Honu'apo Park Resource Management Plan

Honu‘apo Park 

Resources Management Plan 

FINAL 

June 2010

Honuÿapo Park 

Resources Management Plan 

Final 

June 2010 

Prepared for: 

Hawaiÿi County Finance Department 

Prepared by: 

Townscape, Inc.

This page intentionally left blank.

Honuÿapo Park Final Resources Management Plan 

ENDORSEMENT 

This Resources Management Plan for Honuÿapo Park in the District of Kaÿü, 

prepared by Townscape, Inc. for the County of Hawaiÿi Finance Department, has 

been reviewed and is hereby endorsed on this day of _______________. ________ 

by the County of Hawaiÿi Department of Parks and Recreation and by Ka ÿOhana O 

Honuÿapo. 

___________________________ 

County of Hawaiÿi Department of Parks and Recreation 

___________________________ 

Ka ÿOhana O Honuÿapo 

Page i


This page intentionally left blank. 

Page ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Project Team.................................................................................................................. vii 

Acronyms and Abbreviations......................................................................................... viii 

Glossary.......................................................................................................................... ix 

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Purpose of the Resources Management Plan..................................................... 1 

2 Honuÿapo Park Profile ................................................................................................ 2 

2.1 Park Property ................................................................................................... 3 

2.2 Regional Setting ............................................................................................... 6 

2.3 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 10 

2.4 Historic and Cultural Setting........................................................................... 15 

2.5 Archaeological Sites....................................................................................... 18 

2.6 Historic Sites.................................................................................................. 20 

2.7 Existing Park Facilities and Utilities ................................................................ 20 

2.8 Circulation and Access................................................................................... 21 

2.9 Visual Resources ............................................................................................ 22 

2.10 Park Visitation................................................................................................ 22 

3 Regulatory Profile..................................................................................................... 23 

3.1 State Land Use Districts.................................................................................. 23 

3.2 Hawaiÿi County Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ....................................... 25 

3.3 Hawaiÿi County Zoning.................................................................................. 25 

3.4 Special Management Area.............................................................................. 27 

3.5 Hawaiÿi County Floodplain Management ....................................................... 27 

3.6 State Historic Preservation.............................................................................. 29 

3.7 Federal Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program ............................. 30 

4 Community Consultation.......................................................................................... 31 

4.1 Working Meetings with Ka ÿOhana O Honuÿapo (KOOH) .............................. 31 

4.2 Community Small Group Meetings................................................................. 31 

4.3 July 4 th Speak Out .......................................................................................... 31 

4.4 November – December 2009 Speak Out series .............................................. 33 

5 Proposed Park Land Uses and Improvements ........................................................... 34 

5.1 Planning Objectives ....................................................................................... 34 

5.2 Park Land Uses .............................................................................................. 34 

5.3 Park Site Plan and Proposed Improvements .................................................... 37 

Page iii


5.4 Potential Additional Future Improvements...................................................... 45 

6 Implementation of Projects and Programs................................................................ 47 

6.1 Phase I Projects .............................................................................................. 48 

6.2 Phase II Projects ............................................................................................. 50 

6.3 Phase III Projects ............................................................................................ 52 

6.4 Phase IV Projects............................................................................................ 54 

6.5 On-going Programs ........................................................................................ 55 

6.6 Project Funding and Implementation Entities.................................................. 55 

6.7 Park Management and Resource Protection.................................................... 56 

6.8 Next Steps...................................................................................................... 58 

7 References................................................................................................................ 59 

TABLES 

Table 2-1: Honuÿapo Park Parcels (2006 land acquisition)................................................ 3 

Table 2-2: Honuÿapo Park Excluded Parcels (2006 land acquisition)................................. 4 

Table 5-1: Proposed plant species for Honuÿapo Coastal Area ........................................ 39 

Table 6-1: Plan Implementation Summary...................................................................... 47 

FIGURES 

Figure 2-1: Site Location ................................................................................................. 2 

Figure 2-2: Honuÿapo Park Parcels ................................................................................. 5 

Figure 2-3: Site Regional Setting ....................................................................................... 6 

Figure 2-4: Surrounding Landowners................................................................................ 9 

Figure 3-1: State Land Use Districts ................................................................................ 24 

Figure 3-2: Hawaiÿi County Zoning ................................................................................ 26 

Figure 3-3: Honuÿapo Park area FIRM map..................................................................... 28 

Figure 5-1: Land Use Plan .............................................................................................. 36 

Figure 5-2: Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 43 

Page iv


APPENDICES 

Appendix A Additional Botanical Data Memo (Geometrician Associates) 

Appendix B Cultural Resources of the Ahupuaÿa of Honuÿapo, Hiÿonaÿä, 

Hökükano, Kaÿaläiki, Hïlea Nui, Hïlea Iki, Nïnole and Wailau 

(Rechtman Consulting) 

Appendix C Federal Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Final 

Guidelines (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 

Appendix D Honuÿapo Park Implementation Permitting Matrix 

Page v


This page intentionally left blank. 

Page vi

Hawaiÿi County Finance 

Department 

Townscape, Inc. 


PROJECT TEAM 

Project Managing Agency 

Prime consultant for the Honuÿapo Resources 

Management Plan 

Rechtman Consulting, LLC Archaeological Inventory Survey (North portion of 

Honuÿapo property and coastal conservation zone) 

Archaeological Preservation Plan for Honuÿapo lands 

Burial Treatment Plan for Honuÿapo lands 

Geometrician Associates Botanical Investigations and Natural Resources 

Management Recommendations 

Hawaiÿi County Department of 

Parks and Recreation 

Ka ÿOhana O Honuÿapo 

PARTNERS 

Managing Agency of Honuÿapo Park. 

Non-profit Kaÿü community organization that has 

entered into a formal Memorandum of Understanding 

with the County of Hawai’i Department of Parks and 

Recreation to assist with the restoration, 

maintenance, and protection of Honu’apo Park 

resources. 

Page vii


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

CELCP Coastal Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

County County of Hawaiÿi 

DAR Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Aquatic 

Resources 

DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources 

DOCARE Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Conservation and 

Resource Enforcement 

DOT State Department of Transportation 

DPR County Department of Parks and Recreation 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

HCC Hawaiÿi County Code 

HAR Hawaiÿi Administrative Rules 

HAVO Hawaiÿi Volcanoes National Park 

HRS Hawaiÿi Revised Statutes 

KOOH Ka ÿOhana O Honuÿapo 

LCA Land Court Award 

NPS National Park Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

SHPD State Historic Preservation Division 

SMA Special Management Area 

State State of Hawaiÿi 

TMK Tax Map Key 

TPL Trust for Public Land 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

Page viii


GLOSSARY 

ÿAÿä One of the two main types of Hawaiÿi lava flows, 

characterized by a rough, jagged, spiny, and generally 

clinkery surface. 

Ahupuaÿa Native Hawaiian land division usually extending from the 

uplands to the outer reef, so called because the boundary 

was marked by a stone altar (ahu) surmounted by an image 

of a pig (puaÿa), or because a pig or other offering was laid 

on the altar as tribute to the chief. 

Endemic A species native and confined to a certain region; having 

comparatively restricted distribution. 

Heiau Native Hawaiian place of worship, shrine; some heiau were 

elaborately constructed stone platforms, others simple earth 

terraces. 

Kupuna Grandparent, ancestor, relative or close friend of the 

(pl. Küpuna) grandparent’s generation. 

Mähele ÿÄina also know as the Great Mähele, the 1848 Mähele ÿÄina was 

the division of land that established private ownership of 

native lands in Hawaiÿi. 

Ma kai On the seaside, toward the sea, in the direction of the sea. 

Ma uka Inland, upland, towards the mountain, shoreward (if at sea). 

Pähoehoe One of the two main types of Hawaiian lava flows, 

characterized by a smooth, billowy, or ropy surface. 

Native species With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other 

than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or 

currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

Page ix


This page intentionally left blank 

Page x

1 INTRODUCTION 


The Honuÿapo Park is a mostly undeveloped land parcel, approximately 231 acres 

in size, located on the rugged and wild Kaÿü coast. The parcel is part of an 80-mile 

stretch of spectacular undeveloped coastline within the District of Kaÿü on the 

Island of Hawaiÿi. The park offers unspoiled vistas of the coast and Mauna Loa’s 

south flank, as well as unique and pristine habitats for marine and near-shore fauna 

and flora. The Honuÿapo area also has a long history of Hawaiian settlement and is 

rich in important historic, cultural, and archaeological features. 

In 2005, Hawaiÿi State and County governments, the non-profit community 

organization Ka ÿOhana O Honuÿapo (KOOH), the Trust for Public Land (TPL), the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Kaÿü community 

and other individual donors came together to purchase the Honuÿapo Park property, 

north of Whittington Beach Park, to protect it from development interests. The 

property was purchased in 2006 and is now owned by the State of Hawaiÿi (the 

State). It was set aside to the County of Hawaiÿi (the County) for Estuarine Land 

Conservation and Public Recreation purposes by Executive Order No. 4164 on 

March 30, 2006. 

The County’s Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with KOOH on August 14, 2008 for a pilot project at 

Whittington Beach Park and expanded Honuÿapo lands. The MOU allows KOOH 

to assist the County in maintaining current park facilities, and to plan for additional 

restoration and conservation activities and community park improvements, 

provided that the proper approvals and permits are obtained. 

1.1 Purpose of the Resources Management Plan 

In Fiscal Year 2007/2008, the County Finance Department allocated funds for the 

development of a Resources Management Plan for publicly owned lands from 

Käwä Bay to Honuÿapo. The Department selected a planning consultant to develop 

the Plan, and the consultant began work in August 2008. Due to a number of issues 

relating to site access and land ownership, the scope of the planning work was 

revised to focus specifically on Honuÿapo Park lands. 

The purpose of the Honuÿapo Park Resources Management Plan is to assemble 

existing information about the resources of the property and its surroundings and to 

engage the Kaÿü community in planning for the long-term stewardship of the park. 

The goal of the plan is to provide land use guidance to help protect and restore the 

important natural and cultural resources of the property while providing integrated 

and respectful recreational and educational opportunities for the Kaÿü Community. 

Page 1

2 HONUÿAPO PARK PROFILE 


The Honuÿapo Park property is located within Hawaiÿi County’s Kaÿü District 

(figure 2-1). Kaÿü is the largest district of the Island of Hawaiÿi and covers an area of 

922.5 square miles from the southernmost point of the island to the Hawaiÿi 

Volcanoes National Park, encompassing the caldera of Kilauea Volcano and 

extending inland up to the Mauna Loa caldera. 

Figure 2-1: Site Location 

Page 2

2.1 Park Property 


The Honuÿapo Park Resources Management Plan covers the entire property of 

Honuÿapo Park, which includes the nine parcels acquired by the State of Hawaiÿi in 

2006 and set aside to the County of Hawaiÿi by Executive Order Number 4164. 

These parcels are listed in Table 2-1 below. 

Table 2-1: Honuÿapo Park Parcels (2006 land acquisition) 

Tax Map Key Area (acres) 

9-5-14-007 145.021 

9-5-14-006 3.412 

9-5-14-053 16.424 

9-5-14-054 14.669 

9-5-14-055 10.820 

9-5-14-056 1.022 

9-5-14-057 1.770 

9-5-14-058 10.645 

9-5-14-059 18.92 

Total Acreage 222.703 

Additionally, the Resources Management Plan also covers the Whittington Beach 

Park Parcel (Tax Map Key Number 9-5-14-1, 0.825 acres) and two land parcels 

(Tax Map Key Number 9-5-14-60, 6.465 acres, and 9-5-14-29, 1.011 acres) that 

the County of Hawaiÿi is in the process of acquiring. Parcel 60, although privately 

owned, includes the access road to Whittington Beach Park and is currently 

maintained as part of the county park. It is assumed that parcels 60 and 29 will 

become property of the county; however, in the event that the acquisition fails, this 

Resources Management Plan may need to be amended. 

The total land area thus covered by the Resources Management Plan is 231 acres. 

Figure 2-2 shows the parcels included in the Honuÿapo Park Resources 

Management Plan. 

There are five kuleana parcels and one school grant parcel within Honuÿapo Park, 

which are excluded from the park property. These parcels are listed in Table 2-2 

with Land Commission Award (LCA) information from the 1936 Tax Map Bureau 

and Survey Department Plat Map Number 9-5-14. Parcels excluded from the 

property are also shown on Figure 2-2. 

Page 3


Table 2-2: Honuÿapo Park Excluded Parcels (2006 land acquisition) 

Tax Map Key 

Land Commission 

Award Number 

Grantee Area (acres) 

9-5-14-002 10516:1 Nahakuelua 0.20 

9-5-14-003 9564-B Kalaukoa 0.45 

9-5-14-004 9212:1 Hoolapa 0.46 

9-5-14-005 School Grant 5:8 N/A 0.76 

9-5-14-027 10008:2 Lepoloa 0.29 

9-5-14-052 9955B:1 Lilikalani 0.63 

Total Acreage 2.79 

There are six distinct rights associated with kuleana parcels and/or native 

Hawaiians with ancestral connections to the kuleana, which will need to be taken 

into consideration when planning for Honuÿapo Park. These rights are: 

1) Reasonable access to the land-locked kuleana from major thoroughfares; 

2) Agricultural uses, such as taro cultivation; 

3) Traditional and customary gathering rights in the ahupuaÿa; 

4) A single family dwelling no larger than one quarter of an acre (subject to 

zoning regulations), if the lot was originally awarded as a house lot; 

5) Sufficient water for drinking and irrigation from nearby streams and fresh water 

springs; 

6) Fishing rights in the kunalu (beach to reef zone) of the ahupuaÿa. 

Additional information on Honuÿapo’s kuleana parcels is provided in Section 2.4.2. 

Page 4


Figure 2-2: Honuÿapo Park Parcels 

Page 5

2.2 Regional Setting 


The lands of Honuÿapo Park are made up of the coastal portions of the ahupuaÿa of 

Honuÿapo and Hiÿonaÿä. The nearest town to Honuÿapo is Näÿälehu, approximately 

3 miles to the southwest. The relatively level topography of the park and its 

proximity to Hawaiÿi Belt Road make it a more accessible stretch of the Kaÿü Coast 

than surrounding lands (Figure 2-3). The park also offers an exceptional experience 

of coastal Kaÿü, with sweeping views of surrounding hillsides, unique estuarine and 

coastal natural resources, and a rich regional history. The regional setting of the 

Honuÿapo Park property is described in more detail in the following sections. 

Figure 2-3: Site Regional Setting 

Page 6

2.2.1 Climate 


The climate of the project area is semi-arid and mild. Average daily temperatures 

range from the low 70s (F) to the mid 80s, depending on the time of day and 

season, and mean annual rainfall is about 45 inches. Monthly average temperatures 

vary only about five degrees from the warmest months of August and September to 

the coolest months of December and January. Wind speeds average 10 to 15 miles 

per hour with gusts frequently exceeding 20 miles per hour. Prevailing wind 

directions are northeasterly and easterly. High winds and relatively clear skies lead 

to high rates of evapotranspiration. 

Air pollution in Ka‘ü is mainly derived from volcanic emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), which convert into particulate sulfate and produce a volcanic haze (vog) that 

periodically blankets the district. Changing levels of SO2 output from Kïlauea 

volcano, as well as variable winds and weather patterns, can drastically affect the 

level of vog pollution in Kaÿü. The State Department of Health and U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) continuously monitor SO2 levels throughout the island of Hawaiÿi. 

Vog has become more prevalent in Kaÿü since the opening of a new vent at 

Halemaumau Crater at the summit of Kilauea Volcano in March 2008. Recent SO2 

emission rate measurements were about 660 tonnes/day in April 2010, well above 

the 2003-2007 average of 140 tonnes/day. Due to the unpredictable nature of 

volcanic eruptions, it is difficult to forecast how SO2 emissions from Kïlauea 

Volcano will fluctuate in the future. 

2.2.2 Topography 

The topography at Honuÿapo is relatively level throughout the area of the park, 

with lowest land elevations near Honuÿapo Estuary and Honuÿapo Bay, near sea 

level, and slightly higher elevations in the central and northern sections of the park 

at 20 to 40 feet above mean sea level. 

Honuÿapo Park represents a low point in the coastal topography, with the tall, steep 

Pohina cliffs located just to the south of the park, and a massive ÿaÿä flow along the 

northern boundary of the park. About 1,000 feet inland from Honuÿapo Park, the 

lowland plain begins to ascend into moderate to steep slopes up the flank of 

Mauna Loa. 

2.2.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology 

Extending north from Ka Lae Point the southeast coast of the island of Hawaiÿi is 

made up of rocky headlands that transition to a low-lying coastal plain in the 

vicinity of Honuÿapo Bay. Surface lava flows in the coastal zone surrounding 

Honuÿapo come from Mauna Loa volcano and range in age from 200 to 5,000 

years before the present. 

Page 7


According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), the region generally lacks true soil, being primarily of 

pähoehoe or ‘a‘ä lava too young for soil formation. “Pähala ash” helped build the 

soils (Andisols order) that sustained the Ka‘ü district’s sugar cane industry through 

much of the 19 th and 20 th centuries. 

No permanent streams are present in the vicinity of Honuÿapo. Subsurface streams 

fed by upland precipitation penetrate the relatively young porous basalt flows of 

the area, creating a system of sub-surface fresh water flows that feed coastal 

wetlands and offshore freshwater seeps, such as those of Honuÿapo Bay. Anchialine 

ponds, which contain brackish waters and exhibit tidal fluctuations without a 

surface connection to the ocean, also occur in the coastal zone throughout the 

district. 

2.2.4 Surrounding Landowners and Land Uses 

Lands surrounding Honuÿapo Park are dominated by open space and extensive 

agricultural uses. The majority of the Honuÿapo Park property itself is currently 

undeveloped open space, with only the southernmost portion of the property, near 

Honuÿapo Estuary and Honuÿapo Bay, being maintained as a public park. 

Lands ma uka of Honuÿapo Park are privately owned and leased for cattle grazing. 

Directly to the northeast of Honuÿapo Park, the rugged coastal land is owned by the 

State of Hawaiÿi and is undeveloped open space. Residential development in 

coastal areas of South Kaÿü has been very limited, except for the Sea Mountain 

Resort at Punaluÿu and one house, located on the ÿaÿä flow to the north of the park. 

To the south of Honuÿapo, a few houses are located along the highway as it begins 

to ascend along the hillside; the remainder of the land around Honuÿapo Bay is 

open space or used for cattle grazing. Figure 2-4 indicates the major landowners in 

the vicinity of Honuÿapo Park. 

Page 8


Figure 2-4: Surrounding Landowners 

Page 9

2.3 Environmental Setting 


The physical setting and natural ecosystems of the Honuÿapo Park property provide 

clues as to what can and should be done at the site. In order to better understand 

the site’s natural environment and historic changes, interviews were conducted 

with knowledgeable area küpuna in May and June 2009, and site visits were 

conducted in March, June, and September 2009. 

2.3.1 Soils 

The USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey identified four different soil types 

within the boundaries of the Honuÿapo Park Property: 

- Lava flows, pähoehoe (rLW) in the southern portion of the property, around 

Honuÿapo Bay and extending northward along the coast; 

- Rock land (rRO), consisting of pähoehoe lava bedrock covered in places by a 

thin layer of soil material, generally in the ma uka portions of the property, 

- Lava flows, ÿaÿä (rLV), in the northern portion of the site. 

- Punaluÿu extremely rocky peat, 6 to 20 percent slopes (rPYD), consisting of 

well drained organic soils over pähoehoe lava bedrock, in a small portion 

along the southwestern edge of the site. 

The land cover at the property has been drastically modified by operations of the 

Hutchinson Sugar Company, which was present at Honuÿapo from 1881 to 1973. 

Sugar mill waste material resulting from sugar processing operations was disposed 

of throughout the site, around the estuary and along coastal areas. Settling ponds 

for plantation waste fiber were also created in the central and northern portions of 

the property after enactment of the Clean Water Act, which prohibited disposal of 

industrial waste streams directly into navigable waters. 

2.3.2 Hydrology 

Regional hydrology has created fresh 

water springs that feed into the 

wetlands of Honuÿapo Estuary. No 

permanent streams are located on the 

property. A former manmade drainage 

swale leads from the old sugar mill to 

the ocean across the property, which 

was formerly used to transport waste 

cane fiber from the mill to the ocean 

for disposal. 

Overland runoff from the hillsides 

above Honuÿapo historically caused 

Flooding at Honuÿapo Village 

Photo Courtesy of Iwao Yonemitsu 

Page 10


flooding on the subject property. An irrigation system developed and formerly 

maintained by the sugar plantations of Kaÿü has affected the surface hydrology of 

the area and, according to verbal accounts, decreased the number of flooding 

events at Honuÿapo. With the shutting down of the sugar industry in Kaÿü and the 

subdivision of plantation lands into smaller parcels, the irrigation system is no 

longer maintained. 

2.3.3 Natural Hazards 

Volcanic hazard in the vicinity of Honuÿapo is assessed by the USGS as “6” in the 

southern and central portion of the park, and “3” in the northernmost zone of the 

park, on a scale of ascending risk from “9” to “1”. This moderate to high hazard 

designation is based on the fact that Mauna Loa is an active volcano, having last 

erupted in 1984. 

In terms of seismic risk, the entire Island of Hawai‘i is rated Zone 4 Seismic Hazard, 

which means it is at risk from major earthquake damage, especially to structures 

that are poorly designed or built. The most significant earthquake occurring in Kaÿü 

in recorded history was in March and April 1868. Written accounts of Kaÿü 

residents attest to the tremendous damage caused by the earthquakes and ensuing 

tsunami. A written account by C. J. Waialoha (Ka Nupepa Kuÿokoÿa, April 11, 

1868), a Hawaiian resident of Kaÿü describes the disaster (Handy et al. 1991:566): 

… The earthquakes were terrible from the 27 th [of March] to the 

30 th . The earth shook constantly. We had never before known 

anything like this. The stones on our beaches and the cliffs are 

scattered and broken… The famous cliffs of Pohina [at Honuÿapo] 

were broken in places and some of the natives there feared a 

similar fate… At three o’clock on Thursday, April 2, came a great 

quake which made it impossible for man and animals to stand 

upright. The earth below rose to the sky like a cloud, from the land 

slides; big trees toppled over; gulches were filled and houses 

collapsed… fifteen minutes after the earthquake, a tidal wave arose, 

which killed a number of people. Those who died numbered 46 

and those who barely escaped are not numbered… When the sea 

ebbed, all kinds of fish were left ashore, except the whale and the 

shark. 

The houses at Kaÿaluÿalu, Paiahaÿa, Honuÿapo, Hokukano, 

Kaÿalaiki, the two Hilea, Ninole, Wailau, Punaluÿu, and as far as 

Keauhou, were all swept away by the sea. 

The 1868 earthquake that caused the destructive tsunami was estimated to have 

had a magnitude of 7.9. Another tsunami in 1946, generated by an earthquake in 

Page 11


the Aleutian Islands, destroyed the Honuÿapo wharf that was built in 1883. Two 

additional major tsunami events affected Honuÿapo and caused extensive damage 

to structures near the shoreline in 1960 (generated by an earthquake in Chile) and 

1975 (generated by a local earthquake). Locally generated tsunami are 

unpredictable and generally only allow for a few minutes of warning time; 

evacuation in these conditions is extremely difficult. Locally generated earthquakes 

have also caused land subsidence in the Kaÿü and Puna districts. During the 1975 

earthquake, fault displacements resulted in widespread subsidence, as much as 10 

feet near Halape in Puna District, and as much as 2 to 3 feet to the south and 

southwest of the zone of maximum subsidence (Stover & Coffman, 1993). 

Ocean conditions in the South Kaÿü area are generally rough, with strong currents 

and intense wave energy. Coral reefs are absent along this rugged and exposed 

coast, thus creating hazardous sea conditions. 

2.3.4 Botany 

Geometrician Associates conducted a limited botanical investigation at Honuÿapo 

Park to provide information on vegetation zones and plant species present at the 

park (Appendix A). There are several distinct vegetation zones within the property. 

The coastal strand vegetation is dominated by native plants specifically adapted to 

an environment of sea spray and little soil; this vegetation includes naupaka 

(Scaevola taccada), ‘ilima (Sida fallax), paÿu o Hi‘iaka (Jacquemontia ovalifolia), 

pohuehue (Ipomoea pescaprae brasiliensis), ÿakulikuli (Sesuvium portulacastrum), 

nehe (Melanthera integrifolia), and seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum). 

Native coastal strand vegetation – 

ÿakulikuli and ÿilima 

Ma uka of the coastal strand zone and 

extending up to the highway is the highly 

modified coastal dry shrubland community. 

Centuries of human disturbance have 

resulted in a lowland plant community 

mostly devoid of native species and 

dominated by haole koa (Leucaena 

leucocephala), Guinea grass (Panicum 

maximum) and kiawe (Prosopis pallida), with 

other dry shrubland species such as 

Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius), 

java plum (Syzigium cumini), and sourbush 

(Pluchea odorata). 

The wetland area of Honuÿapo estuary is also 

dominated by invasive species including 

kiawe (Prosopis pallida) and California grass 

Page 12


(Urochola mutica) in drier zones, and seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum) in 

the brackish intertidal zone. Makaloa (Cyperus laevigatus) and milo (Thespesia 

populnea) are among the few native species found in the intertidal marsh zone of 

the estuary. 

2.3.5 Fauna 

Honuÿapo Park has the potential to provide habitat for many species of birds, native 

and alien. Coastal and estuarine zones are habitat for a variety of indigenous 

migratory shorebirds, including the ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), Pacific 

golden-plover (Pluvialis fulva), wandering tattler (Heteroscelus incanus), and 

possibly bristle-thighed curlew (Numenius tahitiensis) and sanderling (Calidris alba). 

The estuary could also support native water birds, including the indigenous blackcrowned 

night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli) and the endangered Hawaiian 

coot (Fulica alai). The seabird black noddy or noio (Anous minutus melanogenys) is 

frequently seen flying in and out of refuges in the rocky coastal cliffs of the area, 

and the white-tailed tropic bird (Phaethon lepturus dorotheae) has been observed at 

Honuÿapo (NPS 2006). Introduced birds that are also common at Honuÿapo include 

the common barn owl (Tyto alba), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), 

Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus), spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis) and 

zebra dove (Geopelia striata). 

Other rare, endangered or threatened species with variable levels of occurrence in 

the area include the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), 

endangered Hawaiian duck (Anas wyvilliana), the endangered Hawaiian hawk 

(Buteo solitarius), and Hawaiian black-necked stilt or äe‘o (Himantopus mexicanus 

knudensi). 

The orange-black Hawaiian damselfly (Megalagrion xanthomelas), a candidate 

insect species for listing under the Endangered Species Act, has been seen at 

Honuÿapo Estuary. 

Several species of introduced animals including feral dogs (Canis familiaris), cats 

(Felis sylvestris catus), pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra aegagrus hircus), rats (Rattus 

rattus), mice (Mus musculus) and mongooses (Herpestes auropunctatus) are present 

in the park area and are detrimental to native plant and animal species. The 

presence of cats, rats, and mongooses on the park property is believed to be the 

primary cause of low numbers of native bird sightings at Honuÿapo Estuary. 

2.3.6 Estuarine, Tide pool and Marine Habitats 

The rugged shoreline in the vicinity of Honuÿapo offers an array of habitats, ranging 

from coastal cliffs, to tide pools and spring-fed brackish wetlands, which produce a 

great diversity of biological communities. A limited survey by the National Park 

Page 13


Service (NPS) along the Kaÿü coast found no alien algae and a healthy balance of 

algae and benthic invertebrates, which is indicative of minimal nutrient input from 

land and no overexploitation of fish and invertebrate herbivores (NPS, 2006). 

The water of Honuÿapo estuary is brackish and fed by fresh water springs on the ma 

uka side of the estuary pond and by tidal influx on the ma kai side. Native fish 

species that have been recorded in Honuÿapo estuary during quarterly sampling 

conducted in 2007 through 2009 as part of an Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) grant project included alpheidae snapping shrimp, ÿoÿopu (Eleotris 

sandvicensis), ÿöpae huna (Palaemon debilis), the threatened naniha goby 

(Stenogobius hawaiiensis), striped mullet or ÿamaÿama (Mugil cephalus), äholehole 

(Kuhlia sandvicensis), Hawaiian shrimp goby (Psilogobius mainlandi), and 

yellowfin goatfish (Mulloidichthys vanicolensis). The estuary also attracts green sea 

turtles (Chelonia mydas), a threatened species. Area residents also recall that the 

estuary used to provide habitat for päpio (juvenile ulua). 

A University of Hawaiÿi at Hilo graduate student (Megan Lamson) conducted a 13month 

baseline survey of the shallow near shore habitats (less than 6 feet deep) of 

Honuÿapo Bay near Honuÿapo Estuary in 2009 (Lamson, 2010). The survey area 

was dominated by turf algae, with some patches of sand and coral. The survey 

recorded 119 fish species, with most 

species either indigenous (68%) or 

endemic (29%), and only a few 

introduced species (3%). Fish were 

found to be more abundant in the 

higher turbidity areas adjacent to the 

channel between Honu’apo Estuary 

and the ocean. The survey also found 

a high abundance of juvenile fish, 

suggesting the area could possibly 

serve as nursery grounds for certain 

fish species. 

Honuÿapo Estuary 

A “Rapid Ecological Assessment” conducted in 2005 by NOAA along the 

southeastern coast of the Island of Hawaiÿi recorded boulder habitat in the shallow 

waters of Honuÿapo Bay and especially high coral cover, exceeding 80%, in ocean 

waters 10 to 15 feet deep (NOAA, 2006). A total of seventeen coral species were 

recorded at the survey site. The corals were generally encrusting, mound or robust 

branched corals that can thrive in high-energy exposed coasts. The survey also 

noted a variety of fish species, an abundance of invertebrates, including tiger 

cowries and lobsters, and an endangered Hawaiian Hawksbill turtle. The 

endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) has also been observed 

in the marine waters off Honuÿapo. 

Page 14

2.4 Historic and Cultural Setting 


Honuÿapo has a rich historic and cultural background. The abundant coastal and 

marine resources and the presence of fresh water springs at Honuÿapo Bay allowed 

for the settlement of thriving villages as early as the 14 th century in this part of Kaÿü. 

This section briefly describes the history of Honuÿapo in the larger context of 

historic events in Kaÿü and the Hawaiian Islands. Additional information on the 

history of the region is presented in Appendix B – Cultural Resources of the 

ahupuaÿa of Honuÿapo, Hiÿonaÿä, Hökükano, Kaÿaläiki, Hïlea Nui, Hïlea Iki, Nïnole 

and Wailau written by Rechtman Consulting. 

