Natural Area Commission Votes to Keep Pu`u Maka`ala NAR Boundaries Intact

On June 2, at its first meeting of the year, the state Natural Area Reserves (NAR) Commission voted against cutting 4,000 acres from the Pu`u Maka`ala NAR on the Big Island. The only dissenter was the member appointed to represent hunter interests.

The proposal to remove an area known as the Ihope Road Zone was made in May 1999 by Big Island NARS manager William Stormont, who described the area as “beat up” and no longer worthy of inclusion in the Natural Area Reserves System. By law, reserves are selected on the basis of their pristine qualities and were intended to receive the highest level of protection that the state affords to any of its lands. The Ihope Road zone portion proposed for removal is invested with alien plant species and is overrun by pigs. Although Stormont made the proposal, the idea originated with pig hunters and not from the scientific community. (For a fuller discussion of this, see the cover article in the November 1999 edition of Environment Hawai`i.)

“Bill [Stormont’s] explanation is that the perception [among hunters] is that all NARS will be fenced and pigs will be eradicated,” NARS Commission Chair Linda Pratt explained at the June meeting.

“Maybe [that’s the perception] because that’s the policy,” Commissioner Donald Reeser responded.

When the idea was first proposed, several NARS commissioners and Marjorie Ziegler, resource analyst with Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, expressed their view that the area was still valuable as a buffer zone for the rest of the reserve. The Commission deferred action on the issue at its May and September meetings in 1999, pending further research, especially since some commissioners had suggested that many of the species of insects found in the area were native.

At the June 2, 2000 meeting, Pratt presented data from transect surveys she, Rick Warshauer and NARS staff had done. Alien species such as guava and palm grass dominated the area, but it still supported a decent population of native ferns. Betsy Gagne, NARS executive secretary, provided the commission with data from a Department of Transportation study of the area, done as part of a road-widening project. The study found that the area was home to many native insects, including candidates for endangered species. Seventy-five to 80 percent of the insects found were native, she said. NARS Commissioner Reginald David added that bats, the Hawaiian hawk, and a common honeycreeper all inhabit the area.

This information reinforced the belief among several commissioners that shrinking the boundary of Pu`u Maka`ala by 4,000 acres could lead to the degradation of a valuable buffer zone.

Deleting the area would not only eliminate a buffer zone, it could hinder fundraising efforts, said one commissioner. Neal Evenhuis, who will be replacing outgoing Commissioner Steven Montgomery noted: “Entertaining deletions when we’re trying to get funding is counterproductive. Funders will say, ‘Why do you need money when you’re deleting areas?'”

Four years ago, the NARS Commission asked the Department of Land and Natural Resources to review and make recommendations on 10 new sites the commission wished to consider for inclusion in the NARS system. Their request languished for three years in the office of Michael Wilson, former chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. Finally in April of this year, Wilson’s successor, Timothy Johns, assured the commission that the list of candidate natural area reserves would be distributed to the DLNR staff.

The NARS Commission has heard little in the way of recommendations since then. Big Island NARS manager William Stormont has submitted recommendations for the three sites proposed for his island — a series of littoral cones in Puna, Malama-ki (also in Puna), and a 30,000-acre tract on Mauna Loa. Stormont felt that only the littoral cones should be included in the system and the others should be removed from consideration. NARS Commissioner Michael Kido told the Commission at the June meeting that he had studied one of the proposed sites – a stream on Maui – and felt that it should not be included in NARS, either. In addition, NARS executive secretary Betsy Gagne reported to the commission that DLNR staffers on Maui had told her that the candidate areas on that island were already sufficiently protected by virtue of their having been placed in the protective subzone of the state Conservation District. The protective subzone is the one in which land uses are most strictly limited.

“It’s already protected. Why should it be in the NARS?” was how it had been put to her, she said.

Commissioner Charles Lamoureux noted that, by law, the NARS Commission is charged with nominating the best candidates for preservation. “We’re fulfilling our legal obligations,” he said.

So at its June 2 meeting, the commission voted to forge ahead without waiting for more formal responses to their request, and to send a proposal to Johns every three months. That would mean a total of four proposals spread out over a year, with each proposal including sufficient information for the BLNR to support a public hearing.

“Assuming we’ll have a meeting every three months,” Lamoureux explained, a proposal will be prepared for a Maui candidate NARS by the next meeting, O`ahu’s will follow three months later, then Molokai’s, and finally, the Big Island’s.

The NARS Commission will hold its next meeting in late September.

One sunny day a few months ago, Skippy Hau, a biologist with the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Division of Aquatic Resources, joined the Lu`uwai family on a trip down to the `Ahihi-Kina`u Natural Area Reserve on the south shore of Maui to practice Native Hawaiian ways of collecting food from the sea.
Last year, the Lu`uwai family became the first and only holder of a special “cultural subsistence” permit allowing the Native Hawaiian family exclusive access to a restricted area so it could pass its traditions from grandfather to grandchildren.

What Hau and the Lu`uwais found at the isolated bay was that poachers are decimating the populations of opihi (a type of limpet) and `a`ama crab there. The trip was the family’s first since receiving the permit, which granted them four visits to the reserve per year. After witnessing the startling shortage of large opihi and `a`ama crabs, the Lu`uwais told Hau that despite their hard-won permit, they have decided not to take any more animals from the area. [verify with the tape].

Hau had been visiting the area every two months, and had noticed that opihi sizes were averaging a pitiful one inch in diameter, a clear sign that the larger animals were being poached. At the NARS Commission’s June meeting, Hau reported his findings and the commission discussed possible measures to discourage poaching in the area.

As the discussion revealed, the DLNR’s ability to prevent poaching is hindered by three basic problems:

Problem number one: Fishing regulations classify poaching as a petty misdemeanor. “DOCARE is not going to go out of its way if the fines are small,” commissioner Charles Lamoureux said. Problem two, raised by commission chair Linda Pratt: The reserve has no marked boundaries, so those taking the crab and shellfish may not be aware they are in a restricted area. And, according to Gagne, this means that judges will throw out cases brought by the Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement, the DLNR’s enforcement branch.

Problem three, according to Gagne: DOCARE is under funded and does not have the staff or resources to enforce the laws.

While it cannot change laws, the commission supported stiffer penalities for poaching, which they felt should be more than a petty misdemeanor. Marjorie Ziegler of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund suggested banning the commercial sale of opihi, as with opae (freshwater shrimp). Hau said that doing so might just create a black market for opihi. Gagne agreed to collect data on DOCARE arrests so the commission could better discuss solutions.

— Teresa Dawson

Volume 11, Number 1 July 2000