Applying Makawalu to Midway Atoll’s Visitor Program Kuaihelani, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument by Gina M. McGuire B.A. (Stanford University) 2017 A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Tropical Conservation Biology and Environmental Science in the Graduate Division of the University of Hawaiʻi, Hilo Committee in charge: Dr. Jason P. Turner Dr. Kathryn Besio Mr. Barry W. Stieglitz Spring 2019 1 ABSTRACT Applying Makawalu to Midway Atoll’s Visitor Program: Kuaihelani, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument by Gina M. McGuire Master of Science in Tropical Conservation Biology and Environmental Science University of Hawaiʻi, Hilo Professor Jason P. Turner, Chair This study informs decisionmakers on the stakeholder's views about the feasibility of re- opening visitation to the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge and Battle of Midway National Memorial. Midway Atoll is operated under the National Wildlife Refuge System and is the only area within the surrounding Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument designated to allow for public visitation. Narrative research methodologies including interviewing and participant observation were conducted under the Hawaiian framework of makawalu, literally translating to “eight eyes.” Narrative research provides the context and added complexity to inform decisions about visitation regarding social, ecological, heritage, and economic interests in the Atoll. Stakeholder responses show that the question as to whether visitation “should” be re- opened on Midway is unclear across responses, and that in many cases where there is strong conviction to have visitation, it is only for certain groups and interviewees have serious reservations about visitation program design. Spatial landscape analysis identifies gaps in data availability to determine potential environmental impact on Midway Atoll and the importance of including Indigenous ways of knowing in management. The literature review of similar sites shows that the effects of increased human activity are often greater than anticipated or 2 immediately observable. Significant logistical challenges of operating in a remote setting result in high annual program and trip costs. Future planning should incorporate stakeholder views, information on potential environmental harm, and associated costs collected in this document to inform whether or not the benefits of visitation outweigh concerns and the high cost. 3 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 6 History of Previous Visitation ........................................................................................................... 8 Cultural Significance....................................................................................................................... 11 Non-Native Historic Significance .................................................................................................... 13 Ecological Significance ................................................................................................................... 14 Research Goals .............................................................................................................................. 15 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 16 Researcher Transparency ............................................................................................................... 16 Researcher Introduction to Kuaihelani ........................................................................................... 17 Qualitative Methodology Framework ............................................................................................ 18 Interview Methodology ................................................................................................................. 19 Participant Observation ................................................................................................................. 23 Ecological Methodology Framework .............................................................................................. 23 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 24 INTERVIEW RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 24 Interview Analysis Framework ....................................................................................................... 24 1. Values of Visitation ................................................................................................................ 26 1a. Cultural Value ...................................................................................................................................... 27 1b. Research Support ................................................................................................................................ 29 1c. Historic Value ...................................................................................................................................... 29 1d. Inspires Conservation Action .............................................................................................................. 31 1e. Window to the Monument ................................................................................................................. 32 1f. Digital Platform .................................................................................................................................... 34 1g. Art Community .................................................................................................................................... 34 1h. Contractual Community ...................................................................................................................... 35 2. Should Midway be re-opened to visitation? ........................................................................... 37 3. Concerns ................................................................................................................................ 39 3a. Programming ...................................................................................................................................... 40 3b. Reciprocal ............................................................................................................................................ 42 3c. Equitable .............................................................................................................................................. 43 3d. Inter-agency Support .......................................................................................................................... 44 3d1. Diversifying the Management of Midway Atoll .................................................................................. 45 3d2. Alignment of Values ............................................................................................................................ 46 3e. Environmental ..................................................................................................................................... 46 3f. Logistics & Safety ................................................................................................................................. 46 4. Support Capabilities of Agencies & Organizations .................................................................. 47 POTENTIAL VISITATION IMPACT ON ECOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES ...................... 48 4 Purpose & Current Knowledge ....................................................................................................... 48 Heritage Landscape ........................................................................................................................ 50 Baseline & Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 49 Ecological Landscape ...................................................................................................................... 50 Current On-Site Knowledge ............................................................................................................................... 50 Knowledge Gaps & Background Information .................................................................................................... 53 Ecological Baseline & Recommendations: ......................................................................................................... 57 LOGISTICAL PARAMETERS OF VISITATION ............................................................................. 61 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 61 Site Operations .............................................................................................................................. 63 Housing ......................................................................................................................................... 63 Waste Management .....................................................................................................................