in the area, so the Hawai‘i State Hospital and the Windward
Community College came later, but the buildings were originally part of the state hospital,
but the density there and the users coming there, of course, have all grown since World
War II. [Faulkner]
And of course, tourism has taken off. So after the war ended and Hawai‘i became a state,
then airplanes came, and now of course, social media, so the visitation has all grown. So
this has been an exponential growth of more people, more information, more knowledge,
all kind of converging on this one area. So I think it’s just been a lot of pressure on it.
[Faulkner]
Well the lower parts of the stairs when we first went up there was a tunnel through very
dense guava and octopus trees, even though it’s a ridge, a steep ridge, it drops off sharply
on both sides. It was like going up through a cave formed by guava trees and octopus trees.
Those were all removed subsequently on maintenance days, cut those down, got rid of ’em.
And in the meantime, a lot of native plants have grown back, kōlea, a small tree, ‘ilima, a
small ground-growing flower. So just by giving it the chance, letting the light come in, it’s
now a much more pleasant ascent. As you climb, it’s not that dreary, dark, closed in. So
that’s one of the biggest changes that I’ve noticed. The propagation of octopus trees up the
hill is one of the biggest changes, and the arrival of, I think it’s called rose myrtle, it’s that
low-growing, very aggressive, small alien plant which is now everywhere up there. It didn’t
used to be up there at all, that I remember. It’s really spread. So to me, that’s a change, you
can see it on adjoining ridge lines in the valley, it has pretty flowers, but it just seems to
take over. [Goody]
The number of people going up Ha‘ikū Stairs has changed. It didn’t used to be well-known
at all. And the fact that people are now coming from all over the place to go up Ha‘ikū
Stairs has caused a problem that we can solve by managed use and turn it into an
educational opportunity. To me, that was the biggest opportunity that would be lost by
removing the stairs. [Goody]
The old mill-type structure here where that housing development was put in [pointing on
the map to a community of houses at the mouth of the valley], I don’t know if it’s present
in this area or not… I’m not sure if it was a mill. It looked like it was a mill, one of those
65
old tin roof buildings, concrete foundation, and tin on the roof. I have no idea what it was
way over there, long gone now. This all used to be DLNR land [pointing to map],
conservation land, before they put in that public housing development. This used to be all
woods. [Goody]
And what I have noticed in the last 20 or so years is that there is a lot of vandalism and
further damage, not just of the buildings that were built, but there’s alien types of plants
that have come in since the 1950s. And so the whole foliage of the valley is changed.
There’s all kinds of negative things in there. I call it toxins, toxic presence of ‘ōpala and
invasive plants and some kinds of people, I call ’em invasive people, who don’t know how
to respect the ‘āina. So those kinds of things are what have changed the valley. [Cypher]
I know that the current road that goes over the Ha‘ikū Trail is in disrepair. It has not been
properly cared for by the current owners, ‘cause it’s multiple owners. So that needs to be
tended to at some point… We go up there regularly to care for the heiau, and I have to
drive in ‘cause I carry tools and stuff like that, so I can’t walk it. And I’m driving in my
car, so my car is taking a beating. And I don’t know why. It could be because it’s not
regularly maintained, or because of heavy trucks using it in the last 10 years from the movie
jobs and other trucks coming in there… So what Hawaiian Homes [Hawaiian Home Lands]
is telling the Kamakau School, “Oh you guys gotta fix that section because you guys use
that section to get to school.” And I’m thinking, “Well so does Board of Water [use that
road also].” They drive through it to get up into the valley so there’s multiple owners that
use each section. [Cypher]
That’s those generators. They have been so totally neglected by the current owners that
they are unusable anymore. I don’t know if they’re useful anymore. And the building itself
has been so badly damaged by the vandals and the chronics, that it would take two million
dollars just to clean it up to make it safe. This is neglect. These are all predictable things
that could have been prevented, but they weren’t. And we offered to the Hawaiian Home
Lands to help them, like a neighborhood watch, and regularly patrol the valley for them,
this was in the early 2000s, and they just totally turned us down, because they said they
didn’t want to take a chance with people going up to Ha‘ikū Stairs. They’ve been going up
there anyway. Now it’s no-man’s land, and the chronics are in there. They damaged
everything. It’s really sad because these are old buildings, historic buildings, that were built
to protect the islands, and they have been neglected. When the Coast Guard turned it over
to Hawaiian Home Lands, and to Board of Water because some of the land was turned over
to Board of Water, they had this historic preservation covenant which requires them to
preserve the historic properties. None of those guys have taken care of the historic
properties. Both of them, it’s on the deed, giving the land to Hawaiian Homes, giving the
land to Board of Water. They both have historic preservation covenants which require them
to protect the historic properties, and they didn’t… They have violated their covenants with
the federal government. So the feds could take back this land. So do we want the feds to
take it back? Or do we want it to stay in Hawaiian Homes? We want it to stay in Hawaiian
hands, for Hawaiian uses. [Cypher]
The things that I’ve noticed that have changed, number one, this is going to sound weird,
but I’m just going to be honest with you, it’s the spiritual connection. What I mean by that,
I’m trying to think of another place that you can connect it to, a place here in the islands,
like we were explaining earlier where we have a western symbol here in pristine almost-
untouched forest, like on the slope of a mountain. And there are places in Hawai‘i, I’m
trying to think of a [similar] place that would kind of hit it perfectly... But I guess what I’m
saying is the vibe is one of a hurt spiritual vibe. And it’s like a feeling of where something
isn’t working, where…something’s got to change. And I think that goes along with the
whole issue that we’re dealing with today with regards to not just the stairs itself, but the
neighbors and the people that are affected in the neighborhood. I don’t think I could really
66
quantify that, or if it makes any sense at all, but basically that is number one for me, like it
just is there. [Ka‘anana]
Number two is the change going from caring about the people that live there, caring about
their feelings and about their thoughts and their history, to one of apathy. And I hate to
politicize this, but again, going from pre-contact, this is post-contact, it’s almost the same
concept of “let us tell our own history” versus some person coming to town and saying,
“I’m going to do what I want to do.” And for me, I don’t know if that’s the right answer
you looking for, but for me, that’s what I noticed, that the stairs and the history of the stairs
has gone more towards that, like people are coming that don’t even know what they’re
talking about, like they don’t even know the culture, they don’t know the history, and on
top of that? They don’t care to learn it. [Ka‘anana]
Concerns and Recommendations
And for the most part, I mean there’s been a lot made, the people who wanted it stopped
always tell the worst stories about what happened. But the vast majority, we’ve got people,
I can name people who live in the community who talk about how polite everybody was.
They say, “Fine, park in front of my house. Fine, go climb. Come on back out.” They come
out all muddy and happy because they had such a nice climb. Other people say, “Oh
somebody stopped and took a drink of water out of my garden hose. Somebody threw a
candy wrapper down. Somebody was disrespectful to me.” Yeahhh, wellll, at the
Neighborhood Board there was a lady who showed a video that she took. I said, “Well,
that’s pretty aggressive.” If I’m walking through somebody’s property, meaning no harm
and doing no damage, then somebody gets out and starts telling me I got no right to be
there, and they’re taking video, I’m gonna probably feel a little bit negative about it. So
this is just not a one-way thing, [it’s] a two-way thing. The truth is a lot of people climbed
and came back out without doing any damage, [not] bother anybody at all. And then when
they started to put the guards there, well that encouraged people to come in really early in
the morning to get there before the guard did. And that caused even more trouble. So
everything they’ve done has exacerbated the difficulty with the hikers. [Flanigan]
…There are a lot of things that happened bad because of this. We had this one kid that
came and was never found. And that was blamed on Ha‘ikū Stairs. Yeah, he was probably
trying to find Ha‘ikū Stairs, but he was way away from Ha‘ikū Stairs getting lost in the
bushes. And who knows what happened to him. That wasn’t caused by Ha‘ikū Stairs. That
was caused by the rules. And they talk about, the news media have not done a very good
job. They have, I got nice exhibits here [referring to the binders]. I wrote a nice letter to
one of the newscasters saying, “You know, you really do a good job, and I like what you’ve
done. But in this new story, you said that this rescue occurred from Ha‘ikū Stairs. This
rescue did not occur from Ha‘ikū Stairs. It occurred way back in the boonies.” And they
always want to put Ha‘ikū Stairs anytime there is a rescue. They always say, “In the vicinity
of Ha‘ikū Stairs.” Well it was in the vicinity of the church, that doesn’t mean that the church
had anything to do with it. It was in the vicinity, yeah. But it wasn’t caused by Ha‘ikū
Stairs. It was caused by the fact that their access to it was closed, and they went to a
dangerous way of getting there. [Flanigan]
Obviously I’m not a Hawaiian cultural practitioner. I would defer all serious comments on
that to Mahealani and other people like that. I have heard her speak about it, and she finds
no problem with it. She expects people to be respectful. And part of the plan of this would
be that as part of the management plan there would be docents so that people would be
under a certain amount of supervision. They would be instructed ahead of time as to what
appropriate behavior, but that’s about all I could say about it. [Flanigan]
67
Well if you tear them out completely, one of the adverse effects is you waste several million
dollars. I mean, that’s a major bad effect. If you only tear them down partially, which has
been suggested, then you’re simply putting an attractive hazard because hikers will still
find a way to use what’s there. I guess it was the fire department, during this testimony I
talked about at the City Council, they were talking about just taking out the lower half. If
you need to rescue somebody, it’s handy to have the stairs there. Don’t tear 'em out so you
have to hire a helicopter. That would be silly. So doing anything to tear them down, beside
just the routine damage, and to permanently deprive everybody of the magnificent
opportunity to educational and spiritual, I mean, you can’t climb that without feeling
spiritual. I don’t care what your beliefs are. You go up there, and you just got chicken skin.
So to take that away, you can’t put a price on it. It’s just too nice, too nice a place.
[Flanigan]
Well if you didn’t do anything, if you just left it the way it is, took the guards away, it
would be a mess. I mean, that’s obviously not a desirable thing to do. Leaving it open and
keeping the 24-hour guards, if the guards actually tried and kept people away, and they
actually arrested people and fined them a thousand dollars, it would solve part of the
trespassing. It wouldn’t solve all the trespassing because some of the trespassing has
nothing to do with Ha‘ikū Stairs. People go in back of the bushes to do various other things,
and that wouldn’t solve that, necessarily. But it would minimize it. But that also, that’s not
what we wanna do. You’d have the stairs sitting there, the bad plants still growing and will
continue to get worse. So no good would come of it, and even though it would probably
eliminate a lot of the trespassing, it would also eliminate a wonderful hiking and
educational/historical activity. So I don’t know, you want me to go farther with that?
[Flanigan]
What we envision is at least for much of the time, there would be a docent on hand. People
who were gonna climb would get a discussion ahead of time. There would be people
standing especially at high uses times, like on the weekends, people stationed at certain
places. There would be informational, I wouldn’t call placards, but you know like parks
have? They have these card things that have this information on them. It would have a
picture of what’s down there, and you can see, and that kind of thing. So there would be
all that sort of thing. There would be a lot of publicity because of the newspapers and tv
just eat this up, any time Ha‘ikū is mentioned, they’re right there. So I’ve been on tv
probably a half-dozen times, interviewed about this kind of thing. And they say, “Well,
when’s it gonna be opened?” My answer is, “Well, today, it’ll be opened one day sooner
than it was yesterday.” [Flanigan]
We’re getting close to a crisis with all of our hiking trails, all of them. And short of just
closing them all off which has been suggested by some people, that’s not happening, and
the other thing, leaving it open and let too many people climb to the point where it’s really,
there needs to be a standard on how you handle this, and this would be an excellent way of
developing. And I don’t for a minute think that we can come up with a plan that’s gonna
work perfectly the first time it’s imposed. It’s gotta be something that works as we go. The
alternative is much less desirable. And I can understand why they don’t want it. It’s more
work. So you gotta have the Legislature say, “Here’s some money for you to do this with.
Here’s some money for you to hire people to do this with.” [Someone else might say] “Oh,
you can’t have any money.” [Another says] “Well you’re spending a couple hundred
thousand dollars a year now.” And yeah, it’s Board of Water Supply, but it’s still public
money, so spending money well. And they don’t seem to be interested at all if it can’t pay
for itself. Well, we think it can pay for itself. But I don’t think that should be, there’s how
many of the hiking trails pay for itself? None. But this could help pay for it. [Flanigan]
68
I believe that the area should be closed…it is kapu…to our ancient kupuna…Let it remain
so…there are so many other places for people to hike…let this place be kapu now and
forever to the memory of our kupuna. [Hewett]
So besides the liability issues and safety issues, this is unfair to our first responders who
have to go and rescue these stupid people. It’s unfair to the neighborhood that has to put
up with parking issues, you know, security and vandalism. It’s frankly unfair to the natural
and cultural resources in the area that are being disrespected. So I think whatever solution
happens here needs to respect the resources themselves as well as the people who live in
that area, and manage it in a much better way. I get frustrated by visitors who cannot behave
themselves. [Faulkner]
So using that hierarchy of benefit to avoid, minimize, or mitigate, what I would like to see
happen here is preserving the historic site, turning it into kind of an educational facility,
having the recreation but in a way that is managed and safe and secure, that the historic
properties are actually restored so they aren’t just falling apart. That would take a more
intense management structure. You’d have to limit the number of people. You’d have to
make sure that there’s safety protocols in place. You’d have to take care of things like
bathrooms and parking lots and security. [Faulkner]
So that might be a more intense level of management than is feasible. And if that’s not
practical or can’t be done, then I think we would work backwards from that to what might
at least protect the historic and cultural site in a way that is respectful and can fit in with
the community goals. What I don’t want to see happen is to have it all torn down. So I
know one of the proposals is to rip it all out and gate it all off and forget that it ever
happened. I think that would be a mistake. [Faulkner]
So my interest is not in the recreational aspect. My interest is in protecting the historic

resources. And the recreation is a nice thing, and it’s why people love this site, but
ultimately, recreation should be in service of protecting the historic resource by letting
people know what’s out there and how to be caretakers and stewards of it, not for its own
sake. This shouldn’t be an extreme adventure sports kind of gladiator arena. [Faulkner]
I think of adverse effects as falling into two camps. One is neglect, and nobody cares about
it, no one’s investing in it. No one’s taking care of it, and it just falls apart. That’s an adverse
effect. The other extreme is kind of loving it to death. There’s too many people extracting
too much. They’re too impactful. The site itself can’t carry that many people. So it’s two
extremes of too much or too little, and what needs to happen here is to find that balance in
between. My fear is on both sides, that if it’s completely neglected, it falls apart, we turn it
into a ruin or deliberately demolish it. I think that would obviously be an adverse effect.
That would be an irreplaceable loss. The other extreme would be kind of unfettered access.
People just coming and coming and coming, and you’ve got buses and cars and too many
people. And then you pave it, and you kind of urbanize it and turn it into a theme park
instead of an authentic place. I think that would also be horrible. [Faulkner]
So finding some way to have managed visitation at a lower level, but not just whoever
wants to come whenever they wanna come. I think that’s gonna require some study to see
what is that sustainable number. I don’t know what the number is. I think there’s going to
need to be some kind of amenities, especially things like making sure the steps themselves
won’t just kind of crumble and fall. You gotta make sure that there’s trail improvements
of some kind as well as bathrooms and some kind of gate-keeping so that people don’t just
sneak in the way that they are now. So those kinds of capacity limitations I think are going
to be really important. How to do that is going to need a lot of work. [Faulkner]
69
And those kinds of carrying capacity studies, there are people who specialize in them. You
know, parks managements, and I think of state parks systems, some of that, and I think
national parks service systems, some of that. And usually what they do is end up zoning an
area. So if you think of like a national park, they’ll have the areas with heavy visitation and
an overlook and a visitor center and parking lots and whatever. And they’ll have areas that
are by permit only. They’re wilderness. You just can’t go there without certain invitations.
And then there’s other areas that they take a little more effort, you might need to get a
permit, but they strike an in-between. So I think there are good examples and good studies,
and it’s not rocket science, it’s pretty figured-out. But yeah, there’s definitely going to have
to be a cap. You can’t just make it a free for all. [Faulkner]
I think getting back to the carrying capacity, I would think it would be more on that
wilderness level of limited access versus kinda whoever can make it up there. So it should
be for people who have a reason to be up there, cultural practitioners, traditional gathering
practices, but not just an extension of a hiking trail. I do think that all of these trails and
sites have opportunities to educate, whether it’s through signage or through podcasts or
something that would explain to people why that area is sacred, why that area is important,
and why it’s off limits. So it’s not just a sign saying, “Don’t go past this point.” It would
be, here’s why, and here’s something that you can learn, and it will enrich your experience
because of that. [Faulkner]
It has this solid concrete structure that could serve of adaptive use, that’s no longer a radar
station, no, but to maybe put in some signage, maybe tell the story of who built it and why
they built it, and why it’s there, what role did it have. Talk about the site. Talk about the
Hawaiian history. Talk about all that in a way that lets people have a richer, deeper
understanding. I think it’s got so much potential to tell the story of this place.[Faulkner]
For some of these buildings, and especially if there is more visitation, there’s probably
gonna be more impact, right? So you need to have someone who’s being a steward, taking
care of it. [Faulkner]
This is in the middle of a watershed. And so Board of Water Supply, of course, manages it
for water quality and quantity. I see, number one, that they’re not in the hiking trail
business, or even in the historic interpretation business. So I understand the Board of Water
Supply’s concerns. But there’s also the issue of: Do you affect the water supply? You don’t
wanna have anything up there that would be mechanized so you’ll have fuel spills or
anything that would bring in environmental damage.[Faulkner]
I also worry about things like tracking in invasive species. You know, hikers sometimes
carry, inadvertently seeds or seed pods, anything. So I think that’s a danger that needs to
be included in whatever plans. [Faulkner]
At the trail head end, there’s just access issues. How do you get from where people are to
starting at the trail, and also the effects on the neighborhood, the effects on the property
owners, the surrounding areas, I think all that has to be thought through very carefully.
[Faulkner]
So my knowledge of Ha‘ikū Stairs as well as, I would say, the upper, that whole wao akua
that’s up there, some of it’s personal knowledge, like just from experience. I have gotten
some feedback and insights from folks that have sort of special insight, ‘ike pāpālua, that
have identified that there are issues, coming down from mauka areas, have identified that
the wao akua isn’t being cared for well, that the activities up there are not pono, and so that
imbalance can be felt all the way to our ‘āina [below]… I have not personally been up there
in quite a while. So the kind of information I get is second hand in terms of the change in
70
vegetation, how a lot of invasive species have taken over right around the stairs, which
makes sense when you have people that aren’t following biological controls. People are
just really up there for adventure, I think the vast majority of people, that I know of, and
so, the kinds of things that they bring in, the kinds of weed species that they bring in. And
then just also seeing both video evidence of what people are doing up there and pictures
and stuff like that, the kind of behavior that I see up there isn’t aligned with pono behavior
in wao akua. I think one of the fundamental, sort of, kind of basic things is whether you
have a function up there, and what is your function. [Kuoha]
Maintaining balance is of primary concern. And so leaving some areas to akua, leaving
some areas where your behavior is highly managed because that’s not your ‘āina, it’s for
akua, leaving those spaces in a certain way is also important. And hiking anywhere on
O‘ahu now, I just see the degradation. People don’t know how to behave. They hana lepo,
and just kinda pilau everywhere. And it’s the lack of knowledge, and/or [it’s] cultural
disconnect. Many of them aren’t Hawaiian. At the same time, I can’t vouch for the actions
of all the Hawaiians up there. So it’s part of a larger, I think, degradation of our forests.
People looking at it as sort of pleasure seeking and not recognizing the kuleana that comes
with accessing the forest and maintaining the balance up there. [Kuoha]
I don’t see a really clear reason for going to wao akua. If you’re not there to actually expand
wao akua and support it, because there has been a huge impact by introduced invasive
species, if you’re not there to support the spiritual side of wao akua, to ho‘omana, to do
your pule, then there isn’t a lot of reason to be there… So yeah, the adventure seeking up
mauka, access without having a clear sense of both how to act as well as a sense of purpose
in being in that space, I think all of those ideas, for me, make it challenging to me to see a
low impact or maybe a positive impact kind of access in that area, unless it were to be
specifically to undo some of the invasive species, invasions up mauka. But beyond that, I
don’t know. [Kuoha]
I don’t see a way that allows access up there and also still maintains a strong sense of
kuleana. It doesn’t have to be that strict, the sense of kuleana, but any kind of access that’s
managed requires some level of access so that people are paying an entrance fee. And that
money can definitely go back to support removing invasives or caring for that area… But
as I look at it and think, it’s actually even just, “Why are you even there? What are you
doing in that space? And how does what you’re doing there support that as wao akua?” If
it’s not directly supporting it as wao akua, then in some way I would think it’s detracting
from it being wao akua. You know, we have wao kanaka for a reason, ‘cause that’s the
place where we as kānaka are just free to do as we please to an extent and access at different
times of day. But wao akua, to me, is different. [Kuoha]
I am certain that the plans that I have heard, especially in managing access, to me, they
would improve the condition from what is now, which is really unmanaged access, people
in the thousands accessing that place per month. That’s highly unsustainable. Any other
kind of managed access would at least be moving towards sustainability… And again, you
have to put everything on the table, be like, “Okay, we’re gonna allow access, and we’re
gonna take some revenue from that.” That revenue’s gonna turn around and support that
‘āina. There’s gonna be education with it. That’s a lot of different pieces to balance and
say that this adds up to being sustainable or better for wao akua. [Kuoha]
We just want people, when they are walking through a place, for them to be respectful of
the multiple cultural resources that we are cultivating there. Some of them are more
obvious, right? It’s a stone structure or a hale. But some of the cultural resources, you
know, unless you have some background in them, you don’t even know it was there. For
instance, the plants that we are growing, and some of the plants we are growing for
medicine. If you don’t recognize that plant, and it just looks like a great place to use the
71
bathroom, then you can imagine, you don’t realize you’re soiling a cultural resource, but
that’s exactly what you’re doing… I think, as a cultural practitioner, there are other
practices that I have no idea about. And I could very well be, if someone’s using a resource
in a particular way, and I have no idea, then I could be soiling that resource. That’s another
reason why kuleana and having kuleana in a particular space and ‘āina has always been
really important because just because you’re a cultural practitioner doesn’t mean you
understand all the ways that this valley or this ‘ohana is practicing culture. And you have
no idea how you’re negatively impacting a resource that they may have planted with very
much intention and pule, that they care for in a particular way, and intend to utilize in a
particular way. [Kuoha]
So there’s levels of degree, having managed access would lessen the adverse effects ‘cause
we have a lot of adverse effects right now. I think what would be most effective at reducing
or even eliminating the adverse effects in this particular area would be the removal of the
stairs, sort of the phased removal of the stairs that came also with invasive species removal
and/or native plant restoration. So if I’m looking at the most, to minimize negative effects
and actually promote sort of a positive impact to that space, then I would say that’s the
most effective way of doing that, removing stairs in phases and removing invasive species
along the way. Now anywhere in between, anything’s better than what we got right now.
[Kuoha]
I accept and take responsibility for some kuleana currently in He‘eia, and I have taken on
that kuleana for over a decade now. But because I do feel strongly about kuleana, it’s the
kama‘āina He‘eia families and Kāne‘ohe families, in some ways I defer to them because
this is their ‘āina. I am trying to support the cultural resources in Waipao which is the area
that we have direct kuleana to manage. And so looking at the larger picture of balance, I
recognize that there is a connection. Everything is connected in the valley, and that what’s
happening up mauka very well has an impact on us. But whatever we can do to support
improving those resources by a little or a lot, that’s my main goal. So whatever
conversations we need to have, any discussions about the movement of people, or whether
the stairs stay up or not, I’m very happy in my capacity with my kuleana to engage in those
conversations, and which is why I appreciate you folks coming to me and asking my
opinion. Again, I’m not from He‘eia, but I have a stake in the health of this particular ‘āina,
and I want to continue to be part of that conversation. [Kuoha]
I think one of the routes of greatest interest to me in the long-term is to simply come up the
public roads and continue up the road that the Navy put in to go to the transmitter building,
and park at that point, and have people just walk down the road [pointing on the map to the
back of the valley]. And then roughly here is an old road that is now overgrown. It was a
dirt road that goes diagonally up to the service road, and there’s a path on it now. So you
can walk down from the transmitter building. It’s only less than half a mile, down the hill,
up that road you’d have to clear out, and then you can walk up to the bottom of the stairs.
And the transmitter building is a historic structure of itself, and that’s where the Coast
Guard used to check in people to go up the stairs. And I think it’d be very consistent to
have that be like the center for education and signing in and so forth. But I think that would
be highly consistent, re-use of the historic structure, and it’s been trashed now by vandals,
so it would need to be fixed up and secured. But it would also provide a nice central
building or headquarters building. You would certainly need guards there to protect the
building and at the stairs to prevent people from poaching the climb. [Goody]
If the ultimate plan of a cultural preserve or park in the valley were to be realized, which
is part of the sustainable community’s plan, I’m speaking as an old guy now, we’re very
short on places where people can go for a walk in our community and not necessarily run
or ride their bike but just safely walk off the road and not get hit by a car, and that whole
loop around [the back of] Ha‘ikū Valley would be a wonderful route for people to go on
72
walks just for health, short of climbing Ha‘ikū Stairs, but they can appreciate the stairs and
the valley and its history and the plants as part of that while getting healthful exercise. So
I think those two things [the stairs and the access route looping around the back of the
valley] go together very nicely. [Goody]
Well my concern would be if we don’t make this work, what’s gonna happen? The valley,
the way that it is right now, is neglected, and it’s getting trashed. It was a beautiful place,
and it still can be a beautiful place, but it’s not right now. It’s really being taken over by
vandals and homeless people. We need to reclaim it for badly needed public space that
enables a place for families and kids to go and do things together, and that is not going to
the mall and buying stuff. It’s healthful and physical, and it can help people learn about the
islands in which we live. And it would be a shame to throw that opportunity away for no
real reason other than a couple of folks object to the idea of Ha‘ikū Stairs. I don’t second
guess people for complaining about trespassers, but that can be solved by operating the
stairs under managed use and providing more security and providing an outlet for the
people who would otherwise trespass at night and give them a legal way during the day
time so that they don’t have to go in the middle of the night to climb Ha‘ikū Stairs and
enjoy the valley. [Goody]
So as far as other sites, I don’t know if there have been enough studies of the other access
points. I would be concerned about other access points unless we have a full cultural
inventory and survey. What we do know is that the access point on the existing Ha‘ikū
Road has been mitigated to some degree by the Navy when they built the road. So that [the
access using Ha‘ikū Road], to me, would be sort of a safer point because they already sort
of know what was there. [Cypher]
The Ko‘olau Foundation is engaged in an initiative to establish a cultural preserve in

Ha‘ikū Valley. As part of the work we do, we’d like to renovate the Omega Station and
turn it into a cultural center, a Ko‘olau museum, which would honor the history of the
Omega Station and honor the history of the lands through which the H-3 travels,
Ko‘olaupoko pretty much, and then maybe Hālawa as well. [Cypher]
So there’s all kinds of buildings throughout the valley that can be used as classrooms. And
we want to transform the valley into a native forest again, but also to be a learning place.
So we wanna put in outdoor hālau classrooms for all kinds of groups to come and teach
culture, teach history, teach science, teach all kinds of things to classes in an outdoor
classroom, using the valley as their source of information. [Cypher]
And then below the Omega Station is an amphitheater. So we wanna clear the alien plants
from that area so that you can see all the way, and erect an earth stage at the bottom of that
hill, and put grass on the sides of the hill so that people can sit on the side like at Waikīkī
Shell, and they can see hula performances, they can see chant performances, they can see
Honolulu Symphony performances. We could have performances in that amphitheater
area. [Cypher]
In my view, the status quo is not acceptable because the toxins are still there, whether it’s
to the people or the landscape or the buildings or whatever. So the status quo is not
acceptable. [Cypher]
Tearing out the stairs is an affront, in my view because they were built to protect our people.
Even an ancient chief would understand that they needed to protect the people. So if
America came in and built the stairs so that they would have a communications station to
protect the islands, the chief would have approved of it. I always look at it through what
the kūpuna kahiko would say. But developing it and opening it and allowing managed
73
access, I think, as a preferred route, would not be as effective unless it had some Hawaiian
educational purpose as well, because I see Ha‘ikū Valley as needing to have its story told,
the history of the area, the Hawaiian cultural values and practices of the area, the mo‘olelo,
things like that. So I think the best way to restore the life of Ha‘ikū is to tell the story of
Ha‘ikū. [Cypher]
I believe it’s an opportunity to teach people about respect for the wao akua, and respect for
the connection between people and their gods, whatever they worship. It is a place to
become closer to god, but I believe they are with us wherever we are, at the ground level
too, not just at the top of the mountain. So I would say, if anyone went up the Ha‘ikū Stairs
or came down the Ha‘ikū Stairs, before they even step foot on it, they should be taught
about these Hawaiian values of respecting these places, respecting the ‘āina, respecting the
spirituality and the presence of the akua, the land and the gods that dwelled there, so they
don’t go there with a casualness. They would at least be informed. Whether they believe it
or not, we have done our duty to let them know because if they do anything that is pilikia,
hopefully that stays with them. We don’t carry the hewa because our thing is to protect the
place and the knowledge of our past. [Cypher]
Well, like I said before, I don’t know what harmful impacts might be involved in using any
of the other access points. I think there were 8 or 9 that we looked at. Some were drainage
ditches, some were streams. Some were going through other people’s property and things
like that. For one thing, the impact of going through other people’s property is an adverse
effect on the people who live there, so that’s disrespectful, it’s a cultural [impact], modern
cultural, not just ancient. I don’t know about impacts of going through the State property
by the Windward Community College or by the State Hospital. I don’t know if there’ve
been any studies. I am concerned about going through the heiau because sometimes the
trespassers now go through Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau to get to Ha‘ikū Stairs. So right now
there’s no management at all, and other than having a security person at the stairs, now
they have some police officers checking the outer area. I don’t know because there’s been
no cultural impact study of alternate access points. The only one that there is knowledge
about is Ha‘ikū Trail, which is now covered by Ha‘ikū Road. [Cypher]
Well if you have a legal access, and you make it possible for people to get there legal
without having to go in the middle of the night, they are more likely to go through the legal
access. I do know that it would take a while before everyone understands that there is a
new legal access. So you would have to have a robust security program in place to make
sure that the alternate access points are not used. So you need to do that for at least a couple
of years, and then when it becomes common knowledge that there is a legal way to get in,
and you don’t have to break the law to get in, people will more likely use the legal access.
You still have to have security within the valley for the stairs anyway, but you lessen the
severity [of trespassing] once the legal access is allowed. See before 1998, the Coast Guard
was there, and everybody could get in by signing a waiver form asking permission. All we
need to do is replicate that ‘cause we had no pilikia before 1998. It was after the Coast
Guard left, and there was no one to manage it, that you had all these problems, and they
locked the front gate. So people started going through other people’s yards and other ways.
[Cypher]
And then the other concern that we have is that there are chronics [drug users]. I don’t
know if there are also homeless people, but definitely chronics who live in the abandoned
buildings in the valley. And especially in the Omega Station, and they have totally
vandalized and destroyed some of the best aspects of those historic buildings.,, And my
concern is that when the Coast Guard decommissioned the station in 1998, they turned it
over to Hawaiian Home Lands. The buildings, especially the Omega Station, were
immaculate, ready to move in. They had all kinds of features in it that could be used in a
museum to honor the Omega Station, beautiful things, and even these power things, they
74
had these generators there that could have been used to create power ‘cause it could create
power for all of Kāne‘ohe. [Cypher]
You got the people that are really adamant about, “Oh no, we don’t want it. We don’t care
what you have to say. We don’t want to talk. Our position is firm. We don’t want this.”
And then you got those on the other side that are like, “No. We don’t want to listen to them.
We want to keep it. We want to preserve it. We want to either, A) turn it into a business,
or, B) keep it open forever.” Right? And you have these two sides that are just growing
farther and farther apart, and the sad thing is that it’s not that they’re on two different sides.
If you actually listen to both sides, they both want the same thing. It could be because of
the hurt. It could be because of the trauma that both sides have endured over the years that
has kind of led to that breach of trust, that severing of the connection. I just feel like that’s
what it is. There’s this loss of connection between two different parties, and till now there’s
never been like this coming together and this healing and this repairing and restoring of
that bridge and that trust between the two parties to find a solution. [Ka‘anana]
I’m not an expert, but just looking at the different options, I do know that when I’m looking
at it, [Routes] 1a, 2a, do seem like they would be the least invasive, because again, I don’t
know if there’s anything of cultural significance along the 1b/2b route, or if there’s any
place of cultural significance through option 3 [Route 3]. And again, the reason why I say
that is because you’re looking at 1b/2b, that’s going through land that’s completely
undeveloped. And then you look at option 3, that’s going through again, even though you
have H-3 kind of cutting through it, there are portions of the land [along Route 3] that are
undeveloped. And just from my gut feeling, because I don’t have the knowledge, I feel like
that would make me feel uneasy, as far as like the question you ask about if it may disrupt
or potentially go over sacred sites. [Ka‘anana]
I guess basically identifying from my own experiences, talking with people about what the
adverse effects are, definitely I think the first and probably the most pressing one is the
disturbance of the local community. And I don’t live there, so I’ve never lived what they’ve
had to live with, but I have heard the stories. I have listened to numerous people explaining
what they live with every single day, because the stairs, technically they’re supposed to be
closed. And these neighbors are coming in to our board meetings and talking with us in
personal conversations, and they talk about the trespassers. They talk about assaults. They
talk about how they don’t feel comfortable in their own homes. And I think that is definitely
an adverse effect. I don’t know if it’s an adverse effect because of the stairs. Or maybe it
could be because of the fact that they’re closed. It could be both. But that is something that
needs to be addressed. [Ka‘anana]
Here we have this manmade structure in the middle of a native Hawaiian forest. And I think
just focusing more on the harmony of the two. I mean, it’s always going to be manmade,
right? But at least we can try our best to encourage the harmony of the two so that people,
if they were to decide they want to do the stairs, that it would be the best of all worlds. You
know, focus on the preservation of nature, what was there before we were there. So that’s
in reference to the second part of what you had asked, how do we address that?... So how
do we address the harmony thing? I guess having more of a concerted effort with the plants,
the gathering rights, as well as the wahi pana, the sacred sites, just having the knowledge
first, and then catering our solution around that knowledge. And I think that’s like a lot of
the work that you guys do, and that’s awesome stuff because it is important. [Ka‘anana]
When I heard your question, I looked at it and instantly felt it here [pointing inside] in the
na‘au. From a spiritual side, I think you can go two ways with it. I think one way, when
you look at it [the upland area], it’s a way to connect even more intimately with not just
our ‘āina and ‘aumākua and our souls, and you could look at it that way. Or you can look
at it from the perspective of maybe it [the upland] shouldn’t be touched. We should respect
75
it, leave it alone. But again it goes back to what I said earlier about regardless of whatever
direction the project goes, it’s not my call to make, it’s the higher authorities. But regardless
of whatever direction, I think the most important thing is the respect, and to understand it
from a cultural point of view, that this isn’t just a mountain. This is very spiritual, very
sacred to us, not just us as Hawaiian people, but us as humans in general. And if they keep
it [the stairs] up there, I think that should be something that all visitors coming in should
understand. And they should have the right to know that this is something special, whether
you’re Hawaiian, Japanese, Caucasian from the Mainland or from Europe, it doesn’t
matter. This mountain and this wao akua is very spiritual, and it’s something that you can
experience. It’s like when you look at an art, right? The first time you see a Picasso, you
might think like, “What the hell is that?” Like some dude threw paint and put together a
piece of art, and people pay millions of dollars for it. But when you understand the meaning
behind it, you respect it and feel it… You can argue about it both ways. Both sides have
legitimate points, but at the end of the day there is that respect that it should and it has to
have for any kind of solution to succeed. [Ka‘anana]
When you think about it, the residents, a lot of them, dealing with the trauma, dealing with
the issues that they’ve been dealing with for years, a lot of them want to close it. And then
you got the other side, where they want to keep it open. What is one thing that they both
can agree on, the respect and the special feeling of this area. For the residents, if you were
to take it down, they still love that mountain peak, they still have that pride in the mountain.
They love it. It’s like a reverence. On the other side, the people that want to keep it open,
why do they want to keep it open, because they have a respect and a reverence for that
same thing. That’s the point about the connection I was saying earlier. It’s like, “You guys
don’t want two separate things. You guys want the same thing! It’s just that we have to
bring you guys together to realize that.” [Ka‘anana]
And I think something that we’ve heard bits and pieces about, but we’re not entirely sure
about what’s the truth is the cost. And maybe it’s not my place to bring this up because I’m
not the one paying for it. But I do feel like that is something that whether it’s truth or folly,
people have their opinions and say, “Oh I heard so-and-so say this,” and so that’s what it
is. I think people wonder like, “Okay, so what is the cost to tear it down? What is the cost
to keep it up?” A lot of the information that we’re getting, when you look at it, it’s like,
“Who’s the source?” Honestly, I’m on the board, and I don’t know. And maybe the veterans
might have a better idea of it. But it’s something I think about because, I hate to say it, but
money is definitely something that would be important to consider. And I think, going back
to the community and the issues of the community, that’s another thing for them that I think
they wonder. I mean the money thing, having no communication about that, it hurts finding
a solution. So there’s that. [Ka‘anana]
You know that report [about the Ha‘ikū Stairs] that I had told you about earlier? The chair
of our board was on that committee, Aunty Mahealani was on the committee, there were
couple other community members that were a part of that study. But they published it.
Have you guys ever seen that report?... In that report, there were different stakeholders,
and that’s where I actually heard about this [project], about the different land owners, but
I didn’t see any kind of [a map showing the different land owners], and seeing it is a whole
lot different than hearing it. These different stakeholders, I believe, are a part of that study.
And maybe some of the people that are on your list could help you get in touch with those
same people that were a part of that study. But it might be another place to consider [getting
information from]. [Ka‘anana] NOTE: Daniel Ka‘anana did email us a copy of this report.
What’s interesting, and if we ‘survey’ the stairs in person I would like to show you: at the
first house there is a machine which I believe has been there since 1942. It’s the engine to
draw the cable car up. Everything is rusted away on that machine, except one immaculate
grease fitting. It’s just sitting here nestled into flaking red metal, perfectly intact. That is
76
the metal which the stairs should be made out of. Because the labor cost, the logistical cost
to get the pieces into position is so high that if the materials are more expensive, that’s still
a smart idea - to only replace what must be replaced, while doing it with the more expensive
steel. If that grease fitting is still in perfect condition since 1942, that’s the right metal to
use. So I think that would be the most important part to think about as far as changes.
[Kievlan]
Be very aware of how brittle Hawai‘i rock and soil is and watch the structure carefully to
prevent landslides. [Kievlan]
And also revamp security. With the special duty police officers in the neighborhood,
they’re doing a good job, but security at the base of the stairs continues to be ineffective.
As a combat veteran, if I were to be guarding the stairs to make sure no one infiltrated a
perimeter, I would have someone stationed on the staircase itself, because that would keep
all people from going up. It would also keep people from going down the stairs. It makes
a lot of sense, but it hasn’t happened yet… So there are four persons to think about. There’s
the security guard at the base of the stairs who only counts and maybe calls the police,
maybe. There is the special duty police officer in the neighborhood from 2 a.m. to 7 a.m.
who discourages a large number of hikers. And then there’s the security guard at the State
hospital and an additional security guard at Windward Community College. Side note: I
believe the security guard at Windward Community College poses a safety hazard for
hikers by jumping curbs in his vehicle and physically restraining them. I believe this
exacerbates rather than reduces liability concerns for the State. But anyhow, a solution
could simply be to place one security guard on the stairs up high enough where no one
could get around. You’d have to pay someone a little extra to climb 10 flights of stairs
before work. Anyway, that would be a solution. [Kievlan]
One of the most precious qualities about the stairs is that they are similarly untouched.
Their raw character and drab colors unassumingly accentuate the experience and inspire
genuine moments. I feel it’s important to preserve the stairs as untouched as possible for
the sake of the immersive experience. I know people like to erect placards to describe
historical sites, but I feel that if we set placards in this place we unwittingly deface the
character of the stairs and water down the experience… They really speak for themselves.
And I think the people who visit that place have a much more spiritual experience when
there’s not the distraction of nice placards and things that remind them of the technology
they wish to get away from. They came here to escape. And they don’t want to be chased
by it. [Kievlan]
When you have too many people at one time, too consistently, going through a place, that
energy becomes burdensome to the spirit of the place, I feel. Hanauma Bay closes every
Tuesday so that the bay can recover. Similarly, I think that it’s important that (1) we make
sure that native Hawaiians feel comfortable about going to those places to practice the
culture. I know that native Hawaiians sometimes end up in court after being ticketed,
asserting their right to access these lands. And, (2) that the other residents of this island
and of earth, would have the opportunity to experience it in a measured way. If we have
too many people, like Diamond Head, the land will bear a heavy weight. We cannot have
that. The valley would be ruined. It has to be something that is accessible, but carefully
accessed… So just to give a number: if you have 15 people at the top at any given time,
that is about the maximum number the top structure can handle. And that’s too many for
grace. 10 is perfect, because 10 or less allows people to be intimate and connected and able
to dive into the experience without feeling like sardines. I prefer 6 + me. There’s often
harsh weather at the top, a lot of rain, a lot of wind, it can get very cold. Most days or nights
you’re going to want to be inside the building. The point of the stairway is to thoroughly
immerse. If there’s too many people it’s gonna be difficult for people to go beyond with
their experience. And so, if there’s 10 people at a time, and people normally spend about
77
an hour or two at the top, then that only gives you the ability to have, in the 24 hour period,
average 120 people per day. [Kievlan]
And maybe we can talk later, but hours of operation: there’s no need for that. From
experience, 202 hikes so far, I can tell you, no need for hours of operation, or even weather
considerations - except for thunder. Some of the best experiences have been during the
‘worst’ weather. The stairs are exceptionally safe. Making them illegal could have
correlation with many deaths along the backside. No one has every died falling on the
stairs. But anyway we’ll get into that later, perhaps. There could be a tiered approach to
access the valley, where some would be allowed to go all the way to the summit, a few get
to stay and ‘immerse’, and then maybe a larger number would be allowed to explore a
cultural garden in the valley. [Kievlan]
So I’ve seen erosion problems on approach trails. Right now I feel like with the sheer
amount of traffic, it is important for the trails to have some sort of gravel or rock on them.
[Kievlan]
And then of course the neighbors, I think that a shuttle passing through the neighborhood
is not an issue, because already Kam [sic] [Kamehameha] schools has hundreds of visitors
every day. You would never even notice if a shuttle bus came every hour. But it would
need to be as discrete as possible. If I had a Wishlist, I would ask for a quiet tesla electric
tractor, customize it with a small body, put a small trailer behind it with seats and a tv for
pre-hike education. Then I would have an ice bath, a hot tub, a shower room, and shelter
for hammock naps near the omega station for folks to enjoy after the hike. [Kievlan]
And also the trash. So every time I go up, usually twice a week, I carry down a lot of trash.
I try to keep it clean up there. I have a 60 liter backpack, and I fill that thing up with trash.
There’s a lot of people that leave trash behind. One thing that I would recommend is that
there should be only reusable containers taken up to the top, no plastic water bottles, just
personal items which people value and wouldn’t want to throw away. No plastic spoons, if
hikers want to bring their own, require bamboo spoons or metal spoons so nothing that
goes up that would have environmental impact. [Kievlan]
So I would say that one of the important parts about this I think would be to have guides.
So I would say that guides are important for a few reasons. Guides are important because
people don’t always know how to climb the stairs best. I’ve climbed them 202 times. I’ve
had over a thousand people go up with me. And my experience of the stairs is 202 hikes
deep. I know this place. I know how to climb the stairs. I know how to not get hurt. I know
about the people who did get hurt. I know how they had the mistake and how I can keep
people from having that mistake in the future. So just to give you an idea: when we go up
I start with a little guidance on how to efficiently and safely climb. Then along the way,
there’s all these angles to shoot photos and video which are so awesome. (all these angles
that you never would think of unless you’ve done it so many times) Along the way I
monitor not only the route that we take to access the stairs, but also the types of actions we
take on the stairs, including whether there’s any markings put on the stairs. So the guide
can maintain standards. And then also on the way down, there’s a technique to make sure
you don’t miss steps and fall. For instance, people like to reach down to each next step with
their toe, right? And so what happens if they reach with their toe, and if they go off the
stair even just a little bit, they go [sound effect] like this, and their foot’s like this [making
a motion like someone who steps and misses a ladder rung]. So I tell them, “Think about
reaching with your heel with every step.” And then like a cat plays with a ball of yarn,
slapping at it [making other motions with his foot], you bring your foot back, reach with
your heel, you bring your foot back to step. But it also has to do with the type of shoe you
wear because there are shoes that have a seemingly aggressive tread, yet are like ice on the
stairs. The guide should ensure hikers have soft rubber tread on their shoe, nothing glazed
78
over with this plastic. But anyway, there’s a lot of experience I can share about guides. I
really feel like people may need to rent a pair of shoes to go up there, to make sure they
have the right shoes… So a guide is very important, I feel like, to monitor the harmful
effects that could come to the area. And I feel like the guide should be more than just
sharing about the cultural, more than just sharing about the historic, but realizing that
people are coming here for healing, and intuitively speaking to them on a spiritual level
about their personal path, their healing, their discoveries of who they are so that when they
leave, their people go out into this world, empowered to live on another level. This is how
we heal. [Kievlan]
So as far as an entrance fee, and where that money goes, I feel like one of the things to
remember is we want this to be as accessible as possible to people who may not yet have
grown enough professionally to be able to afford much. But they want to grow, and so they
are there to heal. And then they can generate more in the future. So some of the people who
need the stairs most, are those who can’t get afford it much. We don’t want it to be too
expensive. And so when we think about where the money goes, I feel like most of the
revenue generated from the stairs should go towards the maintenance of the stairs and
mitigating any community impacts, not to support other endeavors. I think it’s difficult to
give back financially in ways which are nearly as meaningful as the impacts we have on
people’s lives. I think the most important thing we can do with an entrance fee is to remain
able to sustain the operation. We may want to have a special price for tour guides who
bring groups, so that they can cover marketing expenses out of the group discount.
[Kievlan]
So one of the things I always thought of was making sure the community knows that they
are appreciated. And even just something as small as hosting a gathering every month or
two, or every quarter, where food is provided, the neighbors can come, a little pau hana,
and just thank you, any concerns like [at] the Neighborhood Board meeting, but just
something to acknowledge the aloha in the neighborhood. [Kievlan]
I think I would wanna just emphasize that I am concerned that there is a lot of potential
here. I would want to make sure that this doesn’t become something that benefits an
unrelated entity… And so that money, if anything is generated from the stairs, I hope that
it will just go purely to help people grow. I could see that someone may want to invest in
this, and make something of a money-making venture, but this doesn’t need to be another
tourist trap. This doesn’t need to be a parasailing adventure. This needs to be something
sacred. So to make sure it is protected in its pure and organic state, I think is important.
[Kievlan]
Summary of Ethnographic Survey
As a whole, the interviewees have extensive knowledge of the Ha‘ikū Stairs and structures and the
surrounding area. But as individuals, their knowledge was centered more specifically on either the
stairs and structures or the natural surrounding area. Besides the stairs and its associated military
structures, no other historic sites were identified within the project area. One interviewee said that
there are other sites in the area but not along the routes. Traditional sites include significant stones
near the mango tree grove; the Kānehekili Heiau atop which sits the maintenance building; a burial
cave, and other burials. Burials were also previously disturbed and reinterred during the construction
of Ha‘ikū Road. It was pointed out that the piko of the valley, at the back center of the amphitheater,
is associated with Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau. And several interviewees echoed that the higher
elevations, including the land that the stairs are set upon; are all sacred lands because they are the
dwelling place of the gods, specifically Hina, Haumea, Lono, and Kāne, in this area. Regarding
gathering practices, several interviewees said that gathering is done in the project area, such as
collecting maile and pala‘ā for lei-making; gathering plants for medicine; collecting bamboo for
79
implement making; and picking mangoes for food. And finally, one interviewee said that a spiritual
gathering is done at the top of the stairs twice a week, although that it is not a traditional cultural
gathering.
The natural environment was described as very lush and beautiful and vegetated with many
indigenous and endemic plants but also invasive species. One interviewee pointed out the speciation
process that has taken place along the stairs as plants have evolved to adapt to this unique habitat.
Among the plants named were kanawao, kukui, māmaki, ‘ilima, kōlea, and bamboo. The ascent of
the stairs was described as very steep, going from 400 to 2800 feet, leading to a summit that is very
misty and cold. The summit itself allows for an excellent vantage point to see the entire ahupua‘a,
and it connects along the Ko‘olau ridgeline to the summit of Moanalua Valley.
When talking about the changes that have occurred in the project area over time, some interviewees
made a point of distinction that the stairs and Omega structures themselves are the biggest markers
of manmade change in what had always been a natural pristine place. Going further on that point,
the housing developments and institutional buildings for the college and the State Hospital were also
described as markers of change in the valley, in some places covering former conservation lands.
However, the majority of the discussion about change focused on the stairs themselves and the
people who visit the stairs and structures. One interviewee shared that in the 1980s, while still under
the care of the military, three portions of the stairs were destroyed and thrown over, and in their
place, people installed ropes to help climbers in those sections. When the military turned the land
over to the State, it came with codicils to care for the structures, but instead upkeep was neglected.
In the 1990s, Jeremy Harris became the mayor, and according to one interviewee, the City had a
plan to mālama the stairs and create a park in the back of the valley as part of that overall vision.
The interviewee said that volunteers cleared the invasive species, and native plants began to flourish,
while the City spent between $850,000 to $1 million to repair the stairs. It was noted that the City’s
plan was stopped when the Board of Water Supply realized they owned the stairs and withdrew from
the plan and closed the stairs; since then, the stairs have deteriorated with significant rust damage
while the invasive species have taken over again. In addition to the oxidation of the stairs and the
overgrown vegetation, the roadways leading up to it have gone into disrepair. Meanwhile, the
structures and the generators and other things inside the structures have become heavily damaged
and vandalized beyond use by either homeless people or drug users or both, according to the
interviewees. The disrepair and damage has not stopped the visitors from coming illegally, and many
interviewees echoed each other regarding the growing problem of illegal climbing. One interviewee
stated that the hikers have not changed, but rather it is the antagonistic disposition of some of the
residents which has grown into a problem with the hikers. Other interviewees pointed out that the
visitors are the ones who are coming in increasing numbers without respect for the residents and the
place. One interviewee underscored the growing problem of disrespect saying that both visitors and
newer residents no longer care about the culture and history of the place, and this is why the spiritual
vibe and spiritual connection of the place has become one of hurt.
The interviewees also voiced their concerns and recommendations for the project. Some concerns
reflect the desire to protect the stairs and structures from damage, and in contrast, some concerns
focus on the desire to protect the natural and traditional environment from destruction. Concerns
include:
 The trouble, disturbances, and confrontations between the hikers and the residents
 The stairs being blamed for lost hikers
 The visitors’ lack of respect for the neighborhood
 The visitors’ lack of respect for the natural and cultural resources of the area both
in the valley and the wao akua
80
 The need to address the issue of access
 The need to maintain a balance that is pono
 The lack of understanding that people have concerning the kuleana that comes with
accessing the forest
 The preference for historic resource protection over recreational use
 The possibility of a landslide due to poor soil conditions
 The protection of the watershed from human activity
 The proliferation of invasive species
 The current adverse effects that trespassers are having on the environmental and
cultural resources in the valley on their way to the stairs
 The predilection to protect the natural and traditional environment over the stairs
and structures
 The need to listen to the kama‘āina families
 The structures succumbing to vandals and homeless people
 The presence of drug users in the area
 The lack of harmony due to manmade structures out of place in a native Hawaiian
forest
 The cost – what are the actual costs of the different project options?
 The cost – who will pay for everything and how?
 The increase of trash in the area
All interviewees agree that the current situation at the stairs is not acceptable. Where they differ
greatly are in their recommendations. While many recommendations focused on how to reopen the
stairs and bring about some kind of managed use, there were adamant recommendations to dismantle
the stairs. All recommendations are summarized in this list, organized within the following
categories: access, maintenance, education, the environment, establishing facilities and programs,
cost, and the community.
Access
 Take down the stairs to provide the most positive impacts for the area
 Close the stairs in memory of the ancestors because it is in a sacred and kapu place
 Focus on managed access for sustainability of the stairs
 Whittle down the amount of security to one person and have that person stationed
on the stairs itself
 Allow limited access in certain zoned areas
 Allow only people who plan activities to support and expand the wao akua to
ascend the stairs
 Limit climbers to 10 every hour
 Replicate the old system of having climbers sign waiver to climb the stairs
 Address capacity limitations
 Utilize the current public roads as access to avoid the inadvertent discovery of
potential archaeological sites
81
 Use the old road that goes to the transmitter building and use that building as a
place for visitors to sign in
 Set up a shuttle bus system to bring visitors in, and the shuttle bus stop should be
away from the area, such as at the Windward Mall
 Conduct a full cultural inventory survey along all proposed routes of access
 Do not establish “hours of operation” since the stairs are safe at all times
Maintenance
 Institute a system for stewards to take care of the buildings
 Set up a community service component for visitors
 Use the highest quality of metal to repair the stairs, preferably the same type as the
durable grease fitting in the machinery
 Do not allow graffiti on the stairs or the outsides of the buildings, but graffiti on
the interior of the buildings is okay
Education
 Provide docents to allow for supervised hike
 Provide good and informed guides
 Precede hikes with an introductory instructional orientation
 Transform the stairs and structures into an educational facility with intense
management
 Distribute informational cards about the area to hikers
 Educate visitors to respect the area through signs and podcasts
 Do not install informational placards because they will detract from the beauty of
the place
 Emphasize the need to understand and respect the place from a cultural point of
view
 Heed the original report from the Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group
The Environment
 Prohibit mechanized equipment and operations on the hill which might spill or
create other environmental damage
 Spread gravel or rocks on the trails to counter erosion
 Address the issue of invasive species in the final plan
 Allow only reusable utensils and containers on the stairs so that people will not
leave them as trash; do not allow plastics
Establishing Facilities and Programs

 Improve trails
82
 Provide bathrooms
 Convert the back of Ha‘ikū Valley into a park or cultural preserve
 Create a Ko‘olau museum which honors the history of the Omega Station and of
the surrounding area
 Transform the back of the valley into a native forest with outdoor and indoor
classrooms
 Construct a stage at the amphitheater for outdoor performances
 Develop a meditative-reflective spiritual center at the top of the stairs
Cost
 Secure money from the Legislature to pay for expenses
 Establish entrance fees and use the money to help care for the area
 Ensure that the entrance fee is not too expensive and that it goes to maintain the
stairs, mitigate adverse impacts, and support the community
 Enforce heavy fines for trespassing
The Community
 Host a get together for the community every month or quarter to say thank you and
to allow for issues to be resolved
 Bring proponents and opponents of the stairs together at the table to find a solution
83
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The ‘ili of Ha‘ikū in the ahupua‘a of He‘eia and the surrounding ‘ili and ahupua‘a have been a
contributing part of the very productive Ko‘olaupoko moku since pre-contact times. As the region
transitioned into the post-contact era, it has become an important residential area with numerous
communities, businesses, schools, and other institutions. World War II brought significant change
to the district especially in the project area where the valley became off limits to the public and the
Omega Station structures, to include the stairs, were constructed for military purposes.
This study highlights the unique history of the Ha‘ikū area with a focus on the now popular Ha‘ikū
Stairs, also known as the Stairway to Heaven. Eight community members were interviewed to share
their mana‘o and ‘ike and to help identify any potential cultural resources or practices that might be
affected by future plans for the stairs. The interviewees did identify some traditional gathering in the
area, mostly at the bottom of the stairs and elsewhere in the valley. While the Ha‘ikū Stairs and other
Omega Station structures were identified as historic properties, other natural and cultural resources
were also noted for the area, and numerous recommendations were put forth.
Of particular significance was the emphasis by several interviewees that the ridges and upper
elevations leading to the peaks are very sacred areas which have always been kapu. Interviewees
shared that in traditional thought, there is no such thing as recreational hiking through these upper
elevations because they were the realm of the spirits and gods (the wao akua) whereas the people
were to stay in the lower elevations. Except for those who had specific kuleana to ascend the heights,
these places would not be trespassed.
Cultural Resources, Practices, and Beliefs Identified
Archival research and ethnographic interviews compiled for the current study revealed that the
Ha‘ikū Stairs area, both mauka and makai, is a culturally and environmentally significant place. The
natural resources of the region offer food such as kalo, guavas, mangoes, as well as fresh water. In
addition, the flora provide important resources for medicinal purposes, lei making, and implement
making. Specific plants gathered in the area include maile, pala‘ā, kukui, ‘ilima, and ‘ohe. The
vegetation along the stairs and above it is especially remarkable because plants have shown unique
speciation to adapt to their zone of growth.
Traditionally, the ridges and peaks of Ha‘ikū were kapu from development while the lower lands
were cultivated in kalo and other food plants. The mouth of the valley eventually was transformed
into residential developments, and this has continued into the present as other conservation lands
were converted into housing as well. World War II was a pivotal point in the history of Ha‘ikū, as
the community saw the militarization of its valley, ridges, and peaks. For several years the area of
and around the Omega Station structures were off-limits to the general population. After the war,
the Navy turned over its Omega facilities to the Coast Guard, and it was under the watch of the Coast
Guard that the public was allowed to access the Ha‘ikū Stairs. The stairs have become so popular
that visitors from around the world have come to climb them. This has caused problems for the
residents of the area, resulting in the establishment of security personnel. After control of the Ha‘ikū
Stairs went from the Coast Guard to the Board of Water Supply, access to the Stairs was forbidden.
However, visitors continue to find ways to climb the stairs illegally. While much of the discussion
has shifted focus on how to best manage the visitors, many people continue to view the Ha‘ikū ridges
and peaks as sacred, and they call for the Stairs to be dismantled.
Ethnographic interviews identified many cultural resources in the vicinity of the Ha‘ikū Stairs and
access routes. The construction of Ha‘ikū Road itself inadvertently disturbed human burials that
were reinterred. Other burials, including an upland burial cave, were mentioned by the consultants.
84
At the back of the valley, a site was identified to be associated with the Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau.
And under the maintenance building up mauka, there is the site of the Kānehekili Heiau. A site of
importance that many interviewees mentioned was the peak of Keahiakahoe. This is a peak that is
central to a mo‘olelo that figures prominently in the area. And finally, a contemporary operation of
cultural importance and environmental restoration is Papahana Kuaola. It is located near two of the
proposed routes of access, and although the stairs are closed, the staff at Papahana Kuaola have seen
its resources adversely impacted by trespassers.
Potential Effects of the Proposed Project
The cultural resources noted above lie within or near the area of proposed activities. Some of the
proposed access routes are clear of resources due to previous work, but other proposed access routes
may yield findings. One interviewee asked that a complete archaeological inventory survey of these
other routes be included as part of the process.
Confidential Information Withheld
During the course of researching the present report and conducting the ethnographic survey program,
a very small amount of information was shared confidentially by one interviewee, and it was
requested to keep this dialogue off of the transcript.
Conflicting Information
The information shared by the community consultants showed a conflict of thoughts and beliefs. On
one hand, some interviewees viewed the Ha‘ikū Stairs and other structures as worthy to be preserved.
On the other hand, some interviewees found it more important to preserve the natural and traditional
environment, and the Ha‘ikū Stairs and structures were obstructing that preservation. As a result, the
concerns and recommendations put forth from the interviewees did exhibit some conflicting
information. Whereas personal thoughts and beliefs were conflicting, there was no conflict in factual
information provided by the interviewees.
Recommendations/Mitigations
The interviewees shared many, many recommendations for the project. They are listed within the
Summary of Ethnographic Survey section of the Ethnographic Survey chapter of this report, and a
very brief summary is provided in Table 6. Due to the dichotomy of perspectives that proponents
and opponents of the stairs have with one another, a solution will need to find some kind of balance
between the two groups. As one interviewee advised, the two sides should be brought together to the
table to find a solution that all can live with. There are several families which have ancestral ties to
the area as well, and value should be placed on their input as a distinct perspective to consider. These
as well as any other concerns and recommendations that the community and stakeholders bring up
should all be considered during the discussion about the future for the Ha‘ikū Stairs and the other
Omega Station structures.
85
Table 6. Summary of Interviewee Perspectives
Interviewee Connection to Project Stance on the Ha‘ikū Concerns/Recommendations/Remarks

Stairs
Mahealani Cypher Ko‘olau Foundation Keep the stairs with Turn the Omega Station buildings into a cultural center; ancient chiefs would
managed access approve of keeping the Omega structures because they were for the
protection of the people; although the ridge is kapu, it was a traditional route
messengers used to pass communication over the mountains; failure to care
for the Omega structures is a violation of a covenant between the military and
the state government; numerous places of cultural significance in the area
Kiersten Faulkner Historic Hawai‘i Keep the stairs with Omega Station and stairs are on an endangered sites list; the stairs, structures,
Foundation managed access and area have multiple layers of historical significance; the stairs are
unmanaged and unsafe and come with liability issues; any solution needs to
respect the resources and the residents of the area; turn the Omega Station
and stairs into an educational and responsible recreational facility; develop
sustainable access and a stewardship system
John Flanigan Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs Keep the stairs with The stairs are extremely valuable due to its historical military significance;
managed access the Coast Guard handed over the Ha‘ikū land and structures to DHHL with
the agreement that DHHL would do upkeep; the City was going to
incorporate the stairs and the back of Ha‘ikū Valley into a park, but at the last
minute the plan fell through
John Goody Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs Keep the stairs with The stairs are safe and a healthy alternative for family activities; it is a good
managed access public resource for education (history/culture/environment); it is a special
place to learn about speciation; prefers to utilize the old road (Route 1b or 2b)
that goes to the back of the valley as an access route and use the building
there as a sign-in center
Frank Kawaikapuokalani Hewett Direct descendant of the Remove the stairs Summit areas are kapu and should be off-limits; stairs should be closed down
area in memory of the kūpuna; numerous places of cultural significance in the
area
86
Daniel Ka‘anana Kāne‘ohe Neighborhood Open to negotiation Both sides of the issue (for/against the stairs) need to come to the table with
Board mutual respect for there to be a good decision; the stairs are man-made and
out of place in a pristine Native Hawaiian environment; visitors have a lack
of care for the Local community there and for the host culture of Hawai‘i;
what are the costs of the different alternatives for the stairs, and who will pay
for it; Route 1a or 2a would be the best route for access
Matthew Kievlan Friends of Hā‘iku Stairs Keep the stairs with Use the stairs as an educational site for spiritual and social matters; hiking the
managed access stairs leads to healing and joy; the summit’s natural environment has
bestowed transformative benefits from the ancient days (for warriors) until
today; use the best metal to restore the stairs; provide ways to use operations
and activities at the stairs to give back to the community
Keoni Kuoha Papahana Kuaola Open to negotiation but Stairs are in the wao akua which should not be entered except by those who
prefer to remove the have kuleana there; much of the current behavior of hikers is not pono;
stairs currently experiencing a problem with hikers trespassing on his
organization’s property in the valley
87
GLOSSARY
a And.
ahupua‘a Traditional Hawaiian land division usually extending from the uplands to the sea.
‘ai Food or food plant, especially vegetable food as distinguished from i‘a, meat or
fleshy food.
‘āina Land.
akua God, goddess, spirit, ghost, devil, image.
ali‘i Chief, chiefess, monarch.
aloha Love, affection, compassion, sympathy, kindness, greeting.
‘anakē Aunt, aunty.
‘anu‘u Tower in a heiau, usually enclosed with white kapa; terrace, stairs, or steps.
‘aumakua Family or personal gods. The plural form of the word is ‘aumākua.
‘awa The shrub Piper methysticum, or kava, the root of which was used as a ceremonial
drink throughout the Pacific.
bamboo The shrub or tree Dendrocalamus, Phyllostachys, Schizostachyum, or Bambusa.
The species native to Hawai‘i are Bambusa vulgaris and B. aureovariegata. These
were traditionally used for many items, including knives, hula implements, nose
flutes, water containers, and tapa-decorating equipment.
brah Pidgin for brother, friend, man.
chronic Pidgin for drug user.
ginger The plant Zingiber, that produces fragrant flowers.
guava The invasive tree or shrub Psidium guajava, which forms dense thickets in
disturbed areas.
hala The indigenous pandanus tree, or Pandanus odoratissimus, which had many uses
in traditional Hawai‘i. Leaves were used in mats, house thatch, and basketry;
flowers were used for their perfume; keys were utilized in lei and as brushes; roots
and leaf buds were used medicinally; and wood was fashioned into bowls and other
items.
halapepe The native tree Pleomele auwahiensis.
hālau Meeting house for hula instruction or long house for canoes.
hana Work, employment, behavior, incident, service, manufacture.
hana lepo To make something dirty.
hano Nose flute.
hau The indigenous tree Hibiscus tiliaceous, which had many uses in traditional
Hawai‘i. Sandals were fashioned from the bark and cordage was made from fibers.
Wood was shaped into net floats, canoe booms, and various sports equipment and
flowers were used medicinally.
Haumea Ancestral female akua, identified by some traditions as Papa, and by some
traditions as La‘ila‘i.
88
hē Grave.
heiau Place of worship and ritual in traditional Hawai‘i.
hewa Mistake, fault, mismanage; offended, annoyed; to do excessively.
hilu Reef fish of the genus Coris.
Hina Female akua prominent in different traditions, among which are some connected to
the moon, some connected to the demigod Maui, and some connected to the island
of Molokai.
hoa‘āina Native tenants that worked the land.
ho‘omana To empower, place in authority, or to worship.
ho‘oponopono To correct.
hula The hula, a hula dancer; to dance the hula.
hydrangea The alien flowering plant, Hydrangea macrophylla.
iʻa Fish or other marine animal.
‘ie‘ie The vine Freycinetia arborea, an endemic, woody branching climber hat grows at
altitudes of 300–600 m. In ancient Hawai‘i, vines were considered sacred and used
in basketry and for ceremonial purposes.
ihu Nose, snout, beak, bill.
‘ike To see, know, feel; knowledge, awareness, understanding.
‘ike pāpālua To have the gift of second sight; supernatural knowledge.
‘ili Traditional land division, usually a subdivision of an ahupua‘a.
ʻīlio Dog.
imu Underground pit or oven used for cooking.
iwi Bone.
kā‘eke‘eke Bamboo pipes, often used as percussion accompaniment for hula.
kahakai Beach, seashore, coast.
kahiko Ancient, old, long ago; an aged person.
kāhili Feather standard; a symbol of royal Hawaiian status.
kahu Honored attendant, guardian, nurse, keeper, administrator, pastor.
kahuna An expert in any profession, often referring to a priest, sorcerer, or magician;
kāhuna is the plural form.
kahuna lā‘au lapa‘au Doctor of medicine.
kai Sea, sea water; area near the sea, seaside, lowlands; tide, current in the sea; insipid,
brackish, tasteless.
kalo The Polynesian-introduced Colocasia esculenta, or taro, the staple of the traditional
Hawaiian diet.
kama‘āina Native-born.
kanaka Human, person, man, Hawaiian; kānaka is the plural form.
89
Kanaloa A major god, typically associated with Kāne.
kanawao An endemic shrub, Broussaisia arguta, also known as the Hawaiian hydrangea.
kāne Man, husband, male.
Kāne The leading of the traditional Hawaiian deities.
kapu Taboo, prohibited, forbidden.
kele Lush, swampy, muddy, watery.
kī The plant Cordyline spp., whose leaves were traditionally used in house thatching,
raincoats, sandals, whistles, and as a wrapping for food.
ki‘i Image, drawing, idol, petroglyph.
koa Acacia koa, the largest of the native forest trees, prized for its wood, traditionally
fashioned into canoes, surfboards, and calabashes.
kuhina nui Prime minister or premier. Ka‘ahumanu was the first kuhina nui. The position was
abolished in 1864.
kūkā To consult, discuss, or deliberate.
kūkākūkā To negotiate or discuss.
kukui The candlenut tree, or Aleurites moluccana, the nuts of which were eaten as a relish
and used for lamp fuel in traditional times.
kula Plain, field, open country, pasture, land with no water rights.
kuleana Right, title, property, portion, responsibility, jurisdiction, authority, interest, claim,
ownership.
kumu Teacher.
kumu hula Hula teacher/master.
kupuna Grandparent, ancestor; kūpuna is the plural form.
kūpuna kahiko Ancestors.
lā‘au Medicine, medical, trees, plants.
lā‘au lapa‘au Medicine.
lapa‘au Medical practice; to treat with medicine.
laua‘e A fragrant fern, Microsorium scolopendria, when crushed, it fragrance suggests
that of maile.
lehua The native tree Metrosideros polymorpha, the wood of which was utilized for
carving images, as temple posts and palisades, for canoe spreaders and gunwales,
and in musical instruments.
lei Garland, wreath; necklace of flowers.
lei niho palaoa Ivory pendant, originally probably whale’s tooth, also of stone, shell or wood, later
also of walrus tusk.
lele Sacrificial altar or stand.
lepo Dirt, earth; dirty.
limu Refers to all sea plants, such as algae and edible seaweed.
90
loa Very much; excessive.
lo‘i, lo‘i kalo An irrigated terrace or set of terraces for the cultivation of taro.
Lono The Hawaiian god associated with such things as agriculture, rain, and the
makahiki, a time of peace.
mahalo Thank you.
mahalo nui loa Thank you very much.
maha‘oi Bold, rude, forward.
Māhele The 1848 division of land.
mai A grammatical directional particle meaning towards the speaker.
mai‘a The banana, or Musa sp., whose fruit was eaten and leaves used traditionally as a
wrapping for cooking food in earth ovens.
maile Alyxia olivaeformis, a fragrant native shrub used for twining.
makahiki A traditional Hawaiian festival starting in mid-October. The festival lasted for
approximately four months, during which time there was a kapu on war.
makai Toward the sea.
mālama To care for, preserve, or protect.
māmaki Piptarus spp., a small native tree. Fiber from its bark was used to make a kind of
coarse tapa. Sometimes spelled mamake in old texts.
mana Divine power.
mana‘o Thoughts, opinions, ideas.
mango Trees of the genus Mangifera, introduced to Hawai‘i in the 19th Century and well
known for their edible fruit.
mauka Inland, upland, toward the mountain.
me With.
mele Song, chant, or poem.
mō‘ī King.
moku District, island.
mo‘olelo A story, myth, history, tradition, legend, or record.
muliwai River mouth, estuary, or pool near the mouth of a stream, enlarged by ocean water
left there at high tide.
na‘au Gut, mind, heart.
nahele Wilderness, forest, grove; vegetation, trees, weeds.
nui Big, large, great.
octopus tree The ornamental tree Brassaia actinophylla, also known as the umbrella tree,
characterized by umbrella-shaped leaves and octopus-like floral branches.
‘ohana Family.
ʻohe Bamboo of all kinds.
91
‘ohe hano ihu Nose flute.
‘ōhi‘a Two kinds of forest trees, ‘ōhi‘a‘ai and ‘ōhi‘a lehua.
‘ōhi‘a ‘ai The mountain apple tree, Eugenia malaccensis, a forest tree that grows to 50 ft
high.
‘ōhi‘a lehua The native tree Metrosideros polymorpha, the wood of which was utilized for
carving images, as temple posts and palisades, for canoe spreaders and gunwales,
and in musical instruments.
‘oia Truth; true.
‘oihana Occupation, job, career.
‘ōkolehao A liquor distilled from the kī root.
‘ōlelo no‘eau Proverb, wise saying, traditional saying.
oli Chant.
‘ōpala Rubbish, trash, garbage, junk.
pala‘ā The lace fern (Sphenomeris chinensis) that grows wild. Traditionally, brown dye
was made from its fronds.
pali Cliff, steep hill.
pana Noted, celebrated, or legendary place.
pāpālua Twice as much, doubly.
Pidgin The Local language of Hawai‘i, officially recognized as Hawaiian Creole English.
piko Navel; summit; center.
pilau Rotten, foul.
pilikia Trouble.
pōhaku Rock, stone.
poi A staple of traditional Hawai‘i, made of cooked and pounded taro mixed with water
to form a paste.
pono Correct, proper, good.
po‘o Head; summit; director of an organization.
post-contact After A.D. 1778 and the first written records of the Hawaiian Islands made by
Captain James Cook and his crew.
pre-contact Prior to A.D. 1778 and the first written records of the Hawaiian Islands made by
Captain James Cook and his crew.
pua‘a Pig.
pūʻili Bamboo implements used in dance.
pule Prayer; to pray.
rapid ‘ōhi‘a death A fungal disease which is noted for attacking the native ‘ōhi‘a.
rose myrtle The flowering plant, Rhodomyrtus tomentosa, native to south and southeast Asia.
sweet potato The perennial tuber crop with wide-spreading vines, Ipomoea batatas, also known
as ‘uala, originating in South America.
92
talk story Pidgin for conversing, discussing; discussion.
taro The starchy tuber crop, Colocasia esculenta, also known as kalo, originating in the
tropics of the Old World.
ti (kī) The plant Cordyline terminalis, whose leaves were traditionally used in house
thatching, raincoats, sandals, whistles, and as a wrapping for food.
‘uala The sweet potato, or Ipomoea batatas, a Polynesian introduction.
‘ulu maika Stone used in the maika game, similar to bowling.
wahi Place, location.
wahi kapu Sacred places that are kapu, or taboo.
wahi kupuna Place of ancestors.
wahi pana Sacred places or legendary places that may or may not be kapu, or taboo.
wai Water or liquid other than salt water.
Wākea Ancestral male akua, identified by some traditions as the husband of Papa.
wao A general term for inland areas, usually forested and uninhabited.
wao akua A distant mountain region believed to be inhabited only by spirits; wilderness,
desert.
wauke The paper mulberry, or Broussonetia papyrifera, which was made into tapa cloth
in traditional Hawai‘i.
93
REFERENCES
Akana, C.L. and K. Gonzales

