Relative Abundance - The Office of Hawaiian Affairs

WAO KELE O PUNA
Biological
Management
Photo Courtesy Betsy Gagne
Plan
PROGRAM COOPERATORS
DLNR
DIVISION OF
FORESTRY & WILDLIFE
HAWAII ISLAND
LEGACY LANDS
OFFICE OF
HAWAIIAN
AFFAIRS
Prepared by Julie Leialoha
DLNR Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve Coordinator
1
PACIFIC
COOPERATIVE
STUDIES
UNIT
WAO KELE O PUNA FOREST RESERVE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This plan is a site-specific plan prepared by the Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR), Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) for Wao Kele O Puna
Forest Reserve – Hawaii County, State of Hawai‘i. This plan presents a brief history of
the forest reserve owned by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) but jointly manged
with DLNR-DOFAW along with descriptions of cultural, geological and natural
resources, and proposed management recommendations.
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve was first established as the Puna Forest Reserve by
Governor’s Proclamation on June 29, 1911. At the time it consisted of 16,843.89
acres. A second parcel of land consisting of 8,890.275 acres was placed into the Puna
Forest Reserve by Governors Proclamation on December 22, 1928. These parcels
combined or, 25,856-acres, currently makes up the Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve .
However, since 1928, the reserve has undergone a number of administrative changes
beginning primarily in 1981. The convoluted history of these changes will be
addressed in detail in the land use (reserve history) section of this report. In short, the
reserve has gone from public land under the administration of the State’s Department
of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), to privately owned holding by Campbell Estate
in a controversial, though State supported land-swap, then back to public land currently
owned by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and managed by DLNR’s Division of
Forestry and Wildlife (DLNR/DOFAW) in a joint memorandum of agreement signed in
June of 2006 (henceforth known as the “agreement”). The current agreement is
scheduled to expire in June of 2016. It is expected that OHA will then take full control
of all aspects to manage the reserve, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by OHA
and DLNR.
The Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is important for preserving Hawaii’s unique
2
native forest ecosystems, its species, as well as its cultural significance. There are a
wide variety of rare or endangered plants and animals. Endangered birds for which the
continuing health of the Reserve may be a critical factor include the ‘I’o (Buteo
solitaries), Hawai‘i Creeper (Oreomystis mana) and Hawai‘i ‘akepa (Loxops coccineus),
including a known regular visitor to the reserve, the Newell Shearwater or a’o (Puffinus
auricularis newell). Rare plants found in the reserve include the ‘aku (Cyanea
tritomantha), an endemic species with a unique spiny-like (false thorns) features running
along its stems, and the nanu or na’u, or Hawaiian gardenia (Gardenia remyil), also
endemic to Hawaii’s forest ecosystems. The rare and endemic mammal, the Hawaiian
hoary-bat, or ‘ope’ape’a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) is a known in inhabitant of the
reserve. In addition, surveys of cave dwelling arthropods by Bishop Musuem
entomologist have found rare organisms including the cave-dwelling-plant-hopper
(Oliarus polyphemus). Survival and recovery of these rare native plants and animals
depend upon preservation of habitat by reducing impacts from threats such as
ungulates, disease-bearing mosquitoes and other invasive insects, non-native
predators, introduced diseases and invasive plants.
The Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve contains resources that are vital for maintaining
Hawaiian culture and practices. Hawaiians consider native plants and animals as
family and have a strong spiritual connection to the mountain landscape and the forest
itself. Gathering plants such as ferns, maile (Alyxia oliviformis), flowers, fruits, and other
materials cannot be perpetuated into the future unless the forest remains relatively
pristine. Recent history of legal events in the reserve led to a land mark ruling
solidifying gathering rights for Native Hawaiians, which focused on access into
traditional gathering areas (Pele Defense Fund –vs- Campbell Estate). The ruling,
which directly affected the Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve, could have wider
implications on traditional gathering rights of Native Hawaiians at a state wide level.
However, the intent here is to signify the importance of Wao Kele O Puna as an
important resource area for traditional Native Hawaiian gatherers and/or practitioners.
3
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is an important area for public use which also
includes hunting, potential recreational opportunities, and educational programs and
activities. There is currently limited public access to most of this reserve. There is only
one legal public access route into the reserve located just above the town of Pahoa in
lower Puna. The access road traverses through neighborhood communities along a
county roadway and through a private parcel owned by Olsson Trust, of which OHA
owns road easement rights through Olsson Trust properties and into the reserve. The
legal access route is commonly referred to as the “geothermal access road”. Though
other limited access points are available, they require permission from private land
owners or written negotiations with community associations for access usually for a
limited period of time, prior to entering the reserve through these access points. Most
access roads, particularly those in the upper Puna sub-divisions leading to the reserve,
are privately held by community associations and its members. This has been a
source of contention from owners who are being trespassed upon by private
individuals, who use these access points without the permission of the land owner or
community association. Though the reserve itself is considered public-lands, the
majority of the reserve is surrounded by privately held parcels that buttress the reserve.
