coastal resilience for dhhl communitiesmanoa.hawaii.edu/durp/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/plan...this...

Coastal Resiliencefor DHHL Communities

A resource for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and its beneficiariesInformation to help officials and residents assess coastal hazards, enhance beneficiaries' disaster-readiness, improve management of the resource, and clarify jurisdictional issues.

Prepared by the Department of Urban and Regional Planning’s Spring 2015 Practicum Team, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

May 2015Honolulu, Hawai'i

Table of ContentsAbout This Report …………………………………………………...... iiThe Practicum Team ……………………………………………….…. iiAcknowledgments ……………………………………………………. iiDisclaimer ……………………………………………………………. iiiList of Acronyms ……………………………………………………... iiiHawaiian Naming Conventions ………………………………………. iii

Executive Summary ……………………………………………………. 1

1 Hawaiian Home Lands and Coastal Zone Management: An Overview ………………………………………………………. 31.0 Introduction ..………………………………………………………. 31.1 The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act …………………………... 31.2 The Hawaiian Homes Commission and DHHL Organizational Structure …………………………………... 41.3 The CZM Policy Framework ……………………………………... 5

2 Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment ……………………………. 92.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………….. 92.1 Hazards ……………………………………………………………. 92.2 Vulnerability ……………………………………………………... 102.3 Methods ………………………………………………………….. 102.4 Results ……………………………………………………………. 122.5 Conclusion ……………………………………………………….. 84

3 Hazard Mitigation to Build Community Resilience …………….. 853.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………….. 853.1 Mitigation Best Management Practices ………………………….. 863.2 Tools for Building Resilience in DHHL Communities …………... 99

4 Jurisdictional Issues Affecting the Functional Capabilities of DHHL ……………………………………………………….. 1234.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………. 1234.1 Description of Table 4.1: Policies Pertaining to DHHL Jurisdiction ………………………………………………. 1234.2 Description of Table 4.2: Letters Pertaining to Jurisdictional Issues on Hawaiian Home Lands ………………………………... 1264.3 Analysis of Jurisdictional Conflicts ……………………………... 1314.4 Conclusion and Recommendations ……………………………... 132

5 Case Study: Coastal Zone Management on Indian Tribal Lands in Washington State ……………………………………………. 135

6 Case Study: Increasing Resilience for the Kapa‘akea Homestead Community………………………………………… 145

7 Summary of Findings and Recommendations …………………. 159

Appendices ………………………………………………………….. 160

COVER: Photo illustration of shoreline at 'Aliomanu, Kaua'i. Source image credit: NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Used with permission of NOAA.

This report published May 15, 2015; amended 5/18/2015

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communitiesi

ii

About this reportShoreline erosion, flooding, tsunami, sea level rise and other

hazards pose increasing threats to Hawai‘i’s coastal communities. In January 2015, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) requested the assistance of the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa's Department of Urban and Regional Planning (DURP) in identifying and assessing coastal hazard vulnerabilities affecting DHHL communities. This study was conducted for DHHL in response to that request, as part of a graduate-level practicum at DURP.

The practicum team’s objective was to develop planning tools to help DHHL and its beneficiaries enhance their capacity for resilience and adaptation in dealing with coastal hazards. These tools include an assessment of coastal hazards and identification of the most vulnerable homestead communities on each of the five islands where DHHL lands are located; Geographic Information System (GIS) data and maps showing the relationship of DHHL properties to areas with coastal hazards; research on best management practices for coastal adaptation and hazard mitigation options; and a review and analysis of policy

AcknowledgmentsWe extend our appreciation to the following organizations and

individuals: the Hawaiian Homes Commission; the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and especially Kaleo Manuel, Nancy McPherson, and Darrell Yagodich from the Office of Planning; the State Office of Planning, and especially Acting Director/CZM Program Manager Leo R. Asuncion; the University of Hawai‘i Sea Grant Program and especially Dolan Eversole and Ruby Pap; Leanora Kai‘aokamālie from the County of Kaua‘i Planning Department; Jim Potemra from PacIOOS; the Kapa‘akea Homestead Association and community; the Waimānalo Homestead Association and community; and the University of Hawai‘i, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, and especially Professor Luciano Minerbi.

considerations for coastal zone management by DHHL.

The practicum team divided tasks among four subgroups: Hazard Analysis; GIS; Best Management Practices for Mitigation; and Coastal Zone Management Policy. The team met at least twice a week, reviewed the literature and existing policies and plans relevant to DHHL coastal lands, consulted with DHHL staff and the State Office of Planning, obtained and analyzed available GIS data, and attended public meetings of the Hawaiian Homes Commission in Kapa‘akea on Moloka‘i, and Waimānalo on O‘ahu. To further illuminate our findings on the opportunities and challenges for coastal zone management and building community resilience on DHHL lands, we looked to the Kapa'akea homestead community and Native American tribal communities in Washington State for case studies.

This report presents the results of the practicum team’s research conducted between January and May 2015. It should be understood as a preliminary study, rather than an exhaustive analysis, laying the groundwork for a longer-term, more comprehensive planning process to manage coastal resources and enhance the resilience and adaptive capacities of coastal communities on DHHL lands.

The practicum teamThe members of the practicum team are: Sarah Afong, Chelsea

Dau, Jimmy Fitzgerald, Asrizal Lufthi, Stephanie Nagai, Roberto Porro, Tina Sablan, Dayna Vierra, Andy Yamaguchi, and Aydee Zielke. Team member professional and educational backgrounds include urban and regional planning, ocean engineering, natural resource management, architecture, sociology, economics, geography, urban design, environmental and conservation science, GIS, conflict resolution, tourism, education, disaster management and humanitarian assistance, and journalism. Urban and Regional Planning Professor Luciano Minerbi supervised this project.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communitiesiii

List of acronymsAG State Attorney GeneralBMP Best Management Practices CZM Coastal Zone ManagementCZMA U.S. Coastal Zone Management ActDHHL State Department of Hawaiian Home LandsDLNR State Department of Land and Natural ResourcesDOI U.S. Department of the InteriorDURP UH Department of Urban and Regional PlanningFEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFIRM Flood Insurance Rate MapGIS Geographic Information SystemHHCA Hawaiian Homes Commission ActNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationOCCL Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (DLNR)ORMP Ocean Resource Management PlanPacIOOS Pacific Islands Ocean Observer SystemSLR Sea Level RiseSMA Special Management AreaSOP State Office of PlanningTMK Tax Map KeyUH University of Hawai‘iUSGS U.S. Geological Survey

DisclaimerThis report was done with care by graduate planning students as

part of a planning practicum class and it is not the work of certified planners. Therefore, it needs to be reviewed by professional planners and pertinent scientists. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands or other agencies, organizations, or groups mentioned in the report or the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Department of Urban and Regional Planning and University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Hawaiian naming conventionsThis report attempts to use correct Hawaiian spelling and

diacritical marks for words and place names, including the use of the ‘okina and kahakō– i.e., Hawai‘i and Mānoa. When a Hawaiian name is changed to reflect English usage (i.e., “Hawaiian”), the ‘okina and kahakō are omitted.

1

Executive SummaryThe goal of this practicum study is to assist the Department of

Hawaiian Home Lands in its efforts to improve the management of coastal resources within its jurisdiction and aid its beneficiaries in mitigating coastal hazards and enhancing their disaster readiness and resilience. The planning information and tools presented herein include a review and analysis of policy considerations for DHHL’s management of coastal resources; hazard and vulnerability assessments of DHHL’s coastal communities, including mapping data; a framework of Best Management Practices for hazard mitigation; a Native Hawaiian Culturally-Based Community Resilience Manual; and case studies drawn from Kapa‘akea, Moloka‘i and Washington State.

Section 1 provides an overview of the federal and state policies governing Hawaiian home lands and coastal zone management in the State of Hawai’i.

Section 2 presents the hazard analysis, detailed vulnerability assessment, and mapping that the practicum team conducted in order to identify the Hawaiian homestead communities that are most vulnerable to tsunami, flood, shoreline erosion, and sea level rise. Based on population size and exposure to the greatest number of hazards, five communities — one for each of the islands of Hawai‘i, Maui, Moloka‘i, O‘ahu, and Kaua‘i — were selected for detailed vulnerability analysis. . These five communities are: Keaukaha, Waiehu, Nānākuli, Kapa‘akea/Kamiloloa-Makakupa‘ia, and Anahola.

Section 3 covers Best Management Practices for hazard mitigation, especially with respect to climate change related effects, and suggests tools for enhancing disaster preparedness and resilience in Hawaiian home lands communities. The mitigation BMP strategies are

organized in a framework that can be used to identify and adapt mitigation strategies appropriate to the risks and conditions unique to a specific community. A Native Hawaiian Culturally-Based Community Resilience Manual that integrates mitigation BMPs, area GIS data, and Native Hawaiian knowledge is proposed to assist DHHL and beneficiaries to better understand the risks and impacts of disasters on Hawaiian communities and the opportunities to protect communities’ most valuable assets.

Section 4 explores and analyzes the jurisdictional issues that affect DHHL’s functional capabilities, including the agency’s ability to manage coastal resources and enhance community resilience on Hawaiian home lands. Relevant policies, legal opinions, and official correspondence are organized and described in tables and analyzed to bring to light key jurisdictional gaps and areas of overlap. Opportunities for interagency collaboration to address practical concerns, and areas where legal clarification might be pursued, are also highlighted.

Section 5 and Section 6 present case studies highlighting coastal zone management on Native American Tribal Lands in Washington State, and the hazards and community resilience challenges confronting one Hawaiian homestead community, Kapa‘akea on Moloka‘i. Together these case studies provide a more detailed perspective of how jurisdictional issues on lands governed by sovereign or autonomous entities play out “on the ground,” affecting coastal zone management and community capacities to increase resilience and manage their resources.

Section 7 provides a summary of findings and suggests next steps and areas for further examination.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities2

This page intentionally left blank

3

Hawaiian Home Lands and Coastal Zone Management: An Overview

1.0 IntroductionComprised of eight major islands and over 120 minor islands, with

no point on land that is greater than 29 miles from the shoreline and almost half of all land within five miles of the sea, nearly the entire state of Hawai‘i is considered part of a coastal zone, according to the state Coastal Zone Management Program (12). Hawai‘i contains a wealth of coastal resources that have traditionally been and continue to be an important source of ecosystem services, livelihood, cultural practice, and recreation. These resources include coral reefs, beaches, wetlands, fishponds, marinas, scenic areas, open space, cultural and historic sites, and wildlife habitat. The 200,000 acres that form the Hawaiian home lands trust are rich in coastal resources and distributed across five islands: Hawai‘i Island, Maui, Moloka‘i, Lāna‘i, O‘ahu, and Kaua‘i. Coastal areas are sensitive to pollution, development pressures and other human impacts, as well as natural hazards, and require careful management by the communities that rely on them. In this section, we present an overview of the policies governing Hawaiian home lands and coastal zone management in the state.

1.1 The Hawaiian Homes Commission ActThe Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), 42 Stat. 108., is a

federal law that was enacted in 1921 for the rehabilitation of Native Hawaiians following the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and the hostile takeover of Hawai’i in 1893 (1,2). The HHCA was intended to provide for the economic self-sufficiency of Native Hawaiians through a homesteading program. “Native Hawaiian” is defined under the HHCA as any descendant having at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood. The homestead policy was unique in that it was the first

1such policy in the U.S. to limit benefits to one ethnic group (1, 2). Certain public lands, totaling approximately 200,000 acres, were designated Hawaiian home lands under the law and placed under a trust. Under the law, homesteads may be used for residential, agricultural, pastoral, or aquacultural purposes. The HHCA additionally provides for direct loans and financial assistance of home construction or repair, development of farms and ranches, technical assistance for farmers and ranchers, and operation of water systems (1).

In 1959, when the state of Hawai’i was admitted into the United States through the passage of the Hawai’i Admission Act (73 Stat. 4), the HHCA was adopted as the law of the state of Hawai‘i by incorporation into the Hawai’i State Constitution as part of a compact with the federal government (3, 4). Responsibility for implementing the HHCA was transferred to the state of Hawai’i, and except for provisions related to administration or increases in benefits, the HHCA can only be amended with the consent of the U.S. Congress (4).

Under the HHCA, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is given the role of reviewing land exchanges and determining whether the State of Hawai’i’s proposed changes to the HHCA require the consent of Congress (4). In practice, that role has been limited due to the lack of implementing regulations, but as of this report’s writing, that may soon change. In May 2015, DOI proposed new rules to implement its responsibilities under the HHCA (23, 24). Specifically, the draft rules are aimed at clarifying how DOI reviews land exchanges involving Hawaiian home lands to ensure consistency with federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, with federal standards for property appraisal, and with the goal of protecting the Hawaiian home lands trust and its beneficiaries. The proposed rules also outline DOI’s procedures for

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities4reviewing whether the state of Hawai‘i’s proposed amendments to the HHCA affect federal responsibilities under the HHCA or the interests of Hawaiian home lands beneficiaries. The public review and comment period ends 60 days from May 12, 2015 (23).

1.2 The Hawaiian Homes Commission and DHHL organizational structure The Hawaiian Homes Commission was created by the HHCA to administer Hawaiian home lands for homesteads (1). The commission consists of nine members, including three residents of the City and County of Honolulu, two residents of Hawai‘i County, two residents of Maui County, one resident of Kaua‘i County, and the Chair. The chair also serves as the Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), an agency of the state of Hawai‘i. The Chair and Commissioners are appointed by the governor of Hawai’i to four-year terms. Four of the nine members must be ethnic Hawaiian, having not less than one-quarter native Hawaiian blood (5, 6).

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands was created by the State Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (Chapter 91, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes) as an agency within the Executive Branch of the State of Hawai‘i, headed by the Hawaiian Homes Commission (5). The agency is primarily responsible for providing services to its beneficiaries and managing the land trust, which spans the islands of Hawai’i, Maui, Moloka‘i, Lāna‘i, O‘ahu, and Kaua‘i. Services include 99-year homestead leases at $1 per year, financial assistance for home purchase, construction or repair, and a variety of community and individual empowerment programs. The agency also leases lands that are not in homestead use at market value, generating income to support its programs (5, 6).

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands consists of five main Offices. The Office of the Chair oversees DHHL’s daily operations, supports the Hawaiian Homes Commission, and directs all DHHL Offices, Divisions, and Programs, including the Administrative Services Office, the Fiscal Office, the Planning Office, the Community Relations Office, the Land Development Division, the Land Management Division,

the Homestead Services Division, and the Native Hawaiian Development Program (6).

In 1990, the state of Hawai‘i enacted a law that adds a statement of purpose to the HHCA. This statement of purpose encompasses establishing a permanent land base for native Hawaiians; preventing alienation of the fee title to lands set aside under the HHCA so that they will always be held in trust for the continued use by native Hawaiians; providing adequate amounts of water and supporting infrastructure for homestead communities; and providing financial support and technical assistance to support self-sufficiency and community based development for native Hawaiians (5).

Under its administrative rules, the Director of DHHL is required to develop plans for DHHL lands (7). The agency’s planning system consists of three tiers (9). The first tier is the General Plan, a 20-year plan approved by the Hawaiian Homes Commission in 2002 that articulates DHHL’s long-range goals and objectives for land use planning, residential, agricultural, and pastoral uses, water resources, land and resource management, economic development, and building healthy and self-sufficient communities. According to the General Plan, DHHL works with homestead associations to identify neighborhood revitalization opportunities and to empower them to manage and govern their communities. The agency also works with the state and county governments to implement water use plans, rules, and permits to ensure access to water resources for current and future uses on Hawaiian home lands, and to ensure reliable and adequate delivery of services to homesteaders (8).

The second planning tier at DHHL includes Strategic Program Plans, focusing on statewide programs and policies (i.e., for water, agriculture, and energy) and Island Plans, which are 20-year visioning documents specific to O‘ahu, Hawai‘i Island, Kaua‘i, Maui, and Moloka‘i that designate land uses for Hawaiian home lands. The Island Plans provide land use projections and guidance for appropriate land uses at the regional level, taking into account infrastructure needs and opportunities as well as beneficiary interests, and identifying areas for homestead development, income generation, and community use (9).

Hawaiian Home Lands and CZM Overview 5

The third planning tier consists of Regional Plans and Area Development Plans, which identify and address issues and opportunities specific to existing homestead communities (9).

1.4 The Coastal Zone Management policy framework 1.4.1 Federal CZM policy The U.S. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

The U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 86 Stat. 1280, was enacted to encourage the states to preserve, protect, responsibly develop, and enhance the nation’s coastal resources and to consider ecological, cultural, historic, aesthetic and economic values in coastal resource decision-making (10).

The CZMA created the National Coastal Zone Management Program, a flexible, voluntary partnership between the federal government and eligible states and territories. Administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Coastal Zone Management Program provides grants and guidance to eligible states and territories to assist them in developing federally approved coastal zone management (CZM) programs and to ensure consistency in coastal zone projects across different levels of government. Federal agencies are required to align their projects with the resource management policies and requirements of state CZM programs (10, 11).

To gain federal approval and qualify for national CZM program grants, a state CZM program must:

1) Identify and evaluate coastal resources that require management or protection by the state;

2) Examine existing policies or develop new policies that are specific, comprehensive, and enforceable to manage those coastal resources;

3) Determine specific uses and special areas that require state management;

4) Identify the boundaries of the coastal zone that is subject to state management;

5) Provide for consideration of the national interest in planning for and siting of facilities; and

6) Provide sufficient legal authority or institutional arrangements to implement the program.

(10, 12)

THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

The National Ocean Policy was established by Presidential Executive Order 13547 in 2010. The policy envisions “[a]n America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy, resilient, safe, and productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the well being, prosperity, and security of present and future generations” (13).

The policy directs federal agencies to:

1) protect, maintain, and restore ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems;

2) to enhance the sustainability of ocean and coastal economies;

3) to preserve the nation’s maritime heritage;

4) to support sustainable uses and access;

5) to provide for adaptive management and build capacity to understand and respond to climate change and ocean acidification; and

6) to coordinate with national security and foreign policy interests.

The policy also created the National Ocean Council, which consists of 27 federal agencies, departments, and offices tasked with working together to oversee the policy’s implementation. In 2013, the National Ocean Council released the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, which provides direction and guidance to federal agencies to improve coordination of their ocean-related activities, streamline decision-making, and enhance collaboration with state, tribal, and local governments, and other stakeholders (13, 14).


1.3.2 State CZM policyTHE LAND USE LAW

Hawai‘i was one of the first states to participate in the national CZM program, receiving federal approval for its state CZM program in 1978 (11). Prior to 1978, the state of Hawai‘i adopted a series of laws that established a framework for consistency with the federal CZMA. These laws include the Land Use Law of 1961 (Chapter 205, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes), the nation’s first statewide land use law which regulates and manages all lands in Hawai‘i through a classification system of four main land use districts: urban, agricultural, rural, and conservation (15).

The Land Use Law is administered by the State Land Use Commission, which consists of nine members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. The Land Use Commission establishes district boundaries, and acts on petitions for boundary changes as well as special use permit applications in agricultural or rural districts (15, 16).

Conservation districts are administered by the State Board of Land and Natural Resources. Conservation lands encompass watersheds and water sources, scenic and historic areas, parks, wilderness, open space, recreational areas, wildlife habitat, lands subject to flooding and erosion, and all submerged lands. The State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) promulgates rules governing uses within conservation districts. Within the DLNR, the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) manages approximately 2 million acres of private and public lands located in the conservation district, as well as coastal resources extending to the state’s seaward jurisdiction including beaches, dunes, and rocky shorelines. The Coastal Lands Program at OCCL coordinates coastal resource conservation and management, including coastal hazard mitigation and shoreline erosion management, in collaboration with coastal communities, other government agencies, and the University of Hawai‘i’s Sea Grant College Program (15, 16, 17).

THE SHORELINE SETBACK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION LAWS

Following enactment of the Land Use Law, the state of Hawai‘i passed the Shoreline Setback Law in 1970, which prohibited structural development within 40 feet of the high-water mark. In 1976, the state enacted a Shoreline Protection Law, which created Special Management Areas (SMA) where no development can occur unless the county where the development is being proposed issues an SMA permit (12). The purpose of the SMA permit is to regulate development within designated sensitive areas that extend inland from the shoreline. The SMA includes resort areas, seismic hazard areas, natural preservation areas, and coastal roads. Under the law, “development” is defined as any uses, activities, or operations that include placement or erection of any waste or solid material; grading, removing, or extraction of material; change in the density or intensity of use of the land; change that affects water use, access, or ecology; construction or demolition of any structure. The SMA permit applies to land uses that are permissible within adopted plans, policies, and zoning codes and ensures consistency with SMA guidelines (11, 12).

The boundaries of the SMAs are determined by each county in Hawai’i, and may be amended as needed, though any reduction in an SMA must be approved by the State Office of Planning. Agriculture, single-family homes, interior or non-structural alterations, and underground utilities are exempt from SMA permit requirements. Permits are required, however, for hotels, subdivisions, and commercial projects. If a construction project is valued at more than $500,000, or if it will have significant adverse environmental effects, then an SMA major permit is required and a public hearing will be held. If a construction project is valued at less than $500,000 or if it will have no substantial adverse environmental effects, then an SMA minor permit is required, and no public hearing is needed (11).

