Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park

Fire Management Plan

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.498611111111111in"
height="4.884027777777778in"}

Environmental Assessment

May

2008

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Item Page**

**Chapter 1. Purpose and Need**

> 1.1 Background
> ................................................................................
> 4
>
> 1.2 Purpose and
> Need........................................................................
> 4
>
> 1.3 Park Fire Management Goals and
> Objectives..................................... 5
>
> 1.3.1 Enabling Legislation
>
> 1.3.2 Resource Management Plan Goals and Objectives
>
> 1.3.3 Park Fire Management Goals
>
> 1.4 Park Fire
> History...........................................................................
> 7
>
> 1.5 Scoping and Impact
> Topics............................................................. 7
>
> 1.5.1 Scoping
>
> 1.5.2 Impact Topics Addressed and Analyzed
>
> 1.5.3 Impact Topics Considered and Dismissed

**Chapter 2. Alternatives**

> 2.1 Alternatives Considered and
> Analyzed.............................................. 12
>
> 2.1.1 Alternative 1, No Action
>
> 2.1.2 Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action
>
> 2.1.3 Alternative 3, Proposed Action
>
> 2.1.4 Comparison of Alternatives
>
> 2.1.5 Additional NEPA Compliance Needed
>
> 2.2 Alternatives Considered and
> Dismissed............................................ 13
>
> 2.2.1 Alternative that Includes Prescribed Fire for Fuels Reduction
>
> 2.2.2 Alternative that Includes Prescribed and Wildland Fire for
> Resource
>
> Benefits
>
> 2.3 Environmentally Preferred
> Alternative............................................... 14

**Chapter 3. Methodology and Impact Definitions**

> 3.1
> Methodology...............................................................................
> 15
>
> 3.2 Impact Definitions Specific to Cultural
> Resources\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 15
>
> 3.2.1 Direct Impacts
>
> 3.2.2 Indirect Impacts
>
> 3.2.3 Observed Effects
>
> 3.3 Impact
> Definitions\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
> 16
>
> 3.4
> Impairment\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
> 17

**Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis and Mitigation**

> 4.1
> Soils..........................................................................................
> 19
>
> 4.1.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.1.4 Conclusion
>
> 4.2 Air
> Quality...................................................................................
> 20
>
> 4.2.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.2.4 Conclusion
>
> 4.3
> Soundscapes................................................................................
> 22
>
> 4.3.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.3.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.3.4 Conclusion
>
> 4.4 Water Resources and
> Wetlands....................................................... 25
>
> 4.4.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.4.4 Conclusion
>
> 4.5 Threatened and Endangered
> Species................................................ 27
>
> 4.5.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.5.4 Conclusion
>
> 4.6 Vegetation and
> Wildlife....................................................................
> 31
>
> 4.6.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.6.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.6.4 Conclusion
>
> 4.7 Visitor
> Use....................................................................................
> 35
>
> 4.7.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.7.4 Conclusion
>
> 4.8 Wildland Urban
> Interface.................................................................
> 37
>
> 4.8.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.8.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.8.4 Conclusion
>
> 4.9
> Caves..........................................................................................
> 39
>
> 4.9.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.9.4 Conclusion
>
> 4.10 Cultural
> Resources.......................................................................
> 41
>
> 4.10.1 Affected Environment
>
> 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences
>
> 4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
>
> 4.10.4 Conclusion

Glossary of Terms

> Fire
> Management................................................................................
> 48
>
> Hawaiian............................................................................................49

Planning
Team........................................................................................50

Consultants............................................................................................
50

References
............................................................................................
51

Environmental Assessment Recipients
......................................................53

**TABLE**

**Table Page**

1 Summary of
Alternatives..................................................................
12

**List of Figures**

**Figure Page**

1 Vicinity, Island and Park
Map.......................................................... 11

**CHAPTER 1.** **PURPOSE AND NEED**

### 1.1 Background 

Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park (Kaloko-Honokōhau) is located
on the western coast of the island of Hawaii near the town of
Kailua-Kona (Figure 1).

The 1160-acre Park was established as a National Historical Park in
1978, in order to, according to the enabling legislation for Kaloko
Honokohau, "\...provide a center for the preservation, interpretation,
and perpetuation of traditional native Hawaiian activities and culture,
and to demonstrate historic land use patterns as well as to provide a
needed resource for the education, enjoyment, and appreciation of such
traditional native Hawaiian activities and culture by local residents
and visitors...." (16 USC Chapter 1, Subchapter XLII-A, § 396d-f).

Kaloko-Honokōhau is the site of an ancient Hawaiian settlement, and as
such, the Park contains an abundance of cultural and historic resources,
including Kaloko Fishpond (an example of pre-western contact native
Hawaiian engineering and technological achievements), Pu'u'oina Heiau
(an example of a platform temple), grave features, trails, and other
archeological sites. Native Hawaiians are also free to use
Kaloko-Honokōhau for unplanned ceremonies and cultural events throughout
the year, including celebrating the festivities associated with
Makahiki, a designated period of time at the end of the harvesting
season observed by Hawaiians with ceremonies, festive events, and
sporting competitions.

[]{.mark}

Kaloko-Honokōhau also contains important natural resources. In
particular, numerous wetlands exist within the boundaries of the Park,
and some of these are considered among the most productive endangered
waterbird wetlands on Hawaii Island (Morin 1998). In addition to serving
as important bird habitat, Kaloko-Honokōhau also provides habitat for
various other wildlife, including marine wildlife and including species
listed as threatened or endangered

The Park contains a wealth of cultural and historic resources that
together, serve to re-create the atmosphere of Hawaiian life prior to
contact with Western civilization in 1778. In particular,
Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP preserves a complex of archeological sites,
including temple and house platforms, fishponds, and coastal village
sites.

Although the Park was created largely to preserve the
cultural/archeological history it illustrates, there are also notable
natural resources. The topography was formed primarily from prehistoric
lava flows emanating from flank and summit eruptions of Mauna Loa
Volcano, which is located to the east of Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP. Habitat
exists for many wildlife species, including native species and those
species considered threatened and endangered.

**1.2 Purpose and Need**

This programmatic Environmental Assessment documents the potential
environmental impacts from actions proposed in the Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP
Fire Management Plan and specific analysis for the use of a hand held
propane torch for point application removal of invasive, non-native
pickleweed surrounding wetlands, anchialine ponds, and coastal beach
strand.

This EA has been prepared in compliance with:

-   The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United
    States Code (USC) 4321 et seq.), which requires an environmental
    analysis for major Federal Actions having the potential to impact
    the quality of the environment;

-   Council of Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 Code of Federal
    Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, which implement the requirements of
    NEPA;

-   National Park Service Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
    Analysis, and Decision Making; Director's Order (DO) #12 and
    Handbook.

Key goals of NEPA are to help Federal agency officials make
well-informed decisions about agency actions and to provide a role for
the general public in the decision-making process. The study and
documentation mechanisms associated with NEPA seek to provide
decision-makers with sound knowledge of the comparative environmental
consequences of the several courses of action available to them. NEPA
documents, such as this EA, focus on providing relevant information to
assist the agency in making appropriate decisions. In this case, the
Superintendent of Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP is faced with a decision about
the fire management activities to be included in the park's Fire
Management Plan.

The primary purpose of the park's fire management program is to protect
people, property, and natural and cultural resources from the effects of
fire and to integrate with other park programs.

The park does not have an approved Fire Management Plan. National Park
Service (NPS) policy specifies that every NPS Unit with burnable
vegetation will have an updated Fire Management Plan (FMP) approved by
the Superintendent. NPS Policy, which adheres to the federal policy,
recognizes wildland fire as an important ecological and evolutionary
force in many terrestrial ecosystems. It also recognizes the need for
wildland fire to be managed in order to fulfill the agency's goals to
protect, perpetuate or recreate natural environments and historic
scenes/landscapes.

Fire management strategies for Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP must be designed
based on park specific characteristics, legislative obligations,
environmental and social considerations, cultural, and natural resource
objectives.

**1.3 PARK Fire Management Goals and Objectives**

The park fire management goals and objectives are derived from the
enabling legislation that created Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP and other federal
laws that affect the management of the park, the park's General
Management Plan, and the park resource management goals and objectives.

**1.3.1** Enabling Legislation for Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP

[]{.mark}

Honokohau Settlement was designated a national historic landmark in
1962, and Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park was authorized in
1978 by Public Law 95-625. Congressional authorization of the park was
based primarily "...

-   to provide a center for the preservation, interpretation, and
    perpetuation of traditional native Hawaiian activities, and culture,

-   and to demonstrate historic land use patterns as well as provide
    needed resources for the education, enjoyment, and appreciation of
    such traditional native Hawaiian activities and culture

-   appreciation of such traditional native Hawaiian activities and
    culture by local residents and visitors..." and be administered in
    accordance with "provisions of the law generally applicable to the
    national park system, including the Acts approved August 25, 1916,
    and August 21, 1935.."

    Additional legislation that supports establishment of this National
    Historical Park and its significance are:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Organic Act of August 25, 1916, Section 102, established the
    National Park Service (NPS) and defined the purpose of the agency as
    "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and
    the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in
    such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
    enjoyment of future generations.\"

-   National Trust Act of March 27, 1978 (P.L. 96-250) in which
    "Congress declares that ...... the protection, management, and
    administration of ......(the National Parks)... shall be conducted
    in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park
    System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and
    purposes for which these various areas have been established, except
    as ... directly and specifically provided by Congress."

**1.3.2 General Management Plan and Resource Management Goals and
Objectives**

Four major cultural resource management issues have been identified at
Kaloko-Honokōhau:

-   The identification and inventory of archaeological resources.

-   The identification and protection of cultural resources.

-   The preservation and stabilization of major archaeological
    resources.

-   The restoration and traditional use of selected cultural resources.

Five major natural resource management issues are present at
Kaloko-Honokōhau:

-   The protection of anchialine pond resources.

-   Endangered water bird habitat restoration and monitoring.

-   The protection of sensitive species other than water birds.

-   Vegetation restoration and management.

-   Understanding and managing human impacts on marine resources.

**1.3.3 Park Fire Management Goals**

-   Firefighter safety is the highest priority of every fire management
    activity.

-   Suppress all wildland fires regardless of ignition source to protect
    the public, private property, natural, cultural and historic
    resources of the unit.

-   Utilize suppression methods/tactics least damaging to resources and
    the environment.

-   Use prescribed fire where and when appropriate as a tool to meet
    resource objectives within the unit.

-   Maintain the highest standards of professional and technical
    expertise in planning and safely implementing an effective wildland
    fire management program.

-   Fire personnel will be equipped with personal protective equipment
    appropriate to incident assignment.

-   All NPS employees assigned to wildland fire incidents, or used with
    prescribed fire, will meet training and qualification standards for
    that position, set by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG
    310-1).

-   Mutual aid cooperators, responding to NPS fires under Memoranda of
    Agreement, will meet their respective personal protective equipment
    and qualifications during initial action operations. However, during
    project fire or extended operations, cooperators will meet NWCG
    qualification standards.

-   Educate employees and the public about the scope and effect of
    wildland fire management, including fuels management and resource
    protection.

-   Integrate fire management with all other aspects of park management.

**1.4 PARK FIRE HISTORY**

No wildland fires have been recorded in this park since its
establishment in 1978. Prior to that date, fire history can only be
speculated.

In the past the park has used hand held torches to singe the pickleweed
which causes die back of the plant. Regrowth is repeatedly treated with
fire until the plant eventually dies and the roots decay. This method of
control has shown positive results in the reduction of pickleweed.

**1.5 SCOPING AND IMPACT TOPICS**

**1.5.1 Scoping**

[]{.mark}

The Planning/Interdisciplinary Team met on several occasions from April
through September 2005. The team developed five alternatives, three of
which are analyzed in this environmental assessment, and two that were
dismissed from further consideration (Chapter 2). The team also reviewed
impact topics to be analyzed (section 1.5.2) and determined which topics
needed no further consideration (section 1.5.3).

**1.5.2 Issues Considered**

-   Issue: The Park must have an approved FMP.

-   Issue: Current practice of wildfire suppression without an approved
    FMP does not provide an adequate level of protection for park
    resources, persons and property from wildfire and suppression
    efforts.

-   Issue: Burnable fuel and biomass loading presents a higher risk of
    wildfire starts and a higher intensity fire which could destroy
    native plant seed banks and promote greater spread of exotics such
    as kiawe and ekoa.

-   Issue: Prescribed fire has been used in the past to reduce invasive
    non-native pickleweed with positive results.

