Hā‘ena State Park
Master Plan
Final Report

Prepared for

Department of Land & Natural Resources
Division of State Parks
Prepared by

PBR HAWAII& ASSOCIATES, INC.

MAY 2018

Hä‘ena State Park
Master Plan
Final Report

Prepared for:State of Hawai‘i
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Division of State Parks

Prepared by:
PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc.

May 2018

Nani Wale Kuʻu ʻIke ʻAna
Composer unknown, from mele repertoire of Joseph ʻĪlālāʻole.

Nani wale ku‘u ‘ike ‘ana lāA i ka nani lā a‘o Hā‘ena lā‘O ka wai a Kanaloa lāA me ka wai lā a‘o Kapala‘e lā
A he wai ua kaulana lāMa ke alo iho ho‘i o Makana lāA ka lae hala o Naue lāA ka wai kaulana a‘o Makaweo lāNani wale a‘o Hanalei lāMe ke one kaulana a‘o Pualoke lāHā‘ina mai ka puana lāLei nō Kaua‘i i ka mokihana lā

So beautiful to behold
The beauty of Hā‘ena
The waters of Kanaloa
And the waters Kapala‘e
Waters that are famous
In the presence of Makana
To the hala groves of Naue
Til the famous waters of Makaweo
So beautiful is Hanalei
So too are the famous rose colored sandTell the refrain
Kaua‘i is adorned with mokihana©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Table of ContentsHĀ‘ENA STATE PARK MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................VII
1.0

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................1-1
1.1.1
A Note on the Hawaiian Spelling of Place Names within Hā‘ena ......................................................1-2
1.2
MASTER PLAN PURPOSE...........................................................................................................................1-2
1.3
GOALS AND VISION ..................................................................................................................................1-2
1.4
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES .......................................................................................................................1-3
1.5
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ...............................................................................................1-5
1.6
PLANNING PROCESS .................................................................................................................................1-6
1.7
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................1-8

2.0

ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SITE....................................................................... 2-1

2.1
THE MULTI-LAYERED RESOURCES OF HĀ‘ENA ........................................................................................2-1
2.1.1
Significant Sites within Hā‘ena State Park .........................................................................................2-1
2.1.2
Significant Resources and their Values ............................................................................................2-15
2.2
HISTORY OF THE SITE .............................................................................................................................2-16
2.3
CURRENT PARK OWNERSHIP, JURISDICTION, AND OPERATIONS.............................................................2-21
2.4
SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS ................................................................................2-22
2.4.1
Federal Regulations..........................................................................................................................2-22
2.4.2
State of Hawai‘i ................................................................................................................................2-26
2.4.3
County of Kaua‘i...............................................................................................................................2-31
2.4.4
National and State Registers of Historic Places ...............................................................................2-39
2.5
RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES .......................................................................2-40
2.6
COMPLEMENTARY RESOURCES IN THE REGION ......................................................................................2-40
2.7
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................................................2-41
2.7.1
Physical Characteristics ...................................................................................................................2-41
2.7.2
Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................2-41
2.7.3
Topography .......................................................................................................................................2-42
2.7.4
Climate..............................................................................................................................................2-42
2.7.5
Ocean Conditions .............................................................................................................................2-43
2.7.6
Marine Environment .........................................................................................................................2-43
2.7.7
Wetlands ...........................................................................................................................................2-49
2.7.8
Water Resources ...............................................................................................................................2-49
2.7.9
Floral and Faunal Resources ...........................................................................................................2-51
2.7.10 Scenic Resources ..............................................................................................................................2-54
2.8
THE CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................................2-54
2.9
EXISTING PARK INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES .................................................................................2-58
2.9.1
Roads ................................................................................................................................................2-58
2.9.2
Water Systems ...................................................................................................................................2-58
2.9.3
Wastewater Systems ..........................................................................................................................2-59
2.9.4
Surface Waters, Drainage and Stormwater Management ................................................................2-60
2.9.5
Electrical Power and Communications ............................................................................................2-61
2.9.6
Civil Defense .....................................................................................................................................2-61
2.9.7
Solid Waste .......................................................................................................................................2-61
2.10
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND PARKING ...........................................................................................2-61
2.10.1 Public Transit ...................................................................................................................................2-61
2.10.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .....................................................................................................2-62
2.10.3 Traffic ...............................................................................................................................................2-62
2.10.4 Parking .............................................................................................................................................2-63
2.10.5 Helipad .............................................................................................................................................2-64
2.11
NATURAL HAZARDS ...............................................................................................................................2-64

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plani

2.11.1 Flood Hazard ....................................................................................................................................2-64
2.11.2 Wind and Storm Hazards ..................................................................................................................2-65
2.11.3 Tsunami Hazard................................................................................................................................2-65
2.11.4 Shoreline Erosion .............................................................................................................................2-65
2.11.5 Rockfall Hazard ................................................................................................................................2-66
2.12
SIGNIFICANCE, SUITABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY OF PARK SITE FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ....2-71
2.12.1 Visitor Counts ...................................................................................................................................2-71
2.12.2 Carrying Capacity ............................................................................................................................2-72
2.12.3 Nearshore Recreation Resources ......................................................................................................2-74
2.12.4 Wildland Recreation Resources ........................................................................................................2-76
2.13
COMPLEMENTARY AND CONFLICTING USER OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................2-77
2.13.1 Minimizing Resource and Use Conflicts Through Education ...........................................................2-78
2.13.2 Minimizing Resource and Use Conflicts Through Transportation and Parking Management .........2-79
2.14
PARK USE ...............................................................................................................................................2-80
2.14.1 User Surveys .....................................................................................................................................2-80
2.14.2 Probable Park Users ........................................................................................................................2-82
2.14.3 Impacts of Increased Recreation on Resources ................................................................................2-82
2.14.4 Potential Park Expansion .................................................................................................................2-82

3.0

MASTER PLAN............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1
KEY FEATURES OF THE MASTER PLAN .....................................................................................................3-2
3.1.1
Park Entry, Turnaround, and New Main Gate ...................................................................................3-2
3.1.2
Parking ...............................................................................................................................................3-2
3.1.3
Welcome Hale and Restrooms ............................................................................................................3-5
3.1.4
Pedestrian Path ..................................................................................................................................3-5
3.1.5
Restored ‘Auwai..................................................................................................................................3-6
3.1.6
Reconstructed Hale and Lo‘i Interpretive Site....................................................................................3-6
3.1.7
DLNR Helipad and Staging Area .......................................................................................................3-6
3.1.8
Limited Access Corridor .....................................................................................................................3-7
3.1.9
Hula Complex .....................................................................................................................................3-7
3.1.10 Dune Restoration ................................................................................................................................3-7
3.1.11 Lifeguard Tower .................................................................................................................................3-8
3.1.12 Picnic Area at Kē‘ē .............................................................................................................................3-8
3.1.13 Loko and Wetland Restoration............................................................................................................3-8
3.1.14 Limahuli Stream Restoration ..............................................................................................................3-9
3.1.15 Agricultural Complex .........................................................................................................................3-9
3.1.16 Montgomery House ...........................................................................................................................3-10
3.1.17 Cultural Gathering Place and Hālau Wa‘a ......................................................................................3-10
3.1.18 Poi Mill .............................................................................................................................................3-10
3.1.19 Cemetery Areas .................................................................................................................................3-10
3.1.20 Hazard Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................3-11
3.2
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................3-11
3.2.1
Integrated Water/Wastewater/Drainage System ...............................................................................3-11
3.2.2
Electrical Power ...............................................................................................................................3-12
3.2.3
Communications ...............................................................................................................................3-13
3.2.4
Artificial Lighting .............................................................................................................................3-13
3.3
OUTDOOR RECREATION AND ACTIVITY AREAS......................................................................................3-13
3.3.1
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ....................................................................................................3-14
3.3.2
View Corridors and Scenic Lookouts ...............................................................................................3-15

4.0

KEY MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS ........................................................................... 4-1

4.1
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1
Adaptive Management ........................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2
Cultural and Community Advisory Groups ........................................................................................4-2
4.1.3
Visitor Limits ......................................................................................................................................4-2
4.1.4
Required Staff/Volunteer Education ...................................................................................................4-3
4.1.5
Visitor Orientation Prior to Park Entry ..............................................................................................4-3
4.2
OVERALL PARK MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................................................4-5

ii©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

4.3
PARK ACCESS, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING MANAGEMENT ...........................................................4-5
4.4
INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES.............................................................................................................4-8
4.4.1
Roads ..................................................................................................................................................4-8
4.4.2
Wastewater .........................................................................................................................................4-8
4.4.3
Water ..................................................................................................................................................4-9
4.4.4
Maintenance .......................................................................................................................................4-9
4.4.5
Energy and Lighting ...........................................................................................................................4-9
4.5
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .....................................................................................................................4-10
4.5.1
Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................4-10
4.5.2
Natural Resources ............................................................................................................................4-13
4.5.3
Scenic Resources ..............................................................................................................................4-17
4.6
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................4-18
4.6.1
Outdoor Recreational Uses ..............................................................................................................4-18
4.6.2
Recreational Facility Planning .........................................................................................................4-19
4.6.3
Nāpali Trailhead Management .........................................................................................................4-20

5.0IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ....................................................................................... 5-1

5.1
ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS ..........................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1
Establish the Cultural and Community Advisory Groups ...................................................................5-1
5.1.2
Update the Interpretive Plan ..............................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3
Changes to Park Entrance and Parking Policies ...............................................................................5-1
5.1.4
Establishment of Management Entity .................................................................................................5-2
5.1.5
Establishment of Park Staff.................................................................................................................5-2
5.2
TASKS RELATED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS .........................................................................................5-2
5.3
REGULATORY COORDINATION .................................................................................................................5-2
5.3.1
Federal Agencies ................................................................................................................................5-3
5.3.2
State of Hawai‘i Agencies ...................................................................................................................5-3
5.3.3
County of Kaua‘i Agencies .................................................................................................................5-4
5.3.4
Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative ......................................................................................................5-5
5.4
PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN ..................................................................................................................5-6

6.0

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 6-1

Appendices
APPENDIX A – MASTER PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND HĀ‘ENA STATE PARK COMMUNITYADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP LISTSAPPENDIX B – CIVIL BASELINE REPORTAPPENDIX C – PRELIMINARY SHUTTLE STUDYAPPENDIX D – TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORTAPPENDIX E – WASTEWATER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORTAPPENDIX F – MARINE NATURAL RESOURCES AND RECREATION ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX G – HĀ‘ENA STATE PARK INDIVIDUAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND
DELINEATION STUDYAPPENDIX H – ROCKFALL HAZARD ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX I – HĀ‘ENA STATE PARK BACKGROUND RESEARCH REPORTAPPENDIX J – DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
CULTURAL ADVISORY GROUPAPPENDIX K – CASE STUDIES FOR VISITOR LIMITSAPPENDIX L – ADDITIONAL PARK ACCESS, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING CONCEPTS
APPENDIX M – INTERPRETIVE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIESAPPENDIX N – PARK ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION

Hä‘ena State Park Master Planiii

List of Tables
TABLE 1 – REGISTERED DIVERSIONS FROM LIMAHULI STREAM ............................................................. 2-50
TABLE 2 – SUMMARY TABLE OF DAILY VISITOR COUNTS ...................................................................... 2-71
TABLE 3 – PARK VISIT MOTIVATION ....................................................................................................... 2-80
TABLE 4 – PARK ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................... 2-81
TABLE 5 – LENGTH OF PARK STAY .......................................................................................................... 2-81
TABLE 6 – RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM ................................................................................ 3-16
TABLE 7 – PARK MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ................................................................................................. 4-4
TABLE 8 – PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN .................................................................................................. 5-6
TABLE 9 – SHUTTLE SERVICE COMPARISON MATRIX .............................................................................. C-3
TABLE 10 – NEIGHBORHOOD SHUTTLE STOPS.......................................................................................... C-4
TABLE 11 – OFFSITE PARKING AREAS ...................................................................................................... C-4
TABLE 12 – TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS FOR PARK ACCESS.................................................................... L-2
TABLE 13 – MAIN PARKING LOT MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ...................................................................... L-9
TABLE 14 – SPECIAL ACCESS PARKING LOT AUTOMATED ENTRY OPTIONS ......................................... L-10
TABLE 15 – EXAMPLE ENTRY AND PARKING FEES FOR HAWAI‘I PARKS, 2012 ..................................... L-12
TABLE 16 – OPTIONS FOR FEES ............................................................................................................... L-13
TABLE 17 – TYPES OF PASSES ................................................................................................................. L-13
TABLE 18 – POINT OF TICKET PURCHASE/PICKUP .................................................................................. L-14
TABLE 19 – INTERPRETIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................... M-5

List of Figures
FIGURE 1 – REGIONAL LOCATION MAP ..................................................................................................... 2-2
FIGURE 2 – EXISTING SITE ......................................................................................................................... 2-3
FIGURE 3 – SITE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 2-4
FIGURE 4 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY AREAS ................................................................................. 2-5
FIGURE 5 – KEKAHUNA’S 1959 DRAWING OF KA ULU A PAOA HEIAU ..................................................... 2-8
FIGURE 6 – SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND THEIR VALUES ........................................................................ 2-15
FIGURE 7 – LAND COMMISSION AWARDS ................................................................................................ 2-19
FIGURE 8 – TAX MAP: (4)9-9-001:022 (POR.), (4)5-9-001:025, (4)5-9-008:001 ...................................... 2-20
FIGURE 9 – MARINE MANAGEMENT AREAS ............................................................................................ 2-27
FIGURE 10 – STATE LAND USE DISTRICT ................................................................................................ 2-28
FIGURE 11 – CONSERVATION DISTRICT SUBZONES ................................................................................. 2-29
FIGURE 12 – GENERAL PLAN – LAND USE MAP ...................................................................................... 2-35
FIGURE 13 – GENERAL PLAN – HERITAGE RESOURCE MAP .................................................................... 2-36
FIGURE 14 – NORTH SHORE DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE .................................................................... 2-37
FIGURE 15 – SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ............................................................................................ 2-38
FIGURE 16 – WETLANDS .......................................................................................................................... 2-45
FIGURE 17 – TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE MAP .................................................................................... 2-46
FIGURE 18 – SOEST SHORELINE EROSION RATES .................................................................................. 2-47
FIGURE 19 – VEGETATION ZONES – 1991 AND 2009 ............................................................................... 2-48
FIGURE 20 – MAJOR VIEWS TO MAKANA AND KĒ‘Ē ............................................................................... 2-55
FIGURE 21 – SCENIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 2-56
FIGURE 22 – SCENIC RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................................... 2-57
FIGURE 23 – FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ........................................................................................... 2-68
FIGURE 24 – TSUNAMI EVACUATION ZONE AND TSUNAMI WAVE HEIGHTS .......................................... 2-69
FIGURE 25 – ROCKFALL HAZARDS .......................................................................................................... 2-70

iv

©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

FIGURE 26 – REEF ENVIRONMENT AND SURF BREAKS ............................................................................ 2-75
FIGURE 27 – MASTER PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 3-3
FIGURE 28 – DETAILED VIEW OF THE ENTRY COMPLEX ........................................................................... 3-4
FIGURE 29 – OUTDOOR RECREATION AND ACTIVITY AREAS .................................................................. 3-17
FIGURE 30 – VIEW CORRIDORS AND SCENIC LOOKOUTS ........................................................................ 3-18
FIGURE 31 – SHUTTLE STUDY ................................................................................................................... C-2
FIGURE 32 – SHUTTLE AND PARKING MAP, ZION NATIONAL PARK ......................................................... L-6
FIGURE 33 – PRELIMINARY INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY MAP .................................................................... M-11

List of Photographs
PHOTO 1 – COMMUNITY OUTREACH ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 1-6
PHOTO 2 – VIEW OF KĒ‘Ē BEACH AND LAGOON ....................................................................................... 2-1
PHOTO 3 – LOHI‘AU’S HOUSE PLATFORM ................................................................................................. 2-1
PHOTO 4 – VIEW OF KĒ‘Ē LAGOON AND BEYOND ..................................................................................... 2-6
PHOTO 5 – KE AHU A LAKA ....................................................................................................................... 2-9
PHOTO 6 – MONK SEAL SUNBATHING AT KĒ‘Ē ....................................................................................... 2-10
PHOTO 7 – LIMAHULI STREAM CROSSING AT PARK ENTRANCE.............................................................. 2-10
PHOTO 8 – MAKANA FROM HĀ‘ENA STATE PARK ................................................................................... 2-11
PHOTO 9 – CULTIVATED LO‘I KALO, PHASE I OF THE RESTORATION PLAN ............................................ 2-11
PHOTO 10 – MONTGOMERY HOUSE WITH HENRIETTA PHILLIPS IN THE FOREGROUND; MAKANA IN THE
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 2-12
PHOTO 11 – WAI A KANALOA .................................................................................................................. 2-12
PHOTO 12 – KALALAU TRAILHEAD.......................................................................................................... 2-13
PHOTO 13 – REMNANTS OF THE POI MILL ............................................................................................... 2-14
PHOTO 14 – HISTORIC KŪHIŌ HIGHWAY THROUGH HANALEI TOWN ..................................................... 2-14
PHOTO 15 – BEACH ACTIVITIES AT KĒ‘Ē ................................................................................................. 2-15
PHOTO 16 – KALALAU TRAILHEAD INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE .................................................................. 2-40
PHOTO 17 – IRRIGATION LINE RUNNING IN ‘AUWAI ............................................................................... 2-59
PHOTO 18 – NEW COMFORT STATION AND SHOWERS ............................................................................. 2-59
PHOTO 19 – PARKING AREA NEAR KĒ‘Ē .................................................................................................. 2-63
PHOTO 20 – KĒ‘Ē BEACH DAMAGE FOLLOWING HEAVY RAINS, MARCH 2012 ...................................... 2-65
PHOTO 21 – VISITORS AT WAI A KANALOA ............................................................................................. 2-77
PHOTO 22 – IMPROVISED SIGNAGE .......................................................................................................... 2-78
PHOTO 23 – LO‘I KALO ............................................................................................................................ 4-11

Hä‘ena State Park Master Planv

This page intentionally left blank.

vi©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan
Executive Summary
Hā‘ena, the storied place at the far northwestern corner of Kaua‘i’s beautiful North Shore, is also
home to one of the State of Hawai‘i’s busiest state parks, Hā‘ena State Park. This master plan
encapsulates the work of many hands over many years. Kūpuna, cultural experts, leadership from
Hui Maka‘āinana o Makana (Hui), the non-profit group with a curatorship agreement with theState Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of State Parks (State Parks)
for portions of Hā‘ena State Park, community leaders, historians, engineers, archaeologists, andscientists all pulled together to help State Parks and their planners develop a long-range plan forthe 66-acre park and its ongoing management. The plan has gone through many iterations over
the years and at the heart of it is the desire of the community to protect the wahi pana and wahi
kapu (culturally significant areas) of Hā‘ena, along with its natural and scenic resources, for thegenerations yet to come. It is an ancestral home and dynamic community resource, rich withactively tended lo‘i and an ancient hula complex, natural habitats, ocean recreation, and thetrailhead to the increasingly popular and world-renowned Kalalau Trail. At one of the early
Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) meetings, Charles “Chipper” Wichman inspired thegroup with the following ‘ōlelo no‘eau (proverb) from Mary Kawena Pukui:
Hana a lau, a lau ke aho,a laila loa‘a ka i‘a kāpapa o ka moana.
Make four hundred times, four hundred fish lines
Before planning to go after the fighting fish of the sea.
(Be well-prepared for a big project. Envision success, inspire others to see the goal,
support the preparation of skills and resources.)
Building upon the previous efforts to prepare a draft master plan in 2001, which included
extensive input from the Hā‘ena community, the proposed master plan integrates the wishes of
the community today and incorporates updated technical studies. It recommends minimal
physical improvements to the park in order to maintain the natural beauty and openness of thearea. Only a few new structures are proposed including a Welcome Hale that is envisioned as anopen traditional Hawaiian hale and located near the improved main parking lot. Interpretive andinformational signage will be posted at the hale and two new restrooms for men and women near
the main parking lot will provide a second set of facilities to reduce wastewater flows at theexisting Kē‘ē comfort station, which has sensitive cultural sites nearby. The latest proven green
wastewater treatment technologies should be installed and the effluent treated so it can be reused
wherever possible.
The current overflow parking area will serve as the main parking lot and be resurfaced withpermeable paving. Portions of it will be shifted slightly makai to avoid a rockfall hazard zone.
According to the rockfall hazard study completed for the park in 2013 by AECOM (AppendixH), several areas along the existing highway are predicted to be within a Class A (high estimatedpotential) and Class B (medium estimated potential) rockfall hazard zone. After considering
costly and undesirable engineering solutions that would deface Ka Pali ʻŌahi o Makana, the
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

vii

MPAC together with Hui leadership, recommended that all visitor facilities be located outside ofthe estimated rockfall hazard zones to the extent possible. This includes the main parking lot,
new entry turnaround and shuttle stop, and a new pedestrian-only path that connects the mainparking lot with Kē‘ē Beach through the lo‘i. The new pedestrian path follows along the firstberm of the lo‘i system closest to the highway and is proposed to be slightly elevated so as not to
impact the berm or any of the historic resources. The new path will provide visitors with aunique view of Makana, a famous mountain peak, as well as views of the restored wetlands,
loko, and lo‘i as they continue to the iconic Kē‘ē Beach.
The main parking lot is envisioned to be flexible with a maximum of 100 striped stalls. The
overall size of the main parking lot could be adjusted to support visitor use of third-party shuttles
to the park, or the County's proposed North Shore shuttle should it be established, with the goalof right-sizing the parking lot. The idea is to accommodate local demand, complement shuttle
volume, and minimize parking impacts outside of the park. In addition, the main parking lot
would be separated into a fee-paying lot and non-fee paying lot by moveable bollards andcordons so the parking can be adaptively managed on an as-needed basis to support the varying
numbers in either group parking at the park on any given day and even throughout the day. A
smaller special access parking lot will be located at Kē‘ē in the existing paved areas. These stalls
will be reserved for ADA accessibility, the lifeguards, park staff, the Hula Complex, and othercultural practices. It will also be accessible for emergencies as well as safety and rescue
operations.
Other elements of the plan include reestablishing the area makai of the Kalalau trailhead andencompassing Ka Ulu a Paoa Heiau and the former Allerton property as a Hula Complex,
recognizing the extreme significance of this ancient wahi kapu to hula practitioners worldwide.
In addition, a Cultural Gathering Place will be created inland of Ka‘īlio Point with a traditionalhale and Hālau Wa‘a, where educational and community programs could be staged, including
overnight stays.
The plan also supports the continued restoration of the Agricultural Complex and encourages
restoration of the varied historic, cultural, and natural resources throughout the park. It prioritizes
the restoration of the dune complex as a potential first effort, recognizing the multiple benefits ofecological restoration, beach protection, and caring for the ancestors whose bones lay interred in
the sand dunes. The plan also encourages green building design, integrated water use, reuse, andrainwater catchment, and renewable energy throughout the park.
The existing historic state highway that runs through the park is also recommended to betransferred from the State Department of Transportation to State Parks so that it may be closed togeneral through traffic and State Parks can shift the bulk of visitor traffic and parking outside ofa potential rockfall hazard zone.
There are five key management recommendations proposed in the master plan. They include theestablishment of a Cultural Advisory Committee and a Community Advisory Committee, both ofwhom will be consulted on all aspects of park management and proposed improvements; and theimplementation of adaptive management principles with regards to all management issues at thepark. The third is the proposed reduction in the number of visitors entering the park during peak
hours to an average of 900 per day. This number is an initial target and subject to change basedon feedback from the community and impacts to the natural and cultural environments.
However, it is an important starting point to help reduce the impacts that have been affecting theviii©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

park and quality of experience for park users. With the advent of social media, the popularity ofKalalau Trail draws hundreds of day hikers to the park. Therefore, the visitor limit includes those
day hikers, but does not include overnight campers or hunters with valid permits, members of theHui, cemetery caretakers, kūpuna who have cultural or ancestral ties to the area, or attendees at
special educational or cultural events such as volunteer workdays or events at the Hula Complex.
The other key management recommendations include required staff and volunteer education andthe provision of visitor orientation materials prior to park entry.
Together, these policies will allow cultural and community advisory groups to advise State Parks
on proposed management policies and improvements at the park and will encourage visitors toplan ahead and gain a better understanding of the park's varied resources prior to arrival. The
Master Plan acknowledges that park access and operations will be ever-evolving and will likely
change over time as new policies are implemented. However, the goal is to study the impacts ofthese proposed policies and to adjust them as appropriate to improve the long-term managementof the park and visitor satisfaction via adaptive management. State Parks greatly appreciates thecommunity's input and feedback in developing this master plan and is dedicated to working
together to restore and preserve this wahi pana that is Hā‘ena State Park.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Planix

Ka Poli Laua‘e Ka‘u Aloha
Ka poli laua‘e ka‘u aloha
A Makana ho‘i e hi‘i mai nei

I love the laua‘e covered bosom
Held in the embrace of MakanaHi‘ipoi ‘ia e ka Waiama‘u
Ka makani kaulana o ka ‘āina!

Fondly tended to by the Waiama‘u,
The famous wind of the land

Ua like a like me Kanaloa
Me ka wai aniani o Kapala‘eMa‘ema‘e ia pua o ka hinahina
Ia lei makahehi a ka malihini

Exactly like Kanaloa’s
Is the crystal-clear water of Kapala‘eAttractive is the blossom of the hinahina
The lei admired by visitors‘I‘ini ka mana‘o e ‘ike aku
I ka poli kapu o Lohi‘au ipo,

There is a desire to see
The sacred bosom of the beloved Lohi‘au

Ku‘u ipo i ke kai o Kē‘ē
Kai hāwanawana hone i ka poliMy sweetheart of the sea of Kē‘ē
The sea whose soft whispering thrills the heart

Poli o Kilioe ka‘u ‘ano‘i ai,
Ho‘opulu ‘ia nei e kēhu kai

The bosom of Kilioe, I am very fond of,
Is moistened by the spray of the sea‘Akahi ho‘i au a ‘ike maka,
Nā kupa kaulana o ka ‘āinaIt is the first time I’ve seen for myself
The famous natives of the landHa‘ina ‘ia mai ana ka puana‘O ka lihilihi o ka poli laua‘eTell the refrain, the story is told
Land of the laua‘e covered bosom [of Makana]Mana‘o: This mele was composed by Wahinekeouli Pa ca. 1907. It is a tribute to the famous mountain of
Makana and the wahi pana or storied places of Hā‘ena, Kaua‘i. Wahinekeouli Pa was born and raised in
Kalalau, Kaua‘i. Along with her husband, Hanohano Pa they made their home ma kai of Mount Makana
just across of Wai a Kanaloa Cave. She was a master chanter and haku mele (composer) of chants – mostof which were written for Hā‘ena, Nāpali and Kīlauea on Kaua‘i’s north shore. Ka Poli Laua‘e Ka‘u
Aloha provides us with important perspectives of Hā‘ena’s natural resources and landscapes that remaincherished and sacred to Native Hawaiian families of that place today!
This chant comes from the repertoire of mele oli and mele hula – chants and dances that have been entrusted to thelineage of Kaipuwai. It is being taught specifically to perpetuate the native scholarship of formal hula training that is
carefully imparted to the haumāna of this hālau hula. The choreography and interpretation of this chant remains theintellectual property of Hālau Palaihiwa O Kaipuwai. It may not be taught or performed for any reasons other thanthose stated here, without obtaining prior permission from its Kumu Hula.

x©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

1.0 Introduction
1.1

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Located on Kaua‘i’s North Shore, Hā‘ena State Park finds itself at the intersection of cultural andecological significance and heavy visitor use as one of the state’s most frequented visitor
attractions. Hā‘ena is a wahi pana and wahi kapu, well-known for the legend of Pele, Hi‘iaka andLohi‘au and the ancient hula complex at Kē‘ē. There is also an extensive agricultural complex,
which spans much of the area of the park and is being restored by Hui Maka‘āinana o Makana(Hui) under a curatorship agreement with State Parks. The area is an ancestral home withremnants of both prehistoric and modern homesites including Lohi‘au's house platform, actively
tended cemeteries and burial sites, a former poi mill, and dozens of archaeological sites. The area
is also rich with dynamic geology, scenic beauty, varied natural resources, unique weather
patterns and ocean conditions which inspire ancient stories and visitor guidebooks alike. At
Hā‘ena, continuous streams of visitors converge with a socially diverse community and a
dedicated ‘ohana, some of whom grew up and lived on this land before it became a state park.
This mix of human, cultural, recreational and environmental resources gives rise to the need todevelop a conscientious and comprehensive master plan in order to balance conservation,
restoration, education, recreation, public safety and the preservation of Hā‘ena's cultural
integrity.
State Parks has attempted to develop a master plan for Hā‘ena State Park since the 1970s when it
acquired the lands for the park in fee with the assistance of a Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund Grant. The last attempt comprised several years of research, community
meetings and interviews by The Keith Companies-Hawai‘i, Inc. and Earthplan Planning and
Design (The Keith Companies) and their consultants. The team prepared a draft report entitled,
Hā‘ena State Park Master Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, with the last known
version being a hand-edited copy completed in 2001. It included extensive backgroundinformation as well as the development and evaluation of four master plan alternatives (threedifferent development scenarios and one “no change” alternative. The effort culminated in a“community preferred master plan” that is referred to throughout this report as the “2001 Draft
Park Plan.” While neither the report nor the master plan were completed or adopted, they containvaluable information and are the starting point for this effort.
In this current effort, State Parks contracted with PBR HAWAII to complete the master plan andenvironmental impact statement (EIS) for Hā‘ena State Park. PBR HAWAII was tasked to workwith the community through an advisory committee to refine the 2001 Draft Park Plan andaccompanying written master plan report with an emphasis on the cultural and historicsignificance of Hā‘ena and to develop alternatives for transportation and parking. A full
discussion of the background research prepared for this project is provided in a separate
document entitled, “Hā‘ena State Park Master Plan Background Research Report” (BackgroundResearch Report) and is attached in electronic form as Appendix I. Highlights of this information
are included in Chapter 2.0 of this document.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

1-1

1.1.1 A NOTE ON THE HAWAIIAN SPELLING OF PLACE NAMES WITHIN HĀ‘ENA
Kumu Hula Kehaulani Kekua, a member of our master plan advisory committee (MPAC), hasprovided guidance on the spelling of certain place names within the park. Ka Ulu a Paoa and Ke
Ahu a Laka are spelled with spaces and capitalization to honor Paoa and Laka, who are
significant personages connected to these sites. She notes, “Paoa is short for Kauakahiapaoa who
is a Hā‘ena chief and the intimate friend of Lohi‘au who too, is a master of hula. The heiau andhālau are named for him as the ‘inspiration of Paoa.’ Ke Ahu a Laka or ‘Altar of Laka’ marks thehighest level of the heiau which consists of the formal dance platform and location of the kuahu
or altar dedicated to Laka - deity of the hula guild. Ceremonies continue to be practiced today inhomage to Laka and other deities that are held in high esteem by traditional hula practitioners
and disciples of ‘aiha‘a and hula.” (Kekua, personal communication) Similarly, Wai a Kanaloa,“the water used/ made by Kanaloa,” (Pukui 1974) is named for the god Kanaloa, one of the four
major Hawaiian gods and known for digging sources of water (Wichman 1998).
Therefore, please note that for this master plan report and related EIS, these sites will use thisspecific spelling. Other resources, some of which are cited within this document, use otherspelling variations. A footnote will be included acknowledging the spelling variants wheneveroriginal maps or resources differ from the convention in this document.

1.2

MASTER PLAN PURPOSE

The purpose of the current effort is to refine and finalize the 2001 Draft Park Plan for Hā‘ena
State Park based upon the previous effort and to process the EIS. As noted earlier, the 2001 Draft
Park Plan was developed with the benefit of extensive public input. Four master plan alternatives(including one no change alternative) were carefully vetted by the community and thecommunity selected a preferred version of the master plan. By establishing a current Master Plan
Advisory Committee (MPAC), which consisted of community representatives selected by thecommunity, the community-preferred version of the master plan was refined and is presented inthis master plan report.
This report also includes an overview and analysis of the background research performed to date,as well as a description of the master plan and management and development strategies thatbring the significant historic, cultural and ecological resources to the forefront and balance theprotection of those resources with appropriate recreational and community uses.
Management actions and facility improvements will be developed from the informationcompiled for this report that are focused on the protection and preservation of the significant
historic, cultural, and natural resources within Hā‘ena State Park. Collaboration with the Hā‘ena‘ohana, community, and cultural experts was critical throughout the planning process and willcontinue to be sought by State Parks moving forward through adaptive management processes tohelp ensure the success of and support for improvements and management actions undertaken at
Hā‘ena State Park.

1.3

GOALS AND VISION

The goals and vision for the Hā‘ena State Park master plan were developed with State Parks staff
and the MPAC. There are five main goals that have guided the development of the physicalmaster plan and the proposed management strategies.
1-2©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

They are:
• Recognize that the entire park is culturally significant.
• Restore Hā‘ena State Park as a living place… cleanse, restore and revive cultural
practices again.
• Involve the original families and reconnect the local community to the place.
• Uphold State Parks’ responsibility for the public’s safety, access, and welfare.
• Balance the provision of recreational opportunities with the preservation of thesignificant natural and cultural resources.
The first three statements speak to the overarching desire to bring to the forefront the cultural
significance of Hā‘ena and to reconnect the people to this wahi pana in meaningful ways. The
last two statements acknowledge the problems that are currently occurring at the park andprovide guidance on what is required moving forward to manage them. It is a highly frequentedpark, which has become even more popular due to the appeal of the Kalalau Trail, but balance isneeded between public and recreational use and the protection of the natural and cultural
resources.
The principal vision for the park is to create a place that embraces, protects and restores its
cultural, historic, natural and scenic resources while providing safe public access, educational
opportunities and community enjoyment, thereby enriching the experience for all and improving
the health of Hā‘ena’s many layered ecosystem.

1.4

OBJECTIVES AND POLICIESThe following section describes the more detailed objectives and policies that have beendeveloped to help bring the above goals to fruition. They are organized by topic area and relate
directly to the recommended capital improvement projects, management strategies, interpretive
concepts, park organization, and operational needs described in subsequent sections of thisreport.
Overall Park Objectives and Policies:• Implement community-based adaptive management policies and procedures in operating
the park.
• Establish a Cultural Advisory Committee and continue the Community Advisory
Committee, both of which will advise State Parks on proposed improvements andmanagement strategies implemented at the park. Hold regular meetings with bothcommittees and work together to help keep the larger community informed of any
proposed changes at the park.
• Support relationships and partnerships with the community, Hā‘ena ‘ohana, culturalexperts and other public agencies and organizations to help enrich and improve theoverall experience for those visiting the park.
Master Plan Improvements Objectives and Policies:• Develop park facilities and infrastructure with deference to Hā‘ena’s significant culturaland natural resources balanced with fiscal reality.
• Coordinate with appropriate public agencies on the proposed changes to the section of
Kūhiō Highway within the park.
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

1-3

•

Reduce use of the comfort station at Kē‘ē by providing additional facilities elsewhere in
the park.

Access, Transportation, and Parking Objectives and Policies:• Encourage the local community and residents to return to the park. Park access policies
should not discourage them or diminish their experience. Adjust access policies if issues
or complaints arise.
• Balance public access to the park with the protection of natural, cultural, historic, andscenic resources.
• Encourage shuttle access to the park to minimize the number of cars driven to the park.
• Minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicle traffic by providing safe
places for people to walk, separated from vehicle traffic.
• Coordinate with the State Department of Transportation (DOT)-Highways on any
proposed changes to the section of Kūhiō Highway within the park.
• Manage parking to minimize conflicts with pedestrians and improve overall park
experience. Consider a variety of parking management strategies and adjust as needed.
• Work with the County and other State agencies to minimize parking and traffic impacts
in the neighboring residential communities.
Cultural and Historic Resources Objectives and Policies:• Establish a Cultural Advisory Committee to advise State Parks on all cultural matters at
the park.
• Manage and restore the Hula Complex as a high priority. Work with cultural practitioners
to restore it as a living resource.
• Continue to actively preserve, maintain, restore, and cultivate the Hā‘ena ArchaeologicalComplex with the participation of the community-based curators. Continue to restore thecomplex based on the existing restoration plans.
• Restore and protect the sand dunes, cemeteries, housesites and other historic, cultural,and archaeological features throughout the park.
Natural Resources Objectives and Policies:• Preserve and restore Hā‘ena State Park’s unique natural resources in order to improve theecological health of the mauka to makai ecosystems.
• Replace invasive alien species with native and Polynesian-introduced species.
• Restore the park’s natural resources based on cultural values and practices.
• Recognize that many of the park’s natural resources are culturally significant andcontribute to educational and recreational opportunities and experiences.
• Involve the community and volunteers in restoration efforts to reconnect the communityto Hā‘ena and increase awareness and educational opportunities along with high-quality,
multilayered recreational experiences.
Scenic Resources Objectives and Policies:• Enhance scenic resources by clearing invasive plant species.
• At appropriate locations, provide safe viewing opportunities and information on thecultural and natural values of the park’s key features to enrich the visitor experience.

1-4©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Recreational Resources Objectives and Policies:• Provide opportunities for quality outdoor recreation, with sensitivity to significant
cultural, natural, and scenic resources. Locate trails and recreational destinations inappropriate places that do not negatively impact those resources.
• Designate a safe swim area within view of the lifeguards, particularly for beginningswimmers. Inform and instruct visitors of the boundaries and the skill level required forvarious ocean recreation activities during orientation.
• Facilitate safe and high quality access to the Kalalau Trail and Nāpali Coast State
Wilderness Park.
Public Education and Interpretive Objectives and Policies:• Develop programs that increase visitor knowledge of the park’s natural, scenic, cultural,
historic and archaeological resources to enhance and enrich the visitor experience.
• Implement interpretive programs and install interpretive devices that do not interfere withthe scenic and cultural aspects of the park.
• Inform visitors of sensitive areas and teach them how they can help to better protect theresources. Include instruction on appropriate behaviors in culturally sensitive areas.
• Educate visitors about natural hazards and how to evacuate in emergency situations.
• Use the latest technologies to help minimize potential impacts to the park such as paper
wastes and visual clutter.
• Work with the visitor industry to educate visitors on planning their trip to the park prior
to arrival.
Public Safety Objectives and Policies:• Inform visitors of potential hazards in the park and how to safely recreate and visit thepark.
• Develop pedestrian paths and visitor facilities to avoid natural hazards.
• Install safety signage in appropriate locations throughout the park.
• Maintain public telephones and the emergency helipad.
• Develop emergency evacuation plans and routes. Hold regular training sessions and drills
for park staff and volunteers.