Each of the four counties in Hawai‘i administers its own SMA permitting program through its respective county planning department (11, 12). There are a few exceptions, however. As discussed in greater detail later in this report, the application of SMA permitting requirements is unclear and inconsistent across the state when development projects on

7Hawaiian Home Lands and CZM Overview

Hawaiian home lands are involved. Another exception can be found in community development districts created by the state legislature; the State Office of Planning, and not the county planning departments, processes SMA permits in those special districts (11).

At the time of its enactment in 1976 the Shoreline Protection Law was seen as a compromise between state authorities who wanted to retain control over the development of a state CZM program, and environmental advocates who were pushing for the creation of a new coastal commission that would manage shoreline areas at least in the interim, until a statewide coastal zone management program was adopted (12).

THE STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT LAWIn 1977, the state passed the Coastal Zone Management Law

(Chapter 205A, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes) and created the state CZM program that was federally approved the following year (18, 12). In 1986, shoreline setback provisions were added to the stated CZM law (18). The State Office of Planning (SOP) is responsible for coordinating and implementing Hawai‘i’s CZM program. The agency’s mandate includes establishing shoreline setback areas, reviewing the siting of energy facilities, and managing the federal consistency review process (11).

Hawai‘i’s CZM law aims to balance development demands with the need to protect shorelines, sensitive habitats, and public access. The law identifies a network of agencies responsible for coastal zone management, and lays out key CZM objectives, including:

1) Managing development by balancing economic and environmental interests;

2) Promoting public education and participation in coastal management;

3) Minimizing threats from coastal hazards;

4) Protecting beaches, coastal recreational resources, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, and marine resources.

(18)

The Ocean Resources Management Plan (ORMP) is an important component of Hawai‘i’s CZM program. The ORMP is a statewide plan that coordinates coastal and ocean resource management among agencies at different levels of government and with input from stakeholder communities. The ORMP considers every person present in Hawai‘i a “citizen steward of the land and ocean” and identifies 11 management priorities, including:

1) Appropriate coastal development;

2) Management of coastal hazards;

3) Watershed management;

4) Marine resources;

5) Coral reefs;

6) The ocean economy;

7) The cultural heritage of the ocean;

8) Training, education, and awareness;

9) Collaboration and conflict resolution;

10) Community and place-based ocean management projects; and

11) National ocean policy and Pacific regional ocean initiatives.

(19)

Consistent with the National Ocean Policy and prepared by the ORMP Working Group and the University of Hawai‘i’s Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy is the Framework for Climate Change Adaptation in Hawai‘i. Developed in 2009, the framework supports interagency collaboration across all levels of government and aims to strengthen the resilience of ocean communities and marine environments through climate change adaptation and disaster avoidance measures. Targets include building capacity through best management practices training and guidance, integration of climate change adaptation priority guidelines in state and county decision-making, a comprehensive and integrated shoreline policy that addresses both chronic and episodic coastal hazards, and identification of adaptation strategies (20).


1. Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. (1921). 42 Stat. 108. Accessed at: http://www.doi.gov/ohr/upload/Act-of-July-9-1921-42-Stat-108.pdf

2. Dinell, T et.al. 1964. The Hawaiian Homes Program: 1920-1963, a concluding report. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. http://www.lrbhawaii.info/lrbpts/62/hhland.pdf

3. Hawai’i Admission Act (U.S. Public Law 86-3). (1959). Accessed at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/86/s50/text

4. Hawai’i State Constitution (Article XI: Hawaiian Affairs). Accessed at: http://lrbhawaii.org/con/conart12.html .

5. State Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, Chapter 91, Hawai’i Revised Statutes. Accessed at: http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/HHCA_1921.pdf

6. DHHL - Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Accessed at: http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/dhhl/

7. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Administrative Rules. Chapter 1 of Title 10, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Accessed at: http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/DHHL-Administrative-Rules.pdf

8. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands General Plan. (2002). DHHL, Office of Planning. Accessed at: http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Island_Plan_General_2002.pdf

9. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Office of Planning. Statewide Regional Plans accessed at: http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/po/regional-plans/ . Island Plans accessed at http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/po/island-plans/ .

10. U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act. (1972). 46 Stat. 1280. Accessed at: http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/media/CZMA_10_11_06.pdf

11. A Participant’s Guide to the Special Management Area (SMA) Permit Process in the State of Hawaii. State of Hawaii, Office of Planning, CZM Program. (2012). Accessed at http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/czm/program/sma/participant_guide_to_the_sma.pdf

12. Hawai’i Coastal Zone Management Program. State of Hawai’i, Office of Planning. Accessed at: http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/czm/program/doc/1990_czm_program_doc.pdf

References13. National Ocean Policy, Presidential Executive Order 13547. (2010).

Accessed at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/2010stewardship-eo.pdf 14. National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. (2013). National Ocean

Council. Accessed at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_ocean_policy_implementation_plan.pdf

15. Land Use Law, State of Hawai’i. (Act 187). Chapter 205, Hawai’i Revised Statutes. Accessed at: http://luc.state.hi.us/docs/hrs_chapter205_web.pdf

16. History. (2015). State of Hawai’i Land Use Commission. Accessed at: http://luc.hawaii.gov/about/history-3/

17. Coastal Lands Program. State of Hawai’i, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands. Accessed at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/occl/coastal-lands/

18. Coastal Zone Management Act, State of Hawai’i. Chapter 205A, Hawai’i Revised Statutes.

19. Hawai’i Ocean Resources Management Plan (ORMP). (2013). State of Hawaii, Office of Planning, CZM Program. Accessed at: http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/czm/ormp/ormp_update_reports/final_ormp_2013.pdf

20. A Framework for Climate Change Adaptation in Hawaii. (2009). ORMP Working Group and UH Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy. Accessed at: http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/czm/ormp/reports/climate_change_adaptation_framework_final.pdf

21. Publication of Proposed Hawaiian Home Land Rules Governing Land Exchanges and Amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. (2015). U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed at: http://www.doi.gov/ohr/notifications/hhl-rules-47-48.cfm

22. Land exchange procedures and prexecuocedures on proposed amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920. (2015). Draft proposed rules. U.S. Department of the Interior. http://www.doi.gov/ohr/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=1158567

9

Hazard and VulnerabilityAssessment2

2.0 IntroductionPredicting a community’s vulnerability and susceptibility to

hazards is an important step in disaster mitigation planning. In this section, 29 DHHL communities with land inside SMA boundaries or tsunami evacuation zones were identified and assessed from Hawai‘i Island, Maui, Moloka‘i, O‘ahu, and Kaua‘i. Of these, the communities with the greatest population exposed to the greatest number of hazards were identified for each island. Five communities underwent a detailed vulnerability assessment, which compared four hazard types (tsunami inundation, flooding, coastal erosion, and sea level rise), population demographics, land values and structures, and emergency facilities. A compilation of the aforementioned data was mapped in a user-friendly display for DHHL staff to utilize.

2.1 HazardsA hazard is characterized by its location, intensity, frequency, and

probability. It is an event that has the potential to cause loss of life, injury, property damage, economic disruption, or environmental degradation(13). The Atlas of Natural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone(3) ranked seven potentially hazardous coastal processes in Hawai'i. They are tsunamis, stream flooding, high waves, storms (including hurricanes), erosion, sea level rise, and volcanic/seismic activity. Fletcher et al. (2002) distinguished differences between dynamic hazards, which can cause sudden and severe effects in a short period of time (e.g. flooding and tsunamis) and long-term hazards (e.g. sea level rise and erosion)(3). Due to limited access to GIS data, this report does not assess high waves, storms, or volcanic activity.

TSUNAMIA tsunami, or “harbor wave,” is generated by sudden

displacements in the sea floor by fault movement, undersea landslides, or undersea volcanism(3). Tsunamis can be generated locally or thousands of miles from Hawai‘i (e.g. Alaska). The Pacific Ocean has a high degree of volcanism and seismic instability, placing Hawai‘i’s coasts under constant threat of tsunami inundation. This report utilizes current tsunami evacuation zones (generated from historical inundation data) in order to identify vulnerable populations within the evacuation zones.

FLOODINGStream or riverine flooding is a natural consequence of water flow

in a continually changing environment. Streams receive most of their water input from precipitation, and the amount of precipitation falling in any given drainage basin varies from day to day, or year to year. Areas along coastlines become especially subject to flooding as a result of tsunamis, hurricanes, or unusually high tides(3). Management strategies typically include land use controls and physical mitigation (i.e. channels and levees).

EROSIONErosion is a chronic and widespread problem in Hawai’i. Beach

erosion occurs when the supply of sand to the beach cannot keep up with the loss of sand to the sea. Typical coastal erosion rates are 0.5 to 1 foot per year(5). Seawalls and revetments stop erosion of coastal lands, but refocus the erosion onto the beach — causing beach loss. Erosion does not cause sudden severe damage to DHHL lands (like tsunamis), but when combined with sea level rise, beaches are expected to retreat at an estimated four to five feet per decade on certain Hawaiian islands(3). This retreat would have devastating impacts on coastal properties.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities10SEA LEVEL RISE

Sea level rise is the “result of global warming caused by rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons”(1). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sea levels are projected to continue to rise into the future, although the rate of increase is uncertain(6). Sea level rise is expected to intensify erosion and flood inundation (causing destruction of infrastructure and facilities) and diminish agricultural production and water potability (from soil salinization and saltwater intrusion into aquifers)(8).

Analysis of long-term sea level trends has shown that each Hawaiian island has its own rate of sea level rise(3). Hawai‘i Island, with its large mass, is flexing the underlying lithosphere, causing the island to subside. This creates a net sea level rise of 1.5 inches per decade. Maui, near Hawai‘i island and geographically youthful as well, is experiencing sea level rise of about 1 inch per decade. O‘ahu and Kaua‘i, outside the subsidence zone, are seeing sea level rise of 0.6 inches per decade(3). Global sea levels are expected to rise one to three feet by the end of this century(6).

2.2 VulnerabilityVulnerability is a multifaceted interaction between physical, social,

economic, and environmental factors. It is defined as the extent of a community’s or system’s susceptibility to the impacts of a hazard, and is a function of the community’s exposure, sensitivity to the hazard, and adaptive capacity(12). A community’s exposure is determined by the location of its people and the events that threaten their lives.

Physical vulnerability is defined as the properties of physical structures that determine their potential damage during a disaster7. Social vulnerability is defined as a people’s capacity to anticipate, endure, resist, and recover from the impacts of a hazard(7). Different hazards pose different risks to communities at different levels. The most vulnerable groups are: the elderly, those in poverty, children, and minorities(7). To prepare for and mitigate disasters, it is important to measure community vulnerabilities and assess the risks to which communities are exposed.

2.3 MethodsThe objective of the hazard assessment portion of this study is to

examine the vulnerability of the coastal communities within DHHL boundaries. A detailed vulnerability assessment can serve as a useful tool in informing and prioritizing planning decisions addressing vulnerability. USAID’s (2009) Adapting to Coastal Climate Change: A Guidebook for Development Planners identifies vulnerability assessment as the first step in the process of determining and implementing appropriate adaptation options(12). Similarly, NOAA’s (2010) Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for Coastal Managers refers to vulnerability assessment as a critical step in the adaptation planning process(9). A conceptual framework of the vulnerability assessment and how it fits in the decision making process is shown in Figure 2.1. The assessment framework applied in this study is adopted from the recommended approaches in these two planning guides. Attention was given in this analysis to the ‘exposure’ and ‘sensitivity’ elements of vulnerability due to time and resource constraints. Future assessments should consider the ‘adaptive capacity’ of DHHL communities. This would likely require comprehensive survey analyses of community members, as well as an evaluation of DHHL governance and funding structures and projections to gauge the ability of communities and DHHL to adapt to hazards.

The analysis consisted of two rounds of assessment. The first round of assessment focused on the ‘exposure’ of DHHL’s coastal communities, examining the extent to which hazards impact the

Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of vulnerability assessment

11Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment

Figure 2.2 Steps taken to conduct hazard assessmentcommunities within DHHL boundaries based on hazard acreage and community population. For the purposes of this analysis, “coastal” communities are defined as those DHHL areas which consist of land within the boundaries of either the Special Management Area, as defined by each county, or within the current designated tsunami evacuation zone. A list of the communities examined is presented in Table 2.2 on Page 13. Focus was given to developed communities consisting of residents and built infrastructure. The hazards assessed were identified based on a combination of a literature review and data availability. Of the coastal hazards identified by Fletcher et al. (2002), this study examined the impacts associated with the following: erosion, sea level rise inundation, flooding and tsunami inundation(3). These hazards were examined independently, although it is acknowledged that sea level rise will likely exacerbate the impacts of the other hazards. The hazards were weighted equally in comparing impacts among communities. Volcanic, seismic and hurricane wind hazards are not assessed due to the lack of data and/or modeling capacity.

Based on the results of this first round of assessment, the most ‘exposed’ communities on each island were identified and selected for the second round of assessment. This second round examined the ‘sensitivity’ of each of the five communities to hazard impacts through GIS analysis and mapping. This round leveraged existing infrastructure, socioeconomic, and land use data available in GIS format. Using ArcGIS geoprocessing tools, overlay analysis was used to quantify the socioeconomic, infrastructure, and land use impacts associated with these coastal hazards. Maps and tables of these impacts were generated to inform future decision making with regards to hazard mitigation and adaptation.

The general steps taken for this assessment are outlined in Figure 2.2 and include the following: 1) identification of communities/hazards to be assessed; 2) examination of exposure of DHHL coastal communities; 3) identification of most exposed communities per island and overlaying of hazard data with population data (GIS); 4) examination of sensitivity of selected communities, and 5) generation of hazard impact maps.

DATA and TOOLS

The hazards assessed in this study are based partly on data availability. With regard to hazard assessment data in the areas of DHHL, current data are limited. There have not been any detailed hazard assessments conducted for these areas to simulate potential impacts from extreme events. However, there is statewide information with respect to erosion trends, flood zones, and tsunami evacuation zones. Simulated sea level rise inundation for the Hawaiian Islands is also available from Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PacIOOS) and the NOAA Sea Level Rise (SLR) Viewer(10). Erosion trend data are available through a 2012 USGS report by Fletcher et al. which provides shoreline change rates for the coastlines of Oahu, Maui, and Kaua'i (available for download at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1051/)(4). There are maps showing rates for each section of coastline of each island available for viewing at http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/erosion/index.php. These data were used to manually create projected erosion zones for a given timeframe (i.e., 100 years) using ArcGIS. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones associated with the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are available from the State Office of Planning GIS database (http://planning.hawaii.gov/gis/)(2). These zones are based on the most recent Flood Insurance Study (FIS) which determines flood elevations induced by wave action and rain from a 100-year storm (1% chance of occurring annually). The FIRM distinguishes areas according to flood and wave exposure(2). Tsunami evacuation zones are also available from the State Office of Planning GIS database.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities12Tsunami evacuation zones are determined based on models simulating inundation from historical and hypothetical tsunamis. For sea level rise, inundation layers are available simulating a 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-foot rise from current sea level. These layers are available for viewing and download from the NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer site (http://coast.noaa.gov/slr/)(10).

For this study we chose to show areas that would be subject to a 3-foot sea level rise, since sea levels are projected to rise up to 3 feet by 2100. A list of the data sources and tools used for each hazard is shown in Table 2.1. The GIS layers for the four hazards were overlaid with DHHL boundaries and population data to identify the most exposed communities for the first round assessment. The second round assessment examined these hazards superimposed on Tax Map Key (TMK), infrastructure, and land use data. A list of these data layers is presented in Appendix A.

As discussed, the analysis was limited by data availability. These limitations include the following:

• Erosion data are available only for Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, and Maui.

• Population data are available only to the census block level.

• Digital flood maps are not available for Hawai'i County.

• Demographic data are available only to the census tract level.

• DHHL Land Use Designation data are not available for Maui.

• Structure footprints are only available for O‘ahu and Kaua‘i (Kaua‘i footprints are for illustrative purposes only — footprint data not finalized by Kaua‘i County Planning Department).

2.4 ResultsGeographic Information System maps were created to show which

DHHL communities on Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, Maui, Moloka‘i and Hawai‘i Island are exposed to tsunami, coastal flooding, 3-foot sea level rise and coastal erosion. The study area was defined as DHHL communities that have some part within the Special Management Area (SMA) boundaries or tsunami evacuation zones. Twenty-nine communities on five islands were identified as such.

Coastal hazards were assessed for all 29 DHHL communities. GIS analysis produced the number of acres and people in each hazard exposure area (Table 2.2). Totals for acreage and population exposed in each of the 29 communities were derived. It should be noted that many areas and people were counted more than once, as they are in areas exposed to more than one hazard. This was deemed to be an appropriate way to measure the total hazard exposure of any given area.

Following this initial round of hazard assessment, one community on each of the five islands that was determined to have the greatest hazard exposure was selected to undergo a detailed vulnerability assessment, which compared four hazard types (tsunami inundation from evacuation zones, flooding, coastal erosion, and sea level rise), population demographics, land values and structures, and emergency facilities.

Maps and discussions on hazard exposure and other factors, by island, are displayed on the following pages.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities14Figure 2.3 DHHL communities on Kaua'i

15

hazard-exposed area, with 36 acres of combined hazard exposure, and a hazard-exposed population of 248.

The hazard acreage and total population do not reflect the actual acreage of the community or number of people in the community. Instead, these values show the sum of the total acres exposed to each hazard, and the sum of the total population exposed to each hazard. If a single person is exposed to three different hazards, they are counted as three people (which also applies to acres exposed to hazards). Therefore, acres and people may be double-, triple-, or quadruple-counted.

The following six maps show the combined hazard exposure of each community. The orange areas show exposure to either three feet of sea level rise, erosion, flood inundation, or a potential tsunami (via the tsunami evacuation zone). The areas with darker orange reflect where different hazards overlap each other. Most dark areas are along the coast, or near a water source (i.e. a river basin).

Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment

2.4.1 Kaua‘iThe Island of Kaua‘i has eight DHHL communities. Of these, six

communities contained land inside of the SMA boundary or tsunami evacuation zone and were evaluated for hazard exposure. The six evaluated communities on Kaua‘i were: Anahola (residential), Anahola (agricultural), Wailua, Kapa‘a, Hanapēpē, and Kekaha. Anahola (residential and agricultural) was determined to have the greatest hazard exposure with a combined hazardexposed acreage of 549 and a total hazard-exposed population of 3,197. Kekaha had the second greatest hazard exposure, with the total hazard-exposed acreage of 75 and a total hazard-exposed population of 1,703. Kapa‘a was the third-greatest

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities16Figure 2.4 Combined hazard exposure at Anahola (agricultural), Kaua'i

Anahola (agricultural)

17Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.5 Combined hazard exposure at Anahola (residential), Kaua'i

Anahola (residential)

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities18Figure 2.6 Combined hazard exposure at Hanapēpē, Kaua'i

Hanapēpē

19Figure 2.7 Combined hazard exposure at Kapa'a, Kaua'i


Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities20Figure 2.8 Combined hazard exposure at Kekaha, Kaua'i

21Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.9 Combined hazard exposure at Wailua, Kaua'i


Community focus: AnaholaThe Anahola homesteads are comprised of both the agricultural

and residential homestead areas, which share a border and are between Hanalei and Līhu‘e. Much of the land is designated as agriculture, although the residential homestead lands continue to be sought for development for future residential as well as mixed-use and income-generation uses. The combination of the two areas comprises the largest homestead area on Kaua‘i, with a total of 4,228 acres and 359 residential leases; 162 people live in the agricultural homestead while 1,783 people live in the residential homestead.

In terms of hazards, the residential area has the largest land mass and population affected by hazards, while the agricultural area has the second-highest population affected; the combination of population and area, as well as the proximity of the two homesteads, is why they are both included in the analysis of the most-vulnerable homestead areas. In

terms of demographics, 40 percent of all people living in either homestead area are either under 18 or older than 65. There are stark contrasts in other demographic measures: nearly three times as many people live in poverty in the agricultural homestead than the resiential homestead. Community roads, shelters and TMK data were used to generate routes to the nearest hurricane shelter. Kapa‘a High School was determined to be the best shelter because of its proximity to the homestead.

23Figure 2.10 Coastal hazards at Anahola, Kaua'i


Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities24Figure 2.11 Land and infrastructure at Anahola, Kaua'i

25Figure 2.12 Land values at Anahola, Kaua'i


Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities26Figure 2.13 DHHL land use designations at Anahola, Kaua'i

27Figure 2.14 Evacuation routes at Anahola, Kaua'i


Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities28Figure 2.15 DHHL communities on O'ahu

29

area, with 19 acres of combined hazard exposure, and a hazard-exposed population of 2,084.


The following six maps show the combined hazard exposure of each community. The orange areas show exposure to either three feet of sea level rise, erosion, flood inundation, or a potential tsunami (via the tsunami evacuation zone). The areas with darker orange reflect where different hazards overlap each other. Most dark areas are along the coast, or near a water source (i.e. a river basin).