**1.5.3 Impact Topics Addressed and Analyzed**

> Soils*.*
>
> NPS Management Policies (2001) require the consideration of impacts on
> topography and soils. Soils may be potentially affected by fire;
> therefore, it is included as an impact topic.

[]{.mark}

Air Quality**.**

The Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments (42 USC 7401 et seq.)
stipulates that federal land managers have an affirmative responsibility
to protect a park's air quality from adverse pollution impacts. Air
quality in the park and the surrounding community would be affected by
either wildfire or a prescribed fire incident within the park and is
therefore analyzed as an impact topic.

[]{.mark}

> Soundscapes*.*
>
> NPS Management Policies (2001) require that parks maintain their
> natural soundscapes. Fire management activities may impact natural
> soundscapes; therefore, soundscapes will be considered as an impact
> topic.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> Water Resources and Wetlands.
>
> Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands requires each agency to
> "take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of
> wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial
> values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities".
> National Park Service policies require protection of wetlands and
> water resources consistent with the Clean Water Act. The park does
> have wetlands, coastal beach strand and anchialine ponds which may be
> affected by fire and fire activities, and this topic will be analyzed
> further.

Threatened and Endangered Species.

The Endangered Species Act requires disclosure of impacts resulting from
management actions on all federally threatened or endangered species.
The park has threatened or endangered vertebrate species, one candidate
endangered plant species and three candidate endangered invertebrate
species. Additionally, the endangered palm species, *Pritchardia
affinis*, has recently been reintroduced to the park. NPS Management
Policies require that these species will be managed for their natural
distribution and abundance. Threatened and endangered species will be an
impact topic in this assessment.

> Vegetation and Wildlife*.*
>
> NEPA requires analysis of impacts on all affected components of the
> ecosystem, including native biotic communities of plants and animals.
> NPS Management Policies (2001) requires maintenance of native
> ecosystems and communities, including their natural abundance,
> diversity and ecological integrity. Incidents of fire within the park
> will affect vegetation and wildlife which will be analyzed as an
> impact topic.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> Visitor Use.
>
> The mission of the NPS, as described by its Organic Act of 1916,
> states the purpose of all parks is to ". . . conserve the natural and
> historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
> enjoyment of the same . . . ." Scenic values, recreational activities,
> and general visitation within and around fire-treated areas may be
> temporarily impacted, thus visitor use will be considered as an impact
> topic.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> Wildland/Urban Interface*.*
>
> DO-18, Wildland Fire Management, stipulates that firefighter and
> public safety must be first priority in all fire management
> activities. The Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) will be considered as
> an impact topic.
>
> Caves*.*
>
> The Federal Cave Protection Act of 1988 and NPS Management Policies
> (2001) require federal agencies to protect cave resources. There are
> several caves in the park which may be affected by fire or fire
> suppression activities, therefore caves will be included as an impact
> topic.
>
> []{.mark}

Cultural Resources.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the NPS Cultural
Resources Management Guidelines and Policies (Director's Order 28)
require the consideration of impacts on cultural resources listed or
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The
park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as a
National Historic Landmark, contains archaeological and cultural
resources that may be affected by the park's fire management program,
and is therefore included as an impact topic.

# 1.5.4 Impact Topics Considered and Dismissed

[]{.mark}

> Environmental Justice.
>
> Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
> Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, broadly states that
> federal activities, programs, and policies should not produce
> disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income
> populations, nor should these populations be denied the benefits of or
> excluded from participation in these activities, programs, and
> policies. Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP is located in an industrial/business
> area. The alternatives considered in this EA will not adversely affect
> minority or low-income populations or communities, and will not be
> addressed further.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> Public Safety*.*
>
> There is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Hawaii County Fire
> Department (HCFD) and the NPS that provides for assistance during
> emergencies for the protection of life and property. Protection of
> life is of the utmost importance and people will be evacuated as
> needed by the most expeditious means during wildfire incidents with
> available resources of the HCFD and the NPS. Public safety will be
> assessed prior to prescribed fire activity. Therefore, public safety
> is not an issue to be analyzed in this environmental assessment.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> Firefighter Safety*.*
>
> The safety of firefighters is the highest priority in the Fire
> Management program. Safety protocols and standards will be described
> in the Fire Management Plan. Safety considerations will not be
> compromised; therefore, this subject will not be addressed further.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> Indian Trust Resources.
>
> Secretarial Order 3175 requires federal agencies to address
> environmental impacts of their preferred actions on Indian Trust
> Resources in any environmental document. There are no Indian Trust
> Resources in Hawai\`i. Therefore this topic is dismissed as an impact
> topic in this document.
>
> []{.mark}

## Socioeconomics. 

## Park visitors may provide some financial contribution to the nearby business and community, but the amount is minimal and short term. Should visitation to the park be temporarily halted due to fire management activities, the effect on the local area/business would be very minimal. Fire incidents within the park may bring a short-term need for additional personnel, but it would be minimal (less than 5-10 people) and would not affect the community's overall income or employment basis. 

> Prime or Unique Farmlands.
>
> The Council on Environmental Quality requires federal agencies to
> assess the effect of their actions on farmland soils classified by the
> U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Service (NRCS) as
> "prime" or "unique." Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil that
> particularly produces general crops such as common foods, vegetables,
> and nuts. The area surrounding the park is primarily zoned industrial
> and light industrial and will not affect farm land soils. Therefore,
> prime or unique farmlands will not be analyzed.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.980555555555555in"
height="7.784722222222222in"}

**CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES**

**2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED**

Five alternatives were considered for Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP's fire
management program, three of which were analyzed in Chapter 4. An
alternative that included the use of prescribed fire for fuel reduction
and an alternative that included the use of prescribed and wildfire for
resource benefits were considered and dismissed from further analysis.
Through the Environmental Analysis in Chapter 4, Alternative 3 was
identified as the environmentally preferred alternative.

**2.1.1 Alternative 1-No Action**

The park would continue the fire management program that exists today,
which is immediate suppression of all wildfire without an approved Fire
Management Plan (FMP). This Alternative is not a viable choice since it
does not provide for the required approved FMP. The existing impacts of
Alternative 1, No Action, sets a baseline of existing impacts continued
into the future against which to compare the impacts of Alternatives 2
and 3.

**2.1.2 Alternative 2-Minimum Management Action**

This alternative includes the completion of an approved Fire Management
Plan as required by Director's Order #18. This alternative also includes
the suppression of all natural and human ignited wildfires.

**2.1.3 Alternative 3-Preferred Action**

This alternative includes the completion of an approved Fire Management
Plan as required by Director's Order #18. This alternative also includes
the suppression of all natural and unplanned human ignited fires.
Prescribed fire will be limited to the use of a hand held propane torch
for point application removal of invasive, non-native pickleweed
surrounding wetlands, anchialine ponds, and coastal beach strand.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Table 1. Summary of Alternatives

  ----------------- -------------- --------------- --------------------------
  **Alternative**   **FMP**        **Wildfire      **Prescribed Fire**
                                   Suppression**   

  **Alternative 1** No             Yes             No

  **Alternative 2** Yes            Yes             No

  **Alternative 3** Yes            Yes             Limited to point
                                                   application of invasive
                                                   non-native pickleweed
                                                   around wetlands, coastal
                                                   beach strand, and
                                                   anchialine ponds.
  ----------------- -------------- --------------- --------------------------

Alternative 3 is the park's preferred alternative.

**2.1.4 Comparison of Alternatives**

Common to the above 3 alternatives is the suppression of wildfire.
Alternative 1, No Action, does not provide for a FMP, required by
Director's Order #18. Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action, and
Alternative 3, Preferred Action, satisfy the requirement of a FMP. Only
Alternative 3, Preferred Action provides for prescribed fire which is
limited to the use of a hand held propane torch for point application
removal of invasive, non-native pickleweed surrounding wetlands,
anchialine ponds, and coastal beach strand. Refer to Table 1, Summary of
Alternatives.

**2.1.5 Additional Compliance Needed**

This programmatic environmental assessment provides for generalized
level of impact from the proposed actions in the parks Fire Management
Plan and site specific analysis for the use of prescribed fire for
pickleweed. However, it does not address all possible actions. For
example, Alternative 3, Preferred Action, allows for prescribed fire
which is limited to the use of a hand held propane torch for point
application removal of invasive, non-native pickleweed surrounding
wetlands, anchialine ponds, and coastal beach strand but it does not
allow for prescribed burning for the reduction of other non-native plant
species. Expanding the use of prescribed fire that is not analyzed in
this document may require additional NEPA compliance. Section 106
compliance to NHPA will also be conducted for all affected cultural
resources.

**2.2 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed**

**2.2.1 An alternative that includes the use of prescribed fire for the
reduction of burnable biomass and fuels.**

This alternative was considered and dismissed. Fuel reduction would
consist primarily of kiawe wood, also known as mesquite, (*Prosopis
pallida*) (which is substantial in size). Fire use to eliminate kiawe
would burn very hot over a long period of time, producing a fire that
may be difficult to contain, and may present an increased risk of
impacts to cultural and natural resources. The park currently removes
the debris manually and hauls out the waste via a local contractor. The
current method of removal is preferred over the increased risk of
burning, and risk to natural and cultural resources.

**2.2.2 An alternative that includes the use of both prescribed fire and
wildland fire for resource benefits.**

This alternative was considered but dismissed for the lack of
information regarding the impacts of landscape scale use of fire, either
beneficial or negative, to park resources at Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP.

**2.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY Preferred Alternative**

The NPS is required to identify the environmentally preferred
alternative(s) for any of its proposed projects. That alternative is the
alternative that would promote the national environmental policy
expressed in NEPA (Section 101 (b)). This includes alternatives that:

> 1\) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
> environment for succeeding generations;
>
> 2\) ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
> esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
>
> 3\) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
> without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable
> and unintended consequences;
>
> 4\) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
> national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that
> supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
>
> 5\) achieve a balance between population and resource use that would
> permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
> amenities; and
>
> 6\) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the
> maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

In essence, the environmentally preferred alternative would be the
one(s) that "causes the least damage to the biological and physical
environment; it also means the alternative which best protects,
preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources" (CEQ,
1978).

In this case, Alternative 3, Preferred Action, is the environmentally
preferred alternative for Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP since it best meets goals
1, 2, 3, and 4 described above. Common to all three alternatives is the
suppression of wildfire which undoubtedly is beneficial to the park,
resources and community and best meets goals 1, 2, and 3. However,
Alternatives 2 and 3 are the only viable alternatives with the inclusion
of a FMP. Alternative 3 is the environmentally preferred alternative as
it is the only alternative that furthers the park's long term resource
management goals and objectives to help protect and preserve wetlands
and water resources in the park, and is the alternative that best meets
goal 4 as described above.

**CHAPTER 3. methodology and impact definitions**

**3.1 METHODOLOGY**

Impact topics were analyzed for each alternative based on published and
unpublished reports, expertise and judgment of the Interdisciplinary
Team, and consultation with resource specialists. Impacts are described
by direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, type (beneficial or
adverse), duration (short or long term), and intensity (negligible,
minor, major, or impairment).

**3.2 impact definitions SPECIFIC TO Cultural Resources**

In addition to the procedures for assessing impacts described below,
cultural resources were further assessed in accordance with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's regulations implementing Section 106
of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800, *Protection of Historic Properties*),
impacts to archeological resources, the cultural landscape and were
identified and evaluated by (1) determining the area of potential
effects; (2) identifying cultural resources present in the area of
potential effects that were either listed in or eligible to be listed in
the National Register of Historic Places; (3) applying the criteria of
adverse effect to affected cultural resources either listed in or
eligible to be listed in the National Register; and (4) considering ways
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.

Section 110 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to exercise a higher
standard of care when considering undertakings that may directly and
adversely affect National Historical Landmarks such as Kaloko-Honokōhau
National Historical Park. For National Historic Landmarks, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation as well as the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior are invited to participate in consultations
to resolve adverse effects that may occur as a result of agency actions.

# 

# 3.2.1 Direct Impacts

Direct impacts to cultural resources are caused by wildland fires and by
the human efforts to suppress them. The direct effects of fire depend
primarily on burn severity that is in turn dependent upon available
fuels, terrain, and weather conditions. Direct impacts to stone
artifacts and stone surface structures include thermal fracturing and
spalling, and destabilization of surface structures by either burning of
organic material embedded within the structure or by fire weakened trees
and limbs falling on structures. Other impacts include the alteration of
shell midden deposits and pollen remains within habitation complexes and
agricultural features. Rock art sites including petroglyphs are
susceptible to fire effects by sooting, discoloration, or in more severe
burns cracking and spalling. Historic structures (wooden and thatched
structures, fence lines, trail signage, etc.) are particularly
vulnerable to fire effects regardless of burn severity. Impacts to
glass, ceramics, and metal objects result from direct exposure to fire.
Fire effects with the highest potential to impact sites and features
include fire deadened or weakened trees and root burn out that can
destabilize surface architectural remains. To date, fire research
concerning cultural resources has focused primarily on individual
artifact classes and has not examined broader cultural landscape effects
except for overall environmental degradation within the post-fire
environment.