1.5

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

In 1977, grant monies from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS),Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 (Section 6, Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended; Public Law 88-578; 16 U.S.C. 4601-4 et seq.) wereused for the acquisition of the 65 acres that comprise Hā‘ena State Park and requires that theproperty remain open to the public and for outdoor recreational purposes in perpetuity.
The proposed master plan and management strategies have been reviewed by the National Park
Service (NPS) to ensure compliance with LWCF requirements as set forth by U.S. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 36, Part 59, Section 6(f) as well as with the original intent of parkacquisition which included the state’s commitment to develop opportunities for “swimming,fishing, picnicking, camping, and other beach-oriented recreation opportunities” (LWCF
Agreement 1972). In correspondence dated June 6, 2014, NPS commented that the draft masterplan for the park shows, “some changes to the park’s use reflect contemporary sensitivities tocultural resources and the sensitive shoreline ecosystem…the recreation opportunities include aHä‘ena State Park Master Plan
1-5

variety of ocean recreation, walking, picnicking, nature viewing, sight-seeing, and interpretive
exhibits with the potential for camping and bicycling. These provide assurance that the publicbeach park qualities that make this a valuable LWCF park are planned for the future” (Droge,2014). The NPS letter also speaks to the agricultural terraces, “The master plan draft also showsthat the park will encompass a significant community gardening area with the proposed
restoration of the lo‘i kalo (wetlands). Although such an area is unusual within a state park andmore common in local parks, such areas are not out of compliance with LWCF
requirements…Maintaining such a practice with an interpretive/educational component isclearly consistent with several goals within the 2008 SCORP…it is advisable to include trails
and interpretive opportunities to ensure all members of the public – including visitors from afar
and anyone not engaged in the community garden activities—can still understand what ishappening there, the cultural significance, and generally not feel excluded from this public
place…any agricultural goods harvested within the community garden areas should be generally
for park programs and personal use and not part of a formal commercial or for-profit farming
organization.” Additional details are discussed in Section 2.4.1.2.
Photo 1 – Community Outreach Activities

1.6

PLANNING PROCESSThe planning process for this project involves the following major steps that have or will be
carried out by the Division of State Parks, their consultants, and the community.
Pre-Consultation – Notification to agency and public stakeholders of the preparation of themaster plan and environmental impact statement (EIS). Input on the project was solicited toaddress impacts on existing or proposed projects, plans, policies, or programs, and to identify
specific issues that should be addressed.
Data Collection - The Master Plan involved collection and summary of previously conducted
technical studies, reports and documented interviews. Technical consultants also conducted
updated or new surveys of the existing site and facilities. Focus was on flora and fauna andwildland resources, cultural resources, marine resources, wastewater treatment and other civilengineering issues, traffic, and geologic hazards. Existing and new data were summarized andcompiled into a Background Research Report. Management issues and physical facility needs
1-6©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

were identified. The Background Research Report and several technical studies are attached as
appendices.
Community Outreach – To re-initiate the Master Plan with the community, a two-day open
house was held in October 2008 at the Limahuli Garden and Preserve. The 2001 Draft Park Plan
(graphic illustration and summary table) was provided for review and comments and those who
attended were asked to update the plan.
In 2010, a Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) was formed to assist in updating the planand developing some of the management strategies presented in this report. Members of the
MPAC represented the following: Kūpuna from Hā‘ena, cultural practitioners, community
organizations, business interests, as well as other state and county agencies having an interest in
Hā‘ena. Over the course of the project, several MPAC meetings have been held to develop
recommendations for park improvements and address various management issues, such as theincreasing numbers of hikers and recreational users and the parking and traffic congestion.
In the summer of 2015, a public meeting was held on August 19, 2015 at which roughly 300
community members attended a meeting to go over the draft master plan and draft environmental
impact statement. In response to the concerns raised and to assist with community outreach, a
new Hā‘ena State Park Community Advisory Committee (HSPCAC) was formed and theoriginal MPAC was dissolved. The HSPCAC is self-described as “a self-directed, voluntary
alliance of individuals representing ‘ohana, agencies, organizations, and businesses desiring toprotect and perpetuate the natural and cultural resources of Hā‘ena State Park, and to serve as anadvisory body to the DLNR as the State develops and then implements a Master Plan for thissacred area that is of utmost importance to the community of Kaua‘i” (HSPCAC Charter andGuiding Principles, 2015). The HSPCAC prepared a charter and guiding principles which wereadopted by members in November 2015. New members joined the HSPCAC and some but not
all of the original MPAC members joined the HSPCAC. Their mission also included engaging
with the larger community and to be the lead group that would assist the DLNR with acommunity-based adaptive management process to support the long-term implementation of themaster plan. The MPAC and HSPCAC member lists as well as the HSPCAC charter and guiding
principles are provided in Appendix A.
Community meetings have also been held throughout the planning process to obtain wider
community input on the master plan and management concepts as they have been developed andrevised. In addition, project team members and advisory committee members have participatedon community radio talk shows and State Parks has posted updates and different versions of theplan on the State Parks website to gather additional feedback.
Draft Master Plan – The Draft Master Plan report is the culmination of the many discussions,
held in large groups as well as one-on-one conversations with the advisory committee members,
kūpuna and family members, consultants, the larger community and park users, government
agencies, and meeting participants. It includes an analysis of the background research
information and studies that were prepared and compiled for this project. An evaluation of theconditions regarding the cultural, marine, freshwater, recreational and scenic resources was madeto identify complimentary and conflicting opportunities. A traffic impact analysis was conducted
and studied existing traffic patterns and parking issues. The process resulted in a refined masterplan map, master plan report, management priorities and recommendations. An early version waspresented to the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) on October 14, 2010. At that
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

1-7

meeting, the BLNR approved the Draft Master Plan and the preparation of the EIS. However,since then, State Parks initiated a rockfall study for CIP improvements which required a revisionof the draft master plan. In addition, community feedback resulting from an August 2015
presentation of the Draft EIS required the project team and advisory committee to regroup andrevise the plan once more. The consultant has worked with State Parks and the new HSPCAC torevise the draft plan based on these efforts and this report reflects these changes.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - An EIS pursuant to Chapter 343, HRS, has beenprocessed using the background information and revised master plan to analyze the potential
impacts of those recommendations upon their implementation. The EIS process also provides
additional opportunity for public and government agency review and input, leading to thefinalization of the master plan.
Draft Final Master Plan – The Draft Final Master Plan map and report has been prepared basedon the input received during the EIS process and presented to the BLNR for final approval. The
report and map will guide the future development and management activities within the park.

1.7

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A list of commonly used acronyms and abbreviations as used throughout this report is provided
below.
ACHP
ADA
ALISH
amsl
ATA
BMP
CAC
CAG
cal
CDP
CFR
cfs
CIA
CIP
CWRM
DAR
DLNR
DOBOR
DOCARE
DOH
DOT
DOW
DP
EA
EIS
EISPN
1-8

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended
Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawai‘iAbove Mean Sea Level
Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc.
Best Management Practices
Community Advisory Committee
Cultural Advisory Group
calorie
Census Designated Place
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic feet per second
Cultural Impact Assessment
Capital Improvement ProjectState Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Commission on Water
Resource Management
State DLNR, Division of Aquatic ResourcesState Department of Land and Natural ResourcesState DLNR, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation
State DLNR, Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement
State Department of HealthState Department of Transportation
County of Kaua‘i Department of Water
County of Kaua‘i North Shore Development Plan
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

ESA
FEMA
FHWA
FIRM
FONSI
GP
gpd
gpm
HAR
HCBSFAHDPE
HIHWNMSHRSHSPCAC
HTA
ID
ITS
IWS
KCC
KIUC
KHPRC
KOHA
LCA
LSB
LWCF
MGD
MPAC
NCDC
NFIP
NGO
NHPA
NMFS
NPDES
NOAA
NPS
NTBG
NWI
OCCL
OHA
ORV
PVC
SCORP
s.f.
SHA
SHPD
SHPO
SIA
SLO
SMA

Endangered Species Act
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Highway Administration
Flood Insurance Rate Map
Finding of No Significant Impact
County of Kaua‘i General Plan
Gallons per day
Gallons per minuteHawai‘i Administrative Rules
Hā‘ena Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area
High Density Polyethylene
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes
Hā‘ena State Park Community Advisory Committee
Hawai‘i Tourism Authority
Identification
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Individual Wastewater System
Kaua‘i County CodeKaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative
Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission (County)
Kaua‘i Online Hazard Assessment
Land Commission Award
Land Study Bureau
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Millions of gallons per day
Master Plan Advisory Committee
National Climatic Data Center
National Flood Insurance Program
Non-governmental Organization
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Park Service
National Tropical Botanical Garden
National Wetland Inventory
State DLNR, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
State of Hawai‘i, Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Off-road vehicles
Polyvinyl Chloride
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
Square feet
Safe Harbor Agreement
State DLNR, Historic Preservation Division
State Historic Preservation OfficeSocial Impact Assessment
State Liaison Officer
Special Management Area

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

1-9

SOEST
SWP
TIAR
TMK
UH
USACOE
U.S.C.
USFWS
USGS
VTC

University of Hawai‘i School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
State Wilderness Park
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
Tax Map Key
University of Hawai‘i
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States CodeUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geological Survey
Volume-to-Capacity

HI
Nani Wale Ku‘u ‘Ike o Hā‘ena
Composer unknown, from the mele repertoire of Frank Kawaikapuokalani Hewitt

Nani wale ku‘u ‘ike o Hā‘ena
I ka pali kapu o Kē‘ē
O ke ‘ala Laua‘e o Makana
Halihali ‘ia mai i ku‘u moe
O ka kani a ka pahu, kani “u, ke, ke”
E ho’onanea e ka hula a ka ipo e
O ke ani a ka lima o ka heahea mai
Ke kilohi a ka maka ke aloha a kaua
Puana ku‘u ‘ike o Hā‘ena
I ka pali kapu o Kē‘ē

There is the beauty of Hā‘ena
The sacred cliffs of Kē‘ē
The scent of Laua‘e of Makana
Is brought to me in my sleep
Sound of the drum beats u te te
Pleasing is the hula my sweet
The hands welcome the guest
To glance at each other in love
The story is told of Hā‘ena
The sacred cliffs of Kē‘ē
1-10

©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

2.0
2.1

Analysis of the Existing
Site

THE MULTI-LAYERED RESOURCES OF HĀ‘ENA

2.1.1 SIGNIFICANT SITES WITHIN HĀ‘ENA STATE PARK
Hā‘ena State Park is located within the ahupua‘a of Hā‘ena on the island of Kaua‘i (Figure 1).
The ancient moku or district name was Halele‘a or “house of happiness” (Wichman 1998).
Halele‘a is cited in chants as the mostbeautiful place in all the islands(Wichman 1998). Hā‘ena is one of the
major wahi pana (legendary places) inall of Hawai‘i. It is the place wherehula was perpetuated by Lohi‘au andhis sisters through rigorous instructionof their students and where the story ofPele’s love affair with Lohi‘autranspires.
Photo 2 – View of Kē‘ē Beach andLagoonPhoto 3 – Lohi‘au’s House Platform

As the mo‘olelo (traditional stories)
associated with Hā‘ena tell, Hā‘ena’s
physical and cultural landscape are
inextricably woven together. As such,park features defy categorization as
simply “natural features,” “culturalfeatures,”“scenicfeatures”
or“archaeological features” and typicallyexhibit multiple qualities. Figure 6
illustrates how many of the park’s
resources exhibit multiple values.
Following is a list of significant sites
within the park and a brief descriptionof their natural, cultural andarchaeological values. Locations of the existing features within the park are identified on the
map in Figure 2 and the opportunities and constraints in the following sections are summarized
in the site analysis provided in Figure 3.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-1

Ka Ulu a Paoa HeiauKë‘ë Hula Platform(Ke Ahu a Laka)

Original ‘Auwai
Existing Waterline
Certified Shoreline

4PVSDFT'JHVSF7&YJTUJOH4JUF 5IF,FJUI$PNQBOJFT 
$JWJM#BTFMJOF3FQPSU &OHJOFFSJOH4PMVUJPOT .BZ
4IPSFMJOF$FSUJöDBUJPO3FQPSU )ÊAFOB4UBUF1BSL $PNGPSU4UBUJPO"SFB 

FIGURE 2
Existing SiteHÄ‘ENA STATE PARK
Department of Land and Natural Resources
North
Linear Scale (Feet)
0
125
250

Island of Kauaÿi
500

Later in the report, the conflicts and opportunities created by these values are discussed, and lay
the groundwork for the master plan and proposed management strategies. Figure 4 illustrates thepark layout within the context of its archaeological sensitivity.
Kē‘ē
As the setting of one of the most famous mo‘olelo, Kē‘ē holds extreme and profound cultural
importance and significance to Native Hawaiians and those who practice hula. Ka Ulu a Paoa
Heiau overlooks Kē‘ē from atop the cliffs and is Hā‘ena’s most sacred and significant site. It iswhere the love affair between Pele and Lohi‘au began.
Photo 4 – View of Kē‘ē Lagoon and Beyond

Photo courtesy of Megan JuranPele came to Kē‘ē when she was first looking for a home and safety from her sister
Nāmakaokiaha‘i. Once she found her home on Hawai‘i Island she was lured back by Lohi‘au’s
drumming. She returned, found him and fell in love with him, but each time she dug a cave to
make a home for them, she met with water. She left Kaua‘i as she was in her spiritual body,promising Lohi‘au she would return for him. After a long wait, Lohi‘au hung himself in despair.
His body was placed in a cave above Kē‘ē that was guarded by two mo‘o (lizard) sisters Kilioeand Aka. When Hi‘iaka and Wahine-‘ōma‘o arrived as envoys from Pele they found Lohi‘audead. Hi‘iaka killed the two guardians and with herbs and prayers restored Lohi‘au’s life thentook him to Pele, who in the meantime had destroyed Hi‘iaka’s lehua forest. The angry Hi‘iaka
embraced Lohi‘au so Pele covered him with lava. Hi‘iaka dug a tunnel from the sea to hersister’s fire pit and almost succeeded in killing Pele, but their brothers persuaded her not to.
Hi‘iaka returned to Kaua‘i; her brothers restored Lohi‘au’s life once more and sent him afterHi‘iaka. They married and spent the rest of their life together at Kē‘ē (Wichman 1998:130).
2-6©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Kē‘ē Beach and Lagoon are also important visual and recreational resources and are the primary
attraction for visitors to the park. It is also an important scenic resource when viewed from theair or from points on the trails above.
Ka Ulu a Paoa Heiau and Ke Ahu a Laka
According to Kekua, “hula in its most primordial and sacred form is to inspire growth (physical,
spiritual, intellectual growth) and the continuum of life cycles for the land and resources,
mankind, ancestors and gods. The entire site is a heiau that was dedicated to the worship andpractices of ‘aiha‘a and hula, and includes the highest level of the site named Ke Ahu A Laka.”
Ka Ulu a Paoa translates to “the inspiration and growth of Paoa.” Paoa comes from the formal
name, “Kauakahiapaoa,” who was an ali‘i of Hā‘ena. He was a very close friend of Lohi‘au, aswell as a master of hula himself (K. Kekua, personal communication, November-December2010).
According to Henry Kekahuna’s 1959 drawing (Figure 5), the site measures roughly 270 feet by
100 feet and there are three divisions within the site. The First Division is labeled the “heiau
proper” and is located on the makai side of the site. It lies 25 feet lower than the Third Division,
which is labeled as “encompassing the whole dancing institution.”
The Third Division is the “site of the Hālau Hula” and Ke Ahu a Laka. The Second Divisionspans roughly 130 feet between the First and Third Divisions and consists of soil-covered
terraces sloping towards the sea. The text in quotations in this description of the site is taken
directly from Kekahuna’s drawing. The next paragraphs are from Kekahuna’s written descriptionof the activities that occurred at the site as reprinted in Bailey 2008.
“The ancient, most renowned hula seminary of the island of Kaua‘i, Ka Ulu o Paoa, institution
for the growth (ulu) of knowledge of the art of hula dancing, founded by Paoa, nestles at the baseof the cliff on the west side of the famed fire-throwing cliff of Makana (Ka Pali o Ahi o Makana).
It is adjoined by the northern side of its celebrated heiau of the same name that slopes downward
toward the sea. Thus it is commemorated Paoa, a dearest chiefly friend of chief Lohi‘au (Lohiau oHa‘ena), who centuries ago was king of the island of Kaua‘i, and who together with Paoa, isassociated in relation with the great volcano goddess Madame Pele.
“The noted hula seminary, with its strict tabus (sic) imposed during training, was the most famousin all the Hawaiian islands. Many graduates of notable hula seminaries elsewhere came to Hā‘ena
to seek higher learning through post-graduate courses. Before aspirants were permitted to enter as
students, they were selected through severe tests of the heiau division. If these tests weresuccessfully passed, the elite then entered the seminary.” (Bailey 2008)

The First Division, or the heiau proper, is an unenclosed stone terrace measuring 60 feet by 100
feet and built up twenty feet at the highest corner. It is built into the bluff slope with the retaining
wall on the makai side being almost vertical and dropping 60 feet to the rocky shoreline below.
The surface of the heiau is marked by different levels and pavements, and short walls along withseveral indications of pits. Kekahuna labeled certain features within the heiau proper including
the Lono-nu‘u, several square idol sites, a 16-foot long compartment facing the only circular idolsite which is located within a walled square enclosure, and a fourteen-foot diameter by five-footdeep refuse pit. A large boulder sits between the First and Second Division on the western side of
the site, forming one side of an 11.5’ by 11’ paved enclosure housing four round idol sites.
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-7

Figure 5 – Kekahuna’s 1959 Drawing of Ka Ulu a Paoa Heiau

Reproduced from Barrère et al 1980.

2-8©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

The Second Division is a 100-foot long span of soil-covered terraces separated by boulders andsections of rock walls. Fronting the Third Division are three large round idol sites – one on theeastern corner and two on the western corner – along with a large boulder on the west with a“platter-like top” 8.5 feet in diameter “on which hulastudents place offerings.”
Photo 5 – Ke Ahu a Laka

Between the Second and Third Divisions is the“stairway for students” entering from the eastern side
to a five-foot wide paved walkway. Makai of thiswalkway is an 18-foot wide paved terrace and maukaof the walkway is a 17-foot wide soil-covered terrace.
Above this is the pā hula, a 28’ x 60’ soil-covered
terrace labeled by Kekahuna as the “Site of the Hālau
Hula.” A stairway reserved “for priests, and hulainstructors and their associates” approaches thisterrace from the east and runs along the cliff. Thesestairs lead directly to the “Sacred altar (kuahu) ofgoddess Laka” (Ke Ahu a Laka, see Photo 5) and a~15’ x 28’ paved terrace, which is separated from thepā hula by a low rock wall. At the makai end of thiswall is the “site of the main drum, which called hulastudents to assembly.” At the southwestern-most corner of the Third Division, up against the cliff
and rising above the pā hula, is a walled enclosure measuring roughly 20’ by 30’ with two large
round idol sites.
Lohi‘au’s House Platform
Mauka of Kūhiō Highway and near Kē‘ē Beach is Lohi‘au’s House Platform (see Photo 3). It
consists of a dry stack rock platform that is earth and stone-filled with an unpaved terrace. It is
80 feet long, 54 feet wide and 8.5 feet high at its highest part. It is an impressive site located at
the base of the bluff near the Kalalau trailhead but it has suffered in recent history. In 1959,
Henry E. Kekahuna referred to it as, “the sad remnant of King Lohi‘au’s residence,” observing
that the County of Kaua‘i’s road work undermined the structure. Invasive exotic forest plants
have overgrown portions of this site. Although easily accessible, no interpretive signage ispresent to educate visitors of the importance or significance of the site. However, several MPAC
members have noted that its relative obscurity has probably protected it from vandalism.
KilioeThere is a large boulder called Kilioe located near the edge of the ocean cliff. According toWichman (1998), Kilioe was a chiefess of the hālau hula at Hā‘ena whose body became thisfurrowed rock. This pōhaku piko is still used today to safeguard the umbilical cords of newborns
and in doing so, place those children under the protection of Kilioe. According to mo‘olelo, theboulder Kilioe is the physical remains of one of two mo‘o (lizard) women who challenged Pele
when she arrived at Kē‘ē and later stole Lohi‘au’s spirit from his body (Andrade 2008).

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-9

Beach between Kē‘ē and Limahuli Stream
Between Kē‘ē Beach and Limahuli Stream, the beach is
the widest and extends up to 150 feet mauka. The beach iswide enough that it allows an easy stroll from Kē‘ē toKa‘īlio Point and beyond to the mouth of Limahuli
Stream. Honu, or green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas), and‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua, or Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus
schauinslandi), are known to bask on the beach.
Photo 6 – Monk Seal Sunbathing at Kē‘ē

Dune Complex
The area between Hā‘ena Point and Kē‘ē Beach is backed by low sand dunes roughly four toeight feet high. Growth of these sand dunes is limited due to the presence of introduced tree
stands. Extensive burials are known to be interred in the sand dunes along the Hā‘ena coastline
and Silva (1995) linked these burials to the commoners who settled in the area. Over time, manyof the burials within the dunes have become exposed due to wind and wave action as well as
vehicles driving on the beach and continue to be impacted today by both natural and humanmeans.
Photo 7 – Limahuli Stream Crossing
at Park Entrance

Photograph courtesy of Kennedy/Jenks

Behind the dune system is an
unimproved road that parallels thebeach and is believed to haveconnected once to a coastal roadway
but currently terminates near Loko
Naia. This road was open to the public,at least informally, until 2007, when agate was installed at Kūhiō Highway
by State Parks to control illegal
dumping and prevent vehicle accessover the dune.

Limahuli Stream
Limahuli is one of Hawai‘i’s few remaining natural (unchannelized, lined or dredged) perennial
streams. It is the threshold which most visitors cross to enter the park when approaching via
Kūhiō Highway. The stream is important for the biological diversity it supports, the water
resource it provides to agricultural and natural uses surrounding it and the visual beauty it
displays. It is also used as a recreational resource by visitors and locals who plunge in its
refreshing waters at the mid-stream pool that is located near the entrance of the park.
The Hawai‘i Stream Assessment (1990) lists Limahuli Stream as a perennial stream that flows to
the sea year-round and identifies it as an “outstanding aquatic resource” due to the presence of
native ‘o‘opu. It is the source of fresh water within Hā‘ena State Park and begins at the top of thevalley at 3,300 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and reaches the valley floor after plummeting
2-10©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

down an 800-foot waterfall. The lower 1,500 feet of the stream forms the eastern boundary of
Hā‘ena State Park.
Limahuli Stream water is diverted for irrigation and residential purposes by multiple landowners.
There are a total of five separate pipes that divert water from Limahuli Stream between 40 feetand 320 feet elevation amsl. A total of 257 gallons per minute (gpm) is diverted from the stream.
Surface water from Limahuli Stream is diverted
upstream of Hā‘ena State Park for irrigation at
Limahuli Garden and Preserve. A portion of thesediverted waters flow via high-density polyethylene(HDPE) pipe to irrigate kalo (taro) within the park
(Fujita 2002).
Photo 8 – Makana from Hā‘ena State Park

MakanaThe mountain peak Makana looks over the park.
Translated as “gift,” Makana is a triangular peak,prominent and unmistakable. Firebrands made up ofhau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) or pāpala (Charpentiera)
wood whose soft core burns before the outer layers,
were once thrown from the top of this peak. With theright conditions, the brands would fall and rise,moving slowly a mile or more over the ocean, leaving
a trail of glowing embers. These exhibitions werenormally reserved for very special celebrations or
Photograph courtesy of Megan Juransacred ceremonies such as chiefly graduations orvisits. It was done for Queen Emma’s visit in 1860 and until an isolated performance on New
Year’s Eve 2012, the last known occasion when firebrands were thrown may have been in 1925
(Carpenter & Major 2001). The cliffs are often referred to as Ka Pali ʻŌahi o Makana.
Agricultural Field Complex
Previous archaeological studies show that nearly the entire coastal flat behind the dunes wasdeveloped as irrigated lo‘i terraces which originated in prehistory (Major and Carpenter 2000).
There is also evidence that the lo‘i extended to the base of the pali, but was disrupted by theconstruction of the highway (Hammatt 1978). The vast Hā‘ena agricultural complex extended
east of Limahuli Stream (outside of the park) and also included loko kalo, or swampy planting
areas that used innovative methods of planting on rafts within ponds (Handy 1972). Other crops
such as ‘uala, or sweet potato, in sandy areas andmai‘a (bananas), kō (sugar cane) and ‘awa in the
Mānoa and Limahuli Valleys were also known to be
cultivated (Handy 1972). Portions of the Hā‘ena lo‘iwere cultivated into the 1960s although the loko wereabandoned by then (Carpenter 1996). Over the years,
the lo‘i became overgrown with non-native vegetation.
Photo 9 – Cultivated Lo‘i Kalo, Phase I of the
Restoration Plan

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-11

The lo‘i remained overgrown by alien forests until renewed community interests began clearing
the invasive plants and cultivating kalo. Building on these efforts initiated by the community,
Maurice Major and Alan Carpenter prepared a draft archaeological restoration plan in December
2000 for State Parks that focused on mapping and restoring the lo‘i system within Hā‘ena State
Park with the help of a local nonprofit group interested in the care and restoration of native
ecosystems and cultural sites, Hui Maka‘āinana o Makana (the Hui). The restoration plan
identified “Phase I,” a 13.6-acre area just east of the two loko as the easiest portion of the lo‘i torestore. Additional taro lo‘i restoration studies, which included water resource studies, wereprepared by Fujita and Associates in 2002 whichprimarily focused on a 4.4-acre portion of Phase I. These
reports were prepared in support of State Park’s efforts
to restore the lo‘i as a cultural landscape and educational
resource for the local community and visitors alike.
Since 2000, the Hui was approved under a curatorshipagreement to manage the cleared portion of the lo‘i kalo
system as well as a three-foot buffer along the rockwalls of the lo‘i. The agreement allows the Hui toprepare and plant wetland kalo as a community
gardening activity for educational purposes and torestore the cultural landscape.
Photo 10 – Montgomery House with Henrietta
Phillips in the Foreground; Makana in the
BackgroundIn the midst of the agricultural complex is a cottage thatis no longer occupied but its structure remains relatively
sound. This structure is known as the “Montgomery House.” Henrietta “Etta” Phillips, a Hā‘ena
kupuna and member of the two advisory committees, was born and raised in the Montgomery
House and is shown standing in front of the structure in Photo 10. The Montgomery House andsurrounding grounds are being maintained by the Hui under their curatorship agreement.
Photo 11 – Wai a Kanaloa

Waiakapala‘e and Wai a Kanaloa
These caves were carved as a result ofa rise in sea level during the
Pleistocene, when existing lava tubes
were enlarged by wave action.
Currently, the valley flats are a resultof alluvial fill from stream erosion anda decrease in sea level of five feet fromits highest stand. Wai a Kanaloa,“water made by Kanaloa” is a wet cavelocated in the pali face on the south side of Kūhiō Highway. The waters of the cave were called,“Halaaniani,” or “clear pandanus.” The waters were thought to have restorative properties andwere reserved for the ali‘i. The feature may have been an important water source, but noarchaeological work has been conducted in the area. Waiakapala‘e, “water of the lace fern” is a
2-12

©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

wet cave to the east of Wai a Kanaloa, also in the pali face south of the highway but further up
the slope. This feature is another probable water source with legendary associations. It is said
that the water in the cave had a brown hue, and was the hair of a beautiful mo‘o. The story goesthat as she grew older, her hair and thus the water turned grey (Orr 2010).
Loko Kē‘ē and Loko Naia
The two former loko within the park are seasonally flooded and designated as wetlands on the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory. Loko Naia is thought to have been
a loko kalo, or a low-lying area for the planting of taro. The depression measures roughly 100 by
200 meters and is located mauka of the sand dune. Archaeological testing in 1977 indicated anagricultural use of the feature, including evidence of ‘auwai and agricultural soils. Loko Kē‘ē hasbeen described as both a buried fishpond and a loko kalo (Griffin et al 1977). It is located to thesouth of Loko Naia and adjacent to the highway. Testing indicated low walls and an ‘auwai
suggestive of a kalo lo‘i. It measures approximately 150 by 50 meters.
Allerton Estate
The former Allerton Estate is located at the far western side of the park and is accessed by anarrow path off Kē‘ē. The primary residence burned to the ground and what remains are thebuilding’s foundation and the remnants of a formal garden. Both the foundation and garden area
are obscured by overgrown vegetation. Perched above the home site, the Allerton caretakercottage remains, although in a state of disrepair. State Parks repaired the roof and portions of thefoundation in 2013 and ongoing maintenance of the structure and grounds surrounding thecottage are being performed by the Hui under the curatorship agreement.
Photo 12 – Kalalau Trailhead

Kalalau Trailhead/Nāpali Coast
The trailhead for the popular eleven-mile(22 miles roundtrip) Kalalau Trail andaccess to the Nāpali Coast State
Wilderness Park is located within the park.
In 2007, the Nāpali Coast State Wilderness
Park had an estimated 423,100 recreational
visits according to a visitor survey
conducted by the Hawai‘i Tourism
Authority (HTA). The peak camping
period is generally between Memorial Day
and Labor Day.
The Kalalau Trail traverses five major valleys before terminating at Kalalau Beach, blocked bysheer, fluted cliffs. The first two miles of the trail from the park to Hanakāpī‘ai Beach and a spur
trail to Hanakāpī‘ai Falls is a popular day hike for visitors. Day hiking is allowed without permit
up to Hanakoa Valley. However, proceeding beyond Hanakoa Valley requires a valid overnight
camping permit from State Parks, which are available online. Currently, there are no check-in orcheck-out procedures for hikers.
In 2006, State Parks issued 1,154 camping permits with the vast majority (904) of them for
Hanakāpī‘ai. The following year, the number jumped to 3,926 with the majority (2,617) of themfor Kalalau. Camping at Hanakāpī‘ai is no longer allowed. In 2016, 6,118 camping permits wereHä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-13

issued for Nāpali Coast State Wilderness Park, roughly half of which were issued to Hawai‘i
residents. The 6,118 camping permits comprised a total of 25,821 person-nights in the park.
Hunters also access the Nāpali Coast State Wilderness Park Unit G hunting area year-round at
Hā‘ena State Park and must possess valid hunting licenses and permits to do so. Most access thetrail early before sunrise around 4:00 a.m. and return after dark. Hunting permits are limited to
30 per day, but the most ever issued on a single day has been 15 or 16 permits (Kai‘akapu,
personal communication 2015).
Known Burials and Cemeteries
Burials within the sand dunes along the Hā‘ena coastline have been documented in historicreports and surveys dating back to at least 1865 with an account by William Brigham describing
a burial place “in the sands on the beach” near the dry cave at what is the location of the present
day Hā‘ena County Beach Park (Carpenter 1996).
As noted earlier, Silva linked these burials to the settlements that established themselves in thisrich environment. She reasoned that while the cliffs above Hā‘ena would be the appropriate
places for chiefly internment, the dunes were more likely where the commoners were buried ifthey did not have a family house lot (Silva 1995). Burials are believed to extend beyond the backof the dunes as well, along the old coastal road where the soils are sandy (see Figure 4).
In his 1996 Burial Treatment Plan for Hā‘ena State Park, Carpenter summarizes several
archaeological surveys performed in the late 1970’s through the 1990’s that documented otherknown burials within the park. They include the two known formal cemetery areas that arereferred to as Cemetery A and Cemetery B. There was also a burial found near the existing
comfort station which has been reinterred at the cemetery. Lineal descendants continue to carefor these burials.
Photo 13 – Remnants of the Poi MillHistoric Poi Mill
Remnant features and foundation slabs of thehistoric poi mill remain just mauka of Ka‘īlio
Point. The feature has been overgrown by
non-native vegetation. The 2001 Draft Park
Plan identified it as a potential interpretivesite. Some community members voiced adesire to see a poi mill reestablishedsomeplace at the park to support theprocessing of the kalo grown in the
Agricultural Complex.
Photo 14 – Historic Kūhiō Highway
through Hanalei Town

Kūhiō Highway
Kūhiō Highway, or Kaua‘i Belt Road, serves
as the only vehicular access in and out of the
2-14©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

park and is a registered historic site. The ten-mile stretch of Kūhiō Highway (State Highway560) between Princeville and Kē‘ē Beach was listed on the National Register of Historic Places
on February 11, 2004. The nomination was made by the Hanalei Roads Committee, an ad hoc
community group created in 1976 to preserve the rural nature of the narrow, scenic highway
along the North Shore. This portion is considered the only remnant of the Belt Highway system
on Kaua‘i to retain a high degree of integrity (Duensing 2003), and is characterized by its narrowlanes, winding road alignments, historic bridges and culverts, road cuts, and scenic settings(Photo 14). The stretch from Hā‘ena Beach County Park to Kē‘ē was the last to be completed,probably in 1928. The concrete culvert crossing Limahuli Stream at the entrance to the Hā‘ena
State Park (see Photo 7) is one of 13 bridges and culverts designated as contributing to thesignificance of the Belt Road.

2.1.2 SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES AND THEIR VALUES
The resources found at Hā‘ena State Park exhibit multiple complimentary and conflicting values.
As an example, Kē‘ē Beach and Lagoon is a natural resource complete with coral reef and richmarine resources and the beach is the primary destination within the park for recreational
activities such as sunbathing and snorkeling. Kē‘ē Beach and Lagoon have high scenic value andare often the main reason visitors venture to the park. At the same time, Kē‘ē has significant
historic and cultural value as it relates to hula and fishing, making the nearshore area asignificant cultural site. Other features within thepark exhibit more specific values. For example,
Ke Ahu a Laka Hula Platform and Ka Ulu a Paoa
Heiau are wahi kapu that have extreme cultural
importance for hula practitioners and are notappropriate for general visitation or recreationaluse. Figure 6 illustrates how many of the park’s
resources exhibit a mix of multiple values.
Photo 15 – Beach Activities at Kē‘ē

The management policies
and objectives for Hā‘ena
State Park must be tailoredtoacknowledgetheinterrelated values of manyof the park’s features (suchas Kē‘ē Beach) while
simultaneously
acknowledging the more
specific values of others
(such
as
the
Hula
Complex).
Figure 6 – Significant
Features and their Values

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-15

2.2

HISTORY OF THE SITE

Dr. Hallett Hammatt and his colleagues at the Archaeological Research Center Hawai‘i, Inc.
(ARCH) performed a series of five excavations along the Hā‘ena State Park dunes in 1978 tocharacterize the prehistoric use of the area. Based on their findings, they provide a preliminary
sequence of human settlement and subsistence beginning with a marine oriented occupation atKē‘ē Beach sometime before 1000 AD. After 1000 AD, occupation expanded at Kē‘ē as well as
inland utilizing a broader resource base and further intensification occurred after 1400 AD withthe construction of the agricultural fields and lo‘i. By 1700–1800, occupation continued but withless emphasis on exploitation of marine resources and the density of cultural material in thedeposits indicates a possible depopulation of the area or a shifting settlement pattern (Hammatt etal. 1978).
The history of the area within and surrounding Hā‘ena State Park from just after the 1824
rebellion saw control over the lands undergoing a transition from Kaua‘i to O‘ahu and Maui ali‘i.
Abner Kuho‘oheiheipahu Pākī was awarded the entire Hā‘ena ahupua‘a as a direct result of thepartition following the 1824 rebellion. Pākī, father of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, was married to
Konia, one of Kamehameha I’s granddaughters, who was an ali‘i wahine or high chiefess in her
own right (Silva 1995).
Pākī, as chief of Hā‘ena, held control over Hā‘ena’s fresh water sources, the produce harvested
from the ocean, fisheries, mountain and special fields reserved for the chief, called kō‘ele. Thesekō‘ele were harvested once a week to support the chief and his household. Hā‘ena residents
cultivated at least twelve kō‘ele, each having a specific name, to serve Pākī (Silva 1995). As
chief, Pākī also had the privilege of putting a kapu on certain fish harvested from the waters off
the coast. Pākī placed this kapu on he‘e (octopus) (Carpenter 1996, Silva, 1995).
Interestingly, Silva notes that Kekela‘akalaniwahikapa‘a (Kekela) was appointed the konohiki(land manager) of Hā‘ena circa 1837.
It was unusual for Kekela to hold this position of authority; although she was a ranking chiefess, shenevertheless was a woman and remains in history as one of the few known female konohiki. Women wererarely given the right to claim lands during this period; widows of bonafide native tenants or female heirs(in absence of a male heir) of long-time residents of an area would apply for lands, however this was
uncommon and infrequent. Native testimony recorded that Kekela herself had claimed five parcels in
Haena and had resided there in 1839.
Kekela also listed among the usual konohiki responsibilities, the management of 12 ko‘ele whose names
she gave as: Paki, Kahookumaka, Oahu, Kapalaa, Akole, Kaluahine, Kailiili, Peekauai, Kalaole, Koi,
Kanaele and Keokea.
Soon after settling in Haena, testimony reported that she made three loko or ponds within the ahupua‘a.
Native testimony does not reveal the names, locations, sizes or nature of these ponds or whether theseponds are the loko kalo which she claimed in her own application (see LCA 7949…). (Silva 1995)

Silva explains that during the time Kamehameha and Kaumuali‘i were negotiating their truce,
Kamehameha impressed the Kaua‘i chiefs by presenting his recently widowed sister-in-law,
Kekela, to Kamaholelani, sometimes referred to as Kaumuali‘i’s cousin and son. Kekela returned
with Kamaholelani to Kaua‘i and the two settled in Lumahai, which Kaumuali‘i had given toboth of them. In 1820, Kamaholelani dies and Kekela remains in Lumahai until 1824, the time of
Kaumuali‘i’s death and the uprising, when she returns to O‘ahu and either forfeits her claim to
2-16©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Lumahai or is dispossessed of it. However, Silva also states that Kekela is well-spoken-for in the
courts of Kamehameha and Kaumuali‘i, and she is also the sister of Abner Pākī’s own mother.
Hence, her close association to her Hā‘ena claim, Pākī’s claim to the ahupua‘a and her
management of Pākī’s Hā‘ena holdings (Silva 1995).
Kekela is also credited for advising many of the maka‘āinana to apply for kuleana awards during
the Mahele (Wichman 1998). There is a slight difference between Silva and Carpenter’s counts
as to how many Land Commission Awards (LCA) were within Hā‘ena. However, it is either 22
or 23 claims made within the Hā‘ena ahupua‘a, ten of which overlap the current park boundaries.
They range in size from 0.75 acres to 4.4 acres and are shown in Figure 7.
Although Pākī retained interest to the entire ahupua‘a, those parcels awarded to native tenants
were respected and excluded from his award (Silva 1995). Ten of these kuleana awards (orportions of awards) are located within the Hā‘ena State Park boundaries, and they consisted ofthirteen parcels (Carpenter 1996). Of the ten claimants, only three trace their claims to the lands
before 1824, and there are no clear records of the dispossessed chiefs of this area prior to thisdate, again a reflection of the political changes that occurred in that year (Carpenter 1996).
Silva further explains that Mahele land records for Hā‘ena indicate a “layer[ing] of residence andcultivation,” a transition from an older regime to Pākī’s, where Kekela’s testimony on a few of
the claims supported those of the newer residents. At the same time, Silva notes that under
Kekela, this did not happen often when looking at all of the recorded claims within the ahupua‘a.
The older residents… claimed interest originating pre-1824. The arrival of Kekela in 1839, brought a set of
new residents… who asserted their rights to these claims under Kekela and received these parcels during
the Mahele. Such was the prerogative of the appointed konohiki, to assign, dispossess and re-assign at will.
As it stands, Haena was relatively fortunate in this regard; the corps of older tenants was respected and theirholdings honored and protected. (Silva 1995)…
Haena thus sustained the majority of its original tenants from Kaumuali‘i’s time and the residential andagricultural patterns were largely preserved during Kekela’s management. It might be suggested… that
Kekela’s long association with the neighboring ahupua‘a of Lumahai would cause her to be familiar withthe older Haena residents. She could not easily dispossess original tenants, especially if they were
productive and responsible to their duties as well as respectful of her office.
Land registry and testimony numbered well over 150 taro pond fields of varying sizes and shapes in Haena.
Of these 40 or so were situated within the park site. That Haena was well-developed and productive isunquestioned. Its water resources and available cultivable lands appear to be utilized maximally. (Silva
1995)

Pākī died in 1855, followed soon after by his wife, Konia, in 1857. Pākī’s daughter, Bernice
Pauahi Bishop, inherited their lands but soon after sold Hā‘ena to W. H. Pease, a surveyor, in1858. Because the lands were “in name only,” this meant that the lands were never described or
surveyed at the time of deeding (Silva 1995). Kekela died in Honolulu in 1865 but did make fiveclaims of her own in Hā‘ena (Silva 1995), at least one of which was within the park site
(Carpenter 1996). Pease died in 1871 and the administrators of his estate conveyed Hā‘ena toWilliam Kinney in 1872 who then sold Hā‘ena to Kenoi Kaukaha and 37 other individuals,
referred to as the Hā‘ena Hui (Hui Ku‘ai‘aina O Hā‘ena), as tenants in common in 1875. In thistransaction, roughly 2,500 acres were transferred. Five years later, “Mahuiki and Company of 30
natives” are listed as “taro planters” in Hā‘ena. The company was said to be owners of 900 acres,
40 acres of which was in active cultivation (Silva 1995).
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-17

From historical accounts, it was known that a small landing was located at Kē‘ē in 1895, and it
probably served the residents of Hā‘ena and the Nāpali coast (Silva 1995).
Missionary censuses showed a relatively small population residing in Hā‘ena over this time
period. In 1835, there were 116 people (16 of whom were minors) who resided in Hā‘ena. By
1847, the population rose to 162 (54 of whom were under the age of 20). According to Silva(1995), this rise was probably due to the arrival of Chiefess Kekela and her entourage in 1839.
However, by 1900, there were only 45 residents (seven households) in Hā‘ena, all of whom were
native Hawaiian, a drastic decrease over 50 years. Ten years later in 1910, there was a slight
population increase to 67 individuals in fifteen households. However, demographically the
population was beginning to change with two Asian immigrant households leasing land to growrice in Hā‘ena (Carpenter 1996).
Carpenter also notes that photographs from the early 1900s show that extensive areas of the park
were still under taro cultivation. This included Loko Kē‘ē which photos show planted with taro
and Loko Naia, which appears in photos to have two dividing walls within it. The entire park
area also appeared to be a treeless plain with only low-lying beach vegetation just behind thedunes (Carpenter 1996). According to Handy, by the 1930s, taro production dropped
significantly, with the Limahuli and Mānoa Valley terraces being abandoned first. Limited
production continued in the flatlands but also large areas along the lower reaches of Limahuli
Stream were turned over to pasture or overgrown with brush and grass (Carpenter 1996).
Then, in 1946 and again in 1957, tsunami devastated the area. According to Silva, there was astable Hawaiian population of about 60 individuals in Hā‘ena at the time of the 1946 tidal wave.
In the 1946 tsunami, at least nine people died and one went missing (Silva 1995). During the1957 tsunami, all but four of the 29 homes that stood in Hā‘ena were destroyed or deemed
unlivable, but amazingly, there were no injuries or deaths. Wave heights of 32 feet above normal
were reported at Hā‘ena (Silva 1995 ).
Prior to the second tsunami, Hā‘ena Hui members John Gregg Allerton and Paul G. Rice filed apetition for partition and dissolution of the Hā‘ena Hui in June 1955. The three commissioners
assigned to the case submitted their report ten years after the 1957 tsunami in April 1967.
As a result of the partition approved by the Commissioners, the County of Kaua‘i received
parcels within the current park site, which included Wai a Kanaloa and Waiakapala‘e wet caves
and Lohi‘au’s house site. The County also received Maniniholo, which is in Hā‘ena County
Park. The County was tasked with the maintenance and preservation of these sites for the generalpublic. Disregard for this meant automatic transfer of the sites to the Pacific Tropical Botanical
Garden. Title to another parcel was given to Allerton with the condition that he maintains andpreserves a five-foot wide path for public access to the heiau. Upon his death or conveyance ofproperty, title would automatically transfer to the County.
The State also requested a 40-acre section of prime beach front property for a public park. Fourunawarded lots were also auctioned in 1967 to cover the legal costs of the partition. The auction
was limited to existing shareholders and $35,801 was netted (Silva 1995).

