DRAFT

1

Honolua Ahupua‘a Community-Based Management Plan

A Guiding Framework For Community-Based Planning

I guess the saying is, if you teach a man to fish, he going eat for the rest of his life. I think what we want to change the saying to is, if you teach a man the right way to fish,

he going eat for generations.

Wayde Lee, Mo‘omomi, Moloka‘i I. Introduction

DRAFT

2

A. Purpose On June 28, 2013, Governor Neil Abercrombie signed into law HB1424 that requires the State Department of Land Natural Resources (DLNR), in consultation with the Hawaiian Islands Land Trust, to engage in efforts to acquire the parcel of land located at Lipoa Point, identified as TMK 2-4-1-001-010-0000. The State Legislature appropriated $20 million in general obligation bonds to acquire the 280 coastal acreage parcel from Honolua Valley to Honokohau, including Lipoa Point. The State Legislature’s intent was to acquire the parcel for preservation that would help protect the area’s pristine condition, which is one of the most iconic landmarks in Hawai‘i. The legislature found the area to be rich in marine resources and historical and archaeological sites, nationally recognized as a marine preserve with some of the highest fish assemblage characteristics in the islands. Honolua is also considered to have one of the most diverse, unique, and abundant reef formations, providing habitat for rare coral species. As expressed by Tamara Paitlin, Save Honolua Coalition President, this achievement is “by no means the end of the effort, it is really just the beginning. I envision the community, as well as all of our organizational partners, will be involved in determining exactly what this acquisition by the state means in practical terms.”1 This critical work of developing a shared and strategic vision that articulates the “practical terms” of the acquisition will require an informed community-based planning process that engages diverse stakeholders in meaningful dialogue and analysis. This brief report offers a potential guiding framework for a community-based planning process for the development of a community-based management plan for the Honolua Ahupua‘a. It is based on: 1. a review of the extensive work already conducted by a range of community, private, and public

entities; 2. stakeholder interviews; and 3. a review of relevant research and writings. The report provides:

1 Vieth, Mark. “State Legislature Appropriates $20 Million to Save Lipoa Point.” Lahaina News. May 2, 2013.

DRAFT

3

1. a guiding framework – a guiding framework that can be used by the community as a “starting

point” to launch into further dialogue. 2. process considerations – a discussion of potential considerations in the development and

implementation of the community-based planning process. 3. emerging themes – an overview of some of the themes that have emerged from stakeholder

interviews and previous community and interagency discussions. B. Location Honolua Bay is located on the northwestern coast of Maui, about 10 miles north of Lahaina along Honoapi‘ilani Highway. Mokule‘ia Bay is southwest of and adjacent to Honolua Bay. These areas have been designated as the Honolua-Mokule‘ia Marine Life Conservation District, which covers 45 acres of coral reef habitat and extends from the highwater mark seaward to a line from ‘Alaelae Point to Kalaepiha Point, then to the point at the northwestern corner of Honolua Bay. The Honolua Bay portion covers an area of approximately 26.5 acres.2 The area is within the boundaries of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. It is also part of the Honolua watershed or ahupua’a, which covers approximately 3,028 acres (4.7 square miles and includes the drainage area of Honolua Stream, Papua Gulch, and Pahiki Gulch.3 C. Significance of the Resource Cultural Significance In northwest Maui, the moku (district) of Ka‘anapali contains eleven ahupua’a land divisions: Honokohau, Honolua, Honokahua, Napili, Honokeane, Alaeloa, Mailepai, Kahana, Mahinahina, Honokawai, and Makaiwa.

2 Courtney, C. 2007. Recreational Carrying Capacity Evaluation of Honolua Bay. Maui Land & Pineapple Company. 3 Chaston, K. & Oberding, T. 2007. Honolua Bay Review: A review and analysis of available marine, terrestrial, and land-use information in the Honolua Ahupua‘a Maui 1970 – 2007.

DRAFT

4

Within the moku there are six hono bays (uniting of the bays) that are legendary. From south to north, they are Honokowai (bay drawing fresh water), Honokeana (cave bay), Honokahua (sites bay,) Honolua (two bays), Honokahau (bay drawing dew) and Hononana (animated bay). All were extensively terraced for wet taro (lo‘i) in the past and Honokahua Valley has been described as having lo‘i lands. Sweet potatoes were reportedly grown between the Honokohau and Kahakuloa Ahupua‘a in the Moku Wailuku. Collectively, these picturesque and productive bays were called Na Hono A Pi‘ilani or the bays of Pi‘ilani (Honoapi‘ilani). In the 1500s, Chief Pi‘ilani unified West Maui and ruled in peace and prosperity. His territory included the six West Maui bays. He ruled from the Royal Center in Lahaina, where he was born and died. His residence was at Moku‘ula. During his reign, Pi‘ilani gained political prominence for Maui by unifying the East and West of the island, elevating the political status of Maui. His power eventually extended from Hana on one end of the island to the West at Na Hono A Pi‘ilani, in addition to the islands visible from Honoapi‘ilani – Kaho‘olawe, Moloka‘i, and Lana‘i. The prosperity during his regime allowed for a boom in agriculture and construction of heiau, fishponds, trails and irrigation systems. Famed for his energy and intelligence, he constructed the West Maui phase of the noted Alaloa, or long trail (also known as the King’s Highway). His son, Kihapi‘ilani laid the East Maui section and connected the island. This trail was the only ancient pathway to encircle any Hawaiian island at the time.4

4 Young, Peter T. March, 2013. http://totakeresponsibility.blogspot.com/2013/03/na-hono-piilani.html. Ho‘okuleana, LLC.

DRAFT

5

Additionally, Honolua Bay was the departure point for the Hokule‘a’s maiden voyage in 1976 and the land contains twenty-three archaeological sites including, two heiau, boulders with grinding surfaces, house platforms, burial mounds, and agriculture terraces. These archaeological sites are currently not managed5.

During the interviews, stakeholders offered additional knowledge and observations of the areas historical significance:

§ The power of three – there’s two heiau in the area, one was demolished. Mana of the third heiau is still there. It became privately owned so the heiau wasn’t properly cared for.

§ There was an agricultural heiau. § Above the bay, there’s lots of wahi pana (sacred sites). § There’s a holua sliding area. § ’73 to ’74 mapping of 3 old graves was done with Bishop Museum. Environmental History

The habit quality from the perspective of Native Hawaiian Plants on Honolua Ahupua’s is highly modified by human activities. Most of the watershed is dominated by non-native species. The upper portion of the watershed still retains the habitat of native species, but soil erosion and feral ungulates in the upper watershed is a major concern for conservationist. The introduction of new species and intensive ranching and agricultural production that began in late 19th century and development catering to the tourism industry in the second half of 20th century have significantly altered the land 5 Courtney, Catherine. 2007. Recreational Carrying Capacity Evaluation of Honolua Bay. Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc.

DRAFT

6

cover of ahupua’a within the Ka‘anapali Moku. Decades of Pineapple production and use of fertilizers, herbicides and insecticide has reduced the quality of the soil. Sediment, nutrients, and agricultural chemicals runoffs to the bay is a common occurrence during rainfall. The stream system of Honolua Ahupua’a has been diverted since 1913, reducing the flow of energy and nutrient to the bay, degrading the aquatic ecosystem, and preventing the practices of traditional Hawaiian farming.