In essence, with exception being the legal access road in lower Puna, the reserve itself
is basically land-locked. There are two other public easements possible, but one would
require a day-long hike through the Hawaii Volcanoes National park to get to the
boundaries of Wao Kele O Puna, and the other route through the Kahau’ale’a Natural
Area Reserve, which is currently closed by the State and County of Hawaii due to the
continuous eruption of Pu’u ‘O’o. Though individuals have historically entered the
reserve this way, they too often exit and trespass onto privately owned parcels, which
has been a continuous source of disputation.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 8
II.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 9
A.
Location and Description ............................................................................................. 9
B.
Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 12
II.B.1 Reserve History ............................................................................................... 12
II.B.2 SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES .......................................................... 16
II C PHYSICAL SITE DATA ................................................................................................................. 21
II.C.1 HYDROLOGY…………………………………………………………………..21
II.C.2 SOILS……………………………………………………………………………23
II.C.3 GEOLOGY……………………………………………………………………...26
II.C.4 CLIMATE………………………………………………………………………..33
II D
Forest Ecosystems .................................................................................................. 33
II.D.1 Native Forest Communities and Flora……………………………………...33
II.D.2 Hyperspectral Imaging (LIDAR) and Field Study of Vegetion ................. 43
II.E.1
Native Wildlife................................................................................................. 58
II.E.1 Passerines (Forest Birds) ...................................................................... 58
II.E.2 Procellariid (Seabirds)............................................................................ 64
II.E.3 Native Hawaiian Hoary Bat .................................................................... 66
II.E.4 Hawaiian Antrhopods ............................................................................. 71
II.E.2 Non-Native Wildlife
II.E.2.1 Pigs ...................................................................................................... 72
II.E.2.2 Goats ................................................................................................... 75
II.E.2.3 Black Rats and Mongoose ................................................................... 76
II.E.2.4 Introduced Birds ................................................................................... 76
III
Public Access and Recreation ...................................................................... 77
IV
Revenue .......................................................................................................... 78
V
Threats ............................................................................................................ 80
5
V.1
Invasive Non-Native Plant Species ............................................................... 80
V.I.I Miconia ................................................................................................. 81
V.I.2 Strawberry Guava ................................................................................ 89
V.1.3 Albezzia .............................................................................................. 97
V.2 Wildfire and Disease ........................................................................................... 98
V.3 Climate Change ................................................................................................. 100
V.4 Volcanic Activity................................................................................................ 100
V.5 Illegal Human Activity ....................................................................................... 101
VI Management Goals and Objectives ................................................................... 101
VII Recommendations ............................................................................................. 102
VIII Bibliography........................................................................................................ 104
IV Appendices ......................................................................................................... 109
6
This page left in intentionally blank
7
INTRODUCTION:
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is owned by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. OHA
entered into agreement with the DLNR to jointly manage the reserve. Since DLNR
possessed the expertise in managing natural resource lands, and Wao Kele O
Puna being culturally sensitive to Native Hawaiians and OHA being the expert on
cultural issues, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed between the
two agencies to assist in the overall management of the reserve until OHA can build
capacity to manage resources on their own including developing administrative
rules. Because OHA does not have any administrative rules for Wao Kele O Puna,
it was agreed that the reserve would be placed back into the State’s Forest Reserve
System under Forest Reserve Statues HRS Chapter 183 until such time that the
MOA expires. The MOA was signed on June 27, 2006, and anticipated to expire in
June of 2016 unless mutually agreed upon to extend the MOA beyond 2016 or end
the MOA prior to 2016.
This particular plan, hence forth known as “The Biological Management Plan”, is a
partial component of the overall Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) being
developed by OHA. The Biological Management Plan has been developed by
DLNR’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife- Hawaii Island Branch. It follows protocols
set forth by DOFAW with regards to management actions of all its Forest Reserves
statewide. These efforts serve to assist in organizing field management as well as
assisting in budgeting and funding planning.