Operational impacts include suppression techniques such as construction
of hand line or machine line, explosive line construction, bucket drops,
the use of fire retardants, and mop-up rehabilitation efforts. Direct
impacts can also occur as a result of landscape modification for spike
camps (designated camp and staging areas for fire fighting personnel)
and associated facilities, equipment staging areas, landing zones, and
safety zones. Black lining, or creating a back fire to consume available
fuels in front of the fire's path, and hose lays may also affect
cultural resources within the fire environment. Operational effects with
the highest potential to effect sites within the park include hand line
construction that can disturb sub-surface cultural remains or may
collapse surface architectural features. Hand line construction and
bucket drops are the predominant fire line suppression techniques that
may be used within the park. Explosive line and dozer line are not
utilized within the park's boundary as suppression tactics.

## 

## 3.2.2 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are negative effects that occur in post fire
environments and include increased surface runoff and erosion, increased
tree mortality, and carbon contamination. Fire rehabilitation activities
such as outplanting to restore vegetation communities may also create
negative effects. Increased surface visibility of archeological remains
and surface artifacts may contribute to increased site disturbance and
looting activity within the fire area. Indirect effects most likely to
impact sites include carbon contamination and rehabilitation efforts
that result in ground disturbing activities.

# 3.2.3 Observed Effects

[]{.mark}

Fire effects on archeological resources (temporary habitation features
including C-shapes, terraces, platforms, habitation shelters and caves,
trails and trail markers, petroglyphs, enclosures, walls, and
agricultural features including mounds and excavated pits) were most
closely observed during the 2002 Kupukupu Fire at Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park. These effects were documented on pre-and post-burn forms
that recorded pre-existing site conditions and post-burn conditions for
located archeological features. Burn severity was primarily restricted
to low-moderate severity. No vandalism was noted during the post fire
assessment, and three types of fire effects were noted on feature types
that include smoke/soot damage, stump/root holes, and tree(s) on walls
or rubble. Few suppression impacts were noted during the survey and they
were limited to the Kalapana Trail (Site 20443). Impacts consisted of
the dislocation of basalt cobbles that lined portions of the trail; the
impacts represent an insubstantial alteration of the non-maintained
trail route.

**3.3 IMPACT DEFINITIONS**

[Negligible effects]{.underline}**.** No resources are present. If
resources are present, the effects would be less than detectable or
measurable.

[Minor effects.]{.underline} Direct or indirect impacts that would
result in detectable or measurable, localized, and temporary effects.

[Major effects.]{.underline} The action would have permanent direct
and/or indirect impacts on resources that are substantial and highly
noticeable.

[Direct effects.]{.underline} An impact that occurs as a result of the
action in the same place and time as the action.

[Indirect effects.]{.underline} Reasonably foreseeable impacts that
occur as a result of the action later in time or space.

[Cumulative effects.]{.underline} Cumulative impacts are the impact on
the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other
actions.

[Mitigation Measures]{.underline}. An action taken to alleviate adverse
environmental impacts that may occur as a result of fire management
activities. Mitigation measures are common to all alternatives unless
otherwise specified.

If there are indirect impacts or cumulative impacts in the following
analysis, they will be specifically referenced by these terms. If these
terms are not used in the analysis, then indirect and cumulative impacts
are not expected.

**3.4 Impairment**

An impairment finding is required for each resource as part of the
environmental analysis of project alternatives (*Director's Order #12:
Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and
Decision-Making*). The National Park Service Management Policies (2001)
state that impairment is an impact that would harm the integrity of park
resources or values. Whether an impact meets this definition depends on
the particular resources and values that would be affected; the
severity, duration, and timing of the impact; the direct and indirect
effects of the impacts; and the cumulative effects of the impact in
question and other impacts. An unmanaged or unmitigated impact to any
park resource or value hypothetically could result in impairment. An
impact would be more likely to constitute impairment to the extent that
it affects a resource or value whose conservation is:

• Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation or proclamation of the park;

• Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to
opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or

• Identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other
relevant National Park Service planning documents.

An impact would be less likely to constitute impairment to the extent
that it is an unavoidable result, which cannot reasonably be further
mitigated, of an action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity
of park resources or values. Hypothetically, a prohibited impairment may
occur from visitor activities, NPS activities in the course of managing
a park, or from other government agencies, concessionaires, contractors,
cooperators, or others operating in the park. Therefore a determination
on impairment is made for all resource impact topics.

# 

# 

##  

**Chapter 4. environmental analysis and mitigation measures**

**4.1 SOILS**

**4.1.1 Affected Environment**

The park is comprised of lava flows from Hualalai volcano ranging from
1,000 to 10,000 years old and contains very little soil development.
Lava flows are mostly pahoehoe with several large areas of a'a and is
characterized as alkaline olivine basalt. A large white sand beach is
located at Honokohau Bay, while the remainder of the coast consists of
lava flows. The park is about 90' at its highest point and the slope is
generally less than 15 percent (General Management Plan).

2.  **Environmental Consequences**

    1.  [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}

> Suppression of all wildfires would have both a direct, beneficial,
> short term, minor effect to soils as well as a direct, adverse, short
> to long term, minor to major impact to soils. Beneficial effects
> include reducing the size of the burn by suppression and therefore the
> amount of soil available for erosion. Soils would be subjected to
> potential erosion as a result of fire and fire suppression activities
> for a short time because of rapid regrowth of vegetation. Adverse
> effects from suppression activities include scraping soil to bedrock,
> displacing minimal amount of soils within the park.
>
> 4.1.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}
>
> The impacts to soils as a result of wildfire suppression are stated in
> Alternative 1.
>
> The required Fire Management Plan will improve the park's ability to
> suppress or reduce wildfire incidents and lessen the adverse effects
> of wildfire suppression stated above in Alternative 1. Suppression
> activities under this alternative will produce direct beneficial minor
> long term effects by addressing multiple aspects of wildfire,
> including, safety, prevention, preparedness, initial attack, and
> non-fire fuel reduction. MIST would also identify techniques that
> would reduce disturbance to soils from fire suppression activities.
>
> 4.1.2.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}
>
> The impacts of wildfire suppression and a Fire Management Plan are
> stated above in Alternatives 1 and 2.
>
> Propane torch point application of fire for the removal of invasive
> non-native pickleweed near water resources will not affect soils.

**4.1.3 Mitigation Measures**

The following measures will not apply to Alternative 1, as there is no
provision for a Fire Management Plan to formalize and implement such
measures. In order to minimize the effects of fire activity to soils the
following would be adhered to:

-   Use existing natural and human-made barriers, wet line, or cold
    trailing the fire edge.

-   No handline construction.

-   Use water saturation where practical during mop-up to avoid scraping
    to bedrock, stirring, mixing, or otherwise disturbing the soil
    within the burn area.

-   Deploy resource advisors on all fires to evaluate suppression
    tactics to maintain consistency with land/resource objectives and to
    minimize impacts on park soils.

-   The incident commander, in consultation with resource advisors, may
    override the above measures in cases where there is a greater threat
    to life, property, and/or resources.

**4.1.4 Conclusion:**

[]{.mark}

Alternative 1, No Action: Suppression of all wildfires would have both a
direct, beneficial, short term, minor effect to soils as well as a
direct, adverse, short to long term, minor to major impact to soils.

Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action: The impacts to soils as a
result of wildfire suppression are stated in Alternative 1. Mitigating
the impacts of suppression activities under this alternative will
produce direct beneficial minor long term effects.

Alternative 3, Preferred Action: The impacts of wildfire suppression and
a Fire Management Plan are stated above in Alternatives 1 and 2.
Prescribed fire for pickleweed removal will not affect soils.

Ultimately, the suppression of wildfire will have an overall beneficial
impact to soils. Wildfire suppression under Alternative 1 would have
both beneficial and adverse impacts to soils. Alternative 2, improves
the park's ability to suppress or reduce a wildfire incident and to
reduce adverse effects caused by suppression activities. Alternatives 2
and 3 provide greater benefits to soils than Alternative 1. Prescribed
fire in Alternative 3 would not affect soils.

The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

[]{.mark}

##### 4.2 AIR QUALITY

####### 

####### **4.2.1 Affected Environment**

####### The park is a Class Il airshed under the Clean Air Act. Air quality is an important resource in the park however it is often influenced by natural and human caused pollutants dependant on wind patterns. Trade winds are the prevailing winds in Hawaii, except for the Kona coast of Hawaii Island. The leeward, or Kona Coast, is protected from the trade winds by Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea, and Hualalai mountains. Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP is located at the base of the leeward slopes of Hualalai volcano, and is effectively blocked from the trade winds. The Kona coast is reliant on the diurnal sea and air circulation system that drives wind flow downslope and offshore from early evening to late morning, and upslope from late morning to early evening (Atlas of Hawaii, 1998). The active volcano, Kilauea, located on the southeast portion of Hawaii Island, produces gases locally called "vog" (a combination of "volcano" and "fog"). Halemaumau, located within Kilauea crater and Pu'u 'O'o, on the East Rift of Kilauea emit particulates. Lava entering the ocean produces very large quantities of sulfur dioxide and sulfate particulates. Vog is carried by the trade winds over the south end of the island and becomes trapped in the leeward/Kona area. The diurnal wind pattern is not sufficient to clear the air of vog. In addition to vog, two quarries directly across the highway from the park generate dust, which is carried into the park lands by down-slope winds until the late morning sea breeze can clear the air. 

**4.2.2 Environmental Consequences**

> 4.2.2.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}
>
> During a wildfire incident, air quality within the park would
> experience adverse impacts. Air quality in community areas surrounding
> the park would suffer as well. A wildfire may have cumulative negative
> effects to air quality if vog or dust is present. Immediate
> suppression of all wildfire would produce direct, indirect and
> cumulative beneficial minor long term effects on air quality by
> eliminating the source of particulate matter introduced into the
> atmosphere, thus reducing the duration of the impacts to air quality.
>
> 4.2.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}
>
> The required Fire Management Plan will improve the park's ability to
> suppress or reduce wildfire incidents by addressing multiple aspects
> of wildfire, including, safety, prevention, preparedness, initial
> attack, and non-fire fuel reduction, thus increasing the benefits to
> air quality.
>
> 4.2.2.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}
>
> The benefits of a required Fire Management Plan and immediate
> suppression of wildfire are stated above in Alternatives 1 and 2.
> Propane torch point application of fire for the removal of invasive
> non-native pickleweed will have no impact to air quality.

**4.2.3 Mitigation Measures**

Immediate suppression of wildfire in all three alternatives will produce
the greatest benefits to air quality.

**4.2.4 Conclusion:**

Alternative 1, No Action: Immediate suppression of all wildfire would
produce direct, indirect and cumulative beneficial minor long term
effects on air quality.

Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action: As in Alternative 1, immediate
suppression of wildfire would produce direct, indirect and cumulative
beneficial long term, minor impacts to air quality.

Alternative 3, Preferred Action: The benefits of a required Fire
Management Plan and immediate suppression of wildfire are stated above
in Alternatives 1 and 2. Propane torch point application of fire for the
removal of invasive non-native pickleweed will have no effect to air
quality.

The above alternatives would produce beneficial impacts to air quality.
Suppression of wildfire in all three alternatives would produce direct,
indirect and cumulative beneficial long term minor impacts to air
quality by eliminating the source of particulate matter introduced into
the atmosphere, thus reducing the duration of adverse impacts to air
quality. Suppression of wildfire under the guidance of a Fire Management
Plan as in Alternatives 2 and 3, would improve the park's ability to
suppress or reduce wildfire incidents, increasing benefits to air
quality as noted in Alternative 1. Prescribed fire in Alternative 3
would have no effect on air quality.

The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

**4.3 SOUNDSCAPES**

**4.3.1 Affected Environment**

Natural soundscapes have not yet been identified for the park. Park
soundscapes can be divided into two general areas, coastal and inland.

Natural sounds at the coastal areas of the park are dominated by the
ocean. Surf can almost always be heard at the coast. At times the wind
may also be a dominant part of the soundscape near the coast. During the
day birds can also be heard in the coastal areas of the park.

Vegetation is scattered throughout the park. Natural sounds are
primarily bird and wind sounds through open and closed vegetation
canopy.