The Honolua and Mokulia Bays received Marine Life Conservation District designation in 1978. The area includes a fringing reef extending into the bay and bordering the north and south shorelines; a deeper sandy bottom area between the reefs; and an inner area of silt, sand, and a boulder bottom extending across the inner bay, offshore from the sand and cobble beach at the head of the bay. 6 Despite the designation as a conservation district, the Honolua Bay Coral Cover has dropped from 42 percent to 9 percent in 10 years.7 Alien and invasive algal species documented in Honolua include Acanthorphora spificera and Hypnea musiformis and Chrysocystits. In 2012, the State of Hawaii Department of Health listed Honolua Bay as impaired for one or more pollutants.

Recreational History Honolua Bay maintains many distinctive features as an ocean and land recreational area. The primary recreational activities at Honolua Bay are snorkeling, SCUBA diving, and surfing. Other ocean recreational activities include kayaking and recreational sailboats, however, these activities are limited. The bay’s designation as a Marine Life Conservation District prohibits fishing and other extractive activities. Land-based access to the bay provides a unique combination of an easy hike through a “wilderness setting” and a safe snorkel. The coastal bluffs surrounding the bay provide outstanding scenic vistas and support some native vegetation. The average daily number of visitors during the winter was 183 visitors per day and 535 visitors per day during the summer with highest daily visitor number documented at 680 people on June 30, 2006. This number does not include surfers going down the cliff path at the northern point. Over 90 percent of the non-resident visitors to the Honolua Bay come to snorkel or SCUBA dive. Estimate annual (2006) number of snorkelers and SCUBA divers to the site included 88,272 people. Honolua Bay supports both commercial and non-commercial recreational uses that enter the bay by land and sea with 10 boating permits with a maximum boat operating capacity of 49 people and up to 60 vehicles along the roadside. Land-based recreational activities are limited to picnicking associated with visitors that access the bay for snorkeling. The types and duration of recreational activities at Honolua Bay are highly dependent on weather and sea conditions. Snorkeling and beach going activities are predominant during summer. Surfing activities are predominant during winter with maximum hourly number of 83 surfers during the winter of 2006. Snorkeling and surfing activities are separated spatially and do not appear to pose any recreational use conflicts. Permanent parking and restroom facilities are not present at the site.8

6 Komoto, Jill. 2009. Maui Marine Protected Areas Recreational Management Analysis. Coral Reef Alliance. 7 Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources 8 Courtney, Catherine. 2007. Recreational Carrying Capacity Evaluation of Honolua Bay. Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc.

DRAFT

7

I am a fisherman,

so I am a farmer

– same thing. We

use our kūpuna

knowledge and

modern science

to learn, to

understand how

to make things

better – how to

manage our

ocean resources. Filemon Sedang, Local

Fisherman & Community Leader

II. Guiding Framework for Planning – A “Starting Point” This section describes a potential guiding framework that is shaped by the range of vision and values themes that have emerged from previous studies, community discussion, and stakeholder interviews. It is offered as a potential “starting point” for community dialogue around development of an ahupua‘a community-based management plan. The themes should be considered as interdependent components that comprise an overarching planning framework. A. Ahupua‘a Management The following are representative comments that indicate the strong belief that management of the marine resources of Honolua Bay must be part of the broader effort to restore and practice the ancestral principles of the ahupua‘a within our modern context. § Do we have a deep understanding of what ahupua‘a is about – do we know the clouds, the winds, the rain (wai uli – dark heavy rain)? § We must balance fishing with other parts of ahupua‘a, this is

common sense stuff. § The “reef to ridge” effort – there needs to be a more deep

understanding of the ahupua‘a concept. § Do we understand the types of plants (wai kulu) that hold the

rain drops, then delivers the water, that helps to maintain the watershed?

§ There needs to be balance – we need to see the ties between land and ocean, the plants blossoming and the urchin’s time to be momona.

§ Kalo same as fish – there’s land and ocean relationships. Hinalea like the honey creeper, birdfish, flower.

Kepa Maly describes the ahupua‘a as the most significant land management unit of the ancient Hawaiians that was developed over generations of learning. It was part of a broader sophisticated system of land and resource management, which included larger districts and smaller regions. These were subdivisions of land usually marked by an altar (ahu) with an

DRAFT

8

image or representation of a pig (pua‘a) placed upon it, thus, the name ahu-pua‘a or pig-altar. Ahupua‘a may be generally compared to pie-shaped wedges of land that extended from the ocean fisheries (the wide section) fronting the land unit, to the mountains (the narrow section) or some other feature of geological significance such as a valley, hill, or crater. The boundaries of the ahupua‘a were generally defined by the topography and cycles and patterns of natural resources occurring within the lands (cf. Lyons, 1875; in “The Islander”). The ahupua‘a were divided into smaller manageable parcels of land, controlled by a hierarchy of chiefs with the konohiki or lesser chief at the lowest level. Cultivated resources could be grown and natural resources harvested on these smaller parcels. 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 the mountain slopes to the ocean. These access rights were almost uniformly tied to residency on a particular piece of land, and earned as a result of taking responsibility for stewardship of the natural environment, and supplying the needs of one’s Ali‘i (cf. Malo 1951:63-67; Kamakau 1961:372-377; and Boundary Commission Testimonies – ca. 1865- 1891). The ahupua‘a resources supported not only the people who lived on the land (maka‘�inana), but also contributed to the support of the royal community of regional and/or island kingdoms. In ancient Hawai‘i, access to resources of the ahupua‘a was restricted. Generally, only residents of the ahupua‘a could use the fisheries of shallow nearshore waters and could gather resources and birds from the forests. Outsiders (for example, related kinsmen or friends) might be allowed by the local chief or by residents to use these community resource areas, but theoretically, permission had to be obtained. Also, residents had their own use rights to specific field plots and house lots. Travelers, thus, could pass through ahupua‘a on the ala loa, which circumscribed the entire island, but they did not have open access to the resources of the ahupua‘a. With this Hawaiian form of district subdividing�as a means of resource management planning, the land provided fruits and vegetables and some meat in 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) developed and were strictly adhered to.9 Thus, a more holistic and understanding approach to managing the marine resources of Honolua Bay should be considered. Stakeholders expressed the need for managing the Honolua Ahupua‘a not just as a watershed resource but as a system that nurtures the interdependent relationship between we, as island people, and ‘aina in the effort to restore ancestral abundance to these islands. B. Governance – Interdependent Community, Public, & Private Roles &

Responsibilities

9 Maly, Kepa. 2005. “Working Paper,” a review of draft text of Chapter 1 of the comprehensive management plan, dated December 5, 2005, submitted via e-mail and available as a digital file at the Ala Kahakai NHT office at Koloko-Honokohau NP office in Kailua-Kona, HI.

DRAFT

9

A‘ohe kanaka e

kama‘aina ai ka

mahi ‘ai koe wale

ka mahi‘ai.

‘A‘ohe kanaka e

kama‘aina ai ka

lawai‘a, koe ka

lawai ‘a.

No man is

familiar with

farming except

the one who

farms (mahi‘ai).

No man is familiar

with fishing

except the one

who fishes

(lawai‘a).