2.4.2 O‘ahuThe Island of O‘ahu has 22 DHHL communities. Of these, six

communities contained land inside of the SMA boundary or tsunami evacuation zone and were evaluated for hazard exposure. The six evaluated communities on O‘ahu were: Nānākuli, Mā‘ili, Princess Kahanu Estates, Lualualei, Waimānalo, and Kalaeloa. Nānākuli was determined to have the greatest hazard exposure with a combined hazard acreage of 251 and a total hazard-exposed population of 5,755. Waimānalo had the second-greatest hazard exposure, with the total hazardexposed acreage of 187 and a total hazardexposed population of 2,256. Princess Kahanu Estates was the third-greatest hazard-exposed

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities30Figure 2.16 Combined hazard exposure at Kalaeloa, O'ahu

31Figure 2.17 Combined hazard exposure at Lualualei, O'ahu


Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities32Figure 2.18 Combined hazard exposure at Mā‘ili, O'ahu

Mā'ili

33Figure 2.19 Combined hazard exposure at Nānākuli, O'ahu


Nānākuli

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities34Figure 2.20 Combined hazard exposure at Princess Kahanu Estates, O'ahu

35Figure 2.21 Combined hazard exposure at Waimānalo, O'ahu


Waimānalo


Community focus: NānākuliNānākuli is one of the largest, most populous and densely

populated homestead areas. The Leeward O‘ahu homestead community covers 2,204 acres, with nearly 80 percent in unused, open space. Nānākuli has the largest area affected by hazards on O‘ahu, and also the highest population affected by one or more hazards. A total of 5,330 people call Nānākuli homesteads home, Of those, 6 percent live in poverty. However, nearly 40 percent of the popualtion is under 18 or older than 65.

One of Nānākuli's largest sources of vulnerability is its population density; only about 20 percent of the land is used for residential

purposes, so nearly 5,330 people are in a relatively small area, accounting for a high average household size of about 5.5 persons in 1,051 homesteads. In addition, it is noted in the O‘ahu Island Plan that Nānākuli's infrastructure is outdated and could be a source of problems in a future disaster event. The community roads, shelters and TMK parcels of the homestead were used to generate routes to the nearest hurricane shelter. Nānākuli Elementary School, as well as Nānākuli High and Intermediate, are considered to be the best-situated shelters for the Nānākuli homestead population as well as for the nearby Mā‘ili and Princess Kahanu homestead communities.

37Figure 2.22 Coastal hazards at Nānākuli, O'ahu


Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities38Figure 2.23 Land and infrastructure at Nānākuli, O'ahu

Nānākuli

39Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.24 Land values at Nānākuli, O'ahu

Nānākuli

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities40Figure 2.25 DHHL land use designations at Nānākuli, O'ahu

Nānākuli

41Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.26 Evacuation routes at Nānākuli, O'ahu

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities42Figure 2.27 DHHL communities on Moloka'i

43

combined hazard exposure and a hazard-exposed population of 648.


The following five maps show the combined hazard exposure of each community. The orange areas show exposure to either three feet of sea level rise, erosion, flood inundation, or a potential tsunami (via the tsunami evacuation zone). The areas with darker orange reflect where different hazards overlap each other. Most dark areas are along the coast, or near a water source (i.e. a river basin).


2.4.3 Moloka‘iThe Island of Moloka‘i has six DHHL communities. Of these, five

communities contained land inside of the SMA boundary or tsunami evacuation zone and were evaluated for hazard exposure. The five evaluated communities on Moloka‘i were: Kapa‘akea, Kamiloloa-Makapupa‘ia, Kalaupapa, Ho‘olehua-Pālā‘au, and Kalama’ula. Kapa‘akea and Kamiloloa-Makakupa‘ia were assessed as one large area, since the two communities aligned next to each other. They were determined to have the greatest hazard exposure with a combined hazard acreage of 465 and a total hazardexposed population of 1,681. Ho‘olehua-Pālā‘au had a total hazard-exposed acreage of 1,617 and a total hazard-exposed population of 30. Kalama‘ula had 670 acres of

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities44Figure 2.28 Combined hazard exposure at Ho'olehua-Pālā‘au, Moloka'i

45Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.29 Combined hazard exposure at Kalama'ula, Moloka'i

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities46Figure 2.30 Combined hazard exposure at Kalaupapa, Moloka'i

47Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.31 Combined hazard exposure at Kamiloloa-Makakupa'ia, Moloka'i

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities48Figure 2.32 Combined hazard exposure at Kapa'akea, Moloka'i


Community focus: Kapa‘akea and Kamiloloa-Makakupa‘iaThe two homestead communities of Kapa‘akea and Kamiloloa-

Makakupa‘ia were analyzed together because they are adjacent to one another on Moloka‘i's southern shore and share many attributes. Together, they comprise 5,218 acres, with a total of 72 residential leases. The primary use of these homesteads is agriculture; land use development centers around residential homestead areas as well as support services within Kamiloloa, in addition to providing coastal fishponds. While this area does not have the largest area affected by hazards, it does have the largest population potentially affected by hazards. The demographics of Kapa‘akea and Kamiloloa-Makakupa‘ia are in stark contrast to each other. Kamiloloa has one of the most interesting community profiles as there are no residents older than 65

and only 17 percent are younger than 18. In addition, there are only 35 people living within this homestead. One of the most alarming demographic statistics regarding Kamiloloa-Makakupa‘ia is that nearly 69 percent of the population lives in poverty. In contrast, Kapa‘akea has 166 residents, with almost 40 percent either under 18 or older than 65. Twenty-one percent of the population is in poverty, which is one of the highest poverty rates seen in this analysis.

The community roads, shelters and TMK parcels of the homestead were used to generate routes to the nearest hurricane shelter for the homestead. Kaunakakai Elementary School was determined to be the best shelter for the homestead in terms of proximity.

51Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.33 Coastal hazards at Kapa'akea and Kamiloloa-Makakupa'ia, Moloka'i

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities52Figure 2.34 Land and infrastructure at Kapa'akea and Kamiloloa-Makakupa'ia, Moloka'i

Kapa'akea andKamiloloa-Makakupa'ia

53Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.35 Land values at Kapa'akea and Kamiloloa-Makakupa'ia, Moloka'i


Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities54Figure 2.36 DHHL land use designations at Kapa'akea and Kamiloloa-Makakupa'ia, Moloka'i


55Figure 2.37 Evacuation routes at Kapa'akea and Kamiloloa-Makakupa'ia, Moloka'i



Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities56Figure 2.38 DHHL communities on Maui



The following five maps show the combined hazard exposure of each community. The orange areas show exposure to either three feet of sea level rise, erosion, flood inundation, or a potential tsunami (via the tsunami evacuation zone). The areas with darker orange reflect where different hazards overlap each other. Most dark areas are along the coast, or near a water source (i.e. a river basin).

2.4.4 MauiThe Island of Maui has eleven DHHL communities. Of these, five

communities contained land inside of the SMA boundary or tsunami evacuation zone and were evaluated for hazard exposure. The five evaluated communities on Maui were: Waiehu, Kahikinui, South Maui, Leiali‘i, and Ke‘anae-Wailua. Waiehu was determined to have the greatest hazard exposure with a combined hazard acreage of 6 and a total hazardexposed population of 2,785. Leiali’i had a total hazard-exposed acreage of 3 and a total hazard-exposed population of 332. Kahikinui had 330 acres of combined hazard exposure and a hazard-exposed population of 9.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities58Figure 2.39 Combined hazard exposure at Kahikinui, Maui

59Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.40 Combined hazard exposure at Ke'anae-Wailua, Maui

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities60Figure 2.41 Combined hazard exposure at Leiali'i, Maui

61Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.42 Combined hazard exposure at South Maui

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities62Figure 2.43 Combined hazard exposure at Waiehu, Maui


Community focus: WaiehuWaiehu is a north-central-located homestead on Maui, a few miles

from Wailuku. Much of the area's usage is designated as agriculture, although it is predominantly a residential area. Of all the homestead areas, it has the second-lowest total area affected by a hazard on Maui, but had the largest homestead population on the island affected by hzards.

In terms of demographic distribution, a total of 1,349 people live in Waiehu homestead. It is a relatively densely populated homestead with about four people per household. Nearly 40 percent of residents are under 18 or older than 65, which can limit manpower or mobility during a disaster. However, Waiehu is one of the more financially well-off homestead areas, with only about 5 percent of residents under the poverty line.

The community roads, shelters and TMK parcels were used to generate routes to the nearest hurricane shelter for the homestead; this was determined to be Waihe‘e Elementary School.

DHHL land use designations were not available for Maui.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities64Figure 2.44 Coastal hazards at Waiehu, Maui

65Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.45 Land and infrastructure at Waiehu, Maui

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities66Figure 2.46 Land values at Waiehu, Maui

67Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.47 Evacuation routes at Waiehu, Maui

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities68Figure 2.48 DHHL communities on Hawai'i Island

DHHL communitieson Hawai'i Island

69

hazard exposure and a hazard-

exposed population of 405.


The following seven maps show the combined hazard exposure of each community. The orange areas show exposure to either three feet of sea level rise, erosion, flood inundation, or a potential tsunami (via the tsunami evacuation zone). The areas with darker orange reflect where different hazards overlap each other. Most dark areas are along the coast, or near a water source (i.e. a river basin).


2.4.5 Hawai‘i IslandThe Island of Hawai‘i has 27 DHHL communities. Of these, seven

communities contained land inside of the SMA boundary or tsunami evacuation zone and were evaluated for hazard exposure. The seven evaluated communities on Hawai‘i Island were: Keaukaha, Kamā‘oa-Pu‘u‘eo, Kawaihae, Maku‘u, Kealakehe, Waimanu, and ‘Upolu. Keaukaha was determined to have the greatest hazard exposure with a combined hazard acreage of 869 and a total hazard-exposed population of 1,658. Maku‘u had a total hazardexposed acreage of 55 and a total hazard-exposed population of 859. Kawaihae had 215 acres of combined

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities70Figure 2.49 Combined hazard exposure at Kamā‘oa-Pu‘u‘eo, Hawai'i Island

Kamāoa-Pu'u'eo

71Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.50 Combined hazard exposure at Kawaihae, Hawai'i Island

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities72Figure 2.51 Combined hazard exposure at Kealakehe, Hawai'i Island

73Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.52 Combined hazard exposure at Keaukaha, Hawai'i Island

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities74Figure 2.53 Combined hazard exposure at Maku'u, Hawai'i Island

75Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.54 Combined hazard exposure at 'Upolu, Hawai'i Island

'Upolu

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities76Figure 2.55 Combined hazard exposure at Waimanu, Hawai'i Island


Community focus: KeaukahaKeaukaha, on the northeast portion of Hawai‘i Island, is also

known as King's Landing. The area contains 457 residential homesteads and is not considered a priority area for development, although there are future plans for development. Of all the areas of vulnerability, Keaukaha had the largest land area, as well as the largest population affected by hzards on Hawai‘i Island. In terms of demographics, Keaukaha has 1,635 inhabitants with a population density of about 3.65 persons per

household. About 36 percent of the population is under 18 or odler than 65, and about 16 percent of residents live in poverty.

The community roads, shelters and TMK parcels of the homestead were used to generate routes to the nearest hurricane shelter for homestead residents. Waiakea High School was determined to be the best shelter for the homestead in terms of proximity.

79Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.56 Coastal hazards at Keaukaha, Hawai'i Island

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities80Figure 2.57 Land and infrastructure at Keaukaha, Hawai'i Island

81Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.58 Land values at Keaukaha, Hawai'i Island

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities82Figure 2.59 DHHL land use designations at Keaukaha, Hawai'i Island

83Hazard and Vulnerability AssessmentHazard and Vulnerability AssessmentFigure 2.60 Evacuation routes at Keaukaha, Hawai'i Island


2.5 ConclusionThe above assessment identifies the vulnerability of DHHL coastal

communities through the use of ArcGIS tools and publicly available data. The most vulnerable communities on each island, as determined by their exposure to hazards, were identified as Anahola (Kaua‘i), Nānākuli (O‘ahu), Kapa‘akea/Kamiloloa-Makakupa‘ia (Moloka‘i), Waiehu (Maui), and Keaukaha (Hawai‘i) Island. The sensitivity of each community to coastal hazards is conveyed through the mapping and overlaying of important infrastructure, facilities, and land use GIS layers in relation to the hazard zone. Detailed map descriptions are available in Appendix A.

The method and data used in this analysis can be utilized to

perform future assessments of other communities of interest. This assessment was limited, however, by the availability of data through state and county resources, as discussed in the data section above. Future assessments would benefit from additional data as it becomes available.

Regardless of data limitations, these maps and information provide a baseline hazard assessment to assist DHHL planners in conveying hazard exposure throughout the DHHL organization to inform future land use and development decisions. This information can also be used to educate DHHL beneficiaries on the hazard risks of their communities. As best management practices are developed to adapt to and mitigate the risks associated with coastal hazards, it is important to gain awareness of the extent of hazard impacts to DHHL communities. This assessment provides a first step to gaining that awareness.

References1. Hoffman, John S. et al. (1983). Projecting Future Sea Level Rise:

Methodology, Estimates to the Year 2100, and Research Needs. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2014). Flood Insurance Study: City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii. Flood Insurance Study Number: 15003CV001C.

3. Fletcher, C.H. III, E.E. Grossman, B.M. Richmond and A.E. Gibbs. (2002). Atlas of Natural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone. Geologic Investigations Series (I-2761).

4. Fletcher, C.H., Romine, B.M., Genz, A.S., Barbee, M.M., Dyer, Matthew, Anderson, T.R., Lim, S.C., Vitousek, Sean, Bochicchio, Christopher, and Richmond, B.M. (2012). National assessment of shoreline change: Historical shoreline change in the Hawaiian Islands. Open-File, U.S. Geological Survey.

5. Hwang, D.J. (1981). Beach Changes on Oahu as Revealed by Aerial Photographs. Hawaii Office of State Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program, Honolulu, HI.

6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group 1, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Summary for Policy Makers.

7. Kapucu, Naim, and Alpaslan Ozerdem. (2013). Managing Emergencies and Crises. Burlington, MA, U.S.A.: Jones and Bartlett Learning, LLC.

8. Mimura, N., L. Nurse, R.F. McLean, J. Agard, L. Briguglio, P. Lefale, R. Payet and G. Sem. (2007). Small islands. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II, Fourth Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2010). Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers. NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.

10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (n.d.). Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts Viewer. Retrieved 2015, from http://csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slrviewer

11. Rahmstorf, S, G Forster, and A Cazenave. (2012). Comparing Climate Projections to Observations up to 2011. Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing Ltd.

12. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). (2009). Adapting to Coastal Climate Change: A Guidebook for Development Planners. Coastal Resources Center - University of Rhode Island, International Resources Group.

13. Wegscheider, S., Post, J., Zosseder, K., Muck, M., Strunz, G., Riedlinger, T., et al. (2011). Generating tsunami risk knowledge at community level as a base for planning and implementation of risk reduction strategies. German Aerospace Center, German Remote Sensing Data Center, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.

85

Hazard Mitigation to BuildCommunity Resilience3

3.0 IntroductionMitigation Best Management Practice (BMP) Strategies are being

implemented across the country to prepare for hazards, and understanding them is key to community disaster readiness and resilience. In this section we explore and define mitigation strategies for climate change related effects including drought, earthquakes, floods, severe weather, tsunamis, and wildfires, to help build community resilience and disaster management capacity. Additionally, we offer a suggested Native Hawaiian Culturally Based Community Resilience Manual as a tool to help each community plan for their unique needs.

Mitigation BMP strategies are organized on the following pages in an informative framework that associates mitigation approaches with their related hazards. The Mitigation BMP Strategy icons illustrate adaptable methods the coastal community can incorporate into developments and areas that have the potential to be affected by hazards.

Mitigation and hazard information for coastal zones is displayed in connection to each icon. This Mitigation BMP Strategies table can be used to evaluate the range of potential risks and mitigation strategies for specific communities.

The Native Hawaiian Culturally-Based Community Resilience Manual was designed to utilize both Mitigation Best Management Practices information related to area GIS data and Native Hawaiian community member knowledge for each area. The purpose of the manual is to provide a basic framework for better understanding the impact of disasters on Hawaiian communities as well as opportunities to protect the communities’ most valuable assets. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands can use the manual in conjunction with the area GIS data gathered for this study in order to better assess and serve the needs of its beneficiaries. Hawaiian communities can also use the manual to evaluate their own resources and needs in a step-by-step process, and identify their options for hazard mitigation.


3.1 Mitigation Best Management PracticesThe mitigation BMP design-strategy icons(1) illustrate several

approaches that could be implemented in one area. The mitigation strategies explored in this section include beach nourishment, dikes, elevated buildings, floating buildings, inland shelters, integrated public alert warning systems, marsh/wetland systems, multi purpose levees, passive flood walls, rain gardens, sand dunes, and seawalls. These strategies may be selected and adapted to meet the unique demands of each coastal community.

Depending on communities’ potential hazard threats and site-specific characteristics such as soil type, precipitation amount, existing infrastructure, and population density, the following icons represent mitigation strategies that might be applied to the study areas. Climate change options were examined for their ability to protect properties, including cultural and historic landmarks. Engineers should be consulted to design the most effective strategies for each DHHL coastal community.

87Hazard Mitigation to Build Community Resilience


The hazard mitigation BMP table provides information for the every one in the community including private, commercial, and government property owners and residents to be prepared for potential hazards, and support making the community as a whole, disaster

readiness and resilience. In this section we explore and define solution strategies for climate change related affects including adaptation to drought, earthquakes, floods, severe weather, tsunamis, and wildfires to help build community resilience and disaster management.

Hazard mitigation for private, commercial, and government properties


1. Steven G. Cecil AIA ALSA, Chris Reed ASLA, Donna Denio, Jennifer Leaning ND, Jane Amidon. 2013.Troubled Waters. Architechture Boston, 28-33.

2. Climate Tech Wiki. Accessed 2015. Beach Nourishment. http://www.climatetechwiki.org/content/beach-nourishment

3. Pilarczyk, K.W. 1998. Design philosophy and methodology in Pilarczyk, K.W. (ed.). Dikes and Revetments: Design, Maintenance and Safety Assessment. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 11-40.

4. Climate Tech Wiki. Accessed 2015. Sea Dikes. http://www.climatetechwiki.org/content/sea-dikes

5. Linham, M. and Nicholls, R.J. 2010. Technologies for Climate Change Adaptation: Coastal erosion and flooding. TNA Guidebook Series. UNEP/GEF. Available from: http://tech-action.org/Guidebooks/TNAhandbook_CoastalErosionFlooding.pdf

6. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. Accessed 2015. Building Back the Sand Dunes. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/pdf/bldgbkvw.pdf

7. PBS Newshour. Accessed 2015. Louisiana Fishermen Pioneer Floating Architecture. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/louisiana-fishermen-pioneer-floating-architecture/

8. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 2011. Accessed 2015. Shelter safety handbook Some important information on how to build safer. https://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/95526/publications/305400-Shelter%20safety%20handbook-EN-LR.pdf

9. FEMA. 2012. Accessed 2015. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures, Third Edition. P-259. http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3001

10. PUB, Singapores national water agency. The Institution of Engineers Singapore. 2013. Accessed 2015. Managing Urban Runoff – Drainage Handbook 1st Edition. http://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/ABCWatersProfessional/Documents/managingUrbanRunoff.pdf

11. USEPA. Accessed 2015. Stormwater Best Management Practices. http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/stormwater/best_practices.htm

12. Kamphuis, W J. 2010. Introduction to Coastal Engineering and Management. World Scientific Publishing Co Ltd. Singapore.

13. Shipman, B & Stojanovic, T. 2007 “Facts, Fictions, and Failures of Integrated Coastal Zone Management” in Europe Coastal Management. Vol. 35, Issue 2, p375 - 398.

14. FEMA. Accessed 2015. Integrated Public Alert Warning System. https://www.fema.gov/integrated-public-alert-warning-system

15. USEPA. Accessed 2015. Coastal Wetlands. http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/cwt.cfm

16. Yurok Tribe Hazard Mitigation Plan (Draft 3). 2013. Accessed 2015. TetraTech. http://www.yuroktribe.org/departments/planning/documents/Yurok_Tribe_HMP&CWPP_2013-01-16.pdf

17. FEMA. Accessed 2015. Reducing Flood Risk and Flood Insurance Premiums for Existing Residential Buildings in Zone A. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1385402350525-0854e30dc59e2567554b87bc3cc94e36/SandyRA7ReducingFloodRisk_111913-508.pdf

References


3.2 Tools for Building Resilience in DHHL Communities3.2.0 Introduction

The following “Native Hawaiian Culturally-Based Community Resilience Manual” is an adaptation of the manual “Tools For Building Community Resilience: Providing Planning Tools That Promote Sustainable Ecosystem and Disaster Resilient Practices in Village Level” which was created by the University of Hawai‘i, Department of Urban and Regional Planning in August 2011. The original manual was changed to incorporate the unique attributes of the Hawaiian culture and needs of DHHL and the Hawaiian people.

The purpose of this manual is to provide a suggested format on how the DHHL and homestead communities could use the information provided from this project. This manual incorporates the project’s GIS findings, hazard mitigation best practices, with native knowledge in order to plan for the DHHL communities.