2015 Hānau Ka Ua Hawaiian Rain Names. Kamehameha Publishing, Honolulu.
Allen, J.
1990 Preliminary Report: Subsurface Testing Results, Sites 50-Oa-G5-85, 50-Oa-G5-95, and
Unsurveyed Areas, Kāne‘ohe Interchange, Interstate H-3 Highway, Kāne‘ohe, Ko‘olau
Poko, O‘ahu. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
1992 Archaeological Inventory Survey Site 50-80-10-2462 (Bishop Museum Site 50-Oa-G5-
155) H-3 Highway KM Ramp Project Area, Kaneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu. Bishop Museum,
Honolulu.
Allen-Wheeler, J.
1984 Luluku: An Upland Agricultural System in Kane‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko District, O‘ahu. First
preliminary report. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
1985a Luluku: An Upland Agricultural System in Kāne‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko District, O‘ahu.
Second preliminary report. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
1985b Research Design for Kāne‘ohe H-3 Interchange Project, Testing Phase. Bishop
Museum, Honolulu.
Allen, J., H.A. Lennstrom, B. Dolan, and H.H. Leidemann
2002 Four Sites in Upland Kāne‘ohe: Supplemental Survey and Archaeological Monitoring for
Interstate Route H-3. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Allen, J., M. Riford, T.M. Bennet, G.M. Murakami, and M. Kelly
1987 Five Upland ‘Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Kāne‘ohe
Interchange, Interstate Highway H-3, Island of O‘ahu. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Anderson, S. and S.S. Williams
1989 Archaeological Monitoring of the Ha‘iku Access Road, Hospital Rock, Ha‘iku Antenna
Expansion, and the Ha‘iku Bridges Portions of the H-3 Interstate Highway Project. Bishop
Museum, Honolulu.
Athens, J.S. and J.V. Ward
1996 Sediment Coring Record at Kapunahala Marsh, Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. International
Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu.
Baldwin and ALexander
1913 Map of Heeia Koolaupoko Oahu. Scale 400 ft. = 1 in.
Barton, D.
1997 Historic Preservation Survey and Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
of the U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station O‘ahu Island, Hawaii. Ogden Environmental and
Energy Services, Honolulu.
Beamer, B.
2008 Na wai ka mana? ‘Ōiwi Agency and European Imperialism in the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Diss. University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.
2014 No Mākou Ka Mana Liberating the Nation. Kamehameha Publishing, Honolulu.
Chapman, W.
2018 Historic and Architectural Assessment Ha‘ikū Stairs Ha‘ikū Valley, Kane‘ohe, O‘ahu
Island, Hawai‘i. William Chapman, Historic Preservation Consultant, Honolulu.
94
Cleghorn, P.L. and E. Rogers-Jourdane
1976 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Windward Portion of Route H-3, District of
Koolaupoko, Oahu Island. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Department of the Army
1991 Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly Used Sites, Kaneohe District
Park (Keaahala Military Reservation), Kaneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu, Hawaii. Department of
the Army, Honolulu.
Devaney, D.M., M. Kelly, P.J. Lee, and L.S. Motteler
1976 Kāne‘ohe: a history of change. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Dockall, J., L.L. Hartzell, S.A. Lebo, H.H. Leidemann, H.A. Lennstrom, and S.P. McPherron
2003 Windward Highway Archaeological Investigations, Inventory Surveys, Data Recovery,
and Monitoring for Interstate Route H-3 in Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Duncan, E.D. and H.H. Hammatt
1993 Archaeological Monitoring Results for Castle Hills Access Road, Kāne‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko,
O‘ahu TMK 1-4-5-23:5. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.
Dye, T.S.
1977 Archaeological Phase I Survey of the Windward Portion of Proposed Interstate H-3:
Halekou Interchange to Windward Portal of Koolau Tunnel, Oahu. Bishop Museum,
Honolulu.
Ellis, W.
1963 Journal of William Ellis: Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee; with Remarks on
the History, Traditions, Manners, Customs and Language of the Inhabitants of the Sandwich
Islands. Advertiser Publishing Company, Honolulu. Originally published 1827, London.
Emerson, N.B.
1997 Pele and Hiiaka: A Myth from Hawaii. ‘Ai Pōhaku Press, Honolulu. Originally published
1915.
Ferreira, K. and L. Gouveia
2017 An Ethno-Historical Study of Ha‘ikū Valley with an Emphasis on Sites #50-80-10-332 and
-333: Kahekili/Kānehekili Heiau and Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau. The Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, Honolulu.
Foote, Donald E., E.L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens
1972 Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y.-L. Chen, P.-S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and
D.M. Delparte
2013 Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. Bulletin of the American Meteorological. Society 94:
313-316, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1.
Hammatt, H.H., D.F. Borthwick, and W. Folk
1992 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Castle Hills Access Road, Kāne‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko,
O‘ahu. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.
Hammatt, H.H. and D.W. Shideler
2008 Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed Windward Community College Library &
Learning Center Project, Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, O‘ahu Island, TMK:
[1] 4-5-023: por. 014. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.
95
Handy, E.S.C., E.G. Handy, and M.K. Pukui
1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaiʻi: their Life, Lore, and Environment. First edition. Bishop
Museum Press, Honolulu.
Handy, E. S.C. and M.K. Pukui
1998 The Polynesian Family System in Ka-ʻu, Hawaiʻi. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu.
Harmon, P.
2000 Keahiakahoe. Hale Kuamoo University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Hawai‘i.
Hitt, C. (Editor)
2015 Mana A Journal of Hawai‘i. Watermark Publishing, Honolulu.
Ka Nonanona
Accessed July 4, 2017. Ka Nonanona. 12 Oct. 1841. Buke 1. Pepa 8. Aoao 29. Ulukau:
Hawaiian Electronic Library. Web.
Kamakau, S. M.
1991 Tales and Traditions of the People of Old: Na Mo’olelo a ka Po’e Kahiko. Translated by
Mary Kawena Pukui. Ed. by Dorothy B. Barrere. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
1996 Ke Kumu Aupuni. ‘Ahahui ‘Olelo Hawaiʻi, Honolulu. Originally published 1866–1868.
Kanahele, G.S.
1995 Waikiki 100 B.C. To 1900 A.D.: An Untold Story. The Queen Emma Foundation,
Honolulu.
Kirch, P.V.
1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.
2011 “When Did the Polynesians Settle Hawai‘i? A Review of 150 Years of Scholarly Inquiry
and a Tentative Answer.” Hawaiian Archaeology. 12:3–26.
Klieger, P., S. Parry, R. Wofford, and S.A. Lebo
2005 Hu Ka Ipu O O‘ahu: A History of Central Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Bishop Museum,
Honolulu.
Krauss, B.H.
1993 Plants in Hawaiian Culture. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.
Leidemann, H.L., J. Dockall, H.A. Lennstrom, and S.A. Lebo
2004 Continuity and Change in Upland Kāne‘ohe Agriculture, Data Recovery and Monitoring
Investigations at Site 50-80-10-1887, Luluku ‘Ili, O‘ahu. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Liedemann, H., L.H. Hartzell, I.P. Gordon, S.A. Lebo, J.E. Dockall, H.A. Lennstrom, S.
McPherron, and B. Dolan
2003 Continuity and Change in Upland Kāne‘ohe Habitation: Data Recovery and Monitoring
Investigations in Luluku, Kapalai, and Punalu‘u Mauka ‘Ili, O‘ahu. Bishop Museum,
Honolulu.
Leidemann, H., S.A. Lebo, H.A. Lennstrom, L.L. Hartzell, S. Williams, J.L. Perry, and T. Jiao
2007 Archaeological Investigations at Kukuiokāne, Sites 50-80-10-1888, -1889, -2038, and -
2078, Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Lutfy, M. and S.W. Williams
1990 A Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Hope Chapel Foursquare Church Project,
Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Macdonald, G.A., A.T. Abbott, and F.L. Peterson
1983 Volcanoes in the Sea. Second edition. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.
96
Malo, D.
1997 Hawaiian Antiquities Moolelo Hawaii. Translated from Hawaiian by Dr. Nathaniel B.
Emerson 1898. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Maly, K.
2001 Malama Pono I Ka Aina - An Overview of the Hawaiian Cultural Landscape. Kumu Pono
Associates LLC, Hilo, Hawai‘i.
Maly, K. and O. Maly
2003 He Wahi Mo‘olelo No Ponahawai A Me Punahoa Ma Hilo: A Collection of Traditions
and Historical Accounts for Ponahawai and Punahoa, District of Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i
(TMK 2-3-44:19; 2-3-49:53; 2-3-37:01). Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawai‘i.
McAllister, J.G.
1933 Archaeology of O‘ahu. Bishop Museum Bulletin 104. Bernice P. Bishop Museum,
Honolulu.
McDermott, M., J. Winiewski, R. Chiogioji, L. Pyle, A. Bush, D. Creed, and H. Hammatt
1997 DRAFT—Archaeological Inventory Survey of the United States Coast Guard Omega
Transmission Station, Ha‘ikū Valley, He‘eia Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko, Island of O‘ahu,
TMK: [1] 4-6-15. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.
McElroy, W.
2006 Archaeological Assessment of TMK: 4-5-024:002, :003, :004, :005, 4-5-108:069, :070,
:071, :072, :073, and :074, Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu,
Hawai‘i. Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i.
McElroy, W.K., D. Duhaylonsod, P. Lima, C. Hitt, and M Peters
2016 REVISED DRAFT—Preservation Plan for Selected Sites along the Interstate H-3
Highway Corridor, Luluku (Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a), Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu,
Hawai‘i. Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting, Kāne‘ohe, Hawai‘i.
McElroy, W. and M. Orr
2006 Cultural Impact Assessment of TMK: 4-5-024:002, :003, :004, :005, 4-5-108:069, :070,
:071, :072, :073, and :074, Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu,
Hawai‘i. Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i.
McMahon, N.A.
1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Kahekili Highway Widening and
Interchange Kaneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu Island (TMK 4-05-25:05, 06, 07, 23, 25; TMK 4-
06-14:05). Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Moffat, R.M. and G.L. Fitzpatrick
1995 Palapalaʻaina: Surveying the Mahele. Editions Limited, Honolulu.
Mueller-Dombois, D.
2007 “The Hawaiian Ahupua‘a Land Use System: Its Biological Resource Zones and the
Challenge for Silvicultural Restoration.” In Biology of Hawaiian Streams and Estuaries.
Edited by N.L. Evenhuis and J.M. Fitzsimons. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Cultural and
Environmental Studies 3:23–33.
Nakamura, B., J. Pantaleo, and A. Sinoto
1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Perimeter Fencing, Ha‘ikū Valley
Federal Quarantine Station, He‘eia Ahupua‘a, Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu Island (TMK 4-6-15:9
por.). Aki Sinoto Consulting, Honolulu.
97
Neller, E.
1985 The Luluku Settlement: Site 50-Oa-2914. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a
Hawaiian Agricultural Settlement in Kaneohe, Oahu. Hawaii State Historic Preservation
Division, Kapolei, Hawai‘i.
1990 Review and Comment on: “A Preliminary Report on Test Excavations on Sites 50-Oa-G5-
106 and G5-110, Luluku, Kane‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko, O‘ahu,” by Scott Williams (Bishop
Museum, 30 Nov. 1989). Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Honolulu.
Nogelmeier, M.P.
2006 “Commentary.” The Epic Tale of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele. Awaiaulu: Hawaiian Literature
Project, Honolulu.
Pukui, M.K.
1983 ‘Ōlelo No‘eau: Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Pukui, M.K. and S.H. Elbert
1986 Hawaiian Dictionary. Revised and Enlarged Edition. University of Hawai‘i Press,
Honolulu.
Pukui, M.K., S.H. Elbert, and E.T. Mookini
1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University Press of Hawaiʻi, Honolulu.
Runyon, R., D. Borthwick, and H.H. Hammatt
2010 Archaeological Monitoring Report for Vegetation Clearing at Leleahina Heiau, He‘eia
Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu, TMK: [1] 4-6-010:042. Cultural Surveys
Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.
Sai, D.
2008 The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Beginning the Transition from
Occupied to Restored State. Diss. University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.
Shideler, D.W. and G.M. Farley
2016 Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection for the Ahuimanu Force Main
Project, Kahekili Highway Between Ha‘ikū Road and Kea‘ahala Road, He‘eia and
Kāne‘ohe Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, O‘ahu, TMK plats: [1] 4-5-023, 4-6-012, 022,
028, and 031: Kahekili Right-of-Way. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.
Sims, A.E., J. Liston, and M. Desilets
2016 DRAFT—Archaeological Monitoring Report Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at
the former Haiku Naval Radio Station, Ha‘ikū Valley, He‘eia Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko
District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawaiʻi TMK (1) 4-6-015:009. Garcia and Associates, Kailua,
Hawai‘i.
Sinoto, A.
1986 On-Site Archaeological Surface Reassessment of the Proposed H-3 Highway Alignment
between Haiku Portal to Kaneohe Interchange. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Spear, R.L.
1995 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Hope Chapel Driveway Corridor,
District of Ko‘olaupoko, Kāne‘ohe Ahupua’a, Island of O‘ahu [TMK 4-5-23: POR. 2, POR.
3]. Aki Sinoto Publishing, Honolulu.
Sterling, E.P. and C.C. Summers
1978 Sites of Oahu. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Streck, C.
1982 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Route H-3 (Alternative A), Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu,
Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
98
Thrum, Thomas G.
1915 “Completing Oahu’s Heiau Search” Thrum’s Annual Report, Honolulu.
Tulchin, T. C. O’Hare, and M. McDermott (Tulchin et al. 2006a)
2006 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation for Two Kamehameha Schools Parcels, He‘eia
Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu, TMK: [1] 4-6-014:001, 006. Cultural
Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.
Tulchin, T., M. McDermott, and O. O’Leary (Tulchin et al. 2006b)
2006 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigation for Two Kamehameha School Parcels, He‘eia
Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olaupoko District, Island of O‘ahu, TMK: [1] 4-6-014:001, 006. Cultural
Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.
Wall, W.E.
1902 Oahu Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii Territory Survey.
Williams, S.S.
1989 A Preliminary Report of Test Excavations on Sites 50-Oa-G5-106 and -G5-110, Luluku,
Kane‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
1993 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Limited Subsurface Testing for Proposed
Family Housing Construction, U.S. Coast Guard Omega Transmitter Site, He‘eia,
Koolaupoko District, Island of Oahu, Hawaii. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services,
Honolulu.
Williams, S.S. and R. Nees
1994a Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Limited Testing for Proposed Sites of
Construction Pond, Installation Recreation Areas, Animal Quarantine Station, and Road
Access Alternatives for Family Housing Construction, U.S. Coast Guard Omega Transmitter
Site He‘eia, Ko‘olau Poko District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, TMK: [1] 4-6-15. Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services, Honolulu.
1994b Mo‘olelo Ha‘ikū: Archaeological and Historical Investigations for the Interstate
Highway H-3 in Ha‘ikū Valley, He‘eia Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olau Poko District, Island of O‘ahu.
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Honolulu.
1997 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Limited Testing for Proposed Family
Housing Construction, Parcel C, U.S. Coast Guard Omega Transmitter Site, He‘eia,
Ko‘olau Poko District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawaii. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services,
Honolulu.
2002 Mo‘olelo Ha‘ikū Archaeological Inventory Survey, Data Recovery, and Monitoring
Investigations for the Interstate Highway H-3 within Ha‘ikū Valley, He‘eia Ahupua‘a,
Ko‘olau Poko District, Island of O‘ahu. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services,
Honolulu.
Woodbury, D.
1946 Builders for Battle. E. P. Dutton, New York
99
100
APPENDIX A: AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE
101
102
Agreement to Participate in the Cultural Impact Assessment for the
Ha‘ikū Stairs Project
Dietrix J. U. Duhaylonsod, Ethnographer, Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting
You are invited to participate in a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for the Ha‘ikū Stairs Project
in the He‘eia-Kāne‘ohe area, on the island of O‘ahu (herein referred to as “the Project”). The Project
is being conducted by Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting (Keala Pono), a cultural resource
management firm, on behalf of G70. The ethnographer will explain the purpose of the Project, the
procedures that will be followed, and the potential benefits and risks of participating. A brief
description of the Project is written below. Feel free to ask the ethnographer questions if the Project
or procedures need further clarification. If you decide to participate in the Project, please sign the
attached Consent Form. A copy of this form will be provided for you to keep.
Description of the Project
This CIA is being conducted to collect information about the Project property in the He‘eia-
Kāne‘ohe area of windward O‘ahu, through interviews with individuals who are knowledgeable
about this area, and/or about information including (but not limited to) cultural practices and beliefs,
mo‘olelo, mele, or oli associated with this area. The goal of this Project is to identify and understand
the importance of any traditional Hawaiian and/or historic cultural resources, or traditional cultural
practices in properties on the current subject properties. This Assessment will also attempt to identify
any affects that the proposed development may have on cultural resources present, or once present
within the Project area.
Procedures
After agreeing to participate in the Project and signing the Consent Form, the ethnographer will
digitally record your interview and it may be transcribed in part or in full. The transcript may be sent
to you for editing and final approval. Data from the interview will be used as part of the ethno-
historical report for this project and transcripts may be included in part or in full as an appendix to
the report. The ethnographer may take notes and photographs and ask you to spell out names or
unfamiliar words.
Discomforts and Risks
Possible risks and/or discomforts resulting from participation in this Project may include, but are not
limited to the following: being interviewed and recorded; having to speak loudly for the recorder;
providing information for reports which may be used in the future as a public reference; your
uncompensated dedication of time; possible misunderstanding in the transcribing of information;
loss of privacy; and worry that your comments may not be understood in the same way you
understand them. It is not possible to identify all potential risks, although reasonable safeguards have
been taken to minimize them.
Benefits
This Project will give you the opportunity to express your thoughts and opinions and share your
knowledge, which will be considered, shared, and documented for future generations. Your sharing
of knowledge may be instrumental in the preservation of cultural resources, practices, and
information.
103
Confidentiality
Your rights of privacy, confidentiality and/or anonymity will be protected upon request. You may
request, for example, that your name and/or sex not be mentioned in Project material, such as in
written notes, on tape, and in reports; or you may request that some of the information you provide
remain off-the-record and not be recorded in any way. To ensure protection of your privacy,
confidentiality and/or anonymity, you should immediately inform the ethnographer of your requests.
The ethnographer will ask you to specify the method of protection, and note it on the attached
Consent Form.
Refusal/Withdrawal
At any time during the interview process, you may choose to not participate any further and ask the
ethnographer for the tape and/or notes. If the transcription of your interview is to be included in the
report, you will be given an opportunity to review your transcript, and to revise or delete any part of
the interview.
104
APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM
105
106
Consent Form
I, ________________________, am a participant in the Ha‘ikū Stairs Project Cultural Impact

Assessment (herein referred to as “Project”). I understand that the purpose of the Project is to
conduct oral history interviews with individuals knowledgeable about the subject property and
surrounding He‘eia-Kāne‘ohe area of windward O‘ahu. I understand that Keala Pono
Archaeological Consulting and/or G70. will retain the product of my participation (digital
recording, transcripts of interviews, etc.) as part of their permanent collection and that the
materials may be used for scholarly, educational, land management, and other purposes.
_______ I hereby grant to Keala Pono and G70 ownership of the physical property
delivered to the institution and the right to use the property that is the product
of my participation (e.g., my interview, photographs, and written materials) as
stated above. By giving permission, I understand that I do not give up any
copyright or performance rights that I may hold.
_______ I also grant to Keala Pono and G70 my consent for any photographs provided
by me or taken of me in the course of my participation in the Project to be used,
published, and copied by Keala Pono and G70 and its assignees in any medium
for purposes of the Project.
_______ I agree that Keala Pono and G70 may use my name, photographic image,
biographical information, statements, and voice reproduction for this Project
without further approval on my part.
_______ If transcriptions are to be included in the report, I understand that I will have
the opportunity to review my transcripts to ensure that they accurately depict
what I meant to convey. I also understand that if I do not return the revised
transcripts after two weeks from the date of receipt, my signature below will
indicate my release of information for the draft report, although I will still have
the opportunity to make revisions during the draft review process.
By signing this permission form, I am acknowledging that I have been informed about the
purpose of this Project, the procedure, how the data will be gathered, and how the data will be
analyzed. I understand that my participation is strictly voluntary, and that I may withdraw from
participation at any time without consequence.
Consultant Signature Date
Print Name Phone
Address
Thank you for participating in this valuable study.
107
108
APPENDIX C: TRANSCRIPT RELEASE
109
110
Transcript Release
I, _______________________, am a participant in the Ha‘ikū Stairs Project

(herein referred to as “Project”) and was interviewed for the Project. I have
reviewed the transcripts of the interview and agree that the transcript is
complete and accurate except for those matters delineated below under the
heading “CLARIFICATION, CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS.”
I agree that Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting and/or G70 may use and
release my identity, biographical information, and other interview information,
for the purpose of including such information in a report to be made public,
subject to my specific objections, to release as set forth below under the heading
“OBJECTIONS TO RELEASE OF INTERVIEW MATERIALS.”
CLARIFICATION, CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS:
OBJECTIONS TO RELEASE OF INTERVIEW MATERIALS:
Consultant Signature Date
Print Name Phone
Address
111
112
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW WITH MAHEALANI CYPHER
113
114
TALKING STORY WITH
MAHEALANI CYPHER (MC)
Oral History for the Ha‘ikū Stairs project by Dietrix Duhaylonsod (DD)
For Keala Pono 11/10/2017
DD: Today is Friday, November 10, 2017. We’re sitting at Ruby Tuesday at the Windward
Mall. We’re gonna be talking about the proposed options regarding the Ha‘ikū Stairs, also
known as the Stairway to Heaven. We’ll be talking story with Aunty Mahealani Cypher, of the
Ko‘olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club.
MC: I’m actually with Ko‘olau Foundation for this interview.
DD: Oh okay, I’m sorry, Aunty Mahealani Cypher is here with the Ko‘olau Foundation, and
before we go any further, we’d just like to say, “Mahaaaalo,” to Aunty for taking the time on
this busy Friday to talk story with us. So mahalo, ‘Anakē, and aloha.
MC: Aloha mai.
DD: If we could start, could you maybe say your name, where/when you were born, where you
grew up, where you went to school, just a little background?
MC: Okay, my name is Mahealani Cypher. I was born and raised here in Kāne‘ohe in 1946.
And I was adopted by my grandparents when I was a toddler, George and Elizabeth Cypher.
Papa Cypher was a policeman for the whole windward side, from Makapu‘u to Waimea. Mama
Cypher was just a homemaker, took care of all of us, and my cousins and my foster uncles and
aunties and everybody else, we all grew up on Waikolua Road in Kāne‘ohe.
DD: Mahalo for sharing some of your background there. Is there anything else that you’d like
to share about your ‘ohana and maybe your association to the property, the Ha‘ikū Stairs area
that we’re talking about?
MC: Well when my grandpa was retired from the police force, he was a distributor for the Star
Bulletin newspaper. And so he had this big truck that he drove the newspapers all over town,
delivering them to the newspaper boys and taking newspapers to some of the government
agencies. So I would ride with him on the truck, and I remember him taking us into Ha‘ikū
Valley to deliver newspapers to the Coast Guard Station, the Omega Station in Ha‘ikū. So that’s
my earliest memories of Ha‘ikū Valley and how beautiful and lush it was even back then in the
1940s.
DD: Wow, that’s a long time in getting to know about the place. Maybe we could talk about the
ways you have acquired knowledge about the area. Would you say it’s experiential knowledge,
maybe knowledge from your ‘ohana talking story, maybe special research, could you talk about
you’ve come to learn more about this area?
MC: Some of my knowledge comes from research. I’ve done a lot of research regarding the
Kāne‘ohe Bay region. In researching the impacts of the Interstate H-3 on Ko‘olaupoko, I learned
a lot about all of our communities, and Ha‘ikū Valley and He‘eia were some places that I did a
lot of research on. So I learned some of the information from that study.
115
But I also learned from my travels up into the valley with my grandpa and from kūpuna in the
area, people like Aunty Carol Bright, whose family had kuleana lands in the valley, and her
daughter Teresa Bright, who still collects information, has old maps of kuleana lands in the
valley. I learned from them. I learned from other kūpuna of the Kāne‘ohe area. So that’s pretty
much where my information comes from.
And I actually learned a lot from being in the valley. We do a lot of work on the wahi kapu and
wahi pana of Ha‘ikū. And I learned from the kūpuna of the area. I’m inspired by the ‘āina and
the spirit of Ha‘ikū Valley. So it’s not something that you can learn in a book. It’s something
that you absorb from being in a place. That’s what I have learned from Ha‘ikū.
DD: That’s beautiful, that’s definitely more than academic knowledge. That’s spiritual
knowledge with your na‘au from knowing a place and talking with others from the ‘āina there.
So mahalo for coming to share your mana‘o today.
When we think about the mo‘olelo, mele, oli, place names of this area, do any certain themes
stick out regarding the significance of this place? What are some of the themes that stick out
about the area? Maybe you have a personal story about the area?
MC: My own personal feeling is that Ha‘ikū Valley has a very powerful mana and that people
who are sensitive to mana have felt it when they’ve been in the valley. And they feel it every
time they return to the valley. So there’s mana, mana is, I call it the god force in all things.
There’s a lot of mana there. I’ve come up here with the kūpuna from Ha‘ikū Valley, Aunty
Twyla(?), Aunty Carol Bright, and they speak of these places, these wahi kapu, these wahi pana
and the mana.
And I know of one story where, it has to do with Ha‘ikū Stairs actually, the Hawaiian crew that
was brought in to help build the Ha‘ikū Stairs, they were working on the construction of the
Omega Station in the 1940s. And they had climbed the stairs to the top. One of the men fell
from the top of the stairs all the way to the bottom. And when he fell, the rest of the crew rushed
down thinking either he would have died from the fall or would need to be rushed to emergency.
So they all rushed down the stairs to his aid, and when they got to the bottom, he was walking
around with just a few scratches. This is the only story of anyone that I know of who have fallen
from the stairs, and he survived the fall. And so I think there is something special about Ha‘ikū
which is why that story of that Hawaiian man resonates.
DD: Wahi pana for sure, mana ‘oia, a very strong spiritual place.
With all the time that you spent back there, could you share maybe how the place has changed?
What’s different now when you think about how it used to be? Could you share about the
changes?
MC: Well I think that from the 1900s when there was very little activity in the valley. Prior to
that, prior to the 1900s, the valley was used mainly for medicinal purposes. They had Hawaiian
medicinal plants in there. Kāhuna lā‘au lapa‘au would go there to gather Hawaiian medicine.
So it was a fairly quiet place, and with the coming of World War II and the construction of the
Omega Station, there was a lot of activity that transformed the whole valley.
116
So there were heiau in there that were altered by the grading that took place with the construction
of Omega. They installed underground cables in the ground, so that probably disturbed a lot that
was there. And what I have noticed in the last 20 or so years is that there is a lot of vandalism
and further damage, not just of the buildings that were built, but there’s alien types of plants
that have come in since the 1950s. And so the whole foliage of the valley is changed. There’s
all kinds of negative things in there. I call it toxins, toxic presence of ‘ōpala and invasive plants
and some kinds of people, I call ’em invasive people, who don’t know how to respect the ‘āina.
So those kinds of things are what have changed the valley.
But the kūpuna kahiko of Ha‘ikū, the ‘aumākua that watch over Ha‘ikū, all waiting for the valley
to be cleaned up, so that is part of what we are trying to do with the cultural preserve of Ha‘ikū
Valley and the work that we do at the heiau.
DD: So basically, we’re talking about a lot of change, not for the better, talking about toxins,
maybe people not bringing change for the good, you mentioned vandalism and invasive plant
species, and people not knowing how they should act in there. Is that kind of correct what I’m
saying?
MC: Correct.
DD: Okay, mahalo, and you also mentioned the Omega Station and the cables, could you share
where the Omega Station and/or the cables are in relation to these stairs?
MC: The stairs are a part of the Omega Station. It’s part of the infrastructure. They built the
stairs so that they could erect cables from the top of the pali to connect with the Omega Station.
So there are all these antenna cables that connected from the top of the mountains up around
Ha‘ikū, they all drape down the valley to connect with the station building itself.
DD: Okay, mahalo, so from the top of the mountain all the way down to the valley…
MC: All of these cables, copper cables.
DD: Okay, we were looking at the map earlier, and we were looking at several different
proposed routes for access, going through DHHL lands or by the State Hospital. Are there any
traditional sites, archaeological sites, cultural sites, including burials, that would be disturbed
by any of these paths and/or the restoration of the stairs, could you share if you think there are
any sites like these that would be affected?
MC: Well before I answer that question directly, I just want to let you know that I was part of a
working group that was appointed by Councilmember Anderson a couple years ago to discuss
all the alternative access points into Ha‘ikū Valley, the pros and cons and possible solutions. So
I did have a chance to participate in that discussion, but one of the things that I need to emphasize
is that the traditional Hawaiian access into the valley was on a trail that was covered up when
they built Ha‘ikū Road. There was a trail going into Ha‘ikū Valley, and Ha‘ikū Road was built
over that trail.
Now when they built the road into Ha‘ikū Valley for the Omega Station, they encountered
burials, and so the old Hawaiians walked off the job. So the Navy had to promise to relocate the
burials out of the way of the road, and only in that way were they able to get the Hawaiians back
117
to work. So what they did was they reburied the burials alongside the road, so alongside Ha‘ikū
Road there are burials.
When the charter school was built, and they did do some digging for that sewer line or whatever,
I was concerned because I don’t know that they monitored for burials. That was a worry because
alongside the road, but then we don’t know where the burials are, maybe they were further up
mauka from where the school installed their sewer pump station.
DD: So you’re talking about the charter school, the Kamakau School?
MC: Correct.
DD: Okay, so that’s up in the valley, and you’re saying that in the process of building the initial
Ha‘ikū Road, that was a disturbance.
MC: The Navy, yeah. And they relocated the burials that were alongside the road to mauka of
the road right away.
So as far as other sites, I don’t know if there have been enough studies of the other access points.
I would be concerned about other access points unless we have a full cultural inventory and
survey. What we do know is that the access point on the existing Ha‘ikū Road has been mitigated
to some degree by the Navy when they built the road. So that [the access using Ha‘ikū Road],
to me, would be sort of a safer point because they already sort of know what was there.
DD: So if the plans were to stick with the current Ha‘ikū Road that the Navy built over, we have
more knowledge of what’s already in that area because of the previous studies and mitigation
efforts.
MC: They actually found things and mitigated it.
DD: But as far as the other access routes, we don’t really know.
MC: There have been no studies.
DD: There’s a possibility that there may be sites there because there were sites elsewhere.
MC: I would recommend sticking with the Ha‘ikū Road.
DD: Right, mahalo for pointing all of that out. And what about historic structures, anything 50
years or older, any thought on that regarding the proposed plans for the stairs and everything
else along the way?
MC: The Ko‘olau Foundation is engaged in an initiative to establish a cultural preserve in

Ha‘ikū Valley. As part of the work we do, we’d like to renovate the Omega Station and turn it
into a cultural center, a Ko‘olau museum, which would honor the history of the Omega Station
and honor the history of the lands through which the H-3 travels, Ko‘olaupoko pretty much, and
then maybe Hālawa as well.
The Ha‘ikū Stairs and the Omega Station are both more than 50 years old. They are both
deserving of historic preservation to some degree because they were built during the second
118
World War to protect the islands, so they’re important. The structures at the top of the mountain
that are associated, but not as critical, can be used for certain things. It’s just that that plan has
not been developed, and it needs to have more collaboration with other groups to decide how it
can be used.
DD: Okay, you’re pointing out that the stairs and the station, they are already by definition
historic sites because they are older than 50 years. But also, we’re keeping in the conversation
the possible re-use of the buildings at the top.
MC: You know, I have one comment there, the site at the Kānehekili Heiau, which the Navy
calls the maintenance building, which is the top building right below the freeway, we would like
to renovate that and make it a multi-purpose center, mainly for the kahuna lā‘au lapa‘au to use,
but also for visiting groups, for hula hālau, for any kinds of group that can use that because it’s
got long rooms that are ideal for groups to gather for different activities.
DD: So for one of those buildings, it’s sitting at a cultural site?
MC: It’s Kānehekili Heiau.
DD: Okay, got it, mahalo.
MC: So there’s all kinds of buildings throughout the valley that can be used as classrooms. And
we want to transform the valley into a native forest again, but also to be a learning place. So we
wanna put in outdoor hālau classrooms for all kinds of groups to come and teach culture, teach
history, teach science, teach all kinds of things to classes in an outdoor classroom, using the
valley as their source of information.
DD: That’s nice, it would be a source of inspiration too.
MC: Mmhmm, and then below the Omega Station is an amphitheater. So we wanna clear the
alien plants from that area so that you can see all the way, and erect an earth stage at the bottom
of that hill, and put grass on the sides of the hill so that people can sit on the side like at Waikīkī
Shell, and they can see hula performances, they can see chant performances, they can see
Honolulu Symphony performances. We could have performances in that amphitheater area.
Now in the middle of the amphitheater farther back is a site that we believe is connected to Kāne
a me Kanaloa Heiau. It comes all the way down. All these huge mango trees mark it all the way
down to the middle. There’s a big pōhaku. And when you stand on that pōhaku, and you look
towards the Omega Station itself, you see there’s a glade surrounded by planted tī leaf, like a
circle of tī leaf around this huge glade. It’s now filled with ginger, but you can still see the tī
leaf. And so one of our kūpuna said that the kahu or the po‘o for that area would stand on top
of that pōhaku and address the gathering in that glade. So they feel that’s the piko of the valley.
DD: As you’re illustrating the landscape of the valley, I’m picturing it, I can picture re-using
the valley in that way, thank you for sharing that.
So would you say that any kind of these proposed plans would affect the cultural significance
of this place and/or the access to the cultural significance of this place? There are plans to restore
the stairs, provide managed access, or to take out the stairs, how would any of these plans affect
the cultural significance of the place and/or the access to a place of cultural significance?
119
MC: In my view, the status quo is not acceptable because the toxins are still there, whether it’s
to the people or the landscape or the buildings or whatever. So the status quo is not acceptable.
Tearing out the stairs is an affront, in my view because they were built to protect our people.
Even an ancient chief would understand that they needed to protect the people. So if America
came in and built the stairs so that they would have a communications station to protect the
islands, the chief would have approved of it. I always look at it through what the kūpuna kahiko
would say. But developing it and opening it and allowing managed access, I think, as a preferred
route, would not be as effective unless it had some Hawaiian educational purpose as well,
because I see Ha‘ikū Valley as needing to have its story told, the history of the area, the
Hawaiian cultural values and practices of the area, the mo‘olelo, things like that. So I think the
best way to restore the life of Ha‘ikū is to tell the story of Ha‘ikū.
DD: That’s well-put. I think a lot of these toxins, like you mention invasive people who don’t
bring any good to the valley, I think one way to counter that would be to teach them by way of
the mo‘olelo, the stories, and then they would have a better, correct appreciation.
MC: Well one of the core values is respect for the ‘āina and respect for the people of the area.
Respect. I see it as an excellent opportunity.
DD: So the managed access with this educational component to teach people who would like to
visit would be a way to address that, mahalo for sharing that.
Are you aware of any gathering practices along these proposed routes or along the stairs?
MC: I know that we have gone into the valley over the years to gather lā‘au, but the ancient
knowledge that the kūpuna taught us was that they went to gather plants from the uplands of
Ha‘ikū. They would mix those plants with plants from the ocean to make medicine. That is
direct knowledge of the kūpuna that they passed on to us.
I’m trying to think what else they may have gathered there. I don’t know of anything else that
they gathered other than medicinal plants. The uplands were kind of kapu for the chiefs anyway.
So very few people could go up there in the old days.
DD: That lā‘au lapa‘au is very important in gathering.
MC: You know, there’s a burial cave, but I think the iwi were removed by the families at the
time of the building of the Omega Station because there were too many maha‘oi people looking
at it, so I think there are some artifacts in there, but the iwi were removed.
DD: Okay, good, gotta protect the iwi. You know, you kind of alluded to this with your last
comment about the chiefs and the uplands. In some definitions, wao akua is a place where the
spirits dwell, by definition where the gods dwell, so if the Ha‘ikū Stairs and the structures on
the top are in the wao akua, what understanding and relationship should people have with this
site, this place regarding it being in wao akua?
MC: In my view, ‘cause others might have a different view, well first of all, the wao akua is the
place of the gods. But we walk alongside them. They walk alongside us. And in ancient times,
when the chief was the chief of Hālawa and the chief of Ha‘ikū, their people went back and
120
forth regularly. So they traveled on that ridgeline, and actually, along the entire Ko‘olau Ridge
there are stories of our people running the whole distance, carrying messages to take help to
somebody, or for defense purposes. So the ridge, although it is a place where we consider kapu
to some degree, was also used for purposes that were acknowledged at the time.
I believe it’s an opportunity to teach people about respect for the wao akua, and respect for the
connection between people and their gods, whatever they worship. It is a place to become closer
to god, but I believe they are with us wherever we are, at the ground level too, not just at the top
of the mountain. So I would say, if anyone went up the Ha‘ikū Stairs or came down the Ha‘ikū
Stairs, before they even step foot on it, they should be taught about these Hawaiian values of
respecting these places, respecting the ‘āina, respecting the spirituality and the presence of the
akua, the land and the gods that dwelled there, so they don’t go there with a casualness. They
would at least be informed. Whether they believe it or not, we have done our duty to let them
know because if they do anything that is pilikia, hopefully that stays with them. We don’t carry
the hewa because our thing is to protect the place and the knowledge of our past.
DD: Beautifully said, returning to that thought of respect, respect the place, respect the
spirituality of the place. And it’s also a good point that you brought up about walking alongside
akua and that these places were accessed for reasons, messages going from one side [of the
mountain] to the other rather than going around in a canoe. It makes a lot of sense.
So while the plans for this are being formulated, we talked about some of the adverse effects.
Maybe if we could just go a little bit more on that? If there’s any other adverse effects that you
can see with any of these proposed plans and maybe some mitigation, what could we do to
lessen any of these adverse effects?
MC: Well, like I said before, I don’t know what harmful impacts might be involved in using
any of the other access points. I think there were 8 or 9 that we looked at. Some were drainage
ditches, some were streams. Some were going through other people’s property and things like
that. For one thing, the impact of going through other people’s property is an adverse effect on
the people who live there, so that’s disrespectful, it’s a cultural [impact], modern cultural, not
just ancient. I don’t know about impacts of going through the State property by the Windward
Community College or by the State Hospital. I don’t know if there’ve been any studies. I am
concerned about going through the heiau because sometimes the trespassers now go through
Kāne a me Kanaloa Heiau to get to Ha‘ikū Stairs.
So right now there’s no management at all, and other than having a security person at the stairs,
now they have some police officers checking the outer area. I don’t know because there’s been
no cultural impact study of alternate access points. The only one that there is knowledge about
is Ha‘ikū Trail, which is now covered by Ha‘ikū Road.
DD: Right, the first thing you mentioned, as far as an adverse effect, was infringing on the
properties of the people who live there.
MC: Correct.
DD: And then also crossing into the boundaries of the heiau and of the sacred spaces. One
mitigation measure that you mentioned is to have security.
Are there any ways you can think of which could lessen the adverse effects?
121
MC: Well if you have a legal access, and you make it possible for people to get there legal
without having to go in the middle of the night, they are more likely to go through the legal
access. I do know that it would take a while before everyone understands that there is a new
legal access. So you would have to have a robust security program in place to make sure that
the alternate access points are not used. So you need to do that for at least a couple of years, and
then when it becomes common knowledge that there is a legal way to get in, and you don’t have
to break the law to get in, people will more likely use the legal access. You still have to have
security within the valley for the stairs anyway, but you lessen the severity [of trespassing] once
the legal access is allowed.
See before 1998, the Coast Guard was there, and everybody could get in by signing a waiver
form asking permission. All we need to do is replicate that ‘cause we had no pilikia before 1998.
It was after the Coast Guard left, and there was no one to manage it, that you had all these
problems, and they locked the front gate. So people started going through other people’s yards
and other ways.
DD: That’s a real good point, explaining the history of how it worked before and then when it
stopped working, and a good point also about having a legal access with a need to have security
until people understand that, “Hey, this is the new access. Don’t go through this other route.”
Now we have social media too so…
MC: It can help spread the word about the legal access.
DD: Exactly, it could be used to let people know that this is the new route, this is the new access.
But also, earlier you pointed out that studies would have to be done regarding…
MC: An alternate access.
DD: Right, mahalo for pointing that out, mahalo for that.
Are you aware of any other concerns that the community might have related to these proposed
plans, any other concerns that we didn’t talk about that we should talk about?
MC: Well I know that the current road that goes over the Ha‘ikū Trail is in disrepair. It has not
been properly cared for by the current owners, ‘cause it’s multiple owners. So that needs to be
tended to at some point.
DD: That’s the [Ha‘ikū] road that is paved over the original trail.
MC: Correct. We go up there regularly to care for the heiau, and I have to drive in ‘cause I carry
tools and stuff like that, so I can’t walk it. And I’m driving in my car, so my car is taking a
beating. And I don’t know why. It could be because it’s not regularly maintained, or because of
heavy trucks using it in the last 10 years from the movie jobs and other trucks coming in there.
DD: Maybe also, if there are sections with different owners, I see that elsewhere like in Kapolei
where they say, “Well that’s not my section. That’s your section.”
MC: That’s right. So what Hawaiian Homes [Hawaiian Home Lands] is telling the Kamakau
School, “Oh you guys gotta fix that section because you guys use that section to get to school.”
122
And I’m thinking, “Well so does Board of Water [use that road also].” They drive through it to
get up into the valley so there’s multiple owners that use each section.
And then the other concern that we have is that there are chronics [drug users]. I don’t know if
there are also homeless people, but definitely chronics who live in the abandoned buildings in
the valley. And especially in the Omega Station, and they have totally vandalized and destroyed
some of the best aspects of those historic buildings.
And my concern is that when the Coast Guard decommissioned the station in 1998, they turned
it over to Hawaiian Home Lands. The buildings, especially the Omega Station, were
immaculate, ready to move in. They had all kinds of features in it that could be used in a museum
to honor the Omega Station, beautiful things, and even these power things, they had these
generators there that could have been used to create power ‘cause it could create power for all
of Kāne‘ohe. That’s those generators. They have been so totally neglected by the current owners
that they are unusable anymore. I don’t know if they’re useful anymore. And the building itself
has been so badly damaged by the vandals and the chronics, that it would take two million
dollars just to clean it up to make it safe. This is neglect. These are all predictable things that
could have been prevented, but they weren’t. And we offered to the Hawaiian Home Lands to
help them, like a neighborhood watch, and regularly patrol the valley for them, this was in the
early 2000s, and they just totally turned us down, because they said they didn’t want to take a
chance with people going up to Ha‘ikū Stairs. They’ve been going up there anyway. Now it’s
no-man’s land, and the chronics are in there. They damaged everything. It’s really sad because
these are old buildings, historic buildings, that were built to protect the islands, and they have
been neglected. When the Coast Guard turned it over to Hawaiian Home Lands, and to Board
of Water because some of the land was turned over to Board of Water, they had this historic
preservation covenant which requires them to preserve the historic properties. None of those
guys have taken care of the historic properties. Both of them, it’s on the deed, giving the land
to Hawaiian Homes, giving the land to Board of Water. They both have historic preservation
covenants which require them to protect the historic properties, and they didn’t.
DD: Oh wow, do you know where we could get a copy of that covenant?
MC: I have the Hawaiian Homes one in my files, but I don’t think I have the Board of Water
one. You would have to ask them.
DD: Okay, so that was already a forethought, for the upkeep.
MC: Yes. They have violated their covenants with the federal government. So the feds could
take back this land. So do we want the feds to take it back? Or do we want it to stay in Hawaiian
Homes? We want it to stay in Hawaiian hands, for Hawaiian uses.
DD: Right. So we need to address the upkeep of the buildings, and also of the road, and then we
would need to address the problem of the chronics and homeless that are there.
MC: I think those are drug addicts. They stole all the copper they could from that building,
anything of metal. Any piece that could come apart, they have torn it apart. They are now
digging in the ground to try to find underground copper cables. The chronics are doing it ‘cause
they sell it to the metal recyclers to buy drugs.
DD: Copper, yeah?
123
MC: Yes.
DD: Okay, well thank you for pointing out these concerns that were not brought up in the
conversation earlier.
Are there any other kama‘āina, kūpuna, any other community people that you feel that we
should speak with about this?
MC: Did I give you Teresa Bright already, yeah?
DD: Yes, you mentioned Teresa Bright, Hi‘ilaniwai DeCosta.
MC: Did I give you Sol Naluai, Hi‘ilaniwai DeCosta?
DD: Sol Naluai, no.
MC: Well he’s up there working with us on the heiau, and he said he has some family connection
to Ha‘ikū too. So if you want his contact info I can give it to you.
DD: Okay, I’ll pass on this name. That’s been a lot of good information that we discussed.
Thank you so much for sharing your ‘ike and mana‘o, we really appreciate it, spending a part
of your busy Friday here talking story. This concludes our kūkā, mahalo nui loa, have a good
weekend, and aloha.
MC: Aloha.
124
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW WITH KIERSTEN FAULKNER
125
126
TALKING STORY WITH
KIERSTEN FAULKNER (KF)
DD: Today is Monday, November 6, 2017. We’re sitting in Iwilei at the office of the Historic
Hawai‘i Foundation. We will be talking about the proposed plans for the future of the Ha‘ikū
Stairs, also known as the Stairway to Heaven. There are some proposed routes to access the
stairs, going through the valley. We will be talking with Kiersten Faulkner, and before we go
any further, we’d just like to say, “Thank you very much, mahalo nui loa,” to Kiersten for
taking the time to talk story with us about the stairs. So mahalo and aloha.
So if we could start, maybe you could say your name, where/when you were born, where you
grew up, where you went to school, some background?
KF: I’m Kiersten Faulkner. I’m originally from Colorado. I’ve been here in Hawai‘i for about
12 years, and I’m the Executive Director of Historic Hawai‘i Foundation, and our mission, of
course, is to help people save places that are important to the history of Hawai‘i.
DD: Okay, thank you very much. Colorado!
KF: Yeah.
DD: Okay, is there anything else that you’d like to share about your family background?
KF: Nope.
DD: Okay, sure. So we’re talking about this subject property of the stairs, and we were
looking at the map earlier, at three possible routes to access the valley. Could you maybe talk
about your association to this property?
KF: So Historic Hawai‘i Foundation has been involved with helping people draw attention to
the historic nature of this area and helping craft ideas for preserving, protecting, enhancing it.
This whole area, of course, includes a lot of, a lot of native Hawaiian historic sites as well as
World War II historic sites. And then farther down the valley, near the State Hospital is
Windward Community College, [with sites from] the more Territorial Period as well. So
we’ve been involved with all of those.
For the Omega Station and stairs, we placed it on our most endangered historic places list in
2015 with the intention of helping people understand its historic significance and come up
with solutions for saving it.
DD: Okay, thank you for sharing that. So for the record, you were mentioning the Hawai‘i
State Hospital, and one of the proposed trails goes around the side, the Waimānalo side, the
Kailua side of the Hawai‘i State Hospital. And then the other two [proposed] trails are actually
mauka of that, going through the community. And you mentioned the Omega Station being
connected to this, being placed on the endangered sites list. Could you kind of give a
background on the Omega Station and how they’re connected?
127
KF: My understanding is the Omega Station was built in World War II. The stairs were part of
the access system to get personnel and equipment to the station, and then it was, of course,
part of the war effort. So the assessment that we’ve seen from other sources shows the entire
area as being historically significant, and not just the stairs on their own, but how they relate to
the development and use of that area.
So the stairs weren’t, of course, originally stairs. They were originally a railroad or like a
monorail, I think, and provided access. So the entire compound is considered historically
significant with the stairs as one element or one contributing feature of that.
DD: Okay, thank you for explaining that. So this was military use in nature when it was
originally built.
KF: Yes.
DD: So when we’re talking about the specific project site, could you mention how you learned
about this area, how you’ve gathered knowledge about this area?
KF: I was probably first told about this from Mahealani Cypher from Ko‘olaupoko Hawaiian
Civic Club. And she had been involved in efforts to identify and protect and preserve the
entire Omega Station, and before that, all of the issues around H-3 [freeway], and identifying
the cultural sites there. Mahealani had made me aware of this broader history, this deeper
history, and also some of the early plans that would preserve and make it publicly available
but in a less intensive way than I think the hiking has evolved. So she was talking about using
the buildings for heritage centers or for visitor centers or ways to help tell the history of the
area ‘cause there aren’t a lot of buildings up in the mountains. And so it could serve as a way
to tell of a broader history of the entire area, not just the military history or the Coast Guard
history. So that’s how I first learned about it. Since then, we’ve had discussion with Friends of
Ha‘ikū Stairs, with other people who are interested in the area.
DD: Those are some good sources of community knowledge and also cultural knowledge with
the Hawaiian Civic Club there. So could you share any other thoughts, you know, when we
talk about the Ha‘ikū Stairs, perhaps there are mo‘olelo, stories, mele, songs, chants, place
names, any other things that could give a window into the significance of this area?
KF: I am not really familiar with any of those mo‘olelo or older histories. No, I don’t have a
good knowledge about that.
DD: Okay, thank you, maybe we could talk about the changes in the area. Since you’ve
become familiar with the stairs and the other buildings that you mentioned, could you maybe
touch upon the changes, if any, that have happened in this area for better or worse?
KF: Well, you know, the whole station and Ha‘ikū Stairs were built in World War II. So since
World War II, of course H-3 is new, so that was a major infrastructure change that cut through
the valley. Suburban development in Kāne‘ohe has really taken off so you’ve got a lot more
housing, a lot more residential use, just more density, more people, greater population growth.
128
There are other institutional uses in the area, so the Hawai‘i State Hospital and the Windward
Community College came later, but the buildings were originally part of the state hospital, but
the density there and the users coming there, of course, have all grown since World War II.
And of course, tourism has taken off. So after the war ended and Hawai‘i became a state, then
airplanes came, and now of course, social media, so the visitation has all grown. So this has
been an exponential growth of more people, more information, more knowledge, all kind of
converging on this one area. So I think it’s just been a lot of pressure on it.
DD: Right, good points on the higher density of people and with more visitors coming to the
stairs, you mentioned tourism. Earlier offline, you were mentioning a swing. What are your
thoughts on the condition of the stairs and any additions such as swings or even the buildings
up on top, any thoughts on the condition of those structures now?
KF: So I personally have never been up there. Of course, it’s off limits so I respect that. So my
knowledge comes from photos and media reports and reports about what has been happening
up there.
I think originally it was just a nice hike, and a few people could go and do it with really no
harm. And in the past probably decade or so, it’s just gained in popularity. I think the
explosion on social media has brought a lot of attention to it. It’s unmanaged and unsafe. I
think the swing issue really brought attention to people really behaving badly honestly, that
they’re doing unsafe and very stupid things. And so these YouTube videos [laughs] of people
swinging out over the valley are absolutely careless.
So besides the liability issues and safety issues, this is unfair to our first responders who have
to go and rescue these stupid people. It’s unfair to the neighborhood that has to put up with
parking issues, you know, security and vandalism. It’s frankly unfair to the natural and
cultural resources in the area that are being disrespected. So I think whatever solution happens
here needs to respect the resources themselves as well as the people who live in that area, and
manage it in a much better way. I get frustrated by visitors who cannot behave themselves.
DD: Right. So we were mentioning earlier that Omega Station site itself originally consists of
the stairs and the other buildings. There was a wall and some other buildings, maybe five
structures we were talking about earlier?
KF: Right.
DD: Could you maybe talk about the significance of these structures and/or the cultural sites
in the surrounding area that might be affected by any proposed plans for the stairs?
KF: You know, every site has layers and layers of history, and this one is no different. The top
layer is what was built the most recently. So I’d say that’s the Omega Station, which includes
the buildings, the retaining wall, the tracks that are now called the stairs, which has a military
history, has a World War II history. Of course that was built on a site, and that site is part of a
deeper Hawaiian history, which itself is a layer on top of a natural resource or an
environmental site and history. So all of those come into play here.
The historic significance is usually described as what made it historic in the first place. So in
this case it’s the Omega Station with its association with World War II and how this site fits
129
into the War in the Pacific, how it affected Hawai‘i, how that affected global wartime
activities. Of course, from this site, you could also have this amazing view of the valley, of
looking back in time almost to the pre-contact and native Hawaiian cultural significance. And
if you look the other way going out towards Kāne‘ohe, you can see modern history and land
use and development there. So it’s a really special site because it brings all that together. And I
think that’s one of the really nice things about it, actually.
DD: That was really nicely said, the different layers, the military layer from World War II, and
then you have the traditional Hawaiian cultural layer, and then you have the natural
environmental layer, its significance there. That was nicely put.
So do you think that any proposed plans for these stairs, to provide access and so forth, how
do you think it would affect the cultural significance of this place? How would it affect access
to a place of cultural significance?
KF: We always look at everything in terms of what’s the effect on the historic resource, or the
cultural resource or historic property. And we prioritize what we would like to see happen
with the top priority being to benefit it in some way. Is there some way to preserve or restore
or to interpret or to protect the historic and cultural properties? Absent that, is there a way to
just, you know, leave it alone? At least, don’t make it worse. If you can’t avoid the effects, is
there a way to at least minimize it? So you might be doing something but maybe nothing as
bad as it might otherwise be. And then I guess the final thing is if none of those other things
work, can you at least mitigate for the loss or the harm in some way.
So using that hierarchy of benefit to avoid, minimize, or mitigate, what I would like to see
happen here is preserving the historic site, turning it into kind of an educational facility,
having the recreation but in a way that is managed and safe and secure, that the historic
properties are actually restored so they aren’t just falling apart. That would take a more intense
management structure. You’d have to limit the number of people. You’d have to make sure
that there’s safety protocols in place. You’d have to take care of things like bathrooms and
parking lots and security.
So that might be a more intense level of management than is feasible. And if that’s not
practical or can’t be done, then I think we would work backwards from that to what might at
least protect the historic and cultural site in a way that is respectful and can fit in with the
community goals. What I don’t want to see happen is to have it all torn down.
So I know one of the proposals is to rip it all out and gate it all off and forget that it ever
happened. I think that would be a mistake.
DD: Okay, thank you for sharing that. So in a best case scenario with proper management,
based on the hierarchy you were explaining, this could actually benefit the historic/cultural
significance of the place.
KF: Yeah.
DD: And then, also, would that be considered minimizing any damage, I know you were
mentioning minimizing?
130
KF: So part of minimizing, I can’t even think of good examples, but things like you wouldn’t
want to rip out the original historic fabric and put in a paved trail. So if you did something like
that, you’d still have a hike, but it wouldn’t have a historic property that you’re there to see.
So my interest is not in the recreational aspect. My interest is in protecting the historic

