1973b. Keawanaku Complex, Site 50-14-1280. Hawaii Register of Historic Places Archeological Form
1973c. Wahene Platform, Site 50-14-1001. Hawaii Register of Historic Places
1959. La Perouse in Maui. Translated from the French. Maui Publishing Company, Wailuku, Maui
Eble, Francis P., Paul
Cleghorn and Patrick V. Kirch
1997. Report of Archeological Reconnaissance Survey Conducted at the Hawaii Army National Guard Kanaio Training Area on the Island of Maui, State of Hawaii. Garcia and Associates, Honolulu
Foote, Donald E., E.
L. Hill, S. Nakamura and F. Stephens
1972. Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Griffen, Agnes E.
1988. La Perouse Archeological District, Site # 50-14-1385. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (NPS Form 10-900). Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Hommon, Robert J.
1973a. Kanaio Waiailio Complex, Site 50-14-1481. Hawaii Register of Historic Places Archeological Form
1973b. Wawaloa Complex, Site 50-14-1238. Hawaii Register of Historic Places Archeological Form
Jackson, Thomas L.
1997. Historic Preservation Plan for Hawaii National Guard Kanaio Training Area Island of Maui, Hawaii. Garcia and Associated, Honolulu. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Division, Fort Shafter, Hawaii
Jordan, David Starr, Barton Warren Evermann
1973. The Shore Fishes of Hawaii. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, Vermont and Tokyo, Japan
Loope, Lloyd L. and Arthur
1995. Natural Resources Management Plan Kanaio National Guard Training Area, Island of Maui, Hawaii. Prepared for Hawaii National Guard, State of Hawaii
Macdonald, Gordon A.
and Agatin T. Abbott
1970. Volcanoes in the Sea, The Geology of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu
1998. Kihei-Makena Community Plan. Maui Planning Commission
Matsuoka, Jon K., Davianna
Pomaika`i McGregor and Luciano Minerbi
1996, Native Hawaiian Ethnographic Study for the Hawai`i Geothermal Project Proposed for Puna and Southeast Maui. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Mogi, H., Planning and
1977. Makena-La Perouse State Park, Maui, Hawaii. Prepared for State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources
November 11, 2001. "Is This Any Way to Treat a Treasure?" The Maui News
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
1987. History and Prehistory in the National Park System and National Historic Landmarks Program. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
1990. Natural History in the National Park System and on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. Natural Resources Report, NPS NR NRTR-90/03
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
2000. Management Policies 2001. NPS D1416
State of Hawaii
2001. 2000 State of Hawaii Data Book. Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Research and Economic Analysis Division
State of Hawaii
2002. Kihei-Upcountry Maui Highway Final Environmental Impact Statement. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
The Nature Conservancy
of Hawaii, Hawaii Heritage Program
1993. Biological Reconnaissance Survey of the Kanaio Training Area. Prepared for Hawaii Army National Guard, Honolulu
2002. Visitor Use Survey for Keone`o`io. Friends of Keone`o`io. Unpublished data, used by permission
Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst
and S.H. Sohmer
1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii, Volumes 1 and 2. Bishop Museum Special Publication 83, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii
Gary Barbano, Park Planner,
Pacific Islands Support Office
Larry Basch, Marine Ecologist, NPS Pacific Islands Coral Reef Program
Eric Brown, University of Hawaii
Brent Carman, Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources
Steve Cotton, University of Hawaii
Donna Downey, Cartographer, Research Corporation, University of Hawaii
Melissa Dumaran, Natural Resource Manager, Environmental Office Hawaii Army National Guard
Sumner Erdman, General Manager, Ulupalakua Ranch, Maui
Mary Evanson, President, Friends of Haleakala National Park, Maui
Helen Felsing, Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance, Maui Field Office
Elizabeth Gordon, Archeologist, Haleakala National Park
David Gulko, Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources
Kathy Hancock, Marine Ecologist, Kalaupapa National Historical Park
Bryan Harry, Superintendent, Pacific Islands Support Office
Skippy Hau, Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources
Rob Hommon, Archeologist, Pacific Islands Support Office
Melia Lane-Kamahele, Cartographer, Pacific Islands Support Office
Les Kuloloio, State of Hawaii Natural Area Reserve Board, Maui
Dwayne Minton, Marine Ecologist, War in the Pacific National Historical Park
Ron Nagata, Chief, Resource Management, Haleakala National Park
Bob Nishimoto, Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources
Ryan Okano, University of Hawaii
Don Reeser, Superintendent, Haleakala National Park
Kanekoa Schultz, University of Hawaii
Russell Sparks, Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources
Scott Stanley, University of Hawaii
Cheryl Vann, Friends of Keone`o`io
Bill Walsh, Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources
Harry Yada, Land Management Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu
On Friday, November 16, 2001, Bryan Harry, Superintendent, and Gary Barbano, Park Planner, Pacific Islands Support Office joined Mary Evanson, President of the Friends of Haleakala National Park, Don Reeser, Superintendent, Haleakala National Park, Helen Felsing of the NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program's Hawaii Field Office, and Les Kuloloio, a Native Hawaiian and member of the State Natural Area Reserve Advisory Board for an on-site inspection of the western portions of the study area. Mary Evanson, a strong supporter of NPS management of the study area, led the group on a walk/inspection of the La Perouse Archeological District and portions of the Hoapili Trail. During the walk, Mary pointed out damage that had been done and was continuing to be done to archeological sites by four-wheel drive vehicles and unregulated camping. She expressed her concern over the damage and the need for active management and protection of the area.
The area examined was the La Perouse Historic District, beginning at the end of the paved road at the western end of La Perouse Bay. Archeological features found here were numerous and varied, and included heiau, house platforms, walled platforms, canoe hale, walled terraces, stone walled enclosures, fishing shrines and a large adze grinding platform. A short section of the 13 1/2 mile Hoapili Trail was walked. Mary pointed out the damage to these sites and features, explaining that there is a need for the natural and cultural resources here to be managed and interpreted so the public can better understand their value and the need for protection.
Public use of the area
was in evidence along the entire area examined. This use of the area appeared
to be completely unregulated. Tire tracks from four-wheel drive vehicles were
visible on the existing coastal trail and in places "roads" had
been created by these vehicles. Despite posted "No Camping" signs,
evidence of overnight camping was apparent at several locations. At the abandoned
campsites, campfire rings appeared to have been made from the rocks of nearby
archeological features and trash (paper, beer bottles, etc.) had been left
behind. No rest room facilities or trash containers were seen.
Keone`o`io to Kanaloa Point, Southeast Maui:
Archeological Resources, 11-12 December, 2001
Robert J. Hommon, Ph.D.