To address the different possible needs of the communities, the manual is organized in sections. Communities may use all or some sections of the manual, depending on the level of hazard and disaster planning that has already been conducted. Some communities may already have a well-developed hazard and disaster plan in place. This manual does not devalue work that has already been done or suggest starting the planning process over. Instead, this manual functions as a tool that can be used at any stage in the planning process.

Communities without existing hazard and disaster plans might use the manual to organize themselves from the beginning, while communities with existing plans might use this manual to assist and enhance continued hazard and disaster planning. Community leaders should identify what areas of hazard and disaster planning require attention and development, and focus on the sections of the manual that address those issues.

This manual also provides suggested methods of gathering information and timetables to accomplish tasks. These are only

suggested guidelines, as it is up to community members and planners to identify project time constraints and modify this manual to fit the needs of the community. Community planning can be difficult and time-consuming, and it is important to remember to not get overwhelmed by the planning process.

This proposed planning process need not be accomplished solely by DHHL or homesteaders. Planning applications can be done in collaboration with local schools, with the support of the UH system, or by partnering with other organizations such as “Adopt an Ahupua‘a.”

3.2.1 How to use this manualThis manual is built in sections. Each section builds upon the

previous section. Each section includes forms for record keeping. The manual is structured so that record keeping forms are progressive in nature. In other words, record keeping forms constructed in early sections are used as reference tools in subsequent sections. The manual with the use of the record keeping tools is designed to organize information beginning from a broad, “big-picture” perspective down to a more focused analysis that can be used for specific site planning purposes.

3.2.2 What can be expectedThe manual, with record keeping forms, will guide planners and

communities through the following process:

First, communities will identify area hazards and disasters through local knowledge. This will be done through the process of collecting weather or disaster related stories or legends from area leaders and community members, and through the translation of place names from Hawaiian to English. These stories and names will be identified in connection to particular locations and recorded on a map. Depending on the community, this section may be more appropriately completed through one-on-one interviews with local leaders who have expert

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities100knowledge about the area, as the general public may not have the knowledge base needed to participate in this workshop. After the information is gathered it can be presented to the community as foundational information for subsequent planning workshops, as described on the following pages.

Next, communities will identify specific items and places that are perceived as important to the vitality of the community. These items and places will then marked on the map. At this point, area residents will able to see a map that displays the key infrastructure and cultural aspects of the community in relationship with the area’s natural disasters identified through native knowledge.

The next step in this planning process will be to overlay this map of native knowledge and key infrastructure with the GIS maps provided in the GIS section of this report. Because GIS maps include future projections of disasters of climate change and sea level rise, planners and community members will be able to see the area’s natural disaster challenges from the Native Hawaiian perspective of a connected past, present, and future viewpoint.

With a comprehensive map that displays this past, present, and future viewpoint, the community can begin planning for the larger area and the individual items and places of importance they have identified. This will be accomplished through workshops in which community

leaders and members learn about and identify hazard mitigation options, tools, and resources. Using the overlay maps and information about hazard mitigation BMP strategies, communities will go through the process of determining which mitigation strategies are best suited to accomplish their goals and protect their valuable infrastructure and cultural resources.

3.2.3 TipsUse plastic overlay on maps at each stage of the workshops. Plastic

overlays are important because participants can place identifying marks on the plastic overlay sheet during each workshop then overlay sheets can be easily combined in later workshops to display an accumulation of the different information provided.

Also, it is important to consider that there may be many different ways to address the same task. As workshop organizers attempt to implement plans, being flexible and thinking about projects in multifunctional ways may help gather support for them. For example, funding for an emergency road might be obtained by demonstrating how the road meets other needs of the community. Government officials might be more willing to allocate funding for an emergency road if the community could show positive economic benefits or connection to important resources such as water, historic sites, or agricultural areas.


3.2.4 Native Hawaiian Culturally Based Community Resilience Manual


Hazard mitigation stickers are provided in Appendix B


3.2.5 Conclusion and additional resourcesCommunity disaster and hazard prevention planning is a complex

process of identifying the needs of the community as well as the tools and resources available to them. Not all aspects of disaster planning are covered in this manual. Below are other resources with basic descriptions that may also help the community with their planning needs:

• NOAA, Storm Ready: Community disaster, education, preparedness, and preparedness tools http://www.stormready.noaa.gov/howto.htm

• Hawai‘i Hazards Awareness and Resilience Program (HHARP): Assist communities in preparation for disasters. Including the creation of action plans that identify who does what during and after the disaster. Hawai‘i State Civil Defense, Hawai‘i Emergency Management Program. http://www.scd.hawaii.gov/hharp.html

• Community Emergency Response Team (CERT): Planning materials to help communities create strategies for community resilience. Materials include information on disaster emergency communications, and community emergency response teams. FEMA, https://www.fema.gov/community-emergency-response-teams

• Department of Emergency Management: Overview of hazards in Hawaii, resources available for Hawai‘i residents, and community groups for disaster planning. City and County of Honolulu. http://www.honolulu.gov/dem.html

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: This resource provides tools and materials to assist communities’ capacity building, reduce disaster risk, and create recovery strategies. http://www.ifrc.org/en/

1. Department of Urban and Regional Planning (DURP). 2011. Manual: Tools for Building Community Resilience. University of Hawaii at Manoa. Honolulu; HI

2. Department of Urban and Regional Planning (DURP). 2011. Practicum Report: Capacity Building for Community Resilience in American Samoa. University of Hawaii at Manoa. Honolulu; HI

3. DHHL, (2015). Department of Hawaiian Home lands. Photo stock4. Matsuoka, J., McGregor, D., and Minerbi, L., (1996). Native Hawaiian

ethnographic study for the Hawai’i geothermal project proposed for Puna and southeast Maui. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Lockheed Martin Research Corporation.

5. NOAA, (2010). Adapting to climate change: a planning guide for state coastal managers. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Service. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.

6. Yurok Tribe Hazard Mitigation Plan (Draft 3). 2013. Accessed 2015. TetraTech. http://www.yuroktribe.org/departments/planning/documents/Yurok_Tribe_HMP&CWPP_2013-01-16.pdf

References

123

Jurisdictional Issues Affecting the Functional Capabilities of DHHL

4.0 IntroductionThe purpose of this section is to describe, organize, and analyze

the various policies, legal opinions, and official correspondence materials that pertain to jurisdictional gaps and areas of overlap that affect DHHL’s functional capabilities, including its ability to manage coastal resources and enhance community resilience on Hawaiian home lands.

Table 4.1 highlights statutes, court rulings, and legal opinions relevant to DHHL’s jurisdiction. Table 4.2 organizes letters of correspondence between the State Attorney General’s Office, DHHL, and the Corporation Counsel of Hawai‘i County, Maui County, the City and County of Honolulu, and Kaua‘i County. These tables and the accompanying narratives and analysis are intended to help shed light on why these jurisdictional issues exist among DHHL, other state agencies, and the counties. Organizing this information in a compact and comprehensible way may point to opportunities to address practical issues through new or enhanced interagency agreements, or to identify specific areas where DHHL may wish to pursue legislative remedy or other avenues for legal clarification.

4.1 Description of Table 4.1: Policies pertaining to DHHL jurisdiction Table 4.1: Policies Pertaining to DHHL Jurisdiction (on next two pages) is a table of statutes, court rulings, and legal opinions addressing jurisdictional issues of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act gives DHHL jurisdiction over all Hawaiian home lands including the coastal zones as highlighted in

4Section 204. In order to fulfill the mission of the Act, the lands were divided into several categories. Under direct control of the Hawaiian Homes Commission are the following: Residential, Pastoral, and Agricultural lands. “Retained” lands are those lands used to generate financial income through leasehold agreements. The final category is “Returned” lands which DHHL finds currently unnecessary for departmental purposes and temporarily returns to the State for use as “public lands,” to be managed by the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

THE STATE LAND USE LAW The State Land Use Law pertains to Hawaiian home lands in the

special situation in which the Hawaiian Homes Commission disposes of “returned” lands to the Department of Land and Natural Resources for temporary management as public lands. According to Chapter 171 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Hawaiian home lands managed by DLNR as “returned” lands may be subject to county zoning until DHHL deems those lands necessary once again for Departmental purposes, in which case county zoning laws will no longer apply.

THE STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACTAccording to Chapter 205A of the Hawai’i Revised Statutes, “the

State is in the best position to manage the coastal zone through discretion of land use policies while holding claim to the waters and submerged lands in the territorial sea.” Problems arise due to issues of overlapping jurisdiction between State jurisdiction of the coastal zone and jurisdiction of Hawaiian Home Lands by DHHL in the administering of the Special Management Area (SMA), a tool used to implement the State Coastal Zone Management Program on DHHL lands. “There is nothing in public law 92-583 which would purport preempt control by CZM


[State Office of Planning] of [Hawaiian home lands] in coastal zones”(35).

1972 AG OPINION 72-2In 1972, Attorney General Opinion 72-21 was the first to address

the issue of whether or not county zoning laws apply to Hawaiian Home

Lands. The State Attorney General (AG) opined that county zoning laws do not apply to Hawaiian home lands under management of the Hawaiian Homes Commission and that only when the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands temporarily turns over jurisdiction to the Department of Land and Natural Resources for management as “public lands” (due to those lands being currently unnecessary for Departmental

125Jurisdictional Issues Affecting the Functional Capabilities of DHHL

purposes) may county zoning laws apply. In the specific case of the rezoning of lands in Keaukaha, Hawai‘i Island, the Department requested the zoning change after finding those Hawaiian home lands were no longer necessary for Departmental purposes; highlighted in the request was a change in zoning from residential to light industrial use. Another point made clear by the AG in this letter was that he considered the Special Management Area boundaries similar to county zoning and opined that the SMA should not apply to Hawaiian home lands.

1979 AINOA CASEIn the case of Ainoa (1979), the court found that the lessees of

Hawaiian Home Lands must pay their fair share of real property taxes

leased to them by DHHL. This particular case highlights the variations of county jurisdiction affecting DHHL lessees, a point that is explored in greater detail later in this section.

1986 AG OPINION 86-3The 1986 AG Opinion 86-3 indicated that Counties cannot bind the

State to their zoning powers unless specified as in the case of HRS Chapter 171 regarding “returned” lands, because such action would be a direct infringement upon the power of the Hawaiian Homes Commission in accomplishing the goals of the HHCA. In the (1987) legal memorandum, the Attorney General reaffirms that the Hawaiian Homes Commission has exclusive control over Hawaiian home lands and that

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities126the SMA is a land use control similar to zoning and should not apply unless in specific cases (i.e., HRS Chapter 171).

4.2 Description of Table 4.2: Letters pertaining to jurisdictional issues on Hawaiian Home Lands

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the State Office of Planning both gave the practicum team a set of letters pertaining to jurisdictional issues regarding Hawaiian home lands. These letters are summarized in Table 4.2. The parties involved include the Hawaiian Homes Commission Chair and DHHL, the State Department of Business and Economic Development, the Corporation Counsel of the Counties, the State Attorney General’s Office, members of the City Council, and the Mayor of Hawai‘i County.

Many of the jurisdictional issues discussed in these letters center on the land use classification of the properties in question. The Hawaiian home lands that are under the sole jurisdiction of DHHL are those lands necessary to fulfill the purpose of the HHCA — namely, residential, pastoral, and agricultural homestead lands. Additionally, “retained” lands are lands intended for leasehold agreements that will raise revenue to support DHHL and its mission, and these also remain under DHHL’s jurisdiction. “Returned” lands are lands that DHHL determines are not currently needed to fulfill its mission, and these lands are given temporarily to the Department of Lands and Natural Resources to manage as “public lands” until such time that DHHL decides the lands are needed for Departmental purposes.

LETTERS PERTAINING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF COUNTY ZONING ON HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS

Letters A (1972), B (1976), D (1992), E (1992), L (1998), and M (2006) are all related to the question, “Does county zoning apply to Hawaiian home lands?” Letters A and B ask the question directly and the answer is: Hawaiian home lands may be subject to county zoning ordinances for DHHL “returned lands” that are being temporarily

managed as “public lands” by DLNR. The issue arose after the Hawaiian Homes Commission submitted to the County of Hawai‘i a rezoning request from residential to light industrial in Keaukaha, Hilo. The rezoning request was made because the area was vulnerable to threats of tsunami and aircraft accidents,as well as noise and sewage pollution[v].

Letter D (1992) goes a step further than letters A (1972) and B (1976). highlighting State responsibility and duty of enforcement upon Hawaiian home lands. Letter E (1992) asks the question of whether or not county land use regulations apply to “returned” or “retained” lands because one could be led to believe, focusing solely on Chapter 171, that lessees of these lands are required. The answer was “no” overall, unless those lands were 1) disposed of to DLNR for temporary management as “public lands,” or 2) under special circumstance similar to the Keaukaha rezoning action. Because the Hawaiian home lands in Keaukaha were rezoned from residential to industrial, the lands were deemed no longer necessary for Departmental purposes.

Letters L (1998) and M (2006) discuss the variations of county jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands and the inapplicability of county zoning laws upon the Kapolei Commercial parcel built with the intention of servicing the surrounding Hawaiian homestead communities because those lands were “retained” for Departmental purposes — i.e., for the direct benefit of its lessees through income generation for the Department.

LETTERS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREASLetters C (1987), N (2008), O (2012), and P (2012) pertain to the

applicability of the SMA upon Hawaiian Home Lands. Letter C (1987) is one of the main documents used to support the inapplicability of SMA upon HHL, written to the Director of the Department of Business and Economic Development, Roger Ulveling, by Deputy Attorney General John Anderson. Anderson opines that SMA permits do not differ greatly from county land use regulation and therefore should not apply to Hawaiian home lands unless those lands are “disposed” of to DLNR or in a similar case such as Keaukaha. Anderson also argues that the SMA, like county land use regulations, should no longer apply once DHHL determines that the lands in question are necessary for Departmental

129purposes. Anderson additionally notes that there is nothing in Public Law 92-583 (the National Coastal Zone Management Act) that purports to preempt control of Hawaiian home lands in the coastal zone, and questions whether placement of SMA on Hawaiian home lands was legal in the first place. Letter N (2008) from the Hawai‘i Planning Office to Hawaiian Homes Commission Chair Micah Kane and Attorney General

Mark Bennett asks for direct clarification on whether the State Land Use Law (HRS Ch. 205) and State CZM Law (HRS Ch. 205A) apply to HHL.

Letter O (2012) to Maui County from DHHL and Letter P (2012) To DHHL Chair Jobie Masagatani from the Maui Planning Office (Planning Director William Spence) pertain to the problems that arose


Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities130due to wording in a letter from DHHL to Maui County that “DHHL is exempting this project from SMA […].” The county questioned whether DHHL had such authority. Letter P (2012) called attention to the differential treatment given to projects on Hawaiian home lands that was based on who was constructing the project.

LETTERS PERTAINING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF COUNTY LAWS

Although the title of this section is very similar to the section covering the letters pertaining to the applicability of county zoning on Hawaiian home lands, Letters K (1995), L (1998), and F (1992) deal with the applicability of county laws generally, not county zoning specifically. In response to the statement: “Mr. Marks indicated this letter is not the final position of the AG’s office”(Letter H written in 1994 by Deputy Attorney General Sonia Faust), First Deputy Attorney of the County of Kaua‘i inquired if the AG’s office was open for discussion on the applicability of county laws upon DHHL-initiated developments. Letter L (1998) to Councilmember Aaron Chung from the Corporation Counsel of Hawai‘i County (Richard Wurdeman) lists the county laws that do apply to Hawaiian home lands. Letter F (1992) to the Planning Director of Hawaii County, Norman Hayashi, from the Corporation Counsel of Hawaii County (Michael Matsukawa) clarifies that it is the State and not the County that has the power to determine whether counties can regulate Hawaiian home lands. Counties must ask the State for clarification regarding these issues. Letter H (1994) is discussed further in the following section.

CHAIN OF LETTERS INSTIGATING FURTHER CLARIFICATION AND CONFUSION

The chain of confusion regarding the applicability of county zoning or subdivision ordinances to Hawaiian home lands begins with the statement in letter D (1992) to the Corporation Counsel of Hawai‘i (Michael Matsukawa) by the Deputy Attorney General (George Kaeo Jr.), that the State is responsible for enforcement on Hawaiian home lands. Letter G (1993), written to Attorney General Robert Marks by the

Corporation Counsel of Hawai‘i County and the Corporation Counsel of the City and County of Honolulu, state that these counties, in response to letter D (1992), “took this advice seriously and declined to enforce County regulations, even when enforcement was desired by DHHL; the State seemingly realized that they had bitten off more responsibility than they could handle”[vi]. The new hands-off policy by the counties led to the need for the State to clarify statements in Letter D (1992), that “enforcement of such a requirement to conform to county land use regulations remains with the State, not the counties.”

A source of major confusion despite the goal of clarification stems from Letter H (1994), written by Deputy AG Sonia Faust, who holds that the applicability of county ordinances on Hawaiian home lands depends on who initiates a project. Letter H (1994) states the following:

1. County ordinances, planning and land subdivision do not apply to projects initiated by DHHL;

2. There is a distinction between government and private action on Hawaiian home lands;

3. Laws regulating activity do apply;

4. Private lessees should follow county building codes;

5. Counties cannot bind the State to its zoning powers;

6. Private nonprofits can share in the State’s immunity; and

7. Enforcement should be done by the County if DLNR requires lessees to comply with county zoning and planning laws.

Letters I (1994) and J (1994) to Attorney General Robert Marks from the Corporation Counsel of Hawai‘i and the Corporation Counsel of the City and County of Honolulu respectively, highlight the problems raised by attempting to distinguish between the “use of the land” and “activities on the land.” The Corporation Counsel of both counties agree that if the State has complete jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands, it is not unreasonable of the counties to expect the State to handle enforcement and breaches of trust upon these lands.

131

4.3 Analysis of jurisdictional conflictsHRS CHAPTER 46 and HRS CHAPTER 171

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 46 addresses the State’s grant of power to the counties under Section 46-1.5, HRS (general police powers) and Section 46-4, HRS (comprehensive land use and zoning). According to Deputy Attorney General George Kaeo, Jr. in a letter dated August 6, 1992 to the Corporation Counsel of Hawaii (Michael Matsukawa) strict interpretation is a necessity.

In the letter dated October 29, 1992 to the Hawai‘i County Mayor Lorraine R. Inouye from the Corporation Counsel of Hawai‘i County (Michael Matsukawa), it was determined that the county may not apply its Chapter 46, HRS land use regulations to “returned” or “retained” Hawaiian home lands. On the other hand, according to HRS Chapter 171, county zoning may apply to “returned” lands under the management of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Based on the above information, it could be assumed that county zoning may apply to “returned” Hawaiian home lands under the temporary jurisdiction of DLNR while county zoning may not apply to “retained” Hawaiian home lands. Further clarification is necessary.

WHAT KIND OF TOOL IS THE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA?Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (1998) states that the

Hawaii environmental impact statement (EIS) law applies to Hawaiian home lands (which are considered State lands) and that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act does not preempt State law nor does it preclude the application of EIS requirements. In reference to Hawaiian home lands and the 1998 court case Kepo‘o v. Watson, “the court found that [HRS Ch.343] only had an incidental effect on the use of land” and was thus viewed as an environmental regulating tool rather than a zoning tool.

Is the SMA an environmental regulatory tool or a zoning tool? Does it have an incidental effect on the use of land or not? If it is an environmental regulatory tool with only an incidental effect on land use, then the SMA, like the EIS requirements, could apply to Hawaiian home

lands. If, however, the SMA is more akin to a zoning tool, as the 1972 AG Opinion 72-21 held, then it could infringe on DHHL’s abilities to carry out its mission and should not apply to Hawaiian home lands.

Divergent opinions on the legal typology of the SMA have caused confusion for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and their lessees. Moreover, it remains unclear whether implementation of the SMA upon Hawaiian home lands was legal in the first place.

1998 OPINION 98-02 (CORPORATION COUNSEL of HAWAI’I)1998 Opinion 98-02 is the opinion of the Corporation Counsel of

Hawai’i. This memorandum outlines the variations of county powers over Hawaiian home lands. Through the outcome of the Ainoa case, the court has made clear that lessees of Hawaiian home lands must pay their fair share of real property taxes. Issues have arisen in this area due to the perception that lessees on Hawaiian home lands do not pay their fair share of taxes and thus should not receive their fair share in county resources. According to DHHL’s Residential Lessees Handbook, a seven year exemption is provided by the HHCA to new residential lessees of HHL with lessees being responsible for payment of real property taxes to their designated county in the eighth year until the end of the leasehold agreement2.

According to the 1998 Opinion 98-02, the County of Hawai’i makes the following claims: 1) Counties have the authority to levy real property taxes on Hawaiian home lands;2) Hawaiian home lands occupants must pay for water (to DHHL) even though “a practice has developed around the State, of county water departments accepting control of DHHL water lines, and operating them as part of the County system”; 3) Appropriate sewer fees may be assessed against uses of that service; 4) County police power is applicable on DHHL lands; 5) Counties have a duty to maintain roads other than federally funded highways, through or over Hawaiian home lands; 6) Building safety requirements clearly apply pursuant to the police power, but building permit approvals are linked with zoning requirements, directly control the use of the land, and therefore cannot be enforced on Hawaiian home lands; and 8) Liquor laws are enforceable on Hawaiian home lands.


Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities132Opinion 98-02 highlights the variations of applicability of county

ordinances upon Hawaiian home lands and the problems related to DHHL’s desire to maintain its separate and distinct legal status while deferring permitting, enforcement, and infrastructure maintenance to the counties. Clarification is necessary to ensure consistency and minimize confusion among the counties. The formulation and dissemination of a handbook for use by county employees may help to address and manage county regulation based on the special treatment of Hawaiian home lands as opposed to other State lands.

Perhaps the most salient conflict affecting lessees of Hawaiian home lands relates to problems that arise when attempting to obtain building permits for new home construction and/or renovations. In the case of the SMA and how it pertains to the island of Moloka‘i, for example, many of the homestead communities on the southern coast fall within the SMA boundary and lessees are living in dire conditions. In the past, homes were built very close to the shoreline; at present, coastal erosion is threatening more and more homes and stabilization or new construction is now urgent.

4.4 Conclusion and recommendationsQuestions of jurisdiction on Hawaiian home lands still exist and

cause confusion and complications for all parties involved. Based on the review and compilation of the legislative measures and letters of correspondence pertaining to the Hawaiian Home Lands, several recommendations are offered for consideration.

First, formal legal opinions could be sought to clarify the following issues: What type of tool is the SMA? Which county laws apply to Hawaiian home lands? Can a distinction be made between “use” and “activities” on Hawaiian home lands? Was imposition of the SMA on Hawaiian home lands legal?

Second, and for the sake of addressing problems encountered due to variations across counties with respect to SMA permitting requirements, DHHL could apply for federal CZM funds and collaborate

with the State Office of Planning. The SOP currently handles SMA permitting and enforcement for the Hawaii Community Development Authority3. If the SOP could manage the SMA permitting for DHHL, beneficiaries might encounter fewer problems in obtaining SMA permits due to consistent review by the SOP versus deferring to county regulatory standards which vary by county. Once the SMA permits or exemptions are obtained, lessees would have to abide by county building codes or apply for variances in the case of private renovations or the rebuilding of deteriorating homes in coastal areas.

If DHHL is unwilling or lacks the resources to carry out a permitting and enforcement program, DHHL could collaborate with the State Office of Planning and DLNR, the latter which regulates coastal areas adjacent to Hawaiian home lands already. Federal funding to implement the State CZM Program on Hawaiian home lands might be used to cover the additional costs incurred by the SOP and DLNR. Since the State does not provide adequate funding to support DHHL in its mission, interagency collaboration is a necessity. Additionally, consistent with the Native Hawaiian value of mutually beneficial relationships, DHHL could do its part to train staff across its Offices and Divisions to ensure consistent interpretations and applications of land use and coastal zone management policies; DHHL could also do more to educate current and future lessees about compliance with environmental and other regulations in order to minimize impacts to coastal resources. Through collaboration, the goals of protecting and responsibly managing Hawai’i’s coastal resources can be more effectively pursued without compromising DHHL’s autonomy.

The following sections include two case studies: one on Native American Tribal Lands in Washington State and the other on the Kapa‘akea homestead community on Moloka‘i. The purpose of these case studies is to investigate how lack of jurisdictional clarity on lands with unique status governed by sovereign or autonomous entities affects coastal zone management and the capacities of local communities to build resilience and manage their resources.


“Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.” (1921, c 42, 42 Stat 108). Web accessed 5/14/15.“Public Lands, Management, and Disposition of.” (Title 12, c 171). Web accessed 5/14/15. https://www.lawserver.com“Land Use Commission Act, 1961.” (1961, Amended 2007, c 205). Web ccessed 5/14/15. Luc.state.hi.us.“State Coastal Zone Management Program.” (1977, c 188, § 1). Web accessed 5/14/15. Planning.hawaii.gov/czm.In Re Ainoa, 60, Haw. 487 (1979). Web accessed 5/14/15. https://casetext.com/case/in-re-ainoa.“County Organization and Administration.” (Title 6, c 46). Web accessed 5/14/15. www.hawaii.edu/ohelo/statutes/HRS046/HRS046.html.“Environmental Impact Statements.” (Amended 2002, c 343). Web accessed 5/14/15. dlnr.hawaii.gov/occl/files.Kepo’o v. Watson, 87 Haw. 91, 952 P 2d 379 (1998). Web accessed 5/14/15. www.inversecondemnation.com/files/lucopptocert.016288539.pdf34. Nakamoto, Yoshiaki. Letter to George Akahane, Members of the City Council. 5/3/1976. TS.

ReferencesMatsukawa, Michael J. and Ronald B. Mun. Letter to Robert A. Marks. 8/16/1993. TS.Chang, Nelson S. W. Letter to William G. Among. 10/2/1972. TS.Anderson, John W. Letter to Roger A. Ulveling. 10/23/1987. TS.Kaeo Jr., George. Letter to Michael J. Matsukawa. 8/6/1992. TS.Matsukawa, Michael J. Letter to Lorraine R. Inouye. 10/29/1992. TS.Matsukawa, Michael J. Letter to Norman Hayashi. 12/8/1992. TS.Faust, Sonia. Letter to Richard D. Wurdeman, Guy A. Haywood, Ronald B. Mun, and 40. Kathleen Watanabe. 5/6/1994. TS.Wurdeman, Richard D. Letter to Robert A. Marks. 5/10/1994. TS.Mun, Ronald B. Letter to Robert A. Marks. 5/26/1994. TS.Mun, Jonathan. Letter to Margery Bronster. 9/15/1995. TS.Wurdeman, Richard D. Letter to Aaron Chung. 4/16/1998. TS.Bennett, Mark J. Letter to Micah Kane. 4/4/2006. TS.Yuen, Christopher J. Letter to Micah Kane and Mark Bennett. 8/8/2008. TS.Spence, William. Letter to Jobie Masagatani. 10/30/2012. TS.

135

Case Study: Coastal Zone Management on Indian Tribal Lands in Washington State5

WASHINGTON’S COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (4,5,6)

Washington was the first state to receive federal approval for its CZM Program. Washington’s CZM program was established in 1976 and is based primarily on the state’s Shoreline Management Act of 1971 administered by the State Department of Ecology.

Washington’s coastal zone consists of 15 counties: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum and Whatcom. These 15 counties apply CZM to activities within and outside the counties that may impact Washington's coastal resources. Activities and development outside the coastal zone are generally presumed to not impact coastal resources.

Washington’s Coastal Zone Management Act also has specific lands that are excluded from the coastal zone: those lands that the federal government owns, leases, holds in trust, or otherwise has sole discretion to determine their use. “Excluded federal lands” that fall within the boundaries of Washington’s coastal zone are:

• Military reservations and other defense installations (i.e, Fort Lewis, Bangor Naval Submarine Station, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island);

• All lands within National Parks (i.e., Olympic National Park, Mt. Rainier National Park);

• National Forest lands and National Recreation Areas owned or leased by the federal government; and

• Indian lands held in trust by the federal government.

Under Washington’s CZM Program, federal activities that affect any land

use, water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must comply with six state laws. The six state laws are:

• Shoreline Management Act;

• State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA);

• Water Pollution Control Act;

• Clean Air Act;

• Ocean Resources Management Act; and

• Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) Act.

The process of determining whether a federal agency action is consistent with Washington’s CZM Program is conducted through a combination of federal and state regulations. The Department of Ecology is designated as the state agency responsible for determining whether federal actions are consistent with the state CZM program. Through a federal consistency review process, all activities and development affecting coastal resources which involve the federal government are evaluated by the Department of Ecology. This process allows the public, local governments, tribes, and state agencies an opportunity to review federal actions likely to affect Washington's coastal resources or uses. Three categories of activities trigger a federal consistency review: 1) activities undertaken by a federal agency; 2) activities which require federal approval; and 3) activities which use federal funding.

If a project falls into one of these categories and is either in the coastal zone or it impacts coastal uses or resources, then the federal consistency process is triggered. Each category has different federal consistency requirements.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities1361. Activities undertaken by a federal agency

For activities undertaken by a federal agency such as adopting a management plan for a wildlife sanctuary or dredging new channels, the federal agency determines if coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable. The federal agency reviews the activity for consistency with the six state laws mentioned on the previous page and prepares a federal consistency determination. The determination describes the activity and whether the activity impacts coastal resources. If the activity impacts coastal resources, a statement must be provided that the activity is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies in the six laws. The Department of Ecology has up to 60 days to concur with or object to the determination.

2. Activities requiring federal approvalA federal approval is any authorization, certification, approval,

license, permit or other form of permission that any federal agency is empowered to issue to an applicant. Examples include U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 and Section 10 permits. A federal agency cannot provide approval unless the Department of Ecology concurs that the project is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program. Unlike activities undertaken by federal agencies, activities requiring federal approval must be fully consistent with the six Washington state laws cited above. In these cases, the applicant for federal approval reviews the activity for compliance with the six laws and prepares a federal consistency certification. The certification describes the activity and whether the activity impacts coastal resources; if so, a statement must be provided that the activity is consistent with the six laws. In the case of Army Corps permits, the applicant forwards the certification to the Army Corps, who then forwards it to the Department of Ecology. For all other federal permits, the applicant submits the certification directly to the Department of Ecology which then has six months from the receipt of the certification to approve or deny it. If the Department of Ecology does not act within the six months, the activity is approved and presumed consistent.

3. Activities that use federal fundingFederal grant or loan applicants who seek funding for all or part of

an activity that affects the coastal zone must meet federal consistency requirements. Federal agencies cannot approve grants or loans for activities that are inconsistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program. In this case, the applicant for federal funding reviews the activity for consistency with the six Washington state laws cited above and prepares a federal consistency certification. The certification describes the activity and whether the activity impacts coastal resources; if so, a statement must be provided that the activity is consistent with the six laws. The applicant submits the certification to the Department of Ecology which then has six months from the receipt of the certification to approve or deny it. If the Department of Ecology does not act within six months, the activity is approved and presumed consistent. The applicant then provides the federal funding agency with the Department of Ecology's decision.

Public involvement requirements for shoreline permits and some Army Corps permits are addressed independently of the consistency process and are deemed adequate for purposes of consistency. For projects not required to provide a public involvement process through shoreline or Army Corps permits, or for large, complex and controversial projects, the Department of Ecology has developed a separate public involvement process which includes a 21-day public comment period, and potentially a public meeting or hearing. Notification is sent to interested parties based on the development of general and project-specific mailing lists.

INDIAN TRIBES IN WASHINGTON STATE (7)

In Washington State, there are twenty-nine federally recognized Indian Tribes with federal recognition for three more Tribes pending as of this report. Indian Tribes in Washington State have sovereign governments, exercising governmental authority within their reservations. In general, Tribes exercise authority over their members and over lands held by the federal government in trust for the Tribe or its members. Within reservation boundaries, Tribes may also exercise authority over lands owned in fee-simple by tribal members and, in some

137Case Study: CZM on Indian Tribal Lands

circumstances, by non-members on fee-land. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Tribes may regulate non-members on fee-land when the activities have sufficient impact on tribal political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare.

Jurisdiction within Indian reservations is usually specific to the facts of a particular case. State laws are presumed to apply to non-Indians and any land held in fee-simple within Indian reservations, but in some situations a Tribe or the federal government may have concurrent or preemptive jurisdiction. In determining jurisdiction, courts will usually examine the status of the land (fee-simple or held by the federal government in trust), whether the owner is Indian or non-Indian, the impact of the activity, and the possible preemption of state law by federal statutes.

Absent express authorization by federal statute or treaty, tribal jurisdiction over the conduct of nonmembers exists only in limited circumstances. Tribal trust lands and lands allotted to and held in trust for individual tribal members are excluded from the federal coastal zone. However, the Coastal Zone Management Act’s federal consistency requirements apply to federal agency activities, federally licensed or permitted activities, and federally funded activities occurring on Indian reservations, including trust lands, that affect coastal zone land uses, water uses, or natural resources.

The application of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act to land within Indian reservations is a complex legal issue. To date, there is no law or court decision that directly addresses this issue.

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERMENT RELATIONSHIP (10)

The relationship between State of Washington and Indian Tribe in Washington State is based on Government to Government relationship. The State of Washington State, recognized the American Indian Tribes as sovereign government and as self-governing communities under federal and common law in Washington State.

To accommodate this relationship, the State of Washington was established The Washington Governor's Office of Indian Affairs to assists the state in developing policies consistent with the government-to-government relationship and principles identified in the Centennial

Accord to promote and enhance tribal self-sufficiency. In 1969, the office was established to function as an Advisory Council to the Governor. In 1979, the Council was abolished and replaced by an Assistant for Indian Affairs who was appointed by the Governor. This position has since become the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs, and continues to serve as liaison between state and tribal governments in an advisory, resource, consultation, and educational capacity.

The key principles of government to government relationship are:

• Work directly with each other in a government to government fashion, rather than as subdivisions of other government.

• Take appropriate steps to remove legal and procedural impediments to working directly and effectively with each other’s governments and programs.

• Endeavor to assure that each other’s concerns and interests are considered whenever their actions or decisions may affect the other’s governments or programs.

• Encourage cooperation between tribes, the state and local government to resolve problems of mutual concerns.

• Work with federal agencies that have related responsibilities.

• Incorporate these principles into planning and management activities, including budget, program development and implementation, legislative initiatives, and ongoing policy and regulation development processes.

• Coordinate and provide mutual assistance as the governments assume new regulatory and program management responsibilities.

Besides that, in 1989, the State of Washington and the federally recognized tribes within the state signed the “Centennial Accord between the Federally Recognized Tribes in Washington State and the State of Washington.” This Accord works as government to government Implementation Guideline by providing a framework of government to government relationship and providing implementation procedures to assure execution of that relationship. The Centennial Accord calls for state agencies and tribal governments to develop procedures by which a

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities138government to government policy will be implemented. The objectives of Centennial Accord Plan are:

• To formalize the requirement for the state of Washington to implement a government to government policy and to seek consultation and participation by representatives of tribal governments in policy development and program activities.

• To outline tribal responsibilities in implementing a government to government policy that encourages consultation and coordination with representatives of state government.

• To establish a minimum set of requirements and expectations with respect to a government to government relationship.

• To define the kinds of activities in which tribal/state consultation and participation will be required.

• To promote the development of innovative methods of obtaining consultation on issues from tribal representatives in agency decision-making processes.

SWINOMISH TRIBAL COMMUNITY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CZMP) (6)

In 1981, the Swinomish Tribal Community Coastal Zone Management Plan (funded through NOAA) or called Swinomish Coastal Zone Plan was created to manage the development and modification of Reservation lands and waters in order to prevent losses or adverse impacts to the coastal zone resources on the Swinomish Reservation. This plan will act in concert with and adjunct to the Swinomish Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Should conflicts exist between the provisions of this plan and any other adopted land use controls relevant to the Swinomish Reservation, the more stringent standard or regulation shall apply.

The Swinomish Tribal Community CZMP is authorized by the Constitution of the Swinomish Tribal Community, The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, and Public Law 280. This plan also based on the application of police powers necessary to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the Swinomish community, and the advancement of Tribal government

necessary to promote self determination. The plan applies to all land and water areas existing within the boundaries of the Swinomish Reservation. In implementing this plan, there are three sets of performance standards to the approval or denial of any development or surface modification proposed within the Reservation boundary:

a) General Performance Standards which are deduced from the policy statements written to implement the goals and objectives of the plan

b) Activity Performance Standards which are applicable to specific developmental or surface modification activities

c) Locational Performance Standards which are applicable to the management requirements identified for each mapped area of the Reservation.

In terms of permit applicability, any development or surface modification proposed for land and water areas within the Reservation shall comply with the performance standards. Upon review of a preliminary application for development or surface modification, the Responsible Official (Swinomish Tribal Community Planning Director or his/her designee) shall determine

a) If the proposal is exempt from the procedures of the plan, whereupon a Statement of Exemption shall be granted, or

b) If the proposal requires permit processing in compliance with the standards and procedures of the plan, whereupon a formal application and review shall ensue pursuant to this section.

The applicant bears the total burden of proof for establishing compliance to any substantive or procedural provision of this plan for any proposed development or surface modification. Additionally, there is an 11-step process for applying for a permit on Swinomish Tribal land:

1. Pre-application

The applicant or representative of a subject proposal shall submit a completed pre-application form to the responsible official. Such submittal shall include:

a) The name and address of the principal parties involved in the


proposal

b) A brief description of the major physical components and use activities of the project

c) A site plan indicating the location of structures access provisions, surface modifications, and unique features of the vicinity

d) A listing of all permit approvals necessary to complete the proposal

2. Statement of exemption

3. Formal application

Whenever a subject proposal is not exempt from this plan, this applicant or representative shall provide the Responsible Official with completed forms as required for any other permits necessary to complete the proposal, and shall submit an application for a Coastal Zone Development Permit consisting of the following information, as available:

a) Written Statement of Proposal

• Project identification which shall list the formal title of the proposal, the names and addresses of all applicants, owners, persons with financial interest in the project, and the professionals involved with the proposal.

• The general location or address, legal description, and title certificate of the subject property.

• The type of project, acreage of the site, acreage of all proposed uses, total lot, structure, or dwelling units, net and gross density, maximum, minimum, and average lot sizes and projected population to be served as well as timing for construction shall be accurately described.

• Field survey notes for legal description, monumentation, division of land, easements, and rights of way shall be submitted.

• A description of the proposal’s compliance and consistency with the Swinomish Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code, and the standards of this plan.

• A description of all restrictive covenants, liens

encumbrances, and tax and utility assessments pertinent to the site and proposal.

• A description of the existing site and vicinity uses and characteristics.

b) Graphic Statement of Proposal

• Where appropriate, the vicinity, project site and building plans shall clearly show: scale, orientation, the subject perimeter, property lines, building sites, governmental jurisdiction boundaries, section lines, meander lines, harbor lines, tideland lines, easements, and rights of way. Existing and proposed lines and boundaries shall be clearly identified.

• The vicinity plan shall indicate important viewscapes, historic uses, community facilities, transportation systems, utility networks, and adjacent ownership.

• The project site plan shall indicate all lot and tract lines, numbers, dimensions, setbacks, and uses for each area; street locations and names, right of way widths, improvement facilities, drainage and water systems, sewerage systems, utility lines, survey monument locations, proposed building sites, parking facilities, recreation facilities, landscaping areas, open space, pedestrian ways, and modified surface features.

• The building plans shall show all excavation and grading, foundation, floor plans and building elevations and available plans for structural improvements, roads, and landscaping.

• The site feature plan shall show topographic contours at 5 foot intervals, areas subject to ponding, areas of rock outcropping, vegetation and ground cover, drainage systems, and existing manmade features.

4. Review by the responsible official

Upon receipt of a formal application for Coastal Zone Development Permit the Responsible Official shall review the application and any other required permit forms for completeness and thoroughness of the information supplied therein. The Responsible Official shall have discretionary authority to balance the scope of the proposal with the

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities140adequacy of information supplied.

5. Determination of significance

The Responsible Official shall evaluate the subject proposal in terms of the economic and ecologic impact which may result to the Swinomish Tribal Community as follows. Will significant adverse impacts occur due to:

a) Modification of ground coverb) Modification of physiographic featuresc) Modification of physiographic processesd) Modification of ambient air qualitye) Modification of ambient noise or light levelsf) Modification of surface, ground, or marine water qualityg) Modification of surface, ground, or marine water quantityh) Modification of productive or unique ecosystemsi) Modification of existing or proposed use activitiesj) Modification of population or housing conditionsk) Modification of transportation and circulation facilitiesl) Modification of utility service capacitiesm) Modification of public safety capacitiesn) Modification of governmental service capacitieso) Modification of recreational facility capacitiesp) Creation of hazardous conditionsq) Depletion of renewable or nonrenewable resourcesr) Modification of historic or archeological resourcess) Modification of the economic stability of the Tribet) Other consequences not anticipated by this checklist or

which are unique to the subject proposal

The Responsible Official may consult with any other private or public party with expertise or authority relevant to the subject proposal and may require site investigation prior to any final decision on the significance of the project’s impacts.

Should the Responsible Official determine that the total proposal

will not create a significant economic or ecological impact to the Tribe, the proposal shall be considered as a minor action and be subsequently processed as a summary approval by the Responsible Official or be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Tribal Senate as appropriate.

Should the Responsible Official determine that the total proposal may create a significant economic or ecologic impact to the Tribe, the applicant shall proceed with the preparation of an Economic And Ecologic Analysis Report.

6. Minor impact/summary approval determined

Proposals determined to have a minor impact and not requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission and Tribal Senate shall be granted a summary decision by the Responsible Official.

7. Minor impact/additional approval needed.

Proposals determined to have a minor impact on the Reservation, but requiring further review and decision by the Planning Commission and Tribal Senate shall be processed.