resources. And the recreation is a nice thing, and it’s why people love this site, but ultimately,
recreation should be in service of protecting the historic resource by letting people know
what’s out there and how to be caretakers and stewards of it, not for its own sake. This
shouldn’t be an extreme adventure sports kind of gladiator arena.
DD: Right, there’s a way to do it right.
Are you aware of any traditional practices at the project area or in the vicinity?
KF: I am not familiar with that, no.
DD: Okay, thank you. Let’s talk about adverse effects. We kind of touched upon that with
maybe the misuse or overuse or unsafe practices. Could we go a little further on that and
maybe talk about if this stairs is given access to the public and so forth, could we talk a little
more about lessening any adverse effects on the area or on the structures?
KF: I think of adverse effects as falling into two camps. One is neglect, and nobody cares
about it, no one’s investing in it. No one’s taking care of it, and it just falls apart. That’s an
adverse effect. The other extreme is kind of loving it to death. There’s too many people
extracting too much. They’re too impactful. The site itself can’t carry that many people. So
it’s two extremes of too much or too little, and what needs to happen here is to find that
balance in between.
My fear is on both sides, that if it’s completely neglected, it falls apart, we turn it into a ruin or
deliberately demolish it. I think that would obviously be an adverse effect. That would be an
irreplaceable loss.
The other extreme would be kind of unfettered access. People just coming and coming and
coming, and you’ve got buses and cars and too many people. And then you pave it, and you
kind of urbanize it and turn it into a theme park instead of an authentic place. I think that
would also be horrible.
So finding some way to have managed visitation at a lower level, but not just whoever wants
to come whenever they wanna come. I think that’s gonna require some study to see what is
that sustainable number. I don’t know what the number is. I think there’s going to need to be
some kind of amenities, especially things like making sure the steps themselves won’t just
kind of crumble and fall. You gotta make sure that there’s trail improvements of some kind as
well as bathrooms and some kind of gate-keeping so that people don’t just sneak in the way
that they are now. So those kinds of capacity limitations I think are going to be really
important. How to do that is going to need a lot of work.
DD: Right. You mentioned “sustainable number,” and I was wondering if the conversation
was headed that way. It makes sense. If you’re gonna watch and be careful, then how many
people is too much? What’s the number? So yeah, you would need some kind of study to
figure the wear and tear.
131
KF: Yeah, and those kinds of carrying capacity studies, there are people who specialize in
them. You know, parks managements, and I think of state parks systems, some of that, and I
think national parks service systems, some of that. And usually what they do is end up zoning
an area. So if you think of like a national park, they’ll have the areas with heavy visitation and
an overlook and a visitor center and parking lots and whatever. And they’ll have areas that are
by permit only. They’re wilderness. You just can’t go there without certain invitations. And
then there’s other areas that they take a little more effort, you might need to get a permit, but
they strike an in-between. So I think there are good examples and good studies, and it’s not
rocket science, it’s pretty figured-out. But yeah, there’s definitely going to have to be a cap.
You can’t just make it a free for all.
DD: Like you said, the balance in between, it makes a lot of sense. They’re doing it now, well
I’ve heard about something similar in other places around the world, I think Machu Picchu is
one of ’em. I think I heard that.
KF: Well even like Haleakalā National Park, they recently put a cap on how many people can
go for sunrise, and you’ve got to make reservations. Once they hit their max, that’s it. You
don’t get to go up anymore. And of course it’s affecting things like tour bus companies, but
that’s okay because it was destroying the sunrise. How can you destroy the sunrise? Too many
people. They also put a limit on bike tours. It just wasn’t safe. And so I think at some point we
say, “Too much of a good thing is no longer a good thing.” Gotta figure that out.
DD: Right, like you said also, that if you’re looking from the standpoint of preserving the site
itself, then what’s best for the structure?
Okay, if we could go in a different direction, I’d like to read this: “In a simple definition, the
wao akua is an upland region not inhabited by human beings. If the Ha‘ikū Stairs and
Keahiakahoe [wahi kupuna] are in the wao akua, this uninhabitable area, what understanding
and relationship should people have with this site in the upland area?”
KF: Now that’s really interesting. I think getting back to the carrying capacity, I would think it
would be more on that wilderness level of limited access versus kinda whoever can make it up
there. So it should be for people who have a reason to be up there [at the heiau?], cultural
practitioners, traditional gathering practices, but not just an extension of a hiking trail.
I do think that all of these trails and sites have opportunities to educate, whether it’s through
signage or through podcasts or something that would explain to people why that area is sacred,
why that area is important, and why it’s off limits. So it’s not just a sign saying, “Don’t go
past this point.” It would be, here’s why, and here’s something that you can learn, and it will
enrich your experience because of that.
DD: Yeah, it’s always an educational opportunity.
KF: Right.
DD: And also, you did mention earlier the possibility of converting some of the structures at
the top into some kind of learning center in some kind of form or fashion.
132
KF: Now there’s a lot of World War II like pillboxes that are all around the island, you know,
that was part of that hardening of the coast in case of an invasion. And a lot of them have
hikes going up into ’em. Because like Makapu‘u Lighthouse or even like in the Kualoa area,
and they’re just these kinda concrete shelters that have graffiti and broken bottles, you know,
partying going on all the time, and people don’t think about why they’re there, how to take
care of them, and I think that’s a really missed opportunity. And this kinda strikes me as that
same thing, only bigger.
It has this solid concrete structure that could serve of adaptive use, that’s no longer a radar
station, no, but to maybe put in some signage, maybe tell the story of who built it and why
they built it, and why it’s there, what role did it have. Talk about the site. Talk about the
Hawaiian history. Talk about all that in a way that lets people have a richer, deeper
understanding. I think it’s got so much potential to tell the story of this place.
DD: I got chicken skin thinking about that, with all the pillboxes, even on the Wai‘anae Coast,
and people going up there, it is a missed opportunity. You could put signage to the structures
already there.
KF: Yeah. Someone once told me, and then we just got busy and didn’t follow through on it,
but you know like how they have adopt-a-stream or adopt-a-bus stop? If you had an adopt-a-
pillbox program where there’d be some kind of stewardship group, some kind of mālama-the-
pillbox kind of group, that they would go and paint over the graffiti and pick up the trash and
stand there and tell people about the history of that site, how powerful that would be. And
you’d have this arrangement all around the island because they’re everywhere.
DD: Wow, that’s a good idea.
KF: It is. We just haven’t had time to follow through on it. You’ve seen, like this median strip
is adopted by, you know, some company, and they pick up the trash, and they cut the grass,
yeah, stuff like that.
DD: Yes. I really like that.
KF: See, it’s yours. Run with it. [both laughing]
DD: Okay! Let’s talk about this after.
KF: For some of these buildings, and especially if there is more visitation, there’s probably
gonna be more impact, right? So you need to have someone who’s being a steward, taking
care of it.
DD: Thank you for sharing that.
KF: Yeah.
DD: Okay, are you aware of any other concerns the community might have related to the
stairs, the structures, or the area there, that we haven’t spoken of, that you think we should talk
about?
133
KF: The only one that we haven’t focused on yet is this is in the middle of a watershed. And
so Board of Water Supply, of course, manages it for water quality and quantity. I see, number
one, that they’re not in the hiking trail business, or even in the historic interpretation business.
So I understand the Board of Water Supply’s concerns. But there’s also the issue of: Do you
affect the water supply? You don’t wanna have anything up there that would be mechanized
so you’ll have fuel spills or anything that would bring in environmental damage.
I also worry about things like tracking in invasive species. You know, hikers sometimes carry,
inadvertently seeds or seed pods, anything. So I think that’s a danger that needs to be included
in whatever plans.
At the trail head end, there’s just access issues. How do you get from where people are to
starting at the trail, and also the effects on the neighborhood, the effects on the property
owners, the surrounding areas, I think all that has to be thought through very carefully.
DD: Those are very good points, the water quality, keeping aware of how not to impose a
threat to the water quality, if I may reiterate. And then the access issue and the effects on the
community, how to get started at the trail head, and the third point was the, actually it was
your second point.
KF: It was the invasive species.
DD: Invasive species, yes, Rapid ‘Ōhi‘a Death, right?
KF: I know the forest and trail part of DLNR, they try to educate hikers on not tracking in
invasive species, cleaning your boots, having cleaning stations, that kind of thing. What I
don’t know is how effective it is. They have some protocols in place, but yeah, the ‘ōhi‘a
death, or just any of that.
DD: Yeah, and it’s time consuming, you know, but it’s a good precaution.
Are there any other kūpuna, kama‘āina, any other knowledgeable people that you think we
should talk to about this stairs, this project?
KF: So we’ve already mentioned Ko‘olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club and especially Mahealani
Cypher, I’d recommend. Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs, they have a whole organization that’s kind
of dedicated on this. I think the whole issue around H-3 and Hālawa and Ha‘ikū Valleys, and
promises were made and how that might affect this, it’s important to talk to people with
knowledge about that. And then I think before we started formally, we talked about the
possible presence of a preservation easement or covenant on some of this land, dating back to
when the federal government turned it over to the current owners. So you’ll need some
additional research on that. I think that some of the Coast Guard-owned land may have been
transferred with a preservation covenant in place, so tracking that down is going to be
important.
DD: Right, for the record, Kiersten gave me some printouts of when the Ha‘ikū Stairs Omega
Station was put on the endangered sites list. There’s an article there. And then we have the
page 49, we’re not exactly sure where that page comes from, but it’s talking about a possible
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. But also in these printouts, they also
mention some previous studies that we should track down.
134
Could you kind of talk about the covenant and what’s entailed in that?
KF: So these printouts were provided to me by Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs, and I’m not entirely
sure if they were drafts or if they were actually executed. But one of them was actually a deed
restriction that was meant to protect the historic properties at the time the federal government
turned over the land. So it should be part of a long-term preservation commitment. And I
again don’t have the provenance. I don’t know where they [the printouts] came from. I don’t
know how legitimate they are or valid, but they do refer to this long-term preservation
commitment by way of restricting what can and can’t happen on the land. It would be
enforceable by the Coast Guard and the State Historic Preservation Office. So it’s intriguing
information there, no maps associated with it, but it does refer to those five historic properties
which include the stairs as one of them. So we just need to know about, was it executed and
what does it cover.
DD: Okay, thank you for pointing those out. We’ll look into that, and you mentioned the past
discussions when the H-3 corridor was put through, and a good portion of this [possible access
route] is on the H-3 corridor, so thank you for bringing that up also and recommending that we
look into the discussion that happened previously with the H-3. Thank you for pointing all of
this out and sharing your mana‘o about this area and this project. We really appreciate it. If
there’s nothing else…
KF: That’s it.
DD: Okay, mahalo, Kiersten Faulkner, again, for taking the time to talk story with us, and
have a good day. Aloha.
135
136
APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW WITH JOHN FLANIGAN
137
138
TALKING STORY WITH
JOHN FLANIGAN (JF)
DD: Today is Friday, December 22, 2017. We’re sitting in Chao Phya?
JF: Chao Phya.
DD: Chao Phya at the Windward Shopping Center in Kāne‘ohe.
And we’ll be talking about some of the future proposals for the Ha‘ikū Stairs, also known as
the Stairway to Heaven. Today we’re gonna talk story with Mr. John Flanigan, and before we
go any further we’d just like to say, “Mahalo, thank you very much for taking the time to sit
down and talk story with us.”
JF: Pleasure to do it.
DD: So mahalo and aloha.
If we could start, maybe you could mention your name, where/when you were born, where
you grew up, where you went to school, maybe some background things like that?
JF: Well I’m John Flanigan, born in Indiana in 1933, grew up in Southern Indiana, served in
the Air Weather Service in Korea and Germany, earned degrees in mathematics from Indiana
University. But after spending 12 years down in American Samoa, teaching at American
Samoa Community College, my wife and I and kids moved up here, took a job at Hawai‘i Loa
College. When Hawai‘i Loa College got absorbed by HPU [Hawaii Pacific University], we
left them and went over to Kapi‘olani Community College, where Anne and I were both
professors of math. And we’ve both retired and still live here, very happy.
We got involved with Ha‘ikū Stairs, I guess you want this on, when we first got here in 1984,
we had a faculty meeting out at Ho‘omaluhia Park. And after the meeting, one of the faculty
members said, “Okay, how many people wanna climb the Stairway to Heaven?” And I had no
idea what that was so I asked about it. I didn’t go that time, but I was interested about it. And
the next time he invited people to climb, I went with him. And I got really interested. It was
such a magnificent thing. He was a. science professor. So he liked to go up there and point out
the geology of the island and explain where the volcano collapsed and how all these different
valleys got formed and all of this, just really, really interesting. My uncle was a professor of
geology at Indiana University, so I come by my interest in geology very properly. Well we
hiked in every time anybody would come up. It was obviously the most interesting thing to do
on the island for those of us who like hiking, and any time we had a visitor here, we’d go up
and climb.
Then the Coast Guard, who was letting everybody go, you just go up to the Coast Guard
Station and sign a waiver and park your car there, walk up, and then go back and sign out, and
for years that went on. There were never any serious injuries, never any rescues or anything
like that, no neighbor problems because at that time, you could just go up through the Coast
139
Guard access, which was completely away from all the houses and everything. It didn’t bother
anybody.
And then, a new Coast Guard commander came in and recognized that not all the hikers
behaved the way they should, ‘cause there was no management. The Coast Guard just let
people climb on their own, and once in a while they’d leave graffiti. One of the worst things
they would do would be to climb up, they had these great big antennae that stretched across
the valley. I understand that at one time they put a coat hanger on the antenna, put a weight on
it, and slid the coat hanger down, which is very clever except that they had to hire a helicopter
to go up there and take it off because it interfered with the transmissions. So the new Coast
Guard commander came in, and he said, “Well we don’t want that. We don’t want civilians
climbing up in our area doing vandalism.” And he made it clear to everybody. I’m being very
careful how I say this. This comes from Coast Guard people that I know. After [the
commander] telling everybody that they should think of some good excuse for him to shut it
down, sometime later, magically, there were three full sections of steps that got taken off and
thrown over the sides. Vandalism, I won’t say more than that. You can draw your own
conclusions. That gave him an excuse. And he said, “Okay, close [the stairs] for good, not
gonna ever climb again, close it down.”
Well there was a great huge cry because it was a very, very popular hike, and the papers were
full of comments about it. And a fellow named Frank Stong wrote a letter to the editor. He
was particularly angry about it, and he put his phone number in there. He said, “Anybody
interested in doing something about this, call me up.” Well I called him up. And we decided to
organize and see if we could prevail on the Coast Guard to reopen it or to give it away to the
city or something. And meanwhile, another lady who lived out in Hawai‘i Kai, was also
interested. She had not climbed it, had always wanted to, was annoyed that it got closed. So
she got with Mike McCartney, who contacted us, and let us know that somebody else was
interested. So to make a long story a little bit shorter, the three of us, Suzanne Hieb and Frank
Stong and myself, decided that we would have a meeting, call interested people to a meeting.
I’m not a good organized person. I’m very poorly organized. I’m not good at doing that kind
of thing. I want to just be a facilitator. So since I was on the faculty at Hawai‘i Loa College, I
managed to provide a room for the meeting. So in two successive days, we had meetings after
publicizing it considerably. And we had a lot of interesting people. Abercrombie was there, for
example, and several kama‘āina politicians, and a lot of people, 35, 40, 50 people each night.
And the Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs was organized. And we went from there. So I’ll pause at this
point ‘cause there’s obviously more to it than that.
DD: Okay, wow that’s a lot, okay could we start with when you first had that [faculty]
meeting at Ho‘omaluhia, and the first time that you climbed the stairs, like what year was
that?
JF: It would have been ’84.
DD: Okay, so the ’80s then.
And then when you folks had this meeting for the Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs?
JF: ’87.
140
DD: Oh okay, about three years, so sometime within that time would you say that’s when the
Coast Guard commander had his talk, and someone…
JF: It was closed in ’87, and it all happened in the same year.
DD: Okay, I got it, alright. Well I was gonna ask you how you were associated with the
project and/or the project area, but you kind of already answered that.
Let’s see, is there anything else that you’d like to tell us about your association to the stairs or
about your family background?
JF: Well I was always a hiker and a cave explorer and those kind of things. In fact, in my
childhood in Indiana, in fact I was a cave guide for a while for a couple of summers in one of
the big commercial caves there. I was a big hiker. I worked with the Scouts. I was an assistant
leader for senior scouts, so we would go on hikes quite often. Indiana is a big place for hiking.
There’s a lot of good hills and valleys and trees and things. And in Samoa, when we went to
Samoa, I was a scuba instructor. So I did a lot of scuba diving there. That’s just the kind of life
that I enjoyed living, out in nature.
And Ha‘ikū Stairs had the advantage of being extremely historically valuable. They’re a major
part of the U.S. effort during the war. They got credit that the transmitter station, it wasn’t
Coast Guard, it was Navy, the Navy transmitter station [at Ha‘ikū] had this remarkable
Alexanderson transmitter. I never had heard of it before. It’s a great big machine that they
used to transmit signals over long distances because back then the radio technology wasn’t
anywhere like it is now. And I found out that the Alexanderson alternator that was used by
General Electric in Massachusetts was the primary means of communicating with Europe
during and after the first World War. So they brought one of those big transmitters, they’re
huge big things, you probably have access to pictures of it. They brought one here and hooked
it up. And that was what they used to transmit, at very low frequency. Very low frequency is
good for transmitting along the surface of the earth. So they had this very low frequency
transmitter. It could transmit to a submerged submarine at the bottom of Tokyo Bay. That’s
the story. But they received signals from it [the transmitter in Ha‘ikū] in India, Australia, it
was very, very useful because it just had a longer range. So they transmitted in code of course.
And there were signals sent and generated in other places, that were sent into this transmitter
[here], mostly weather reports and things like that. So it was quite an important aspect.
Well in addition to that, it was just the sheer marvelousness of the climb. I mean, you climb up
through several different degrees of change in climate because you’re going from 400 feet up
to 2800 feet. So there are plants up there that grow in a certain way that don’t grow down here.
So for a botanist, once this became a cause to them, and everybody started writing to us about
why they wanted it to get opened again, we got the botanist that would say, you know Heidi
Barnhorst?
DD: Oh, the writer in the paper?
JF: Heidi wrote an article one time, I’ve tried to find a copy of it, about taking a group of
schoolkids up the Ha‘ikū Stairs and showing them the different climate levels and how the
different growth patterns and plants grow one way. I wrote to Heidi asking if she would look
that up for me, but I didn’t hear back from her. Maybe I should try again.
141
DD: Oh wow, okay, I see you’re a very outdoorsy kind of person, which led to the stairs there.
JF: Oh yeah.
DD: Could we maybe talk about how you’ve come to learn about the stairs and the area?
Maybe through talks with the Coast Guard, or talks with the residents, or just through your
own personal experiences, I know you said you were teaching for some time.
JF: It’s all of the above. We worked closely with some of the Coast Guard people and got a lot
of references from them. And the book, Builders for Battle, is the beginning place where they
have a full chapter on how the valley was, not just the stairs but the entire valley, was a major
top-secret thing that was started just barely after the Japanese attacked. And I just get
interested in something like this. I started digging in to it. I accumulated this pile [referring to
his binders]. These are two of the four volumes that I have. I’ve kept track of all the letters that
were sent to the editor, articles that were written.
It’s interesting that early on it was virtually a hundred percent, everybody wanted it [the stairs]
open again. How can you get it open? And Jeremy, who was the Mayor at the time, Jeremy
Harris, he had this wonderful stars-in-the-eyes idea. The City would take over the valley, and
they would make a big park. It was a really wonderful idea. Unfortunately the City didn’t get
the property because the property went to DHHL because they’re a government organization,
they’re higher on the list of people that GSA can give, transfer the property to something
local, but they go down a hierarchy. And even though DHHL had no use for it, they still
wanted it. And so they got it.
There was a codicil that went with the deed, that they were supposed to take care of these
historical monuments and the historical things. There were five different parts of that that were
listed as historical. They were supposed to take care of them, make sure that they were
maintained. Of course they didn’t. They left it open. The transmitter station, which got all this
electric equipment in it, just really beautiful, they went in there, I don’t know who “they” was,
but people went in there, just ripped it all apart, stole all the copper out of it, set a fire in one of
the sinks. It was just destroyed. So that made me cry, literally. The first time I went out there,
and I saw what had happened, and I thought, ‘cause there was just no care taken of it at all.
DD: So you’re saying that in the process of the Coast Guard handing over the land, going to
the back of the valley, to DHHL, there was some kind of agreement where, along with that
transfer, DHHL would take care of the structures.
JF: Right.
DD: I see. And then vandals came in, and since then it’s been torn apart.
JF: Yeah.
DD: Okay, got it. Thank you for explaining that.
JF: And the stairs, of course, kept being used. Even though they were closed, people knew
about it. People who would come from Argentina, Germany, and wherever would want to
climb. So they naturally would try to find a way to get in. But the proper access, the access
that didn’t bother anybody, was closed off. So they didn’t have that. So the natural thing to do
142
was to find another way in. And they found other ways to go in, many of which went through
private property.
And for the most part, I mean there’s been a lot made, the people who wanted it stopped
always tell the worst stories about what happened. But the vast majority, we’ve got people, I
can name people who live in the community who talk about how polite everybody was. They
say, “Fine, park in front of my house. Fine, go climb. Come on back out.” They come out all
muddy and happy because they had such a nice climb. Other people say, “Oh somebody
stopped and took a drink of water out of my garden hose. Somebody threw a candy wrapper
down. Somebody was disrespectful to me.” Yeahhh, wellll, at the Neighborhood Board there
was a lady who showed a video that she took. I said, “Well, that’s pretty aggressive.” If I’m
walking through somebody’s property, meaning no harm and doing no damage, then
somebody gets out and starts telling me I got no right to be there, and they’re taking video,
I’m gonna probably feel a little bit negative about it. So this is just not a one-way thing, [it’s] a
two-way thing. The truth is a lot of people climbed and came back out without doing any
damage, [not] bother anybody at all. And then when they started to put the guards there, well
that encouraged people to come in really early in the morning to get there before the guard
did. And that caused even more trouble. So everything they’ve done has exacerbated the
difficulty with the hikers.
DD: Could we go back just a little bit, when it was turned over to DHHL, and you’re saying
that there was no more access, that was a decision on the part of DHHL to stop access?
JF: Right.
DD: Okay. And then the other thing is the security. Who started putting up the security, and
after that people started coming at odd hours to climb the stairs?
JF: That’s an interesting question. Initially, see this always was on Board of Water Supply
land. But that was kind of, you can look at the map and see that was the case, but that never
really factored into our decision making. We thought, “This is a hiking place. Parks and
Recreation are the ones that ought to take care of this.” So we were working with Parks and
Recreation people assuming that they had responsibility. I’m not going to commit myself here
because I don’t know who hired the guards initially. The City thought, whether it’s Parks and
Rec, or just the City, they hired the guards initially, and they just had them morning to
evening, I’d say morning to afternoon. And so people started going at times other than that.
And if you wanna prevent danger, you don’t fix it so that people are gonna be hiking through
wilderness, woods, in the dark. That’s not how you, even so, even though they did that, they
still [hiked].
DD: It’s interesting how that evolved.
JF: Yeah, and there are a lot of things that happened bad because of this. We had this one kid
that came and was never found. And that was blamed on Ha‘ikū Stairs. Yeah, he was probably
trying to find Ha‘ikū Stairs, but he was way away from Ha‘ikū Stairs getting lost in the
bushes. And who knows what happened to him. That wasn’t caused by Ha‘ikū Stairs. That
was caused by the rules. And they talk about, the news media have not done a very good job.
They have, I got nice exhibits here [referring to the binders]. I wrote a nice letter to one of the
newscasters saying, “You know, you really do a good job, and I like what you’ve done. But in
this new story, you said that this rescue occurred from Ha‘ikū Stairs. This rescue did not occur
143
from Ha‘ikū Stairs. It occurred way back in the boonies.” And they always want to put Ha‘ikū
Stairs anytime there is a rescue. They always say, “In the vicinity of Ha‘ikū Stairs.” Well it
was in the vicinity of the church, that doesn’t mean that the church had anything to do with it.
It was in the vicinity, yeah. But it wasn’t caused by Ha‘ikū Stairs. It was caused by the fact
that their access to it was closed, and they went to a dangerous way of getting there.
DD: So they never found this guy?
JF: Never found him, no, young kid. Well that’s one of several instances of hikers that haven’t
been found. That just happened to be one that was blamed on Ha‘ikū Stairs.
DD: Wow, well thanks for clarifying a little of the history over the years including access and
security.
JF: When Board of Water Supply finally realized that it was their land, then they took over
providing security. And they made a hard rule, see the security guys, if you’ve been out there,
they’re out there all by themselves, a very boring situation. They don’t even get any
excitement unless somebody comes and tries to climb the stairs. And the stories that I get from
people who have climbed the stairs, under that condition, talk about how the pretty girls get to
go. But there was one guard there that we knew very well. He wouldn’t let anybody go. And if
somebody sneaked around him, and he saw ’em, he’d run up the stairs and chase ’em back,
chase ’em down. But they fired him because he gave an interview with the tv station. So they
fired him, the best guard they had.
DD: I see, the security situation, thank you for sharing that.
Could we maybe talk about any stories or songs about the area that you could share, stories or
songs or chants or place names that would talk about the significance about the area? Are you
familiar with any of those that speak of the significance of the place?
JF: No. One of the things which reminds me of it, it doesn’t answer your question, from the
stairs, you could look down and do a geography study of the windward side. You’ve got all
the ahupua‘a that you can see. You can see which lands belong to this ahupua‘a, be a great
place to do that kind of thing.
DD: Nice vantage point huh?
JF: Yeah.
DD: And earlier you were mentioning the geology. It’s definitely a place where a lot can be
learned.
JF: Yup, and [John] Goody is an expert on the plants, the different set of plants at the different
altitudes. He’s got a good handle on that.
DD: Right, Mr. Flanigan is talking about John Goody, and I remember him talking about the
different species that have evolved there.
JF: Right.
144
DD: Okay, thank you.
So as far as you remember and your experiences with the stairs and the area, that’s a good 10,
20, 30 years, could you maybe talk about how it has changed, anything different from before
to now?
JF: When we first started climbing the stairs, they hadn’t been repaired for many years. They
were built in ’42 and out of wood. And then in ’53 or ’55, they were replaced by metal stairs.
And from ’55 until I’ve climbed the first time in ’84, there’s some areas that had kind of tilted
over to the side, couple places where two sections were hooked together and just kind of
hanging between the two, still solid but one was tilted over so far that you actually had to walk
on the outside of the rail instead of on the inside. But they were solid. Nobody worried about
it.
After the sections were thrown over in ’87, we continued climbing. But the Marines had, I was
told it was the Marines, I don’t know who it is, put ropes. And so when you got to the place
where the stairs were missing, you just climbed up the ropes. And that place is still called
“First Ropes” and “Second Ropes.”
And then Jeremy Harris spent a million dollars repairing the stairs with his idea of opening the
valley. The number itself was given is $850,000. That was the original bid. But the contractor
was giving a talk to the architect group on the island, and he said that the final cost was
$950,000. So I say a million, and that made ’em solid. Everything that was shaky was
straightened up. The corroded arms, corroded railings, were replaced. And it was just put back
into pristine condition, and it is still in pristine condition. Right now, ‘cause that’s been 10, 12,
15 years, since that was done, there’s been some more deterioration of the metal. Some of the
metal railings are getting holes in ’em, and so they need to be replaced, but that’s a matter of
unscrewing ’em, putting new ones in. That’s something a volunteer, in fact, the Friends of
Ha‘ikū Stairs agreed to pay for the new railings, to do that.
The big thing most recently was the storm that blew down a big [?] tree that was up above.
And it fell on the stairs and bent some railings and dislodged some, relatively minor damage,
not a permanent damage to the stairs relatively easy to fix. And that’s one of the trees, by the
way, let me back up a little bit, when they were preparing to send a work crew up to repair the
stairs, we said, “Okay, we’ll make a path for you. We’ll prepare a path so that you’ve got easy
access. You don’t have to walk through the woods to get to it.”
So in doing that, we formed a work group, got together with the local hiking group, two
consecutive Saturdays, constructed a nice trail. And that was because we were going to open
it, Jeremy Harris thought, we were planning to open it, getting all the plans. Invitations were
made and everything. On Friday, we were gonna open on Monday, but Friday, they said, “No,
we can’t do it,” because the access that they had developed, and this is a new issue, the way
they were gonna do it was to go up through Hope Chapel. They had made a deal with the head
of Hope Chapel that they could park in the Hope Chapel area and go through a gate. And the
City spent, I don’t know how many thousands of dollars to build a gate there so they could go
in through the gate. Well Hope Chapel, it turns out, he didn’t own Hope Chapel, Hope Chapel
is owned by the Brothers of the Sacred Heart. And they said, “Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, you
don’t have the right to make a deal like that.” And their lawyers got together with the City
lawyers, and they decided that there’s no way they could agree to do it. So that went by. So
since we didn’t open, we said, “Well, we’re gonna open. We’re optimistic. It’s gonna open.
145
Let’s keep this thing maintained.” So four times a year, every quarter, we get a group of
volunteers together and go up there and pick weeds and kill invasive species, repair any
erosion, those kind of stuffs so we just kept on doing it forever. And we had to beat people
away with a stick. I mean, to get volunteers, you just had to whisper that you were gonna do it,
and volunteers would come.
And then Board of Water Supply found out that they owned it. And they shut it down. They
said, “No, you can’t do it anymore. You can’t get on our property unless you have a million
dollar insurance.” And we didn’t have a million dollar insurance. So they didn’t let us go up
maintain it. So we looked around, and we found a million dollars insurance. They still
wouldn’t let us go up. So the maintenance that we had done, and the good that had been done
by killing all the invasive species, it’s all undone. It’s all going back to what it was.
DD: So this situation with Jeremy Harris, and the stairs were gonna be opened, that was still in
the ’80s?
JF: Late ’80s. I guess it was early 2000s maybe when the repair actually was done.
DD: And then later, it needed insurance, and insurance was finally provided, but it seems like
they still did not want to allow access?
JF: They still did not want.
DD: And for the record, maybe you have something in your files, as far that section of the
stairs that was taken out.
JF: There were three actually, sections, two sections in one place and one section in another
place.
DD: Three sections, it almost sounds like it wasn’t random vandalism, like it was kind of like
on-purpose.
JF: I have to be careful in what I say because I don’t know anything except what two different
Coast Guard personnel have told me. But I do point out the coincidence of the fact that it
happened right after the commander was trying to find an excuse to close the stairs.
DD: Right, got it.
Okay, so we were looking at the map earlier. We were looking at the stairs and the proposed
access routes. Are you aware if there are any cultural sites, archaeological sites, burials,
anywhere along these routes?
JF: Not along the routes, but within the area, of course, Mahealani is an expert on that.
DD: Okay, and then what about historic structures, anything over 50 years old, which would
include the stairs, any other historic structures in this area that we should be aware of?
JF: Well did you see a copy of the nomination? It names five different structures, the stairs,
the transmitter building, and three other structures that are all eligible for listing as historic
structures.
146
DD: Okay, so the stairs are just one that have been nominated for…
JF: Are eligible to be nominated…
DD: Eligible to be nominated to…
JF: The nomination has to be done by the landowner, and Board of Water Supply isn’t
interested in doing that because that restricts what they can do with it. If they did that they’d
have a hard time tearing it down.
DD: Got it. So it’s possible to submit that form, but it’s in the Board of Water Supply’s hands.
And are there any other structures outside of that, that you are aware of?
JF: Not in that vicinity, that I’m aware of.
DD: Alright, mahalo.
Okay, so in your opinion, in what ways would these proposed plans affect either a place of
cultural significance or access to a place of cultural significance?
JF: Well that’s a good question. It would depend on what path they use to get up there, but as
far as I’m aware of, none of the access paths that have been suggested would have any effect
on any cultural areas. The effect it might have would be that from this lofty view looking
down, you can point out what cultural areas there are and do something really positive for it.
DD: Alright, so you’re saying that rather than being destructive, it’s something more
beneficial, [the plans to open the stairs] something that would be positive for cultural
purposes.
JF: Yeah.
DD: Okay, and what about any gathering practices, are you aware of anybody doing gathering
practices along the stairs or in the area?
JF: Mahealani is the expert there. But we do know of one lady who was there when I was
there, a lady who was doing Hawaiian cultural gathering, using the stairs as access, but I don’t
know enough about that to say any more about it.
DD: We’re talking about Aunty Mahealani, for the record, and she’s with the Ko‘olaupoko
Hawaiian Civic Club.
Okay, so being that the stairs are in the uplands, and traditionally, the uplands are lands of the
spirits…
JF: Right.
DD: The wao akua. What understanding and what kind of relationship do you think visitors
should have, or even residents, with the stairs and that whole area up there? What kind of
understanding and relationship should people have, in that kind of context?
147
JF: Obviously I’m not a Hawaiian cultural practitioner. I would defer all serious comments on
that to Mahealani and other people like that. I have heard her speak about it, and she finds no
problem with it. She expects people to be respectful. And part of the plan of this would be that
as part of the management plan there would be docents so that people would be under a certain
amount of supervision. They would be instructed ahead of time as to what appropriate
behavior, but that’s about all I could say about it.
DD: Okay, when I talked with Aunty Mahealani, I did hear about giving some kind of briefing
ahead of time, as well as guides.
JF: Exactly.
DD: Could we talk about adverse effects? Are there any adverse effects that you can think of
regarding any proposal, and if there are any adverse effects, could you think of any mitigation
measures to lessen these adverse effects?
JF: Oh boy, that’s a heavy one. Well if you tear them out completely, one of the adverse
effects is you waste several million dollars. I mean, that’s a major bad effect. If you only tear
them down partially, which has been suggested, then you’re simply putting an attractive
hazard because hikers will still find a way to use what’s there. I guess it was the fire
department, during this testimony I talked about at the City Council, they were talking about
just taking out the lower half. If you need to rescue somebody, it’s handy to have the stairs
there. Don’t tear 'em out so you have to hire a helicopter. That would be silly. So doing
anything to tear them down, beside just the routine damage, and to permanently deprive
everybody of the magnificent opportunity to educational and spiritual, I mean, you can’t climb
that without feeling spiritual. I don’t care what your beliefs are. You go up there, and you just
got chicken skin. So to take that away, you can’t put a price on it. It’s just too nice, too nice a
place.
DD: And for the record, you’re mentioning a City Council meeting. You mentioned that to me
earlier [before the interview]. There was some kind of discussion at City Council where there
were several dozen people that were in support of the stairs, you were sharing that earlier.
JF: I think eighty-something.
DD: Eighty-something, okay.
JF: And I should say, in terms of getting people to sign the comments, the very first time that
we were trying to get support and everything, we set up little tables in front of shopping
centers and things, we got more than 3,000 signatures, which we gave to the City Council.
They’ve got it in their archives somewhere. And today, my truck’s parked out here, I’ve got a
magnet on the door. It says, “Haiku Stairs.” People roll down their window when I’m stopped
at stop lights, [they ask] “Is it open yet?” It’s still a very popular thing.
DD: Okay, so just to reiterate, there’s a lot of public support leaning towards keeping the stairs
rather than tearing it down. And Mr. Flanigan is saying it would be costly and take away
educational and spiritual benefits from the public if the stairs would be taken down. Also, he’s
saying it would be a hazard to break down portions of the stairs.
148
Are there any adverse effects you can think of from keeping the stairs up?
JF: Well if you didn’t do anything, if you just left it the way it is, took the guards away, it
would be a mess. I mean, that’s obviously not a desirable thing to do. Leaving it open and
keeping the 24-hour guards, if the guards actually tried and kept people away, and they
actually arrested people and fined them a thousand dollars, it would solve part of the
trespassing. It wouldn’t solve all the trespassing because some of the trespassing has nothing
to do with Ha‘ikū Stairs. People go in back of the bushes to do various other things, and that
wouldn’t solve that, necessarily. But it would minimize it. But that also, that’s not what we
wanna do. You’d have the stairs sitting there, the bad plants still growing and will continue to
get worse. So no good would come of it, and even though it would probably eliminate a lot of
the trespassing, it would also eliminate a wonderful hiking and educational/historical activity.
So I don’t know, you want me to go farther with that?
DD: Well on the one extreme is to take down the stairs, or portions of it, and obviously this
discussion is not headed toward that direction. On the other extreme is to keep the stairs up,
but like you were saying, to just keep it open and just…
JF: Under a very well-organized managed system.
DD: So as I was saying, it would only solve part of the problem if you have security there 24
hours with fines for trespassers, and at the same time, you don’t want it just open, free for all,
and…
JF: Oh no, that would be awful from any respect.
DD: So the mitigation measure would be to have some kind of managed access.
JF: Yes.
DD: Maybe you could just touch a little bit upon what kind of managed access would be good.
JF: Well I’m a little shy about doing that because I’m certainly not the expert. John Goody’s
the one to get the information. But what we envision is at least for much of the time, there
would be a docent on hand. People who were gonna climb would get a discussion ahead of
time. There would be people standing especially at high uses times, like on the weekends,
people stationed at certain places. There would be informational, I wouldn’t call placards, but
you know like parks have? They have these card things that have this information on them. It
would have a picture of what’s down there, and you can see, and that kind of thing. So there
would be all that sort of thing. There would be a lot of publicity because of the newspapers
and tv just eat this up, any time Ha‘ikū is mentioned, they’re right there. So I’ve been on tv
probably a half-dozen times, interviewed about this kind of thing. And they say, “Well,
when’s it gonna be opened?” My answer is, “Well, today, it’ll be opened one day sooner than
it was yesterday.” [both laugh] Every day that goes by, it’s one day closer to when it’s gonna
be opened.
DD: I see that the managed access is the middle ground to keep a careful watch on who goes
up and…
149
JF: This is something, this could be a model for other hikes. This is not the only hike on the
island that causes trouble. My goodness, down at Lanikai, at the pillboxes, they have an awful
problem equal, at least equal to the problem, people used to have. They don’t have it now, but
they used to have it. And if we find a way through this and show it works, this could be
transferred to other areas as well.
DD: Good point, it could be a model, to figure out what works, and then apply that elsewhere.
JF: I mean, this is, we’re getting close to a crisis with all of our hiking trails, all of them. And
short of just closing them all off which has been suggested by some people, that’s not
happening, and the other thing, leaving it open and let too many people climb to the point
where it’s really, there needs to be a standard on how you handle this, and this would be an
excellent way of developing. And I don’t for a minute think that we can come up with a plan
that’s gonna work perfectly the first time it’s imposed. It’s gotta be something that works as
we go. The alternative is much less desirable. And I can understand why they don’t want it.
It’s more work. So you gotta have the Legislature say, “Here’s some money for you to do this
with. Here’s some money for you to hire people to do this with.” [Someone else might say]
“Oh, you can’t have any money.” [Another says] “Well you’re spending a couple hundred
thousand dollars a year now.” And yeah, it’s Board of Water Supply, but it’s still public
money, so spending money well. And they don’t seem to be interested at all if it can’t pay for
itself. Well, we think it can pay for itself. But I don’t think that should be, there’s how many
of the hiking trails pay for itself? None. But this could help pay for it.
DD: Good points, thank you.
Are there any other concerns that we haven’t spoken of that you think maybe we should talk
about, any other concerns about the stairs, the area, the proposed routes?
JF: [Ask to mention something off the record]
DD: Okay, thank you. And is there anyone else that you think we should speak with about
this?
JF: Well I wish, if Frank Stong and Suzanne Hieb were around. I’ve lost track of them totally.
Frank went over to Kaua‘i and never responded to my email. Suzanne got married and went to
the mainland, and I haven’t heard from her. They were the two main ones who with me started
the Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs. So it’d be really nice to have them back on. But you can get their
opinions because they’re in here [pointing to his binder files].
DD: Right, I’ll make mention of their names.
Well I guess that ends our discussion then for today.
JF: Good. I’m sorry I wandered around so much.
DD: No, you didn’t, you didn’t. You shared a lot of good information.
So before we close, I’d just like to say, “Thank you again,” to Mr. John Flanigan for taking
time out of his Christmas Friday with us.
150
JF: Very glad to do anything that supports the idea of Ha‘ikū Stairs getting reopened.
DD: We appreciate the discussion. Mahalo, have a good day, and aloha.
JF: Good.
151
152
APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW WITH JOHN GOODY
153
154
TALKING STORY WITH
JOHN GOODY (JG)
DD: Today is Wednesday, November 15, 2017. We’re sitting at the Outrigger Canoe Club in
Waikīkī. We will be talking about the proposed plans for the future of the Ha‘ikū Stairs, also
known as the Stairway to Heaven. Today we are talking story with Mr. John Goody. Before
we go any further, we’d like to first say, “Thank you, mahalo nui loa, for taking the time to
talk story with us.” So mahalo and aloha.
JG: Aloha.
DD: If we could start, maybe you could say your name, where/when you were born, where
you grew up, where you went to school, some background things like that?
JG: My name is John Goody. I was born in January, 1943. As an old guy, I’m not sure if I can
get up Ha‘ikū Stairs again anymore, much to my detriment. So what I’m about to tell you is
based on my years of experience, starting in 1977 going up and down the stairs, and my work
organizing maintenance activity on the stairs over a period of about a ten or fifteen years,
which we did several times a year, to eliminate alien plants from along the stairway and foster
return of the native plants after the aliens had been removed. And we did that for many years
with volunteer groups of 30 to 40 people, and in all that time, never experienced a serious
injury or accident with people working on the stairs to remove alien species of plants. The
stairs can be very safe with common sense and organized use.
DD: Those are a lot of years of taking care, taking out the invasive species and planting native
Hawaiian plants, several decades there. Thank you for sharing that.
Is there maybe anything you could share about your family background and how you’re
associated with the place there?
JG: Well when we moved to Hawai‘i in 1977, I was a Marine captain, and a company
commander at Kāne‘ohe. And we bought a house in Ha‘ikū Valley, and it turned out to be at
the end of Kuneki Place, very close to the bottom of the stairs. The stairs were not well-known
then, but you could see them, and of course we had a lot of curiosity about it. We went up and
talked to the Coast Guardmen, who at that time were allowing people to go up and down the
stairs, just sign a waiver and walk over to the stairs and go up and down. And we did that
many times. I took my young elementary school sons with me on many occasions, and they
enjoyed it quite a bit and learned a lot. It’s both an opportunity to learn a lot about the
environment of Hawai‘i, it’s a great place to view an entire ahupua‘a from the very top to the
outer edge of the reef, one of the few places where you can actually do that, and it’s another
place to learn about fitness and health and about getting in good physical shape. You can
improve yourself over time by stressing your physical capabilities. So it’s a good public
resource from both points of view, as a venue for promoting health and physical fitness as well
as one for promoting understanding of the Hawaiian environment, as well as military and
Hawaiian cultural history.
155
DD: Sounds like there’s a lot of learning opportunity there. So you’ve been living there since
the ’70s, and you’re an officer too, I should’ve saluted you earlier. You know, you gave some
examples of learning about the ahupua‘a and of physical fitness training there, and an
opportunity to learn about the military history and traditional history there. Could you maybe
talk about some of the ways you have acquired knowledge over the years about that area,
maybe from your own personal research, or your own personal experiences, or from talking to
others?
JG: Well it’s interesting that during World War II, the transmitter antennas went across the
valley from point to point, which was the whole purpose of Ha‘ikū Stairs, to put those up and
service the antennas. The reason Ha‘ikū Valley was chosen was the direction it faced (north)
and its distance across which allowed the proper length antennae, which were able to transmit
very long wave, very low frequency radio transmissions that could be picked up by
submarines under water a long distance away. And the whole fact of how that came about and
the transmitter building and all of that was extremely interesting to me.
The idea was that signals from Kunia where the Navy had their communications center were
sent around O‘ahu by cable, went up to the transmitter building where it was amplified and
sent out through the antenna. The structure at the very top of the stairs with two prominent
dish antennas was for backup communications with Kunia. One of ’em points right toward
Kunia. So you go up there today, and that’s where it’s pointed. There used to be two smaller
supplementary dish antennas. I don’t know what they were for, but they were removed and are
long gone. The old pictures will show four antennas up there, the two big ones that are up
there now and two smaller ones that are now removed. I never knew what they did. I would
like to know. So this was the back up, the microwave transmission was a back up to the cable
that went around the island, so that was primary, these were back up. There are some old
residual segments of cable going up the stairs today, I don’t know which of them was for
electric power to the microwave antennas, and which carried the signal. Interesting to
speculate how all that worked as you climb.
DD: So the mountain top facility was used primarily as a communications station, and we
were using cables as well as microwave dishes, and in some ways it was a retransmission
station, would you say?
JG: Well it was a back up for the cable in case something happened to the cables. There’s still
cables going up and down as part of the stairs, one was for the electric power, the other one
was for the signal going up to the dish antennas. Due to vandalism and I suspect copper theft,
some of the cable segments from the bottom of the stairs are now missing.
DD: Got it, and communications is very important in times of war, shoot, communicate, move
on out, as it’s said.
JG: Yup.
DD: Okay, if we could maybe look at some of the place names, maybe some stories about the
area, are there any themes that stand out to you, are there any themes that stick out to you
about the significance of the area?
JG: I think Ha‘ikū Valley was very productive in the Hawaiian days. There’s a lot of water.
There’s a lot of lo‘i. I think Mahealani may have told you there’s a big grove of mango trees
156
that seems to shelter a significant organization of stone objects. I’m not sure what their
significance is except that it’s one of those places that when you walk back there, and you
kinda can feel it, a special place. This is located nearby in the valley below the stairs, not up
the stairs.
Going up the stairs one time with a botanist, Art Whistler by name, this is when we were
doing a survey for the repair of the stairs. We found a Hawaiian sweet potato plant growing at
the top of the first valley. What it was doing up there is beyond me. It must’ve been bird-
propagated because I know nobody would be up there gardening sweet potatoes, or anything
else like that. It was a remarkable thing to find, but there it was. You never knew what to
make of it, the story behind it.
To me, the most significant thing has been going up and down the stairs learning about the
plants and speciation from nearest relatives from which the Hawaiian variation derived.
There’s a kind of tree called māmaki which is prevalent along certain parts of the stairs, which
is derived from the nettle plant which grows on the mainland. Ours is a tree. It doesn’t sting,
but it still has some of the same chemical characteristics which are thought to have medicinal
properties. If you grab a nettle on the Mainland, you know it, it really hurts. So this tree is
related, but it doesn’t sting. It lost its ability to sting, but it still has some of the same basic
chemicals in it that I think were known for their medicinal properties to Hawaiians. I’m not
sure what those properties were.
There’s lots of evidence of speciation in the plants that you see and how they’ve adapted to
what’s a pretty harsh environment up there, windy, intense solar radiation, a lot of rain, and
probably the soil drains off pretty quickly, so it must go from dry to wet a lot, so I see an
interesting range of plants. An interesting one to me, I’m trying to remember the Hawaiian
name, is a hydrangea. “Kanawao,” you can look it up, it’s the Hawaiian hydrangea. It doesn’t
look at all like a Mainland hydrangea. You can tell it’s different. But these arrived here in the
islands, and they changed genetically, so now they’re their own species. And Ha‘ikū Stairs is a
good place to learn about things like that.
DD: Interesting.
JG: From the top of the stairs you can see Molokai, Lāna‘i, the Wai‘anae Mountains, you can
see all over the place.
DD: Oh, you can see the Wai‘anae Mountains too?
JG: Oh yeah, if it’s clear. You can see all the way to Barbers Point. You can see Pearl Harbor.
It depends on the weather that day, but it’s a good place to really appreciate that we’re a little
small place in the middle of the ocean. And I think there’s a lot of basic understanding that can
come from the public managed use of Ha‘ikū Stairs and a good educational program to go
with it. There’s a lot of contemplation that could be done as a product of going up there. To
me, that’s important, particularly in this day and age when kids go to the mall for
understanding. I think it’s particularly good for families. It’s quite safe with proper care. It’s
quite doable by youngsters as long as they’re well-supervised by their parents. And there’s a
lot to learn, and it’s quite memorable.
DD: Yes, you bring up again that it’s a great learning opportunity up there. Thank you for
mentioning the traditional productivity of the land as well as the natural speciation, in addition
157
to earlier that you mentioned learning about the military history up there as well. So thank you
for mentioning all of those out.
Could we talk about the changes that have happened since you’ve been there? How has it
changed from what you remember back in the ’70s to now?
JG: Well the lower parts of the stairs when we first went up there was a tunnel through very
dense guava and octopus trees, even though it’s a ridge, a steep ridge, it drops off sharply on
both sides. It was like going up through a cave formed by guava trees and octopus trees. Those
were all removed subsequently on maintenance days, cut those down, got rid of ’em. And in
the meantime, a lot of native plants have grown back, kōlea, a small tree, ‘ilima, a small
ground-growing flower. So just by giving it the chance, letting the light come in, it’s now a
much more pleasant ascent. As you climb, it’s not that dreary, dark, closed in. So that’s one of
the biggest changes that I’ve noticed. The propagation of octopus trees up the hill is one of the
biggest changes, and the arrival of, I think it’s called rose myrtle, it’s that low-growing, very
aggressive, small alien plant which is now everywhere up there. It didn’t used to be up there at
all, that I remember. It’s really spread. So to me, that’s a change, you can see it on adjoining
ridge lines in the valley, it has pretty flowers, but it just seems to take over.
The number of people going up Ha‘ikū Stairs has changed. It didn’t used to be well-known at
all. And the fact that people are now coming from all over the place to go up Ha‘ikū Stairs has
caused a problem that we can solve by managed use and turn it into an educational
opportunity. To me, that was the biggest opportunity that would be lost by removing the stairs.
DD: So if I may reiterate, the main changes that you’ve noticed are with the vegetation, and
then there’s also an increased number of visitors in the area, thank you for sharing that with
us.
We were looking at the map earlier, looking at proposed access routes. To the best of your
knowledge, are there any traditional sites, burials, or any other historic buildings along these
proposed access routes. I know the stairs themselves, by definition, are considered a historic
structure, but are there any other historic structures or pre-contact sites along the way?
JG: Well, with Route 1, you know, Rick Barboza’s got this whole area adjacent which is all
being restored. And to me, there’s a really good conjoinment of purpose between what they’re
doing there and then what could be done on Ha‘ikū Stairs. So to me, that’s a synergy that
would be of great use. [pause and looking at the map] I’m not sure about down here [pointing
to the map].
DD: Okay, for the record, we’re looking at the map now. And Mr. Goody is pointing out that
there’s a proposed route, Route 1, and he’s saying that that goes next to a site that Rick
Barboza has restored with native plants down at the bottom of the valley, and he’s saying that
it could tie in as a learning center along with the stairs and the vegetation there.
He’s also pointing out to Route 3, that’s the one that comes around the State Hospital. And
he’s not sure what is there, if anything is there. Is that right?
JG: The old mill-type structure here where that housing development was put in [pointing on
the map to a community of houses at the mouth of the valley], I don’t know if it’s present in
this area or not.
158
DD: There was a mill?
JG: It looked like an old mill. But it was in here where the housing development was put in.
DD: So we are looking at the map then, and he’s pointing at the housing development, right in
the center, that was the approximate location of a mill, but now there’s houses there.
JG: I’m not sure if it was a mill. It looked like it was a mill, one of those old tin roof buildings,
concrete foundation, and tin on the roof. I have no idea what it was way over there, long gone
now. This all used to be DLNR land [pointing to map], conservation land, before they put in
that public housing development. This used to be all woods.
DD: So Mr. Goody is pointing on the map, this used to be all woods, got it. Do you know if
there are any traditional gathering practices along the stairs or in the area?
JG: This is very steep [pointing to bottom part of stairs on map], a lot of bamboo. This is very
dense and quite steep back here. This ridge kinda comes all the way up to here, and it gets
steeper and steeper. So there’s not really a good access way there. I mean, you can climb it,
but it’s hard, and the rock is not good. We used to do that in my younger days when we lived
down there.
DD: So that’s a good point as far as traditional gathering practices, it’s kind of steep for that
along the stairs, right?
JG: Yeah, I don’t know what they would be gathering.
DD: Right, okay, so one of the definitions for these upper areas, like wao akua, it’s a place of
the spirits, as opposed to the bottom parts which like you mentioned were productive back in
the earlier time period. We were talking about the summit earlier and the spirituality of the
place, and so what understanding and what relationship do you think people should have
regarding these upper areas?
JG: Well I think it needs to be understood in its broader context, central to O‘ahu and what
you see from there, the difficulty of getting there, I think all combined, gives you the
experience. You can also get to the summit from Moanalua Valley which is a very arduous
and kind of a dangerous way to go. So however people got there before the Ha‘ikū Stairs, it
was a hard way to go. And when you get up there, you feel like you’ve done something, and
you look around and you see everything you can see from there. It makes you think. So by
spiritual, if that’s what you mean, to me, that is spiritual, without regard to any particular
deity. I don’t know if there was a deity involved in the summit of Keahiakahoe.
DD: Right, so you were mentioning that there is an access trail that will lead you to Moanalua.
JG: It’s very difficult and dangerous. You can easily get lost. In the mist, you can’t see
anything. You don’t know where you are. You do know where you are, but as the mist comes
in, it’s really hard to find your way as you go along.
DD: It’s very difficult. Gotta stay put. [laughs]
159
JG: And it’s cold.
DD: Got it.
Would you foresee any kind of adverse effects if any of these routes were to be opened with
access to the stairs and so forth. Could you imagine any adverse effects, and if so, what kind
of mitigation measures would you propose to lessen any adverse effects?
JG: Not including the route from Moanalua Valley, I can’t think of any adverse cultural
effects. The adverse effect would be in the eyes of the beholder, not anything concrete to a
resource object or structure, of which I am unaware if any exist along any of the potential
routes. In the end, we’ll have to continue to maintain the pathway from the H-3 service road
which is in place to the bottom of the stairs. Now that goes through an area that is becoming
overgrown with bamboo, it’s hard to say what may have been there before. In the gulley at the
base of the stairs on the right side at the bottom there are a number of kukui trees and a lone
hala pepe. I think that the presence of kukui may indicate a potential cultural use, since it is a
useful Hawaiian introduced species. And below the H-3 service road is a large grove of mango
trees that I mentioned before, with the stone objects that I think is not natural. Mahealani
knows about that. She’s the one that pointed it out to me. But this is unaffected by any of the
potential routes to the stairs on the map.
[Looking at the map] So this trail goes all the way here. I think one of the routes of greatest
interest to me in the long-term is to simply come up the public roads and continue up the road
that the Navy put in to go to the transmitter building, and park at that point, and have people
just walk down the road [pointing on the map to the back of the valley]. And then roughly here
is an old road that is now overgrown. It was a dirt road that goes diagonally up to the service
road, and there’s a path on it now. So you can walk down from the transmitter building. It’s
only less than half a mile, down the hill, up that road you’d have to clear out, and then you can
walk up to the bottom of the stairs.
And the transmitter building is a historic structure of itself, and that’s where the Coast Guard
used to check in people to go up the stairs. And I think it’d be very consistent to have that be
like the center for education and signing in and so forth. But I think that would be highly
consistent, re-use of the historic structure, and it’s been trashed now by vandals, so it would
need to be fixed up and secured. But it would also provide a nice central building or
headquarters building. You would certainly need guards there to protect the building and at the
stairs to prevent people from poaching the climb.
If the ultimate plan of a cultural preserve or park in the valley were to be realized, which is
part of the sustainable community’s plan, I’m speaking as an old guy now, we’re very short on
places where people can go for a walk in our community and not necessarily run or ride their
bike but just safely walk off the road and not get hit by a car, and that whole loop around [the
back of] Ha‘ikū Valley would be a wonderful route for people to go on walks just for health,
short of climbing Ha‘ikū Stairs, but they can appreciate the stairs and the valley and its history
and the plants as part of that while getting healthful exercise. So I think those two things [the
stairs and the access route looping around the back of the valley] go together very nicely.
DD: Thank you for pointing that out. So for the record, Mr. Goody is pointing to these
proposed routes, 1B and 2B, whether you go through Ha‘ikū Road or Kuneki Street, they both
go through to the back of the valley, and that’s where the old building, the old transmitter
160
station is, in the back. He’s pointing out that that could be used as some kind of educational
center. And then from there, if you look at the map, it comes around and follows the H-3, and
he’s saying that there’s already a road there, and so all you gotta do is some upkeep with that
road, and it would take you to the bottom of the stairs. And one of the mitigation measures
would be to have security to help manage the area, right?
JG: It would really help to secure this building and have it be used because it’s been horribly
vandalized. It’s been neglected.
DD: So security would help with the vandalism, and then also, you were mentioning that some
of this is overgrown, so some upkeep for the vegetation would also help.
JG: It’s hau, so it’s pretty easy to cut.
DD: It’s a little tangly.
JG: It’s pretty dense, yeah.
DD: Are there any other concerns that we haven’t spoken of that you think maybe we should
talk about here?
JG: Well my concern would be if we don’t make this work, what’s gonna happen? The valley,
the way that it is right now, is neglected, and it’s getting trashed. It was a beautiful place, and
it still can be a beautiful place, but it’s not right now. It’s really being taken over by vandals
and homeless people. We need to reclaim it for badly needed public space that enables a place
for families and kids to go and do things together, and that is not going to the mall and buying
stuff. It’s healthful and physical, and it can help people learn about the islands in which we
live. And it would be a shame to throw that opportunity away for no real reason other than a
couple of folks object to the idea of Ha‘ikū Stairs. I don’t second guess people for
complaining about trespassers, but that can be solved by operating the stairs under managed
use and providing more security and providing an outlet for the people who would otherwise
trespass at night and give them a legal way during the day time so that they don’t have to go in
the middle of the night to climb Ha‘ikū Stairs and enjoy the valley.
And if this were a park that was usable, the people (who live nearby in Haiku Village) would
use it more than anybody else because when it was available for use under the Coast Guard,
the people who lived in Ha‘ikū Village used it more often than anybody else. It was like a park
in your back yard for walking after work and that kind of thing. So I’m sure it would be
heavily used by the residents of Ha‘ikū Village.
DD: That’s a good point. You’re pointing out that people used this back area of the valley
back in the day, and so to make this back area available to hikers to access the stairs, the
people who live in Ha‘ikū right now would be able to use it also. And also, you’re saying that
it’s a better alternative for families [to use the back of the valley] rather than going to the mall,
you mentioned for the physical activity and as a learning center as opposed to its current state
with vandalism and not being cared for. Am I reiterating correctly?
JG: Yeah, it’s going to the dogs as it is now, yeah.
DD: Okay. Thank you for sharing that.
161
Are there any other people that you think we should speak with, any kūpuna, any community
members that you recommend?
JG: John Flanigan. He lives in Kāne‘ohe. Send him an email, or I will give you his contact
information. He’s a historian. So he knows a lot about the historical military use. He was the
president of the Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs before. Mahealani Cypher, of the Ko‘olaupoko
Hawaiian Civic Club, who knows a lot about the Hawaiian traditional uses of the valley.
DD: Oh okay, got it, John Flanigan and Mahealani Cypher. I guess that concludes our
discussion here. If there’s anything else that comes to mind, maybe you can give me a call or
shoot me an email.
JG: I will. There’s so much up here that I’m not sure how to get it to you. [both laughing].
DD: Well you shared a lot today.
JG: Thank you. I will never forget rappelling down from a copter in my military days. At the
very top, there is no landing zone, nothing like that. And you gotta come down to the next
platform level down. That’s where we went, and the troops loved it. [laughs]
DD: Mr. Goody shared with me earlier that they actually rappelled up there, coming down
from a helicopter, and it’s like, “WOW!” I’d be scared to do that. [laughs]
Well, I guess that concludes our discussion today, so once again, we’d like to say, “Mahalo
nui loa,” to Mr John Goody for taking time out of his busy day to talk story with us this
afternoon in Waikīkī, a beautiful afternoon in Waikīkī. So mahalo and aloha.
JG: It’s been my pleasure.
162
APPENDIX H: INTERVIEW WITH FRANK HEWETT
163
164
Ha‘ikū Stairs Cultural Impact Assessment -Jan. 4, 2018
- Frank Hewett (written responses submitted)
2) Could you tell us about your ‘ohana/family background?
OUR FAMILY KULEANA LANDS ARE LOCATED ON HAIKU RD....IN THE AREA
KNOWN AS WAIPAO....FROM THE TIME OF MY GREAT GRANDPARENTS...TO MY
GRANPARENTS...TO MY PARENTS...TO ME...
LAND FROM KELEKIA HAʻAEOHOLANI KOMOMUA AKONA 9GRT GRAND

MOTHER)...TO EVA ROWAN KANAE (GRANDMOTHER)...TO MY MOTHER ALICE
PUALEILANI KĀNAʻE...TO ME KAWAIKAPUOKALANI
KĀKOʻOMAIOIAONALANINUIAMĀMAO HEWETT..I WAS RAISED ON THIS
PROPERTY...NOW MY BROTHER OWNS THIS PROPERTY...THERE ARE ADJOINING
LOTS THAT BELONG TO OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS...
3) What is your association to the subject property (family land, work place, etc.)?
THAT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN QUESTION 2
4) What are the ways you have acquired special knowledge of the Ha‘ikū Stairs and its
surrounding area (from your ‘ohana, personal research, specific sources)?
BECAUSE WE WERE RAISED THERE IN THAT AREA...WE OFTEN HIKED TO THE

RIVER TO SWIM...PLAY IN THE VALLEY...AND VISIT THE MANY HISTORICAL
PLACES IN THE AREA OF HAʻIKU VALLEY...WE KNEW THE STAIRS WAS
THERE...BUT NO ONE DURING OUR TIME EVER VENTURED UP THE STAIRS...IT
WAS IN THE MILITARY AREA THAT WAS GATED...AND ALTHOUGH WE OFTEN
WALKED UP THERE THROUGH THE STREAM...WE NEVER CLIMED THE
STAIRS...IT WAS KAPU OR FORBIDDEN BY OUR GRANDPARENTS...
5) Could you share your mana‘o relevant to the Ha‘ikū Stairs and its surrounding He‘eia-
Kāne‘ohe area (personal anecdotes, mo‘olelo, mele, oli, place names, etc.)?
THE UPPER AREAS OF THE MOUNTAINS ARE SACRED TO THE GODS...THE

SPECIFIC GOD/GODDESS IS HAUMEA...HER HOME..A CAVE IN THE CLIFFS IS
LOCATED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE VALLEY...THERE ARE MANY LEGENDS
AS WELL AS HISTORICAL PLACES ASSOCIATED WITH HAUMEA IN THE HEʻEʻIA
AREA...ALSO WĀKEA THE HUSBAND OF HAUMEA WAS WASHED OUT TO SEA
AT HEʻEʻIA...(WASHED AWAY)...THERE ARE SEVERAL GODS/GODESSES
ASSOCIATED WITH HEʻEʻIA...HINA...HAUMEA...LONO...KĀNE.....THEIR SACRED
HOMES AT THE TOPS OF THE MOUNTAINS...THEREFORE WE WERE NOT
ALLOWED TO TRAVEL UP THE THE HIGHER ELEVATIONS AND WE WERE NOT
ALLOWED TO CLIMB THE STAIRS...
6) As far as you remember and your experiences, how has the area around the Ha‘ikū Stairs
changed? Could you share how it was when you were young and how it’s different now? 7)
165
Do you know of any traditional sites or historically significant buildings which are or were
located on the Project site--for example: cultural sites, archaeological sites, historic structures
and/or burials? Please elaborate. 8) Do you think the proposed development would affect any
place of cultural significance or access to a place of cultural significance? Please elaborate.
SEE QUESTION 5...
9) Are you aware of any traditional gathering practices at the Project area and/or within the
surrounding areas both past and ongoing?
ON THE LOWER PARTS OF THE STAIRS WE OFTEN WENT TO GATHER

TRADITIONAL PLANTS TO MAKE LEI...MAILE...PALAʻĀ AND OTHER
TRADITIONAL LEI MAKING PLANTS...
WE ALSO WENT THERE TO GATHER BAMBOO FOR MAKING SMALL

KĀʻEKEʻEKE ANS WELL AS OHE HANO IHU AND PŪʻILI...
THERE WERE ALSO QUITE A BIT OF COMMON MANGO TREES IN THE AREA AND
WE WOULD GO UP THER TO PICK MANGO...
THIS AREA WAS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC....ONLY THE LOCAL PEOPLE IN
THAT AREA WENT THERE...OTHER THINGS THAT WE GATHERED THERE WERE
TI LEAVES AND LAUAʻE...
10) While development of the area continues, what could be done to lessen the adverse effects
on any current cultural practices in the area?
EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE REGULATED...LIKE THE KAPU SYSTEM TO ENSURE

THAT THE RESOURCES THAT ARE THERE ARE THERE FOR A LONG TIME...THE
AREA HAS ALWAYS BEEN LUSH AND BEAUTIFUL...IT SHOULD REMAIN THAT
WAY...TO US..THAT VALLEY HAS ALWAYS BEEN SACRED....THERE IS A SPECIAL
FEELING ABOUT THE AREA...ALSO THERE WERE A FEW GRAVES OR BURIALS
THAT WE DID COME ACROSS THERE...THEY WERE LOCATED NEAR THE MANGO
TREES...
11) In a simple definition, the wao is traditionally an upland region not inhabited by kānaka. If
Keahiakahoe and the Ha‘ikū Stairs are in the wao of this area, what understanding and
relationship should people have with these sites and with this upland area?
I BELIEVE THAT THE AREA SHOULD BE CLOSED...IT IS KAPU...TO OUR ANCIENT

KUPUNA...LET IT REMAIN SO...THEE ARE SO MANY OTHER PLACES FOR PEOLE
TO HIKE...LET THIS PLACE BE KAPU NOW AND FOREVER TO THE MEMORY OF
OUR KUPUNA...
13) Do you know of any other kūpuna, kama‘āina, cultural/lineal descendants, or other
knowledgeable people who might be willing to share their mana‘o of the Ha‘ikū...I AM SURE
IF THEY ARE THERE...THEY ARE EITHER RELATED BY BLOOD...AND HAVE ALL
LIVED IN THE AREA...PEOPLE CAN TELL STORIES OF THE AREA...BUT WE ARE
ACTUAL LINEAL DESCENDANTS OF THE AREA....THIS MAKES A
166
DIFFERENCE...IT MAKES OUR MEMORY AND KNOWLEDGE FIRST
HAND...LEIALOHA JONES KALUHIWA...IS ALSO FROM THE AREA....MY MOTHER
WHO IS NOW 87 IS ALSO FROM THE AREA...
RMEMBER THERE WERE NO SUBDIVIONS IN THE AREA WHEN WE WERE

YOUNGER...NO HAIKU VILLAS...NO EDEN ROCK...NO HAIKU HILLS...NO
CROWNTERRACE...NO HAIKU PLANTATIONS...WE COME FROM THE OLD
KĀNEʻOHE AND HEʻEʻIA....
ALSO FROM THE OLOPANA HEAIAU AT HAWAIʻIAN MEMORIAL PARK...OUR

