Kaloko-Honokohau National Park lies about three miles north of the town of Kailua-Kona and about the same distance south of Keahole Airport, on the Kona side of the Big Island. It is small as national parks go, encompassing roughly 650 acres of fast land and 500 acres off shore. Still, the area has unique and significant resources, both cultural and natural, that justifies its inclusion in the National Park system.
These treasures may not be apparent to the casual observer, who, on viewing the area, might see no more than hot, inhospitable lava flows covered, if at all, by a scattering of scrub vegetation. But to the trained eye, the park lands are alive with abundant archaeological evidence that attests to the remarkable ways in which the ancient Hawaiians drew sustenance from the land and waters of Kaloko-Honokohau. To this day, Native Hawaiians regard the area as one imbued with deep spiritual and physical links to their ancestors. According to some Native Hawaiians, the bones of Kamehameha I, whose rule united all the islands, are buried at Kaloko-Honokohau near the remains of other ali’i’s or royalty.
Two large fishponds – Kaloko and Aimakapa – and the Ai’opio fishtrap are excellent examples of their types. At least five heiau lie within the congressionally designated park boundaries (although three are on land to which the Park Service has not acquired title). Among the other treasures are house sites, a holua, or slide, a system of stone planters used to grow crops, petroglyphs, burial sites, and fishing shrines.
The park’s natural resources are just as abundant. The Aimakapa fishpond and adjoining wetlands are habitat for two endangered species of native waterbird, the Hawaiian stilt (ae’o) and the Hawaiian coot (‘alaeke’oke’o). According to the draft EIS, the park area is used to an unknown extent by other threatened and endangered species, including the Hawaiian hoary bat, Newells shearwater, the Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel, and the hawksbill and green sea turtles.
Some two dozen anchialine ponds dot the coastal area. Before developments drained many of them, the draft EIS notes, these small, brackish ponds “were typical along Hawai’i’s leeward coasts. Over time, many of these ponds developed separate, though closely related, invertebrate fauna. The remaining ponds have become relic ecosystems with already rare and diverse biota. Those found along the Kaloko-Honokohau coast are numerous, but have been only lightly inventoried.” A species of endangered shrimp is suspected to inhabit at least some of the ponds.
The endangered green sea turtle is commonly found in park waters. The humpback whale, another endangered species, can frequently be seen from the park’s shoreline during winter months.
Threatened Development
In 1962, the Department of the Interior’s National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings determined that Kaloko-Honokohau was of national significance. In 1963, the area was declared eligible for designation as a National Historic Landmark. But as the Kona Coast began to be developed, it was clear that this designation would not be sufficient to preserve the area. In 1970, with landowners wanting to build a resort complex on the site, the state Land Use Commission reclassified the land from the Conservation District, the most restrictive of four classifications, to Urban.
To head off the threatened development, U.S. Representative Patsy Mink sponsored legislation establishing Honokohau as a National Historical Landmark. Her bill, enacted into law by Congress in 1972, also created the Honokohau Study Advisory Commission, charged with providing to the Secretary of the Interior a report on the area’s historic, cultural, archaeological, scenic, and natural values and recommendations as to the way these could be preserved and interpreted – especially by Native Hawaiians.
The commission had 15 members, most of whom descended from families that had occupied Kaloko-Honokohau in ancient times. Their report – “The Spirit of Kaloko Honokohau” – was released in May 1974. Following an at times poetic description of the site’s history and the ancient Hawaiians’ relationship to it, the commission proposed that it be designated a “National Cultural Park.”
Unfilled Boundaries
Four years later, on November 10, 1978, Congress passed Public Law 95-625, establishing Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. The Department of the Interior spent the next decade acquiring title to most of the land inside the designated park boundaries. By 1990, the National Park Service had acquired – at the expense of about $76 million- three of the four privately owned parcels, and, according to the draft management plan, had achieved a land base sufficient to begin master planning for the operation and development of the national historical park.”
The private land still not acquired consists of a 200-foot-wide coastal strip extending northward about three-fifths of a mile from what is now the northernmost limit of the park’s holdings. Owner of that land is Nansay Hawai’i, which is planning to incorporate the area into a major resort development on the site.
According to Bryan Harry, director of the Park Service’s Pacific Area Office, acquisition of the Nansay land will be difficult. One appraisal for the land was made, but it was “unacceptable,” he said. As the land values rise, moreover, federal money available for land purchase has dried up. Unless more money can be obtained from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, Harry said, it will be all but impossible to acquire the 18 acres of Nansay land.1
To the south of the park’s holdings lie two parcels on either side of the entrance to Honokohau Harbor that are within the designated park boundaries but are owned by the state of Hawai’i. The draft management plan discusses the difficulties the Park Service has had in acquiring control over these parcels, which contain significant historic and natural features. The law establishing the park prevents the Park Service from acquiring state land except by donation from the state. The state Department of Land and Natural Resources “granted the National Park Service a revocable permit to manage the existing archaeological features and anchialine ponds on the nine-acre parcel north of the harbor,” the plan states. However, “standard language of this State of Hawai’i permit contained stipulations illegal for federal agencies,” the plan notes. “Alternate lease language is under consideration by state and National Park Service officials.”