2-18©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Also during the late 1960s through the early 1970s, Howard Taylor, actress Elizabeth Taylor’s
brother, purchased a large parcel along the Hā‘ena coast. A transient community arose at the area
called “Taylor Camp.” The Taylor Camp is remembered through various lenses; fondly by somewho came across the place during the “flower power” years; and far less so by those who
observed drug use, disrespect for the place, an abundance of rubbish, lack of sewer or waste
disposal facilities and resulting hepatitis outbreaks.
Eventually, the State condemned this property in 1975 due to the unsanitary conditions and it
was added to the park’s inventory. According to Carpenter, the last of the Taylor Camp residents
were evicted in 1977, which allowed the State to finally create the park. State Parks, under theguidance of Joseph Souza, a Kaua‘i native, undertook extensive efforts to study and document
the rich Hā‘ena heritage and archaeology starting in the late 1970s. Initial park development waslimited to a small comfort station and a small dirt parking lot in 1979.
Carpenter also notes that by 1964, based on a historical photograph of the area, both loko within
the park site seem to be abandoned although several lo‘i on the eastern side of the park were still
actively cultivated. He also notes that the vast majority of the park site, particularly along thecoast, was covered by a dense canopy of trees, similar to conditions today (Carpenter 1996).

2.3

CURRENT PARK OWNERSHIP, JURISDICTION, AND OPERATIONS

Hā‘ena State Park is comprised of 65.7 acres of land and bordered to the east by Limahuli
Stream, to the south by Ka Pali ʻŌahi o Makana, and by the Pacific Ocean to the north and west.
It consists of two State-owned parcels set aside to the Division of State Parks— a 15.23-acre
portion of a total of 180.23 acres, identified by Tax Map Key (TMK) 5-9-01:22 and 5-9-08:01
with 50.38 acres. The remaining 165 acres of parcel 22 is part of the Nāpali Coast State
Wilderness Park. The trailhead for the Kalalau Trail, a popular eleven-mile (22 miles round trip)
hike, is located within the park and provides access to the Nāpali Coast State Wilderness Park. A
small 0.68-acre inholding is also located within the park that is owned by the County of Kaua‘iand contains Ka Ulu a Paoa Heiau and Ke Ahu a Laka. It is identified as TMK 5-9-01:25. There
are no known ceded lands within the park boundaries. A 2.3-acre portion of Kūhiō Highway also
runs through the park and is owned by the State Department of Transportation.
The majority of the parklands consist of a wide coastal plain with a fringing reef and extensive
sand dunes which up until the 1946 and 1957 tsunami were wide open with little tree cover.
Since then, much of the park has become overgrown with false kamani, java plum, and ironwood
trees. Sole vehicular access to Hā‘ena State Park is via Kūhiō Highway which terminates at Kē‘ē
Beach. The highway is owned and maintained by the State of Hawai‘i Department ofTransportation (DOT).
Intermittent funding has made it possible for the State to sporadically employ a full-time Park
Interpretive Technician, or Park Ranger. Between December 31, 2010, and 2012, funding was
not available. The State has recently refilled the position. The Park Ranger’s duties include
interacting with the public to provide information on the natural and cultural resources that arefound in the area and safety precautions as well as maintenance and monitoring of park usage.
One full-time Park Caretaker is also assigned to this park and services the comfort station andtrash collection needs. DLNR’s Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement(DOCARE) is responsible for the enforcement of state parks and conservation district rules.
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-21

2.4

SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS

The following is a brief summary of the existing regulatory land use designations underlying
Hā‘ena State Park.

2.4.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
2.4.1.1 Endangered Species Act‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua, the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), ‘ōpe‘ape‘a or Hawaiian
hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), honu or native green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), andhonu ‘ea or hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), along with a number of native Hawaiian
waterbirds are listed by the Endangered Species Act as “Threatened” or “Endangered.” In
August 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final rule revising thecritical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seals to include the marine habitat fronting Hā‘ena State
Park from the 200-meter depth contour line, including the seafloor, through the water's edge and5 meters into the terrestrial environment from the shoreline (50 Code of Federal Regulations Part
226). Therefore, any changes in these areas will require consultation with the NMFS. Also, if
habitats are created within the park specifically for endangered or threatened wildlife, additional
permits and approvals may be required such as a Habitat Conservation Plan. Additional
discussion specific to these areas follows in Sections 2.7.9 and 3.1.13.
2.4.1.2 Land and Water Conservation FundFederal grant monies from the LWCF were used toward the acquisition of the 65 acres of Hā‘ena
State Park. The LWCF provides matching grants to states with the objective of preserving anddeveloping outdoor recreational resources. As such, any development or use in the park must
follow the post-completion and stewardship requirements of this program. These requirements
are specified in Section 8 of the LWCF State Assistance Program Manual (LWCF Manual 2008).
Some highlights include but are not limited to:•Operation and Maintenance:o Maintain the park for public outdoor recreational use in perpetuity.
o Maintain sanitation, accessibility, safety and overall appearance.
o Maintain facilities and roads.
o Keep open for public use at reasonable hours and times of the year. Post LWCF
acknowledgement sign.

•

Availability to Users:
o No discrimination on basis of race, color, national origin, religion or sex.
o No discrimination on the basis of residence, including preferential reservation ormembership systems, except to the extent that reasonable differences in admission
and other fees may be maintained on such basis.
o Fees charged to nonresidents cannot exceed twice that charged to residents.
Where there is no charge for residents but a fee is charged to nonresidents,
nonresident fees cannot exceed fees charged for residents at comparable State or
local public facilities. Reservation, membership, or annual permit systems
available to residents must also be available to nonresidents and the period ofavailability must be the same for both residents and nonresidents. Recipients areprohibited from providing residents the option of purchasing annual or daily

2-22©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

permits while at the same time restricting nonresidents to the purchase of annual
permits only. Nonresident fishing and hunting license fees are excluded fromthese requirements.
o Reasonable limits on the extent and use of areas and facilities are permitted whensuch limitations are necessary for maintenance or preservation. Limitations may
be imposed on the number of persons using an area or facility or the type of users,
such as “hunters only” or “hikers only.” All limitations shall be in accord with theapplicable grant agreement and amendments.
•

Lease and Concession Agreements: Such agreements with third parties are allowed
within LWCF sites. However, the State must retain control and tenure of the property andremains responsible for maintaining compliance with all federal regulations and there are
specific rules for the agreements and operations including compliance with civil rights
and accessibility laws, periodic compliance reviews, competitive fees, and clear
indication that the area is a public facility.

•

Conversions of Use: There are also specific rules regarding conversions of use, or theloss of outdoor recreational space. However, they will not be elaborated here since a
conversion is not anticipated for the park. The full rules can be found in Section 8.E of
the LWCF Manual, as amended.

•

Underground Utility Easements and Rights-of-Way: The State may allow
underground utility easements within the Section 6(f)(3) area so long as the easement sitedoes not affect recreational use and is restored to its pre-existing condition within 12
months of disturbance.

•

Proposals to Construct Public Facilities: Public facility requests will only be approved
if the public facility clearly results in a net gain in outdoor recreation benefits or enhances
the outdoor recreation use of the entire park and the facility is compatible with andsignificantly supportive of the outdoor recreation resources and opportunities. Proposals
must be submitted as a project amendment and request approval from NPS.

•

Significant Change of Use: The LWCF Act requires that the Section 6(f)(3) area bemaintained in outdoor recreation use as defined in the project agreement. NPS approvalmust be obtained prior to any significant change in use from the original intent or plans.
The 6(f) property is inspected every five years on behalf of the NPS to ensure compliancewith the 6(f) requirements.

The State Liaison Officer (SLO) is responsible for administration of the LWCF Program in
his/her State. This includes assuring compliance of LWCF projects with the requirements of thisManual and published regulations. It also requires the development and five-year updates to theState Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Hawai‘i’s SCORP was last updated in2015.
For the State of Hawai‘i, the SLO is the Chairperson of the Department of Land and Natural
Resources. In correspondence dated June 6, 2014, NPS commented that the draft master plan forthe park shows, “some changes to the park’s use reflect contemporary sensitivities to cultural
resources and the sensitive shoreline ecosystem…the recreation opportunities include a varietyof ocean recreation, walking, picnicking, nature viewing, sight-seeing, and interpretive exhibits
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan
2-23

with the potential for camping and bicycling. These provide assurance that the public beach park
qualities that make this a valuable LWCF park are planned for the future” (Droge, 2014). The
NPS letter also speaks to the agricultural terraces, “The master plan draft also shows that thepark will encompass a significant community gardening area with the proposed restoration of
the lo‘i kalo (wetlands). Although such an area is unusual within a state park and more common
in local parks, such areas are not out of compliance with LWCF requirements…Maintaining
such a practice with an interpretive/educational component is clearly consistent with several
goals within the 2008 SCORP…it is advisable to include trails and interpretive opportunities toensure all members of the public – including visitors from afar and anyone not engaged in thecommunity garden activities—can still understand what is happening there, the cultural
significance, and generally not feel excluded from this public place…any agricultural goods
harvested within the community garden areas should be generally for park programs andpersonal use and not part of a formal commercial or for-profit farming organization.”
2.4.1.3 Clean Water Act
Section 404 of The Clean Water Act regulates removal or fill of material from navigable watersof the United States. The US Army Corps of Engineers is tasked with implementing theseregulations. Types of activities that are typically subject to this regulation are dredging andfilling. Depending on the location, beach nourishment activities may be subject to Section 404.
Filling or altering wetlands are also subject to these regulations, if they are determined to be
jurisdictional. As described previously, much of the park is mapped as wetlands on the US Fish
and Wildlife Service produced National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. These maps are nonregulatory and serve to provide an indication that wetlands may be present in the area.
Depending on the proposed location of development within the park, the Army Corps ofEngineers may need to determine whether wetlands are present. Also depending on location,
Army Corps involvement could be limited to confirming a biologist’s assessment that nowetlands are present. However, if it appears that development is within or near wetland features,a biologist will likely need to delineate the feature and request concurrence with the delineationfrom the Army Corps Regulatory Branch. For example, the wetland boundary was mapped andconfirmed by the Army Corps for the constructed wetland at Kē‘ē and that boundary is shown on
the wetlands map that follows (Figure 16). If development within a wetland is proposed, it islikely that the Regulatory Branch will require compensatory mitigation.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act relates to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). NPDES permits are administered by the State Department of Health and are
the basic structure for regulating discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. In
general, for new construction, compliance with NPDES requirements involve employing
appropriate best management practices (BMP) to control sediment or polluting runoff fromflowing into waterways during the construction activity. Certain construction activities within thepark may trigger the need for an NPDES permit.
2.4.1.4 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966
Any federal action such as granting a permit or providing funding triggers Section 106 review
under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) when those actions have thepotential to affect properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places or qualified to belisted on the register. Federal agencies must take into account the effects of their undertakings on
2-24©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a
reasonable opportunity to comment. The federal historic preservation review process is outlined
in regulations issued by ACHP. These regulations entitled, “Protection of Historic Properties”(36 CFR Part 800), became effective on January 11, 2001 (ACHP 2011). Because the majority ofthe park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Hā‘ena Archeological Complex,
State Site Number 30-02-1600), any federal action affecting the park will trigger Section 106
review.
2.4.1.5 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS) wasestablished in 1992 by Congress and is jointly managed by the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the State of Hawai‘i. There are sanctuary areas
throughout the Hawaiian Islands and the only designated area for Kaua‘i is along the North
Shore. It starts at Ka‘īlio Point and stretches east past Kilauea to Mōkōlea Point. It extends out
from the shoreline to the 600-foot bathymetric contour since humpback whales tend tocongregate in ocean waters less than 600 feet deep (HIHWNMS 2009). See Figure 9.
According to NOAA, the Hawaiian Islands constitute one of the world's most important
humpback whale habitats. About 12,000 humpback whales migrate to Hawai‘i to breed, calf, andnurse their young during the months of November through May, with a peak usually occurringfrom January through March. State and Federal regulations require that ocean users not approachwithin 100 yards of humpback whales. These regulations apply throughout the Hawaiian Islands;
however penalties may be higher if convicted of a violation within the sanctuary boundary.
Seasonally rough ocean conditions that curtail North Shore tour boat operations occur during
most of the months that humpback whales are in Hawai‘i. Humpback whales are visible fromshore, especially from elevated vantage points (Souza, personal communication 2011).
The HIHWNMS’s primary activities currently include entanglement response, resource
protection, science and education/outreach. Interpretive signage has been installed on selected
properties abutting the sanctuary. On Kaua‘i, signs have already been installed at Kīlauea Point
National Wildlife Refuge. The sanctuary program is interested in partnering with other properties
for installation of interpretive signage, including at Hā‘ena State Park, where a portion of theshoreline is within the sanctuary boundary. The project team discussed with Jean Souza fromHIHWNMS about locating interpretive displays within or near the Education and Cultural
Center.
The HIHWNMS is also developing a sanctuary management plan and is working with
communities near the sanctuary and a wide variety of other stakeholders, ocean users,
commercial tour operators, and community members, some of whom are on the Hā‘ena MPAC.
The sanctuary program is exploring how it can help these communities achieve their vision andobjectives. The management plan review process includes an EIS and they estimate the plan will
go out for public comment in 2013 and will be finalized in 2014.
They are also assisting in the development of a solar and lunar calendar inspired by some of their
discussions with Hanalei fishermen to help support local fish populations. Since both fishermen
and the sanctuary believe that increasing the fish population would support both local
communities and marine life, the calendar would help individuals to match their fishing practices
with spawning cycles in the area, so that fish populations can thrive. The sanctuary is willing to
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-25

partner with State Parks and other organizations in similar collaborative and educational
programs.

2.4.2 STATE OF HAWAI‘I
2.4.2.1 State Environmental Review Law
The State Environmental Review Law, Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) requires anenvironmental assessment for any action that proposes the use of State or County lands andfunds. Compliance with Chapter 343, HRS, will be necessary for any new development in
Hā‘ena State Park and an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for this project.
2.4.2.2 State Land Use Law
The State Land Use Law (Chapter 205, HRS), establishes the State Land Use Commission andauthorizes this body to designate all lands in the State into one of four districts: Urban, Rural,
Agricultural, or Conservation. Hā‘ena State Park is within the Conservation District (see Figure10). This district is intended to protect watersheds and water sources; scenic and historical areas;parks; wilderness; open spaces; recreational areas; habitats of endemic plants; fish and wildlife;
and all submerged lands seaward of the shoreline. Conservation lands are administered by theState Board of Land and Natural Resources.
Within the Conservation District, there are five subzones: Protective, Limited, Resource, Generaland Special. Excluding the Special Subzone, the four subzones are arranged hierarchically withregards to environmental sensitivity. The most sensitive areas are within the Protective Subzone
and the least sensitive are within the General. The Special subzone is applied only to certain
areas to allow a unique land use on a specific site. The majority of the terrestrial portions of
Hā‘ena State Park are located within the Resource Subzone which includes parklands. A small
portion of the mauka area south of the highway near the entrance is classified as Limited (seeFigure 11). The offshore areas of the park are within the Protective Subzone. Proposed uses
within the Conservation District may or may not require various DLNR or BLNR approvals
depending upon the proposed use and the subzone in which it is located. Section 13-5 of the
Hawai‘i Administrative Rules identifies the objectives and permitted uses for each subzone andpermits required for each use.
2.4.2.3 North Shore Kaua‘i Ocean Recreation Management Area
Currently, all recreational boating and related vessel activity is under the jurisdiction of the StateDLNR Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR) and regulated by HAR Title 13,
Chapter 256, Subchapter 2, “North Shore Kaua‘i Ocean Recreation Management Area.” This
management area includes all ocean waters and navigable streams between Moloa‘a Bay and thesouthernmost boundary of the Nāpali Coast State Wilderness Park, and extends 3,000 feetseaward.
Section 13-256-41, HAR outlines restrictions specifically for the Nāpali Coast ocean waterswhich encompass all offshore waters of Hā‘ena State Park.

2-26©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

P
PACIFIC OCEANKaÿïlio Point

RKëÿë Beach
IÖ H
KÜH

L

WY

S

LEGENDHäÿena State Park Project BoundaryRoad
R - Resource Subzone
L - Limited Subzone
S - Special Subzone
P - Protective Subzone
Source: State Department of Land and Natural Resources (1995)
Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only.

FIGURE 11
Conservation District Subzones

HÄÿENA STATE PARK
Department of Land and Natural Resources
NORTH

LINEAR SCALE (Feet)
0300

Island of Kauaÿi

600

1,200

The restrictions include:• No person shall navigate a commercial motorboat or conduct a commercial kayak tour
except for those who have been issued a permit by DLNR.
• Commercial vessels are limited to a passenger carrying capacity of less than 50.
• No commercial operator shall embark or disembark passengers along the shoreline unlessthey have a valid permit from the BLNR.
There are also regulations for operations within sea caves and within the Nu‘alolo Kai subzone,
which is further down the coast to the west.
2.4.2.4 Hā‘ena Community-Based Subsistence Fishery
At present, fishing in the nearshore waters of Hā‘ena State Park is regulated by the State DLNR
Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR). In 2006, Act 241 was enacted, establishing a communitybased subsistence fishery area for Hā‘ena ahupua‘a to protect the fish stock and coral reef
habitats. The rules of the HCBSF were adopted by the BLNR on October 24, 2014 and signed
into law in August 2015 as Chapter 13-60.8, HAR. Figure 9 shows the location of the Hā‘ena
Community-Based Subsistence Fishery (HCBSF) Area.
2.4.2.5 Historic Preservation, Burial Sites and Human Remains
Chapter 6E of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS), entitled “Historic Preservation,” is theState’s historic preservation law. It establishes the State’s historic preservation program
including the appointment of a State Historic Preservation Officer as well as regulates publicly
and privately owned historic property and cemeteries. It also establishes specific statemonuments and memorials as well as the enforcement and penalties for violations. Specific to
the park, Chapter 6E requires that all public projects “which may affect [a] historic property, …
especially those listed on the Hawai‘i register of historic places,” be reviewed by the DLNR, as
represented by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), to determine the potential effectof the proposed project. “The proposed project shall not be commenced, or in the event it has
already begun, continued, until the [DLNR] shall have given its written concurrence. The[DLNR] is to provide written concurrence or non-concurrence within ninety days after the filingof a request with the [DLNR]” (§6E-8, HRS).
The detailed administrative rules implementing the state historic preservation project review
process for governmental projects are defined in Chapter 13-275, HAR. According to the rules,
the primary participants in the process are SHPD and the agency with jurisdiction over the
project. The rules also state, however, that any project that contains sites which are consideredsignificant under criteria “e,” or have important value to the native Hawaiian people or to anotherethnic group due to associations with cultural practices carried out or continued to be carried out
at the property, then appropriate ethnic organizations or groups shall be consulted on the project.
In addition, for those properties which may have significance to native Hawaiians, the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) shall also be consulted. Chapters 13-276 through 13-284, HAR provide
further rules that shall be followed on any required studies or analyses, professional
qualifications, permits, and procedures for inadvertent discoveries.
With regard to burial sites and human remains, Chapter 6E, HRS establishes the law relating to
the treatment of prehistoric and historic burials discovered outside of known cemeteries over 50
years old (§6E-43, §6E-43.6) and establishes the island burial councils (§6E-43.5). The Rules of
2-30©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Practice and Procedure Relating to Burial Sites and Human Remains (Chapter 13-300, HAR)
relate to the management of burial sites over 50 years. The rules are implemented by SHPD. The
division works with lineal descendants and other cultural organizations when burial remains are
discovered. Island burial councils are administratively attached to SHPD and address concerns
relating to Native Hawaiian burial sites. Any recommendation- whether it relates to relocation orpreservation in place of previously identified Hawaiian burials over 50 years old- must obtain theapproval of the appropriate Island Burial Council. The Kaua‘i/Ni‘ihau Islands Burial Council
typically meets once a month. Any inadvertent find of human remains over 50 years old falls
under the jurisdiction of SHPD and all work must stop immediately in the area until SHPD
determines appropriate treatment.
2.4.2.6 Commission on Water Resource Management
Alterations to streams such as dams, diversions and even some restoration activities are subject
to a Stream Channel Alteration Permit. These permits implement the State Water Code (Chapter
174C, HRS) and are administered by the Commission on Water Resource Management. Anyalteration to Limahuli Stream would require such a permit.
2.4.2.7 Kūhiō Highway (Route 560) Historic Roadway Corridor Plan
Adopted in 2005 by the State DOT, the Kūhiō Highway (Route 560) Historic Roadway Corridor
Plan was prepared by Belt Collins Hawai‘i Ltd. and provides design guidelines to help preserve
the natural, historic, and rural character of Route 560 on Kaua‘i. Route 560 stretches roughly ten
miles from Hā‘ena to the west side of the Princeville entrance road (Ka Haku Road) and includes
the section within the park. As noted earlier, Route 560 is listed on both the Hawai‘i andNational Registers of Historic Places and it has retained much of its original character including
narrow lanes and pavement, one-lane bridges, winding alignments, concrete ford crossings, andtimber and masonry guardrails.
The plan is used mainly by the Kaua‘i District Office of the State DOT to guide the long-term“preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction and improvement, and repair andmaintenance work on Route 560 over the next 25 years” (Belt Collins 2005). The plan does notinclude specific improvement projects but provides guidance for any work that is required on
Route 560. It notes that Route 560 is not on the National Highway System and therefore does not
require Federal Highway Administration approval for design exceptions. If, however, federal aid
is used for the project, federal review is required. It also recommends that any rockfall
stabilization work be designed “in harmony with the historic character-defining qualities of theright-of-way corridor” while providing safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians (BeltCollins 2005).

2.4.3 COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
2.4.3.1 General Plan
The General Plan (GP) of the County of Kaua‘i is a long-range policy document that fulfills legal
mandates of State Law and the Charter of the County of Kaua‘i. It is intended to help guide longrange development for the enhancement and improvement of life on Kaua‘i, advance theCounty’s vision for Kaua‘i and establish the strategies to help achieve that vision including
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-31

recommended land uses. The GP was last updated in 2000 and the Kaua‘i Planning Department
is currently working on the next update.
The 2000 GP Update (4.2.8.3(e)) includes policy statements and goals such as, “improve
facilities, maintenance and management of activities at State and County Parks.” The 2000 GP
North Shore Planning District Land Use Map designates the areas of Hā‘ena State Park makai ofthe highway as Park. The areas mauka of the highway including the area around the heiau
complex are designated as Open. See Figure 12.
The 2000 GP North Shore Planning District Heritage Resource Map identifies the park as anOpen Space/Park area fronting a Scenic Roadway Corridor (Kūhiō Highway). It also identifies
the coral reefs along the shore and two heiau sites within the park (see Figure 13). One is Ka Ulu
a Paoa Heiau and the other appears to be located in the area of Lohi‘au’s House Platform
although it is not labeled on the County’s map.
2.4.3.2 North Shore Development Plan
The North Shore Development Plan (DP) implements zoning and provides a framework for
guidelines to direct the physical locations and relationships of major improvements, buildings
and landscapes within the North Shore Special Planning Area. It was last updated in 1980 by
Wilson Okamoto & Associates. The development plan designation and recommended zoning forthe park are both Open. Parks are permitted uses in the Open District. See Figure 14. Applicableguidelines and policies from the DP include:
Goals and Objectives:• Goal A: To preserve the unique natural beauty of the North Shore Planning Area.
o To identify those features of natural beauty and the measures necessary to assure
their preservation.
o Retain the Nāpali Coastline as it is now.
• Goal B: To preserve the special rural charm of the North Shore Planning Area.
o To provide for the development of man-made features that do not visually
overwhelm the existing small structures and the prevailing plant materials andsoft groundcover (landscape treatment).
o To provide for the development of man-made features that will not require
extensive services or modifications to the landscape, [or] not [be] in harmony
with the rural character.
• Goal E: To preserve the wildlife and flora of the North Shore, recognizing man’s
dependence upon this preservation for his own health and welfare.
o Identify the habitats of birds, fish and animal life, and present programs for thepreservation of endangered species.
o Identify the major vegetation patterns and develop programs for the preservationof significant forests or particular species or plant associations.
• Goal F: To insure the preservation of the historic-archaeological sites in the North Shore
Planning Area.
o Identify and catalog the archaeological sites within the North Shore Planning
Area and provide for their protection and appropriate future inspection by the
public.
o Identify the historic sites, trails, plant materials, buildings, water systems andother items of historic interest to the people and provide for their protection.
2-32©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018•

Goal H: To provide for recreational opportunities that are compatible with the uniquequalities and natural features of the North Shore.
o Develop a recreation plan that provides for a diversity of recreation opportunities
for the people of the North Shore Planning Area and visitors.

Recommendations:• Economy:o 1. In terms of maintaining the desired rural lifestyle, the agricultural industry is
the most important industry to the North Shore.
o 9. The natural beauty of the area is the primary attraction to tourists, and should
be preserved and enhanced. Tourist accommodations or facilities must not beallowed at the expense of environmental degradation.
o 10. Scenic and recreational resources should be made available to tourists only tothe extent that proper management can assure the preservation of such resourcesfrom exploitation and irreversible loss.
o 11. The values and lifestyle of the local residents should not be unreasonably
compromised to accommodate the tourist industry.
o 12. Commercialization of natural resources is to be discouraged.
•

Natural Resources:o Scenic/Historic: 1. Scenic views should not be adversely affected by man-madeimprovements.
 3. Archaeological reconnaissance surveys should be required for activities
and new developments proposed on lands which may contain significant
historical features.
 4. Discretion must be exercised in determining the value of preserving
historical features, with respect to safety, hardship, maintenance costs, andeducational, cultural, and aesthetic benefits.
o Outdoor Recreation:
 1. Only basic supportive facilities should be provided at outdoor recreation
areas selected for general public use in order to enhance the experience.
Improvements should be limited to such things as access, comfort stations,trash receptacles, water fountains, emergency telephones, and parking.
 2. Multiple activity recreation areas must be managed to avoid hazardous
conflicts between recreators and allow maximum use of resources (e.g.
area suitable for swimming, paddling, and fishing; or area suitable for
hunting, bird watching, and hiking).
 6. Although public access is obtained to recreational resource areas,
publicity should be minimized unless the appropriate agency can assure
adequate management and security measures. Local residents should beallowed to continue traditional patterns of resource use.
 7. New public access to resource areas should be limited to pedestrian
trails rather than vehicular roads, if control of use is an objective.
Vehicular access should be allowed only for maintenance andemergencies.
 8. Access to the Nāpali coast area [west of Kē‘ē] should be limited to foottrails by hikers and campers with permits only. Other modes of

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-33

commercial access such as helicopters and boats should be discouraged,
except for maintenance and emergency purposes.
o Wildlife: 1. Important natural habitat areas for wildlife should be protected andenhanced.
 2. Wildlife resources significant to traditional recreational and dietary
habits of local residents must be managed to assure availability in the
future.
 3. Rare and endangered animal and plant species habitats should receive
particular attention, in order to assure viable future communities.
o Natural Hazards:
 1. Development in tsunami inundation areas should be discouraged. Nohigh density improvements should be permitted.
 2. Development in areas subject to riverine flooding should be
discouraged, unless adequate flood-proofing measures can bedemonstrated. No high density improvements should be permitted.
o Social Development:
 3. Improve recreational facilities.
o Land Use:
 Nāpali Subarea: 1. The region should be maintained primarily as a natural
wilderness reserve, and secondarily as a limited outdoor recreational area.
2. Public access should be by foot trail only. Other modes of access suchas boats and helicopters should be restricted to maintenance, emergencies,
and scientific research only.
2.4.3.3 Zoning
Hā‘ena State Park is in the State Land Use Conservation District. The DLNR regulates land usesin the Conservation District and the majority of the terrestrial portions of Hā‘ena State Park arelocated within the Resource Subzone which includes parklands. A small portion of the mauka
area south of the highway near the entrance is classified as Limited (see Figure 11).
2.4.3.4 Special Management Area
The Special Management Area (SMA) implements Chapter 205A, HRS, Coastal Zone
Management Act and was established to protect coastal resources in areas extending inland of
the shoreline. The majority of Hā‘ena State Park is located within the SMA as shown on Figure
15.
Upon acceptance of a Final EIS, a Special Management Area (SMA) permit will be required forany park development within the SMA from the County of Kaua‘i. An SMA permit was obtained
for the constructed wetlands that were recently completed for the renovated comfort station at
Kē‘ē.

2-34

©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

PACIFIC OCEANKaÿïlio PointKëÿë Beach
IÖ H
KÜH

LEGENDHäÿena State Park Project BoundaryRoad
Within the Special Management Area

FIGURE 15
Special Management AreaHÄÿENA STATE PARK
Department of Land and Natural Resources
NORTH

Source: County Planning Department (GIS, 2008)
Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only.

WY

LINEAR SCALE (Feet)
0300

Island of Kauaÿi

600

1,200

2.4.3.5 Shoreline Setback OrdinanceOrdinance 979, adopted December 5, 2014, sets forth a procedure for establishing building
shoreline setbacks for the County of Kaua‘i (Section 8-27.3, KCC). The shoreline setback
requirements are applicable to the Park since it abuts the shoreline (Section 8-27.1, KCC). The
determination of the shoreline setback is based on a lot’s average depth and historic rates ofshoreline change as shown in SOEST’s Kaua‘i Coastal Erosion Study as shown in Figure 18 for
the Park. For lots with an average depth that is greater than 220 feet, the greater setback of thefollowing shall apply:(A) Forty feet plus seventy times the annual coastal erosion rate as measured from thecertified shoreline. In addition, …for all applicable lots subject to the Kaua‘i
Coastal Erosion Study, a mandatory twenty foot additional safety buffer shall be
added to the setback area for episodic coastal events, sea level rise and otherhazards; or(B) A shoreline setback line of one hundred feet from the certified shoreline.
The average depth of the Park’s shoreline parcel TMK 5-9-08:01 is approximately 1,000 feet.
Even at its narrowest point, it is roughly 750 feet deep. The erosion rate ranges from zero to one
foot per year along the Park’s shoreline. Therefore, at most the shoreline setback would be 130
feet from the certified shoreline where the erosion rate is one foot per year. At a minimum it
would be 100 feet from the certified shoreline where the erosion rate is zero. A Shoreline
Setback Determination will be required by the County of Kaua‘i for implementation. However,with the exception of the relocated lifeguard tower and dune restoration activities, State Parks
should locate any proposed permanent structures described in the Master Plan outside of theshoreline setback area wherever practical.
2.4.3.6 Kaua‘i Historic Preservation Review Commission
Article 8-25 of the Kaua‘i County Code is the county law which established the Kaua‘i HistoricPreservation Review Commission (KHPRC). The KHPRC is empowered, among other duties, toadvise the County of Kaua‘i Planning Department and Planning Commission on matters related
to historic resources within the County of Kaua‘i. They also advise and assist other Federal, State
and County government agencies as requested in carrying out their historic preservation
responsibilities. The County of Kaua‘i Planning Director, or his designee, is responsible foradministering the KHPRC’s historic preservation program and serves as its liaison with SHPD(KCC §8-25.2(d)).

2.4.4 NATIONAL AND STATE REGISTERS OF HISTORIC PLACESThe park includes the Hā‘ena Archaeological Complex, which stretches from Limahuli Stream toKē‘ē. It was listed on both the Hawai‘i and National Registers of Historic Places in 1984 (Statesite number 30-02-1600). Kūhiō Highway between Princeville and Kē‘ē is also listed on the
National Register of Historic Places as “Kaua‘i Belt Road” (site number 30-02-9396). It waslisted in 2004. The Nāpali Coast Archaeological District (30-02-3200) overlaps the park within
TMK: 5-9-01:22 in the areas mauka of the highway and was listed on both National and State
Registers in 1984 at the same time the “Hā‘ena Archaeological Complex” was listed.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-39

2.5

RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIESThe County of Kaua‘i owns and manages a total of 67 parks totaling 487.4 acres in land area.
County parks include facilities for active as well as passive recreation. Within the Hanalei
District, there are 38.93 acres of County-run facilities. The County parks closest to Hā‘ena State
Park are Hā‘ena County Park and ‘Anini Beach
Park. Both County parks offer picnic andcamping facilities. Hā‘ena County Park is staffedby lifeguards. ‘Anini Beach Park includes a boat
ramp.
Photo 16 – Kalalau Trailhead Interpretive
Signage

The Division of State Parks owns and operates
ten park facilities on Kaua‘i, including Ahukini
and Waimea State Recreation Piers, Kōke‘e and Waimea Canyon State Parks, Wailua River
State Park, Russian Fort Elizabeth State Historical Park, Polihale State Park; Nāpali Coast State
Wilderness Park, Wahiawa Mauka State Park Reserve, and Hā‘ena State Park. The facilities arelocated around the island and there are no other State parks on Kaua‘i’s north shore that offer thetypes of beach activities that occur at Hā‘ena State Park.

2.6

COMPLEMENTARY RESOURCES IN THE REGION

Opportunities for education/interpretation at Hā‘ena State Park are augmented by thecomplimentary resources on Kaua‘i’s north shore. Hā‘ena’s neighbor to the west, the NāpaliCoast State Wilderness Park is a popular hiking destination along the Kalalau Trail. With its
trailhead located at Hā‘ena, existing interpretive boards relating to Nāpali’s history andimportant cultural resources have been installed to help educate hikers who might have nototherwise known the rich history associated with the area.
Hā‘ena’s neighbor to the east, Limahuli Garden and Preserve, is an established interpretive
center in its own right. Strategic interpretive programming between the two facilities offers
opportunities for collaboration and partnership. In addition to Limahuli Garden and Preserve,
other educational institutions can be found on the north shore and should be considered forpartnerships, including the Waipā Foundation and Kanuikapono Public Charter Elementary
School.
At a regional level, the Hā‘ena ahupua‘a is the western-most valley in the moku of Halele‘a. The
series of valleys, streams and unique geology within the moku offer context that could serve anorth-shore based interpretive program. Kūhiō Highway also provides an opportunity forinterpretation. The Highway’s bridges from Hanalei to the Limahuli Stream crossing tell aninteresting story of Kaua‘i’s development and the ongoing effort to maintain the north shore’s
character.

2-40©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

2.7

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

2.7.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
At the northeastern end of the Nāpali Coast, the Hā‘ena coastal plain is backed by high former
sea cliffs, which have been cut by two small stream valleys, Mānoa and Limahuli. Makana, amountainous peak at 1,280 feet in height is located south of the park and dominates thelandscape. The narrow coastal plain between the cliffs and the beach is the result of colluvial andalluvial deposition in a basalt substrate. This alluvial flat is fronted by calcareous beaches and asand dune system that extends from Kē‘ē Beach eastward to Wainiha Bay. The park corresponds
to the western end of the coastal plain and encompasses both the dune system and alluvial
deposits. Portions of the western side of Limahuli Valley fall within Hā‘ena State Park, with
Limahuli Stream serving as the park’s eastern boundary. The park contains two wet caves, Wai a
Kanaloa and Waiakapala‘e. These caves and the dry cave near Hā‘ena County Park were createdby fluctuating sea levels and wave action. Kē‘ē Beach is located where the coastal flat meets thecliffs of Nāpali. Boulder beaches exist along the west side of Kē‘ē Beach and the mouth of
Limahuli Stream. Offshore is a narrow fringing reef, which at its western end forms a lagoon atKē‘ē.

2.7.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILSAt approximately five million years in age, the Island of Kaua‘i is among the oldest within the
major Hawaiian archipelago. Originally thought to have been built from a single shield volcano,there are other opinions that the island may have been built primarily by the initial Nāpali
formation of the Waimea (also Wai‘ale‘ale) shield volcano 4.35-5.1 million years ago with apossible second shield volcano building upon the eastern portion of the island after a catastrophic
collapse of the eastern side of the original volcano. This second volcano, the Līhu‘e shield
volcano, was active about a million years later and is believed to have been located in the area of
the Līhu‘e Basin. The flows along the coast in the area of Hā‘ena are of the original Nāpali
Member and have been dated between 4.27-4.36 million years old (Blay and Siemers 2004).
The Nāpali scarp’s dramatic 1,000-2,000 foot cliffs that stretch for over fourteen miles along thenorthwestern coastline is generally believed to represent a major structural failure of the original
volcanic dome. However, there have been some theories recently that this formation may haveactually been created mainly by wave erosion (Blay and Siemers 2004). According to Blay andSiemers (2004), this remains a geologic controversy but believe it is probably a combination ofboth theories.
Kaua‘i’s post-erosional volcanic activity has largely been limited to the eastern portion of theisland, leaving sedimentary processes the major geological influence affecting the Hā‘ena State
Park and the Nāpali Coast.
Hā‘ena State Park sits at the western end of the Hā‘ena Plain, a coastal plain comprised of abasalt substrate covered by alluvial deposits along its mauka reaches and sandy beaches makai.
Biogenic reefs, comprised mainly of coral and coralline algae, have grown like a “fringe” aroundthe island. These reefs have provided skeletal matter for fragmentation, transport and depositionat the shoreline to produce sandy beaches (Blay and Siemers 2004).
During the Pleistocene epoch (0.126 to 2.558 million years ago), the Earth experienced large
fluctuations in global sea level. Drops in sea level lowered the erosional baseline for streams,
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-41

carving valleys and cliffs to steep grades. The lower sea level allowed for the deposition of
calcareous and alluvial deposits, including calcareous dunes now lithified. These dunes run along
the park’s makai boundary and are a prominent feature along the existing beach.
Another geologic feature of note within the park boundary includes the sea caves carved into theside of the mountain through natural processes. These caves were carved as a result of a rise in
sea level during the Pleistocene, when existing lava tubes were enlarged by wave action.
Currently, the valley flats are a result of alluvial fill from stream erosion and a decrease in sea
level of five feet from its highest stand.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services Soil Survey (SCS) shows that
there are a variety of soil types found within Hā‘ena State Park, ranging from beach sand anddune lands along the coast to sandy loams, to clays, marshes and rocky outcrops.
The other two Hawai‘i soil classification systems – the University of Hawai‘i Land Study Bureau(LSB) Detailed Land Classification and the State Department of Agriculture’s AgriculturalLands of Importance to the State of Hawai‘i (ALISH) – mainly analyze soil suitability according
to western cultivation practices. The LSB rates the entire area as E, or the lowest productivity
rating, which more likely reflects the area’s classification as State Land Use Conservation
District more than an analysis of its soils. The ALISH classifies most of the lo‘i area as Other
Lands and the area along the dunes as Prime Lands.