2.4.1 Area Pre-contact History 

In Kaÿü, where the land is dry and rugged, a few small communities were initially 

established along sheltered bays with access to fresh water and rich marine 

resources. Punaluÿu, Nïnole, Käwä, and Honuÿapo were four well-established 

coastal villages in Kaÿü because they had sheltered bays and access to fresh water 

in the form of coastal springs. According to radiocarbon dating sample results from 

the 2004 inventory survey conducted by Haun & Associates at Honuÿapo, some 

permanent habitations on areas of higher ground date back to the mid-1400s. At 

Honuÿapo, the coastal springs formed a brackish pond with direct connection with 

the ocean, which was used as a fishpond. 

By the fourteenth century, ma uka lands were being turned into dryland agricultural 

fields. By the fifteenth century, residency in the uplands was becoming permanent, 

and there was an increasing separation of the chiefly class from the common 

people. Coastal (kula kai) villages depended on marine resources and used these in 

turn to exchange with their ma uka (kula uka) relatives for foods and other 

resources that they could not grow along the shore (Handy et al. 1972:555). 

Land Commission testimonies taken during the Great Mähele of 1848 for areas 

around Honuÿapo indicate that dryland taro and sweet potatoes were the most 

commonly cultivated crops between 500 and 800 foot elevations. In the 1,500 to 

3,000 ft elevation zone, yams and arrowroot were cultivated in the lower portion of 

the zone and bananas, forest taro, and plantains were cultivated in the upper 

portion. The forest zone in Honuÿapo began at about 3,000 ft elevation on the 

southern flank of Mauna Loa. 

2.4.2 Post-Contact History 

Western Contact 

Captain James Cook visited South Point on Hawaiÿi Island for the first time on 

board his ships the Resolution and Discovery in January 1779. Cook recorded a 

large village at Ka Lae (South) Point and also noted volcano damage in the region. 

Page 15

King, who accompanied Cook on the voyage, wrote: 


It is not only the worst part of the Island but as barren waste looking 

a country as can be conceived to exist… we could discern black 

streaks coming from the Mountain even down to the seaside… 

horrid and dismal as this part of the Island appears, yet there are 

many villages interspersed, and it struck as being more populous 

than the part of Opoona [Puna] which joins Koa [Kaÿü]. There are 

houses built even on the ruins [lava flows] we have described 

(Beaglehole, 1967:611) 

The Reverend William Ellis, one of the Protestant missionaries that arrived in 

Hawaiÿi in 1820, visited the Kaÿü district in July of 1823. His accounts provide 

details on the villages of Honuÿapo: 

From the manner in which we were received at Honuapo, we should 

not think this village had been often visited by foreigners; for on our 

descending from the high land to the lava on which the town stands, 

the natives came running out to meet us from all quarters, and soon 

gathered so thickly around us, that we found it difficult to proceed… 

We passed through the town to the residence of the head man, 

situated on the farthest point towards the sea. He invited us to his 

house, procured us water to wash our feet with, and immediately 

sent to an adjacent pond for some fish for our supper. While that 

was preparing, the people assembled in crowds around the house, 

and a little before sun-set Mr. Thurston preached to them in the 

front yard. Upwards of 200 were present… 

After the service, some of our number visited the ruins of a heiau, 

on a point of lava near our lodging. During the evening we made 

some inquiries respecting it, found it had been dedicated to Tairi, 

and was thrown down in the general destruction of idols in 1819… 

(Ellis 2004) 

Kelly (1969) estimated that the Kaÿü District had a population of between 10,000 

and 13,500 at the time of European contact, but that it declined to less than 2,000 

people by 1872 due to a variety of reasons ranging from diseases to migration to 

other islands and foreign countries. 

By the mid-nineteenth century, the ever-growing population of Westerners forced 

socioeconomic and demographic changes that promoted the establishment of a 

Euro-American style of land ownership, and in 1848 the Mähele ÿÄina became the 

Page 16


vehicle for determining ownership of native lands. The Mähele defined the land 

interests of Kamehameha III (the King), the high-ranking chiefs, and the konohiki. 

During the Mähele, all lands in the Kingdom of Hawai‘i were placed in one of 

three categories: (1) Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne); (2) Government 

Lands; and (3) Konohiki Lands (Chinen 1958:vii and Chinen 1961:13). 

Additionally, native tenants could claim and acquire title to kuleana parcels that 

they actively lived on or farmed at the time of the Mähele. The Kuleana Act of 

December 21, 1849 provided the framework by which native tenants could apply 

for and receive fee-simple interest in their kuleana lands from the Land 

Commission. 

As a result of the Mähele, Honu‘apo ahupuaÿa (totaling 2,200 acres) was awarded 

as Konohiki Land to William Charles Lunalilo (LCAw. 8559), and Hiÿonaÿä 

Ahupua‘a was retained as Government Land. A total of twenty-four kuleana were 

awarded in Honu‘apo Ahupua’a, and five were awarded in Hi‘onaÿä. 

Five kuleana were awarded ma kai of what is now Highway 11 within the 

Honu‘apo Park area, all in the vicinity of Honuÿapo Estuary. These kuleana 

included LCAw. 9212:1 to Hoolapa, LCAw. 9564B:1 to Kalaukoa, LCAw. 9955B:1 

to Lilikalani, LCAw. 10008:2 to Lepoloa, and LCAw.10516:1 to Nahakuelua. The 

uses of the five awards were as follows: 

- Hoolapa’s award (LCAw. 9212:1) was for a 0.29 acre house lot; 

- Kaulukoa’s award (LCAw. 9564B) consisted of 0.44 acres that included a 

house lot and perhaps two salt beds; 

- Lilikalani’s award (LCAw. 9955B) included a portion of the fish pond at 

Honu‘apo and three salt cellars; 

- Lepoloa’s award (LCAw. 10008:2) of 0.3 acres appears to have been for 4 

kihapai (wauke fields); 

- Nahakuelua’s award (LCAw.10516:1) was for a salt basin, and two house 

lots. 

These kuleana parcels are identified as exclusions to the park property and are 

shown on Figure 2-2. 

Sugar Plantation Era 

The 1870s saw the rise of sugar plantations throughout Kaÿü. Sugar mills were built 

in Pähala (1868), Hïlea (1878), and Honuÿapo (1881). Honuÿapo and Hïlea 

plantations became the property of Hutchinson Sugar Company, while Pähala was 

owned by Hawaiian Agriculture. Sugar from the Pähala sugar mill was originally 

transported to Punaluÿu wharf for shipping. However, access to Punaluÿu Bay was 

limited and, after the dredging of Honuÿapo Bay in the 1870s and construction of 

the landing at Honuÿapo by 1883, most of the sugar in Kaÿü was shipped out of 

Honuÿapo. A railroad system transported sugar from the mills to Honuÿapo Harbor. 

Page 17


Page 18 

The concrete pier still 

visible at Honuÿapo 

Bay was constructed in 

1910. The harbor at 

Honuÿapo continued 

operations until 1942. 

After that, sugar was 

trucked to Hilo for offisland 

shipment. 

While in operation, the 

Honuÿapo sugar mill 

used a flume to 

Old Photograph of Honuÿapo Sugar Mill 

transport bagasse from 

the mill directly to the 

Photograph Courtesy of Iwao Yonemitsu 

coast and out to the 

ocean. This practice 

was discontinued and replaced by settling ponds along the coast after the EPA 

passed the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972. 

The Honuÿapo mill was shut down in 1973 and sugar plantation activities in Kaÿü 

were then centered at the Pähala plantation, under the ownership of C. Brewer 

Company. In 1996, because of decreasing revenues caused by increasing 

competition from developing countries and decreasing demand for cane sugar, the 

Pähala plantation ceased operation. This marked the end of the sugar plantation era 

in Kaÿü. 

2.5 Archaeological Sites 

Five archaeological studies have 

been conducted within the 

Honuÿapo Park property between 

1906 and 2009. These studies have 

recorded over 200 archaeological 

features, the majority of which are 

located in the northern portion of the 

property, in Hiÿonaÿä ahupuaÿa. 

These studies also indicate that waste 

fill disposal by the Honuÿapo Sugar 

Plantation in various areas of the 

property and particularly around the 

estuary have likely covered many 

other archaeological sites. 

Archaeological feature at Honuÿapo


Based on the results of inventory surveys conducted by Haun and Associates in 

2004 and Rechtman Consulting LLC in 2009, a total of 88 sites encompassing 217 

features have been identified, of which 65 sites were considered significant under 

State Historic Preservation Criteria. Archaeological sites include the remains of the 

Kamalaÿi Heiau, Precontact burial and ceremonial complexes, Precontact 

temporary and permanent habitation sites and complexes, platforms, salt basins, 

and petroglyphs. Two partial alignments of the alanui aupuni (Old Government 

Road), which dates back to the mid-nineteenth century, are also present in the 

northern portion of the site within Hiÿonaÿä ahupuaÿa and extending into Hökükano 

Ahupua’a. 

Within Hiÿonaÿä ahupuaÿa, the survey conducted by Rechtman Consulting LLC in 

2009 recorded 18 habitation sites, including single and clustered C-shaped and 

rectangular enclosures along the shoreline, and multi-feature complexes with large 

rectangular enclosures and platforms on the coastal lowlands. This distribution 

suggests that shoreline constructions may have been temporary shelters associated 

with resource (fish, shellfish, salt) collection activities. The more complex coastal 

lowland habitations, some with burial features, are suggestive of more permanent 

(year-round or recurrent seasonal) residence. The survey also identified eleven 

burial sites within the Hiÿonaÿä portion of the park, with features ranging from 

solitary platforms to clusters of features. A major burial complex is located just 

north of the Honuÿapo Park boundary (outside of the park property), within 

Hökükano ahupuaÿa with features interpreted as having ceremonial significance 

extending into Honuÿapo Park area. 

The survey conducted by Rechtman Consulting, LLC also recorded a series of 

bedrock salt basins in the tidal zone within Honuÿapo ahupuaÿa. These salt basins 

likely provided an important resource for area inhabitants as salt was traditionally 

used for spiritual purposes, medicine, as a condiment and for curing of fish. 

The lack of Historic Period artifacts (ceramics, metal, glass, etc…) observed at 

Native Hawaiian sites within Honuÿapo and Hiÿonaÿä ahupuaÿa suggests that these 

sites date back to Pre-contact times. Radiocarbon dating conducted by Haun et al. 

(2004) at three Native Hawaiian permanent habitation features in the Honuÿapo 

portion of the park indicated a date interval of 1450 to 1685 A.D., thus suggesting 

that the area may have been inhabited as early as the 15 th Century. 

Results of the studies and inventory surveys conducted within the Honuÿapo Park 

area and its vicinity highlight the richness of cultural and archaeological resources 

within the project area. 

Page 19

2.6 Historic Sites 


Few signs remain of the former village, industrial area, and harbor that were 

present at Honuÿapo during the 19 th and 20 th Centuries. The concrete foundations 

of the pier that was used for shipping of sugar from Honuÿapo are still present at the 

southern end of Whittington Beach Park. The concrete piles are in poor condition 

due to the high wave intensity of this coast and tsunami events that have impacted 

Honuÿapo. Concrete foundations of the industrial warehouses that were previously 

present at the harbor are also still visible at Whittington Beach Park. Several of 

these concrete foundations are currently used as parking areas for park users. No 

other above-ground structures from the Plantation Era remain at Whittington Park. 

Historic remains of Japanese-style garden in northern portion 

of the estuary 

2.7 Existing Park Facilities and Utilities 

Page 20 

On the northern side of the 

Honuÿapo Estuary, a club 

house and Japanese-style 

garden were constructed in 

the 1950s. These structures 

were destroyed by the 1960 

tsunami. Concrete foundations 

of buildings are still visible in 

that area, as well as some of 

the structures of the Japanese 

garden, including a Japanesestyle 

lantern, a small bridge, 

and path stones. 

A small portion of the Honuÿapo Park property located between the estuary and the 

southern end of the property is currently maintained as a community park and is 

named “Whittington Beach Park” (TMK 9-5-14:001). This park has parking areas, 

landscaped grass areas, picnic tables, a shower, public restrooms, and three 

covered concrete block pavilions with tables. Camping is also authorized at the 

park with a DPR permit. 

Water for the restrooms and showers is stored in an aboveground storage tank, and 

the restrooms are connected to an onsite septic tank. A water truck comes to refill 

the water supply storage tank as needed. There is no County water system or 

sanitary sewer in the vicinity of the park. 

According to Stearns & Macdonald (1946), water, formerly needed for Hutchinson 

sugar mill operations, was supplied by a number of drilled wells at the sugar mill;


which had a combined capacity of 2,000 gallons of water per minute. The water 

pumped from these wells was slightly brackish. The wells at the former mill are 

currently unused. The sugar plantation also used a surface water collection system 

and tunnels, drilled horizontally into the mountainside, to tap perched groundwater. 

The closest active tunnel to Honuÿapo is the Mountain House Tunnel, located 

above Näÿälehu, at an altitude of 3,097 feet. According to Stearns & Macdonald, 

the tunnel had a yield of nearly 1.3 million gallons per day, the largest of any 

tunnel in Kaÿü. Area land owners are currently working with the Department of 

Land and Natural Resources to 

permit the use of tunnel water 

for agricultural purposes. 

Camping and picnic table at Whittington Beach Park 

2.8 Circulation and Access 

Page 21 

Electricity is provided by 

Hawaiÿi Electric Light 

Company (HELCO) at 

Whittington Beach Park for 

lighting of the existing 

pavilions and restrooms. There 

is no lighting in other areas of 

the park. Aboveground 

electric lines are present along 

Hawaiÿi Belt Road. 

There are currently two main access roads to the park from Hawaiÿi Belt Road. One 

road, on the south end of the park, at the base of the hillside, is paved and provides 

access to Whittington Beach Park. The beach park access road intersects Hawaiÿi 

Belt Road at an acute angle at the bottom of a slope; consequently, lack of visibility 

and downhill driving can make access to the park dangerous. There are two 

parking areas at Whittington Beach Park, offering ample parking space for park 

users. 

The second access road to the property is unpaved, located to the north of 

Honuÿapo Estuary, and is referred to as “Mill Ditch Road” because it follows the 

alignment of the former ditch used by the Hutchinson Sugar Plantation to transport 

waste cane fiber to the ocean. Mill Ditch Road is the main access to coastal areas 

in the northern portions of the park. A coastal four-wheel-drive (4WD) trail 

provides access along the shoreline of Honuÿapo Park. Local residents use that area 

of the park for fishing and gathering. There is no formal parking area in this part of 

the site and 4WD vehicles generally park on the pähoehoe lava along the coast.

2.9 Visual Resources 

Due to the relatively level topography 

of the property and the low level 

vegetation near the shoreline, coastal 

areas of Honuÿapo Park offer sweeping 

views of the hillsides of Mauna Loa 

and the Pohina Cliffs, particularly in 

areas north of the estuary. These views 

provide a striking panorama of the 

rugged and wild beauty of Kaÿü. 


The open landscape of Kaÿü, with 

moderately sloping hillsides and open 

vegetation, provides panoramic views 

Scenic view of Mauna Loa hillsides from Honuÿapo Park 

of Mauna Loa and coastal areas at 

various locations along Hawaiÿi Belt 

Road throughout the district. A scenic lookout is located at the top of the Pohina 

Cliffs, to the south of the park, and offers sweeping views of the Kaÿü landscape and 

the Honuÿapo property. 

2.10 Park Visitation 

There are currently only two developed County Beach Parks in Kaÿü: Punaluÿu and 

Whittington. They also are the only two coastal recreational areas in Kaÿü with 

camping and pavilion facilities available to the general public (Volcanoes National 

Park has hiking-accessible campsites at Keauhou, Halapë and Kaluÿe). According to 

County Parks and Recreation maintenance personnel, at least one of the three 

pavilions at Punaluÿu is rented for parties every weekend. Whittington Beach Park 

is visited primarily by local Kaÿü residents that use the park for fishing, camping, 

picnicking, and parties. 

Few Hawaiÿi tourists currently stop at Whittington Beach Park. A large number of 

tourists drive through Kaÿü from Kona on their way to the Hawaiÿi Volcanoes 

National Park (HAVO). In the past 10 years, annual recreational visits to Hawaiÿi 

Volcanoes National Park have fluctuated between about 1 to 1.5 million. About 20 

percent of these recreational visitors arrived at HAVO by tour bus and the rest in 

personal vehicles. 

About 30,000 to 35,000 personal vehicles carrying about 85,000 visitors arrive at 

HAVO on a monthly basis. Assuming that one third of those vehicles come from 

the Hilo side of the island and the other two thirds from the Kona side, 

approximately 55,000 visitors in 20,000 vehicles pass through Kaÿu on their way 

from Kona to Volcano on a monthly basis. Few of these visitors stop to visit 

Honuÿapo. 

Page 22

3 REGULATORY PROFILE 


In order to understand the policy setting for developing the management plan, a 

review of County, State, and other relevant policies and regulations was conducted. 

This chapter describes the policies and land use regulations that should be 

considered as part of the planning process for Honuÿapo Park. 

3.1 State Land Use Districts 

Related Laws and Regulations: 

• Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapters 205-2 and 205-4.5. 

• Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 13-5, 

The State Land Use Law establishes an overall framework for land use management 

whereby all lands in the State are classified into one of four Districts: Urban, Rural, 

Agriculture, and Conservation. The part of the property located in the Honuÿapo 

ahupuaÿa is within the state’s Agricultural District, which is defined by the State 

Land Use Commission as consisting of lands for the cultivation of crops, livestock 

raising, wind energy facilities, and lands with significant potential for agriculture 

uses. Overnight camping facilities are not a permitted use within the State 

Agricultural District. Implementation of overnight camping within the Agricultural 

District at Honuÿapo Park will require a Special Permit approved by Hawaiÿi 

County Council (camp areas of less than 15 acres). Camping areas larger than 15 

acres would require a Land Use Variance from the State’s Land Use Commission. 

The northern area of the property located within the Hiÿonaÿä ahupuaÿa and the 

shoreline area are within the state’s Conservation District, which consists of lands 

necessary for protecting watersheds; lands necessary for the preservation of scenic, 

cultural, historic, and archaeological sites, or sites of ecological significance; lands 

necessary for providing parklands, wilderness, and beach reserves; and lands with 

elevations below the shoreline. 

There are five conservation district “subzones”, which include, from most 

protective to least: Protective Subzone, Limited Subzone, Resource Subzone, 

General Subzone, and Special Subzone. The coastal area of Honuÿapo Park, 

including nearly the entire area of Whittington Beach Park, is within the Resource 

Subzone, while inland portions of the park within Hiÿonaÿä ahupuaÿa are part of the 

Limited and General Subzones. Permitted land uses and activities within each 

conservation district subzone are restricted and generally require a Conservation 

District Use Permit from the Department or the Board of Land and Natural 

Resources. 

Page 23


Figure 3-1: State Land Use Districts 


Page 24

3.2 Hawaiÿi County Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide 


The Hawaiÿi County Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map (LUPAG) is part of the 

Hawaiÿi County General Plan, the latest version of which was enacted by County 

Council in February 2005. The LUPAG specifies the general location of land uses 

in the County of Hawaiÿi. 

LUPAG classes within Honuÿapo Park include “Open” along the shoreline, 

“Extensive Agriculture” in the southern portion of the park within the Honuÿapo 

ahupuaÿa, and “Conservation” in the northern section of the park within Hiÿonaÿä 

ahupuaÿa. 

3.3 Hawaiÿi County Zoning 

Related Laws and Regulations 

• Hawaiÿi County Code (HCC) Section 25-5-70 thru 77 and 25-5-160 thru 167 

Hawaiÿi County Zoning Code (HCC Chapter 25) specifies permitted uses of lands 

on the Island of Hawaiÿi. The section of the park located in the Honuÿapo ahupuaÿa 

is zoned as Agricultural District (A-20) (20-ac minimum lot size); while the area 

located in the Hiÿonaÿä ahupuaÿa is zoned as Open Space (O). 

The Agricultural District is defined as providing for agricultural and very low 

density agriculturally-based residential use, encompassing rural areas of good to 

marginal agricultural and grazing land, forest land, game habitats, and areas where 

urbanization is not found to be appropriate. The Open District applies to areas that 

contribute to the general welfare, the full enjoyment, or the economic well-being of 

open land type uses, including preservation of valuable scenic vistas, areas of 

special historical significance, or submerged lands and fishponds. Permitted uses 

within this district are generally associated with passive recreation, forestry, and 

preservation of sites of historic, cultural, or natural significance. Figure 3-2 below 

shows County zoning for Honuÿapo Park and its vicinity. 

Page 25


Figure 3-2: Hawaiÿi County Zoning 

Page 26

3.4 Special Management Area 


• HRS Chapters 205A-21 to 205A-33 and 343 

• Hawaiÿi County Planning Commission Rule 9 


The entire area of Honuÿapo Park is within the Special Management Area (SMA) 

boundaries, which extend up to Hawaiÿi Belt Road along this stretch of coastline. 

SMAs are those “land[s] extending inland from the coastal lines” that are placed 

under special development control to “avoid permanent losses of valuable 

resources and the foreclosure of management options, and to ensure that adequate 

public access…. to public owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural 

reserves is provided.” 

Planning Commission Rule 9 requires that any uses and activities classified as 

“development” within the SMA have either an SMA minor permit or an SMA Use 

Permit (SMP). An SMA Minor Permit is applicable to proposed developments with 

total costs of less than $125,000 and with no significant environmental impacts. 

For a proposed development with a total value exceeding $125,000, or one that 

may result in significant environmental impacts including potential cumulative 

impacts, an SMP is required. 

3.5 Hawaiÿi County Floodplain Management 


• HCC Chapter 27 

The Hawaiÿi County Floodplain Management Code (HCC Chapter 27) specifies 

restrictions on construction and grading as well as prohibited uses within flood 

hazard areas of the County of Hawaiÿi. Flood hazard areas are identified by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

(FIRMs), which specify the type of flooding hazard and base flood elevation, 

defined as the water surface elevation of a flood having a one percent chance of 

being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also called “one-hundred-year 

flood”). 

Areas of Honuÿapo Park closest to the coast are classified as Zone VE, which 

denotes areas affected by coastal flooding and subject to high velocity wave action 

from storms and seismic sources (tsunami). Inland of Zone VE, significant portions 

of Honuÿapo Park, including all of Whittington Beach Park, are classified as Zone 

AE, which indicates a 100-year floodplain where base flood elevations have been 

determined. Base flood elevations within Honuÿapo Park range from 22 feet closest 

to the shore to 14 feet in more inland locations. A portion of the official FIRM map 

for the area surrounding Honuÿapo was extracted using F-MIT On-line and is 

Page 27

presented in Figure 3-3 below. 


The Director of Public Works of the County of Hawaiÿi is responsible for the 

administration and enforcement of the Floodplain Management regulations and 

must approve all building and grading permits with regards to compliance with the 

Code. Buildings constructed within the floodplain must be built using materials and 

utility equipment resistant to flood damage; additionally, within Zone AE, the floors 

of buildings should be above the base flood level plus a one-foot freeboard. Filling 

within Zone AE must not contribute to increases in water surface elevation of the 

base flood (by constricting flow). Due to the low elevation and flooding potential at 

Whittington Beach Park, building construction and improvements in that area 

would require a variance from the requirements of HCC Chapter 27. 

Figure 3-3: Honuÿapo Park area FIRM map 


Page 28

3.6 State Historic Preservation 


• HRS Chapters 6E and 226-12 

• HAR 13-13-275, 13-13-300 and 13-13-264 


None of the archaeological sites found on the property are listed on the State or 

National Registers of Historic Places or are designated as historic landmarks. 

However, several sites, including burial sites, were determined to be ‘significant’ 

archaeological findings and were recommended for preservation in the 2004 and 

2009 inventory surveys conducted at the Honuÿapo Park property. 

The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) of the Department of Land and 

Natural Resources (DLNR) is the State agency empowered to review State and 

County projects that may affect historic sites and structures, including any structure 

over fifty years old. State and County projects that might affect historic resources 

may not start without written consent of the SHPD. In the event that significant 

archaeological sites or historic structures exist, a determination of the impact of the 

proposed development should be carried out by the applicant (State or County 

agency proposing the development). If the project will have an impact on the 

significant archaeological sites, the applicant must submit a Mitigation 

Commitment with a detailed mitigation plan to the SHPD for their review. The 

detailed mitigation plan includes, but is not limited to, a preservation plan, a 

historic data recovery plan, and an ethnographic documentation plan. 

Additionally, SHPD is also responsible for the management of burial sites over 50 

years old. Five Island Burial Councils are administratively attached to SHPD to 

address concerns relating to Native Hawaiian burial sites. Anyone wishing to 

relocate or preserve in place any previously identified Hawaiian burials over 50 

years old must submit a request in the form of a Burial Treatment Plan and obtain 

the approval of the appropriate Island Burial Council. 

Page 29


3.7 Federal Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

Several public agencies as well as private companies, community organizations, 

and individuals contributed funds toward the purchase of the Honuÿapo Park 

property. Of the public agencies, NOAA committed funds for the purchase 

through the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). The CELCP 

is a program designed to protect coastal and estuarine areas “with important 

conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are 

threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational state to other use.” 

The requirements for planned uses on lands purchased with a CELCP grant are 

specified in the CELCP Final Guidelines (Appendix C) and include: 

• The general public should be allowed access to the property. For this 

purpose, user fees should not be charged, or if so, the amount of the fee 

should comply with the local state standard. All revenues accumulated from 

the fees shall only be used for maintenance or management of the property. 

• Activities that are considered consistent with the conservation purposes of 

the grant include: resource protection, restoration and enhancement, such 

as vegetative erosion control; recreational activities, such as hiking, hunting 

and fishing; access for swimming, kayaking and canoeing; research and 

educational activities. Small scale construction, such as restrooms or 

boardwalks for the purpose of facilitating activities is allowed. 

• Activities generally considered to be inconsistent include: active agricultural 

or aquaculture production, shoreline armoring or other hard erosion control 

structures, expansion of roads, facilities for active recreation such as sport 

facilities, water parks, playgrounds, etc. 

• Pre-existing uses on the property should not be expanded or converted to 

other uses without prior approval of NOAA. 

The project team communicated with NOAA to ensure that the proposed plan met 

the requirements of the CELCP. NOAA requested that developed park areas not 

exceed 15 acres or about 6% of the entire property to ensure the conservation of 

important coastal and estuarine resources. NOAA also requested that roads, 

parking areas, and hard trails be paved using low-impact development techniques 

such as permeable pavers or pervious asphalt. 

Page 30

4 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 


The Honuÿapo Park Resources Management Planning process was designed to 

include various stakeholders at different levels of involvement to ensure that the 

plan was built upon a foundation of ideas generated by those that will actually 

utilize and benefit from the park. This stakeholder involvement process and 

comments received are summarized below. 

4.1 Working Meetings with Ka ÿOhana O Honuÿapo (KOOH) 

The mission of KOOH is to “restore, care for, and protect the natural and cultural 

resources within the Honuÿapo area. Utilizing the values of malama ‘aina (care for 

the land), kupono (honesty and integrity), and kuleana (duty and responsibility), we 

will work in community partnerships to preserve this area for future generations.” 

On August 14, 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the 

Hawaiÿi County DPR and KOOH acknowledging that KOOH could provide 

support to DPR’s mission through park improvements, maintenance, and 

educational programs, provided that the group obtained appropriate approvals and 

permits. 

KOOH was involved throughout the planning process through a series of working 

meetings to provide opportunities for the group to better understand the planning 

process and requirements for public land. Additionally, KOOH provided 

information on existing park conditions and the surrounding community, and 

helped develop objectives and ideas for park uses and resources management. 

KOOH also provided valuable support for community outreach including setting 

up several community small group meetings, and providing volunteer manpower 

for community Speak Outs. 

4.2 Community Small Group Meetings 

Eight small group meetings were held with Kaÿü community küpuna, adjacent 

landowners, resource experts, and local residents to learn about the history of 

Honuÿapo, and to begin understanding important aspects of the park from the 

community perspective as well as what was desired for the property. 

4.3 July 4 th Speak Out 

To consult with the larger community on their thoughts, ideas and concerns on 

planning for Honuÿapo Park, a community “Speak Out” event was held at the July 

4 th Hoÿolauleÿa in Näÿälehu, with the support of volunteers from KOOH. Modeled 

after the Speak Out participatory method, community members were invited to 

drop in at the project information pavilion at any time throughout the event and 

share their thoughts on a number of topics. 

Page 31


There were 71 participants that signed 

in at the event and more came 

through the booth without signing in. 

Attendees could choose to visit any or 

all of four displays: Natural Resources, 

Archaeological and Historic Sites, 

Recreation and Public Safety, and Kids. 

Each booth had display boards with 

photographs and discussion questions. 

Participants were encouraged to share 

their thoughts, opinions, and concerns 

on each topic – or other information 

July 4 Speak Out at Näÿälehu Hoÿolauleÿa 

they felt was relevant – by verbally 

commenting to a note taker, or by filling out comment cards. 

4.3.1 Small Group Meetings and July 4 Speak Out Community Ideas 

Major recurring themes and ideas from community comments gathered during 

small group meetings and the July 4 Speak Out are listed below: 

• Provide more park facilities: restrooms and showers, potable water, BBQ 

pits, picnic tables, campsites 

• Keep the park’s wilderness feel 

• Provide more hiking trails, Ala Kahakai Trail 

• Restore the pier / provide ocean access 

• Impose some fishing regulations (esp. regulate/ban gillnetting), but do not 

ban all fishing. Provide information/education on fishing regulations. 

• Provide more natural and cultural education programs, a more interactive 

experience 

• Preserve archaeological/native Hawaiian sites; involve küpuna 

• Conserve/restore the estuary and native flora 

• Provide interpretive signage 

• Support for environmentally friendly facilities and improvements 

• Consider impacts of flooding and tsunami in planning 

• Provide areas for dog walking 

• Limit vehicular access to the shoreline 

• Improve park security 

• Involve the community as volunteers 

Page 32

4.4 November – December 2009 Speak Out series 


Public comment on the Draft Honuÿapo Park Resources Management Plan was 

solicited at a series of four speakout exhibits in November and December 2009. 

The exhibits were held in open-air booths in conjunction with other local events at 

the following locations: 

Ocean View Swap Meet - November 21, 2009 

Volcano Farmers Market - November 22, 2009 

Näÿälehu Farmers Market - November 25, 2009 

Pähala Music Festival - December 5, 2009 

SpeakOut series at Näÿälehu and Volcano Farmers Markets 

At each of these events, Townscape set up a Speak Out booth with the assistance of 

KOOH, which displayed maps and information about the proposed plan and 

improvements at Honu‘apo Park. At each event, volunteers were available to 

answer questions about the Draft Plan and solicited comments from the community. 

Community comments were written down on large sheets of paper or were 

submitted on comment cards. A total of 110 people signed in at the four events and 

more came through the booths without signing in. 