8. Major impact determined, preparation of an economic and ecological analysis report.

Proposals determined to require analysis for economic and ecologic consequences and requiring further Planning Commission and Tribal Senate decisions will do additional analysis or problem solution, then the applicant shall provide funds for Tribal retainer of consulting specialists to develop an Economic and Ecologic Analysis Report. It is the intent of this requirement to identify and resolve problems pertinent to such proposals; the report shall not unnecessarily duplicate the information provided in the written and graphic statements of the proposal, but rather, shall address design and project alternatives and mitigating actions which could abate any harmful economic or ecologic impacts of the project.

The Tribe shall solicit Response for Proposals from consulting specialists. Upon approval by the Tribe of such consultants, the applicant shall be notified thereof and shall be further required to post a cash fee in an escrow account under Tribal control. Such fee shall be responsible for payment of unanticipated cost overruns and shall be refunded any

141surplus funds accountable upon satisfactory completion of such report. Upon satisfactory completion of such contracted services and submittal of 25 copies of such report, the analysis and findings shall be received within 30 days of availability of such report.

The contents of any required Economic and Ecologic Analysis Report shall include a description of the adverse effects and mitigating alternatives relative to the proposal for:

a) The geology of the area, including any need for blasting, rock removal, and loads that may be placed on unstable geologic formations

b) The soils of the area, including removal of topsoil, erosion, filling, compaction, and stresses that may be placed on unstable soil formations

c) The area topography, including any cuts and fills, grading or change in the ground surface relief features

d) The drainage characteristics of the area, including changes in pre-development runoff rates, alteration of surface water flows, effects on groundwater recharge, and changes to water quality

e) The vegetation of the area, including disruption of unique or valuable wildlife habitats, loss of ground cover, windthrow hazards, timber management, and agricultultural productivity

f) The area’s atmospheric conditions, including increase in noise, light, or glare levels, and degradation of air quality

g) The existing utility infrastructure, including the capacity and demand for:

• Electricity, gas, and fuel supplies

• Communication systems

• Potable, industrial, and fire suppression water supplies

• Septic tank and drainfield systems and sewerage facilities

• Storm drainage systems

• Solid waste collection and disposal systems

h) The area transportation and circulation systems, including

current and anticipated traffic volumes, road capacities, transit facilities, and navigation systems.

i) The existing public and/or Tribal service capacities, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and requirements for additional services.

j) The existing private service capacities, including retail sales facilities, health care systems, and community employment.

k) Management of the area’s resources, including commercial and endangered species, fisheries and shellfish, aquaculture potential, and wildlife.

l) The land use of the area, including the compatibility with existing uses, potential for inducing changes in planned land use, and effects on area property values and taxation

m) The fiscal management of the area, including revenues generated and consumed

n) Human health hazards

o) The area’s archaeological features, historic uses and sites, and customary community and Tribal activities

9. Hearing before the Planning Commission

The Swinomish Planning Commission shall conduct a hearing consistent with Tribal bylaws and shall recommend approval or denial of a Coastal Zone Development Permit to the Tribal Senate. Such recommendation shall be accompanied by a finding of fact supportive of the Planning Commission decision. The Planning Commission shall have authority to require conditions for approval which would mitigate any economic or ecologic impact to the Reservation.

10. Hearing before the Tribal Senate

Upon receipt of the Planning Commission recommendations the Swinomish Tribal Senate may accept such recommendation and approve or deny the subject application without conducting further hearing proceedings. Should the Tribal Senate decide to amend the Planning Commission recommendation, the Senate shall conduct a separate hearing consistent with Tribal bylaws and thereupon prepare a

Case Study: CZM on Indian Tribal Lands

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities142decision and finding of fact for approval or denial of the subject application.

11. Appeal to the Swinomish Tribal Court

SWINOMISH CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE (8)

The Swinomish Climate Change Initiative was a two-year project that began in 2008. During the first year, project tasks included: 1) Analyzing the potential impacts of climate change by scoping and technical assessment using scientific models and data; 2) Mapping “risk zones” and conducting an inventory of assets and resources within those zones; 3) Assessing the climate change vulnerability of the Swinomish community and resources; 4) Conducting a risk analysis of potential impacts based on the vulnerability assessment; and 5) Preliminary scoping of potential strategy and policy issues.

During the second year of the project, the staff team continued working with Climate Impact Group (CIG), the advisory group, and community group, as well as key staff in various disciplines, to assess potential strategy options for targeting to identified impacts. Tasks for this strategy assessment included: 1) identification of applicable adaptation goals; 2) evaluation of a wide range of potential strategy options in multiple categories for application to given impacts; 3) development of proposed recommendations for adaptation strategies across the spectrum of impacts; and 4) consideration of policy issues for implementation, such as coordination, timing, and funding.

In preparing the climate change action for the tribal community, the goal was to integrate indigenous knowledge into the Swinomish Climate Change Initiative because indigenous knowledge offers valuable insights, tools, and solutions as a response to climate change overall. The Swinomish Senate has adopted several goals aimed at protecting and preserving the traditional culture, including intergenerational sharing of local indigenous knowledge, teaching the Lushootseed language, and establishing a cultural center. While acknowledging the value of indigenous knowledge, there needs to be recognition of the need and ways to protect sensitive knowledge.

At the community level, related to Swinomish Climate Change Initiative, the Swinomish has a community-based response group called

the Climate Change Education and Awareness Group (CCEAG). The objectives of CCEAG was to assist with the communication of complex issues to the community while gathering input on tribal perspectives toward climate change issues. This work entails establishment of an honorable engagement process for the Swinomish community by raising awareness of climate impacts the tribal community will face. Additionally, it opens a pathway for community input to inform and guide policy and decisions about how the tribe will adapt and prepare to deal with the impacts of climate change.

A tribal community-interest group was also established for the Tribe’s Climate Change Initiative consisting of select tribal members, representatives from each of the respective families within the tribal community, and individuals who are linked to various groups. These groups include individuals involved in the following: youth recreation, prevention, education, cultural groups, social services, health, elders, education, social groups, law enforcement, fisheries, and tribal leadership. Furthermore, the member should provide insights as to how the Climate Change Initiative intersects with their tribal practices, program or sector. The intention is to create a pathway for community members to engage in one or more aspects of the Initiative.

CCEAG members met regularly and participated in community-wide events to raise awareness about climate change and share information about future efforts for community education and empowerment. The group conducted a series of community meetings and interviews to bring people together to talk about changes they have seen, as well as their hopes and concerns.

Some of the goals engaged in by CCEAG include the following; while progress was made, full implementation may take longer, as assessed by “mainstreaming” into ongoing tribal programs:

• Public awareness about climate change impacts to the Swinomish community—cultural and natural resources, marine life, forests, and surrounding communities.

• Community and youth voice in action planning for adapting to changes.

• Youth engaged in creating public education materials,


sustainable community projects and use of technology to create reports, digital stories, films, or other media.

• Opportunities for students to receive education on environmental planning specific to climate change adaptation.

• Collaboration and coordination with tribal community and departments to address climate

• impacts (flooding, fires, diseases, public safety, forests, plants, marine life, etc.).

• Collaboration and strengthened relationships between Swinomish and neighboring communities in Skagit County.

• Opportunity to influence policy with regard to climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation.

CCEAG members encourage tribal members to practice “small sacrifices” that, taken together, are meaningful and helpful in making a difference for climate change. They are consistent with traditional ethics of respecting Mother Earth. CCEAG seeks to recapture the values and wisdom of the elders and promote understanding of our deep connection to this place. They understand the need to connect the youth to indigenous and western science opportunities so they become well informed and can participate meaningfully and appropriately in the decision-making process.

To experiment, an outreach facilitator held pilot interviews with a small number of Tribal members to collect their perspectives on climate change and to field test the interview instrument for broader use in the Tribal community.

In incorporating indigenous knowledge into planning efforts to address climate change issues, there are a number of regional efforts underway. A selection of such efforts includes the following:

• Codification approach to institutionalizing traditional knowledge by creating an ethical construct that functions as an indirect representation of more sensitive knowledge concepts, in the interest of respecting and protecting such core knowledge.

• Creation of tribal review boards as a vehicle for formal screening and approval of traditional knowledge and sources allows for

the application of traditional knowledge, while providing a direct means of protecting such knowledge from misappropriation and misuse.

• Application of the community health indicators referenced in this chapter as a tool for measuring success and effectiveness of implemented programs and actions. This could be done both at the outset of proposed implementation and as part of ongoing monitoring of actions.

DISCUSSION AND CONNECTION TO HAWAIIAN HOME LANDSSome similarities in jurisdictional issues can be found in Hawaii

and Washington state in terms of administering CZM programs on Hawaiian home lands and Indian tribal lands, respectively. The specific legal issues are different, of course, between the states, but the consequences of legal ambiguities on the ground may be similar. In both states, the legal applicability of SMA boundaries on lands with such special status remain to be clarified.

Climate change is a very real and pressing issue for people around the world, and especially communities that live along the coast. Effective planning must be multidisciplinary, comprehensive, and community-based, and can be greatly strengthened by the integration of local knowledge and cultural values. The Swinomish community’s Climate Change Initiative and its efforts to incorporate indigenous knowledge into climate change plans might inspire a similar endeavor for Hawaiian home lands. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands can play a more robust role in ongoing statewide climate change planning to ensure the inclusion of beneficiaries’ concerns, knowledge, values, and solutions. Engagement in interagency collaboration in the climate change arena may also foster new and mutually beneficial partnerships in other areas of planning and resource management.

145

Case Study: Increasing Resilience for the Kapa‘akea Homestead Community6

A BRIEF HISTORY OF MOLOKA‘I ISLAND A brief history of Moloka‘i Island will help inform the reader of main events which helped shape the island into what it is today. Hawaiian values and culture are held close to the heart as communities seek to find balance in an increasingly globalized world between preservation of rustic “old” Hawaii that Moloka‘i is known for and providing opportunities for economic growth and sustainability. Moloka‘i is the fifth-largest island in the state of Hawai‘i and is located in a central position in the island chain. The island consists of approximately 170,000 acres and is 38 miles long and 10 miles wide at its widest point. Moloka‘i is home to more than 60 historic fishponds mainly along its southern coast. The island’s population is approximately 7,400 people with about 1,740 living on DHHL lands(2).

Moloka‘i is also known as the “most Hawaiian island” because more than 62 percent of the population is of Hawaiian ancestry(2). The economic center of the island is located in Kaunakakai and includes a harbor, government offices, post office, police and fire stations, elementary schools, churches, grocery stores, mom and pop restaurants, a gas station, and other services. Kapa‘akea is located approximately one mile east of Kaunakakai town. Figure 6.1 on the following page exhibits a brief historic timeline beginning from the first documented settlement in 500 AD to the present.

HOMESTEAD LANDS ON MOLOKA‘IThe first homestead leases given to those meeting DHHL

requirements were located in Moloka‘i. Unfortunately, the most fertile lands (sugar lands) were not included in “available” lands — that is, those lands set aside for purposes of achieving the goals of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. Those with vested interests in the sugar lands

claimed that giving native Hawaiians prepared and fertile lands would not be in their best interests because “character building” through hard work was deemed necessary for rehabilitation.(11) Initially, a trial period of five years was established and Native Hawaiians were placed on lands that were unsuitable for agriculture resulting in many fruitless attempts.(11)

Furthermore, the lands chosen for homesteading purposes, as described by Albert Horner, a sugar expert writing on behalf of the Territorial Government of Hawai‘i, described the case study region, Kapa‘akea, adjacent to Kamiloloa I and II, and Makakupai‘a as the “steep part of [the] mountain; worthless for agriculture.”(11) The findings of the Cultural Resource Survey conducted by a team of anthropologists for the Kapa‘akea Flood Control Project showed that the region was historically used in both prehistoric and historic times as sites for semi-permanent shelters and burial grounds, not for dry land farming.(3) Despite the unsuitability of these lands to achieve the purpose of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, the first settlement site was chosen in lower Kalama‘ula, which is located directly to the West of Kapa‘akea.

In 1924, Hawaiian Home Lands in Kapa‘akea were leased as pasture lots (250 acres each lot) to two homesteaders whom used the land to raise cattle.(11) Unfortunately, due to the commonality of drought conditions on Moloka‘i, pastoral lands were often overgrazed and mismanaged leading to extreme soil degradation and flooding problems for the coastal communities below.(11) This matter will be discussed in greater detail later in the paper.

There are currently 45 residential lots in the Kapa‘akea homestead and DHHL has plans for another residential site comprised of 204 acres east of Kapa‘akea (near the 2 mile marker), mauka of the main highway.(2) Other aspects of the Moloka‘i Island Plan include preservation of the

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities146Figure 6.1 Timeline of Moloka'i

147Case Study: Increasing Resilience for Kapa‘akea

General Agriculture and Special District Areas as well as the restoration of One Ali‘i and Kaloko‘eli fishponds within DHHL’s Kapa‘akea, Kamiloloa, and Makakupai‘a boundaries for community use. Of the 58 acres designated for community use, a highly anticipated neighborhood park is projected to be built within the new residential area to meet the current and future needs of the communities.(2) The general topography of the Kapa‘akea, Kamiloloa, and Makakupai‘a Homesteads are exhibited in the diagram at right:

COASTAL EROSION AND FLOODINGAccording to the practicum team’s hazard and vulnerability

analysis, 288 Kapa‘akea residents would be affected by a tsunami and 234 residents would be affected by flooding. The number of people who would be detrimentally affected by the hazards identified, and the community’s proximity to the ocean, resulted in Kapa‘akea placing among the top five most vulnerable communities within DHHL’s jurisdiction.

On April 20, 2015, practicum team member Sarah Afong conducted an informal scoping at the annual Hawaiian Homes Commission Moloka‘i Meeting. Afong posed questions to: 1) measure homestead community perception of individual safety in the face of natural disasters; and 2) to find out how aware community members are of their community plans concerning natural disasters. Twenty-three people answered, though a few lived in inland homesteads. Based on the responses, those homesteaders living in close proximity to the ocean were very conscious of the natural hazards that could affect them. In response to the questions, “Is your home in a safe place? Why or why not?” — most of the those who said their homes were not in a safe place based their answers on their home’s close proximity to the sea. The next question asked was, “Is your home structurally sound to withstand the impacts of natural disaster?” Most of those respondents who stated they lived near the ocean mentioned the age of their homes, and said that they did not feel safe because their homes were old and in disrepair. Approximately 41 percent of homes on Hawaiian Home Lands in Moloka‘i are over 45 years old.(2)

Coastal erosion is threatening the properties of the waterfront

Figure 6.2 Topography of Moloka'i's southern coast

homesteaders. One informant stated that the ocean water used to advance into the yard before a makeshift seawall was constructed. After speaking to other homesteaders at the Hawaiian Homes community meeting on Moloka‘i, Afong found they shared the same concerns of property loss by coastal erosion. In some cases, it was reported that the ‘ohana homes may be falling into the sea while waiting on permits. In the neighboring homestead community of Kamiloloa, it is reported that an estimated 15-foot property loss over the course of 15 years has been due to coastal erosion and undercutting. The Kapa‘akea homestead community is extremely vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters including flooding from the mauka direction due to serious soil erosion, and makai due to sea level rise as a consequence of climate change. In order to address flooding from the mauka direction, the Kapa‘akea Flood Mitigation Project was proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1976.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities148However, despite reports of minimal environmental impacts, the plan was never adopted by DHHL due to high costs.(15) More recently, the completion of improvements to drainage ways along the east and west boundaries and within the Kapa‘akea homestead, will aid in flood management, draining flood waters into the sea.(16)

INSIGHTS ON KAPA‘AKEA HOMESTEADOn her recent trip to Moloka‘i to learn of homesteaders’ perception

of risk and knowledge of disaster management plans, Afong was able to drive through Kapa‘akea and Kamiloloa Homesteads to see the communities firsthand. She noticed that indeed many of the homes were very old and fragile looking, some of the homes were less than 10 feet away from the beach, and that the community was home to a number of dogs. Afong also observed many young children playing in the streets and people congregating and talking in front yards. A few people were taking to the task of collecting yellow papayas (one held the ladder, another directed, and another picked the ripe fruit). The community was very “country” in the sense that neighbors seemed to be friends and families knew one another well.

The dilapidated state of many of the homes was evident to Afong, and she found that it was easy to understand why residents did not feel safe in their own homes. Homesteaders shared with her some of the problems they encountered in their efforts to obtain building permits to fix their deteriorating homes. They also expressed perceptions of the unfairness of having to pay for water on Hawaiian Home Lands.

Afong’s experiences and observations in Moloka‘i bring to light the following: 1) the importance and continued practice of traditional Hawaiian values such as reciprocity, caring for one another (malama), working together (laulima), and the importance of family (‘ohana), staying together and supporting one another, in homestead communities; and 2) resource challenges and jurisdictional conflicts over Hawaiian home lands negatively affect Hawaiian homestead communities and their ability to mitigate hazards, strengthen disaster resilience, and improve the quality and safety of their homes.

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS AND THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Kapa‘akea homestead community is located within the Special Management Area as are portions of other homestead communities along Moloka‘i’s southern coast. The SMA is the area highlighted in blue in Figure 6.3.

Due to lack of funding to establish its own permitting program, DHHL’s practice of deference to the counties for SMA permitting and enforcement has contributed to a number of issues for beneficiaries. These issues include inconsistencies in permitting processes and requirements across counties, problems obtaining building permits without SMA clearance, problems ascertaining whether projects are exempt from SMA permitting process, and construction of unapproved reinforcing structures.

Meanwhile the State Office of Planning, which is responsible for coordinating the State CZM Program, is also responsible for processing

Figure 6.3 Special Management Area along Moloka'i's southern coast


SMA permits for its “sister” agency, the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) which has sole jurisdiction over the community development districts of Kaka‘ako and Kalaeloa.(17) Because DHHL has sole jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands, the DHHL could possibly partner with the SOP to similarly coordinate the review and processing of SMA permits on Hawaiian home lands.

Environmental enforcement on Hawaiian home lands is another challenge. The Department of Land and Natural Resources recognizes that enforcement upon DHHL lands is generally not within its jurisdiction and has a “hands off” policy, which results in reports from private individuals to the counties of various environmental and building violations. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands could also possibly partner with DLNR for enforcement purposes since DLNR operates statewide.

Such partnerships would likely mean increased administrative and implementation costs, particularly for SOP and DLNR. If DHHL applies for and secures federal funding to implement the state CZM Program on Hawaiian home lands, the monies awarded might be used to cover these additional costs.

SHORELINE SETBACKS Shoreline setbacks fall into two categories depending on the method of calculation. Arbitrary setbacks are not scientifically based, while erosion based setbacks are determined using location-specific erosion rates.(18) Two factors that aid in erosion-based policy making include the erosion rate and the planning period x erosion rate.(19)

Obtaining erosion rates is problematic due to costs and data scarcity.(18) The state of Hawai‘i requires a minimum setback of 40 feet, but counties are given the option of requiring stricter setbacks. In the case of shoreline setbacks and how they pertain to the Kapa‘akea homestead and other homestead communities along Moloka‘i’s coast, “with the exception of structures built before 1970 (the year of Hawai‘i’s Shoreline Setback Law) and structures with a variance, all other permanent structures are prohibited within the Shoreline Setback Area (SSA) according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes 205A.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources issues shoreline

certifications identifying the shoreline setback for parcels.(21) It would be to DHHL’s benefit to partner with DLNR in determining the appropriate shoreline setback in planning for the new residential area adjacent to Kapa‘akea homestead to ensure proper scientifically based setbacks with the purpose of adhering to county and state laws and supporting future beneficiaries in anticipation and prevention of future problems related to the Special Management Area, coastal erosion, and flooding by storm surge, storm water, and sea level rise.

The following diagram and table (Figure 6.4, next page) were created by the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa’s spring 2005 planning practicum in the report titled “The Pāpōhaku Sand Dunes Cultural and Natural Resource Preservation Plan.” These tools are used to aid in the planning process in the building and protection of new subdivisions on Moloka‘i’s west coast; these tools can be used to determine proper setbacks for future DHHL subdivisions.

Another comprehensive tool created to calculate county setback regulations in Hawai‘i that can be used by DHHL in the planning process is shown on the following table:

Planning new subdivisions and for the relocation of homes at an appropriate and scientificallybased distance from the shoreline is an intelligent way to mitigate potential damage to human life and property in the event of flooding due to storm surge, heavy rainfall, and sea level rise.

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities150Figure 6.4 Zonation in the coastal zone


HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITYAll of the homestead communities on the island of Moloka‘i are

susceptible to the detrimental impacts of hurricanes, whereas the coastal communities are vulnerable to additional impacts from natural disasters such as storm surge, flooding, and perhaps the most ominous, the tsunami.

The Native Hawaiian Culturally-Based Community Resilience Manual developed for this study is another tool that can aid Kapa‘akea’s community planning for natural disasters. The following table is a sample worksheet from the manual:

Other items that could go on the inventory list include: water and power plants, power station, City Hall, historical sites, key roads between important areas in the community, centers of communication, centers of record storage, bridges etc. The Community Resource form is another helpful tool in documenting who has specific resources and the actions those people will take in the event of a natural disaster. Because Moloka‘i is isolated and dependent upon the Maui barge for supplies, disaster management plans are critical, and should be communicated effectively across different levels of government and the public.