FAMILY DESCENDS FROM MY MOM AND DAD....21 GENRATIONS....ME 22
GENERATIONS...MY CHILDREN 23 GENERATIONS...MY GRANDCHILDREN 24
GENERATIONS...THAT IS HOW OLD OUR FAMILY IS IN THIS AREA...MAHALO
167
168
APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW WITH DANIEL KA‘ANANA
169
170
TALKING STORY WITH
DANIEL KA‘ANANA (DK)
DD: Today is Friday, November 24, 2017. We’re sitting at Starbucks in Mānana, Pearl City.
We will be talking about the proposals for the future for the Ha‘ikū Stairs, also known as the
Stairway to Heaven. Before we go any further, we’d like to say, “Mahalo,” to Daniel Ka‘anana.
Did I pronounce that correctly?
DK: Yes!
DD: Okay, Daniel Ka‘anana, for taking time out of his busy week to come and talk story with
us, mahalo nui loa and aloha.
DK: Aloha.
DD: If we could start, could you maybe say your name, where/when you were born, where you
grew up, where you went to school, maybe some background things like that?
DK: So my full name is Daniel Kawika Yoshio Ka‘anana. I was actually born at my house in
Kāne‘ohe, but I was raised in Pearl City. I went to Kamehameha Schools and graduated from
there in 2008. I was raised in Pearl City, but did a lot of my education and a lot of my childhood
townside. I’ve spent more of my adulthood over the last 4 or 5 years in Kāne‘ohe.
I spent a little bit of time on the Mainland as well, out in Las Vegas. As soon as I finished high
school, I lucky enough to receive a football scholarship. I played up at UNLV, a couple of years
up there, and then moved back. I’ve been lucky, lucky that I have seen the world, especially
through my job flying.
DD: So a football scholarship at UNLV? Hū, terrific! Unreal skills, mahalo for sharing that. Is
there anything else you’d like to share about your family, your ‘ohana?
DK: As far as Kāne‘ohe and the neighborhood involved, my family has been in Kāne‘ohe just
a little over 40, 45 years. It started with my grandparents. My grandparents moved there from
Kailua side. Then my mom and her siblings, they grew up in the house, the same house that
we’re in today. So I was born there, and raised there when I was really little. Then we moved to
Pearl City. I was fortunate enough to come back to Kāne‘ohe.
Other than that, my family is from Maui.
DD: Okay, thank you for sharing some background. So we’re talking about the Ha‘ikū Stairs.
We were looking at the map earlier. We were looking at some proposed routes to access the
stairs. Could you maybe talk about how you’re associated to that project area?
DK: So I live on Kāne‘ohe Bay Drive. I guess in that sense, kind of like what we were talking
about earlier, I have a fresh set of eyes. I can be on the unbiased side because I don’t live in the
Ha‘ikū area, but I am familiar with the different streets for the proposed access options as well
171
as with the H-3, Likelike, the main thoroughfares. We have our Neighborhood Board meetings
right down the road from the stairs itself so I’m familiar with these different areas, but as far as
any kind of prior relationship to the area that would lead my opinion one way or the other, not
really.
DD: So looking at the map, you’re saying you live closer to Bay Drive, would you say you live
kinda makai of the project area?
DK: Yes, I would say, makai of the area maybe about 10 minutes away, if you were to do a
direct drive from Likelike Highway/H-3, wherever the stairs would touch, to my house, maybe
about a 10 minute drive.
DD: And then you were mentioning that you folks have a Neighborhood Board meeting in the
area. Would that Neighborhood Board also include this project area?
DK: So I’m looking at the map right now. I guess you could say luckily for us on the
Neighborhood Board, our board meetings are at Ben Parker Elementary. So that school is
actually right outside of this immediate area with the different properties [on the project map].
I don’t know if I’m answering your question, but the board meetings are actually outside, we’re
not immediately inside the “hot zone.”
DD: So I’m wondering what areas does that Neighborhood Board cover?
DK: So we’re a collection of volunteers, and we’re residents of Kāne‘ohe. Basically they have
the whole district of Kāne‘ohe, cut into different slices. There’s a representative for each of
those slices.
DD: So that would include the project area also?
DK: Yes.
DD: Okay, so the Ha‘ikū Valley area comes under your Neighborhood Board. Got it.
Could we maybe talk about some of the ways you’ve acquired some of your knowledge about
the project area, whether from your own experience, maybe from kūpuna in the area, maybe
from personal research? Could we talk about some of that?
DK: Yeah, absolutely, so like what we mentioned earlier about the Board, I’ve been on the
Board for about 4, 5 months now, and being a new face to the board, I decided that I wanted to
participate on was the Ha‘ikū Stairs committee.
Because I’m so fresh to this, and I wanted to make sure that I came in and I was knowledgeable
about what I’m talking about, I wanted to make sure I left no stone unturned as far as trying to
find out my resources. I went over numerous newspaper articles, interviews. There’s also a
document that was prepared by, I don’t know if you might’ve seen, if not I can get it to you, but
it was a document on the stairs, it was made couple years ago. But this document is a study,
kind of like what you guys are doing, they did a study of the different stakeholders. They
proposed different solutions. That’s why, actually looking at this now, it looks kind of familiar
because some of the solutions they proposed are similar to what’s being proposed here. And I
172
know Aunty Mahealani was a member of that study. That was a big one for me that I kind of
dove in, read cover to cover, to learn about the stairs.
Another way I was learning was just to ask, word of mouth. I feel like the best way to learn is
to learn from those that are actively involved, whether it’s local residents, even other board
members, some of the veteran board members that have been a part of this for a couple of years
now, chatted with them, got their opinion. I guess along the way, whatever information I could
find, even maps, like this [referring to the map on the table]. Like we were talking about who
owns what land. And again, it was something that I knew about, but to actually see it, it’s
definitely helping me to learn.
DD: That’s a lot of personal research and then talking story with residents and veteran members
of the board who know about the area and the issues around the stairs, so that’s a lot of ‘ike
there, getting a handle on the situation. Thank you for sharing that.
Okay, so if we talk about the mo‘olelo, mele, oli, place names of the area, are there any themes
that stick out with you regarding that area? Are there any particular stories or songs, or rather
than recount the entire mele, are there any themes that stick out to you regarding the area?
DK: That’s a good question. So to be completely honest, I’m not 100% familiar with any kind
of specific mele, mo‘olelo, even specific places like we talked about earlier. However,
personally, my feeling with regards to that is I do know, as a student of Kamehameha Schools,
they put us through a lot of classes to learn about not just Hawaiian history, but also the
significance of the different moku, not just on O‘ahu, but throughout the islands.
One thing that I always keep in the back of my head with regards to Kāne‘ohe is the significance
of Kāne‘ohe to the O‘ahu people. And I’m talking more of the pre-Western contact days. From
that perspective, I do realize that there are certain things about Kāne‘ohe that are very sacred
with regards to Kāne‘ohe’s ability to produce agriculture, even a little bit further down the
neighborhood, one of the biggest fishponds on the island, Kawainui.
Honestly I’m not familiar with the specific story, but I do remember growing up, I was in
elementary school, right when they finished up H-3, but I’ll never forget the spiritual energy of
that event. I don’t know if you felt this, but when I was young, they opened up the H-3 and had
it on the news, and I knew that there were a lot of native Hawaiians that were against the H-3,
not just through Kāne‘ohe, but also through Hālawa. And I knew that there were a lot of
spiritually significant places, and I guess in some ways the stairs are also reminiscent, to me, I
guess for a lack of a better way to say it, of the westernization of our native lands, like it’s a
western intrusion on sacred lands.
I’m not trying to get political on this at all, but what I’m saying is that these are very heavy
spiritual and culturally connected areas. And you look at the stairs, when you drive past it, it’s
obviously man-made stairs, through a native Hawaiian forest. And I think from a more Hawaiian
perspective, just that itself, you don’t need to have any kind of mo‘olelo, like you just see it, and
you get it, you know? This is westernization in a Hawaiian area. That’s my thought.
DD: It totally makes sense. So going to your first point, talking about Kāne‘ohe from pre-contact
times and the amount of productivity that it had for the people of O‘ahu, and being that Ha‘ikū
is part of this area along with Kawainui, as you were saying, it leads to the understanding that
this is also connected to that productivity by being in that area. Am I correct?
173
DK: Yes.
DD: And then the other thing, like you were saying, there’s the point about not needing to know
any specific mo‘olelo or mele, but just the visual and spiritual understanding that this is a native
place, and obviously the stairs are manmade. It’s a manmade stamp on the area, definitely post-
contact, on this native upland area. And you were pointing out the significance of that as well,
knowing that and feeling like we don’t need any specific mo‘olelo to point that out. It’s there.
We can see it, we can feel it. Am I correct?
DK: Yeah, it’s very hard to describe, the feeling, it’s more of a feeling.
DD: I understand, very good points, thank you for sharing that.
Do you have any personal anecdotal stories about the stairs or that area?
DK: Honestly, I’ve never been on the stairs. I’ve thought about it, but ever since they closed,
it’s like, “Oh well, I guess not.” But honestly, I’ve never walked the stairs.
DD: Okay, well you are no stranger to the windward area, and even though you haven’t been
on the stairs, maybe you could share a little bit about how the area has changed? Since you were
a kid, seeing the place, is there anything different?
DK: You mean like the area of the stairs?
DD: The area of the stairs, and then also, we were looking at the different possible routes into
the valley, so like for this area, are there any changes the stick out to you, from when you were
little to now?
DK: You know, I don’t think it’s fair for me to say that my opinion is the only opinion because
I am not like some of the other guys, they’re vets. But from my perspective, the things that I’ve
noticed that have changed, number one, this is going to sound weird, but I’m just going to be
honest with you, it’s the spiritual connection. What I mean by that, I’m trying to think of another
place that you can connect it to, a place here in the islands, like we were explaining earlier where
we have a western symbol here in pristine almost-untouched forest, like on the slope of a
mountain. And there are places in Hawai‘i, I’m trying to think of a [similar] place that would
kind of hit it perfectly... But I guess what I’m saying is the vibe is one of a hurt spiritual vibe.
And it’s like a feeling of where something isn’t working, where…something’s got to change.
And I think that goes along with the whole issue that we’re dealing with today with regards to
not just the stairs itself, but the neighbors and the people that are affected in the neighborhood.
I don’t think I could really quantify that, or if it makes any sense at all, but basically that is
number one for me, like it just is there.
Number two is the change going from caring about the people that live there, caring about their
feelings and about their thoughts and their history, to one of apathy. And I hate to politicize this,
but again, going from pre-contact, this is post-contact, it’s almost the same concept of “let us
tell our own history” versus some person coming to town and saying, “I’m going to do what I
want to do.” And for me, I don’t know if that’s the right answer you looking for, but for me,
that’s what I noticed, that the stairs and the history of the stairs has gone more towards that, like
people are coming that don’t even know what they’re talking about, like they don’t even know
174
the culture, they don’t know the history, and on top of that? They don’t care to learn it. I don’t
know, I hope that answers your question.
DD: It actually makes total sense. It’s basically a total change not headed in the right direction,
from what you noticed, the vibe is not as good, the change is going in a direction that does not
care about the people that live there, and also, does not care about the history of the place.
You’re saying that’s the change that you see, a change in the wrong direction, am I correct?
DK: Yeah. So I have a close friend and mentor, his name is Pono Shim. He’s my high school
classmate’s uncle. Very, very wise man, he learned from Aunty Pilahi Paki. Anyways, he
teaches this thing called the Aloha response. It’s a way for people to overcome any kind of
challenges and any kind of issues, any kind of pilikia that you may have. It’s the Hawaiian way
of living. A lot of people talk about, during conflict, they talk about ho‘oponopono. And
honestly, I felt that. As soon as I heard you talk, I’m like, boom, that’s what I was feeling inside,
like that is it. It’s the connection, it’s the trust. Honestly, that’s what’s coming out to me right
now, and I’m just like giving it to you because I can feel it. Like what Pono teaches us, it’s the
Aloha response, to build on the connection and trust. Seek out the connection and trust.
You got the people that are really adamant about, “Oh no, we don’t want it. We don’t care what
you have to say. We don’t want to talk. Our position is firm. We don’t want this.” And then you
got those on the other side that are like, “No. We don’t want to listen to them. We want to keep
it. We want to preserve it. We want to either, A) turn it into a business, or, B) keep it open
forever.” Right? And you have these two sides that are just growing farther and farther apart,
and the sad thing is that it’s not that they’re on two different sides. If you actually listen to both
sides, they both want the same thing. It could be because of the hurt. It could be because of the
trauma that both sides have endured over the years that has kind of led to that breach of trust,
that severing of the connection. I just feel like that’s what it is. There’s this loss of connection
between two different parties, and till now there’s never been like this coming together and this
healing and this repairing and restoring of that bridge and that trust between the two parties to
find a solution.
DD: Like you said earlier, you just joined the board within the past year, and you see this and
it’s good that you can keep it in mind to make sure somehow that it reaches a solution, bringing
the parties to the table. Mahalo for sharing that.
Let’s look at the map again, we’re looking at the stairs and the proposed routes to access the
stairs. Are you aware of any traditional sites in the area, this includes burials, any cultural sites,
archaeological sites, any historic structures, that would be anything over 50 years old, anything
sites or structures you’d like to share about?
DK: Honestly, I’m not an expert on that so I don’t know for sure about any specifics, but I think
if there was anybody to ask, I would ask Aunty Mahealani.
DD: Okay, sure, mahalo.
And then regarding the proposals to allow access, as one of the proposals, or not allow access,
when you think about these proposals, what are your thoughts on how it would affect the cultural
significance of the place, or on the access to a place of cultural significance?
DK: Like [Routes] 1a or 1b, like if it were to go through Papahana or something?
175
DD: Any of these routes, or focusing on the stairs itself, how would it affect the cultural
significance of the place, or affect access to a place of cultural significance? Any thoughts on
that?
DK: Well like I mentioned earlier, I’m not an expert, but just looking at the different options, I
do know that when I’m looking at it, [Routes] 1a, 2a, do seem like they would be the least
invasive, because again, I don’t know if there’s anything of cultural significance along the 1b/2b
route, or if there’s any place of cultural significance through option 3 [Route 3]. And again, the
reason why I say that is because you’re looking at 1b/2b, that’s going through land that’s
completely undeveloped. And then you look at option 3, that’s going through again, even though
you have H-3 kind of cutting through it, there are portions of the land [along Route 3] that are
undeveloped. And just from my gut feeling, because I don’t have the knowledge, I feel like that
would make me feel uneasy, as far as like the question you ask about if it may disrupt or
potentially go over sacred sites.
DD: Yes, it does. We’re looking at the map, and not to be redundant, but yeah, I’ll repeat what
you’re saying. [Routes] 1a and 2a, they kind of go alongside the community and along the H-3.
[Routes] 1b and 2b, they go through the DHHL lands, and Route 3, going through the back side
of the State hospital, and because of not knowing what’s underneath of these undeveloped
spaces, you’re saying that it’s hard to say whether or not there’s something culturally significant
that would be affected.
DK: Yeah.
DD: Okay, thank you, that’s valid.
What about gathering practices? Are you aware of any gathering practices or any traditional
practices in this area? Anything that you’d like to share regarding that?
DK: It’s funny you say that because I remember having a convo, I can’t remember who I was
with, but kind of like what I mentioned earlier, I’m trying to learn more about, not just the
community around the stairs, but [trying to learn about] the stairs as well. And I remember
someone mentioning that there are different species of indigenous and endemic plants either on
the stairs, or maybe like growing alongside the stairs in that area. But at present there are native
plants, and I know that those plants must be significant. Yeah, I have no doubt because, I mean,
you drive through the H-3, it’s easy to see, especially the trees, different native trees along the
way.
DD: Good point, and especially if those are native plants, even more so if they are endemic, it’s
really important to keep in mind as we go forward, yeah.
Okay, so if we could talk about adverse effects, could we talk about any mitigation measures?
If I may rewind a little bit regarding the adverse effects you mentioned, we were talking about
more people coming here having a cultural disconnect and a historical disconnect to the area.
How could we mitigate that? As an adverse effect there of visitors coming to access the stairs,
what could be some mitigation measures that you can think of? And are there any other adverse
effects that we haven’t mentioned?
176
DK: So I guess basically identifying from my own experiences, talking with people about what
the adverse effects are, definitely I think the first and probably the most pressing one is the
disturbance of the local community. And I don’t live there, so I’ve never lived what they’ve had
to live with, but I have heard the stories. I have listened to numerous people explaining what
they live with every single day, because the stairs, technically they’re supposed to be closed.
And these neighbors are coming in to our board meetings and talking with us in personal
conversations, and they talk about the trespassers. They talk about assaults. They talk about how
they don’t feel comfortable in their own homes. And I think that is definitely an adverse effect.
I don’t know if it’s an adverse effect because of the stairs. Or maybe it could be because of the
fact that they’re closed. It could be both. But that is something that needs to be addressed.
Another one is, like we talked about earlier, although I don’t have the knowledge of the different
sacred places or maybe gravesites, pōhaku, that may be in the area, I do know that, especially
in the windward side, there are a lot of very, very sacred areas. And it’s no doubt in my mind
that there’s got to be at least one, and potentially maybe the stairs lie on top, but that’s another
one I would want to know more about, and I feel that it would need to be addressed.
The plants, like we talked about earlier. And I think, just ultimately, the last thing I would like
to bring up is what we talked about earlier too, about here we have this manmade structure in
the middle of a native Hawaiian forest. And I think just focusing more on the harmony of the
two. I mean, it’s always going to be manmade, right? But at least we can try our best to
encourage the harmony of the two so that people, if they were to decide they want to do the
stairs, that it would be the best of all worlds. You know, focus on the preservation of nature,
what was there before we were there. So that’s in reference to the second part of what you had
asked, how do we address that?
I guess I’ll go backwards. So how do we address the harmony thing? I guess having more of a
concerted effort with the plants, the gathering rights, as well as the wahi pana, the sacred sites,
just having the knowledge first, and then catering our solution around that knowledge. And I
think that’s like a lot of the work that you guys do, and that’s awesome stuff because it is
important.
And finally with the last one [adverse effect], the most important one, with regards to the
community, it’s a tricky one. And I’m not trying to say I have all the solutions, because if I did
then we wouldn’t have to be having this talk today.
DD: No, right, you’re not.
DK: And I think it goes back to what I mentioned earlier. It’s the trust and the coming together.
And I think, for that one, it might be beyond the scope of this work. It might be something that
we would have to work on together, not just on this project, but in the future in other projects,
together as a community. But it has to be a repair of the trust, a repair of the relationships with
our community first and foremost so that our people know that they shouldn’t have to fear living
in their homes, that they shouldn’t have to stay awake at 2 in the morning to look for trespassers.
They shouldn’t have to worry about keeping the cops on speed dial. They should just be
comfortable living in their homes. And then from there we go and decide what route we want
to take whether it’s to keep the stairs or not. But I think to wrap up, sorry it’s kind of long-
winded…
DD: No, no, it’s good.
177
DK: To wrap it up, I think the most important thing in this whole issue, this whole project, is to
focus on the community and to focus on the people because until those people agree and those
people come to support, then there will be no project.
DD: Right, focus on the people and the community, and finding a solution there to address any
adverse effects, whether it’s with the cultural sites, or it’s with the plants, bringing harmony
back to the area, and even addressing the problem with trespassers, I hear you. That’s actually
a good place to center the solutions on, center on the community and the people. Mahalo for
sharing that.
Okay, so let’s go kinda in a direction that you were talking about earlier, talking about the wao
akua and how the wao akua is traditionally the upland region that’s not by kānaka. So if the
Ha‘ikū Stairs and the peak up there, if they are in the wao akua, what understanding and
relationship should people have with this upland area?
DK: Would you mind explaining, like when you say relationship, are you talking about the
people that would be using the stairs?
DD: Well whether you wanna talk about the people visiting or the people who live there, we’re
looking at the proposals for the stairs, so you can interpret the question to mean either the visitors
or the residents or both. It kinda follows what you said earlier about people coming and not
knowing any care about the history of the area or the significance of the area, so being that this
is in the uninhabited wao akua, when we ask about what relationship and understanding should
people have with this project area, you could address it to people accessing the stairs, or even
address to residents, however which way you want to interpret that. What are your thoughts on
people’s understanding and relationship to this project area in the upland wao akua?
DK: Actually, I really like that question. That’s a good question, because on the surface level,
you can kind of look at it, that the said relationship would be incorporated in the solution. So
whatever direction that this project will ultimately move, I think it should be paying attention
to, you know, when we talk about sustainability, and for lack of a better example, we look at
the east side at Hanauma Bay. Here is a natural landmark here on the island that was there before
us and will probably be there when we are gone. But how have we handled that? And it’s
definitely become very commercialized. However, one thing that I do admire about the bay is
that every visitor that comes in, goes through, I guess you could call it, a mandatory training.
And that’s basically us helping them understand, educating them, and playing our role. That is
our role. Our role is to show these visitors, whether you live there or not. If you live there, it’s
our role to ensure that they understand the significance, that we are communicating effectively
that the message comes through about the significance of this. It’s our role to communicate with
them about how important and how sacred this area is, because it’s not something to be taken
lightly. So that’s just the surface level of looking at the question.
But to me, when I heard your question, I looked at it and instantly felt it here [pointing inside]
in the na‘au. From a spiritual side, I think you can go two ways with it. I think one way, when
you look at it [the upland area], it’s a way to connect even more intimately with not just our
‘āina and ‘aumākua and our souls, and you could look at it that way. Or you can look at it from
the perspective of maybe it [the upland] shouldn’t be touched. We should respect it, leave it
alone. But again it goes back to what I said earlier about regardless of whatever direction the
project goes, it’s not my call to make, it’s the higher authorities. But regardless of whatever
178
direction, I think the most important thing is the respect, and to understand it from a cultural
point of view, that this isn’t just a mountain. This is very spiritual, very sacred to us, not just us
as Hawaiian people, but us as humans in general. And if they keep it [the stairs] up there, I think
that should be something that all visitors coming in should understand. And they should have
the right to know that this is something special, whether you’re Hawaiian, Japanese, Caucasian
from the Mainland or from Europe, it doesn’t matter. This mountain and this wao akua is very
spiritual, and it’s something that you can experience. It’s like when you look at an art, right?
The first time you see a Picasso, you might think like, “What the hell is that?” Like some dude
threw paint and put together a piece of art, and people pay millions of dollars for it. But when
you understand the meaning behind it, you respect it and feel it.
DD: Right. Nice.
And you were saying earlier that you are just one person, and you yield to other people
especially the veteran board members and older people in the area, and you’re alluding to
leaning towards what the community wants and all that. But also, you’re saying that you would
be okay with not having the stairs or anything up there because of the sacredness there. But on
the other hand, you are saying that you would yield to what the community and the people want,
being open to having the stairs, but emphasizing that it’s important that the visitors there are
educated about the importance and the significance of the upland wao akua and the surrounding
area.
DK: I don’t know if I did a great job in communicating what I said. It’s helpful that you reiterate
what I’m saying because sometimes other thoughts come to mind. And when you were talking
just now, it kinda made me realize something that I would compare this to, and it would be
‘Iolani Palace. Here’s the reason why. So you look at ‘Iolani Palace, and knowing the history
of the palace, it represented a lot of the good times of the Hawaiians. But it also represented
some of the lowest times. So you look at the palace, and you ask yourself, “Should we keep it
open? Or should we close it?” There are, no doubt, arguments for both sides. If you focus on
the low times, you might say, “Close it.” If you focus on the high times, you might say, “Hey,
keep it open.” But regardless of whatever direction you’re going to go, it doesn’t take away
from the fact that that palace is very sacred. That palace is a symbol and an icon for us as
Hawaiians, not just for the Hawaiian people, but for the people of Hawai‘i. We talk about not
just one race of people, but about us as humans. I think all of us as people, when we look at
‘Iolani palace, it’s something to be proud of, because it doesn’t necessarily represent Hawai‘i
as a kingdom and a country, but it also represents Hawai‘i as a state. And you can look at it
whatever way you want. But another thing is the respect for it. And it’s the same concept here.
You can argue about it both ways. Both sides have legitimate points, but at the end of the day
there is that respect that it should and it has to have for any kind of solution to succeed.
DD: Beautifully said, the way you illustrated it with the palace, you’re saying that both sides
have legitimate talking points, to keep the stairs open or to close the stairs.
DK: Absolutely.
DD: But the main thing both sides can agree with is to have the respect, whether it goes in either
direction, people should come across having that understanding of respecting the significance,
the sacredness, of the place.
179
DK: What we were talking about earlier, when you think about it, the residents, a lot of them,
dealing with the trauma, dealing with the issues that they’ve been dealing with for years, a lot
of them want to close it. And then you got the other side, where they want to keep it open. What
is one thing that they both can agree on, the respect and the special feeling of this area. For the
residents, if you were to take it down, they still love that mountain peak, they still have that
pride in the mountain. They love it. It’s like a reverence. On the other side, the people that want
to keep it open, why do they want to keep it open, because they have a respect and a reverence
for that same thing. That’s the point about the connection I was saying earlier. It’s like, “You
guys don’t want two separate things. You guys want the same thing! It’s just that we have to
bring you guys together to realize that.”
DD: Mahalo for sharing that, awesome.
Are there any other concerns that the community might have that we haven’t spoken of that you
think we should talk about?
DK: [pause and thinking] I know we mentioned the concerns of the community, and it is a big
concern. And I think something that we’ve heard bits and pieces about, but we’re not entirely
sure about what’s the truth is the cost. And maybe it’s not my place to bring this up because I’m
not the one paying for it. But I do feel like that is something that whether it’s truth or folly,
people have their opinions and say, “Oh I heard so-and-so say this,” and so that’s what it is. I
think people wonder like, “Okay, so what is the cost to tear it down? What is the cost to keep it
up?” A lot of the information that we’re getting, when you look at it, it’s like, “Who’s the
source?” Honestly, I’m on the board, and I don’t know. And maybe the veterans might have a
better idea of it. But it’s something I think about because, I hate to say it, but money is definitely
something that would be important to consider. And I think, going back to the community and
the issues of the community, that’s another thing for them that I think they wonder. I mean the
money thing, having no communication about that, it hurts finding a solution. So there’s that.
I mean, I feel like a broken record, sorry, it’s a severe disconnect. Honestly, it’s more than just
one party. But both parties, meaning the people that oppose it and the people that want to keep
it open, if there’s anything that will make or break the project, like all the work that is being put
in, whether it’s studying the sacred sites or studying the different plants or studying the different
options or routes, all of that will not matter if the focus isn’t on the people, because this
community will either make it or break it. And like we said earlier too, it’s hard to argue against
the fact that everybody deserves to feel safe in their own homes. And I think it’s part of what
makes the Ha‘ikū Stairs very challenging, sometimes you have gray areas, but it’s very hard to
say that they don’t have the right because they do, and everybody has that right. Is there a way
to find a solution? I have hope. I have hope whether it’s to close or open, there is a solution at
the end of the road.
DD: Well, you’re not being a broken record because for you to bring it up, it’s obviously a very
important concern. Bringing the people together to find a solution, going over the hurdle of the
past and whatever hurt feelings, the breakdown in communication, and you brought up a good
concern about something that you didn’t bring up earlier, and that is the cost. I’ll ask about that.
I’ll try to get an answer for you, like you said, what will it cost to keep the stairs, or to fix the
stairs, what would it cost to make the access work, and then what would it cost to break down
the stairs. And the source, where is the money coming from? Right, is that kind of correct?
DK: Oh yeah. You hit it right on the head.
180
DD: Okay, I’ll look into that. I’ll get back with you on that. Mahaaalo for sharing your thoughts
there.
Are there any other kūpuna, kama‘āina, any other knowledgeable people in the area that you
think we should speak with about this?
DK: I know you mentioned earlier, some of the people that you either met with or you’re going
to be meeting with, I think you have a good list of people so far. Aunty Mahealani [Cypher] of
course would be the first one I would recommend for sure. You know that report that I had told
you about earlier? The chair of our board was on that committee, Aunty Mahealani was on the
committee, there were couple other community members that were a part of that study. But they
published it. Have you guys ever seen that report?
DD: Yeah, I was gonna ask you. What was the name of that report?
DK: I have it on my computer. It’s actually like on the bottom right hand corner. I can email it
to you. I got your email.
DD: Okay, yeah, thanks.
DK: In that report, there were different stakeholders, and that’s where I actually heard about
this [project], about the different land owners, but I didn’t see any kind of [a map showing the
different land owners], and seeing it is a whole lot different than hearing it. These different
stakeholders, I believe, are a part of that study. And maybe some of the people that are on your
list could help you get in touch with those same people that were a part of that study. But it
might be another place to consider. I’m sure that Aunty Mahealani had recommendations as
well. That’s what I would consider.
DD: Okay, so yeah, if you could email me that study, and we can see what names are on that,
we can see if they’re not already on our list, we could put them on.
Okay, so it’s been a good evening here in Starbucks, a nice evening of talking story. Thank you
so much.
DK: Thank you.
DD: I guess this concludes our kūkākūkā. Once again, mahalo to Daniel Ka‘anana for taking
the time out of his evening to talk story, and aloha.
181
182
APPENDIX J: INTERVIEW WITH MATTHEW KIEVLAN
183
184
TALKING STORY WITH
MATTHEW KIEVLAN (MK)
DD: Today is Wednesday, December 6, 2017. We’re sitting at Keneke’s in Punalu‘u, off of
Kamehameha Highway. We’re gonna be talking about the proposed future of the Ha‘ikū
Stairs, also known as the Stairway to Heaven. We’re gonna be talking story with Matt
Kievlan, and before we go any further, we’d like to say, “Thank you,” to Matt for taking time
out of his schedule to sit down this day to talk story with us, so mahalo and aloha.
MK: Thank you.
DD: Sure. If we could start, maybe you could say your name, where/when you were born,
where you grew up, where you went to school, some background things like that?
MK: My name is Matthew Kievlan, I was born in Houston, Texas, homeschooled from
kindergarten through 12th grade. I attended University of Houston and joined the Navy in
2004. I left as a diver in the SEAL team in Pearl City, and I’ve been out for over four years
now.
DD: So Houston to Hawai‘i.
MK: Houston to Hawai‘i, that’s right.
DD: Okay, and is there anything else that you’d like to share about your family background?
MK: Family background... my parents had a big emphasis on wholesome values, but it was
my mother who had an interest in healthy dieting. She taught us how to select healthy foods,
make carrot juice, etc. We didn’t get any exposure to intentional exercise, but we ran around -
as kids do. My father was overweight because of bad knees and poor diet and passed away
suddenly of a heart attack in 2012. That was a shock to his wife, the three girls and four boys
he left behind.
As the oldest child and a Navy Diver in the SEAL team, I asked myself why I couldn’t have
given back to my father, before he passed on, the healthy ways I’d lived by. So that love I had
left to give him, I have instead shared with my community.
A year after his passing I brought Spartan Race to Hawaii. It was a 3-mile long race through
an obstacle course behind Kualoa Ranch designed to help us find joy in exercise. 6,500 of our
Ohana enjoyed a ‘peak’ moment together that day.
Even after selling the franchise, I continued to introduce wholesome products to Hawaii
through a storefront on Kapiolani Blvd and in local media. At every turn I’ve sought to distill
the passion I have for life into hacks I can share.
I believe the stairs are a gold mine for crafting “teachable moments” at the top where people
get in touch with their innate nature, away from civilization and a little closer to heaven.
185
DD: Okay, thank you for sharing that. Let’s talk more about the Spartan Race off line, I know
someone who does it.
MK: Alright we’ll talk more about it.
DD: Okay, thank you, so regarding the Ha‘ikū Stairs, maybe you could share a little bit about
how you’re associated with that area, and how you’ve come to know about the stairs and that
area there?
MK: So I first climbed the stairs in 2010 and fell in love with hiking Hawai‘i. Since then, I’ve
gained an appreciation for the transformative opportunity of immersion in nature. I’ve seen
people end drug addiction on stairway hikes, I find deeper truth every day in the mountains.
Human beings in that environment gain a sense of their innate truth - something unadulterated
by industry and civilization. They get back to the real roots.
When we climb the stairs, we enjoy the deep beauty in nature which heals our souls. I call this
‘medicine of mana’.
The deep immersion happens in two stages: initially because you have literally stepped “into”
it 3,992 times. In a helicopter, you get elevated too rapidly to absorb, and only one of your
senses (eyesight) is exposed to nature. On the stairs, your body has time to adjust to the length
of the journey and internalize the significance of your departure from urbanization. All senses
are in play, and the body believes its in a new place. When that motion is detected, you
become attentive and receptive to what the motion might mean. This first phase of immersion
is the exercise of entering the mountain.
The second, deeper phase, comes after the work of climbing is done. Sitting in the quiet
shelter, enjoying the meager comforts of the supplies we’ve carried up, we settle into our
accomplishment with a sense of satisfaction. The endorphins sneak up and overwhelm us, our
senses melt together... and here’s the key: all that is left un-confounded are our deep spiritual
senses.
This activity melts & interferes with our familiar senses until we are more open to let go and
to sense deep spiritual connection keenly. We rise from civilization into a world where magic
is usual. This phase is the secret to the transformative moment.
It’s impossible to understand what this means without going, but I am able to get you in touch
with so many who have traveled this with me, and they can vouch for the way I have finessed
their experience. If you speak with them, you may believe more firmly that the magic does
work, but you still won’t be sold. They can’t explain it, and neither can I because their are no
words for it! You only know what you know, until you go.
I would encourage anyone considering a future for the stairs to entrust me with one of their
days. Let me make this experience possible for you too. Doing it matters, because there are no
English words for it, besides, perhaps, ‘unspeakable’.
People think they’re going for the epic view of morning colors, painting the landscape with
divine creativity.
186
But what they discover along the way is they’re going up to find themselves. To recognize the
blueprint of their soul in nature, to feel the heartbeat of paradise, and to realize they are
inextricably part of that majesty.
At the end, driving away in the Über, they all spill something to the effect of: “That was
incredible. I had no idea. It was the best day of my life.”
Sometimes I skip a week, other times I go twice a day, but no matter how sore I am from my
last climb, once I start, I’m lost in joy.
The experience never disappoints, no matter what the weather, no matter what the
environment, no matter how tired I am.
A story: one young lady hiked the stairs with me in 2012. I didn’t know it at the time, but she
was addicted to drugs and not eating well, trying to be skinny, and just very unhealthy, taking
in maybe 800 calories a day. I was a baby then when it came to facilitating an “experience” on
the stairs, but I still carried up all sorts of things to make our time better - this type of behavior
got me on track to become the expert I am today.
At the first platform, she didn’t think she could keep going. But I encouraged her using
everything I knew. She eventually made it up. And then she said goodbye...
She went back to Syracuse, New York and I didn’t hear much from her. Four years later she
got in touch with me. Her life was completely different. She had become a fitness icon, she
was in prominent talk shows and magazines. Everyone looked up to her for advice on how to
live a healthy lifestyle, and what she shared of her testimony on the stairs touched me deeply.
“That was not just the highlight of my vacation, not even the highlight of my life, it was the
day when everything changed”. That day, on those stairs, she took her little baggie of drugs,
and threw it over the side. The experience taught her that she could do so much more than she
ever thought she could. She recorded a little video testimonial for me recently which I’ve
shown to Kathleen at the Board of Water Supply.
Until she got back in touch with me, I didn’t realize how impactful my little fun time in the
mountains was. Her testimony helped me to feel a deep sense of purpose in creating similar
moments for others. I feel at home in the house on top. I would literally live at the top and
welcome people and help them experience that transformational experience. I feel so much at
home on the stairs that I would carry my Safeway groceries up there. I love the place. And
because of that, I got involved with Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
Little known fact: I have twice refused an election to the Board of Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs.
The reason why I refuse that election is because I frequently hike the stairs, and I don’t want
to bring a conflict to their official posture as the Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs. They cannot endorse
climbing the stairs at this time for obvious reasons. But I have built their website and regularly
volunteer to help.
So my connection with the stairs is both personal and public.
I would be honored to continue changing lives 6 people at a time once the stairs are legal. I’ve
never been happier than I am now.
187
DD: Okay, got it. And I agree about the transformative powers of nature. Unfortunately,
there’s a lot of detachment these days from nature, with technology. There’s a greater
possibility of becoming detached from the natural surroundings. It’s great that you have
experienced the transformative powers of our beautiful Ko‘olau, and as you mentioned in your
story, someone else has experienced as well. Mahalo for sharing that.
Quick question, the 3,922, that must be the number of stairs up there?
MK: That is.
DD: That’s a lot of stairs!
MK: That’s a lot. They go fast though. In fact, 37 minutes is possible.
DD: [laughs] Wow, okay, is there any other way that you’ve learned about the stairs and the
environment and area there? We’ve talked a little about personal experiences, what about
personal research, maybe talking to others, is there anything else, any other ways you’ve
learned about the area there?
MK: Yes, from being involved with the Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs and by building the website
with historical and environmental info pages. I’ve learned a little bit about the history, the
cultural implications, the fauna and flora on the mountainside and how much the invasive
species have done. But I would not consider myself an expert in any of those areas. I am
familiar enough to build a website with the data they provide and to do some other things just
to support.
DD: Okay, so when we think about the history of the area, maybe stories and place names, are
there any things that stick out to you, about the significance of the area?
MK: [pause and thinking] I really feel like the most significant part of that area is the story of
the Hawaiian warriors’ passage - that a young man would venture into the mountains to
complete this journey as part of becoming a warrior.
That story, to me, resonates the transformative, impactful power of mana, and not just that the
mountain gives you something, but that it is the something to be revered. It’s [pause] majestic.
And I don’t think that you really appreciate how majestic it is until you have entered that
presence, until you feel that mountain as something alive, and you realize how powerful it is.
So I think the most significant part of the history of that place is the passage of these warriors.
DD: Right. And these places are very powerful, that’s the mana of the area.
What about changes, any changes, from the time that you have become familiar with the stairs
and/or the area, we were looking at the map earlier. Are there any changes, for better or for
worse, or just changes in general, that you could point out, change from then to now?
MK: So since 2010 when I first was on the stairs until now, 7 years, I have seen significant
rust damage. They were re-done in 2002. But the rust is the real thing. And it’s beginning to
188
eat through many sections of the handrails, especially the handrails so I wear gloves to avoid
any trouble there.
What’s interesting, and if we ‘survey’ the stairs in person I would like to show you: at the first
house there is a machine which I believe has been there since 1942. It’s the engine to draw the
cable car up. Everything is rusted away on that machine, except one immaculate grease fitting.
It’s just sitting here nestled into flaking red metal, perfectly intact.
That is the metal which the stairs should be made out of.
Because the labor cost, the logistical cost to get the pieces into position is so high that if the
materials are more expensive, that’s still a smart idea - to only replace what must be replaced,
while doing it with the more expensive steel.
If that grease fitting is still in perfect condition since 1942, that’s the right metal to use.
So I think that would be the most important part to think about as far as changes.
...And then also to be very aware of how brittle Hawai‘i rock and soil is and watch the
structure carefully to prevent landslides
...And also revamp security. With the special duty police officers in the neighborhood, they’re
doing a good job, but security at the base of the stairs continues to be ineffective.
As a combat veteran, if I were to be guarding the stairs to make sure no one infiltrated a
perimeter, I would have someone stationed on the staircase itself, because that would keep all
people from going up. It would also keep people from going down the stairs. It makes a lot of
sense, but it hasn’t happened yet.
DD: So you’re saying that there’s security but not at the stairs, just in the area.
MK: Yes, so there are four persons to think about. There’s the security guard at the base of the
stairs who only counts and maybe calls the police, maybe. There is the special duty police
officer in the neighborhood from 2 a.m. to 7 a.m. who discourages a large number of hikers.
And then there’s the security guard at the State hospital and an additional security guard at
Windward Community College.
Side note: I believe the security guard at Windward Community College poses a safety hazard
for hikers by jumping curbs in his vehicle and physically restraining them. I believe this
exacerbates rather than reduces liability concerns for the State.
But anyhow, a solution could simply be to place one security guard on the stairs up high
enough where no one could get around. You’d have to pay someone a little extra to climb 10
flights of stairs before work. Anyway, that would be a solution.
DD: That makes a lot of sense.
MK: Yes.
189
DD: Good point with that one part of the machinery that hasn’t been worn out. You were
talking about the change, I guess the dilapidation, rust, oxidation, of the stairs, and how that
one whatever part is made of.
MK: You don’t wanna go cheap on that mountain. You don’t want to say: “Well let’s just get
a good metal but not the best,” because every time you have to redo the stairs, you pay in labor
and transportation. So might as well do it well at first. Using the right steel, you could have
100 years between renovations.
DD: Yeah, good point. We should look into what kind of metal that is.
MK: Yes.
DD: What about any cultural sites, archaeological sites, burials, historic structures, the stairs
would qualify as a historic structure being that it is over 50 years old, could we talk about any
of that in the area and along the proposed routes leading to the stairs?
MK: So I think the right answer to this question is that I don’t know. I think I should defer
that.
DD: Okay, so what about historic structures? I think you were talking about a building there
earlier, what kind of structure is that?
MK: Yes, so culturally I would have to defer, but historically I can say that the Navy built this
for the war in ‘42. So this place has much historical significance.
Here’s a concern: whenever we practice archaeology, we are very careful to just use a brush to
barely move the sand grains, so we can preserve the original character of the artifact.
One of the most precious qualities about the stairs is that they are similarly untouched. Their
raw character and drab colors unassumingly accentuate the experience and inspire genuine
moments. I feel it’s important to preserve the stairs as untouched as possible for the sake of
the immersive experience. I know people like to erect placards to describe historical sites, but
I feel that if we set placards in this place we unwittingly deface the character of the stairs and
water down the experience..
What’s so special right now is this experience leaves room for the imagination and to connect
internally.
One of the reasons people open up so much on the stairs is they aren’t being told “this and
that”. When you go to that place, you feel no pressure.
No pressure to believe anything, to enter into anyone’s idea about it. You just have space to
open yourself to nature, to open yourself to you, and to the energy of the place.
And so I feel that historically, the best way to honor this legendary legacy is to leave it mostly
as it was. Like the heiau - like anything that we have from Hawaiian culture, the same delicate
care.
DD: The stairs, they speak for themselves, no need [placards]?
190
MK: They really speak for themselves. And I think the people who visit that place have a
much more spiritual experience when there’s not the distraction of nice placards and things
that remind them of the technology they wish to get away from. They came here to escape.
And they don’t want to be chased by it.
DD: Mahalo for sharing those thoughts.
How do you think that the stairs, and any plans for the stairs, would affect an overall place of
cultural significance, or access to a place of cultural significance? How does the future of the
stairs play in to the overall place of cultural significance and/or access to a place of cultural
significance?
MK: [pause and thinking] So the valley and the mountain have tremendous cultural
significance. And one of the most important things about a site is that it retains the depth of
the spirit of that place. And when you have too many people at one time, too consistently,
going through a place, that energy becomes burdensome to the spirit of the place, I feel.
Hanauma Bay closes every Tuesday so that the bay can recover.
Similarly, I think that it’s important that (1) we make sure that native Hawaiians feel
comfortable about going to those places to practice the culture. I know that native Hawaiians
sometimes end up in court after being ticketed, asserting their right to access these lands.
And, (2) that the other residents of this island and of earth, would have the opportunity to
experience it in a measured way.
If we have too many people, like Diamond Head, the land will bear a heavy weight. We
cannot have that. The valley would be ruined. It has to be something that is accessible, but
carefully accessed.
DD: Nicely put, thank you for sharing that. If I may reiterate, basically, the entire place is
culturally significant, but too many people, or unbridled access, would be detrimental to that
cultural significance, am I getting that correctly?
MK: So just to give a number: if you have 15 people at the top at any given time, that is about
the maximum number the top structure can handle. And that’s too many for grace. 10 is
perfect, because 10 or less allows people to be intimate and connected and able to dive into the
experience without feeling like sardines. I prefer 6 + me. There’s often harsh weather at the
top, a lot of rain, a lot of wind, it can get very cold. Most days or nights you’re going to want
to be inside the building.
The point of the stairway is to thoroughly immerse. If there’s too many people it’s gonna be
difficult for people to go beyond with their experience. And so, if there’s 10 people at a time,
and people normally spend about an hour or two at the top, then that only gives you the ability
to have, in the 24 hour period, average 120 people per day.
And maybe we can talk later, but hours of operation: there’s no need for that. From
experience, 202 hikes so far, I can tell you, no need for hours of operation, or even weather
considerations - except for thunder. Some of the best experiences have been during the ‘worst’
191
weather. The stairs are exceptionally safe. Making them illegal could have correlation with
many deaths along the backside. No one has every died falling on the stairs. But anyway we’ll
get into that later, perhaps.
There could be a tiered approach to access the valley, where some would be allowed to go all
the way to the summit, a few get to stay and ‘immerse’, and then maybe a larger number
would be allowed to explore a cultural garden in the valley. So I think those are the kinds of
numbers to think about because it is a very limited space. It’s not like Diamond Head with all
the buildings to accommodate thousands of visitors. That place drives me crazy.
DD: Well to hear some numbers, it’s nice to hear you sharing your familiarity, like you said,
10 people, it makes it easier to picture. Or even like you said, “Two hours [at the top],” it
makes it helpful when factoring all of this in, gives a better visual.
Are you aware of any gathering practices up there? Any traditional gathering practices?
MK: I’m not. I would like to become more familiar with Hawaii’s traditional gathering
practices.
To play with words, I would quip that there is an unofficial gathering which occurs about
twice a week right now. It’s not a cultural, but it is spiritual. What we do is we go to the top,
and along the way we enjoy, and we stretch the limits of our fear, we absorb the greatness of
the energy, and at the top we enjoy a moment of reflection. I’m in love with this thing that’s
going on. The time is so meaningful. I’m friends for life with people who I meet for a day up
there. They always want to stay in touch. They want to come back. They hit me up to play
chess online. They recall how they felt. And the take away from that is a sense of power they
found in themself. Their lives change. It’s magical.
DD: So it’s like a spiritual gathering.
MK: Very spiritual gathering, and it could also gain some cultural elements!
DD: Wow, thank you, mahalo for sharing.
So we kind of touched upon adverse effects earlier. We were talking about the amount of
people. If we could just focus a little more on any other adverse effects, adverse effects from
any future plans, whatever you foresee or wouldn’t like to foresee, could we talk about
adverse effects concerning the stairs and/or these proposed routes, and then any mitigation
measures?
MK: So I’ve seen erosion problems on approach trails.
Right now I feel like with the sheer amount of traffic, it is important for the trails to have
some sort of gravel or rock on them.
And then of course the neighbors, I think that a shuttle passing through the neighborhood is
not an issue, because already Kam schools has hundreds of visitors every day. You would
never even notice if a shuttle bus came every hour. But it would need to be as discrete as
possible.
192
If I had a Wishlist, I would ask for a quiet tesla electric tractor, customize it with a small body,
put a small trailer behind it with seats and a tv for pre-hike education. Then I would have an
ice bath, a hot tub, a shower room, and shelter for hammock naps near the omega station for
folks to enjoy after the hike.
And also the trash. So every time I go up, usually twice a week, I carry down a lot of trash. I
try to keep it clean up there. I have a 60 liter backpack, and I fill that thing up with trash.
There’s a lot of people that leave trash behind.
One thing that I would recommend is that there should be only reusable containers taken up to
the top, no plastic water bottles, just personal items which people value and wouldn’t want to
throw away. No plastic spoons, if hikers want to bring their own, require bamboo spoons or
metal spoons so nothing that goes up that would have environmental impact.
The inside of the building has a lot of graffiti art and personal messages. My feeling is that the
inside of the building is nice for people to be able to leave their mark. Sometimes they put a
quote, or sometimes it’s a note to a loved one, just to put things up there is important to be
able to release the sentiment of the moment. It’s not visible from the outside, so I view it as a
non-impact.
Any writing on the outside of the building, however, or on the stairs or the omega station is
unwelcome. There is no need to write on the stairs, no need to write on the outside of the
building. When we go into nature, we want to see nature. If you’re inside the building, then
maybe you can put your name on the wall, that kind of thing.
The stairs are a very neutral color - the metal, and the concrete outside of the house are
discretely colored. Very little distracts from the beauty of nature. We should preserve that
low-key feel.
So I would say that one of the important parts about this I think would be to have guides. So I
would say that guides are important for a few reasons. Guides are important because people
don’t always know how to climb the stairs best. I’ve climbed them 202 times. I’ve had over a
thousand people go up with me. And my experience of the stairs is 202 hikes deep. I know this
place. I know how to climb the stairs. I know how to not get hurt. I know about the people
who did get hurt. I know how they had the mistake and how I can keep people from having
that mistake in the future.
So just to give you an idea: when we go up I start with a little guidance on how to efficiently
and safely climb. Then along the way, there’s all these angles to shoot photos and video which
are so awesome. (all these angles that you never would think of unless you’ve done it so many
times) Along the way I monitor not only the route that we take to access the stairs, but also the
types of actions we take on the stairs, including whether there’s any markings put on the stairs.
So the guide can maintain standards. And then also on the way down, there’s a technique to
make sure you don’t miss steps and fall. For instance, people like to reach down to each next
step with their toe, right? And so what happens if they reach with their toe, and if they go off
the stair even just a little bit, they go [sound effect] like this, and their foot’s like this [making
a motion like someone who steps and misses a ladder rung]. So I tell them, “Think about
reaching with your heel with every step.” And then like a cat plays with a ball of yarn,
193
slapping at it [making other motions with his foot], you bring your foot back, reach with your
heel, you bring your foot back to step. But it also has to do with the type of shoe you wear
because there are shoes that have a seemingly aggressive tread, yet are like ice on the stairs.
The guide should ensure hikers have soft rubber tread on their shoe, nothing glazed over with
this plastic. But anyway, there’s a lot of experience I can share about guides. I really feel like
people may need to rent a pair of shoes to go up there, to make sure they have the right shoes.
But in 202 hikes, I’ve had one person go to the emergency room. One 18 year-old kid wanted
to challenge himself and keep up with me without using a headlamp, at night in the rain. He
slipped on a broken step, cutting his leg and required 6 stitches.
But we’re talking over a thousand people, one injury which I will not allow to be repeated,
because I don’t let people try to keep up with me anymore. Instead I send them down ahead
and I follow them.
So a guide is very important, I feel like, to monitor the harmful effects that could come to the
area. And I feel like the guide should be more than just sharing about the cultural, more than
just sharing about the historic, but realizing that people are coming here for healing, and
intuitively speaking to them on a spiritual level about their personal path, their healing, their
discoveries of who they are so that when they leave, their people go out into this world,
empowered to live on another level. This is how we heal.
DD: It’s a really good mitigation measure, having a guide, like you said, not just to give the
historic or cultural aspects of the background, but also for safety reasons. And it would also
take care of things such as pollution, like you mentioned, because otherwise how do you keep
tabs? I mean, could there be an inspection at the bottom where you check the bags? A guide
could help with several of these different things, these ways of how to be respectful and safe
going up and down, is that right?
MK: Yeah I think that the inspection at the bottom is difficult, but I feel like they [the guides]
will give the impression, the inspiration. People who come up with me, I get the broom, and I
get the dustpan, and I get the trash bag out, and all of a sudden my people are cleaning. And so
here’s the amazing thing: I feel that an element of community service in the valley is
meaningful and enjoyable to hikers. One good opportunity for service is Papahana Kuaola.
People want to feel connected, and they appreciate the opportunity to give back. What makes
them feel disconnected is getting pampered and listening to a tour guide recite script.
But if they clean up on top of the mountain with me, they feel like they became a part of that
place. Or if they were to work in the taro at Papahana Kuaola a little bit? That could be fun! I
don’t think that they should be there for 3 hours. But if they work for 30 minutes and just gave
something back, it really gives them a sense that they did something good. And they became a
part of the place they loved so much.
DD: Not just consumption, it’s giving back.
MK: People need this. Deep down people know they must give back. And that’s why they feel
so fulfilled when they do.
194
When people get inspired about preserving a place, they are unlikely to leave plastic bottles
behind. So I think the most effective solution to minimizing environmental impact is to
communicate very pure inspiration rather than performing a bag inspection at the end of the
hike.
DD: Right, nice.
The building you’re talking about, is that building at the top of the stairs?
MK: At the very top.
DD: Okay, got it, and then you were mentioning earlier, I heard you mentioning something
about the traffic, and one proposition is that you would be okay if people were to be shuttled
in. So in that scenario, would there be like a check-in area, maybe outside of the community?
And then people would be coming in, it almost sounds like there would be an offsite, or
someplace away from the stairs, away from the community, am I getting that correct?
MK: So yes, I feel like the way to alleviate all the impact on the neighborhood would not be to
put a guard in the neighborhood. I don’t agree with any roaming security guards anywhere,
that will always be ineffective. The effective solution is one security guard located on the
stairs preventing anyone from going up unless they can show proof that they came via the
shuttle. So that could be their ticket: either they came in the shuttle, or they are escorted in by
a certified guide. There will be a little need for additional enforcement, because the
information would get out organically online. Everyone who tried to go into the neighborhood
would simply fail, and they would say so, and visitors would learn before they arrive.
I think an outside station near the mall would be best perhaps. It doesn’t have to be something
big. It could just be near the mall. They could use mall parking, perhaps they can have
dedicated stalls or something, and then yeah, take a shuttle in to the hike.
DD: And it doesn’t sound like this is a money-making venture, but with the possibility of
admission, perhaps some of that could go back to the community someway somehow as
another way to give back?
MK: So as far as an entrance fee, and where that money goes, I feel like one of the things to
remember is we want this to be as accessible as possible to people who may not yet have
grown enough professionally to be able to afford much. But they want to grow, and so they are
there to heal. And then they can generate more in the future. So some of the people who need
the stairs most, are those who can’t get afford it much. We don’t want it to be too expensive.
And so when we think about where the money goes, I feel like most of the revenue generated
from the stairs should go towards the maintenance of the stairs and mitigating any community
impacts, not to support other endeavors. I think it’s difficult to give back financially in ways
which are nearly as meaningful as the impacts we have on people’s lives. I think the most
important thing we can do with an entrance fee is to remain able to sustain the operation.
We may want to have a special price for tour guides who bring groups, so that they can cover
marketing expenses out of the group discount.
DD: So you were mentioning some of that could go to the upkeep of the stairs.
195
MK: So the upkeep of the stairs is going to be a significant expense until they are all built of
stainless steel, but again I would reiterate that I think only the stairs needing replacement
should be replaced and only the highest quality steel should be used. This will allow for
gradual renovation and will keep costs manageable while staying smart about longevity of the
repairs.
There will also be a lot of expense with the guard’s salary and with the shuttle bus.
[pause and thinking] So one of the things I always thought of was making sure the community
knows that they are appreciated. And even just something as small as hosting a gathering
every month or two, or every quarter, where food is provided, the neighbors can come, a little
pau hana, and just thank you, any concerns like [at] the Neighborhood Board meeting, but just
something to acknowledge the aloha in the neighborhood.
DD: So I see that would be a way of giving back too, I mean, to have that community
gathering, whether it’s quarterly or what-not, to touch base and hear concerns.
MK: Yeah, something manageable, but we don’t want the purse to bleed out either - which
could make it inaccessible for poor people who need the medicine of mana most.
DD: Like spiritual medicine…
MK: It really is. It’s a place of ugh [sigh]. So when people are about to go up, they have their
bag, their shoes, their camera... they have no idea what they’re about to do. They know that
the Ha‘ikū Stairs are cool. Everyone thinks that they’re going up there for the view. And they
think that they might be going with someone who’s gonna help them get around the guard.
Not so.
They’re going up to the top so that they can find themself, and they can discover they are part
of something greater. And that’s something we lost in this society. They’re going with
someone who can help them find themself again.
Everything I do is well-studied and carefully executed. It’s much more intricately designed
than it appears. When I’m back home on the beach, I meditate on it and write down ways to
make it better. I’ve been doing this a long time. I’m absolutely in love with that mountain and
the people who join me. I’d happily be that 80 year-old wizard with a cane welcoming folks at
his humble abode at the top and showing them the magic of their own hearts.
DD: Well, it’s a techno age, easy to get lost in it.
MK: It is. But yes, I think that I would like to eventually develop at the top a little place where
people can enter into a really deep, and even deeper, so I would like maybe to put some
hammocks up inside the building not have them up all the time, but just have them so they
could go up there. So after people eat they could have a moment of meditation in the
hammock. And then they could come down and maybe watch a little short documentary on the
projector, talk about how the world is changing, about climate change and about what they can
do to preserve the beauty they are looking at. How they can be part of keeping the world
sustainable, and then some things just for personal growth and development because their ears
196
aren’t all that is open up there, their whole soul is open. If we wanna heal this earth, this is one
place we can start.
DD: That’s a really deep discussion on the adverse effects and mitigation measures, and
turning any bad effects into good out of this experience of climbing the stairs. Mahalo for
sharing that.
So we were talking offline earlier about the uplands traditionally being the wao akua, a place
of the spirits, and man [kānaka] traditionally lived at the lower elevation. What understanding
and relationship should people have with the stairs and the upland area in the context of it
being in the wao akua, a place uninhabited by human beings? Any thoughts on that?
MK: That’s a tough one. That’s sensitive. [pause and thinking] So I grew up deeply religious,
and I know what it’s like to know some things are off-limits. That can be very sensitive.
One thing that I learned is that sometimes we can forget that we are all, as the human race, as
the universe, all one organism.
We also know that we very much need to heal.
But if our observance of spiritual holdings takes us away from our ability to offer tangible
healing to ourself via a place as special as this, then we need to reevaluate and adapt to ensure
we are always being good stewards of the souls of our people.
This is an evolving world, and it’s hard because I know how sensitive that is. And one thing
that should never happen is there should never be a disregard for that.
There should never be a disregard for that because that can really put two people at odds in a
way that isn’t easily mended. But I think that to come from a place of love and healing and
notice that people need to get out of the world that is down here, the world down here has
become affected by roads and technology. People hide from each other. They hide from each
other so much, and they really feel mechanized. So to allow that healing to happen, I think this
is one of the most powerful places, and [pause] I recognize that for some, this issue is
somewhat of an impasse. But we have to find a way to do good with what we have, and I
believe we can.
One of the ways we can look at this is that the Hawaiian warriors did go that path as part of
their journey. And if we look at this from the standpoint of human beings embarking on a
journey into the power within, like the warriors - to understand the power of the mana, to
recognize the power around us, the real power, not the power of our combustion engines, but
the power of the earth, if we see this experience as not just a hike, but a journey, a pilgrimage,
and we create something special like I’ve described. If we do that, I think there is a way to be
sensitive about why we are up there.
DD: Sounds like you’re recognizing and agreeing that it is a spiritual place, and if we are
going with the definition that wao akua is a place of the spirits, and wao kanaka is a place
below where people live, it sounds like you’re agreeing that it is a spiritual place up there. But
also you’re emphasizing the goodness that can come from people entering that realm for a
spiritual purpose. Am I capturing that correctly?
197
MK: Yes.
DD: Okay, nice, thank you for that.
Are there any other concerns that we never talked about that you think we should mention?
MK: [pause and thinking] Mmm, I think I would wanna just emphasize that I am concerned
that there is a lot of potential here. I would want to make sure that this doesn’t become
something that benefits an unrelated entity.
My life is given to help people. I have had m the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands
of dollars a year in oil business. I have friends who have offered to employ me in Oklahoma
working with mineral rights.
I won’t do the oil work because my life is given to help us heal.
And so that money, if anything is generated from the stairs, I hope that it will just go purely to
help people grow.
I could see that someone may want to invest in this, and make something of a money-making
venture, but this doesn’t need to be another tourist trap. This doesn’t need to be a parasailing
adventure. This needs to be something sacred.
So to make sure it is protected in its pure and organic state, I think is important.
DD: Keeping that perspective.
MK: Yeah, perspective, and just making sure that whoever’s behind this has their heart in the
right place.
DD: Yeah, it’s important to keep perspective as the different plans are set forth on the table,
important that people’s hearts are in the right place as they make the decisions. Thank you.
Is there anyone else that you think we should speak with regarding this, any kūpuna, any
kama‘āina, any community people, anybody else that you think we should talk to?
MK: Who have you interviewed with Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs?
DD: John Goody.
MK: Okay [pause and thinking] so there’s two people I could think of. One would be
Papahana Kuaola, the Hawaiian cultural center - the guy’s name is Nick. I can give you his
cell phone number. He manages that area. There’s also Ka‘imi, there’s many others at
Papahana Kualoa.
And then with Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs, Vernon Ansdell is the president, and he does have
maybe some more p/r level interaction you could probably get from him. I think John Goody,
he stepped back some years ago, but he has a tremendous amount of historical experience
along with flora and fauna. The guy knows his stuff. You talked with him?
198
DD: Yeah I did.
MK: So John, Vernon and Nick.
DD: Okay, thank you. I’ll pass those names on.
I guess that concludes our discussion today. I’d like to thank Matt again for meeting up during
this busy Christmas season here, we appreciate it. So have a good day, and aloha.
MK: Thanks.
199
200
APPENDIX K: INTERVIEW WITH KEONI KUOHA
201
202
TALKING STORY WITH
KEONI KUOHA (KK)
DD: Today is Thursday, November 9, 2017. We’re sitting in Kāne‘ohe at Kits n Koa. We’re
gonna be talking story about the proposed plans for the development of the Ha‘ikū Stairs, also
known as the Stairway to Heaven. And so we’re talking in regards to a cultural impact
assessment. Before we go any further we’d like to say mahalo to Keoni Kuoha for taking time
out of his busy day to talk story with us. It’s a beautiful day, so mahalo and aloha.
KK: Aloha.
DD: Okay, if we could begin, could you maybe say your name, where/when you were born,
where you grew up, where you went to school, maybe some background things like that?
KK: Keoni Kuoha, born and raised in Waimānalo, on the homestead side, went to school there
and then went to Kamehameha, also, I went away for four years, got my B.A., and then came
back and got an M.A. in Hawaiian Studies and spent quite a bit of time in and around the
Center for Hawaiian Studies.
And at the same time, oh actually, starting in high school, really go involved in hiking, from
freshman year in high school, I was in the hiking club. I’ve been on every island in Hawai‘i,
hiked most of the mountains, been to some amazing places. That started my education on how
to act in the forest and also how to care for forest resources, continued that education, cultural
education specifically through John Lake, whom I started with in the mid-’90s, and learned
chant from him, primarily protocol. And then also studied with John Ka‘imikaua for five years
after John Lake, and I currently continue to learn from my kāne, Pueo Pata, who’s also a
Kumu Hula. So I guess [it’s] kind of a general background, all over the place.
DD: Okay, mahalo, and two who have passed on, excellent, really good men, Kumu Keola
Lake and Kumu John Ka‘imikaua. Mahalo for sharing that.
Is there anything else that you’d like to share about your family background?
KK: My father is Hawaiian. His mother was born in Ke‘anae, his father, in Kahalu‘u, Kona.
My Ke‘anae family were some of the first homesteaders in Waimānalo. And my grandparents
essentially started the family in Honolulu, and that’s where my dad was mainly raised. And
then we got a plot out in Waimānalo before I was born, yeah.
DD: Okay, mahalo for sharing some of that. So we’re talking about this Ha‘ikū Stairs, could
you maybe talk a little bit about your association to that parcel, we were kind of looking at the
map, maybe the trails around there leading into it?
KK: So I would say my association starts just by being born and raised on this side. And I
always took note of the mountains and what was there, what was growing there, the different
moods, you know, morning time, the way the clouds move up the mountains.
203
At the same time, I do remember when H-3 was going through there, and it was being built,
and much of the issues with that. I’ve noticed from that time, that was probably in the ’90s,
from that time until now, I’ve seen a significant change in some of the vegetation growing up
in Ha‘ikū Valley. A lot of the octopus tree really has spread quickly through that area.
Also in the early 2000s, I climbed Ha‘ikū Stairs, around early 2000, maybe even late ’90s, and
got to see that space. It wasn’t a popular hike at that time. I forget how I even knew about it.
And I haven’t been up there since. So I haven’t seen that area. I’ve just maintained hiking and
just accessed the forest in all kinds of other areas, mainly for gathering [resources] as well as
just for a quiet, peaceful place to be.
Currently I work as Executive Director of Papahana Kuaola which is a non-profit in Ha‘ikū

Valley. I was one of the co-founders, and we moved to that parcel, that KS [Kamehameha
Schools] parcel that we currently work on, right around 2007. And so I’ve been connected
with that work ever since then, specifically in the valley, and though in the past two years, I’ve
taken on work on-site as opposed to program development and board work.
In the two years that I’ve been on site, the Ha‘ikū Stairs has been an issue that’s come up, both
with Hui Kū Maoli Ola, the leaseholder of our parcel, as well as some of our neighbors. We do
manage on-site a lot of people who are just kind of roaming around, looking for the access to
the stairs. I’ve heard sort of arguments and ideas, options in terms of how to better manage
that place, the whole range from shutting it all the way down, to sort of managing access to the
area and allowing access.
DD: So you mentioned, for the record, Papahana Kuaola, and in relation to the stairs, could
you kinda describe where it is in the vicinity, pointing it out on the map?
KK: So we are located on the Kamehameha Schools property, and that property actually
includes, I believe, the land across the fence that will allow you to drive into the back of the
valley. So there’s a fence there at the corner of Kuneki and Ha‘ikū Road, and so that fence is
KS property. Our non-profit doesn’t manage that specifically because of the leaseholders, Hui
Kū. But we are programming, and the focal point of our project is essentially right there. Our
parking areas are sometimes used as parking areas for folks that are looking for access to the
stairway, right there on the corner.
DD: Okay, for the record, we are looking at the map right now, and this parcel where Keoni is
the Executive Director, it’s toward the back of Ha‘ikū Valley, and it’s more towards the north
side of the valley. It looks like maybe two proposed routes for access may be touching upon
the property, or at least one route.
KK: Actually, proposed “Route 1,” it goes through our property. And again, the leaseholder is
Hui Kū, the landowner is Kamehameha Schools, but we manage and develop programming in
that area. And so that route, currently we have school buses that utilize part of that route, and a
bus drop off area, as well as a lot of other community users utilize Route 1, which is the old
Ha‘ikū Road.
DD: Okay, yeah, it’s pretty clear on the map there, mahalo for sharing that.
204
So talking about your knowledge of the Ha‘ikū Stairs and its surrounding area, would you say
you have acquired your understanding of the area from your personal research, from ‘ohana, I
think maybe your personal experiences also, could you maybe touch upon that a little?
KK: So my knowledge of Ha‘ikū Stairs as well as, I would say, the upper, that whole wao
akua that’s up there, some of it’s personal knowledge, like just from experience. I have gotten
some feedback and insights from folks that have sort of special insight, ‘ike pāpālua, that have
identified that there are issues, coming down from mauka areas, have identified that the wao
akua isn’t being cared for well, that the activities up there are not pono, and so that imbalance
can be felt all the way to our ‘āina [below].
I have not personally been up there in quite a while. So the kind of information I get is second
hand in terms of the change in vegetation, how a lot of invasive species have taken over right
around the stairs, which makes sense when you have people that aren’t following biological
controls. People are just really up there for adventure, I think the vast majority of people, that I
know of, and so, the kinds of things that they bring in, the kinds of weed species that they
bring in.
And then just also seeing both video evidence of what people are doing up there and pictures
and stuff like that, the kind of behavior that I see up there isn’t aligned with pono behavior in
wao akua. I think one of the fundamental, sort of, kind of basic things is whether you have a
function up there, and what is your function. You know, adventure-seeking, I think Hawaiians
were just as much adventure-seeking as anybody else. That’s how you end up on monster
waves and crossing the ocean.
At the same time, maintaining balance is of primary concern. And so leaving some areas to
akua, leaving some areas where your behavior is highly managed because that’s not your
‘āina, it’s for akua, leaving those spaces in a certain way is also important. And hiking
anywhere on O‘ahu now, I just see the degradation. People don’t know how to behave. They
hana lepo, and just kinda pilau everywhere.
And it’s the lack of knowledge, and/or [it’s] cultural disconnect. Many of them aren’t
Hawaiian. At the same time, I can’t vouch for the actions of all the Hawaiians up there. So it’s
part of a larger, I think, degradation of our forests. People looking at it as sort of pleasure
seeking and not recognizing the kuleana that comes with accessing the forest and maintaining
the balance up there.
DD: You hit it on the nose with the cultural disconnect. I wanted to ask about the wao akua
later, but I’ll ask about it now. So in a simple definition, you know, it [the wao akua] would be
an upland region not inhabited by kānaka. And so the question is posed that if the Ha‘ikū
Stairs, you know, Keahiakahoe also, they’re up there in this wao area, what understanding and
relationship should people have with this upland area? You kind of mentioned there’s already
a disconnect. How could we or should we go about addressing that with people coming and
not having this understanding?
KK: One idea I come back to is just the basic idea of kuleana. You know, the movement
around ‘āina and through space in Hawai‘i for people who are coming from a traditional
perspective, it’s not a right. You don’t have a right to just go anywhere. You have rights
around your ‘āina, your specific ‘āina. You have rights, or you could say kuleana, built off of
your own work, and being given that sort of rights or kuleana by others. And so that’s kind of
205
where I’m working from. So outside of where you have clear kuleana, outside of even if you
were given certain practices and with those practices come knowledge of certain resources and
actually managing those resources, to me, in its most basic form, those are place-based. Even
though you are kahuna lā‘au lapa‘au, at some point or time in the past, the resources, the areas
would be shared with you, and you get kuleana that way. Plus there has been some disconnect
there, and people are given knowledge but not necessarily kuleana to specific areas. I think, as
Hawaiians, we try our best to balance those things. And we wanna practice our culture as fully
as possible while at the same time maintaining a sense of kuleana, or a direct kuleana to
something.
That said, outside of places that people have been given direct kuleana for that particular
space, outside of professions and ‘oihana, different ‘ike that people are given, that enables
them and actually requires them to go into wao akua, and also where just because we are a
living culture we have to expand. And sometimes resources no longer exist in certain places.
Hula practitioners have to look for certain resources in new places. Beyond that, I don’t see a
really clear reason for going to wao akua. If you’re not there to actually expand wao akua and
support it, because there has been a huge impact by introduced invasive species, if you’re not
there to support the spiritual side of wao akua, to ho‘omana, to do your pule, then there isn’t a
lot of reason to be there.
Now that said, I mentioned earlier, I was in a hiking group when I was younger. Besides being
a learning experience and having an opportunity to learn about wao akua, even to me, looking
back, that kind of is on the edge of you know, kuleana in a particular area. Oftentimes we did
do service up there, so that, I guess, gave us kuleana. But the idea, kind of like the social
media, like I just want to take a picture here, or oh look what someone did, I wanna be in that
same space, it’s hard for me to connect that to a strong sense of kuleana and sort of Hawaiian
perspectives.
I mean, we still have kūpuna in some places that don’t even go to the other side of the island
unless they’re invited. They’re just like, “I don’t have any kuleana there. That’s somebody
else’s, they’re taking care of. I’m gonna take care of my space.” So yeah, the adventure
seeking up mauka, access without having a clear sense of both how to act as well as a sense of
purpose in being in that space, I think all of those ideas, for me, make it challenging to me to
see a low impact or maybe a positive impact kind of access in that area, unless it were to be
specifically to undo some of the invasive species, invasions up mauka. But beyond that, I
don’t know.
DD: Beautifully said, really good points. You’re talking about, you went from right to
responsibility, you know, when you say kuleana. It is a different point of view, like you said,
if people want to go for adventure, like they have a right to go on an adventure, as opposed to
a traditional point of view of going somewhere with a responsibility.
And rightfully, you also point out, even if you are maybe a practitioner or a knowledgeable
elder, you have your area. Not necessarily you’ll just go into other areas because you have a
specific knowledge, like you said, it’s place-based. And so thank you for sharing those, those
are really good points.
So correct me if I’m wrong, unless people have something to give back or to do for the good
of this upland area, you would rather not just have it open for all.
206
KK: I don’t see any way, and I’ve heard some of the ideas, but I don’t see a way that allows
access up there and also still maintains a strong sense of kuleana. It doesn’t have to be that
strict, the sense of kuleana, but any kind of access that’s managed requires some level of
access so that people are paying an entrance fee. And that money can definitely go back to
support removing invasives or caring for that area.
But as I look at it and think, it’s actually even just, “Why are you even there? What are you
doing in that space? And how does what you’re doing there support that as wao akua?” If it’s
not directly supporting it as wao akua, then in some way I would think it’s detracting from it
being wao akua. You know, we have wao kanaka for a reason, ‘cause that’s the place where
we as kānaka are just free to do as we please to an extent and access at different times of day.
But wao akua, to me, is different.
DD: Thank you for sharing, these are really good points. You mentioned like even if people
were to pay a fee to access this space, such monies could be used to better mālama perhaps
this upland area. In the process, if people were educated, paying a fee, would a balance be
possible?
KK: Yeah, I’m not closed off to that idea. I think it could take quite a bit for there to be
balance. I am certain that the plans that I have heard, especially in managing access, to me,
they would improve the condition from what is now, which is really unmanaged access,
people in the thousands accessing that place per month. That’s highly unsustainable. Any
other kind of managed access would at least be moving towards sustainability.
And again, you have to put everything on the table, be like, “Okay, we’re gonna allow access,
and we’re gonna take some revenue from that.” That revenue’s gonna turn around and support
that ‘āina. There’s gonna be education with it. That’s a lot of different pieces to balance and
say that this adds up to being sustainable or better for wao akua.
I worked in Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument before this. And that’s

someplace where it’s very difficult to access. And at the same time, I, myself, have led a
number of community meetings discussing what do we as Native Hawaiians want to see
happen up there. And a lot of people make note that it’s a powerful practice to let something
be, and a powerful learning lesson to say, “No. We do not have a right to be there at all times.
No. We cannot access that area at any time.” And that itself is the lesson.
So I think there’s a lot of ways of looking at it. There’s a lot of approaches. To me, what is
healthiest for both that ‘āina as well as I think a deep respect for wao akua, what’s healthiest is
to practice that sense of if you don’t have kuleana, you don’t go. To me, that’s healthiest. But
that’s just me; I’m just one Hawaiian.
I think there’s so many other ways that our wao akua resources are accessed, and I would love
to see us manage that across the Ko‘olau. The Ko‘olau are my mountains. I love those
mountains. And there’s so many ways that we’re just, we’re not respecting that ‘āina. So
anyway, I think things are way out of balance at this point. How do we create balance? One
approach would be to take the lesson to the basic point of whether you have kuleana or not,
and then use that as an example and maybe push that in other areas, at least get people to have
more managed access for the rest of our trails so that they’re not just doing any kind.
207
DD: Really good points, very priceless, thank you for sharing those. And I should say also,
being that you’re born and raised on this side, like you said earlier, and you know these
mountains, you’ve seen the moods, you’ve seen the changes, so thank you for sharing this.
If we could talk about the Ha‘ikū Stairs area and the upland area there, are there any themes
that stick out to you with regards to maybe mo‘olelo, mele, oli, place names? Or maybe you
have a personal story that would tie into that, any themes about that area that stand out to you?
KK: When I think of the stairs, it’s going up to Keahiakahoe. That’s really the only wahi pana
that I’m familiar with right along the stairway area. I think the boundary between Kāne‘ohe
and He‘eia, the stairs actually move along one of those ridges, yeah.
DD: What are your thoughts with Keahiakahoe and the significance of that in that area?
KK: Well in He‘eia, there’s the story of Kahoe and his generosity. And I don’t know how,
‘cause when you asked that, I was like, “Oh, is there sort of a theme of Kahoe’s generosity?”
His generosity was certainly take advantage of by brother Pahu until he [Kahoe] got sort of
smart to it and had to sort of cut his brother off in certain ways. You can draw connections
between the mo‘olelo and this.
DD: It was unintentional [laughs]
KK: It was unintentional, but beyond that story of generosity and sort of the limits of
generosity and giving and taking, there’s definitely this, it’s a story of pono. What is the
balance? Pono is not a static thing. It’s constantly shifting because of other factors in our lives.
So what is pono with the stairs? I know this is meant to be one on one, but I kinda like the idea
of having a conversation with a whole bunch of people with different perspectives on it. I
think that’s probably the best way to come up with an idea of for now, for us, for today, what
is pono in this particular space? Given either people’s busy schedules or the fact that maybe
some people have had too much of a conversation about this in the past 20 years, so they
really don’t want to have a conversation, but it may be that we’re not having a conversation
together. But I think it needs to be a conversation at some point, and it should be something
that we can change at some point, that the situation has changed, we can do this now, x, y, or
z, now, because we have sort of supported that resource, and now it’s thriving.
And I think of the green sea turtle. They were on the endangered species list. Certain things
were done in order to bring them back. They have a healthy population now. When we use
federal statute to mandate things, it’s kinda clunky. It doesn’t change very easily. Whereas you
get a traditional perspective on it, you have people that know the resource, and they see,
“Okay, it’s healthy enough. We can have access again.”
DD: I like that, having a conversation with several parties involved as to what is pono and
coming to a consensus on that regarding this area. Mahalo.
So you kind of touched upon the changes of the area. Is there anything else that you’d like to
share about how you feel the Ha‘ikū Stairs or the surrounding area has changed from the last
time you hiked there, or from when you were a little kid, from what you remember, to now?
KK: [pause and thinking] I think in different ways I pretty much covered that.
208
DD: Okay, what about if we could focus on cultural sites/archaeological sites, which include
burials, historic structures, by definition anything over 50 years old, not the same as traditional
sites, but when we look at these access routes, and the stairs itself going up the mountain, are
there any traditional sites or historically significant buildings which are upon this area that you
could share of?
KK: So the only route that I know of is the one that goes up Ha‘ikū Road. It sort of cuts up
toward Kamakau School. I am not familiar with any traditional structures in that area. I know
there are buildings that are over 50 years old, both that comprise the campus of Kamakau,
some of the gate, some of the driveway up, of course the stairs itself and the building at the top
of the stairs, are all older than 50 years old. Yeah, I’ve never walked these other routes, these
proposed routes that you have on this map.
DD: Okay, so that one trail that he’s talking about is [looking at the map], I would say is 1B,
that actually comes into the DHHL land, and then turns up to Kamakau School. We’re looking
at it on the map.
KK: I think, ‘cause that’s how I got up there 20 years ago, was through the Kamakau School
area.
DD: Okey doke, mahalo. Do you think this proposed, actually you kind of answered this, but
I’ll ask it anyway, would it affect any place of cultural significance or access to a place of
cultural significance? Sorry if I’m being redundant.
KK: No, no [regarding being redundant].
Yeah, it’ll affect the wao akua that’s there. And in terms of cultural significance, so our ‘āina
[Papahana Kuaola] along Route 1 on this map, and even touching a little bit of Route 2 on this
map, we’re maintaining cultural spaces in our own ‘āina. And we’re constantly challenged by
how do we manage access to that. And so the more people that we have around just kind of
wandering, that’s not good for the things that we’re trying to care for.
At the same time, we’re looking for solutions to manage that, both with information and
knowledge as well as trying to bring our access points to a single access point on site so that
we can meet people, talk story. At the same time, we don’t put up “No Trespassing” signs.
That’s not the point of our organization.
We just want people, when they are walking through a place, for them to be respectful of the
multiple cultural resources that we are cultivating there. Some of them are more obvious,
right? It’s a stone structure or a hale. But some of the cultural resources, you know, unless you
have some background in them, you don’t even know it was there. For instance, the plants that
we are growing, and some of the plants we are growing for medicine. If you don’t recognize
that plant, and it just looks like a great place to use the bathroom, then you can imagine, you
don’t realize you’re soiling a cultural resource, but that’s exactly what you’re doing.
I think, as a cultural practitioner, there are other practices that I have no idea about. And I
could very well be, if someone’s using a resource in a particular way, and I have no idea, then
I could be soiling that resource. That’s another reason why kuleana and having kuleana in a
particular space and ‘āina has always been really important because just because you’re a
cultural practitioner doesn’t mean you understand all the ways that this valley or this ‘ohana is
209
practicing culture. And you have no idea how you’re negatively impacting a resource that they
may have planted with very much intention and pule, that they care for in a particular way,
and intend to utilize in a particular way.
You know, that’s the beautiful thing about our culture. It’s like, there’s all this nuance. And
when something is being used for a higher reason, there’s a lot of protocol that goes into it. So
anyway, we apparently have cultural resources on our ‘āina, the Kamehameha Schools
property, and we’re only expanding those resources. With the Access Route 1, as well as with
people currently, the situation where people kinda just wander all across the valley, it creates
challenges for us in maintaining these cultural resources for particular purposes.
DD: That’s wonderfully illustrated and explained. You know, when we talk about access to a
place, and we were focusing on the wao akua earlier, but you are pointing out also that there
are cultural spaces below. And as of right now, people are wandering, looking for the stairs,
trespassing into cultural spaces that they should not be, so thank you for pointing out the
cultural significance below, not just up on the mountain.
KK: Yup.
DD: Okay, if we could talk about gathering practices, regarding these proposed routes to the
stairs, and then the stairs itself, are you aware of any gathering practices within this project
area?
KK: [pause and thinking] No.
DD: Okay, mahalo, what about adverse effects? We talked about adverse effects earlier. Is
there anything you want to emphasize, and not only the adverse effects, but also what could be
done to lessen these adverse effects?
KK: So there’s levels of degree, having managed access would lessen the adverse effects
‘cause we have a lot of adverse effects right now. I think what would be most effective at
reducing or even eliminating the adverse effects in this particular area would be the removal of
the stairs, sort of the phased removal of the stairs that came also with invasive species removal
and/or native plant restoration. So if I’m looking at the most, to minimize negative effects and
actually promote sort of a positive impact to that space, then I would say that’s the most
effective way of doing that, removing stairs in phases and removing invasive species along the
way.
Now anywhere in between, anything’s better than what we got right now.
DD: Right, okay, thank you, so pointing out that some kind of management here would be
better than the lack of any kind of oversight, or the freedom that adventure-seekers have right
now going on. And then at the far end of the scale would be the removal of the stairs along
with the restoration of the natural habitat.
Are there any other cultural concerns, or just any other concerns that the community might
have related to this project that we haven’t spoken of that you think we should talk about?
210
KK: There are no additional concerns I can think of. I do want to bring a few points back just
to emphasize. I am from Waimānalo. I am not from He‘eia. I accept and take responsibility for
some kuleana currently in He‘eia, and I have taken that kuelana for over a decade now. But
because I do feel strongly about kuleana, it’s the kama‘āina He‘eia families and Kāne‘ohe
families, in some ways I defer to them because this is their ‘āina. I am trying to support the
cultural resources in Waipao which is the area that we have direct kuleana to manage. And so
looking at the larger picture of balance, I recognize that there is a connection. Everything is
connected in the valley, and that what’s happening up mauka very well has an impact on us.
But whatever we can do to support improving those resources by a little or a lot, that’s my
main goal. So whatever conversations we need to have, any discussions about the movement
of people, or whether the stairs stay up or not, I’m very happy in my capacity with my kuleana
to engage in those conversations, and which is why I appreciate you folks coming to me and
asking my opinion. Again, I’m not from He‘eia, but I have a stake in the health of this
particular ‘āina, and I want to continue to be part of that conversation.
DD: Mahalo, yeah, well mahalo to you.
You mentioned Waipao, is that the ‘ili, or is that a certain land division?
KK: Yeah, that’s the ‘ili. It’s essentially the lower half of this KS ‘āina, all along the river
[pointing to the map], it’s Waipao.
DD: Okay, he’s pointing that out on the map there.
KK: I believe the ‘ili of Ha‘ikū is just mauka of Waipao. So Ha‘ikū is an ‘ili as well.
DD: Okay, got it, kind of adjacent, next to each other.
KK: Yup.
DD: Are there any other kūpuna, kama‘āina, any other community people that you think we
should talk to about this project?
KK: I think I already mentioned Aunty Mahealani Cypher. I don’t know if I mentioned Aaron
Mahi. He’s the President of Ko‘olau Foundation. Someone that many people in the ahupua‘a
go to for knowledge as well is Aunty Alice Hewett. Those are three highly respected kūpuna.
Aunty Geri as well, and Donna Camvel. I also know that there’s the larger Kaluhiwa ‘ohana. I
don’t know what Kekoa’s dad’s name is, but I was talking story with him one day up at
Waipao. And I think he used to have a paper route around those areas, and he knows some of
those areas pretty well. But yeah, there’s also a Ka‘uhane family, I don’t know anybody from
that family, but that name has come up before of folks that have connection to the valley. If
you could find any of the ‘ohana of Sam Lono, who used to be up there, I think that’d be
awesome. Again, there’s others in the ahupua‘a that know the kama‘āina families much better
than I do and who would be able to speak to that area.
DD: And Aunty Geri, she’s Kaluhiwa, right?
KK: Kaluhiwa, yeah.
211
DD: Okay, well that’s a lot of good thoughts that you brought to the conversation. Thank you
so much, we appreciate it. I guess that concludes our kūkā. Once again, we’d like to say,
“Mahalo,” to Keoni Kuoha for taking time to talk story with us today. Have a good day, and
Aloha.
KK: Aloha.
212
Appendix D
Intensive Level Survey Report