4.4.1 Draft Plan Community Comments 

In general, community comments on the Draft Resources Management Plan were 

positive. Many people were supportive of restoring native flora and fauna of the 

wetlands of Honuÿapo and of protecting Native Hawaiian sites by limiting 

vehicular access in the northern portions of the park. A number of people were also 

interested in the restoration of Honuÿapo Pier for fishing, in providing additional 

hiking and camping at Honuÿapo Park, particularly in correlation with the Ala 

Kahakai Trail, and in providing access for dogs. Some community members, 

however, were concerned about changing the feel of the coastal area of Honuÿapo 

by having built and paved structures near the coast and providing access to more 

people. Several community members were supportive of having a local community 

group such as KOOH monitor camping areas to increase security. 

Page 33


5 PROPOSED PARK LAND USES AND IMPROVEMENTS 

Based on analysis of site conditions and community ideas and input, the project 

team identified planning objectives that helped guide the development of park land 

uses and improvements. 

5.1 Planning Objectives 

• Preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources of the Park 

• Provide improved access for park users while limiting use impacts 

• Promote cultural and environmental education and awareness 

• Provide recreational opportunities that support awareness objective 

5.2 Park Land Uses 

Proposed land uses for Honuÿapo Park were developed based on community, 

KOOH, and agency input, and reflect the planning objectives of preserving and 

enhancing natural and cultural resources of the park, while providing improved 

access and recreational opportunities for park users. General land use types are 

described below and are depicted graphically on Figure 5-1. 

Community Park (CP): improved community park areas including the Whittington 

Section (5 acres) and a new coastal park section (8 acres) – camping, picnic areas, 

multi-use pavilions, educational displays and activities, native plant preservation 

and restoration, vehicle access and parking, access to coastal areas. The 

community park areas are located in zones where no significant archaeological 

sites were recorded in previous inventory surveys. It is possible, however, that 

archaeological sites were previously present in those areas and have been 

disturbed or buried by sugar plantation activities. 

Coastal Zone (CZ): preservation and restoration of native vegetation and shoreline 

habitats; pedestrian access on designated trails; fishing and gathering allowed with 

appropriate gear; monitoring of human use and biological condition; no motorized 

vehicles allowed - parking for coastal zone access provided at the Community Park 

areas. 

Estuary Zone (E): preservation and restoration of the estuary ecosystem; measures 

will be described in further detail in an Estuary Study and Restoration Plan to be 

conducted by KOOH in 2010. Restoration measures could include but not be 

limited to biological condition and human use monitoring, limited-take zone 

(regulated fishing, no gillnets, etc…), native plant restoration in wetland areas and 

along the edges of the estuary, and predator control measures including a “predator 

excluder fence” to keep noxious animal species out of sensitive habitats. 

Page 34


Archaeological Areas: areas rich in native Hawaiian sites, no motorized vehicle 

access, preservation by avoidance. These areas are located within the Wilderness 

Zone and, due to the sensitivity of the sites, are not shown on Figure 5-1. 

Wilderness Zone (W): leave “as is”, fire-tolerant native plant propagation near 

hiking trails where appropriate; maintained unimproved hiking trails; inland hiking 

trails doubling as fire control roads/emergency access and maintenance access. 

Remove signs of access (gate) along Hawaiÿi Belt Road in the northern portion of 

the Site. 

Park Management (M): Park maintenance and management warehouse and small 

office. 

Park Access: Paved Access Roads provide vehicular access to community park 

areas; unimproved hiking trails provide walking access to coastal lands; Ala 

Kahakai Trail provides access along the coast and connects with the National Park 

Service Ala Kahakai system of coastal trails. 

Page 35


Figure 5-1: Land Use Plan 

Page 36

5.3 Park Site Plan and Proposed Improvements 


The proposed Honuÿapo Park site plan was developed with agency and KOOH 

input and through observation of site conditions from field reconnaissance visits to 

the property. The Site Plan is more detailed than the Land Use Plan. Elements of the 

site plan are described below by major park land use area and are presented 

graphically in Figure 5-2. This plan proposes that areas in the northern portions of 

the property, which are rich in archaeological resources, remain “as is” with 

limited improvements and human access; consequently, these areas are not 

included on the site plan. 

Site Plan Elements: 

New Coastal Park Section 

The new coastal park section’s theme is the protection of the wild Kaÿü landscape, 

with sweeping views both ma uka and ma kai, and with a focus on restoration of 

indigenous and endemic coastal plants of Hawaiÿi. This park area is the starting 

point for hiking trails along the coastline and is accessed via paved “Mill Ditch 

Road”. Access roads, parking areas, and hardened trails are paved using lowimpact 

development materials such as porous asphalt or permeable pavers, as 

requested by NOAA to comply with the requirements of the CELCP grant. 

In order to help protect marine fauna and nocturnal birds from light pollution, the 

parking areas and pavilion in this section of Honuÿapo Park are lighted only during 

evening hours instead of overnight. Due to its remoteness, no potable water or 

showers are available at this park area. 

Elements include: 

� An open multiuse pavilion, up to 

1,500-square feet in size, is 

located on elevated ground (~ 

10-12 ft above grade) in the 

central part of the park and 

provides sweeping views of the 

Kaÿü coast and hillsides. The 

pavilion is constructed without 

sidewalls, and painted so as to 

blend well into the surrounding 

landscape. Landscaping and 

trees around the pavilion also 

help screen and integrate it into 

the landscape. Interpretive 

displays that provide information 

on the park’s natural history and 

Page 37 

Example interpretive display that could be 

used in Honuÿapo park pavilions and 

Discovery Garden


Native Hawaiian heritage are located at the pavilion. The pavilion can be 

used for educational activities, parties, etc. and is lighted in the evening 

using solar photovoltaic energy. Pavilion access from the parking area is 

ADA compliant and uses low-impact paving materials. 

� A “Native Plants Discovery Garden” with specimens of native coastal plants 

protected and restored in the park and along the coast, has interpretive signs 

to provide information on the various plant species. The “Native Plants 

Discovery Garden” is created and maintained in partnership with area 

schools and volunteer groups. 

� Vehicle-accessible campgrounds with barbecue (BBQ) pits, accommodating 

up to a total of 30 campers, are located on the ma kai side of the park. The 

campgrounds are shaded to the extent possible using native droughtresistant 

and salt-tolerant trees and shrubs. BBQ pits and their surroundings 

are constructed and landscaped to minimize the potential for wildfire 

ignition. Other areas of the park are also equipped with picnic tables and 

BBQs. 

� Due to the lack of utilities for water supply at the park, it is equipped with a 

composting toilet or vault toilet. The composting or vault toilet also is 

beneficial as it is a fully contained apparatus that does not release any solid 

or liquid waste to subsurface soils or the groundwater. 

� Landscaping of this park area and plantings along the coastline is done with 

drought-tolerant native coastal plants to the extent possible. Plants provide 

wind breaks and shade and are also used to screen paved and constructed 

park improvements. A preliminary list of plant species to use for park 

landscaping and coastal plant restoration is presented in Table 5-1. 

� Park regulation signage is consolidated on one sign at the main parking area 

of this new park section to decrease clutter and conform with DPR’s signage 

guidelines at other parks. Signage should include wildfire and ocean safety 

guidance. 

Page 38


Table 5-1: Proposed native plant species for landscaping and restoration 

Plant type Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Tree Pandanus tectorius Hala Indigenous 

Tree Erythrina sandwicensis Wiliwili Endemic 

Tree Thespesia populnea Milo Indigenous 

Shrub/tree Capparis sandwichiana 

Page 39 

Maia pilo / Pua 

pilo Endemic 

Shrub/tree Calophyllum inophyllum Kamani Indigenous 

Shrub/tree Myoporum sandwicense Naio Endemic 

Shrub Scaevola taccada Naupaka Indigenous 

Shrub Sida fallax ÿIlima Indigenous 

Shrub Dodonaea viscosa Kumakani Indigenous 

Shrub Vitex rotundifolia Pohinahina Indigenous 

Shrub Wikstroemia uva-ursi ÿAkia Endemic 

Shrub Sesbania tomentosa ÿOhai Endangered 

Vine Jacquemontia ovalifolia Paÿu o Hiÿiaka Indigenous 

Sedge Heteropogon contortus Pili grass Indigenous 

Sedge Fimbristylis cymosa Mauÿu ÿaki ÿaki Indigenous 

Bold italics: plant already present at Honuÿapo Park 

Whittington Park Section 

The Whittington section of Honuÿapo Park retains its existing uses and also has 

interpretive displays with information on Honuÿapo’s plantation history and the 

estuary. 


� At the south end of the Whittington park section, the three existing enclosed 

pavilions are replaced by a large open multi-use pavilion, approximately 

1,600-square feet in size. The pavilion is constructed without sidewalls and 

painted so as to blend well with the surrounding landscape. The pavilion 

includes educational displays on the sugar industry and tsunami history of 

Honuÿapo, as well as information on the restoration of unique habitat and 

species of Honuÿapo Estuary. Water supply from the nearby water tank is 

retained, as well as conventional electric power for lighting in the evening. 

Access to this pavilion and the nearby restroom is ADA compliant.


� Additional park improvements include BBQ pits at picnic tables and 

campsites, and replacement of the current restroom on septic system with a 

more environmentally-friendly composting or vault toilet. The construction 

of the restroom should include breakaway walls that would not impede the 

flow of waves in the event of coastal flooding. 

� Landscaping near the estuary is done with native plants compatible with the 

estuary ecosystem and is aimed at retaining good views of the estuary from 

the park area. 

� Park regulation signage is consolidated on one sign at the main parking area 

for the Whittington section and includes information on wildfire and ocean 

safety. 

� This park section is accessed via a new and safer road around the back of 

the estuary that connects with the paved Mill Ditch Road. The park’s new 

access road and new parking areas are paved using low-impact pavement 

such as porous asphalt or concrete. Note: State Department of 

Transportation (DOT) approval will be required for this new intersection 

with the Hawaiÿi Belt Road. 

Honuÿapo Estuary 

The Honuÿapo Estuary has a unique ecosystem that is protected through 

preservation and restoration of native habitats for shorebirds and marine species. 

Preservation strategy and measures for Honuÿapo Estuary will be detailed in the 

Wetlands Study and Preservation Plan to be conducted by Ka ÿOhana O Honuÿapo 

in 2010. 

Elements of the Preservation Plan may include but not be limited to the 

following measures: 

� Native plant restoration in wetlands and along the edges of the estuary and 

selective removal of non-native and invasive plant species. 

� Predator control, which may involve a trapping program or a “predator 

excluder fence” extending around a large portion of the estuary. The 

“predator excluder fence” is a specially designed fence that effectively 

prevents entry of rats, mongooses, cats, dogs, and other noxious species. 

This fence may be a preferable and more effective alternative to repeated 

intensive trapping. However, the “predator excluder fence” can be visually 

obtrusive and should be concealed, to the extent practicable from estuary 

viewpoints at the Whittington park section. Additionally, if the fence is 

implemented, access to kuleana parcels near the estuary will need to be 

maintained. 

Page 40


� Views of the estuary for bird and nature viewing are preserved at the 

Whittington park section and at locations near the ma kai side of the estuary. 

A nature trail or boardwalk could provide additional viewing opportunities 

ma uka of the estuary. 

Coastal Zone 

The rugged beauty, native ecosystems, and Hawaiian cultural sites of the coastal 

zone of Honuÿapo are protected and enhanced through preservation and 

restoration of native coastal-strand vegetation and by allowing walking access only. 


� Creation of a “Makai Watch” for the estuarine and coastal areas around 

Honuÿapo Park to monitor human use and biological condition of the 

coastal zone, increase awareness, and enforce fishing regulations. 

The “Makai Watch” Program was initiated in 2005 as a partnership effort by 

the State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) and several 

non-governmental organizations, including The Nature Conservancy, 

Community Conservation Network, Hawaiÿi Wildlife Fund and several 

community-based organizations. The goal of Makai Watch is to provide 

local communities concerned about the health of near shore marine 

resources the opportunity to become directly involved in their protection. 

There are three main components of Makai Watch: 

o Awareness raising and outreach – Makai Watch participants provide 

information to the public regarding the local marine ecology, 

regulations, culture, history, and safety. 

o Biological and human use monitoring – Makai Watch participants 

collect data on human use and biological condition of marine 

resources. These data can help assess the success of the Makai Watch 

program. 

o Observation and compliance – Makai Watch participants encourage 

users to follow regulations and report illegal activities to State 

conservation and resource enforcement officers (DOCARE). 

If monitoring indicates that estuarine and marine resources of Honuÿapo 

need to be further protected, the estuary and near shore marine areas 

around Honuÿapo could be recommended for designation as a Marine 

Managed Area. The designation of a Marine Managed Area is evaluated by 

DLNR’s Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) and adopted by the Board of 

Land and Natural Resources. Regulations of the designated Marine Managed 

Area are enforced by DLNR’s Division of Conservation and Resources 

Enforcement (DOCARE). 

Page 41


� Maintenance of the unimproved coastal trail along the length of Honuÿapo 

Park. This trail is walking access only and ties into the portion of the historic 

alanui aupuni (Old Government Road) remaining at the northern end of the 

park. This coastal trail can be part of the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail 

and can be managed through a partnership between community groups and 

the National Park Service. 

The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail is administered by the National Park 

Service and was added to the National Trails System in November 2000. 

The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail corridor is approximately 175 miles 

long, from ÿUpolu Point on the north tip of Hawaiÿi Island down the west 

coast of the island around Ka Lae (South Point) and along the south coast to 

the east boundary of Hawaiÿi Volcanoes National Park. While the trail 

corridor has been defined, the actual trail path has not been identified along 

the entire length of the corridor and many issues remain including 

protection of archaeological resources, land ownership and liability along 

the trail corridor. The intent of the Ala Kahakai Trail is to combine 

remaining elements of the ancient ala loa coastal trail with segments of the 

later alanui aupuni (Old Government Road), and more recent trails and 

roads providing connection between the historic trail segments. The 

National Park Service is interested in working with küpuna, local 

community groups, and landowners to manage the proposed trail. This plan 

only addresses the portion of the Ala Kahakai that would be located within 

Honuÿapo Park. 

� Invasive plant control, particularly guinea grass, and native plant restoration 

along coastal trails to mitigate wildfire hazard and help protect the native 

coastal ecosystems. 

Park Management 

The park management facility provides a central location for storage of 

maintenance equipment and for basic office duties associated with the park. The 

facility is used both by DPR employees and by KOOH. Camping permits can be 

purchased at the management office during designated hours and the facility also 

serves as a base of operations for KOOH activities, including wetlands restoration 

and the “Makai Watch” program. 

� Park maintenance and management warehouse with office space and 

storeroom for maintenance equipment; 

� Gated and fenced parking for maintenance crew and KOOH staff vehicles. 

Page 42

Figure 5-2: Site Plan 

New Intersection 

Page 43 


Figure 5-2: Site Plan

This page intentionally left blank 

Page 44 

Honuÿapo Park Final Resources Management Plan

5.4 Potential Additional Future Improvements 


During the planning process for Honuÿapo Park, some park improvement ideas 

were eliminated from the Pre-final Plan because they could create implementation 

and/or long-term management concerns for implementing parties. However, these 

proposed improvements also had strong community support and are listed below 

as potential future projects that need a project champion for implementation and 

long-term management. 

Wilderness Camp Area 

Proposed Improvement Idea: The wilderness camp area is more remote than other 

campsites of the park, is accessed via a hiking trail, and provides a unique 

experience of the Kaÿu coastal landscape. Access for maintenance and emergency 

vehicles is provided via an unpaved road from the coastal park area. This road is 

not accessible to the general public in order to protect the coastal resources of this 

site. 


� Three wilderness campsites accommodating a combined maximum of 9 

campers, with hike-in access only (road access for maintenance and 

emergency vehicles only), located close to the shoreline and at a distance 

from community park areas. 

� Campsites landscaped with fire-resistant native coastal plants. BBQ pits 

constructed to minimize the potential for wildfire ignition. 

� Composting toilet located nearby and useable by campers and day hikers. 

� No drinking water. No outdoor lighting. 

Management and Maintenance Issues: the remoteness of the wilderness campsites 

is a concern for DPR maintenance and management because of the higher 

potential for squatters to establish camps in this area, which could cause a 

significant enforcement issue. Additionally, providing an unpaved access road to 

the wilderness campsites could lead to illegal use by 4x4 vehicles to access the 

coastline, which would also be an enforcement issue. 

Possible Future Implementation Lead: DPR is interested in partnering with KOOH 

to provide monitoring of campsites at Honuÿapo Park and thus improve security. If 

it becomes apparent that illegal camping occurs often along the coastline in the 

wilderness areas of Honuÿapo Park and KOOH is interested in implementing and 

monitoring the wilderness campsites, then the community group could work with 

DPR to obtain appropriate approvals and permits for implementation. 

Permits Required: State Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP), County Special 

Management Area (SMA) permit, Shoreline Certification. 

Page 45


Implementation Projects and Estimated Cost: 

• New hiking/maintenance trail alignments with gates from the coastal park 

to wilderness campsites - Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimate: 

$10,000 

• Composting Toilets at Wilderness Camp Area – Preliminary Cost Estimate: 

$75,000 

• Grubbing and planting of campsite areas with native plants; installation of 

rubbish receptacles and BBQ pits. No lighting provided – Preliminary 

Cost Estimate: $15,000 

Honuÿapo Pier Restoration 

Proposed Improvement idea: The Kaÿu community has expressed a strong interest 

in seeing the historic pier located at the south end of Honuÿapo Park restored for 

recreational purposes. Restoration of the pier for pedestrian access and fishing 

would need to include the performance of a structural evaluation of existing 

concrete pilings and new construction work to restore structural integrity. 

Restoration would also include the installation of wooden decking for pedestrian 

access, safety rails and signage. 

Implementation and Management Issues: The historic pier is owned by the State’s 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, Land Division, and is not part of the 

Honuÿapo Park property. Restoration implementation would have to be undertaken 

by DLNR or with DLNR supervision and approval. 

Due to the rough ocean conditions prevailing along the Kaÿü Coast and at 

Honuÿapo Bay, restoration of the pier for recreational use could carry significant 

liability for DLNR. DLNR would also be responsible for long-term management and 

maintenance of the pier. At this time, DLNR does not have any plan for restoration 

of this pier. 

Required documents and permits: Project-specific Environmental Assessment, SMA 

permit, State CDUP; Archaeological Preservation Plan. 

Page 46


6 IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS 

A list of projects and programs was developed to implement the proposed 

improvements at Honuÿapo Park. Due to the resource constraints of DPR and 

KOOH, the implementation of these projects and programs has been divided into 

four phases over a period of 25 years. The projects and programs are summarized 

by implementation phase in Table 6-1 below with budgetary cost estimate, park 

area and lead entity. The projects and programs are further described in the 

following sections with brief project scopes, budgetary implementation cost 

estimates, and potential long-term management issues and considerations. 

Required permits for project implementation are listed in Appendix D. 

The total order of magnitude cost estimate for implementation of all Honuÿapo Park 

projects and programs in 2010 dollars is $2,400,000. Cost estimates are 

preliminary and for budgetary purposes only. More detailed cost estimates will be 

developed as part of design work for the proposed projects. 

Phasing Park Area Project 

I 

II 

Estuary 

Zone 

WP 

Table 6-1: Plan Implementation Summary 

Page 47 

Preliminary 

cost estimate 

Project 

lead 

Long-term 

Mgmt Lead 

Wetland Study and Restoration Plan $60,000 KOOH KOOH 

New park access from Mill Ditch Road 

(low-impact pavement), and removal of 

existing park access road 

$310,000 DPR DPR 

WP New BBQ pits at Whittington Beach Park $15,000 KOOH DPR 

Shoreline 

Zone 

NCP 

NCP 

NCP 

NCP 

NCP 

Makai Watch Program allow $5,000 KOOH KOOH 

Clearing and surface grading at Park 

(plateau for pavilion and parking) 

Access road with low-impact pavement to 

community park and campsites 

Parking areas at park and campsites, paved 

with low-impact pavement 

Native Plant Restoration at Park, and along 

shoreline 

Park regulatory signage (Honuÿapo and 

Whittington parks) 

$350,000 DPR DPR 

$230,000 DPR DPR 

$60,000 DPR DPR 

$130,000 

DPR / 

KOOH 

DPR / 

KOOH 

$5,000 DPR DPR 

Park Mgmt Park management warehouse and parking $300,000 DPR DPR 

Estuary 

Zone 

Shoreline 

Zone 

WP: Whittington Park Area 

NCP: New Coastal Park Area 

Implementation of Wetland Restoration 

Plan 

N/A KOOH KOOH 

Ala Kahakai Trail Segment allow $10,000 KOOH KOOH

Phasing Park Area Project 

III 

IV 

NCP 


Table 6-1: Plan Implementation Summary (continued) 

Park facilities: pavilion, picnic tables, 

campsites, BBQ pits, trails, ADA access 

Page 48 

Preliminary 

cost estimate 

Project 

lead 

$270,000 DPR 

Long-term 

Mgmt Lead 

DPR / KOOH 

(campsites) 

NCP Composting or vault toilet $130,000 DPR DPR 

WP Park interpretive displays $20,000 KOOH KOOH 

NCP Park interpretive displays $20,000 KOOH KOOH 

NCP Discovery Garden plantings and displays allow $20,000 KOOH KOOH 

WP 

WP 

WP 

WP 

Educational 

on- Programs 

going Educational 

Programs 

WP: Whittington Park Area 

NCP: New Coastal Park Area 

Implementation Phasing: 

New paved parking area in southern 

portion of park 

Demolish existing small pavilions and 

replace with new larger open pavilion 

with ADA access 

Demolish existing toilets on septic 

system and replace with composting 

toilet (or vault) 

Removal of several concrete foundations 

and structures at Whittington Beach Park 

Cultural education programs 

Natural/environmental/ocean education 

programs and activities 

$80,000 DPR DPR 

$170,000 DPR DPR 

$140,000 DPR DPR 

$70,000 DPR N/A 

$10,000 

annual 

$10,000 

annual 

I - 1-4 years : Cost to DPR: $310,000 Cost to KOOH: $80,000 

KOOH KOOH 

KOOH KOOH 

II – 5-9 years: Cost to DPR: $1,080,000 Cost to KOOH: wetlands restoration cost N/A 

III – 10-14 years: Cost to DPR: $400,000 Cost to KOOH: $60,000 

IV - 15-25 years: Cost to DPR: $460,000 Cost to KOOH: $0 

6.1 Phase I Projects 

A. Wetlands Study and Restoration Plan 

Project Description: Conduct appropriate wetlands studies, including a 

hydrologic study, topographic survey, and botanical survey. Based on the 

results of these studies, develop a Wetlands Restoration Plan that will detail 

restoration goals and objectives, recommended projects, and an 

implementation plan with alternative strategies to preserve and restore the 

native ecosystem of the Honuÿapo Estuary. The Wetlands Restoration Plan 

should take into account the kuleana parcels around the estuary, which are 

excluded from the park property, and thus should not be included in key 

habitat restoration areas. 

Preliminary Planning Cost Estimate: $60,000


B. New Honuÿapo Park access from Mill Ditch Road and Removal of Existing 

Park Entrance. 

Project Description: Clear, grub, grade, and construct a paved 20-foot-wide 

by 900 feet long road access to the Whittington and new coastal park 

sections of Honuÿapo Park using low-impact paving materials such as 

porous asphalt. Porous asphalt is similar to conventional asphalt except that 

its mix has a lower concentration of fine material, thus allowing water to 

drain through. A recharge bed consisting of uniformly-graded stone mix 

must be placed beneath the asphalt to serve as storm water storage and 

filtration. Design and construction of porous pavement is more elaborate 

than conventional pavement; consequently, installation cost of porous 

asphalt may be approximately 10 to 15% higher than conventional asphalt. 

However, porous asphalt can provide cost savings by not requiring storm 

water drains. 

No road lighting provided. Demolish existing paved entrance to Whittington 

Park. 

Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimate: $310,000 

Long-term Management Considerations: Porous asphalt is generally as 

durable as conventional asphalt; however, its drainage effectiveness can be 

affected by clogging from fine particles. It is generally recommended that 

the pavement surface be vacuum-swept annually to maintain drainage 

effectiveness. 

C. New BBQ pits at Whittington Park Section 

Project Description: Construct BBQ pits near campsites and picnic tables at 

Whittington park section. 


D. Makai Watch Program 

Project Description: Work with the Hawaiÿi branch of DOCARE to establish 

a Makai Watch program that could be tailored to KOOH’s goals and 

objectives. As part of the Makai Watch program, KOOH could monitor 

human use, increase awareness, enforce fishing regulations, and monitor the 

biological condition of the shoreline zone. 

Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimate: $5,000 for supplies assuming 

labor is on a volunteer basis. 

Long-term Management Considerations: If monitoring indicates that the 

marine resources around Honuÿapo would benefit from additional 

protection measures, the coastal zone and Honuÿapo Estuary could be 

recommended for designation as a Marine Managed Area. The designation 

Page 49


of a marine area is evaluated by DAR and adopted by the Board of Land and 

Natural Resources. Enforcement of regulations in designated Marine 

Managed Areas is conducted by DOCARE, which would benefit from the 

support of KOOH. 

6.2 Phase II Projects 

E. Surface Grading at New Coastal Park Section 

Project Description: Clear and grade existing mill waste soil piles to provide 

a large plateau for the multiuse pavilion and the parking area of the new 

coastal park section. Fine grade ground surfaces around proposed buildings, 

paved trail areas and campsites. 


F. New Access Road to New Coastal Park and Campsites 

Project Description: Clear, grub, grade, and construct paved 20-foot-wide 

access road to new coastal park section using low-impact paving such as 

porous asphalt. See Project B – Honuÿapo Park Access for a discussion on 

porous asphalt paving and maintenance. 

No road lighting provided. For improved safety, fill the Mill Ditch, which 

roughly follows the coastal park road alignment, using onsite material. 


Long-term Management Considerations: Roads paved with porous asphalt 

should be swept annually to maintain drainage effectiveness. See Project B – 

Honuÿapo Park Access for discussion on porous asphalt pavement 

maintenance. 

G. Parking Areas at New Coastal Park Section 

Project Description: Clear, grub, grade, and construct a paved parking area 

at new coastal park using low-impact pervious paving. Provide photovoltaic 

pole lighting designed to minimize impact on nocturnal birds and marine 

fauna at this parking area. For parking areas at the campsites, grade and 

make a gravel parking strip adjacent to the campsite access road; no lighting 

provided. 


Long-term Management Considerations: As with roads paved with porous 

asphalt, parking areas should be vacuum-swept annually to maintain 

drainage effectiveness. 

Page 50


H. Drought-tolerant Native Plant Restoration at Park and along Shoreline 

Project Description: Phased planting and propagation of native coastal 

strand and drought tolerant ground covers, shrubs, and trees for landscaping 

of the park and camping areas, as well as preservation/restoration of native 

shoreline habitats. The existing vegetation in inland disturbed areas of 

Honuÿapo Park is dominated by guinea grass and is especially prone to 

wildfires. Native plant restoration and preservation at the park, camping 

areas, and along hiking trails will be an important measure to lessen the 

threat of wildfires. 


Long-term Management Considerations: Maintenance of native coastal 

vegetation at the park will require regular weeding that can be 

accomplished by DPR maintenance crews in park areas but may need to be 

supplemented by volunteer help along hiking trails. Careful consideration of 

maintenance requirements of various plant species will be important to 

lessen the maintenance burden, particularly in more remote locations. 

I. Park Regulatory Signage 

Project Description: Install safety and regulatory signage at the parking lots 

of Honuÿapo Park. Signage will be consolidated into one large sign at each 

parking lot to conform with DPR’s signage at other County parks. 


J. Park Management Warehouse and Parking 

Project Description: Construct a 1,000-square-foot park maintenance 

warehouse and office building for DPR maintenance and KOOH staff use, 

with a fenced parking area adjacent to the warehouse. 


K. Implementation of the Wetlands Restoration Plan 

Project Description: Implement recommended projects of the Wetlands 

Restoration Plan (Project A), which may include but not be limited to 

removal of invasive exotic plants and native plant restoration, predator 

eradication and exclusion (“excluder fence”), Makai Watch program, etc. 

Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimate: will be detailed in the Wetlands 

Restoration Plan. 

Long-term Management Considerations: the Wetlands Restoration Plan 

should take into account that KOOH will be responsible for the long-term 

management of estuary restoration activities. KOOH should not only 

Page 51


consider one-time implementation costs but also annual costs and labor 

requirements of different wetlands restoration alternatives in their plan. 

Alternatives that are more labor intensive in the long run may not be 

desirable as KOOH relies primarily on volunteer labor support. KOOH 

should identify funding sources for long-term management of estuary 

restoration, as well as entities and organizations that can provide specialized 

support. 

L. Ala Kahakai Trail Segment 

Project Description: Maintenance of the unimproved coastal trail along the 

length of Honuÿapo Park. This trail is “walking access only” and ties into the 

section of the historic alanui aupuni (Old Government Road) remaining at 

the northern end of the park. This coastal trail can be part of the Ala Kahakai 

National Historic Trail and can be managed in partnership with community 

groups and the NPS. Maintenance activities in the trail corridor should 

include removal of fire prone invasive plants, particularly California and 

Guinea grass, and propagation of drought- and salt-tolerant native coastal 

plants. 

Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimate: $10,000 for supplies assuming 

labor is on a volunteer basis. 

Long-term Management Considerations: the NPS is interested in working 

with local community groups and küpuna on the establishment and longterm 

maintenance of the Ala Kahakai Trail. Several community groups and 

individuals have expressed interest in providing support to KOOH for 

maintenance of the Ala Kahakai Trail at Honuÿapo. 

6.3 Phase III Projects 

M. New Park and Camping Facilities: pavilion, picnic tables, campsites, BBQ 

pits 

Project Description: Construct a 1,500-square-foot open multiuse pavilion 

with concrete foundation, designed to blend well with its environment. 

Electrical power is provided for the pavilion using solar photovoltaic energy. 

Construct ADA compliant access to the pavilion and restrooms using lowimpact 

paving materials such as permeable pavers. Install picnic tables, 

trash receptacles, and BBQ pits around the park and at campsites with 

attention to decreasing potential for wildfire ignition. No lighting provided at 

campsites to minimize light pollution. 


Page 52

N. Composting Toilet at New Coastal Park Section 


Project Description: Install a solar-powered composting toilet or vault toilet 

designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and to minimize 

maintenance difficulty. The composting or vault toilet is constructed with 

breakaway walls so as not to impede water flow from coastal flooding. The 

composting toilet would need to accommodate four users at a time. 