2.7.3 TOPOGRAPHY
The majority of Hā‘ena State Park lies on coastal plain formed by colluvial and alluvial
deposition. The bulk of the park area is at a ground elevation of between 10 and 30 feet above
sea level. However, mauka of Kūhiō Highway, the land rises steeply into the Nāpali cliffs. A
dune system parallels the shoreline while the area of the park bound by the dunes and Kūhiō
Highway is generally flat with hydrology altered by ‘auwai that date to pre-western contact.
Figure 17 is a topographic map of Hā‘ena State Park. As the land rises mauka of Kūhiō
Highway, weathering has exposed rock formations and talus boulders piled up along the cliffs.
Within the boundary of Hā‘ena State Park the cliffs stand nearly 500 feet in elevation. Beyond
the park boundaries into the Nāpali Coast State Wilderness Park, the shoreline cliffs rise to over
800 feet.

2.7.4 CLIMATE
In general, northeasterly trade winds, interrupted by the occasional large-scale storm, are present
year round at Hā‘ena. Nearby Wai‘ale‘ale receives an annual rainfall of approximately 450
inches per year. Due to the orographic effect (the process of moisture-laden northeasterly
tradewinds lifting along windward slopes), Hā‘ena receives an estimated 50-70 inches of rainfall
annually (Blay and Siemers 2004). At Hā‘ena State Park, it is higher at roughly 97±2.5 inches on
average per year (Giambelluca et al 2011).
Although no climatic data is officially collected for Hā‘ena, the Western Regional Climate
Center (a three-partner program with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Regional
Climate Centers and State Climate Offices) collects historic weather data at Wainiha, which canprovide some generalities about climatic conditions along this stretch of Kaua‘i’s coastline. At
Wainiha, the average annual temperature ranges between a high of 79.5 degrees to a low of 63.3
2-42
©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

degrees Fahrenheit. While December through February are generally the coolest months, June
through September are the warmest. Mean annual relative humidity ranges between 61 to 80
percent (NCDC 2009).
Surface winds are generally around 13 to 24 miles per hour from the northeast. There are someseasonal changes in prevailing wind direction in winter with southerly Kona winds. Strong winds
occur at times in connection with storm systems moving through the area. Wind velocities anddirections are influenced by the mountainous terrain to the south and west. Daily variations
include diurnal effects of winds from the southwest quadrant during the night and morning
hours, shifting to the northeast during the day.

2.7.5 OCEAN CONDITIONS
Surf conditions in Hā‘ena are typical of other exposed north shore environments in Hawai‘i withthe low surf season occurring between May and October and the high surf season during thesecond half of the year from October through May. Southern swells usually arrive in the summer
months and Kona swells usually arrive during the winter months. According to Clark, bothoriginate to the south of the islands and normally only strike southern shores, but in Kaua‘i’scase, because of the island’s rounded shape, both southern and Kona storm swells can wrap
around the west end of Kaua‘i and hit the Hā‘ena shoreline with surf from two to six feet. Konastorm swells from the west or southwest may produce surf heights up to ten feet (Clark 1992).

2.7.6 MARINE ENVIRONMENT
In 2008, SWCA Environmental Consultants investigated the existing marine conditions at
Hā‘ena State Park. The subsequent report (SWCA 2010) analyzed the adjacent nearshore waters
around Kē‘ē Beach and is attached as Appendix F. As part of the initial master planning efforts,
a beach and ocean recreation study for Hā‘ena State Park was prepared for DLNR by John Clark
in 1992. In addition to analyzing potential recreational opportunities and constraints, the study
also provides a description of the nearshore marine environment including the reefs that fringe
the Hā‘ena coastline. The SWCA report included a review of Clark’s 1992 report and provided
updates to Clark’s findings where necessary.
Hā‘ena State Park is located in the Ka‘īlio shoreline sub-section of Hā‘ena. Three outlets bisect
the beach within the park boundaries—Limahuli Stream, a small intermittent tributary stream
and freshwater seeps.
Ocean conditions in the park are typical of northern exposed coasts in Hawai‘i which canexperience dangerously high surf conditions particularly during winter months. Between Octoberand May, swells can be in excess of ten feet at Hā‘ena, but during summer months when tradewind swells typically dominate, the surf is generally reduced (Clark 1992). Recent observations
show that many of the tree roots along the shoreline have become exposed due to erosion fromwave action (SWCA 2010).
According to SWCA, northeast trade winds are present between 90-95 percent of the year andalmost always generate some surf activity on the outer reef margins. Predominant long shore
currents run east to west outside the reef. Add high surf conditions and a powerful rip current canbe generated that runs out of the narrow channel at the west end of Kē‘ē Lagoon to the open
ocean, creating a hazard for swimmers and divers (SWCA 2010). Previous studies found tidal
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan
2-43

currents ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 knots, and Clark (1992) suggested that such current velocities
were not usually a concern for nearshore ocean recreation activities. However, lifeguards at Kē‘ē
Beach strongly objected to SWCA biologists’ plan to conduct snorkel surveys of the outer reef inNovember 2008 even during a day with unusually calm conditions (SWCA 2010).
Between Kē‘ē Beach and Limahuli Stream, the beach is the widest and extends up to 150 feetmauka. The edge of the beach is lined with false kamani and ironwood trees. The area between
Hā‘ena Point and Kē‘ē Beach is backed by low sand dunes roughly four to eight feet high.
Growth of these sand dunes is limited due to the presence of introduced tree stands. Clark noted
a continued recession of the existing shoreline based on historical photo analysis of the region
since the 1920s.
Since Clark’s inventory, the University of Hawai‘i, School of Oceanography and Earth Scienceand Technology (SOEST) has further studied beach erosion. Depending upon the location along
the shoreline at Hā‘ena State Park, SOEST has found different transects along the beaches to beeroding at a rates between zero and one foot per year. See Figure 18.
The major swimming area in Hā‘ena State Park is Kē‘ē Lagoon which is a large sand pocket
protected by the surrounding platforms of fringing reef. SWCA found that much of Clark’s
description of the reef in 1992 still remains accurate in 2008. “Sand and reef pavement comprisethe dominant marine geomorphologic structures between Kē‘ē Beach and Maniniholo Bay to theeast. From Maniniholo Beach west to Hā‘ena Point the reef consists of aggregate reef, scatteredcoral and rock, and rubble with small patches of reef pavement. The reef pavement is covered
with macro-algae, coralline algae, and corals; however, the sandy lagoon floors and channels areuncolonized” (SWCA 2010). SWCA continues, “live coral cover in Kē‘ē Beach ranges between
four to 47 percent in some areas due to large amount of visitor traffic. There are a variety ofinshore reef species in addition to macroinvertebrates, algae, and live coral species” (SWCA
2010).
With regards to water quality, the State Department of Health (DOH) has designated the offshore
marine waters of Hā‘ena with a Class AA rating which recognizes the area’s significant
ecological and recreational value. According to SWCA, Class AA waters are bounded by areas
less than 18 meters (60 feet) in depth. Uses to be protected in the class of waters include
oceanographic research, the support and propagation of shellfish and other marine life,
conservation of coral reefs and wilderness areas, compatible recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment.
Based on initial samples collected in 2005-2006, the DOH (2008) found that state standards forClass AA waters for enterococci and coliform were attained at Kē‘ē Lagoon. State standards forClass AA waters were also attained at Hā‘ena State Park for temperature, salinity, dissolved
oxygen, pH, and turbidity (SWCA 2010).

2-44©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 20182.7.7 WETLANDS
Throughout the park there are areas designated as wetlands by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). See Figure 16. The primary designation, PFO3C,
covers most of the interior areas behind the dunes and makai of the highway. It is classified as apalustrine (inland, non-tidal) wetland that is forested with broad-leaved evergreen vegetation andis seasonally flooded. The PEM1C wetland type is mapped over Loko Kē‘ē and east of theparking area. These areas are palustrine (inland), persistently emergent (characterized byhydrophytic plants) and seasonally flooded.
Along and off the coast are several classifications of marine wetlands. M1RFL is the
predominant offshore classification indicating a subtidal (permanently submerged below tidal
waters) marine wetland with coral reefs. Along the narrow splash zone of the coast are twodifferent intertidal marine wetlands – M2USN (unconsolidated shores that are regularly flooded
at least once daily such as beaches and flats) and M2RSN (rocky shorelines that are regularly
flooded by tidal waters). Within the two broader beach areas are M2USP wetlands which areintertidal, unconsolidated shorelines that are irregularly flooded (less than daily). Limahuli
Stream is classified as an upper perennial (high gradient with fast water velocity) riverine systemwith a rocky bottom that is permanently flooded (R3RBH).
In October 2008, a wetland delineation study was prepared by AECOS, Inc. for the renovatedcomfort station’s individual wastewater system (constructed wetland) project. AECOS
interpreted the western edge of the PFO3C wetland to be a former pond wall (thought to be theedge of Loko Kē‘ē). However, in their June 15, 2009 letter, 1 the US Army Corps of Engineers(USACOE) determined that the wetland did not extend as far as the wall and recommended thatany work performed fifteen feet east of the wall require a new wetland determination study. The
new study would also require a new determination by the USACOE.
Figure 16 compiles the approximate NWI wetland boundaries from the USFWS online Wetland
Mapper maps, the AECOS wetland survey map, and the recommendation from the USACOE.
The AECOS wetland delineation study and USACOE determination letter are attached as
Appendix G. Presently, ongoing management of the wetlands is limited to the stocking of thesurface water with mosquito guppies as a vector control measure (Juran, personalcommunication).

2.7.8 WATER RESOURCES
2.7.8.1 Ground Water
In Hawai‘i, there are four general types of groundwater, dike, perched, unconfined basal andconfined basal. The groundwater resource beneath Hā‘ena State Park is basal water floating on
salt water (UH Department of Geography 1983). However, due to the presence of adiscontinuous, unmapped confining layer, the nature and extent of the basal ground water lens is
not well understood (Wilson Okamoto 2008). Further mauka beneath Nāpali, the water isconfined by dikes and not floating on salt water (UH Department of Geography 1983).
According to the State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM)’s Water
Resource Protection Plan, Hā‘ena State Park is located within the Wainiha System (Hanalei
1

USACOE File Number POH-2009-00067.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-49

Sector), which has an estimated sustainable yield of 24 million gallons per day (Wilson Okamoto
2008).
2.7.8.2 Surface Water
Surface water resources in Hā‘ena State Park include Limahuli Stream, water in the two wet
caves, and Loko Kē‘ē located makai of Kūhiō Highway. There is also an extensive ‘auwai
system that irrigated the lo‘i up until recent times when it was actively cultivated. It still exists inparts and there is a strong desire among community members to restore it wherever possible inconjunction with the restoration of the lo‘i.
The Hawai‘i Stream Assessment (1990) lists Limahuli Stream as a perennial stream that flows to
the sea year-round and identifies it as an “outstanding aquatic resource” due to the presence of
native ‘o‘opu. The source of freshwater within Hā‘ena State Park begins at the top of the valley
at 3,300 feet above sea level and reaches the valley floor after plummeting down an 800-footwaterfall. Only the lower 1,500 feet of the stream courses through Hā‘ena State Park.
In October 2001, Mike Kido with the University of Hawai‘i’s Hawai‘i Stream Research Center
produced an overview of the existing conditions, flora, and fauna in Limahuli Stream. Kido
reported that between 1994 and 1999, average stream flow was approximately 6.3 million
gallons per day (mgd). Even in severe drought periods, substantial groundwater flow in thevalley sustains base flows of approximately 2.6 mgd. According to USGS Annual Statistics for
Hawai‘i, for the period of 1999-2005 the average surface flow was 7.72 mgd.
Limahuli Stream water is diverted for irrigation and residential purposes by multiple landowners.
According to the State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM), there were seven
separate diversions from Limahuli Stream, six of which are still active. Of the six active
diversions, three supply Limahuli Garden and Preserve and three serve private residences. A
portion of the water diverted for Limahuli Garden is conveyed to the lo‘i at Hā‘ena State Park by
PVC pipe. Two of the diversions serve domestic uses and the rest are for agricultural,
landscaping, or other irrigation purposes. The total diversion amount for five of the diversions is0.8822 cfs, or just over 570,000 gpd. The amount diverted for one of the private residences is
unknown. Table 1 provides a summary of the registered diversions from Limahuli Stream.
Table 1 – Registered Diversions from Limahuli Stream
Diversion Diameter3” pipe1.5” pipe

Operator
NTBG
NTBG

6” pipe
Pipe (unknown)
2” pipe5” pipe

NTBG
Private Residence
Private Residence
Private Residence
TOTAL

Quantity
Diverted (cfs)0.002030.44557
0.33420.08920.0112

Water Use
Irrigation
Irrigation (May have been restored
to the stream)
Agriculture, Landscaping, Irrigation
Domestic, Irrigation
Agriculture, Landscaping, Irrigation
Domestic

0.8822

Source: CWRM (2008, 2011)

2-50©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

2.7.9 FLORAL AND FAUNAL RESOURCES
2.7.9.1 Terrestrial Species
In May 1988, Kenneth M. Nagata conducted a botanical study for Hā‘ena State Park on behalf of
DLNR (Nagata 1991). In addition to identifying the various types of vegetation found within theconfines of the park, Nagata also provides additional recommendations to preserve existingfauna. In January 2009, Drs. Terry and Hart (Geometrician Associates, LLC) conducted an
updated biological survey of Hā‘ena State Park. The survey included a physical survey of floraand fauna; a review of previous surveys of the area (including Nagata’s work); report of theresults describing plant communities, and habitats; and, discussion of potential effects fromincreased recreation on wildland resources.
Terry and Hart found that biological resources within the park have been drastically affected by
the introduction and proliferation of non-native, invasive plants and trees. They identified elevenvegetation zones compared with Nagata’s six. Over time, areas that were grasslands havebecome more wetland-like. Terry and Hart dug several soil pits during their winter survey(January 2009) and noted the presence of mucky, sulfidic soils indicating frequent saturation andreducing conditions, meaning that the inundated condition is not unusual and recommended
further investigation to delineate the boundaries of the wetlands per the definitions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (U.S. Department of the Army 1987). The area also included
approximately an acre of standing water and they noted native koloa or Hawaiian ducks (Anaswyvilliana) utilizing the ponds daily.
Additionally, areas that Nagata found to be dominated by ironwood trees (Casuarina
equisetifolia) near the dunes have been encroached upon by Java plum (Syzygium cumini) andfalse kamani (Terminalia catappa) forests. A comparison of the vegetation zones found in 1991
and 2009 are shown in Figure 19.
A total of 117 flowering plants and nine ferns or fern allies were observed by Terry and Hart at
the park in 2009. Most of the plant species found were alien. However, fifteen were indigenousand six were Hawai‘i endemics. Several of the alien species recorded are also consideredinvasive. No listed or proposed threatened or endangered plant species (USFWS 2009) were
found on site.
The native plants Terry and Hart did find were scattered within the park and in small numbers.
The exceptions were along the strand associated with the dune complex, on rugged pali cliffs,
and in the wetland areas where hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) dominates although even the hau is arelatively recent newcomer and was not nearly as widespread in 1991 as it is today. Of the 15
native species, only koali, or morning glory (Ipomoea indica), and the ni‘ani‘au fern
(Nephrolepis exaltata hawaiiensis) are widely common today, with hala (Pandanus tectorius)and hau scattered but locally abundant. Pōhuehue (Ipomoea pes-caprae) is considered abundantin the strand zone. Except in the pali area, all of the endemic species are uncommon in the park
(Terry and Hart 2009).
The two endemics found in 1988 were also found in 2009. They are ko‘oko‘olau (Bidens
forbesii), a common lowland species on the north shore, and ‘āhinahina (Artemisia kauaiensis),which is found throughout the sea cliffs of Kaua‘i. Both are restricted to Kaua‘i.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-51

Kumu Roselle Bailey noted in her article published in Humu Mo‘olelo: Journal of the Hula Arts,
that the native ‘ālula (Brighamia citrina) and ‘ēkaha (Elaphoglossum) once grew at Ke Ahu a
Laka but disappeared after a news story of the Keoneloa petroglyphs made the site popular to thegeneral public (Bailey 2008). Terry and Hart unfortunately make no mention of them in their2009 survey.
Species of cultural importance, such as ki or ti (Cordyline fruticosa), ‘ōhi‘a ‘ai or mountain apple(Syzygium malaccensis), kō or sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum), mai‘a or banana (Musaparadisiaca), noni (Morinda citrifolia), niu or coconut (Cocos nucifera), ‘ulu or breadfruit(Artocarpus altilis), ‘ape (Alocasia macrorrhizos), kalo or taro (Colocasia esculenta) and kukui
or candlenut (Aleurites moluccana) are found in small numbers throughout the park, with somelarger specimen of kukui and breadfruit indicating old plantings.
Thirteen species of birds were observed by Terry and Hart during their January 2009 survey
including the endangered koloa maoli, or native Hawaiian duck (Anas wyvilliana), two
indigenous shorebirds (kōlea, Pacific golden plover, Pluvialis fulva and ‘ūlili, Heteroscelus
incanus) and koa‘e kea, the white-tailed tropicbird (Phaethon lepturus dorotheae), an indigenous
seabird. All other birds sighted were non-native introductions.
Additional species of seabirds, waterbirds, shorebirds and forest birds that are federally listed as
endangered or threatened may use the park. The wetlands may also provide feeding and nestingareas to the indigenous ‘auku‘u or Black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax hoactli). Otherfederally endangered waterbirds that would likely use the wetlands are the ae‘o or black-necked
stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), ‘alae ke‘oke‘o or Hawaiian coot (Fulica alae), ‘alae‘ula
or Hawaiian moorhen (Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis), and nēnē or Hawaiian goose (Branta
sandvicensis).
It is also expected that the federally endangered ‘ua‘u or Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma
phaeopygia sandwichensis), federally threatened ‘a‘o or Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus
auricularis newelli) and the ‘ake‘ake or band-rumped storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro), listedby the State of Hawai‘i, as endangered would fly over Hā‘ena State Park to their nests in themountains. These birds, especially the young, can be affected by artificial lighting and become
disoriented.
Although not sighted during the survey, the endangered ‘ōpe‘ape‘a or Hawaiian hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), probably utilizes Hā‘ena State Park as it has been seen in the
Hanalei and Princeville areas.
Terry and Hart detected feral cats (pōpoki; Felis catus) during their survey, and also recognizedthat mice (‘iole li‘ili‘i; Mus spp.) and rats (‘iole; Rattus spp.) are likely also present. They also
acknowledged the presence of wild pigs (pua‘a; Sus s. scrofa) and goats (kao; Capra h. hircus)
that are known throughout this part of Kaua‘i. Terry and Hart’s survey also identified various
skinks, anole, gecko and bullfrog in the park, and acknowledge that there are likely more speciesof reptiles and amphibians throughout the park. All were alien species and common on Kaua‘i.
2.7.9.2 Limahuli Stream
Terry and Hart (2009) also surveyed the freshwater species inhabiting Limahuli Stream. Theynote five species of endemic and indigenous ‘o‘opu or Hawaiian gobies may inhabit this stream,
2-52©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

including the ‘o‘opu alamo‘o (Lentipes concolor), ‘o‘opu nopili (Sicyopterus stimpsoni), ‘o‘opu
naniha (Stenogobius hawaiiensis), ‘o‘opu akupa (Eleotris sandwicensis) and ‘o‘opu nakea(Awaous guamensis).
According to an unpublished report prepared for the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) by
Mike Kido, riparian cover along the streams contours are predominantly alien species andprovide shade for approximately 70.4 percent of the stream. Native tree species account for lessthan one percent of all riparian areas below Limahuli Falls. Approximately 328 metric tons ofplant litter is deposited within riparian areas annually, which Kido estimates translates into
48,204 metric tons of plant litter being processed within the stream environment and exported asorganic nutrients in times of flooding (Kido 2001 unpublished).
Invasive species in Limahuli Stream include the Tahitian prawn (Macrobrachium lar) andpoeciliids (swordtails, Xiphophorous helleri and guppies, Poecilia reticulata). According toKido, in particular the presence of poeciliids poses a serious threat to the native ‘o‘opu.
Poeciliids are known to carry water-borne pathogens which infect ‘o‘opu (Kido 2001
unpublished).
2.7.9.3 Marine Species
The nearshore waters of Hā‘ena are known for their abundance of marine life. The plant andanimal life of Hā‘ena’s waters provided sustenance for the ahupua‘a and have become an
attraction for sport fishers and snorkelers. Historically, Hā‘ena is particularly known forabundant limu kohu (Aparagopsis taxiformis) and a strong population of octopus (Octopus
vulgaris and Octopus ornatus).
In 1999, Carl Stepath and Save our Seas compiled a variety of studies and found that fish
populations in Kē‘ē were not as diverse as in other areas. During the survey, approximately 40
species of fish were identified by divers. In neighboring Hanalei Bay, approximately 160 speciesof fish were identified. However, the majority of fish observed in the study areas were in theirjuvenile stage which indicates Kē‘ē is an important nursery area for native fish species.
The results of these studies in concert with a brief snorkel survey conducted by SWCA biologists
Dr. Robert Kinzie and John Ford in November 2008 which found 80 species of fish along
Kaua‘i’s North Shore, with only 46 of those species occurring in Kē‘ē lagoon. The studies donote that fish species diversity is much greater on the seaward side of the reef and over 160
species were recorded off Limahuli Stream and in Hanalei Bay.
As noted earlier, endangered Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) or ‘Īlio-holo-i-kauaua, translates into, “the dog who runs in the sea,” are frequently observed at Hā‘ena State Parkand the entire shoreline and marine environment to the 200-meter depth contour fronting the parkis designated a critical habitat for the species. The honu, or green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), islisted as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are known to graze upon algae
in shallow nearshore reef waters around the north shore of Kaua‘i, including the waters of
Hā‘ena State Park. Although no evidence of turtle nests were reported in SWCA’s survey, thesandy beaches within Hā‘ena State Park are suitable for sea turtle nesting, and the possibility of afuture turtle nesting there cannot be dismissed (SWCA 2010).

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-53

2.7.10 SCENIC RESOURCES
Kūhiō Highway’s present alignment provides access to many of the park’s varied scenic
resources, culminating at Kē‘ē, where the vista opens to the ocean and the beginning of the
Nāpali coastline. At the park entrance, Limahuli Stream is a rare example of a natural andrelatively intact, perennial stream. Under the shadow of Makana, the roadway passes the wet
cave, Wai a Kanaloa, the seasonally-flooded wetlands of Loko Kē‘ē and ultimately terminates atKē‘ē Beach. Other areas rich with scenic resources are along the shoreline and Kalalau Trail.
Also, the dense invasive tree canopy that covers much of the interior of the site blocks much of
the scenic resources within this area and clearing strategic areas of it should be the focus ofearlier phases of restoration and improvement. See Figure 20, Figure 21, and Figure 22 which
illustrate Hā‘ena’s visual resources and constraints to viewing those resources.

2.8

THE CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

A brief history of the site including the prehistory and post-contact history of the area wasdiscussed earlier in Section 2.2. However, given the rich cultural environment of the site, thelong line of families who inhabited this place, and the people and communities who continue tofight for its protection and recognition today, it is worth reiterating some of their thoughts on thecultural significance of this place. The following information was primarily shared by the MPAC
at various meetings, and via phone calls, emails and other communications. As this summary is
but a snapshot of these core values, the hope is that these basic concepts and understandings
drive the implementation of the master plan and management plan and that the discussions
between State Parks, the families, the practitioners and the community continue as
implementation moves forward at the park.
For the families and kūpuna who remember living here and tending to this place, everything isconnected. The health of the land, flora and fauna, the health of the ocean, streams andwaterways, and the health of the people are all connected. Many feel that the people and families
who are from this place need to return and need to feel welcomed to help take care of this place
as well as the kūpuna whose iwi and spirits still reside in the park. Many also feel that there are
currently too many visitors in the park and that the place needs space and time on a regular basis
to rest and to be restored.
During one of the MPAC meetings, Kehaulani Kekua graciously shared with the group the deep
connection that exists between hula and the forests and how this area is sacred to hula. She
explained that hula is not just about dance for the sake of beautiful movements, but about
regeneration and that there is a profound connection between the practice of hula and the healthand regeneration of the natural environment.
She described the three kuahu (shrine) of hula that are recognized by the guild of hulapractitioners. The first kuahu is the native forest. The second is the kuahu within the hālau hula,which could be described as a miniature of the native forest within the hālau. The third kuahu isthe body of the hula practitioner. When adorned with greenery from the native forests, thedancer’s body itself becomes a kuahu. So in practicing hula, it is the forest that is central and it isfor the forest that hula is practiced. The health of our native forest in turns brings good health to
the waters that flow in our streams and eventually to the ocean. The health of the forest brings
health to the land, the waters, and the people.
2-54©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 20182.9

EXISTING PARK INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIESMuch of the following information on existing park infrastructure is provided by Kennedy/Jenks(formerly Engineering Solutions, Inc.), the civil engineer, and Austin Tsutsumi and Associates(ATA), the traffic engineer. The civil baseline report is attached as Appendix B and the traffic
study is attached as Appendix D.

2.9.1 ROADS
Public vehicular access to Hā‘ena State Park is limited to Kūhiō Highway (State Highway 560),
which runs the length of the park and terminates at Kē‘ē Beach. The highway is owned andmanaged by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and consists of two twelve-footlanes.
In 2004, a ten-mile stretch of the highway between Princeville and Kē‘ē Beach was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (State Site Number 30-02-9396). It includes thirteen onelane bridges within this span, a ford crossing at Mānoa Stream, and a stream crossing at Limahuli
Stream. These narrow crossings give the highway its unique and scenic character and attract
thousands of visitors to the North Shore each year. However, the narrowness and weight limits ofthese bridges also essentially eliminate the passage of large tour buses and trucks through thisportion of the North Shore. Passenger vehicles are limited to a 15-20-person maximum and thevehicle weight limits for the bridges range between 16,000 and 50,000 pounds (gross vehicularweight) according to the State DOT (DOT personal communication 2011). However, these are
not the tested strengths of these historic bridges and it could be far less in reality. A typical 15passenger van has a gross weight limit (includes passengers and load) of 10,000 pounds (ATA
2011).
Paved shoulder lanes were installed along the highway within the park in 1985 and later
guardrails were added in 2002 (Kennedy/Jenks 2011). However, the shoulders are often used forillegal parking, particularly in areas around Wai a Kanaloa and closer to Kē‘ē.
Unpaved access roads exist within the park, including the coastal access road which runs behindthe sand dunes and was recently gated, the access road to the Montgomery House which iscovered with laua‘e, an access road to the cleared lo‘i, and the driveway/access road to theformer Allerton property.

2.9.2 WATER SYSTEMS
2.9.2.1 Potable Water
According to Kennedy/Jenks, the County of Kaua‘i Department of Water (DOW) currently
provides potable water to the park via a four-inch PVC pipe that terminates at the entrance to thepark and has a one-inch meter. Water is gravity-fed from a 0.1 million gallon (MG) reservoir 1.1
miles away at a ground elevation of 126.5 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Within the park, athree-inch galvanized iron pipe runs along Kūhiō Highway in an east-west direction and serves
the comfort station and associated shower at Kē‘ē Beach. Most of the three-inch pipe is installed
above ground and buried pipe depths are unknown. Recorded water usage from October 2003 toNovember 2006 averages 2,125 gallons per day (gpd).
2-58©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

2.9.2.2 Non-Potable Water
An average of 760,000 gpd of water is diverted from
Limahuli Stream to irrigate the lo‘i kalo within the park.
The intake is located on the south side (mauka) of the
highway and the water flows by gravity through an
HDPE pipe to and into the lo‘i (Photo 17). The line
begins as an eight-inch HDPE line at an elevation of
95.9 feet amsl and transitions to a six-inch HDPE line at
57.5 feet amsl. It crosses the highway through one of the18-inch drainage culverts (Kennedy/Jenks 2011).
Photo 17 – Irrigation Line Running in ‘Auwai

2.9.2.3 Fire Protection
There is no fire protection water system within the park.
If needed, seawater is airlifted to the site of any fire. The
last fire hydrant/standpipe is located outside of the park,roughly 75 feet away, and is connected to the County’s
potable water system.

2.9.3 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
A separate Wastewater Preliminary Engineering Report was prepared for this project byKennedy/Jenks and is attached as Appendix E. Hā‘ena State Park’s first comfort station was built
in 1979 at Kē‘ē Beach by DLNR and wastewater previously emptied into a six by eight-footdiameter cesspool. In 2001, a 2,500-gallon individual wastewater system (IWS) including a
2,500 gallon septic tank and 2,700 s.f. leach field was built for the comfort station to comply
with EPA’s large capacity cesspool closures.
In 2008, the existing comfort station was demolished and replaced by a new one built in the same
location (Photo 18). It maintains the same number of fixtures as the original – three waterclosets, one urinal, and two lavatories (sinks). These fixtures are estimated to generate 2,016 gpd(Kennedy/Jenks 2011). According to
DOH standards for picnic parks, thisequates to approximately 403 visitors
per day based on an average 5-gallons
per day per person (toilet wastes
only). An outdoor shower withmultiple shower heads and spigots is
located to the south of the comfort
station and runoff water is allowed todrain and infiltrate into thesurrounding soils.
Photo 18 – New Comfort Stationand Showers

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-59

In the years 2007-2010, DLNR and members of the Hā‘ena community collaborated on thedesign of an alternate individual wastewater system to mitigate impacts to cultural andarchaeological resources beneath the existing leach field. The result has been approval andconstruction of a subsurface flow-based wastewater treatment system. A “subsurface” system is
one where the constructed wetland is contained within a liner, but the wastewater flows beneaththe surface of a gravel medium within the liner so there is no exposed water under normal
operating conditions. Native plants such as makaloa (Cyperus laevigatus) and ahu‘awa (Cyperus
javanicus), two perennial sedges, are native species that were planted within the constructedwetland. Wastewater is first treated within a primary treatment tank. Then, the wastewater flows
to the constructed wetland where it is further treated by having the plants take up nitrogen andmore importantly, create an environment where organisms that thrive in the root systems canfeed on bacteria in the wastewater, further improving water quality before discharging it into theleaching chambers. The new infiltration field is located to the east of the archaeological site but
west of the delineated natural wetlands of the two loko. See Figure 27. The comfort station andtreatment facilities are sized to manage the same amount of wastewater, 2,016 gpd, or roughly
403 visitors per day, based on Department of Health standards (Kennedy/Jenks 2010). The
existing septic tank and leach field continues to serve as an emergency backup system in theevent the constructed wetlands system is not operational.
In addition to the existing comfort station wastewater system, an abandoned cesspool was foundat the Montgomery House. The existing Allerton House and Caretaker’s Cottage also probably
have abandoned cesspool(s). Kennedy/Jenks recommends upgrading these facilities if either ofthese areas will require wastewater service.

2.9.4 SURFACE WATERS, DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
As will be discussed in Section 2.11.1, the coastal areas and the areas along Limahuli Stream arewithin the 100-year flood plain with base flood elevations determined in both the special flood
hazard areas (Zone AE) and coastal flood areas with velocity hazard (Zone VE) (see Figure 23).
Much of the park is also classified as wetlands makai of the highway with the exception of themain parking lot area and the area around the existing comfort station (see Figure 16). Limahuli
Stream is the only perennial stream within the park. However, there is an extensive ‘auwai
system that once served the lo‘i and intermittent flows during heavy rainfall events coincide withmany of these channels. Kennedy/Jenks (2011) notes that during heavy rains, stormwater runoff
is typically full of sediment, soil, plant and animal material and other debris which causes muddy
plumes at the outfalls. The two main outfalls are Limahuli Stream and Poholokeiki Channel(Kennedy/Jenks 2011). However, the Kē‘ē lifeguards and community members have also
witnessed heavy runoff flowing from the end of the highway across the beach, eroding the sandand emptying into Kē‘ē Lagoon. In March 2012, a significant washout of the beach at Kē‘ērequired emergency repairs (see Photo 20).
According to Kennedy/Jenks, drainage improvements on the site consist of five 18-inch
reinforced concrete drain culverts that allow storm water to cross beneath Kūhiō Highway fromsouth to north. Three have at-grade 3’x4’ drain inlets and the other two have headwalls. It isestimated approximately 56.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 37.9 cfs of runoff fromapproximately 14.2 acres above Kūhiō Highway flows down Maunahou into the five culverts,
during the 10-year and 2-year storm, respectively (Kennedy/Jenks 2011).

2-60©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

The drain culverts satisfy the requirements set forth in the County of Kaua‘i Department of
Public Works Storm Drainage Standard. However, during a 50-year storm, an estimated 7,300
cfs of runoff flows directly to the ocean. This includes runoff from the west end of Maunahouthat flows over Kūhiō Highway as well as the entire area of the park below Kūhiō Highway.
During heavy rain storm events, the entire park is inundated with rushing waters from this surgeof rainwater. The existing drainage improvements do not have the capacity and were notdesigned to handle the larger storm events (Kennedy/Jenks 2011).

2.9.5 ELECTRICAL POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS
According to Kennedy/Jenks, there is no electrical power service currently at the park. Kaua‘i
Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) service stops at the entry to the park. A DLNR-owned 11 paircable telephone line runs along Kūhiō Highway to the pay phone and emergency phone at Kē‘ē
Beach (Hawaiian Telcom, personal communication). It parallels the existing three-inch waterline (Kennedy/Jenks 2011).

2.9.6 CIVIL DEFENSE
Currently, there are no State Civil Defense (SCD)/Hawai‘i Emergency Management Agency
sirens in the park and no tsunami evacuation signs on Kūhiō Highway within the park. The
closest siren is located at Hā‘ena County Park roughly 3,500 feet to the east. According to SCD,
there are no immediate plans to include a siren at the park. However, there may be a point in the
future when SCD may require one or an upgrade of an existing siren. If a siren is needed at thepark, the siren tower would require approximately 25 s.f. of land and would stand roughly 45
feet tall (directional speakers). Solar photovoltaics are typically used to charge the batteries so noelectrical connection is required.

2.9.7 SOLID WASTE
Trash receptacles and recycle bins are stationed throughout the Kē‘ē Beach area. State Parks
staff provides routine trash removal on a daily basis.

2.10 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND PARKING
2.10.1 PUBLIC TRANSITThe County of Kaua‘i Transportation Agency provides public transit service between Hanalei
and Kekaha via the Kaua‘i Bus. Service between Līhu‘e and Hanalei is provided six days aweek, Monday through Saturday, between 6:20 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Route 400 runs from theHanalei Courthouse to Kaua‘i Community College and Route 500 runs in the opposite direction.
Fares are $2.00 per trip for adults, $1.00 per trip for seniors (60+ years) and youth (7 – 18 years).
The County also offers monthly passes for $35.00. All buses are wheelchair accessible. Folding
baby strollers, musical instruments, and body boards are permitted onboard. However,surfboards, large backpacks and other bulky items that block the aisle or seat are not permitted
onboard. Currently, there is no public transportation service to Hā‘ena. Private shuttles and taxis
can be arranged for a fee.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-61

In 2014, the County provided a $75,000 grant to a private shuttle operator, Experience Kaua‘i, tosupplement the County’s transit service between Princeville and Kē‘ē in an experiment to see
what the ridership potential would be and to reduce traffic along this stretch of the highway. In
its first month of operation in November 2014, they had over 1,000 passengers. In December,there were more than 1,500 riders. The shuttle used two 15-passenger vehicles and charged
introductory fares of $2 each way for visitors and $1 each way for residents during its first two
weeks. Then, the fares increased to $4 and $2, respectively. It was estimated that half of theriders were residents which supports the potential for general shuttle service on the north shore.
The shuttle service ran from 6:00 AM until 7:00 PM originating at the Westin Princeville,
stopping at major resorts, the Princeville Center, Hanalei Town, the Wainiha Store, Hanalei
Colony Resort, and Hā‘ena Beach Park before heading to Kē‘ē. The shuttle then reversed its
route back to Hanalei Town. At 9:00 AM, the second shuttle started its route between Princevilleand Hanalei, while the earlier shuttle looped between Hanalei and Kē‘ē to increase frequency ofservice. Funding to support the shuttle, however, was not continued by the County in thefollowing year and the shuttle service terminated.

2.10.2 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIESThere are currently no designated pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the park or en route to
the park. Pedestrians and bicyclists typically travel along the side of the highway or in theshoulder of the roadway (Kennedy/Jenks 2011). However, there are many areas where rockslopes, vegetation, and guardrails block the shoulder, forcing them to share the narrow vehicle
travel lanes, creating a dangerous situation where they may be hit and vehicle traffic is forced toslow down.

2.10.3 TRAFFIC
Access to Hā‘ena State Park is dominated by the personal vehicle, whether rented or privately
owned. According to the 2007 OmniTrak survey of 283 park users performed for the Hawai‘i
Tourism Authority (HTA), 69 percent of visitors from Hawai‘i and 42 percent of non-Hawai‘ivisitors arrived by private vehicle and another 19 percent of visitors from Hawai‘i and 55 percent
of non-Hawai‘i visitors arrived by rental cars.
A Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) was conducted by Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc.
(ATA) to evaluate potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed Hā‘ena State Park Master
Plan. Their report (2013) is provided in Appendix D. Traffic data was collected via pneumatic
tubes placed at the Hā‘ena State Park entrance between August 14, 2008 and August 18, 2008.
During this analysis period, a three day weekend was included in the study (Admission’s Day,prior to the recession and downturn in Hawai‘i visitor counts). According to 1993 data fromCounty of Kaua‘i Lifeguards, Kē‘ē experiences its highest attendance during the month ofAugust.
Weekend peak hour traffic occurred between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. However, a large influxand efflux of traffic occurred between 10:45 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. Regional weekday morning andafternoon commuter traffic was assumed to occur between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between
3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. respectively. A total of 1,550 vehicles per day were counted enteringand exiting Hā‘ena State Park. On the average over the study period, there are 781 vehicles
entering the park and 767 vehicles leaving the park. Peak traffic was observed on Sunday,
2-62©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

August 17th between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. where a total of 107 vehicles entered and 85
exited the park. ATA concluded that observed traffic was well below the potential capacity of a
two-lane highway (two-lane highways have the potential capacity of 1,700 passenger vehicles
per hour per direction of travel). However, congestion within the park occurred due to the slow
speeds resulting from pedestrians on the roadways and cars waiting for parking stalls. Some
waited as long as five minutes for a stall.
Although no standards exist for determining the capacity of the one-lane bridges along the
highway leading up to the park, ATA used Simtraffic Analysis software to estimate a baseline
for the existing traffic. The Waipā Bridge was used for the analysis since it has the longest onelane span and is located near the State DOT’s count location. With 487 vehicles crossing thebridge in both directions per hour and an estimated bridge capacity of 1,250 vehicles per hour,
the existing volume-to-capacity (VTC) ratio for the bridge is about 39%. This number was used
to compare different scenarios for the master plan.
ATA also noted the considerable amount of vehicles that were parked alongside the highway
within the park leading to Kē‘ē. Visitors that park alongside the roadway or parked in the lot
closer to the entrance were exposed to oncoming traffic due to a lack of pedestrian sidewalks.
The June 2013 biennial DOT traffic counts registered 6,700 vehicles per day on the stretch of
highway just before the County's Hā‘ena Beach Park. This includes vehicles traveling in both
directions with the counts split almost exactly in half for each direction, or roughly 3,350
traveling in each direction (DOT Kaua‘i District 2015). This is a roughly 55 percent increasesince the 2003 biennial counts, which recorded over 2,100 vehicles per day in each direction in
August (DOT Kaua‘i District 2007).
Photo 19 – Parking Area nearKē‘ē

2.10.4 PARKING
There are currently two parking
areas at Hā‘ena State Park. The firstis a visitor parking lot locatedapproximately 750 feet west of thepark entrance. This previously
disturbed area was recently enlarged
to approximately 30,000 s.f. and canaccommodate roughly 80-100 cars.
The parking area is approximately
three to four feet below the elevation of the highway. The second parking area is an off-street
parking area located at the end of Kūhiō Highway near Kē‘ē Beach. Based on a rough count,
there were between 50 and 70 cars parked both legally and illegally in this area. Neither parking
area is paved nor are any of the parking stalls striped except for the four ADA stalls near Kē‘ē.
Because the lots are unpaved, both areas are uneven and have erosion problems. The Hui also
has been given HTA funding to resurface the parking lot. However, with no striping, drivers use
their own judgment on where to park and therefore the use of these parking areas can beinefficient and underutilized.
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-63

Despite the two parking areas, there is often a shortage of parking stalls during peak periods. In
addition, there are restricted areas along the highway with “no parking” signs posted. However,as the designated parking areas fill up, visitors often disregard the signs and park illegally along
the highway leading up to Kē‘ē. These vehicles block the shoulder lanes, forcing pedestrians andbicyclists into the vehicular lanes. During especially high usage, cars are also parked along the
highway outside of the park boundaries.
Vehicle counts have also been collected by park staff. On average, park staff found that there areapproximately 200 vehicles in the park (parked legally and illegally) during the peak mid-day
hours in the months of May, June and July.