A critical component to a guiding framework is a viable an appropriate approach to governance. This requires clear roles and responsibilities and lines of decision-making authority. The literature, stakeholder interviews, and the ahupua‘a management approach point to an opportunity for Honolua to develop and demonstrate a governance model that is comprised of interdependent roles and responsibilities that are rooted in a culture of continuous “learning together” to strive towards a shared vision by achieving agreed upon goals and objectives. The following are representative stakeholder comments around emerging themes related to the issue of governance and oversight of Honolua’s marine resources: The Ocean as Part of ‘Aina – That Which Feeds Us

§ When we were growing up, fishing was the most important thing to us – that’s what the ocean meant to us.

§ We were part of a hukilau family – we went fishing every Sunday. It was a way of life for us – how we lived.

§ Not just about surfing, but a work village, a fishing village. § We always shared – there was fish divided between the fish

gang, church members, and families who needed. Impacts on Resource

§ Development changed everything – changed water patterns, opala went into the ocean.

§ We’re frustrated – being fished out. § People from outside don’t know how to fish – they take too

much. We Need to Manage Our Resource – But Manage Means to Practice & Know

§ Stopping is not saving – saving is managing, is malama ‘aina, aloha ‘aina.

§ Ban – NO; manage better. § Take out the sanctuary – take out the ban. The key is to

manage. § Modern science à kupuna knowledge à we use our

knowledge and learn to understand how to make things better. § Traditional practices – included kapu, seasonal fishing (‘auamo

weke), paepae versus with net. § Data collection – have everybody should help get that

information, not just scientists. We Take Responsibility – We Help Each Other Take Responsibility

DRAFT

10

§ Lahaina people stayed in their own area. § You malama, you take care of your own area for your family and neighbors. § If people not take care of, we tell ‘em they better take care. This approach to governance and management acknowledges that there is an appropriate role for public policies and regulations, local wisdom and knowledge that comes from an intimate relationship with the resource through the practice of informed fishing, and private sector involvement and investment in efforts to malama the resource that supports their enterprises. This interdependent approach finds its roots in the ancient system of ahupua‘a governance. The traditional Hawaiian perspective saw the ‘aina and the ali‘i nui (high chiefs) as elder siblings (brother or sister), with the maka‘ainana as the younger sibling – all three having descended from the mating of the earth and sky. It was the duty of the maka‘ainana to malama ‘aina (care for the land), while it was the duty of the ‘aina and the ali‘i nui to ho‘omalu (protect) the maka‘ainana.10 Another account describes the ahupua‘a was viewed as a single system with the konohiki managing the ahupua‘a as one system. What happened in any one part of the ahupua‘a affected all the other parts. The head was connected to the tail, the mauka connected to the makai. The maka‘ainana worked as a community with a shared interest in protecting the land and water resources from wao to ko kaha kai. There was a clear line of responsibility from gods to ali‘i to konohiki to maka‘ainana. There were clear kapu (prohibitions), which controlled when and how resources were used, with very strict penalties for those who did not follow the kapu. The activities of the ahupua‘a were governed by the mo‘i (chief) and konohiki (land/resource manager) through a kapu system of governance that prevented problems such as over-fishing and water contamination. This system of land divisions and boundaries enabled a konohiki to know the limits and productivity of the resources that they managed – and increase its productivity.11

Term Definition Potential Modern Interpretation

Moi King, High Chief Political Leader (Governor, Appointed or Elected Official)

Konohiki Chief, Authority Official with Legal or Delegated Legal Authority

Kahuna Expert Expert

Ali‘i Kua‘āina Country Chief Knowledgeable Community Leader

Maka‘āinana Resident Citizen Scientist

10 Kame‘elehiwa, Lilikala. 1 992. Native Land & Foreign Desires. Bishop Museum. 11 Maly, Kep�. 2005. “Working Paper,” a review of draft text of Chapter 1 of the comprehensive management plan, dated December 5, 2005, submitted via e-mail and available as a digital file at the Ala Kahakai NHT office at Koloko-Honokohau NP office in Kailua-Kona, HI.

DRAFT

11

Another example of this interdependent approach to governance and management of resources can be seen in coordinated national and subnational approaches that are used in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation & Degradation (REDD) efforts in Aceh, Indonesia. In this model, the subnational approach allows for initiatives to be implemented in a definite geographical area conducted by communities, community-based organizations, and private entities. An advantage of this is that this provides flexibility with regard to an initiative’s ownership and, thereby, the motivation for the local community to take responsibility for mobilizing a range of resources and sustaining their efforts. The advantage of having a complementary national approach is the ability and authority of the national government to regulate broad policies. This “nestled approach” provides a strategy that simultaneously implements national and subnational approaches. This requires strong coordination between the national and subnational approaches. Its main advantage is that it enables small-scale projects to have a head start without having to wait for the existence of a national framework.12 The graphic below illustrates the model which is supported through funding/financing resources through payments for ecosystem services (through buyers of REDD credits).

Work supported by the Packard Foundation to improve coastal and marine resource management in the Western Pacific Region has also resulted in findings that point to the need for a new approach – potentially something that reflects some of the key principles that underpin the ahupua‘a governance and nestled approaches described above. The work focused on site-based interventions that included marine protected areas (MPAs) and locally managed marine areas (LMMAs), an area of coastal marine resources managed at a local level by the communities, landowning groups, partner organizations, and/or collaborative groups who

12 Angelsen, Arild. 2008. Moving Ahead With REDD: Issues, Options & Implications. Center for International Forestry Research. Bogor, Indonesia.

DRAFT

12

reside or are based in the immediate area. While substantial progress was made, it was clear that MPAs and LMMAs in their current forms were not sufficient to protect the integrity of the region’s coastal marine ecosystems from mounting pressures. It concluded that these challenges call for more integrated reserve (MPAs) and fishery management approaches (LMMAs).13 C. Kīpuka for ‘Āina-Based Sustainability – Capacity Building, Education, & Awareness Raising A recurring theme through previous community discussions and stakeholder interviews was the idea that the Honolua community has the opportunity to establish and demonstrate a viable process and system to effectively manage its resources in ways that increasingly involve and engage the community to sustain the effort moving forward. This process and system will require on-going efforts to lift up and understand local wisdom and practices; continuously build the capacity of the diverse segments of the community, including visitors; and creating opportunities for on-going learning, education, and awareness raising. The following are some representative comments from stakeholders that reflect this emerging theme: § We need a mindset of managing, of understanding the ike of this place. § We ignore the traditional names of places – as why we don’t know how to take care those places

or know how to behave in those places. § We have to create a climate for community learning. § What’s important is our knowledge of fishing, knowing the opihi, knowing what’s going on in

the ocean. § When I was growing up, my dad would tell me to go back and check, monitor – see if the fish

coming back, make sure people not taking too much. § Now is my turn to practice my culture, to teach things, to share knowledge with other people. D. Long Term Viability There have been a number of previous discussions held by the Save Honolua Coalition and other groups regarding how best to attract and/or generate resources to sustain the community’s resource management efforts. A consistent theme expressed was how best to identify the most appropriate means for securing support resources but in ways that do not divide the community and which do not further exacerbate the pressures already being placed on the natural and cultural resources of the area. The graphic below represents a potential framework for generating dialogue regarding the issue of generating sustaining resources but in a way that is with the underlying values of the other interdependent components of the “starting point” guiding framework.