Long-term Management Considerations: Composting toilets, while being 

especially adapted for remote areas like Honuÿapo with no readily available 

water source and plenty of sunshine, require some behavioral adaptation 

from maintenance personnel as well as park users. Maintenance of a public 

composting toilet would require use of special cleaning agents and 

monitoring of the toilet’s “computer” to ensure that it is functioning 

properly; on the other hand, a composting toilet significantly reduces the 

volume of final product, which needs to be removed only annually or 

biannually. A vault toilet would require less initial adaptation from 

maintenance personnel but will have the additional cost of frequent waste 

removal and disposal. 

O. Park Interpretive Displays 

Project Description: Design and install interpretive displays at the two new 

open pavilions of Honuÿapo Park, and at the Native Plant Discovery Garden. 

The interpretive displays should be designed in consultation with Kaÿü 

küpuna knowledgeable of the area’s history and resources, and could be 

done in partnership with area schools. 


P. Native Plants Discovery Garden Plantings and Displays 

Project Description: Partner with area schools and community volunteers to 

clear the Discovery Garden area and replant with native coastal strand and 

drought tolerant plants used for restoration around the park and along the 

shoreline. Partner with area schools to create informational displays on 

native plants. 

Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimate: $20,000 for supplies and plants, 

assuming labor provided for clearing, planting, and display design is on a 

volunteer basis. 

Long-term Management Considerations: creation and maintenance of the 

Discovery Garden is generally beyond the scope of DPR’s activities and will 

need to be managed by volunteer groups such as KOOH. 

Page 53

6.4 Phase IV Projects 

Q. Paved Parking Area at Whittington Park Section 


Project Description: Grade and pave one parking area (currently unpaved) at 

Whittington park section using low-impact pervious paving such as porous 

asphalt. Provide parking area lighting designed to minimize impact on 

nocturnal birds and marine fauna. 


Long-term Management Considerations: As with roads paved with porous 

asphalt, parking areas should be vacuum-swept annually to maintain 

drainage effectiveness. 

R. Replacement of Existing Small Pavilions with One Larger Open Pavilion at 

Whittington Park Section 

Project Description: Demolish three old enclosed concrete pavilions and 

construct a large open multi-use pavilion in their place. Provide water for 

this pavilion using existing water lines from nearby above-ground storage 

tank. The pavilion should be designed so as to minimize impact on views 

and so as not to impede water flow in the event of coastal flooding. The 

pavilion will be painted to blend in with its surroundings. An ADA 

accessible path will be provided from the parking area to the pavilion and 

restroom and will be paved using permeable pavement. 


S. Replacement of Existing Restrooms with Composting Toilet 

Project Description: Demolish existing restroom and abandon existing 

seepage pit in-place. Install a solar-powered composting toilet or vault toilet 

accommodating four users at a time and with ADA compliant access. The 

composting toilet will need to be constructed using breakaway walls so as 

not to impede the flow of flood waters in the event of coastal flooding. 


Long-term Management Considerations: see Project N – Composting toilet at 

New Coastal Park Section. 

Page 54


T. Removal of Existing Concrete Foundations at Whittington Park Section 

Project Description: Remove several existing concrete foundations that 

remain from the former industrial facilities of Honuÿapo Harbor and that are 

located throughout the Whittington park section. Concrete structures that 

can be incorporated into proposed park improvements shall remain. Areas 

where concrete slabs are removed will be landscaped with grass and shrubs. 


6.5 On-going Programs 

U. Cultural Education Programs 

Project Description: Cultural education activities and programs conducted 

in partnership with area schools and community groups with a common 

interest. 

Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimate: $10,000 per year for supplies 

and KOOH staffing, assuming presenters are on a volunteer basis 

V. Natural/Environmental/Ocean Education Programs and Activities 

Project Description: Environmental/ocean education activities and programs 

conducted in partnership with DAR, area schools and community groups 

with a common interest. 

Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimate: $10,000 per year for supplies 

and KOOH staffing, assuming presenters are on a volunteer basis 

6.6 Project Funding and Implementation Entities 

The Hawaiÿi County DPR will be the lead agency for implementation of this plan, 

with support from the community group KOOH. The Memorandum of 

Understanding between DPR and KOOH dated August 14, 2008 indicates that 

KOOH can support DPR’s mission through planning, park improvements, 

maintenance, and educational programs, provided that appropriate approvals and 

permits are obtained. 

Larger park improvement projects that require the use of heavy machinery and 

professional labor, such as new paved access and parking structures, should be 

implemented by DPR. Funding for these projects could be appropriated through the 

County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and applicable grants and 

sponsorships. KOOH can support DPR in obtaining funding for and implementing 

certain park facilities. Potential grant sources for park improvements include the 

Page 55


Land and Water Conservation Fund, NOAA CELCP program, and private 

foundations and organizations such as the Kellogg and Doris Duke foundations. 

Smaller park improvement projects, such as installation of BBQ pits and picnic 

tables, and all projects related to native plant and habitat restoration can be 

implemented by KOOH and community volunteers. Projects managed by KOOH 

can be funded through grants from various sources, including federal, state, and 

county governments, and private foundations and organizations. In addition, 

technical support for certain projects can be provided by associated government 

entities, e.g. NPS for Ala Kahakai Trail and DOCARE for Makai Watch Program. 

6.7 Park Management and Resource Protection 

The purpose of this plan is to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural, cultural, 

and recreational resources of the park. Improved access and recreational resources 

in some areas of the park will provide additional challenges for protection of 

natural and cultural resources. If 5 to 10 percent of the Hawaiÿi visitors driving from 

Kona to the Hawaiÿi Volcanoes National Park stop at Honuÿapo Park on their way, 

approximately 3,000 to 5,000 additional visitors (1,000-2,000 vehicles) could visit 

Honuÿapo Park on a monthly basis, averaging about 100 to 160 visitors (30 to 65 

vehicles) each day. In addition, there are only two coastal county parks in Kaÿü: 

Punaluÿu and Honuÿapo. If 20 percent of the population in Kaÿü makes use of the 

coastal county parks located within relatively close driving distance at least once or 

twice a month for recreational purposes, approximately 2,000 to 5,000 residents 

could visit Honuÿapo and Punaluÿu on a monthly basis. Increased visitation from 

both locals and tourists will increase the pressure on Honuÿapo’s natural and 

cultural resources, thus particular attention to long-term management of these 

resources will be needed to maintain and enhance them. 

Specific threats to Honuÿapo’s resources include ignition of wildfires, litter and 

broken glass, vandalism, overharvesting of marine/coastal resources, light pollution 

to nocturnal wildlife, inadvertent damage to Hawaiian cultural sites, and stealing of 

Hawaiian artifacts. These challenges can be mitigated through planning and 

education, and through regulations and enforcement. 

Wildfire Mitigation 

With the arid conditions and strong winds that prevail at Honuÿapo Park, ignition of 

wildfires will become an increased threat to park visitors if not properly managed. 

A Wildfire Management Plan should be developed by DPR to mitigate those threats, 

which could include but not be limited to the following recommendations: 

• No open fires allowed outside of BBQ pits. 

• Wildfire ignition mitigation measures at BBQ pits: wind break, lava rock 

construction, 15-foot diameter sand base around pit 

Page 56


• Removal of California and Guinea grass in parks, campsites, and along trails 

and roads, and replacement with fire and drought tolerant vegetation 

• Maintenance of fire truck emergency access route 

• Caution signage 

• Controlled burns near park areas to serve as fire breaks in the event of 

wildfire ignition 

Park Access and Facilities 

The Hawaiÿi County DPR will be the lead agency for maintenance and operation of 

park areas with support from the community group KOOH and community 

volunteers. Operation and maintenance of park facilities including park access, 

parking structures, pavilions, picnic areas and BBQs, campsites, and restrooms will 

be the responsibility of DPR. Park access will be of particular importance for 

protecting natural resources and native Hawaiian sites. This plan recommends the 

following use restrictions to be enforced by DPR with the support of KOOH: 

• No motorized vehicle access along Honuÿapo coastal trail. 

• Camping at designated camp areas only; combined capacity of all existing 

and planned camping areas of Honuÿapo Park is approximately 50 campers. 

• No bright lights in coastal park areas after dark. 

• Access to the wetlands restoration area from Whittington park section and 

the coastal side of the estuary only; restricted access in wetland habitat areas 

to decrease the potential for predator entry. 

Due to DPR’s budget constraints, the successful implementation and management 

of additional campsites at Honuÿapo Park will depend on the partnership between 

DPR and KOOH. A successful management model for the park is the partnership 

between DPR and “Kamaÿaina United to Protect the ÿAina” (KUPA) at Hoÿokena 

Beach Park in South Kona. KUPA has hired a security group, the “Aloha Patrol”, 

which is made up of local Hoÿokena residents that are onsite daily. The Aloha 

Patrol issues permits for camping at the park and provides education and 

information to park users. KUPA turns in daily reports to DPR of activities at 

Hoÿokena. KUPA uses the proceeds from the campsite permits and a concession at 

the beach park to compensate the Aloha Patrol. 

KOOH could use a similar model to provide management support to DPR for 

improved park areas as well as for coastal and estuarine areas, which would be key 

to the protection of sensitive areas, as well as the security and well-being of park 

users. KOOH could consider operating a small concession at the park and also 

could organize guided tours of some of the wetlands restoration areas as a means 

of earning steady income for their activities. 

Page 57


Natural and Cultural Resources Monitoring 

Management of restored wetlands of Honuÿapo Estuary and monitoring of human 

use and biological health of coastal areas will be the responsibility of KOOH 

through a Makai Watch Program. Additionally, KOOH will be responsible for the 

maintenance of the portion of the Ala Kahakai trail within the park area. As part of 

this duty, KOOH should monitor the use of the trail and the condition of 

archaeological sites located near the trail. 

One important aspect of natural and cultural resources protection is education of 

park visitors through displays and educational programs. KOOH will be 

responsible for putting together interpretive and educational displays about the 

park’s cultural and natural resources, and for managing educational programs at 

the park. KOOH could work with area schools and küpuna to develop displays and 

educational programs. 

6.8 Next Steps 

There are several planning steps needed in order to be able to begin implementing 

the recommendations of this Resources Management Plan. As shown on the 

permitting matrix included in Appendix D, a Special Management Area (SMA) Use 

Permit Application will need to be submitted to the County of Hawaiÿi Planning 

Department for most of the proposed actions at Honuÿapo Park. Several documents 

need to be completed as part of the SMA Permit Application: 

• An Environmental Assessment (EA) developed in accordance with HRS 

Chapter 343 Environmental Impact Statement Law; 

• An Archaeological Inventory Survey of the property approved by SHPD; 

• An Archaeological Preservation Plan and a Burial Treatment Plan approved 

by SHPD. 

Archaeological Inventory Surveys of Honuÿapo Park were conducted in 2004 by 

Haun & Associates and in 2009 by Rechtman Consulting (pending SHPD approval). 

After approval of the Archaeological Inventory Survey, a Preservation Plan and a 

Burial Treatment Plan will be developed for Honuÿapo Park. The Preservation Plan 

will be reviewed by SHPD, and the Burial Treatment Plan will be reviewed by 

SHPD and the Hawaiÿi Island Burial Council. 

In addition to the SMA permit, additional permits and approvals that will be 

important to obtain in order to begin implementing the plan include a State 

Department of Transportation Approval for the new park access-road intersection 

with Highway 11 and the removal of the existing access road. Additionally, a 

variance from Hawaiÿi County Code Chapter 27, Floodplain Management, will be 

needed for grading at the new coastal park area, which is in a FEMA flood zone. 

Page 58

7 REFERENCES 


Clark, M.R., Dirks Ah Sam, A.K., Ketner, A.M., and Rechtman, R.B. 2010. An 

Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMKs: 3-9-5-14:007 por., 053, 054, 055, 

056, 057, 058, and 059 for the Proposed Expansion of the County Park at 

Honuÿapo Bay. Honuÿapo and Hiÿonaÿä ahupuaÿa, Kaÿü District, Island of 

Hawaiÿi. 

Fletcher, Charles H. III. Atlas of Natural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. 

Haun, A., Henry, D., and Ayres, W. 2004. Archaeological Inventory Survey (TMK: 

3-9-5-14:6, Por. 7, 29), Land of Honuÿapo, Kaÿü District, Island of Hawaiÿi. 

Haun & Associates Report 013-071500. Prepared for LANDCO, Burlingame, 

California. 

Handy, E.S.C and Handy E.G, with M. Pukui. 1991. Native Planters in Old Hawaiÿi. 

B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 

Kelly, M. 1980. Majestic Kaÿü: Moÿolelo of Nine Ahupuaÿa. Departmental Report 

Series 80-2. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 

Lamson, Megan R. 2010. One Year at Honuÿapo Bay: A Social and Biological 

Monitoring Project in SE Hawaiÿi (Kaÿü). Draft thesis manuscript for the 

Tropical Conservation Biology and Environmental Science (TCBES) Masters 

Program, University of Hawaiÿi at Hilo. [Final publication expected for May 

15, 2010]. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 2006. PIFSC Cruise Report CR-06-007, Issued May 31, 2006. 

Downloaded 04/14/2010 from: 

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/cruise/Sette/CR0502-PSV.pdf 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. 2003. 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, Final Guidelines. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Ka‘u Coast, 

Island of Hawai‘i Reconnaissance Survey. 

NPS. August, 2007. Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement, Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail. 

NPS. May 2009. Comprehensive Management Plan, Ala Kahakai National Historic 

Trail. 

Strearns, H.T. and MacDonald, G.A. 1946. Geology and Ground-Water Resources 

of the Island of Hawaii. Hawaii Division of Hydrography Bulletin 9. In 

cooperation with the Geological Survey, United States Department of the 

Interior. Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd., Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Page 59


Stover, Carl W. and Coffman, Jerry L. 1993. Seismicity of the United States, 1568- 

1989 (revised). U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, United 

States Government Printing Office, Washington. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of Island of Hawai‘i, State of 

Hawai‘i. 

University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Dept. of Geography. 1998. Atlas of Hawai‘i. 3rd ed. 

Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. 

Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris. 1996. Geologic Map of the Island of Hawai‘i. USGS 

Misc. Investigations Series Map i-2524-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

Page 60

APPENDIX A 

Additional Botanical Data Memo 

Geometrician Associates

September 28, 2009 

geometrician 

A S S O C I A T E S , L L C 

integrating geographic science and planning 

phone: (808) 969-7090 PO Box 396 Hilo Hawai i 96721 rterry@hawaii.rr.com 

Bruce Tsuchida, Principal 

Townscape Development 

Via email 

Cc: Agnes Topp 

Dear Mr. Tsuchida: 

Subject: Additional Botanical Data, Honuapo Resource Management Plan, Ka‘u, 

Island of Hawai‘i 

This letter is to provide some information on our botanical investigations of Honuapo to 

supplement the information on the Kawā to Honuapo area provided in our previous submittals. 

On September 15, biologist Pat Hart and I visited the site to make more detailed biological 

investigations than those we had done for the broader planning area, including delineation of 

general vegetation zones, 100 percent pedestrian surveys of some areas and full plant species 

lists. 

Based on this reconnaissance and earlier ones, as well as studies of airphotos, we were able to 

classify the area into six basic vegetation types, as shown schematically on the attached 

annotated airphoto. These are Lava Flow, Mixed Alien Shrub and Grass, Guinea Grass, Coastal 

Strand, Pond Fringe, and Developed County Park. 

As much of the Honuapo property is clearly completely covered in alien scrub vegetation and 

grass with almost no native species, we focused on areas that had a higher potential for natives. 

We concentrated on four specific areas: 

• Shoreline zone in the northern half of the property 

• Hiona‘a ‘a‘a lava flow 

• Honuapo estuary 

• Developed County park area 

We covered almost the entire surface within each of the areas above, except for the lava flow, 

over which we did a number of transects. In general, we found nothing unexpected,

including any threatened or endangered species that might constrain certain recreational uses. 

Attached is a species list that indicates all the species we observed in our reconnaissance, by 

zone. We also have some observations and recommendations. 

The southern edge of the Hiona‘a lava flow is interesting, although it may be just outside the 

project area. The combination of soil build-up, rainfall splash and runoff, and shade from 

banyans and haole koa trees makes for almost mesic conditions. We found a number of native 

plants there that, while not rare on the island, were found nowhere else on the property, including 

Plectranthus parviflorus and Peperomia leptostachya. This area offers opportunities for 

restoration with native plants that might not be appropriate in other areas of the site, including 

those named above, as well as wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis), alahe‘e (Psydrax odoratum), 

and rare species such as ohe makai (Reynoldsia sandwicensis), maiapilo (Capparis 

sandwichiana), and koko‘olau (Bidens spp.) Because this margin is isolated, planting with rare 

and even endangered species would be appropriate, as there is little potential for them to be 

damaged, as might occur in other locations with recreational uses. We are cognizant of the 

burials that are present in the lava flow above, which must be a consideration. 

The majority of the Honuapo property is Guinea grass or alien shrubs and trees in areas set far 

back from the shoreline. Strictly from the biological perspective, these areas are the best to put 

any infrastructure such as support facilities, parking lots, etc. Again, we understand that some of 

these areas have archaeological features that present a different kind of constraint. 

Finally, the area is extremely fire prone. This is a major consideration in what activities people 

engage in, what equipment or vehicles they use to do so, and how the park is set up to respond 

brush fires. We are particularly concerned about campsites and the possibility of ignition from 

campers cooking or smoking. We recommend close coordination with the Hawai‘i Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife and the Hawai‘i Fire Department for recommendations to make the park 

fire-safe. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity of collaborating with you on this worthwhile project. If 

you have any questions or require further information, please contact me by email or by phone at 

(808) 969-7090. 

Sincerely, 

Ron Terry, Principal 

Geometrician Associates

Plant Species Recorded at Honuÿapo Park 

Scientific Name Family Common Name Life 

Form 

Status* Location** 

Boerhavia coccinea Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia Herb A A 

Brachiaria mutica Poaceae California grass Grass A E, P 

Capparis sandwichiana Capparaceae Maiapilo Shrub E A 

Casuarina equisetifolia Casuarinaceae Ironwood Tree A P 

Chamaecrista nictitans Fabaceae Partridge pea Herb A A 

Chamaesyce hirta Euphorbiaceae Garden spurge Herb A A 

Chloris barbata Poaceae Swollen finger grass Grass A S 

Coccoloba uvifera Polygonaceae Sea grape Tree A P 

Cocculus trilobus Menispermaceae Huehue Vine I A 

Cocos nucifera Arecaceae Niu Tree A E, P 

Crassocephalum 

crepidiodes 

Asteraceae Crassocephalum Herb A A 

Crotalaria sp. Fabaceae Rattlepod Herb A A 

Cynodon dactylon Poaceae Bermuda grass Grass A S, E, P 

Cyperus javanicus Cyperaceae Ahu‘awa Sedge I A 

Cyperus laevigatus Cyperaceae Makaloa Sedge I E 

Cyrtomium falcatum Dryopteridaceae Holly fern Fern A A 

Dactyloctenium aegyptium Poaceae Beach wiregrass Grass A S 

Desmanthus virgatus Fabaceae Slender mimosa Shrub A A 

Eleusine indica Poaceae Wire grass Grass A E 

Emilia sp. Asteraceae Pualele Herb A A 

Ficus elastica Moraceae Rubber tree Tree A A 

Ficus benghalensis Moraceae Indian banyan Tree A A 

Ficus microcarpa Moraceae Banyan Tree A P 

Fimbristylis cymosa Cyperaceae Mau‘u Sedge I A, S 

Heliotropium 

curassavicum 

Boraginaceae Seaside heliotrope Vine I S 

Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Malvaceae Chinese hibiscus Shrub A P 

Jacquemontia ovalifolia Convolvulaceae Pau o Hi‘iaka Vine I S 

Lantana camara Verbenaceae Lantana Shrub A A 

Leucaena leucocephala Fabaceae Haole koa Tree A A 

Melanthera integrifolia Asteraceae Nehe Shrub I S 

Mimosa pudica Fabaceae Sensitive plant Herb A A 

Myoporum sandwicensis Myoporaceae Naio Shrub E A 

Nephrolepis multiflora Nephrolepidaceae Sword Fern Herb A A 

Panicum maximum Poaceae Guinea grass Herb A A, E, P 

Paspalum vaginatum Poaceae Seashore paspalum Grass A S, E, P 

Peperomia leptostachya Peperomiaceae ‘Ala ‘ala wai nui Herb I A 

Pithecellobium dulce Fabaceae Opiuma Tree A E, P 

Pityrogramma 

calomelanos 

Pteridaceae Silver fern Fern A A 

Plectranthus parviflorus Lamiaceae ‘Ala ‘ala wai nui 

wahine 

Herb I A 

Pluchea symphytifolia Asteraceae Sourbush Shrub A A, E, P 

Portulaca oleracea Portulacaceae Pigweed Herb A S 

Portulaca pilosa Portulacaceae Portulaca Herb A A, S

Prosopis pallida Fabaceae Kiawe Tree A A, E, P 

Psydrax odoratum Rubiaceae Alahe‘e Tree I A 

Rhynchelytrum repens Poaceae Natal red-top Grass A A 

Ricinus communis Euphorbiaceae Castor Bean Shrub A A, P 

Samanea saman Fabaceae Monkeypod Tree A P 

Scaevola taccada Goodeniaceae Naupaka Shrub I S 

Schinus terebinthifolius Anacardiaceae Christmas Berry Shrub A A 

Sesuvium portulacastrum Aizoaceae ‘Akulikuli Herb I S 

Sida fallax Malvaceae Ilima Shrub I A 

Sporobolus virginicus Poaceae ‘Aki‘aki Grass I S 

Thespesia populnea Malvaceae Milo Tree I E, P 

Tournefourtia argentea Boraginaceae Tree heliotrope Tree A P 

Waltheria indica Sterculiaceae Uhaloa Herb I A 

* A = alien, E = endemic, I = indigenous 

** A = Lava Flow at Hiona‘a, S = Coastal Strand, E = Honuapo Estuary, P = County Park 

Note: list based on reconnaissance, and additional species may be present and area designation may not 

be comprehensive.

APPENDIX B 

Cultural Resources of the Ahupuaÿa of Honuÿapo, Hiÿonaÿä, Hökükano, 

Kaÿaläiki, Hïlea Nui, Hïlea Iki, Nïnole and Wailau 

Rechtman Consulting

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

This section contains a discussion of the regional culture-historical context for the study area, a 

presentation of ahupua‘a specific history, archaeology, and settlement patterns. Also discussed are the 

historic trails, traditional cultural properties, and cultural practices (ancient and on-going) that have been 

identified for the specific study area. 

Culture-Historical Context 

The current project area is in the district of Ka‘ū, the largest of the six traditional districts on the island of 

Hawai‘i. The project area encompasses the ahupua‘a of Honu‘apo, Hi‘ona‘ā, Hōkūkano, Ka‘alāiki, Hīlea 

Nui, Hīlea Iki, Nīnole, and Wailau. 

Generalized model of Hawaiian Prehistory 

Archaeologists and historians describe the inhabiting of the Hawaiian Islands in the context of settlement 

that resulted from voyages taken across the open ocean. For many years, researchers have proposed that 

early Polynesian settlement voyages between Kahiki (the ancestral homelands of the Hawaiian gods and 

people) and Hawai‘i were underway by A.D. 300, with long distance voyages occurring fairly regularly 

through at least the thirteenth century. It has been generally reported that the sources of the early Hawaiian 

population—the Hawaiian Kahiki—were the Marquesas and Society Islands (Emory in Tatar 1982:16-18). 

The southern part of Hawai‘i Island was likely one of the first places to be settled. 

Over a period of several centuries areas with the richest natural resources became populated and 

perhaps crowded, and by about A.D. 900 to 1100, the population began expanding to the kona (leeward 

side) and more remote regions of the island (Cordy 2000:130). In Ka‘ū, where the land is dry and rugged, a 

few small communities were initially established along sheltered bays with access to fresh water and rich 

marine resources. Punalu‘u, Nīnole, Kāwā, and Honu‘apo were four well-established coastal villages in 

Ka‘ū because they had sheltered bays and access to fresh water in the form of coastal springs. The 

freshwater at Punalu‘u was found slightly offshore and was tapped by an experienced diver capping a 

coconut or gourd over the bubbling spring (Handy et al. 1972:558). The spring here also helped create a 

brackish fishpond. Honu‘apo also had a fishpond. Besides Punalu‘u and Honu‘apo, other notable springs 

along the shoreline between these two ahupua‘a are the springs at Nīnole (Pūhau Spring), and Ka‘alāiki 

(Kāwā Spring). 

The communities shared extended familial relations, and there was an occupational focus on the 

collection of marine resources. By the fourteenth century, inland elevations were being turned into dryland 

agricultural fields. By the fifteenth century, residency in the uplands was becoming permanent, and there 

was an increasing separation of the chiefly class from the common people. Coastal (kula kai) villages 

depended on marine resources and used these in turn to trade with their mauka (kula uka) relatives for 

foods that they could not grow along the shore (Handy et al. 1972:555). In the sixteenth century the 

population stabilized and the ahupua‘a land management system was established as a socioeconomic unit 

(see Ellis 1963; Handy et al. 1972; Kamakau 1992 [1961]; Kelly 1983; and Tomonari-Tuggle 1985). Soon, 

large areas of land began to be controlled by the most powerful chiefs. 

In the first part of the 18 th century Kalaniopu‘u (Kamehameha I’s uncle) established himself as the 

high chief of Ka‘ū. In 1754, after many bloody battles, Kalaniopu‘u defeated Keaweopala in South Kona 

and declared himself ruler of the Island of Hawai‘i (Kamakau 1992:78 [1961]). Kalaniopu‘u went on to 

rule for nearly thirty years and was ruler during the first recorded visit to Hawai‘i by European explorers. 

History After Contact 

Captain James Cook landed in the Hawaiian Islands on January 18, 1778. In January of 1779 he visited 

South Point for the first time on board his ships the Resolution and Discovery. Cook recorded a large 

village on the point and he met with some of the inhabitants who brought supplies to his ships. Cook was 

not overly impressed with the size of the pigs, nor the amount of fruit and vegetables offered, and he noted 

that “the Country did not seem capable of producing many of either having been destroyed by a 

Volcano…” (Beaglehole 1967:486). King, who accompanied Cook on the voyage, wrote: 

1

It is not only by far the worst part of the Island but as barren waste looking a country as 

can be conceived to exist…we could discern black Streaks coming from the Mountain 

even down to the Seaside. But the [southern] neck seems to have undergone a total 

change from the Effect of Volcanoes, Earthquakes, etc…By the SE side were black 

honey combed rocks, …horrid & dismal as this part of the Island appears, yet there are 

many Villages interspersed, & it struck as being more populous than the part of Opoona 

[Puna] which joins Koa [Ka‛ū]. There are houses built even on the ruins [lava flows] we 

have described (Beaglehole 1967:611) 

Around 1781, after the Resolution and Discovery had come and gone, a rebel Puna chief named 

Imakakolo‘a led an uprising against Kalaniopu‘u. The rebel chief was defeated in Puna by Kalaniopu‘u’s 

superior forces, but Imakakolo‘a managed to avoid capture and hide from detection for the better part of a 

year. While the rebel chief was sought, Kalaniopu‘u “went to Ka‘ū and stayed first at Punalu‘u, then at 

Waiohinu, then at Kama‘oa in the part of Ka‘u, and erected a heiau called Pakini, or Halauwailua, near 

Kama‘oa” (Kamakau 1992:108 [1961]). Imakakolo‘a was eventually captured and brought to the heiau, 

where Kiwala‘o (Kalaniopu‘u’s son) was to sacrifice him as an offering. “The routine of the sacrifice 

required that the presiding chief should first offer up the pigs prepared for the occasion, then bananas, fruit, 

and lastly the captive chief” (Fornander 1996:202). However, before Kiwala‘o could finish the first 

offerings, Kamehameha, following the counsel of chiefs loyal to him, “grasped the body of Imakakolo‘a 

and offered it up to the god, and the freeing of the tabu for the heiau was completed” (Kamakau 1992:109 

[1961]). Upon observing this single act of insubordination, many of the chiefs believed that Kamehameha 

would eventually rule over all of Hawai‘i. 

By 1796 Kamehemeha had indeed conquered all of the islands except Kaua‘i. It wasn’t until 1810 

when Kaumuali‘i of Kauai gave his allegiance to Kamehameha that the Hawaiian Islands were unified 

under one ruler (Kuykendall and Day 1976). Kamehameha died on May 8, 1819 at Kamakahonu in Kailua- 

Kona, and once again the culture of Hawai‘i was to change radically. Following the death of a prominent 

chief, it was customary to remove all of the regular kapu that maintained social order and the separation of 

men and women and elite and commoner. Thus, following Kamehameha’s death a period of ‘ai noa (free 

eating) was observed along with the relaxation of other traditional kapu. It was for the new ruler and 

kahuna to re-establish kapu and restore social order, but at this point in history traditional customs saw a 

change: 

The death of Kamehameha was the first step in the ending of the tabus; the second 

was the modifying of the mourning ceremonies; the third, the ending of the tabu of the 

chief; the fourth, the ending of carrying the tabu chiefs in the arms and feeding them; the 

fifth, the ruling chief's decision to introduce free eating (‘ainoa) after the death of 

Kamehameha; the sixth, the cooperation of his aunts, Ka-ahu-manu and Ka-heihei-malie; 

the seventh, the joint action of the chiefs in eating together at the suggestion of the ruling 

chief, so that free eating became an established fact and the credit of establishing the 

custom went to the ruling chief. This custom was not so much of an innovation as might 

be supposed. In old days the period of mourning at the death of a ruling chief who had 

been greatly beloved was a time of license. The women were allowed to enter the heiau, 

to eat bananas, coconuts, and pork, and to climb over the sacred places. You will find 

record of this in the history of Ka-ula-hea-nui-o-ka-moku, in that of Ku-ali‘i, and in most 

of the histories of ancient rulers. Free eating followed the death of the ruling chief; after 

the period of mourning was over the new ruler placed the land under a new tabu 

following old lines (Kamakau 1992: 222). 

Immediately upon the death of Kamehameha I, Liholiho (his son and to be successor) was sent away to 

Kawaihae to keep him safe from the impurities of Kamakahonu brought about from the death of 

Kamehameha. After purification ceremonies Liholiho returned to Kamakahonu: 

Then Liholiho on this first night of his arrival ate some of the tabu dog meat free 

only to the chiefesses; he entered the lauhala house free only to them; whatever he 

desired he reached out for; everything was supplied, even those things generally to be 

2

found only in a tabu house. The people saw the men drinking rum with the women kahu 

and smoking tobacco, and thought it was to mark the ending of the tabu of a chief. The 

chiefs saw with satisfaction the ending of the chief’s tabu and the freeing of the eating 

tabu. The kahu said to the chief, “Make eating free over the whole kingdom from Hawaii 

to Oahu and let it be extended to Kauai!” and Liholiho consented. Then pork to be eaten 

free was taken to the country districts and given to commoners, both men and women, 

and free eating was introduced all over the group. Messengers were sent to Maui, 

Molokai, Oahu and all the way to Kauai, Ka-umu-ali‘i consented to the free eating and it 

was accepted on Kauai (Kamakau 1992: 225). 