INTENSIVE LEVEL SURVEY REPORT
HA‘IKŪ STAIRS
Ha‘ikū Valley, Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu Island,
Hawai‘i
Prepared by William Chapman, Architectural Historian
September 30, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3
PROJECT OBJECTIVES 10
METHODOLOGY 13
BOUNDARIES OF SURVEY AREA 16
SETTING 17
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 19
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PUBLISHED SOURCES 21
DATA SUMMARY 22
DETAILED HISTORY 45
FINDINGS AND COMPLIANCE UNDER HRS CHAPTER 6E-8 70
BIBLIOGRAPHY 80
2
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Overview
This Intensive Level Survey (ILS) Report assesses the historic and architectural
significance of the U.S. Navy and later Coast Guard radio complex in the Haʻikū
Valley in Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. It serves as a complement to an Archaeological
Reconnaissance Survey (ARS) prepared by Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting
(KPAC), both of which were prepared to meet State historic preservation review
requirements under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 6E-8. HRS 6E-8 states that prior
to an agency or officer of the State or its political subdivisions commences any
project which may affect a historic property, the agency or office shall advise SHPD
an opportunity for review of the effect of the proposed project on historic
properties. The project also requires written concurrence from SHPD prior to
implementation. The ILS and ARS are being submitted to SHPD to meet the historic
preservation review requirements under HRS 6E-8. The written concurrence of
SHPD is requested upon their agreement with the identification, effect,
determination and mitigation measures recommended with respect to significant
historic properties affected by the proposed action.
Separately, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared by G70 for

the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (BWS) to meet State environmental review
requirements as specified in HRS Chapter 343.1 The EIS is will examine the BWS
proposal to either remove Haʻikū Stairs or transfer it to another agency or
responsible organization capable of opening the Stairs for controlled public access,
among other alternatives. The outcome of the HRS 6E-8 historic review process will
be documented in the EIS.
This report is provided to assist the BWS in determining the historic significance of
the stairs and the effect of the proposed project and to assist the State Historic
Preservation Division (SHPD) in its concurrence with the findings and
determination of effect summarized in this ILS Report. The ILS Report further
provides potential mitigation guidance on viable actions and alternatives relating to
the future of the Haʻikū Stairs. This report and accompanying supporting
documents serve as a basis for a Determination of Eligibility for historic properties
within the project area (Portions of TMK: (1) 4-5-023, (1) 4-6-014, and (1) 4-6-015),
in accordance with the steps enumerated in Sections 13-275-3 and 6, HAR. Specific
structures and buildings include the Communications Control Link (CCL) Building
and the Cable Car House. The report also discusses four concrete, t-shaped anchor
platforms. These originally provided foundations for the derrick-like A-frames that
supported the antennae. Also, two concrete posts are recorded and discussed.
1 G70, EIS Preparation Notice, April 2017 (Honolulu: For Honolulu BWS, 2017).
3
The Haʻikū Stairs were part of a far larger complex with two district periods of
operation. To provide a larger physical and historical context, other features of both
the 1942 Radar Station and the post-1971 Omega Station are described but are not
part of the present ILS Report. These include the Transmitter Building, the Helix
Building, the Commercial Power Building, and the place-name retaining wall. These
latter buildings and structures are located within the U.S. Coast Guard Station
property at the valley’s bottom—most now on the north side of the H-3. The Tool
Shed, identified in a 1997 survey also was inaccessible, as were additional platforms
that supported the 1940s period antennae. Although relevant to an understanding
of the complex and its history, these have not been included as part of this project.
Table 1. Features Examined and addressed in this ILS Report
Stairs
Communications Control Link Building
Cable Car House
Four (4) concrete anchor platforms
Two (2) concrete posts
Collectively referred to as the “Stairway to Heaven” and the “Haʻikū Ladder,” (and
Haʻikū Stairs) this unique combination of historic radio station and access route (the
stairs) has been a presence in Windward Oahu since 1942, when contractors
working for the Navy first constructed the station toward the rear of the Haʻikū
Valley and provided a combination of ladder (soon replaced by a wooden staircase)
and cable car to provide access for repairs and operation of the facility.
Commissioned in 1943, the radio station provided a much-needed transmitter for
low-frequency radio signals through the introduction of an Alexanderson alternator.
This station, which was located at the top of a 2,800-foot (850 meter) peak,
provided for communication with ships (and submarines) throughout the Pacific (as
far, in fact, as Tokyo Bay) and was an important addition to the United States’
capabilities in the Pacific Theater of Operations in World War II.
4
Figure 1. View from south ridge. November 2017.
With inactivation of the older radio station in 1958 and the eventual
decommissioning of the Naval Station in the 1970s, the U.S. Coast Guard assumed
responsibility for the site. The Coast Guard inherited an up-to-date Omega
Navigation system, operating this for thirty years before shutting down operations
in 1997. The Navy had already, in 1955-1956, replaced the deteriorated wood stairs,
consisting of nearly 4,000 steps (the most accurate historic count before the
removal and loss of some sections was 3,922 steps2), which the Coast Guard
continued to maintain until the station closed. Reflective of the informality of the
time between 1960 and the early 1980s, the public was allowed to use the stairs
until 1987, when they were finally closed to public use by Rear Admiral William P.
Kozlowski, the newly appointed Coast Guard Commander. The Admiral also
ordered the removal of three sections of the stairs as part of his efforts to put a stop
to civilian use.3 Up until the closing the stairs were touted as a tourist attraction by
officials and in magazines aimed at visitors.
2Lee Motteler, “3,922 Steps to the Top,” Sunday Star-Bulletin and Advertiser, 13 September 1981.
3John M. Flanigan, “History of the Ha‘ikū Stairs,” Hawaiian Trails & Mountain Club,
http://www.htmclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/History-of-the-Stairs.pdf, Accessed 12
November 2017.
5
Figure 2. Detail of stairway with H-3 in background. November 2017.
After the closure of the Omega Station in 1997, the Omega Station area was placed
under the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the Stairs were given to the
BWS, which in the 1950s had acquired the land on which the Stairs sit for water
development purposes. The Stairs were the subject of major repairs in 2002-2003
(totaling $875,000), with a view of reopening the attraction to the public—part of
then Mayor Jeremy Harris’s vision for the site. However, the City and County of
Honolulu’s City Council turned down the Stair’s transfer from the BWS to the City.
Haʻikū Stairs Timeline
1942-1943: Stairs and associated features supported by the stairs constructed.
1950s: Land upon which the Haʻikū Stairs sit placed under the administration of the
BWS
1954: Navy allows the Air Force to erect a microwave relay station on the property
1955-1956: Navy replaces wooden stairs with metal stairs, following the route of
the original stairs.
1958: Navy Radio Station deactivated, but Navy retains administrative control over
the facilities
1963: Air Force replaces the microwave relay station with a passive reflective
antenna system
6
1971: Coast Guard assumes management of the property with the commencement
of the conversion of the property into an Omega Station
1972: Original antenna system replaced by Omega antenna system
1975: Omega Station goes on line
1987: Stairs closed to public use
1997: Omega Station closes
1999: Haʻikū Stairs come under the ownership of BWS
2002-2003: City and County of Honolulu repair the Haʻikū Stairs
Present Administration
The BWS now owns the area containing the station and the stairway. Although
there is no specific plan to reopen the stairway, there has been interest among
hikers and tourism officials in providing another visitor attraction. In the meantime,
numerous hikers ignore the “No Trespassing” signs and infringe upon private
property in residential areas close to the stairway in order to gain access. The BWS
is understandably concerned about liabilities. Between 2014 and 2015 eleven hikers
were arrested and another 463 cited by law enforcement officials. Despite a
potential fine of $1000, adventurous residents and tourists still make the climb.
The stairway and concrete support platforms have also been affected by erosion and
notably by storm damage in February 2015, which destroyed a section of the stairs.
Other sections were never restored following their removal in 1987.
7
Figure 3. Assessment team reaching the peak. November 2017.
Project Background
Windy Keala McElroy of KPAC, a subcontractor to the planning firm of G70,

approached William Chapman, a qualified Historic Preservation Consultant
(Historian and Architectural Historian) in May 2017 about the possibility of his
providing an assessment of the facility, including both the stairs and remaining
structures. Chapman agreed to take on the project on May 9, and following further
discussion submitted a preliminary Scope of Work on August 2, 2017. Chapman also
attended a meeting on August 21, 2017 at the SHPD offices in Kapolei to discuss the
requirements of the project and the SHPD expectations for assessment and
recording. Also present were Susan Lebo (SHPD Archaeology Branch Chief), Garnet
Clark (SHPD Archaeology Assistant), Tanya Gumapac-McGuire (SHPD Architectural
Historian), Ernest Lau (BWS Manager and Chief Engineer), Barry Usagawa (BWS
Land Division Program Administrator), Mike Matsuo (BWS Land Division Program
Administrator), Kathleen Pahinui (BWS Information Officer), Alani Apio (BWS
Cultural Consultant) Windy McElroy (KPAC Senior Archaeologist), Jeff Overton (G70
Planning Principal), William Chapman (Historian and Architectural Historian,
Consultant to KPAC), and Kawika McKeague (G70 Senior Planner and Director of
Cultural Planning). Following this meeting Chapman provided a more detailed Scope
of Work, submitting it to Windy McElroy on August 31, 2017.
8
The overall scope was to provide a detailed history and description of the stairs (as
well as the associated radio station once associated with it) and to evaluate the site’s
significance and assess its overall integrity in accordance with Chapter 13-275, HAR.
Specific steps were to include archival research and research of secondary sources;
interviews with those knowledgeable about the site; a survey of the stairs, including
a detailed map along with both assessments of integrity and condition. The results
would be communicated through maps, a written narrative, and photographs. The
ILS Report adheres to Section 13-275-5(5)(C)(b) by providing sufficient information
to complete a National Register nomination, thus giving SHPD an adequate basis for
making historic preservation decisions. It further follows guidance offered in the
Hawai‘i SHPD’s Guidelines: Architectural Historic Resource Surveys and
Documentation (Honolulu: Historic Preservation Division, State of Hawaii, February
2018).
Figure 4. Survey team measuring concrete platform. November 2017.
Project Personnel
The project personnel included William Chapman as the Principal Investigator, Don
Hibbard, former head of the State of Hawai‘i SHPD, as Historical Researcher, and
Elena Lekhter as mapmaker and photographer. Chapman has over forty years of
research experience and experience in historic preservation. He holds a Ph.D. (D.
Phil) in Anthropology and Archaeology from the University of Oxford and a separate
master’s in Historic Preservation from Columbia. He teaches Historic Preservation
at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa and is past member and Chair of the Hawai‘i
Historic Places Review Board. He was classified as an Architectural Historian for the
9
Virgin Islands Territorial Historic Preservation Office (1979-1983) and as a
Historian (Architectural Historian) with the Mid-Atlantic office of the National Park
Service (1983-1985).
Don Hibbard holds an MA and a Ph.D. in American Studies from the University of
Hawai‘i at Mānoa. He has an equal span of experience and has been responsible for
many of the National and State Register nominations in Hawai‘i. Hibbard brings a
wealth of historical research experience and broad knowledge of Hawai‘i’s history.
Elena Lekhter is an accomplished architect and presently a student in the Doctor of

Architecture program at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa. Lekhter was responsible
for the compilation of photographs and the creation of a detailed series of maps and
views showing the extent and present condition of the staircase and for the
illustrations of the remaining two historic buildings/structures located on the route
of the stairway.
Jesse Otto is a graduate student in the Ph.D. program in the Department of American
Studies, the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. He holds a master’s degree in history
from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He assisted in the collection of
newspaper data, interviews, and correspondence.
Justin Wong was responsible for the photography. A graduate of the University of
Hawai‘i’s undergraduate architecture program, he used a high resolution Digital SLR
camera (Nex5R, shooting raw images at 5000 x 4000 megapixels) with a variable
focal-length lens, recording both views and details of features.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The ILS (project) assesses the historic and architectural significance of the U.S. Navy
and later Coast Guard radio complex in the Haʻikū Valley in Kāne‘ohe, O‘ahu. The ILS
is submitted in combination with a complementary ARS prepared by KPAC, to SHPD
to meet State historic preservation review requirements as required under HRS 6E-
8.
This historic and architectural ILS Report is provided to determine the historic
nature of the stairs and to assist the SHPD in its determination of concurrence with
the findings of the ILS.
The specific purpose of the project is to evaluate the historic and architectural
significance of the linear site known as the Haʻikū Stairs, located on the slope of and
along a high ridge of the Ko‘olau Mountains in Windward O‘ahu near Kāne‘ohe and
Kāne‘ohe Bay. Established as a wooden staircase and ladder system in 1942 and
converted to metal around 1955, the staircase is presently inaccessible from a
10
convenient public right-of-way as there is no legal access route and suffers from
over a decade of neglect.
Figure 5. View toward Kāne‘ohe Bay. November 2017.
A significant aspect of the historic preservation section of the report is to address

requirements under state law, Section 6E-8, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) and
Chapter 13-275, HAR, as the property is under the administration of the BWS. Since
the BWS is a county agency, the historic review process requires authorization to
proceed from the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), most
specifically the SHPD and allows for public comment on the proposed undertaking.
Initial steps in the review process require the BWS to identify any properties, assess
their significance and the significance of their parts, and then determine potential
impacts due to project proposals. The final steps take the form of a determination of
effects, expressed in the form of either no adverse effect or adverse effects. Should
effects be determined, the review process generally results in mitigation
commitments being developed between DLNR and the BWS that outlines the
measures the agency will take to ensure that cultural and historic resources
experience minimal or no negative impacts. DLNR must give its written
concurrence to the mitigation proposed by the agency. Failure to comply could
result in legal challenges.
This project specifically addresses section 6E-8:
Before any agency or officer of the State or its political subdivisions

commences any project which may affect historic property, aviation
artifact, or a burial site, the agency or officer shall advise the
department and allow the department an opportunity for review of
the effect of the proposed project on historic properties, aviation
11
artifacts, or burial sites, consistent with section 6E-43, especially
those listed on the Hawaii register of historic places. The proposed
project shall not be commenced, or, in the event it has already begun,
continued, until the department shall have given its written
concurrence.4
This report addresses identification requirements set out by the Hawai‘i SHPD and
follows the expectations for ILS’s5 by taking:
a detailed look at a single resource and records in-depth information

collected from a physical examination of a building’s exterior and
interior. It should include the results of research about the building’s
property and ownership history and identify the resource’s potential
eligibility for the National Register either individually or as a
contributing resource to a historic district.6
Although no materials investigations were conducted as part of this study, surface

level information was recorded, and past reports reviewed. The report also involved
an investigation of archival materials, the collection of historical information,
including original plans and specifications, and a recording of building features and
conditions. These were evaluated against guidance published by the National Park
Service (NPS) for evaluating significant features and spaces of historic properties,7
as well as HAR 13-198 and HAR 13-275. It adheres to the requirements set out in
the SHPD’s Guidelines: Architectural Historic Resource Surveys and Documentation
(Honolulu: Historic Preservation Division, State of Hawaii, February 2018).
The aim of this report is:
1) To assess the existing character of the site, including the staircase,

landings, and historic buildings and structures associated with the radio
station;
2) To assess the overall historic integrity of the features of the site;
3) To identify key architectural components and features;
4 DLNR, Adoption of Chapter 13-275, Hawaii Administrative Rules, October 31, 2002, Rules
Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review …under Sections 6E-7 and 6E-8; State of
Hawaii, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Part I Historic Preservation Program, Section 6E-8, Review of
Proposed State Projects.
5 Hawaii SHPD, Guidelines: Architectural Historic Resource Surveys, January 2017 (Honolulu: DLNR,
2017; Hawai‘i SHPD’s Guidelines: Architectural Historic Resource Surveys and Documentation
(Honolulu: Historic Preservation Division, State of Hawaii, February 2018).
6 Hawaii SHPD, Guidelines, p. 4.
7 Lee H. Nelson, Architectural Character—Identifying Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to
Preserving Their Character, Preservation Brief 17 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, n.d.).
12
4) To evaluate whether the property meets the criteria for listing in the
National and/or Hawai‘i Registers of Historic Places; and
5) To enumerate approaches to preservation and/or mitigation.
This ILS Report employs the guidelines set out by the Hawai‘i SHPD for an ILS. This
includes a narrative history for the buildings/structures located within the route of
the stairway and a map of the stairways, as well as detailed descriptions,
photographs of both interior and exteriors. It further provides a detailed
photographic inventory of the stairway as well as details of areas of historical
significance.
In addition to the individual features, the report also assesses the overall character
of the setting. Finally, the report highlights concerns facing the stairway and their
surroundings.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This project provides an ILS Report of the Haʻikū Stairs and related facilities and
evaluates the site’s eligibly for listing in the Hawai‘i and National Registers of
Historic Places.8 The project additionally followed National Park Service (NPS)
guidance for the completion of architectural and cultural surveys, specifically
National Register Bulletin Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation
Planning as well as former Bulletin 16, How to Complete the National Register Form.9
It further relied on guidance provided in the Hawai‘i SHPD’s Guidelines:
Architectural Historic Resource Surveys, January 2017 (Honolulu: DLNR, 2017), as
well as HAR 13-198 and HAR13-275.
The report followed a methodology that included performing background research,

an extended site visit to photograph and gather basic information on the property
and writing up the results so any significant buildings may be placed in the SHPD’s
Statewide Inventory of Historic Places.
Coverage and Methodology
The ILS Report includes a detailed photographic and architectural record taken at
intervals of approximately every 200 feet in elevation. Precise GPS coordinates were
8 Chapter 6E Historic Preservation, http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/shpd/rules/6E.pdf. Accessed 10

October 2017.
9 Anne Derry, H. Ward Jandl Carol D. Shull, Jan Norman, and Patricia L. Parker, Guidelines for Local
Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning [formerly Bulletin 22] (Washington, D.C.: National Park
Service, 1977, revised 1985); National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Form
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997).
13
gathered using a tracking device (a Trimble TVG 300 Tracker) for later recording on
a high-resolution map. The fieldwork was completed on November 19, 2017, with
four participants, including Don Hibbard, over a period of eight hours. Matt
McDermott of Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i prepared the GPS map. Elena Lekhter
completed a detailed map keyed to individual photographs. Moani Hibbard
completed the photographic log. Chapman and Hibbard conducted archival and
library research, relying on both online sources and previous research as well as
new research both in Hawaii archives and through newspaper index research.
Figure 6. Scaling the stairs. November 2017.
The report included a detailed investigation of the foot trail consisting of 3,922
metal stairs that ascends to Puʻu Keahiakahoe, a 2,800-foot (850 m) peak above the
east valley wall. The trail starts at an elevation of 480 feet (150 m) and covers an
approximate horizontal distance of 4,500 feet (1,400 m) for an average slope of
about 30 degrees (however, some sections are nearly vertical). The report further
included an examination of the two structures/buildings associated with the radar
installation and detailed measurements of each of these features. It further recorded
platforms (built to support the triangular frameworks supporting the antennae
cables) built into the staircase system. The report team obtained permission from
the BWS to access the property.
Approximately eight hours were spent in the field photographing and taking notes
on the physical character of the property and its buildings. Matt McDermott of
Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, a volunteer participant in the survey, completed the GPS
map. Forty hours was devoted to archival and library research. Approximately ten
hours was spent in contacting and interviewing knowledgeable persons. An
additional twenty hours was devoted to cataloging and identifying photographs.
14
Additional work preparing the maps came to thirty hours. One hundred percent of
the area was investigated.
Prior to and following the fieldwork research was undertaken at the Hawai‘i State
Library, Hamilton Library at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa (UHM), and the
Hawai‘i State Archives. Other materials from a variety of archives and sources are
available through secondary materials and earlier reports. These include
particularly materials cited in a report prepared at the time of decommissioning of
the facility in 1997 by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc.10 This
report included substantial references to sources available at the Fort DeRussy
Museum; the U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station; the Naval Public Works Center, the
National Archives and Records Office at San Bruno, California; the Navy Historical
Center, Washington, D.C.; and the Construction Battalion Center in Port Heuneme,
California. In addition to archival materials, the report has relied on a substantial
body of secondary sources and previous unpublished studies (in addition to the
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services report) as well as a thorough collection
of newspaper citations from the Honolulu Advertiser, the Honolulu Star Bulletin as
well as other newspapers and journals. The report research also has relied on
numerous web-based sources now available on the site and its history.
A number of individuals contributed assistance to the project. Historian Jesse Otto

contacted a number of individuals on behalf of the report. These included Vernon
Ansdell, President of the Friends of the Haʻikū Stairs (Friends), Holly Sevier, also
with the Friends, and Jay Silverman. We also corresponded with Stuart Ball, author
of The Hikers Guide to O‘ahu and reached out to John M. Flanigan, who has written
substantially about the stairway and radar facility online. Jeff Dodge, Preservation
Architect with the U.S. Navy at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, provided direction
and background. The report was also able to take advantage of earlier interviews
with Paul Wainwright, retired Vice President, Hawaiian Dredging Co., and
Commanding Officer Paul Zerby, U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station, conducted in 1997.
Compilation and writing followed the collection of published and archival

information and completion of the field work. Elena Lekhter provided an
encapsulated view of the survey, tying photographs from the 200-foot intervals into
a single document to aid in interpretation. Moani Hibbard completed the
photographic log and correlated it to the map. Chapman and Hibbard conducted
archival and library research, relying on both online sources and previous research
as well as new research both in Hawai‘i archives and through newspaper index
research. Measurements taken on site provided background for both building
descriptions and an evaluation of the existing stairway. Approximately 200
10Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. Draft Report: Historic Preservation Survey and
Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places of the U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Located at
Haiku, Kaneohe, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i (Honolulu: Prepared for Edward K. Noda and Associates, Inc.,
1997).
15
photographs provide documentation. These are submitted both as JPEGs and as
TIFFs for ease of reading and to meet the requirements of the Hawai‘i SHPD.
Both William Chapman and Don Hibbard meet the Secretary of Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards as architectural historians and/or historians,
Chapman is professor and chair of the Department of American Studies, he has held
positions as Architectural Historian and Historian (the Government of the U.S. Virgin
islands and the National Park Service, respectively). He also served as six years as a
Historian and Chair of the Hawai‘i Historic Places Review Board. Hibbard is the
former head of the Hawaii SHPD and consults frequently for state, federal, and
international agencies and organizations.
BOUNDARIES OF SURVEY AREA

This study was limited to the stairway and associated structures. These included
the predominantly metal stairway, measuring a horizontal distance of
approximately 4,500 feet (1,400 m); four concrete platforms; three flat sections of
metal walkway; and two buildings/structures. The structures, now in ruins, include
the CCL Building, located at the peak (Building 2) and the intermediary Cable Car
House remains located 650 feet (200 m) northeast of the CCL Building (Building 1).
Previous surveys and archival research suggest the presence of other built features
on the site including a Tool Shed, once located approximately 900 feet (275 m) to
the west (northwest) of the CCL Building along a section of the staircase that is now
removed.
Additional features indicated in the Ogden Environmental and Energy Services

report include supporting structures in the lower part of the valley near the historic
entrance to the radio station facility. These include the Transmitter Building
(sometimes labeled as the Transformer Building), the Helix Building, a Commercial
Power Building, and a Concrete Retaining Wall with an identifying inscription. A
network of paved and dirt roads (and pathways) and parking areas that once served
the complex are another feature of the historic complex.11 All of these features are
described in this report but have not been individually surveyed.
11 Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report.
16
Figure 7. Project area indicated by the yellow line. Features outside the survey area labeled separately.
SETTING
The Ha‘ikū Stairs and associated remnants of the historic naval radio station are
located at the east end (Windward side) of the island of O‘ahu, about one mile (1.6
km) northwest of Kāne‘ohe and five miles (8 km) west-northwest of Kailua. The
valley site is just west of State Route 83 and is bounded on the south by the H-3
highway. The site is presently closed to public access, though historic access was
from Route 83.
Ha‘ikū Valley is an elliptical-shaped valley extending eastward from the Ko‘olau

Range, the most prominent geological feature of the Windward side of the island of
O‘ahu. The remnant of a long dormant shield volcano, the Ko‘olau Range is in fact
the remaining side of a once enormous volcano that slid into the Pacific Ocean
several hundred thousand years ago. (The volcano itself formed from the ocean
floor about 2.5 million years ago, growing in elevation until approximately 1.7
million years ago.)
17
Figure 8. View of Ha‘ikū Valley and ridges, January 1942. Fort DeRussy Army Museum Archives.
Geologists estimate that the volcano probably reached a peak of over 9,800 feet
(3,000 m).12 The present highest peak is Puʻu Konahuanui, which reaches to 3,100
feet above sea level (about 944 m). Puʻu Keahiakahoe, the site of the former radio
facility, is 2,800 feet (850 m) high.
Ha‘ikū Valley presents a deceptive sense of untrammeled nature. The valley contains
three streams, but only one—the north-most Ha‘ikū Stream—flows continuously.
The slopes of the valley are cut by numerous gullies and washes that serve to direct
water toward the valley center during heavy rains (becoming more active in the
months between November and March). One source indicates a second stream,
known as Kaiwike‘e, though this southern channel appears most often to be a dry
gully. Ha‘ikū Stream runs from the upper reaches of the valley, joining Ioleka‘a
Stream at an altitude of 120 feet (127 m). Here they become He‘eia Stream, which
flows north-northeast to discharge into Kāne‘ohe Bay.13 The valley’s windward
location gives it a lush character, its slopes receiving an average of 90 inches of rain
a year, while maintaining a mean air temperature of 73 degrees Fahrenheit (22.77
Celsius).14
12 Richard C. Robinson, The Geology of Oahu (Honolulu: R. Robinson, 2014).

13 Scott S. Williams and Richard Nees, Revised by Deborah I. Olszewski, Mo‘olelo Ha‘ikū:
Archaeological Inventory Survey, Data Recovery, and Monitoring Investigations for the Interstate
Highway H-3 within Ha‘ikū Valley, He‘eia, Ko‘olau Poko District, Island of O‘ahu (Honolulu: Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. for the State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation,
2002).
14 Kiyoshi I. Takasaki, George T. Hirashima, and E. R. Lubke, Water Resources of Windward Oahu,
Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey No. 1894 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969),
pp. 36-38.
18
The surface of the valley is composed of “deep, nearly level to very steep, well-
drained soils that have a dominantly fine-textured subsoil.”15 They are classified as
Lolekaa silty clays, with slopes ranging from 15 to 70 percent. Lolekaa silty clays
range from acidic on the surface layer to extremely acidic in the subsoil. They are
also susceptible to erosion. Due to the character of the soils, the valleys consist
largely of colluvium and alluvium fill.16
The vegetation cover in Ha‘ikū Valley is dense and consists largely of introduced
species. Over the last century, previous land uses in Ha’ikū Valley including military
occupation, landfills, agriculture sites, and the construction of the H-3 Freeway,
coupled with high precipitation and complete lack of land management has resulted
in the valley being overrun with non-native, highly invasive plant species. A lush
forest of aggressive canopy trees like Albezia, Gunpowder, Octopus, Monkeypods
and Banyan trees paired with an understory of Binga-bing, strawberry guava, black
bamboo and hau blanket the existing valley, with only the occasional native species
such as māmaki, neneleau, ‘ōhi‘a, moa, or pala‘ā fern.17
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The history of the Haʻikū Stairs extends from 1942, when the U.S. Navy constructed
a radio station in the Ha‘ikū Valley to communicate with U.S. ships, submarines, and
aircraft across the Pacific. To provide an optimum range, the Navy stretched the
antennae across the Ha‘ikū Valley, a natural bowl on the mountainside.18 For access
they built a series of wood ladders, which were soon replaced by a more permanent
wood staircase with handrails. A cable car to move equipment soon augmented this;
and most personnel preferred to ride the cable car rather than climbing the steep
staircase.
The station was commissioned in 1943. To provide sufficient power, Navy

technicians selected a huge Alexanderson Alternator, an innovation in technology
dating back to 1904 that provided high-frequency alternating current to generate
the continuous radio waves necessary for long distance communication.19 With the
war’s end in 1945, the station remained in use, transferring to the U.S. Coast Guard
in 1971. The Coast Guard inherited the still experimental Omega Navigation System
introduced at Ha‘ikū in the late 1960s. The Coast Guard also inherited the earlier
buildings and the metal stairway, which they repaired as necessary.
15 Donald E. Foote, S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens, Soils Survey of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and
Lanai, State of Hawaii (Washington, D.C.: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1972), p. 8.
16 Foote, Nakamura, and Stephens, Soils Survey, p. 8.
17 Rick Barboza, Haiku Stairs Flora and Fauna Survey (Hui Kū Maoli Ola, LLC, 2018) p. 6.
18 “Haiku Antennae Stretch 1 ½ Miles,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 21 May 1955.
19 The Alexander Association, The Alexanderson Transmitter, http://alexander.n.se/the-radio-
station-saq-grimeton/the-alexanderson-transmitter/?lang=en, 2017, Accessed 12 October 2017.
19
Figure 9. Detail of stairs. November 2017.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s local residents and visitors climbed the steps
despite the presence of the Navy and then the Coast Guard.20 This continued into the
1970s and 1980s as well.21 The facility continued to operate, a factor that insured
some level of maintenance for both the stairway and supporting structures.
However, in 1987, the Coast Guard prohibited public use due to safety concerns and
problems with trespassing and vandalism. With little money available for
maintenance, both stairway and buildings fell into increasing disrepair. One section
west of the CCL Building was dismantled, shortening the stairs to its present 4,500
feet (1,400 m) and cutting off access to the historic Storage Building at the furthest
(western) end of the staircase.
By 1997, with the decommissioning of the station, the stairs were in deteriorated
shape. Both residents and visitors continued to climb the stairs despite warnings
and injunctions. Illegal hiking of the stairs was typically included as an activity
improperly highlighted in visitor guides and tourism brochures and actively
supported by a non-profit organization, the Friends of the Haʻikū Stairs. Following
1997, the Stairs came under the control of the BWS, which since the 1950s had
owned and managed the lands upon which the Stairs stand as a protected
watershed.
In 2002, the City invested $875,000 in repairs. Although the stairs never opened to
the public after these repairs, they gained even more popularity with the advent of
social media and trespassing steadily increased. Throughout the period between
2012 and the present the City has received many complaints from residents living in
the vicinity of the Stairs, issued numerous citations to violators and warned many
others not to trespass. At the same time, the stairway has gained many supporters,
who would like the stairs reopened.
20 “Woman Recued From High Cliff,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 1 June 1964.

21 “Today: Sunday Hikes Are Offered,” Honolulu Star Advertiser, 27 February 1983.
20
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PUBLISHED SOURCES
The Ha‘ikū Stairs and the associated radar station have been the subjects of
numerous articles and reports since the time of their decommissioning in 1997. For
a dramatic story of the construction of the first station, David O. Woodbury’s
Builders For Battle: How the Pacific Naval Air Bases Were Constructed (New York,
1946) is unrivaled. Also helpful was George B. Todd et al.’s Early Radio
Communications in the Fourteenth Naval District, Pearl Harbor (Revised 1985). Other
more scholarly works include Gwenfread Elaine Allen, Hawaii’s War Years, 1941-
1945 (1950); L. S. Howeth, History of Communications-Electronics in the United States
Navy (1963); and Erwin N. Thompson, Pacific Ocean Engineers: History of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in the Pacific (1980). For the overall environmental context
Mo‘olelo Ha‘ikū, by Scott S. Williams and Richard Nees (Revised by Deborah I.
Olszewski) is helpful as is G70’s Ha‘ikū Stairs Study: Environmental Impact Statement
Preparation Notice document of April 2017. There are descriptions of the stairs in a
number of guidebooks and manuals, notably Stuart M. Ball, Jr.’s The Hikers Guide to
O‘ahu (Honolulu, 2013).
The key scholarly publication is by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co.,
Inc. for Edward K. Noda and Associates, Inc., authored by Dot Barton: Draft Report:
Historic Preservation Survey and Nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places of the U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Located at Haiku, Kaneohe, O‘ahu Island,
Hawai‘i (Honolulu 1997). Helpful background on the Omega station and its
technology include Global Security, “Omega Station, Honolulu, Hawaii” (2017);
Thomas P. Nolan and David C. Scull, “Omega Navigation System Status and Future
Plans ([1966]; Navyradio.com’s U.S. Navy Communications Stations (2017); and the
John M. Flanigan website “Naval Radio Station at Haiku.” There are also several
articles in popular journals including Andy Beth Miller, “History: All Aboard for
Haiku,” published in MidWeek magazine in 2014; and Robbie Dingeman, “Haiku
Stairs Closer to Re-Opening,” published in Island Weekly in 2002. John M. Flanigan’s
helpful “History of the Haiku Stairs” is available online. There are also numerous
both printed and online sources covering the Alexanderson alternator and the
Omega Navigation System (specific citations included are included in the
bibliography).
A final source of published information is newspaper articles. These have been

helpfully gathered by John M. Flanigan and can also be retrieved using Chronicling
America and Newspapers.com. Over forty articles dating from 1946 to the present
provide a significant understanding of the course of the development of the station
and its buildings and its stairway and public reactions to various agencies’ plans for
development or removal.
21
DATA SUMMARY
Survey Approach
The survey took place over an eight-hour period on November 19, 2017. GPS
readings taken with a Trimble TVG 300 Tracker were made at 200-foot intervals (28
waypoints), providing data for a detailed map. Fourteen elevation-based GPS points
(numbered 1-12 with separate beginning and ending points) and an additional
fourteen points for other features are indicated on the accompanying map,
constructed from the collected data. (The base map is a USGS Orthoimagery Aerial
Photograph dating to 2011.)
The map also provides GPS data on the four concrete platforms (bases for the
antennae supports), on a lower section of stairway destroyed by a landslide, and the
two buildings/structures included within the route of the stairway. Additional GPS
points identify location of flat metal sections of the stairway. The survey team,
composed of Hibbard and three additional personnel, took notes on features and the
key buildings and structures on the stairway route. They also took high-resolution
photographs from the GPS waypoints in four cardinal directions to provide a sense
of the overall character of the overall site. (Unfortunately, plans to take aerial
photographs using a drone were unsuccessful due to equipment malfunction.) The
team also documented changes in the typology of the stairs, based on relative slope,
including the antennae support platforms, concrete steps, and steeper ladders. They
also documented damaged sections, details of construction, and remnants of earlier
wood stairs visible from the staircase.
Approximately 200 photographs were taken both of views and the individual
features. These included coverage of the construction and existing character of the
stairway and its details as well as images of the four other remaining structures and
buildings associated with the historic radio facility. The stairs themselves cover a
horizontal distance of approximately 4,500 feet (1,400 meters) and have an average
slope of 30 degrees. They ascend from an elevation of 480 feet (150 meters) to a
height of 2,800 feet (850 meters) at the peak of Puʻu Keahiakahoe, the onetime site
of the radio facility.
22
Figure 10. Map of stairway route and survey points. November 2017. Base map 2011.
23
GPS waypoints were subsequently plotted to create an accurate digital map of the
stairway and associated structures/buildings. A total of fourteen of these were
recorded on the accompanying map (numbered 1-12, with separate GPS points for
beginning and ending points and an additional six for the platforms and
buildings/structures, and six to record flat sections of the stairway. Another GPS
point indicates the damaged section along the lower slope of the staircase. A map
and photographic second record incorporate photographs keyed to details of the
maps to provide a more complete sense of the structure of the stairway and
associated features as a whole. Photographs were subsequently tabulated and
labeled and reproduced as JPEGs and TIFFs.
Survey Findings
Over the course of its history the Stairway has undergone several changes. The
original 1940s buildings followed U.S. Navy specifications following the Japanese
attack on Hawai‘i in 1941. Designs for new construction reflected an increasing
desire, beginning even before the war to make all facilities “bomb-proof” in order to
withstand aerial and naval artillery attacks.22 These expectations were applied to
the CCL, the Cable Car House, the Tool Shed, as well as the lower Transmitter
(Transformer) Building and the Helix Building. The original stairway was in fact a
series of wood staircases covering the steepest parts of the site. During the wartime
use, between 1942 and 1945, U.S. Naval personnel tended to rely on the cable car to
access the higher parts of the ridge and to gain access to the CCL Building at the
peak, so the wood staircase was often not used.
The staircase dates to 1955 and was added to replace the then deteriorating wood
staircase by the U.S. Navy during the final years of its management of the site. The
later conversion of the old radio station to a new Omega Station, beginning in the
late 1960s though updated in 1970 changed the configuration of the antennae
system for the radio, eliminating the long cables stretching across the valley and
introducing a single dish-like transmitter installed at the site of the original CCL
Building. The station was also reconfigured at the time with alterations in the lower
buildings and the introduction of new roads and pathways. Repairs throughout the
1960s and 1970s were increasingly sporadic. After an increase in trespassing and
vandalism, and the stairway falling into increased disrepair, by 1987 the Coast
Guard believed the stairway unsafe for civilian access. Repairs in the early 21st
century have further altered the original character of the 1955 period stairs as well,
though the evidence suggests these changes were relatively modest. Other changes
to the Stairs occurred when the City and County made repairs to them in 2001-2002.
At that time, three modules were completely replaced with replicas, and 60-70% of
the stair modules were repaired but not all parts were replaced (e.g., repaired or
22U.S. Department of the Navy, Technical Report and Project History Contracts Noy-3550 and Noy-
4173. Volume 5 of 11, Appendix A, Chapters XIV through XXII, Navfac Construction Battalion Center,
Port Hueneme, CA., A-829. Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, pp. 10-
12.
24
replaced handrails, spikes, treads and/or rails). A landslide also destroyed a short
section of the stairway near the bottom in 2015.
The original buildings, which retain integrity but have degraded over time, were
constructed of cold-poured concrete in keeping with U.S. Navy specifications and
employed conventional assembly methods of their period. This meant that they
were built using wood forms, which were then removed after setting. The concrete
construction required the insertion of metal bars for reinforcement and to harden
them against attack. The construction method adhered to a technology developed in
the early 20th century by engineer Albert Khan (1869-1942), relying on bundled
bars of metal placed within forms prior to the introduction cement. Both the
reinforcing bars and method of construction are still evident on the two buildings
recorded as part of this survey as well as on other structures in the complex.
Ha‘ikū Stairway
The Ha‘ikū Stairway (Ha‘ikū Stairs) begins at an elevation of 480 feet (150 m) above
sea level at the east end of the valley, at the north edge of the present Honolulu
BWS-controlled parcel (TMK (1) 4-6-015:011), and extends in a south,
southeastward direction along the east and south escarpment reaching to the peak
of Puʻu Keahiakahoe, with an elevation of 2,800-feet (850 m) above the valley wall.
The trail covers an approximate horizontal distance of 4,500 feet (1,400 m) for an
average slope of about 30 degrees, with some slopes reaching pitches of as much as
60 to 80 degrees. The stairway originally provided access to the antennae and
anchors associated with the U.S. Navy Radio Station and later offered the same
access to the post-1970 Omega Station operated by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Construction of the stairway began early in 1942. This was a wood stairway
installed in sections along the east and south cliffs of the valley to provide access to
the new construction sites at higher elevations. Access to the ridge was essential for
the complex spanning antennae employed for the Alexanderson alternator-powered
radio station. Intended to reach U.S. ships and submarines as far away as Tokyo,
Calcutta, and western Australia, the Navy selected the Ha‘ikū Valley due to its high
and steep slopes and its bowl-like character.
25
Figure 11. Stairway section. November 2017.
Figure 12. Wood stairs and concrete support bases, ca. 1943. Photo Len Hardy.
26
The antennae stretched across the valley, held by deeply anchored supports spaced
around the valley’s periphery. The Navy selected two “high-scalers,” Bill Adams and
Louis Otto, both veterans of the construction of the Hoover Dam, to ascend the
mountain ridge, driving pins into the walls to support a series of wood ladders.23
Workers below assembled these and the two hikers carried six-foot sections up for
installation. The initial climbing effort took over three weeks, while completion of
the system of ladders extended well into 1943.
Figure 13. Remnant wood rail or stringer. Ogden 1997.
Following the commissioning of the station in 1943, the system of ladders was
improved through the installation of true stairs. This was a gradual process and
lasted well over a year. The staircase system provided a structure for a 2300-volt, 3-
phase, 60-cycle power line, which was attached to one side of the stairway. A second
cable (a 26 pair parkway communication cable), providing for telephone
communication, stretched along the other rail.
Figure 14. Remaining wood section. Ogden 1997.
23David O. Woodbury, Builders for Battle: How the Pacific Naval Air Bases Were Constructed (New
York: E. P. Dutton, 1946), pp. 353-367.
27
The resulting stairway was some 8,000 feet long and included some 3,500 feet of
wood ladders and staircases constructed in the early part of 1943 and extending
into the following year. Galvanized steel ladders supplemented the wood sections.
In August 1944, Lieutenant Klepper, the officer in charge, proposed extending the
stairway beyond the CCL Building to the north edge of the valley.24 Since this
required little change of elevation the system devised was a catwalk network of
individual sections unified by a lightweight guardrail. Parts of this access way
remained a pathway supplemented by a steel rod and cable handrail for safety and
support. The total cost was estimated at $1000 for materials and 6,000 hours of
labor. In the meantime, the cable car system allowing workers to ride from a lower
platform to the Cable Car Building near the CCL Building became the preferred
method of transportation.
Figure 15. Detail of stair section. November 2017.
The postwar era would introduce a number of important changes. Contractor

Walker Moodey installed 950 feet of galvanized steel sections, replacing damaged
wood stairs in 1947.25 Around the same time, the north section catwalk and
pathway was removed, salvaged material being used for repairs to sections of the
24 H. S. Klepper, Letter to the Public Works Department, National Archives and Records, San Bruno, 3
February 1943. Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 17.
25 Ibid.
28
original staircase.26 In 1971, with the transfer of the station to the Coast Guard,
additional improvements were introduced. Already in 1955 and 1956 the Navy had
begun the process of replacing the wood staircase with steel sections.27 Most of the
wood staircases were simply discarded along the way, where sections are still
visible today. In some instances, workers altered the route slightly for greater
efficiency.
The present staircase dates from this 1955-1956 period, although portions of the
stairs have been replaced or repaired. Each component of the metal staircase is a
standardized six-foot section, anchored to the mountain with steel pins. Each
section includes two metal stringers supporting diamond-patterned treads, each
attached with bolts. The angle of the steps can be adjusted individually to take into
account the varying pitch of the section. Metal handrails, supported on metal
balusters, extend along each side of the stairs. A steel brace is welded onto the ends
of each section for greater stability. These serve too as the bases for the handrails.
Figure 16. Treads and rails. November 2017.
The handrails themselves are approximately 2½ inches (6.35 cm) in diameter and
feature curved, right-angle turns at each end. They extend 34 (.86 m) inches above
the level of the stringer. The handrails are secured by means of a flat, rectangular
26 Personal Communication, Paul Zerby, March 1997. Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy
Services, Draft Report, p. 55.
27 Lee Goodson, Mountain Valley Mystery Unfolds, Brochure, U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station, n.d.
29
plate to the outer edge of the stringers. A few feature double rails on each side,
though the great majority is single. Steel “joiners” fill the openings between rails on
a few segments, providing a continuous horizontal band for hand support. These are
connected to adjacent rails with a simple bolt-mounted coupling. Plan, section and
elevation engineering drawings of the different stair module types done by the
Nakoa Companies are provided in Appendix A.
The metal staircase sections make up most of the stairway. Level areas feature steel
platforms; there are also concrete stairs, added early in the construction process in
the location of the Cable Car Building. In some areas the stairs are relatively steep, in
others they resemble a metal footpath. There are some sections of catwalks and,
toward the peak, remaining areas of natural pathway with indications of the original
steel handrails still visible. Alterations include period repairs and maintenance,
major repairs to damaged sections; in 1987 vandals destroyed three six-foot
sections, which were later replaced. The 2001 repair project sponsored by the
mayor’s office resulted in the replacement of three stair modules and targeted
repairs and replacements on 60-70% of the rest of the modules. For example, newer
patterned treads are visible mostly at the upper reaches of the stairway.
In 2015, a section, comprised of five sections, was damaged in a flood and small
landslide. This section is located at the lower (northern) end of the stairway and is
indicated on the accompanying map. Otherwise, the stairway is moderately intact
for a structure dating back more than seventy years.
Cable Car House (Building 1)
Figure 17. Hoist or Cable Car Building, ca. 1943. Fort DeRussy Army Museum Archives.
30
Also known as the hoist house, this building is located along the stairway at an
elevation of 2,440 feet (743.87 m), on the ridge leading up to the summit of Puʻu
Keahiakahoe. The Cable Car Building (Building 1 on the accompanying map)
originally served as the point of debarkation for materials and personnel working
on the antenna above Ha‘ikū Valley and its accompanying structures, or who later
were en route to the CCL Building (Building 2). The Cable Car Building provided an
expedient means of transportation between the valley floor and the ridge. The
building housed the cable mechanism. The building is vacant and in ruins.
Construction began on the hoist house during late 1942 as part of the Navy's World
War II Pacific efforts. The single-story building follows an L-plan with the 14 by 25-
foot (4.3 by 7.6 m) main body of the building running perpendicular to the ridge and
the 8-foot 10-inch (2.7 by 3.4 m) base of the L facing down the ridge. The 12-foot 9-
inch high (3.9 m), poured in place, reinforced concrete walls are 8 inches (20 cm)
thick. The building sits on a poured in place concrete slab foundation, on a relatively
broad and flat part of the ridge. A 6-foot 2-inch by 8-foot 6-inch (1.9 by 2.6 m) shed
roofed room is attached to the main body of the building on its upslope side. It is
made of concrete block. On the upslope wall the course immediately below the top
course is laid on its side with the cores exposed, providing the chamber with
ventilation.
Figure 18. Hoist, ca. 1944. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records.
The building’s roof is no longer intact, having been removed due to concerns
regarding asbestos.28 However, the gable-roof framing remains above the main
body, as does the shed-roof’s framing and the wing’s flat roof framing. All that
remains of the main body of the building’s roof is four steel Fink trusses with angle
28 Flanigan, “History of the Ha‘ikū Stairs.”
31
iron chords and members, which support a pair of steel angle iron purlins on each
side of the former ridge. The shed-roofed room retains its shed roof’s two 4-inch
pipe rafters and an angle iron top plate on its long wall. Three similar pipe rafters
also remain above the wing at the base of the L.
Figure 19. Cable Car House, 1997. Ogden 1997.
The main building has four openings. In the end wall of the wing forming the base of
the L is a rectangular window opening that looks down slope at the stairway. In the
wall defining the base of the L are two openings: a 3-foot 3-inch (1 m) wide doorway
at the downslope end of the wall and to the upslope end of the wall a 4-foot 7-inch
(1.4 m) wide opening for the cable car. The cable car opening retains the triangular,
steel I-beam structure, including the pulley, which supported the cable car’s cable.
Near the base of the triangular structure is a gear system that also was involved in
the cable car’s operation. The fourth opening exits the building on its upslope side.
This doorway is 4-feet 7-inches (1.4 m) wide and is surmounted by a large transom
that extends beyond the doorway into the wall. A remaining wood frame indicates
the window had three lites (panes).
Immediately to the left, as one exits the upslope doorway is a shed-roofed room.
This room contains some rusted equipment, and its only entry is a side doorway.
Beyond the upslope doorway concrete steps begin the stairway’s ascent up the
mountain to the CCL Building.
32
Figure 20. Building 1, Cable Car House. November 2017.
The Cable Car Building has been abandoned for many years and is gradually lapsing
into ruin. It remains a contributing feature to the stairway site and an integral part
of the site’s interpretation and history.
Communications Control Link (CCL) Building (Building 2)
The CCL building is located at the top of the stairway at an elevation of 2,802 feet
(854.09 m), at the summit of Puʻu Keahiakahoe.
The CCL Building originally provided VHF communication between Kāneʻohe and
Wahiawā, in the event the regular communications lines failed.29 In 1954 the Navy
allowed the U.S. Air Force to use the building as an unattended microwave relay
station. The Air Force made modifications in 1963 as well.30 Photographs indicate
that the present microwave dish dates to sometime prior to 1960.31 The building is
presently vacant and in ruins.
Construction began on the CCL Building during late 1942 as part of the Navy's
World War II Pacific efforts. The single-story building follows a 13 by 20 foot (4.0
by 6.1 m) rectangular plan and has a reinforced concrete, flat roof with overhanging
eaves. A microwave antenna dates from the building’s use by the U.S. Air Force,
beginning in 1954, with the dish modified in 1963.32 The building has 8-foot 10-
inch (2.7 m) high, concrete block (CMU) walls.

30 Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 32.
32 U.S. Department of the Navy, SECNAVNOTE 5450, Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy
33
Figure 21. CCL Building. The dish appears to have been added in 1956, ca. 1960 U.S. Coast Guard Omega
Station Records.
On the down slope side is the front of the building, featuring a right of center, 3-foot
11-inch (1.2 m) wide doorway, the only opening in the building. To the left of the
doorway is a former opening that has been in-filled with concrete blocks. On the left
side of the building, near its rear is a 5-foot 10-inch by 7-foot 10-inch (1.8 by 2.4 m)
concrete block addition.
The addition is lower than the main building, and also has a reinforced concrete flat
roof with overhanging eaves. The single-room addition is entered on its long side
through a 5-foot 3-inch (1.6 m) wide doorway. A square window opening is on its
downslope side. The interior the building has a concrete floor and ceiling. Metal
framing to house Omega equipment still remains.
When the station converted to the improved Omega Station in 1971, the CCL
Building underwent some alterations to accommodate the new function. These
alterations are over fifty years old and considered historic in their own right. The
CCL Building has been abandoned since the Coast Guard ceased operations, and is
gradually lapsing into ruin. It remains a contributing feature to the stairway site
and an integral part of the site’s interpretation and history.
34
Figure 22. Top Building, CCL Building. November 2017.
Concrete Platforms
In addition to the two buildings located along the stairway, there are also four
concrete platforms and two concrete posts. The platforms served as foundations
that held the steel A-frames, which were anchor towers supporting the antenna
running above Ha‘ikū Valley. The T- and H-shaped anchor foundations are solid
concrete and are embedded 10 feet or more in the ground.
The lowest platform is located along the path of the stairway at 1,646 feet (501.71
m) elevation. It is a T-shaped structure with the head of the T measuring 5 feet 10
inches by 9 feet 11 inches (1.88 cm by 3.0 m) and the base of the T measuring 1 foot
6 inches by 8 feet 2 inches (.45 cm by 2.5 m). Next to this anchor foundation is a
second L-shaped concrete foundation measuring 5 feet 1 inch by 7 feet 2 inches
(1.55 by 2.2 m) and 2 feet by 4 feet 1 inch (.6 cm by 1.25 m).
35
Figure 23. Location of anchor sites for radio facility. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records. Date
unknown.
The second platform is at the 2,430 feet (740.66m) elevation, at the base of the hill
on which the hoist house is sited. The concrete structure has an H shape. One leg
measures 8 feet 6 inches by 13 feet 9 inches (2.6 by 4.2m), while the other measures
7 feet 8 inches by 12 feet 1 inch (2.35 cm by 3.7 m). The cross bar is 2 feet by 9 feet
6 inches (.6 by 2.9 m).
The third and fourth platforms are similar. The third is at the 2450-foot (761.9 m)
elevation, while the fourth is at 2634-foot (802.85 m) height. Both platforms have
the same H shape. One leg measures 8 feet 6 inches by 13 feet 9 inches (2.6 by 4.2
m), while the other measures 7 feet 8 inches by 12 feet 1 inch (2.35 by 3.7 m). The
cross bar is 2 feet by 9 feet 6 inches (.6 by 2.9 m).
Figure 24. Measuring platform 3. November 2017.
36
In addition to the four platforms, there are two concrete posts along the route of the
stairway. These are located on the valley side of the stairway, within 10 feet (3.05
m) of each other, near the point where the ramped metal walkway returns once
again to steps to make the final ascent to the CCL Building. The 2-foot (61 cm)
square posts stand approximately 4 feet 10 inches (1.48 m) high. Their functions
have yet to be determined.
The concrete foundations and posts retain their original character, although the
anchors they supported are no longer extant. The foundations and posts have been
abandoned for a number of years; however, they remain a contributing feature to
the stairway site and an integral part of the site’s interpretation and history.
Archival and library research indicate that there was a fifth concrete platform on the
south ridge. This appears to have been outmoded sometime in the early 1950s when
the five span radio antennae was reduced to four spans.33 The foundation platform
may have been removed at this time or simply fell into disrepair. It is no longer
visible on the site.
Associated Buildings and Structures Outside the Survey Area
As previously explained, the Haʻikū Stairs were part of a far larger complex with two
district periods of operation. To provide a larger physical and historical context,
other features of both the 1942 Radar Station and the post-1971 Omega Station are
described but are not part of the present ILS Report. Buildings and structures
outside the survey area include one additional structure on the upper ridge and
additional platforms to support the original cable-like antennae and other
structures and buildings in the valley bottom, near the north end of the Ha‘ikū
Valley that served as the base facility for the radio operations.
The H-3 corridor now separates some of the buildings and structures at the north
end of the Ha‘ikū Valley from the valley itself and the remaining structures and
buildings associated with the high-elevation operations of the 1940s radio facility
and post-1965 Omega Station. The U.S. Coast Guard Station has also experienced a
significant period of inactivity and many of the historic structures associated with
the complex—notably wood buildings and other more “temporary” structure—are
no longer present.
33Ronald T. K. Ching, Personal Communication, June 1997. Cited in Ogden Environmental and
Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 34.
37
Figure 25. View of valley floor, showing location of Transmitter Building, H-3, and other facilities.
Ridge and Puʻu Keahiakahoe Peak
Tool Shed
The Tool Shed is a concrete structure located along the southwest edge of the
escarpment. It was accessed via a section of level stairway or gangplank extending
westward (northwestward), approximately 900 feet from the CCL Building. Historic
Photographs and earlier reports show this to be a rectangular structure measuring
approximately 10 by 12 feet (3.48 by 3.66 m) with an elevation from 4 to 10 feet
(1.21 to 3.38 m).
Figure 26. Tool shed, identified in Ogden 1997.
38
This property was inaccessible due to the removal of the metal catwalk and rail
system. Invasive shrubs and tree growth obscure its appearance and location.
Additional Concrete Platforms
An additional four concrete platforms were located in the vicinity of the Tool Shed.
These no doubt resemble their companions on the opposite side of the valley,
located along the existing metal staircase and indicated on the accompanying map.
These have not been located nor included in the survey.
Lower Ha‘ikū Valley and U.S. Coast Guard Station
The lower Ha‘ikū Valley possesses several structures and buildings associated with
both the 1940s period radio station and the post-1955 Omega Station. These lie on
the north side of the H-3 and have been subject to alterations in both more recent
time and during their time of use, in the 1950s and 1960s. These are summarized
here for reference.
Four buildings/structures were noted as potentially contributing buildings for a

proposed historic district in the 1997 Ogden Environmental and Energy Services
report.34
Transmitter Building
Located on the northwest side of the valley, the Transmitter Building was sited to
provide for a direct relay to the antennae hanging from the surrounding cliffs. The
building contained the transmitter for radio communications and included a helix
(coil) of wire used to regulate the resistance of outgoing signals. It was later
converted to house the same functions for the Omega Station.
Construction began in late 1942, undertaken by U.S. Navy engineers. Nearly square
and measuring 84 by 74 feet (25 by 22.5 m), the building followed prescribed Navy
construction specifications and was of reinforced concrete, constructed on site. With
its thick flat roof and walls, the structure was designed to withstand artillery or
aerial bombardment.35 This quality was evident as well in its solid, windowless
façades and its hardened entranceway, located on the south side of the building. For
added protection, the building also received a wartime coating of camouflage paint.
The interior contained the helix, transmitter and a ten-ton crane to move
equipment.

35
39
Figure 27. Transmitter Building under construction, April 1943. U.S. Coast Guard Station Omega Station
Records.
A fire occurred in April 1943, an event that resulted in a reinstallation of the tuning
coils and other equipment.36 Further alterations took place in the 1960s, with the
installation new equipment for the new experimental Omega Station. In 1971, the
U.S. Coast Guard expanded the building with a one-story generator room addition on
the north side. The Coast Guard also contracted for a new helix roof on the south
end of the roof. Offices and a recreation area were added to the interior second
floor.37
Figure 28. Alternator, Transmitter Building, ca. 1944. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records.
36 U.S. Department of the Navy, Technical Report and Project History Contracts, 1944, A-816. Cited in
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p.25.
37 Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 43.
40
Figure 29. Aerial view, Transmitter Building. Ogden 1997.
These changes have cumulatively altered the exterior and interior appearance and
character of the 1942-period building. However, the basic core and configuration of
the reinforced building remains intact, suggesting it possesses sufficient integrity
for eventual listing. This evaluation would have to be revisited were an evaluation of
eligibility take place.
Figure30. Transmitter Building today. G70 October 2017.
Helix Building
41
The Helix Building also dates to the earliest construction period or 1942. Located
approximately half a mile (.8 km) from the entrance road, this building serviced a
subsidiary TCG antenna, with a separate helix, two anchors, a wire span, and ground
system separate from the VLF (Very Low Frequency) antennae, although it relied on
the same transmitter. In use until at least 1954, the building’s construction began in
December 1942 and was completed in 1943.38
Figure 30. Aerial view, Helix Building. Ogden 1997.
The Helix Building measures 44 by 32 feet (13.4 by 9.7 m) and reaches a height of
36 feet (11 m). Built on a continuous concrete foundation, the walls are bomb-
proofed concrete with thick walls and roof. The east and west walls feature
rectangular openings for the antennae cables; the single entrance is on the north
side. As with the Transmitter Building, this contains a heavy “blast door” of heavy
concrete, rising about 13 feet above grade.
38U.S. Department of the Navy, Letter to BuDocks, 1942, National Archives and Records, San Bruno,
CA. Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 42-46.
42
Figure 31. Bomb-proof entry, Helix Building, 1997. Ogden 1997.
The interior is a single large room lined with copper. Raised concrete platforms held
the helix coils; trenches surrounding these accommodated wires.
A small concrete block room was added to the structure subsequent to its original
construction, possibly in the 1950s. It is now missing its roof and any indication of
its original use. The original building is otherwise unchanged, due to the fact that
few alterations were undertaken in the period after 1955 and that the bombproof
construction proved too solid for demolition.
Commercial Power Building
The Commercial Power Building also dates to 1942, with completed construction
finalized in 1943. Located about ¼ mile (.4 km) past the main gate, the Commercial
Power Building measured 27 by 26 feet (8.2 by 7.9 m) with a height of 20 feet (6.1
m). It too is of reinforced concrete construction meant to withstand bombardment.
The entranceway has its own roof, elevated about 10 feet (3 m) above grade on the
north side of the building. Mesh-covered air vents are located above the entrance.
Insulator cables are still visible on the west side.
43
Figure 32. Commercial Power Building, 2017.
The building served as a power vault for power from outside the U.S. Naval Station.
It continued to provide this function during the time of U.S. Coast Guard
management. It was still in use as of 1997.
Retaining Wall
A reinforced concrete retaining wall is located about ½ mile (.8 km) including the
gateway, on the north side of the road. It helped create an area of level ground for
ancillary structures, including the mess hall and barracks for the Naval Station.
Standing about four feet above grade and reducing to two feet at either end, the wall
includes the inscription “U S N R S, Haiku Valley” on its south side.
Figure 33. Section of retaining wall. Ogden 1997.
44
Figure 34. Inscription on the wall. The steps led up to a grassed recreation area, Keala Pono, 2018.
DETAILED HISTORY
Significance
The Ha‘ikū Stairs is a remnant of two significant periods in the history of the United
States and of the Hawaiian Islands. The first is the World War II era, when the forces
of the Empire of Japan attacked the supposed fortress island of O‘ahu. The second is
the postwar Cold War Era after 1945, when the original radio facility at the east end
of O‘ahu was updated as part of a greater network of national defense. The Ha‘ikū
Stairs are associated with a number of broad patterns contributing to Hawaiì’s
history (Criterion A). These include its associations with early radio technology in
Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i’s significance for military communications during World War II and
the period following.
Built to provide access to the antennae anchors for the U.S. Navy’s radio station, the
stairs supplemented a cable car for taking personnel and equipment to the top of the
rearmost ridge of the Ha‘ikū Valley, the 2,800-foot (850 meter) peak of Puʻu
Keahiakahoe. Replaced by a metal stairway in 1955, the stairs retain a sense of their
original setting and provide testimony to the efforts of U.S. Navy and later U.S. Coast
Guard engineers and laborers in erecting the originally as much as over 8,000-foot
long structure.
The metal stairway has additional significance during the time of the post-1971
Coast Guard-manned Omega station, which played a significant role in radio
communication in the Pacific area during the Cold War. Together with additional
45
buildings located in the base camp and the altered CCL Building, which served as
base for the communication dish that was installed in 1954, the stairway is also a
component of a relatively intact set of buildings and structures associated with the
period between 1955 and closure of the installation in 1997.
The metal staircase and remaining platforms and structures have additional
noteworthiness as an incidental tourist attraction throughout the late 20th century
(even during the period of primary use as a radio station) as the stairs became the
focus of numerous hikers and adventurers in the period between around 1960 and
1987 when they were still relatively open for public use.
Early Radio Technology in Hawai‘i
As a site of the war’s outbreak for the United States, Hawai‘i had long played a role
in the development of radio communications in the Pacific. The first Marconi
Station, a venture incorporated and licensed only in 1899, came to Hawaii in 1901.39
As of November 1904 there were some fifteen Navy radio stations throughout the
world, but none in Hawai‘i.40 However, by 1906 the Navy Radio Station in Honolulu
was fully functioning and capable of sending messages from a distance of 140 miles
and receiving from as far away as 225 miles.41 The Navy apparently relied on
equipment supplied by the Telefunken Company of Germany, specifically their
Slaby-Arco equipment. These were relatively simple devices allowing no provision
for changing transmitter frequency.42
39 Don Hibbard and Mayu Ohama, National Register of Historic Places, Marconi Wireless Station, Ref.
No. 13000352, February 2012. See also Henry Brown, The American Marconi Station, Marion,
Massachusetts, http://www.qsl.net/w1aa/marion_1.txt, Accessed 23 November 2017.
40 George B. Todd, Early Radio Communications in the Fourteenth Naval District, Pearl Harbor,
Territory of Hawaii (n.p.: Old Timer Communicators, Revised 1985), pp. 1-5.
41 Ibid.
42 Tab-Funkenwerk.com, History of the Telefunken AG, http://www.tab-funkenwerk.com/id42.html,
Accessed 23 November 2017.
46
Figure 35. Marconi Station, Kahuku, O'ahu, early 20th century.
Gradually the Navy was able to introduce improvements and modifications to

systems they had purchased. Original transmitters were modified to give a 500-
cycle note rather than the original 50-cycle note.43 However, nearly all radio
communication, both military and civilian, operated on the same frequency, causing
frequent problems. When the issuance of notices to commercial radio and civilian
ships did not allay the problem, the Navy turned to improvements in receivers.
Crystal detectors replaced electrolytic versions by 1910. Transmission ranges also
improved. In 1911, the Navy purchased a number of new Telefunken transmitters
allowing them to make further modifications independently.44
In September 1912, the Office of the Superintendent, Naval Radio Service was
established. (The U.S. Navy eschewed the British term “wireless” in favor of the U.S.
term.) Divided to cover specific geographical areas, the new service included three
areas: the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Philippines, each headed by a
Superintendent.45 The succeeding decade saw improvements in receivers and the
ability to send messages over greater distances. By 1915, the transmitters at all
shore stations featured Telefunken, Chaffee, or Lowenstein quenched-gap or
Fessenden rotary-gap spark transmitters.46 These upgraded transmitters allowed
for simultaneous transmission over several frequencies extending the effectiveness
of radio communication between the shore and ships and other vessels at sea.
43 Todd, Early Radio Communications, pp. 3-6.