2.10.5 HELIPAD
A clearing for helicopter landings is currently located on the eastern end of the entry parking lot.
The area is grassed, fenced, and well-maintained. Typically, it is used for emergency rescues andfires (Kennedy/Jenks 2011). However, State Parks has also used it for ongoing maintenance ofthe trails and the Nāpali Coast Wilderness Park.

2.11 NATURAL HAZARDS
Typical natural hazards impacting the Hawaiian Islands include flooding, tsunami inundation,
hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes. The following sections describe the natural
hazards that may impact the park and general area, as appropriate.

2.11.1 FLOOD HAZARD
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 1500020030E (9/16/05) prepared by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Flood Insurance Program, there
are several Special Flood Hazard Areas within Hā‘ena State Park (see Figure 23). They arelocated along the coast and along Limahuli Stream and include Zones VE, AE and A. Zone VE
is a coastal flood zone with velocity hazard for wave action subject to the one percent chance
annual flood (100-year flood). Within the park and nearshore waters, base flood elevations havebeen determined and range between 10 and 21 feet with the lower base flood elevations at thefurthest eastern and furthest western edges of the park. The highest base flood elevations arelocated offshore of Ka‘īlio Point.
Moving inland of the Zone VE areas are the Zone AE areas. These are the Special Flood Hazard
Areas subject to the one percent chance annual flood and where base flood elevations have been
determined. Base flood elevations start at 10 to 11 feet near Limahuli Stream and increase to 15
feet near Kē‘ē and 18 feet near Ka‘īlio Point.
The base flood elevations have not yet been determined along the mauka portions of Limahuli
Stream and therefore these areas are located in Zone A. However, they are still within the Special
Flood Hazard Areas subject to the 100-year flood. Also according to Kennedy/Jenks, there are
mapping discrepancies between the location of Limahuli Stream on the FEMA maps, the Kaua‘i
Online Hazard Assessment (KOHA) database, and the Hawai‘i National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) database. As a result, the exact location of the Zone A area is not clear and
Kennedy/Jenks has contacted DLNR who is currently working to resolve this issue with EPA
2-64©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Region 9. Kennedy/Jenks recommends maintaining a buffer along the stream until this can be
resolved.

2.11.2 WIND AND STORM HAZARDS
Since 1980, two hurricanes have had devastating effects on Kaua‘i—Hurricane ‘Iwa, aCategory 1 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, in 1982 and Hurricane ‘Iniki, a Category 4, in 1992.
Since Hurricane ‘Iniki hit from the south, there was no significant storm surge or overwash in thearea. However, ‘Iniki’s sustained winds reached over 100 mph with gusts up to 150 mph as it
passed over Kaua‘i, making landfall near Hanapēpē and sweeping northward to Hanalei(Businger 1998). ‘Iwa’s sustained winds were 75 mph with maximum winds at 110 mph and did
not make landfall. However, its diameter was so great that it enveloped Kaua‘i as it passed to thenorth. While it is difficult to predict such natural occurrences, it is reasonable to assume that
future incidents are likely, given historical events and the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas
along the coastline.

2.11.3 TSUNAMI HAZARD
Hā‘ena is exposed to northwest swells and has been struck by tsunami waves multiple times inrecorded history. The tsunami of 1946 is remembered as particularly devastating, destroying
homes, a church, and a school and taking lives. Another destructive tsunami struck in 1957,
leaving only four of the 29 homes in Hā‘ena standing, although it did not result in loss of life.
The land makai of the highway within Hā‘ena State Park is located within the tsunami
evacuation zone. During the 1946 tsunami, wave heights reached 30 feet near Kē‘ē and 24 feet
off Ka‘īlio Point. Wave heights reached 28 feet off Ka‘īlio Point in the 1957 tsunami. Both ofthese tsunami were generated by large earthquakes (magnitude 7.1 and 8.3, respectively) in the
Aleutian Islands off Alaska. See Figure 24. The nearest State Civil Defense siren is located at
Hā‘ena County Park.

2.11.4 SHORELINE EROSION
The coastal geology group at the
University of Hawai‘i School of
Ocean and Earth Science andTechnology(SOEST),has
documented shoreline rates ofchange since 1927. As shown in
Figure 18, shoreline erosion takes
place along the entire park site at
rates between zero and nearly one
foot per year. Significant rain
events can also cause beach
washouts such as what happened
in March 2012 (Photo 20).
Photo 20 – Kē‘ē Beach Damage
Following Heavy Rains, March2012

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

Photo courtesy of Kawika Winter2-65

2.11.5 ROCKFALL HAZARD
A Rockfall Hazard Assessment was performed by AECOM during the months of August and
September, 2008 and updated in 2013 with a supplemental rockfall analysis and computer
simulation in the area between the main parking lot and Wai a Kanaloa. The assessment,
attached in its entirety as Appendix H, included a geological survey of the site and rockfall
hazard identification which included a visual assessment and preparation of a geological report,
locating rock outcroppings with GPS readings, and color photography. The Assessment also
included an engineering planning study of the rockfall condition, development of preliminary
rockfall protection design options and cost estimates. A summary of their findings is presented
graphically in Figure 25.
As described previously in this report and in AECOM’s report (2013), the rock formation
exposed at Hā‘ena State Park belongs to the Nāpali Formation, the oldest shield volcano
formation above ocean water. Fallen rocks piled against the high cliffs called talus is anothermajor rock formation exposed at Hā‘ena. The Nāpali Formation consists of basaltic lava flows
with two morphology types, ‘a‘ā and pāhoehoe. ‘A‘ā flows are more dense and viscous withclinkers compared to the smooth pāhoehoe flows, which are fluid, volatile and tend to form lava
tubes.
Both types of lava are prone to rockfall due to differential erosion of their flow components.
However, ‘a‘ā flows are prone to overhang and rockfall because the poorly cemented clinkers
erode faster than the dense cores, whereas pāhoehoe flows are prone to collapse and rockfall
because the thin, poorly cemented internal flow layers of the tubes erode faster than the thicker
outer crust of the lava tube.
Also according to AECOM, both chemical and mechanical weathering processes are involved inerosion and contribute to rockfalls. Examples of mechanical weathering include stream and wave
action, the wedging of growing plant roots, and the fragmentation of rock faces caused bygravity. Chemical weathering involves a change in the chemical composition of the soils andnew materials such as clay minerals and hydrated iron oxides are typical products of chemical
weathering. Due to the high temperature, rainfall and abundant vegetation, conditions forchemical weathering are nearly optimum at Hā‘ena State Park. Breaking up of the rock bymechanical weathering greatly aids chemical weathering and chemical weathering in turn,
hastens mechanical weathering. Stress between outer, more weathered and inner less weatheredportions of rock can cause rock to break apart, the mutual reinforcement of chemical andphysical weathering is an ongoing process, the degree and rate of which will largely determine
the stability of rock in the area (AECOM 2013).
Water is the most important agent in the weathering process and the most important factor
affecting the timing of rockfall events. Due to hydraulic pressure and erosion, rockfall events
tend to occur more frequently during or after heavy rains in Hawai‘i. At Hā‘ena, the generally
wet climate and the average annual rainfall of 122 inches is considered high, contributing tohigher rockfall risks (AECOM 2013).
To evaluate rockfall risk, AECOM utilized the DOT/FHWA (Department ofTransportation/Federal Highway Administration) Rockfall Hazard Rating System methods andguidelines. This rating system evaluates a number of criteria including: slope height, ditch
2-66©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

effectiveness, structural conditions, rock friction, erosion rates, volume of rockfall events,
climate and presence of water on slope, rockfall history and slope topography. It uses a threeclass rating system for hazardous conditions based on its potential to impact adjacent properties.
•

Class A – high estimated potential for rockfall on adjacent properties with high historical
rockfall activity. Chances for rockfall is moderate to high and when rockfalls occur, they
will more than likely reach adjacent properties.

•

Class B – moderate estimated potential for a rock to fall on adjacent properties withmoderate historical rockfall activity. Class B rating indicates that although a rockfall isprobable, the chances of it reaching adjacent properties are low to moderate. This could
involve scenarios where risk is mitigated by the presence of catchment ditches or large
flat areas that can contain rockfalls.

•

Class C – low to no estimated potential for rockfall on adjacent properties with low
historical rockfall activity.

AECOM also analyzed the chance of rockfall. This is primarily based on the stability of the rockface and condition of the supporting materials. There are four categories:••••

Category 1 – imminent potential for rockfall (could happen anytime)
Category 2 – short term potential for rockfall (within several to a dozen years)
Category 3 – medium term potential for rockfall (within dozens of years)
Category 4 – long term potential for rockfall (up to or more than a hundred years)

Please note that the time scale references are used symbolically and are not meant to represent an
actual timeframe within which the rockfall events may occur.
AECOM used computer simulation to model rockfall events along five transects within the park.
They determined that the rockfall hazard conditions at Hā‘ena State Park consists of bothClass A and Class B rockfall ratings based on the potential for rockfalls to reach the highway at
various positions as well as at Kē‘ē Beach and the Kalalau Trailhead. See Figure 25. The areaaround Wai a Kanaloa is the most hazardous rockfall area (Class A) because: 1) many rockfall
features exist here; 2) the very high probability for rockfalls to reach the highway and Wai a
Kanaloa; and 3) the almost constant presence of visitors (AECOM 2013). Rockfalls are lesslikely to reach the highway or beach at the other areas (Class B).
AECOM also analyzed the chance of rockfall at specific locations within the park which are also
shown on Figure 25. They range from Category 1 through 3. AECOM performed supplemental
analysis in the area between the main parking lot and Wai a Kanaloa to help guide the design ofthe proposed park master plan. Using computer modeling, they provided a baseline estimate of
how far simulated rockfalls would reach. The 0% and 5% chance of simulated rockfall lines were
determined based on computer modeling and then used to help locate all major facilities outsideof the rockfall zones. These designs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.0 and shown on
Figure 27 and Figure 28.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-67

14

24
Kaÿïlio Point

30/28
Këÿë
21BeachKü hiö
H

wy

Inset A : 1" = 1,000'
PACIFIC OCEAN

Inset AHäÿena Pt.

9Häÿena23/29 County
Park
45

26

32/34

!
H
WAINIHAHÄÿENALEGEND!
HHäÿena State Park Project Boundary
Road
Tsunami Evacuation Zone
Extreme Tsunami Evacuation Zone
Existing Civil Defense Siren
Tsunami Wave Heights (Height in Feet, 1946/1957)

Source: County of Kauai (2014); UH, NOAA, State and County Civil Defense (2016):
State GIS (1999, from Loomis 1976)
Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only.

FIGURE 24
Tsunami Evacuation Zone and Tsunami
Wave HeightsHÄÿENA STATE PARK
Department of Land and Natural Resources
North
Linear Scale (Feet)
0
1,000
2,000

Island of Kauaÿi
4,000

2.12 SIGNIFICANCE, SUITABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY OF PARKSITE FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
2.12.1 VISITOR COUNTS
Hā‘ena State Park is one of the State’s most visited parks. Although visitor counts have not been
consistently performed over the years, the available data from various sources indicate a steep
increase within the past twenty years. Monthly visitors in 1993 ranged from 1,500 in off-peakmonths to as many as 10,600 visitors per month during the high season month of August. Thisequates to an average of 50 to over 350+ visitors per day. By 1999, the DLNR reported
approximately 1,700 daily visitors to the park with an estimated 450 visitors accessing the
Kalalau Trail (Stepath 2006).
In 2008, Austin Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc. (ATA) conducted a traffic count and counted
roughly 780 vehicles per day entering and exiting the park. They estimated an average of 2.5
persons per vehicle, which equates to 1,950 persons per day visiting the park (ATA 2011).
In 2009, the park ranger counted the number of parked vehicles, finding an average of between
181 and 210 vehicles within the park at any one time for the months of May through July. Also,
according to the head lifeguard at Kē‘ē, the parking lots remained full even with the recent
economic downturn (C. Listman, personal communication, February 4, 2009). The most recent
count was taken in July 2011 by students from the UH Hawaiian Studies program. It showed
2,028 visitors came to the park between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. There were 761 cars which
entered and 47 arrived by either foot or bicycle.
Table 2 summarizes the daily visitor counts recorded over the years. Some of the data is either
extrapolated or averaged based on the available information.
Table 2 – Summary Table of Daily Visitor Counts
Year
1993

Month/
SeasonOff-peakDay of the
Week

Visitors
per Day
50(average)353(average)
1,501
1,700

1993

August1998
1999

SeptemberFriday2008

August2010

February

Holiday
weekendWednesday

1,950(est.)
1,247(est.)

2011

July

Monday2,028(761 cars)

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

SourceThe KeithCompanies 2001
The KeithCompanies 2001
DLNR State Parks
DLNR via Stepath
2006
ATA 2011
DLNR State Parks

UH Hawaiian
Studies (C.
Andrade)Notes

Estimated based on 2.5
persons per vehicle
Counts only conductedfrom 9 a.m.-4 p.m.
Estimated based on 2.5
persons per vehicle
Measured from 6:00
a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Includes 8 on bicycles,
14 hikers, 5 joggers, 20
pedestrians.

2-71

The Kē‘ē lifeguards currently take daily counts of the number of people on the beach at 9:00
a.m., 12:00 noon, and 4:00 p.m. During the summer months, there are anywhere from 200 to 400
people on the beach with 250 to 300 at any one time. In the winter, the beach is still busy with
100-150 people at Kē‘ē (C. Listman, personal communication, February 4, 2009).
During their three-day human use survey performed in July 1999, Save Our Seas volunteers
noted that peak visitor usage at Kē‘ē was at 4:00 p.m. with a high level of usage starting at 10:00
a.m. and lasting until 6:30 p.m. By 2006, Save Our Seas noted that visitors arrived much earlier
than in 1999 with the parking lots full by 9:30 a.m. (Stepath 2006). Vaughan also summarized
human use data collected in 2009-10 from the Kē‘ē lifeguards (68 counts over 18 weekdays and
30 counts over 8 weekend days) and community volunteers (121 counts over 17 weekdays and
36 counts over 6 weekend days) and found that peak usage for both swimmers and sunbathers at
Kē‘ē was at 1:00 p.m., with relatively higher usage starting at 11:00 am and dropping after 4:00
p.m. (Vaughan 2010).
However, visitors and residents alike agree that the park needs better management andmaintenance. Many in the community and on the MPAC also feel there are too many people
utilizing the park. These sentiments can be interpreted as perception that the Park’s
environmental, cultural, psychological or social carrying capacity is exceeded. In the report,
Loving them to Death? Sustainable Tourism in Europe’s Nature and National Parks, The
Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe describes environmental carrying capacity as
the “degree to which an ecosystem, habitat or landscape can accommodate the various impacts of
tourism without damage being caused or without losing its ‘sense of place’” (FNNPE 1993).

2.12.2 CARRYING CAPACITY
Clark (1992) defines carrying capacity as “the number of users that can be accommodated by agiven area without loss in the quality of the natural environment and the visitor experience.” Hedescribes it as the “optimal capacity” or “desirable capacity,” the median between the minimum
number of users needed to keep a recreation setting open, and the maximum number when therecreation setting is full and often accompanied by many problems such as overcrowded
facilities, diminished resources, inappropriate activities and a deterioration of safety. “Carrying
capacity in general … is the level of use beyond which impacts exceed acceptable levels ofchange” (Clark 1992).
The Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe (FNNPE) describes the cultural or social
carrying capacity as the “level beyond which tourism developments and visitor numbers
adversely affect local communities and their ways of life” (FNNPE 1993). Psychologicalcarrying capacity is described by FNNPE as “the level beyond which the essential qualities thatpeople seek in the protected area (such as peace and quiet, few other people, few signs of humandevelopments) would be damaged by tourism developments” (FNNPE 1993). In other words,
park visitors have an expectation of what their experience will be like and this in turn can define
the level of acceptable carrying capacity of a park.
SWCA (2010) summarizes the impacts of increased recreational uses at Hā‘ena State Park:An increase in recreational uses at the Hā‘ena State Park would place greater demands on existing
facilities infrastructure, and on the physical, ecological, and societal capacity of the area.
Attracting more recreational users would further increase current traffic congestion and parking

2-72©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

issues for both visitors and residents. More users would also have the potential to impact stream
and nearshore water quality by increasing the amount of non-point and point-source pollution in
the area. The reef ecosystem would be significantly impacted by an increase in unregulated
recreational activity at the Park. Potential impacts to the coral reef ecosystem as a result of
increased recreation in the nearshore area include: decreased coral coverage, altered coral growth,decreased fish populations, reduced local biodiversity and increased propagated pressure ofinvasive species. Without an enforceable Park management plan, an uncontrolled increase incurrent recreational activities at the Hā‘ena State Park would lead to further dune erosion and theremoval of dune vegetation; create untenable traffic congestion and conflicts; increase the level ofpollutants in non-point [sic] source stormwater runoff; create conflicts between recreational andsubsistence fishers, and between other and various users of the Park’s marine waters; loss of theunique socio-cultural character of the Park and surrounding neighborhood; reduced level ofenjoyment by visitors and residents alike; and ultimately as a ‘worst case,’ the potential economic
collapse of the area as a visitor destination. (SWCA 2010)

However, SWCA does believe that with proper management, “most of the recreational uses
currently occurring at Hā‘ena State Park can be sustainable,” but recommends that an ecologicalcarrying capacity study be completed to determine the sustainability of existing recreational uses.
The concept of an ecological carrying capacity takes into account “the various recreational
activities and the unique physical conditions at a particular reef site to provide a scientific basis
for proactive management and to allow managers to identify optimal levels of use and set limits
of use… before projected increases occur” (SWCA 2010).
However, some members of the MPAC felt that there is a danger in using an ecological basis todetermine the park’s carrying capacity. The example of Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve on O‘ahu
was cited where its ecological carrying capacity was determined to be 3,000-3,500 visitors a day.
Current City and County of Honolulu rules for Hanauma Bay limit access to the lower level(beach area) to 2,000 visitors at any one point in time. For Hā‘ena, given its limited access andthe density of cultural and historic resources, the fear is that the environment itself may
scientifically lend itself to more visitors than it currently receives, which many members of the
MPAC already feel is too many. Many in the community felt that the park is overrun by visitors
and that the place needs space and time to “breathe,” to be cleansed, restored and renewed.
Therefore, acknowledgement, consideration or establishment of a carrying capacity for the park
must also consider the park’s many cultural, scenic and recreational values, as discussed in
Section 2.1.2 of this report. In addition, however, the State is obligated to maintain outdoor
recreation at the park as park acquisition was funded in part through the LWCF as discussed in
Section 1.5.
This master plan therefore proposes to set an initial limit of the number of visitors to 900 visitors
per day which can be adjusted over time. It also proposes ways in which the State can fulfill its
many obligations without doing so at the expense of the environmental, historic, or cultural
resources. The concept is to enrich those recreational activities by improving the environment
and adding educational value to recreational activities making the experience more meaningfulfor visitors and increasing their respect, understanding and appreciation for these resources. The
following sections describe specific recreational activities and some of the existing conflicts andhazards in more detail.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-73

2.12.3 NEARSHORE RECREATION RESOURCES
The park includes a variety of beach and ocean recreational activities, including beachcombing,sunbathing, swimming, scuba diving, snorkeling, surfing, stand up paddle boarding, andkayaking. When wind conditions are right, windsurfers and kite boarders ride the nearshore
waters. The shoreline fronting the park is well-known for the many breaks and reef environments
which attract ocean recreationalists (see Figure 26). Windsurfing and other board sports candisrupt other recreational users by coming close to swimmers, snorkelers and divers sometimes
at high speeds. This is also a potential conflict for fishers. Similarly, these other users canobstruct windsurfing zones and launching areas, creating conflict.
Hā‘ena is still used for subsistence fishing, but fishing for recreational purposes also occurs.
According to SWCA (2010), “fishers of all kinds tend to target specific species, many of which
are top carnivores. Today, these resources are scarce. … Declines were evident among fishes
targeted by fishers, but not among non-target groups of fishes in hard bottom and mid-depth
habitats. Standing stock of highly desired target species (e.g. surgeonfishes, wrasses,parrotfishes, snappers, goatfishes, big-eyes, jacks, squirrelfishes, barracuda, moi, milkfish, andhawkfish) in accessible and populous locations were significantly lower than in areas where
public access was prevented and also in lightly populated or remote areas.”
In August 2015, Governor David Ige signed into law the Hā‘ena Community-Based Subsistence
Fishing Area rules (HAR 13-60.8), which seeks to sustainably manage the nearshore ocean
resources in the Hā‘ena ahupua‘a through culturally-rooted community-based management. It
includes the establishment of limits on the harvest of aquatic life as well as protection ofcustomary and traditional native Hawaiian fishing practices and will involve substantive
community input on resource management from residents and resource users.
SWCA also noted that the use and disposal of inexpensive monofilament gillnets have had amajor effect on reef fish by the indiscriminate taking of unwanted as well as target species aswell as habitat destruction and fatal entanglement of endangered and threatened species. Other
methods of fishing can also affect endangered and threatened species. SWCA cited that “during
the period 1982-2007, there have been 49 documented cases of interactions between fishers andmonk seals in the Main Hawaiian Islands (Katekaru 2008). Over half of these cases werereported from Kaua‘i, two of which were from Hā‘ena State Park. These cases usually involved
the accidental hooking by ulua fishers using slide-bait tackle (SWCA 2010).” Sea turtle
strandings, including trauma induced by hook-and-line and gillnet fishing gear have also been
linked to fishing-related incidents throughout Hawai‘i (SWCA 2010).
SWCA notes that “damage to coral reefs as a result of diving has been documented worldwide(Rouphael and Inglis 1995, Tratalos and Austin 2001, and Tabata 1992). Divers and snorkelers
can physically damage reef corals, invertebrates, and algae by standing on the reef, accidentallykicking coral with their fins, or stirring up silt that suffocates coral. Contact with corals canfacilitate disease transmission. Physical damage to coral species can be long lasting due togenerally slow tissue regeneration (Davenport and Davenport 2006).”

2-74©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

SWCA reports that reef walking occurs at Hā‘ena when visitors climb the reef to view tide poolsand some divers transverse the reef to dive off the outer portion at Kē‘ē. Reef walking has thepotential to trample corals resulting in damage to coral tissue, growth rates, reproductive success,and community structure, leading to mortality and overall reduction in coral cover (SWCA
2010). The decrease in coral cover can also affect fish populations which are dependent on coralfor shelter and food supply (algae).
According to SWCA (2010), divers and snorkelers feed fish at Kē‘ē Lagoon which can disrupt
normal distribution and abundance patterns as well as alter normal reproductive output of marine
species. It can also modify natural feeding cycles and have negative effects on prey populations
by minimizing feeding on algae. Feeding large fish can attract predators that scare off smaller
fish, reducing local biodiversity and interfering with natural instincts and behaviors required forfish survival. Feeding fish can also alter their behavior towards humans and they may become
aggressive, leading to attacks.
Ocean activities in Kē‘ē lagoon occur year around, as the reef makes it one of Kaua‘i’s more
protected swimming areas. However, ocean conditions in general can be unpredictable and areespecially dynamic during winter months. Thus, effective safety signage and education are
critical components to ensuring visitor welfare while enjoying the park’s nearshore resources.

2.12.4 WILDLAND RECREATION RESOURCES
There are no maintained hiking trails within Hā‘ena State Park. However, the trailhead for the
popular Kalalau trail is located within the park which provides access to Nāpali Coast State
Wilderness Park. Potential conflicts caused by the hiking activity associated with the trailhead
include, parking demand, increased wastewater effluent from comfort station use, introduction ofinvasive species carried on hiking boots, and water quality/sedimentation impacts when muddy
hikers rinse off in Kē‘ē Lagoon and Cold Pond along Limahuli Stream.
According to SWCA (2010), some of the recreational activities occurring at Hā‘ena State Park
are also known to affect the coastal dunes. Vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the dunes causes
erosion and sand movement as well as disturbance of archaeological deposits including burials.
They cite Vogt (1979) who found that fewer than 10,000 pedestrians walking over sand dunes
during a single season can eliminate dune vegetation and result in erosion (Tabata 1980) andnote that dune vegetation has little resistance to trampling due to the extremely low soil
penetration and is slow to recover (Davenport and Davenport 2006).
The 2001 Draft Park Plan noted that ORVs were known to drive through the sand dunes andacross the sandy beaches at Ka‘īlio Point flattening dunes and impacting strand species (Clark
1992, DLNR 1999). However, this activity has essentially ceased since 2007 when a gate
blocking vehicular access to the dunes was installed.
Sightseeing within the park is also a major attraction. The park’s location and visual access to theocean and Nāpali cliffs make it a good location for birding and whale watching.

2-76©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Unique geological features such as thewet caves are also of particular interest
to visitors. The proximity of the caves toKūhiō Highway makes them easy toaccess. However, their location at the toeof the mountain slope is a safety concern
due to the high potential for rockfalls.
Photo 21 – Visitors at Wai a Kanaloa

Limahuli Stream is also an attractive,
scenic resource and the 2001 Draft Park
Plan considered whether dipping or
wading in Limahuli Stream may also
contribute to soil erosion, sedimentation,and temporary impacts to water quality.
Interestingly, while recreation and tourism are often at odds with conservation, there areconservation-related reasons people visit outdoor recreational areas. According to the public
survey conducted for the 2015 SCORP Update, “having fun” (~96 percent [of respondents]) was
the top reason respondents recreated outdoors. However, the survey also found that people
participated in outdoor recreation "to be outdoors" (~92 percent), “to be close to nature”(~70 percent), “to visit/see new places and things” (~67 percent), and “to learn” (~55 percent).
Given the sensitivity of the dune areas, the lack of supervision by lifeguards, and the popularityof the site for monk seals and its designation as a critical habitat, only passive outdoor activities
such as walking, sunbathing and sightseeing should be allowed along the shore outside of thelagoon area.

2.13 COMPLEMENTARY AND CONFLICTING USER OPPORTUNITIESDue to the relatively heavy usage of Hā‘ena State Park, several potential risks and conflicts havebeen identified above that are connected to the presence of visitors and unmanaged activities
occurring at the park. However, there are opportunities to mitigate user impacts and conflicts
while improving both the visitor experience and health and condition of resources at the park. A
detailed discussion of resource use and user group conflicts can be found in Section 4.5 of the
Background Research Report.
A summary of the conflicts include:• Damage to archaeological sites such as rock walls• Traffic congestion and parking• Effects of nonpoint source pollution• Effects of certain sunscreen chemicals on coral reef
• Effects of fishing debris on marine species• Inadvertent damage to corals by divers and snorkelers• Damage to corals by reef walking• Effects from fish feeding• Damage to dune ecosystem by trampling
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-77

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Introduction of invasive species
Ahupua‘a ‘ohana vs. visitors and other Hawai‘i residents
Recreation vs. conservation
Windsurfers/kite boarders vs. other water users
Off-road vehicles vs. other users
Traditional fishery management vs. recreational/commercial fishing
Commercial vs. private use
Homeless/squatters vs. park users
Rockfall hazards vs. cliff and Wai a Kanaloa/Waiakapala‘e viewing

2.13.1 MINIMIZING RESOURCE AND USE CONFLICTS THROUGH EDUCATION
Certain uses, such as reef walking and fish feeding are clearly inappropriate in most settings
where ecological function is valued. Other inappropriate uses, such as ORVs and driving on thedunes have been sharply curtailed by the simple addition of a gate near the end of Kūhiō
Highway that now blocks vehicular access from the dunes. Conflict also arises due touninformed or inconsiderate human activity within the park. Independent of the Master Plan, theCommunity and the State Department of Land and Natural Resources have worked together tocreate the Hā‘ena Community-based
Subsistence Fishing Area, including
the waters at Hā‘ena State Park. As
noted earlier, the rules were signed
into law in August 2015 to help
mitigateconflicts
betweenrecreational
uses,
includingrecreational fishers and traditional
subsistence fishers.
Photo 22 – Improvised Signage

Most of the recreational activities
currently occurring within the park
could actually be enriched if managed correctly and coupled with an educational program. It is
expected that with proper orientation and instruction, park users will be better equipped toappreciate the park’s resources and would become more knowledgeable about how to interact
properly and appropriately with them. For example, snorkelers and swimmers can learn aboutmarine life, help take counts of marine life, and learn how to view the coral reef without harming
the ecosystem. Similarly, hikers can learn about native plants and wildlife as well as learn about
the significant cultural and archaeological sites including the prehistoric and current use of thearea by Native Hawaiians. Recreational fishers can be provided the opportunity to learn oftraditional fishing practices, the appropriate fishing seasons and equipment, ocean and nearshore
safety. Providing guidance to visitors in best practices for interacting – or avoiding – certain
resources can both enhance the visitor experience and help to protect the resource.
Educational tools that may enhance the visitor experience and protect resources include:•

Orientation video or educational session prior to park entrance (could be posted online aswell as played during shuttle rides to the park)

2-78©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

••Interpretive displays and wayside exhibits located appropriately throughout the park
Volunteer activities within the park accompanied by environmental and cultural
education

One of the major goals in the 2015 SCORP is to "promote recreational opportunities that
preserve and sustain Hawai‘i's natural and cultural resources." Under Objective 4-1, strategies
include:•••Coordinate with tourism industry to disseminate information to increase awareness about
and respect for the fragility of Hawai‘i's natural and cultural resources,
Involve outdoor recreation participants in management of recreation resources as a meansof education and sharing information with other users, andImplement monitoring programs to assess impacts/damage to natural and cultural
resources at heavily used facilities and areas and share these findings with users throughinterpretive and resource management messages.

2.13.2 MINIMIZING RESOURCE AND USE CONFLICTS THROUGH TRANSPORTATION AND
PARKING MANAGEMENT
Traffic congestion and parking create conflicts within the park and are major sources of concern
for safety. The conflicts include:
•
•
•

•

An inadequate number of parking spaces to accommodate the volume of visitors. The
result is illegal parking along Kūhiō Highway (inside and outside the park) and drivers
circulating through the park looking for spaces.
Illegal parking along Kūhiō Highway within the park. The result is a narrow roadway forvehicles, pedestrians and bicycles to navigate and visual obstruction of the park’s scenic
resources.
The volume of vehicles turning around at the end of the highway near Kē‘ē creates asituation where vehicles are idling and or making multi-point turn around movements.
The result is congestion and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. The vehicle congestion at thislocation also is a distraction and a nuisance near the park’s gateway to the beach.
The potential for vehicle congestion in the event of a tsunami evacuation.

The key to managing the conflicts caused by traffic and parking is to provide a range oftransportation and access options, improve management of those options, and provide the public,
including the Kaua‘i visitor industry, with better information and clarity about what to expect
when visiting the park. The following list summarizes the range of potential tools andmanagement solutions to help mitigate the parking and circulation issues currently occurring at
the park.
•

Transportation to the Parko Personal Vehicles
o Shuttles (private and/or public services)o Bicycles
o Pedestrian

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-79

•

Parkingo Number of parking stalls (onsite and/or offsite)o Parking feeso Parking passeso Special access parking areaso Shuttle parkingo Bicycle parking•

Communicationso Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)o Signageo Broadcasts to Kaua’i hotels and visitor industry (up-to-the-minute, text messages,
web-based)

2.14 PARK USE
2.14.1 USER SURVEYS
The OmniTrak Group Inc. conducted 283 park user surveys on random days between July 1 andOctober 31, 2007 on behalf of the HTA. The survey found that the majority of park visitors (83percent) were from the U.S. (excluding Hawai‘i), and Hawai‘i visitors comprised less than 10
percent. The balance of the visitors were from Canada (2.5 percent), Japan (<1 percent) and“other” nations (4 percent).
The survey also found that visitors came to Hā‘ena State Park for various reasons. For Hawai‘i
residents, an outing with family or friends motivated the visit. For out-of-state or international
visitors, ocean activities were the primary motivation and outing with family or friends second(see Table 3). The actual activities carried out by both sets of visitors varied widely withocean/water recreation being the top activity for both (see Table 4).
Table 3 – Park Visit Motivation
HI RESIDENT
Outing with family/friends
63%
Ocean/water activity
19%
Hike trails/walk7%
Scenic view
4%
Party/Celebration
4%
Other
4%
See flora/fauna
Event by an organization you belong to
Guided tour stop
Use restrooms
Famous landmark
Source: OmniTrak (2007)

2-80

NON-HI VISITOR
31%
46%
7%
7%
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
4%

©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Table 4 – Park Activities
HI RESIDENT
Ocean/water recreation
65%
Picnic/Outing
46%
Scenic views/Photography
42%
Hike/Walk
35%
Use restroom
27%
See park flora/fauna
23%
Visit historical/cultural site
8%
Other
8%
Camp
4%
Fishing/Hunting
Source: OmniTrak (2007)

NON-HI VISITOR
81%
39%
71%
30%
32%
23%
7%
2%
0%
1%

Most visitors stayed at the park between two to five hours for both Hawai‘i residents and nonHawai‘i visitors alike. The average length of stay for the Hawai‘i resident, however, was longer
at 5.3 hours compared with non-Hawai‘i visitors who stayed 3.6 hours on average. See Table 5.
It should be noted that this survey does not account for the visitors who drive to the end of Kūhiō
Highway at Kē‘ē Beach, and leave without staying at the park.
Table 5 – Length of Park Stay
HI RESIDENT
Less than one hour
14%
One to two hours
11%
Two to five hours
50%
Five to ten hours
7%
More than ten hours
4%
Average
5.3
Source: OmniTrak (2007)

NON-HI VISITOR
5%
19%
55%
9%
1%
3.6

The average party size for all users was 4.3 people with typically three adults and one to twochildren. For the majority of non-Hawai‘i visitors, it was their first time to the park (70 percent)compared with only 39 percent of Hawai‘i residents. They also found that the vast majority ofvisitors arrive at Hā‘ena State Park by vehicle, either a rental or personal vehicle (88 percent of
Hawai‘i visitors; 97 percent of non-Hawai‘i visitors).
In 2009-10, 175 user surveys were conducted by Vaughan (2010) within the park and foundsimilar results although a much higher percentage of Kaua‘i and Hawai‘i residents wereinterviewed (~21 percent). High percentages of both Kaua‘i residents and non-residents snorkel
and swim at Kē‘ē (between 40 and 90 percent). Nearly 40 percent of non-residents also sunbatheand hike at the park while less than 15 percent of residents did either activity.
During this survey, park visitors were also asked about their willingness to pay an entrance fee(Vaughan 2010). The survey found that non-resident visitors were more willing to pay a $5 feethan Kaua‘i residents. In fact, over 40 percent of Kaua‘i residents were either unwilling or very
unwilling to pay compared to only 17 percent who were very willing or willing to pay. However,when asked if they would be willing to pay a fee knowing that 60 percent or more of the funds
would be used at Hā‘ena, both non-Kaua‘i visitors and Kaua‘i residents responded with a greater
willingness to pay the fee. Therefore, an entrance fee is more likely to deter local residents from
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan
2-81

visiting the park than non-locals. However, there would be more of a willingness to pay by locals
if the fees collected went directly to support and maintain the park.

2.14.2 PROBABLE PARK USERS
One theme that repeatedly surfaced throughout the master plan process was a desire to reconnect
the local community to the park and increase local presence in the park. It is anticipated that thepark will continue to be popular with visitors from outside the Hā‘ena and North Shore
communities and that they will continue to come for many of the same reasons as listed in Table
3 and Table 4.
However, with implementation of the visitor limit and management objectives of this master
plan, the hope by the local community is that there will be an increase in local residents using thepark as a place of employment, for volunteer projects/community work days, for cultural
practices or to simply enjoy the park’s resources and facilities as they once did in the past. The
vision shared by the project team is to also enrich the visitor experience by providing moreauthentic learning opportunities and meaningful interaction with the natural environs of the park,
and to involve the actual people and community from Hā‘ena in educating visitors.

2.14.3 IMPACTS OF INCREASED RECREATION ON RESOURCES
Some of the issues associated with uses at the park such as traffic congestion and improperinteraction with natural and cultural resources have less to do with the recreational uses that are
occurring in the park and are more a product of the lack of management and visitor information.
Currently, visitors have little to no onsite guidance on: 1) the importance or fragility of the park’s
resources; or 2) how to best interact within (or avoid) sensitive park resources. In fact, a recent
survey (Vaughan, 2009) found that most visitors from out-of-state and abroad learn about thepark from guidebooks and once in the park they acquire information about the park’s resourcesfrom these same guidebooks. Therefore, the primary concern that this master plan attempts toaddress is how to better manage the park, providing visitor orientation, interpretive devices
internal to the park as well as improved infrastructure, traffic control, and transportation options
so that both natural and cultural resources can be better protected and the overall visitor
experience improved.

2.14.4 POTENTIAL PARK EXPANSION
The extensive and varied cultural, archaeological, historic and natural resources within the park
coupled with high user volumes create conflicts between resource use and protection when left
unmanaged. Within the park, most of the areas are considered significant for either its cultural or
natural resources. Even disturbed areas, such as Kūhiō Highway, are designated as historic
resources on the National Register. The sensitivity of the park’s resources makes it difficult todisperse or significantly expand park facilities within its current boundaries unless parking
and/or other facilities are relocated outside the park.
Expansion of the park could relieve congestion and overuse of the resources. However,surrounding properties do not easily lend themselves to acquisition for park expansion purposes.
The park is bound to the north and west by the Pacific Ocean. Lands mauka of the highway arecomprised of rugged, steep terrain which would not permit expansion for general visitor services
2-82©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

or parking. This leaves an assemblage of parcels east of the park that are held by the National
Tropical Botanical Garden and used for taro cultivation or other private entities and developedwith single-family dwellings. However, options for locating visitor parking outside of the park's
boundaries on non-contiguous property are being considered and explored.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

2-83

Aloha Hā‘ena
Carlos Andrade
Aloha nō ‘o Hā‘ena i ka ‘ehukai
Me nā ‘ale e holu ‘ana i ke Kai o Hiala‘a.
Ua la‘a ka pu‘u o Makana e hea mai ana
I ka po‘e ‘ō‘iwi, e ho‘omalu i ka ‘āina.
Ho‘ola‘i i ka poli o Makua one hānau o nā kūpuna
Kīa‘i, mālama, ‘onipa‘a, he kuleana ko nā Mamo.
Kilohi aku iā Mānoa me ka wailele ona
He Pilipali ka makani, he Moani ko Maniniholo.
Holo aku i ka Hale Pōhaku, kahi o Pōhakuloa.
Nānā i uka iā Pōhaku Kāne, nānā i kai iā Hauwā.
Ne‘e aku i ke awāwā ‘o Limahuli, inu i ka wai aloha.
‘Au‘au i ka waipuna hu‘ihu‘i, ho‘opili i ka Mea Aloha.
Mā‘alo i ka wai o Kanaloa, akahele i ka pali o Ke‘ē
Hihia pa‘a ‘o Lohi‘au iā Pele, hō‘ola ‘ia e Hi‘iaka.
Hā‘ina ‘ia mai ka puana o kēia mele o nā wahi pana.
Aloha ‘ia nō o Hā‘ena e ka Hui Maka‘āinana,
Hui Maka‘āinana o Makana.
Hā‘ena loves indeed the spray of the sea
with the deep ocean waves swelling and undulating on the sea of Hiala‘a.
Sacred is the mountain Makana that is callingto the Native people to protect the land.
Shelter in the bosom of Makua, birth sands of our ancestors
Stand guard! care for! stand fast! this is the responsibility of our generation.
Look upward to Manoa with its falling water.
Pilipali is the wind, Moani is that of Maniniholo.
Travel on to Hale Pōhaku, to the place of Pohakuloa.
Look inland to Pōhaku Kāne, look seaward to Hauwā.
Move onwards to the valley of Limahuli, drink the water of aloha.
swim and bathe in the cool of the water pool, closer the Ka Mea Aloha
Passing by the water of Kanaloa, be cautious of the cliffs at Ke‘ē
Lohi‘au was ensnared by Pele, revived by Hi‘iaka
Let the refrain of this song of the storied places be told.
Beloved is Hā‘ena by the people of the land,
the people of the land of Makana.