The Biological Management Plan was developed using a number of formats
including but not limited to:
DOFAW’s standard management plan format
Review of DOFAW historic and current files (both at the Administrative and
Hawai‘i Branch office) and documents obtained from the Land Division,
Survey Division, Bureau of Conveyances, as well as State Archives
8
Reviewing State of Hawai‘i Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps
of biological, historical, and environmental resources in the forest reserve
Reviewing other plans that identified the forest reserve or the area, such as
USGS-Biological Resources Division Forest Bird Inventory Data, the
Hawai‘i Biodiversity and Mapping Program reports, NRCS Soil Inventory,
USGS-HVO Geological Mapping Data, U.S. Forest Service research
published and unpublished material, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Recovery Plans et.al.
Input from DOFAW staff from all program areas both at the Hawai‘i Island
Branch and Administrative offices
This particular plan will address the biological aspects of the reserve including but
not limited to:
Native forest ecosystems
Native flora and fauna
Threats, including invasive species, disease, climate change and ungulates
Human activity (recreational and illegal activities)
Management actions taken by DOFAW including partnership research
actions (addendums will include all action reports to date)
II
PROJECT AREA AND DESCRIPTION
II.A
Location and Description
The Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is a 25,856-acre assemblage of two
separate land parcels (TMK: 1-2-10:2 and TMK 1-2-10:3) located in the district of
Puna on the island of Hawaii. The reserve sits in the middle of Kialuea Volcano’s
9
east rift zone and is currently subjected to intermittent lava flows due to the current
activity along the rift zone that run along the southwest boundary of the reserve.
The last major intrusion took place in March of 2013. The reserve slopes across a
westerly-to-easterly axis from an elevation of 2,280 feet to 1,120 feet approximately
and is within the Conservation State Land Use District. The reserve is
characterized by dense forest to bare lava fields.
WKOP consist primarily of ‘ohi’a-fern dominated forest, providing critical habitat for
a number of rare, threatened or endangered plant, bird, and anthropod species as
well as the ‘opea’pe’a or Hawaiian Hoary-bat. If left undisturbed the ‘ohi’a-fern
dominated forest is considered one of the most stable ecosystem type in Hawaii. In
higher elevations of the reserve the most common fern associated with ‘ohi’a is the
10
hapu’u (Cibotim spp.), while in the lower elevations it is the uluhe (Dicronopterus
linearus.) According to early botanist Joseph F. Rock, “the Puna Forest Reserve
(PFR) is one of the prime areas where ‘ohi’a reaches its largest size, up to 100 feet
in height” (Rock et.al. note PRF includes Wao Kele O Puna). A vegetation baseline
was mapped in 1985 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Jacobi, et.al. 1985)
using aerial photographs and selective ground surveys, including a generalized
biotic survey that identified nine broadly defined ecosystem types (Lamourux, Char
1985). However these generalized descriptions do not attempt to account for all the
different local variations within the reserve. Older and more varied plant
communities survive in kipuka’s (islands of vegetation surrounded by lava flows).
This will be discussed in detail in the Forest Ecosystems of this report.
Endangered native forest birds are found in the reserve, such as the i’iwi, ‘apapane,
‘amakihi, elepaio, ‘oma’o as well as the Hawaiian hawk, I’o, and a regular visitor to
the reserve, the a’o or Newell Shearwater. Though the known species of native
honey creepers can be found in the reserve, it is unclear if they have established
long term thriving communities in the reserve itself as lowland-elevation forest such
as Wao Kele O Puna are under constant threat of habitat fragmentation,
degradation and loss and/or competition from introduced species as well as avian
diseases carried by mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are known vectors of avian pox and
avian malaria, nearly fatal to all honey creepers. Though larger populations of
native honey-creepers are found at elevations above 5,000’ where mosquitoes may
be limited due to colder temperatures, climate change and increasing temperatures,
or shorter cooler winter-like periods that have allowed the occasional influx of
mosquitoes above 5,000’. The highest elevation in the Wao Kele O Puna Forest
Reserve is 3,200’.
Though no one factor can be credited to the inclement decline in native birds in
Wao Kele O Puna, one thing is for sure. Recovery of native bird populations in lowelevation forest requires managing native habitat, reducing introduced threats such
11
as invasive species, and working with partners in avian disease resistance, crucial
to the conservation of Hawai’I’s native forest birds. Even though native honeycreepers can be found in Wao Kele O Puna, other than the ‘amakihi and ‘apapane,
little is known if there are stable and viable reproducing populations, or if the
majority of honey-creepers are simply passing through to feed and return to higher
elevations.
Recent surveys in 2011 also have established a population of the endangered
Hawaiian hoary bat, ‘ope’ape’a, in the lower eastern corner of the reserve. This will
be discussed in detail later.