Archeologist and Senior Cultural Scientist
Pacific Islands Support Office
National Park Service
17 December 2001
The following is a summary of an 11-12 December, 2001 archeological reconnaissance of portions of a six-mile coastal strip extending from Keone`o`io (La Perouse Bay) to Kanaloa Point, southwest Maui. This area includes the seaward portions of the ancient land divisions (probably ahupua`a) of, from east to west, Kanaio, Kaloi, Kaunauhane, Papapa Kai and a portion of Kalihe, all in the ancient moku`aina (district) of Honuaula. Within this study area are about 34 previously recorded archeological sites that contain roughly 1,100 known archeological features. This brief archeological study was part of a reconnaissance being conducted by Bryan Harry (Superintendent) and Gary Barbano (Planner), both of the Pacific Islands Support Office, National Park Service (PISO). On 11 December, we were accompanied by Don Reeser (Superintendent) and Ron Nagata (Chief, Resources Management), both of Haleakala National Park (HALE), and Helen Felsing of the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA), Hawaii Field Office. On 12 December, Harry, Barbano and I were accompanied by Elizabeth Gordon, HALE Archeologist.
The approach used in this reconnaissance was to review the existing archeological literature (See References) and conduct brief inspections of a variety of archeological features in several of the complexes described in archeological reports and site forms. In this document, an archeological feature is an individual structure such as a heiau (temple), house enclosure, or fishing shrine; or a natural formation (such as a lava bubble) containing evidence of human activity; or a cluster of portable artifacts. An archeological site may include one or more features. A site with numerous features is often called a complex. A district usually includes two or more multi-feature sites.
About 98% of the known features in the study area are in complexes of at least eight and as many as 150+ features. Approximately 500 (46%) of the 1,100 features in the study area are believed, on the basis of structural form and other evidence, to be grave structures. In this report, the graves are not discussed as archeological sites. Most of the 600 features are the remnants of habitation structures, ranging from simple windbreaks that may have been overnight campsites to relatively large and elaborate enclosures and platforms.
The 1994 survey reported by Eble et al (1997) probably identified all of the major archeological complexes and most of the individual features and small complexes in the eastern half of the study area. Much of the western half of the study area has not yet been intensively surveyed, but most of all of its large complexes (other than clusters of graves) have probably been recorded.
The house structures and other features that make up the larger habitation complexes along the eastern five miles of the six-mile-long study area tend to be densely clustered around small coves that apparently offered easy access to the ocean. Along this coast, steep sea cliffs are the norm, so such coves, exhibiting a gentle rocky or sandy slope into the water are rare, and most of them have been searched for archeological sites.
On 11 December, Reeser and Felsing picked up Harry, Barbano and me at the Kahului airport. We drove to Ulupalakua Ranch headquarters, where we met Nagata, then continued south and east on Pi`ilani Highway, then south along a ranch road to Kanaloa Point, the eastern end of the study area, where we parked.
Site 3781, at Kanaloa Point (the eastern end of the study area), is roughly 60 acres in extent and contains at least 70 structures identified as probable graves. These structures, like nearly all of the features in the eastern five miles of the study area, are constructed of chunks of lava from the local, predominantly aa flows. The structures are believed to be graves because they resemble known graves elsewhere in Hawaii in that most are relatively simple, low platforms and terraces lacking evidence of other functions.
After looking at some of these graves, we walked westward about a mile along the Hoapili Trail. This mid-19th century trail, also called the King's Trail, runs through most of the six mile long study area at a distance from the shore varying from about 100 feet to about 3,700 feet. We saw evidence of vehicular use along the trail as we walked the one mile to Site 50-50-14-1481 (The final four digits in the State Inventory designations, such as 1481, are the unique site numbers in this region). Compressed tracks along the eastern portion of the trail showed that vehicles were using portions of the trail itself. In addition, a rough bypass had been cleared alongside the trail, where it appeared to be too narrow for vehicles. Then, farther to the west, we saw long sections of bulldozed trail roughly paralleling the Hoapili Trail. This bulldozing extends into Site 1481 itself.
Site 1481, also called the Kanaio Waiailio Complex (Eble et al. 1997: Table 6-1, 33, 42-54; Hommon 1973a) is located in Kanaio ahupua`a, about a mile west of Kanaloa Point. According to Eble et al (1997:42-54), this complex, which surrounds a small cove, contains more than 150 features. Among these are several well-preserved house foundations, including one (Feature 5) which still had a wood and thatch roof as late as 1929 (Eble et al. 1997: Figure 6-8, p. 44). Just below this house is a feature that may have served as a canoe shed. Ron Nagata pointed out that along the shore, on the gentle slope leading from this structure down to the cove a few feet away are stones that might be the remnants of a canoe ramp. The complex also includes a well-preserved water well and a structure that is believed to be a fishing shrine.
On Wednesday, 12 December,
Harry, Barbano, Gordon and I inspected features in three complexes in the
western part of the study area:
- La Perouse Archeological District (Site 50-14-1385) which extends along the westernmost 0.8 mile of the study area:
- Keawanaku Complex (Site 50-14-1280), 1.6 miles along the Hoapili Trail from the west end of the study area; and
- Wawaloa Complex (Site 50-14-1238), about 1.9 to 2.5 miles along the Hoapili Trail from the west end.
The La Perouse Archeological District, in the ahupua`a of Papapa Kai and Kalihi, contains 76 features within its 65 acres. One complex in the district, Site 50-14-1804, is outside the study area. The bedrock in the central portion of La Perouse Archeological District is pahoehoe and about half of its features are constructed of this form of basalt. Most of the features in this and the other western complexes probably served as foundations for houses and temporary structures. In addition, the La Perouse District includes two heiau, a ko`a (fishing shrine), a possible hale mua or men's house, a large water well with two sections, as many as five long, narrow enclosures that may have served as canoe sheds, and several possible graves. In addition, the District includes grinding surfaces for the manufacture of basalt blades of adzes, the primary woodcutting implement in ancient Hawaii. As far as I know, this is the largest concentration of adze-grinding facets in the Hawaiian Islands.
Keawanaku Complex (Site 50-14-1280), in the ahupua`a of Kaunauhane, is an unusually dense concentration of at least 70 features within its 6.5 acres. The features are distributed around a small gully with a sandy beach at its mouth. The vegetation in the gully is unusually lush for this coastal region, which is probably evidence of a good source of fresh or slightly brackish water. The complex includes 63 enclosures, partial enclosures, platforms and rock shelters (shallow caves) that served as temporary or long-term habitations, as well as trails, walls, a ko`a, and a massive structure, measuring 31 by 43 feet, identified in the 1930s as a ku`ula or fishing heiau. About 24 of the enclosures are unusual in that they form "rooms" in tight contiguous clusters.