South of the harbor is a 17-acre parcel containing the Maka’opio heiau, anchialine ponds, and the fine sand beach at Aiula cove – all important park resources, the plan continues. “The state has not agreed to allow the parcel south of the harbor to be managed for historical park purposes.”
All the waters from Noio Point on the south to Wawahiwa’a Point on the north are within the park’s designated boundaries. According to the plan, “There has been no action on the National Park Service request to the state to designate waters within the boundary as a Marine Fisheries Management Area or Marine Life Conservation District.”
The Park Plan
The Park Service’s Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement describes four scenarios for management: no action, proposed action, minimum requirements alternative, and maximum development alternative.
As the park now stands, facilities for visitors are minimal. There is no paved access to the shore. There are no signs explaining the park’s significant features. Trails are rough and unmarked.
The proposed alternative calls for construction of a visitor center near Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway, on park land that was bulldozed some years ago. On display would be “artifacts and crafts used by Hawaiians in constructing and tending fishponds, farming, canoeing technologies, and related ceremony… There could also be display and interpretation of such crafts and art by contemporary artists and artisans.”
The center would also have “library of Hawaiiana for the public, researchers, and staff,” would serve “a museum for collections related to this place and Hawaiian culture” and would be “repository for National Park Service Hawaiian archaeologic and ethnographic collections.”
Near the park center would be an open-sided amphitheater. A boardwalk from the center would lead to the holua, the Aimakapa fishpond and the shore. In the same general area, the Park Service proposes to build a small village consisting “modest structures to replicate what a traditional Hawaiian settlement looked like.” The plan continues: “Cultural and living history demonstrations would be staged here for the appreciation and education of the visitor. Visitors would have the opportunity to participate as well as observe. There is to be a display area here for items produced at the proposed Hawaiian cultural education complex.”
According to the plan, this approach satisfies the wish to “replicate, as nearly as possible, the prehistoric and phases of the historic Kaloko, Honokohau settlement,” as expressed in the 1974 “Spirit of Kaloko-Honokohau,” as well as the concerns of professional archaeologists – and the requirements of the federal Historic Preservation Act – that actual historic sites be left as-is. Restoration of structures is not proposed by the Park Service, with one or two possible exceptions: Hawaiians will be allowed to raise crops using the restored stone planters and the Kaloko fishpond may be returned to productive use, depending upon the outcome of further archaeological and feasibility studies.
Provisions for Hawaiians
Near Kaloko pond, the proposed action envisions construction of a Hawaiian cultural education complex, for use mainly by Hawaiians. The plan states: “Whatever is developed here needs to be based on who is to use the site, what their needs will be, and what activities are to take place there. Whatever is constructed needs to be as authentically Hawaiian as possible – the live-in accommodations are to closely resemble those found in old Hawai’i. Developments in the complex are to be separated to retain the open nature of the site and to allow different activities to go on there at the same time.
“The live-in accommodations are proposed to be low-key and modest (25 persons maximum). The entire complex would encompass no more than two acres. The construction here of any modern amenities is to be kept at the minimal level and carried out only to the extent that their provision serves to prevent damage to park resources such as fishponds and the offshore waters. No utility lines are to be run to the live-in facility. Instead, composting is to be utilized as the waste disposal system… No autos are to be allowed here and no parking facilities are to be developed… The proposal calls for the existing unimproved road to Kaloko fishpond to be closed. The trail proposed from the orientation center is to be made ATV accessible.”
The cultural education center would be off limits to park visitors: “the cultural activities going on here are not to be put on view, unless the participants themselves so desire.” The complex is described in the plan as a “living ‘museum,’ allowing participants, Hawaiians and others, to learn about and recreate aspects of the life of those who lived at Kaloko Honokohau centuries ago.” The accommodations would be for ‘short-term’ stays only, with specific conditions of use and activities to be determined under the guidance of an advisory commission, Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko Honokohau (Friends of Kaloko-Honokohau).
Park Rules
The law passed by Congress to establish the park does state that the Secretary of the Interior “may provide traditional native Hawaiian accommodations,” but the law is silent on the duration of residence. The Park Service’s proposed management plan, described in the draft, would accomplish this by means of construction of the cultural education center, with “short term” stays of Hawaiians there.
The “Spirit of Kaloko-Honokohau” seems to anticipate something along the same lines. It states: “An educational program would be established within the park to teach the values and traditions of the Hawaiian culture. An important segment of this educational program would involve a facility designed primarily for native Hawaiians and removed from any major public use area, where the dignity and integrity of the culture would be maintained. It would be an intimate personal experience extending over a period of one day or more, rather than being part of an exhibit open to the regular visitor.” Nowhere does the “Spirit” expressly provide for permanent park residents, although it does say that the management plan should include “a provision allowing those families who now occupy leaseholds within the proposed park complex to remain on their land for a specific period of time which will be determined through negotiation.”