2-84©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

3.0

Master Plan

As noted in the Introduction, the 2001 Draft Park Plan presented and evaluated three master planalternatives plus a “no change” or “no action” alternative for a total of four alternatives. The
Keith Companies, with Earthplan, DLNR, and various community groups worked together todetermine which version best suited their vision for the park.
The “no change” alternative was rejected outright due to the continued degradation of culturaland natural resources and the worsening traffic and parking congestion that would occur if
nothing were done. The proposed master plan described in this section builds upon the 2001
Draft Park Plan also referred to as the “community preferred plan” in The Keith Companies’
report (or “Alternative One”). This alternative was selected out of remaining alternatives duringthat earlier effort due to its minimal impact to the park’s natural, cultural and historic resources.
However, refinement was needed as the plan recommended distributing recreational uses
throughout the park which could potentially impact cultural resources and result in degradationof the natural environment. It located picnic facilities along the dunes, active beach recreation atKa‘īlio Point, and bicycle trails along the ‘auwai and Limahuli Stream. The 2001 Draft Park
Plan, however, did include physical improvements that were intended to help manage human useof the park, such as a Visitor Center, Caretaker’s Cottage, and baseyard at the main entry, a gatenear the main parking area, and another gate restricting vehicular access from the dunes at Kē‘ē.
The master plan presented below has undergone several iterative revisions since the 2001 Draft
Park Plan and has been refined further through the EIS process. It incorporates comments andmarkups received during the community meetings, open houses and public surveys, as well as
the in-depth working sessions with the two advisory committees and public agencies, andrecommendations from the technical consultants and EIS comments. The current version of themaster plan also prioritizes the cultural and natural aspects of the site, restricting recreational
uses of the park to appropriate, non-sensitive areas, and incorporates sustainable design
elements. Pedestrian access is emphasized within the park while shuttle access to the park is
encouraged.
In addition, due to the potential for rockfall hazards, particularly in the area between the
Welcome Hale and Wai a Kanaloa, AECOM prepared a map showing the location beyond which
the potential for simulated rockfalls diminish to a 0% chance based on computer modeling. The
master plan locates all the proposed visitor facilities including the pedestrian path makai of thisline. The exact alignment and materials used to construct the path and other facilities should bedesigned with input from rockfall engineers, State Parks archaeologists and staff, the Cultural
and Community Advisory Groups, and the Hui.
This chapter provides the physical description of the various master plan improvements while
Sections 4.0 and 5.0 describe the key management, operations, interpretive, and implementation
recommendations. Figure 27 presents the master plan in map form with a detailed view of themain entry area provided in Figure 28.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

3-1

3.1

KEY FEATURES OF THE MASTER PLAN

The following section provides conceptual descriptions of the key features of the master plan. It
starts at the park entrance and continues toward Kē‘ē. The exact locations and designs of the
proposed features are subject to change and refinement during the detailed design andconstruction phases based on conditions at the time of implementation.

3.1.1 PARK ENTRY, TURNAROUND, AND NEW MAIN GATE
A new main gate is recommended to be installed when the highway is closed to general vehicle
traffic to reduce visitor exposure to the rockfall hazards. Only those with special access to Kē‘ē,such as the lifeguards and rescue personnel, those with valid ADA parking placards or plates,park staff, the Hula Complex and other cultural practitioners will be allowed along the limitedaccess portion of the highway. It is envisioned to be a low, simple swing gate with an open
design to maintain visual connection to Kē‘ē. Rockfall hazard warning signs will be installed on
the gate across the highway and a swing gate on the mauka half of the right-of-way could be
automated to open for exiting traffic only.
A vehicle turnaround is provided just past the park entry and provides separate accesses to andfrom the main parking lot, as well as the special access parking at Kē‘ē, and a separate staging
area that could be used for various park purposes. Those who do not have valid park parking
access may continue around the turnaround and exit the park without blocking traffic. Also
located at the turnaround, shade structures are provided to support general visitor drop-off andpick-up areas or can be used as a shuttle or bus stop when such services become available.
Shuttle and transit schedules should be posted at the stop if they are established. Should shuttleor transit service to the park become successful enough to eliminate or reduce the need for theparking lot, the shuttle stop area can be enlarged to accommodate the required passenger dropoffs and pick-ups. The shade structures could also be designed with photovoltaic panels to help
power the nearby facilities.

3.1.2 PARKING
Most of the visitor parking will be consolidated into one main visitor parking lot near the park
entry as much of the highway will be closed to general traffic. Only a small special accessparking area will remain at Kē‘ē as noted earlier for ADA accessibility, the lifeguards, park staff,
the Hula Complex and other cultural practices. It will also be accessible for emergencies as well
as safety and rescue operations.
The preferred medium for the parking lot is permeable pavement or structural grass over theentire parking lot or at least half of the parking lot so it can be used for multiple purposes. The
parking lot as shown in the plan is large enough to park roughly 100 vehicles. However, toencourage use of the shuttle or transit system being planned for the North Shore, the number ofavailable stalls may be reduced and the grassed areas of the lot can be used for outdoor activities,
staging areas, or educational purposes related to the adjacent traditional house site (Feature 8,
Site 1600-8) and lo‘i. The areas shown in different shades of green show how the parking lot
could be partitioned for the different users, whether they are fee-paying visitors or non-fee
paying visitors, and can be adjusted with movable bollards and cordons depending on thenumber of cars for each user group. Eventually, if the transit system proves successful, the area
no longer needed for parking could permanently be converted into other park uses.
3-2©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

9FGBE9.Q %B9Q #9<<Q

&1.BAFGEH.G1/Q
,<1QQ!B9Q
AG1ECE1G9J1Q'9G1Q$,G9J1QHA1Q %<,AGFQ
,FQ,CCEBCE9,G1 Q&1C<,.1QK9G8QA,G9J1Q,A/BEQ%B<MA1F9,AQ 9AGEB/H.1/QC=,AGFQ Q
,FQ,CCEBCE9,G1 Q GMC9.,<QFM@-B< Q"9@9G1/Q..1FFQ3BEQ
1@1G1EM
H<GHE,=Q,G81E9A7QE1,

&1FGBE1Q'GE1,@Q
AJE9BA@1AGQ

PQ 

     

NODQ*+Q #,:AG,9AQ L9FG9A7Q!9@9G1/Q..1FFQ&B,0Q

&B.;3,<<Q',31GMQH351EQ
Q@9AQ3EB@Q),9Q,Q ,A,<B, Q
J171G,G1QK9G8QA,G9J1QC<,AGF Q,>,<,HQ(E,9<Q1,/Q    %BG1AG9,<Q&1FGBE1/Q)1G?,A/F!B9!B;BQ'IEJ1MQ,E1,Q3BEQ,E.81B<B79.,<Q
E1FBHE.1FQQ/1G1E@9A1Q31,F:-9>9GMQ
B3QK1G<,A/Q,A/BEQ<B9QE1FGBE,G9BAQ         



 

  



 '!+ %++ + (&*+ !"!+%&!+ + ! !+*++ &+ %+%!+%+ ! +%++ ! !+#+!+ + ($ %%+*++%)+&++(%+!+ (#*+ &! !&&%+!+&$+% &+*%%+

&1FGBE1/QIK,9Q
9<G1EQEHA B65QCE9BEQGBQ1AG1E9A7Q<B9Q
1F:7AQA,G9J2-9BFK,<1QBHGF9/1QB3Q,HK,:Q3BE
FGBE@QK,G1EQ4HAB35QQEB.;K,<<Q.,G.8@1AGA larger shuttle stop with shelters, benches and informational signage may also be required withexpanded shuttle/transit service. In the meantime, this design gives State Parks the flexibility toprovide enough parking until the shuttle/transit system is operational and to adjust the number ofparking stalls that are available for the different user groups and to encourage multimodal accessto the park once it starts.
Pedestrian paths should be provided throughout the parking lot and drop-off/pick up areas toclearly delineate where people should walk. The pedestrian path itself could be curbed or edged
for easier maintenance and should be surfaced with permeable pavers or pavements or naturalsoil hardeners to increase rainwater infiltration while providing a stable, weatherproof surface.
At the special access parking area, bicycle racks should also be installed and drainage
improvements should be made in the area to prevent ponding, soil erosion, and beach washouts
as has happened at Kē‘ē during heavy rainfall events (see Photo 20). It is also recommended thataccess to this special access parking area be managed by special permit or access codes at acontrolled entry off the turnaround. Access should also be coordinated with safety and rescue
personnel during emergencies and rescue operations.

3.1.3 WELCOME HALE AND RESTROOMS
The Welcome Hale is envisioned as an open pavilion without walls where information about thepark can be posted. The displays should include a park map and orientation information, parkrules and cultural protocols. Daily weather, ocean and hazard conditions could also be posted at
the Welcome Hale.
New public restrooms and bicycle parking are provided outside of the hale near the main parking
lot. This second set of restrooms will help reduce the use of the Kē‘ē comfort station, which islocated near sensitive archaeological sites. Technological advances in individual wastewater
treatment systems are providing higher-quality effluents and should be considered when
designing the new restrooms. If possible, the effluent should be reused and the leach field for the
new restrooms could be located beneath the parking lot. Dual waterlines and rainwater catchment
systems can also be installed for the restrooms and the lo‘i to minimize potable water use. Solar
photovoltaic systems can also be installed to support electrical needs.

3.1.4 PEDESTRIAN PATH
Due to the potential for rockfall hazards along the highway, a pedestrian path will be provided
makai of the highway, connecting the Welcome Hale to Kē‘ē Beach. It will traverse the lo‘ialong the first berm separating the first two rows of lo‘i and then turn north to avoid thewetlands. It will cross an ‘auwai over a footbridge and connect to a path through the hau tunnel.
This path will then connect to the trail behind the dunes and turn south, leading visitors past the
comfort stations and lifeguard tower to Kē‘ē. The path will remain low to the ground but slightly
floating over the berm, with structural supports located to avoid any archaeological sites.
Handrails will be provided for safety if needed. It should also be designed with lightweight,
durable, and easy-to-maintain materials that are resistant to vandalism and weathering.
Interpretive displays and wayside exhibits will be installed along this path, including directionalsignage and educational information for the varied sights along this trail. From here, distantHä‘ena State Park Master Plan

3-5

views of Wai a Kanaloa can be seen as well as spectacular views of Makana, the lo‘i, loko andthe wetlands.

3.1.5 RESTORED ‘AUWAIThe master plan shows an ‘auwai running along the mauka edge of the parking lot. It is inroughly the same alignment as the original ‘auwai that used to cut through this area before it was
cleared for the dirt parking lot. There have been requests by some members of the MPAC todetermine whether it can be restored and made functional again, connecting to the rest of the‘auwai system. Further investigation to see if the ‘auwai can be restored to serve the lo‘i without
extreme requirements or costs should be done prior to detailed design of the parking lot. If it isfound that it can be restored, the grading and landscaping of this area should be done so thatstormwater runoff from the parking lot is diverted away from the ‘auwai and directed to flow
across the grassed areas of the parking lot or bioswales and adjacent landscaped areas which
could be designed as rain gardens. In addition, overflow drainage swales could be designed inthis area to help mitigate larger rainfall flows that may overtop the ‘auwai. If it cannot be
restored as an ‘auwai, another alternative is to aesthetically integrate its design into the drainage
system and to see if it has potential for microhydro power generation. This area can also double
as a catchment ditch for rockfall events. Native or Polynesian-introduced trees could also be
planted in a thick screen along the highway and parking lot as an added rockfall mitigation
measure and to soften the view of the highway from the pedestrian path.

3.1.6 RECONSTRUCTED HALE AND LO‘I INTERPRETIVE SITE
A traditional house site (Feature 8, Site 1600-8) is located on the northern side of the mainparking lot. According to the State Parks archaeologists, it likely has been modified by theaddition of a lanai in historic times. Recent reconnaissance of the site shows it to be in relatively
good condition and provides an opportunity for a reconstructed hale pili and lo‘i interpretive siteat the entrance to the park. Final design of this area will be done once a more detailed condition
analysis of the site is conducted and the feasibility of reconstruction is determined. The layout
shown in the master plan is purely conceptual and subject to revision based on the condition
analysis. It should, however, be designed to be ADA accessible from the parking lot if possible.

3.1.7 DLNR HELIPAD AND STAGING AREA
The helipad and staging area will be used only by DLNR for maintenance of their facilities
including the Nāpali trails and sites. One potential location is makai of the entry turnaround andwill need to be designed with the new turnaround so the area is large enough and does not impact
archaeological sites. Since it is infrequently used, the helicopter landing area can be designed as
a level, grassed site. The final design and location, however, will be decided upon as part of thedetailed design process for the main parking lot and entry complex.
For emergency helicopter landings, the Fire Department prefers the open grassy area near the
Hui’s current shelter, which is marked on the master plan as an alternate landing area. This area
may continue to be used as an emergency landing zone as it is unsuitable for lo‘i restoration andproposed to remain as an open grassy field for educational and special events makai of the
Welcome Hale. However, the Fire Department noted they will land wherever they need to as
appropriate for the emergency situation.
3-6©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

3.1.8 LIMITED ACCESS CORRIDOR
The highway between the turnaround and Kē‘ē will be closed to general vehicle traffic and used
only for special vehicle access due to the potential rockfall hazard. The only vehicles that will bepermitted beyond the gate will be special access vehicles such as the lifeguards and emergency
and rescue teams, park staff, hula and other cultural practitioners, and ADA vehicles. Because
this segment of the highway is currently owned by the State Department of Transportation, it willneed to be transferred to State Parks or an agreement must be made between the two stateagencies for State Parks to take over management of it. In emergency situations such as tsunami
warnings, visitors will be able to evacuate along this corridor to escape to higher ground and outof the park if it is deemed safe.

3.1.9 HULA COMPLEX
Given the extreme importance of the area around the ancient heiau and its worldwide recognition
as a wahi kapu, the entire area makai of the Kalalau Trailhead and encompassing the area of theformer Allerton estate and the heiau is designated as the Hula Complex. It is the first priority of
the MPAC to restore the area and to develop a culturally appropriate management plan. The
complex includes Ka Ulu a Paoa Heiau and Ke Ahu a Laka, the former Allerton property, andthe State lands surrounding them. Restoration of the heiau and Ke Ahu a Laka utilizing
Kekahuna’s map and all available maps is recommended.
The County has established a stewardship agreement with Hui Maka‘āinana o Makana to carefor the sites within its parcel and is working with State Parks on access and coordination. It is
recommended that appropriate cultural protocols be established as part of the management,
access, and use of the area. Review by both KHPRC and SHPD will be required for any
improvements and proposed management plans.
Rehabilitation of the historic Allerton Caretaker’s Cottage is currently underway for reuse tosupport park use, including the Hula Complex. The Allerton house site and existing foundation
should be maintained as an open, grassed platform as hula hālau often use that area. State Parks
notes that recent changes at the site may require short-term improvements to preserve it in place.
If restroom facilities are provided, potable water and an individual wastewater treatment system
will be needed due to the remoteness of this facility. Sustainable design elements should beconsidered to make it as self-sufficient as possible including high efficiency fixtures, renewableenergy, rainwater catchment, and wastewater treatment and reuse.

3.1.10 DUNE RESTORATION
The dunes and beach strand were identified by both the MPAC and biologists at Geometrician
Associates as priority sites for restoration. For the MPAC, it would be an opportunity to take careof the iwi kūpuna interred there. According to the biologists, the restoration of a native dune
ecosystem would involve the removal of alien species and the planting of natives andPolynesian-introduced plants such as pōhuehue, naupaka, nanea, pōhinahina, nehe, pa‘u-oHi‘iaka, ‘aki‘aki grass, milo, hala and kou. Not only would they provide improved and moreauthentic vegetation but they could also be used to help reduce coastal erosion if carefullyplanted. Restoration of the dune system would also improve habitat for common native
shorebirds, including kōlea, ‘ūlili, ‘akekeke or ruddy turnstone, kioea or bristle-thighed curlew,
hunakai or sanderling, and sandpiper (Geometrician Associates 2009).
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

3-7

Also, because the beach is one of the primary recreational resources at the park, visitors should
clearly be instructed to be careful as they walk along the coast, especially east of the proposed
lifeguard station since shoreline erosion is unearthing iwi and other cultural resources. The
formal picnic areas that were shown on the dunes with tables in the 2001 Draft Park Plan havebeen removed and a new picnic area will be located at the end of the existing highway pavementat Kē‘ē. Visitors, however, will still be permitted to picnic on the beach, but not on the dunes,
and all trash will be encouraged to be carried out with them. Recreational activities thatnegatively impact the beach and dunes should be prohibited.

3.1.11 LIFEGUARD TOWER
A new permanent location for the lifeguard tower has been identified with input from the MPAC
and the Kē‘ē lifeguards. As shown in Figure 27, it is roughly 50 feet north of the highway
pavement and 50 feet mauka of the 2009 certified shoreline to allow views from the end of thepath to open up to the ocean and improve visibility for the lifeguards. The site is located outside
any known flood hazard zone or wetland. To avoid potential impact to subsurface resources, thefoundation should be built up rather than excavating down into the dunes, if possible. Also, someof the existing ironwood trees may have to be cut. When asked, the lifeguards agreed the
proposed site will improve their ability to see key areas of the lagoon and Kē‘ē Channel
compared to their current temporary location at the end of the highway pavement.

3.1.12 PICNIC AREA AT KĒ‘Ē
Picnicking is permitted at Kē‘ē Beach. However, a formal picnic area with picnic tables will belocated at the end of the former highway pavement at the entrance to Kē‘ē Beach. The area isshaded by trees and overlooks the beach and lagoon. The tables can be placed on the oldhighway pavement to provide ADA accessibility.

3.1.13 LOKO AND WETLAND RESTORATION
Some members of the MPAC expressed a desire to restore the loko and wetland areas forendangered native birds and possible agricultural uses. Loko Naia is believed to have been a loko
kalo and Loko Kē‘ē either a fishpond or loko kalo. However, Geometrician Associates do notrecommend modifying these areas specifically to attract endangered birds for practical and legal
reasons. There are several binding agreements and permits that must be obtained with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in order to do so, such as a Safe Harbor Agreement and associatedenhancement of survival permit as well as increased responsibility to protect the native birds
once they are established at the park. They also caution its location near the main public corridor
would also increase the potential for endangered birds to be harassed, injured or killed directly or
indirectly by people or their pets and may be difficult to manage.
They do, however, recommend restoring the native flora which would increase native plant
conservation and opportunities to educate the public. This may also indirectly support native
birds including endangered and threatened species without a formal effort to create an
endangered species habitat. The State could also consider a third party agreement with a localorganization that may want to take on the responsibility of creating and maintaining such a
habitat if a formal endangered species habitat is desired. If pursued, the wetlands should be
3-8©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

protected through fringing vegetation that encourages viewing but discourages direct entry andpossibly fencing shielded by the landscaping to help minimize access by predators.

3.1.14 LIMAHULI STREAM RESTORATION
Based on recommendations from Geometrician Associates, another natural area with potential
for beneficial impact is restoration of the riparian areas around Limahuli Stream. The alien tree
species that form a dense, closed canopy around the stream are especially problematic since theyeffectively prevent sunlight from reaching the ground and prevent the mid-canopy and groundcover layers in the forest from developing. This in turn increases sediment loading in the stream
due to erosion and tree litter. Reduced sunlight also limits the growth of benthic algae in streams.
The algae are a major food source for many rare and federally endangered native fish andinvertebrates. A reduction in this important food source, coupled with increased sedimentloading, could ultimately result in decreased habitat quality of streams.
Careful clearing of the alien trees along Limahuli Stream and the planting of appropriate nativeand Polynesian-introduced plants to stabilize slopes are recommended. In order to prevent
impacts to ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, the Hawaiian hoary bats, State Parks should restrict any cutting of large
shrubs or trees taller than fifteen feet in height to periods outside the June 1 through September
15 breeding season for the ‘ōpe‘ape‘a. State Parks should continue to cooperate with theDivision of Aquatic Resources to keep new alien fish out of the ‘auwai and stream and in ridding
the stream of periodic invasions of swordtails, guppies, and other alien fish (Geometricians
Associates 2009). Additional consideration should also be given to working with neighboring
landowners as well as ma uka up Limahuli Valley if pursued.

3.1.15 AGRICULTURAL COMPLEX
In order to create a living cultural agricultural complex, it is recommended to continuecommunity gardening practices restoring the lo‘i as recommended in restoration plans already inplace. One request of the MPAC was to allow for other cultural crops to be planted in addition tokalo. Historically, the complex was known to be flexible, allowing dryland cultivation to be doneby simply redirecting water through different paths. ‘Uala, or sweet potatoes, were known to begrown in sandy areas and mai‘a, bananas, kō, sugar cane, and ‘awa (Piper methysticum) weregrown in the valleys.
Restoration of the ‘auwai is also recommended wherever feasible, particularly in actively
cultivated areas of the lo‘i. Special care, however, needs to be taken not to hydraulically connect
the lo‘i and ‘auwai back to Limahuli Stream to prevent the spread of apple snails. Limahuli
Stream is one of the few places in the state that does not have apple snails and the snails are
currently in the park’s lo‘i.
The 2001 Draft Park Plan also included pedestrian and bicycle pathways throughout the lo‘i,
primarily along and sometimes through the ‘auwai. This is no longer recommended since thegoal is to reestablish the ‘auwai as the primary means of irrigating the lo‘i. The plan currently
locates the main pedestrian path over the first berm within the lo‘i and will provide visitors an
up-close view of the lo‘i on their way to Kē‘ē. There may also be opportunities for interactive
educational activities within the first row of lo‘i for visitors, away from the Hui's restoration
work, which will continue makai and east.
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

3-9

Access to and/or through certain areas of the lo‘i is required for both people and equipment as apart of ongoing maintenance and harvesting. For safety reasons, access within the working lo‘ishould therefore be managed and primarily reserved for those restoring the lo‘i as well as foreducational and work groups tending to the lo‘i.

3.1.16 MONTGOMERY HOUSE
The historic Montgomery House situated within the Agricultural Complex is recommended forrehabilitation to support park uses. The facility could be used to support the agricultural activities
or other park uses and operations. Similar to the Allerton Caretaker’s Cottage, if restroom
facilities are provided, potable water and an individual wastewater treatment system will beneeded. Sustainable design elements should be considered to make it as self-sufficient as
possible including high efficiency fixtures, renewable energy, rainwater catchment, andwastewater treatment and reuse.

3.1.17 CULTURAL GATHERING PLACE AND HĀLAU WA‘A
Tucked between the lo‘i, Loko Naia and former coastal road, and up on higher ground, theCultural Gathering Place (CGP) is envisioned as an outdoor gathering place to support
community and educational groups and where overnight stays would be permitted. The CGP isin an area of recent 20th century modification and encompasses the site of the historic poi mill.
An open hālau-type structure and Hālau Wa‘a, or canoe house, is also proposed on the makai
side of the CGP. Approximate locations of these structures are shown in the master plan.
However, because this area is located near potentially sensitive cultural sites, the exact extent of
the area and location of the structures should be determined with input from State Parks
archaeologists and staff, the community and cultural advisory groups, and kūpuna. In addition,
the Hālau Wa‘a should be located as makai as possible without impacting sensitive sites and thedune system. For infrastructure, potable water will be needed. Composting toilets should beconsidered as an option for restroom facilities or temporary restrooms could be brought in andremoved as necessary to serve the area. Alien plant species should be removed and replaced withnative and Polynesian-introduced plants.

3.1.18 POI MILLInterpretation of the historic poi mill is recommended. Remnants of the concrete foundation still
remain and the MPAC discussed whether the poi mill could be rebuilt in order to process
harvests from the lo‘i. However, the site is located in an area of potential flood hazard due towave action, according to the FIRM and if State Parks or another entity wishes to reestablish a
poi mill on site or within the park, additional studies are recommended to determine the mostsuitable location, design, and size for such a facility. The site itself, however, can be interpretedwith signage or displays and could be included on guided tours.

3.1.19 CEMETERY AREAS
The two modern cemeteries that are just north of the loko are currently maintained by family
members. In the 1996 Burial Treatment Plan, there are recommendations to install signage andfence or wall off and gate the cemetery areas, with access provided to lineal descendants and
3-10©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

State personnel. However, during the MPAC meetings a request was made to eliminate thefencing and gates. Rather than using fences or walls, landscaping and the use of native andPolynesian-introduced plants should be considered as more natural buffers for the area. Any
signage that is installed should be designed with input from the families of those buried there.

3.1.20 HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURESDue to the potential for rockfalls along the highway, all of the major facilities including thepedestrian path to Kē‘ē should be located outside of the high rockfall hazard zones and the
projected zero percent chance of rockfalls boundary as described by AECOM in their Rockfall
Hazard Assessment report (Appendix H). The new pedestrian path and parking lot improvements
should be considered part of the rockfall mitigation and prioritized in capital improvement
project funding. In addition, warning signs should be installed at appropriate locations along the
highway and safety instructions should be made available online and at the Welcome Hale.
Ocean safety signs should also be posted at both the main entry points by the Welcome
Pavilion/Education and Cultural Center as well as along the major pathways leading to shoreline
areas such as at Kē‘ē Beach, near the Hālau Wa‘a, and at the Cultural Gathering Place.
Additional safety signage should be installed as necessary throughout the park in appropriate
areas.
Emergency evacuation routes should also be planned and indicated on visitor brochures andmaterials and park signage. They can also be described and shown on maps posted at the parkand online. If people need to be airlifted out of the park, the helipads shown on the plan can beaccessed from multiple locations.

3.2

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

The following recommendations for infrastructure improvements were developed by Kennedy
Jenks to support the goals of the proposed master plan and preferences of the MPAC.

3.2.1 INTEGRATED WATER/WASTEWATER/DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Design considerations for integrated water/wastewater systems include:
1. Using treated wastewater effluent and collected rainwater for irrigating the landscaping
around the facilities such as the Welcome Hale and new restrooms. If effluent water
quality is R-2, irrigation systems must be subsurface with no overground sprays. If
treated to R-1, overground spray and drip systems can be installed.
2. Using treated wastewater effluent and collected rainwater for toilet flushing at the new
restrooms, Allerton Caretaker’s Cottage, and Montgomery House to conserve potablewater.
3. Reducing erosion by redirecting drainage flows, restoring the ‘auwai, and collecting,storing, and reusing rainwater onsite.
4. Directing rainwater runoff from the main parking to landscaped areas and rain gardens
for biofiltration. Where possible, collecting and storing rainwater for reuse such as
irrigation and possibly toilet flushing.
5. Redesigning Kūhiō Highway culverts so that rainwater that passes beneath it flows morenaturally and can be filtered and used in the ‘auwai system.
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

3-11

Control measures to prevent the spread of apple snails from the park’s lo‘i to Limahuli Stream
should be included in any design or implementation of the ‘auwai and irrigation systems for the
agricultural complex. Some suggestions include but are not limited to:
1. Elevating and extending the outfall pipes from the Limahuli Stream diversions above thereceiving ‘auwai so the snails cannot crawl directly into the stream. The snails are known
to not like cold, fast-moving water which is what flows from Limahuli Stream so the risk
is minimized.
2. Grading the ‘auwai to flow makai and away from Limahuli Stream so water does notflow back to Limahuli Stream.
For items specific to wastewater treatment:
1. Treatment for wastewater should be to a minimum R-2 water quality, with aeration andnon-chlorine treatment such as ultraviolet (UV) disinfection to improve effluent quality.
Consider using renewable energy sources to provide power.
2. Locate effluent absorption beds under parking lots and driveways.
3. Provide aeration to the existing constructed wetlands primary treatment tanks, poweredby a photovoltaic system.
4. For remote, low use facilities, consider composting toilets or temporary/portable facilities
as needed.
5. Use non-chemical disinfectants and cleaning products for maintenance, particularly incomposting toilets, to minimize impacts to wastewater treatment processes and effluent
quality.
6. Include maintenance manuals and provide instruction to ensure proper upkeep of all
wastewater systems at the park.

3.2.2 ELECTRICAL POWER
Many of the proposed facilities will require electrical power. KIUC service stops at the entrance
to the park and should only be extended as necessary. The facilities requiring power should bedesigned to be as energy efficient as possible and use renewable energy wherever and as much as
possible. Potential renewable energy resources include but may not be limited to solar, wind andhydro power.
3.2.2.1 Potential Renewable Energy Resources
A cursory review of the potential renewable energy resources that may be available at Hā‘ena
State Park was done based on readily available information. Because of the park’s limited accessto infrastructure and the dispersed locations of some of the proposed facilities, all sources ofrenewable energy should be investigated and pursued whenever feasible.
Solar hot water heaters and photovoltaic (PV) electric systems are well-established technologies
that have been installed widely throughout the islands. According to State data from the Hawai‘i
Sugar Planters Association collected in 1985, an estimated 350 solar calories per squarecentimeter fall on the area per day. The higher the intensity, the better the resource is. The
average for the island is 350 cal/cm2/day, with ranges from 0 to 500 cal/cm2/day. A solar hot
water heater can be installed at the facilities that may require hot water such as the Montgomery
House and Allerton Caretaker's Cottage, once they are renovated. PV panels could also be
installed as a shade structure at the shuttle stop and entrance turnaround. PV could also be
3-12©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

installed at the comfort station at Kē‘ē to power any new equipment needed for an upgradedwastewater treatment system.
Micro wind and micro hydro are other sources of renewable energy that should be considered inaddition to solar. There are smaller wind turbines that can be installed on rooftops at the park or
those that rotate on a vertical instead of horizontal axis to minimize any impact to birds. There
are also evolving wind technologies that do not have rotating airfoils but capture energy fromaeroelastic flutter. As technology continues to evolve, State Parks and DLNR should continue tolook into viable alternatives as improvements are phased in and developed.
A micro hydro system does not require much to power a small facility. It needs a consistently
running source of water (as little as two gallons per minute) and a relatively small elevation
change (as little as two to three feet of head) to turn a turbine to create power. However, more ofeach will increase output. Micro hydro systems are more efficient the closer they are to theenergy source and therefore Limahuli Stream, the only perennial stream at the park, could be
investigated to provide a source for micro hydro. Neighboring Limahuli Gardens uses a microhydro system to power their entire visitor center which runs on a 24V system and includes lights,
a computer and cash register (Winter, personal communication 2011). Care must be taken,
however, to size and locate the micro hydro to minimize impacts to the stream ecosystem and toaccount for periods of low stream flow.

3.2.3 COMMUNICATIONSIn order to maintain communications and provide for public safety during emergencies, theexisting hardline pay phone at Kē‘ē Beach should be maintained.

3.2.4 ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING
In order to minimize impacts to Hā‘ena's wildlife which can become disoriented at night byartificial lighting, the following recommendations will be followed for any lights designed for
the Park's facilities.
• If installed, all exterior lights will be fully-shielded (completely opaque) and downward
facing full-cut off fixtures with the lowest light level (lumens) possible to minimize
distraction and disorientation of wildlife flying overhead. They can also be installed
lower to the ground to minimize light pollution and motion sensors and/or timers can beutilized to activate the lights only when absolutely necessary.
• Lighting plans and management plans will be carefully designed and implemented so thatno light from the park is visible from the beach to minimize impacts to nesting sea turtles
or their hatchlings seeking the ocean.
• The use of artificial lights should be minimized or reduced as much as possible during thefledging season of September to December. Night time construction should be avoided
during this period.

3.3

OUTDOOR RECREATION AND ACTIVITY AREAS

This section focuses on the outdoor recreational opportunities and activity areas within the park.
Figure 29 highlights the different activity nodes and recreational opportunities. So as to not
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

3-13

disturb the park’s resources, no new entrances or transportation routes are proposed through thepark. However, the interpretive and recreational experiences of traversing this area can beenhanced by installing interpretive displays and wayside exhibits at key locations along thevisitor paths throughout the park. The Welcome Hale and pedestrian path are locations whereinterpretive opportunities can be developed. The path through the lo‘i and through the hau tunnel
to Kē‘ē will enhance the pedestrian experience by providing scenic views of Ka Pali ʻŌahi oMakana (the fire throwing cliff of Makana), the lo‘i, wetlands, and Wai a Kanaloa. This path will
also link the two primary nodes of activity/outdoor recreation at the park.
The first node is the park entrance. These facilities serve to welcome and orient visitors and also
create opportunities for interpretation and education and gathering for educational and workgroups. The second node of activity is at Kē‘ē Beach and includes the trailhead to the Kalalau
Trail. Opportunities for passive beach related recreation, such as walking, fishing, sightseeing,
picnicking, and whale watching also exist along the park’s coastline.
No changes to ocean recreational activities are included as part of this master plan except todiscourage kayak launches and landings and to educate and encourage non-experienced
swimmers and snorkelers and those unfamiliar with the offshore waters to an area to stay within
direct visibility of the lifeguard tower. MPAC and community members recommend placing
flags or buoys as appropriate to provide a visual reference of where this boundary is. Thisboundary should be delineated at the time the lifeguard tower is relocated and installed with
input from the Kē‘ē lifeguards.
Other areas of the park, particularly areas internal to the park, are less suited to conventional
outdoor recreation, but offer opportunities to reconnect to and care for the land through outdoor
activities such as natural resource restoration and traditional food production. Additionally, theseareas offer unique opportunities for volunteer work days for visitors and residents alike. These
areas include the agricultural complex, Loko Naia and Loko Kē‘ē, and the proposed Cultural
Gathering Area, Hālau Wa‘a, and Poi Mill. See Figure 29.
Because the park is rich in archaeological and cultural resources, there are other sensitive areas
where access should be managed. These areas are: the Hula Complex, the Cemetery, and thedunes. Because it would be difficult and inappropriate to overdesign physical barriers or post
warning signs, more natural buffers such as native and Polynesian-introduced plants forlandscaping and low rock walls, as appropriate, are recommended as well as proper educationand orientation online and at the Welcome Hale prior to entering the park.
Certain areas such as Wai a Kanaloa and Waiakapala‘e caves also pose a potential hazard fromrockfalls. Thus, in order to both preserve the resource and to protect the public, interpretive
devices will be located a respectful distance from these features with native and Polynesianintroduced plants for landscaping planted to discourage people from entering the caves orcongregating directly under cliff faces should they choose to traverse the highway despite therockfall warnings.

3.3.1 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM
Hā‘ena State Park’s rich natural, cultural and archaeological resources lend themselves to many
opportunities for outdoor recreation. However, the fragility of these resources also necessitates alevel of protection. Thus certain recreational uses are not suited for the park.
3-14©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Table 6 identifies the spectrum of outdoor recreational activities that currently occur at the park
as well as outdoor recreational activities that this plan anticipates to be added, discontinued or
modified within the park. Under the proposed plan, the number and type of outdoor recreational
activities are proposed to remain relatively unchanged. However, what is proposed in the plan isenhanced management and delivery of recreational opportunities through enriched pedestrian
access to Kē‘ē Beach; the addition of gathering spaces and short-term overnight camping
experiences; picnicking opportunities in scenic locales that are away from sensitive areas; andenhanced interpretation of the park’s natural, cultural and archaeological resources.

3.3.2 VIEW CORRIDORS AND SCENIC LOOKOUTS
Potential view corridors and other scenic views are provided at key locations throughout the parkand along the shoreline as shown in Figure 30. They help heighten awareness and appreciation of
the rich cultural history and active restoration of this wahi pana, as well as the natural beauty of
Hā‘ena as the native ecosystems are restored.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

3-15

Table 6 – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
Activity

Developed Land Setting

Land-Based
Recreation

Ocean-Based Recreation

Kayak
Paddling/Canoe
SCUBA
Snorkeling
Surfing/Bodyboarding
Stand Up Paddleboarding
Windsurfing/Kiteboarding
Swimming
Fishing (shore)
Fishing (boat)
Beach Activities
Kalalau Traihead AccessCampingWilderness Camping Access
Bicycling
Picnicking

Pavilion/HaleWalking/Jogging

Comfort Station

Existing Proposed Modifications
Discourage kayak launchingx
and landing
Launching only permittedx
near Hãlau Wa`axx
xx
Outside lagoonxxxx
Outside lagoonxxxx
As permitted under thex
x
HCBSF Rules
As permitted under thex
x
HCBSF Rulesxxxx
Scheduled cultural or
educational events only atx
the Cultural Gathering Areaxx
Require check-in/outxInterpretive Path
x
x

x

x

Interpretive Opportunities

Concessions
Nature Viewing

x

x
x

x

Botanical Gardensx

Scenic LookoutxHistorical/Cultural Interpretive Display

3-16

x
x

x

x

Add Hãlau Wa'a and a
traditional hale at Cultural
Gathering Place and a
traditional hale at Phase I lo'i
Additional facilites at the
Welcome Pavilion/ECC,
Allerton House, andMontgomery House.
To be permitted under anapproved management
entityIncrease interpretation ofnatural resources
Demonstration Gardens at
ECC, flora restoration along
dunes, lo`i and wetland
restoration
Sites along Interpretive Path,
trails, shoreline, entry
complex, picnic areas
Include appropriate
interpretation ofarchaeological, cultural andhistoric resources©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

4.0Key Management Concepts

Given the complexity and sensitivity of park management, the following section highlights only
those key concepts that will drive ongoing management of the park moving forward. Several ofthe management issues and concerns that are highlighted earlier in this report such as parking,park access, and fees were discussed at length with the two advisory groups, key stakeholders,
and the larger community. However, no consensus could be reached and all agreed that an ideal
solution will likely only arise after initiation of a change in operations, which could then be
adjusted as needed based on community feedback. Therefore many of the potential solutions andalternatives that were raised and considered are recorded in Appendix L for future reference.
They are documented to provide State Parks with a variety of management options that could be
implemented and adjusted to meet the park's goals as well as refined to reach broad community
satisfaction while staying within operational budgets. Different management policies will be
tried and tested over time and adjusted as necessary based on community feedback. Different
concepts could also be changed and/or phased in over time. Please note that some of the concepts
are unconventional and will require further study and community input, and will require
extensive public outreach and education if implemented.

4.1

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The following key recommendations are overarching with regards to park management and arerecommended to be implemented regardless of the subsequent detailed management actions
implemented and refined over time.

4.1.1 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
The primary management concept that will be implemented at the park is adaptive management.
The Department of the Interior describes adaptive management as "an iterative learning process
producing improved understanding and improved management over time. …It is not a 'trial anderror' process, …but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its truemeasure is in how well it helps meet environmental, social and economic goals, increases
scientific knowledge, and reduces tensions among stakeholders." (Williams et al, 2009)
Due to the complexity of the park environment, uncertainty of outcomes given potential changes
in management strategies, and the active community, adaptive management provides amethodology State Parks can follow in order to improve resource management decisions while
addressing community concerns. As noted by Williams et al, "Often the uncertainty about
management impacts is expressed as disagreements among stakeholders who have differing
views about the direction and magnitude of resource change in response to management. An
adaptive approach explicitly articulates these viewpoints, incorporates them into the decision
making process, and uses management itself to help identify the most appropriate view about
resource dynamics. In this way, understanding of the resource can be enhanced over time, andmanagement can improve. … Management of problems like these increasingly involves asystems approach with explicit and agreed-upon objectives, management alternatives, andanalytical approaches that can identify the most appropriate management strategies." (Williams
et al, 2009)
Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

4-1

Williams et al provide the following list of activities that can assist with adaptive management
strategies if performed in a structured approach:• Engaging the relevant stakeholders in the decision making process• Identifying the problem to be addressed• Specifying objectives and tradeoffs that capture the values of the stakeholders• Identifying the range of decision alternatives from which actions are to be selected• Specifying assumptions about resource structures and functions• Projecting the consequences of alternative actions• Identifying key uncertainties• Measuring risk tolerance for potential consequences of decisions• Accounting for future impacts of present decisions• Accounting for legal guidelines and constraints

4.1.2 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUPSA Cultural Advisory Group (CAG) should be established to advise State Parks on ongoing
improvements, educational and interpretive materials, and cultural matters regarding the park.
State Parks may also consult the CAG as needed for proposed management actions and proposedconstruction projects as well as interpretive programs and devices. The CAG may be composedof representatives from the original Hā‘ena families, as well as those persons who specifically
lived in, worked, or cared for the lands within park boundaries, and those who have relatives
buried within the park. It should also include cultural practitioners with knowledge specific tohula, Ke Ahu a Laka and Ka Ulu a Paoa, fishing, and other cultural practices specific to Hā‘ena.
A draft set of recommendations for the establishment and responsibilities of the CAG is provided
in Appendix J. However, they should be viewed as a starting point for developing the CAG andrevised as needed.
Separate from the CAG, the broader community advisory group, the Hā‘ena State Park
Community Advisory Committee, or HSPCAC, has been established and will provide ongoingsupport and consultation on general park issues including the implementation of the master plan.
The group has adopted a charter and plans to meet regularly, particularly when State Parks or the
future management entity undertake any improvement projects or changes in park policy.