44 Ibid.
45 Navy Department, Naval Communication Service, Report of the Director of Naval Communications,
October 7, 1916 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1917).
46 Ibid.
47
Figure 36. Radio Station in Darien, Panama Canal Zone.
In 1913, construction began on a new radio station at Darien in the Panama Canal
Zone. Congress further authorized construction of new stations on the California
coast, Hawai‘i, Samoa, Guam, and the Philippines.47 Naval planners decided to equip
the Hawai‘i and Philippines Stations with transmitters capable of reaching each
other, eliminating the need to relay messages through Guam. Transmission towers
were constructed at Pearl Harbor and at Cavite near Manila, the system becoming
operational by the end of 1917.48
In 1917, following the U.S. entry into World War I, the Navy took over all amateur
and commercial radio communication systems. By then, those included in the 14th
Naval District included a facility at Pearl Harbor; another at He‘eia Point, also on
Oahu; the former Marconi Station at Kahuku; a fourth at Koko Head; and another at
Wahiawā, near Schofield Barracks. There were other stations at Tutuila in Samoa;
on Guam, in the Marianas Islands; and at Russian island, Siberia (with the
cooperation of Imperial Russian forces in Vladivostok).49 In 1919, the Navy
purchased a parcel of land at Wailupe for an additional station, allowing
subsequently for the remodeling of stations at Kahuku and Koko Head.
With the armistice in November 1918, the Navy returned all commercial stations to
their owners. Subsequently, the Navy pushed for greater funding, with many
stations short of personnel, with an estimated 40 percent shortfall.50 The Navy also
wanted to improve equipment, building upon existing high-powered arcs and
introducing new kinds of antennae. Another key improvement was to cooling
47 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid., p. 10.
48
systems. Communication was by Morse code, with local communication taking place
over mostly Army-maintained landlines.51
The biggest improvements were in terms of receiving equipment. This included

Models A, B, and C receivers and later SE 143, SE 1420, SE 1530, and SE 1899 units.
These were manned on a 24-hour basis, insuring rapid response in the event of
ocean-going distress as well as simply daily communication. By the mid 1920s,
Hawai‘i was in direct communication with the Naval Radio Station at San Diego
(NPL), with broadcasts every hour. The station at Wailupe communicated with
Tokyo (JAA) once nightly, where messages could be relayed to Java (PKX). There
were also daily communications with San Francisco (NPG).52
The late 1920s brought changes in frequencies. Following tests in 1925, the
Commander in Chief recommended a shift to high frequency communication. As a
result, Naval radio stations then employed both low frequency (between 4000 and
4525 Kilohertz (kHz)) as well as maintaining high frequency channels of 9000
kHz.53
Figure 37. Navy Radio Station at Wailupe, ca. 1926. Hawai‘i State Archives.
By the late 1930s, with the buildup for possible war in the Pacific, the Navy
embarked upon a new series of upgrades for its radio facilities. Stations at Wailupe
and He‘eia still operated (though He‘eia was winding down) and a new station at
Lualualei, begun in 1931, received much of the equipment from the older Pearl
Harbor station. By this period communications had improved to a point where there
was direct communication between San Diego and Cavite in the Philippines,
51 Ibid., p. 15.
52 Naval History and Heritage Command, Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II, Vol. II (Part I),
(Washington, D.C. United States Printing Office, 1947).
49
eliminating the need for operators in Hawaii to relay messages aimed at more
distant stations. By 1939, with the move of the U.S. 7th Fleet to Pearl Harbor, there
were nine transmitters at Lualualei; two years later the number had increased to
twelve.54
By the eve of the war the primary broadcasts were from Lualualei, with Wailupe still
responsible for communicating with Samoa (NPU), Wellington (ZLP), Auckland
(ZLD), and Canberra (VHC). Dutch harbor, Peking (Beijing), and Shanghai were
worked on a daily basis. There was still a manual circuit in operation from NAS
Pearl Harbor, which connected to Midway (NQM), Johnston Island (NIQ), Palmyra
Island (NIX), and Wake (NCL), relying on transmitters located at Wailupe.55 All of
the Naval Air Stations, including those at Pearl Harbor and Barber’s Point, also
provided air to ground communications and radio aids to navigation.
The Pearl Harbor Attack and Navy Responses
At the time of the attack in the early morning of December 7, 1941, the low
frequency transmitter at Lualualei was closed for repairs. However, a sufficient
number of high-frequency transmitters allowed for essential communication. The
Naval Radio Station, San Diego (NPL) took over some of the Lualualei
responsibilities for maintaining contact with the fleet. But by mid-1942, Lualualei
was back on-line.56 The Army, in the meantime, coordinated with Wailupe and
between Fort Shafter and Wailupe, four frequencies of the 4235 kHz series were in
communication with naval vessels and airplanes.
Soon, however, communication was broken between Guam and Cavite and Hawai‘i
and other Navy Radio Stations. Soon afterward, Midway and Johnston were off-line
and by late December communication ceased with the station at Wake Island. The
last communication from the Philippines would be on May 6, 1942.57 Soon
communication was shifted to Australia, as the U.S. Fleet began the long campaign to
renew its presence in the Pacific.58
The immediate concern in Hawai‘i was to better protect the existing radio stations
and, in some cases, to transfer equipment from one place to another.59 On December
10, Navy personnel moved equipment from Wailupe to Wahiawā, where a new
larger station commenced on December 17 “without the slightest interruption of
54 Gregg K. Kakesako, “Lualualei,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, October 5, 1998.

55 Todd, Early Radio Communications, p. 21.
56 Ibid., p. 22.
57 Ibid., p. 23.
58 Ian W. Toll, The Conquering Tide: War in the Pacific Islands, 1942-1944 (New York: W. W. Norton,
2015).
59 See Gwenfread Elaine Allen, Hawaii’s War Years, 1941-1945 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
1950).
50
communication.”60 Wahiawā’s facilities had already been made bombproof and
naval technicians worked within Operations Building No. 2. The U.S. Coast Guard at
Diamond Head assumed responsibility for receiving high-frequency distress signals,
beginning a new phase of cooperation between the services.61
Beginning in February, the Navy ordered that all radio communication be

transmitted simultaneously on high as well as very low frequencies (VLF). This
resulted in far better coverage than previously. Improvements in transmitting
equipment meant that Wailupe soon had a strong link with Alaska, the Canal Zone,
and the Navy Department in Washington, D.C.62 Soon after, the station at San
Francisco relieved Wailupe for the northern Pacific and Alaska, so that the Hawaii-
based station could concentrate on activities in the Central and South Pacific areas.
Figure 38. Lt. Butzine sketch of radio station layout, May 25, 1942. National Archives and Records, San
Bruno, CA.
With expansion of U.S. forces into the South Pacific in the late spring of 1942,
Wahiawa coordinated with the communication ship USS Argonne. Once U.S. forces
had established a CoSoPac headquarters at Nouméa in New Caledonia in October the
situation improved. However, it was only when communications expanded with
Melbourne 1942 that the U.S. had a secure means of communicating with its forces
and those of allies in the South Pacific. In time, the Navy installed new transmitters
at the reactivated station at He‘eia, as well as providing new equipment at Lualualei.

61 Love Dean, The Lighthouses of Hawai‘i (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1991), pp. 34-35.
51
By 1943, the officer in charge of the station at Lualualei declared, following the
installation of a new cooling system for the high-frequency transmitters, that
Lualualei was “one of, if not the finest, radio transmitting stations in existence.”63
The New Station at Ha‘ikū
As early as the spring of 1942, the Navy drew up plans for a new station at Ha‘ikū.
The dramatic mountain valley on the Windward side of Oahu provided an ideal
location for the new type of station envisioned by Navy planners. Protected by the
high walls of the horseshoe-shaped Ha‘ikū Valley, the site afforded excellent
protection from aerial and seaward attack. The Navy further specified that the key
buildings be constructed according to the newest Navy designs, with solid
reinforced concrete walls and thick bombproof roofs.64 The principal innovation,
however, was the long, suspended antennae required for the new station. These
stretched from one side of the valley to the other, anchored along the tops of the
ridges by an elaborate construction of counterweighted A-frames.65
Figure 39. Face of south ridge, Haʻikū Valley, ca. 1942. Fort DeRussy Army Museum Archives.
Construction of the facility was slow and “fraught with difficulties,” as a later writer
commented.66 It was also expensive. The project included the construction of at
least five large concrete structures, as well as concrete pads for the antennae
anchors at high and steep elevations. The highest antenna spanned 7,500 feet at a
height of 2,800 feet. To do this materials and equipment had to be transported to
63 Ibid., p. 24.
64 Naval History and Heritage Command, Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II.
65 “Navy Built Haiku Radio Transmitter In Secrecy,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 25 October 1946.
52
the upper reaches of the valley walls, sometimes by hand and other times by a
suspended gondola, leading from a platform in the valley center to a receiving
station (Cable Car House) along the upper ridge.
To carry out the work, the Navy decided to build an access way along the south edge
of the valley, reaching to the high peak of Puʻu Keahiakahoe, located at the 2,800-
foot level. This was carried out in stages and later became the subject of a popular
book and subsequent Reader’s Digest story.67 Titled “Fighting Men on a Flying
Trapeze,” the Ha‘ikū story formed an important chapter of David O. Woodbury’s
popular Builders for Battle: How the Pacific Naval Air Bases Were Constructed (1946).
Faced with difficult conditions, Navy contractors Harrie Muchemore and Marty
Broan enlisted two former “high scalers” from the Boulder Dam project—Bill Adams
and Louis Otto—to undertake the arduous job of scaling the heights of the Ha‘ikū
Valley site by means of metal pins and ropes. With the assistance of an Irish rigger
Ray Cotherman, the two climbed the rock faces hacking footholds into the rock and
earth. Establishing stations as they went, they eventually climbed to the top,
carrying lengths of rope as they proceeded.68
Figure 40. View of Ha‘iku Valley, station under construction, 1943. Fort DeRussy Army Museum Archives.
67 David O. Woodbury, “The High-Scalers of Haiku,” Reader’s Digest, October 1950, pp. 13-140.
68 Woodbury, Builders for Battle, pp. 354-360; “Trail Ways,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 October 1950.
53
Figure 41. Cable Car/Hoist House, ca. 1943. Fort DeRussy Army Museum Archives.
It took twenty-one days for them to establish a secure way to reach the top. Once
there, they began to clear a pathway along the narrow edge of the valley’s crest. In
the meantime, carpenters below had constructed a pile of wood ladders. Adams and
Otto gradually shifted these to higher elevations, relying on the series of stations
they had established during their initial climb. Carrying one ladder between them,
they lashed each section to the next, anchoring them with steel spikes. Through this
effort they established a simple means of reaching the top, allowing other laborers
to begin the work of construction along the ridges. This would include a Cable Car
House to receive equipment and materials (as well as providing an alternative
means of reaching the summit for many workers) and a series of T-plan concrete
foundations for the cables.69
Figure 42. Navy personnel near peak, ca. 1945. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records.
69 Woodbury, Builders for Battle, pp. 358-360
54
Figure 43. Walkway on ridge, ca. 1944. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records.
Figure 44. Hoist in action. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records.
With the initial work underway, the contractors Muchemore and Broan turned to
the north ridge. Luckily, a preexisting trail provided access from the east, so that a
trail needed simply to be expanded and improved. This would link with that along
the south and west by the middle part of 1942.70
70 Naval History and Heritage Command, Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II, p. 149.
55
Figure 45. Method of raising the antenna. Woodbury 1946.
Figure 46. Section of anchorage. Woodbury 1946.
56
Figure 47. Installing the anchor supports, ca. 1943. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records.
Work on the south approach continued apace. Wood stairs gradually supplemented
and, in some cases replaced the initial wood ladders. The Navy contractors soon had
over 9,000 feet of stairs and ladders allowing workers to scale the mountain in three
and a half hours.71 (Only 45 minutes was needed for the descent.) With the new
tramway in place by midyear, work proceeded more quickly. Cars were capable of
carrying only a small amount of materials and two or three men per trip, due to the
catenary slack of the supporting cables.72 Installation had been even a more difficult
challenge as a team of 52 men relayed rope to support the cable before finally
pulling the metal wire tight enough to support the cable car or hoist.73
The next challenge was stringing the antennae. Ten foundations supported
anchorages on both sides of the valley. The antenna cable was erected by means of
Diesel-driven drum hoists on the valley floor, which could pull the heavy lines to the
top. The principal challenge was tightening these to reduce the degree of cant in the
lines. Using “deadmen” made up of two-by-eight timbers buried in the further slopes
of the cliff, it was possible to haul the cable up each side until it hung in a long
catenary some 1,700 feet above the ground. To further tighten the suspended
antennae, the steel A-frames, were pulled back and further anchored to the rear.
71 U.S. Department of the Navy, Test, Antenna, Measurements and Calculations, Haiku Antenna, 1942,
National Archives and Records, San Bruno, CA. Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services,
Draft Report, p. 20.
72 George West, “’42 Saga in Haiku Valley Was Lifesaver for Navy,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 4 June
1957.
73 Woodbury, Builders for Battle, pp. 354-360.
57
Figure 48, ca. 1944. Staircase with parallel power cable. Flanigan 2015.
The initial hookup occurred in November1942. A test conducted shortly afterward

demonstrated that the system worked (though not as successfully as originally
hoped74); so that work could then proceed on the larger system.75 The final project
would require five strings of antennae, supported by metal cables and linking by
means of a grid of copper wires to transmitters and power sources on the ground
below. This required a network of a dozen wires, each a quarter mile long. These
connected to five A-frame anchors on each ridge—each consisting of eight-inch steel
I-beams set into ten or more feet of supporting concrete. The A-frames then tied to a
block-like concrete weight by means of an intermediary wood “softener.” Hauling
cables did the job of pulling the antennae upwards, eventually mimicking the shape
of the first experimental antenna.
While work proceeded on the antennae and their anchors, work crews leveled
terraces on the valley floor. These provided the bases for the bombproof
Transmitter Building, the so-called “Helix House” or Helix Building, and a Power
Station. In addition, the complex required wood barracks, a mess hall, latrines and
bathhouses, roads, and living quarters for officers. Teams also constructed a
network of roads to provide circulation within the facility. Actual “keying” or
messaging occurred in Wahiawā, 17 miles from the Ha‘ikū Station. As a result, a
separate cable was installed from the station to Kāneʻohe, where it could circle back
to Wahiawā.

75 Ibid.
58
Figure 49. Construction of Transmitter Building, January 1943. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records.
Figure 50. Near completion, Transmitter Building, February 1943. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station
Records.
The facility at the base had barracks for 35 men. It also included fences, telephone
lines, a water-cooling system, its own emergency power supply, as well as the
officers’ quarters. The cost had been estimated at $1,198,000. Additional work
would add an additional $521,300 to the total.76
76 U.S. Department of the Navy, Technical Report and History Contracts, Noy-3550 and Noy-4173,
Vol. 5, Appendix A, Chapters XIV-XXII, Navfac Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, CA. Cited
in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 25.
59
Construction continued through the rest of 1942 and into the early part of 1943. A
fire in the Transmitter Building in April delayed completion. But repairs to the
tuning coils soon put all in order again.77 The Ha‘ikū Station was commissioned in
August 22, 1943 with little fanfare.78 It was fully operational by December.79
With its suspended antennae and high mountain location, Ha‘ikū Station was unique
among the 14th Naval District’s radio stations. It was also the most powerful. A key
feature at Ha‘ikū was the 200,000-watt (200 kw) Alexanderson alternator.
Developed in the early 20th century by Swedish-American inventor Ernst
Alexanderson (1878-1975), the Alexanderson alternator produced high-frequency
alternating current for use as a radio transmitter. It would be one of the first devices
capable of generating the continuous radio waves necessary for transmission of
amplitude modulation by radio. From 1910, it served in a number of long-wave
radiotelegraphy stations, providing communication via Morse code to ships and
other vessels at sea and to other stations. Already being replaced by vacuum-tube
oscillators after 1913, Alexanderson alternators remained in use until the 1960s due
largely to their reliability and power.80 That at Ha‘ikū had a wavelength of 13,423
meters and frequency of 22.3. Another at Kahuku transmitted at 16,667 m
wavelength, at a frequency of 18.6.81
Figure 51. Completed Transmission Building, December 1943. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records.
77 Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, pp. 25-26.

78 Woodbury, Builders for Battle, p. 369.
79 Todd, Early Radio Communications, p. 25 and Appendix G-2.
80 Thorn L. Mayes, “The Near Perfect System: Alexanderson and His Alternators,” in Todd, Early
Radio Communications, Appendix D-14.
81 Todd, Early Radio Communications, Appendix D-18.
60
Figure 52. View of Kāne‘ohe 1997. Ogden 1997.
The transmitter at Ha‘ikū was driven by 600 horsepower electric motor. This was
powered by what was known as “commercial power” provided from the plant in
Honolulu. There was also a 1,000-horsepower diesel engine powering a 750-kw
generator to supply power in emergency circumstances.82
Figure 53. CCL Building, 1997. Ogden 1997.
82Staff, P. I. O. Department of Defense, “The Navy’s Super Antennae,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings
Vol. 78, no. 5 (May 1952), 591-597.
61
Nearly a year later, in August 1944, Navy experts proposed a number of changes to
the Naval Radio Station. Then commander Lieutenant Klepper cautioned that any
work was extremely hazardous and difficult.83 He also noted the installation of an
additional catwalk, presumably that extending northward from the CCL Building to
the derricks and platforms on the north ridge of the valley. He also called for a more
extensive stairway along the north ridge from the base camp, suggesting it would
require 3,000 feet of stair sections. He noted that this route would not require
power or communication lines since these were already in place along the south
ridge route.84
In October 1944 the first steps were taken to formally gain possession of the land
utilized by the station. With the end of Martial Law, military authorities had begun
to reconcile appropriations of land in Hawai‘i for military purposes. Some parcels
were to be returned to their owners, following estimates of compensation. Other
parcels, such as those for the Ha‘ikū Station were to be acquired permanently. The
Navy filed a petition for a continuing easement on October 30, 1944. Negotiations
for compensation were to extend from December 1945 to November 1947.85
Ha‘ikū Valley Omega Station
The Ha‘ikū Naval Radar Station remained in operation throughout the 1940s.
However, with improvements in radio technology much of the facility soon became
outmoded. In 1954, the U.S. Navy entered into an agreement with the U.S. Air Force
to erect a microwave relay station on the ridge of the west side of the valley.
Another major step taken in the postwar era included improvements to the
stairway, beginning in 1955 and extending into 1956. This took the form of steel, 6-
foot adjustable sections hauled into place along the original track of the south
stairway. In some sections the alignment has been altered slightly, but mostly it
adhered to the original route. Navy crews discarded the old wood sections to the
side, where some of the ladders and stairs are still visible.86
In April 1958, the Navy Radio Station at Ha‘ikū (and its 10 civilian and 22 Navy
personnel) was deactivated, though the property remained under the control of the
U.S. Navy.87 In 1963, the Navy gave permission to the U.S. Air Force to replace their
microwave relay station—modified in 1954—with a passive reflective antenna
83 H. S. Klepper, Letter to the District Public Works Department, National Archives and Records, San
Bruno, CA. Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 31.
84 Ibid.
85 Harry N. Scheiber and Jane L. Scheiber, Bayonets in Paradise: Martial Law in Hawai‘i during World
War II (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2016).
87 “Haiku Radio Is Deactivated,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 2 July 1958.
62
placed on the roof of the old the CCL Building.88 In the late 1960s, the Navy Radar
Station at Ha‘ikū would enter as well into a new phase of its existence. Still in its
formative stages, the new Omega system was an experimental global-range radio
navigation system, operated by the United States eventually in partnership with six
other countries.89 The Omega allowed ships, submarines, and aircraft to determine
their position through the reception of low frequency (VLF) radio signals in the
range of 10 to 14 kHz. The Omega system replaced earlier Loran and Loran-C
systems and offered far greater range and accuracy.90
The Navy approved Omega in 1968, with the plan of establishing eight transmitters,
including one at Ha‘ikū. Eventually nine stations were included in the system. They
were: La Moure in North Dakota; Chabrier on Réunion Island; Trelow in Argentina;
Woodside in Victoria, Australia; Tsushima in Japan; Bratland, Norway; Paynesville,
Liberia; and Port-of-Spain, Trinidad.91 A tenth experimental station, where much of
the technology was worked out was in Forestport, New York.92
Figure 54. Handbook, Omega Station. Web post.
88 U.S. Department of the Navy, SECNAVNOTE 5450. Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy
89 George Asche, “Omega System of Global Navigation,” International Hydrographic Review Vol. 50,
No. 1 (1972): 87-99.
90 Owen Wilkes, Nils Petter Gleditsch, and Ingvar Botnen, Loran-C and Omega: A Study of the Military
Importance of Radio Navigation Aids (Oslo and New York: Norwegian University Press and Oxford
University Press, 1987).
91 J. A. Pierce, Omega: Facts, Hopes and Dreams (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Division of
Engineering and Applied Physics, 1974).
92 Ibid.
63
Soon Navy specialists were surveying sites, including that at Kāneʻohe. Local
politicians, notably Senator Hiram Fong, were strongly behind the proposal.93
Secretary of the Navy John W. Warner envisioned the inclusion of the Coast Guard in
the project, suggesting that: “Coast Guard assistance in the maintenance and
operation of the system was now desirable.”94Installation of the system began in
1971, with completion scheduled for 1975.95 Experiments began in Hawaii the year
before. Of the five locations tested that at Ha‘ikū had the most successful results.96
This was largely because of its high elevation and its relatively isolated Pacific Ocean
location.
The first U.S. Coast Guard personnel arrived at Ha‘ikū in July 1972. The Coast Guard
would also be assigned to the station at Le Moure, North Dakota, explaining the
rather unusual circumstance of a Coast Guard unit so far from the sea or one of the
Great Lakes. The new system required a significant number of changes to the old
facility and its equipment. A first step was replacement of the four existing antennae
with different wire spans. These were installed with the help of a helicopter and
balloons.97
Figure 55. Omega Station Haiku, Project Design 1969. U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Records.
93 “Navy Plans to Put New Antennas In Haiku,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 14 April 1970.
94 Secretary of Transportation, Letter to John W. Warner, 1970, On file at PACDIC Real Estate Office.
Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 33.
95 Ronald T. K. Ching, “Transmitting Facility Modernization, Omega Navigation Station Haiku, Oahu,
Hawaii,” Wiliki O Hawaii, p. 13. Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p.
33.
96 J. P. Wysocki, “OMEGA: The Radionavigational System That Covers the World,” Coast Guard
Engineer’s Digest (Spring 1978): 12.
97 Ching, “Transmitting Facility Modernization,” p. 13. Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy
64
The ground antennae system, located on poles eight feet above the ground, had to be
replaced by a subterranean ground grid system. The A-frame anchors were also
removed, replaced by buried anchors along the ridge. Coast Guard engineers then
raised the new spans and insulators to their place using a system of pulleys and
rigging.
Additional changes included the removal of some 34 buildings and structures no

longer needed at the station.98 There were also two additions to the Transmitter
Building and a new room added to the Helix Building.99 The new antennae system
stretched 7,200 feet across the valley, swinging 1,250 feet above ground. The total
weight was 180,000 pounds. The underground grid system, consisting of buried
copper mesh, rods, and wires covered 70 acres. The project required nearly three
years for completion, with the station finally going on line in February 1975.100
The Omega, eventually operated by civilian personnel, proved a great boon to

navigational safety in the 1970s through 1990s. R. C. Hoyler argued in 1993 that
Omega had proved to be “a low cost” and effective system, allowing for “worldwide
coverage” and serving as an important alternative to the then new GPS (Global
Positioning System) technology.101 However, by the 1990s it was apparent that
Omega’s period of significance was over. Launched by the U.S. Department of
Defense in 1973, GPS became fully operational for general use in 1995. GPS,
originally labeled Navstar GPS, is a space-based radio navigation system that relies
on satellite communications and provides precise geolocation and time information
to any GPS receiver. Whereas the older radio systems had an accuracy measured in
miles and that for Omega in yards or meters, GPS can be accurate to feet and
inches.102 This has revolutionized both communications and navigation to the point
where many traditional navigational aids, such as lighthouses and radio
communication, are now redundant.103

100 “Coast Guard Dedicates Haiku Site,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 28 February 1975. Cited in Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 37.
101 R. C. Hoyler, Power Optimization Program, ONSCEN Station Manager’s Conference, 1993, p. 1.
Cited in Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Draft Report, p. 37.
102 National Research Council, U. S. Committee on the Future of the Global Positioning System, The
Global Positioning System: A Shared National Asset (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press,
1995).
103 Jaizki Mendizabal Samoer, Juan Melendez Lagunilla, and Roc Berenguer Perez, GPS and Galileo:
Dual RF Front-end Receiver and Design (New York: McGraw Hill).
65
Figure 57. Omega Station, Kāne‘ohe, U.S. Coast Guard District 14, 1997. Web source.
The Ha‘ikū Station would be one of many victims of the new technology. Already
operating at a reduced personnel level by the early 1990s, the station was closed in
1997. There are still components of the old 1942-period station both on the valley
floor and at the upper reaches of the Ha‘ikū Valley. These have lost some of their
physical context due to the construction of the H-3, also known as the John Burns
Freeway, in the late 1990s. The highway bifurcated the valley, separating the old
base camp from the antennae and supporting structures on the ridge. For a short
time, the Hawaii Department of Transportation began the construction of a steel
cage to protect the highway as it ran beneath the antennae spans, this project was
abandoned once the facility went out of operation in 1997.104
The Ha‘ikū Stairs in Recent History
Throughout its last over thirty years of operation, the Ha‘ikū station acquired a new
significance as simply an important artifact in the imagination of residents and
island visitors. Throughout the 1970s, local hikers were permitted access to the by
then famous “Stairway to Heaven.”105 The procedure was to sign a waiver at the
Coast Guard Station, though some people simply hiked the stairs without following
protocol.106
104 “H-3 Opens,” HawaiiHistory.org.,

http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&PageID=354&returntoname=Short,
Accessed 3 December 2017.
105 The first newspaper notice of recreation hikers dates to 1951: “Trail Ways: Hikers to Scale
Halawa Ridge to Haiku Sunday,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 24 March 1951.
66
In 1981, the Ha‘ikū Stairs was featured in an episode of the popular crime drama
“Magnum P. I.” Soon afterward more and more hikers braved the summit for the
outstanding views and the sheer novelty of the experience. In October 1981, the
Honolulu Star-Bulletin printed an article titled “It’s Getting Crowded at the Top.”
Stepping in, the Coast Guard attempted to limit the numbers of hikers, striving to
keep the number to less than 75 a day. However, on weekends, this figure typically
jumped to as many as 200.107 Although the Coast Guard estimated annual visitation
at more than 20,000, there were no recorded injuries to those hazarding the “3,922
steps.”
Figure 58. Broken section. November 2017.
There were, nonetheless, reasons for concern. Vandalism, the cutting of plants,
infiltration of invasive species, and littering all marred visitors’ experiences and also
caused lasting damage to the stairway and supporting buildings and structures.
Remnants of the antennae served some foolhardy climbers as a guy line,
necessitating the removal of material by helicopter.108
In May of 1987, Rear Admiral William P. Kozlowski, the newly appointed Coast
Guard Commander in Hawai‘i, ordered the stairs closed for repairs.109 In June, a
107 “It’s Getting Crowded at the Top,” Honolulu-Star Bulletin, 18 October 1981.
109 “Haiku Ladder to Close,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 11 March 1987; Rick Carroll and Jay Hartwell,
“Stairway to Heaven’s Hike Becomes Ancient History,” Honolulu Advertiser 16 July 1987.
67
mudslide disconnected three sections of the stairway, an event that allowed the
Coast Guard to declare the stairs unsafe and permanently closed to visitors.110
Responding to the new situation, Kāne‘ohe resident Frank Stong called for an
alternative approach to the management of the stairs. He was soon joined by stair-
enthusiast John Flanigan and, independently, by Suzanne Hieb. On September 10,
1987, a first meeting of what was to be the “Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs” took form. 111
Despite pushback from the Coast Guard, the friends and the Coast Guard reached an
agreement that while the station would be dismantled in the relatively near future,
the decision on the stairs could wait.112
Figure 5956. The stairs are presently closed to public access. Web source.
As construction of the H-3 proceeded, beginning in 1987 and finally ending in 1997,
the Ha‘ikū Stairs remained a popular recreational trail. Ignoring both the single
guard at the station’s entrance and numerous no-trespassing signs, hikers cut
through fences and climbed barriers to hike the trail.113 With the increase in
trespassing hikers, came increased disturbances in adjacent neighborhoods. Hikers
would often trespass on private property, crowd parking and challenge circulation
on local streets, make noise in the early morning hours and cause dogs to bark
through the neighborhood. Despite complaints from homeowners, hikers returned
110 George Clark Leavitt, “More on Haiku Stairs,” Honolulu Advertiser, 30 July 1987; Flanigan, “History
of the Ha‘ikū Stairs.”
111 Suzanne Hieb, Letter to the Editor, “Save the Stairs,” Honolulu Advertiser, 30 September 1987;
George Clark Leavitt, “Let’s Reopen Haiku Stairs,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 27 July 1987.
113 Glenn W. Jones, “Haiku Stairs Endured Abuse,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 13 August 1987.
68
to the stairs, hanging ropes across the missing sections and ignoring warnings,
fences and signs.114
In 1997, with the closure of the Omega Station, the Coast Guard competed a Cultural
Resources (Historic and Archaeological) Assessment as required by law. Completed
by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., the report argued for the
eligibility of the stairs and supporting structures/buildings for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, suggesting that the stairway, three structures/buildings
on the ridge and several others on the valley floor could constitute a National
Register Historic District.115 The Coast Guard, reluctant to pay the cost of removal,
acquiesced to the pressure of advocacy groups, including the Friends of Ha‘ikū
Stairs, the Hawai‘i Trail and Mountain Club, the Sierra Club and others and agreed
that the City and County of Honolulu could accept responsibility for the repair of the
stairs.116
Figure 60. Illegal climbers are a frequent occurrence. Civil Beat, Hawai'i.
In 1999, the General Services Administration (GSA) returned the area containing the
stairs to the BWS and City and County of Honolulu.117 Mayor Jeremy Harris pressed
for the creation of a park on the valley bottom and the preservation of the stairway
as a recreational asset. Funds from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) were earmarked for the repairs, which began in 2001.118 Undertaken by
Nakoa Companies, the repair work ended in the summer of 2002. Despite the
expenditure of $875,000 in government funds, the status of the stairway languished
in the face of continuing community opposition to hikers disregarding signs and
private property. New plans presented by the Kāneʻohe Neighborhood Board’s
114 “Residents Unfairly Scorned for Haiku Stairs Concerns,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 21 October 2003.
117 Ibid.
118 Robbie Dingeman, “Get Ready to Climb Stairway to Heaven,” Honolulu Advertiser, 18 July 2002.
69
Ha‘ikū Stairs Task Force in 2003 failed to convince some lawmakers; and in August
2004, Representative Ken Ito introduced a bill calling for the removal of the
stairway.119 This bill did not pass into law.
The stairs and the land containing the stairs is presently the responsibility of the
BWS. The BWS is currently undertaking the first stages of an EIS for the site, which
will provide information to aid BWS leadership as to its final decision regarding the
disposition of Ha‘ikū Stairs and the management of adjacent land and resources .120
FINDINGS AND COMPLIANCE UNDER HRS CHAPTER 6E- 8
Overview
This section builds upon the research of this report as applicable to the State
Historic Preservation Review process steps (1) through (4) under HAR §13-275-
3(b). Ultimately, concurrence is sought from the State Historic Preservation Division
(SHPD) with respect to the project’s determination of effect to historic properties
and the proposed mitigation commitments.
The following discussion provides a summary of the project’s completion of the first
four of six historic preservation review procedural steps pursuant to HRS §6E-8 and
HAR §13-275-3(b):
Step 1: Identification and inventory to determine if historic properties are

present.
Applicable Rules
The definition of “historic property” contained in Section 6E-2, HRS is: “‘Historic
property’ means any building, structure, object, district, area, or site, including heiau
and underwater site, which is over fifty years old.”
Historic Properties
In accordance with this definition, the Ha‘ikū Stairs and buildings and structures
along its path that are associated with the US Navy radio operations are historic
properties, as they are more than fifty years old, having been initially developed in
1942-1943, and having the original wooden stairs and ladders replaced in metal in
1955-1956.
The Ha‘ikū Stairs are also known for their role in the post-1971 Omega Station.
Initiated in the late 1960s and realized at Ha‘ikū after 1970, the Omega system

120 G70, Ha‘ikū Stairs Study EIS Notice.
70
contributed to postwar communication and introduced a new level of navigational
accuracy for ships and aircraft. The Omega story, however, falls outside the normal
fifty-year cutoff time for the Hawai‘i and National Registers. Because of this, other
than for background information, this period is not central to the significance of the
property. The Omega Station would reach the 50-year historic property threshold in
2020.
Historic District
In the case of Ha‘ikū Stairs, there are integrated buildings and structures along its
path that all contribute to the original function and purpose of the feature. Because
of this, consideration is given to the guidance provided in National Register Bulletin
Number 16121, where a historic district is described as follows:
A district possesses a significant concentration,

linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures,
or objects united historically or aesthetically
by plan or physical development.122
The Ha‘ikū Stairs meets this definition, being a significant linkage of structures and
buildings united historically by plan and physical development. The stairs, two
buildings and antenna anchors’ foundations are physically connected in a linear
fashion by the stairs, and they are united in their association with the planning and
physical development of the radio antenna which stretched across Ha‘ikū Valley. As
a historic district, Haʻikū Stairs’ boundaries need to be defined. The 1997 Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services Co. report for the U.S. Coast Guard argued for a
very broad historic district boundary. This approach would have taken into account
the larger geographic area covered by the original U.S. Navy Radio Station and
specifically suggested seven buildings and structures in all: the CCL Building, the
Cable Car Building (also called the Hoist Building), and a Storage Building—all
located on the upper ridge; and the Transmitter Building, the Commercial Power
Building, the Helix Building, and a surviving Retaining Wall—all situated on the
valley floor at the later U.S. Coast Guard Station. In addition, the report suggested
considering the Stairs as a contributing structure.
Though a plausible approach, the proposal by Ogden Environmental and Energy

Services presents a number of challenges. One is the very dispersed character of the
site. Five of the buildings and/or structures are in the valley bottom, well away from
those on the ridge. The proposal must also deal now with the fact of the H-3
highway, which further divides the several components of the site. Another problem
is the fact that many other original features are no longer in place. Some 34
structures and buildings are no longer a part of the station complex, which makes
121 National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, National
Park Service National Register Bulletin series, Washington, D.C.: National park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a/
122 National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Form.
71
the existing ruins and other buildings more difficult to “read” as part of a single
entity. These are no insurmountable difficulties but do speak to some of the
problems inherent in taking this approach.
Another significant factor is that of ownership and responsibility. The BWS is

responsible for TMK (1) 4-6-015:011, which comprises the majority of the area
containing the stairs and the remaining components along the ridge. Other elements
of the original (1942) and later (post 1970) historic site lie outside of this area and
due to the distance, separation by the H-3 highway, and separate ownership.
In light of the above considerations, following the 1997 proposal for a historic
district that would encompass not only the Stairs and the buildings and structures
along its route, but also the buildings on the valley floor, is not recommended.
This report takes the approach of recognizing Ha‘ikū Stairs and the associated
buildings and structures along its path as a linear historic district. Despite the fact
that the Stairs, Radio Power Building, Cable Car Building, and Concrete Platforms
constitute just part of a much larger complex, their level of preservation, their easily
distinguished historic character, and the dramatic character of their site (which
speaks as well to the significance of the radio station and its special antennae) have
significance in their own right, even absent inclusion of buildings and structures
that were part of the larger historic period facility.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the stairway and immediately associated buildings and
structures constitute a geographically limited Historic District, with Ha‘ikū Stairs,
CCL Building, Cable Car Building, Concrete Posts and Concrete Platforms, each cited
as contributing features.
Step 2: Evaluation of Integrity and Significance
Applicable Rules
Historic properties were assessed under HAR §13-198-8 and §13-275-6.
HAR §13-198-8 provides criteria for decisions and considerations in deciding

whether a property should be entered into the Hawaii Register of Historic Places. The
text is as follows:
§13-198-8 Criteria for decisions; considerations. In deciding whether

a property should be entered and ordered into the Hawaii register,
the review board shall evaluate whether the property meets or
possesses, individually or in combination, the following criteria or
characteristics:
(1) The quality of significance in Hawaiian history, architecture,
archaeology, and culture, which is present in districts, sites, buildings,
72
structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association, and:
(A) That are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to broad patterns of our American or Hawaiian history;
(B) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our
past;
(C) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or
that possess high artistic value, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
(D) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important
in prehistory or history;
(2) Environmental impact, i.e., whether the preservation of the
building, site, structure, district, or object significantly enhances the
environmental quality of the State;
(3) The social, cultural, educational, and recreational value of the
building, site, structure, district, or object, when preserved, presented,
or interpreted, contributes significantly to the understanding and
enjoyment of the history and culture of Hawaii, the pacific area, or the
nation.
To be considered significant pursuant to HAR §13-275-6(d)(1), a historic property

must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feel, and
association and shall meet one of the following criteria:
(a) associated with events that have made an important contribution to the
broad patterns of history;
(b) associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
(c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or possess high artistic
value;
(d) has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or
history, and
(e) has an important value to either Native Hawaiians or another ethnic group
due to associations with cultural practices, traditional beliefs, events, or oral
accounts—these associations being important to the group’s history and
cultural identity.123
To expand on HAR 13-275-6 (b) that states a historic property shall possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association,124 the seven integrity considerations are described as follows:
123 DLNR, Adoption of Chapter 13-275 Hawaii Administrative Rules, October 31, 2002,
http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/shpd/rules/275.pdf, Accessed 10 October 2017.
124 Ibid.
73
Location: Refers to whether the historic property is in its original location
and has not been moved;
Design: Does the property possess legible features of its original and/or
historic design?
Setting: Setting refers to the physical environment of a historic property,
meaning its topography, vegetation, or other types of surroundings;
Materials: Are the materials original or historic?
Workmanship: Are special characteristics of construction or artisanship still
evident?
Feeling: Does the property evoke a sense of its historic time period?
Association: Is there a direct link between the property and the argument
made for significance?125
The following information will be provided to evaluate the significance of historic

properties identified under this investigation:
(A) A table listing each historic property, identifying applicable criteria;

(B) Justification for classifying the property under the criteria;
(C) Evidence of consultation and the consultation process.126
Evaluation of Integrity
Although only a portion of what was once a much larger context—one that included
numerous supporting structures at the base camp for the facility (of which four
concrete buildings and structures still remain)—the stairway and other features
along the south and west ridges of the Ha‘ikū Valley convey a strong sense of the
World War II-period Navy Radio Station and collectively possess integrity of
location, setting, materials, design, feeling, workmanship, and association to the
period between 1942 when the base construction began to 1956, when the new
metal stairway was completed. The Stairway and associated features possess
integrity as well to the post-1970 period, retaining integrity of location, setting,
materials, design, feeling, workmanship, and association to this second period as
well.
The present stairway—for the most part— follows the original alignment of the
1942-1943 wood stairs and adheres to a similar design. Its construction date also
falls within the time of the U.S. Navy’s jurisdiction over the radar station, so is in
keeping with a context focused on World War II and its immediate aftermath.
125 National Register Bulletin, Guidelines for Evaluation and Documenting Historic Aids to Navigation,
National Park Service National Register Bulletin series, Washington, D.C.: National park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb34/nrb34_8.htm,
Accessed 12 October 2017.
126 DLNR, Adoption of Chapter 13-275 Hawaii Administrative Rules, October 31, 2002,
http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/shpd/rules/275.pdf, Accessed 10 October 2017.
74
The integrity of Ha‘ikū Stairs is evaluated in detail in Table 2, and the integrity of the
contributing features including the Cable Car Building (the Hoist House, Building 1)
and the Radio Power Buildings (the Communication Control Building, or CCL,
Building 2), concrete platforms and concrete footings is summarized in Table 3.
Table 2. Evaluation of Integrity – Ha‘ikū Stairs and Associated Features
Aspect of Integrity Meets Integrity Comment

Consideration
Location Yes The stairway follows for the most
part, the original alignment of the
1942-1943 stairs. The associated
features, including the buildings
and anchors remain in their
original location.
Design Yes The stairs and associated features
retain their original configurations
and footprints
Setting Yes The mountainside surrounding the
stairway has not been developed
and remains similar to its
appearance in 1942.
Materials Yes The steel stairway installed in 1955
remains. Although the City and
County repaired the stairway in
2002, similar materials were used.
Discarded sections of the 1940s
wood stairs are still evident.
Workmanship Yes Construction methods are evident
on both the stairway and the
associated poured in place concrete
features
Feeling Yes The stairway retains its sense of
feeling, as a structure scaling the
side of the mountain to service
support structures. The audacity of
the undertaking remains evident.
Association Yes The stairway retains a strong sense

of association with its original
purpose to access the ridgeline
antennae and communications
building.
Evaluation of Historic Significance

In addition to their relatively high level of integrity, Ha‘ikū Stairs and associated
resources, namely the Cable Car Building (the Hoist House, Building 1) and the
Radio Power Buildings (the Communication Control Building, or CCL, Building 2),
and the four identified Concrete Antenna foundations appear to meet the criteria for
listing in the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places. Under both HAR 13-198 and HAR
13-275, they possess significance at the state level under Criterion A for their
75
association with the US Navy’s communication activities in the Pacific during World
War II and the Cold War period. The stairway also appears to be significant under
Criterion C as an extraordinary construction and engineering feat.
In addition, the stairway and its associated structures appear to meet Criterion 3
under HAR 13-198, in that the site’s educational, and recreational value, “when
preserved, presented, or interpreted, contributes significantly to the understanding
and enjoyment of the history and culture of Hawaii, the Pacific area, or the nation.”
The preservation of the stairway would significantly contribute to the enjoyment
and understanding of the history and culture of Hawaii during World War II, and the
tremendous effort exerted to construct the stairs and radio station.
Ha‘ikū Stairs is a significant historic resource possessing integrity to the immediate

postwar period and reflective of developments during World War II. The Ha‘ikū
Stairs are a remnant of two significant periods in the history of the United States and
of the Hawaiian Islands. The first is the World War II era, when it supported the
communications operations for the United States in the Pacific. The second is the
postwar Cold War Era after 1945, when the original radio facility at the east end of
O‘ahu was updated as part of a greater network of national defense.
Table 3. Evaluation of Significance for Historic Properties
Name of Property Significant? Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets

Property type Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion
(A)* (B)* (C)* (D)* (3)**
Ha‘ikū District YES Yes No Yes Not Yes
Stairs and Assessed
associated in this
structures study
*Per HAR §13-198-8 (1) and HAR §13-275-6(d)(1)
**Per HAR §13-198-8
Consultation
Consultation focused on meetings with Kiersten Faulkner, Executive Director of
Historic Hawai‘i Foundation and with several members of the Friends of Ha‘ikū
Stairs who also provided valuable research materials.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the historic properties identified in this section are
considered significant. The stairs are significant for the role they played in the
development of an advanced radio station during the early years of the World War II
and for the unique character of their construction. Built to provide access to the
antennae anchors for the U.S. Navy’s radio station, the stairs supplemented a cable
car for taking personnel and equipment to the top of the rearmost ridge of the
Ha‘ikū Valley, the 2,800 feet (850 meters) peak of Puʻu Keahiakahoe. Replaced by a
metal stairway in 1955, the stairs retain a sense of their original setting and speak
76
still of the heroic effort of U.S. Navy engineers and laborers in erecting the original
structure.
Step 3: Determination of Effect
Applicable Rules
Once a historic property has been determined to be significant, the effects of any
proposed projects upon the property need to be determined. In accordance with HAR
§13-275-7, the project effect determination is can be “no historic properties affected”
or “effect with proposed mitigation commitments.”
Effect Determination for Potential Future Outcomes in EIS

There are three possibilities for an “effect” to occur on Ha‘ikū Stairs and the
associated features, based on three potential outcomes outlined in the
Environmental Impact Statement. The three possible outcomes are:
1) Full Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs: All the metal staircase is removed from the front
and back stairs. The platforms and structures would remain.
2) Partial Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs: The bottom 1,000 feet of stairs from Ha‘ikū
Valley side would be removed, up to the first platform. The rest of the stairs would
remain with no restoration or maintenance.
3) Keep Ha‘ikū Stairs under Managed Access: The staircase would be restored and
hiking operations would be conducted under a managed access scenario.
Each potential outcome proposed in the EIS constitutes an “effect” to historic

properties as outlined in Table 4.
Table 4. Effect Determination for Potential Future Outcomes in EIS
Potential Future Outcome Rationale for Determination of “Effect”

Full Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would constitute an “effect”
to a significant historic property due to the fact that
the feature would be permanently removed and
disposed of.
Partial Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs Partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would constitute an
“effect” due to structural changes to the feature, along
with ongoing trespassing and deterioration.
Keep Ha‘ikū Stairs under Although the stairs would remain, planned for-profit
Managed Access hiking operations would potentially see 80-100 hikers
per day utilizing the stairs and creating an “effect” by
imposing regular wear and tear on the historic
structure.
Recommendation
Pursuant to HAR §13-275-3(b)(3), it is recommended that the project effect
determination is “effect with proposed mitigation commitments.”
77
Step 4: Mitigation
Applicable Rules
Mitigation commitments are discussed in HAR §13-275-8, which states:
If a project will have an “effect” (impact) on significant historic

properties, then a mitigation commitment proposing the form of
mitigation to be undertaken for each significant historic property shall
be submitted by the agency to the SHPD for review and approval.
The section goes on to discuss five forms of mitigation:
(A) Preservation, which may include avoidance and protection

(conservation), stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration,
reconstruction, interpretation, or appropriate cultural use.
(B) Architectural recordation, which involves the photographic
documentation, and possibly the measured drawings of a building,
structure or object, prior to its alteration or destruction.
(C) Archaeological data recovery, which enables the recovery of an
adequate and reasonable amount of significant information from a
significant property prior to its alteration or destruction. Data
recovery may include archaeological mapping, surface collection,
excavation, monitoring, laboratory analysis, and interpretive
analyses.
(D) Historical data recovery, which involves researching historical
source materials to document an adequate and reasonable amount
of information about the property when a property will be altered
or destroyed.
(E) Ethnographic documentation, which involves interviewing
knowledgeable individuals and researching historical source
materials to document an adequate and reasonable amount of
information about the property when a property will be altered or
destroyed.
Proposed Mitigation Commitments

Due to the potential for three different outcomes as put forth in the EIS, mitigation is
proposed based on the circumstances of each alternative. Table 5 outlines the
proposed mitigation commitments.
Table 5. Proposed Mitigation for Potential Future Outcomes in EIS
Potential Future Proposed Mitigation Justification for proposed

Outcome Commitment Treatment
78
Full Removal of • Architectural Recordation Removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs would
Ha‘ikū Stairs of all removed stair warrant mitigation including
modules. measured drawings and
• Preservation of associated photographic documentation of
structures in the form of the affected stair modules.
avoidance. Associated structures would be
preserved in place.
Partial Removal of • Architectural Recordation Partial removal of Ha‘ikū Stairs
Ha‘ikū Stairs of removed stair modules. would warrant mitigation
• Preservation of remaining including measured drawings
modules and associated and photographic documentation
structures in the form of of the affected stair modules. The
avoidance. remaining stair modules and
associated structures would be
preserved in place.
Keep Ha‘ikū Stairs • Preservation in the form of The stairs would be preserved
under Managed restoration/reconstruction and restored/reconstructed for
Access of damaged stair modules. planned hiking operations in
• Preservation of associated order to insure the existing form,
structures with periodic integrity, and materials of the
maintenance as needed for historic property are
structural stability. maintained.127. Associated
structures would be preserved in
place and maintained as needed.
Recommendation
Pursuant to HAR §13-275-8, it is recommended that the project proceed with the
proposed mitigation commitments applicable to the final outcome, as outlined in
Table 5, above.
Summary
The information contained in this and the accompanying archaeological report
satisfies first four steps of the state historic preservation review process for the
Ha‘ikū Stairs and associated features.
If DLNR agrees that the project will have an effect and to the proposed mitigation
measures, the BWS would procced with the project and the appropriate mitigation
for the future outcome.
127 Ibid.
79
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Gwenfread Elaine. Hawaii’s War Years, 1941-1945 (Honolulu: University of

Hawaii Press, 1950).
Asche, George. “Omega System of Global Navigation.” International Hydrographic

Review Vol. 50, No. 1 (1972): 87-99.
Ball, Stuart M. Jr. The Hikers Guide to O‘ahu (Honolulu, 2013).
Barboza, Rick. Heʻeia-Kāneʻohe, Koʻolaupoko, Oʻahu, Haʻikū Stairs Flora and Fauna
Survey. Honolulu: Hui Kū Maoli Ola, LLC - January 17, 2018.
Brown, Henry. “The American Marconi Station, Marion, Massachusetts,”

http://www.qsl.net/w1aa/marion_1.txt. Accessed 23 November 2017.
Carroll, Rick and Jay Hartwell. “Stairway to Heaven’s Hike Becomes Ancient
History,” Honolulu Advertiser 16 July 1987.
Ching, Ronald T. K. “Transmitting Facility Modernization, Omega Navigation Station

Haiku, Oahu, Hawaii,” Wiliki O Hawaii, 1976.
“Coast Guard Dedicates Haiku Site.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 28 February 1975.
Dean, Love. The Lighthouses of Hawai‘i (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1991).
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). Adoption of Chapter 13-275,

Hawaii Administrative Rules, October 31, 2002, Rules Governing Procedures for
Historic Preservation Review …under Sections 6E-7 and 6E-8; State of Hawaii,
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Part I Historic Preservation Program, Section 6E-8, Review
of Proposed State Projects.
Derry, Derry, H. Ward Jandl, Carol D. Shull, Jan Norman, and Patricia L. Parker.
Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning [formerly Bulletin 22]
(Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1977, revised 1985).
Dingeman, Robbie. “Get Ready to Climb Stairway to Heaven,” Honolulu Advertiser, 18

July 2002.
------------------------. “Haiku Stairs Closer to Re-Opening,” Island Weekly, July 25-31,

2002.
Flanigan, John M. “History of the Ha‘ikū Stairs,” Hawaiian Trails & Mountain Club,
http://www.htmclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/History-of-the-Stairs.pdf,
80
Foote, Donald E., S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens. Soils Survey of Kauai, Oahu, Maui,
Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii (Washington, D.C.: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service, 1972).
G70 [G70 International]. Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice, April

2017 (Honolulu: For BWS, 2017).
Global Security. “Omega Station, Honolulu, Hawaii.”

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/haiku.htm. Accessed 10
November 2017.
Goodson, Lee. Mountain Valley Mystery Unfolds. Brochure, U.S. Coast Guard Omega
Station, n.d.
“H-3 Opens,” HawaiiHistory.org.,

http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&PageID=354&returnt
oname=Short, Accessed 3 December 2017.
“Haiku Antennae Stretch 1 ½ Miles.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 21 May 1955.
“Haiku Ladder to Close.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 11 March 1987.
“Haiku Radio Is Deactivated.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 2 July 1958.
Haikustairs.org. “Naval Radio Station at Haiku,” https://www.haikustairs.org,

Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). Guidelines: Architectural

Historic Resource Surveys, January 2017. Honolulu: DLNR, 2017.
--------------------. Guidelines: Architectural Historic Resource Surveys and

Documentation. Honolulu: Historic Preservation Division, State of Hawaii, February
2018.
Hibbard, Don and Mayu Ohama. National Register of Historic Places, Marconi
Wireless Station, Ref. No. 13000352, February 2012.
Hieb, Suzanne. Letter to the Editor, “Save the Stairs,” Honolulu Advertiser, 30
September 1987.
Howeth, L. S. History of Communications-Electronics in the United States Navy

(Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Ships and Office of Naval History, 1963).
Hoyler, R. C. Power Optimization Program, ONSCEN Station Manager’s Conference,

1993.
81
“It’s Getting Crowded at the Top.” Honolulu-Star Bulletin, 18 October 1981.
Jones, Glenn W. “Haiku Stairs Endured Abuse,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 13 August

1987.
Kakesako, Gregg K. “Lualualei,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, October 5, 1998.
Leavitt, George Clark. “Let’s Reopen Haiku Stairs,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 27 July
1987.
Leavitt, George Clark. “More on Haiku Stairs,” Honolulu Advertiser, 30 July 1987.
Mayes, “Thorn L. “The Near Perfect System: Alexanderson and His Alternators.” In
Todd, Early Radio Communications, Appendix D-14.
Miller, Andy Beth. “History: All Aboard for Haiku,” MidWeek, August 27, 2014,
http://www.midweek.com/history-aboard-haiku-trolley-omega-station/, Accessed
13, October 2017.
Motteler, Lee. “3,922 Steps to the Top,” Sunday Star-Bulletin and Advertiser, 13
September 1981.
National Park Service. How to Complete the National Register Form [formerly
Bulletin 6A and 6B] (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, n.d.).
---------------------------. Guidelines for Evaluation and Documenting Historic Aids to

Navigation, National Park Service National Register Bulletin series, Washington,
D.C.: National park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb34/nrb34_8.htm, Accessed 12
October 2017.
National Research Council, U. S. Committee on the Future of the Global Positioning

System. The Global Positioning System: A Shared National Asset (Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press, 1995).
Naval History and Heritage Command. Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II. Vol.
I (Part I) (Washington, D.C. United States Printing Office, 1947).
“Navy Built Haiku Radio Transmitter In Secrecy.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 25 October

1946.
Navy Department, Naval Communication Service. Report of the Director of Naval

Communications, October 7, 1916 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government
Printing Office, 1917).
82
“Navy Plans to Put New Antennas In Haiku.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 14 April 1970.
Navyradio.com. U.S. Navy Communications Stations (2017), http://www.navy-

radio.com/commsta.htm, Accessed 12 October 2017.
Nelson, Lee H. Architectural Character—Identifying Visual Aspects of Historic

Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character, Preservation Brief 17
(Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, n.d.).
Nolan, Thomas P. and David C. Scull. “Omega Navigation System Status and Future
Plans,” NASA,
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750019113.pdf, Accessed
13 October 2017.
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. Draft Report: Historic
Preservation Survey and Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places of the
U.S. Coast Guard Omega Station Located at Haiku, Kaneohe, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i
(Honolulu: Prepared for Edward K. Noda and Associates, Inc., 1997).
Pierce, J. A. Omega: Facts, Hopes and Dreams (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Division of Engineering and Applied Physics, 1974).
“Residents Unfairly Scorned for Haiku Stairs Concerns.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 21

October 2003.
Robinson, Richard C. The Geology of Oahu (Honolulu: R. Robinson, 2014).
Samoer, Jaizki Mendizabal, Juan Melendez Lagunilla, and Roc Berenguer Perez. GPS
and Galileo: Dual RF Front-end Receiver and Design (New York: McGraw Hill).
Scheiber, Harry N. and Jane L. Scheiber. Bayonets in Paradise: Martial Law in Hawai‘i
during World War II (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2016).
Staff, P. I. O. Department of Defense. “The Navy’s Super Antennae,” U.S. Naval

Institute Proceedings Vol. 78, no. 5 (May 1952), 591-597.
State of Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter 6E Historic Preservation,

http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/shpd/rules/6E.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2017.
Tab-Funkenwerk.com. History of the Telefunken AG, http://www.tab-

funkenwerk.com/id42.html Accessed 23 November 2017.
Takasaki, Kiyoshi I., George T. Hirashima, and E. R. Lubke. Water Resources of

Windward Oahu, Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey No. 1894 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1969).
83
The Alexander Association, “The Alexanderson Transmitter.”
http://alexander.n.se/the-radio-station-saq-grimeton/the-alexanderson-
transmitter/?lang=en, 2017. Accessed 12 October 2017.
Thompson, Erwin N. Pacific Ocean Engineers: History of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in the Pacific (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980).
“Today: Sunday Hikes Are Offered.” Honolulu Star Advertiser, 27 February 1983.
Todd, George B. Early Radio Communications in the Fourteenth Naval District, Pearl
Harbor, Territory of Hawaii (n.p.: Old Timer Communicators, Revised 1985).
Toll, Ian W. The Conquering Tide: War in the Pacific Islands, 1942-1944 (New York:
W. W. Norton, 2015).
“Trail Ways.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 October 1950.
“Trail Ways: Hikers to Scale Halawa Ridge to Haiku Sunday.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin,
24 March 1951.
U.S. Department of the Navy. Technical Report and Project History Contracts Noy-
3550 and Noy-4173. Volume 5 of 11, Appendix A, Chapters XIV through XXII, Navfac
Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, CA., A-829.
--------------------------. SECNAVNOTE 5450. National Archives and Records, San

Bruno, CA.
--------------------------. Test, Antenna, Measurements and Calculations, Haiku Antenna,

1942, National Archives and Records, San Bruno, CA.
--------------------------. Technical Report and Project History Contracts, 1944, A-816.

National Archives and Records, San Bruno, CA.
Wagner, Warren L., Derral R. Herbert, and S. H. Sohmer,.Manual of the Flowering

Plants of Hawai‘i. Vols. I and II (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990).
West, George. “’42 Saga in Haiku Valley Was Lifesaver for Navy.” Honolulu Star-
Bulletin, 4 June 1957.
Wilkes, Owen, Nils Petter Gleditsch, and Ingvar Botnen. Loran-C and Omega: A Study
of the Military Importance of Radio Navigation Aids (Oslo and New York: Norwegian
University Press and Oxford University Press, 1987).
Williams, Scott S. and Richard C. Nees, Revised by Deborah I. Olszewski. Mo‘olelo

Ha‘ikū: Archaeological Inventory Survey, Data Recovery, and Monitoring
84
Investigations for the Interstate Highway H-3 within Ha‘ikū Valley, He‘eia, Ko‘olau
Poko District, Island of O‘ahu (Honolulu: Ogden Environmental and Energy Services
Co., Inc. for the State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, 2002).
“Woman Recued From High Cliff.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 1 June 1964.
Woodbury, David O. Builders for Battle: How the Pacific Naval Air Bases Were
Constructed (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1946).
------------------------. “The High-Scalers of Haiku.” Reader’s Digest, October 1950, pp.

13-140.
Wysocki, J. P. “OMEGA: The Radionavigational System That Covers the World,” Coast
Guard Engineer’s Digest (Spring 1978): 12-18.
85
Appendix A
86
Appendix E
Flora and Fauna Study

Haʻikū Stairs Flora and Fauna Survey
for Honolulu Board of Water Supply
Heʻeia-Kāneʻohe, Koʻolaupoko, Oʻahu
Rick Barboza, Hui Kū Maoli Ola, LLC - January 17, 2018 
HAʻIKŪ STAIRS - HKMO, LLC 1

Introduction
This biological survey is a list of species observed along three main areas deemed
most impactful for the feasibility study pertaining to the future of the Haʻikū Stairs. This in-
cludes: 1. The Haʻikū Stairs itself. 2. All current and potential access points used to access
the base of the Haʻikū Stairs: Poʻokela Street Access (including Puoni Street) and Haʻikū
Road and Kūneki Street Access into Haʻikū Valley and 3. The old stretch of stairs and
handrails along the Koʻolau summit ridge beyond the Haʻikū Stairs known as the Moanalua
Middle Saddle.
The information gathered here is to supplement the Environmental Impact Statement
being conducted by G70. The data compiled in this report primarily involves the inventory of
native (Indigenous and Endemic) and alien (Polynesian and post Captain Cook introduced)
plant species but also includes any other animal or insects observed.
Methodology
Plants
The initial survey along Haʻikū Stairs (Stairway to Heaven) took place on August 30,
2017 and a follow up site visit happened on March 7, 2018. Between February 23rd and 30th
2018, the surveys for the Poʻokela Street Access and Haʻikū Road/Kūneki Street Access into
Haʻikū Valley took place. Then on June 23, 2018 the survey of the Moanalua Middle Stairway
was completed.
The Haʻikū stairs survey encompassed the entire length of the

stairs from the base up to the top Cable Car/Hoist Building on the
summit. Beyond that summit headed west along the ridge is the
area known as the Moanalua Middle Stairs. For both of these sur-
vey sites, everything within the stairway and up to ten feet out on
either side of the stairway hand rails were documented. This was
determined to be the area most potentially impacted if the stairs
are torn down. It also includes the plants/animals within and
around each platform rest area (observation deck) which numbered
five total including the two Cable Car Buildings and Microwave Sta-
tion. The distances were measured using a BOSCH GLM 35 laser-
BOSCH GLM35 Laser distance measurer
pointer measuring device and anything from the rail out to ten feet was noted, as long as it
was safe to approach and not a vertical cliff. In situations where there was a vertical drop
with the 10 foot boundary, we used our best judgement to determine the species from the
safe confines of the stairway railings.
Along the Haʻikū Stairs, the first appearance of any native plant species was document-
ed by photographing it and noting where it was located by stairway module number, step

number and which side of the stairs it occurred. For example, the ‘ōhā wai (Clermontia ob-
longfolia) doesn’t make its appearance until module 374, step 3 on the left hand side
(374,3,L). It should be noted that the entire Haʻikū stairs is made up of hundreds of modules
and within each module there contains approximately 6-8 stairs. Although some are hard to
see, each module is stamped with a number on the left side hand railing at or near the bottom
end corner and the numbers increase as you ascend to the top. (Appendix 1)
Both lead to the Omega Station Access Road which extends from the middle of the val-
ley up to the Omega Station and circles back to and connects to the H-3 Service Road which
leads to the base of the stairs (Option A on the Survey Maps) On all occasions there were
two people to make the observations and photograph the plants and one note taker, three
people in all. See Various Access Maps for specific routes.
Poʻokela Street Access extends up past Anchor Church and eventually becomes the H-
3 Service Road
Two potential public access routes which lead into Haʻikū valley were included for the
biological survey. The first area is the access route starting at Poʻokela Street up past Anchor
Church and up to the H-3 Service Road that intersects Puoni Place access road which is
managed by the City and County of Honolulu. The other potential access route is on the
Northern side of Haʻikū Valley where both Kūneki Street and Haʻikū Road meet and lead into
the valley via the Omega Station Access Road which extends up the middle of the valley to
the Omega Station and circles back down at which point another lateral cut was made to
connect up to the H-3 Service Road and down to the base of the Stairway. This access is
marked as “Option A” on both the Kūneki Street and Haʻikū Road Access Maps. It was during
this survey that we also included a short-cut access route marked as “Option B” on both
aforementioned maps which cuts across the valley towards the base of the stairs immediately
upon reaching the Omega Station Access Road via the property owned by Hui Kū Maoli Ola,
LLC. The biological surveys for all of these access routes was made by observations along
both sides of the existing access roads or trails from the road or trail edge in 10 feet.
Other Biota
While conducting the plant surveys, we also noted any other biota we came across
such as birds and insects flying over or within the foliage of the trees, other insects on the
ground and any gastropods. Special effort was made in trying to find native insects and gas-
tropods by spending more time on particular plants that these creatures tend to occupy such
as under the leaves of Pū’ahanui, within the leaf whorls of ‘ieʻie, or on the fronds of various
ferns.
The Haʻikū Stairs, Moanalua Middle Stairs and all access routes were evaluated for
any potential environmental impact that either opening the Haʻikū Stairs to the public or re-
moving it may have on the native biota that currently reside in these locations. The evalua-
tions and future recommendations will be based on the current inventory and population den-
sity of existing native and/or alien species present at each location. The presence of native
species currently listed as Threatened or Endangered could result in specific management
practices for purposes of establishing Critical Habitat to ensure the designated area is best
suited for the survival of that individual or population and its entire species as a whole.

Results
Table 1. provides an inventory of the species observed and lists them out alphabetical-
ly by Family, Botanical Name and Hawaiian and/or common name if known. The table in-
cludes a Location Key which takes note of which species are found at each site: A= Haʻikū
Stairs; B= Poʻokela Street, Haʻikū Rd/Kūneki St. Access Routes; and C= The Moanalua Mid-
dle Saddle section. This makes it easy to compare the various sites and any species overlap.
The table also shows approximately how abundant each species is at each site relative to its
estimated percent cover. All surveys were conducted during the day and results are incon-
clusive of what species (insects, gastropods, and bats) that may be nocturnally active. How-
ever, having lived in Haʻikū Valley for the past 10 years I’ve never seen a native bat, only in-
troduced barn owls at night.
The Ha’ikū Stairs (Stairway to Heaven)
This survey started from the H-3 Service road at the base of the stairs and headed up
to the summit of Keahiakahoe, ending at the top building structure. Appendix 1 features pic-
tures of the first appearance and location of each species of native plant seen on the hike up
the stairs.
Plants
Native Plants
A good mix of native ferns, shrubs and trees are scattered along the length of the
stairway which helps in painting a picture of what that area looked liked in the past. In partic-
ular, I was most impressed with the species diversity of two types of plants: ‘Ōhiʻa lehua (Met-
rosideros spp.) and Kōlea (Myrsine spp.). Both plants had multiple species present that var-
ied depending on elevation. The ‘ōhiʻa lehua for example started low with Metrosideros
polymorpha variety imbracata, then as you ascended a bit higher you could see some natural
hybrids of M. polymorpha x M. tremuloides which pulled more towards pure M. tremuloides a
bit higher. Metrosideros macropus starts to make an appearance about midway up the hike
with several M. macropus x M. polymorpha and even some M. macropus x M. tremuloides
hybrids present. Above that M. polymorpha variety polymorpha starts to show up and lastly
the M. rugosa is nearest the summit.
Some varieties of ‘ōhiʻa found on the stairway. From left to right: Metrosideros polymorpha var. imbricata, M.
tremuloides, M. polymorpha hybrid, M. rugosa. The left to right sequence also mirrors their distribution on the
stairway from bottom to top.
The Kōlea (Myrsine spp.) follows a similar path but doesn't begin until 1/3 the way up
the stairs. Beginning with M. lessertiana, then up further to M. fosbergii and even higher to
what looks like M. pukooensis (couldn’t ID thoroughly since its location on a steep drop away
from the railings) and highest up M. sandwicensis begins to show up. Natural hybrids be-
tween species of Myrsine can be found to varying degrees within this range.
Various types of Kōlea (Myrsine spp.) found along the stairway hike.
Alien Species
The vegetation within and immediately adjacent to the stairway is dominated with low
growing, herbaceous, alien weeds and vines from the bottom of the stairway to the summit.
The diversity and abundance of native species is threatened by the ever encroaching pres-
ence of invasive plants, in particular, Maile pilau (Paedaria scandens), Clidemia hirta,
Arthrostema ciliatum, Ageratina adenofora and Erigeron karvinskianus which span the prac-
tically the entire length of the stairs. Larger trees such as the octopus tree (Schefflera
actinophylla), Guava and Strawberry guava (Psidium spp.), African tulip (Spathodea cam-
panulata) and Juniper berry (Citharexylum caudatum) are also scattered up and down the
length of the stairs and in some places overwhelmingly dominant for hundreds of steps mid-
way up the ascent. The aggressive nature of these species make it impossible for native
vegetation to reclaim these spots and pose a serious threat to the native species that remain.
Maile pilau smothering a lama tree. Thick Clidemia understory Plantago major blanketing landing

Endangered Species
No threatened or endangered species were observed within the boundaries of the sur-
vey along the climb up The Haʻikū Stairs.
Other Biota
Besides the plants, only three other native creatures made their appearance during my
two surveys on the stairs: the Blue Hawaiian Butterfly (Udara blackburnii), next a White-
tailed Tropicbird (Phaethon lepturus dorotheae) flew over us several times and finally we no-
ticed a damselfly most likely Megalagrion sp. possibly koelense. Everything else was non-na-
tive and is listed in Table 1.
Although none were recorded on these two most recent surveys, I have seen ‘Apa-
pane birds (Himatione sanguinea) foraging among the blooming ‘ōhiʻa trees in the past.
Most likely because none of the trees were blooming is the reason why no native forest birds
species were observed.
Poʻokela Street and Haʻikū Road/Kuneki Street Access Routes
Although listed as two separate areas, these two access points serve as entry ways to
the same forest just on opposite sides of Haʻikū Valley. Therefore the majority of the plants
species overlap and from a survey stand point can be seen as the same forested area. The
Hui Kū Maoli Ola property is situated directly between both access routes and both connect
to the H-3 Service Road. The Haʻikū Rd.
Plants
Native Plants
Native plant species were far and few with only a handful of species present. It was
good to see some māmaki, neneleau and ‘ōhi’a but their numbers were extremely low relative
to the amount of area that forest covered. If not for the occasional patch of pala'ā fern or
cluster of moa the native species were usually solitary, fighting to compete for limited avail-
ability of sunlight. The survey days for these sites were heavily over cast and rained off and
on throughout the day which increased mosquito activity but weather most likely reduced the
bird activity as seen in Table 1.
Alien Plants
The previous land use within Ha’ikū Valley over the last one hundred years from mili-
tary occupation and landfills, to abandoned agriculture sites and the construction of the H-3
Freeway, coupled with high precipitation and complete lack of land management has resulted
in this valley being overrun with non-native, highly invasive plant species. A lush forest of ag-
gressive canopy trees like Albezia, Gunpowder, Octopus, Monkeypods and Banyan trees
paired with an understory of Binga-bing, strawberry guava, black bamboo and hau made tra-
versing slow and sometimes difficult.
Endangered Species
No threatened or endangered species were observed in any area within either access
point, nor on Hui Kū Maoli Olaʻs site or anywhere on or immediately surrounding the Omega
Station Access Road.