Sounds near the eastern, or mauka boundary of the park may be dominated
by vehicular traffic that is ever present on Highway 19. Air traffic
associated with the Keahole Airport can be heard through out the park.

Existing intrusions to the park's soundscapes include the administrative
use of power tools and vehicles for other park purposes. Visitor
services and facilities also experience associated impacts to
soundscapes such as tour buses and passenger vehicles in the Visitor
Contact Station parking lot and the Kaloko beach area to a lesser
degree. These are not expected to change.

Future construction and development is expected to occur outside of the
park's north and south boundary. Impacts of the development on the
park's soundscape are not known at this time.

**4.3.2 Environmental Consequences**

> 4.3.2.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}
>
> Suppression of wildfire will have both adverse and beneficial impacts
> to the park's soundscapes.
>
> Immediate suppression of wildfire will create direct, adverse, short
> term minor impacts to the park's soundscapes. Motorized vehicles and
> hand tools, such as chain saws, weed eaters, pumps, and other fire
> vehicles and apparatus' may be necessary. Helicopter use may be
> necessary for the evacuation of people and suppression of wildfires
> located in remote sections of the park. Helicopter support may also be
> required to suppress aggressive wildfires.
>
> The park does not have an aviation program and will not order the use
> of helicopter support during fire operations. The Hawaii County Fire
> Department may utilize helicopter support during fire operations which
> will be governed by their policies, procedures and designated landing
> areas. Helicopters will not land in the park except for emergency
> landings. Should the need for a helicopter landing area arise for
> other than emergency purposes, prior approval must be obtained from
> the park superintendent and the designated area approved by a resource
> advisor or the chief of resource management and the chief ranger.
> Helicopter operations will present direct adverse short-term minor
> impacts to soundscapes. Helicopter operations for wildfire suppression
> will generally occur in areas that will be closed to the public as a
> result of wildfire and managed by a qualified manager.
>
> There are cumulative adverse, short term minor impacts to soundscapes
> with wildfire suppression because of existing impacts of other sound
> sources such as the administrative use of power tools and vehicles for
> other park purposes and air traffic. Visitor services and facilities
> also experience associated impacts to soundscapes such as tour buses
> and passenger vehicles in the Visitor Contact Station parking lot.
> These are not expected to change.
>
> Wildfire suppression will have a direct, beneficial, minor long term
> impact to park soundscapes by reducing the destruction of vegetation,
> hence, maintaining habitat for bird and wind sounds.
>
> 4.3.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}
>
> The effects of wildfire suppression on the park's soundscapes are
> stated in Alternative 1.
>
> The addition of a required Fire Management Plan will create direct
> beneficial, long term minor impacts to the park's soundscapes by
> increasing the park's ability to more efficiently suppress or reduce
> wildfire incidents by taking an organized and coordinated approach to
> wildfire prevention and suppression.
>
> Cumulative impacts with this alternative are the same as for
> Alternative 1.
>
> 4.3.2.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}
>
> The benefits and impacts of a Fire Management Plan and suppression of
> wildfire are stated in Alternatives 1 and 2.
>
> Prescribed fire for pickleweed reduction will have a direct, adverse,
> short term minor impact on the park's soundscape with the use of a
> propane torch.
>
> Cumulative impacts with this alternative are the same as for
> Alternative 1.

**4.3.3 Mitigation Measures**

Immediate suppression of wildfire will have the greatest benefit to park
soundscapes by reducing the time that fire operations will adversely
affect the park's soundscapes.

**4.3.4 Conclusion:**

Alternative 1, No Action: Immediate suppression of wildfire will create
direct, adverse, short term, minor impacts and; direct, beneficial,
minor long term impact to park soundscapes. There are cumulative
adverse, short term minor impacts to soundscapes with wildfire
suppression and existing intrusions to the park's soundscapes.

Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action: The effects of wildfire
suppression on the park's soundscapes are stated in Alternative 1. The
addition of a required Fire Management Plan will create direct
beneficial, long term minor impacts to the park's soundscapes.
Cumulative impacts with this alternative are the same as for Alternative
1.

Alternative 3, Preferred Action: The impacts of wildfire suppression and
a Fire Management Plan are stated above in Alternatives 1 and 2.
Equipment used to conduct prescribed fire for the reduction of invasive
non-native pickleweed will have a direct, adverse, short term minor
impact on the park's soundscape. Cumulative impacts with this
alternative are the same as in Alternative 1.

Wildfire and suppression activities will have both adverse and
beneficial impacts to the park's soundscapes. However, the adverse
impacts of suppression activities are short term and necessary to
preserve the existing natural, plant and animal sounds, and are
ultimately beneficial to the park's soundscapes. An approved Fire
Management Plan (Alternative 2 and 3), is expected to reduce the
potential for wildfire and reduce the adverse impacts associated with
suppression efforts.

Alternative 3 includes prescribed fire for pickleweed reduction. The
impacts to soundscapes are expected to be direct and cumulative,
adverse, minor and very short in duration.

The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**4.4 WATER RESOURCES AND WETLANDS**

**4.4.1 Affected Environment**

At the Park, groundwater occurs near sea level. Recharge is mainly from
places of higher rainfall on the upper slopes of Hualalai. There is a
considerable shoreward outflow of groundwater all along the Park's
coastline. Near the sea, groundwater has high salinity. Further inshore,
the chloride content decreases.

The wetlands at Kaloko-Honokōhau, surrounding Aimakapa and Kaloko
Fishponds, are of great importance, particularly for endangered
waterbirds and migratory waterfowl. The wetlands (fishponds) are
described further in the Affected Environment section 4.10 for cultural
resources and section 4.5 for endangered species.

In addition to the two large fishponds, there are more than 140 small
brackish water pools and ponds that vary in volume and salinity with the
tides. These anchialine pools have unique invertebrate and lower plant
ecosystems. They are rare in Hawaii and have endemic invertebrate
species that vary substantially from pool to pool. Three of these are
listed as candidates on the endangered species list: The cariidean
shrimp, *Metabetaus lohena* and *Palmonella burnsii*, and the
orangeblack damselfly, *Megalagrion xanthomelas.*

**4.4.2 Environmental Consequences**

> 4.4.2.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}
>
> Wildfire and suppression activities will have both, beneficial and
> adverse impacts to water resources. These impacts are both direct and
> indirect.
>
> Suppression of wildfire may have adverse direct and indirect, minor to
> major, short-term to long-term, impacts to water resources. The Park
> contains wetlands and anchialine pools. Should a wildfire occur or
> spread near the wetlands or pools, and fire suppression efforts, such
> as the use of foam or water additives may be deposited into the
> wetlands and pools. Groundwater exchange between pools may spread the
> additives to additional pools. Wildfire suppression efforts may also
> attempt to utilize wetlands and natural water resources as a source of
> water supply.
>
> The suppression of wildfire will have both direct and indirect,
> beneficial, minor, short term impacts on water resources. Suppressing
> the spread of wildfire will reduce the probability of fire near the
> Park's water resources, and reduce the likelihood of fire related and
> erosion debris from being deposited into ponds and anchialine pools.
>
> 4.4.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}
>
> The beneficial and adverse impacts of wildfire suppression on water
> resources are stated above in Alternative 1.
>
> Wildfire suppression, near the Park's wetlands and water resources,
> under the guidance and preplanning of a Fire Management Plan will have
> both direct and indirect, beneficial, minor long-term impacts to water
> resources. Strategies for wildfire suppression and prevention will be
> addressed in the plan, resource advisors will be used on fires and
> MIST will be addressed and utilized to avoid the adverse impacts
> stated above in Alternative 1.
>
> 4.4.2.3 [Alternative 3, Proposed Action]{.underline}
>
> The benefits of a Fire Management Plan in the suppression of wildfire
> and its effects on water resources are stated in Alternatives 1 and 2.
>
> Prescribed fire, in the form of point application by propane torch, to
> reduce the alien, invasive pickleweed (*Batis maritima*) around
> wetlands and water resources will have a direct, beneficial, long-term
> major impact to water resources. The invasive pickleweed overgrows the
> banks of the wetlands, coastal beach strand, and anchialine ponds,
> encroaching on the interior of the wetlands and water resources. This
> vegetation increases sedimentation and deterioration of water quality,
> reduces the available water space for candidate species invertebrates,
> and available basking space for threatened sea turtles. The
> pickleweed's height excludes available foraging and nesting space for
> two endangered waterbirds. A direct, short-term, and adverse
> negligible-to-minor impact may result from removal of the vegetation
> by point application of prescribed fire. Related debris may be
> introduced to the water bodies and minor erosion into water resources
> may occur. However, there are no slopes greater than 1° around these
> invaded resources that may contribute to erosion.
>
> The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
> park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
> would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

**4.4.3 Mitigation Measures**

The following measures will not apply to Alternative 1, as there is no
provision for a Fire Management Plan to formalize and implement such
measures. In order to minimize the effects of fire activity to water
resources the following would be adhered to:

-   Natural water resources within the Park will not be used to supply
    water for fire suppression.

-   Foam or water additives utilized for wildfire suppression will not
    be deposited into or generally within 200' of water resources within
    the park.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Existing natural and human-made barriers, wet line, or cold trailing
    the fire edge will be used.

-   No handline construction.

-   The Park will continue exotic vegetation removal in the primary
    visitor use areas reduce the opportunities for wildland fire.

-   Resource advisors will be deployed on all fires to evaluate
    suppression tactics to maintain consistency with land/resource
    objectives and to minimize impacts on water resources.

-   The incident commander, in consultation with resource advisors, may
    override the above measures in cases where there is a greater threat
    to life, property, and/or resources.

**4.4.4 Conclusion:**

Alternative 1, No Action: Suppression of wildfire may have direct and
indirect, adverse, minor to major, short-term to long-term, impacts to
water resources; and direct and indirect, beneficial, minor, short-term
impact on water resources.

Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action: Mitigating the impacts of
wildfire suppression activities will have direct and indirect,
beneficial, minor long-term impacts to water resources.

Alternative 3, Preferred Action: The benefits of a Fire Management Plan
in the suppression of wildfire and its effects on water resources are
stated in Alternatives 1 and 2. Prescribed fire for the reduction of
alien, invasive pickleweed will have direct, beneficial, long-term minor
impact to water resources, with direct, adverse, short-term, negligible
to minor impact.

Wildfire suppression activities in Alternative 1 can present adverse
impacts to the Park's water resources while Alternatives 2 and 3 provide
the best protection of the Park's water resources through use of a Fire
Management Plan, resource advisors, and MIST. Prescribed fire activity
contained in Alternative 3 will produce beneficial impacts to water
resources by removing alien, invasive pickleweed.

The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

**4.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES**

**4.5.1 Affected Environment**

Seven threatened or endangered vertebrate species are found within the
Park boundaries (Hawaiian stilt, *Himantopus mexicanus*; Hawaiian coot,
*Fulica americana alai*; green sea turtle, *Chelonia mydas*; Hawaiian
monk seal, *Monachus schauinslandi*; hawksbill sea turtle, *Eretmochelys
imbricata*; humpback whale, *Megaptera novaengliae*; Hawaiian hoary bat,
*Lasiurus cinereus semotus*). There is one candidate endangered plant
species (*Bidens micrantha ctenophylla*) and three candidate endangered
invertebrate species, a damselfly and two cariidean shrimp, which are
associated with anchialine pools (orangeblack damselfly, *Megalarion
xanthomelas*; the shrimp *Metabetaeus lohena*; and *Palaemonella
burnsi*). The endangered ko'oko'olau (*Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla*) is found in the Park. Endangered species that have been
outplanted in the Park are, loulu (*Pritchardia affinis*), wahine noho
kula (*Isodendrion pyrifolium*), hala pepe (*Pleomele hawaiiensis*),

uhiuhi (*Caesalpinia kavaiense*), kokio (*Kokia drynarioides*) and
ko\`oloa\`ula (*Abutilon menziesii*).. The NPS Management Policies
require that these species will be managed for their natural
distribution and abundance.

\`Aimakapa Fishpond and its adjoining wetlands provide waterbird
habitat. Aimakapa is used throughout the year as a nesting and foraging
area by the federally endangered Hawaiian stilt and the Hawaiian coot.
The Hawaiian duck (*Anas wyvilliana*) also listed as endangered,
historically used \`Aimakapa for wintering.

The Parklands are also used to an unknown degree by other rare species
of wildlife. These include the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, Newell's
shearwater (*Puffinus auricularis newelli*), and the Hawaiian
dark-rumped petrel (*Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis*). Sightings of
these species in the Park have been recorded, but the importance of the
area as habitat has not yet been determined.