When Liholiho, Kamehameha II, ate the kapu dog meat, entered the lauhala house and did whatever 

he desired it was still during a time when he had not reinstituted the eating kapu but others appear to have 

thought otherwise. With an indefinite period of free-eating and the lack of the reinstatement of other kapu 

extending from Hawai‘i to Kaua‘i, and the arrival of the Christian missionaries shortly thereafter, the 

traditional religion had been officially replaced by Christianity within a year following the death of 

Kamehameha I. 

Liholiho’s cousin, Kekuaokalani, caretaker of the war god Ku-Kailimoku, dismayed by the extended 

period of ‘ai noa, revolted. By December of 1819 the revolution was quelled. Kamehameha II sent edicts 

throughout the kingdom renouncing the ancient state religion, ordering the destruction of the heiau images, 

and ordering that the heiau structures be destroyed or abandoned and left to deteriorate. He did, however, 

allow the personal family religion, the ‘aumakua worship, to continue (Oliver 1961; Kamakau 1992 

[1961]). 

In October of 1819, seventeen Protestant missionaries set sail from Boston to Hawai‘i. They arrived in 

Kailua-Kona on March 30, 1820 to a society with a religious void to fill. Many of the ali‘i, who were 

already exposed to western material culture, welcomed the opportunity to become educated in a western 

style and adopt their dress and religion. Soon they were rewarding their teachers with land and positions in 

the Hawaiian government. 

The Reverend William Ellis, one of the missionaries, visited the Ka‘ū District in July of 1823. An 

abbreviated account of Ellis’ travels from Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a to Nīnole Ahupua‘a is presented below: 

From the manner in which we were received at Honuapo, we should not think this village 

had been often visited by foreigners; for on our descending from the high land to the lava 

on which the town stands, the natives came running out to meet us from all quarters, and 

soon gathered so thickly around us, that we found it difficult to proceed… 

…We passed through the town to the residence of the head man, situated on the farthest 

point towards the sea. He invited us to his house, procured us water to wash our feet with, 

and immediately sent to an adjacent pond for some fish for our supper. While that was 

preparing, the people assembled in crowds around the house, and a little before sun-set 

Mr. Thurston preached to them in the front yard. Upwards of 200 were present… 

…After the service, some of our number visited the ruins of a heiau, on a point of lava 

near our lodging. During the evening we made some inquiries respecting it, found it had 

been dedicated to Tairi, and was thrown down in the general destruction of idols in 

1819… 

…On the morning of the 30 th , we arose much refreshed, but Makoa not having arrived 

with our baggage, we did not leave Honuapo so early as we could have wished… 

…We waited till after nine o’clock when, the men not arriving with our baggage, we 

proceeded on our way, leaving Makoa to wait for them, and come after us as far as 

Kapapala, where we expected to spend the night… 

3

…After traveling some time over a wide tract of lava, in some places almost as rugged as 

any we had yet seen, we reached Hokukano. Here we found an excellent spring of fresh 

water, the first we had yet seen on our tour, though we had traveled upwards of a hundred 

miles. 

While we were stopping to drink, and rest ourselves, many natives gathered around 

us from the neighborhood. We requested them to accompany us to a cluster of houses a 

little further on, which they very cheerfully did… 

…We travelled over another rugged tract of lava about two hundred rods wide. It had 

been most violently torn to pieces, and thrown up in the wildest confusion; in some 

places it was heaped forty or fifty feet high. The road across it was formed of large 

smooth round stones, placed in a line two or three feet apart… 

…About half-past eleven we reached Hilea, a pleasant village belonging to the governor. 

As we approached it, we observed a number of artificial fish-ponds, formed by 

excavating the earth to the depth of two or three feet, and banking up the sides. The sea is 

let into them occasionally, and they are generally well stocked with excellent fish of the 

mullet kind. 

We went into the house of the head man, and asked him to collect the people 

together, as we wished to speak to them about the true God. He sent out, and most of the 

people of the village, then at home, about two hundred in number, soon collected in his 

house… 

…The head man then asked us to stop till he could prepare some refreshment; saying he 

had hogs, fish, taro, potatoes, and banana in abundance… 

…As we left Hilea our guide pointed out a small hill, called Makanau, where Keoua, 

the last rival of Tamehameha, surrendered himself up to the warriors under Taiana… 

…We had not travelled far before we reached Ninole, a small village on the seashore, 

celebrated on account of a short pebbly beach called Korea [Kōloa], the stones of 

which were reported to possess very singular properties, amongst others, that of 

propagating their species. 

The natives told us it was a wahi pana (place famous) for supplying the stones 

employed in making small adzes and hatchets, before they were acquainted with the use 

of iron; but particularly for furnishing the stones of which the gods were made, who 

presided over most of the games of Hawaii… 

…Korea [Koloa] was also a place of importance in times of war, as the best stones used 

in their slings were procured here…This place is also celebrated as furnishing the small 

black and white stones used by the natives in playing konane, a native game, resembling 

drafts, and apparently more intricate. 

…After traveling about two miles, we came to Punaruu, where the people of that and the 

next village, Wailau, collected together in a large house…(Ellis 2004:191, 192, 194-197, 

200, 201). 

The coastal trail (ala loa) that Ellis walked would later be modified to accommodate horse and cart as 

foreign population into the area increased. The trail maintained its original alignment at least through 

Nīnole and Punalu‘u (Rosendahl 1991). The trail appears to have remained intact through to the Māhele of 

1848, although at this time there was pressure to create a “Government Road” (alanui aupuni). The 1868 

earthquake and tsunami devastated the Ka‘ū coastline and washed out much of the ala loa. Following this, 

the trail was straightened, realigned and widened, and took a course running mauka of the Nīnole pond 

4

(Rosendahl 1991). This “trail” is now considered the Government Road and was made such after the 1868 

earthquake and tsunami. Although the road was originally the most direct means by which to reach villages 

and commerce, people have since moved away from the coast. The road is now used by all terrain vehicles 

(ATVs), four-wheel drive vehicles, and foot traffic. The former ala loa provided area residents access to 

neighboring villages and resources. The missionary census reports that were compiled after Ellis visited the 

area are indicators of the amount of foot traffic that may have once traveled the trail prior to horse and cart. 

The missionaries first initiated population census reports for the Hawaiian Islands in 1831-1832 and 

1835-1836, before which there were only rough estimates. The missionary census data from 1835-1836 

lists 423 people in Honu‘apo/Hi‘ona‘ā, 124 in Hōkūkano, 238 in Ka‘alāiki/Hīlea Nui, and 330 total in Hīlea 

Iki, Nīnole, and Wailau. (Schmitt 1973:30). 

Kelly (1969) estimated that the Ka‘ū District had a population of between 10,000 and 13,500 at the 

time European contact, but that it declined to less than 2,000 people by 1872. There was not a single reason 

for the decrease in population, but rather it occurred through an accumulation of changes that took place 

after European contact. One often cited reason is that foreigners brought foreign diseases with them, to 

which the Native Hawaiians had no resistance. In addition to this, many people migrated to other islands, 

such as when Governor Kuakini moved from Hawai‘i Island to O‘ahu, and many of his people followed 

him. Also, men who began working on foreign whaling ships emigrated to foreign countries and rarely ever 

returned to Hawai‘i (Schmitt 1973:16). 

Native land tenure practices also underwent drastic changes during the early Historic Period. In 

Precontact Hawai‘i the districts, such as Ka‘ū, were divided into ahupua‘a. In these land units the native 

tenants tended fields and cultivated crops necessary to sustain their families, and the chiefly communities 

with which they were associated. As long as sufficient tribute was offered and kapu (restrictions) were 

observed, the common people, who lived in a given ahupua‘a had access to most of the resources from 

mountain slopes to the ocean. These access rights were almost uniformly tied to residency on a particular 

land, and earned as a result of taking responsibility for stewardship of the natural environment, and 

supplying the needs of the ali‘i (see Kamakau 1961:372-377 and Malo 1951:63-67). 

Entire ahupua‘a, or portions of the land were generally under the jurisdiction of appointed konohiki or 

lesser chief-landlords, who answered to an ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a (chief who controlled the ahupua‘a 

resources). The ali‘i-‘ai-ahupua‘a in turn answered to an ali‘i ‘ai moku (chief who claimed the abundance 

of the entire district). Thus, ahupua‘a resources supported not only the maka‘āinana and ‘ohana who lived 

on the land, but also contributed to the support of the royal community of regional and/or island kingdoms. 

This form of district subdividing was integral to Hawaiian life and was the product of strictly adhered to 

resources management planning. In this system, the land provided fruits and vegetables and some meat for 

the diet, and the ocean provided a wealth of protein resources. Also, in communities with long-term royal 

residents, divisions of labor (with specialists in various occupations on land and in procurement of marine 

resources) came to be strictly adhered to. 

Handy et al. (1972:554) provides a cartographic sketch indicating the various zones of sea and land in 

the District of Ka‘ū and their uses by Hawaiians. The construct is based on the Hawaiian terms for the 

major vegetation zones that are used to define and segregate space within the regions ahupua‘a. The zones 

are bands roughly parallel to the coast that mark changes in elevation and rainfall. The current project area 

falls within what has been termed the kula kai zone. The kula kai was the lowest habitable zone. Residents 

of the kula kai depended largely on marine resources, but also grew sweet potato and gourds. Other 

vegetables were acquired through trade with mauka relatives (Handy et al. 1972). 

The socioeconomic and demographic changes that took place in the period between 1790 and the 

1840s altered the traditional Hawaiian land tenure system and promoted the establishment of a 

Euroamerican style of land ownership. In 1848, the Māhele was the vehicle for determining ownership of 

the native land. The Māhele defined the land interests of Kamehameha III (the King), the high-ranking 

chiefs, and the konohiki. As a result of the Māhele, all land in the Kingdom of Hawai‘i came to be placed in 

one of three categories: (a) Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne); (b) Government Lands; and (c) 

Konohiki Lands. Laws in the period of the Māhele record that ownership rights to all lands in the kingdom 

5

were “subject to the rights of the native tenants;” those individuals who lived on the land and worked it for 

their subsistence and the welfare of the chiefs (Sinoto and Kelly 1970). 

In 1862, the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission) was established in the Kingdom of 

Hawai‘i to legally set the boundaries of all the ahupua‘a that had been awarded as a part of the Māhele. 

Subsequently, in 1874, the Commissioners of Boundaries were authorized to certify the boundaries for 

lands brought before them. The primary informants for the boundary descriptions were old native residents 

of the lands, many of which had also been claimants for kuleana during the Māhele. This information was 

collected primarily between 1873 and 1885 and was usually given in Hawaiian and transcribed in English 

as it occurred. 

Following the Māhele, the Kingdom initiated a program of selling parcels of land to interested 

residents. The lands were those reserved as Government lands-those lands given outright by the King, or 

commuted to the Government in lieu of paying for other parcels retained by the ali‘i awardees of the 

Māhele. The grant program was initiated in an effort to encourage more native tenants onto fee-simple 

parcels of land. The parcels of land sold in the grants were quite large, ranging in size from approximately 

ten acres to many hundreds of acres. When the sales were agreed upon, Royal Patents were issued and 

recorded following a numerical system that remains in use today. 

Many Native Hawaiians that received kuleana lands took part in the pulu trade of the 1860’s. The pulu 

trade pulled families away from their land and houses and created a dependency on pulu for material 

possessions. This was a sharp contrast to the self-subsistent lifestyle they were accustomed to. The Rev. 

Shipman wrote about the effects of the pulu trade on the people: 

…The effect—on them—is not good; not that the pulu is not a source from which they 

might secure comfort to themselves and families, but the actual result is the reverse. 

They are offered goods to almost any amount, to be paid for in pulu; this to a native is 

a strong temptation to go into debt…When once in this condition they are almost 

entirely under the control of their creditors, and are compelled to live in the pulu 

regions, at the peril of losing their houses and lots, and whatever other property they 

possess. Thus their homes are almost in reality deserted, ground uncultivated (Station 

Report, Ms. [1860] in Kelly 1980). 

In 1868, as must have happened countless times during the Precontact Period, a volcanic eruption 

emanating from Mauna Loa shook Ka‘ū, changing the landscape forever. Beginning on March 27 th , a series 

of earthquakes were felt and lava began flowing on the slopes of Mauna Loa. These initial eruptions 

“destroyed a large stone church at Kahuku, and also all the stone dwelling houses in that place, including 

the houses….at the foot of the mountain” (Coan 1868: 106). Then on April 4 th an even larger eruption 

occurred. Fredrick S. Lyman, who witnessed the eruption first hand, wrote: 

Soon after four o’clock p.m. on Thursday we experienced a most fearful earthquake. First 

the earth swayed to and fro from north to south, then from east to west, then round and 

round, up and down, and finally in every imaginable direction, for several minutes, 

everything crashing around, and the trees thrashing as if torn by a hurricane, and there 

was a sound as of a mighty rushing wind. It was impossible to stand: we had to sit on the 

ground, bracing with hands and feet to keep from being rolled over…we saw…an 

immense torrent of molten lava, which rushed across the plain below…swallowing 

everything in its way;--trees, houses, cattle, horses, goats, and men, all overwhelmed in 

an instant. This devouring current passed over a distance of about three miles in as many 

minutes, and then ceased (Lyman 1868: 109). 

Within minutes of the initial quake, the ocean rose up and a tsunami pounded the coast, washing inland 

in some locations as far as 150 yards (Sinoto and Kelly 1970: 51). It was recorded that the wave destroyed 

108 houses in Ka‘ū and drowned forty-six people (Coan 1882:316). A ship passing South Point, about three 

miles distant from land, at the time of the eruption reported that a conical island four hundred feet high rose 

out of the ocean midway between the vessel and shore (Whitney 1868:114). The tsunami devastated coastal 

6

villages and forced people to move inland to towns such as Nā‘ālehu and Pāhala. Frederick Lyman 

(1868:110) wrote: 

The villages on the shore were swept away by the great wave that rushed upon the land 

immediately after the earthquake. The eruption of earth destroyed thirty-one lives, but the 

waves swallowed a great number. 

The volcanic eruption also caused a massive mudslide to occur in the area of Hīlea: 

…This earthly eruption is said to be four to fifteen feet deep, and the disgorgement was 

so rapid that thirty people…were crushed, and all the houses of the village buried from 

sight (Coan 1868: 108). 

The passing of the Reciprocity Treaty in 1876 granted the Hawaiian Islands free trade in certain 

commodities, such as sugar. A sugar mill was built in Hīlea in 1878 to accommodate the Hīlea Plnatation 

and another was built in Honu‘apo in 1881 to accommodate the Hutchinson Sugar Plantation (Kelly 1980). 

Honu‘apo Bay was deepened in the 1870’s to replace Ka‘alu‘alu Bay and was made into a wharf by 1883. 

Honu‘apo wharf served the communities of Wai‘ōhinu, Nā‘ālehu, Hīlea, and Honu‘apo. Punalu‘u harbor 

served the sugar plantation at Pāhala, as well as the communities of Nīnole and Punalu‘u, as well as visitors 

to the volcano (Kelly 1980). The Hīlea Plantation was purchased by the Hutchinson Sugar Plantation in 

1890, and the mill at Hīlea was gone by 1907. Sugar was then processed at Honu‘apo. The wharf at 

Honu‘apo Bay ceased operations in 1942 during WWII. After the closing of the wharf, sugar was sent to 

Hilo for off-island shipment. In 1972, C. Brewer & Co. combined the Hutchinson Sugar Plantation and the 

Hawaiian Agricultural Company to create a new entity called the Ka‘u Sugar Company. In 1996, the Ka‘u 

Sugar Company ceased operations, thereby ending the sugar industry in Ka‘ū. 

Ahupua‘a Specific History and Settlement Patterns 

The current area of study is the coastal region from Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a in the south to Wailau Ahupua‘a 

in the north and extends mauka to the current alignment of Highway 11. This stretch of coastline once 

supported Precontact Hawaiian villages and places of religious importance. The Historic earthquake and 

tsunami of 1868 impacted the land and forced the abandonment of the coast. Some of the coastal areas were 

resettled following the tsunami. Most of this coastline has not been adequately surveyed for archaeological 

and cultural features, but those surveys that have been undertaken provide baseline data concerning the 

archaeological resources that withstood the earthquake and tsunami and those that were rebuilt or built new 

and reflect a post 1868 settlement pattern. Provided below is a summary of the archaeological work that has 

taken place by ahupua‘a (along with any ahupua‘a specific legendary references), beginning in the south 

with Honu‘apo and ending in the north with Wailau. The information presented is limited to the area 

between Highway 11 and the coastline. 

Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a 

Honu‘apo is literally translated as “caught turtle” (Pukui et al. 1974:51), but according to Handy et al. 

(1972:604) Honu‘apo was originally Honua‘apo, meaning “embraced land”, or land embraced by a kapu. 

‘Honua‘apo’ has its origin with a cave that was a place of refuge and was therefore kapu. Honu‘apo is well 

known for its sizable fishpond, which is fed by underground springs. The fishpond previously supported a 

fairly large village as witnessed by Ellis in 1823. Ellis reported that in Honu‘apo there were at least 200 

people in attendance for his sermon (Ellis 2004:191). Missionary reports between 1835-1836 state that 

there were 432 people in Honu‘apo/Hi‘ona‘ā, including 142 children (Schmitt 1973:30). The fishpond 

supplied fresh drinking water to the residents as well as fish, and water for agricultural pursuits. Most 

legendary references are only generalized to the entire Ka‘ū District, but one legendary reference (The 

Legend of Kawelohea) about Honu‘apo was told to Ellis as he passed through the ahupua‘a: 

As we approached this place [Honu‘apo], the natives led us to a steep precipice, 

overhanging the sea, and pointed out a rock in the water below, called Kaverohea. They 

seemed to regard both the place where we were, and the rock below, with strong feelings 

of superstistion; at which we were not surprised, when they informed us, that formerly a 

7

jealous husband, who resided a short distance from the place, murdered his wife in a 

cruel manner with a stone, and afterwards dragged her down to the place where we stood, 

and threw her into the sea; that she fell on the rock which we saw, and, immediately 

afterwards, while he stood ruminating on what he had done, called out to him in the most 

affectionate and lamentable strains, attesting her innocence of the crime for which she 

had been murdered. 

From the rock, which is still called by her name, they said her voice was often heard 

calling to her husband, and there her form was sometimes seen. They also informed us, 

that her lamentations were considered by them us [sic] ominous of some great disaster; as 

of war, or famine, or the death of a distinguished chief (Ellis 2004:190). 

Soon after Ellis’s visit to Honu‘apo there was an influx of Westerners. The ever-growing population of 

Westerners throughout Hawai‘i forced socioeconomic and demographic changes that promoted the 

establishment of a Euro-American style of land ownership, and the Māhele became the vehicle for 

determining ownership of native lands. As a result of the Māhele, Honu‘apo was awarded to Lunalilo as 

konohiki land (Land Commission Award [LCAw.] 8559) and consisted of 2,200 acres (Kelly 1980:51). In 

addition, there were a total of nineteen kuleana. awarded in Honu‘apo, with five of these in the coastal 

portion of the ahupua‘a, makai of Highway 11 and one straddling the Highway. Three of the kuleana 

awardees claimed house lots (9564-B, 9212, and 10516:1), one claimed a potato field (9564-B), one 

claimed goats (10516:1), one claimed kihapai (10008:2), one claimed a salt basin (10516:1), and one 

claimed two ponds and three salt cellars (9955B). There was no information concerning land use for 

LCAw. 10323. There were no land grants in the coastal portion of Honu‘apo. 

By the end of the 1800s Honu‘apo Bay was deepened and turned into a wharf to serve the needs of a 

growing sugarcane industry in the area. The sugar industry quickly set down roots in Honu‘apo and erected 

a sugar mill, a large sugar warehouse to go along with the mill, and various out buildings. All of these 

developed areas were connected with a small gauge railroad network. Honu‘apo was transformed into a 

major port of call, serving the needs of the sugar industry and the communities of Wai‘ōhinu, Nā‘ālehu, 

Hīlea, and Honu‘apo. The wharf at Honu‘apo Bay ceased operations in 1942 during WWII. After the 

closing of the wharf, sugar was sent to Hilo for off-island shipment. 

The first mention of archaeological resources in Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a comes from Stokes (Stokes and 

Dye 1991). John Stokes worked for the Bishop museum beginning in 1899 managing the museums library 

and assisting in superintending the collections. In 1906 Stokes came to the Island of Hawai‘i and began 

recording heiau and documenting native stories and/or traditions associated with them. He recorded one 

heiau in Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a and one heiau at the border of Honu‘apo and Hi‘ona‘ā: 

Kamala‘i Heiau 

Heiau of Kamala‘i, land of Honu‘apo, Ka‘ū. Now entirely destroyed, the site is on the 

point northeast of Honu‘apo harbor. It was said to have been a sacrificial heiau for human 

victims and to have been an enclosure. It was thought to have been dedicated to Kane and 

Lono. 

There has also been a heiau kū‘ula between Kamala‘i and the harbor. My informant 

had put fish there for luck, placing them on the walls on the east side, without prayer. The 

destruction of these places was by tidal waves. 

Auolele Heiau 

Heiau of Auolele, near the boundary of Honu‘apo and Hi‘ona‘ā. It said to have been for 

human sacrifice. Not seen (Stokes and Dye 1991:126). 

8

The Kamala‘i Heiau may be the one that Ellis described as “the ruins of a heiau, on a point of lava near 

our lodgingg” (Ellis 2004:191,192). He states that this heiau “had been dedicated to Tairi, and was thrown 

down in the general destruction of idols in 1819” (Ellis 2004:191, 92). 

Following the heiau survey conducted by Stokes, three other archaeological surveys have been 

conducted on the coastal portion of Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a: Ayres (1970); Rosendahl (1986); and Haun et al. 

(2004). 

In 1970, the Bishop Museum Department of Anthropology conducted a preliminary report on the 

archaeological survey of coastal areas of Honu‘apo, Hi‘ona‘ā, and Hōkūkano ahupua‘a, in Ka‘ū, Hawai‘i 

(Ayres 1970). Within Honu‘apo a total of seventy-three sites were recorded. Twenty-two of these sites 

were stone walled houses or shelters, thirteen were stone platforms (likely house foundations), sixteen were 

stone wall sections, seven were modified depressions (likely agricultural), two were ahu, four were 

modified outcrops (likely shelters), one was a natural depression with a stone path through it, one was a 

possible burial, one was the Government Road, one was the fishpond, and two were the heiau sites 

associated with Honu‘apo mentioned above (see Stokes and Dye 1991:126). The heiau are no longer 

present. Most of the archaeological sites were concentrated along the elevated pāhoehoe pressure ridges 

that follow the coastline. Archaeological sites that may have once existed makai of the pressure ridges were 

likely destroyed by tsunami action. 

In 1986, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc (PHRI) conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of 25 acres 

of coastal land in Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a (Rosendahl 1986). The surveyed area consisted of pasture and 

former cane land. As a result of their survey they recorded three sites with five component features The 

features were comprised of a planting area, an ahu, a mound and two walls. The planting area and ahu 

correspond to two sites (Sites B13-60 and –64) that were previously identified by the Bishop Museum in 

1970 (Ayres 1970). 

In 2004, Haun & Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of TMK: 3-9-5-14: 6, por. 

7, 29 in Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a (Haun et al. 2004). The survey area included approximately 129 acres of the 

253.579 acre TMK: 3-9-5-14:7 and two smaller interior parcels (TMK: 3-9-5-14:6 and 29). As a result of 

their survey they identified thirty-two sites comprising seventy-six features. The sites included eleven 

complexes of features and twenty-one single feature sites. Feature types included enclosures, mounds, 

concrete slabs, stone walls, historic artifact scatters, platforms, petroglyphs, modified outcrops, and several 

miscellaneous types. The sites include seventeen that were considered Precontact to early Historic, fourteen 

that were associated with Historic to modern use of the area, and one site (fishpond) that was utilized 

during Precontact times through the Historic Period. 

The Precontact sites consisted of permanent and temporary habitations, agricultural features, 

petroglyphs, two burials, and the fishpond. These sites represent the remains of the Honu‘apo coastal 

village that dates to at least the 1400-1500s, was described in the 1800’s by early visitors, and was nearly 

wiped out by a tsunami and modern land alterations. The Historic sites included mostly structural remains 

of the former Hutchinson Sugar Company, which began in 1884. These sites were generally concentrated 

around the fishpond and wharf. There were no archaeological features associated with kuleana lands 

located within their project area. Seven sites were recommended for preservation, seven sites were assessed 

as having no significance, and the other eighteen were adequately mapped, described, and photographed as 

to have mitigated all potential adverse effects. 

The Haun et al. (2004) report included a portion of the areas surveyed by Ayres (1970) and Rosendahl 

(1986). Of the 73 sites identified by Ayres (1970), thirty-two sites were found to have been destroyed, 

twenty-nine were recorded and given State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) site numbers, and the 

remaining sites were either located outside the Haun et al. (2004) project area or did not appear to have 

been modified and were therefore not designated as sites. 

Hi‘ona‘ā Ahupua‘a 

Hi‘ona‘ā literally translates as “rocky appearance” (Pukui et al. 1974:46). Much of the coastal portion of 

Hi‘ona‘ā fronts a low cliff and is composed of ‘a‘ā lava rock. Hi‘ona‘ā was not mentioned in any of the 

9

legendary literature reviewed for this project. When Ellis traveled north from Honu‘apo, the next village he 

mentioned was Hōkūkano, which is the ahupua‘a the to the north of Hi‘ona‘ā. Missionary reports between 

1835-1836 state that there were 432 people in Honu‘apo/Hi‘ona‘ā, including 142 children (Schmitt 

1973:30). Hi‘ona‘ā was retained as government land during the Māhele and the only kuleana awarded were 

mauka of Highway 11. There were three land grants purchased makai of Highway 11. Grant number 826 

was purchased by Kelii in the year 1852 and consisted of 39.4 acres. Grant number 3151 was purchased by 

Kahanu in 1875 and consisted of 25.6 acres. Grant number 2693 is partially mauka of Highway 11. This 

parcel of land was purchased by Napali-Kaanaana in 1860 and consisted of 51 acres. 

There has been little archaeological work conducted in Hi‘ona‘ā. John Stokes recorded Auolele Heiau 

(Stokes and Dye 1991:126), which is at the border of Honu‘apo and Hi‘ona‘ā ahupua‘a (see Honu‘apo 

section above). The heiau no longer exists. An archaeological survey conducted in Hi‘ona‘ā was done by 

the Bishop Museum (Ayres 1970). This report was mentioned in the above Honu‘apo discussion. The 

Ayres (1970) report grouped the findings of Hi‘ona‘ā and Hōkūkano ahupua‘a together. In this section of 

their survey they recorded a total of 135 sites, nine of which lie in Hōkūkano. Thirty-one of the sites were 

stone walled house sites, with twenty-six exhibiting a stone platform (likely used as a house foundation). 

Twenty-three sites were isolated wall remnants. Seven sites were depressions likely used for agricultural, 

although most did not have any modification. Eleven sites were ahu. Fourteen sites were overhang shelters 

that were partially enclosed. Eight sites were designated as burials and were rock filled crevices. Three sites 

were stone piles. One site was a small round platform of unknown use. The Government Road also passes 

through both Hi‘ona‘ā and Hōkūkano ahupua‘a. 

Hōkūkano Ahupua‘a 

Hōkūkano was named for a star called Hōkū-pōkano (Pukui et al. 1974:47). Like Hi‘ona‘ā, legendary 

references could not be found. A historical reference was located in Ellis’ tour around Hawai‘i: 

…After traveling some time over a wide tract of lava, in some places almost as rugged as 

any we had yet seen, we reached Hokukano. Here we found an excellent spring of fresh 

water, the first we had yet seen on our tour, though we had traveled upwards of a hundred 

miles. 

While we were stopping to drink, and rest ourselves, many natives gathered around 

us from the neighborhood. We requested them to accompany us to a cluster of houses a 

little further on, which they very cheerfully did… 

…We traveled over another rugged tract of lava about two hundred rods wide. It had 

been most violently torn to pieces, and thrown up in the wildest confusion; in some 

places it was heaped forty or fifty feet high. The road across it was formed of large 

smooth round stones, placed in a line two or three feet apart…(Ellis 2004:195, 196). 

No springs were found on any cartographic resources reviewed for Hōkūkano. It’s possible that Ellis 

was actually in Ka‘alāiki Ahupua‘a, where there are springs. 

The missionary census data from 1835-1836 lists 124 people, including thirty-six children in 

Hōkūkano (Schmitt 1973:30). During the Māhele, Hōkūkano was retained as government land. Kuleana 

awards were located in the mauka reaches of the ahupua‘a. There were no land grants purchased in the 

coastal portion of Hōkūkano. 

Only one archaeological survey has taken place in Hōkūkano Ahupua‘a. The Bishop Museum survey 

conducted by Ayres (1970), previously mentioned for Honu‘apo and Hi‘ona‘ā, also included a small 

portion of Hōkūkano at the border with Hi‘ona‘ā. Within the Hōkūkano portion of the survey, Ayres (1970) 

recorded nine archaeological sites. These sites included three platforms (house, burial, or unknown 

function), one cave shelter, one stone wall (unknown function), three ahu, and one miscellaneous site. 

Ka‘alāiki Ahupua‘a 

10

Ka‘alāiki literally translates as “small lava rock” (Pukui et al. 1974:60). It is well known for its springs and 

pond along the coast. The coastal area of Ka‘alāiki, including a portion of the southern part of Hīlea Nui is 

generally referred to as Kāwā. Kāwā was and still is known for its surf break (I‘i 1963:134). Little has been 

written in legendary or historical literature about Ka‘alāiki. Marion Kelly makes mention of a large red 

stone in the middle of the pond that is the kū ula, or fish god (Kelly 1980:26). Population reports for 1835 

combine Ka‘alāiki and Hīlea Nui together, reporting 238 people, including 67 children (Schmitt 1973:30). 

During the Māhele, Ka‘alāiki was retained as Government land. There was one kuleana awarded makai of 

Highway 11 (LCAw. 7091). LCAw. 7091 was awarded to Kaluahine. Two land grants (por. 993, and por. 

2370) purchased within Ka‘alāiki are partially located makai of Highway 11. Grant number 993 was 

purchased by Kimokeo Keawe in 1852 and consisted of 119.50 acres. Grant number 2370 was purchased 

by Noa Malailua in 1857 and consisted of 350.0 acres. A third land grant (1530) was purchased by 

Kimokeo Keawe in 1855 and consisted of 15.70 acres surrounding the pond at Ka‘alāiki. While the land 

grant encompassed the pond, the land commission specifically reserved the fishpond as belonging to the 

government (Kelly 1980:30). 