The Wawaloa Complex (Site 50-14-1238), in the ahupua`a of Kaloi, consists of 34 features distributed over an area of about 50 acres. Included are a rectangular structure believed to be a heiau, a ko`a, a cluster of 14 wells, two lava tube rock shelters, nine ahu (rock cairns), three pahale and four damaged structures that may have been pahale. The term pahale refers to a house surrounded by a larger enclosure. Eight of the features are situated around a small cove informally called Wawaloa Bay on the site form (Hommon 1973b). The four damaged structures are at the upper edge of the small sandy beach along the cove. At least one of these structures may have been a pahale damaged by storm waves or tsunami. The pahale that are still in good condition are, which are at a slightly higher elevation, may have been built to replace the damaged ones. The structure that was identified in 1961 as a heiau is a 52 by 62-foot rectangular enclosure. It is considerably simpler in form that most heiau, which characteristically tend to include various terraces, platforms and other internal elements that are the remnants of houses and other perishable structures.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In general, the archeological resources of the study area constitute a significant material record of the indigenous Hawaiian occupation of the dry, southwestern coastal zone of Maui. The study area is situated in one the driest regions of the island. On average, it receives only about 20 to 25 inches of rain per year. With the exception of the central portion of the La Perouse District, most of the archeological features and complexes are situated along a coast composed predominantly of very rough, geologically young aa lava flows.
The two primary sources of food in the indigenous Hawaiian economic system were ocean resources and agriculture. With the possible exception of the central part of the La Perouse District, agricultural production in the study area was almost certainly inadequate to the needs of the people who lived in the area. Instead, the complexes, which are the archeological expression of local community activities, are perhaps best seen as small "oases" in a region covered mostly with rough, unproductive lava fields. Though some archeological features are to be found scattered individually and in small clusters, the great majority of human activities along this aa coast, as evidenced by the denser concentrations of archeological sites, developed around small coves that offered access by canoe and sources of potable water.
Relatively flat ground suitable for houses and campsites was probably a secondary consideration. Given the over-abundance of construction material (in the form of loose chunks of aa), the landscape around each of the coves could be extensively modified with relative ease with the construction of stable habitation structures, ranging from simple windbreaks to fairly elaborate house enclosures. The substantial form of some of the house structures and the presence of specialized structures, including heiau and ko`a, supports the notion that these settlements were more than simple short-term campsites.
The presently available archeological evidence is not sufficient to tell us whether the house sites were occupied for a few weeks or months at a time, or on a more permanent basis. However, we can be reasonable certain that the occupants of each of these coastal settlements were part of the local community that occupied and exploited the resources of an ahupua`a that extended from the inshore waters to the uplands. It is likely that in the indigenous system (perhaps until as late as the mid-1800s) at least some of the residents of the coastal settlements spent part of the year tending inland plots where rainfall and cultivable soil supported the growing of sweet potatoes and other crops. Alternatively, residents of these ahupua`a may have included specialists in fishing at the shore and farming on the inland slopes, who exchanged goods along the mauka-makai (inland-coastal) axis.
In addition to the small number of radiocarbon dates from the study area, several lines of evidence aid us in estimating the span of time represented by the archeological record there. The form of most of the sites, compared with indigenous Hawaiian sites found elsewhere, and the rarity of early historic artifacts on the surface of the sites suggests that most of the features were built and used within the indigenous Hawaiian system, i.e., before contact with the non-Polynesian world (1778) or at least before substantial influence from the Western world. In addition, we know that in 1786 (only eight years after contact) La Perouse reported "four small villages of about ten or twelve houses each. . . ." at or near the bay that bears his name (Dondo, p.43, quoted in Sterling. 1998:222).
An interesting possibility is that in the mid-1800s, after the substantial Hawaiian depopulation brought on by disease and other factors, the people on the work crews that built the Hoapili Trail may have camped in some of the houses in the study area complexes. The deteriorating wood and thatch roof of Feature 5 of Site 1481 which was photographed in 1929 (Eble et al. 1997:Figure 6-8, p.44) suggests that that house, at least, was occupied until the early 1900s.
Shore fishermen entering
the study area along the Hoapili Trail and by jeep roads have evidently continued
to use the study area complexes as campsites. Today, the western part of the
study area is apparently visited by a steady stream of hikers and campers.
Evidence of camping present in all of the western complexes included the remains
of campfires, recently deposited surface rubbish and, especially in the La
Perouse District, modified archeological sites.
On the basis of our observations discussed here, supplemented by reports and site forms, as well as a general knowledge of Hawaiian archeology, I believe that each of the complexes in the study area is sufficiently significant to be listed in both the Hawaii State and National Registers of Historic Places. In spite of the ongoing problem of visitor impact, most of the complexes are in generally good condition. They display a variety of forms and functions that reflect a range of local community activities. Many of the features would present opportunities for in-depth archeological research concerning a wide range of subjects including fishing techniques, variations and similarities among the ahupua`a, patterns of domestic activity, water-use, patterns of settlement and abandonment through time, canoe-use, the functions of ko`a and heiau, trail patterns and connections between the coastal and inland zones of the various ahupua`a. The complexes in the study area compare favorably with those of other parts of Maui and other islands in their general state of preservation, and their potential for research and interpretation.
As valuable as they are at the local and state levels, I do not believe that these features are complexes, singly or as a group, display the level of significance found at Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park or at Pu`ukohola Heiau National Historic Site, for example. The study area archeological resources do not, in my opinion, meet the National Historic Landmark criteria as laid out in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), "Part 65--National Historic Landmark Program"
Specific to archeological resources, 36 CFR, Part 65.4(a) states:
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;
. . . . (6) That have
yielded or may be likely to yield information of major scientific importance
by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation
over large areas of the United States. Such sites are those which have yielded,
or which may reasonably be expected to yield, data affecting theories, concepts
and ideas to a major degree.
The archeological sites in the study area are highly valuable cultural resources. In spite of the determined efforts of dedicated volunteers, the La Perouse District and portions of other complexes clearly are being damaged by the growing numbers of visitors to the area. In 1973, while working for the Bishop Museum, I directed the Maui segment of the Statewide Survey of known archeological sites. At that time, most of the visitors to the coastal area were shore-fishermen. Then, as now, people were driving four-wheel drive vehicles through the La Perouse District. One site that was being damaged at that time was the adze grinding area. Today, barriers around this site, evidently set up by concerned volunteers, direct traffic around this valuable site. However, increased camping and hiking activities are, I think, degrading all of the complexes more seriously than when I first visited the area. Among the impacts are campfires, cairns and other modern structures added to existing sites, rubbish dumping and vehicle traffic.