INFORMAL, COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER MANAGEMENT PLANS In 2003, the Emergency Action Committee was formed, an unofficial group of Moloka‘i residence ranging from those employed by emergency services, business owners, and regular citizens who volunteered to receive emergency response training.(22) An example of an entry into the Community Resource form is given in the article, “Weathering the Storms” written by Emily Sumners. According to the article, a member of the Emergency Action Committee agreed that in the case of an emergency, he would take his heavy equipment (bulldozer etc.), to a safe place higher in elevation. Another member, a Maui County fire battalion chief, agreed to have firemen and medics prepared and ready to respond if necessary. The willingness to act and create informal plans to aid in the event of a natural disaster is evidence of the population's awareness of their vulnerability. According to Zhantelle Dudoit, member of the EAC, “Emergency planning on Moloka‘i is based

on two principles: that Moloka‘i residents will come together in times of need to help each other and that they have to ability to think outside of the box.”(22) Moloka‘i residents have a living plan which is both “flexible and definite” is according to EAC member Scotty Schaefer.

Afong attempted to contact Zhantelle Dudoit, Travis Tancayo (Maui County fire battalion chief) and Scotty Schaefer (paramedic and emergency planner) for this case study but was unsuccessful.

ASSETS AND LIABILITIESIn order to create effective disaster management plans and increase

community resilience, it is important to have assets and liabilities mapped out. For example, on an asset map for Kapa‘akea, which includes the majority of Kaunakakai town, cultural assets are omitted in this map because the assets marked are those that would be significant in planning for and responding to natural disasters. Liabilities include Kamehameha Highway due to its close proximity to the sea and those

Table 6.1 Infrastructure inventory form


roads which would cut off access to the Moloka‘i General Hospital and the Fire Station. As mentioned earlier, one of the first plans of action of Moloka‘i’s unofficial Emergency Action Committee, is safeguarding and relocating heavy equipment to be used to clear roads and allow access into and out of disaster sites.

Figure 6.5 is an aerial view of Kaunakakai town, Kapa‘akea Homestead, and a portion of the Kamiloloa Homestead on the far right. Kaunakakai harbor is located on the far left of the photo. The majority of Moloka‘i’s southern coast is protected by the largest fringe reef in the United States which extends approximately .93 miles out to sea.(23) In Lani Wendt Young’s book, “Pacific Tsunami ‘Galu Afi’” firsthand accounts of those who experienced a local tsunami in American Samoa

Figure 6.5 Aerail view of Kaunakakai (Credit: Google Earth)

described the terrifying personal impacts of the tsunami waves that crashed into Pago Pago harbor in 2009.(24)

The purpose of this photo is to exhibit not only the vulnerability of Kapa‘akea Homestead and other homesteads along the coastline, but the vulnerability of Moloka‘i’s economic center, Kaunakakai. The bathymetry and coastline shape determine the array of tsunami expressions; in this case, as a tsunami reaches the outermost portion of the reef, the wave energy will be concentrated horizontally.(25) In contrast, a tsunami wave that enters into the Kaunakakai harbor will rise vertically once the water depth is drastically reduced (at the yellow arrow).


One of the most concerning issues is the location of the only hospital on the island, directly inland from the harbor entrance, marked by the red star, and the fire station marked by the white star. The fire station is in the tsunami zone and the hospital is less than half a mile from the predicted inland border of the tsunami zone. The flat topography of Kaunakakai and positioning of the town directly behind the harbor entrance are serious risks in the event of a tsunami due to the increased likelihood of extended horizontal inundation in all directions(25). An extreme tsunami event would create a horrific scenario for Moloka‘i residents in need of emergency services. Plans for a temporary emergency site should be created,and should include a backup storage facility for critical medical supplies.

TSUNAMISThere are two main types of tsunamis, local and distant. Local

tsunami are generated, most often by local earthquakes in subduction zones. The following is an excerpt from the Tsunami Glossary 2013 defining a “local” tsunami.

“A tsunami from a nearby source for which its destructive effects are confined to coasts within about 100km, or less than 1 hour tsunami travel time from its source. A local tsunami is usually generated by an earthquake, but can also be caused by a landslide or a pyroclastic flow from a volcanic eruption.”(25)

According to geophysicist Brian Shiro of the NOAA Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, the threat of a local tsunami is primarily for those living on the south coast of Hawai‘i Island. If a tsunami were generated off Hawai‘i Island’s southern coast, the first wave would hit the coast within minutes. The islands further up the island chain would feel the tsunami effects, but death and injury can be mitigated by information dissemination through warning systems in place. In a community presentation earlier this year, Shiro said that in that scenario, the island of O‘ahu would have approximately 25 to 30 minutes to respond. The main point here is that only Hawai‘i Island is instantaneously vulnerable to waves of extreme size. This statement is not meant to give the impression that the other islands are invulnerable, however.

All Hawaiian islands are vulnerable to the effects of distant tsunamis, which can be defined as: “A tsunami originating from a faraway source, generally more than 1,000km or more than 3 hours of tsunami travel time from its source.”(25) Historically, the most destructive tsunami to reach Hawai‘i’s shores was the tsunami generated by an earthquake of the Chilean coast in 1960, resulting in 61 deaths and $24 million in estimated damages.(25) The Chilean tsunami created wave heights of 37 feet at Hilo.

“Tsunamis steepen and increase in height on approaching shallow water, inundating low-lying areas, and where local submarine topography causes the waves to steepen, they may break and cause great damage.”(25)

Afong’s findings show that homesteaders living next to the ocean are extremely aware of the hazards they are exposed to and about half of them are willing to evacuate when directed to do so. A small minority said they would not evacuate under any circumstances, because their homes were either structurally sound or not in an area prone to disasters.

“More than 80 percent of the world’s tsunamis were caused by earthquakes and over 70 percent of these were observed in the Pacific where large earthquakes occur as tectonic plates are subducted along the Pacific Ring of Fire. [The image above shows the] epicenter of all tsunamigenic earthquake … 99 percent of the deaths were caused by local tsunamis which are those hit in less than one hour tsunami travel time.”(25)

Because tsunamis are directional, residents living on the southern coast of Moloka‘i should be most concerned with distant tsunamis coming from the west and southwest.

HURRICANES “Since 1959, three hurricanes have made landfall in Hawai‘i

causing severe damage in the billions of dollars.”(25)

Hurricanes are associated with high winds, storm surge, heavy rainfall, and flooding. People in Hawai‘i take the threat of a hurricane seriously yet many stock up on supplies only once a hurricane warning is issued. Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes are forecastable and measures to

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities154protect life and property should be taken in the event of landfall. Those living in unsound homes should evacuate to proper designated shelters. People should also have have adequate disaster kits, especially in places like Moloka‘i where resources on the island are limited. It is recommended that individuals have a seven-day disaster supply kit.(26) According to our informal scoping, 60 percent of the homesteaders may have disaster preparedness kits, 13 percent gave no response, and 26 percent may not have kits. The age range of people who did not have disaster preparedness kits were age 32 at one end and 78 at the other. Eleven out of 23 (47.8%) respondents said they were “somewhat” prepared, while 8 out of 23 (34.7%) said they were “very” or “extremely” prepared.

More research is necessary, but it seems likely that that majority of Moloka‘i homesteaders are prepared to some extent. One respondent requested aid to purchase supplies for a kit, while another highlighted the need to increase water storage capacity on the island. Although it is possible for financial donations to be collected for distribution to those in need of disaster preparedness kits, it might be more practical to collect donations of actual nonperishable items in Honolulu where goods are more affordable and have those items sent to Moloka‘i for storage. Heavy items like canned goods and water will need to come from another source due to costly shipping fees. An emergency supplies drive could be held at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa campus, or at other organizations in Honolulu to kokua Moloka‘i residents. This would be a very feasible project.

ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

There is a range of measures that can effectively mitigate inundation on coastal areas. These measures involve retreat, accommodation, and protection. In the Final Environmental Statement assessing the Kapa‘akea homestead, the least favorable adaptive measure was retreat, made clear by residents in various community input meetings in 1967.(15) Depending on how severe the effects of sea level rise in the islands, retreat and relocation are likely to be the only options as proper drainage becomes less effective in transporting flood water out

to the ocean.(27)

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumes that we will see an average of temperature rise in the 21st century (1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius.) Based on this assumption, the sea is expected to rise (9 cm to 88 cm) by the year 2100. The precipitation pattern will also change. Humid areas will generally become more humid, and arid areas more arid. In general, this means a greater probability of flooding.” (Best Practices on Flood Prevention, Protection, and Mitigation, UN/ECE, an update of the Guidelines on Sustainable Flood Prevention.”(27)

Climate change is a very real and pressing issue that will affect communities in Hawai‘i and around the world. Again, relocation is the best option for any homestead community located so close to the shore. Kamehameha V Highway is also vulnerable to sea level rise, as are many segments of highway in Hawai‘i and throughout the Pacific due to their coastal location. For the sake of finding solutions for the flooding problems in the Kapa‘akea homestead that can be implemented in the short term, homes can be rebuilt to accommodate the natural flooding process. Thus accommodation to flooding is necessary and comes in the form of raising structures off the ground.

Approximately 15.7 percent of people living on DHHL lands in Moloka‘i are below the poverty level, the median income is $37,714, and subsistence activities provide 38 percent of food to native Hawaiian residents.(2) These statistics highlight the importance of subsistence activities as well as the financial need of native Hawaiians living both on Moloka‘i and on Hawaiian Home Lands. Because many of the homes are old and frail, if newer homes are to be rebuilt, they should be built further back from the shore in compliance with Maui County’s shoreline setback rules. They should also be built “with an elevated design of post and pier construction” with the “lowest floor member above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in anticipation of flooding events in certain areas.(28)

Although DHHL has complete jurisdiction over residential lands, residential lessees are bound to county ordinances for their own individual projects. In this case, the County of Maui and the Moloka‘i

155Planning Commission handle the permitting process in terms of issuing SMA permits or clearance (if exempt) for Moloka‘i HHL. Because Kapa‘akea homestead is in the SMA and the flood zone, residents have a difficult time getting building permits, possibly due in part to the inability to secure funding due to mandatory flood insurance coverage required by “federally regulated lending institution[s].(29) “The higher a structure is built above the base flood elevation (BFE), the flood insurance premiums are reduced.”(29)

Site-specific stabilization methods designed by appropriate experts can help protect homesteader life and property from coastal erosion. Popular but expensive adaptation strategies include fixed floodwalls (seawalls and or shoreline armoring), but it is important to recognize that implementation of such “fixed” structural designs have both positive and negative effects. The most obvious positive potential effect is the prevention of land erosion, while the most negative potential effect is the loss of beaches and marine habitat.(31)

Another issue pertaining to climate change is increased occurrence and likelihood of drought. Moloka‘i is already water-poor and drought conditions have plagued the island periodically.(32) An often overlooked condition of drought is the increased risk of wildfires, which are mostly caused by human error. Wildfire mitigation can be achieved through increased public awareness and behavior changes. According to the Best Practices on Flood Prevention as an updated version of the United Nations and Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Guidelines on Sustainable flood prevention, “all measures linked to public information and awareness raising are most effective when they involve participation at all levels from the local community through the national government to the regional and international level.”(27) Public education on wildfire prevention is a low cost solution to aid in water conservation initiatives that can benefit all Moloka‘i residents.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN METHODS FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Native Hawaiians historically used a land management system based on their cultural values and beliefs. The Hawaiians believed that through caring for the land and the environment in which they lived, the

land would reciprocate by providing survival essentials. The Hawaiians used an ahupua’a based system of land management that created accessibility to the range of ecological zones: the upland/inland forest, the agricultural zone, the coastal zone, and the zone including the reef and ocean resources.(33) Each multipurpose zone provided Hawaiians with specific materials and each zone had its function in terms of religious observation, settlement, agriculture, means of subsistence, etc.

In planning for the maintenance and conservation of coastal zones, incorporating the Native Hawaiian method of ahupua’a land management can make a positive and significant difference because the stability and health of the mauka zones impact those below. For example, flooding detrimentally impacts not only residential areas, but the goals of local nonprofit organization Ka Honua Momona, in the restoration and maintenance of Ali‘i and Kalokoko‘eli fishponds, as excess sedimentation affects fish health. Because DHHL owns the lands mauka of Kapa‘akea, Kamiloloa, and Makakupa‘ia, the ahupua’a system can be implemented upland to help reduce flooding in the coastal areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DHHL TO AID FLOOD MITIGATION, ADAPTATION, AND ISSUES OF JURISDICTION

1. Partner with the State Office of Planning to administer SMA permits for DHHL lands to avoid excessive variation due to County specific rules and regulations.

2. Partner with the Department of Land and Natural Resources to enforce against violations on Hawaiian home lands.

3. Pursue federal funding sources to address additional administrative costs incurred by partner agencies and implement the state CZM Program on Hawaiian home lands.

4. Apply for the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the following scopes of work: a) elevation of flood prone structures and b) drainage/storm water management projects, and c) protective measures retrofit projects for utility, water and sanitary systems and infrastructure (www.fema.gov/application-development ).

6. Apply for the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program which

Case Study: Increasing Resilience for Kapa‘akea

Coastal Resilience for DHHL Communities156provides funding for a) planning grants-to prepare plans for flood mitigation, b) project grants-used to implement flood mitigation measures ex: elevation or relocation, and c) management cost grants-to aid in the administration of the FMA program (www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation-assistance-program).

7. Explore the possibility of using federal funding to assess the feasibility and potential environmental impacts of a community-wide sea wall.

8. Apply for a Cooperative Agreement Grant from the Department of Commerce for the following activities: Environmental, Science and Technology, and other Research and Development (http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html?keywords=11.473 ).

9. Apply for funding from NOAA Office of Education to a) strengthen the Public’s and/or K-12 Students’ Environmental Literacy for Community Resilience to Extreme Weather Events and Environmental Changes, and b) NOAA’s Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for education, outreach, and innovative projects. One innovative project can be applying Native Hawaiian ahupua’a management in the Kapa‘akea, Kamiloloa, Makakupa‘ia homesteads to improve environmental conditions mauka of the homesteads to aid in flood mitigation through decreased soil erosion and the reintroduction of native plant species. Partnerships among Moloka‘i schools, homestead communities, DHHL, and nonprofit groups such as Ka Honua Momona can be created to encourage community participation and involvement in ahupua’a stewardship.

CONCLUSIONTo increase community resilience in Kapa‘akea homestead,

increased interagency collaboration can accomplish mutual goals in ensuring proper management of DHHL’s coastal zones. Currently, homes in Kapa‘akea can be rebuilt to mitigate negative impacts from storm surge and flooding from heavy rains as well as sea level rise, but the most effective mitigation strategy is inland relocation to higher ground. Although a tsunami along Moloka‘i’s southern coast is unlikely, the threat still exists, and in the case of a distant tsunami homes along the coastline are unlikely to remain intact and human lives might be saved by speedy information dissemination. In addition to threats from natural disasters, the rapidly changing climate requires planning for related effects such as increased frequency of drought, sea level rise, increased threat of wildfire, and saltwater intrusion into the island’s freshwater table.

Adaptive measures to prevent problems caused by flooding include the possible construction of a community wide sea wall and requiring rebuilt structures to be raised off the ground. Additionally, DHHL should locate future subdivisions out of predicted hazard zones. Also, by implementing the Native Hawaiian tradition of ahupua‘a land and natural resource management, community participation and maintenance of cultural practices will be encouraged through the restoration of mauka ecological zones. These efforts will ultimately benefit residential zones by reducing flooding from the mauka direction reducing sedimentation that affects other coastal resources, including traditional fishponds.

Resource challenges can be addressed at least in part through the pursuit of federal grants to aid in mitigation and adaptation strategies for Kapa‘akea homesteaders as well as enhancing the management of coastal resources that are so central to island lifestyles and traditions. Increasingly complex and negative impacts due to climate change elevate the importance of interagency collaboration to leverage resources, coordinate decision-making, and reach mutual goals.


References1. Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205A, Coastal Zone Management.2. http://www.dhhl.org3. https://www.planning.hawaii.gov4. Department of Ecology, State of Washington. (n.d.). Washington State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. Retrieved 10 March, 2015, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/czm/prgm.html5. Department of Ecology, State of Washington. (n.d.). Coastal Zone Management . Retrieved 10 March, 2015, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/czm/6. Department of Ecology, State of Washington. (n.d.). Federal Consistency. Retrieved 10 March, 2015, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/czm/fed-consist.html7. Therese Swanson. (2001). Managing Washington’s Coast: Washington State’s Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington: Department of Ecology.8. Office of Planning and Community Development. 2010. Swinomish Climate Change Initiative: Climate Adaptation Action Plan. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. La Conner, WA 98257.9. ……. 1981. Swinomish Tribal Community: Coastal Zone Management Plan.10. ……. 2009.Government to Government: Models of Cooperation Between States and Tribes. National Conference of State Legislature: The Forum for Americans’ Ideas.11. Dinell, T et.al. 1964. “The Hawaiian Homes Program: 1920-1963, a concluding report.” Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. http://www.lrbhawaii.info/lrbpts/62/hhland.pdf 12. Nakamoto, Yoshiaki. Letter to George Akahane, Members of the City Council. 5/3/1976. TS.13. Matsukawa, Michael J. and Ronald B. Mun. Letter to Robert A. Marks. 8/16/1993. TS.14. Dye, T. 1977. “Cultural Resources Survey, Kapa’akea Flood Control Project, Molokai, Hawaii.” Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum15. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976. “Final Environmental Statement, Kapa’akea Homestead, Molokai, Hawaii.”16. Lichenstein, D. 2011. “Drainage improvement work dedicated in Kapa’akea.” The Molokai News. Accessed 4/29/1217. http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hcda/18. NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 2012. “Construction Setbacks.” Last modified July 13, 2012. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/initiatives/shoreline_ppr_setbacks.html

19. Hwang, D. and M. Burkett. 2009. “Shoreline Impacts, Setback Policy and Sea Level Rise.” University of Hawaii Sea Grant.Center for Island Climate Adaptation (ICAP).20. NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 2012. “Construction Setbacks.” Last modified July 13, 2012. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/initiatives/shoreline_ppr_setbacks.html; Porro, R. 2014. “Land Use Policy Tool: Shoreline Setback Rules.” Honolulu: Unpublished paper, University of Hawaii at Manoa.21. State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 2005. “Requesting a review and analysis of the issues surrounding the shoreline certification process for the purpose of establishing shoreline setbacks.” Report to the Twenty-Third Legislature, Regular Session of 2006. December, 2005; State of Hawaii, Office of Planning. 2011. “Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program: Sustainable Management of the Islands.” http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/czm/program/doc/czm_program_description_2011.pdf22. Sumners, E. 2013. “Weathering the Storms.” The Molokai Dispatch.Accessed 4/15/15.23. Storlazzi, C.et. al. (ND). “Wave Control on Reef Morphology and Coral Distribution: Molokai, Hawaii.”24. Young, L. W. (2010). “Pacific tsunami ‘galu afi’.” Apia, Samoa: Marfleet Printing and Publishing.25. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. 2013“Tsunami Glossary 2013. Paris: UNESCO.26. https://www.honolulu.gov/dem. Accessed 4/29/15.27. United Nations and Economic Commission for Europe. 2000 “Best Management Practices Document.”Guidelines on Sustainable Flood Prevention. New York28. Spring 2005 Planning Practicum. 2005. “Papohaku Dunes Cultural and Natural Resource Preservation Plan.” Honolulu: Unpublished, University of Hawaii at Manoa.29. Sengal. 2014. “Map Update Changes Flood Insurance Needs For Some.” Star Advertiser’s “Akamai Money Column. Honolulu.30. http://wwww.staradvertiser.com/businesspremium/akamaimoneypremium/.31. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/shoreline-armoring.html. Accessed 4/29/15. 32. Teves. 2012; https://www.dhhl.gov. Accessed 4/15/15.33. Minerbi, L. 1999. Indigenous management models and protection of the ahupua’a. Social Process in Hawaii 39: 208-225.

159

Summary of Findings and Recommendations7

It is the hope of the practicum team that this study provides the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and its beneficiaries with a useful foundation for a longer-term and more comprehensive planning process that will: 1) improve the protection, responsible development, and management of coastal resources within DHHL’s jurisdiction; and 2) enhance the resilience and adaptive capacities of Hawaiian homestead communities facing coastal hazards.

Through mapping and the overlaying of infrastructure, facilities, and land use GIS layers in relation to hazard zones, this study identifies Anahola (Kaua‘i), Nānākuli (O‘ahu), Kapa‘akea/Kamiloloa-Makakupa‘ia (Moloka‘i), Waiehu (Maui), and Keaukaha (Hawai‘i) as the five Hawaiian homestead communities that are among the most vulnerable to coastal hazards, and suggests that these communities should be prioritized in DHHL’s future disaster and climate change planning initiatives. The methods and data used in this analysis can be applied to future assessments for other communities of interest, though it should be noted that the assessment in this study was limited by the availability of state and county data. Future assessments should be improved and updated as more data become available.