13 Conservation & Community Investment Forum. 2013. Assessment of the Enabling Conditions for Rights-Based Management of Fisheries & Coastal Marine Resources in the Western Pacific. Trust for Conservation Innovation. The David & Lucile Packard Foundation.

DRAFT

13

Long Term Viability & Sustainability

Ideas that have been discussed in previous discussions include: § County financing mechanisms – i.e., a tax assessment; an open space bond. § Developing mechanisms for donations and other fundraising activities. § Establishing concession(s) to generate revenues. § Special events around cultural activities that promote culture while secondarily generate

revenues. § Fee for parking areas. § Contributions from tour boat operators. § Funding investments from the hotel industry. § Developing grant support opportunities. § Payment for ecosystem services.

Governance – Interdependent Community, Public, & Private Roles & Responsibilities

Kīpuka for ‘Āina-Based

Sustainability – Capacity Building,

Education, & Awareness Raising

Ahupua‘a Management

Approach

DRAFT

14

III. Community Engagement Considerations A. Community & Agency Process & Activities to Date Over the years, the community and public/private agencies have conducted a range of relevant studies, planning initiatives, community engagement activities, advocacy efforts, and on-going malama Honolua activities to move toward a shared understanding on how best to manage the unique resources of the Honolua Ahupua‘a. These studies, activities, and community initiatives provide a solid foundation and starting point from which a community-based planning process can assist in formulating a land and resource management plan. Some of the relevant work to date have included studies through a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef Conservation Act and the State of Hawai‘i’s Coral Reef Local Action Strategy (LAS) for land-based pollution threats has conducted a variety of studies to better assess the threats to Honolua and West Maui reefs. Topics within these studies include:

§ Anthropogenic and Natural Stresses on Coral Reefs (Honolua, Maui - 2003); § Assessment, Mapping, and Monitoring of Selected "Most Impaired" Coral Reef Areas in the

State of Hawai‘i (Kaneohe Bay, O‘ahu; South O‘ahu; West Maui; and South Moloka‘I -2004); § Carrying Capacity Study for Managing Public Use of Honolua Bay (2007); § Hawai‘i Coral Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (Honolua, Maui); § Honolua Ecosystem Restoration Project; Innovative Wastewater and Storm-Water Management

System Workshop and Design Recommendations for Public Restroom Facility and Parking Lot in a Sensitive Coastal Environment (Honolua, Maui);

§ Long-Term Variability of Currents, Temperature, Salinity, and Turbidity off Kahana, Northwest Maui (Honolua, Maui, 2001-2003);

§ Screening Level Monitoring for Pesticides and Herbicides in Honolua Bay; § Soil Erosion and Surface Water Runoff Control for Land Use Transition from Pineapple

Cultivation to Resort, Residential, and Recreational Development, (Honolua, Maui); § Soil Erosion Control Best Management Practices and Water Quality Monitoring for Pineapple

Cultivation and Monitoring § Spatial and Temporal Variability in Historic Near-Shore Sedimentation Recorded in Coral

Skeletons (Honolua, Maui or Kawela, Moloka‘i); § Synthesis and Critical Analysis of Available Data and Information on Land Use, Runoff, Water

Quality, and the Health of Coral Reef Ecosystem at Honolua Bay; § Technical Assistance for Stormwater Management for Residential and Golf Course

Development at Honolua Bay, and West Maui coastal circulation and sediment dynamics experiment (Honolua, Maui); and

§ Ride 2 Reef Initiative West Maui (on-going). In addition, community dialogue and advocacy efforts have been conducted over the years by: § Save Honolua Coalition & Aha Moku Council

DRAFT

15

Timeline of Relevant Studies & Community Activities

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

§ Recreational Carrying Capacity of Evaluation of Honolua Bay.

§ West Maui Coastal Use Mapping Project

§ Project Sea Link. § Save Honolua Coalition

Organized & Established. § Honolua Advisory Council

Established.

§ West Maui Mountains Watershed

§ Project Sea Link

§ REEF – Volunteer Based Reef Surveys

§ Local Action Strategy for Land-Based Pollution (Honolua Demo Site)

§ Long-Term Variability of Currents, Temperature, Salinity, and Turbidity in North West Maui

§ Maui Marine Protected Areas Recreational Management Analysis.

§ HB14524 Signed into Law by Governor

§ West Maui Watershed Reconnaissance Study

§ Kanaha, Honokahua and Honolua Watershed Planning process begins

§

DRAFT

16

B. Desired Products & Outcomes of the Process Community Based Management Plan – identify overall value, vision, goals, priority actions, governance model, and feasibility study for the Honolua Ahupua’a to create a space for community dialogue, share the intent to the larger community, and help solidify support to protect and enhance the coastal and terrestrial areas. Community Partnerships & Networks for Implementation – renewing old connection and fostering new networks through a participatory and transparent planning process to draft the community based management plan help create the momentum for implementation through ownership of the plan and clear next step for Honolua. C. Guiding Principles & Potential Models While everyone acknowledges that change occurs, most of the interviewees spoke of the importance of sharing history and working in partnership – ‘ohana, land owners, surfers, boat operators, hotel representatives and government representatives (federal, state, county) to protect and enhance the sense of place deeply ingrained in the Honolua ahupua‘a and the larger Ka‘anapali moku. Stakeholders desired respect for indigeneity – tied to the land, culture, and attachment of place – and a collaborative community based management approach grounded in the ahupua‘a principle developed through a deep meaningful engagement process that bridges the gap between past, present and future. Some considerations they offered include creating a place for intergenerational sharing; enriching and enhancing Hawaiian values; and promoting understanding of traditions and practices for future generation and among visitors alike. The following are some representative stakeholder comments around emerging themes relative to a community engagement process for the development of a resource management plan for the Honolua Ahupua‘a: Engage the Diverse Range of Stakeholders in the Community § Hotels have done beach clean ups, slow by slow they’re increasing their participation. The Ritz

Carlton has defined their organizational culture around participation in community, stewardship, and the value of giving.

§ Involve the range of players who are already working on these efforts – i.e., Ridge to Reef, Corps of Engineers, Maui Nui Marine Council, The Nature Conservancy.

§ Honolua difficult – there’s lots of folks on the land who don’t like each other. § Schools have participated. § Sierra Club does hikes. § Blue ‘aina Campaign. Planning By Doing – Building & Changing Relationships Between People § Have a process that helps to change, to strengthen relationships between people in our

community.

DRAFT

17

§ The Hokule‘a event was a good example of the type of activity that pulls people together. The whole event was organized by the community – each taking a part as their responsibility.

§ We should get people involved by doing things together – like planting 10,000 natives (koa trees) – and use that as a way to get them to share their ideas.

§ We have to have a process that helps show our local knowledge of the area so that DLNR can see and better listen to local ike.

Given the above sentiments, the following are some potential guiding principles for the delivery of community outreach and engagement strategies and tools described below: § Designing Intentional Processes – developing a series of steps and/or experiences for engaging others

designed to assist movement towards a desired outcome; a methodically planned and structured process based upon applied expertise and intuition about what might work best.