Early archaeology in Ka‘alāiki began with John Stokes. Stokes recorded one heiau in Ka‘alāiki (Stokes 

and Dye 1991:126,127). The heiau was called ‘Imakakaloa Heiau or ‘Imakakoloa Heiau, and was located 

approximately one mile inland from the ocean, mauka of Highway 11, and out of the current study area. It 

is unclear whether this heiau still exists. 

In 1967 Francis Ching investigated selected areas on Hawai‘i Island to determine where National 

Historic Landmark plaques would be placed (Ching 1967). Three of the areas he investigated are relevant 

to the current study; Ka‘alāiki, Hīlea Nui, and Nīnole. Around Kāwā Bay, in Ka‘alāiki, Ching reiterated 

what was written in a 1967 Lloyd Soehren letter; that from the southern side of Kāwā Bay to the next lava 

flow there were “…a considerable number of house sites, grave sites, camp sites, and other architectural 

features pertaining to the aboriginal and early post-European Hawaiian culture” (Ching 1967:10). 

In 1970, the Bishop Museum Department of Anthropology conducted an inventory of archaeological 

and historical sites in the districts of Kona, and Ka‘ū and in Anaehoomalu, South Kohala, Island of Hawai‘i 

(Emory 1970). The work for this study was largely based on Violet Hansen’s island wide survey and the 

Bishop Museum’s register. All of the sites and features were already listed in the Bishop Museum register, 

and this report was only a visit to the sites to observe their present condition. In Ka‘alāiki, Kāwā, there 

were 97 sites recorded. In the immediate vicinity of the Kāwā Spring there were six sites, two wells, and 

one enclosure. To the south of the spring there were ten house sites, two platforms, twenty-two burials, ten 

enclosures, and one shelter. On the coast at Kailiiki, within Ka‘alāiki were two house complexes, a shelter 

cave, a platform, a burial platform, and a house site. On the coast at Wailea, within Ka‘alāiki there were 

five house sites, two agricultural features, two burial platforms, and a walled pond. From Wailea to 

Hawaloa, in the extreme southern part of the ahupua‘a there were eight house sites, five platforms, three 

agricultural features, and thirty or more burials, mostly the platform type. A petroglyph consisting of a 

large circle, with small circles on the interior was located at the boundary between Ka‘alāiki and 

Hōkūkano. 

In 1978, the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. (ARCH) conducted an archaeological 

reconnaissance of TMK: 3-9-5-16:32 por. in Ka‘alāiki Ahupua‘a (Ewart 1978). The area investigated was a 

portion of Parcel 36, on the mauka side of the government road. The property owner, Arthur Ulrich, had 

done an initial investigation of his property. After having located numerous archaeological features he 

contacted ARCH and requested a professional evaluation of those resources. An ARCH archaeologist spent 

one day in the field reviewing the sites and features recorded by Mr. Ulrich. Archaeological features 

included platforms, walls, enclosures, and modified sinks, lava blisters, and caves. Ewart suggests that the 

features post date 1868 and are those of habitation areas (platforms), with nearby agricultural use areas 

(modified sinks, lava blisters, and caves), and animal pens (enclosures). Evidence such as ash and faunal 

remains suggested possible shelter use within some of the sinks, caves, and blisters. Cultural deposits 

encountered were disturbed and with the exception of three platforms, the archaeological features were 

evaluated as being in poor condition. 

11

In 1976, two graduate students (Herbert Mann and Anne Bowen) undertook an archaeological survey 

of Kāwā, located along the coast of Ka‘alāiki and Hīlea Nui ahupua‘a, for the purpose of attaining graduate 

credit (Mann and Bowen 1976). Their survey extended from Highway 11 to the coast and was bordered to 

the north by Hīlea Stream, and to the south by a property fence line within Ka‘alāiki Ahupua‘a. They reidentified 

and mapped previous Bishop Museum sites (Emory 1961). Those sites in which they were unsure 

of the exact site number received the nearest site number, followed by the letter “A”. They recorded three 

house sites that were not previously identified in Bishop Museum records. There were seven house sites 

that were identified as having Bishop Museum site numbers. Some of the house sites appeared to predate 

the 1868 tsunami. There were also enclosures (animal or garden use), and planting holes (mākālua) 

associated with the house sites. Although they did not go into detail about the burials in the area, they did 

state that there were seven gravesites said to be of the Kinin Family. A number of petroglyphs were 

recorded along the coast that represented birds, fish, and anthropomorphic figures, as well as pecked bait 

cups. Large concentrations of traditional and transitional artifacts were located on the hill mauka of Hīlea 

Stream. It appeared that this area may have once been settled, but was in disarray and badly disturbed, 

presumably by the 1868 tsunami. The tsunami was said to have “destroyed the villages of Ninole, Kawaa 

[sic] and Honuapo” (Hawaiian Gazette in Kelly 1980:41). As a result of their survey they did not identify 

any sites that were exclusively Precontact in age. The last member of the original Kāwā resident families 

was reported to be Mrs. Lydia Papalimu (Mann and Bowen 1976). She is said to have left the area in 1957. 

Hīlea Nui and Hīlea Iki ahupua‘a 

Hīlea is made up of two ahupua‘a, Hīlea Nui and Hīlea Iki. Hīlea literally translates as “careless” (Pukui et 

al. 1974:45). The northern portion of the area known as Kāwā is in Hīlea Nui. The Hīlea Stream empties 

into Kāwā Bay. Like Ka‘alāiki, Hīlea was known for its surf break (I‘i 1963:134). Legendary references to 

the ahupua‘a of Hīlea are scarce and have only been found in conjunction with the Heiau of Kohāikalani. 

John Stokes recorded Kohāikalani Heiau and Ke‘ekū Heiau, in Hīlea Nui around 1906: 

Ke‘ekū Heiau 

Heiau of Ke‘ekū, land of Hīlea 1, Ka‘ū. Located on the point at the northeast side of 

Kawa [sic] Bay… 

This is very heavy-walled enclosure with several platforms. It is bounded on the land 

side with a light wall. The sea cliff at the point is about 30 feet high, yet the southwest 

wall of the heiau has been almost entirely destroyed by the sea… (Stokes and Dye 

1991:128). 

Kohāikalani Heiau 

Heiau of Kohāikalani, Land of Hīlea 1, Ka‘ū. Located on the southern brow of 

Makanau plateau… 

This is an enclosure with walls from 4.5 to 5.5 feet high inside and averaging 6.5 feet 

high on the outside. All the interior fittings are gone, having been lost to cane growing… 

It was a heiau for human sacrifices (Stokes and Dye 1991:130). 

During construction of the Kohāikalani Heiau it was said that an oppressive chief pushed his people 

too hard and that they, with the help of priests, revolted and killed him at the end of construction. John 

Stokes retold a French translation of the story in his description of the heiau: 

Kohaokalani was, according to tradition, the most important chief on the island and 

reigned in royal state at Hīlea. He it was who built the heiau situated on the great plain of 

Makanau. The sea-worn pebbles may still be seen which Kohaokalani and his people 

carried up onto the height, about two leagues from the slope. These pebbles were 

intended for the interior pavement of the temple…(Remy in Stokes and Dye 1991:130). 

12

Thrum suggests that the pebbles for the pavement of the heiau came from the shore of Kāwā (Thrum in 

Kelly 1980:5). The people working on the heiau became worn out and a conspiracy was soon formed 

between the workers and the priests. 

The temple was completed, and it only remained to carry a god up there. The divinity 

was nothing but an ‘ōhi‘a tree of enormous size, which had been cut down in the forest 

on Nīnole…Arriving at the base of the precipice, all pulled at the rope, but the god, either 

by the contrivance of the priests or owing to the obstacles which the roughness of the 

rock presented, ascended with only great difficulty. “The god will never come to the top 

of the pali,” said the kahuna, “if the chief continues to walk before him; the god should 

go first by right of power and the chief below, following, to push the lower end; 

otherwise we shall never overcome his resistance.” The high chief Kohaokalani complied 

with the advice of the priests, placed himself beneath the god, and pushed the end from 

below. Instantly the priests and people let go the cord, and the enormous god rolled upon 

the chief, crushing him at once. The death of Kohaokalani is attributed chiefly to the 

kahuna (Remy in Stokes and Dye 1991:130). 

One of the first historical references to Hīlea is from Ellis. The passage from his tour of Hawai‘i 

covering Hīlea is as follows: 

…About half-past eleven we reached Hilea, a pleasant village belonging to the governor. 

As we approached it, we observed a number of artificial fish-ponds, formed by 

excavating the earth to the depth of two or three feet, and banking up the sides. The sea is 

let into them occasionally, and they are generally well stocked with excellent fish of the 

mullet kind. 

We went into the house of the head man, and asked him to collect the people 

together, as we wished to speak to them about the true God. He sent out, and most of the 

people of the village, then at home, about two hundred in number, soon collected in his 

house, which was large, where Mr. Thurston preached to them. They appeared gratified 

with what they had heard, and pressed us very much to spend the day with them. We 

could not consent to this, as we had travelled but a short distance since leaving honuapo. 

The head man then asked us to stop till he could prepare some refreshment; saying 

he had hogs, fish, taro, potatoes, and banana in abundance…We ate a few ripe plantains 

which he placed before us, and then took our leave… 

As we left Hilea our guide pointed out a small hill, called Makanau, where Keoua, 

the last rival of Tamehameha, surrendered himself up to the warriors under Taiana… 

(Ellis 2004:196, 197). 

Ellis stated that about two hundred people attended the sermon by Thurston. This is consistent with the 

census report for 1835 that listed 238 people for Ka‘alāiki and Hīlea Nui together. Hīlea Iki was grouped 

with Nīnole and Wailau for a total population of 330 in 1835 (Schmitt 1973:30). 

In 1870, the Hilea Sugar Company was started (Mann and Bowen 1976). A sugar mill was built at 

Hīlea in 1878 to accommodate the Hīlea Plantation, which was purchased by the Hutchinson Sugar 

Plantation in 1890, and the mill at Hīlea was gone by 1907. In 1928, the plantation camps of the 

Hutchinson Sugar Plantation were torn down and the residents were moved to Nā‘ālehu (Mann and Bowen 

1976). The main residential area for Hīlea was mauka of Highway 11, where the main structures of the 

Hutchinson Sugar Plantation were located. There was also a school in the mauka town of Hīlea. School 

records for the district of Ka‘ū report that in 1865 there were 49 students. 

As a result of the Māhele, Hīlea Nui was awarded to Leleiohoku as konohiki land (LCAw. 9971) and 

consisted of 4,400 acres (Kelly 1980:51). With the exception of three LCAw. (9225-B, 10190, and 7733), 

all kuleana awarded in Hīlea Nui were around the mauka town of Hīlea where the sugar mill was located. 

13

LCAw. 9225-B, 10190, and 7733 are all located near the coast and the boundary of Ka‘alāiki Ahupua‘a. 

LCAw. 9225-B was awarded to Keawe, although he was deceased. The kuleana was transferred to 

Keawe’s heir, his son Keohomu. LCAw. 10190 was awarded to Maluae, although he was deceased. The 

kuleana was transferred to his heir Paku (wahine). LCAw. 7733 was awarded to Moa or Moo. There were 

no land grants purchased in Hīlea Nui makai of Highway 11. 

Hīlea Iki was awarded to Lot Kamehameha as konohiki land (LCAw. 7715) and consisted of 2,015 

acres (Kelly 1980:51). Six kuleana were awarded in Hīlea Iki, all mauka of Highway 11 near the town of 

Hīlea. There were no land grants purchased in the coastal portion of Hīlea Iki. 

The earthquake and tsunami of 1868 greatly affected the coastal portion of Hīlea Nui, as it did much of 

the Ka‘ū coastline. 

There has been little archaeological work conducted in the coastal portion of Hīlea. There were three 

archaeological studies conducted in Hīlea Nui (Ching 1967; Emory 1970; Mann and Bowen 1976), and one 

in Hīlea Iki (Emory 1970). 

In 1967 Francis Ching investigated selected areas on Hawai‘i Island to determine where National 

Historic Landmark plaques would be placed (Ching 1967). Four of the areas he investigated are relevant to 

the current study; Ka‘alāiki, Hilea Nui, and Nīnole. In Hīlea Nui, Ching identified the major feature of the 

area to be Ke‘ekū Heiau situated on the Ka Lae Puloulou. This heiau, he states, “features a number of large 

enclosures and platforms” (Ching 1967). 

In Hīlea Nui seven sites were reported on in the 1970 Bishop Museum survey (Emory 1970). The 

description of Ke‘ekū Heiau was consistent with the description given previously by Ching (1967), with the 

additional information that the heiau was for human sacrifice. Kāwā Bay was said to contain five house 

sites and a burial, and that there were petroglyphs located near one of the house sites. 

In Hīlea Iki, eleven sites were reported on. These sites include: a trail partially paved with waterworn 

cobbles; a cluster of four sites consisting of a platform, a walled house site, a shelter, and two camp sites; 

another trail that traversed north/south passing many sites; a cluster of five sites consisting of a walled 

house site, a pen, two platforms, and two field shelters (Emory 1970:5). 

A historically occupied house site was recorded in Hīlea Nui (Site B-10-10) during the Mann and 

Bowen (1976) survey. This house site was rectangular and consisted of a large block outline and was filled 

with small pebbles (‘ili‘ili). Large stone stepping blocks were located at the east and south sides of the 

house site. Large concentrations of traditional and transitional artifacts were located on the hill mauka of 

Hīlea Stream. It appeared that this area may have once been settled and, but was in disarray and badly 

disturbed by the tsunami of 1868. 

Nīnole Ahupua‘a 

Nīnole literally translates as “bending” (Pukui et al. 1974:165). Nīnole is another ahupua‘a that is famous 

for its springs. The spring at Nīnole is called Pūhau, meaning “icy spring” (Pukui et al. 1974:192). These 

springs form an inner pond that empties into another tidal pond. Another pond borders the tidal pond on the 

Punalu‘u side and is fed by the springs named Kauhewa. In a legendary reference to Nīnole we learn of a 

cannibalistic old woman: 

Old woman Kaikapu lives in a cave in Ninole, Kau district, on Hawaii. She is a cannibal 

and uses her pretty granddaughter Ninole to decoy travelers to her cave, whereupon she 

will take them out one by one and kill and devour them raw. She eats her own grandson, 

Ninole’s brother, before she discovers who he is. (Beckwith 1970:264) 

There are many shark stories associated with Ka‘ū. This legend is specific to Nīnole: 

One of the most famous of the named sharks of Ka‘ū was Keali‘ikaua o Ka‘ū. He 

was born at Nīnole, was a friend of man and served man by killing those sharks that ate 

14

human flesh. His last caretaker (kahu) was a man named ‘Ai who died in 1878 at Nīnole. 

(Kelly 1980:82) 

Nīnole is also known for its birthing stones (‘ili ‘ili hānau) at Kōloa Beach. 

…We had not travelled far before we reached Ninole, a small village on the seashore, 

celebrated on account of a short pebbly beach called Korea [Kōloa], the stones of 

which were reported to possess very singular properties, amongst others, that of 

propagating their species. 

The natives told us it was a wahi pana (place famous) for supplying the stones 

employed in making small adzes and hatchets, before they were acquainted with the use 

of iron; but particularly for furnishing the stones of which the gods were made, who 

presided over most of the games of Hawaii. Some powers of discrimination, they told us, 

were necessary to discover the stones which would answer to be deified. 

When selected, they were taken to the heiau, and there several ceremonies were 

performed over them. Afterwards, when dressed, and taken to the place where the games 

were practiced, if the parties to whom they belonged were successful, their fame was 

established; but if unsuccessful for several times together, they were either broken to 

pieces, or thrown contemptuously away. 

When any were removed for the purpose of being transformed into gods, one of each 

sex was generally selected, and were always wrapped very carefully together in a piece of 

native cloth. After a certain time, they said a small stone would be found with them, 

which, when grown to the size of its parents, was taken to the heiau or temple, and 

afterwards made to preside at the games. 

…Korea [Koloa] was also a place of importance in times of war, as the best stones used 

in their slings were procured here…This place is also celebrated as furnishing the small 

black and white stones used by the natives in playing konane, a native game, resembling 

drafts, and apparently more intricate (Ellis 2004:200, 201). 

These famous birthing stones were collected by Emerson and even written about in the 

newspaper Ka Nupepa Kuokoa (see Kelly 1980:34-36). 

In 1846 Chester H. Lyman wrote that the area beside the black pebble beach of Nīnole contains “a 

succession of small villages” along the coast and that the people who lived there were “extensively engaged 

in fishing” (Lyman in Handy et al. 1972:605). The population in 1835 for Hīlea Iki, Nīnole and Wailau was 

330 (Schmitt 1973:30). 

During the Māhele, Nīnole was retained as government lands, having been forfeited by Lunalilo as 

commutation for other lands (Kelly 1980:51). There were eighteen kuleana awards, with five located along 

the coast. Interestingly, Wailau, which is the name of the neighboring ahupua‘a is listed as an ‘ili name in 

some of the claims for Nīnole. H. M. Lyman, a land surveyor for kuleana claimants in 1852, said this about 

the fishponds in Nīnole: 

The only lot that I have surveyed in Kau containing fishponds is Holoua’s in Ninole, 

which has one pond (but no fish) near the Southern corner as you will see by referring to 

the survey. There is also a slime pool misnamed a “pond” below the road, but it contains 

no fish except the hogs of Ninole who spend most of their time in its odoriferous waters. 

In the contract made with Holoua the ponds were particularly reserved for the Aupuni 

[government], and because of the privilege of freshwater, the land, which is miserable, 

was valued at 25¢ per acre without deducting anything for kuleanas or ponds reserved. 

Holoua wished to pay for the land, and then he was desirous of purchasing the pond, for 

which he would give $20.00 per acre (Inter. Dept., Land File in Kelly 1980:29, 30). 

15

There were three land grants (821, 823, and 825) sold in the coastal portion of Nīnole, with a fourth 

(824) located partially makai of Highway 11. Grant number 821 was purchased by Holoua in 1852 and 

consisted of 42.65 acres. Grant number 823 was purchased by Kalaikahuna in 1852 and consisted of 36.95 

acres. Grant number 825 was purchased by S. Kaui in 1852 and consisted of 46.70 acres. Grant number 824 

was purchased by Kapuhonua in 852 and consisted of 48.75 acres. 

In a story about Nīnole that took place during the tsunami of 1868 and was published in the Hawaiian 

Gazette we learn of a man who survived the tsunami. 

I have just been told an incident that occurred at Ninole, during the inundation of that 

place. At the time of the shock on Thursday, a man named Holoua, and his wife, ran out 

of the house and started for the hills above, but remembering the money he had in the 

house, the man left his wife and returned to bring it away. Just as he has entered the 

house the sea broke on the shore, and, enveloping the building, first washed it several 

yards inland, and then, as the wave receded, swept it off to sea, with him in it. Being a 

powerful man, and one of the most expert swimmers in that region, he succeeded in 

wrenching off a board or a rafter, and with this as a papa hoo-nalu, (surfboard), he boldly 

struck out for the shore (50, perhaps 60, feet) the feat seems almost incredible, were it not 

that he is now alive to attest it, as well as the people on the hillside who saw him. 

(Hawaiian Gazette in Kelly 1980:40) 

A passenger aboard the schooner Oddfellow reported that after the tsunami there were only three 

houses left at Nīnole (Brigham in Kelly 1969:35). 

The first record of archaeological resources in Nīnole Ahupua‘a comes from John Stokes (Stokes and 

Dye 1991). More recent archeological work is limited to two surveys (Ching 1967; Emory 1970). An 

archaeological survey conducted by the Bishop Museum (Hommon n.d.) also included Nīnole and is 

discussed in the proceeding section on Wailau Ahupua‘a. 

John Stokes recorded two heiau in Nīnole: 

Ka‘ie‘ie Heiau 

Heiau of Ka‘ie‘ie, land of Nīnole, Ka‘ū. Situated at the edge of the ‘a‘ā flow on the 

west side of Nīnole Bay… All that was found was a cleared level stretch of ‘a‘ā paved 

with beach pebbles. On the east it overhung the sea, the rough ‘a‘ā forming the other 

boundaries. On account of these natural limits, it is probable that the place was never 

enclosed with walls. 

Mokini Heiau 

Heiau of Mokini, land of Nīnole, Ka‘ū. Perhaps identical with Ka‘ie‘ie Heiau. It was 

a name heard in Wai‘ōhinu and Honu‘apo, but the single resident of Nīnole I met with 

knew only of Ka‘ie‘ie Heiau. 

In Nīnole Ahupua‘a, Ching (1967) stated that the Ka‘ie‘ie Heiau was located south of the Nīnole 

Springs and was in good condition, despite the seaward walls having collapsed into the ocean. He goes on 

to state that there was another heiau located directly behind Ka‘ie‘ie Heiau, on a hill. To the right, and 

mauka of the unnamed heiau, there was an interesting site consisting of a raised stone pathway that 

connected the outer wall with the inner platform. This heiau may the one named Mokini that Stokes 

believed was confused with Ka‘ie‘ie Heiau. 

Within Nīnole Ahupua‘a, Emory (1970) recorded fourteen sites consisting of the Nīnole Pond, Mokini 

Heiau, Ka‘ie‘ie Heiau, A cluster of sites including a pen, a corral, a house complex, a trail, a walled house 

site, a burial platform, a portion of the old Government Road, the reported site of the old Nīnole School, a 

complex of sites consisting of a canoe shed, a fishing shrine, two trails, and a platform. 

Wailau Ahupua‘a 

Wailau literally translates as “many waters” (Pukui et al. 1974:224). Information about Wailau could not be 

located in any of the legendary or historical literature referenced during this study. It’s likely that Wailau 

16

was an important locale due to its close proximity to the freshwater resources and fishponds of Nīnole and 

Punalu‘u. 

In 1835, the population census recorded 330 people for the ahupua‘a of Hīlea Iki, Nīnole and Wailau 

(Schmitt 1973:30). During the Māhele of 1848, Wailau was retained as government land. A total of eight 

kuleana land claims were awarded in Wailau. Two of these (LCAw. 7313 and por. 7557) were located 

along the coast. The other six LCAw. were located inland where the ground was presumably suitable for 

agriculture. A single land grant (828) was purchased in the coastal portion of Wailau. Grant number 828 

was purchased by Kekaula in 1852 and consisted of 114.0 aces. An 1887 map, done by Monserrat, of land 

holdings between Nīnole and Punalu‘u ahupua‘a shows a church and school lot in Wailau (Kelly 1980:96). 

It is unclear if these two locations actually housed a church or school. 

Archaeological work in Wailau has been conducted by the Bishop Museum (Hommon n.d.). 

Archaeological sites identified during the Bishop Museum survey were later subject to salvage archaeology 

(Barrera and Hommon 1972; Kaschko 1973). 

In 1970, the Bishop Museum surveyed from Highway 11 to the coast in both Nīnole and Wailau 

ahupua‘a (Hommon n.d). That survey was the first part of a two part investigation, the second being 

archaeological salvaging of select sites. As a result of their survey they recorded 112 sites. Forty-four sites 

were recorded within Wailau and sixty-eight sites were recorded in Nīnole. The site types for Nīnole and 

Wailau were similar and included enclosures, platforms, walls, rock shelters, depressions, terraces, Cshaped 

structures, and mounds. The enclosures were interpreted as house sites, as well as many of the 

platforms. Platforms were also interpreted as burials, or possible burials. Long wall segments were 

interpreted as boundary or livestock control, whereas shorter wall segments likely served a variety of 

different functions or were at one point longer and served to function much in the dame as the longer wall 

segments. Rock shelters were interpreted as having been used on a short-term basis and most had evidence 

of human occupation in the form of food refuse. The mounds appeared to be clearing mounds or may have 

been associated with dryland agriculture. The terraces were interpreted as house foundations and the Cshapes 

as temporary habitation sites. 

In 1972, the Bishop Museum conducted salvage archaeology at nine sites in the coastal portion of 

Wailau Ahupua‘a and nine sites slightly inland from Nīnole Cove in Nīnole Ahupua‘a (Barrera and 

Hommon 1972). The salvage archaeology followed the inventory survey discussed above. The nine 

excavated sites within Wailau consisted of a natural hole along a wall (Site B9-18) that contained glass 

bottles; two house enclosures (Site B9-19 and Site B9-23); a wall-enclosed area (Site B9-20); a twoplatform 

site (B9-33); two rock shelters (one of five features within Site B9-34 and Site B9-110); an 

enclosure with platform (Site B9-171); and an enclosure (Site B-9-172). The nine excavated sites in Nīnole 

Ahupua‘a consisted of three walled enclosures (Site B9-43; Site B9-48; and Site B9-72); a platform 

(Feature A of Site B9-56); two rock shelters (Shelter C of Site B9-66 and Site B9-69); two rock shelter 

features (Site B9-70); three natural rock ledges (Site B9-75); and a Historic trash dump (Site B9-76). 

Excavations revealed primarily Historic Period artifacts. Artifacts that were considered Precontact included 

two Echinoidea (urchin) files and a bone fishhook. The glass bottles recovered from a hole near Site B9-18 

were tentatively dated to between 1880 and 1910. The conclusion about the Historic nature of the sites and 

the lack of Precontact artifacts in the coastal portions of Wailau and Nīnole is that Precontact structures that 

may have once existed on the landscape were swept away by the 1868 tsunami. Following the tsunami 

homes were rebuilt and now reflect a post tsunami settlement pattern. 

In 1973, the Bishop Museum conducted salvage archaeology at Site B9-21 within Wailau Ahupua‘a 

(Kaschko 1974). This site was first surveyed by the Bishop Museum in 1970 (Hommon n.d.) and was 

slated for preservation. The Hawaiiana Investment Company contacted the Bishop Museum when it had 

been determined that a road they were building was going to impact the site. The Bishop Museum agreed to 

salvage the site with an agreement by the Hawaiiana Investment Company that the site would be 

reconstructed at a different location. Site B9-21 was recorded as probable house enclosure. Excavation 

revealed artifacts consistent with the Historic Period with the exception of three coral abraders, two 

hammerstones, a volcanic glass flake, and one possible lava abrader. Site B9-21 was interpreted as a house 

site of the late Historic Period. The historic artifact assemblage suggests that the site was likely built in the 

early twentieth century. 

17

Trails and Roads 

Extending north/south across the entire study area there was a primary coastal trail (ala loa) dating from 

Precontact times. The existence of this trail is referenced in legendary accounts of the region (Rosendahl 

1991) and its physical appearance, constructed with water-worn stepping-stones, was documented as early 

as 1823 by the Reverend William Ellis (Ellis 1963). This trail functioned to connect the coastal settlements 

and provide access to coastal resources as part of an integrated trail network that also included 

mauka/makai trails. Typically every ahupua‘a had at least one mauka/makai trail that connected inland 

habitation and resources areas to the coastal habitation and resources areas. Evidence for the existence of 

these mauka/makai trails is visible today in the form of cleared and/or stepping-stone alignments in ‘a‘ā 

flows and worn pathways across pāhoehoe flows. Several such trails were observed during a recent field 

inspection of the study area. 

Beginning in the middle nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Government began a program of road 

improvements and the establishment of a Government Road system. The logical place to start was with the 

existing primary transportation routes; thus, the ala loa was adapted for use by horse and cart modes of 

transportation. In some places the new Government Road (Alanui Aupuni) was built over the ala loa, and in 

others it was constructed in a linear fashion mauka of the ala loa. Typically this road is 4 to 6 feet wide 

with kerbstones bordering the travel surface. The present alignment of the coastal Government Road across 

the study area took shape following the 1868 earthquake and tsunami. 

Traditional Cultural Properties and Practices 

The Office of Environmental Quality Control guidelines identify several possible types of cultural practices 

and beliefs that are subject to assessment and thus should be considered in project planning. These include 

subsistence, commercial, residential, agricultural, access-related, recreational, and religious and spiritual 

customs. The guidelines also identify the types of potential cultural resources, associated with cultural 

practices and beliefs that are subject to assessment. Essentially these are nature features of the landscape 

and historic sites, including traditional cultural properties. “Traditional cultural property” means any 

historic property associated with the traditional practices and beliefs of an ethnic community or members of 

that community for more than fifty years. These traditions shall be founded in an ethnic community’s 

history and contribute to maintaining the ethnic community’s cultural identity. Traditional associations are 

those demonstrating a continuity of practice or belief until present or those documented in historical source 

materials, or both. The origin of the concept of traditional cultural property is found in National Register 

Bulletin 38 published by the U.S. Department of Interior-National Park Service. “Traditional” as it is used, 

implies a time depth of at least 50 years, and a generalized mode of transmission of information from one 

generation to the next, either orally or by act. “Cultural” refers to the beliefs, practices, lifeways, and social 

institutions of a given community. The use of the term “Property” defines this category of resource as an 

identifiable place. Traditional cultural properties are not intangible, they must have some kind of boundary; 

and are subject to the same kind of evaluation as any other historic resource, with one very important 

exception. By definition, the significance of traditional cultural properties should be determined by the 

community that values them. 

There are no sites within the current study area have been officially recognized as traditional cultural 

properties, however, there are several sites that potentially could be considered traditional cultural 

properties. Some of these are archaeological sites (such as heiau, shrines, and burial sites) that have been 

both recorded and have yet to be recorded, and others are significant landscape or geomorphic features 

(such as the red rock in the Kāwā pond identified as a ku‘ula [fishing shrine], or for that matter the pond 

itself), again that have been both recorded and have yet to be recorded. Such sites would be documented 

during archaeological study and oral-historical interviews. It would also be during interviews that specific 

cultural practices would be identified. However, it is safe to say that in a general sense access to and use of 

the entire shoreline within the study area for recreational, subsistence, and spiritual purposes can be 

considered an ancient as well as ongoing practice. Additionally, many within the Hawaiian community 

along with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, recognize caretakership of the land (malama ‘āina) as an 

ongoing cultural practice with traditional roots. 

18

REFERENCES CITED 

Ayres, W. 

1970 Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey of Coastal Areas of Honu‘apo, Hiona‘a 

and Hokukano Ahupua‘a, Kau, Hawaii. B.P. Bishop Museum, Department of 

Anthropology. Prepared for C. Brewer Corporation and the Kau Historical Society. 

Barrera, W., Jr., and R. Hommon 

1972 Salvage Archaeology at Wailau-Niole, Ka‘i, Island of Hawaii. Departmental Report 

Series 72-1. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 

Beaglehole, J. 

1967 The Journals of Captain James Cook on His Voyages of Discovery. London: The Hakluyt 

Society. (edited from the original manuscripts by J.C. Beaglehoe) 

Brigham, W. 

1909 The Volcanoes of Kilauea and Mauna Loa, Vol. 2, No. 4. Honolulu: B.P. Bishop 

Museum. 

Ching, F. 

