Moloka`i Ranch is Required to Give Public Free Access to Lono Harbor
Thirty-eight years into a 40-year license that allowed construction of Hale o Lono Harbor on Moloka`i, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources has finally exercised its prerogative under the lease to require Moloka`i Ranch to provide public access to the harbor.
The action was taken by the Land Board at its meeting of September 13, 1996, in Honolulu, after it heard from a number of Moloka`i residents urging the board to insist that access to the harbor be opened up. Moloka`i Ranch was given 30 days in which to prepare for public access.
Pro-Rata Payment
In deciding to open the harbor, the board went against the recommendations of its Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. What DOBOR recommended in its submittal to the board was an access plan that had been developed by the ranch. That plan called for “a combination of pedestrian and limited vehicular access to the harbor” and construction of a paved road, with fencing, at a cost of $350,000. Should Moloka`i Ranch “be unsuccessful in securing continued occupancy beyond the expiration of the current license” – in April 1998 – the ranch would be reimbursed “on a pro-rata basis for the cost of roadway improvements,” the DOBOR submittal proposed.
Technically, what Moloka`i Ranch was seeking was the board’s consent to the assignment of the harbor license from Honolulu Construction and Draying, Ltd., to the ranch. While the ranch had been managing the harbor since HC&D pulled out years ago, formal assignment of the harbor license had never been accomplished. At the September meeting, Harold Edwards of Moloka`i Ranch addressed this point: “We’ve operated for several years as manager of the harbor… This [proposed board action] is an attempt to recognize that and formally sign the license agreement.”
Edwards acknowledged that the ranch “struggled with” the issue of access. But, he continued, “we’re happy with the progress we made… As I mentioned last time [see article below], I recognized that the ranch is starting out with baby steps here. We might be getting a little past that.
“We’re trying to balance our concerns with liability and security with providing desired vehicular access… The pedestrian access that we’re suggesting, we recognize doesn’t provide meaningful access to Hale o Lono Harbor, [but] it satisfies the legal requirements…
“What we’ve proposed … is that we would provide uncontrolled and unregulated – no permits, no sign-up – vehicular access at Lono harbor a minimum of 12 weekends a year, starting at 3 p.m. Friday and concluding at 7 p.m. on Sunday, during daylight hours. On three-day holiday weekends, Edwards said, vehicular access would be available Mondays as well.
Lost Resources
The proposal was unpopular with Moloka`i residents who had flown to Honolulu to testify against the proposal. Walter Ritte pointed out that when the harbor was created, HC&D “blew up the whole reef area, which was our squid ground, our lobster ground.” In return for that loss, the state was to receive access to the harbor, but for the last 38 years, that has been withheld.
The existing road to the harbor is an unimproved dirt road around 4 miles long. This, the board was told by the Moloka`i residents, meant that unrestricted pedestrian access, as proposed by the ranch, was meaningless for fishermen. No one had any desire to see the dirt road paved, as the ranch proposed.
Arnold Lum, an attorney with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, brought a number of concerns to the board’s attention. Noting that the staff’s submittal referred to Chapter 171 of Hawai`i Revised Statutes, which deals with leases, as justifying the board action, Lum pointed out that the Hale o Lono license “doesn’t meet the requirements of a public lease.” Also, he questioned what basis would be used to determine the “pro-rata reimbursement to Moloka`i Ranch if they don’t get the lease after 1998. What’s the depreciation rate?”
As to dedication of a public right-of-way and roadway improvements, elements in the ranch’s proposed access plan, Lum asked: “If they’re dedicated to the public, then how can the ranch limit vehicular access to 12 weekends a year during daylight hours?”
‘Public Was Screwed’
Joseph Kalipi told the board that up to now, the ranch charged for access. Even so, he said, often residents who wanted to use the area were not given permission. “It depended on who you knew,” he said. (The ranch’s published “beach access policy” for Moloka`i residents, dated August 1, 1996, supports Kalipi. That document says residents will be allowed to camp once per month, based on availability and rotation, at Mo`omomi, Pu`uhakina, Hale o Lono, and Halena. Cost to residents is $5 per adult per night, $2 per child per night. A $50 refundable key deposit is required. Non-resident fees are $45 per adult per day, with children under 12 $20 per day.)