§ Designing Consciously Conceived Processes – being aware of anything that could make a difference, positive or negative, to an effort and its outcomes. It requires that a process be responsive and adaptive to the context in which it will unfold.

§ Clearly Identified Role for Community – having clearly identified goals and objectives that articulate what role(s) community plays in the process – i.e., sharing data/information around local knowledge and wisdom; giving input and feedback; providing support; being an implementing partner; and/or initiating independent action to support the overall effort. The process should be aligned with the roles expected from stakeholders and/or the community.

§ Starting Where People Are At – understanding where stakeholders/community members are at relative to an initiative so that appropriate strategies and tools can be employed to move them through a process that effectively engages them in the role(s) expected.

The following are some of the strategies and tools that can be used to shape a community outreach and engagement process: § Stakeholder Analysis – facilitated discussions to assess and analyze stakeholders, individually

and/or collectively, to determine what they could potentially contribute to an initiative; “where they’re at”; and when and how best to engage them, from a strategic standpoint. The product from this exercise is used to design an overall outreach and engagement process.

§ Stakeholder Interviews – confidential one-on-one interviews to collect data/information and

perspectives. Information collected is compiled, analyzed, and used to shape findings and conclusions.

§ ‘Ohana Dialogue – is a popular education approach to community based planning that raises

community consciousness; strengthens the voice of the community and families; identifies strategies that catalyze community change; and encourages the creation of community change agents that address community and family self-sufficiency concerns through collective action. It involves:

a. small group “talk story” sessions with families, community groups, businesses, public agency representatives, and other stakeholders to collect data/information and take a “temperature” check on family and community concerns and aspirations.

DRAFT

18

b. research and analysis relevant to the data/information and themes that emerge from the “talk story” sessions.

c. a 2nd round of “talk story” sessions to report back themes, relevant research and information, and gather additional information, stories, and feedback from families and other community stakeholders.

d. compile, organize, and analyze information gathered and conduct additional supportive research, if necessary.

§ Focus Groups – facilitated small group discussion focused on particular topics/questions to gather perspectives and/or a particular set of data and information.

§ SpeakOut – is [a] an interactive staffed exhibition and is [b] a hybrid event combining some

characteristics of a meeting and an exhibition or “open house”. It is characterized by:

– an informal and interactive “public meeting” environment; – a wide range of activities for people participation; – structured “drop-in” participation; – opportunities for participants to find issues they wish to “speak out” about; – documentation of participant comments by a recorder; and – support to participants from a “listener” who pays close attention and asks pertinent

questions.

Speak-outs were initially conceived to accommodate the need to engage a broad spectrum of community members in a town center redevelopment project in Australia in 1990 (Sarkissian, 1999). Merging some characteristics of public meetings with those of exhibits, Speak-outs are designed to be informal and attractive to participants allowing participants to come and go more freely than in formal meetings. Speak-outs use booths and exhibits to engage the public and solicit their views on different issues, either in writing or in one-on-one interviews. In a Speak- out, community involvement is designed to be straight to the point and not take much time. The Speak-out is also useful in situations in which planners wish to share information, gather community input, or build awareness of planning issues in the community.

§ Strategic Planning – is an organized effort to mobilize resources toward community goals. Besides setting goals and priorities, strategic planning also requires communities to identify issues and constituencies and develop these constituencies into an organization that can make decisions. To support this process, strategic planning also requires communities to explore and identify alternative solutions to problems, collect relevant information on those alternatives, and forecast the likely consequences of decisions that may be taken.

§ Visioning – is a process that develops useful guidelines for public actions that hopefully will place

a community in a position that is better than its present one. Unlike strategic planning, visioning does not try to produce detailed outcomes. Instead, visioning is usually accomplished by asking participants to imagine and articulate where they want the community to be in the future. Participants are then asked to identify and develop general guidelines for actions to be taken to achieve these visions.

§ Workshops – provide a setting for many types of participatory techniques. Its main purpose is to

provide a high level of interaction between community participants and decision-makers. This interaction may occur in parallel with a learning and decision-making process. This emphasis

DRAFT

19

Planning & Preparation

Product: an agreed upon “starting point” guiding framework that builds on previous studies and community planning and other activities; a defined overall process with timeline, resource needs, and roles/responsibilities; trained community facilitators.

Core Planning Group

Trained Community Facilitators ‘Ohana Dialogue With Diverse Stakeholder Groups

Product: [1] information from families, community stakeholders, private and public sector stakeholders that will inform the development of a Honolua Ahupua‘a Community Based Management Plan and [2] identification of roles, responsibilities, and actions that various stakeholder groups are willing to take on.

Research & Analysis

‘Ohana Talk Story Sessions & Focus

Group Discussions

Product: [1] additional information, refinement, and feedback from the community regarding themes and ideas that emerged through ‘Ohana Dialogue and focus group discussions.

Honolua Ahupua‘a Honolua Ahupua‘a CommunityCommunity--Based Based Management PlanManagement Plan

Public Agency Policies, Public Agency Policies, Regulations, & ActionsRegulations, & Actions

. . . to cr. . . to create the enabling and supportive eate the enabling and supportive

environment for communityenvironment for community --based based

management of the Honolua Ahupua‘a. management of the Honolua Ahupua‘a.

Community Based ActionsCommunity Based Actions . . . to implement and sustain management of . . . to implement and sustain management of

Honolua Ahupua‘a.Honolua Ahupua‘a.

DRAFT

20

§ translates into better team building and the giving and receiving of feedback, with enough room for interpersonal communication to occur.

The graphic on the previous page provides an example of how the various community engagement tools can be used to orchestrate a broad community-based planning process. D. Stakeholder Identification & Analysis Stakeholder identification is critical for success of any project. Engagement of the right people and the right organization can make a big difference to the success of any initiative. Honolua Ahupua’a involves many potential stakeholders with divergent viewpoints and priorities. Key questions to understand in relation to potential stakeholders are:

§ What economic, environmental, social, and cultural interest do they have to the outcome of the initiative?

§ What is their roles and responsibility related to the initiative? § What motivates these people or groups?

Table 1 is an example of simple stakeholder identification and analysis (SIS). For a detailed SIS, it is best to conduct further stakeholder interviews.

Table 1 – SIS Stakeholders Roles & Responsibilities Motivation

West Maui Reef 2 Ridge Initiative:

• United State Geological Services (USGS)

• United State Department of Agriculture (USDA)

• Natural Capital Project (Stanford University)

• School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST –UH)

• Environmental Projection Agency (EPA)

• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Major Funders and Collaborators of Initiative: USGS – provide land cover maps/invasive species. USDA – provide agricultural information. NCP – provide technical assistant to the InVEST ecosystem modeling software. SOEST – provide resource to model coral reef and ocean behavior (i.e. costal erosion rate). EPA – regulate clean air and water action – interested in compliance of effluent discharge of wastewater plants.

Restore coral reef health and associated environmental services of West Maui Watershed through better management. Interested in learning more about interconnection between land use, terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Identify future scenario for best land use strategies for decision makers.

DRAFT

21

• National Resource Conservation Services (NRCS)

NOAA – provide climate and ocean data. NRCS – provide soil surveys.