1967 Report on Sites (Archaeological-Historical) Visited on Hawaii October 16-18, 1967: Ka 

Lae, Kaalaiki, Hilea Nui, Hilea Iki, Ninole, and Punaluu in Ka‘u and Honokohau and 

Napoopoo in Kona. 

Coan, T. 

1868 Letter to J. D. Dana, pp.106-109. In J.D. Dana, Eruption of Mauna Loa and Kilauea, 

Article XIII, pp. 105-123. American Journal of Science, Vol. 46, series 2, New Haven, 

Ct. 

Cordy, R. 

2000 Exalted Sits the Chief. The Ancient History of Hawai‘i Island. Mutual Publishing: 

Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 

Crozier, S. 

1972 Archaeological Survey and Excavations at Punalu‘u, Island of Hawaii. Typescript report 

in Department of Anthropology, B.P Bishop Museum. 

Crozier, S., and D. Barrère 

1974 Archaeological Survey and Excavations at Punalu‘u, Island of Hawaii. B.P. Bishop 

Museum Department of Anthropology. Prepared for Ka‘u Historical Society. 

19

Ellis, W. 

2004 [1825] A Journal of a Tour Around Hawaii, the Largest of the Sandwich Islands. Crocker and 

Brewster. Boston, MA. 

1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu: Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd. 

Emory, K. 

1970 Inventory of Archaeological and Historical Sites in the Districts of Kona and Ka‘u and in 

Anaehoomalu, South Kohala, Island of Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 70-12 

(Report 61-1, Reprinted 1971) Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, 

Honolulu. Prepared for The Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. 

Ewart, N. 

1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance, Ka‘alāiki, Ka‘ū, Hawai‘i Island (Tax Map Key 9-5-16- 

36). Archaeological research Center Hawaii, Inc. prepared for Arthur H. Ulrich. 

Fornander, A. 

1996 Ancient History of the Hawaiian People. Mutual Publishing, Australia. 

Handy, E.S.C., and E.G. Handy, with M. Pukui 

1972 Native Planters in Old Hawai‘i. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum 

Press, Honolulu. (with M.K. Pukui). 

Hansen, V. 

1980 An Historic Sites Survey of a portion of Punalu‘u, Ka‘u, Hawai‘i. TMK: 3-9-6-02:6. 

Prepared for Edward Crook, ADM International, Na‘alehu, Hawai‘i. 

Haun, A., D. Henry, and W. Ayres 

2004 Archaeological Inventory Survey (TMK: 3-9-5-14:6, Por. 7, 29), Land of Honu‘apo, 

Ka‘u District, Island of Hawaii. Haun & Associates Report 013-071500. Prepared for 

LANDCO, Burlingame, California. 

Hawaiian Gazette 

1868 “The Volcano!” April 29, 1868, P.4, cols.2-5. 

Hommon, R. 

n.d. Report on an Archaeological Survey of Ninole and Wailau (1971). Ms. in Department of 

Anthropology. B.P. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. 

I‘i, J. 

1963 Fragment of Hawaiian History. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Press. 

Interior Department 

Ms. Department of the interior, Hawaiian Kingdom, files. In Hawaii State Archives. 

Honolulu. 

Kamakau, S.M. 

1992 [1961] Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. The Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu (Revised Edition). 

Kaschko, M. 

1974 Salvage Excavation of Site 50-Ha-B9-21, Ninole-Wailau, Ka‘u, Hawaii. Typescript 

report. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 

20

Kelly, M. 

1983 Na Mala O Kona: Gardens of Kona. A History of Land Use in Kona, Hawai‘i. 

Departmental Report Series 83-2. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, 

Honolulu. Prepared for the Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii. 

1980 Majestic Ka‘ū: Mo‘olelo of Nine Ahupua‘a. B.P. Bishop Museum, Department of 

Anthropology. Prepared for Ka‘ū Historical Society. 

Kuykendall, R., and A. Day 

1976 Hawaii: A History; From Polynesian Kingdom to American Statehood. Englewood 

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 

Lyman, C. 

Ms. Journal. Book IV, Aug 20-Oct 10, 1846. Library, Mission Children’s Society, Honolulu. 

Lyman, F. 

1868 Extracts from a letter to D.B. Lyman. pp. 109-112. In J.D. Dana, Eruption of Mauna Loa 

and Kilauea, Article XIII, pp. 105-123. American Journal of Science, Vol. 46, series 2, 

New Haven, Ct. 

Malo, D. 

1951 Hawaiian Antiquities. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 2. B.P. Bishop Museum 

Press, Honolulu. (2nd edition) (Translated by N. Emerson) 

Mann, H., and A. Bowen 

1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Kāwā, Ka‘u, Island of Hawaii. Department of 

Anthropology University of Hawaii at Hilo. 

Oliver, D. 

1961 The Pacific Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 

Pukui, M., S. Elbert, and E. Mo‘okini 

1974 Place Names of Hawaii. Revised and Expanded Edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii 

Press, Honolulu. 

Remy, J. 

1868 [1859] Contributions of a venerable savage to the ancient history of the Hawaiian Islands. 

Trans. William T. Brigham. Privately printed. Boston press: Press of A.A. Kingman. 

Rosendahl, M. 

1986 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Honuapo Development Parcel, Land of 

Honuapo, Kau District, Island of Hawaii. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc., Report 233. 

Prepared for Mr. Raymons Suefuji. 

Rosendahl, M., and P. Rosendahl 

1986 Preliminary Report Upon Completion of Field Work: Full Archaeological 

Reconnaissance Survey for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Punalu‘u Resort, 

Ka‘u District, Island of Hawai‘i (TMK:3-9-5-19:Var.; 3-9-6-01, 02:Var.). Paul H. 

Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc., Report 237-092486. Prepared for C. Brewer Properties, Inc. 

1991 Information on Old Government Beach Road, Punalu‘u, Ka‘u. Letter dated October 30, 

1991 by Paul Rosendahl, PHRI (Report 1069-103091). 

21

Schmitt, R. 

1973 The Missionary Censuses of Hawai‘i. Pacific Anthropological Records 20. Department 

of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. 

Sinoto, Y., and M. Kelly 

1970 Archaeological and Historical Survey of Pakini-Nui and Pakini-Iki Coastal Sites, 

Waiahukini, Kailikii, and Hawea, Ka‘u, Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 75-1. 

Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 

Station Reports 

Mss. Station reports, Ka‘u District, Hawaii, by various Congretional ministers at Waiohinu 

(1841-1863). Typescript. In Library, Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society. Honolulu. 

Stokes, J., and T. Dye 

1991 Heiau of the Island of Hawai‘i: A Historic Survey of Native Hawaiian Temple Sites. 

Bishop Museum Bulletin in Anthropology 2. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 

Tatar, E. 

1982 Nineteenth Century Hawaiian Chant. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 33. 

Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 

Thrum, T. 

1909 Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Island of Hawaii. Hawaiian 

Almanac and Annual 1909:38–43. Honolulu. 

Tomonari-Tuggle, M. 

1985 Cultural Resource Management Plan, Cultural Resource Management at the Keauhou 

Resort. PHRI Report 89-060185. Prepared for Kamehameha Investment Corp. 

Whitney, H. 

1868 Extracts from a letter published in the Honolulu Advertiser, Apr. 13, 1868. pp. 112-115. 

In J.D. Dana, Eruption of Mauna Loa and Kilauea, Article XIII, pp. 105-123. American 

Journal of Science, Vol. 46, series 2, New Haven, Ct. 

22

APPENDIX C 

Coastal and Estuarine Lands Conservation Program, Final Guidelines 

June 2003 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Coastal and Estuarine 

Land Conservation 

Program 

Final Guidelines 

June 2003 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Table of Contents 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

Final Program Guidelines – June 6, 2003 

1. General Information ........................................ 1 

1.1 Authority and Purpose for the Program 

1.2. Purpose of the Guidelines 

1.3 Definition of Terms 

2. Eligibility Requirements .................................... 4 

2.1 Who May Participate in the CELCP 

2.2 Who May Submit a Project Application to the Competitive Process 

2.3 Qualifying Projects 

2.4 Who May Receive Funds and Hold Title to Land 

2.5 Uses of CELCP Funds 

2.6 Ownership, Use and Long-Term Stewardship 

2.7 Cost-sharing Requirements 

3. State Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plans .............. 9 

3.1 Development of CELC Plans 

3.2 Approval of Plans 

3.3 Update of Plans 

4. Application, Review and Ranking Process ..................... 10 

4.1 State Nomination and Selection Process 

4.2 Information Required in Project Applications to NOAA 

4.3 National Ranking and Selection Process 

4.4 Grant Application to NOAA - Selected Projects 

5. Acceptance and Use of Funds ............................... 14 

5.1 Allowable Costs 

5.2 Expenditure of Funds 

5.3 Conditions on Uses of Funds 

5.4 Information the State Must Retain on File 

6. Applicability of Other Federal Requirements ................... 17 

6.1 National Flood Insurance Program 

6.2 Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

6.3 Endangered Species Act 

6.4 National Environmental Policy Act 

6.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

6.6 National Historic Preservation Act 

6.7 Americans with Disabilities Act 

6.8 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies 

6.9 Environmental Justice 

6.10 Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements 

7. Classification ............................................ 19 

Appendix A. CZMA Policies Relating to the CELCP 

Appendix B. Project Application Checklist 

Appendix C. Sample Title



1. General Information 

1.1 Authority and Purpose for the Program 

The Department of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act of 2002 

(Public Law 107-77), directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Coastal and 

Estuarine Land Conservation Program “for the purpose of protecting important coastal 

and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or 

aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational 

state to other uses,” giving priority to lands which can be effectively managed and 

protected and that have significant ecological value. The law further directed the 

Secretary to issue guidelines for this program delineating the criteria for grant awards and 

to distribute funds in consultation with the States' Coastal Zone Managers' or Governors' 

designated representatives based on demonstrated need and ability to successfully 

leverage funds. Grants funded under this program shall require a 100 percent match from 

other sources. The authority for this program is codified at 16 U.S.C. 1456d. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will work with the coastal 

states and territories through formal relationships established through its role in 

implementing the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 USC 1451 et 

seq.) (CZMA), to carry out this program. The CZMA highlights the importance of 

coastal and estuarine areas and contains policies related to the ecological, conservation, 

recreational, and aesthetic values of coastal areas. 

1.2. Purpose of the Guidelines 

These guidelines establish the eligibility, procedural, and programmatic 

requirements for participation in the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

(CELCP), authorized by the FY 2002 Appropriations Act. As required by the Act, these 

guidelines delineate the criteria for all financial assistance awards under the CELCP. 

These guidelines outline a three-stage process for competitive funding under the program: 

development of a state coastal and estuarine land conservation plan; a process for 

identifying and ranking qualified projects within the state and nominating them to a 

national competitive selection process annually; and a process for conducting peer review 

and selection of projects at the national level. State participation in this program is 

voluntary. Coastal states that choose to participate in the CELCP, including eligible 

project applicants, shall use the guidelines when developing state conservation plans, 

proposing or soliciting land acquisition projects, applying for funds, and carrying out 

selected projects under this program. 

NOAA National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2



1.3 Definition of Terms 

Appropriations Act or Act. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 

Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-77). 

CELCP. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program established by these 

guidelines pursuant to the Act. 

Coastal and Estuarine Areas. Those areas within a coastal state that are: part of the 

state’s coastal zone, as designated in the state’s federally approved coastal management 

program under the CZMA or within the state’s coastal watershed boundary as described 

in NOAA’s Coastal Zone Boundary Review (October 1992). The coastal watershed 

boundary is defined: for estuarine drainage areas by the inland boundary of those 8-digit 

USGS hydrologic cataloguing units that contain the head of tide, and; for the Great Lakes 

region or those portions of watersheds along the marine coast that drain directly to marine 

waters by those cataloguing units that are located adjacent to the coast. 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan or CELC Plan. A plan, to be developed 

by each coastal state in order to participate in the program, that provides an assessment of 

priority land conservation needs and clear guidance for nominating and selecting land 

conservation projects within the state. 

Coastal State(s). As defined in section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 

USC section 1453(4)), “coastal state(s)” means a state of the United States in, or 

bordering on, the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island 

Sound, or one or more of the Great Lakes. The term also includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin 

Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American 

Samoa. 

CZMA. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 USC 1451 et seq.). 

Land Acquisition. Acquisition of real property, or interests therein, by fee title, lease, 

easement, or any other method consistent with applicable State law or regulation. 

NERR or Reserve. A National Estuarine Research Reserve designated pursuant to 

Section 315 of the CZMA. 

NOAA. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, within the Department 

of Commerce. 

OCRM. The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, within the NOAA 

National Ocean Service. 

Project Areas. Discrete areas to be identified within a CELC Plan that describe the 

state’s priority areas for conservation based on national and state criteria, representing the 

values to be protected through the program and areas threatened by conversion. Project 

areas may consist, for example, of: geographic areas or habitat types identified by a state 

coastal management plan as areas of concern; significant areas within other coastal, 





estuarine, or watershed management plan(s) that may be priority areas for conservation; 

or areas that provide linkages or corridors among conservation areas within a 

geographical area. 

Secretary. The Secretary of Commerce. 

State lead agency. The agency or entity responsible for coordinating the establishment 

and implementation of the CELCP at the state level. The lead agency will be presumed to 

be the lead agency designated for implementing the state’s coastal management program, 

as approved pursuant to the CZMA, unless otherwise designated by the Governor. If a 

state’s coastal management program does not wish to assume the lead role, the Governor 

may designate as the lead agency another state agency with authority to plan, acquire or 

manage land for conservation purposes. 

2. Eligibility Requirements 

2.1 Who May Participate in the CELCP 

Coastal states with approved coastal zone management plans or National 

Estuarine Research Reserves are eligible to participate in the CELCP. State participation 

is voluntary, and states may choose to participate by developing a Coastal and Estuarine 

Conservation Plan for approval by NOAA. The state lead agency will be responsible for 

coordinating the establishment and implementation of the CELCP at the state level. 

2.2 Who May Submit a Project Application to the Competitive Process 

Eligible coastal states that have submitted, and received approval of, a Coastal and 

Estuarine Land Conservation Plan, may submit proposals to NOAA for federal funding 

under this program, provided that appropriated funds are available for competitive 

awards. The state lead agency may solicit, and include in their application, project 

proposals from additional state agencies, or local governments as defined at 15 CFR 24.3, 

or entities eligible for assistance under section 306A(e) of the CZMA (16 USC 1455a(e)), 

provided that each has the authority to acquire and manage land for conservation 

purposes. 

The state lead agency will be responsible for: soliciting projects that are consistent 

with priorities outlined in the state’s plan, reviewing them for completeness, prioritizing 

them according to state criteria, and nominating projects to the national selection process. 

States are encouraged to submit proposals from multiple agencies as a consolidated 

package to NOAA. The state will also be responsible for ensuring that allocated funds 

are used for the purposes of and in a manner consistent with this program. 





2.3 Qualifying Projects 

To be eligible for funding under the CELCP, a project must: 

• be located in a coastal or estuarine area included within a state’s approved coastal and 

estuarine land conservation (CELC) plan and meet the national criteria described in 

section 3.1.b.; 

• match federal CELCP funds with non-federal funds at a ratio of 1:1; 

• be held in public ownership (fee simple or conservation easements) and provide 

conservation in perpetuity; and 

• provide for access to the general public or other public benefit, as appropriate and 

consistent with resource protection. 

2.4 Who May Receive Funds and Hold Title to Land 

NOAA may make financial assistance awards to eligible coastal states, including 

the state’s lead agency for implementing the CELCP, the state’s coastal management 

program or its National Estuarine Research Reserve(s). The recipient may in turn allocate 

grants or make sub-awards to other state agencies, local governments as defined at 15 

CFR 24.3, or entities eligible for assistance under section 306A(e) of the CZMA (16 USC 

1455a(e)) to carry out approved projects. NOAA may, at its discretion and in 

consultation with the applicable coastal state, make grants directly to any of these eligible 

entities in order to expedite completion of an approved project. The recipient, or other 

appropriate public agency designated by the recipient, will hold title to the land, or 

interests in land, in perpetuity. NOAA will not make grants under the CELCP to nongovernmental 

organizations unless otherwise directed by Congress. 

2.5 Uses of CELCP Funds 

The purpose of funding under the CELCP is to protect important coastal and 

estuarine areas with significant values or that are threatened by conversion, and that can 

be effectively managed. NOAA has outlined the following uses of CELCP funding that 

are consistent with these purposes, as well as some that are not considered to be 

consistent. 

a. Eligible uses. CELCP funds may be used for the following purposes: 

1. State Planning: 

• Development of CELC plans to carry out this program. Each eligible state’s lead 

agency may receive up to a total of $50,000 for this purpose, which must be matched 

with non-federal funds at a ratio of 1:1 through cash and/or in-kind contributions. 

2. Program Administration: 

• Administration of the program, including such direct or indirect costs as salaries and 

benefits of staff directly involved in program planning, implementation, project 

review, etc., that shall not exceed 5 percent of the amount appropriated to the 

Secretary each year. If a state proposes indirect costs as part of an application, the 

total dollar amount of the proposed indirect costs must not exceed the indirect cost 

rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant Federal agency. 





3. Acquisition Projects: 

• Acquisition of properties or interests in properties from willing sellers, provided that 

the terms and conditions will ensure that the property will be administered for 

conservation in perpetuity, including direct expenses relating to the acquisition of 

lands and interests in lands acquired under the authority of the CELCP; and 

• Certain initial costs for land stewardship, not to exceed 5 percent of the award and not 

to exceed 3 years or the duration of award period, to allow for signage, public safety, 

or other stewardship purposes. 

b. Ineligible uses. The federal share of CELCP funds may not be used for the following 

purposes: 

• Funding long-term operations, maintenance, and management of the land; 

• Construction of buildings, boat launching facilities, docks or piers, shoreline 

armoring, or other facilities; 

• Research; 

• Acquisition of lands, or interests in lands, that completely restrict access to specific 

persons (e.g. non-residents of a community); 

• Acquisition of lands, or interests in lands, to comply with mandatory or compensatory 

mitigation for recent or pending habitat losses resulting from the actions of agencies, 

organizations, companies or individuals; 

• The sole or primary purpose of enforcing fish, wildlife, or other regulations, except 

when necessary for the accomplishment of approved project purposes; and 

• Acquisition of land for active recreation, such as sports facilities, water parks, 

playgrounds, or similar uses. 

Some of these purposes are allowable under the non-federal matching share. Refer to 

section 2.7(b), Source of Matching Funds, for additional information. 

2.6 Ownership, Use and Long-term Stewardship 

a. The title of property or interests in property will be held in perpetuity by the grant 

recipient or other appropriate public agency designated by the recipient. As a 

condition of any grant award, NOAA will require that the recipient, or the designated 

public agency, register and furnish to NOAA a lien, covenant, or other appropriate 

notice of record to advise that the property has been acquired or improved in whole or 

in part with federal financial assistance funds (pursuant to 15 CFR 24.31) and 

assurances that the land will be held for conservation in perpetuity. The terms and 

conditions specified in conservation easements must also be consistent with the 

purposes of the CELCP. 

b. In general, lands acquired with CELCP funds will allow access to the general public. 

However, access may be limited or controlled in an equitable manner for resource 

protection, public safety, or for other reasonable cause. User fees should not be 

charged to access lands acquired through this program. However, if user fees are 

charged, they should comply with any applicable state standards for user fees. In such 





cases, all income or other revenues derived from the fees shall be used for the 

maintenance or management of the property. 

c. The property shall be managed in a manner that is consistent with the purposes for 

which it was entered into the program and shall not convert to other uses. As a 

condition of the grant award, a strategy for long-term stewardship must be developed 

for each project that identifies the entity(ies) responsible for ongoing stewardship, 

including financial or staff support, and monitoring of conservation easements or 

ongoing activities to ensure that they are consistent with long-term conservation. 

Activities that may be considered to be consistent with conservation purposes include: 

resource protection; restoration and enhancement, such as vegetative erosion control 

or restoration of natural water flow to the area; recreational activities, such as: hiking, 

hunting, and fishing; access for swimming, canoeing, kayaking; and research and 

educational activities. Construction of facilities on a minor scale, such as restrooms 

or boardwalks, to facilitate these activities and/or for the purpose of minimizing harm 

to coastal resources due to public access and recreation may be allowed depending on 

the proposed use of the property and the site environment. 

Activities that are considered to be inconsistent include: active agricultural or 

aquaculture production; shoreline armoring or other hard erosion control structures; 

construction or expansion of roads, buildings or facilities except as noted above, or 

such facilities for active recreation as sports facilities, water parks, playgrounds, or 

similar uses. 

d. Non-governmental organizations, corporations, or individuals may participate in the 

acquisition and long-term stewardship of lands through this program, except as 

provided under sections 2.2 and 2.4 of these guidelines. 

e. Leasing or renting of the property or interest in property acquired through the CELCP 

to a third party is prohibited unless specifically authorized by NOAA. The recipient 

agrees that any authorized arrangement for leasing or renting property involved in the 

project must be: consistent with the authorized general and special purpose of the 

award; for adequate consideration; and consistent with applicable Department of 

Commerce requirements concerning, but not limited to, nondiscrimination and 

environmental compliance. All income or other revenues derived from an approved 

lease or rent arrangement shall be used to maintain or manage the property. 

f. Pre-existing uses on the property must be identified as part of the project application. 

NOAA will review such uses for potential impacts and to determine whether they are 

consistent with the purposes of the CELCP. Applicants may wish to consider 

protecting land that contains pre-existing uses through a conservation easement, rather 

than through fee simple acquisition. If a project is approved with pre-existing uses, 

such uses may not be expanded or converted to other uses without prior approval of 

NOAA. 

g. If the property or interest in the land acquired with CELCP funds is sold, exchanged, 

divested, or converted to other uses that are inconsistent with the purposes for which 

it was acquired without prior approval of NOAA, the recipient must return to NOAA 





the full amount of the federal share of funds for re-distribution in the CELCP grant 

process. In some cases, at the recipient’s request, NOAA may approve the 

disposition of the property and issue instructions to sell the property. In such cases, 

the correct value to be returned will be calculated by applying the federal share of 

participation in the cost of the original purchase to the proceeds of the sale after 

deduction of any actual and reasonable selling expenses. 

2.7. Cost-sharing requirements 

a. Matching requirement. Federal funds awarded under this program shall be matched 

with funds from non-federal sources on a 1:1 basis. The coastal state is responsible for 

ensuring that the full amount of the matching requirement is provided, particularly when 

the non-federal share includes contributions from other agencies, groups or individuals. 

Notwithstanding any other provision herein, and in accordance with 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d), 

the Program shall waive the requirement for local matching funds for any project under 

$200,000 (including in-kind contribution) to the governments of Insular Areas, defined as 

the jurisdictions of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

b. Source of matching funds. The non-federal share of funding may be derived from 

state, local, non-governmental or private sources in the form of cash or the value of nonmonetary 

or in-kind contributions, such as the value of donated lands or interests therein, 

or services such as on-site remediation, restoration, enhancement, or donated labor and 

supplies, provided that the in-kind contributions are necessary and reasonable to 

accomplish the objectives of the project. Such in-kind contributions must be identified in 

the project application, completed within the financial assistance award period, and 

documented as part of the completed project. Any land used as match must be located 

within the vicinity of the property being acquired, in the same project area identified in 

the state’s plan, or be substantially related in terms of conservation values or objectives, 

and must meet the eligibility criteria, ownership and stewardship conditions described in 

sections 2.3 through 2.6. The value of land used as match must be documented with the 

grant application, and must reflect nationally recognized appraisal standards, including, to 

the extent appropriate, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition 

(http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/land-ack/). 

No funds or in-kind contributions from federal or non-federal sources, including 

the value of donated lands or services, that have been previously used to satisfy the 

matching requirements of this program or that have been or will be counted or used to 

satisfy another federal grant, can be counted toward the non-federal matching share. 

Unless otherwise provided by law, the value of property or interests in property that were 

acquired with federal funding may not be used as non-federal match. 

See 15 CFR 24.24 Matching or Cost-Sharing (Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) 

for determining the value of in-kind contributions. 

c. Banked match. States may apply the value of land or in-kind services accrued up to 3 

years prior to submission of the grant application toward the non-federal share of funding. 

Such “banked match” is subject to the same terms described under section 2.7.b. above. 





3. State Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plans 

3.1 Development of CELC Plans 

In order to qualify to receive funds under this program, a coastal state must 

develop and submit to NOAA for approval, a Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation 

Plan that provides an assessment of priority conservation needs and clear guidance for 

nominating and selecting land conservation projects within the state. State plans will be 

developed and submitted by the state lead agency, in conjunction with: the state’s coastal 

management program (if different from the lead agency); any NERRs in that state; any 

other state or federal agencies involved in coastal land acquisition, conservation, or 

management in the state; and other interested parties. 

Plans are intended to be fairly simple and concise, and may make use of work that 

has already been done in the state or region, such as regional, state or local watershed 

protection, restoration or land conservation plans. A state may incorporate existing plans, 

or portions thereof, by reference into a CELC plan. States are encouraged to consider 

conservation needs on a multi-state or regional scale, and to work with neighboring states 

where appropriate for the conservation of coastal and estuarine resources within the 

region. State plans must be developed through a public process, which would include a 

public scoping process and comment period. If a state CELC plan incorporates existing 

plans, or elements thereof, that were developed and vetted through a public review 

process, the state may choose to seek comment on whether those plans or elements should 

be incorporated into the CELC plan, rather than seeking comment on the substance of 

those plans or elements. 

a. State CELC plans must include the following information: 

• A map or description of the geographic extent of coastal and estuarine areas within 

the state, as defined for the purposes of the CELCP; 

• A description of the types of lands or values to be protected through the program and 

the need for conservation through acquisition; 

• Identification of “project areas” that represent the state’s priority areas for 

conservation, including areas threatened by conversion, based on state and national 

criteria (listed below) for the program; 

• A description of existing plans, or elements thereof, that are incorporated into this 

plan; 

• A list of state or local agencies, or types of agencies, that are eligible to hold title to 

property acquired through the CELCP; 

• A description of the state’s process for reviewing and prioritizing qualified proposals 

for nomination to the national selection process. The vetting process should, at a 

minimum, involve representatives from the state’s coastal zone management program, 

NERR(s), and any other agencies or entities that the state considers appropriate; and 

• A description of public involvement and interagency coordination that occurred 

during the development of the plan. 





b. State plans must address the following national criteria for projects and project areas 

as they relate to the purpose of the CELCP: 

• Protects important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, 

recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by 

conversion from their natural or recreational state to other uses; 

• Gives priority to lands which can be effectively managed and protected and that have 

significant ecological value; 

• Directly advances the goals, objectives, or implementation of the state’s coastal 

management plan or program, NERR management plans approved under the CZMA, 

national objectives of the CZMA, or a regional or state watershed protection plan 

involving coastal states with approved coastal management plans; and 

• Is consistent with the state’s approved coastal management program. 

3.2 Approval of plans. The Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal 

Zone Management or his/her designee, shall be the approving official for plans submitted 

to NOAA under this program. Upon approval of its plan, a state will be eligible to 

receive competitive funding under the CELCP. 

3.3 Update of plans. States must update their CELC plans at least once every 5 years 

to reflect changes that have taken place within the state or region and submit the updated 

plans to OCRM. 

4. Application, Review and Ranking Process 

4.1 State Nomination and Selection Process 

a. Solicitation of Projects. 

Based on notification from NOAA of the availability of funding to implement this 

program in any given year, states with approved CELC plans may notify and solicit 

project applications from qualified entities. States may, at their discretion, focus their 

annual project solicitation toward specific priorities or areas identified in their approved 

CELC plan. 

Based on the requirements of the state’s solicitation for project applications, 

eligible applicants should submit proposals to the state’s lead agency. A project proposal 

that includes several separate and distinct phases may be submitted in phases, but any 

succeeding phases must compete against other proposals in the year submitted. 

b. State review and prioritization 

i. Proposal acceptance. The state lead agency determines whether a proposal should be 

accepted for consideration on the basis that it is complete and eligible under the criteria 

identified in section 2. If the application is incomplete, the lead agency may provide an 

opportunity for applicants to submit any information that is missing. 





ii. Proposal review and ranking. The state lead agency reviews and prioritizes project 

applications through the process described in its CELC plan. Projects should be ranked 

according to the degree to which it meets the state’s CELC plan. A list of prioritized 

projects is then submitted to NOAA for consideration at the national level. 

4.2. Information Required in Project Applications to NOAA 

Applications submitted to NOAA for the national competitive process must contain the 

following: 

a. A completed and signed Project Application Checklist (Appendix B). The checklist 

addresses some of the information requested in items b. through f., below. NOAA may 

modify this checklist as needed to effectively implement the project application and 

selection process; 

b. Project Description. A statement that describes: 

• The nature of the project, including acreage and types of habitats or land values to be 

protected, the legal rights to be acquired (i.e., fee title or easement), how the funds 

(federal and non-federal) will be used, and conversion threats to the property, as well 

as a description of these same characteristics for any property that will be used as 

match; 

• How the proposed project meets the state and national criteria and its expected 

benefits in terms of coastal and estuarine land conservation; 

• Any pre-existing uses of the property, the nature of those uses, and whether those uses 

will continue after acquisition; 

• Discrete benchmarks for completing the project within a specified time period. These 

benchmarks should indicate whether the project is “ready to go,” has any deadlines 

associated with it, and whether the project is likely to be completed within the award 

period. 

• The types of activities that would be allowed to take place on the land and a strategy 

for long-term stewardship, including support for long-term operations, such as 

maintenance or enforcement against illegal uses; and 

• Whether this project has been submitted in application for other sources of federal 

funding, and if so, which federal program(s) and year(s). 

c. Project Location. Two maps, as follows: 

• A map of the state or coastal county showing the general location of the project; 

• A map of the project site, which shows the location and extent of the proposed 

acquisition, and its relationship to significant natural features (slope, wetlands, dunes, 

floodplains, access points, etc.), as well as adjacent land uses. 

d. Project Budget and Justification of Proposed Costs/Appraisal. 

The project budget must include a breakdown of the following costs, as applicable, by 

category -- salary, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual, construction, 

other. (Note: Use of Standard Form 424A is suggested as it provides a model template 

for this information, and will be required in the grant application package for all projects 





that are selected for funding.) The total budget must reflect the 1:1 match required by 

statute. For information on what may be counted as the non-federal matching share, refer 

to section 2.7. Applicants wishing approval of pre-award costs should include such a 

request in their application to NOAA and identify the costs, the time period in which they 

occurred, and a justification for their need as associated with the project. For information 

regarding pre-award costs, refer to section 5.1.b. 

The negotiated price of the property, or interest in property, should be based on the 

fair market value determined by an independent appraisal conducted by a state-approved 

appraiser. Before funds can be disbursed to the grant recipient for purchase of a property, 

or interest in property, using CELCP funds, the applicant must obtain and submit the 

appraisal to NOAA (refer to section 4.4.b.) Independent appraisals must reflect 

nationally recognized appraisal standards, including, to the extent appropriate, the 

Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition, 

(http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/land-ack/). 