The residents of Hawaii
and the public at large will benefit greatly when the sites in the study area
are managed in ways that ensure their preservation, investigation and interpretation.
While the qualities of the archeological sites do not justify designation
as a National Park, I believe the study area would make an excellent State
Connolly, Robert D.
1973a Alaha Village Complex. Hawaii Register of Historic Places Archeological Form, Site 50-14-1002.
1973b Keawanaku Complex. Hawaii Register of Historic Places Archeological Form, 50-14-1280.
1973c Wahene Platform. Hawaii Register of Historic Places Archeological Form, Site 50-14-1001.
1959 La Perouse in Maui. Translated from the French. Maui Publishing, Wailuku, Hawaii.
Elbe, Francis P., Paul
Cleghorn and Patrick V. Kirch
1997 Report of Archeological Reconnaissance Survey Conducted at the Hawaii Army National Guard Kanaio Training Area, on the Island of Maui, State of Hawaii. BioSystems Analysis, Inc., Kailua, Hawaii.
Griffen, Agnes E.
1988 La Perouse Archeological District. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Site 50-14-1385.
Hommon, Robert J.
1973a Kanaio Waiialio Complex. Hawaii Register of Historic Places Archeologic Form, Site 50-14-1238.
1973b Wawaloa Complex. Hawaii Register of Historic Places Archeological Form, Site 50-14-1238.
Sterling, Elspeth P.
1998 Sites of Maui. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu.
of South Maui, Hawai`i, Keone`o`io to Kanaloa Point:
Marine Resources, 22 February, 25-27 April, and 6-10 May 2002
Larry Basch, Ph.D.*
Marine Ecologist-Senior Scientist-Advisor
Pacific Islands Coral Reef Program
U.S. National Park Service
18 July 2002
*Authors contributing sections to this report include: Ryan Okano, Kanekoa Schultz (Algae); Dwayne Minton (Invertebrates); David Gulko (Corals); Brent Carman, Steve Cotton, Bill Walsh (Fishes)
The stretch of coastline from Keone`o`io (La Perouse Bay) east to Kanaloa Point, Maui, Hawai'i comprises about six miles of remote, hard-to-access, little-known marine resources (Figure 1). This area is used consistently and heavily by the local community and visitors, particularly on and along the western part of the coast, while ocean uses are generally limited to the east by rough sea conditions. This coast has been suggested for study as a proposed new park area of the U.S. National Park System by the local community and the Big Island's Congressional representative. The purpose of this survey and report is to provide initial basic information on the marine resources in the study area for NPS, Congress, and the State of Hawaii Resource Trustees and Managers. Little previous work has been done in the vicinity, with most concentrated just west of the study area at Ahihi Kinau (Bass and Teshima) 1985, DLNR DoFW NARS 1992, DLNR DAR 1998, Hodgson and Abbott 1991, and Vann 2002). We asked the question: "Are the marine resources in this area significant -- with respect to being pristine, having high diversity, or other ecological characteristics -- relative to other coral reef ecosystems in the Main Hawaiian Islands?"
This report summarizes initial findings of survey work done in three phases: (1) by helicopter on 22 February 2002 with Drs. William Walsh and Bob Nishimoto, Mr. David Gulko and Mr. Russell Sparks, Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (DLNR, DAR) and Mr. Eric Brown, University of Hawai`i (This aerial survey provided an overview and initial indication of the location of reef areas and geomorphology. We made maps and notes and took still and video images. We pooled our observations and from this information we made initial decisions on site selection and sampling design); (2) land-based coastal surveys of coastal geomorphology and shallow water marine resources were done from 25-27 April 2002 with Mr. Terry Lind, NPS, Mr. Gulko DLNR DAR, and Ms. Cheryl Vann, Friends of Keone`o`io (We took detailed notes and photographs on coastal geomorphology and shallow water marine resources, access and use areas, both past and present. Rough seas prevented snorkel surveys); and, (3) vessel-based diving surveys on 6-10 May 2002 with Drs. Dwayne Minton and Kathy Hancock, NPS, Mr. Skippy Hau, Mr. David Gulko, Mr. Russel Sparks and Mr. Brent Carman, DLNR DAR, and Mr. Steve Cotton, Mr. Ryan Okano, Mr. Kanekoa Schultz and Mr. Scott Stanley, UH.
This work was supported by NPS Pacific Islands Support Office, Mr. Bryan Harry, General Superintendent, Pacific Islands National Parks, and Mr. Gary Barbano, NPS Planner. Work would not have been possible without the support and cooperation of Mr. William Devick, Director, and Mr. Francis Oishi and their staff, Hawaii DLNR DAR. We also thank Ms. Cheryl Vann, Friends of Keone'o'io, for her assistance and for providing visitor use data. We appreciate a permit to access and work in La Perouse Bay from Ms. Betsy Gagne, Hawai'i DLNR, Natural Areas Reserve System. Mr. Sumner Erdman, owner of Ulupalakua Ranch, kindly provided land access to the eastern part of the coast.
The approaches used in this reconnaissance included review of the existing literature on marine resources for this general area, an overflight with notes taken on maps, field notes, including GPS coordinates, and aerial still and video photography. We also spoke with divers and dive charter vessel operators familiar with the area. Land-based surveys were done by hiking and wading along the coast in the study area, taking field notes, GPS coordinates and digital photographs. Vessel-based diving surveys were done from a charter sport diving boat out of Kihei, Maui. The vessel departed Kihei small boat harbor each morning between 5 and 5:30 a.m. to minimize high wind and rough sea conditions that come up predictably each afternoon in the study area. We motored as far east as possible each day, based on sea conditions and related safety considerations. Despite rough seas, sites were selected haphazardly based on accessibility, habitat type, safe navigating and diving conditions, and dispersion of sites already occupied in this survey.
Sites were numbered chronologically and plotted based on GPS coordinates. Subtidal sites were distributed along the entire coast, no more than about one-half mile apart. Sites occupied represent all habitat types observed in the study area -- sand and cobble beaches, intertidal benches and pools, basalt and carbonate benches, cliffs, sand channels, spur and groove, coral reefs, coral colonized pavement, and a pinnacle over the full range of exposure/disturbance conditions. Anchialine pools were also surveyed briefly. At all sites we listed species of algae, corals, other marine invertebrates and fishes, along with geomorphology and other habitat features such as depth, degree of exposure to or protection from waves and storm swells, topography/relief, water column clarity, currents, surge and percent cover of coral. We also collected data on species relative abundance using the DACOR scale: Dominant, Abundant, Common, Occasional, Rare. Quantitative data were collected using standard REA - Rapid Ecological Assessment -- methods commonly done in Hawaiian waters.