State Level:

• Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)

• Department of Health

(DOH)

• Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA)

• UH

DLNR – protect, manage and regulate aquatic, forestry, ocean recreation activities on state land. DOH – regulate clean air and water. HTA – promote tourism in Hawaii – give grant to community groups to enhance visitor experience. UH – provide public education and research for betterment of Hawaii.

Enhance, protect, conserve and manage natural, cultural and historic resources – aquatic, forestry, ocean recreation, tourism, etc.

Local Level:

• Land Owners (Maui Land & Pineapple, Honolua Ridge/Valley).

• Tourism Industry

(Resorts, Snorkel Bob, Kayaks, Sail Boats)

• County of Maui

• Surfrider

• Fisherman/Cultural

Practitioners/Kupuna

• Other Community Organization

Generate revenue and create jobs. Protect marine and coastal access. Restore traditional practices and preserve culture.

Identify best and most profitable use of land to sustain organization. Protect view plane, minimize access, and maintain exclusivity of subdivision. Maintain access to the bay and reef for locals and visitors. Preserve and restore cultural practices.

DRAFT

22

IV. Emerging Themes – Concerns & Potential Actions The following are emerging themes and representative comments from stakeholders regarding what they see as key concerns and potential actions in realizing a community-based approach to management of the Honolua Ahupua‘a. A. Concerns Negative Impacts of Significant Numbers of Users § Fish Feeding – tried to do education on the beach. § Reef Degradation – people standing/slipping on the coral. § Reef Degradation – inputs from golf course and pineapple fields go into the water from runoffs. § Reef Degradation – day boat moorings are an issue. § Carrying Capacity – huge amounts of people in the area, sometimes 7 boat loads at a time. § Carrying Capacity – don’t like building a parking area. If that’s built, they will come; maintain

rural/wild and educate about behavior and mindset. Lift Up Local Knowledge § Restore Culture & Practice – bring kupuna together to establish protocol, teach, and restore native

plants; watershed protection. B. Potential Actions Community Monitoring & “Policing” § Need people to regularly help to police and inform the area. § Maka‘ainana – community has to be the eyes of the land. § Traditionally families take care of their area. § We have to patrol – maybe with help from MPD, we can arm ourselves with cell phones, can

take picture and send to MPD and DLNR. § Maybe organize around green shirts/mauka and blue shirts/makai. § Think about families not as stakeholders – but the eyes. § Develop community deputies – kind of like makai watch. § Surfers pretty respectful of place – fishermen also can monitor. § Community management is the key. Involvement of Tour Operators § Talked to tour operators – they want to help raise awareness of sustainability. § With boats – tourists need to be informed and educated before they go out; operators should

police this; operators are already buying greener products.

DRAFT

23

Public Use of the Land Acquired § If the 280 acres is to belong to the people of Maui – the only thing that is public would be open

space. § One thing missing – place for families to enjoy; develop a people’s park; keep it simple § Puu malo – hula mound. § Give it a sense of place. § Place where families can enjoy, be themselves. § Would be applicable to any other state park in state. Could be a model for other state parks –

community control. § Develop ocean and cultural center. § Supporting and promoting culture is key. § Do something for our keiki, for generations to come.

DRAFT

24

V. Case Study Since the 1990’s, a number of community groups have been working to restore native forests, agricultural systems, and coastal assets in ahupua’a (watershed) across the state. Organizations like the Kahana Valley Planning Council, Malama Maunaluna, Waimea Valley, Limahuli Gardens, Waipa Foundation, Kako’o ‘Oiwi, and Ho’oulu ‘A ina are developing innovative watershed management models that draw upon principles from the native Hawaiian ahupua‘a system. Community-based approaches not only provide needed labor for resource management activities, but also fulfill people’s physical and spiritual needs14. There are many community organizations applying ahupua’a concepts as a model for resource management strategies that transcend Western ecological, scientific and social science discipline boundaries in favor of culturally-based decision-making15 Long-term investment of time and resources and nuanced environmental and community-based planning is required for success. A major area of conflict between traditional ahupua’a management and modern regulatory and scientific approaches are bureaucratic impediments and lack of agency coordination, which can be addressed through innovative planning efforts, more funding for integrated environmental programs, and collaborative initiatives like watershed partnerships.

One such initiative, West Maui Ridge 2 Reef Initiative – is applying ecosystem framework to identify appropriate strategies to restore coral reef health and associated ecological services through cutting edge watershed research. The project is a multi-sector collaboration at the federal, state, county, private, and community organization attempting to model the biophysical relationship of the West Maui Watershed, which include Honolua Ahupua’a.

In the past, complex government regulations and permit processes at the federal, state, and county level lead to disempowerment of community members and resource users. Leveraging existing initiative such as West Maui Ride 2 Reef, to facilitated community dialogue, agreements, Use Permits, Environmental Assessments and other required documentation or desired action may accelerate implementation.

There are many successful community based initiatives in the State of Hawaii. Three case studies of coastal, stream and upland ahupua’a community-based management from Hawaii Island and Oahu are highlighted below.

HO’OKENA

Friends of Ho'okena Beach Park (FOHBP) is a non- profit 501(c)(3) organization established by members of the Ho'okena community. FOHBP is an outgrowth of Kama’aina United to Protect the Aina (KUPA), a community organization focused on the preservation of cultural and natural resources and culturally sensitive economic development in Ho'okena.

14 Armstrong, Lauren (2012). “Community-Based Watershed Management: Understanding Hawaiian Ahupua’a Principles in a Modern Context.” Area of Concentration Paper. Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning, University of Hawaii at Manoa. 15 Derrickson et al (2002). “Watershed Management and Policy and Hawai‘i : Coming Full Circle”. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. April 2002.

DRAFT

25

Through the University of Hawai'i at Hilo and the Hawai'i Small Business Development Network, FOHBP received Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Serving Communities (AN/NHIAC) funds to develop a community microenterprise. FOHBP's primary objective was to develop a sustainable microenterprise that would provide employment opportunities for community members and to return management of Ho'okena Beach Park to the community.

In May 2007, the County of Hawai'i signed an agreement with FOHBP to transfer management oversight of the park to FOHBP. The agreement required that FOHBP use microenterprise revenues to maintain the park. FOHBP has hired community members to maintain the park and provide park security via the "Aloha Patrol".

This renewed the popularity of Ho'okena Beach Park and it is now listed on travel websites as one of the island's best beaches for camping, swimming and snorkeling. The County of Hawai'i is using this successful partnership as a model for establishing similar community based partnerships at other county parks.

HO'OULU AINA Community organization in Kalihi Valley called Ho‘oulu ‘Aina (HA) which means to “grow land” is a land-based program of Kokua Kalihi Valley (KKV), a non-profit community health care organization serving the people of Kalihi for over 40 years. In 2005, HA signed a 20-year lease with the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to create a 100-acre Nature Preserve on land targeted for residential development. Since then, the organization has engaged the surrounding community in workdays and programs to malama ‘a ina, and in turn, improve the health of those who participate. HA’s mission is to be a welcoming place of refuge where people of all cultures sustain and propagate the connections between the health of the land and the health of the people16.