Board member Michael Nekoba stated that the $350,000 cost of the road “should not be the state’s responsibility, under the licensee. The fencing cost also should be borne by the ranch.”
Addressing Edwards, Nekoba asked: “We have only 19 months left on the license. Don’t you think that the people, the public, after 38 years, should be granted access?”
Edwards responded by saying the ranch accepted the responsibility of providing a right of way, but repeated a claim made at an earlier board meeting that the state was supposed to pave the road. Last January, Edwards had told Environment Hawai`i that “the public access [requirement] kicks in in 1998, when we surrender the harbor back… Our obligation was to make an access available at the time the harbor reverts to the state.”
Nekoba was not persuaded: “I really believe the public was screwed on this issue… The crux of this agreement 38 years ago was to provide public access; the state didn’t ask for anything else.”
In the end, the board assigned the license to the ranch for the 19 months remaining on the license, but instructed the ranch to provide free public access (including vehicular access) within 30 days. It urged the ranch to work with Moloka`i residents in carrying out its access plans.
(For background, please see the article on this subject in the April 1996 issue of Environment Hawai`i “[url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=978_0_28_0_C]1958 License Commits Molokai Ranch To Give Public Access to Hale o Lono[/url].” )
Board Issues Permit for Kaupoa House
On August 9, the Land Board gave Moloka`i Ranch a Conservation District permit for reconstruction of Kaupoa House. The ranch initially had received administrative approval for renovations to the house, but the renovations expanded to the point that the original historic house was torn down and an entirely new house was built on the site, contrary to Conservation District regulations.
To address the Conservation District violation, in November 1994 the board fined the ranch $10,500, payable as an in-kind donation to the community. In addition, it was ordered within 60 days either to remove the building or file an after-the-fact application to authorize its reconstruction. According to the staff submittal to the board, the fine was paid as a donation of books to the Moloka`i Public School library.
The renewed application was filed in February 1995. While the permit was pending, the house and a nearby storage shed burned down in a fire that may have been the work of an arsonist.
The ranch proposed to use the house as part of its commercial recreation operations.
Harold Edwards, speaking for the ranch, acknowledged that “unquestionably, we were not sensitive to the regulations and stepped over the line and got ourselves into some difficulty” with the rebuilding of Kaupoa House. “Notwithstanding this,” he continued, “some good has come out over the last couple of years… We have dealt with the issue of access to the satisfaction of the Moloka`i Planning Commission.”
That commission issued the ranch a special management area permit and shoreline setback variance for Kaupoa House in July 1996. As a condition of that permit, the ranch is required to “develop a public shoreline access plan to provide adequate and safe public shoreline access to the area makai of the Kaupoa House, fronting the Kaupoa House.”
Edwards said the ranch was proposing a 12-foot wide pedestrian access to the area starting out from the existing shoreline access area at Kaluakoi, to the north, and crossing lands owned by Alpha USA, a Japan-based company that bought out part of Moloka`i Ranch’s holdings in western Moloka`i. Edwards described the distance as about 3,000 feet, but this was disputed by some of the people testifying. They wanted not only pedestrian access, but vehicular access.
‘Baby Steps’
Edwards responded by saying, again that the ranch had “made a lot of progress… Part of the problem in having vehicular access is you have more people. There’s concerns raised even today about desecration of archaeological resources down there and too many aquatic resources being removed from the area. At this point, I think we’re comfortable with pedestrian access; I don’t think we’re quite ready to take the leap to vehicular access down there…
“My other comment… I think this is us taking baby steps. I think we’ve got a ways to go before we’re as far down that road as we need to be on access, but it’s the first time in a long time we’ve been willing to go this far.”