Green and hawksbill sea turtles are respectively threatened and
endangered. Although the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, primarily French
Frigate Shoals, continue to be the breeding area for the green turtle,
in recent years nesting has occurred on some beaches in the main
Hawaiian Islands. Most juvenile and mature green turtles reside in the
near-shore habitat of the main islands. Land basking by juvenile green
sea turtles on sand beaches in the Park is common. Hawksbill nesting
only occurs in the main Hawaiian Islands, primarily on several small
beaches along the east coast of the island of Hawaii. It is estimated
that overall there are no more than a dozen Hawksbills nesting annually
on the beaches in Hawaii. Two of these locations are at remote beaches
within and adjacent to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that it is possible that the hawksbill turtle nested
on Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP beaches in the past. No nesting activity of
either species has been officially recorded in the Park.

A significant aggregation of immature green sea turtles (196 identified
individuals) is resident in the coastal nearshore waters of
Kaloko-Honokōhau NHP. The demographics, health and habitat use of these
turtles has been monitored since 2000 (unpublished park data).

The Hawaiian monk seal is occasionally seen basking in the coastal areas
of the Park. Thirteen have been recorded in opportunistic sightings
since 2003. The humpback whale is often seen and heard in Park waters
during the winter months.

The three candidate endangered invertebrate species, a damselfly and two
cariidean shrimp, are associated with anchialine pools within the Park.
The non-native invasive pickleweed (*Batis maritima*) now dominates the
edges of fishponds, many anchialine pools, and the coastal strand. The
growth and spread of this pickleweed deteriorates the quality of the
water and habitat for the endemic and endangered species by increasing
deposits of vegetative matter and sediment. In the past, the Park has
experimented with hand-held propane torches to singe the pickleweed with
positive results. Given the proximity of the pickleweed to the Park's
water resources, the application of fire is strongly preferred to the
use of herbicides (Pratt 1998). Hand-pulling of the pickleweed causes
undue disturbance to archaeological resources (pond walls) and deposits,
again, leaving fire as the preferred method of treatment.

**4.5.2 Environmental Consequences**

> 4.5.2.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}
>
> Suppression of wildfire will have both beneficial and adverse impacts
> to threatened and endangered species. These impacts are both direct
> and indirect.
>
> Suppression of wildfire will have direct and indirect, minor to major,
> short-term to long-term, beneficial impacts to threatened and
> endangered species. Wildfire suppression will reduce the destruction
> of the candidate and endangered vegetation and associated impacts to
> the environment that sustains the Park's endangered species.
>
> Suppression of wildfire may have direct and indirect, minor to major,
> short-term to long-term, adverse impacts to wetlands, water resources,
> and the threatened or endangered resources within. Should a wildfire
> occur or spread near anchialine pools, fire suppression operations
> could involve the use of retardants or foam and chemicals may be
> deposited into the ponds and affect the resources within. Water from
> wetlands and water resources within the Park may also be used to
> support suppression activities such as drafting by portable pumps or
> helicopter bucket. Water levels could temporarily drop, temporarily
> affecting pool inhabitants, and noise from these activities could
> temporarily significantly disturb waterbirds.
>
> The suppression of wildfire will have direct and indirect, minor to
> major, short-term beneficial impacts on wetlands and water resources.
> Suppressing the spread of wildfire will reduce the probability of fire
> near the Park's anchialine pools and reduce the likelihood of
> fire-related debris from being deposited into the anchialine pools.
>
> Suppression of wildfire will have a direct beneficial impact by
> reducing the devastating effect of wildfire on the endangered
> ko'oko'olau, wahine noho kula, hala pepe, uhiuhi and kokio plants.
> Wildfire suppression may have direct adverse minor to major short-term
> and long-term impacts to ko\'oko'olau, wahine noho kula, hala pepe,
> uhiuhi and kokio plants if firefighter activity and equipment should
> trample individual plants. Endangered loulu palms are planted in an
> a'a field and are not expected to be impacted by wildfire, suppression
> activities or prescribed fire.
>
> The Hawaiian monk seal, green sea turtle, and humpback whale are not
> expected to be impacted by wildfire or fire suppression activities as
> these species are not known to utilize areas with burnable vegetation,
> nor are any indirect affects from such activities anticipated.
>
> 4.5.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}
>
> The beneficial and adverse impacts of wildfire suppression on
> threatened and endangered species are stated above in Alternative 1.
>
> Wildfire suppression under the guidance and preplanning of a Fire
> Management Plan will have direct and indirect, beneficial, major
> long-term impacts to candidate, threatened, and endangered species. An
> FMP will formalize the use of resource advisors to target populations
> of ko'oko'olau, wahine noho kula, hala pepe, uhiuhi and kokio plants
> for prevention of the adverse impacts of wildfire and suppression
> activities stated in Alternative 1. Strategies for wildfire prevention
> will also be addressed in the plan, and MIST will be addressed and
> utilized to avoid the adverse impacts stated above in Alternative 1.
>
> 4.5.2.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}
>
> The impacts of wildfire suppression, an approved Fire Management Plan,
> and potential impacts to candidate, threatened, and endangered species
> are stated above in Alternatives 1 and 2.
>
> Propane torch point-application of fire for the removal of invasive
> non-native pickleweed will have a direct, beneficial major long-term
> affects to threatened and endangered species. Removal of the
> pickleweed will improve the water quality within the ponds, wetlands
> and coastal strand by removing the source of sedimentation thereby
> improving habitat for threatened and endangered species. Removal will
> also open up needed foraging space and nesting space for the Hawaiian
> stilt and Hawaiian coot. Prescribed fire operations for the removal of
> pickleweed will not occur or will be delayed if the activity will have
> an adverse affect on any threatened or endangered species.

**4.5.3 Mitigation Measures**

In order to minimize the effects of fire activity to threatened and
endangered species the following will be adhered to:

-   Natural water resources within the Park will not be used to supply
    water for fire suppression.

-   Foam or water additives utilized for wildfire suppression will not
    be deposited in or near the anchialine pools, wetlands or generally
    within 200' of water sources in the Park.

-   Existing natural and human-made barriers, wet line, or cold trailing
    the fire edge will be used.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   No handline construction will be permitted.

-   The Park will continue exotic vegetation removal in the primary
    visitor use areas to reduce the opportunities for wildland fire.

-   Resource advisors will be deployed on all fires to evaluate
    suppression tactics to maintain consistency with land/resource
    objectives and to minimize impacts on threatened and endangered
    species.

-   The incident commander, in consultation with resource advisors, may
    override the above measures in cases where there is a greater threat
    to life, property, and/or resources.

**4.5.4 Conclusion:**

All three alternatives have direct and indirect, beneficial and adverse
impacts to threatened and endangered species. The benefits, however,
increase with each alternative. Alternative 3, Preferred Action,
provides the greatest benefit as it includes the benefits of wildfire
suppression in Alternative 1 with an approved Fire Management Plan in
Alternative 2, and includes maintaining a stand of native vegetation and
improving habitat for threatened or endangered species.

The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**4.6 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE**

Threatened and endangered plants and animals were addressed in Section
4.5 as a separate impact topic, affected environment and analysis of
alternatives.

**4.6.1 Affected Environment**

**Plants:**

The vegetation of Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park was surveyed
in 1987. Plants were identified in the field or from voucher specimens.
Two lichens, 3 ferns, and 69 flowering plants were found within the
park's authorized boundary. Fifty-three percent of the plants in the
park are considered alien; that is, introduced since 1778. Thirty-one
percent are indigenous, nine percent endemic, and seven percent of
Polynesian introduction.

Eleven of the historic introductions are considered noxious by the
Hawai\`i State Department of Agriculture. Eight species pose a potential
threat to archaeological sites. Red mangrove (*Rhizophora mangle*) has
already damaged the Kaloko fishpond and adjacent archaeological remains,
and the park has undertaken aggressive eradication measures on the red
mangrove. Because of their frequency in areas with many archaeological
sites, it is quite likely that kiawe (*Prosopis pallida*),
Christmasberry (*Schinus terebinthifolius*) , koa haole (*Leucaena
leucocephala*), pluchea (*Pluchea indica*) , and noni (*Morinda*
citrifolia) have also disturbed some sites. Two grass species,
fountaingrass (*Pennisetum setaceum*) and Natal redtop (*Rhynchelytrum*
repensa) produce a fine fuel that constitutes a very serious fire
hazard.

The non-native invasive pickleweed (*Batis maritime*) dominates the
edges of fishponds, anchialine pools, and coastal strand. The growth and
spread of the pickleweed deteriorates the quality of the water by
increased deposit of vegetative matter and sediment. In the past the
park has used hand held torches to singe the pickleweed with positive
results. Given the proximity of the pickleweed to the park's water
resources, the application of fire is preferred to the use of herbicides
(Pratt 1998). Hand pulling of the pickleweed causes undue disturbance to
archaeological resources (pond wall) and deposits, again, leaving fire
as the preferred method of treatment.

A more recent survey, completed in 1992, added 32 species of flowering
plants -- 7 native species and 25 alien species. The 1992 survey also
found two species present in the park that were former candidates for
endangered status.

**Animals:**

Because of the shoreline and fishponds within the park, the most
apparent forms of wildlife are the water birds. Of major significance
are the ae'o (Hawaiian black-necked stilt (*Himantopus mexicanus*), and
the 'alae ke'oke'o (Hawaiian coot, *Fulica Americana alai*), both of
which are analyzed in the section 4.5, Threatened and Endangered
Species.

The black-crowned night heron (*Nycitcorax nycticorax hoactli*), a
native resident, frequents both fishponds and many anchialine pool areas
throughout the park. Several species of migratory waterfowl often winter
at the pond, including northern pintail (*Anas acuta*), northern
shoveler (*Anas clypeata*), American wigeon (*Anas Americana*), and
blue-winged teal (*Anas discors*). The later species produced young at
\`Aimakapa in 1982 and 1983. These were the first breeding records of
migratory waterfowl in the Hawaiian Islands. Pied-billed grebes
(*Podilymbus podiceps*) are seen regularly and a few now nest at the
pond. Several species of migratory shorebirds, such as golden plovers
(*Pluvialis fulva*), wandering tattlers (*Heteroscelus incanus*),
sanderlings (*Calidris alba*) and ruddy turnstones (*Arenaria*
interpres) also regularly winter at \`Aimakapa.

A wide variety of accidental or rare stragglers have been recoded at the
ponds and along the coastline. This list includes snowy egret (*Egretta
thula*) , white-fronted goose (*Anser brachyrhynchus*), brant (*Branta
bernicla*) , green-winged teal (*Anas crecca*), mallard (*Anas
platyrhynchos*), cinnamon teal (*Anas cyanoptera*), Eurasian wigeon
(*Anas penelope*), canvasback (*Aythya valisineria*), ring-necked duck
(*Aythya collaris*), hooded merganser (*Lophodytes cucullatus*),
semipalmated plover (*Charadrius semipalmatus*), lesser yellowlegs
(*Tringa flavipes*), bar-tailed godwit (*Limosa lapponica*), several
species of sandpipers, dunlin (*Calidris alpine*), long-billed dowitcher
(*Limnodromus scolopaceus*), red-necked phalarope (*Phalaropus
lobatus*), franklin's gull (*Larus pipixcan*), ring-billed gull (*Larus
delawarensis*), Caspian tern (*Sterna caspia*), and black tern
(*Chlidonias niger*).

Other birds frequently seen in the park are northern cardinal,
yellow-billed cardinal, house finch, zebra dove, saffron finch, grey
froncolin, spotted dove, ricebird, mynah, Japanese white-eye,
yellow-fronted canary, and the pueo (Hawaiian short-eared owl, *Asio
flammeus sandwichensis*).

The most noticeable mammal in the park is the mongoose, an unwise
introduction to the islands which played a part in upsetting the fragile
terrestrial ecosystem of Hawaii. In addition to the mongoose, rats and
feral cats prey on the eggs and young of ground nesting birds. Pet and
feral dogs harass the water birds.

Feral goats and pigs which cause major problems throughout the island's
ecosystems are uncommon in the park and there is little evidence of
damage by these aliens.