Three transects, each 30 meters in length were laid at each site. Data collected included species inventories (richness), relative abundance, distribution, abundance (absolute) and diversity of macroscopic organisms and associations between them, as well as trends in community composition along the coast. We collected or photographed specimens of invertebrates and algae that could not be identified in the field, and video taped transects and surrounding habitat at each dive site for archived qualitative habitat overviews and possible future ecological change assessment.
The coastal geology here is dominated by basalt bedrock above and below the tide line. A'a lava grades to rough rock outcrops and columnar basalt cliffs; the latter dominate from about one-half to two-thirds of the middle section of the coastline. In the intertidal there are widely scattered coral sand or coral and basalt cobble beaches, and basalt benches, many with tide pools. Coral cobbles were of considerable age and many were strongly eroded. Coral-dominated beaches were a reasonably reliable indicator of the presence of offshore reefs. In the subtidal, particularly offshore from the cliff area, there is a fairly narrow band of hard substrate and coarse sand offshore. This basalt bedrock area is exposed and exhibits signs of scour, but is colonized by coral colonies.
The coast undulates along its length; there are several coves or bays interspersed with headlands and points. Arches and sea caves were also observed. Generally, the areas west of headlands and points are less exposed to disturbance from predominant wind waves and storm swells and have more developed coral reef communities, whereas areas in the middle and western sides of bays have relatively greater exposure, are disturbed more frequently and as a result have less reef development. Sand channels are interspersed between reef fingers. Spur and groove and rock outcrops/patch reefs, with sand plains occur offshore from reef areas. A large pinnacle occurs in the middle of La Perouse Bay and has a well developed reef community associated with it.
General. While much of the coast is exposed to strong physical disturbance forces, it is quite pristine. The exception is Site 1, on the western side of Cape Hanamanioa, at the east end of the mouth of La Perouse Bay (Figure 1) within casting range of the shore fishing area known locally as "Planks." This area has large amounts of marine debris in the form of heavy fishing gear (for ulua) -- heavy gauge line, lead weights and large hooks or lures -- an anchor, pieces of pipe and beer cans, with densities subjectively estimated to be about 1 kg/m2. Much of this gear has been in place for some time; it has been covered by fouling organisms and in many cases the reef corals have grown around and cemented it in place. This area is being considered for a restoration project by DLNR DAR and a University of Hawaii graduate student (S. Hau pers. comm.). All other sites were characterized by lack of visible terrestrial or human input.
Corals. Overall species richness of corals across all sites included a combined total of 38 species of coral, soft coral, precious coral and zoanthids. There were a total of 31 stony, reef-building corals recorded throughout the study area. Of these, there are two species -- one each of Montipora sp. and Porites sp. -- whose field identifications require further verification. A total of 22 species -- very high coral species richness for anywhere in the Main Hawaiian Islands -- were surveyed at one site in shallow water within La Perouse Bay. In general there was much higher diversity of coral species in protected areas; e.g., the inner parts of La Perouse Bay, and west of Kanaloa Point. Remarkably, a total of 16 species of coral, including 13 reef-building coral species and precious coral, were surveyed here. This coral community west of Kanaloa Point was dominated by five species of Porites. There were also many P. meandrina recruits.
The most commonly encountered corals across all sites were M. capitata, P. meandrina and P. compressa, and P. lobata. Branching colonies of P. meandrina and encrusting P. lobata were dominant along exposed coastlines. In more protected areas there was a broader range of Porites spp., including P. evermanni, P. compressa and P. bringhami, which were present in massive forms. There was a high diversity of non-dominating species of Montipora spp., including M. capitata, M. flabellata, and M. patula in wave-exposed areas, and Pavona duerdeni and P. varians in wave-protected areas.
Throughout the study area there was high percent cover of Pocillopora meandrina and encrusting colonies of Porites lobata in wave exposed areas. In protected areas we recorded a relatively high diversity of coral species, with very large colonies of Pavona duerdeni and Porites compressa and Porites lobata reefs providing good habitat for fishes and invertebrates, especially west of Kanaloa Point and west of most other major points or promontories along this coast. However, one of the most impressive Pocillopora meandrina reefs seen was at Site 9, an exposed reef on the SE Maui coastline. This reef is comparable to Kaapuna on the West Hawaii coastline. Both sites are quite pristine.
A number of rare species or highly significant resources occurred in the study area. The coral Leptastraea transversa was found in La Perouse Bay, as were the comparatively rare corals Gardineroseris planulata, Montipora studeri, Psammocora nierstraszi, and Coscinaraea wellsi. There are several putative new species or distributional records that remain to be verified. Wire corals and a rare black coral colony, as well as the solitary coral Fungia granulosa were recorded in shallow waters west of Kanaloa Pt.
Several places in La Perouse Bay, including the offshore pinnacle there, along with the area just west of Kanaloa Pt. had extremely high coral cover -- approximately 60-80%. These high percentages of coral cover, relative to other areas in the Main Hawaiian Islands are only found in a few areas off West Hawai`i and in Hanauma Bay, Oahu.
The extensive development, habitat structure, ecological condition, and pristineness of coral reefs in these areas was striking and very unexpected considering the prevailing exposure/disturbance regime along the South Maui coast. Coral reefs along the South Maui coast are similar in condition to some of the most pristine reefs in the Main Hawaiian Islands, for example, along the Kona coast of the island of Hawaii.
Reef cover and diversity is shaped primarily by wave exposure along this coastline. The relatively high biodiversity of corals seen in wave protected embayments is reflective of very good water quality conditions and relatively low wave disturbance, perhaps indicative of no coastal development and low levels of land-derived runoff and sedimentation.
Other Invertebrates. A total of at least 112 species of macro-invertebrates (not including corals) were recorded throughout the study area. As is often the case in the Main Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere, the majority of non-coral macro-invertebrates associated with reefs off the South Maui coast are echinoderms, particularly sea urchins (9-10 species), sea cucumbers (minimum 5 species) brittle stars (minimum 2 species) and four species of sea stars, including the coral-eating species Acanthaster planci and Culcita novaeguineae, as well as Linkia guildingi and L. multifera.
