< TABLE OF CONTENTS
<backnext page >
Section 65.4 National Historic Landmark Criteria
(a) Specific Criteria of National Significance: The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States in history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture and that possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and: (1) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are identified with, or that outstandingly represent, the broad national patterns of United States history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be gained;
Suitability. An area is considered suitable for addition to the national park system if it represents a natural or cultural resource type that is not already adequately represented in the national park system, or is not comparably represented and protected for public enjoyment by other federal agencies; tribal, state, or local governments; or the private sector.
Feasibility. The test of feasibility involves weighing all of the values and public needs served by establishing the area as a unit of the national park system. To be feasible as a new unit of the national park system, an area must (1) be of sufficient size and appropriate configuration to ensure sustainable resource protection and visitor enjoyment; and (2) be capable of efficient administration by the NPS at a reasonable cost. There are other factors considered when evaluating feasibility. However, evaluations of feasibility may sometimes identify concerns or conditions, rather than simple reach a "yes" or "no" conclusion.

As noted, in addition to meeting significance, suitability and feasibility criteria, a study area must also be found to require direct management by NPS, instead of alternative protection by other public agencies or the private sector, in order to receive a favorable recommendation for inclusion into the national park system. Unless direct NPS management of a study area is identified as the clearly superior alternative, the Service will recommend that some other entity assume a lead management role, and that the area not be included in the national park system.

SUMMARY

This reconnaissance survey finds that the cultural and natural resources identified and evaluated within the study area--the southwest coast of Maui from La Perouse Bay east to Kanaloa Point--do not meet the test of national significance. However, the Hawaiian archeological and coral reef resources within the study area do appear to be of statewide significance. Other resource values identified and evaluated in the study area appear to be of less than statewide significance.

With regard to suitability for inclusion in the national park system, study area resources were evaluated using National Park Service Natural History and History and Prehistory thematic frameworks. Based on this evaluation, the cultural (Hawaiian archeological) and natural resources within the study area were found to be already adequately represented within existing units of the national park system in Hawaii. Consequently, these resources do not meet the test of suitability.

The study area meets only some tests of feasibility. It is feasible in terms of being of sufficient size and appropriate configuration to allow management for resource protection and public use. Notwithstanding the damage to archeological resources, the study area appears to have retained much of its integrity as a true, accurate and unspoiled example of a resource type. However, direct management by the National Park Service is judged not feasible at this time since the great majority of the study area is already in public ownership (the State of Hawaii). Further, these State-owned lands are ceded lands. The ownership of ceded lands remains controversial among advocates of Hawaiian sovereignty throughout Hawaii.

Although the study area does not meet criteria for inclusion in the national park system, this reconnaissance survey of the coastal area of southwest Maui from La Perouse Bay to Kanaloa Point finds that additional protection and management of the Hawaiian archeological and coral reef resources found here are needed. Due to the extent, the nature and the statewide significance of the Hawaiian archeological resources, public use of the area needs to be more actively managed. The present level of management on public lands appears to be inadequate. Establishment of the lands of the study area as a component of the Hawaii state park system would provide a higher level of protection for all resources and provide increased opportunities for interpretation of these resources for visitors. Designation by the State of Hawaii of study area offshore waters as a marine protected area would help protect coral reef resources.

This reconnaissance survey finds that the local public support for the protection and management of study area resources appears to outweigh concerns expressed by some over restrictions on access and permitted outdoor recreation activities--if the area were to be directly managed by a public park agency. The study area remains in open space and is not presently being threatened by development. The primary threat appears to be unregulated and unstructured outdoor recreation use by ever-increasing numbers of visitors--both island residents and off-island tourists. Due to the absence of a managing entity, several of the more significant and accessible Hawaiian archeological resources have been and continue to be damaged by four-wheel drive vehicles and overnight camping and other activities.

BACKGROUND

In February 2001, the late Hawaii Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink introduced H.R. 591, directing the "Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of including certain lands along the southwestern coast of Maui, Hawaii, in the National Park System." The bill described the study area as extending "generally from Keone`o`io to Kanaloa Point." (As of the date of this reconnaissance survey, H.R.591 has not been enacted). In April 2001, Congresswoman Mink wrote to the Regional Director Pacific West Region to request National Park Service (NPS) support in conducting a feasibility study to fully document the assets of and threats to the Keone`o`io to Kanaloa Point area.

In response to Congresswoman Mink's letter, in May 2001, the Regional Director directed the Pacific Islands Support Office in Honolulu, Hawaii to carry out a reconnaissance survey of the Keone`o`io to Kanaloa Point shoreline area of southwestern Maui and its offshore waters. Reconnaissance surveys conducted by NPS usually consist of a thorough review of existing information from various sources, consultation with interested parties and site visits. NPS conducts reconnaissance surveys to determine if the resources present possess national significance. Reconnaissance surveys also include a preliminary evaluation of suitability and feasibility of the study area as a potential unit of the national park system. Established NPS criteria for significance, suitability and feasibility are applied to determine eligibility of an area as a unit of the national park system.

Significance, Suitability and Feasibility Criteria

To receive a favorable recommendation from NPS for inclusion into the national park system, a study area must (1) possess nationally significant natural or cultural resources; (2) be a suitable addition to the system; (3) be a feasible addition to the system; and (4) require direct NPS management, instead of alternative protection by other public agencies or the private sector.

National Significance. An area will be considered nationally significant if it

· is an outstanding example of a particular type of resource;

· possesses exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the natural or cultural themes of our nation's heritage;

· offers superlative opportunities for public enjoyment, or for scientific study; and

· retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of a resource.

National significance for cultural resources are evaluated by applying the National Historic Landmarks process contained in 36 CFR Part 65.