**4.6.2 Environmental Consequences**

> 4.6.2.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}
>
> Suppression of wildfire will have direct and indirect, beneficial,
> minor, short term to long term, impacts to vegetation and wildlife.
> Wildfire suppression will reduce the destruction of vegetation,
> wildlife and habitat within the park. By minimizing the size of
> wildfire, opportunities for exotic plant infestation or the emergence
> of new or previously eradicated exotic plant species are also reduced.
>
> No plant species or plant community appears to be dependent on fire,
> at least in the time frames of fire effects and plant community
> monitoring conducted at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park by park staff
> or researchers. The exclusion of fire would therefore not adversely
> affect the regeneration of native plants or perpetuation of native
> plant communities. However, pili grass, while not fire-dependent, is a
> fire-stimulated species and has a history of responding to fire.
>
> 4.6.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}
>
> The beneficial impacts of wildfire suppression on vegetation and
> wildlife are stated above in Alternative 1.
>
> Wildfire suppression under the guidance and preplanning of a Fire
> Management Plan will have direct and indirect, beneficial, minor long
> term impacts to vegetation and wildlife. An approved Fire Management
> Plan will improve the park's ability to suppress or reduce wildfire
> incidents by addressing multiple aspects of wildfire, including, fuels
> management, prevention, preparedness, and initial attack. Strategies
> for wildfire suppression will also be addressed in MIST.
>
> Salt water helicopter bucket drops may be used by Hawaii County Fire
> Department to suppress fire at Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP. Plants in
> this area are exposed to high ambient levels of salt spray and salt
> water helicopter bucket drops made during suppression operations at
> Hawaii Volcanoes National Park appear to have had no adverse impacts
> on vegetation. The plants are presumed to have adapted to higher salt
> levels as they don't exhibit the expected signs of salt impact, which
> would be uprooting, bleaching, loss of vigor, and mortality.
>
> Herbicide use to control of hazardous fuels such as alien grasses and
> shrubs has a positive effect on park native plant communities. Recent
> control efforts of ekoa have resulted in the natural revegetation of
> ilima and uhaloa. Non-target effects of chemical treatments on native
> vegetation would be negligible to minor. Treated areas would be
> confined to areas dominated by alien grasses and shrubs, or spot
> treatments applied in proximity to native plants. Chemical sprays are
> used on alien grasses while shrubs are cut and the stumps treated then
> left to decay. Integrated Pest Management guidelines would be used to
> ensure that the lowest dosage of non-restricted use herbicide that is
> effective in treating grasses and cut stumps is applied, and that
> impacts to the surrounding area would be minimized. Fuel breaks will
> also be cleared using non-fire applications.
>
> The park does not have an aviation program and will not order the use
> of helicopter support during fire operations. The Hawaii County Fire
> Department may utilize helicopter support during fire operations which
> will be governed by their policies, procedures and designated landing
> areas. Helicopters will not land in the park except for emergency
> landings. Should the need for a helicopter landing area arise for
> other than emergency purposes, prior approval must be obtained from
> the park superintendent and the designated area approved by a resource
> advisor or the chief of resource management and the chief ranger.
> Should a landing area be established in the park, it will be managed
> by a qualified manager.
>
> 4.6.2.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}
>
> The beneficial impacts of wildfire suppression and an approved Fire
> Management Plan are stated above in Alternatives 1 and 2. Prescribed
> research fire for the removal of pickleweed near the park's wetlands
> and water resources will have no effect on vegetation and wildlife
> except as noted in Section 4.4, Water Resources and Wetlands and
> Section 4.5, Threatened and Endangered Species.

**4.6.3 Mitigation Measures**

The following measures will not apply to Alternative 1, as there is no
provision for a Fire Management Plan to formalize and implement such
measures. In order to minimize the effects of fire activity to
vegetation and wildlife the following would be adhered to:

-   Use existing natural and human-made barriers, wet line, or cold
    trailing the fire edge.

-   No hand line construction.

-   Personnel conducting non-fire fuel reduction projects will be
    informed of cultural and natural resources awareness to avoid
    impacts to such resources.

-   The park will continue exotic vegetation removal to reduce the
    opportunities for wildland fire.

-   Deploy resource advisors on all fires to evaluate suppression
    tactics to maintain consistency with land/resource objectives and to
    minimize impacts on vegetation and wildlife.

-   Natural sources of water within the park will not be used for fire
    suppression activities.

-   The incident commander, in consultation with resource advisors, may
    override the above measures in cases where there is a greater threat
    to life, property, and/or resources.

**4.6.4 Conclusion:**

[]{.mark}

Alternative 1, No Action: Suppression of wildfire will have direct and
indirect, beneficial, minor, short term to long term, impacts to
vegetation and wildlife.

Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action: The beneficial impacts of
wildfire suppression on vegetation and wildlife are stated above in
Alternative 1.

Wildfire suppression under the guidance and preplanning of a Fire
Management Plan will have direct and indirect, beneficial, minor long
term impacts to vegetation and wildlife.

Alternative 3, Preferred Action: The beneficial impacts of wildfire
suppression and an approved Fire Management Plan are stated above in
Alternatives 1 and 2. Prescribed research fire for the removal of
pickleweed near the park's wetlands and water resources will have no
effect on vegetation and wildlife except as noted in Section 4.4, Water
Resources and Wetlands and Section 4.5, Threatened and Endangered
Species.

All three alternatives have direct and indirect, beneficial, long term
impacts to vegetation and wildlife. The benefits, however, increase with
each alternative. Alternative 3, Preferred Action, provides the greatest
benefit as it includes the benefits of Alternative 1 and 2, and uses
prescribed fire to remove a non-native invasive plant species
(pickleweed).

The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**4.7 VISITOR USE**

**4.7.1 Affected Environment**

Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park has year-round visitation with
peaks at Christmas, spring break, and summer months. Visitation from
1990 to 2000 fluctuated with 1990 receiving the least amount of
recreational visitors (21,883) and 1998 receiving the most (54,859).
Visitation since 2000 has seen a steady increase of visitors. The
highest annual visitation count was 2004 when the park received 89,864
visitors. Visitor counts for January through October 2005, currently
stands at 74,302. Visitors access the park by private or commercial
vehicles for day visits.

Primary visitation areas in the park are the Visitor Contact Station,
the Kaloko Pond, the 'Ai\'opio beach area, and the trail entrance at the
Honokohau petroglyph area. Visitor activities range from family picnics
at 'Ai'opio beach and Kaloko pond area, access to surfing spots, and
various fishing and gathering activities along the entire coastline.
Bird watching activities occur at Kaloko and Aimakapa Ponds, and hiking
groups and individuals regularly enjoy the park's 9.5 miles of trail.

**4.7.2 Environmental Consequences**

> 4.7.2.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}
>
> Wildfire and suppression activities will have both adverse and
> beneficial impacts to visitor use. Wildfire suppression activities
> will have direct, adverse, short term, minor impacts to visitor use.
> Wildfire suppression activities may include area closures beyond the
> actual wildfire to facilitate suppression support. Visitors may also
> be subject to noise and smoke, and to an increase of personnel and
> vehicles generated by suppression activities.
>
> Suppression of wildfire incidents will have direct, beneficial, long
> term, minor impacts to visitor use by decreasing the extent of the
> area and resources affected by wildfire.
>
> 4.7.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}
>
> Wildfire and suppression activities will have both adverse and
> beneficial impacts to visitor use as stated above in Alternative 1,
> although to a lesser degree. An approved Fire Management Plan will
> improve the park's ability to suppress or reduce wildfire incidents by
> addressing multiple aspects of wildfire including prevention,
> preparedness, and initial attack. Strategies for wildfire suppression
> will also be addressed in MIST.
>
> 4.7.2.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}
>
> The effects of wildfire suppression under the guidance and preplanning
> of a Fire Management Plan on visitor use is noted in Alternatives 1
> and 2.
>
> Propane torch point application of fire for the removal of invasive
> non-native pickleweed will have a direct and indirect beneficial and
> adverse minor short to long term affects to visitor use. The
> pickleweed grows at the banks of the parks wetlands and water
> resources and contributes to the declining health of the water
> resources by increasing the sedimentation. Indirectly, habitat for
> wildlife, including endangered bird and turtle species, are also
> affected by the water quality. Adverse affects include area closures,
> increased noise and prescribed fire activity. The adverse impacts to
> visitor use will be short term and very localized. Beneficial effects
> of the pickleweed removal include improved visitor enjoyment and
> viewing of the wetlands, water resources, and wildlife.

**4.7.3 Mitigation Measures**

Immediate suppression of wildfire in all three alternatives will produce
the greatest benefit to visitor use.

[]{.mark}

**4.7.4 Conclusion:**

Alternative 1, No Action: Wildfire suppression activities will have
direct, adverse, short term, minor impacts to visitor use. Suppression
of wildfire incidents will have direct, beneficial, long term, minor
impacts to visitor use by decreasing the extent of the area and
resources affected by wildfire.

Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action: The impacts of wildfire
suppression on visitor use under this alternative would be similar to
those noted in Alternative 1. An approved Fire Management Plan will
improve the park's ability to suppress or reduce wildfire incidents by
addressing multiple aspects of wildfire including prevention,
preparedness, and initial attack. Strategies for wildfire suppression
will also be addressed in MIST.

Alternative 3, Preferred Action: The effects of wildfire suppression
under the guidance and preplanning of a Fire Management Plan on visitor
use is noted in Alternatives 1 and 2.

Propane torch point application of fire for the removal of invasive
non-native pickleweed will have a direct and indirect beneficial and
adverse minor short to long term affects to visitor use.

Suppression of wildfire under each alternative will have minimal, short
term and localized adverse effects to visitor use. However, all
alternatives will have beneficial long term impacts to visitor use by
reducing the affects of fire and fire related activities. The greatest
of these is Alternative 3 which utilizes minimum impact tactics and
enhances the health of the park's wetlands, water resources, and
wildlife for visitor enjoyment.

**4.8 Wildland Urban Interface.**

**4.8.1 Affected Environment**

The lands surrounding the park are primarily light industrial areas,
however, the property adjoining the northern boundary of the park is in
the process of developing a major subdivision and golf course. The lands
to the south of the park consist of the State Harbor at Honokohau which
intends to intensify harbor development in the future. The eastern
boundary of the park is bordered by Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and the
Pacific Ocean to the west.

The central portion of the park is generally barren and void of
vegetation with fountain grass and ekoa shrub dominating the north and
south portions of the park. The Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway provides a
break in fuels (50 to 60 feet wide) from the eastern, or upslope
boundary of the park and the industrial area. Fuels at the south
boundary of the park and the State Harbor has been broken by a service
road over an a'a lava flow from the berm at Honokohau to the maintenance
shed at the southeast boundary of the park, west of which is divided by
the harbor's ocean entrance. The north boundary of the park currently
consists of contiguous grass and shrubland. The coastal (west) section
of the park ranges from sand beach, barren pahoehoe flows, marsh,
wetlands, shrub, grass, inland forest and coastal strand vegetation.

Development within the park consists of the Visitor Contact Station,
thatched canoe house at 'Ai'opio, and composting toilet facilities at
Honokohau. The Visitor Contact Station sits in an a'a lava flow that
supports sparsely planted palms and shrubs. The thatched canoe house is
located on the white sand area at "Ai\'opio with few coconut trees and
naupaka shrub located nearby. The composting toilet at Honokohau is
located within a stand of kiawe trees.

**4.8.2 Environmental Consequences**

> 4.8.2.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}
>
> Suppression of wildfire will have a direct, beneficial, long term,
> minor to major impact to the wildland/urban interface. Wildfire
> suppression provides for maximum protection of life and property by
> reducing the impacts of wildfire ignited within and outside of park
> boundaries.
>
> 4.8.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}
>
> The benefits of wildfire suppression are stated above in Alternative
> 1.
>
> An approved Fire Management Plan will improve the park's ability to
> suppress or reduce wildfire incidents by addressing multiple aspects
> of wildfire, including, safety, prevention, preparedness, initial
> attack, and specifically the wildland/urban interface.
>
> 4.8.2.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}
>
> The impacts of wildfire suppression on the wildland/urban interface
> are noted in Alternatives 1 and 2.
>
> Prescribed fire within the park would not affect the wildland/urban
> interface.
>
> The wildland/urban interface will be further analyzed in the burn plan
> under actual conditions for any prescribed fire activity.

**4.8.3 Mitigation Measures**

Immediate suppression of wildfire provides the greatest benefit to the
wildland urban interface.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**4.8.4 Conclusion:**

All three alternatives have direct beneficial, long term minor to major
impacts to the wildland/urban interface through the suppression of
wildfire. Prescribed fire in Alternative 3 will not affect the
wildland/urban interface.

[]{.mark}

The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

**4.9 CAVES**

**4.9.1 Affected Environment**

Networks of lava tube caves underlie many areas of the park. Lava tubes
originate when cooling crust forms over underlying molten lava streams.
The crust insulates the moving lava, but eventually the sources of the
flow cease and the tubes empty of molten material creating a cave. Caves
contain a number of unique geological formations, as well as cultural,
paleontological, and biological resources.

Several caves have been identified within the park. However, none have
been inventoried.