4.1.3 VISITOR LIMITSCurrently, there are no visitor limits at the park. Recent counts show that during the summer, thenumber of people who visit the park can reach almost 2,000 people a day and in the winter,roughly 1,000-1,200 people visit daily. Many on the MPAC and in the community felt this was
far too many people for the park and that a limit should be set on the number of visitors to reduce
impacts to the natural, cultural and scenic resources and to improve the overall visitor
experience. Their initial recommendation was to limit it to 300-500 people daily in the park. In
2003, the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority (HTA) also recommended restricting the number ofvisitors allowed at the site at any one time as a possible solution to the parking problem as part ofthe strategic plan for Kaua‘i County in its Natural Resource Assessment (PBR Hawaii 2003).
In addition to these recommendations, because of the extensive archaeological, natural andcultural resources at the park and the proximity of the existing and proposed wastewater facilities
4-2©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

to these resources, State Parks is proposing to limit the number of people in the park to 900
people per day on average during the peak hours of park use. The initial hours over which thislimit would be applied are 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, but are subject to change. This number is an
initial visitor limit which State Parks may adjust over time depending on future improvements,
improved/increased maintenance, and/or other studies such as impact studies, particularly if
harmful impacts to the natural, cultural, and archaeological resources arise. The daily visitor
counts will be averaged over the course of a month so adjustments can be made for park closuredays and is therefore a soft limit that can be adjusted as needed on a daily basis.
This initial visitor limit is higher than that recommended by the MPAC because it includes day
hikers on the Kalalau Trail who numbered well over 500 in 2009. Because the trailhead islocated within the park, visitors venturing on the trail are anticipated to use the park’s restroom
facilities and often go swimming and use the showers when they return from hiking on the trail,
but are not anticipated to impact the park while on the trail. The visitor limit does not, however,include the 60 hikers with valid camping permits or the 30 hunters with valid hunting permits for
the Nāpali Coast State Wilderness Park Hunting Unit G since they are not expected to be in thepark using the facilities for very long and additional facilities are available at Hanakoa andKalalau. The daily visitor limit also would not include cultural practitioners, or special usergroups such as hālau, lo‘i workgroups, cemetery caretakers, or school groups.
By instituting a daily visitor limit, park managers are able to better manage park operation andresource impacts. In addition, they are able to anticipate how busy the park will be on any given
day and post notices online or distribute updates to the visitor industry early in the day whether
tickets will be available. This would encourage visitors to plan ahead and could help reduce
drop-ins and potentially general traffic along the highway through neighboring North Shore
communities to the park. Prior to instituting the visitor limits, a public information campaign
must be made far in advance so people are able to plan their visit to the park.

4.1.4 REQUIRED STAFF/VOLUNTEER EDUCATIONAs representatives for the park, all park staff as well as volunteers should be trained and be
knowledgeable on the cultural, historic, scenic and natural resources at the park. They should
also be well-versed on park rules, cultural protocols, potential hazards, safety training andemergency evacuation processes, and proper protocol at cultural sites.

4.1.5 VISITOR ORIENTATION PRIOR TO PARK ENTRY
All visitors will be provided with park rules and information prior to entering the park. The
orientation information could be made available on the State Parks website or tied to ticket
purchase, particularly if advanced reservations become a requirement in the future. Information
would include appropriate recreational activities and behavior, safety precautions as well as
sensitivity to natural and cultural resources and to cultural activities that may be occurring in thepark. In addition, emails could be distributed to park visitors prior to entry to inform them ofsafety precautions and updates on any special events or weather conditions. Additional
information should be posted online or at the Welcome Hale. The Cultural Advisory Groupshould be consulted on appropriate cultural information to be included in the orientation
information.

Hä‘ena State Park Master Plan

4-3

Table 7 – Park Management Options
Options
State Parks Only

Adopt-A-Park
Revocable Permit

Concession Agreement

Curatorship

PartnershipManagement Lease

4-4

Description
State Parks operates, maintains and manages the park with no assistance or services from otherorganizations. Subject to available State funding and staffing. Ideally, improved funding sources via users
or parking fees will be used for better care of the resources and management of park visitors. At aminimum, a Park Ranger will be employed to oversee natural and cultural resource protection and dailypark operations.
Agreement with a group who volunteers to help clean up a park over a relatively short period of time.
Assists State Parks with maintenance on a sporadic basis.
Permit issued to a group for a special use of a specific area over a relatively short period of time.
Granted on a month-to-month basis, they may continue for up to one year, depending on the activity.
The permit may be allowed to continue for additional one-year periods. Fees may be charged to thegroup for the permit and the permit may be revoked at any time.
Contract with a group to provide discrete services over a specified period of time. Services could
include tours, retail sales, food service, shuttle service, parking management, etc. DLNR has several
concession agreements at Wailua River State Park and Köke‘e State Park.
Under a curatorship, nonprofits help maintain a specific cultural or natural resource (usually a special
habitat or cultural/archaeological site) under State Parks guidance. Allows volunteer groups to assist withspecial park projects and provide interpretive/ educational services. The current curatorship agreementwith the Hui is an example.
Partners assist with operation, management, and maintenance of the recreation areas and facilities.
Overall park management would likely remain with State Parks, but certain staffing and/or park
maintenance, management or operational needs could be contracted with another group. Dependingon the nature of the land disposition (this would be a Revocable Permit or Concession), the partnerorganization may have the ability to build improvements. The National Park Service has a partnershipwith Hawai‘i Pacific Parks, a nonprofit organization which operates bookstores, tours and other services
at national parks in Hawai‘i and Samoa. Over $12 million in proceeds and support have been generated
since 1933.
Greatest level of control by a group with minimal oversight from State Parks. A Request for Proposals(RFP) will be issued to find an entity with appropriate knowledge of the place who is able to implement
the master plan (which may be in phases) with the hope that management of those facilities will enable
them to generate income to be self-sustaining. A fee based access strategy may serve to entice private
sector involvement. The group assumes full responsibility for park operations, management, andmaintenance. State Parks main role is as landowner. The ‘Iolani Palace State Monument is operated by
The Friends of ‘Iolani Palace under a lease agreement.

©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

4.2

OVERALL PARK MANAGEMENT

A wide range of options for park management was explored by the project team and the MPAC.
Table 7 illustrates the potential range of options, starting from the simplest to the most complex
with the associated levels of responsibility between parties.
State Parks recognizes the value of having community groups and other organizations participate
in the ongoing care of State parks. The current curatorship agreement with the Hui has beenhighly successful and was renewed with expanded areas of responsibility including theMontgomery House and Allerton Caretaker’s Cottage. The hope voiced by MPAC and HSPCAC
members is to continue to grow the relationship between State Parks and the community and tohave the opportunity for a registered community-based group to help operate and manage thepark either through a partnership or lease agreement.
The MPAC is aware that they need to develop the capacity within the community to qualify in an
open bid process as State Parks would release park management opportunities to the publicpursuant to existing procurement requirements. The current curatorship agreement involves
services provided by the community in the ongoing care of the park and these services will givethem more experience. Possible options include a management lease such as the one issued to
The Friends of ‘Iolani Palace for the operations and maintenance of the ‘Iolani Palace State
Monument. However, it should be noted that while a lease may provide a long-term agreementwith the State, the management entity has to be financially solvent and able to prepare andexecute a solid business plan. The Friends of ‘Iolani Palace receives grant-in-aid funds from theLegislature to help them with operations and maintenance costs. They also manage all of themoney they collect from fees and donations. Another option may be a partnership between acommunity-based entity and State Parks that will clarify the responsibilities of both parties
similar to a Memorandum of Agreement.

4.3

PARK
ACCESS,MANAGEMENTTRANSPORTATION,

AND

PARKING

During the meetings with the project team, advisory committees, and community members, awide variety of management concepts were discussed regarding park access and transportation
modes to the park, parking management, and fee options. Because they all relate to some of thebiggest problems at the park, including the sense of overcrowding, traffic congestion and parking
problems within the park and on the highway, the management strategies for these issues are
discussed together here. The initial concept proposed by the HSPCAC is highlighted below withthe knowledge that it will need to be adaptively managed as implementation occurs andcommunity feedback is received. Additional options are detailed in Appendix L including casestudies from other parks in Hawai‘i and the U.S.

Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

4-5

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S DRAFT OF
PREFERRED ACCESS, PARKING, AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FOR HĀ‘ENA STATE PARKACCESS SUMMARY
1. Controlled Access Hours (CAH) will be established as a way to manage overuse of
the park by the public and to help restore a balance to this culturally significant
area.
2. CAH are proposed to be 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, but are subject to change if park use
before 7:30 am or after 5:30 pm is excessive.
3. The park will be adaptively managed by the community and the Division of State
Parks to achieve the goal of reducing use to approximately 900 persons per day
during CAH. This will be averaged over a month so adjustments can be made forpark closure days and is therefore a "soft" limit.
4. DLNR rules allow State Parks to charge or exempt park entry fees. 1) Fee-Paying
Park Users (FPPU) and 2) Fee-Exempt Park Users (FEPU).
5. Entry fees are established by Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) 13-146-6 at the rateof $5/car or $1/person. HAR 13-146-6 also states that Hawai‘i residents are exempt
from paying park entry fees if they can show a valid Hawai‘i ID. Other categories of
FEPU may be established such as registered volunteers.
6. Access to the park will be limited to a single entry point near the present parking
lot/helipad site. This entry point will be used to control access during CAH.
7. Vehicles will be allowed into one of two designated parking areas – one for FeePaying Park Users and one for Fee-Exempt Park Users.
8. Outside of CAH, anyone may enter the park, by vehicle, on foot, or by bicycle; but
they must leave the park before the start of CAH unless they meet the requirementsfor park access during CAH. (See two items immediately below.)

4-6©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

9. During CAH, fee payers will be allowed to enter the park only if they possess a prepaid entry receipt. This applies to all fee payers, regardless of whether they arrive bycar, by shuttle, by bicycle, or on foot.
10. During CAH, adaptive management of the size of the parking areas and thenumber of park entries allowed and will be used to meet the typical access needsof FEPUs, enabling them to enter the park by car (using the FEPU parking area), by
shuttle, by bicycle or on foot.
11. Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners visiting the park to undertake their traditionaland customary cultural practices will be exempt from park visitor limits.
PARKING SUMMARY
1. The approximately 100 space parking area shown in the Master Plan will be
adaptively managed to accommodate both FPPUs and FEPUs.
2. The area shown in the Master Plan as a “Staging Area” (just north of the primaryparking area) can be used for volunteer and cultural groups that access the park
via a special use permit.
3. A special access parking area near the existing restroom at Kē‘ē will be strictly
managed only for handicapped park visitors, lifeguards and emergency rescue
personnel, park staff, and cultural practitioners who have an authentic need to usethat parking area.
4. Overnight campers at Nāpali Coast SWP will not be allowed to use the parking
areas. (This will also be a specific condition of their camping permits.)
5. Unauthorized parking anywhere in the park will be subject to tow-away. It is
intended that parking restrictions and tow-away zones will be strictly enforced.
6. State Parks and the Hā‘ena State Park Community Advisory Committee (HSPCAC)
will advocate for DOT to establish tow-away zones between Limahuli Stream andthe eastern boundary of Hā‘ena ahupua‘a (close to the Hā‘ena Place cul de sac).
We propose that parking will be allowed only for residents who obtain residential
parking stickers for their vehicles.
7. State Parks and the HSPCAC will work with the State DOT and the County of Kaua‘i
to implement and enforce this plan so that parking along Kūhiō Highway does notnegatively impact the larger community.
SHUTTLE/TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY
1. The HSPCAC is working with county, federal and state agencies to promote thecreation of a north shore shuttle system that will enable park and Nāpali visitors topark in Princeville and/or other locations and take a shuttle to and from the park.
The shuttle would be capable of accommodating day-use gear by Kē‘ē Beachusers and camping gear by Nāpali overnight campers.
2. Until such a shuttle exists, the park's fee-based parking area will be managed tomaximize the capability of the parking area to accommodate park visitors andminimize traffic impacts.

Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

4-7

4.4

INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIESThe following section describes the anticipated management requirements for the park’s
infrastructure and utilities, all of which should be developed with deference to Hā‘ena’s richcultural, natural and scenic resources.

4.4.1 ROADSManagement Strategy: Coordinate with the State Department of Transportation to determine
whether ownership of the highway should be transferred to State Parks and if so, to what extent.
• Discuss whether the highway should be transferred to State Parks from the property
boundary to Kē‘ē, or just the portion from the turnaround to Kē‘ē. Preliminary
discussions with the Kaua‘i District Engineer, State DOT Highways, indicate support ofan ownership transfer to State Parks.
• If ownership remains with State DOT, coordinate ongoing maintenance, operations,capital improvements including but not limited to the installation of gates, turnaround,and kiosk, and management of limited access.
Management Strategy: Coordinate with SHPD and KHPRC on requirements for the proposed
improvements that may impact the highway.
• Prior to detailed design and construction, meet with both agencies to determine to what
extent the historic roadway needs to be preserved and what would be required for the
proposed improvements. Determine if preservation only requires maintenance ofalignment or if it requires the surface pavement as well.
• Improve drainage and runoff issues related to the highway. Consider replacing existing
surface with a permeable surface (if permitted by SHPD/KHPRC) and/or installing
improved drainage facilities.

4.4.2 WASTEWATERManagement Strategy: Improve effluent water quality for the individual wastewater system atKē‘ē to minimize impact at outfall.
• The proposed restroom facilities at the Welcome Pavilion/Education and Cultural Center
will help reduce the use of the Kē‘ē comfort station where there are sensitive culturalsites.
• Consider addition of an aeration component to the wastewater treatment at theconstructed wetlands to achieve an even higher level of effluent water quality.
• Reuse effluent for irrigation rather than disposal. If effluent water quality is R-2,
irrigation systems must be subsurface with no over-ground sprays. If treated to R-1,
overground spray and drip systems can be installed.

4-8©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

4.4.3 WATERManagement Strategy: Implement the integrated water management plan for the park’s
stormwater, wastewater and potable and nonpotable water. In conjunction with the items listed in
Section 3.2.1:• Treat wastewater to a quality level that can be re-used within the park.
• Utilize nonpotable water for irrigation needs and supplement water system withcatchment systems.
• Ensure park development does not preclude the opportunity for restoration of the historic‘auwai.
• Work with CWRM to establish a dedicated stream diversion for State Parks to feed thelo‘i within the park.
• Evaluate low-impact wastewater treatment options for potential comfort station at thecultural gathering area.
• Implement Low-Impact Development (LID) techniques for stormwater management.

4.4.4 MAINTENANCE
Management Strategy: Provide ongoing and regular maintenance to improve environmental
quality of the park’s resources and provide a pleasant experience for everyone.
• Provide training to staff and copies of the maintenance manual for all infrastructure
facilities – water, wastewater (including special treatment facilities like the constructedwetlands), energy, etc.
• Conduct regular inspection and maintenance of all infrastructure systems. Verify theconstructed wetlands systems meets water quality targets for effluent at least annually.
• Refresh constructed wetlands at Kē‘ē and consider upgrading wastewater treatment withadditional aeration component.
Management Strategy: Improve maintenance of existing water, wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure.
• Replace deteriorating water pipes.
• Restore a more natural appearance to existing drainage facilities (drainage culverts,
outlets and inlets).

4.4.5 ENERGY AND LIGHTINGManagement Strategy: Design facilities to be as energy self-sufficient (net-zero) as possible.
• Design facilities to be as energy efficient as possible.
• Use renewable energy to maximum use. This includes but is not limited to solar,
microhydro, and microwind energy.
• Extend electrical lines as needed to the Welcome Hale, new restrooms, Montgomery
House and Allerton Caretaker’s Cottage.
• To minimize impacts to nesting honu, lighting plans and management plans will becarefully designed and implemented so that no light from the Park is visible from thebeach to minimize impacts to nesting sea turtles or their hatchlings seeking the ocean. All
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

4-9

exterior lights will be fully-shielded (completely opaque), full-cut off fixtures with thelowest light level (lumens) possible. Motion detectors and/or timers can also minimize
the time the lights are lit at night to further mitigate impacts to wildlife.

4.5

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The following section describes the various management strategies related to the cultural,
natural, and scenic resources of Hā‘ena State Park.

4.5.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5.1.1 Hula Complex
Management Strategy: Prioritize appropriate management and maintenance of the HulaComplex.
• Because of the extreme significance of this site to hula practitioners statewide, the MPAC
identified the Hula Complex as the number one priority for park management andrestoration.
• Coordinate with County Department of Parks and Recreation and the Hui (with whom theCounty has a Stewardship Agreement for the heiau) on the ongoing maintenance of andaccess to the heiau.
• Consult with the Cultural Advisory Group and implement appropriate outreach to thehula community on Kaua‘i and statewide in the development of any management planand ongoing operation and maintenance of the complex.
Management Strategy: Preserve and restore existing historic sites within the Hula Complex tosupport cultural activities.
• Restore Ka Ulu a Paoa and Ke Ahu a Laka based on Kekahuna’s map and other available
maps. Since they are located on County of Kaua‘i land, it requires agreement andcoordination with the County of Kaua‘i as well as review and input from SHPD.
• Work with the County to maintain the site for active hula and cultural use.
• Maintain the platform of the former Allerton house for hula use.
• Rehabilitate the Allerton Caretaker’s Cottage for long-term preservation and reuse tosupport the area’s management and operations.
Management Strategy: Educate the public and enforce appropriate cultural protocols relating to
the access and use of the Hula Complex.
• Work with the County to coordinate interpretation, scheduling, access, and enforcement
responsibilities associated with the Hula Complex. Hire a person knowledgeable andappropriately trained in hula protocols for this position.
• Train all staff in appropriate cultural practices to educate visitors and enforce protocols.
Management Strategy: Develop a maintenance program for the physical upkeep of the HulaComplex.
• Coordinate with the County on all aspects of the maintenance program. The County has
established a Stewardship Agreement with the Hui for the heiau maintenance, whichshould be coordinated with the maintenance of the greater Hula Complex. Work with theCounty to set guidelines for the care of the Hula Complex, including invasive plant/tree
4-10©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

•••

removal, site restoration and repairs, and native and Polynesian introduced plant andforest restoration as well as a system of reporting damage or incidents of vandalism.
Organize a regular maintenance schedule, including organization of manpower consistingof work groups and/or park staff.
Invite hālau hula to participate in the maintenance of the complex.
Institute Ho‘omaha, public closure days that can be used for special educational groups,
groups associated with cultural practices, and community work groups participating in
restoration activities.

4.5.1.2 Agricultural Complex
Management Strategy: Revitalize the cultural landscape and restore the archaeological sites as aliving system.
• Continue to rehabilitate the ‘auwai (ditches), lo‘i (irrigated fields), and kuāuna (banks
that separate the fields) as described in the Major and Carpenter Lo‘i Restoration Plan
(2000).
• Continue archaeological inventory surveys as necessary to fully document the site.
• Plant kalo and other culturally-appropriate crops.
• Remove alien vegetation, derelict vehicles and rubbish.
• Design the water diversion and transmission system with consideration of sustaining ahealthy Limahuli Stream ecosystem and protecting Limahuli Stream from apple snails
which are currently in the park’s lo‘i.
• Investigate whether the ‘auwai that used to run from mauka of the highway and between
the main parking lot and shuttle stop can be restored. If possible, use it to irrigate the lo‘iinstead of the enclosed HDPE pipe.
• Rehabilitate the Montgomery House as a support facility for the agricultural complex orother park activities.
• Institute Ho‘omaha, public closure days that can be used for special educational groups,
groups associated with cultural practices, and community work groups participating in
restoration activities.
Photo 23 – Lo‘i KaloManagement Strategy: Continue andexpand community participation in therestoration of the agricultural complex.
• Continue
existing
Huicuratorshiporsimilararrangement,
allowingacommunity group to manage therestoration, planting, operationand maintenance of the complex.
• Provide managed access to the agricultural complex by making work days and tours
available to the general public.
• Develop and implement educational programs related to the lo‘i which can serve asinterpretive resources where school children, local residents and visitors can learn about
the culture of Kē‘ē and Hā‘ena.
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

4-11

4.5.1.3 Burials
Management Strategy: Support the ongoing care of the cemeteries by lineal descendants.
• Consult with representatives of the lineal descendants and the Cultural Advisory Group
regarding the maintenance of the cemeteries and the preferred design and landscaping
around the cemeteries.
Management Strategy: Restore dune system thereby stabilizing and protecting the existing
burials.
• Study and implement best methods of dune restoration and natural sand replacement toprotect burials and dune ecology.
• Consult with the Cultural Advisory Group as well as coastal erosion experts on all
aspects of dune restoration.
• Remove alien plant species and replace with native and Polynesian-introduced plants asappropriate.
4.5.1.4 Loko
Management Strategy: Study the potential to restore Loko Kē‘ē and Loko Naia.
• Perform an analysis of the public’s benefits, costs and liabilities associated with restoring
one or both of the loko. There may be potential for restoration for agricultural uses,
fishponds and/or wildlife habitat. Additional discussion is provided in Section 4.5.2.
4.5.1.5 Poi MillManagement Strategy: Determine appropriate treatment for the poi mill remnants.
• If warranted, create and implement a preservation plan for the site.
4.5.1.6 Caves
Management Strategy: Provide interpretation about these unique geological and cultural
resources.
• Ensure that interpretive devices are sited in safe and culturally sensitive locations.
• Discourage swimming or entering caves.
• Educate visitors of rockfall hazards.
4.5.1.7 Other Archaeological Features
Management Strategy: For all other archaeological features not specifically described above or
those yet undocumented, follow these general guidelines.
• Involve State Parks archaeologists and staff whenever siting, designing or installing any
new park facility, especially when ground disturbance is required. Perform additional
surveys and tests as necessary.
• Conduct appropriate archaeological testing or investigations prior to undertaking projects
requiring ground alteration or excavation. (This is covered by State law and the historicpreservation process.)• Identify and prioritize historic properties (including archaeological resources) in need ofmaintenance, restoration, and monitoring.
• Remove alien plants and trees that undermine the archaeological sites, as appropriate.
4-12©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

•Conduct archaeological monitoring during any earth moving or ground disturbing
activities in case there are inadvertent discoveries.

4.5.1.8 Kūhiō Highway
Management Strategy: In coordination with the State Department of Transportation (DOT),
manage historic Kūhiō Highway corridor within the park to preserve its historic aspects while
improving public safety and drainage/stormwater runoff problems.
• Follow guidelines provided in the Kūhiō Highway Historic Road Corridor Plan preparedby Belt Collins and adopted by the State DOT in 2005.
• Limit vehicular access beyond the parking lot to special access for ADA, emergency andrescue personnel, lifeguards, park maintenance, lawai‘a, hunters, and cultural
practitioners.
• Consider resurfacing the former highway pavement with historically appropriatematerials. However, implement creative design solutions that can improve drainage andminimize erosion in the surrounding areas.

4.5.2 NATURAL RESOURCES
The following section provides management strategies for Hā‘ena’s natural resources. They areorganized by topic and type of resource.
4.5.2.1 General
Management Strategy: Depending on the resources that need to be managed, consideration ofseasonal variations may ensure management actions are successful. Examples include but are notlimited to:o Surf and weather conditions (i.e. different activities permitted based on winterversus summer surf)o Migratory and nesting patterns of birdso Migratory and breeding seasons of marine lifeo Spawning seasons of fish, coral, and other marine and riparian lifeo Kalo planting and harvesting cycles
Management Strategy: Limit or closely manage park development and activities within/near thepark’s most sensitive natural resource areas to restore and preserve the water resources andhabitat.
• Avoid new development and limit activities along Limahuli Stream.
• Minimize disturbance to Waiakapala‘e and Wai a Kanaloa. Plant native and Polynesianintroduced plantings for landscape buffers in front of the cave entrances to discourage
visitors from entering the caves. Provide a minimum 30’ buffer from the cave entrances;a larger buffer would be ideal for rockfall safety.
• Avoid new park development and activities within the coastal dunes except to restore thedunes as described in Section 4.5.1.3 and to protect the natural movement inherent tocoastal dune systems.
• Maintain restrictions (as implemented through the Division of Boating and Ocean
Recreation) on motorized watercraft in Kē‘ē lagoon.
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

4-13

•

Institute Ho‘omaha, public closure days that can be used for special educational groups,
groups associated with cultural practices, and community work groups participating in
restoration activities.

4.5.2.2 Flora/Fauna
Management Strategy: Prioritize natural resource restoration projects within the park anddevelop a plan for funding implementation, monitoring and maintenance.
• Initiate restoration activities first in the coastal areas occupied by the strand, ironwood
and false kamani forest as these areas are presently the most important opportunity for
restoration of a native dune ecosystem. Use native and Polynesian-introduced plants suchas pōhuehue, naupaka, nanea, pōhinahina, nehe, pa‘u-o-Hi‘iaka, ‘aki‘aki grass, milo, halaand kou. Removing the alien species and replacing them with native dune plants would
likely not increase and might in fact reduce coastal erosion if carefully conducted as
many of these native species are well adapted to coastal environments. Restoration ofthese dunes would also improve habitat for common native shorebirds, including kōlea,‘ūlili, ‘akekeke, kioea, hunakai, and other sandpipers (Geometrician Associates 2009).
• Restore riparian areas associated with Limahuli Stream to remove the closed canopy ofalien tree species to allow more sunlight to the stream and its riparian zone (Geometrician
Associates 2009). Care should be taken to monitor changes to the stream including
temperature, water flow quantities and quality, as they may impact wildlife inhabiting thestream and water feeding the lo‘i.
• Consider restoration of native plants on the talus slopes and cliff faces where the ecology
is most pristine and plant diversity is greatest. This is a lower priority given the lack ofaccess and potential safety issues (Geometrician Associates 2009).
Management Strategy: Forest and ecosystem restoration practices should seek to control theencroachment of invasive plants and encourage the regrowth and regeneration of native plant
species. Remove invasive alien plants and vegetate with native plants and where appropriate,
non-invasive Polynesian introductions, to restore the natural and cultural landscape as well as
prevent/mitigate erosion and encourage stabilization where appropriate. Landscaping with nativeand Polynesian-introduced plants could substantially improve the existing botanical environmentand bird habitat.
• Develop a long-range plan to remove all invasive and potentially invasive species within
the park over time. Reference the University of Hawai‘i’s list of “Pest Plants of Hawaiian
Native Ecosystems” and DLNR’s list of “Hawaii’s Most Invasive Horticultural Plants” attheir respective websites:o http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/aliens.htm
o http://www.hear.org/hortweeds/
o Additional information on other species can be found at the Hawai‘i-Pacific Weed
Risk Assessment:
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/daehler/wra/• Revegetation efforts should prioritize native plants and ideally species native to Hā‘ena
and Kaua‘i to the greatest degree possible. Polynesian-introduced plants should beconsidered where appropriate. All invasive species and potentially invasive species
should be prohibited.
• When restoring threatened and endangered plant species, obtain all plant material fromlicensed nurseries and maintain records to document their authenticity.
4-14©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018• Park personnel, DLNR experts, and volunteers should monitor the park regularly forencroachment of new invasive species and limit expansion of alien species.
• If possible, study historic pollen samples and archaeologically collected charcoal
assemblages to investigate which native and Polynesian-introduced plants inhabited thepark area historically and propagate as appropriate.
Management Strategy: Park development and management should prevent impacts to native andPolynesian-introduced species, particularly those listed as threatened or endangered and include
measures to control and limit invasive animal species.
• In order to prevent impacts to the ‘ōpe‘ape‘a or Hawaiian hoary bat, State Parks should
restrict any cutting of large shrubs or trees over fifteen feet in height to periods outside
the June 1 through September 15 breeding season.
• To reduce the potential for interactions between nocturnally flying threatened or
endangered seabirds, any external lighting used during construction or installed at thepark must be fully-shielded (completely opaque) and downward facing full-cut off
fixtures with the lowest light level (lumens) possible. Nighttime activities that require
artificial lights should be avoided during the fledging season between September andDecember as much as possible. Lighting plans and management plans will be carefully
designed and implemented so that no light from the Park is visible from the beach tominimize impacts to nesting sea turtles or their hatchlings seeking the ocean. External
lights can also be installed lower to the ground to minimize light pollution and motion
sensors and/or timers can be utilized to activate the lights only when absolutely
necessary.
• State Parks should continue cooperation with federal, State and nonprofit organizations
that help protect threatened and endangered animals such as ‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua, honu,
honu ‘ea, humpback whales and native birds from natural and human threats.
• State Parks should continue to cooperate with the DLNR Division of Aquatic Resources
to keep new alien fish out of the ‘auwai and Limahuli Stream and in ridding the stream of
periodic invasions of swordtails, guppies, and other alien fish.
• Signage and other educational material should be developed and distributed to advise thevisiting public about the value of native species and not to drop off pests or unwanted
pets at the park.
• Encourage visitors to carry out all materials and trash brought in to the park. If trash or
recycling receptacles are provided within the park, they should have fitted lids to prevent
foraging by invasive animals such as cats, rats and dogs.
• With regards to minimizing impacts to native birds which may use irrigated lo‘i and haveapplication to the lo‘i and wetland areas within Hā‘ena State Park, the following
recommendations were provided to Mr. Ben Welborn of Limahuli Garden by the USFWS(Fujita 2002, Appendix A). They are repeated verbatim here.
o If possible, the taro fields should be left wet after harvesting for at least one
month. This provides critical feeding areas for the endangered Hawaiian
waterbirds (especially the ae‘o, Hawaiian stilt).
o Ae‘o prefer to build their nests on exposed mud flats or in the dirt on banks thathave short or no vegetation. Tilled, dry fallow fields are also used for nesting.
Stilts nest between March and August. If a field is left fallow during this period,
the cooperator should check for any potential nests before tilling the paddies orfilling the paddies with water. Several distinctive behaviors by adult birds can beobserved when nests or young are in the area. Adult birds react to humanHä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

4-15

disturbance or when nests or chicks are threatened by predators. Birds with nests
and eggs typically move away from the nest and exhibit “broken wing” behavior
as an attempt to distract a potential predator from the nest. Birds with young are
more aggressive and will swoop down and sometimes come into physical contact
with the person or predator. These behaviors are accompanied by continuous
warning vocalizations by the adults.
o Koloa maoli, Hawaiian ducks nest on the ground in grasses or other vegetationnear water. They nest most frequently between December and May. Mowing theberm should be done prior to this period to prevent the accidental harassment of
nesting birds.
o The ‘alae ke‘oke‘o, Hawaiian coot, and the ‘alae‘ula, Hawaiian moorhen, usuallybuild floating nests of weeds and grasses in densely covered taro patches. Most ofthese birds nest between March and September. If a waterbird nest is found while
harvesting taro, the plants supporting the nest should not be disturbed and a bufferof plants should be left around the nest. The buffer should be at least six feet indiameter.
o Household pets and feral animals such as cats and dogs prey on waterbird eggs
and young hatchlings. These animals should not be allowed in taro patches. Dogs
especially, should be banned because they chase and harass birds to the point at
which the birds will not return to the taro lo‘i. Therefore, dogs should be
prevented from entering the lo‘i at any time through the use of fences and otherrestraints.
Management Strategy: Restore the loko and wetland areas to encourage native birds such asnēnē, koloa (which already utilize the loko), or ae‘o to use the ponds as a potential habitat.
Geometrician Associates does not recommend modifying the loko and wetland areas specificallyto attract endangered animals for practical and legal reasons. However, if this is pursued, there
are several management requirements to be considered, some of which are outlined below.
• Consult and coordinate with state and federal agencies to determine best course of action
for improvements and ongoing management of the park for endangered animal species.
• State Parks must enter into a “Safe Harbor Agreement” prior to undertaking the habitat
improvement. This is a voluntary arrangement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and a cooperating non-federal landowner under the authority of Section 10(a)(1)of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4), 1539(a)(1). Under the Safe
Harbor Agreement (SHA) and an associated enhancement of survival permit, the nonfederal property owner implements actions that will result in a net conservation benefit
for species listed under the Act without the risk of further restrictions pursuant to section
9 of the Act, which prohibits take of listed species. The property owner also receives
assurances related to modifications of the SHA or termination of the permit. Suchagreements allow a landowner to promote threatened and endangered species on theirproperty without liability for incidental takes that may occur (Geometrician Associates2009).
4.5.2.3 Marine and Shoreline Resources
Management Strategy: Maintain Class AA coastal water quality standards.
• For new park development, consider Low-Impact Development (LID) techniques andalternative storm drainage features to minimize or slow runoff into the ocean.
4-16©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Consider effluent water quality in the design and maintenance of wastewater treatment
systems. Conduct regular inspection and maintenance of wastewater systems at the public
restrooms to prevent sewage seepage or spillage into the ocean or groundwater.
Limit parking areas within the park to those proposed in the master plan in order to 1)
reduce the input of brake dust and oil into the environment, and 2) limit the amount ofimpervious surfaces within the park.
Carefully design parking areas and apply best management practices to prevent the runoff
of contaminants to streams and coastal waters. Include bioswales to help filter runoff
from parking areas.
Conduct regular maintenance and apply best management practices to the Kalalau
trailhead to prevent unnecessary soil erosion, siltation, high turbidity, and possible coralmortality within the Kē‘ē Lagoon and reef.
Encourage visitors to carry out all materials carried into the park. Provide and regularly
maintain an appropriate number of trash and recycling receptacles to reduce the amountof plastic and other solid waste that is blown or washed into the ocean.
Utilize non-chemical maintenance techniques and minimize the use of chemicalfertilizers and pesticides wherever feasible.
Encourage visitors to shower prior to entering the ocean as is often done at publicswimming pools. Sunscreens can be reapplied once out of the water.

Management Strategy: Prevent shoreline erosion by allowing natural tidal, current and windprocesses to shape Hā‘ena’s shoreline.
• Study Hā‘ena’ specific natural dune building processes and restore or remove vegetation
as appropriate to support dune restoration through natural processes.
• Design of future park facilities should employ the recent data and maps developed by the
University of Hawai‘i Coastal Geology Group (http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/).
• Comply with County of Kaua‘i shoreline setback standards to calculate appropriate
setbacks along the coastline.
• Prohibit shore protection structures.
Management Strategy: Protect and sustain the long-term viability of Hā‘ena State Park’s
nearshore resources.
• Refer to the management rules and protocols for the Community-Based Subsistence
Fishery Area established for Hā‘ena by Hawai‘i state law.
• Establish a program of long-term scientific monitoring of fish and invertebrate
populations trends within park marine waters.
• Allow sufficient flexibility and insure long-term monitoring to employ the principal of
adaptive management and allow changes to be made to permitting processes andmanagement actions, as deemed appropriate, based upon the results of long-termmonitoring and catch statistics.

4.5.3 SCENIC RESOURCESManagement Strategy: Control and/or remove non-native, invasive trees that obscure views of
scenic resources.
• Remove, as appropriate, high canopy alien trees that obscure views of Makana,particularly from key vantage points.
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

4-17

•

•
•

Remove alien trees located on the backslope of the dunes between Kē‘ē Beach and Loko
Kē‘ē to aid visual access to Kē‘ē Beach. Tree removal at this location should be done inconjunction with dune restoration efforts. Consult with the Cultural Advisory Group,
coastal erosion experts, and Hā‘ena community members who are familiar with the area.
Remove alien trees around the lo‘i, as appropriate, to open up views of the Agricultural
Complex as different phases are restored.
Monitor vegetation at the park entrance, particularly in the riparian zone associated with
Limahuli Stream. Restore with native and Polynesian-introduced plants and trees tocreate a more authentic landscape as well as maintain the integrity of Limahuli Stream.

Management Strategy: Offer opportunities to access and view scenic resources that are safe andsensitive to cultural and natural resources.
• Maintain ADA accessibility to Kē‘ē and provide safe beach access as appropriate via
temporary paths and special wheelchairs.
• Design areas fronting Wai a Kanaloa and Waiakapala‘e to prevent visitors from standingor driving beneath the cliff face or entering the caves.

4.6

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

4.6.1 OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL USESManagement Strategy: Make the park a more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly environment butwith deference to cultural and natural sensitivities and safety concerns.
• Provide alternate ADA, pedestrian and possibly bicycle access to Kē‘ē with limited or no
motorized vehicles except for special access, park staff, and emergency and rescue
personnel.
• No motorized vehicles should be allowed on the beach or dunes except for emergencies.
• If public access to more sensitive areas of the park is deemed desirable and appropriate
by State Parks and the Cultural Advisory Group, it should be limited to pedestrian
activity only and consider providing guided tours with education and/or site management
and restoration as the main purposes for public access.
Management Strategy: Continue low-impact ocean recreational activities such as sunbathing,beach walking, swimming, snorkeling and SCUBA. However, educate visitors and manage those
activities to reduce impact to the natural and cultural resources.
• Provide visitor education and guidance as to safe and conscientious conduct whenenjoying the park’s beaches and waters.
• Designate safe areas to swim within view of lifeguards. Consider using flags or buoys toindicate safe zones. Locate limits with input from lifeguards and in coordination with therelocation of the lifeguard tower.
• Encourage only passive outdoor activities such as walking, sunbathing andsightseeing/wildlife viewing along the shoreline outside of the lagoon area and outside of
the view of lifeguards.
• Discourage or eliminate kayak launches and landings within the park except for
emergencies.
• Provide ADA accessibility to Kē‘ē and beach access via temporary paths and beachaccessible equipment as appropriate.
4-18©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

••

Recommend that showers be taken prior to entering the ocean similar torecommendations at public swimming pools. Sunscreen can be reapplied after exiting theocean.
Continue lifeguard service and relocate the lifeguard stand to improve the lifeguards’
ability to view the entire lagoon.

Management Strategy: Provide opportunities for picnicking in the park.
• Locate formal picnic areas with improvements such as picnic tables in areas of previous
ground disturbance and avoid sensitive areas such as the dunes.
• Locate formal picnic areas with picnic tables in accessible and scenic areas such as at
Kē‘ē at the end of the highway pavement for ADA accessibility.
• Allow picnicking in the beach areas, especially at Kē‘ē Beach.
• Encourage visitors to carry out everything they bring into the park to reduce litter,
maintenance, and pests.
• Provide appropriate garbage and recycling receptacles throughout the park. Ensure they
are fitted with lids that discourage foraging animals, are able to withstand wind, and arelocated in convenient proximity to visitor areas without infringing on the cultural, naturaland scenic resources.
Management Strategy: Facilitate low-impact recreational uses such as hiking/walking, birding
and whale watching as well as activities that support park restoration and educational
opportunities.
• Utilize the Welcome Hale for educational programs and a staging area for tours andworkgroups.
• Consider nature viewing opportunities when developing natural resource restoration
projects within the park.
Management Strategy: Develop appropriate management plans for permitted activities based on
the natural cycles and seasons of the native environment and around cultural activities.
• Consider limiting or expanding certain recreational activities based on seasons. For
example, during winter high surf conditions, limit ocean recreational activity to within
the reef.
• Constrain relevant recreational activities during certain times of the year or in sensitive
areas of the park if they interfere with important natural processes such as breeding
seasons.
• Consider limiting certain activities temporarily as needed when special cultural
ceremonies or activities occur at the park.
• Consult with appropriate experts in developing these management plans.