History versus Culture
One of the points that critics of the Park Service draft plan made time and again was that it was for a “historical” park and not for the “cultural” park described in the “Spirit” report of 1974. David Mauna Roy, one of the authors of that earlier report, said that the Park Service is proposing a “Look but don’t touch” approach to park management. “Under the new plan, the only thing to be reactivated is the planters,” he said in a telephone interview. Restoration of none of the other archaeological sites built by ancient Hawaiians is anticipated in current park plans, he noted. From management for the revitalization of Hawaiian culture, the focus has changed to management for “high academics, high technology;” Roy said. “Our culture is not in it.”
Roy and others place great emphasis on the change in park name – from the National Cultural Park proposed in 1974 to National Historical Park, in the enabling legislation. Roy was asked what difference it made, if the management of the park were faithful to the vision of the “Spirit” report. “If you can’t see, then we really are lost,” he said.
Mahealani Pai echoed much the same sentiment. “The one word ‘historical’ does damage the ability of the park to be managed for culture, for Hawaiians. It’s a ‘look but don’t touch’ attitude,” he said. “Having culture means it lives. The intent of ‘Spirit of Kaloko Honokohau’ was to make it a living park.”
This particular criticism over what appears to be a semantic quibble has left Regional Park Service Director Bryan Harry puzzled. “In contrast to ‘The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokohau,’ the draft plan is an environmental impact statement. We can’t ignore endangered species or the sites that are on the National Historic Register,” he said. He further explained that naming it a “historical” park placed it in a category of which there are several other members in the National Park System. To call it a “cultural” park would make it an anomaly -and would in the long run tend to damage prospects for congressional funding, he said.
Legal Requirements
In a letter December 17, 1992, to a concerned member of Congress, Harry responded to many of the criticisms raised by Roy, Pai, and others. To the charge that the concept had been changed “from cultural Hawaiian to professional scientific” and from protection of cultural resources to natural resources, Harry replied:
“Under NEPA procedures in preparation of an environmental impact statement, the law requires we specifically address impacts to the park’s features and resources protected by other federal environmental laws. Kaloko Honokohau in its entirety is a National Historic Landmark protected by the National Historic Preservation Act. The park is breeding habitat for several endangered species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. It has an extensive coastal zone management area and Corps of Engineers overview and requirements. By law, the GMP/EIS must deal with these issues on a factual basis or none of the proposals for the park can be allowed or funded. Though the draft GMP/EIS meets these requirements, I believe nothing in the draft conflicts with the report, ‘The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokohau.’ If you or others find portions which you feel do conflict, we wish to revise them.”
Harry notes that the park has hired a disproportionate number of people of Hawaiian ancestry – “and not in flunky positions, either.” As of last December, 15 of 34 people hired by the park were Native Hawaiians, including the superintendent, a cartographer, a ranger, and an administrative officer. Several had been transferred to positions at other park facilities since their initial hiring at Kaloko Honokohau. The park management plan was criticized for failing to state that Hawaiians should be given preference in hiring, to which Harry responds, “It’s a part of the legislation already. It’s not something to put in the general management plan.” He said that to put into the plan the way in which Hawaiians are being helped in the Park Service’s hiring policy would “telegraph my punches.”
Hidden Hand?
One of the complaints of Roy and others was that in preparation of the plan, there was no input from Native Hawaiians. Harry had, they said, ignored offers to help from Na Kokua Kaloko-Honokohau, a group that Roy had formed and which included several members of the original advisory commission established by Congress in 1972.
Harry explained that early on, Na Kokua had received help from Nansay Hawai’i. “I refused to deal with them,” he said.
First, “I can’t deal with a single group of Hawaiians purporting to speak for all.” Second, “there was a conflict in dealing with a Nansay-funded group.” The Park Service is trying to negotiate purchase of land from Nansay; Harry said he wanted to do nothing to taint the Park Service’s position.
Greg Mooers, spokesman for Nansay Hawai’i, recalled that Nansay did provide money to help Na Kokua. “We were approached by one of our consultants, who suggested we participate in helping them out”, he said in a recent telephone interview. He said Nansay saw no conflict: “They wanted to talk about what was good for the park.”
Nansay agreed to pay hotel room, airfare, and car rental charges for Na Kokua’s off-island participants to attend its meetings. The support lasted from about February 1991 to August 1991. “Then the National Park Service indicated it wouldn’t deal with Na Kokua so long as Nansay was involved,” Mooers said. “It was the strangest thing. I don’t think we’ve ever had anyone ask us to stop funding them before.”
1 Over the last decade, expenditures from the fund have been kept at a minimum. While the fund cannot be used for anything other than its intended purpose, so long as the money in it is unspent, it helps offset the federal deficit.
Volume 3, Number 12 June 1993
Leave a Reply