**4.9.2 Environmental Consequences**

> 4.9.2.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}
>
> Wildfire and suppression activities may have beneficial and adverse
> impacts to caves. Suppression of wildfire will have direct,
> beneficial, minor short term to long term, impacts to caves. Wildfire
> suppression will reduce the destruction caused to the environment by
> wildfire. By minimizing the size of wildfire, opportunities for
> adverse impacts to caves are reduced.
>
> Wildfire and suppression activities may have direct and indirect,
> adverse minor, short to long term impacts to caves. Fire fighters may
> explore caves and cause damage to the resources within. Wildfire may
> burn over cave areas within the park, denuding it of vegetative cover,
> and enticing exploration by visitors who may also cause damage to
> caves or the resources within.
>
> 4.9.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}
>
> The beneficial and adverse impacts of wildfire suppression on caves
> are stated above in Alternative 1.
>
> Wildfire suppression under the guidance and preplanning of a Fire
> Management Plan will have direct, beneficial, minor, short to long
> term impacts to caves. An approved Fire Management Plan will improve
> the park's ability to suppress or reduce wildfire incidents by
> addressing multiple aspects of wildfire, including, prevention,
> preparedness, and initial attack. Strategies for wildfire suppression
> will also be addressed in MIST and the formalized involvement of
> resource advisors can mitigate some of the adverse impacts of wildfire
> suppression to caves as stated in Alternative 1.
>
> 4.9.2.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}
>
> The impacts of wildfire suppression and an approved Fire Management
> Plan are stated above in Alternatives 1 and 2.
>
> Prescribed fire activities will have no impact to caves as prescribed
> fire will not occur near caves.

[]{.mark}

**4.9.3 Mitigation Measures**

The following measures will not apply to Alternative 1, as there is no
provision for a Fire Management Plan to formalize and implement such
measures. In order to minimize the effects of fire activity to caves the
following would be adhered to:

-   Deploy resource advisors on all fires to evaluate suppression
    tactics to maintain consistency with land/resource objectives and to
    minimize impacts on caves.

-   Firefighters are prohibited from entering caves.

-   Priorities for wildfire suppression near caves, will as much as
    possible, preserve existing vegetation above, around, and at cave
    entrances.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Use existing natural and human-made barriers, wet line, or cold
    trailing the fire edge.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   No hand line construction.

-   The incident commander, in consultation with resource advisors, may
    override the above measures in cases where there is a greater threat
    to life, property, and/or resources.

[]{.mark}

**4.9.4 Conclusion:**

Alternative 1, No Action: Suppression of wildfire will have direct,
beneficial, minor short term to long term, impacts to caves. Wildfire
and suppression activities may have direct and indirect, adverse minor,
short to long term impacts to caves.

Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action: The beneficial and adverse
impacts of wildfire suppression on caves are stated above in
Alternative 1. Wildfire suppression under the guidance and preplanning
of a Fire Management Plan will have direct, beneficial, minor, short to
long term impacts to caves.

Alternative 3, Preferred Action: The impacts of wildfire suppression and
an approved Fire Management Plan are stated above in Alternatives 1 and
2. Prescribed fire activities will have no impact to caves as prescribed
fire will not occur near caves.

[]{.mark}

Wildfire and suppression activities under Alternative 1 may have adverse
impacts to caves. Alternatives 2 and 3 provide the greatest benefits for
the protection of caves from the impacts of wildfire and suppression
activities through a Fire Management Plan, MIST, and the use of resource
advisors. Prescribed fire activity will not occur near caves.

The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

[]{.mark}

**4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES**

**4.10.1 Affected Environment**

Within the boundaries of Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park there
is abundant evidence of the ancient Hawaiian culture that once thrived
here. Archaeological sites in the park represent a wide range of the
different aspects of that culture including its agriculture,
aquaculture, religion, recreation, housing, and burial practices. The
national historic landmark status given to the Honokohau Settlement
attests to the level of significance of these sites. These numerous and
significant sites represent not only the Hawaiian culture, but the
change that took place in that culture over time.

The most impressive of the sites are the Kaloko and \`Aimakapa fishponds
and the 'Ai'opio fish trap and the several heiau located between
Wawahiwa'a Point in the Kohanaiki ahupua'a and Ala'ula cove area in the
ahupua'a of Kealakehe. Probably the two most prominent of these heiau
were Maka'opio near Ala'ula cove and Pu'uoina south of the 'Ai'opio fish
trap.

\`Aimakapa, the largest of the fishponds, is approximately 15 acres in
size. \`Aimakapa is a loko pu'uone pond; that is, a large natural pond
formed behind a barrier beach. The fishpond is still intact, although
some parts of its shoreline have become overgrown with vegetation. Awa
(milk fish, *Chanos chanos*) as well as native and migratory birds are
found in and around the fishpond. The variety of sites around the
fishpond include a holua (slope constructed for sledding), heiau
(Pre-Christian place of worship), and a very large platform.

The holua is one of seven which have survived in Kona. It is the only
holua besides the one in Keauhou wide enough to allow two contestants to
compete at the same time. The takeoff and runway as far as the brow of
the lava flow are well preserved.

A large stone located on a high point behind \`Aimakapa is another
interesting site. This stone is called Kanaka Leo Nui, which means "man
with a loud voice". Local tradition says that in ancient times a chief
by that name stood on the stone and directed fishing fleets off the
coast.

The number and type of sites located around \`Aimakapa indicate that
this area was used by the ali'i (chief, ruler, or royal class) for both
recreational and ceremonial purposes.

The 'Ai'opio fish trap is 1.7 acres in size and is of the loko kuapa
type, a pond whose backbone consisted of a stone or coral wall. 'Ai'opio
is referred to as a fish trap because it has no makaha (sluice gate) and
there are four rectangular walled enclosures which were probably used as
holding pens for netted fish.

At the south side of the 'Ai'opio fish trap is the Pu'uoina heiau,
probably the finest example of a platform type in Kona. The dimensions
of the heiau measures 50 feet by 145 feet and its height varies from
three to eight feet. The simple beauty and durability of the heiau are
indications of the resourcefulness of the ancient Hawaiians who
constructed it.

To the west of Pu'uoina heiau at Ala'ula cove is a fisherman's heiau
known as Maka'opio. The striking feature of this heiau is two great
upright stone slabs which measure about one foot by four feet by seven
feet high. The stones may have served as Ku'ula (fish gods), but local
Hawaiians also believe they were used to measure the heights of warriors
who passed through the area.

North of \`Aimakapa fishpond is the Kaloko fishpond, also of the loko
kuapa type. Kaloko is a natural embayment separated from the sea by a
man-made sea wall. It is approximately 11 acres in size, with secondary
walls within the pond forming three separated areas where fingerlings
were raised or where different species of fish were kept.

Kaloko is an excellent example of the engineering skill of the ancient
Hawaiians. It has the largest and thickest man-made sea wall and is the
most impressive example of a loko kuapa type pond on the island of
Hawai\`i.

The park also contains numerous Hawaiian burial sites. The burial sites
are often overlooked in terms of their overall significance. Their
importance to Hawaiians in the area and throughout the State cannot be
exaggerated. These burial sites were especially sacred grounds with
mana. In Hawaiian religious beliefs deceased ancestors returned in the
form of 'aumakua (family god) to guide and protect family members still
living.

The park contains numerous other sites of significance. These sites
include the mauka-makai (oriented from the mountain to the sea) trails,
kahua hale (house platforms), ko'a (fishing shrine), ahu (stone mounds),
a concentration of more than 50 stone enclosures (believed to be
agricultural planters), lava tube shelters, canoe landings and shelters,
salt pans, petroglyphs, and papamu (the flat rock surface or board on
which the Hawaiian game konane (ancient game resembling checkers) was
played).

An intensive archaeological survey of most of the Kaloko ahupua'a area
of the park has been completed. The Kohanaiki portion of the park has
also been intensively surveyed. Several reconnaissance level
archaeological surveys have been conducted in the past over portions of
the Honokohau ahupua'a area. The State-owned Kealakehe lands in the park
have also undergone reconnaissance level archaeological surveys.

The National Park Service is scheduled to undertake additional
archaeological surveys on Honokohau lands to relocate previously
recorded sites and assess the adequacy of those records. The scheduled
survey will also supplement those records as needed with additional maps
and site forms, as well as surveying the unsurveyed portions.

To date, 454 archaeological sites have been recorded in the Park, even
though only 30% of the park's area has been intensively inventoried.
There are undoubtedly many more sites as yet unrecorded, both on land
and submerged. All of these sites substantiate prehistoric and historic
occupation by many people who utilized the sea and adjacent lands. It
was an area not only used by maka'ainana (common people), but also by
ali'i until the late nineteenth century.

Another physical resource with great historical significance is a
portion of the Mamalahoa Trail, also known as the King's Highway. The
trail extends around the island of Hawai\`i and was built between 1822
and 1855. Parts of the trail outside the park have been destroyed by
development.

The traditional Hawaiian economy was based on agriculture and utilized
the resources of the lands and the sea. This land use was tied to a
system of land divisions called ahupua'a that ran from the forested
uplands, across agricultural lands, and out to the coast and sea. The
lower portions of the ahupua'a of Kaloko and Honokohau are within the
boundaries of the national historical park, as are parts of the lower
portions of the ahupua'a of Kealakehe and Kohanaiki. The ahupua'a
concept is regarded to be an important cultural resource.

The system of mauka-makai trails in Honokohau was used by Hawaiians to
travel and communicate within the ahupua'a. These mauka-makai trails
were extremely important to the subsistence of the ancient Hawaiians.
These trails should be considered as lifelines, for it was the common
practice of Hawaiians living makai to take ocean products, fish, salt,
limu (seaweed), and other items up to their 'ohana living mauka. In
return, they were given agricultural food products such as taro and
other items unavailable to them makai. This form of exchange was the
basis of the Hawaiian economy, and the system of trails provided the
physical means to make it possible.

At Kaloko-Honokōhau cultural values are more than just the sum total of
the archaeological sites and individuals features found there now. The
ahupua'a of Kaloko and Honokohau are profoundly bound up with the
history of the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to noted Hawaiian
archaeologist, Kenneth Emory and others, the ahupua'a of Kaloko and
Honokohau with their fishponds were reserved for important Hawaiian
chiefs. Kaloko, with its large fishpond, was set aside for Kamehameha V,
the grandson of Kamehameha the Great. Honokohau Nui (large), with its
very large fishpond, went to Kekau'onohi, a cousin of Kamehameha V and a
granddaughter of Kamehameha the Great. Honokohau Iki (small), with its
fish trap, went to Leleiohoka, the husband of Princess Ruth
Ke'elikolani, great granddaughter to Kamehameha the Great. So, the
relationship between the sites and the history of Hawai\`i is key; in
fact, the two are inseparable. Kaloko-Honokōhau's spiritual values are
embodied in its history, and it is the Hawaiian people who both feel and
understand this best. To many of them, Kaloko-Honokōhau represents a
microcosm of their cultural past.

**4.10.2 Environmental Consequences**

4.10.2.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}

Wildfire suppression will have direct, minor short to long term impacts
to cultural resources. Suppressing the spread of wildfire will have
direct beneficial long term impact to cultural resources by preventing
further destruction of combustible or fragile surface features and
artifacts, subsurface deposits and features, reduced carbon
contamination, and decrease erosion. Wildfire suppression operations
will have direct, short to long term, minor to major, impacts to
cultural resources. Fire suppression activities can result in impacts to
cultural resources. Known cultural resources would be protected by close
consultation with cultural resource specialists and fire personnel. When
possible, cultural resources would be avoided. However, damage to
unknown sites and features through fire suppression activity
(operational impacts) could occur and could include impacts associated
with staging operations, fire line construction, heli-spot construction,
and mop up efforts. Wildland fire suppression activities have the
potential to impact and adversely affect archaeological features and
sites and historic structures, and they can potentially alter
ethnographic resources and cultural landscapes. Fire suppression
activities produce ground disturbing activities that can adversely
affect both surface and buried archaeological remains.

Precautions regarding cultural resource protection are critical given
that only a small fraction of the current park area has been
inventoried, and suppression activities could occur in remote sections
of the park that have received little or no systematic archaeological
inventory. Direct involvement of cultural resources personnel when
choosing location for staging areas, fire lines, establishing fuel
breaks, etc. would substantially help in avoiding or minimizing adverse
impacts. Cultural resources would be avoided when possible. Mitigation
efforts could reduce or eliminate the negative impacts on the parks
known and unknown cultural resources and lessen the chances of adverse
impacts to sites and features.