If an appraisal has been completed at the time of application and the applicant wishes 

to pursue the acquisition at a price above the appraised value, the applicant will need to 

demonstrate reasonable effort to negotiate at the appraised value and submit written 

justification for the higher price based on reasonableness, prudence, public interest, 

additional or updated appraisals, estimated condemnation/trial costs, and/or valuation. 

If an appraisal is not available at the time the project application is submitted, the 

applicant may submit a good-faith estimate of the cost for the project based on market 

value or agreement with the willing seller. However, if the project is selected for 

funding, the amount of the grant cannot exceed the estimated cost in the project 

application. An appraisal will be required at the time the applicant submits a formal grant 

application to NOAA (refer to section 5.4). If the appraised value is higher than the 

estimated cost, the applicant will be required to make up the difference, and if that is not 

possible, the project may have to be withdrawn or terminated. 

e. Certification of compliance with federal laws, regulations and policies. As part of the 

project application checklist (attached as Appendix B), the applicant must answer 

questions that will enable NOAA to determine whether a project may have an adverse 

impact and whether additional information may be required to satisfy the requirements of 

applicable federal laws, regulations, or policies. If an Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for the project, attach a copy with the 

application. States will be responsible for ensuring that any project applications 

submitted to NOAA are consistent with the state’s approved coastal management 

program and any applicable NERR Management Plans. Refer to section 6.0, which 

describes the applicability of requirements under federal laws, regulations and policies. 

f. Documentation of Willingness or Intent to Sell. The applicant must submit 

documentation that the current owner is a willing participant in a process of negotiation 

for possible sale of property, or interests in property, for conservation purposes and that 

the landowner has been advised of the applicability of Public Law 91-646, Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 (refer to 

section 6.8). This documentation may be in the form of a letter of willingness or intent, 





option letter, contract, or other similar form. If not submitted with the project application, 

it will be required with the grant application to NOAA. 

4.3 National Ranking and Selection Process 

NOAA will conduct a peer review process to prioritize and select among all projects 

nominated by states through their competitive process as follows: 

a. Peer review and ranking process. A national peer review panel that consists of at least 

six members will review each project nominated by a state. Membership of the panel will 

be made up of at least one representative from each of the following: NOAA, another 

federal land conservation program, the state coastal resource management community, 

estuarine reserve community, and two from the non-governmental sector (i.e., industry, 

conservation community). Each member will rank projects according to the degree to 

which they meet national criteria and submit individual rankings to NOAA. No member 

may have a vested interest or stand to benefit from any of the proposed projects. 

Membership of the panel may be reconstituted annually, and NOAA may identify 

alternates in the event that substitutions are needed. 

b. Ranking criteria. Projects will be reviewed and prioritized according to the degree to 

which they meet the national criteria described in section 3.1b. NOAA will establish 

weighting factors for these criteria, in consultation with the coastal states, and will 

provide these ranking criteria to the states with its notification of availability of funding. 

Within these criteria, NOAA may also consider the availability of support for long-term 

management and stewardship, and success in leveraging other sources of funding. All 

ranking factors will be described in the annual notification. 

c. Selection of approved projects. The Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and 

Coastal Zone Management or his/her designee will serve as the selecting official for 

projects, based on the national rankings as well as availability of funds. In selecting 

projects, NOAA may consider geographic distribution of projects, as well as other factors 

deemed necessary to select among similarly-ranked projects, as described in the annual 

notification. The selecting official may maintain and select from a contingency list, in the 

event that any approved projects fall through or are completed below the planned cost. 

4.4 Grant Application to NOAA – Selected Projects 

NOAA will notify each state of projects that have been selected through the 

competitive process. For each of these projects, the state must submit the following 

materials, which, when combined with the original project application, will complete the 

application for federal financial assistance. States are encouraged to consolidate multiple 

projects into one application, with each project as a separate task, particularly for projects 

that will be awarded to local governments. NOAA may, at its discretion and in 

consultation with the relevant coastal state, agree with the state to accept an application 

from, and make a grant directly to, an agency other than the lead agency in order to 

expedite the completion of an approved project that will be implemented by that other 

agency. 





Grant application materials. The following materials must be submitted to NOAA, in 

order to complete the application for federal financial assistance: 

a. Standard forms for federal financial assistance. These forms can be found at the 

NOAA Grants Management Web site (http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/~grants/) along with 

detailed application instructions. 

- Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424); 

- Budget Information (Standard Form 424A); 

- Statement of Assurances (Standard Form 424B); 

- Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Drug-Free Workplace and 

Lobbying (CD-511) 

b. Appraisal. If an appraisal was not previously submitted as part of the project 

application described in section 4.2, it must be submitted with the grant application. 

Refer to section 4.2 for guidelines regarding the appraisal. 

c. Title Opinion for the land(s) that will be purchased. The opinion should identify the 

current owner from which the land will be purchased, and whether there are any 

easements or other encumbrances on the land to be acquired. If there are easements or 

encumbrances, the applicant’s attorney should specify the nature of these and certify that 

they would not interfere with the purposes for which the land is being acquired. A 

sample title opinion can be found at Appendix C. 

5. Acceptance and Use of Funds 

5.1 Allowable costs 

a. Cost principles. Allowable grant costs are limited to costs necessary and reasonable to 

achieve the approved objectives of the grant and be consistent with general cost principles 

for grants awarded by federal agencies, as contained in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 “Cost Principals for State, Local, and Indian Tribal 

Governments,” which will be incorporated into the grant award. A copy of OMB 

Circular A-87 can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/. 

b. Pre-award costs. If an applicant incurs costs before the effective date of the grant, they 

do so at their own risk. Pre-award costs cannot be reimbursed except as approved by 

NOAA, although they may be counted as match. When approved, pre-award costs may 

include such costs as those necessary for conducting: environmental assessments, 

including risk assessments; feasibility surveys; appraisals; title searches or opinions; or 

preparation of documents needed to satisfy federal legal requirements, such as the 

National Environmental Policy Act. In some cases, with prior approval from NOAA, the 

cost of the land acquisition (fee simple or easement) may be reimbursed as a pre-award 

cost if the acquisition occurred between the date the project was recommended for 

funding through the competitive selection process (“selected”) and the date that the grant 

award was approved by NOAA. 





5.2 Expenditure of funds 

a. Availability of funds. Once a grant agreement has been signed, a recipient may draw 

funds, as needed, toward completion of the project, in accordance with 15 CFR 24.21 

Payment. 

b. Timetable for expenditure of funds. The standard financial assistance award period is 

18 months, and may be extended an additional 18 months if circumstances warrant, but 

may not exceed 3 years. Awards may also be closed out early if the project is completed 

in less time. 

c. Unexpended funds. Any funds not expended within the grant period shall be deobligated 

and revert to NOAA for redistribution through the CELCP process, including 

projects that fall through. 

d. Projects that exceed planned costs. All requests for additional federal funding for 

approved CELC projects must be submitted to the review process along with new grants. 

e. Funds from the CELCP may be supplemented with funding from other federal or nonfederal 

sources, subject to any conditions that may apply to the expenditure of funds from 

such sources. 

f. Amending a proposal. Any amendments to a proposal or request to reallocate funding 

within a grant proposal must be approved by NOAA. In general, if negotiations on a 

selected project fall through, the applicant cannot substitute an alternate site. 

g. Performance reports. The state lead agency, and/or any other agency that received a 

financial assistance award directly from NOAA, is responsible for submitting to NOAA 

semi-annual reports documenting progress toward completion of each project, and a final 

report documenting completion of the projects and all terms and conditions of the award. 

5.3 Conditions on use of funds 

All CELCP financial assistance awards will contain the following special award 

conditions and/or other applicable requirements for the Department of Commerce 

described in the Federal Register, October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), as amended 

October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109): 

• In the event there are title discrepancies or encumbrances that NOAA deems interfere 

with the purpose for which these funds were granted, or if NOAA determines that the 

property is no longer used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the recipient 

shall reimburse NOAA or its successor agencies for the federal funds received for the 

project, subject to “use” and “disposition” instructions from NOAA or its successor 

agencies. 

• Federal funds for this project will not be transferred to the recipient for the acquisition 

of land or interest(s) in land until the recipient has submitted the following to NOAA 





for review and approval: a completed and signed project checklist; appraisals of land 

made by a qualified independent appraiser and performed in accordance with federal 

or state appraisal standards; evidence of title insurance or an opinion of title and a 

copy of the real estate contract for each parcel; and a map indicating the tract 

boundaries for the property or portion of property being acquired. 

• Deeds for real property acquired with federal funds provided through this award shall 

contain substantially the following provision: 

“This property has been acquired with funds from a federal financial assistance 

award. Title of the property conveyed by this deed shall vest in the [recipient of the 

award or other appropriate public agency designated by the recipient] subject to the 

condition that the property shall be managed for conservation purposes, consistent 

with the purposes for which it was entered into the CELCP, and shall not convert to 

other uses. In the event that the property is sold, exchanged, or converts to other uses, 

NOAA shall consult with the recipient before deciding to exercise any of the rights 

regarding disposition of the property and reimbursement of the Federal Government.” 

• Upon completion of all real estate closings, the recipient shall submit to 

NOAA/OCRM copies of the closing documents. 

• The recipient shall cause to be erected and maintained at the site of any project, a 

permanent sign or plaque, satisfactory to NOAA, that identifies the project and 

indicates that the project has been funded under the Coastal and Estuarine Land 

Conservation Program by NOAA, in conjunction with the coastal state and/or 

National Estuarine Research Reserve or other partner. 

5.4 Information the Recipient Must Retain on File 

A grant recipient is expected to retain the following information for at least 3 years after a 

grant has been closed by NOAA at the end of the award period: 

• A copy of the grant application, including project proposal, submitted to NOAA; 

• Site location maps; 

• Title opinion or certification; 

• Appraisal; 

• State Historic Preservation Officer’s clearance; and 

• Copies of any notices or determinations that pertain to compliance or consistency 

with federal requirements. 

6. Applicability of Other Federal Requirements 

The approval of plans under this program and award of financial assistance are 

federal activities subject to authorities such as the National Environmental Policy Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA. Before 

awarding funds, NOAA is responsible for ensuring that projects comply with these and 

other relevant authorities. A checklist, provided as part of the project application, will be 





used to determine whether additional information may be required to satisfy these 

requirements for any project. 

6.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP prohibits the use of funds 

for acquisition or construction of buildings in special flood hazard areas in communities 

that are not participating in the Flood Insurance Program, as identified in the NFIP’s 

Community Status Book. Construction of buildings is not an eligible use of CELCP 

funds. A community is not precluded from proposing projects within the floodplain for 

conservation purposes. 

6.2 Coastal Barriers Resource Act (CoBRA). In order to receive federal funds, all 

proposed projects located on undeveloped coastal barriers designated in the CoBRA 

system must be consistent with the purposes of minimizing: the loss of human life; 

wasteful federal expenditures; and damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. 

For projects in these areas, the Office of Coastal and Resource Management (OCRM) 

must consult with the regional office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

allow 30 days for them to determine whether the project is consistent with CoBRA. 

Because OCRM defers to their opinion in these cases, some projects or grant awards may 

be conditioned pending the results of the consultation process. Early coordination by the 

applicant with the USFWS is advisable. 

6.3 Endangered Species Act. An applicant shall indicate whether it believes that a 

proposed project may affect threatened or endangered species or critical habitat as defined 

by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and shall state the basis for its conclusion. If a 

proposed project may have minor and temporary effects, OCRM will informally consult 

with the relevant federal agency – either the USFWS or NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). If a proposed project may significantly affect threatened or 

endangered species or critical habitat, OCRM will consult with the applicant regarding 

further steps that may need to be taken. If the applicant still wants to proceed, OCRM 

will enter into formal consultation with the USFWS or NMFS, pursuant to section 7 of 

the ESA. OCRM will not approve a proposed project that the USFWS or NMFS has 

determined will adversely and significantly affect threatened or endangered species or 

critical habitat. 

6.4 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These guidelines are administrative 

and financial in nature, and therefore are considered a categorical exclusion under NEPA. 

Subsequent actions concerning the approval of CELC plans, or acquisition, restoration, or 

enhancement of properties may require further analysis on a programmatic or case-bycase 

basis to determine compliance with NEPA. As part of the application for each 

project, applicants must complete an environmental compliance checklist that will be 

used to determine whether additional information or an Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement is needed. 

6.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson- 

Stevens Act requires that federal agencies consult with NMFS regarding any action 

authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) 

for federally managed fish. Consultation is generally initiated when a federal agency 

notifies NMFS of an action that may adversely affect EFH, and provides NMFS with an 

assessment of the action. In response, NMFS provides Conservation Recommendations 





to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH. Federal 

agencies must provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS that includes proposed 

measures for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the proposed activity on 

EFH. If the federal agency chooses not to adopt NMFS' EFH Conservation 

Recommendations, it must provide an explanation. EFH consultation and coordination 

should be consolidated, where appropriate, with interagency consultation, coordination, 

and environmental review procedures required by other statutes. Consultation procedures 

are outlined at 50 CFR 600.920. 

6.6 National Historic Preservation Act. Under the provisions of Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Secretary of the Interior has compiled a 

national register of sites and buildings of significant importance to America’s history. 

Before submitting an application, the applicant must determine whether land 

acquisitions or other grant-supported activities will affect a property listed on the national 

register. If so, the applicant must obtain clearance from the appropriate State Historic 

Preservation Office before submitting the application. 

6.7 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As a general rule, no qualified 

individual with a disability shall be subject to discrimination or be excluded from 

participation or benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity. The 

ADA does not address issues of handicapped accessibility for outdoor recreation projects 

and public access projects that are needed to reduce harm to natural resources. Each 

project shall be handicapped accessible to the extent that conditions allow. Any 

construction associated with projects that provide for recreation, using funds other than 

CELCP, shall be handicapped accessible unless the construction of a handicapped 

accessible structure would damage coastal resources. Requirements for handicapped 

accessibility for the ADA are based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et. seq., and the U.S. 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. 

6.8 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 

1970. This Act, Public Law 91-646, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4601 et. seq.) requires 

certain assurances for projects conducted by a state agency or its agent that involve the 

acquisition and/or modernization of real property or cause the displacement of persons, 

businesses, or farm operations. Because CELCP only supports acquisition of property or 

interests in property from willing sellers, it is not anticipated that this program will result 

in any displacements. In cases of displacement, P.L. 91-646 requires that applicants 

ensure that fair and reasonable relocation payments and advisory services will be 

provided to any displaced persons and that safe, decent, and sanitary replacement 

dwellings will be available to such persons within a reasonable period of time prior to 

displacement. The state agency must be guided by the real property acquisition policies 

of the Act, and the property owners must be paid or reimbursed for necessary expenses as 

specified in the Act. The Act provides for an exemption to the appraisal, review and 

certification rules for “voluntary transactions” that meet the conditions specified at 49 

C.F.R. §24.101(a)(1), including written notification to the owner that the agency will not 

acquire the property in the event negotiations fail to result in an amicable agreement. 

Department of Commerce regulations implementing the Act can be found at 15 CFR Part 

11. 





6.9 Environmental Justice. Consistent with the President’s Executive Order on 

Environmental Justice (Feb. 11, 1994) and the Department of Commerce’s 

Environmental Justice Strategy, applicants shall ensure that their CELCP projects will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority or low income populations. 

6.10 Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements. The Department of Commerce has published in the Federal Register, 

October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), as amended October 30, 2002 (67 FR66109), a set of 

requirements that are applicable to all federal financial assistance awards issued by the 

Department. These will be addressed as Special Award Conditions on financial assistance 

awards. 

7. Classification 

Opinion 

7.1 Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, 

benefits, and contracts (5 USC 553 (a) (2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment 

are not required pursuant to 5 USC 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 USC 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. 

7.2 Executive Order 12866. 

These draft guidelines do not constitute a “significant regulatory action” as 

defined by Executive Order 12866 because: (1) they will not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more , or adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) they 

will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) they will not materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; and (4) they will not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of 

legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

7.3 Paperwork Reduction Act. 

This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and which have been approved by OMB. The use of 

Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL have been approved by OMB under the 

respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 0348-0046. The 

information to be collected under these guidelines through conservation plans, the 





project application, checklist, and grant application materials has been approved by 

OMB under control number 0648-0459. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, 

nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 





APPENDIX A 

Policies of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

Relating to Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation. 

Related to ecological and conservation values, the CZMA declares it national policy to: 

• Protect fish and wildlife and their habitat in the coastal zone; 

• Protect estuaries to provide opportunities for long-term research, education, 

interpretation, and stewardship; 

• Manage development to maintain and improve coastal water quality to protect and 

enhance natural resources and existing uses of those waters; 

Related to recreational, historical, and aesthetic values, the CZMA declares it national 

policy to: 

• Maintain and enhance environmentally sound public access to the coasts for recreation 

purposes; 

• Protect barrier islands within the coastal zone to provide protection against storm surge, 

wave damage and flooding, and maintain sand supplies and protect important 

recreational areas; 

• Give priority consideration for coast dependent uses, including recreation; and 

• Assist in the sensitive preservation and restoration of historic, cultural, and esthetic 

coastal features. 





APPENDIX B – OMB Control # 0648-0459 

Project Application Checklist 

(Note: NOAA may modify this checklist as needed, and consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

to effectively implement the project application and selection process.) 

The project applicant must complete and sign this Project Checklist and submit it to the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with the other required application materials, in 

order to receive approval of a project. 

Applicant and Project Information 

1. State: Award Number: [provided by NOAA] 

2. Project Title: 

3. Project Location (Approximate): (City, County, Major Intersections) 

4. Project Applicant (Must be a public entity at the state or local level): 

5. Total Cost: $ CELCP Federal share (requested amount): $ 

State/Local Match Contributions: $ 

Other Federal $ : $ 

Other Non-Federal $ : $ 

I ATTEST TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) THE STATEMENTS MADE AND OTHER INFORMATION 

PROVIDED IN THIS CHECKLIST ARE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, TRUE AND ACCURATE; 

(2) THE RECIPIENT HAS ON FILE THE DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THIS CHECKLIST; AND (3) I 

UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIAL AWARD 

CONDITIONS THAT WILL BE PLACED ON THIS GRANT. 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

Signature of Applicant Date 

Name of Signatory (please print or type): _________________________________________ 

Title: __________________________________________________________________ 

Address: __________________________________________________________________ 

Phone Number: 





6. Project Description: (briefly describe the nature of the project, location, expected benefits, role of 

partnerships in the project, other information required in section 4.2 of the guidance, and any explain special 

circumstances noted elsewhere on the checklist.) 

7. Project Eligibility: (Check all that apply) 

The proposed project: 

____ is located in a coastal or estuarine area included within a state’s approved coastal 

and estuarine land conservation (CELC) plan; 

____ matches federal funds with non-federal funds at a ratio of 1:1; 

____ will be held in public ownership and provide conservation in perpetuity; 

____ will provide for access to the general public, or other public benefit, as appropriate 

and consistent with resource protection; 

____ protects important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, 

ecological, historical, aesthetic, or recreation values, or that are threatened by 

conversion from their natural or recreational state to other uses; 

____ can be effectively managed and protected; 

____ directly advances the goals, objectives, or implementation of state coastal 

management plan or program, NERR management plans approved under the 

CZMA, national objectives of the CZMA, or a regional or state watershed 

protection plan involving coastal states with approved coastal management plans; 

and 

____ is consistent with the state’s approved coastal management program. 





8. Land Acquisition 

For land acquisition projects, 

a. What are the legal rights that will be acquired? _____ Fee title ______ Easement ______ 

_____ Other (please explain) 

b. If an easement, what is the life of the document? _____ In perpetuity 

_____ Duration (please specify, e.g., in years) 

c. What public agency or entity will hold title to the land? 

__________________________________________ 

d. Is a long-term stewardship or management strategy attached that describes the proposed method 

for ensuring long-term operations, maintenance, and safety needs related to the property? 

_____Yes _____No 

e. What type of activities/uses currently exist or are envisioned on the property? _______ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

f. Will the recipient contract with a private or non-profit organization to complete part or all of 

this project. ____ Yes ____ No 

If Yes, the name of the organization is: _______________________ 

9. What is the acreage of the proposed project or property to be acquired (via fee title or easement)? 

_________________ 

10. What values are contained within the proposed project or property to be acquired? 

Ecological – what type of habitats, species, or other features of significant ecological value are 

contained on the property? (include acreage where appropriate) 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

Historical – what historical features of significant value are contained on the property? 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

Aesthetic – what is the aesthetic value of the property? what significant contribution 

does this property make to the aesthetic character of the surrounding area? 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

Recreational – what is the property’s significance with regard to coast-dependent or 

nature-based recreation? 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________ 





Conservation – What values does this land provide in terms of establishing linkages or corridors 

among existing conservation lands, filling conservation gaps in the geographic area, or protecting land 

from converting to other uses. 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________ 

11. Public Benefit: 

a. The acquisition will be publicly held or under publicly controlled easement and is for public 

benefit. The project does not improve private property for private or commercial gain. _____ Yes 

_____ No 

b. The property will be accessible to the general public. ____ Yes _____ No 

c. If the answer to 6.b. is No, check any of the following reasons that apply and explain why access to 

the property will be limited. 

_____ Public Safety _____ Resource Protection _____ Geographically Isolated/Inaccessible 

_____ School Outings _____ Scientific Research _____ Other (Please explain.) _________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

d. The property will be leased or rented. ____ Yes _____ No If yes, please explain. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

e. The public will be charged a user fee for access to or activities on the proposed property. 

_____ Yes _____ No 

If Yes, please attach a description of the user fee that includes: how much, differential fees (if any), 

the need for the fees, and proposed use of the revenue. 

12. Title Opinion and Appraisal: 

a. Documentation that the current owner is a willing participant in a process of negotiation 

for possible sale of property, or interests in property, for conservation purposes is attached. 

(This documentation may be in the form of a letter of willingness or intent, option letter, contract, 

or similar form.) ____ Yes _____ No 

b. The applicant has obtained and attached an independent appraisal. 

_____ Yes _____ No 

If No, the applicant has attached a good-faith estimate and justification of the cost for the 

project based on market value or agreement with the willing seller. _____ Yes _____ No 

(Note: An appraisal will be required at the time the applicant submits a formal grant application to 

NOAA for projects that have been selected for funding. If the appraised value is higher than the 

estimated cost, the applicant will be required to make up the difference in cost.) 

c. A title opinion or certificate is attached (Note: A title opinion not required at this stage of the 





process, but will be required later for selected projects). ____ Yes _____ No 

13. Site Location Map: Site location maps are attached. _____ Yes _____ No 

Attach a map of the state or coastal county showing the general location of the project, and a map of the 

project site, which shows the location and extent of the proposed acquisition, as well as relationship to 

significant natural features (slope, wetlands, dunes, floodplains, access, etc.) and adjacent land uses. 

14. State Historic Preservation Officer’s (SHPO’s) Clearance and National Historic Preservation 

Act: 

a. The project will affect properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

(www.cr.nps.gov/nr/), eligible to be listed, or otherwise protected by section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (www2.cr.nps.gov/laws/NHPA1966.htm) or a similar State 

Preservation Act. _____ Yes _____ No 

b. The Recipient has on file the SHPO’s clearance. _____ Yes _____ No (If No, the Recipient 

certifies, by signing this checklist, that the SHPO clearance is being sought and that work will 

not begin and land will not be purchased until SHPO clearance is received by the Recipient.) 

15. National Flood Insurance Program: 

a. Is the project located in a designated floodway or “V” zone on a National Flood Insurance 

Program Floodway Map (www.fema.gov/maps)? ____ Yes _____ No 

(If No, go to 16) 

b. Is the community in which the project is located in special flood hazard areas shown on an 

FIA map is participating in the Flood Insurance Program (www.fema.gov/nfip). _____ Yes 

_____ No 

16. Coastal Barriers Resource Act: The project is located on an undeveloped coastal barrier designated 

by the Coastal Barriers Resources Act (www.fws.gov/cep/cbrunits.html). 

_____ Yes _____ No 

If the answer to 11. is Yes, attach to this checklist a brief analysis as to how the proposed project 

is consistent with the three CBRA purposes: to minimize (1) the loss of human life, (2) wasteful 

federal expenditures, and (3) damage to fish, wildlife and other natural resources. 

17. Endangered Species Act: May the proposed project affect threatened or endangered species or 

critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) as defined by the Endangered Species Act? (endangered.fws.gov/) or 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/endangered.htm). 

_____ Yes _____ No 

If the answer to 12. is No, please provide a brief statement explaining the basis for the 

conclusion. If the answer to 12 is Yes, attach a description of the effects (minor and significant 

effects), the species or habitat affected, and any coordination between the state and the USFWS 

or NMFS. OCRM will not approve a project that USFWS or NMFS has determined will 

significantly affect threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. 





18. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

Could the proposed project have significant adverse impacts on essential fish habitat for federally 

managed fish? _____ Yes _____ No 

19. National Environmental Policy Act: 

a. The proposed project may significantly affect the human environment. 

_____ Yes _____ No 

b. The proposed project involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 

resources. 

_____ Yes _____ No 

c. This action would have significant adverse effects on public health and safety. 

_____ Yes _____ No 

d. This action will have highly controversial environmental effects. ____Yes ____ No 

e. This action will have highly uncertain environmental effects or involve unique or unknown 

environmental impacts. _____ Yes _____ No 

f. The project will have significant adverse impacts on other natural resources not covered 

elsewhere in this checklist, e.g., beaches and dunes, wetlands, estuarine areas, wildlife habitat, 

wild or scenic rivers, reefs, or other coastal resources. _____ Yes _____ No 

g. The project will have insignificant effects when performed separately, but will have significant 

cumulative effects. _____ Yes _____ No 

If the answer to any one subpart of 19. is Yes, then an Environmental Assessment (EA) or 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required. For items answered Yes, please attach a 

description of the resource(s) affected and the nature and scope of the effects. 

20. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970. If the 

proposed project involves the acquisition and/or modernization of real property, will the proposed project 

cause the displacement of: 

a. persons, _____ Yes _____ No 

b. businesses, or _____ Yes _____ No 

c. farm operations? _____ Yes _____ No 

If yes to any of the above, please explain: the number of displaced persons, including businesses 

and farm operations; what fair and reasonable relocation payments and advisory services will be 

provided to any displaced persons; and what provisions will be made to ensure that safe, decent, 

and sanitary replacement dwellings will be available to such persons within a reasonable period 

of time prior to displacement. 





21. Handicapped accessibility: Will the proposed project be handicapped accessible? 

_____ Yes _____ No _____ N/A 

If No, attach to this checklist an explanation as to how the project meets ADA handicapped 

accessibility requirements. 

23. Environmental Justice. Will the project have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations? _____ Yes _____ No 

24. State, Local and Tribal Laws. The project is consistent with state, local, and tribal laws to protect 

the environment. _____ Yes _____ No 

25. Required permits: Please list local, state, tribal, or federal permits required for this project and the 

status of the permits. If the permits have not been obtained, then the Recipient certifies, by signing this 

checklist, that the Recipient (or other public entity) is seeking the required local, state and federal permits 

and that work will not begin and land will not be purchased until the permits have been issued and 

received by the Recipient. 

26. Public Coordination 

Has the project for which you propose to use CELCP funds been subject to public scrutiny and 

coordination through a public notice or other public review process? _____Yes _____No 

If "yes," please describe the results of that process and note when the coordination occurred. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

If “no,” please explain. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

NOAA is requesting this information in order to adequately assess the eligibility of proposed projects. The public 

reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other 

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Elaine Vaudreuil, OCRM, 

1305 East-West Hwy (N/ORM), Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. This reporting is authorized under P.L. 107-77, and 

has been approved under OMB #0648-0459. Information submitted will be treated as public record. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject 

to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. 





APPENDIX C 

Sample Title Opinion 

Date: 

RE: 

Project Name 

I hereby certify that I am a member in good standing of the bar of [state] and have 

been requested to determine record ownership for the parcel (s) of property to be acquired or for which an 

easement will be obtained, [name and brief description of land]. After thoroughly 

examining the public land records or other appropriate records in accordance with laws of 

[state], I hereby certify that record title to the parcel is held by 

in [check one]: 

Fee simple absolute 

Other (specify) 

I have determined that there are (check one) 

No easements or other encumbrances on the property 

Easements or other encumbrances on the property (list below or attach); however, they will not 

interfere with the proposed acquisition and the proposed uses of the property 

Other Comments: 

Signature Bar Number (required) 

Name: Telephone Number: 

Address: 



APPENDIX D 

Honuÿapo Park Implementation 

Permitting Matrix

Implementation 

Phase 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

Park Area Project EA SMA CDUP 

Estuary Wetland Study and Restoration Plan 

Whittington 

New park access from Mill Ditch Road (lowimpact 

pavement), and removal of previous park 

access road 

APPENDIX D - HONU'APO PARK IIMPLEMENTATION PERMITTING MATRIX 

Archaeological 

Preservation 

Plan 

Whittington New BBQ pits at Whittington Beach Park � � � 

Flood 

Variance 

DOT 

approval 

Special 

Permit 

Grading 

Permit 

� � � � � � 

Building 

Permit 

Sewage facility 

abandonment 

CoE Permit Sign permit DOCARE 

Agreement 

Shoreline Makai Watch Program � 

New Park Area 




New Park Area, 

Whittington 

Clearing and surface grading at Park (plateau for 

pavilion and parking) � � � � � 

Access road with low-impact pavement to 

community park and campsites � � � � � 

Parking areas at park and campsites, paved with 

low-impact pavement � � � � � 

Native Plant Restoration at Park, and along 

shoreline � � � 

Park regulatory signage (Honuÿapo and 

Whittington parks) � � � � 

Park Management Park management warehouse and parking � � � � � 

Estuary Implementation of Wetland Restoration Plan* � � � � � � � 

Shoreline Ala Kahakai Trail Segment � � 


Park facilities: pavilion, picnic tables, campsites, 

BBQ pits, trails, ADA access. � � � � � � 

New Park Area Composting or vault toilet � � � � 

New Park Area, 

Whittington 

Park interpretive displays 

New Park Area Discovery Garden plantings and displays � � � 

Whittington 

Whittington 

Whittington 

Whittington 

Required Documents and Permits 

New paved parking area in southern portion of 

park � � � � � � 

Demolish existing small pavilions and replace with 

new larger open pavilion with ADA access � � � � � 

Demolish existing toilets on septic system and 

replace with composting toilet (or vault) � � � � � � 

Removal of several concrete foundations and 

structures at Whittington Beach Park � � � � � 

* Required documents and permits for implementation of the Wetlands Restoration Plan will depend on recommended restoration actions and will be further detailed in the Wetlands Restoration Plan.

Honu'apo Park Resource Management Plan

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?