The growing staff, infrastructure and institutional memory of Ho’oulu ‘Aina has allowed for more flexibility in programming, and made it possible to host many school and community groups on the property. All activities at Ho’oulu ‘A ina are guided by the principles of health. The organization plan based on a 200-year time frame and planting is done by the moon cycle to help people remember and align the rhythms of the land. By following this practice passed down by their ancestors, people are able to connect with their work on a physical and spiritual level17.

KAUPA

A great example of collaboration between scientific management efforts and community land stewards is the stream restoration project in Kalihi Valley. Kalihi Ahupua’a Ulu Pono Ahahui (KAUPA) is a non-profit group that applies traditional Hawaiian watershed management practices and good science to improve the environmental quality of the Kalihi watershed, through community based education, outreach and hands on environmental restoration work18. One of KAUPA’s

16 Armstrong, Lauren (2012). “Community-Based Watershed Management: Understanding Hawaiian Ahupua’a Principles in a Modern Context.” Area of Concentration Paper. Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning, University of Hawaii at Manoa. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.

DRAFT

26

projects involves local students in monitoring stream water quality, providing scientific data to measure the impact of restoration activity and valuable training and education for young people. KAUPA works in partnership with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Hawai’i Department of Health (DOH), City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services (DES), Kalihi Waena School, the Department of Education (DOE), and private donors19.

VI. Conclusion

This brief report offers a potential guiding framework for a community-based planning process for the development of a community-based management plan for the Honolua Ahupua‘a. It is based on: 1. a review of the extensive work already conducted by a range of community, private, and public

entities; 2. stakeholder interviews; and 3. a review of relevant research and writings. The report provides an overview of a potential guiding framework and process that can be used by the community to launch into further dialogue. Additionally, participatory planning techniques and tools are shared to develop a community-based management plan. Over the years, the community and public/private agencies have conducted a range of relevant studies, planning initiatives, community engagement activities, advocacy efforts, and on-going malama Honolua activities to move toward a shared understanding on how best to manage the unique resources of the Honolua Ahupua‘a. These initiatives provide a solid foundation and a great starting point from which a community-based planning process can build. Still many challenges remain. Despite the designation as a conservation district, the Honolua Bay Coral Cover has dropped from 42 percent to 9 percent in 10 years, which is alarming. Stakeholder interviews reveal a significant disconnect between desired management practices based on traditional cultural knowledge and exiting conservation approach. Many of the interviewees spoke of the importance of sharing history and working in partnership – ‘ohana, land owners, surfers, boat operators, hotel representatives, researchers and government representatives (federal, state, county) to protect and enhance the sense of place deeply ingrained in the Honolua ahupua‘a and the larger Ka‘anapali moku. The on-going development of West Maui Ridge 2 Reef initiative is a tremendous resource and opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of Honolua Ahupua’a. Moreover, local residents desired a respect for indigeneity – ties to the land, culture, and attachment of place – and a collaborative management approach grounded in the ahupua‘a principle. Finally, the preservation of Honolua for future generation is a major milestone for the Maui community. The opportunity to build from the momentum of community victor is here. What will Honolua look like in 20 years? What kind of place will it be for youth, family, elders and visitors? How will people malama Honolua?

19 Ibid.

DRAFT

27

Appendix I Summary of West Maui Watershed Concerns from West Maui Watershed Planning Process § Coral Reef Habitat – Maui County has a documented loss of over $20 million a year in gross

annual revenue associated with impacts to coral reefs from land based pollution, algal blooms, and other activities. DAR has documented a 72 percent decline in coral reefs in 10 years in Honolua Bay, which is a designated Marine Conservation Land District.

§ Land Based Pollution – Increased sedimentation, pollutant loading, and debris on nearshore reefs is causing a decline in the health of the reef ecosystem and an increase in the presence of alien species.

§ Stream Alteration – Alterations to natural stream beds (diverted water, hardening/de-channelization, etc) has compromised stream habitat and limited the supply of water available for traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices.

§ Water Quality – Water quality and quantity in streams and ground water has decreased causing concerns for human health and impacts to native flora and fauna.

§ Overall Watershed Degradation – Watershed degradation in the upper watersheds from a variety of sources has resulted in significant ecosystem degradation, an increase in alien species, and the inability of the watershed to effectively recharge stream and ground water resources.

§ Risk of Flooding and Coastal Storm Hazards – Loss of wetlands and floodplains due to development activities and increased sediment and debris associated with the human alteration of the landscape has increased the risk of property being damaged or destroyed during major storm events. Shoreline development has resulted in changes to coastline stability and/or resulted in increased number of properties at risk from coastal storm hazards including increased coastal erosion.

§ Infrastructure – Infrastructure from current channels and sediment basins is not well maintained. There is inadequate infrastructure (i.e. waste water, potable water, etc), to support the growing demand due to development.

§ Incorporation of Native Hawaiian Traditional Practices – The public raised a desire to have Hawaiian traditional cultural practices incorporated or enhanced within the West Maui study area. For example, the public would like to see the incorporation of ahupua’a concepts in water resource management, increased opportunities for traditional farming practices such as taro (lo`i) ponds, changes in water management, and opportunities for applying traditional ecological knowledge in land, water, and fisheries management as management measures.

Challenges, Scenarios, & Opportunities from West Maui Watershed 1. Impacts to Stream Resources: Problems § Need for in-stream flow standards, which are the minimum flows necessary to sustain various

uses and are the primary tool to protect streams and the public uses dependent upon them.

DRAFT

28

§ Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices; not enough available water for cultural uses (taro (kalo) cultivation, native aquatic species, protocol for sacred sites (heiau), etc).

§ Lack of or degraded stream habitat for native species; native freshwater shrimp (opae‘ula) serve as an indicator of system health.

§ Stream hardening/de-channelization compromises stream habitat.� § Stream gauging stations funding being reduced and stations eliminated.� § Lack of stream maintenance (rubbish, vegetation, logs, etc.) affects flooding and stream habitat.� § Water quality decreased by disease from invasive species (human health impacted – Clean Water

Act Section 303(d) list).� § Water diversions and water systems date back to the plantation era and earlier; most lack proper

maintenance and are not efficient carriers of water. § Baseline stream data needed (flow, habitat, water quality, etc.).� Opportunities / Data Gaps § Stream studies for setting of in-stream flow standards; studies done for Na Wai ‘Eha but not for

other West Maui streams.� § Long term monitoring of effects of stream restoration on native species.� § Streamflow data for management decisions.� § Collect historic data on rainfall and stream flow from the old sugar companies (i.e.water

sampling).� § Restore stream functions while remnants of the stream ecosystems have the ability to recover. Expected Future Conditions (No Action) § If no action is taken to restore stream habitat, habitat for important and rare aquatic species (i.e.

native gobie fish (‘o‘opu) and shrimp ( opae‘ula)) will be completely lost, water quality will continue to decline, and surface water will continue to decrease and there will be insufficient water to support the variety of needs in the study area (traditional cultural practices, agricultural, residential, tourism, etc.)

2. Impacts to Groundwater Quality and Quantity: Problem § The amount of aquifer recharge has been declining while pumping has increased, resulting in an

increase in chloride concentrations in the water pumped from wells. § The sustainability of the water supply is in question, due to the relative nature of recharge and

pumpage to meet population demands § Loss of wetlands has meant loss of recharge. § Quality of groundwater can be affected by activities in the well head areas. § Abandoned wells can be a conduit for contaminates into the aquifer. § Injection wells/reclamation (recycled water) infrastructure may affect the ground water quantity

and quality. § Inventory private wells for possible aquifer withdrawal locations.