The hazard mitigation BMPs presented in this study show a wide range of options that can be adapted and applied to address the specific circumstances and unique needs of each coastal community. The Native Hawaiian Culturally-Based Community Resilience Manual offers a template and step-by-step process for integrating mitigation strategies, area GIS data, and local knowledge to assist DHHL and beneficiaries in better understanding and mitigating the coastal hazards facing each homestead community and identifying opportunities to protect their most valuable community assets. Efforts to identify funding or other resources to support the implementation of hazard mitigation BMPs and culturally based approaches to community resilience should consider

multidisciplinary and innovative ways to connect proposed projects to other social or economic interests. Future initiatives might also include exploring ways to apply Native Hawaiian traditions of ahupua‘a land and natural resource management in developing and enhancing disaster preparedness and community resilience strategies in homestead communities.

Jurisdictional ambiguities do affect DHHL’s functional capabilities, and in turn impact services to beneficiaries. The agency’s ability to manage coastal resources effectively is additionally hampered in part by limited resources to undertake its own permitting and enforcement program. The agency can consider pursuing clarification regarding issues such as the application of SMA boundaries through formal legal opinion or legislative remedy. In the meantime, DHHL should also explore possibilities for designing collaborative agreements with the State Office of Planning, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the counties to ensure the protection of sensitive coastal resources and resolve at least some of the practical issues raised by lingering jurisdictional questions without compromising DHHL autonomy.

Case studies from Kapa‘akea, Moloka‘i and tribal communities engaged in coastal zone management in Washington state suggest some of the issues that might be covered in interagency collaboration for Hawaiian home lands. These issues include streamlining the permit process and fostering consistency across counties, coordinating decision-making and enforcement, leveraging resources, and incorporating the interests of Hawaiian homestead communities and Native Hawaiian knowledge in statewide coastal resource management and climate change planning. Future research should explore these and other case studies in greater depth to better inform the development of interagency agreements.


Appendices

161Appendix A: GIS map data


Map Title: All Sites HazardsSummary: Maps showing intensity of all hazards combined (sea level rise, tsunami inundation, and flood) within DHHL boundaries located on the islands of Hawai‘i, Kaua‘i, Mau‘i, Moloka‘i, and O‘ahu. Each map is separated by DHHL community and is scaled to view portions of the community affected by hazards.Shapefiles Used:1. Tsunami evacuation zone from the Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program.2. Flood zone from the Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program.3. 3-foot sea level rise from PacIOOS/NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer.4. DHHL boundary from the Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program.MethodologyThe following hazard layers were overlaid onto an aerial basemap: sea-level rise, tsunami inundation, and flood. These maps are a series of descriptive maps meant to situate the reader with the location of each homestead area and show the intensity of hazards that affects the residents. No analysis was completed.

Map Title: Anahola Coastal Hazards MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the DHHL parcels, roads, and facilities that are within the hazard zone. The SMA boundary is also shown for reference. Shapefiles Used:1. Tsunami evacuation zone from the Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program.2. Flood zone from the Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program.3. 3-foot sea level rise from NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer.4. Kauai erosion data from USGS5. DHHL boundary from the Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program.Shapefiles Generated:1. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team2. Kauai DHHL Erosion ZoneMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program, NOAA2. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects3. Create Kauai DHHL Parcel layera. Clip Kauai tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Kauai tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk recordsd. Create parcel summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.4. Create Kauai DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect layera. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Kauai DHHL Parcel layer.b. Create parcel hazard summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.5. Create Kauai DHHL Building layera. Perform spatial join between Kauai tmk layer and Kauai building layer. Assigns attributes of tmk layer (including building values) to Kauai building layer.b. Clip Kauai building/tmk join layer to the Study Area. Extracts Kauai building records within DHHL coastal communities. c. Create building summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by

community. 6. Create Kauai DHHL Building Hazard Intersect layera. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Kauai DHHL building layer.b. Create building hazard summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.7. Create Kauai Roads Hazard intersecta. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Kauai roads layer.Result: Table 2.3 on Page 15 and 2.6 on Page 22 show the proportion of DHHL parcels and buildings within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments. Note: this map does not show entirety of hazards zone; only land and infrastructure within hazard zone.Limitations:-Kauai building layer provided by County of Kauai planning department practicum use. The county’s data is not complete however and should not be used for planning purposes. For illustrative purposes only.

Map Title: Anahola Land Use Designation MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the area within the hazard zone by DHHL Land Use Designation. Shapefiles Used:1. DHHL Kauai Land Use Designation (LUD) shapefile from DHHL planners.2. Street Shapefiles from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program3. HHL10 layer (DHHL boundaries) from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program4. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team5. Hazard Union layer created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Kauai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join2. Kauai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join_ Hazard_Intersect3. Anahola LUD layer4. Anahola LUD Hazard intersectMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add Kauai LUD shapefile from DHHL3. Create Kauai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join shapefilea. Perform spatial join between Kauai LUD layer and HHL10 (DHHL Boundaries) layerb. Assigns DHHL Boundary attributes to Kauai LUD Layer (assigns DHHL community names to each LUD)c. Create LUD summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area by LUD4. Create Kauai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join_Hazard_Intersect shapefilea. Intersect the Hazard Union layer with the Kauai LUD_HHL10_Spaital Join layerb. Identifies areas in hazard zone by land use designationc. Create LUD Hazard summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in hazard zone by LUD5. Create Anahola LUD shapefilea. Using the Kauai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join shapefile, select the records for Anaholab. Using the Select tool, create Anahola LUD shapefile from selected recordsc. Create LUD summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes


area in Anahola by LUD6. Create Anahola LUD_Hazard_Intersect shapefilea. Intersect the Hazard Union layer with Anahola LUD layerb. Identifies areas in hazard zone by land use designationc. Create Anahola LUD Hazard summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in hazard zone by LUDResult:Table 2.5 on Page 22 shows the proportion of each land use designation within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or consider land use designation changes.

Map Title: Anahola Land Values MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the land values of DHHL parcels in reference to the hazard zone. Shapefiles Used:1. Kauai TMK Data from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program2. Street shapefiles from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program3. Mile marker shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program4. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team5. Public Schools shapefile from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program6. Special Management Area shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program7. Hazard layers created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Kauai DHHL Parcel layer2. Hazard Union layer3. Kauai DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect4. Kauai Roads Hazard Intersect5. Kauai DHHL Building layer6. Kauai DHHL Building Hazard IntersectMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add hazard layers (flood zone, tsunami evac zone, sea level rise) created by DURP Practicum team. Erosion not used, since erosion is within the flood zone layer.3. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects4. Create Kauai DHHL Parcel layera. Clip Kauai tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Kauai tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk recordsd. Create parcel summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.5. Create Kauai DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect layera. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Kauai DHHL Parcel layer.b. Create parcel hazard summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.6. Create Kauai DHHL Building layera. Perform spatial join between Kauai tmk layer and Kauai building layer. Assigns attributes of tmk layer (including building values) to Kauai building layer.

b. Clip Kauai building/tmk join layer to the Study Area. Extracts Kauai building records within DHHL coastal communities. c. Create building summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community. 7. Create Kauai DHHL Building Hazard Intersect layera. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Kauai DHHL building layer.b. Create building hazard summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.8. Create Kauai Roads Hazard intersecta. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Kauai roads layer.Result: Table 2.3 on Page 15 shows the proportion of DHHL parcels and value within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments.

Map Title: Nanakuli Land Use and Infrastructure MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the DHHL parcels, roads, and facilities that are within the hazard zone. The SMA boundary is also shown for reference. Shapefiles Used:1. Oahu TMK Data from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program2. Street shapefiles from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program3. Mile marker shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program4. Oahu building footprint layer from County of Oahu planning department.5. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team6. Public Schools shapefile from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program7. Special Management Area shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program8. Hazard layers created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Oahu DHHL Parcel layer2. Hazard Union layer3. Oahu DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect4. Oahu Roads Hazard Intersect5. Oahu DHHL Building layer6. Oahu DHHL Building Hazard IntersectMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add hazard layers (erosion, flood zone, tsunami evac zone, sea level rise) created by DURP Practicum team.3. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects4. Create Oahu DHHL Parcel layera. Clip Oahu tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Oahu tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk recordsd. Create parcel summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.5. Create Oahu DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect layer


a. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Oahu DHHL Parcel layer.b. Create parcel hazard summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.6. Create Oahu DHHL Building layera. Perform spatial join between Oahu tmk layer and Oahu building layer. Assigns attributes of tmk layer (including building values) to Oahu building layer.b. Clip Oahu building/tmk join layer to the Study Area. Extracts Oahu building records within DHHL coastal communities. c. Create building summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community. 7. Create Oahu DHHL Building Hazard Intersect layera. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Oahu DHHL building layer.b. Create building hazard summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.8. Create Oahu Roads Hazard intersecta. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Oahu roads layer.Result: Table 2.8 on Page 29 and Table 2.11 on Page 36 show the proportion of DHHL parcels and buildings within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments. Note: this map does not show entirety of hazards zone; only land and infrastructure within hazard zone.

Map Title: Nanakuli Land Use Designation MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the area within the hazard zone by DHHL Land Use Designation. Shapefiles Used:1. DHHL Oahu Land Use Designation (LUD) shapefile from DHHL planners.2. Street Shapefiles from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program3. HHL10 layer (DHHL boundaries) from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program4. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team5. Hazard Union layer created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Oahu LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join2. Oahu LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join_ Hazard_Intersect3. Nanakuli LUD layer4. Nanakuli LUD Hazard intersectMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add Oahu LUD shapefile from DHHL3. Create Oahu LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join shapefilea. Perform spatial join between Oahu LUD layer and HHL10 (DHHL Boundaries) layerb. Assigns DHHL Boundary attributes to Oahu LUD Layer (assigns DHHL community names to each LUD)c. Create LUD summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area by LUD4. Create Oahu LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join_Hazard_Intersect shapefilea. Intersect the Hazard Union layer with the Oahu LUD_HHL10_Spaital Join layerb. Identifies areas in hazard zone by land use designationc. Create LUD Hazard summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table.

Summarizes area in hazard zone by LUD5. Create Nanakuli LUD shapefilea. Using the Oahu LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join shapefile, select the records for Nanakulib. Using the Select tool, create Anahola LUD shapefile from selected recordsc. Create LUD summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in Nanakuli by LUD6. Create Nanakuli LUD_Hazard_Intersect shapefilea. Intersect the Hazard Union layer with Nanakuli LUD layerb. Identifies areas in hazard zone by land use designationc. Create Nanakuli LUD Hazard summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in hazard zone by LUDResult:Table 2.10 on Page 36 shows the proportion of each land use designation within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or consider land use designation changes.

Map Title: Nanakuli Land Values MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the land values of DHHL parcels in reference to the hazard zone. Shapefiles Used:1. Oahu TMK Data from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program2. Hazard layers created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Oahu TMK Values layer2. Hazard Union layerMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add hazard layers (flood zone, tsunami evac zone, sea level rise) created by DURP Practicum team. Erosion not used, since erosion is within the flood zone layer.3. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects4. Create Oahu DHHL Parcel layera. Clip Oahu tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Oahu tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk records5. Create Oahu TMK Values layera. Change symbology of Oahu DHHL Parcel layer to show colors for varying values.b. Selected “quantities, graduated colors” in the Symbology tab of the shapefile properties.c. Exported data as new shapefile.Result: Table 2.8 pn Page 29 shows the proportion of DHHL parcels and values within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments.

Map Title: Kapaakea/Kamiloloa-Makakupaia Land Use and Infrastructure MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the DHHL parcels, roads, and facilities that are within the hazard zone. The SMA boundary is also shown for reference.


Shapefiles Used:1. Maui County TMK Data from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program2. Street shapefiles from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program3. Mile marker shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program4. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team5. Public Schools shapefile from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program6. Special Management Area shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program7. Hazard layers created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Maui County DHHL Parcel layer2. Hazard Union layer3. Maui County DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect4. Maui County Roads Hazard IntersectMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add hazard layers (erosion, flood zone, tsunami evac zone, sea level rise) created by DURP Practicum team.3. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects4. Create Maui County DHHL Parcel layera. Clip Maui County tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Maui County tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk recordsd. Create parcel summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.5. Create Maui County DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect layera. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Maui County DHHL Parcel layer.b. Create parcel hazard summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.6. Create Maui County Roads Hazard intersecta. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Maui County roads layer.Result: Table 2.13 on Page 43 and Table 2.17 on Page 57 show the proportion of DHHL parcels within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments. Note: this map does not show entirety of hazards zone; only land and infrastructure within hazard zone.

Map Title: Kapaakea / Kamiloloa-Makakupaia Land Use Designation MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the area within the hazard zone by DHHL Land Use Designation. Shapefiles Used:1. DHHL Molokai Land Use Designation (LUD) shapefile from DHHL planners.2. Street Shapefiles from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program3. HHL10 layer (DHHL boundaries) from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program4. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team5. Hazard Union layer created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:

1. Molokai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join2. Molokai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join_ Hazard_Intersect3. Kapaakea LUD layer4. Kapaakea LUD Hazard intersectMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add Molokai LUD shapefile from DHHL3. Create Molokai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join shapefilea. Perform spatial join between Molokai LUD layer and HHL10 (DHHL Boundaries) layerb. Assigns DHHL Boundary attributes to Molokai LUD Layer (assigns DHHL community names to each LUD)c. Create LUD summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area by LUD4. Create Molokai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join_Hazard_Intersect shapefilea. Intersect the Hazard Union layer with the Molokai LUD_HHL10_Spaital Join layerb. Identifies areas in hazard zone by land use designationc. Create LUD Hazard summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in hazard zone by LUD5. Create Kapaakea LUD shapefilea. Using the Molokai LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join shapefile, select the records for Kapaakeab. Using the Select tool, create Anahola LUD shapefile from selected recordsc. Create LUD summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in Kapaakea by LUD6. Create Kapaakea LUD_Hazard_Intersect shapefilea. Intersect the Hazard Union layer with Kapaakea LUD layerb. Identifies areas in hazard zone by land use designationc. Create Kapaakea LUD Hazard summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in hazard zone by LUDResult:Table 2.15 on Page 50 shows the proportion of each land use designation within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or consider land use designation changes.

Map Title: Kapaakea/Kamiloloa-Makakupaia Land Values MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the land values of DHHL parcels in reference to the hazard zone. Shapefiles Used:1. Maui County TMK Data from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program2. Hazard layers created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Maui County TMK Values layer2. Hazard Union layerMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add hazard layers (flood zone, tsunami evac zone, sea level rise) created by DURP Practicum team. Erosion not used, since erosion is within the flood zone layer.3. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects4. Create Maui County DHHL Parcel layer


a. Clip Maui County tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Maui County tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk records5. Create Maui County TMK Values layera. Change symbology of Maui County DHHL Parcel layer to show colors for varying values.b. Selected “quantities, graduated colors” in the Symbology tab of the shapefile properties.c. Exported data as new shapefile.Result: Table 2.13 on Page 43 and Table 2.17 on Page 57 show the proportion of DHHL parcels and values within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments.

Map Title: Waiehu Land Use and Infrastructure MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the DHHL parcels, roads, and facilities that are within the hazard zone. The SMA boundary is also shown for reference. Shapefiles Used:1. Maui County TMK Data from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program2. Street shapefiles from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program3. Mile marker shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program4. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team5. Public Schools shapefile from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program6. Special Management Area shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program7. Hazard layers created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Maui County DHHL Parcel layer2. Hazard Union layer3. Maui County DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect4. Maui County Roads Hazard IntersectMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add hazard layers (erosion, flood zone, tsunami evac zone, sea level rise) created by DURP Practicum team.3. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects4. Create Maui County DHHL Parcel layera. Clip Maui County tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Maui County tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk recordsd. Create parcel summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.5. Create Maui County DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect layera. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Maui County DHHL Parcel layer.b. Create parcel hazard summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.6. Create Maui County Roads Hazard intersect

a. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Maui County roads layer.Result: Table 2.13 on Page 43 and Table 2.17 on Page 57 show the proportion of DHHL parcels within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments. Note: this map does not show entirety of hazards zone; only land and infrastructure within hazard zone.

Map Title: Waiehu Land Values MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the land values of DHHL parcels in reference to the hazard zone. Shapefiles Used:1. Maui County TMK Data from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program2. Hazard layers created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Maui County TMK Values layer2. Hazard Union layerMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add hazard layers (flood zone, tsunami evac zone, sea level rise) created by DURP Practicum team. Erosion not used, since erosion is within the flood zone layer.3. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects4. Create Maui County DHHL Parcel layera. Clip Maui County tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Maui County tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk records5. Create Maui County TMK Values layera. Change symbology of Maui County DHHL Parcel layer to show colors for varying values.b. Selected “quantities, graduated colors” in the Symbology tab of the shapefile properties.c. Exported data as new shapefile.Result: Table 2.13 on Page 43 and Table 2.17 on Page 57 show the proportion of DHHL parcels and values within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments.

Map Title: Keaukaha Land Use and Infrastructure MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the DHHL parcels, roads, and facilities that are within the hazard zone. The SMA boundary is also shown for reference. Shapefiles Used:1. Hawaii TMK Data from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program2. Street shapefiles from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program3. Mile marker shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program4. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team5. Public Schools shapefile from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program6. Special Management Area shapefile from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program7. Hazard layers created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:


1. Hawaii DHHL Parcel layer2. Hazard Union layer3. Hawaii DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect4. Hawaii Roads Hazard IntersectMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add hazard layers (erosion, flood zone, tsunami evac zone, sea level rise) created by DURP Practicum team.3. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects4. Create Hawaii DHHL Parcel layera. Clip Hawaii tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Hawaii tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk recordsd. Create parcel summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.5. Create Hawaii DHHL Parcel Hazard Intersect layera. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Hawaii DHHL Parcel layer.b. Create parcel hazard summary table using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarize by community.6. Create Hawaii Roads Hazard intersecta. Using intersect tool, intersect the Hazard Union layer and the Hawaii roads layer.Result: Table 2.20 on Page 69 shows the proportion of DHHL parcels within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments. Note: this map does not show entirety of hazards zone; only land and infrastructure within hazard zone.

Map Title: Keaukaha Land Use Designation MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the area within the hazard zone by DHHL Land Use Designation. Shapefiles Used:1. DHHL Hawaii Land Use Designation (LUD) shapefile from DHHL planners.2. Street Shapefiles from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program3. HHL10 layer (DHHL boundaries) from Hawaii Statewide GIS Program4. Study Area layer created by DURP Practicum team5. Hazard Union layer created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Hawaii LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join2. Hawaii LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join_ Hazard_Intersect3. Keaukaha LUD layer4. Keaukaha LUD Hazard intersectMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add Hawaii LUD shapefile from DHHL3. Create Hawaii LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join shapefilea. Perform spatial join between Hawaii LUD layer and HHL10 (DHHL Boundaries) layerb. Assigns DHHL Boundary attributes to Hawaii LUD Layer (assigns DHHL community names to each LUD)

c. Create LUD summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area by LUD4. Create Hawaii LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join_Hazard_Intersect shapefilea. Intersect the Hazard Union layer with the Hawaii LUD_HHL10_Spaital Join layerb. Identifies areas in hazard zone by land use designationc. Create LUD Hazard summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in hazard zone by LUD5. Create Keaukaha LUD shapefilea. Using the Hawaii LUD_HHL10_Spatial Join shapefile, select the records for Keaukahab. Using the Select tool, create Anahola LUD shapefile from selected recordsc. Create LUD summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in Keaukaha by LUD6. Create Keaukaha LUD_Hazard_Intersect shapefilea. Intersect the Hazard Union layer with Keaukaha LUD layerb. Identifies areas in hazard zone by land use designationc. Create Keaukaha LUD Hazard summary table by using “Summarize” tool in attribute table. Summarizes area in hazard zone by LUDResult:Table 2.22 on Page 78 shows the proportion of each land use designation within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or consider land use designation changes.

Map Title: Keaukaha Land Values MapSummary: The purpose of this map is to display the land values of DHHL parcels in reference to the hazard zone. Shapefiles Used:1. Hawaii TMK Data from the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program2. Hazard layers created by DURP Practicum teamShapefiles Generated:1. Hawaii TMK Values layer2. Hazard Union layerMethodology:1. Download/add files from the Statewide GIS Program2. Add hazard layers (flood zone, tsunami evac zone, sea level rise) created by DURP Practicum team. Erosion not used, since erosion is within the flood zone layer.3. Create Hazard Union layera. Using the Union tool, perform union of all hazard layersb. Creates one hazard layer to be used for overlay and intersects4. Create Hawaii DHHL Parcel layera. Clip Hawaii tmk layer to Study Area layer. Extracts only tmk records within DHHL coastal communities.b. Perform spatial join between Hawaii tmk layer and Study Area layer.c. Assigns DHHL community names to tmk records5. Create Hawaii TMK Values layera. Change symbology of Hawaii DHHL Parcel layer to show colors for varying values.b. Selected “quantities, graduated colors” in the Symbology tab of the shapefile properties.c. Exported data as new shapefile.Result: Table 2.20 on Page 69 shows the proportion of DHHL parcels and values within the hazard zone. This information can assist DHHL planners as they plan new developments or modifications to existing developments.

173Appendix B: Worksheets for Community Resilience Planning