Other Biota
Even though none were seen, the presence of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) was made preva-
lent with the numerous pig wallows and trails that on more than one occasion became our
guide way through the thickets of bamboo, hau and strawberry guava. Red-billed leiothrix
and white-rumped shamaa thrushes were commonly seen in the understory while Japanese
white-eyes were observed stealing nectar (removing nectar by punching a hole through the
calyx of the flower and not actually aiding in the pollination of that flower) from hau flowers.
Moanalua Middle Saddle
Approximately 200 ft beyond the Summit of the Haʻikū stairs headed towards the back
of the valley along the Koʻolau mountain ridge line is a section of old metal stairs and railings
known as the Moanalua Middle Saddle. Similar to the Haʻikū Stairs, this area is made up of
multiple modules (71 in altogether) totaling close to 850 feet long. Unlike the Haʻikū Stairs,
this section is hardly ever traversed due to its location which is away from both the Haʻikū
Stairs and the Moanalua Valley trail used to access the Haʻikū Stairs from Moanalua. Unless
you know where to go from the Haʻikū Stairs, this section of stairs is only utilized by people
hiking the Koʻolau Summit Trail, which is not that common of a hike. Being a route less trav-
eled and surrounded on both ends by native plants, the native plant community along this
section was relatively intact.
Plants
Native Plants
Many native plants that were observed in this area were also found along the upper
half of the Haʻikū Stairs survey. However, in addition to those similarities, Appendix 2 also
documents additional photos of native plant species found within this Moanalua Middle Sad-
dle area and not on the Haʻikū Stairs.
The minimal human impact, besides the metal stairs, results in what you'd expect this
portion of the Koʻolau summit to look like. Numerous species of native shrubs or small trees,
stout or dwarfed in morphology caused by the environmental conditions typical of the
windswept summits. The diversity was surprising as well considering that it shared many
similar species as the Haʻikū Stairs but also had 11 additional native species (including two
possible endangered species) not found in the previous sites.
Alien Plants
Not many alien plant species were recorded in this area (See Table 1). Invasive
species such as Clidemia were present but no way as dominant compared to other locations
that were surveyed and due to the environmental conditions were much smaller in size.
Other Biota
A few bird species (mainly non-native) did cross our path along this area during our
survey but it was also great to witness the flight of the white-tailed tropic bird and ʻapapane off
in the distance. The Blue Koa moth and what appeared to be the same species of native
Megalagrion observed on the Haʻikū Stairs.
Endangered Species
This area has at least one endangered species found within the surveyed area, Plan-
tago princeps otherwise know to Hawaiians as ale, laukahi and/or laukahi kuahiwi. Another
plant species, which upon observation looked to be in the genus Cyanea, possibly Cyanea

calycina, was seen but due to the windswept nature of the area and small size of the plant, it
was difficult to make a positive I.D. based on morphological characteristics alone. Also, i did
not have a collection permit to take/collect any potential endangered species or part thereof.
However this area falls within the middle of the range of this species within the Koʻolau Moun-
tains and other plants that are positively identified as C. calycina can be seen only a short
distance away.
Discussion
In 2009 I hiked the Haʻikū Stairs for the first time and the differences between then and
now are staggering. Unmanaged trespassing by hikers from all over the world has really tak-
en on toll on the native biota and the overall health of the ecosystem by: 1. unknowingly dis-
persing alien plant seeds up and down the entire length of the stairway 2. leaving loads of
trash behind and 3. causing large amounts of erosion by going off of the stairs and making
make shift camps. As an example of the number of people that illegally hike up these stairs,
in 2014 I counted 191people who attempted to trespass through our property located at the
top of the Kūneki Street/Haʻikū Road access gate in one night.
The high volume of people hiking without proper sanitation protocols when reaching
the stairs resulted in the introduction and dispersal of numerous invasive plant seeds. To get
to the stairs, hikers routinely cut across highly disturbed jungles of invasive plants, which
happens at night or in the dark of morning in order to watch the sunrise from the top or to
avoid crossing paths with security. Unknowingly, they carry seeds of invasive plants that
hitch hike up into the healthier native forest. Hikers are also introduce plants like citrus and
avocados that they pack in with their lunches and while eating spit the seeds out which even-
tually germinate. These plants can be seen at each of the landings, cable car/hoist buildings
and summit where people usually stop and take a break.
Several citrus trees and avocados can be seen at the landings suggesting that people are taking a fruit snack
break and disposing the seeds off the stairs into the native surroundings

In regards to human waste, huge amounts of trash can be seen on various access
trails, the Omega Station Access Rd., the H-3 Service Rd, on and around the stairs, and at
the base and summit of the Haʻikū Stairs. The trash mainly consists of plastic water bottles,
beer bottles, soda cans, food wrappers, clothing and camping gear including old tents that
were damaged and left behind.
Trash build up at the base of the stairs, on the stairs and at another access point leading to the stairway.
(Left) Native forest cleared near summit for giant swing that was later removed, now area left open for en-
croaching weeds. (Center) Passing other hikers by climbing over railing trampling plants. (Right) Heavy ero-
sion from trespassing hikers leading to base of stairs.
Large swaths of erosion can be seen at various points along the access routes as well
as at the stairway. Again, due to the high number of people on the stairs at the same time
going in opposite directions and because the width of the stairs are so narrow, people need to

climb over the sides of the railings to make room for passers by which trample and kill the na-
tive plants growing there. In areas where this happens too often, no plants can rejuvenate
resulting in more erosion and soil runoff from he near daily episodes of rain.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the abundance and diversity of native plants has
decreased. A few species in particular that I remember seeing back in 2009 were not present
at all in 2018. There were three different Hawaiian lobelias, one of which (Lobelia hypoleuca)
was growing out from one of the steps above the second landing and the other two (Tremat-
alobelia macrostachys and T. singularis) were found right before you reach the summit.
‘Akolea (Boemehria grandis), a large native shrub/small tree was not observed during this
visit but I remember seeing a large patch of it in 2009. These native plants are being re-
placed more and more by invasive plants that have begun to outweigh the capacity of the
substrate on the steep cliff faces causing several landslides which increase erosion, invasive
species establishment and jeopardize the structural integrity of the stairway
Heavily damaged section of stairs caused from a

landslide during heavy rains.
Conclusion
Because of the central location of the Haʻikū Stairs within the Koʻolau Mountain Range,
the negative impacts brought about from years of zero management and illegal hiking are
concerning. This combination has turned the stairs into a vector which expedited the spread
of some of the most invasive plant species into an otherwise hard to reach, native environ-
ment. From an ecological perspective, management in the form of weed control and native
plant restoration should be listed as high priority regardless if the the intent is to tear down
the stairs or keep it open for public use. If the stairs are to be decommissioned, the entire
area within and surrounding the stairs should be restored back to a minimum of 90%native
species coverage. Starting with the deconstruction of the Moanalua Middle Saddle would be
easiest due to its currently degraded state and its relatively intact native plant community,

reaching the 90% native cover would be easy. Once you move on to the Haʻikū Stairs,
starting from the top and working down would be the easiest way to secure minimal
disturbance to the areas that have been restored. Upon reaching the 90% at each module,
you can begin deconstructing and removing said module ensuring no one goes beyond it
which could potentially contaminate the newly restored section.
There is potential for impact to the endangered species, Plantago princeps, found on the
Moanalua Saddle stairs. Between the time of the survey and proposed site disturbance
work, it is possible the Plantago princeps may have propagated and that new seedlings exist
in the vicinity. Prior to any activities that would disturb the Moanalua Saddle stairs, a
biologist would need to identify the location(s) of the plant(s), flag them, and mark off the
area not to be disturbed during removal activities. The recommended mitigation is to provide
a buffer area between disturbance work and the endangered plant(s) including the stair
module where the plant is located, plus two modules on either side for a total of five
untouched modules. This five-module buffer would apply to each endangered plant that is
found. The areas of steep drop off on either side of the buffer modules should be avoided to
the extent possible, except as needed to move around the modules remaining in place. For
the deconstruction scenario, this mitigation would prevent disturbance to the endangered
plant(s) and to areas that are potentially seeded.
Should the Haʻikū Stairs stay open, a managing entity (either government driven or private
enterprise) needs to begin limiting the amount of people, as well as educating them on the
proper protocols when entering such an ecological and culturally sensitive place. In addition,
precautions should be taken at all levels to minimize the spread of invasive weeds from
adjacent access points leading to the stairway. This could be in the form of expanded native
forest restoration into these areas which would add tremendous benefits the surrounding
ecology as well as boot and gear wash sites with inspections of gear prior to beginning the
hike. Providing a fee to hikers and an even heftier fine for trespassers will easily provide the
revenue needed to execute proper management and restoration of the area. The visiting
hikers could also be involved in the management of the stairs by actively participating in
weed removal, out planting of native plants, trash pick up maintenance.
The beauty of this place has been taken advantage of far too long and puts risk not only to
our native biodiversity but also the capacity of this watershed to do its job. Without the native
plants that adapted to these mountain ranges to help them absorb rainwater to feed our
aquifers, non-native plants will continue to degrade the capacity of our mountains to do that.

Appendix 1. Native Plants on Haʻikū Stairs and Moanalua Middle Saddle
Lama (covered in vines): 20, 5, R. Carex wahuensis: 20, 7, R Halapepe: 24, 7, R
Pala’a: 27, 3, Both sides. ‘Uki’uki: 30, 6, R M. poly. imbricata, ‘uluhe: 33, 1, RL
Maile: 34, 1, R ‘Ōhi’a hybrid: 38, 1, R. Ulei: 38, 2, R
‘Āhihi: 38, 6, Both sides M. poly. poly: 42, 2, L Ko’oko’olau: 42, 5, R
Pūkiawe: 43, 1, L ‘Akia kuahiwi: 44, 4, R M. macropus: 45, 1, L
‘Ākoko: 63, 5, L ‘Ilima: 66, 2, L Kōpiko: 70, 7, R
Hapu’u: 72, 5, R Kāwelu: 73, 2, L ‘Āhinahina: 73, 4, L
:
Māmaki 98, 6, R Peperomia, Lepisorus: 101, 5, L ‘Ie’ie: 119, 5, L
Kōlea: 148, 1, L ‘Ama’u: 223, 1, L ‘Uki: 231, 4, L
Manono: 263, 1, L Lehua Papa: 320, 3, L Kōlea fosbergii: 322, 2, L

Pū’ahanui: 326, 4, R ‘Ōhi’a hā: 328, 2, R ‘Ōhelo: 340, 3, L
Kāwa’u: 347, 1, L Hāpu’u ‘i’i: 346, 6, L

Kōlea Lau Nui: 350, L, 2
‘Uki’ukiDsand.:350, 5, R ‘Alani: 360, 1, L ‘Ōhā wai: 374, 3, L
Kadua sp.: 378, 7, L Adenophorus: 380, 7, R Kanawao: 381, 7, L
‘Ōlapa: 385, 1, R Hoi Kuahiwi: 385, 1, R Wahinenohomauna: 387,5,R
Mahinalua: 387, 5, R Hō’awa: 395, 1, L Hame: 401, 1, L
Naupaka Kua.: 401, 1, L ‘Ama’u S. pallida 432, 5, L. Kukaemoa, Loulu: 440, 1, L
Pōpolo: 1st Pulley House ‘Ohe: 497, 2, L. Huperzia: 515, 3, stair
Kapana 519, 2, R ‘Uluhe lau nui: 558, 4, R Kōlea lau li’i: 567, 3, L
Pep. elipticabacca: Top Pulley House (Summit)
Additional Native Plants Found on Moanalua Middle Saddle (Area

C) Not surveyed on main Haʻikū Stairs (Area A)
Kamakahala Cyanea sp. Na’ena’e
Laukahi ‘Ohe Naupaka ‘Ohe Mauka
ʻAlani Lapalapa Wāwae’iole
N. Kuahiwi (S. gaudichaudiana). ‘Ahakea

Table 1. Species List
STATUS KEY: LOCATION KEY: ABUNDANCE KEY:
A= Alien Species E= Endemic Species (Only found in A= Ha’ikū Stairs. 1= Low Occurrence <5 times in
(Intoduced by man after Hawaii) B=Poʻokela St. Access, Kūneki St. each site it was found in. Letters
the arrival of Capt. Cook E!= Endangered Species and Haʻikū Rd. Access Routes parentheses (ABC) tell which
in1778) C= Moanalua Middle Saddle stairs site the relative abundance
along ridge line refers to.
2-4= Moderately Low to
Abundant within each site it.
P= Polynesian Intro. I= Indigenous Species (Native to 5= Dominant relative to all other

(Introduced by Hawaii and elsewhere) species; found throughout site,
Polynesians prior to 1778) ex. bottom to top of stairs or
completely throughout Ha’ikū
Valley
Family Species Hawaiian Name Common Name Status Location Abundance
DICOTYLEDONES
ACANTHACEAE
Justicia betonica White Shrimp Plant A AB 2
ANACARDIACEAE
Mangifera indica Manakō, Meneke Mango A B 2
Rhus sandwicensis Neneleau, Neleau Hawaiian Sumac E B 1
Schinus terebinthifolius Wili Laiki Christmasberry A AB 3
APOCYNACEAE
Alexia stellata Maile I A 2
AQUIFOLIACEAE
Ilex anomalum Kāwa’u, ‘Aiea (Kaua’i) I AC 2
ARALIACEAE
Schefflera actinophylla He’e Octopus Tree A ABC 4(AB) 1C
Cheirodendron trigynum ‘Ōlapa E A 2

Cheirodendron platyphyllum Lapalapa E C 1
Polyscias oahuensis ‘Ohe Mauka E C 1
ASTERACEAE
Ageratina adenophora Pāmakani Haole A ABC 5(A) 4(BC)
Ageratum conyzoides Maile hohono Tropic Ageratum A ABC 3
Bidens alba Kīnehe Spanish Needle A ABC 3(AB) 2(C)
Bidens sandvicensis E A 1
Bidens macrocarpa Ko’oko’olau, Kōko’olau E A 1
Dubautia laxa Na’ena’e E C 1
Pluchea carolinensis Sourbush A ABC 3 (B) 2(AC)
Emilia sonchifolia Flora’s Paintbrush A ABC 2
Erigeron karvinskianus Daisy Fleabane A ABC 5(AB) 3(C)
Erigeron bellioides Fleabane A ABC 3
Flaveria trinerva A AC 2
1
Sphagneticola trilobata Wedelia A ABC 4 (B) 2(AC)
BIGNONIACEAE
Spathodea campanulata African Tulip Tree A AB 3 (B) 1(A)
BUDDLEIACEAE
Buddleja asiatica Huelo ‘Īlio A ABC 2
CAMPANULACEAE
Clermontia oblongfolia ‘Oha wai E A 1
Cyanea sp. (Endangered?) Hāhā E(!) C 1
CASUARINACEAE
Casuarina equisetifolia Ironwood A AB 2
CONVOLVULACEAE
Ipomea indica Koali ‘awa I B 2
Merremia tuberosa Wood Rose A B 2
EBENACEAE
Diospyros sandwicensis Lama, Ēlama E A 2
EPACRIDACEAE
Leptechophylla tameiameiae Pūkiawe, ‘A’ali’i mahu, Kānehoa, I A 2

Maiele, Kāwa’u
ERICACEAE
Vaccinium calycinum ‘Ōhelo, ‘Ōhelo Kau Lā’au E AC 2
EUPHORBIACEAE
Antidesma platyphyllum Hame, Hamehame, Ha’ā, E A 1

Ha’āmaile, mehame, mehamehame
Aleurites molucanna Kukui Candlenut Tree P AB 2
Euphorbia multiformis Ākoko E A 1
Macaranga mappa A AB 1(A) 3(B)
Macaranga tanarius Bingabing A AB 1(A) 3(B)
Manihot glaziovii Ceará Rubber Tree A AB 2
Ricinus communis Pā’alai Castor Bean A AB 2
FABACEAE
Acacia confusa Formosa Koa A B 2

Albezia falcata A B 3
Caecalpinia decapetala Puakelekino Cat’s Claw, Wait-a-bit A B 3
Canavalia cathartica Maunaloa A B 3

Desmodium incanum Ka’imi Spanish clover A ABC 5(AB)2(C)
Desmodium intortum A B 3
Desmodium tortuosum Florida beggars A B 3
2
Indigofera spicata Creeping indigo A AB 2
Leucaena leechcephalla Koa Haole A AB 3

Macroptilium lathyroides Cow pea A B 3
Mimosa pudica Hilahila Sleeping Grass A ABC 2(A)3(B) 1(C)
Mucuna gigantea Ka’e’e Giant Sea Bean I B 2
Samanea saman Ohai, Pū ‘Ohai Monkeypod Tree A B 2
Senna surattensis Kolomona A B 1
GESNERIACEAE
Cyrtandra paludosa Kanawao, Moa, Hahala E A 2
GOODENIACEAE
Scaevola gaudichaudiana Naupaka kuahiwi E C 1
Scaevola glabra ‘Ohe Naupaka E C 1
Scaevola mollis Naupaka kuahiwi E AC 1(A) 2(C)
HELICONIACEAE
Heliconia bihai A B 1
Heliconia sp. Parrot’s Beak A AB 3 (B) 1(A)
HYDRANGEACEAE
Broussaisia arguta Pū’ahanui Hawaiian Hydrangea E AC 1(A) 2(C)
LAMIACEAE
Phyllostegia grandiflora Kāpana E A 1
LAURACEAE
Cinnamon burmannii A AB 3 (B) 1(A)
Persea americana Pea Avocado A AB 1
LOGANIACEAE
Labordia hosakana Kamakahala E C 1
MALVACEAE
Hibiscus tiliaceus Hau P AB 4(B) 2(A)
Sida fallax Ilima I A 1
MELASTOMATACEAE
Clidemia hirta Koster’s Curse A ABC 5(AB) 3(C)
Arthrostema ciliatum Arthrostema A ABC 5(AB) 3(C)
MORACEAE
Ficus microcarpa Chinese Banyan A AB 1
MYRSINACEAE
Ardesia elliptica Inkberry/Shoebutton A AB 3
Ardesia crenata Hilo Holly A ABC 3(AB) 2(C)
3
Myrsine lessertiana Kōlea Lau Nui E AC 2
Myrsine fosbergii Kōlea E(!) AC 2

Myrsine pukooensis Kōlea E A 1
Myrsine sandwicensis Kōlea Lau Li’i E A 1
Various Myrsine Hybrids (Natural Kōlea E AC 2

Crosses)
MYRTACEAE
Psidium cattleianum Waiawi Strawberry Guava A ABC 3(AB) 1(C)
Psidium guajava Kuawa Guava A ABC 3(AB) 1(C)
Melaleuca quinquenervia Paperbark A B 2
Metrosideros polymorpha var. ‘Ōhi’a Lehua E AB 3(A) 1(B)

imbricata
Metrosideros polymorpha var. ‘Ōhi’a Lehua E AC 3

polymorpha
Metrosideros tremuloides Lehua ‘Āhihi E A 3
Metrosideros macropus Õhi’a Lehua E A 2
Metrosideros rugosa Lehua Papa E AC 2
Various Metrosideros hybrids Ōhi’a Lehua E AC 3(A) 2(C)

(Natural Crosses)
Syzigium cumini Java Plum A AB 3(B) 2(AC)
Syzigium jambos Roseapple A AB 2 (B) 1(A)
Syzigium sandwicensis Ōhi’a ‘ai E AC 2

Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Downy Rosemyrtle A ABC 2(AB) 1(C)
PHYTOLACCACEAE
Rivina humilis A B 2
PIPERACEA
Peperomia ellipticibacca ‘Ala’alawainui E A 1
Peperomia tetraphylla Ala’alawainui I A 1
PITTOSPORACEAE
Pittosporum glabrum Hō’awa, Hā’awa, Papahekili E A 1
PLANTAGINACEAE
Plantago major Kūhēkili, Laukahi haole Common Plantain A ABC 3(AB) 2(C)
Plantago princeps Ale, Laukahi, Laukahi Kuahiwi E! C 1
PROTEACEAE
Grevillea robusta Silver/Silk Oak A AB 1
ROSACEAE
Rubus rosifolius Thimbleberry A ABC 4(AB) 2(C)
Osteomeles anthylidifolia Ūlei I A 2
RUBIACEAE
Bobea eliator Ahakea E C 1
4
Coffee arabica Coffee A B 1
Kadua affinis Manono E A 1

Kadua centranthoides Manono E A 2
Kadua fosbergii Manono E AC 1
Kadua terminalis Manono E AC 2
Paederia scandens Maile Pilau A ABC 5
Psychotria mariniana Kōpiko E A 1
Psychotria fauriei Kōpiko E A 1
RUTACEAE
Citrus tangerina Tangerine A A 1
Melicope clusiifolia Alani, Kolokolo Mokihana, E A 1

Kūkaemoa
Melicope honoluluensis Alani E A 1
Melicope sp. (M. hosakae?) Alani E C 1
Melicope oahuensis Alani E A 1
SOLANACEAE
Solanum americanum Pōpolo, ‘Olohua, Polopolo, Glossy Nightshade I AB 2 (B) 1(A)

Pōpolohua
THYMELAEACEAE
Wikstroemia oahuensis ‘Ākia E ABC 2
TILIACEAE
Heliocarpus popayanensis Moho A B 1
ULMACEAE
Trema orientalis Gunpowder Tree A AB 4 (B) 2(A)
URTICACEAE
Pipterus albidus Mamaki E AB 1
VERBENACEAE
Citharexylum caudatum Juniper Berry A ABC 4(B)3(A)1(C)
Citharexylum spinosum Fiddlewood A B 2
Lantana camara Lantana A ABC 3(AB) 2(C)
Stachytarpheta jamaicensis Oī Blue Rat Tail A ABC 2
MONOCTYLEDONES
AGAVACEAE
Cordyline fruticosa Lā’ī, Kī Ti Leaf P AB 2
Chrysodracon halapepe Halapepe E A 1
ARACEAE
Alocasia macrorrhizos ‘Ape P B 1
5
Epipremnum pinnatum Taro Vine, Pothos A AB 3
Syngonium podophyllum A B 4
Xanthosoma robust Elephant Ear A B 3
ARECACEAE
Cocos nucifera Niu Coconut Tree I AB 1(A) 2(B)
Pritchardia martii Loulu Hiwa E A 1
COMMELINACEAE
Commelina diffusa Honohono grass Spreading Dayflower A ABC 4(AB) 2(C)
CYPERACEAE
Carex wahuensis E A 2
Cyperus involucratus Umbrella Sedge A B 1
Kyllinga brevifolia Kili'o'opu Kyllinga A ABC 2
Machaerina angustifolia ‘Uki I AC 3
LILIACEAE
Dianella sandwicensis (lavarum) ‘Uki'uki I A 1
ORCHIDACEAE
Arundina graminifolia Bamboo Orchid A ABC 2(AB) 1(C)
Phaius takarvilleae Nun’s Hood Orchid A AB 1
Spathoglottis plicate Malayan Ground Orchid A ABC 2(AB) 1(C)
PANDANACEAE
Freycinetia arborea Ie’ie I AC 3
Pandanus tectorius Hala, Pū Hala Corkscrew Pine I AB 2(B) 1(A)
POACEAE
Axonopus fissifolius Narrowleaved Carpetgrass A AC 3
Cenchrus polystachios Blue Buffel Grass A A 1
Coix lacryma-jobi Kūkaekōlea, Pūpū kōlea Job’s tear A AB 2
Cynodon dactyl Mānienie Haole A ABC 3
Eleusine indica Mānienie ‘Ali’i Wiregrass A ABC 3
Eragrostis grandis Kāwelu, ‘Emoloa Love Grass E A 2

Isachne distichophylla ‘Ohe E A 3
Oplismenus hirtellus Basketgrass A ABC 5
Megathyrsus maximus Guineagrass A AB 3

Paspalum conjugatum Hilo Grass A ABC 3
Phyllostachys nigra Black Bamboo A AB 4 (B) 2(A)
Melinus repens Natal Redtop A AB 2

Setaria palmifolia Palmgrass A ABC 2
Themeda villosa Lyons Grass A B 2
SMILACACEAE
6
Smilax melastomifolia Hoi Kuahiwi, pi’oi, aka’awa, uhi, Catbrier, greenbrier E A 1
ulehihi
ZINGERBERACEAE
Hedychium coronarium ‘Awapuhi Ke’oke’o White Ginger A B 2
Hedychium flavescense Awapuhi Melemele Yellow Ginger A B 2
Zingerber zerumbet ‘Awapuhi Shampoo Ginger P B 2
Ferns and Fern

Allies
BLECHNACEAE
Blechnum occidentale Blechnum Fern A ABC 3(AB) 2(C)
Sadleria cyatheoides ‘Ama’u, ‘Ama’uma’u E AC 2
Sadleria pallida Ama’u, ‘Ama’uma’u E A 2
CYATHEACEAE
Sphaeropteris cooperi Australian Tree Fern A B 3
DICKSONIACEAE
Cibotium chamissoi Hapu’u E A 1

Cibotium glaucum Hapu’u Pulu E AC 1
Cibotium menziesii Hapu’u ‘I’i E AC 1
GLEICHENIACEAE
Dicranopteris lineari Uluhe E ABC 3(A)2(B)3(C)
Diplopterygium pinnatum Uluhe lau nui E A 1
GRAMMITIDACEAE
Adenophorus tamariscinus Wāhine Noho Mauna E AC 1(A) 2(C)
Adenophorus pinnatifidus E A 1
Grammitis tenella Mahinalua E AC 2
HYMENOPHYLLACEAE
Gonocormus minutus I A 1
LINDSAEACEAE
Odontosoria chinensis Pala’ā I ABC 4(A) 2(BC)
LYCOPODIACEAE
Huperzia erubescens I AC 2 (B) 1(A)
Lycopodium venustulum Wāwae ‘iole I C 2
MARATTIACEAE
Angiopteris evecta Mule’s foot fern A AB 2
NEPHROLEPIDACEAE
7
Nephrolepis multiflora Kupukupu haole A ABC 2(AC) 3(B)
POLYPODIACEAE
Lepisorus thunbergianus Pākahakaha, ‘Ēkaha, ‘Ākōlea, I A 1

Pua’akuhinia
Phlebodium aureus Laua’e haole Rabbit’s Foot Fern A AB 1
Phymatosorus grossus Laua’e (Haole) Maile Scented Fern A ABC 2 (AC) 3(B)
PSILOTACEAE
Psilotum nudum Moa Whisk fern I AB 1
PTERIDACEAE
Adiantium raddianum ‘Iwa’iwa haole Maidenhair Fern A AB 1
SELANGINELLACEAE
Sellanginella arbuscula Lepelepe a Moa E A 1
THELYPTERIDACEAE
Christella dentata Pai’i’ihā Downy Wood Fern A ABC 2
Christella parasitica A ABC 3(AB) 2(C)
Spiders
SALTICIDAE
Phidippus audax Jumping Spider A AB 1
SPARASSIDAE
Heteropoda venatoria Cane Spider A B 2
Damselflies and
Dragonflies
COENAGRIONIDAE
Megalagrion sp. possibly koelense E AC 1
LIBELLULIDAE
Pantala flavescens Wandering glider A A 1
Butterflies and
Moths
LYCAENIDAE
Udara blackburnii Hawaiian Blue Butterfly E AC 1
NYMPHALIDAE
8
Vanessa virginiensis American Lady Butterfly A AB 1
PIERIDAE
Eurema nicippe Sleepy Orange Butterfly A A 1
Bees and Wasps
APIDAE
Apis mellifera European Honey Bee A ABC 2

Xylocopa snoring Sonoran Carpenter Bee A AB 1
VESPIDAE
Paravespula vulgaris Common Yellowjacket A B 1
Mosquitos
CULICIDAE
Aedes albopictus Asian Tiger Mosquito A B 3
Gastropods
ACHATINIDAE
Achatina fulica African Snail A B 2
LIMACIDAE
Ambigolimax valentianus Three-Banned Garden Slug A A 1
SPIRAXIDAE
Euglandina rosea Rosey Wolf Snail A ABC 1
VERONICELLIDAE
Laevicaulis alte Tropical Leatherleaf Slug A B 2
Veronicella cubensis Cuban Slug A AB 2
Birds
ESTRILDIDAE
Lonchura oryzivora Java Sparrow A B 1
LEIOTHRICHIDAE
Leiothrix lute Red-Billed Leiothrix A B 1
MUSCICAPIDAE
9
Copsychus malabaricus White-rumped Shamaa A B 1
PASSERIDAE
Passer domesticus House Sparrow A B 1
PHAETHONTIDAE
Phaethon lepturus dorotheae Koa’e Kea White-Tailed Tropicbird I AC 1
PICNONOTIDAE
Pycnonotus jocosus Red-whiskered Bulbul A AB 2 (B) 1(A)
Pycnonotus cafer Red-vented Bulbul A ABC 2 (B) 1(A)
STURNIDAE
Acridotheres tristis Common Myna A ABC 1
ZOSTEROPIDAE
Zosterops japonicus Mejiro, Japanese White-eye A ABC 2(B) 1(AC)
10
1
Appendix F
Acoustic Study
1
2
2a
1a
2b
1b
3
Page 2
1
2
3
PROJECT LOCATION MAP AND FIGURE

NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 1
1 TA2A
TA TA2B
TA2C
TA
1
TD1
TA2B
TA2A TA2C
TA2A
2B
Page 14
TA
TA2
TA1
2C
TA2A TA
TA2B
TD2
TD1
HELICOPTER FLIGHT TRACKS USED FOR FIGURE

MODELING HELICOPTER DNL CONTOURS 3
Appendix G
Economic Studies
HAIKU STAIRS:
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
HAIKU STAIRS:
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
Plasch Econ Pacific LLC
June 2018
``
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... E-1
1. Demographic and Economic Conditions, Oʻahu .................................................................1

a. Population ............................................................................................................................1
b. Population Characteristics and Distribution ........................................................................1
c. Households ..........................................................................................................................1
d. Housing ...............................................................................................................................2
e. Income and Education .........................................................................................................2
f. Primary Economic Activities ...............................................................................................2
g. Labor Force and Employment .............................................................................................4
h. Projected Growth.................................................................................................................4
2. Demographic and Economic Setting, Koʻolaupoko ............................................................5

a. Population and Distribution .................................................................................................5
b. Households ..........................................................................................................................5
c. Housing................................................................................................................................5
d. Income and Education .........................................................................................................7
e. Primary Economic Activities ..............................................................................................7
f. Labor Force and Employment .............................................................................................8
g. Projected Growth.................................................................................................................8
FIGURES
1. Visitor Arrivals to O‘ahu: 2001 to 2017 ....................................................................................3

2. Koʻolaupoko Census Subdivision .............................................................................................6
TABLES
1. Demographic Characteristics, Oahu and Koolaupoko: 2010 and 2018 Estimates

2. Income and Education, O‘ahu and Ko‘olaupoko: 2010 and 2018 Estimates
3. Economic Characteristics, O‘ahu 2010 and 2017/2018
4. Visitor Plant Inventory, O‘ahu: 2017
5. Jobs by Industry, O‘ahu and Ko‘olaupoko: 2018
C-1
``
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The Haiku Stairs Improvements site is located in the Koʻolaupoko region. This region
on the island of O‘ahu has Demographic and economic conditions similar to those of the
entire island except for the following:
— Demographic
• Slower population growth.
• A slightly younger population, with slightly more pre-school and school-age
children.
• More whites and fewer Black/African Americans, Asians and Native
Hawaiians/Other Polynesians.
• Larger households.
• Lower vacancy rate.
— Income and Education
• Higher per-capita incomes.
• Less poverty.
The primary economic activities in Ko‘olaupoko and on the island of O‘ahu are
education and health services; trade, transportation, and utilities; and leisure and hospitality.
The education and health services industry in the Ko‘olaupoko region comprises a larger
proportion of jobs (33.1%) compared to the entire island (20.4%).
E-1
``
1. Demographic and Conditions, Oʻahu

Tables 1 to 6 summarize demographic and economic conditions for Oʻahu Island, as
well as the Koʻolaupoko region, which is discussed in the next section. Oʻahu Island is the
only island included in the City and County of Honolulu.
a. Population
In 2018, Oʻahu Island is estimated to have a population of about 997,520 residents, up
4.6% since the 2010 U.S. census (see Table 1). Residents include those who live full-time
or permanently on Oʻahu, and exclude visitors and part-time residents (i.e., those who reside
most of the time in a primary home located elsewhere). The defacto population, which
includes residents and visitors, is higher. In 2016, the latest year for which data is available,
the defacto population of O‘ahu was 1,049,121 due to the large influx of visitors the island
receives.
The total County population amounted to approximately 70% of the State population in
the 2010 U.S. Census—the largest of the four counties. Nearly 45 % of Oʻahu residents
live in Honolulu (Primary Urban Center), but the population also concentrates in areas, such
as Ewa, Central Oʻahu, and Windward Oʻahu.
b. Population Characteristics and Distribution

Oʻahu’s population is racially diverse (see Table 1). In 2018, Asians comprised an
estimated 40.9% of the County’s population, while people of two or more races made up
22.7% and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders represented 9.0%.
The estimated median age of Oʻahu residents was 37.2 years old in 2018. Despite
national demographic trends, the City and County of Honolulu’s population is not aging.
In 2010, the median age was 37.8 years old.
c. Households
The average household size on Oʻahu is estimated to be 2.95 people per household in
2018 and remains unchanged since 2010 (see Table 1). An estimated 55.7% of Oʻahu
households are homeowners in 2018—a percentage that has not changed significantly over
the past decade.
1
``
HAIKU STAIRS 2
d. Housing
In 2018, Oʻahu Island had an estimated 353,845 housing units, up 5.0% from 2010 (see
Table 1). This figure includes resort/residential units that are used as second homes, or are
available for visitors, or are vacant. Approximately 8% of housing units on the Island is
estimated to be vacant in 2018. In the 2010 Census, just 7.7% of housing units on the Island
of Oʻahu were vacant, including 2.6% that were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional
use.
e. Income and Education

Table 2 provides information on income levels and education for the residents of Oʻahu.
The median household income in 2018 is estimated to be at $85,409—an increase of 18.2%
since the period between 2008 and 2012. Between 2008 and 2012, an estimated 9.6% of
the County population was living below poverty level; 85.8% spoke English well or very
well. In 2018, 90.8% of O‘ahu residents are estimated to have a high school degree or
higher.
f. Primary Economic Activities

The principal economic driving forces for the economy of the Island of Oʻahu are
education and health services; trade, transportation and utilities; and leisure and hospitality
industries. Table 3 summarizes key economic characteristics for the Island of Oʻahu.
Tourism
Oʻahu hosted over 5.67 million visitors in 2017, and visitor expenditures totaled
approximately $7.62 billion, making tourism the dominant industry in the County (see Table
3). Visitors to Oʻahu in 2017 represented 61.3% of the State’s visitor arrivals by air, and
45.6% of Statewide visitor spending.
Figure 1 presents the annual number of visitor arrivals to Oʻahu island since 2001. As
shown, visitor arrivals have been on the rebound since 2009, when the County had
approximately 4 million visitor arrivals annually. Since that time, visitor arrivals increased
steadily.
There were 48,021 visitor units on the island of Oʻahu in 2017, including 7,059
condominium hotel units, 31,606 hotel units, 4,410 vacation rental units, and 4,385
imeshare units (see Table 4).
``
HAIKU STAIRS 3
6,000,000
5,500,000
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
2001 2006 2011 2016
Figure 1. Visitor Arrivals to O‘ahu: 2001 to 2017

``
HAIKU STAIRS 4
g. Labor Force and Employment

In 2017, the island of Oʻahu’s civilian labor force numbered 471,350 workers, up 5.6%
since 2010 (see Table 3). Employed civilians totaled 460,800 workers. The unemployment
rate in 2017 was 2.8%, a substantial decrease since 2010. Unemployment in the County
reached a peak at 6.0% in 2009 and 2010 when the national economy was in a recession.
Since that time, the County’s unemployment rate has gradually decreased each year as the
economy recovered and the tourism industry strengthened.
There were 486,218 jobs on the island of Oʻahu in 2018, an increase of 11.5% from
2010. The education and health services industry represents the largest proportion of jobs
on the island, accounting for 99,368 jobs or 20.4% of island wide jobs. Other industries
comprising a large portion of jobs on Oʻahu include: Trade, transportation & utilities
(97,099 jobs, 20.0%); leisure and hospitality (85,967 jobs or 17.7%); and professional &
business services (63,666 jobs, 13.1%). Table 5 also includes job counts for Oʻahu. This
table also includes counts for Koʻolaupoko which is discussed in the next section.
h. Projected Growth
The City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting prepared
Demographic and economic projections for the County in 2009. Table 6 summarizes past
growth for the 8-year period from 2010 to 2018 and future projected growth for the 12 year
period from 2018 to 2030.
As shown, Oʻahu Island’s resident population is projected to grow from about 997,520
residents in 2018 to about 1,017,576 residents in 2030. This indicates a slight deceleration
of growth rate: from about 4.6% over the past 8 years (0.58% annual average) to about 2.0%
for the future 12 year period (0.17% annual average). In spite of this projection, faster
growth is projected in the number of households on Oʻahu as well as the number of housing
units.
Based on the 2009 forecast, Oʻahu’s number of visitor units on the island was expected
to grow to 38,413 visitors units in 2030; however, the actual number of visitor units in 2017
was 48,021, exceeding the 2030 projection. The number of wage and salary jobs is projected
to increase by 37.0% from 486,218 jobs in 2018 to 666,194 jobs in 2030. For the previous
8 years period, the increase was 11.5%.
``
HAIKU STAIRS 5
2. Demographic and Economic Setting, Koʻoloaupoko

The Haiku Stairs is located within the Koʻolaupoko region (defined as the Koʻolaupoko
Census Subdivision as shown in Figure 2). This district includes the coastal communities
of Waimānalo, Kailua, Kāneʻohe, Kāneʻohe Station, Heʻeia, Ahuimanu, Kahalu'u, and
Waikāne.
a. Population and Distribution

In 2018, the Koʻolaupoko region had a resident population of approximately 116,809,
or 11.7% of the Oʻahu population. The population in Koʻolaupoko grew at a slower rate
than the island as a whole, increasing by 1.4% from 115,164 residents in 2010.
Similar to the island of Oʻahu as a whole, the resident population of the Koʻolaupoko
region is racially diverse. In 2018, white residents are estimated to comprise higher
proportion of the Koʻolaupoko population compared to the island as a whole; 33.9% of
residents are estimated to be white compared to 21.9% of residents on the entire island
(Table 1).
The resident profile of the Koʻolaupoko region is slightly younger than that of the island
of Oʻahu. The median age in Koʻolaupoko is estimated to be 36.54 years old in 2018,
compared to 37.20 years old on Oʻahu.
b. Households
The average household size in the Koʻolaupoko region is estimated to be 3.15 people
per household in 2018—a slight increase from 3.13 people per household in 2010 (Table
1). On average, households in Koʻolaupoko are larger than households on O‘ahu (2.95
people per household in 2018). The Ko‘olaupoko region also has a higher proportion of
family households (78.3%) compared to the island of O‘ahu (69.8%).
c. Housing
In 2018, the Koʻolaupoko region has an estimated 37,563 housing units—an increase of
approximately 1.8% since 2010 (Table 1). Consistent with the population growth
parameters, the region experienced a slower housing unit growth rate than the entire island,
where the number of housing units increased by 5.0% during the same time period.
Koʻolaupoko has a slightly lower proportion of vacant housing units than the island of
Oʻahu as a whole. Approximately 5.1% of housing units is estimated to be vacant in 2018
HAIKU STAIRS 6
Figure 2. Koʻolaupoko Census Subdivision

HAIKU STAIRS 7
in Koʻolaupoko, compared to 8.0% on the entire island of Oʻahu. The number of vacant
housing units in Koʻolaupoko has increased by 22.5% from 2010 to 2018; this could be
indicative that an increased number of housing units in the area are for seasonal,
recreational, or occasional use.
d. Income and Education

The median household income in Koʻolaupoko in 2018 is estimated at $101,774,
19.1% higher than Oʻahu island as a whole (Table 2). Correspondingly, Koʻolaupoko has
a higher per-capita income and a lower proportion of residents living in poverty. Between
2008 to 2012, an estimated 6.9% of residents were living in poverty in the region,
compared to 9.6% for the island of Oʻahu. A slightly higher proportion of residents in
Koʻolaupoko completed some secondary education compared to the island as a whole.
An estimated 68.6% of Koʻolaupoko residents attended some college or received a higher
education degree, compared to 64.8% of Oʻahu residents.
e. Primary Economic Activities

As with the entire island of Oʻahu, primary economic activities in Koʻolaupoko region
are the education and health services; trade, transportation, and utilities; and leisure and
hospitality. The education and health services in the Koʻolaupoko region comprises
33.1% of the district wide jobs, compared to 20.4% of the jobs on the entire island.
Tourism
The largest share of visitor units on Oʻahu is located in the Waikiki area, comprising
78.3% of the total visitor units on Oʻahu. Of the 48,021 visitor units on Oʻahu, 694 (1.4%)
units were located in Windward O‘ahu (Table 4). Hotels in the area include the MCB
Hawaii, the Lodge at Kaneohe, and the Paradise Bay Resort. The MCB Hawaii and the
Lodge at Kaneohe are located within the Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH). The
Paradise Bay Resort is the closest hotel to the project site—about 3.7 miles from the Haiku
Stairs. This resort provides 46 visitor units. Sixteen (16) Bed and Breakfast properties
are located in Windward Oʻahu, which provide 31 units. There are also 20 vacation rental
properties in Windward Oʻahu providing 144 units.
HAIKU STAIRS 8
f. Labor Force and Employment

As noted above, the education and health services are the primary industry in the
Koʻolaupoko region. This is reflected in the employment distribution. In 2018——
there are estimated to be 30,267 jobs in Koʻolaupoko (see Table 5). This accounts for
6.2% of the 486,218 Island-wide jobs in 2018. The education and health services industry
accounted for one third of jobs in Koʻolaupoko (33.1%). In comparison, education and
health services jobs represented 20.4% of total island wide jobs during the same year.
Trade, transportation & utilities jobs represented another 20.2% of jobs in Koʻolaupoko.
Financial activities & real estate as well as professional & business services comprise a
smaller proportion of the jobs in Ko‘olaupoko compared to O‘ahu as a whole.
g. Projected Growth
The Demographic and economic projections prepared for the County also include
projections by Census Subdivisions.
In addition to the projections for the Oʻahu Island, Table 6 also summarizes the
projections for the Koʻolaupoko region. For the most part, the Koʻolaupoko region is
projected to grow at the slower rate than that of the entire island. The number of visitor
units increased significantly by 542.6% in the last 8 year period, from 108 units in 2010
to 694 units in 2018; the number of units in 2018 exceeds the 2030 projection, 228 units.
The number of wage and salary jobs in the Ko‘olaupoko region are expected to increase
by 39.3% from 2018 to 2030, which is slightly higher rate than that of O‘ahu.
TABLES
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics, O‘ahu
and Ko‘olaupoko: 2010 and 2018 Estimates
Oahu Koolaupoko
Item
2010 2018 Change 2010 2018 Change
Defacto Population 987,963 1,049,121 6.2% n/a n/a n/a
(2010 and 2016 count, residents & visitors)
Population (residents) 953,207 997,520 4.6% 115,164 116,809 1.4%
Male 477,092 507,258 6.3% 57,745 59,551 3.1%
Female 476,115 490,262 3.0% 57,419 57,258 -0.3%
Distribution
Male 50.1% 50.9% 50.1% 51.0%
Female 49.9% 49.1% 49.9% 49.0%
Population by Age
Pre-school Age, 4 and Under 61,261 64,598 5.4% 7,507 7,802 3.9%
School Age, 5 to 20 188,459 192,101 1.9% 23,001 22,792 -0.9%
Working Age, 21 to 64 564,997 572,736 1.4% 67,439 65,972 -2.2%
Retirement Age, 65 and Over 138,490 168,085 21.4% 17,217 20,243 17.6%
Distribution
Pre-school Age, 4 and Under 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.7%
School Age, 5 to 17 19.8% 19.3% 20.0% 19.5%
Working Age, 18 to 64 59.3% 57.4% 58.6% 56.5%
Retirement Age, 65 and Over 14.5% 16.9% 14.9% 17.3%
Median Age 37.8 37.20 -1.6% 38.4 36.54 -4.8%
Ethnicity
White alone 198,732 218,385 9.9% 37,726 39,649 5.1%
Black or African American alone 19,256 37,317 93.8% 1,303 2,179 67.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 2,438 3,422 40.4% 335 449 34.0%
Asian alone 418,410 407,721 -2.6% 29,120 27,323 -6.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 90,878 90,133 -0.8% 11,490 10,266 -10.7%
Some Other Race alone 10,457 13,897 32.9% 1,308 1,561 19.3%
Two or More Races 213,036 226,645 6.4% 33,882 35,382 4.4%
Distribution
White alone 20.8% 21.9% 32.8% 33.9%
Black or African American alone 2.0% 3.7% 1.1% 1.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4%
Asian alone 43.9% 40.9% 25.3% 23.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 9.5% 9.0% 10.0% 8.8%
Some Other Race alone 1.1% 1.4% 1.1% 1.3%
Two or More Races 22.3% 22.7% 29.4% 30.3%
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics, O‘ahu
(continued)
Oahu Koolaupoko
Item
2010 2018 Change 2010 2018 Change
Households 311,047 325,569 4.7% 35,315 35,629 0.9%
Average Size 2.95 2.95 0.0% 3.13 3.15 0.6%
People by Type of Home
Living in homes, not Group Quarters 917,907 960,792 4.7% 110,602 112,068 1.3%
Living in Group Quarters 35,300 36,728 4.0% 4,562 4,741 3.9%
Tenure
Homeowners 174,387 181,299 4.0% 24,023 24,073 0.2%
Renters 136,660 144,270 5.6% 11,292 11,556 2.3%
Distribution
Homeowners 56.1% 55.7% 68.0% 67.6%
Renters 43.9% 44.3% 32.0% 32.4%
Household Type
Family Household 217,842 227,102 4.3% 27,609 27,882 1.0%
Non-Family Household 93,205 98,467 5.6% 7,706 7,747 0.5%
Distribution
Family Household 70.0% 69.8% 78.2% 78.3%
Non-Family Household 30.0% 30.2% 21.8% 21.7%
Housing Units 336,899 353,845 5.0% 36,894 37,563 1.8%
Occupied 311,047 325,569 4.7% 35,315 35,629 0.9%
Vacant 25,852 28,276 9.4% 1,579 1,934 22.5%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 8,799 n/a 418 n/a
Distribution
Occupied 92.3% 92.0% 95.7% 94.9%
Vacant 7.7% 8.0% 4.3% 5.1%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 2.6% n/a 1.1% n/a
n/a = not available
Sources
U.S. Censusu Bureau. Decennial Census. 2010.
Environics
U.S. Censusu
Analytics/Claritas.
Bureau. Decennial
Claritas
Census.
- Pop-Facts
2010. Premier
American2018.
Community Survey 5 Year Estimate, 2012-2016
Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. The State Data Book. 2016.
Table 2. Income and Education, O‘ahu
Oahu Koolaupoko
Item
2008-2012 2018 Change 2008-2012 2018 Change
Income
Median Household Income $72,292 $85,409 18.1% $85,496 $101,774 19.0%
Per Capita Income $30,219 $36,291 20.1% $33,813 $39,371 16.4%
People in Households with Poverty-Level Incomes 91,508 n/a 7,946 n/a
(2000 Census and 2012-2016 Estimates)
Percent of Population 9.6% n/a 6.9% n/a
Travel Time To Work
Average Minutes 27.0 32.0 26.9 31.0
Educational Attainment, 25 Years and Older
Less than 9th Grade 30,452 30,174 -0.9% 1,570 1,445 -8.0%
Grades 9 to 12, No Diploma 31,742 32,982 3.9% 2,788 2,797 0.3%
High School Graduate, No College 175,622 177,975 1.3% 20,560 20,468 -0.4%
Some College, No Degree 141,607 145,941 3.1% 17,611 17,162 -2.5%
Associate Degree 63,246 70,737 11.8% 7,088 7,256 2.4%
College, Bachelor's Degree 134,096 149,479 11.5% 17,341 18,537 6.9%
Graduate or Professional Degree 69,326 77,547 11.9% 10,837 10,910 0.7%
Total Population, Age 25 and Older 646,091 684,835 6.0% 77,795 78,575 1.0%
Distrbution
Less than 9th Grade 4.7% 4.4% 2.0% 1.8%
Grades 9 to 12, No Diploma 4.9% 4.8% 3.6% 3.6%
High School Graduate, No College 27.2% 26.0% 26.4% 26.0%
Some College, No Degree 21.9% 21.3% 22.6% 21.8%
Associate Degree 9.8% 10.3% 9.1% 9.2%
College, Bachelor's Degree 20.8% 21.8% 22.3% 23.6%
Graduate or Professional Degree 10.7% 11.3% 13.9% 13.9%
English Language Skills, Age 5 and Over
English Only 642,504 670,071 4.3% 94,039 94,789 0.8%
Language Other Than English 250,696 262,851 4.8% 14,736 14,218 -3.5%
Speak English Very Well 123,912 n/a 10,396 n/a
Speak English Less than Very Well 126,784 n/a 4,340 n/a
Total Population, Age 5 and Over 893,200 932,922 4.4% 108,775 110,053 1.2%
Distribution
English Only 71.9% 71.8% 86.5% 86.1%
Language Other Than English 28.1% 28.2% 13.5% 12.9%
Speak English Well or Very Well 13.9% n/a 9.6% n/a
Speak
SpeakEnglish
EnglishPoorly
Less than Very Well 14.2% n/a 4.0% n/a
Sources
U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey 5 Year Estimate, 2008-2012.
Environics Analytics/Claritas. Claritas - Pop-Facts Premier 2018.
Table 3. Economic Characteristics, O‘ahu 2010 and 2017/2018
2017 (2018 Change

Item 2010
for Jobs) Since 2010
Tourism
Annual Visitors 4,372,181 5,672,123 29.7%
Visitor Spending ($million) $5,593 $7,627 36.4%
Labor
Civilian Labor Force 446,200 471,350 5.6%
Employed 419,650 460,800 9.8%
Unemployment Rate 6.0% 2.8% -3.2%
Jobs, Wage and Salary Only (2018) 436,050 486,218 11.5%
Nat. Resources & Mining & Construction 21,500 23,897 11.1%
Manufacturing 10,500 13,034 24.1%
Trade, Transportation & Utilities 78,500 97,099 23.7%
Information 8,100 10,869 34.2%
Financial Activities 20,600 34,757 68.7%
Professional & Business Services 57,900 63,666 10.0%
Education & Health Services 96,500 99,368 3.0%
Leisure and Hospitality 60,100 85,967 43.0%
Other Services 20,000 23,847 19.2%
Government 60,700 30,716 -49.4%
Agriculture 1,650 2,998 81.7%
Sources
Hawaii Tourism Authority. Monthly Visitor Statistics. December 2017
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. Job Count by Industry. 2017.
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. Historic Labor Force Estimates. 2017.
Environics Analytics/Claritas. Business-Facts Locations 2017 Q4.
Table 4. Visitor Plant Inventory, O‘ahu: 2017
Item Oahu Windward Oahu

Properties Units Properties Units
Apartment Hotel 3 50 - -
Bed & Breakfast 22 47 16 31
Condominium Hotel 37 7,059 - -
Hostel 7 239 - -
Hotel 76 31,606 3 337
Vacation Rentals 107 4,410 20 144
Other 5 225 4 182
Timeshare 20 4,385 - -
Total 277 48,021 43 694
Island Share 15.5% 1.4%
Source
Hawaii Tourism Authority. "2017 Visitor Plant Inventory."
Table 5. Jobs by Industry, Oahu and Koolaupoko: 2018
Oahu Koolaupoko
Item Jobs Jobs
Agriculture, Natural Resources, Mining & Construction 23,897 4.9% 2,437 8.1%
Manufacturing 13,034 2.7% 414 1.4%
Trade, Transportation & Utilities 97,099 20.0% 6,106 20.2%
Information 10,869 2.2% 464 1.5%
Financial Activities & Real Estate 34,757 7.1% 1,126 3.7%
Professional & Business Services 63,666 13.1% 2,147 7.1%
Education & Health Services 99,368 20.4% 10,015 33.1%
Leisure and Hospitality 85,967 17.7% 4,607 15.2%
Other Services 23,847 4.9% 2,011 6.6%
Government 30,716 6.3% 784 2.6%
Other 2,998 0.6% 156 0.5%
TOTAL 486,218 100.0% 30,267 100.0%
Sources
Table 6. Economic and Population Growth, O‘ahu and
Ko‘olaupoko: 2010, 2018 and 2030
2030 Change
Item 2010 2018 Change
Projection 2018-2030
Resident Population
Oahu 953,207 997,520 4.6% 1,017,576 2.0%
Koolaupoko 115,164 116,809 1.4% 113,243 n/a
Share 12% 12% 11%
Households
Oahu 311,047 325,569 4.7% 373,616 14.8%
Koolaupoko 35,315 35,629 0.9% 37,804 6.1%
Share 11% 11% 10%
Housing Units
Oahu 336,899 353,845 5.0% 402,321 13.7%
Koolaupoko 36,894 37,563 1.8% 39,280 4.6%
Share 11% 11% 10%
Wage and Salary Jobs
Oahu 436,050 486,218 11.5% 666,194 37.0%
Koolaupoko (Estimate) 29,316 30,267 3.2% 42,174 39.3%
Share 7% 6% 6%
Visitor Units (2010 and 2017)
Oahu 34,040 48,021 41.1% 38,413 n/a
Windward Oahu 108 694 542.6% 228 n/a
Share 0% 1% 356% 0.6%
n/a = not available
Source
City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting. Socioeconomic
Projections, September 2009
U.S. Censusu Bureau. Decennial Census. 2010.
Environics Analytics/Claritas. Claritas - Pop-Facts Premier 2018.
HAʻIKŪ STAIRS STUDY:
Economic and Fiscal Impacts
Plasch Econ Pacific LLC
February 2019
1. INTRODUCTION
a. Content and Purpose
The Board of Water Supply (the BWS) of the City and County of Honolulu (the City) is
exploring alternatives for the future use of Haʻikū Stairs (the Stairs). The BWS’s reasons for
exploring alternatives are as follows:
— The Stairs are not being maintained, so hiking them could be unsafe and would be
a liability risk to the BWS.
— Hiking the Stairs is prohibited by the BWS due to liability concerns.
— Trespassers have become a nuisance to residents living near the Stairs.
— Controlling illegal access is a financial burden to the BWS.
— Managing a recreational asset is not part of the BWS’s core mission.
This report addresses the economic and fiscal impacts of four alternatives to address
these issues. The economic and fiscal impacts address the changes in the economy associat-
ed with each alternative, including both the direct impacts of the initial expenditures or sales,
and the indirect impacts (i.e., secondary impacts) due to the affected entities and their
employees purchasing goods and services from others.
This report also provides the estimated value of each alternative from the perspective of
the BWS and other government agencies, but not from the perspective of a potential operator.
b. Methodology
Multipliers
The various economic and fiscal impacts are based on a number of multipliers, e.g.
indirect sales as a percentage of direct sales, jobs per $1 million in sales, indirect jobs per
direct jobs, and tax rates. These multipliers reflect the professional judgment of the consul-
tant, and are based on information from the following sources: U.S. Census data; the State of
Hawai'i Data Book; The 2012 Input-Output Study for Hawai'i; employment and labor rates
from the State Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR); County and State tax
1
HAʻIKŪ STAIRS STUDY: ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS 2
rates; and revenue and expenditure data from the County and the State. Multipliers derived
from the Input-Output Study are referred to as State economic multipliers.
2017 Dollars
Dollar amounts are expressed in terms of 2017 purchasing power and market condi-
tions. Values, prices, costs and dollar amounts for prior years are adjusted for inflation to
2017 dollars based on the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Consumers.
Dollar amounts after 2017 are not increased to account for inflation, changes in labor rates,
changes in construction costs, or other changes in market conditions.
Present-Value Analysis
The valuation of each alternative to the BWS and to others is based on the calculation of
Present Value (PV). The calculation involves (1) projecting the cash flow of revenues and
costs by year; (2) discounting each net revenue/cost to the present; (3) then summing the
discounted values to determine the total discounted PV. Discounting adjusts for the time-
value of monetary amounts: a dollar amount received in the distant future has a lower value
than the same dollar amount received in the immediate future—largely because an amount
received in the near term can be invested to earn interest. The calculation of PV is similar to
that for determining the amount owed on a mortgage having a schedule of variable mortgage
payments.
The calculation is based on the approach recommended by the U.S. Office of Manage-
ment and Budget (OMB) for evaluating Federal projects and programs (OMB, Circular A-94,
Revised, “Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,”
October 29, 1992; and Circular A-94 Appendix C, Revised November 2017, “Discount Rates
for Cost-Effectiveness, Lease Purchase, and Related Analyses.).
The assumptions used to calculate PV are as follows:
— Valuation Date: 2018.
— Dollar Amounts: 2017 dollars as noted above.
— Analysis Period: 21 years.
— Long-Term Inflation: 2% per year.
— Discount Rates
• a 3% “real” discount rate for cash-flows expressed in 2017 dollars which do
not decrease in purchasing power due to inflation.
• about a 5% market discount rate for cash flows expressed in “nominal” dollars
which do decrease in purchasing power due to inflation.
— Residual Values of Improvements: near $0 at the end of the analysis period.
The 21-year analysis period is based on (1) 1 year to negotiate agreements and conduct
construction-related activities, if applicable; plus (2) a 20-year remaining life of the Stairs.
The “real” discount rate of 3% is the 20-year interest rate from which inflation has been
removed. It is a common discount rate used for evaluating government infrastructure
projects. Assuming long-term inflation of 2%, a 3% real interest rate corresponds to about a
5% market interest rate (3% + 2%). This rate is higher than the current interest rates on City
bonds (about 3.5%).
The calculation of PV is narrower in scope than the analysis of economic and fiscal
impacts provided in this report. The calculation includes revenues and expenditures
associated with the initial economic activity (i.e., the direct economic impacts), but excludes
revenues and expenditures associated with indirect economic activity. This is because the
assumed economic activity may displace one or more other economic activities which could
occur, and these other economic activities would generate similar indirect economic impacts.
Also, the calculation of PV includes excise taxes paid to the City and State, but excludes
corporate and personal income taxes paid to the State because of the uncertain magnitude of
these tax revenues. As a result, the valuations may be underestimated.
Impacts Not Estimated

Some figures in the tables are not estimated (n.e.) because they are insignificant in
terms of economic or fiscal impacts.
Accuracy of Estimates
Much of the analysis contained in this report is quantitative in nature, where numbers
are used to help communicate anticipated impacts. However, these numbers should not be
interpreted as precise predictions. Rather, they represent the best estimates of what is
expected to occur based on available information about future demands, market conditions,
tax rates, etc. As a general rule, economic and fiscal impact estimates in this report are
accurate within about 20%.
c. Organization of the Report

The following sections cover:
— Alternatives for Haʻikū Stairs
— Economic impacts related to construction-related activities
— Economic impacts related to future operations of the Stairs
— Impacts on City revenues and expenditures
— Impacts on State of Hawaiʻi (State) revenues and expenditures
— Summary of Economic and Fiscal Impacts
The six tables at the end of the report correspond to these sections, and provide detailed
assumptions and calculations. The quantities appearing in bold in the tables highlight the
more significant economic and fiscal impacts.
d. Acronyms
The following acronyms are used in the report:
— BWS Board of Water Supply, City and County of Honolulu
— C&C City and County
— City City and County of Honolulu
— CPI Honolulu Consumer Price Index
— DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
— DES Dept. of Enterprise Services, C&C of Honolulu
— DHHL Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands, State of Hawaiʻi
— DLIR Dept. of Labor and Industrial Relations, State of Hawaiʻi
— DLNR Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaiʻi
— DOH Dept. of Health, State of Hawaiʻi
— DOT Dept. of Transportation, State of Hawaiʻi
— DPR Dept. of Parks and Recreation, C&C of Honolulu
— FTE full-time equivalent, used in reference to jobs
— G70 Group 70 International, Inc.
— n.a. not applicable
— n.e. not estimated
— NAKOA The NAKOA Companies, Inc.
— NGO non-government operator
— OHA Office of Hawaiian Affairs, State of Hawaiʻi
— OMB Office of Management and Budget, United States
— PEP Plasch Economic Pacific LLC
— PV Present Value
— Stairs Haʻikū Stairs
— State State of Hawaiʻi
— U.S. United States
2. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE STAIRS

Alternatives for the Stairs are provided in Chapter 6 of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). A number of alternatives are dismissed because they fail to meet the
mandate of the BWS, or they are obviously inferior to other alternatives.
This report provides an economic/fiscal analysis of four alternatives as shown in Table
1:
— No Action Alternative
With the No Action Alternative, the current situation would continue. The
Stairs would remain, deteriorated sections would not be repaired or replaced, the
structure would continue to deteriorate, the BWS would continue to own the
property, and the BWS would continue to expend funds on security to limit
trespassing and illegal hikes.
— Remove All Stairs Alternative (the Proposed Action)
With this alternative, the Stairs would be removed entirely. This would end
trespassing and illegal use of the Stairs, and end the need for the BWS to expend
funds on security. However, some hikers would continue to access the top of the
mountain via Moanalua Valley, but there would be no Stairs for them to descend
the into Haʻikū Valley. The BWS would continue to own the property, but their
liability risk would be reduced.
— Remove Lower Stairs Alternative
With this alternative, the lowest 1,000 feet of the Stairs would be removed.
The remaining sections would not be removed or repaired, so they would continue
to deteriorate. The BWS would continue to own the property.
This alternative would eliminate trespassing and illegal use of the remaining
sections of the Stairs from Haʻikū Valley. However, some hikers would continue
to access the top of the mountain via Moanalua Valley, and some hikers are likely
to attempt descending the remaining sections of the Stairs and possibly the lower
area where the sections have been removed.
BWS expenditures on security would be eliminated, but their liability risk
would continue.
— Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative
With this alternative, the BWS would work with the City and the State to
obtain a legal access route to the Stairs, improve the access route, and convey the
property to another party. In turn, this party would be responsible for restoring
the Stairs to a condition that would allow them to be used safely, maintaining the
Stairs and the access route, and managing access to the Stairs by hikers.
There are many variations of this alternative. For this analysis, it is assumed
that legal access would be provided via Poʻokela Street. Also, the property would
be conveyed to the City Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), but the City
Department of Enterprise Services (DES) would lease the property to a non-
government operator (NGO).
The NGO would be responsible for restoring the Stairs and managing opera-
tions. To reduce operating costs, the NGO may enlist a number of volunteers to
assist in these responsibilities.
In turn, the NGO would sublease the Stairs to a professional ecotour operator.
Based on policies provided by the NGO and approved by DES, the operator
would provide additional minor improvements that may be needed (e.g., shelters
and a comfort station), market the Stairs, maintain a reservation system to manage
the number of hikers on the Stairs, collect fees, possibly provide transportation
from a base station to the Stairs, provide liability insurance, provide security to
prevent unapproved hikes, provide guides, provide information on the Stairs and
the surrounding area, maintain a comfort station, maintain the Stairs and the
access route, etc.
3. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES

Summarized below and in Table 2 are economic impacts of construction-related
activities. Depending on the alternative, construction-related activities may include: (1)
negotiating agreements as needed to take action; (2) removing all or a portion of the Stairs by
one or more construction companies; and (3) improving the access route by one or more
construction companies.
a. Time Period of Construction Related Activities

The period of construction-related activities is not applicable (n.a.) to the No Action
Alternative inasmuch as there would be no such activities.
For the remaining alternatives, the time period for construction-related activities is
assumed to be about 1 year (see Section 2.a of Table 2). However, more or less time could be
required, depending on the required effort, sizes of work crews and their availability,
weather-related delays, etc.
b. Cost of Negotiations
The No Action Alternative, the Remove All Stairs Alternative, and the Remove Lower
Stairs Alternative would require little or no negotiation costs.
However, the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative would require agreements

among a number of parties, including:
— City agencies (BWS, DPR and DES).
— State agencies to provide legal access [the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(DHHL), the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), the Depart-
ment of Transportation (DOT), and the Department of Health (DOH)].
— The State Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) for payments to use ceded lands.
— an NGO.
— an ecotour operator.
For all parties, the cost of the negotiations is expected to be about $155,000, of which
over $60,000 would be borne by the BWS (see Section 2.b of Table 2).
c. Construction-Related Expenditures and Indirect Sales

Construction-Related Expenditures
The No Action Alternative would be not require construction-related expenditures.
Expenditures by the BWS to remove the Stairs are estimated at nearly $1 million, while
partial removal would be much less expensive, about $200,000 (see Section 2.c of Table 2).
For the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative, expenditures to improve the access
would exceed $800,000. The cost of restoring the Stairs is assumed to be borne by the NGO
and the ecotour operator.
Construction-related expenditures are sales of construction services by the affected
companies, with the sales being subject to the State excise tax.
Indirect Sales
Construction-related expenditures would generate indirect sales associated with
construction companies purchasing goods and services from other companies, plus families
of construction workers purchasing goods and services. In turn, the companies supplying
goods and services, and the families of their employees, would purchase goods and services
from other companies, and so on.
Based on State economic multipliers, these indirect sales are expected to be about 11%
more than the construction-related expenditures: $0 for the No Action Alternative, nearly
$1.1 million for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, over $220,000 for the Remove Lower
Stairs Alternative, and over $900,000 for the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative (see
Section 2.c of Table 2.).
Total Expenditures and Indirect Sales

The construction-related expenditures plus indirect sales would total $0 for the No
Action Alternative, nearly $2.1 million for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, over $420,000
for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and over $1.7 million for the Restore Stairs/
Manage Access Alternative (see Section 2.c of Table 2.).
Construction-related expenditures plus consumption expenditures by families would be
“final sales” subject to a 4.5% excise tax. Estimates of these final sales are $0 for the No
Action Alternative, about $1.3 million for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, about $270,000
for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and nearly $1.2 million for the Restore Stairs/
Manage Access Alternative (see Section 2.c of Table 2.). Consumption expenditures are
estimated at 55% of Payroll. Indirect sales less consumption expenditures would be
“intermediate sales” subject to a 0.5% excise tax. Estimates of these intermediate sales are
$0 for the No Action Alternative, about $760,000 for the Remove All Stairs Alternative,
$150,000 for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and $570,000 for the Restore Stairs/
Manage Access Alternative.
d. Profits
Profits on construction-related expenditures and indirect sales are estimated at 12% and
10%, respectively: $0 for the No Action Alternative, nearly $230,000 for the Remove All
Stairs Alternative, nearly $50,000 for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and nearly
$190,000 for the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative (see Section 2.d of Table 2).
e. Employment and Payroll

Employment
Based on State economic multipliers, construction-related employment is estimated at
4.46 jobs per $1 million in construction-related expenditures: $0 for the No Action Alterna-
tive, about 4 jobs for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, 1 job for the Remove Lower Stairs
Alternative, and 4 jobs for the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative (see Section 2.e of
Table 2). These numbers are essentially man-years of effort averaged over the 1-year period
of constructed-related activities. During short periods of mobilization, the number of
workers on the job would be much higher.
As with expenditures, removal/restoration activities would generate indirect jobs
associated with construction companies purchasing goods and services from other compa-
nies, plus the families of construction workers purchasing goods and services. In turn, the
companies supplying goods and services, and the families of their employees, would
purchase goods and services from other companies, and so on.
Based on State employment multipliers, indirect employment is estimated at 141% of
construction-related employment: $0 for the No Action Alternative, about 6 jobs for the
Remove All Stairs Alternative, 1 job for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and 6 jobs for
the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative (see Section 2.e of Table 2).
Thus, total employment would average zero for the No Action Alternative, about 10
jobs for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, 2 jobs for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative,
and 10 jobs for the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative.
Payroll
Based on DLIR data, payroll is estimated at an average annual salary of $77,000 per
construction-related job and $51,000 per indirect job, resulting in a total payroll of $0 for the
No Action Alternative, over $610,000 for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, nearly $130,000
for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and over $610,000 for the Restore Stairs/Manage
Access Alternative (see Section 2.e of Table 2).
4. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF OPERATIONS

Table 3 summarizes the economic impacts of operations starting in Year 2.
a. Hikers
For the No Action Alternative, the estimated number of trespassing hikers would
continue to average less than 8 per day or about 3,000 per year. This could change over time
depending upon the social media attention to hiking the Stairs and the level of security.
For the Remove All Stairs Alternative and the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, the
number of hikers would be zero or very small.
For the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative, the number of hikers are assumed to
be limited to about 80 per day, split evenly between residents and visitors (see Section 3.a of
Table 3). A specified split may be required in order to ensure that (1) Hawaiʻi residents are
able to obtain reservations to hike the Stairs, and (2) sufficient visitors hike the Stairs to
generate the necessary revenues from hiking fees (see next subsection).
Over time, the average number of hikers per day would be less due to forced cancella-
tions caused by rain and wind storms, and a few no-shows. On average, an estimated 22,500
residents and visitors would hike the Stairs annually.
b. Expenditures and Sales

BWS Expenditures on Security and Indirect Sales
For the No Action Alternative, the BWS would continue to spend about $260,000
annually for security and insurance (see Section 3.b of Table 3). This expenditure is a major
financial drain that provides no public benefits. Based on State economic multipliers,
indirect sales are estimated at nearly $240,000 per year, of which about $170,000 per year
would be consumption expenditures by (1) security guards and their families, and (2)
workers and their families who are supported indirectly by security expenditures. Total
security expenditures plus indirect sales would be nearly $500,000 per year. Consumption
expenditures are final subject to the 4.5% excise tax. Intermediate sales of about $71,000 per
year would be subject to the a 0.5% excise tax.
For both the Remove All Stairs Alternative and the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative,
the construction companies would be responsible for security. This responsibility would
terminate once the Stairs or lower sections are removed.
For the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative, the BWS presumably would continue
to expend funds for security and insurance for an additional year, after which the NGO and
ecotour operator would assume responsibility for security and liability.
Hiking and Indirect Sales

For the Restore Stairs/Managed Access Alternative, hiking fees are assumed to be about
$20 for residents and $100 for visitors (see Section 3.b of Table 3). Hiking fees would be
needed to pay for improving the access route, restoring the Stairs, and paying operating costs.
Visitors would be charged a relatively high fee in order to generate the necessary
revenues. It is assumed that many visitors would be willing to pay a significant fee because
hiking the Stairs would be a special and unique activity. For comparison, Kualoa Ranch
charges about $175 (including tax) for its zip-line experience, while operators of the Sydney
Bridge charge about $222 (US dollars) to climb the bridge.
Residents would be charged a much lower fee in order to (1) encourage local use of the
Stairs, and (2) discourage the trespassing that might occur with a high fee. A number of
residents may be willing to pay more than $20 to hike the Stairs. The difference between
their willingness to pay and the fee is a benefit termed “consumer surplus.”
It is conservatively assumed that merchandise sales (water, hats, t-shirts, etc.) would
average about $3 per resident hiker, and $15 per visitor hiker (see Section 3.b of Table 3).
These hiking fees and merchandize sales are expected to generate revenues of nearly
$1.6 million per year starting in Year 2 (see Section 3.b of Table 3).
Operations would generate indirect sales associated with the ecotour operator and the
families of ecotour workers purchasing goods and services. In turn, the companies supplying
goods and services, and the families of their employees, would purchase goods and services
from other companies, and so on. Based on State economic multipliers, these indirect sales
are expected to reach nearly $1.6 million per year (see Section 3.b of Table 3.).
Final sales subject to the 4.5% excise tax and intermediate sales subject to the 0.5%
excise tax are estimated at about $2.1 million and $990,000 per year, respectively.
c. Profits
Profits from operations and indirect sales are estimated at 10% of revenues: about
$20,000 for the No Action Alternative, $0 for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, $0 for the
Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and about $310,000 for the Restore Stairs/Manage Access
Alternative (see Section 3.c of Table 3). The calculation for the No Action Alternative
includes profit on indirect sales, but not profit on expenditures for security since the guards
work for the BWS or the City.
d. Employment and Payroll

Employment
For the No Action Alternative, operations would continue to employ about 4 guards, and
generate about 2 indirect jobs associated with the purchase of goods and services (see Section
3.d of Table 3).
For the Remove All Stairs Alternative and the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative,
employment drops to zero.
For the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative, operations are expected to provide
about 14 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs, including managers, office workers, guides,
drivers, guards, and maintenance workers (see Section 3.d of Table 3). The number of people
employed would be higher since some jobs would be part-time. The number of indirect jobs
supported by the purchase of goods and services is expected to be about 7 (based on 49% of
the number of direct jobs).
Payroll
Based on DLIR data, annual payroll for operations is estimated at an average salary of
$50,000 per direct job and $51,000 per indirect job, resulting in a total payroll of about
$300,000 per year for the No Action Alternative, $0 for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, $0
for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and nearly $1.1 million for the Restore Stairs/
Manage Access Alternative (see Section 3.d of Table 3).
e. Population and Housing Supported

For the No Action Alternative, the six direct and indirect jobs provided by operations
are expected to support about 13 residents housed in about 4 homes (see Section 3.e of Table
3).
For the Remove All Stairs Alternative and the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, the
numbers are zero.
Corresponding figures for the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative are about 45
residents housed in about 15 homes.
5. IMPACTS ON CITY REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

The impacts of each alternative on City finances are shown in Table 4, including
impacts on the BWS and the City as a whole.
a. Construction-Related Activities
The 1-year period of construction-related activities would generate modest revenues to
the City from the 0.5% excise tax surcharge on final sales: $0 for the No Action Alternative,
less than $7,000 for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, a little over $1,000 for the Remove
Lower Stairs Alternative, and less than $6,000 for the Restore Stairs/Manage Access
Alternative (see Section 4.a of Table 4).
However, construction-related expenditures would be substantial for three of the
alternatives: $0 for the No Action Alternative, nearly $1 million for the Remove All Stairs
Alternative, nearly $200,000 for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and over $900,000 for
the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative (see Section 4.a of Table a). These figures
include the costs of negotiating agreements.
The net to the City of construction-related revenues less expenditures is shown at the
bottom of Section 4.a of Table 4. For the BWS, the net is $0 for the No Action Alternative, a
negative of nearly $1 million for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, a negative of nearly
$200,000 for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and a negative of about $880,000 for the
Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative.
The net to the City excluding the BWS is $0 for the No Action Alternative, less than
$7,000 for the Remove All Stairs Alternative, a little more than $1,000 for the Remove
Lower Stairs Alternative, and a negative of about $32,000 for the Restore Stairs/Manage
Access Alternative. The adjusted nets, which are used to value the alternatives, are slightly
less because they include only the excise tax surcharge on construction-related expenditures
and exclude the tax surcharge on consumption expenditures.
b. Operations
Revenues
The No Action Alternative would continue to generate City revenues of less than $1,000
per year (see Section 4.b of Table 4). These revenues would derive from the excise tax
surcharge on consumption expenditures by (1) guards and their families, and (2) workers and
their families supported indirectly by security expenditures.
Starting in Year 2, the Remove All Stairs Alternative and the Remove Lower Stairs
Alternative would generate no revenues to the City. This is because the BWS would cease its
security services for the Stairs, thereby ending related expenditures on payroll, consumption
expenditures, and the excise tax surcharge on consumption expenditures.
For the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative, operations would generate revenues
to the City of nearly $120,000 per year starting in Year 2 (see Section 4.b of Table 4). These
revenues would be derived from three sources:
— Recovery of expenditures to improve the access route
The NGO and ecotour operator would reimburse the cost to improve the
access route. Assuming a 20-year bond at 3.5% interest, the reimbursement
would be about $57,430 per year in nominal dollars (i.e., dollars which decrease
in purchasing power due to inflation). Assuming a 2% long-term inflation rate,
the payment would decrease by about 2% each year when expressed in terms of
2017 purchasing power. Expressed in 2017 dollars, the equivalent reimbursement
is about $46,470 per year. [The PVs are about the same for (1) a cash flow of
$57,430 per year in nominal dollars discounted at 5% (3% discount rate + 2%
inflation), and (2) a cash flow of $46,470 per year in 2017 dollars discounted at
3%].
These payments would amount to about 3% of the hiking sales ($46,470 in
payments ÷ $1,551,400 in sales).
It is assumed that the payment would be made to the agency which would pay
for improving the access route. The receiving agency would be decided by the
City.
— Lease Payments
Lease payments by the NGO and ecotour operator to the DES are assumed to
be 4% of revenues from hiking fees and merchandise sales: about $62,000 per
year.
The 4% lease payment is derived from an assumed 7% charge for the use of
commercial property less the 3% payment to reimburse the the cost of improving
the access route.
— Excise-Tax Surcharge
The 0.5% excise tax surcharge on final sales would generate about $11,000
per year to the City (about $7,800 per year derived from hiking sales and $2,900
from consumption expenditures).
Expenditures
For the No Action Alternative, the BWS would continue to spend about $260,000
annually for security and insurance (see Section 4.c of Table 4). After Year 2, this expendi-
ture would be $0 for both the Remove All Stairs Alternative and the Remove Lower Stairs
Alternative.
For the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative, the DES would spend about $24,900
annually during operations, including about $12,500 for managing the lease, and about
$12,400 paid to OHA.
The payment to OHA would be for the use of ceded lands, which comprises about 22%
of the surface land under the Stairs. The payment is based on 20% of the lease payment to
DES. It would not include a percentage of the payment to reimburse the cost of improving
the access route. OHA would be consulted to determine the appropriate basis for calculating
the payment.
Net Revenues
For the No Action Alternative, net revenues to the BWS would be a negative $260,000
per year (see the bottom of Section 4.b of Table 4). For the City excluding the BWS, the net
revenues would be less than $1,000 per year. The adjusted net, which is used for the PV
calculation, is $0 because taxes on indirect economic impacts are excluded.
After Year 2, net revenues would be $0 for both the Remove All Stairs Alternative and
the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative.
For the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative, the net revenues for the agency
improving the access route would be about $46,700 per year (see Section 4.b of Table 4).
This payment, which is the reimbursement of the expenditures on improvements, would start
in Year 2.
For the City excluding the BWS, net revenues would be about $47,800 per year starting
in Year 2 Section 4.b of Table 4). The adjusted net, which excludes the excise tax surcharge
on consumption expenditures, would be about $44,900 per year.
c. Value to the City

Each alternative would generate a cash-flow of (1) adjusted revenues paid to the BWS
and to the City excluding the BWS, and/or (2) adjusted expenditures paid by the BWS and by
the City excluding the BWS. These cash-flows and their PV are summarized in Section 4.c
of Table 4.
The PVs are as follows:
— No Action Alternative
• A negative PV of about $4 million for the BWS.
• A $0 PV for the City excluding the BWS.
— Remove All Stairs Alternative
• A negative PV of about $986,000 for the BWS (the cost of removing the
Stairs).
• A PV of about $5,000 for the City excluding the BWS (the excise tax surcharge
on expenditures to remove the Stairs).
• A negative PV of about $981,400 for the City as a whole.