4.6.2 RECREATIONAL FACILITY PLANNING
Management Strategy: When recreational facilities are planned such as new trail alignments,
picnic areas or camping grounds, consider public safety issues and protect sensitive cultural,archaeological, and natural sites to minimize negative impacts from the activity.
• Consult with the Cultural Advisory Group and natural resource experts, as appropriate,
early in the design stage.
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

4-19

•
•

•

Provide opportunities for observation of natural resources at locations that are safe and do
not negatively impact cultural and natural resources.
Use landscape design including plantings, signage and trails to not only access, beautify,
and interpret places within the park, but also to protect and to provide aesthetic buffers
and to facilitate drainage for sensitive environments. If the park undertakes restoration of
the strand, for example, trails should be designed to direct foot traffic along paths that areconvenient yet minimize trampling of vegetation and avoid culturally sensitive areas.
Appropriate instruction during orientation and signage can educate visitors and help
protect these areas.
Create buffer zones around sensitive areas and use native and Polynesian-introduced
landscaping whenever possible.

Management Strategy: Consider alternative trail and pathway designs and surfaces as well as
temporary and movable mats to provide access where excavation and hardened surfaces are notappropriate or desirable.
• Minimize or eliminate excavation in archaeologically sensitive areas to the greatest
extent possible.
• Alternatives to standard pavements such as biodegradable soil hardeners should beconsidered for trail surfaces.
• Consider using temporary mats or special wheelchairs to provide ADA access along thebeach.

4.6.3 NĀPALI TRAILHEAD MANAGEMENTManagement Strategy: Develop a program for hiker, hunter, and overnight camping permit
check-in and education.
• Consider instituting a check-in and check-out system for hikers, hunters, and overnight
campers.
• Include hiking safety information as part of park entry orientation and informational
emails. Consider more detailed education session for overnight campers and separate
sessions for hunters.
• Consider check-in/check-out for day hikers as well. At a minimum, include hiking safety
information as part of ticket purchase.
Management Strategy: Manage unpermitted third-party operators that charge for tours on the
trail.
• Require permits for third-party tours on the trail or enforce restriction.
• If permitted, require and ensure that guided tours include interpretive curriculum
reviewed and approved by State Parks and the Cultural Advisory Group.

4-20©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Mapu ka Hanu o Ka Lauaʻe
Mapu ka hanu o ka laua‘e
Mapu no i ka poli o Waialoha
Aloha i ke kapa ehukai
Huki palai, huki lole no ka hunaNoe maila ka lehua makanoe
Noe kalehua makanoe
Noe wiwo‘ole i ke anu
Anu i ke ala kīpapa a Ola e
Alai kui lima kānaka o Maunahina e
E hina no paha, o au wale no
E hina no paha kāua i ka aha nui e
Alia la e, he anu
He anu wale no e

Wafted is the breath of the laua‘e fern.
The essence of the beloved waters alights like mist.
Beloved is the covering of the sea spray,
Drawing concealment listening, inquiring intently.
The lehua of the misty face brings mist.
The lehua of the misty face brings mist.
The mist unafraid of the cold,
The cold of the pathway of life.
Mauna Hina is a pathway directing mankind.
Perhaps it is just I who will succumb.
Perhaps you and I, or the large assembly, will succumb.
Wait!
Cold, just cold!

Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

4-21

This page intentionally left blank.

4-22©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

5.0

Implementation Plan

The proposed implementation plan provides a list of administrative tasks as well as the capital
improvement projects that are required to execute the master plan. State Parks should review the
proposed implementation plan on a regular basis and should adjust it and update it accordingly,
based on evolving park developments, resources and priorities.

5.1

ADMINISTRATIVE TASKSThe following is a list of the recommended administrative tasks to be implemented by State
Parks to support the master plan.

5.1.1 ESTABLISH THE CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUPS
Appendix J contains draft recommendations for the establishment and proposed responsibilitiesof the Cultural Advisory Group. The following is a list of basic administrative tasks required forthe establishment and ongoing management of the group.
• Establish Selection Committee• Elect Cultural Advisory Group members• Train Cultural Advisory Group members on duties/responsibilities• Hold regular meetings as necessary to coordinate with Cultural Advisory GroupIn addition, the larger Community Advisory Group should be established with the Cultural
Advisory Group forming the core of the larger group. Protocols for holding meetings, meetingschedules, level of commitment, and participation should be determined by State Parks prior toformation.

5.1.2 UPDATE THE INTERPRETIVE PLAN•

See Appendix M for the initial interpretive plan.

5.1.3 CHANGES TO PARK ENTRANCE AND PARKING POLICIES
•
•
•
•
•

Hold stakeholder and public meetings several months prior to rollout of visitor limits andany other changes in entry policies.
Provide adequate public notice of any changes several months in advance, including timeframe for implementation.
Inform visitor industry of new entry and parking policies similarly well in advance of
implementation.
Secure necessary permits, lease agreements, and construct any required facilities.
Consider third-party agreement to help manage entry ticket and parking administration.

Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

5-1

5.1.4 ESTABLISHMENT OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY••••

Evaluate whether State Parks has the capacity to implement all or a portion of the
management strategies or if an agreement and/or lease/concession to third party(ies) forpark management can assist with the implementation.
Prepare proposals for park management from third-party groups following Stateprocurement requirements and put them out to bid.
Enter into agreement/lease with third party, upon award.
Develop a process for the evaluation of management effectiveness, address difficulties,
capitalize on opportunities and adapt management techniques on a regular basis.

5.1.5 ESTABLISHMENT OF PARK STAFF
•
•
•
•

5.2

Prepare budget for park needs including staffing.
Develop a training manual.
Commence hiring process.
Implement staff training.

TASKS RELATED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

The following is a list of tasks that should be done prior to capital improvements, particularly
those that involve ground disturbance. It is not meant to be comprehensive as there may bedifferent requirements for different types of projects. However, the list provides a checklist oftasks that should be completed prior to or very early in the planning and design stages of any
improvement project.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

5.3

Consult with NPS as required for compliance with LWCF rules
Detailed archaeological survey
Ground survey (include assessment of native flora)
Consultation with Cultural and Community Advisory Groups
Shoreline certification (for projects along the coast)
Review of flood hazards
Wetland determination
Review of rockfall hazards
Review of potential impacts to surface waters (stream and ‘auwai)
Review of potential impacts to scenic views, as well as opportunities to enhance them
Implementation of green design, minimizing ground disturbance, energy consumption
and waste
Chapter 6E review and compliance

REGULATORY COORDINATION

There are several components of the master plan that will require federal, state, and local agency
review and approval. They include, but are not limited, to the following.

5-2©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

5.3.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
5.3.1.1 National Park Service
The NPS has reviewed a draft master plan and provided comment (Drodge 2014). If any project
amendments are needed under LWCF, the amendment will be submitted by the State.
5.3.1.2 US Fish and Wildlife Service
Coordinate and consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding natural resource
restoration activities. Restoration of loko or ‘auwai may attract endangered waterbirds, thus
coordination and consultation is essential to insure that restoration activities do not
unintentionally incur a take (fatality) of any listed species under the Endangered Species Act.
5.3.1.3 US Army Corps of Engineers
Delineate any onsite wetlands or jurisdictional waters prior to development activities. Coordinate
with Corps staff through appropriate regulatory process to determine presence of wetlands orjurisdictional waters and to mitigate any effects to regulated resources.

5.3.2 STATE OF HAWAI‘I AGENCIES
5.3.2.1 State Environmental Review Law
The State Environmental Review Law (Chapter 343, HRS), requires an environmental
assessment for any action that proposes the use of State or County lands and funds. Compliancewith Chapter 343, HRS, is necessary for any new development in Hā‘ena State Park. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared for the improvements proposed in this
Master Plan.
5.3.2.2 State Department of Land and Natural Resources
The following section is organized by division, office or commission within DLNR.
•

Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR) – Administrative rules restricting
access to reef by commercial operators.

•

Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) – Responsible to issue stream
diversion permits.

•

Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) – Administrative rules pertaining to Hā‘ena
Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area (CBSFA) are implemented through DAR.

•Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) – Enforcement
responsibilities from DOCARE to assume compliance with State Parks rules. DOCARE
officers have full police powers and responsibilities cannot be transferred to anotherentity.

Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

5-3

•

Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) – Coordination of improvements or
potential impacts to wildlife, similar to coordination with USFWS.

•

Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) – Because the park is located within
the Conservation District, various permits may be required for certain improvements or
actions proposed in the master plan depending upon which Conservation District
Subzone they are located and the nature of the improvement/action. Major permits
require BLNR or departmental approval. Minor permits may be decided upon by the
Board chairperson or OCCL.

•State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) – Review of the master plan through thestate historic preservation project review process and EIS process. OHA has been
consulted through these processes. Consultation and coordination with the Kaua‘i/Ni‘ihau
Islands Burial Council, which is administratively attached to SHPD, should also be done
as needed in accordance with Chapter 13-300, HAR, to address concerns relating to
Native Hawaiian burial sites. Relocation or preservation in place of previously identified
Hawaiian burials over 50 years old must obtain the approval of the Kaua‘i/Ni‘ihau
Islands Burial Council, which meets on a monthly basis.

5.3.2.3 State Department of Transportation
Ongoing coordination is necessary to implement any changes related to Kūhiō Highway unlessthe highway ownership is transferred to State Parks.
5.3.2.4 State Civil DefenseState Parks will coordinate the installation of the emergency siren in the main parking lot or
upgrade of existing siren as well as annual emergency evacuation drills with State Civil Defense.

5.3.3 COUNTY OF KAUA‘I AGENCIES
5.3.3.1 County Attorney’s Office• If amenable to both parties, establish and execute a Memorandum of Agreement for
management of parcel 25 of TMK: 5-9-01, which is owned by the County.
• Establish and execute an access agreement or easement between State Parks and theCounty should the management of the parcel remain with the County or be contractedwith a third party since the only access to the parcel is through Hā‘ena State Park.
5.3.3.2 Planning Department• Ensure compliance with County shoreline setback standards.
• Coordinate with the County Transportation Agency and Planning Department on their
ongoing North Shore Shuttle effort and see if the Princeville entry facility or a park andshuttle to the park can be set up. Ideally this will happen in the near-term to avoid
building out the full parking lot if not needed.

5-4©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

5.3.3.3 Fire Department• Coordinate lifeguard stand relocation and staffing at Kē‘ē.
• Hold annual emergency evacuation drills.
5.3.3.4 Police Department• Support during emergency situations, evacuations, and criminal activity at the Park.
• Hold annual emergency evacuation drills.
5.3.3.5 Department of Water• Change water billing as applicable if a third-party management entity is established.
5.3.3.6 Transportation Agency• Coordinate with the County Transportation Agency and Planning Department on their
ongoing North Shore Shuttle effort and see if the Princeville entry facility or a park andshuttle to the park can be set up.

5.3.4 KAUA‘I ISLAND UTILITY COOPERATIVE••

Currently, there are no KIUC electrical lines in the park.
Coordinate with KIUC as necessary if the installation of renewable energy resources is
not sufficient to serve the proposed park improvements.

Continued on next pageHä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

5-5

5.4

PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN

The following is a preliminary phasing plan for the major tasks associated with implementing the master plan. The table is not meant to becomprehensive but is intended to identify the major implementation milestones to help guide the improvements at the park. For all
improvements, appropriate permits, agency coordination, infrastructure improvements, landscaping, educational programing, and staff
management and training will be required. Consultation with the Cultural and Community Advisory Group should also be done on a regularbasis throughout implementation.
Table 8 – Preliminary Phasing Plan
SHORT TERM (IMMEDIATE - 5 YEARS)Capital Improvements
1. Rehabilitate Montgomery House.
2. Improve main parking lot, sized
appropriately based on shuttle/transit
service. Include new turnaround. Make
provisions for subgrade leach field.
3. Construct Welcome Hale. Ensure exit
gate allows pedestrian and bicycle
access even when locked for vehicles.
4. Install Pedestrian Path through the lo‘ifrom Welcome Hale to Kë‘ë Beach.
5. Install safety signage (as appropriate).
6. Plan for and make accommodations for
future required infrastructure.
7. Transfer ownership and management of
this portion of the highway to State Parks.
8. Initiate public education and roll out ofvisitor limits and develop adaptive
management plan to manage accessand parking.

5-6

Cultural Environment
1. Establish Cultural Advisory Group early,
prior to any design and construction
contract awards.
2. Complete rehabilitation of the Allerton
Caretaker’s Cottage.
3. Coordinate with County and Hui on
management and access at the HulaComplex.
4. Prior to any improvements within themain parking lot, survey the extent of
the traditional house site (Feature 16008).
5. Continue lo‘i restoration, kalo
cultivation.
6. Update Interpretive Plan. Implement as
appropriate.
7. Coordinate with Hui on relocation ofstaging areas prior to construction of
new entry facilities.
8. Provide visitor education information
online and via emails, including
appropriate behavioral conduct andcultural/historic/ archaeologicalresource protection.

Natural Environment
1. Relocate Lifeguard Tower.
Establish safe swim zones andset up markers.
2. Restore and maintain Dune
System, starting from Kë‘ë.
3. Plant dense native tree screen
for rockfall mitigation along the
highway and new parking lot.
4. Initiate and distribute visitor
orientation and park safety
information including natural
resource protection, access,and behavioral protocols.
5. Start clearing invasive species
in/around the loko. Review loko
restoration requirements
including water. If different for
the two loko, consider phasing
restoration work starting with
Loko Kë‘ë. Consider whether
native bird habitat is feasible toestablish at loko and provide
ongoing maintenance. Restore
with native and Polynesianintroduced plants and maintain.

©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

MID RANGE (5 - 10 YEARS)Capital Improvements
1. Improve drainage flows and install
vegetated bioswales to mitigate
erosion/runoff problem areas.
2. Work with County and other agencies asappropriate to establish shuttle/transit
services.
3. Install interpretive displays/waysideexhibits.

LONG RANGE (10 – 20 YEARS)Capital Improvements
1. Refresh functionality of constructedwetland system at Kë‘ë and install
additional aeration component.

Cultural Environment
1. Continue restoration and maintenanceof Hula Complex.
2. Continue restoration and maintenanceof lo‘i. Design and implement
restoration of ‘auwai in conjunction
with entry complex.
3. Establish the Cultural Gathering Area.
4. Build Hälau Wa‘a.
5. Evaluate feasibility of/researchpotential restoration and developmentof Hale Interpretive Site (Feature 16008) located within entry complex.
6. Restore and maintain other culturalsites such as Lohi‘au’s House Platform.

Natural Environment
1. Continue work on the Dune
System, continuing eastward.
2. Continue loko restoration.
3. Initiate stream restoration work
along Limahuli Stream andmaintain.
4. Maintain work above.

Cultural Environment
1. Continue restoration and maintenanceof Hula Complex and other culturalsites.
2. Continue restoration and maintenanceof lo‘i and loko.
3. Continue expansion of cultural
programs.

Natural Environment
1. Clear remaining invasive
species. Restore and maintainwith natives and Polynesianintroduced species.
2. Continue and maintain work
above.
3. Continue expansion of
educational programs.

Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

5-7

This page intentionally left blank.

5-8©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

6.0

References

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 2009. “National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
As amended through 2006 [With annotations].” Website:
http://www.achp.gov/nhpa.html. Updated January 25, 2009.
---------2011. “About the ACHP: General Information.” Website:
http://www.achp.gov/aboutachp.html. Updated May 13, 2011.
AECOM. 2013. Rockfall Hazard Assessment, Hā‘ena State Park, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Prepared forState of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of State Parks.
June 2013.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. 2012.
“Alaska State Park Fees.” Website: http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/asp/ fees.htm.
Alternative Energy News. 2006. “Micro Hydro Power – Pros and Cons.” October 26, 2006.
Website: http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/micro-hydro-power-pros-and-cons/Andrade, Carlos. 2008. Hā‘ena Through the Eyes of the Ancestors. Honolulu: University of
Hawai‘i Press.
Anderson, Dorothy H., David W. Lime, and Theresa L. Wang. 1998. Maintaining the Quality ofPark Resources and Visitor Experiences: A handbook for managers. Cooperative Park
Studies Unit Department of Forest Resources University of Minnesota for the National
Park Service. September 1998. Downloaded from:http://planning.nps.gov/document/Maintaining_Quality%20of%20Park_Resources.pdf
Austin Tsutsumi & Associates. 2013. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hā‘ena State Park Master
Plan. Prepared for PBR Hawaii and Associates, Inc. September 2, 2011, Revised June 17,2013.
Bailey, Roselle Keli‘ihonipua. 2008. “A Time Past, Breathed into Life, is Hula.” Humu
Mo‘olelo. Vol. 1, Number 3.
Barrère, Dorothy B., Mary Kawena Pukui, and Marion Kelly. 1980. Hula: Historical
Perspectives. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Baxter State Park Authority. 2011. “Parking and Reservations, Day Use Parking Reservations(DUPR) available for Katahdin Trailheads after April 1.” Accessed: April 9, 2012.
Website: http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/hiking/hikingParking.html
Belt Collins Hawai‘i Ltd. 2005. Kūhiō Highway (Route 560) Historic Roadway Corridor Plan,
Hanalei, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Prepared for the Department of Transportation. Prepared byBelt Collins Hawai‘i Ltd. with contributions from Kūhiō Highway (Route 560)
Community Advisory Committee.
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

6-1

Bennett, Wendell C. 1931. “Archaeology of Kaua‘i.” Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, 80.
Blay, Chuck and Robert Siemers. 2004. Kaua‘i’s Geologic History: A simplified guide. Updated
edition. Po‘ipū: TEOK Investigations.
Businger, Steven. 1998. “Hurricanes in Hawai‘i.” Poster developed for the Hurricanes andExtreme Weather Phenomena Symposium presented by the Center for the Study of
Active Volcanoes and sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under cooperative agreement
NA67RJ0154, and the COMET program (UCAR S98-87020). Website:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/MET/Faculty/businger/poster/hurricane/ Web layout by Ray
Tanabe, September 25, 1998.
Carpenter, Alan B. 1996. “Burial Treatment Plan”: Hā‘ena State Park, Hā‘ena, Hanalei
District, Island of Kaua‘i.” Prepared for the State of Hawai‘i Department of Land andNatural Resources, Division of State Parks.
City and County of Honolulu, Department of Parks and Recreation. 2012. “Hanauma Bay Nature
Preserve.” Website: http://www1.honolulu.gov/parks/facility/hanaumabay/index.htm.
--------- 2012. “Use of City Park Facilities” Website:
http://www1.honolulu.gov/parks/parkuse.htm.
Clark, John. 1992. Beach and Ocean Recreation Study, Hā‘ena Kaua‘i. For the Division of State
Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources. Honolulu.
Code of Federal Regulations. 2009. “Title 36, Chapter 1, Part 59 - Land and Water Conservation
Fund Program of Assistance to States; Post-Completion Compliance Responsibilities.”
From the National Park Service website:
http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/LWCF/protect.html.
County of Kaua‘i, Building Division, Department of Public Works website. 2009. “Bike Path
Project.” Website:
http://www.kauai.gov/Government/Departments/PublicWorks/BuildingDivision/Building
DivisionProjects/AhukiniLydgateBikePathProject/tabid/335/Default.aspx.
County of Kaua‘i, Department of Water. 2009. Website:
http://www.kauaiwater.org/current_operations.asp.
County of Kaua‘i, Fire Department. 2007. Website:
http://www.kauai.gov/Government/Departments/FireDepartment/tabid/107/Default.aspx.
County of Kaua‘i, Police Department. 2009. Patrol Services Bureau - Hanalei District Website:
http://www.kauai.gov/Government/
Departments/PoliceDepartment/PatrolServicesBureauHanaleiDistrict/tabid/316/Default.a
spx.

6-2

©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

County of Kaua‘i, Transportation Agency. 2009. Website:
http://www.kauai.gov/Government/Departments/TransportationAgency/tabid/58/Default.
aspx.
Drodge, Martha. 2014. Personal Communication, June 6, 2014.
Duensing, Dawn. 2003 Kaua‘i Belt Road (North Shore Section) (State Site No. 30-02-9396).
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form prepared on behalf of the Hanalei
Roads Committee.
Eagles, Paul F.J., Margaret E. Bowman and Theresa Chang-Hung Tao. 2001. Guidelines for
Tourism in Parks and Protected Areas of East Asia. Prepared for the International Union
for Conservation of Nature. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Earthlines Consortium, Victoria. 1999. Best Practice in Park Interpretation and Education. A
report to the ANZECC Working Group on National Park and Protected Area
Management Benchmarking and Best Practice Program by Department of Natural
Resources and Environment, Victoria in conjunction with Parks Victoria. April 1999.
Earthplan. 1996. Social Impact Assessment for Ha‘ena [sic] State Park Master Plan. Preparedfor The Keith Companies, Hawai‘i.
Emerson, Nathaniel B. 1998. Unwritten Literature of Hawaii: the sacred songs of the hula.
Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, LLC. Available online: http://www.ulukau.org/elib/cgibin/library?c=unwritten
Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe (FNNPE). 1993. Loving Them to Death?
Sustainable Tourism in Europe's Nature and National Parks. Grafenau, Germany:
FNNPE.
Fujita & Associates, Inc. 2002. Ha‘ena [sic] State Park Taro Lo‘i Restoration. Final
Engineering Study. State Project No. F74B664A. Prepared for State of Hawai‘i
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks and Land Division,
Engineering Branch. April 2002.
---------2002. Ha‘ena [sic] State Park Taro Lo‘i Restoration Final Phase I Restoration Plan.
State Project No. F74B664A. Prepared for State of Hawai‘i Department of Land andNatural Resources, Division of State Parks and Land Division, Engineering Branch. April
2002.
---------2002. Ha‘ena [sic] State Park Taro Lo‘i Restoration Water Engineering Study Diversion
Capacity Hydraulic Analysis. Prepared for State of Hawai‘i Department of Land andNatural Resources, Division of State Parks and Land Division, Engineering Branch. May
2002.
Giambelluca TW, Chen Q, Frazier AG, Price JP, Chen Y-L, Chu P-S, Eischeid J., and Delparte,
D. 2011. The Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. Website: http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu.
Gowensmith, Debbie. 2010. Personal communication. March 10, 2010.
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

6-3

Griffin, P. Bion. 1984. “Where Lohi‘au Ruled: Excavations at Ha‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i.”
Hawaiian Archaeology 1:1-18.
Griffin, P. Bion, Richard M. Bordner, Hallett H. Hammatt, Maury E. Morgenstein, and Catherine
Stauder. 1977 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at Hā‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i
Island. (Prepared by Archaeological Research Center Hawai‘i, Inc. for the Division ofState Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources).
Hammatt, Hallett H., Myra J. Tomonari-Tuggle and Charles F. Streck. 1978. Archaeological
Investigations at Hā‘ena State Park, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i Island, Phase II: Excavations ofbeach localities and visitors facilities area. Prepared by Archaeological Research Center
Hawai‘i, Inc. Prepared for the Division of State Parks, Department of Land and Natural
Resources. Lāwa‘i: November 1978.
Handy, E.S. Craighill, Elizabeth Green Handy, and Mary Kawena Pukui. 1991. Native Planters
in Old Hawai‘i: Their life, lore, and environment, Revised Edition. Honolulu: Bishop
Museum Press.
Hawai‘i Pacific Parks. 2012. Website: http://www.hawaiipacificparks.org.
Hawai‘i Visitors and Convention Bureau. 2009. “Kaua‘i Quick Guides.” Website:
http://www.gohawaii.com/kauai/learn/quick_guides
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. 2009. “Hawai‘i’s Marine
Mammals: An ocean user’s guide and summary of threats (brochure).” Funding fordevelopment and printing by Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. Written and photographed by
Edward Lyman, HIHWNMS. Design and illustrations by Pieter Arend Folkens, A Higher
Porpoise Design Group.
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary website. 2011.
http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/
Hui O Laka. 2012. Kōke‘e Museum Website: http://www.kokee.org/
Humu Mo‘olelo. 2008. Humu Mo‘olelo: Journal of the Hula Arts. Volume 1, Number 3.
Juran, Megan. 2007. Community-Based Marine Management Hā‘ena Ahupua‘a, Kaua‘i,
Hawai‘i: Listening to Community Members and Respected Scientists to Better
Understand the Implications of Community-Based Marine Management on Our NearShore Fisheries. Kaua‘i: Community Conservation Network. Final Report.
--------- 2009. Kalalau Trail Count Sunday 27 Dec 09 (7 Hours).
--------- 2010. Personal communication and photographs.
Juvik, Sonia P. and James O. Juvik. 1998. Atlas of Hawai‘i, Third Edition. Honolulu: Universityof Hawai‘i Press.
6-4©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Kaua‘i Community College. 2009. Website:
http://info.kauaicc.hawaii.edu/admin/gov/mission/index.htm.
Kaua‘i Planning and Action Alliance. 2009. “KPAA Progress Report on Park Improvements.”
Posted June 4, 2009. Website: http://www.kauainetwork.org/park-improvements.asp.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (formerly Engineering Solutions, Inc.). 2011. Civil Baseline Report.
Honolulu. Prepared for PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc., January 2011.
--------- 2010. Wastewater Preliminary Engineering Report. Honolulu. Prepared for PBRHAWAII & Associates, Inc., November 2010.
KFOX14 News. 2012. “Hueco Tanks State Park Forced to Limit Visitors.” Website:
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/hueco-tanks-state-park-forced-limit-visitors/nLPxp/
Kai‘akapu, Thomas. 2008, 2015. Personal communications. Letter, August 28, 2008. Emails,
May 29, 2015.
Kido, Mike. 2001 unpublished. “Freshwater Resources.” Prepared for the Hawai‘i Stream
Research Center, University of Hawai‘i.
Kimura International, Inc. 2003. Bike Plan Hawai‘i Update. Prepared for the Highways
Division, Department of Transportation.
Kikiaola Land Co. 2012. The Lodge at Kōke‘e Website: http://www.thelodgeatkokee.net
Kwok, Alison G. and Walter T. Grondzik. 2011. The Green Studio Handbook: Environmental
strategies for schematic design, Second Edition. Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.
Limahuli Garden and Preserve. 2006. Limahuli Garden: A Window to Ancient Hawai‘i. Hā‘ena,
Kaua‘i.
Lime, David W., Dorothy H. Anderson, Jerrilyn L. Thompson. 2004. Identifying and Monitoring
Indicators of Visitor Experience and Resource Quality: A handbook for recreation
resource managers. University of Minnesota Department of Forest Resources for the
National Park Service. March 2004. Downloaded:
http://cpsp.cfans.umn.edu/publications/Indicators_Standards_Handbook.pdf
MacDonald, Gordon A., Agatin T. Abbott, Frank L. Peterson. 1983. Volcanoes in the Sea: theGeology of Hawai‘i. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
MacDonald, Gordon A., Dan A. Davis, and Doak C. Cox. 1960. Geology and Ground-Water
Resources of the Island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Bulletin 13. Honolulu: Hawai‘i Division of
Hydrography in cooperation with the Geological Survey, United States Department of theInterior.
Major, Maurice and Alan Carpenter. (in prep.). Data Recovery at Site 50-30-02-7001, Hā‘ena
State Park, District of Hanalei, Island of Kaua‘i. (Prepared by and for the Division ofState Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources).
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

6-5

--------- 2000. Archaeological Restoration Plan, Hā‘ena State Park, Kaua‘i, TMK: 5-9-06:14
and 5-9-08:1 -19, Draft. Prepared by the Archaeology Section of the Division of State
Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources.
--------- 2001. Supplemental Archaeological Inventory: Hā‘ena State Park, Kaua‘i, TMK: 5-906:14 and 5-9-0:1 -19. Prepared by the Archaeology Section of the Division of State
Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Malo, David. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly. 2003. Hana Ka Lima, ‘Ai Ka Waha: A Collection of HistoricalAccounts and Oral History Interviews with Kama‘āina Residents and Fisher-People ofLands in the Halele‘a-Nāpali Region on the Island of Kaua‘i. Prepared for The Nature
Conservancy and National Tropical Botanical Garden – Limahuli Gardens, Hui
Maka‘āinana o Makana, Limahuli Garden ICMI Project.
McEldowney, Holly and Martha Yent. 2007 Archaeological Monitoring Plan for New Comfort
Station and Other Improvements, Hā‘ena State Park. (Prepared by and for the Division ofState Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources).
McEldowney, Holly, Archaeologist, State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural
Resources, State Parks Division. Personal communication. November 24, 2009.
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2012. “2012 DCR ParksPasses.”
Website: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parkspass.htm.
Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board. 2012. “Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Annual
Patron Parking Permit.” Website:
http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=82.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2012. “Minnesota State Parks Permit.” Website:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_parks/permit.html.
Nagata, Kenneth M. 1991. Botanical Survey, Hā‘ena State Park, Hā‘ena, Kaua‘i. Prepared forthe Division of State Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai‘i.
Nā Pali Coast ‘Ohana. 2012. Website: http://www.napali.org/
National Climatic Data Center. 2009. “Climate Maps of the United States. Hawai‘i Annual Mean
Relative Humidity.” Website: http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climaps/hirh2313.pdf.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. “Global Measured Extremes ofTemperature and Precipitation.” Website:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html.
--------- 2015. "Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Rulemaking to Revise Critial Habitatfor Hawaiian Monk Seals; Final Rule." Federal Register, August 21, 2015. Website:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-08-21/pdf/2015-20617.pdf
6-6©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

National Park Service, US Department of Interior. 2008. Land and Water Conservation Fund
State Assistance Program, Federal Financial Assistance Manual, Volume 69. Effective
Date: October 1, 2008. Website: http://www.nps.gov/LWCF/manual/LWCF.pdf.
--------- 2009. Website: www.nps.gov .
--------- 2011. “Acadia National Park, Maine/Bus.” Website:
http://www.nps.gov/acad/planyourvisit/bus.htm.
--------- 2011. “Zion National Park/Shuttle System.” Website:
http://www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/zion-shuttle-system.htm.
--------- 2012. “America the Beautiful: The National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass
Series.” Website: http://www.nps.gov/findapark/passes.htm.
--------- 2012. “Haleakalā National Park.” Website: http://www.nps.gov/hale/index.htm.
--------- 2012. “Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park.” Website:
http://www.nps.gov/havo/index.htm.
--------- 2012. “World War II Valor in the Pacific.” Website: http://www.nps.gov/valr/index.htm.
New Mexico Commission of Public Records. 2012. “The Official Site of the New Mexico
Administrative Code. Title 19, Chapter 5, Part 2: Natural Resources and Wildlife, State
Parks and Recreation, Park Visitor Provisions.” Last updated March 30, 2012. Website:
http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title19/19.005.0002.htm
Orange County Parks. 2012. “OC Parks Fees.” Website:
http://www.ocparks.com/fees/default.asp?Show=PurchaseAPass
Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles. 2011. “Sno-Park Parking Permits.” Website:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/vehicle/sno_park_permits.shtml. Website updated
September 30, 2011.
Orr, Maria. 2010. Hā‘ena State Park Master Plan/EIS Cultural Impact Assessment. Prepared for
PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc.
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Website:
http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/.
Parnham, James E., Higashi, Glenn R., et al. 2008. Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds and Their
Aquatic Resources. (Prepared for the Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land
and Natural Resources).
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. 2012. Website: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org.
PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2003. Natural Resource Assessment. Prepared for the Hawai‘i
Tourism Authority.
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

6-7

--------- 2009. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2008 Update. Prepared
for the Division of State Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources.
--------- 2010. Hā‘ena State Park Individual Wastewater System Improvements ConstructedWetland Final Environmental Assessment. Prepared for the State of Hawai‘i, Departmentof Land and Natural Resources, Engineering Division.
--------- 2015. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2015 Update. Prepared
for the Division of State Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Pearl Harbor Historic Sites. 2012. Website: http://www.pearlharborhistoricsites.org/pearlharbor/uss-bowfin-submarine.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Bicycle Parking. Web. October 22, 2010.
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/parking.cfm
Plan Pacific. 2000. Kaua‘i General Plan. Prepared for the County of Kaua‘i Planning
Department.
Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. 1993. “Hurricane ‘Iniki Assessment: Review of hurricane
evacuation studies utilization and information dissemination.” Prepared for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency and State of Hawai‘i,
Department of Defense. Prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Tallahassee,
Florida, September 1993. Website:
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/nhp/PSA/HurricaneIniki1992/Iniki_Report.pdf
Pukui, Mary Kawena and Samuel H. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian Dictionary. Honolulu: Universityof Hawai‘i Press.
Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Esther T. Mookini. 1974. Place Names of Hawai‘i.
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Quinn, Patrick. 2009. “Malama Kaua‘i Community Garden.” Slow Food Kaua‘i Blog, November
11, 2009. http://slowfoodkauai.blogspot.com/
Riley, Thomas J. and Karma-Ibsen Riley. 1979. “Taylor Camp, Hawai‘i: The life and death of ahippie community.” Article from the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50(6),1979. Posted on the Pacific Worlds “Hā‘ena, Kaua‘i: Taylor Camp” Website:
http://www.pacificworlds.com/haena/memories/memory5.cfm.
Silva, Carol. 1995. A Historical and Cultural Report of Hā‘ena State Park Halele‘a, Kaua‘i.
Prepared for the Division of State Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Souza, Jean. 2011. Personal Communication.

6-8©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

State of Hawai‘i, Coastal Zone Management Program, Office of Planning, Department of
Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 2006. Hawai‘i Ocean Resources
Management Plan.
State of Hawai‘i, Commission on Water Resource Management, Department of Land andNatural Resources and The National Park Service. 1990. Hawai‘i Stream Assessment:
Hawai‘i’s Streams and their Instream and Riparian Resources.
-------- 2011. Table of Limahuli Stream Diversions, as of September 9, 2011. Spreadsheet from
Dean Uyeno, received October 14, 2011.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Business, Economic Development, & Tourism. 2007. 2007
State of Hawai‘i Data Book. Website:
http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook/db2007/.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism website. 2009.
“Visitor Statistics.” Website: http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/visitor-stats/.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Research andEconomic Analysis Division. 2007. 2007 Visitor Satisfaction and Activity Report.
Honolulu.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Education. 2009. “Kapa‘a,-Kaua‘i-Waimea Complex Area.”
Website: http://165.248.6.166/data/complexarea.asp?key_complexarea=15 .
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. 2008. “Hawai‘i Workforce
Informer: Unemployment/Labor Force Estimates 3/28/2008” Website:
http://www.hiwi.org/article.asp?ARTICLEID=463&PAGEID=94&SUBID.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. 2009. “Unemployment Rates
and Charts, February 2008 - February 2009.” Website:
http://www.hiwi.org/admin/uploadedPublications/1019_URATE_current.pdf.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks. 1972.
“Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, Hā‘ena State Park Acquisition, Grant
Agreement No. 15-00061.” October 5, 1972.
--------- 2006. “Curatorship Agreement, Hā‘ena Lo‘i Restoration- Phase I, Hā‘ena State Park,
Hā‘ena, Halele‘a District, Kaua‘i, Historic Site #50-30-02-7009.” Draft renewal, August
2006.
---------. 2009. Recreational Renaissance “Plan B” Back to Basics. Website:
http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/recreate/planb/RR-PLAN-B-FACT-SHEET.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation andCoastal Lands. 2009. Website: http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/occl/.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation, Harbors Division. 2009. Website:
http://www.state.hi.us/dot/harbors/index.htm.
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

6-9

---------. 2001. Kaua‘i Commercial Harbors 2025 Master Plan.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation, Highways Division. 2011. Personalcommunication, September 7, 2011 email.
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation, Highways Division-Kaua‘i District. 2007, 2015.
Biennial traffic counts 2003 and 2013.
Stepath, Carl M. 1999. “Kē‘ē Lagoon and Reef Flat Users Baseline Study.” Save Our Seas,
August 21, 1999. Website:
http://www.saveourseas.org/CarlStepath/Keebaselinestepath/KeeBaselineStudy.doc.
---------. 2006. “Draft Kē‘ē Lagoon and Reef Flat Users Baseline Study.” Save Our Seas.
Website: http://www.saveourseas.org/saveourseas/haena_files/Kee_report_update_906.pdf.
Strategic Solutions, Inc. 2007. “Feasibility Study for Hā‘ena Comfort Station ConstructedWetland Wastewater Treatment.” Submitted to DLNR.
SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2010. Marine Natural Resources and Recreation
Assessment, Hā‘ena State Park, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. February 2010.
Terry, Ron and Patrick Hart. Geometrician Associates, LLC. 2009. Biological Survey, Hā‘ena
State Park, Island of Kaua‘i.
Tom Crikelair Associates. 2007. Island Explorer Short Range Transit Plan Final Report.
Prepared for National Park Service and Maine Department of Transportation.
The Friends of ‘Iolani Palace. 2012. Website: http://www.iolanipalace.org.
The Garden Island. 2009. “Truck runs over Wailua beachgoer.” Published January 19, 2009.
Website:http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2009/01/19/news/kauai_news/doc497429d34e86839
5578164.txt.
The Keith Companies – Hawai‘i, Inc. and Earthplan Planning and Design. (2001 unpublished)
Hā‘ena State Park Master Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared forthe Division of State Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources.
The Nature Conservancy. 2010. Hawai‘i Marine: Makai Watch. Website:
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/hawaii/marine/art20999.html.
Texas Parks and Wildlife. 2012. “Hueco Tanks State Park & Historic Site.” Website:
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/spdest/findadest/parks/hueco_tanks/--------- 2012. “Passes Available for Use at Texas State Parks.” Website:
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/spdest/parkinfo/passes/
6-10©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018

Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve. 2012. “Basic Information.” Website:
http://www.torreypine.org/parks/basic-information.html#Fees.
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (1972). Soil Survey of theIslands of Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, Maui, Moloka‘i, and Lāna‘i, State of Hawai‘i. Washington DC:
US Government Printing Office.
United States Census Bureau. 2009. “American FactFinder: Census 2000.” Website:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/
DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=256850074328&_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_program .
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Hawai‘i Fish Habitat Partnership. Website:
http://fishhabitat.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=44:partnerprofiles&id=182:hawaii-fish-habitat-partnership&Itemid=37.
Unites States Geological Service. 1999. “Ground Water Atlas of the United States.” Archive(online version) HA 730-N. Website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/gwa.html.
---------. 2009. “USGS Annual Statistics for Hawai‘i, USGS 16114000 Limahuli Stream near
Wainiha, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i.” Website:
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/hi/nwis/annual?search_site_no=16114000&format=sites_selection_links.
University of Hawai‘i Department of Geography. 1983. Atlas of Hawai‘i, Second Edition.
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Urban Land Institute and the National Parking Association. 1993. The Dimensions of Parking.
Third Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI-The Urban Land Institute.
Vaughan, Mehana. 2009. Summer 2009 Final Report. Stanford University.
---------. 2010. “Pawehe ke Kai a‘o Hā‘ena (Beautifully Patterned is the Sea of Hā‘ena.”
Powerpoint community presentation.
---------. 2010 Unpublished manuscript. Working draft for publication in Society and Natural
Resources. Draft date: May 26, 2010.
Washington State Parks. 2012. “Discover Pass.” Website: http://www.discoverpass.wa.gov/.
--------- 2012. “State Parks Fees.” Website: http://www.parks.wa.gov/fees/.
Western Regional Climate Center website. 2009. “Hawai‘i Climatological Data Summary,
Wainiha 1115, HAWAI‘I (518155).” Website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?hi8155.
Wichman, Frederick B. 1998. Kaua‘i: Ancient Place-Names and Their Stories. Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i Press.
Hä‘ena State Park Draft Master Plan

6-11

---------. 1985. Kaua‘i Tales. Honolulu: Bamboo Ridge Press.
---------. 1997. More Kaua‘i Tales. Honolulu: Bamboo Ridge Press.
---------. 2001. Pele Mā: Legends of Pele from Kaua‘i. Honolulu: Bamboo Ridge Press.
Wilkinson, C., Brodie, J. 2011 Catchment Management and Coral Reef Conservation: apractical guide for coastal resource managers to reduce damage from catchment areas
based on best practice case studies. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef andRainforest Research Centre. Townsville, Australia.
Williams, Byron K., Robert C. Szaro, and Carl D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The
U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC. Website:
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/ppa/upload/TechGuide.pdf
Wilson Okamoto & Associates. 1980. North Shore Development Plan Update, includes Kilauea.
Prepared for the Planning Department, County of Kaua‘i.
Wilson Okamoto Corporation. 2008. Hawai‘i Water Plan: Water Resource Protection Plan.
Prepared for the State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Commission on Water Resource Management, June 2008.
Yent, Martha. Hā‘ena Archaeological Complex (State Site No. 30-03-3201). 1983. National
Register of Historic Places Register Form prepared by Division of State Parks, Department ofLand and Natural Resources.
O:\Job26\2627.01 DLNR-Haena State Park Master Plan\Reports\Master Plan\Final MP-Final\MP-30 FMP Final.doc

6-12©PBR HAWAII & Associates, Inc. 2018