Of the nine to ten species of sea urchins surveyed, nine were recorded on the transects and two to three in the intertidal zone. Diadema paucispinum was rare to occasional. Chondrocidaris gigantea was observed occasionally at Site 5. Echinothrix diadema was present in large numbers, ranging from 67 to 105, at Sites 3, 7, 10, and 12. Heterocentrotus mammilatus, the slate pencil urchin, was present in very large numbers, ranging from 148 to 656, at Sites 2, 4, 7, and 10, with Sites 4 and 10 having over 600 individuals each. The collector urchin, Tripneustes gratilla had 100+ individuals at Sites 2, 5, 10, and 12. Site 10 stands out as having very high numbers of the three most abundant species of sea urchins.
There were a total of at least 18 Acanthaster planci, Crown-of-Thorns (CoTs) sea stars, counted at nine sites. They appeared to be most abundant at several sites with relatively high cover of the coral Pocillopora meandrina. Acanthaster planci was most abundant at Site 5 with five individuals on the transects and another eight observed on the free swim in the surrounding area. Overall numbers of CoTs are low at present and do not pose a threat to reef-building corals in the study area.
The Black-Lipped Pearl Oyster, Pinctada margaritifera, is a species of special concern, fully protected under Hawai'i state law (no take) and is of increasing concern due to their decreasing numbers. Pearl oysters were seen at a majority of sites, ranging from rare to relatively abundant. Pearl oysters appeared to be slightly more common at Sites 1, 3, and 10. The pattern of pearl oyster abundance (fairly common) along this coast is an unusual contrast to the relatively low abundances seen elsewhere in the Main Hawaiian Islands.
There were large numbers of several species of snails and hermit crabs. There were also several species representing most of the major invertebrate phyla, including many sponges, hydroids, a few flatworms, polychaete annelids, bryozoans or moss animals, and a high diversity of mollusks, including several cone shells, cowries (e.g., the large tiger cowry, Cypraea tigris), tube snails, augers, miters, and nudibranchs or sea slugs such as the gold lace nudibranch (Halgerda teramtuentis), crustaceans (shrimps, crabs, barnacles), and tunicates or sea squirts.
Opihi (Cellana spp.), shingle urchins (Colobocentrotus atratus) and a'ama crabs (Grapsus tenuicrustatus) were abundant at places in the intertidal zone, particularly in the vicinity of Kanaloa Point and in tidal pools just to the east. Large numbers of Opihi shells were seen in middens during the land-based part of this survey. It would be interesting to measure the size and frequency distribution of the old shells in middens and compare this to trends in size of live animals along the coast, with increasing distance from the major coastal access at Keone`o`io and Ahihi Kinau. It appears that older and less accessible Opihi may be significantly larger than live animals in closer proximity to coastal access areas.
Fish. A total of 138 species of marine fishes were observed in the study area. Total number of species ranged from 46 at Site 3 to 92 at Site 9. The introduced species Cephalopholis argus (Roi, a grouper), Lutjanus kasmira (Ta`ape), and Lutjanus fulvus (To`au), were observed at several sites. Roi was present at 11 of 12 sites, counted on transects at six of those sites and was absent only at Site 2. Mean for Roi was 4.8 per site, with a Standard Deviation (SD) of 5.7. Roi was particularly abundant at La Perouse Pinnacle. Ta`ape was present at three sites with Site 5 having the only Ta`ape counted on transects. We observed low numbers of Ta`ape on the South Maui coast compared to the west coast of the Big Island of Hawai'i. The mean for Ta`ape was 10.6, with a SD of 28.8. To`au was present at seven of 12 sites and appeared to be more common at these Maui locations than along the Kona coast.
The trigger fish, Balistes polylepis, a recent immigrant to Hawaii that is being recorded on the Big Island, was not observed. Abudefduf vaigiensis, another immigrant, was seen. Fifteen species were observed at all sites and 12 species were recorded at 11 of the 12 sites. At one site 26 species were present.
One very large White Ulua (Caranx ignobilis) was observed resting under an arch and two species, Mustache Conger (Conger cinereus) and Brown Stingray (Dasyatis latus), which have not been seen on the Kona coast were present. The Bridled Triggerfish (Sufflamen fraenatus) appeared to be more common in the study area than along the Kona coast, and the Gilded Triggerfish (Xanthichthys auromarginatus) that is common off Kona was absent off this part of the South Maui coast. The dark phase of the Rare Longnose Butterflyfish (Forcipiger longirostris), frequently seen in Kona and rare in other parts of the world, was observed in the study area.
There were a number of species of obligate coral-eating butterfly fishes at wave protected sites, which indicates longer term stability of the associated coral reef system. These fishes tend to set up long-term territories which they maintain with the same pair-bonded mates for years and perhaps decades, if left undisturbed.
At two of the sites, a single individual of the multibanded butterfly fish, Chaetodon multicinctus, was seen with observable tumors. All other fishes at all sites surveyed appeared healthy.
Algae. The south coast of Maui is impressive with respect to reef development and associated algal assemblages, particularly on relatively young lava flows. Although a species list of all algae is not yet complete for the study area, it is likely that 90+ species occur along this coast, which is indicative of a diverse, healthy reef community. Many forms of microscopic turf algae remain to be identified.
Several species of algae were in significant abundance at various sites. Crustose coralline red algae were particularly dominant at Sites 2 and 10. Laurencia sp., a foliose red alga, was abundant at Site 3. The green coralline alga, Halimeda opuntia, was particularly abundant at Site 6. Turbinaria ornata was abundant at Site 9. Asparagopsis taxiformis (Limu Kohu) was abundant at Sites 5, 8 and 11. Portieria hornemannii was abundant at Site 5.
After the outer east
side of Hanalei Bay on Kauai, the second most impressive Limu Kohu community
at scuba diving depths seen in the Main Hawaiian Islands was on the P.
compressa reef west of Kanaloa Point near Pohaku Manamana (Site 5). Although
it is not practical to harvest these populations, there may be an important
link between them and intertidal populations, which are harvested by the Hawaiian
At Site 9 east of Kamanamana Point, near the center of this coast, there was an apparent association with P. meandrina and the brown alga, Turbinaria ornata, which often grew in close proximity to P. meandrina. Spirocladia hodgsoniae, a turf alga, was common, growing on P. meandrina at various sites along the study area coast.
Halimeda species obviously contribute to the production of sand along this coastline. Sand with Halimeda chips was found at east Kalulu (Site 8), La Perouse Bay and at several sites in between.
Although no alien algae were found during our survey dives, Acanthophora spicifera, an alien alga, was found in the intertidal region. Dictyosphaeria cavernosa an alga that is invasive in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, was found at numerous sites within the study area coast, but was not displaying an invasive habit.