In the end, the board approved the staff’s recommendation. The first condition requires public access to the shoreline to be provided in compliance with a previous Conservation District permit, issued after-the-fact in 1988 to allow the ranch to subdivide and sell land in West Moloka`i. One requirement of that 1988 Conservation District Use Permit was that a portion of each of the four lots created by the subdivision (including the lot on which the Kaupoa House is located) “be dedicated to allow for a 12-foot public access pedestrian right-of-way to the ocean.” Eight years after approval of that permit, the board has yet to approve an access plan for even one of the those lots.
For background on Kaupoa House, see the December 1994 issue of Environment Hawai`i, “[url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=1327_0_30_0_C]Moloka`i Ranch Rapped for Illegal Work[/url],” (scroll down for the subheading); for background on compliance with the shoreline access provisions in the 1988 CDUP, see the July 1995 article, “[url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=1089_0_29_0_C]Board Defers Action on Replacement Of Pipeline, Dam by Moloka`i Ranch[/url]”.
Unfinished Business: Pipeline, Dam, Camp
In addition to the unsettled issue of public access as required in the 1988 Conservation District Use Permit for subdivision of land, Moloka`i Ranch has several other issues pending before the Board of Land and Natural Resources.
One case involves a complaint that the ranch had laid 2,000 of pipe in the Conservation District. That work, in addition to work on a dam, was said to have increased the amount of water diverted into a pipeline. The complaint led to a staff recommendation that the ranch be found in violation of Conservation District rules, that it be fined $2,000, and that it be required to file and after-the-fact permit to cover the work.
The Land Board considered the matter on May 26, 1995, in an acrimonious meeting on Moloka`i. The board decided at that time to defer action until after the attorney general’s office had had a chance to review the ranch’s claims that the work was authorized under a 1951 agreement. Nearly 18 months later, the issue remains unresolved.
A second pending matter is grading of about 24 acres undertaken in 1993 at an area along the southern coast of Moloka`i known as Halena Camp. The grading was to upgrade the camp as part of the ranch’s commercial recreation plan.
The grading was done without a Conservation District Use Permit or a county Special Management Area permit. The ranch applied after-the-fact for a Conservation District permit, but in September 1994, in light of mounting concerns by the DLNR’s Historic Preservation Division, the ranch asked that its application be withdrawn.
In November 1994, the Land Board found the ranch to have violated Conservation District rules in the clearing of Halena Camp and fined it $2,000. In addition, the board required the ranch to reapply for a permit within six months – in other words, by May 18, 1995. As of late September 1996, there was no sign of a new permit application for the work at Halena Camp.
(For background, see Environment Hawai`i articles in November 1994 “[url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=1321_0_30_0_C]Moloka’i Ranch Withdraws Application For Grading as DLNR Pursues Enforcement[/url]” and December 1994 “[url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=1327_0_30_0_C]Moloka`i Ranch Rapped For Illegal Work[/url]”.
Maui County Considers Kihei Coastal Park
The long stretches of state-owned land fronting the ocean in Kihei, Maui, may be converted to a county park. The idea is being pushed by the South Maui Coastal Heritage Corridor coalition and the Maui council of the state’s trail program, Na Ala Hele. The state is willing to give the county the land, but the Maui County Council’s Parks and Recreation Committee is concerned about costs of maintaining the land, which totals about 30 acres.
As reported in the [url=/members_archives/archives1993.php]July 1993[/url] issue of Environment Hawai`i, the state has routinely allowed adjacent private landowners to landscape the state beach reserve land. In theory, the landowners get to increase the value of their property by being able to landscape to the high-water mark, while the public receives unimpeded access to state-owned shoreline land maintained in a park-like fashion. In practice, it hasn’t worked out that way always. The signage that is supposed to tell the public it is welcome is not always present or conspicuous. When private landowners place lawn furniture or other amenities on the public land, the impression given is one of private land, further deterring public enjoyment of the area.