• A negative PV of about $199,000 for the BWS (the cost of removing the lower
sections of the Stairs).
• A PV of about $1,000 for the City excluding the BWS (the excise tax surcharge
on expenditures to remove the lower sections of the Stairs).
• A negative PV of about $198,000 for the City as a whole.
• A negative PV of about $468,000 for the BWS.
• A positive PV of about $615,000 for the City excluding the BWS.
• A positive PV of about $148,000 for the City as a whole.
6. IMPACTS ON STATE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

The impacts of each alternative on State finances are shown in Table 5.
a. Construction-Related Activities
For the No Action Alternative, the State would derive no tax revenues from
construction-related activities since there would be no such activity.
For the other alternatives, the State excluding OHA would derive tax revenues during
the 1-year period of construction-related activities: about $84,000 for Remove All Stairs
Alternative, $17,000 for the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and $76,000 for the Restore
Stairs/Manage Access Alternative (see Section 5.a of Table 5). The revenues would come
from excise taxes on final and intermediate sales, corporate income taxes, and individual
income taxes.
For the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative, State revenues would be offset by an
expenditure of about $25,000 to negotiate requisite access agreements.
Thus, the net revenues to the State excluding OHA would be $0 for the No Action
alternative, about $84,000 for Remove All Stairs Alternative, $17,000 for the Remove Lower
Stairs Alternative, and $51,000 for the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative. The
adjusted net, which only includes excise taxes on construction-related expenditures, would be
$0 for the No Action alternative, about $39,000 for Remove All Stairs Alternative, $8,000 for
the Remove Lower Stairs Alternative, and $8,000 for the Restore Stairs/Manage Access
Alternative. The adjusted net figures are used to calculate the value of the alternatives to the
State.
OHA would be affected only by the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative: about
$5,000 in expenditures to negotiate an agreement with the City for the amount of the
payment to OHA for the commercial use of ceded lands.
b. Operations
For the No Action Alternative, the State excluding OHA would continue to derive tax
revenues of about $20,000 per year due to the BWS expenditure on security services (see
Section 5.b of Table 5). The revenues would derive from excise taxes on final and intermedi-
ate sales, corporate income taxes, and individual income taxes. This annual figure is also the
net since no State expenditures would be required. The adjusted net would be $0 since there
would be no excise tax on security services provided by the BWS. Also, OHA would not be
affected by the No Action Alternative.
Starting in Year 2, the annual revenues, expenditures and net would be reduced to $0 for
the two alternatives where all or portions of the Stairs are removed.
For the Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative, the State excluding OHA would
derive tax revenues of about $136,000 per year starting in Year 2 (see Section 5.b of Table 5).
This annual figure is also the net since no State expenditures would be required. The
adjusted net would be about $62,000 per year, which is the amount derived from just the
excise tax on Hiking Sales. The adjusted net is used to calculate the value of this alternative
to the State.
Also for this alternative, OHA would be paid about $12,000 for the use of ceded land,
with the payments staring in Year 2 (see Section 5.b of Table 5). Since OHA would have no
operating expenditures for this alternative, the annual revenues and the net revenues are the
same. Furthermore, this amount is the adjusted net since it is based on a percentage of the
Hiking Sales.
c. Value to the State

Three of the alternatives would generate a cash-flow of revenues to the State. These
cash-flows and their PVs are summarized in Section 5.c of Table 5. The PVs are as follows:
— No Action Alternative Alternative
• A $0 PV for the State excluding OHA.
• A $0 PV for OHA.
— Remove All Stairs Alternative
• A positive PV of about $39,000 for the State excluding OHA.
• A positive PV of about $174,000 for OHA.

• A positive PV of about $1.1 million for the State including OHA.
7. SUMMARY
The major economic and fiscal impacts are summarized in Table 6. The No Action
Alternative would provide recreation to about 3,000 hikers per year who trespass and
successfully avoid the on-duty security guard. Also, this alternative would continue to
provide about 6 direct and indirect jobs. The estimated PVs would be as follows:
— City: negative $4 million
• BWS: negative $4 million
• City excluding the BWS: $0
— State: $0
• State excluding OHA: $0
• OHA: $0
— Total City and State: negative $4 million
The Remove All Stairs Alternative would provide no recreational benefits after the
Stairs are removed, and no employment. The PVs would be as follows:
— City: negative $981,000
— State: positive $39,000
• OHA: $0
— Total City and State: negative $942,000
The Remove Lower Stairs Alternative would provide no recreational benefits after the
Stairs are removed, and no employment. The PVs would be as follows:
— City: negative $198,000
— State: positive $8,000
• OHA: a positive $0
— Total City and State: negative of about $190,000
The Restore Stairs/Manage Access Alternative would provide access to a unique

resource to over 22,000 hikers annually. It would also provide a consumer surplus to many
of these hikers (i.e., they would be willing to pay more to hike the Stairs than the fee
charged). Operating employment would total about 21 direct and indirect jobs. The PVs
would be as follows:
— City: positive $148,000
— State: positive $1.1 million
• OHA: $174,000
— Total City and State: positive $1.2 million
8. REFERENCES
Bridge Climb Sydney. November 2017.
Friends of Ha‘ikū Stairs. “Ha‘ikū Stairs Management Model.” 2018.
G70. 2018.
Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, State of Hawai'i. The
Hawaiʻi State Input-Output Study: 2012 Benchmark Report. March 2016.
Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, State of Hawai'i. The
State of Hawai'i Data Book. Annual.
Hawaiʻi Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, State of Hawai'i. Employment and
Payroll in Hawai'i. Annual.
Kualoa Ranch. Website. November 2018.
Tax Foundation of Hawai’i. “Taxes in Hawai’i.” Annual.
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. “Haʻikū Stairs Assessment.” 2017.
The NAKOA Companies, Inc. Cost estimate of improvements to the access route. 2018.
U.S. Census Bureau, annual.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Circular A-94 Appendix C, “Discount
Rates for Cost-Effectiveness, Lease Purchase, and Related Analyses.” November 2017.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Circular A-94, Revised, “Guidelines and
Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs.” October 29, 1992.
Table 1. Overview of Alternatives
Remove Stairs Restore Stairs/

Item Source or Multiplier No All Stairs (Pro- Lower Manage Units
Action posed Action) Stairs Access
Stairs Removed BWS and G70 none all some none
Stairs Restored BWS and G70 none none none all
Access Route Acquired and Improved BWS and G70 no no no yes
Lease of Stairs by City to NGO BWS and G70 no no no yes
Sublease to Ecotour Operator BWS and G70 no no no yes
Managed Access BWS and G70 no no no yes
Hiking Fees BWS and G70 no no no yes
Page T-1
Table 2. Economic Impacts of Construction-related Activates
(Values in 2017 dollars)

2.a. PERIOD FOR CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES PEP n.a. 1 1 1 year
2.b. NEGOTIATION COSTS Hours Rate
BWS 250 $ 250 $ 62,500
Other City Agencies (DPR and DES) 150 $ 250 $ 37,500
State Agencies (DHHL, DLNR, DOT and DOH) 100 $ 250 $ 25,000
OHA 20 $ 250 $ 5,000
NGO 50 $ 250 $ 12,500
Ecotour Operator 50 $ 250 $ 12,500
Total $ 155,000
2.c. EXPENDITURES AND SALES
Construction-related Expenditures
BWS
Remove Stairs NAKOA $ 986,300 $ 199,400
Improve Access NAKOA $ 816,212
NGO and Ecotour Operator n.e.
Total Construction-related Expenditures $ - $ 986,300 $ 199,400 $ 816,212
Indirect Sales Generated by Expenditures 111% of expenditures $ - $ 1,094,793 $ 221,334 $ 905,995
Total Expenditures and Indirect Sales $ - $ 2,081,093 $ 420,734 $ 1,722,207
Final Expenditures and Sales (taxed at 4.5%)
Construction-related Expenditures above $ - $ 986,300 $ 199,400 $ 816,212
Consumption Expenditures 55% of Payroll $ - $ 337,700 $ 70,400 $ 337,700
Total Final Expenditures and Sales $ - $ 1,324,000 $ 269,800 $ 1,153,912
Intermediate Sales (taxed at 0.5%)
Indirect Sales above $ - $ 1,094,793 $ 221,334 $ 905,995
less Consumption Expenditures above $ - $ (337,700) $ (70,400) $ (337,700)
Total Intermediate Sales $ - $ 757,093 $ 150,934 $ 568,295
Page T-2
Table 2. Economic Impacts of Construction-related Activities
(continued)

2.d. PROFITS
Construction-related Expenditures 12% of expenditures $ - $ 118,356 $ 23,928 $ 97,945
Indirect Sales 10% of sales $ - $ 109,479 $ 22,133 $ 90,600
Total Profits $ - $ 227,835 $ 46,061 $ 188,545
2.e. EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL
Employment
Construction-related Jobs (direct jobs) 4.46 x exp/$1 mil - 4 1 4 jobs
Indirect Jobs 141% of direct jobs - 6 1 6 jobs
Total Jobs - 10 2 10 jobs
Payroll
Construction-related Payroll $ 77,000 per job $ - $ 308,000 $ 77,000 $ 308,000
Indirect Payroll $ 51,000 per job $ - $ 306,000 $ 51,000 $ 306,000
Total Payroll $ - $ 614,000 $ 128,000 $ 614,000
Page T-3
Table 3. Economic Impacts of Operations, from Year 2

3.a. HIKERS
Maximum Daily Hikers
Residents PEP 40 per day
Visitors PEP 40 per day
Total Hikers <8 80 per day
Annual Hikers (adjusted for weather)
Residents 77% x 365 n.e. - - 11,242 per year
Visitors 77% x 365 n.e. - - 11,242 per year
Total Hikers 3,000 - - 22,484 per year
3.b. EXPENDITURES AND SALES
BWS Expenditures on Security and Insurance BWS $ 260,000 per year
Hiking Sales
Hiking Fees
Residents $ 20 per hiker $ 224,840 per year
Visitors $ 100 per hiker $ 1,124,200 per year
Total Hiking Fees $ 1,349,040 per year
Merchandise Sales (water, hats, T-shirts, etc.)
Residents $ 3 per hiker $ 33,726 per year
Visitors $ 15 per hiker $ 168,630 per year
Total Merchandise Sales $ 202,356 per year
Total Hiking Sales n.e. $ 1,551,396 per year
Indirect Sales 91% of BWS exp $ 236,600 $ 1,566,910 per year
101% of hiking sales
Total BWS Expenditures, Hiking Sales, Indirect Sales $ 496,600 $ 3,118,306 per year
Final Sales (taxed at 4.5%)
Hiking Sales $ 1,551,396 per year
Consumption Expenditures 55% of Payroll $ 166,100 $ 581,350 per year
Total Final Sales $ 166,100 $ 2,132,746 per year
Page T-4
Table 3. Economic Impacts of Operations, from Year 2
(continued)

Intermediate Sales (taxed at 0.5%)
Indirect Sales above $ 236,600 $ 1,566,910 per year
less Consumption Expenditures above $ (166,100) $ (581,350)
Total Intermediate Sales $ 70,500 $ 985,560 per year
3.c. PROFITS 10% of revenues $ 23,660 $ 311,831 per year
on Ind. Sales
3.d. EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL
Employment
Direct Jobs (FTE) PEP 4 14 jobs
Indirect Jobs (FTE) 56% of direct jobs 2
49% of direct jobs 7 jobs
Total Jobs (FTE) 6 21 jobs
Payroll
Direct Jobs $ 50,000 per job 200,000
$ 50,000 per job $ 700,000 per year
Indirect Jobs $ 51,000 per job $ 102,000 $ 357,000 per year
Total Jobs $ 302,000 $ 1,057,000 per year
3.e. RESIDENTS AND HOMES SUPPORTED BY
OPERATIONS
Residents
Supported by Direct Jobs 2.13 per job 9 - 30 residents
Supported by Indirect Jobs 2.13 per job 4 - 15 residents
Total Residents Supported 13 - 45 residents
Homes
Supported by Direct Jobs 0.34 per resident 3 - 10 homes
Supported by Indirect Jobs 0.34 per resident 1 - 5 homes
Total Homes Supported 4 - 15 homes
Page T-5
Table 4. Impacts on City Revenues and Expenditures

4.a. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Tax Base
Final Sales Table 2, Section 2.c $ - $ 1,324,000 $ 269,800 $ 1,153,912
Construction-related Expenditures Table 2, Section 2.c $ - $ 986,300 $ 199,400 $ 816,212
Consumption Expenditures Table 2, Section 2.c $ - $ 337,700 $ 70,400 $ 337,700
Revenues, excluding BWS
Excise-Tax Surcharge
Construction-related Expenditures 0.5% of expenditures $ - $ 4,932 $ 997 $ 4,081
Consumption Expenditures 0.5% of expenditures $ - $ 1,689 $ 352 $ 1,689
Total Excise-Tax Surcharge $ - $ 6,621 $ 1,349 $ 5,770
Expenditures
BWS
Negotiations Table 2, Section 2.b $ (62,500)
Remove Stairs Table 2, Section 2.c $ - $ (986,300) $ (199,400) $ -
Improve Access Table 2, Section 2.c $ - $ - $ - $ (816,212)
Total for BWS $ - $ (986,300) $ (199,400) $ (878,712)
DPR and DES, Negotiations Table 2, Section 2.b $ (37,500)
Total Expenditures $ - $ (986,300) $ (199,400) $ (916,212)
Net Revenues $ - $ (979,679) $ (198,051) $ (910,442)
BWS $ - $ (986,300) $ (199,400) $ (878,712)
City, excluding BWS $ - $ 6,621 $ 1,349 $ (31,730)
Adjusted Net (excludes excise tax surcharge on $ - $ 4,932 $ 997 $ (33,419)
consumption expenditures)
4.b. OPERATIONS FROM YEAR 2
Tax Base
Change in Property Values $ - $ - $ - $ -
Final Sales Table 3, Section 3.b $ 166,100 $ - $ - $ 2,132,746 per year
Hiking Sales Table 3, Section 3.b $ - $ - $ - $ 1,551,396 per year
Consumption Expenditures Table 3, Section 3.b $ 166,100 $ - $ - $ 581,350 per year
Page T-6
(continued)

Revenues
BWS, Reimbursement of Expenditures on Improvements PEP $ 46,469 per year
City, excluding BWS
Lease Payment to DES 4.0% of hiking sales $ 62,056 per year
Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - $ - per year
Excise Tax Surcharge
Hiking Sales 0.5% of sales $ - $ - $ - $ 7,757 per year
Consumption Expenditures 0.5% of expenditures $ 831 $ - $ - $ 2,907 per year
Total Revenues, excluding BWS $ 831 $ - $ - $ 72,720 per year
Total, excluding Surcharge on Indirect Sales $ - $ - $ - $ 69,813 per year
Total Revenues $ 831 $ - $ - $ 119,189 per year
Expenditures
BWS, Security and Insurance G70 $ (260,000)
City, excluding BWS
Contract Monitoring, DES 50 hrs at $250/hr $ (12,500) per year
Payment to OHA 20% of Lease Pmt $ (12,411) per year
Total Expenditures, excluding BWS $ (24,911) per year
Total Expenditures $ (260,000) $ - $ - $ (24,911) per year
Net Revenues $ (259,169) $ - $ - $ 94,278 per years
BWS $ (260,000) $ - $ - $ 46,469 per year
City, excluding BWS $ 831 $ - $ - $ 47,809 per year
Adjusted Net (excludes excise tax surcharge on $ - $ - $ - $ 44,902 per year
consumption expenditures)
Page T-7
(continued)

4.c. VALUE TO THE CITY
BWS
Year 1 Expenditures
Negotiations Table 4, Section 4.a $ - $ - $ - $ (62,500)
Construction-related Expenditures Table 4, Section 4.a $ - $ (986,300) $ (199,400) $ (816,212)
Total Year 1 Expenditures $ - $ (986,300) $ (199,400) $ (878,712)
Operations
Year 1 only $ (260,000) $ - $ - $ (260,000)
From Year 2 $ (260,000) $ - $ - $ 46,469 per year
PV 21 year period $ (4,007,906) $ (986,300) $ (199,400) $ (467,507)
3.0% discount rate
City, excluding the BWS
Year 1 Net Revenues/Expenditures $ - $ 4,932 $ 997 $ (33,419)
Operations, from Year 2 $ - $ - $ - $ 44,902 per year
PV 21 year period $ - $ 4,932 $ 997 $ 615,152
3.0% discount rate
Total PV for the City $ (4,007,906) $ (981,368) $ (198,403) $ 147,645
Page T-8
Table 5. Impacts on State Revenues and Expenditures

5.a. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Tax Base
Final Sales
Construction-related Expenditures Table 2, Section 2.c $ - $ 986,300 $ 199,400 $ 816,212
Consumption Expenditures Table 2, Section 2.c $ - $ 337,700 $ 70,400 $ 337,700
Total Final Sales $ - $ 1,324,000 $ 269,800 $ 1,153,912
Intermediate Sales Table 2, Section 2.c $ - $ 757,093 $ 150,934 $ 568,295
Profits Table 2, Section 2.d $ - $ 227,835 $ 46,061 $ 188,545
Payroll Table 2, Section 2.e $ - $ 614,000 $ 128,000 $ 614,000
Revenues (excluding OHA)
Excise Tax, State Share
Final Sales
Construction-related Expenditures 4.0% of expenditures $ - $ 39,452 $ 7,976 $ 32,648
Consumption Expenditures 4.0% of sales $ - $ 13,508 $ 2,816 $ 13,508
Intermediate Sales 0.5% of sales $ - $ 3,785 $ 755 $ 2,841
Corporate Income Taxes 1.0% of profits $ - $ 2,278 $ 461 $ 1,885
Personal Income Taxes 4.1% of income $ - $ 25,174 $ 5,248 $ 25,174
Total State Tax Revenues $ - $ 84,197 $ 17,256 $ 76,056
Expenditures (excluding OHA)
Net Revenues (excluding OHA) $ - $ 84,197 $ 17,256 $ 51,056
Adj. Revenues and Expenditures (excluding OHA)
Excise Tax on Construction-related Expenditures $ - $ 39,452 $ 7,976 $ 32,648
Negotiations $ - $ - $ - $ (25,000)
Adjusted Net $ - $ 39,452 $ 7,976 $ 7,648
OHA
Page T-9
(continued)

5.b. OPERATIONS FROM YEAR 2
Tax Base
Final Sales Table 3, Section 3.b $ 166,100 $ - $ - $ 2,132,746 per year
Hiking Fees $ - $ - $ - $ 1,551,396 per year
Consumption Expenditures $ 166,100 $ - $ - $ 581,350 per year
Intermediate Sales Table 3, Section 3.b $ 70,500 $ - $ - $ 985,560 per year
Profits Table 3, Section 3.c $ 23,660 $ - $ - $ 311,831 per year
Payroll Table 3, Section 3.d $ 302,000 $ - $ - $ 1,057,000 per year
Revenues
State (excluding OHA)
Excise Tax, State Share
Final Sales 4.0% of sales
Hiking Sales 4.0% of sales $ - $ - $ - $ 62,056 per year
Consumption Expenditures 4.0% of expenditures $ 6,644 $ - $ - $ 23,254 per year
Intermediate Sales 0.5% of sales $ 353 $ - $ - $ 4,928 per year
Corporate Income Tax 1.0% of profit $ 237 $ - $ - $ 3,118 per year
Personal Income Tax 4.1% of payroll $ 12,382 $ - $ - $ 43,337 per year
Total State Revenues $ 19,616 $ - $ - $ 136,693 per year
Payments to OHA above $ 12,411 per year
Total Revenues, State and OHA $ 19,616 $ - $ - $ 149,104 per year
Expenditures, State and OHA $ - $ - $ - $ - per year
Net Revenues, State and OHA $ 19,616 $ - $ - 149,104 per year
Adjusted Net
State (Excise Tax on Hiking Sales) $ - $ - $ - $ 62,056 per year
OHA $ - $ - $ - $ 12,411 per year
Page T-10
(continued)

5.c. VALUE TO THE STATE
State, excluding OHA
Net Revenues
Year 1 only Table 5, Section 5.a $ - $ 39,452 $ 7,976 $ 7,648
From Year 2 Table 5, Section 5.b $ - $ - $ - $ 62,056 per year
PV 21 year period $ - $ 39,452 $ 7,976 $ 903,994
3.0% discount rate
OHA
Net Revenues
Year 1 only Table 5, Section 5.a $ - $ - $ - $ (5,000)
From Year 2 Table 5, Section 5.b $ - $ - $ - $ 12,411 per year
PV 21 year period $ - $ - $ - $ 174,266
3.0% discount rate
Total PV for the State $ - $ 39,452 $ 7,976 $ 1,078,260
Page T-11
Table 6. Summary of Economic and Fiscal Impacts

Hikers Table 3, Section 3.a 3,000 - - 22,484 per year
Operating Employment (direct and indirect) Table 3, Section 3.d 6 - - 21 jobs
PVs
City
BWS Table 4, Section 4.c $ (4,007,906) $ (986,300) $ (199,400) $ (467,507)
City, excluding BWS Table 4, Section 4.c $ - $ 4,932 $ 997 $ 615,152
Total City $ (4,007,906) $ (981,368) $ (198,403) $ 147,645
State
State, excluding OHA Table 5, Section 5.c $ - $ 39,452 $ 7,976 $ 903,994
OHA Table 5, Section 5.c $ - $ - $ - $ 174,266
Total State $ - $ 39,452 $ 7,976 $ 1,078,260
Total, City and State $ (4,007,906) $ (941,916) $ (190,427) $ 1,225,905
Page T-12
Appendix H
Ha‘ikū Stairs Working Group

Appendix I
Kaneohe Neighborhood Board

Ha‘ikū Stairs Resolution:
Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30,
Regular Meeting Minutes,
Thursday, June 15, 2017
KANEOHE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD NO. 30
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION  925 DILLINGHAM BOULVARD SUITE 160 HONOLULU, HAWAII, 96817
PHONE: (808) 768-3710  FAX: (808) 768-3711  INTERNET: www.honolulu.gov/nco
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2017
BENJAMIN PARKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAFETERIA
CALL TO ORDER – Chair Radke called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Quorum was established with 10 members
present. Note: This 17-member Board requires nine (9) members to establish quorum and to take official Board action.
Board Members Present – Gloria Carlile, Deborah Collins, Mahealani Cypher, Donald Dawson, Nancy Davlantes, Jon
Hanks, Mo Radke, Bill Sager, Jeremiah Sanders, and Holly Sevier.
Board Members Absent – Kenneth Cho, Marie Gavigan, Stuart Saito, Warren B. Ditch Jr., and Felipe San Nicolas.
Guests – Captain Dean Ideue (Honolulu Fire Department); Lieutenant M. Kuroda (Honolulu Police Department); Director
Lori Kahikina (Department of Environmental Services, Mayor Caldwell’s Representative); Richard Haru (Representative
Ken Ito); Bonnie Beatsu (Windward Community College); Tiffany Patrice (Marine Corps Base Hawaii); William May and Kira
Downing (Hawaii State Hospital); Barbara Shimei, Vernon Ansdell, John Long, Ray Cabrera, Darlene Lilinoe Young, Kevin
and Lyronine Lori, John Goody, Dale Kennedy, Joann Takamoshi, Kevin and Noe Burkett, John Flanigan, Clifford Lee,
Ernest Suh, Lori Kahikina, Connie Van Winkle, Lora Burbage, Mitchell Wong, Evan Lum, KC Conners, Glenn Uyeshiro,
Daniel Kaanana, and Lila Ota (Residents); and Sultan White (Neighborhood Commission Office).
FILLING OF VACANCIES – Chair Radke noted one (1) vacancy for Sub-District 2 (Windward Mall), one (1) vacancy for
Sub-District 5 (Lilipuna), one (1) vacancy for Sub-District 1 (Heèia), and one (1) vacancy for Sub-District 6 (Waikalua).
None were filled.
CITY/STATE MONTHLY REPORTS
Honolulu Fire Department (HFD) – Captain Dean Ideue reported the following:
 April 2017 Fire Statistics: There were 7 activated alarms, 1 nuisance fire, 110 medical responses, 1 motor vehicle
collision with a pedestrian, 8 motor vehicle crash/collisions, 2 ocean rescues, and 1 mountain rescues.
 Fire Safety-Tip Brush Fires/Wild lands: The National Fire Protection Association suggests that residents with
surrounding brush take the following steps to prevent fires near your home:
o Keep your lawn hydrated and maintained. If your lawn is brown, cut it down to decrease possible fire
intensity.
o Dry grass and shrubs are fuel for fires. Clear leaves from roof, gutters, porches, or decks as this helps keep
fires from entering the home.
o Have a plan in place if you must evacuate.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed: Rescues: A resident asked if the mountain rescue occurred at Haiku Stairs,
and if there were any deaths at Haiku Stairs. Captain Ideue reported that there were no rescues or deaths at Haiku Stairs
on his watch.
Honolulu Police Department (HPD) – Lieutenant M. Kuroda reported the following:

 May 2017 Crime Statistics: There were 6 motor vehicle thefts, 7 burglaries, 36 thefts, and ten unauthorized entries
into motor vehicles.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed:

1. Neighborhood Watch: Cypher asked if Neighborhood Watch will expand to address home burglaries. Lieutenant
Kuroda responded that the Neighborhood Watch is always looking to expand to new neighborhoods and attract
new volunteers. It watches for any crime. Contact the Community Policing Team for more information.
2. Community Policing Team: A resident said that the Community Policing Team worked well with the Windward
Homeless Alliance. She asked who the contact was for the Community Policing Team outreach workers. Lieutenant
Kuroda did not know, but advised the resident to contact the Community Policing Team for the contact information
of the outreach workers.
Oahu’s Neighborhood Board system – Established 1973

KANEOHE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD NO. 30 THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2017
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PAGE 2 OF 5
3. Haiku Stairs: A resident asked how many complaints and how many trespassers regarding Haiku Stairs. Lieutenant
Kuroda answered that he does not have the statistics, but HPD does get a lot of complaints. They try to keep officers
in the area, but they cannot watch it all the time due to limit resources.
Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH) – Tiffany Patrick reported the following:
 24 Hour Operations: MCBH will be conducting 24 hour operations on the airfield on Saturday, June 17, 2017 and
Saturday, June 24, 2017.
 Increased Air Activity: There will be increased air activity mid-July 2017 due to a visiting expedition.
 Bellows Beach Park: Bellows Beach Park will be closed from Friday, July 14, 2017 to Thursday, July 27, 2017 due
to amphibious operations.
 Fun Runs: MCBH will host the Runway 5k on Tuesday, July 4, 2017. They will host the Camp Smith run on Saturday,
July 22, 2017.
Hawaii State Hospital (HSH) – Department of Accounting and General Services and Department of Health’s Hawaii State
Hospital, New Patient Facility and Campus Master Plan Development project briefing. Administrator William May and Kira
Downing gave a presentation on the proposed changes to HSH. They will renovate the building in order to better address
the needs of the community. The new building will increase patient capacity to grow with the rising census figure. The new
patient facility will have 144 beds and be four (4) stories. There will be increased security, and all of the health care services
will be self-contained so that patients do not have to move between buildings. There will be more parking for staff and
visitors. They have already submitted the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

1. Escapes: A resident said that the surrounding residents should be the first to know if someone escapes from the
hospital. Administrator May answered that there is a phone service in place when elopements happen. There are
also Nixel notifications.
2. Safety: Chair Radke asked about the safety of the new facility. Administrator May responded that safety is of the
upmost importance. There is high fencing which they may electrify. The building is self-contained so patients do not
need to move between buildings. They know exactly where each patient is at all times. If they are lost, the police
are called right away. There are Nixel notifications, but the notification service will soon switch to smartphone app
HNL Info.
3. Sally Port: Sevier asked if the sally port would be fixed. Administrator May responded that it would be. For now
there are guards and gate operators there 24/7.
4. Safety: Cypher asked if the current facility was unsafe. Administrator May responded that they have increased
security fourfold. There have been two (2) escapes in recent memory, but both were retrieved. The staff is really
good. Cypher asked if there were national safety standards. There are none.
RESIDENT/COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Haiku Stairs: Several residents voiced their displeasure with the rampant trespassing occurring in the neighborhood around
Haiku Stairs and urged supporting the removal of the stairs. The residents cited littering, general trash, assaults, suicides,
heart attacks, poisoning dogs and parking issues as well. They said that it is costing taxpayer money to police the area.
They want security not just at the foot of the stairs but in the surrounding neighborhood entry points. Since most trespassing
occurs at night, residents believe that opening the stairs will not solve the issue. Chair Radke asked residents if they filed a
police report for the most recent incident. They did, and noted that the trespassers had rental car license plates.
Bus: A resident raised concerns about the new Head of Transportation. She does not want the bus fare raised or cutbacks
on Route 55. It will hurt the most vulnerable people.
Family Promise: Family Promise is looking for volunteers for hosting homeless families. Contact Family Promise for more
information.
ELECTED OFFICIALS’ REPORTS
Governor David Ige’s Representative – No Representative was present. A newsletter was circulated.

Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s Representative – City and County of Honolulu Director of the Department of Environmental Service
(ENV) Lori Kahikina circulated the Oahu News and reported the following: Left Turn Lane: In regards to the status of
extending the left turn lane onto Pua Inia from Kamehameha Highway, the Department of Transportation Services (DTS)
reported they are still conducting their investigation requiring research, field assessments, and traffic history analysis. The
board will be apprised of the results of DTS’ evaluation by September 2017. In the course of our initial investigation we
found that the left turn storage lane from Kamehameha Hwy to Pua Inia does indeed back up. We had also found that the
increased volume was mainly due to motorists who are probably not Pua Inia or Puohala St residents who were using this
turn to avoid the traffic signal at Kaneohe Bay Drive/ Kamehameha Hwy. They then proceed to Puohala and exit at Kaneohe
Bay Drive. It has been our experience that cut thru traffic such as this results in increased volume and speeding for the
residents of both Pua Inia and Puohala Streets. We want to further investigate a way to discourage this cut thru perhaps by
installing some sort of traffic calming device (such as speed humps, traffic circles, roundabout or other) rather than
lengthening the left turn storage lane. Once we narrow down the choices we will present options to the Board.

1. Squeaky Brakes: Cypher raised concerns about the trash collection trucks having squeaky brakes. Director
Kahikina responded that although the brakes are squeaky, they are functional and will not fail. They do not have
enough trucks to spare during the day to fix minor problems. She urged the community to take the truck license
plate number and report squeaky breaks. Service checks are once a year.
2. Windward Community College: A resident asked if the new Head of Transportation would work with Windward
Community College and the Bus connection there. Director Kahikina will follow up.
Councilmember Ikaika Anderson – No representative was present; no report was available.
Senator Jill Tokuda’s Office – No representative was present; no report was available.
Representative Ken Ito’s Office – No representative was present; no report was available.
Representative Jarrett Keohokalole – No representative was present; no report was available.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
Windward Community College (WCC): Bonnie Beatsu reported the following:

 New Record: WCC had the largest graduation it has ever had with 426 graduates.
 Family Night: On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 WCC is hosting a Family Night to learn more about their programs and
financial aid.
 Windward Ho’olaulea: On Saturday, October 7, 2017 WCC will host the Windward Ho’olaulea.
Hawaii Pacific University: No representative was present; no report was available.
Blue Zones: No representative was present; no report was available.
BOARD BUISNESS
Avalon Healthcare – Lee Sichter reported that the proposed Skilled Nursing Facility will be built on Hawaii State Hospital
property near Windward Community College. They are entering the official permitting process. It will be a 150 bed nursing
facility. It will be constructed by Avalon Healthcare as a private entity independent from Hawaii State Hospital. It will be a
non-institutional group living facility with a residential ambience. They will provide elderly care, medically complex care, and
behavioral health care. Avalon Healthcare plans on being a training facility for the University of Hawaii Nursing Program.
They will finish permitting by the end of 2017 and begin construction in 2018. The project does not require federal permits.

1. Medically Complex Care: Carlile asked the definition of medically complex care. Sichter responded that it is care
for someone who is at the end of their life.
2. Behavioral Health Care: Cypher asked the definition of behavioral care. What kind of treatment do they have? Are
they drugged? Sichter responded that he was not a medical practitioner, so he would not be the best person to ask.
Behavioral care is for people with behavioral issues that impair their ability to take care of themselves. They do not
take court-ordered patients.

3. Demolishing School: Sevier asked what would happen to the students who go to school in the Bishop Building that
will be demolished for the Health Care facility. Sichter responded that the students will be displaced, but Avalon has
no say in the matter. He also stated that much of the building is abandoned. Chair Radke stated that it might be
wise if Avalon set aside money for the school.
Zone Change for Property at 44-740 Kaneohe Bay Drive: Richard Maruya said that he is in the application process to rezone
his property from R5 to B2. The reason is because if 50% of the building is ever destroyed, he is not allowed to rebuild. He
wants to prepare, just in case of a worst-case-scenario. The property currently has a convenience store on it, Bay Drive
Market. Chair Radke mentioned that Richard Maruya presented at the Agenda Planning meeting, so the Board is informed
on the finer details.
Hanks motioned and Sager seconded that the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30 support Richard Maruya’s
effort for the zone change of the 44-740 Kaneohe Bay Drive property from R5 to B2. The motion was APPROVED
UNANIMOUSLY, 10-0-0; (Aye: Carlile, Collins, Cypher, Dawson, Davlantes, Hanks, Radke, Sager, Sanders, and Sevier;
Nay: None; Abstain: None).
Chair Radke stated that the Board will generate a letter of support and forward to Department of Planning and Permitting
and Richard Maruya.
Decision on Haiku Stairs Resolution – A resident called for restricted parking near the main entrances of Haiku Stairs. Chair
Radke allowed one (1) speaker from each side of the Haiku Stairs issue since it was heavily discussed at the last meeting.
A representative from the Friends of Haiku Stairs said that the stairs are safe, contrary to popular opinion.
 Open Stairs: There has never been a death or accident as a result of the Haiku Stairs. The representative does
agree that the current trespassing situation is unacceptable, and said that the Managed Access Proposal would
take care of it. They would have security at the entrance as well as guards strategically placed at the entry points.
Furthermore, there would be a roaming guard in the neighborhoods where people commonly trespass. He said that
the status quo would continue if they did not implement the Managed Access Proposal.
 Close Stairs: A resident said that the Friends of Haiku Stairs do not understand what the residents have to go
through. She said that open access will not solve the problem. They need better enforcement of trespassing laws.
HPD does not always issue tickets. There are websites promoting the Haiku Stairs and sharing ways to get around
the guards. She believes that the Haiku Stairs should be entirely ripped out.
SUPPORTING REOPENING THE HAIKU STAIRS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC UNDER A CONTROLLED AND
MANAGED ACCESS PLAN
WHEREAS, removing the Haiku Stairs will destroy a historic structure, eligible for listing in the National Registry of Historic
Places because of their integral role in the defense of the Pacific during WWII; and
WHEREAS, the Haiku Stairs represent one of the safest hiking trails in Hawaii, there having been no documented serious
injuries or deaths resulting from accidents on the Stairs; and
WHEREAS, almost all reported rescues attributed to the Haiku Stairs are linked to hikers coming up from the Moanalua
side or trying to get to the Stairs by trespassing on adjoining land in adverse hiking conditions; and
WHEREAS, a business plan drawn up by the Friends of Haiku Stairs (FHS) has demonstrated that funds raised from fees
to access the Stairs under managed access would provide unique educational, cultural, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, partnership with the Ko’olau Foundation can expand educational and cultural opportunities to resident keiki;
and
WHEREAS, partnerships with the University of Hawaii and the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum and their botanists provide
a unique opportunity for researchers to document and study native and invasive plant species and their effects; and
WHEREAS, continued trespassing and disrespect for the property privacy expectation of private residents of the Haiku
neighborhood are not acceptable and must cease sooner rather than later; and
WHEREAS, removing the Haiku Stairs would destroy the priceless opportunities for hikers to experience the multiple
microclimates they pass through as they climb to the summit; and

WHEREAS, at least two plausible access points are available that would entirely avoid the neighborhood at the base of the
Stairs; and
WHEREAS, profits from managed access could be used to restore the land surrounding the Omega Station and support
development of a Cultural Park in Haiku Valley; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board supports the option contained in the Environmental Impact Statement
Preliminary Notice (EISPN) contracted by the Board of Water Supply to reopen the Stairs under a controlled and managed
access plan that respects the privacy rights of private residents of the Haiku neighborhood; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Friends of Haiku Stairs submits a formal business plan for inclusion into the EIS process
and the Board of Water Supply review that plan in a manner that supports a preservation option and now,
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, this resolution be forwarded to the Board of Water Supply, the Mayor of the City and County
of Honolulu and all elected officials of the Ko’olaupoko moku.
Sager moved and Hanks seconded that the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30 support the resolution
“SUPPORTING REOPENING THE HAIKU STAIRS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC UNDER A CONTROLLED AND
MANAGED ACCESS PLAN” as written. The resolution was APPROVED by VOICE VOTE, 9-0-1; (Aye: Carlile, Collins,
Cypher, Dawson, Hanks, Radke, Sager, Sanders, and Sevier; Nay: None; Abstain: Davlantes).
Approval of Minutes
The April 20, 2017 regular meeting minutes were ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY, 10-0-0; (Aye: Carlile, Collins, Cypher,
Dawson, Davlantes, Hanks, Radke, Sager, Sanders, and Sevier; Nay: None; Abstain: None).
The May 2, 2017 agenda planning meeting minutes were ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY, 10-0-0; (Aye: Carlile, Collins,
Cypher, Dawson, Davlantes, Hanks, Radke, Sager, Sanders, and Sevier; Nay: None; Abstain: None).
The May 15, 2017 regular meeting minutes were ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY, 10-0-0; (Aye: Carlile, Collins, Cypher,
Dawson, Davlantes, Hanks, Radke, Sager, Sanders, and Sevier; Nay: None; Abstain: None).
The June 6, 2017 agenda planning meeting minutes were ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY, 10-0-0; (Aye: Carlile, Collins,
Cypher, Dawson, Davlantes, Hanks, Radke, Sager, Sanders, and Sevier; Nay: None; Abstain: None).
SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS – No reports were given.
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS – No reports were given.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Next Regular Board Meeting – Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at Benjamin Parker School.
Next Agenda Planning Meeting
There was a motion that was seconded by Sevier to move the agenda planning meeting from Tuesday, July 4, 2017
to Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at Kaneohe District Park (Just for that one meeting because the 1 st Tuesday
fell on July 4th, which is a Holiday. August agenda planning will remain on the 1st Tuesday which is 8/1/17). The
motion was ACCEPTED UNANIMOUSLY, 10-0-0; (Aye: Carlile, Collins, Cypher, Dawson, Davlantes, Hanks, Radke,
Sager, Sanders, and Sevier; Nay: None; Abstain: None).
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Submitted by: Sultan White, Neighborhood Assistant I

Reviewed by: Jon Hanks, Secretary
Approved and Finalized by: Mo Radke, Chair

Appendix J
Kāneʻohe Neighborhood Board No. 30,

Meeting Minutes,
July 18, 2019
KANEOHE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD NO. 30
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION ⬥ 925 DILLINGHAM BOULVARD SUITE 160⬥ HONOLULU, HAWAII,
96817
PHONE – (808) 768 – 3710 ⬥ FAX – (808) 768 – 3711 ⬥ INTERNET – www.honolulu.gov/nco
DRAFT AUGUST 2019 MINUTES

THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2019
BENJAMIN PARKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAFETERIA
CALL TO ORDER – Chair Mo Radke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Quorum was established
with an unknown number of board members present. Note- This 17-member Board requires nine (9)
members to establish quorum and to take official Board action.
Board Members Present – Lora Burbage, Deborah Collins, Mahealani Cypher, Daniel Kaanana, Letani
Peltier, Mo Radke
Board Members Absent –
Guests – Lieutenant Kuroda (Honolulu Police Department); Tiffany Patrick (United States Marine Corps);
Governor David Ige’s representative; Lori Kahikina (Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s representative); Ernest Lau
(Board of Water Supply); Senator Jarett Keohokalole; Representative Scot Matayoshi; Representative Lisa
Kitagawa; Name was not included if not legible on the sign in sheet.
INITIAL CONVENEING AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A board member nominated Radke as Chair of the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30. Hearing
no other nominations, Radke was voted Chair by unanimous consent.
A board member nominated Kaanana as Vice Chair of the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30.
Hearing no other nominations, Kaanana was voted Vice Chair by unanimous consent.
A board member nominated Cypher as Secretary of the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30.
Hearing no other nominations, Cypher was voted Secretary by unanimous consent.
A board member nominated Collins as Treasurer of the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30.
Hearing no other nominations, Collins was voted Treasurer by unanimous consent.
Hearing no objections, the board will make no changes to the meeting location, time, date, and rules
of speaking. The motion was adopted by unanimous consent.
A board member moved and a board members seconded to request funds for Olelo broadcasting.
The motion was not adopted.
A board member moved and a board members seconded to request funds for an annual newsletter.
The motion was not adopted.
FILLING OF VACANCIES – There were no volunteers to fill the vacancies.
CITY/STATE MONTHLY REPORTS
Honolulu Police Department – Lieutenant Kuroda reported the following:

 June 2019 Statistics: There were 8 motor vehicle thefts, 10 burglaries, 30 thefts, and 29
unauthorized entries into motor vehicles (UEMV).

1. UEMV: A board member asked for tips to prevent UEMV’s. Lieutenant suggested not leaving any
valuables or belongings in the vehicle or in sight and ensure that your doors are locked.

KANEOHE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD NO. 30 THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2019
2. Parking: A community member asked if the fatal accident on Kahuhipa Street was caused by illegal
parking. Lieutenant stated no it was not.
3. Abandoned Vehicles: A community member requested for information on how to remove an
abandoned vehicle.
4. H-3 Incidents: A community member raised concerns with vehicles racing and speeding on H-3.
Marine Corps Base Hawaii – Tiffany Patrick reported the following:

 Oahu Waterkeeper: The Marine Corp Base Hawaii will be partnering with Oahu Waterkeeper to
deploy cages of native oysters for water quality improvement.
 Canoe Regatta: The John D. Kupiko Regatta will take place at Marine Corps Air Station at Kaneohe
Bay.
Hawaii State Hospital – The Acting Administrator reported that there are no significant upcoming events.
The 144 bed facility is on schedule and should open in 2021.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed – Crane: Cypher asked when the crane will be there until.
The Acting Administrator stated that it should be up until October.
PRESENTATIONS/BRIEFS/ANNOUCEMENTS
Renaming of Kaneohe Beach Park – Cypher introduced a resolution to rename Kaneohe Beach Park.
Cypher moved and a board member seconded that the resolution be adopted. The motion was adopted by
unanimous consent.
Board of Water Supply (BWS) Haiku Stairs Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Briefing – Jeff Overton
and Ernest Lau reported that over 750 comments were provided for the EIS. A Historic Preservation Review
was conducted and submitted to the State because the Stairs are deemed a historic landmark. A 45 day
public comment period will also be opened. This will allow the public, and state and county agencies to help
in the process. More information will be provided in the final EIS. A presentation was provided to the board
and public as well.

1. State Interest: A community member asked about the State’s interest in the stairs. Overton stated
that they are waiting for input letters from State agencies and should be received by August 2019,
however may take a few months to address the comments.
2. Public Input: A community member asked if there is a way to provide input to the State agencies.
3. Recommendation: Peltier asked if the draft EIS has provided the BWS with a recommendation.
Overton stated that it has not and will not be providing a recommendation in the final EIS.
4. Trespassing: A board member raised concerns with people trespassing and getting stuck on the
trail.
5. Other Communities: A community member asked if the issue has been discussed with other
communities in the area as well. Overton stated that they have also met with Castle Hill residents
and heard concerns on parking, noise, trash, and disturbance.
6. Revenue: A community member asked the fees, revenue generated, and how the number for
projected revenue was determined.
7. History: Cypher provided a brief history of the stairs and valley.
8. Tourism: A community member raised concerns that tourism to the Kaneohe area may cause
negative impacts.
9. First Responders: A community member raised concerns that allowing access to the trail will
increase emergency incidents and put the first responders at risk.
10. Ownership: A community member asked if the BWS can relieve ownership of the stairs. Overton
stated that other land owners have not been interested in taking over responsibility of the stairs.
11. Security: A community member raised concerns that there has not been adequate security.
12. Trespassing: A community member raised concerns that the hikers are illegally trespassing and
coming on to school property.

ELECTED OFFICIALS
Governor David Ige’s Representative – Governor Ige’s representative reported that he has nothing to report
and was available for any questions.
Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s Representative – Lori Kahikina reported that

 Follow up on Concerns:
o Restriping of Crosswalk on Kamehameha Highway: Department of Facility Maintenance
(DFM) stated that DFM’s Signs and Markings supervisor will check out the crosswalks and
schedule repainting faded crosswalks as appropriate through consultation with Department
of Transportation Services.
o Letter from DTS: A letter from DTS was provided. They found about 1,300 vehicles passed
through in one day. To reduce the cut-through, DTS is proposing options to reduce the
traffic.

1. Speed Bumps: A community member stated that speed bumps may not be the best solution.
2. Haiku Stairs: A community member asked how many incidents occurred on Haiku Stairs were first
responders were called and what are the penalties from trespassing.
3. Waikalua Road: A community member raised concerns that Waikalua Road needs to be realigned
and widened.
Hearing no objections, the motion to extend the meeting time by 30 minutes was adopted by
unanimous consent.
Council Chair Ikaika Anderson – Council Chair Anderson reported the following:
 Renaming of Kaneohe Bay: Council Chair will be working with the Neighborhood Board to ensure
that the resolution moves forward.
 Haiku Stairs: Council Chair will be working on a resolution asking the administration to ensure that
if any request for proposal are issued, that responders are required to have a thorough knowledge
of the Hawaiian culture. A request was made to BWS to provide a date of when eligibility of
removing the stairs would occur.
 Joint Outreach Center: The community was acknowledges for their support of the new Joint
Outreach Center in Kaneohe.

1. Haiku Stairs: Lau of BWS stated that there is no set date and the request can also be made in the
EIS.
2. Bill 51: A community member asked about the status of Bill 51 and homelessness.
Senator Jarrett Keohokalole – Senator Keohokalole reported the following:

 Department of Agriculture (DOA): A statement was made by the DOA regarding infestation of fire
ants in residential areas.
 Joint Outreach Center: An agreement has been signed between Hawaii Homeless Hui and the
State Department of Human Services. The agreement is for a three year pilot project for homeless
support and provide healthcare services. The blessing will be held on Friday, August 16, 2019.
 Community Open House: Senator Keohokalole, Representative Matayoshi, and Representative
Kitagawa will be holding an open house on Saturday, August 17, 2019 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
at the Joint Outreach Center.
Questions, comments, and concerns followed – Notification: Burbage requested an email notification to the
community of the blessing ceremony.

Representative Scot Matayoshi – Representative Matayoshi reported the following:

 Haiku Stairs: Kualoa Ranch has volunteered to purchase the stairs after removal for a managed
access on Kualoa Ranch property.
 Pali Highway: An update was provided on the Pali Highway.
Representative Lisa Kitagawa – Representative Kitagawa reported the following:

 Joint Outreach Center: A request was made to put the Joint Outreach Center on the August agenda
in case constituents are not able to attend the blessing.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Next Agenda Planning Meeting – Monday, August 1, 2019, 7:00 p.m. at Kaneohe District Park.
Next Regular Board Meeting – Thursday, August 15, 2019, 7:00 p.m. at Kaneohe District Park.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by: Harry Cho, Public Relations Assistant

Reviewed by: Chris Naylon, Neighborhood Assistant
Finalized by:

Appendix K J
House Concurrent Resolution 199

and Senate Concurrent Resolution 213
HCR199 Page 1 of 3
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 199
TWENTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE,
2004
H.C.R. NO.
STATE OF HAWAII
HOUSE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION
REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS, THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS TO
CEASE ISSUING ANY EASEMENTS TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
HONOLULU FOR ACCESS TO HAIKU VALLEY AND TO "HAIKU STAIRS".
WHEREAS, in 1942, the United States Navy built a metal staircase,

which became known as the "Stairway to Heaven" or "Haiku
Stairs" (Stairs), as a means to access its transmission facilities
at the ridgeline of the Koolau Mountains above Haiku Valley; and
WHEREAS, in 1972, the transmission facilities were transferred from

the Navy to the United States Coast Guard (USCC) for operation of
both LORAN and OMEGA navigational systems used by ships crossing the
Pacific Ocean; and
WHEREAS, after newer navigational systems were employed in 1987, the

OMEGA station became obsolete and was shut down by the USCC,
eventually leading to the disrepair of the Stairs, and restricting
access to the Stairs that had been granted to hikers since 1982; and
WHEREAS, in 1997, the USCC dismantled and removed the radio and the
OMEGA and LORAN stations' antennae and towers prior to the opening
of the H-3 Freeway and in preparation for a land transfer to the
State; and
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2004/bills/hcr199_.htm 2/5/2019
HCR199 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2001, the federal government officially

transferred the lands along the ridgeline and on the valley floor
and the buildings used to house the LORAN and OMEGA stations to the
State, and the Stairs and land under the Stairs to the City and
County of Honolulu (City); and
WHEREAS, numerous state agencies hold ownership to the lands in the

area (e.g., the lands on the valley floor are owned by the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), lands within the H-3
corridor are owned by the Department of Transportation (DOT), lands
along the ridgeline are owned by the Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR), and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) may also
have an interest in Haiku Valley and the areas surrounding the
Stairs); and
WHEREAS, in 1998, the City appropriated $875,000 to repair of

Stairs, in anticipation of opening the Stairs to the general public
for hiking access and recreational purposes; and
WHEREAS, although the City has not officially opened the Stairs,
hikers and visitors alike have continually trespassed illegally
across state lands and through private property in the surrounding
communities to access the Stairs; and
WHEREAS, residents of the affected communities have met with the

City administration and Kaneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30 to express
their concerns regarding access to the Stairs to no avail; now,
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-second

Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2004, the
Senate concurring, that DHHL, DOT, DLNR, and OHA are requested to
not issue any easements to the City for access to Haiku Valley and
the "Haiku Stairs" until such time that all required permitting,
necessary approvals, and conditional agreements are identified by
the respective agencies and adhered to by the City including but not
limited to an indemnification agreement, a memorandum of agreement
to share the cost of maintaining the H-3 access road, requirements
for preservation of cultural and burial sites, and a change in the
Conservation District Use Permit for the H-3 access road which is
presently limited to maintenance and without provision for
recreational use which must be approved by the Board of Land and
Natural Resources; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that DHHL is also urged to honor the

requirements requested by its sister agencies before finalizing any
agreements with the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Directors of Hawaiian Home Lands,

Transportation, Land and Natural Resources, and OHA, Chairperson of
the Hawaiian Homes Commission, the Chairperson of the Board of Land
HCR199 Page 3 of 3
and Natural Resources, and the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees

of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs are urged to submit a report of
their findings, recommendations, and actions taken to the
Legislature no later than December 31, 2004; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent

Resolution be transmitted to the Directors of Hawaiian Home Lands,
Transportation, Land and Natural Resources, and Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, Chairperson of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, the
Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, and the
Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs.
OFFERED BY: _____________________________
Report Title:
Requesting DHHL, DOT, and DLNR to cease issuing easements to the

city and county of Honolulu for access to the Haiku Stairs.
HCR199 Measure History Page 1 of 2
Hawaii State Legislature

2004 Legislative Session
HCR199
Generated on 7/19/2004 1:05:30 PM
Measure Title: REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS,

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THE OFFICE OF
HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS TO CEASE ISSUING ANY EASEMENTS TO
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU FOR ACCESS TO HAIKU
VALLEY AND TO "HAIKU STAIRS".
Report Title: Requesting DHHL, DOT, and DLNR to cease issuing easements to the city
and county of Honolulu for access to the Haiku Stairs.
Description:
Package: None
Companion: SCR213
Introducer(s): ITO
Current Referral: JHW/WLA/TMG
Date Status Text

3/24/2004 H Offered
3/29/2004 H Referred to WLH, PSM, referral sheet 42
Resolution scheduled to be heard by WLH on Friday, 04-02-04 at 8:45 am in
3/30/2004 H
conference room 423.
4/2/2004 H The committee(s) recommends that the measure be deferred until 4/7/2004.
Scheduled for decision making on Wednesday, 04-07-04 at 10:15 am in
4/2/2004 H
The committees on WLH recommend that the measure be PASSED,
UNAMENDED. The votes were as follows: 5 Ayes: Representative(s) Kanoho,
4/7/2004 H
Kahoòhalahala, Evans, Morita, Waters; Ayes with reservations: none; 1 Noes:
Representative(s) Thielen; and 1 Excused: Representative(s) Bukoski.
Reported from the committee on WLH (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 1344-04),
4/13/2004 H
recommending referral to the committee on PSM.
Report adopted; referrred to the committee(s) on PSM with Representative(s)
4/13/2004 H Bukoski, Ching, Finnegan, Fox, Halford, Jernigan, Meyer, Moses, Stonebraker,
Thielen voting no and Representative(s) Nakasone excused.
4/13/2004 H Resolution scheduled to be heard by PSM on Thursday, 04-15-04 at 3:00 pm in
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2004/status/HCR199.asp 2/5/2019
HCR199 Measure History Page 2 of 2
The committees on PSM recommend that the measure be PASSED,

UNAMENDED. The votes were as follows: 5 Ayes: Representative(s) Ito, Mindo,
4/15/2004 H
Caldwell, M. Oshiro, Souki; Ayes with reservations: none; 0 Noes: none; and 4
Excused: Representative(s) Nakasone, Blundell, Moses, Pendleton.
Reported from the committee on PSM (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 1492-04),
4/16/2004 H
recommending adoption.
Adopted with Representative(s) Blundell, Bukoski, Ching, Finnegan, Fox,
Halford, Jernigan, Meyer, Moses, Ontai, Pendleton, Stonebraker voting no and
4/16/2004 H
Representative(s) Herkes, Hiraki, Luke, Nakasone, Souki, Takamine, Thielen
excused.
4/16/2004 H Transmitted to Senate.
4/19/2004 S Received from House (Hse. Com. No. 599).
4/19/2004 S Referred to JHW/WLA/TMG.
The committee on JHW/WLA/TMG has scheduled a public hearing on 04-27-04
4/23/2004 S
at 1:30 pm in conference room 229.
The committee on JHW/WLA/TMG has rescheduled its public hearing to 04-27-
4/26/2004 S
04 at 1:30 pm in conference room 016.
The committee(s) on TMG recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED,
UNAMENDED. The votes in TMG were as follows: 4 Aye(s): Senator(s)
4/27/2004 S
Kawamoto, Espero, Aduja, Whalen; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es):
none; and 3 Excused: Senator(s) Baker, Kanno, Menor.
The committee(s) on WLA recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED,
UNAMENDED. The votes in WLA were as follows: 4 Aye(s): Senator(s) Inouye,
4/27/2004 S
Espero, Aduja, English; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 1
Excused: Senator(s) Whalen.
The committee(s) on JHW recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED,
UNAMENDED. The votes in JHW were as follows: 3 Aye(s): Senator(s)
4/27/2004 S
Hanabusa, Chun Oakland, Kawamoto; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 1 No(es):
Senator(s) Hogue; and 3 Excused: Senator(s) English, Fukunaga, Ihara.
Reported from JHW/WLA/TMG (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 3519) with
4/29/2004 S
recommendation of adoption.
4/29/2004 S One Day Notice 04-30-04.
Adopted: Ayes, 19. Noes, 6 (Senator(s) Hemmings, Hogue, Hooser, Slom,
4/30/2004 S
Trimble, Whalen). Excused, 0 (none). Transmitted to House.
4/30/2004 H Returned from Senate (Sen. Com. No. 770).
5/12/2004 H Transmitted to Public.
$ = Appropriation measure
ConAm = Constitutional Amendment
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2004/status/HCR199.asp 2/5/2019
SCR213 Measure History Page 1 of 1
Hawaii State Legislature

2004 Legislative Session
SCR213
Generated on 7/19/2004 1:07:25 PM
Measure Title: REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS,

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THE OFFICE OF
HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS TO CEASE ISSUING ANY EASEMENTS TO
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU FOR ACCESS TO HAIKU
VALLEY AND TO "HAIKU STAIRS."
Report Title: Requesting DHHL, DOT, and DLNR to cease issuing easements to the city
and county of Honolulu for access to the Haiku Stairs.
Description:
Package: None
Companion: HCR199
Introducer(s): ADUJA, Slom, Fukunaga, Inouye, Tsutsui, Ige, Sakamoto
Current Referral: JHW/WLA/TMG
Date Status Text

3/24/2004 S Offered.
3/30/2004 S Referred to JHW/WLA/TMG.
$ = Appropriation measure
ConAm = Constitutional Amendment
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2004/status/SCR213.asp 2/7/2019
Appendix L K
HRS 6E-8 Historic Preservation Review

SHPD Comment Letter dated March 14, 2019
re: Ha‘ikū Stairs Submittal
(Log No: 2018.03030)
Appendix M
Survey Maps
Appendix N
Subdivision Maps

FEIS Haiku Stairs Study Part 1 (Vol 1+2)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FEIS Haiku Stairs Study Part 1 (Vol 1+2)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

HA‘IKŪ STAIRS STUDY

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Photo: David Brotchie

1.0 Project Summary

2.0 Purpose and Need of the Project

2.1.3 Protection of the Natural Environment and Watershed .....................................2-4

3.0 Project Description

4.0 Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Recommended Mitigation Measures

4.10.2 Fire Protection ................................................................................................... 4-45

5.3.1 City and County of Honolulu General Plan ....................................................... 5-28

6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0 Agencies and Parties Consulted

8.0 References and Preparers of the Draft EIS

List of Figures (Continued)

Volume II: Appendices

A. Structural Engineering Analysis

Volume III: EISPN Comment Letters and Responses

Volume IV: EISPN Comment Letters and Responses

Volume V: DEIS Comment Letters and Responses

Volume VI: DEISPN Comment Letters and Responses

Volume VII: DEISPN Comment Letters and Responses

ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

FTA Federal Transit Administration

SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System

1.1 Project Information Summary

Accepting Authority: Authorized Mayor’s Representative,

Name of Action: Ha‘ikū Stairs Study

Planning/Environmental Consultant: G70

Land Area: 224.26 acres (BWS)

City and County of Honolulu Zoning P-1, Restricted Preservation (Figure1- 5)

State Land Use District: Conservation District, Protective Subzone

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map

Figure 1-2 Moku and Ahupua‘a Map

Figure 1-3 Tax Map Key (TMK) (1) 4-6-015:011

Figure 1-7 Land Ownership

1.3 Environmental Review Under Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised

1.4 Proposed Action

1.5 Alternatives Considered to the Proposed Action

The EIS will consider three alternatives to the Proposed Action:

1.5.1 No-Action Alternative

1.5.2 Partial Removal Alternative

1.5.3 Conveyance Alternative

1.5.3.1 Legal Access

1.5.3.2 Managed Access

1.6 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

1.6.2 Subdivision Alternative

1.7 Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts and Proposed

1.7.1 Beneficial Impacts

1.7.2 Adverse Impacts

1.7.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures

1.7.3.1 Air Quality Mitigation

1.7.3.2 Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Mitigation

Historic Architectural Resources

1.7.3.3 Biological Mitigation

1.7.3.4 Climate Mitigation

1.7.3.5 Geology and Soils Mitigation

1.7.3.6 Hazardous Materials Mitigation

1.7.3.7 Natural Hazards Mitigation

1.7.3.8 Noise Mitigation

1.7.3.9 Public Safety Mitigation

1.7.3.10 Public Services Mitigation

1.7.3.11 Recreation Mitigation

1.7.3.12 Economic Mitigation