Throughout the survey area there was no indication of widespread algal overgrowth of corals or dominant algal cover. It appears that algal and coral growth and cover are in equilibrium, perhaps due to the lack of nutrient input from land and the presence of relatively healthy fish and invertebrate populations, particularly of herbivores, which do not appear to be overexploited at present.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This area of the South Maui coastline has ecotones, or habitat transition zones, that were very close together which provided for a high diversity of fishes and invertebrates. Low fishing pressure here provides an area of refuge allowing fish to grow larger in size with robust populations. Large areas of coral reef composed of P. compressa were very comparable to the Kona Coast, Sites 5 and 11 of the study area being especially noteworthy. The overall impression of this part of the Maui coast is that of a vibrant and healthy coral reef ecosystem.
We asked biologists with considerable experience in the Hawaiian Islands: "How significant or pristine are these areas with respect to other coral reef ecosystems seen in the main Hawaiian Islands?" The consensus is that these resources are highly significant and nearly pristine. This is particularly noteworthy for such an exposed coast and for an island that is quickly being exploited and developed, including areas just proximate to Keone`o`io. At present the area is protected by sea conditions, limited access and no development east of Keone`o`io. Except for Site 1, where we observed an anchor, pieces of pipe numerous fishing weights and lines and beer cans, all sites were characterized by lack of visible terrestrial or human input. In contrast, some impact has probably occurred, as fish stocks were likely somewhat reduced; there may have been some poaching, as few large parrotfish were observed.
The most significant intertidal pools seen along this coast are just east of Kanaloa Point (outside of the study area) in the immediate vicinity of "Ranch Beach" - a Paniolo shack on Ulupalakua Ranch. Other intertidal resources are concentrated in patches on basalt benches and cliff walls to the west. There are several anchialine pools in very pristine condition in the western third of the study area, onshore from the area bounded by Sites 3 and 9.
Effective coral reef
Marine Protected Areas require at least three major components: (1) easily
defined geographic boundaries; (2) relatively light human input in the form
of coastal development, sedimentation, contaminants runoff or destructive
activity; and (3) effective strategies to prevent extractive activities. The
areas surveyed, in their present condition, contain the first two requirements,
but an effective strategy to prevent extractive activities is presently lacking.
While there may be other areas in the Main Hawaiian Islands with more coral
resources in good shape, the wave protected embayments along this coast are
well worth enacting stronger conservation measures, especially La Perouse
Bay, which receives high visitor activity, and the bay between Kalulu and
Kanaloa Points. The intervening coastline should also be protected to maximize
production of brood stocks, larval transport and connectivity between these
and other sites.
Bass, P and A.L. Teshima (compilers). 1985. A baseline survey of Ahihi Bay by the University of Hawaii Marine Option Program. May 21, 1985.
DLNR DoFW NARS Program. February 1992. Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserve Management Plan (Draft). 23 pp.
DLNR DAR. 1998. A Marine Resource Survey conducted at Ahihi-La Perouse bays and off Cape Kinau, Maui between February 17-19, 1998. 14 pp.
Hodgson, L.M. and I.A.
Abbott. 1991. Nearshore Marine Algae of Ahihi Bay Natural Area Reserve. Final
Report, submitted to the Hawaii Natural Areas Reserve System.
EMERGENCY MEASURES DEVELOPED BY THE WORKING GROUP FOR KEONE`O`IO-KANALOA TO PROTECT SITES AND RESOURCES IN THE HEAVILY VISITED AREA FROM KEONE`O`IO TO THE LIGHTHOUSE AT CAPE HANAMANIOA
1. Close both ends of makai loop trail that links the far end of parking lot to mauka jeep trail
2. Divert mauka jeep trail around salt-pan and adze-grinding sites
3. Fix mauka jeep trail enough to allow 4WD fishermen to access fishing sites
4. Provide informational signs at entrance, salt-pans and at both ends of makai loop trail
5. Stabilize archeological sites severely damaged by use of makai loop trail
6. Install sign near Makena State Park warning that there are no more facilities ahead
7. Conduct clean ups of fishing sites and outdoor "latrine" areas, and remove coral rock graffiti
B. Within six months:
1. Nominate Keone`i`o Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places
2. Identify promotion of area in key tourist media and request changes
3. Expand volunteer presence to improve security and user awareness
4. Define staffing needed for adequate protection/enforcement
5. Obtain survey of government lands and easements
6. Fully explore other management options
7. Clearly demarcate parking area and spaces
C. Within one year:
1. Initiate survey of historic properties, cultural and natural resources
2. Identify preferred management options
3. Protect, stabilize and restore historic properties and archeological sites
4. Provide interpretation for selected archeological sites
5. Establish campsites at Makena State Park; eliminate camping at Keone`o`io
Provide and maintain limited sanitary facilities
Roles and responsibilities of commercial users in the area must be clarified and enforced.
Clear and enforceable rules must be established to govern camping activity, and alternative campsites must be provided elsewhere.
Continued access for traditional fishing and traditional cultural and religious practices is vital and must be integrated into a responsible strategy for protecting resources. After ample public input, a decision must be made as to whether continued vehicular access for traditional use or for other purposes is compatible with resource protection.
Base levels for key marine resources must be established. Measures of sustainability must be defined and monitored. Roles and responsibilities of all marine users need to be clarified, communicated and enforced.
In order to address
the impacts on cultural resources, a thorough cultural resources survey should
be conducted for Keone`o`io, and ultimately for the region from Keone`o`io
to Kanaloa. An important component of the survey will be consultations with
Native Hawaiians and kama`aina knowledgeable about the area, archeologists,
botanists, marine biologists and others. The survey should lead to further
archeological studies, gathering or oral histories, and preparation and implementation
of an interpretive plan for the most heavily used areas.
Position of the Local Community
Many local individuals and community groups on Maui are genuinely concerned over the damage that has been done and continues to be done to Hawaiian archeological sites and features found along the southwest coast of Maui from Keone`o`io to Kanaloa Point. Many of these individuals and groups see the establishment of a national park here as the best way to protect resource values. Others believe that the University of Hawaii should be the caretaker for the area's resources. Still others suggest that the archeological sites be protected by a community group or non-profit organization through a lease arrangement with the State of Hawaii. Mary Evanson, past president of the Friends of Haleakala National Park has been leading a local community drive to create a national park in this area. The Friends' Board of Directors unanimously approved a resolution supporting the establishment of a national park along the coast from La Perouse Bay to Kanaloa Point. These supporters of a national park believe an interpretive plan is needed for this area so visitors can better understand the significance of its archeological remains. The Maui Hotel Association and the local chapter of the Sierra Club have given their support for the establishment of the national park. All these individuals and groups are advocates for some sort of stewardship for the area.