DRAFT

29

§ Gather data and establish protocol to determine future well placement locations. § Survey of abandoned wells for future capping. § Research the possible effects of salt water intrusion with climate change. § Institutionalize groundwater protection measures. Opportunities/Data Gaps § If no action is taken to protect and restore groundwater quality and quantity, the groundwater

aquifer will not be able to sufficiently recharge and support the needs of the variety f habitats and users within the West Maui study area. The declining quality of the groundwater will continue to impair the nearshore areas including coral reefs.

3. Watershed Degradation: Problems § Fires create areas where colonizing invasive weed species gain a foothold over native species.

Debris from fires can clog streams during storm events and contribute to flooding problems. Post-fire erosion and sediments impair nearshore waters.

§ Feral ungulates graze on native species (selectively over less “tasty” invasive species) and transport invasive weed species into the upper reaches of the watershed.

§ Weed species management is challenging and costly in the extremely rugged terrain. • Predators (mongoose, feral cats, feral and domestic dogs) often threaten the survival of seabirds.�

§ Ecosystem restoration needs funding resources and property access to be successful.� § Mountain (mauka) to sea (makai) access is not always possible and can prevent native Hawaiian

traditional and customary practices in the upper watershed. § All-terrain vehicles can introduce and spread invasive species to mauka areas, increase the fire

risk, encourage trespassing, and increase the fire risk, encourage trespassing, and increase hiking and hunting along the new all-terrain vehicle trails in sensitive habitats.

Opportunities/Data Gaps § Conduct a cultural inventory to understand what the ecosystem used to be like and identify

opportunities for restoration. § Identify opportunities for reforestation and wetland restoration. § Prioritize the impact of fire and other activities on the watershed to address the most crucial

issues first. § Quantify existing management benefits for restoration and conservation. § Educate people on recreational impacts of watershed users. § Prepare fire plans for all fire prone areas. Expected Future Conditions (No Action) § If no action is taken to reduce and reverse watershed degradation in the study area, 48 listed

ESA species, 17 candidate species under ESA, and 62 designated critical habitats are at risk of loss.

DRAFT

30

§ Important Native Hawaiian cultural resources and traditional cultural practices protected under the National Historic Preservation Act are at risk of permanent loss.

§ Fire risks will increase, resulting increase instability of riparian areas, increased sedimentation and erosion, and increased loss of stream habitats, and nearshore marine waters.

4. Impacts to Coral Reef/Nearshore Waters: Problems § Nearshore water quality. § Algal bloom. § Coral reef impacts from agriculture and development. § Ocean and land-based sources of marine debris. § Illegal dumping and lack of enforcement. § Injection wells/ reclamation (recycled water) infrastructure may affect the nearshore waters.� § Restoration of streamflow with respect to nearshore water quality; concern that influxes of

freshwater may impact coral reefs. § Determine sources of pollution and prioritize erosion hot spots including an understanding of

the relationship between sedimentation and land use. Opportunities / Data Gaps § Assess functioning of existing sedimentation basins. § Define public education initiative to reduce contamination load in Shoreline § Management Area. § Characterize public health issues from exposure to pathogens. § Develop and research plan to characterize natural breakdown of pollutants. § Follow up on effectiveness of West Maui ownership manual BMPs and implementation barriers. § Conduct a habitat characterization study of coral reefs. § Assess impact of stream restoration with respect to nearshore water quality which may include

mapping of groundwater intrusion and nutrient level monitoring at marine shore interface. § If no action is taken to reverse the degradation of coral reefs and nearshore waters, loss of

protected habitat for 20 listed marine ESA species and marine mammals is at risk; Expected Future Conditions (No Action) § Coral reefs protected under the Clean Water Act as special aquatic sites, protected under the

Coral Reef Conservation Act and as designated essential fish habitat under Magnuson Stevens Act are at risk of loss.

§ Coral reefs provide natural protection of shoreline from ocean storm events, habitat for marine fisheries (subsistence and commercial), water quality functions, and marine primary productivity and biodiversity in addition to the overall importance to Hawai`i and Maui County’s economic stability. The loss of these coral reef functions and values will be detrimental to the State of Hawai‘i and the nation.

5. Flooding and Sedimentation:

DRAFT

31

Problem § Insufficient dam inspection and maintenance. § Agricultural diversion and erosion measures upkeep and maintenance. § Insufficient drainage inlets maintenance. § Lack of enforcement of grading and drainage standards including addressing loopholes in review

process. § Illegal dumping and lack of enforcement. § Restoration of streamflow with respect to nearshore water quality; concern that influxes of

freshwater may impact coral reefs. § Documented past flooding and coastal erosion threats and damages based on the Maui County

Hazard Mitigation Plan. § Determine sources of pollution and prioritize erosion hot spots including an understanding the

relationship between sedimentation and land use. Opportunities / Data Gaps § Assess functioning of existing sedimentation basins. § Analyze flood management including a comparison of channel direct flow (current design) vs.

natural impoundment metered flows. § Study the effectiveness of desiltation projects vs. reforestation/buffers. § Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Watershed Protection and Flood Operations,

and Watershed Rehabilitation. § Identify drainage way ownership for increased enforcement of maintenance. § Follow up on effectiveness of West Maui ownership manual BMPs and implementation barriers. § Assess impact of stream restoration with respect to nearshore water quality which may include

mapping of groundwater intrusion and nutrient Level monitoring at marine shore interface. Expected Future Conditions (No Action) § If no action is taken to address the increased risk of flooding and sedimentation in a holistic

manner, there will be a risk of increased property damage in the study area and increased degradation of coral reef and nearshore habitat as discussed under paragraph 4 above.

6. General Impacts: Problems § Climate change and impacts on the watershed. § Land ownership/title. § Oversight/transparency for enforcement of regulations to protect watershed health. § Integration of traditional knowledge and practice. § Need to improve and increase education and outreach. § Lack of knowledge about other watershed efforts. § Clear scientific data to inform and base standards upon. § Proposed solutions need to be balanced with economic financial considerations

DRAFT

32

§ Communicate effectively to the community on climate change (including having consensus on message, relevance to people’s personal life and economics).

Opportunities/Data Gaps § Study climate change impacts on management strategies including droughts, changes in

vegetation and increased fire risks. § Build flexibility into plans for responding to climate change and look at post-climate change

ecosystems. § Locate clear data on the expected change with climate change. § Integrate watershed master plan with other planning efforts and align with other sources of

funding requirements; coordinate synergies, overlap and identification of information gaps. § Create a coordinated inventory/survey like the US Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Cover

Program. § Establish centralized records, data collection, monitoring, updating. Expected Future Conditions (No Action Taken) § If no action is taken to address overall problems within the watershed in an holistic manner,

there runs a risk of increased threats to the community from climate watershed degradation. Lack of a collaborative joint plan runs the risk of implementing either duplicative actions or actions that cannot fully address the threats to the watershed – thereby becoming ineffective at meeting goals of watershed preservation and restoration.