Under this alternative, there would be no approved fire management plan.
Lack of an approved fire plan would mean that there would be no
organizational structure in place (ie. resource advisors) to insure that
mitigation measures necessary to protect cultural resources would be
implemented.

4.10.2.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}

The impacts of wildfire suppression on cultural resources are the same
as those described above for Alternative 1. Under this alternative, a
fire management plan would establish an organizational structure with
resource advisors who will insure that specific mitigation measures for
cultural resources are implemented.

4.10.2.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}

The beneficial impacts of wildfire suppression with a Fire Management
Plan on cultural resources are stated above in Alternatives 1 and 2.

Point application of fire for the control of pickleweed will have
direct, short to long term beneficial impacts to cultural resources. The
pickleweed grows at the edges of the park's water resources, most of
which are also archaeological resources, such as Kaloko Pond and
\`Aimakapa. The roots of the pickleweed grow into the dry laid stone
features, displacing stones of the features over time with an ever
growing root system. Use of fire to singe the pickleweed causes die back
of the plant. Re-growth is repeatedly treated with fire until the plant
eventually dies and the roots decay. Hand pulling individual plants is
an alternative method of removal. Use of fire is preferred over hand
pulling which causes greater disturbance to the archaeological deposits
and stone features.

The use of prescribed fire will have no impact to the park's designation
as a National Historic Landmark.

**4.10.3 Mitigation Measures**

4.10.3.1 [Alternative 1, No Action]{.underline}

No mitigation would be implemented under this alternative because there
would be no fire management plan or organizational structure in place
(ie. resource advisors) to insure that mitigation measures necessary to
protect cultural resources would be implemented.

4.10.3.2 [Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action]{.underline}

-   Deploy resource advisors on all fires to evaluate suppression
    tactics to maintain consistency with land/resource objectives and to
    minimize impacts on cultural resources.

-   Cultural resource personnel will accompany fire fighting crews
    during suppression efforts and prescribed fire activities as needed
    to insure protection of cultural resources.

-   Fire vehicles and apparatus' will remain on existing roadways except
    in a life threatening situations.

-   Explosives, bulldozers, or similar ground disturbing equipment will
    not be used to construct fire line.

-   Use existing natural and human made barriers, wet line or cold
    trailing of the fire edge.

-   Utilize MIST as outlined in the Fire Management Plan.

-   No hand line construction.

-   Known cultural resources will be avoided when possible, and would be
    protected by close coordination with cultural resource specialists
    and fire personnel.

4.10.3.3 [Alternative 3, Preferred Action]{.underline}

-   Deploy resource advisors on all fires to evaluate suppression
    tactics to maintain consistency with land/resource objectives and to
    minimize impacts on cultural resources.

-   Cultural resource personnel will accompany fire fighting crews
    during suppression efforts and prescribed fire activities as needed
    to insure protection of cultural resources.

-   Fire vehicles and apparatus' will remain on existing roadways except
    in a life threatening situations.

-   Explosives, bulldozers, or similar ground disturbing equipment will
    not be used to construct fire line.

-   Use existing natural and human made barriers, wet line or cold
    trailing of the fire edge.

-   Utilize MIST as outlined in the Fire Management Plan.

-   No hand line construction.

-   Areas that are selected for prescribed fire will be inventoried for
    cultural resources and compliance with Section 106 of NHPA will be
    completed prior to implementation of the burn.

-   If a prescribed fire will negatively impact cultural resources and
    the impact(s) could not be mitigated, then the prescribed burn will
    not occur.

**4.10.4 Conclusion:**

Alternative 1, No Action: Suppressing the spread of wildfire and
suppression operations will have direct long term minor to major impact
to cultural resources. This Alternative is not a viable choice since it
does not provide for the required approved FMP. The existing impacts of
Alternative 1, No Action, sets a baseline of existing impacts continued
into the future against which to compare the impacts of Alternatives 2
and 3.

Alternative 2, Minimum Management Action: The impacts of wildfire
suppression and suppression activities on cultural resources are stated
above in Alternative 1. Mitigating the impacts of wildfire suppression
operations will have direct, long term minor impacts to cultural
resources. Implementation of this alternative would result in no adverse
effects to cultural resources as mitigation measures would be put in
place to avoid or minimize impacts to these resources.

Alternative 3, Preferred Action: The impacts of wildfire suppression
with a Fire Management Plan on cultural resources are stated above in
Alternatives 1 and 2.

Point application of fire for the control of pickleweed will have
direct, short to long term beneficial impacts to cultural resources. Use
of fire to control pickleweed will have no adverse effect to cultural
resources or the park's designation as a National Historic Landmark as
mitigation measures would be put in place to avoid or minimize impacts
to these resources.

Ultimately, the suppression of wildfire will have an overall beneficial
impact to cultural resources. These benefits increase with each
alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3 provide the greatest benefit to
cultural resources because they include wildfire suppression with the
benefits of resource advisors and mitigation measures. Alternative 3
also includes the use of prescribed fire for the reduction of
pickleweed.

Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would result in no adverse effects
to cultural resources as mitigation measures would be put in place to
avoid or minimize impacts to these resources.

The implementation of any of the three alternatives would not impair
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

GLOSSARY OF FIRE MANAGEMENT TERMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT

**Cold Trailing -** A method of feeling the edge of a burn area with the
back of an exposed hand to detect heat.

**Fuel Loading -** Amount of burnable biomass, including live fuels and
dead fuels.

**Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST)** **-** Refers to guidelines
that assist fire personnel in the choice of procedures, tools, and
equipment used in fire suppression and post-fire rehabilitation that
will maintain a high standard of caring for the land. These techniques
reduce soil disturbance, impact to water quality, noise disturbance, and
cutting or trampling of vegetation. NPS guidelines, outlined in DO-18,
are applied to site conditions, and current and expected fire behavior
to determine the appropriate MIST actions.

**Natural Fire -** Fire resulting from natural causes.

**Preparedness -** Activities that lead to a safe, efficient and cost
effective fire management program in support of land and resource
management objectives through appropriate planning and coordination.

**Prescribed Fire -** Any fire ignited by management actions to meet
specific objectives. A written approved prescribed fire plan must be
completed and appropriate NEPA requirements followed prior to ignition.

**Prescription -** Measurable criteria which define conditions under
which a prescribed fire may be ignited, guide selection of appropriate
management responses, and indicate other required actions. Prescription
criteria may include safety, economic, public health, environmental,
geographic, administrative, social or legal considerations.

**Suppression -** A response to wildland fire that results in
curtailment of fire spread and elimination of all identified threats
from the fire.

**Wildfire -** An unwanted wildland fire.

**Wildland -** An area in which development is essentially nonexistent,
except for roads, railroads, power lines, and similar transportation
facilities. Structures, if any, are widely scattered.

**Wildland Fire -** Any non-structural fire, other than prescribed fire,
that occur in the wildland. This term encompasses fires previously
called both wildfires and prescribed natural fires.

GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT

The terms listed below may have more translations than noted.

**Ahu -** Stone mounds.

**Ahupua'a -** System of land divisions.

**Ali'i -** Chief, ruler or royal class.

**'Aumakua -** Family god

**Awa -** Milk fish, *Chanos chanos*.

**Heiau -** Pre-Christian place of worship.

**Holua -** Slope constructed for sledding.

**Iki -** Small.

**Kahua hale -** House platform.

**Ko'a -** Fishing shrine.

**Konanae -** Ancient game resembling checkers.

**Ku'ula -** Fish gods.

**Loko kuapa -** A pond whose backbone consisted of a stone or coral
wall.

**Loko pu'uone -** Large natural pond formed behind a barrier beach.

**Makaha -** Sluice gate.

**Maka'ainana -** Common people.

**Makai -** Direction towards the sea.

**Mauka -** Direction towards the mountain.

**Mana -** Spiritual power.

**Nui -** Large.

**'Ohana -** Family.

**Papamu -** Flat rock surface or board on which the Hawaiian game
konane was played.

PLANNING TEAM

Geraldine Bell, Superintendent, Kaloko-Honokōhau and Pu'uhonua o
Honaunau National Historical Parks.

Richard Boston, Integrated Resource Manager, Kaloko-Honokōhau National
Historical Park.

Rick Gmirkin, Archeologist, Research Corporation of the University of
Hawaii, Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park.

Les Inafuku, Chief Ranger, Kaloko-Honokōhau and Pu'uhonua o Honaunau
National Historical Parks.

Laura Kochanski, Chief of Resource Management, Pu'uhonua o Honaunau
National Historical Park.

Rita Pregana, Management Assistant, Kaloko-Honokōhau and Pu'uhonua o
Honaunau National Historical Parks.

Teresa Reveira, Chief of Interpretation, Kaloko-Honokōhau and Pu'uhonua
o Honaunau National Historical Parks.

Stanley Sakamoto, Chief of Maintenance, Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National
Historical Park.

Tony Texeira, Chief of Maintenance, Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical
Park.

CONSULTANTS

Curtis Daehler, Professor of Botany, University of Hawaii.

David Foote, Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Biological
Resources Division (BRD).

Catherine Lentz, Compliance Manager, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

Rhonda Loh, Botanist, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

Joe Molhoek, Fire Management Officer, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

References

# 

# Daehler, Curtis C. Using Fire to Restore and Manage Pili Grasslands at Pu'ukohola NHS, November, 1998. Department of Botany, University of Hawai\`i Manoa, Honolulu, HI.

Glacier National Park, Environmental Assessment for the Fire Management
Plan. 2003.

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Environmental Assessment, Wildland Fire
Management Plan. November 2004.

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. Fire Management Plan
Environmental Assessment. April 2004.

Juvik, S.P., J.O. Juvik, eds. 1998. Atlas of Hawaii (3^rd^ Edition).
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 333 p.

Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park, General Management Plan. July
1994.

Hulbert, Jim H. & Assoc. "Draft" Environmental Assessment for Haleakala
National Park. February, 2001.

Manzanar National Historic Site, Environmental Assessment, Fire
Management Plan. March 2005.

Minassian, Jack. 1998. Prescribed Burn Unit Plan, Fire Number 9801,
Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park.

Mohr, Francis, Thayer, & Eric. MOHR Managed Fire. "Draft" Fire
Management Plan. February, 2001

Pratt, Linda. 1998. Vegetation Management Strategies for Three National
Historical Parks on Hawai\`i Island. Technical Report 121, Cooperative
Parks Resources Study Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Pukui, Mary Kawena and Samuel H. Elbert. 1971. Hawaiian Dictionary.
University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Pu'ukohola Heiau National Historic Site. Fire Management Plan. June,
1992.

Rock, 1974 and Carlquist, 1970. Observations & Comments Regarding Native
Vegetation Change on Island of Hawai\`i.

Tunison, J.T., J.A.K. Leialoha, R.L. Loh, L.W. Pratt, and P.K.
Higashino. 1994. , Fire Effects In The Coastal Lowlands, Hawai\`i
Volcanoes National Park. Technical Report 88. Cooperative Parks
Resources Study Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Director's Order #12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
Analysis, and Decision-making. 2001.

U.S.D.I. DO-18 (National Park Service Director's Order),National Park
Service Fire Management Policy. 2000.

Zimmerman, G. Thomas (National Park Service) & David L. Bunnell (FS).
1998. Wildland and Prescribed Management Policy - Implementation
Procedures Reference Guide. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise,
Idaho.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RECIPIENTS

The environmental assessment will be sent out to the interested and
affected public, agencies and Native Hawaiian organizations for a
thirty-day review. Notice of the environmental assessment's availability
for review will be published in local newspapers and the environmental
assessment will be available at the Visitor Center and posted on the
park's web page for review.

Kamehameha Schools

Kona Hawaiian Civic Club

Kuakini Hawaiian Civic Club of South Kona

Royal Order of Kamehameha

Conservation Council of Hawai\`i

County of Hawaii Planning Department

Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Division

Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and
Wildlife

Hawai\`i County Fire Department

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Hui Malama I Na Kupuna o Hawai\`i Nei

Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawai\`i - Manoa, Botany
Department

University of Hawai\`i -- Manoa, Department of Botany

University of Hawai\`i -- Manoa, Department of Zoology

University of Hawai\`i -- Hilo, Office of Mauna Kea Management

Earth Justice

Environment Hawaii Inc.

Hawai\`i Audobon Society

Sierra Club

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai\`i

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Park Service, Pacific Area Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion

U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory

U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center

The Honorable Harry Kim, Mayor of the Island of Hawai\`i

The Honorable Paul Whalen, State Senator

The Honorable Robert Herkes, State Representative

The Honorable Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawai\`i

Governor's Liaison Officer, East Hawai\`i

16 interested and affected individuals and families