There are other individuals in the community who do not wish to see the area become a national park. These individuals see any placing of restrictions on fishing or diving in the offshore waters and any diminishing of their ease of access to the study area as particularly sensitive issues. The perception of these individuals is that the presence of NPS in the area would bring in a "lot of rules and regulations." Some of these local residents feel that the State of Hawaii just needs to enforce the existing rules and regulations.
Among the supporters
for stewardship of study area resources is the visible and active community
organization, the 200-member Friends of Keone`o`io, described as the group
that spends more time on-site than everyone else put together. The Friends
organization has developed a volunteer naturalist training program, produced
a volunteer naturalist training manual and an informational brochure about
Keone`o`io. They are also conducting on-site surveys to gather baseline data
about resources in the area.
This reconnaissance survey finds:
The resources identified in the study area, including the archeological resources, are not of national significance.
The Hawaiian archeological resources and the coral reef resources of the study area are of statewide significance.
The other resources identified within the study area are of less than statewide significance.
The types of resources found in the study area are already adequately represented within existing units of the national park system here in Hawaii.
Although the study area appears to be feasible as a unit of the national park system in terms of its size and configuration and appears to remain a true and largely intact example of a resource type, the presence of ceded lands and the controversy over their ownership make it infeasible as a unit of the national park system at the present time.
Hawaiian archeological resources of the study area have been and are being damaged by four-wheel drive vehicles and unregulated camping activities.
Additional protection of Hawaiian archeological sites and other resources found within the study area is needed.
There appears to be a considerable amount of public support by local individuals and community groups for the protection and management of study area resources by a land managing entity, preferably NPS. The Hawaii State legislature and the Maui County Cultural Resources Commission have both endorsed the establishment of a national park encompassing the study area.
Concerns have been expressed by some local residents over restrictions on access and outdoor recreation opportunities, if NPS were to become the managing entity.
This study report also
The State of Hawaii has recognized the importance of the study area's resources and its outdoor recreation potential since the 1960s; a 1977 report prepared for the Hawaii Division of State Parks recommended the study area be designated a state park.
The establishment of a state park over the lands in public ownership would provide a higher level of protection to study area resources and increased opportunities for interpreting those resources for the visiting public.
The establishment of
a marine life conservation district or other protected area designation by
the State over the study area's offshore waters would ensure the protection
of the diverse and healthy coral reef ecosystem found there.
In early 2001, the "Working Group for Keone`o`io-Kanaloa" was formed to examine preservation and management issues facing that area. The working group was organized as a partnership of the Maui representatives of the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, the non-profit Maui Malama Pono, the Friends of Keone`o`io, and the Maui representative of the NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program. The working group also includes local residents, commercial and private user groups.
The working group's objectives are:
- To identify current activities in the area and their impact on cultural, natural and historic resources.
- To identify interests, concerns and responsibilities of the varied stakeholders.
- To develop and implement emergency measures to protect sites and resources in the heavily visited area from Keone`o`io to the lighthouse at Cape Hanamanioa.
- To examine long-term management issues and options for the undeveloped lands from Keone`o`io to Kanaloa.
The most urgent concern identified by the working group is the protection of archeological sites in the Keone`o`io Archeological District. Toward that end, twenty emergency measures have been proposed and scheduled for implementation over a one-year time frame (see APPENDIX for a complete listing of the emergency measures). Thus far, a road has been re-routed to keep four-wheel drive vehicles away from archeological sites, and trash clean-ups have been organized. Discussions are ongoing for providing visitor parking, sanitation facilities and modifying access. The working group will also be examining long-term management issues for the Keone`o`io to Kanaloa area that were originally proposed by the State of Hawaii as part of a proposed Makena-La Perouse State Park.
In April 2001, the State House of Representatives approved a resolution urging "the Federal government to recognize the importance of the Keone`oi`o to Kanaloa Point area by designating it as a National Park. . ." The resolution was approved by the State Senate in May 2001. Also in April, the Maui County Cultural Resources Commission voted to draft a letter of support for the creation of a new national park from La Perouse Bay to Kanaloa Point. The letter also included the possible inclusion of the Ahihi-Kinau NAR in the new national park.
The Chairman of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, in November 2001, was quoted as saying that the State of Hawaii would favorably consider NPS management of the La Perouse to Kanaloa shoreline--if this was something the local community on Maui would favor. The chairman stated that more input from the public was needed before the state would be willing to discuss granting any management authority over the area to NPS. At the forefront of the state's concerns with regard to NPS management were restrictions they believe would be placed on the existing recreational uses and the ease of access.
Back in 1977, a report, Makena-La Perouse State Park, was prepared for the Department of Land and Natural Resources' Division of State Parks. The report's study area covered approximately nine miles of coastal area from Makena through La Perouse Bay to Kanaloa Point and extended 2,500 feet inland. The report recognized the "rapid urbanization in the adjacent Kihei area and the growing recreation needs of both residents and tourists. . ." For the portion within this report's study area (La Perouse Bay to Kanaloa Point), the 1977 report called for "the protection of the historic/cultural resources and the retention of the remote, rugged atmosphere."
For La Perouse Bay and the adjacent shoreline, the 1977 report called for no improvements in road access and "designating specific sites for recreation activity and circulation spaces designed to protect the historic sites." Camping sites were designated on lands mauka of the bay. Since the report's publication in 1977, the State of Hawaii has acquired the Makena portion, which is being administered as a state park. The La Perouse Bay to Kanaloa Point portion of the 1977 study area remains outside of the state park system.
The Kihei-Makena Community Plan, adopted by Maui County in 1998, contains planning standards as part of its policy recommendations and implementing actions. These standards provide guidelines for development and clarify the intent of land use in the region. One of the implementing actions identified under the standards is the establishment of a Makena-La Perouse Park for nature oriented recreation, including shoreline activities, picnicking, camping, biking and interpretive/educational pursuits. The implementing action also calls for providing a residential caretaker and security personnel to oversee facilities and public safety at the park. The park area identified by Maui County takes in the western one-third of the study area. Another implementing action called for in the plan is the transfer of State Beach Reserves to County jurisdiction. The Beach Reserve includes the State of Hawaii-owned coastal portions of the study area.
The owners of the Ulupalakua
Ranch have stated they would not oppose the portion of their ranch property
within the study area becoming part of the national park system. The owners
of the Ulupalakua Ranch remain both interested and active in protecting the
cultural and natural resource values found on ranch lands and recognize that
public ownership and management of the study area portion of their lands would
allow for a higher level and more long-term protection. The owners of a small
coastal property within the study area have expressed concern over how the
establishment of a national park on adjacent state lands would affect their
access and privacy.