State Sends out Moth to Battle Ivy Gourd
Ivy gourd, a noxious plant that is smothering vegetation over large parts of O`ahu and West Hawai`i, may soon meet its match. The state Department of Agriculture has released a moth it found in East Africa whose larvae bore through the plant’s tuberous roots, eventually killing the vine.
According to Myron Isherwood, chief of the Department of Agriculture’s Plant Pest Control Branch, the moth has been out of quarantine for about a month. “We’re trying to build up the population of insects we have to work with and trying to learn how better to release it in the field,” he said. “Doing something in quarantine is one thing; doing it in the field is quite another.”
The moth, Melittia oedipus, was found in Kenya by former DOA entomologist Robert Burkhart about four years ago. It was one of five insects Burkhart identified as possible biological control agents against the ivy gourd (Coccinia grandis). Two of the insects died in quarantine. Two others remain in quarantine, with research into their effectiveness continuing.
Discovering such insects, Isherwood said, “is like finding a needle in a haystack. Before setting out, you go through the literature, see what information there may be as far as control agents affecting the target plant in its native range… Once you get in the plant’s native range, it’s a case of keeping your eyes open, being very observant, making collections, doing some preliminary evaluations in the country.”
After a potential control agent is found, it must be identified – which can itself be a taxing process. “A lot of things out there haven’t been adequately described in the literature,” Isherwood said. “In those cases, you don’t know what organism you’re dealing with. We cannot request approval to release anything without having an identification. If we don’t have one, we have to send stuff off to experts dealing with that particular family or tribe of insect.”
The two insects remaining in quarantine are still in the process of being identified, Isherwood said. “Both are hung up because we don’t know what they are. We have found somebody on the mainland who works with that particular group of insects. He’s in Europe studying on a research project. At the same time he’s there, he’s looking for an identification in various museums and entomology collections in Paris. He has to describe the other two insects before we can even petition for release.”
Isherwood said that the process required to obtain approvals before releasing biological control agents into the environment has become much tougher in the last few years. “In a way, it’s good,” he said, “because it reduces chances for making a mistake. On the other hand, it can be frustrating when you’ve got something out there you know has to be controlled and you want to get something out there as soon as possible.” To expedite the federal processing of petitions for release, he added, the Department of Agriculture works with the local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, attempting to determine early in the process whether the release of a candidate control agent will harm any endangered species.
The search for a control agent for miconia is “just getting off the ground,” Isherwood said. “We’re almost certainly going to be working in a cooperative venture with the government in Tahiti,” where miconia has devastated native forest. On a recent trip to Costa Rica, Bob Burkhart, who continues to do contract work for the state, found some insects that might help to control miconia, Isherwood said. “Unfortunately, a snafu occurred at the Los Angeles airport. The insects were held for a while, and they died.”
Hawksbills Hatching at Kealia Pond
In the last three years, two female hawksbill turtles have been killed by motorists when they attempted to cross North Kihei Road in an effort to get to nesting grounds. That’s the bad news.
The good news is that in September, about 20 hawksbill hatchlings have been spotted by Maui Hawksbill Turtle Watch volunteers. Kathy Smith, manager of the Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge, expected more to follow. The volunteers, coordinated by the Hawai`i Wildlife Fund, patrol Kealia beach, making sure the two known nest sites are protected and that hatchlings aren’t distracted or harmed as they make their way to the ocean.
One of the biggest threats to the eggs and hatchlings comes from off-road vehicle traffic. Although off-road vehicles are not allowed on beaches, the shoreline along Ma`alea Bay continues to be frequented by off-road vehicles. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, they damage ground-cover plants and tree roots that hold the sand in place. When the vegetation goes, the dunes themselves erode, preventing re-establishment of native plants. Turtle eggs and hatchlings can themselves be crushed from off-road vehicles. Tire tracks from an off-road vehicle were found in the sand not two feet from the nest where the first of the September hatchlings emerged.
Volume 7, Number 4 October 1996