Long term management of the reserve provides multiple benefits to the State. The
forested watershed of Wao Kele O Puna contributes to the islands water resources.
Annual rainfall in the reserve is between 125” to 150” annually (Juvik). Wao Kele O
Puna is also one of the last remaining large scale intact mesic lowland rainforest in
the State and should be preserved as such. It provides an enriched habitat for
native species as well as rare and endangered species, including endangered
entomological organisms found in lava tubes (Howarth and Stone).
A.
Land Use
II.B.1 Reserve History
.Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve (WKOP-FR) has had a long convoluted history
of legal land designations. There are two State parcels that make up a combined
total of 25,856-acres of the reserve, TMK: 1-2-10:3, known hence forth as parcel
#1; and TMK: 1-2-10-2, known hence forth as parcel #2. The State of Hawaii
originally owned both parcels which through Gubernatorial Proclamation created
the Puna Forest Reserve, initially encompassing 19,850 acres. On December 22,
1928 an additional Proclamation expanded the boundaries of the Puna Forest
Reserve by adding an additional 8,890.275 acres of parcel 2, and 3.835 acres to
12
parcel 1 expanding the Puna Forest Reserve to a total of 25,738 acres. Both
Gubernatorial Proclamations were made pursuant to the laws of the time (Office of
the Governor 1928).
Historically in 1903, the Territory of Hawai’I enacted Act 44, titled Reservation of
Government Land for Forestry Purposes. Territorial forester C.S. Judd in a 1919
report to the governor’s office indicated that approximately 818,739 acres across
the main Hawaiian Islands had been established within in the system (Judd 1919).
The act established Hawaii’s forest reserve system by allowing the governor to set
apart ”any government land or lands not then under lease, or on which there is a
lease of two years or less, as forest reservations” (Tummons). Act 44 could also
allowed the governor to included private lands. Private owners could “surrender
care, custody and control of any lands whether held under lease or in fee, as a
forestry reservation, either for one or more years, or forever “Territory of Hawaii Act
44”. Of the 818,739 acres of forest reserve in 1919, some 260,084 acres were on
private land.
In the case of Wao Kele O Puna, the opposite holds true. Wao Kele O Puna went
from being identified as a Forest Reserve, to a Natural Area Reserve, to being
transferred to a private holding company in a land swap deal, to being “sold” back
to the States Office of Hawaiian Affairs, with assistance from the Trust for Public
Lands (TPL) and federal funds from the Legacy Lands conservation fund, placed
back into the State Forest Reserve system in 2006 until OHA can develop
administrative rules in which to remove Wao Kele O Puna from the State forest
reserve system and into its own land base system to control Wao Kele O Puna on
its own entirety.
Parcel #1: TMK: 1-2-10:3
Parcel #1 originally consisted of 16,843.89 acres and designated as the Puna
Forest Reserve by Governor’s Proclamation on June 29, 1911 (Governors
13
Proclamation 1911). In a 1985 deal between the State of Hawaii and the James P.
Campbell Estate (Campbell Estate) exchanged properties in an effort to develop
geothermal energy. Parcel 1 was previously in the Natural Area Reserve system
prior to 1985. Executive Order 3096 was signed in 1987 effectively removing
Parcel 1 officially removing Parcel 1 from the Forest Reserve system. There is
confusion as to what land designation Parcel #1 was placed into between 1985 and
1987 after the exchange took place in 1985 but from the documents it appears
there was some juggling of Hawaii Revised Statutes that needed to meet
compliance and EO 3096 appeared to make that clear (Scheuer, J Internal OHA
memo). To add to the confusion, the author of this document after an exhaustive
and thorough search of State Archives records, with the assistance of the State
archivist, documents of this time period including BLNR reports covering this time
frame could not be found. Source documents listed at the State Archives indicated
available documents. However, upon inspection by the State archivist of the boxes
listed as holding the documents, the boxes and files were found to be empty. There
was no record with State Archives indicating either a document search or removal
authorization form as is standard operating procedures at the State Archives. A
request was made by DOFAW to the State Archivist in an attempt to locate the
documents, and unfortunately they were unable to locate the files requested. A
similar request was made to the DLNR Engineering Department to locate these
documents again with no outcome. However, BLNR records at the State Archives
do indicate reports filed. Though puzzling, we can only conclude the possibility that
the records were misfiled leaving the land designation of this time frame unknown
and we can only reference EO 3096 as the formal source, for now.
The following summary will attempt to explain the complicated shifting of land
designations for both parcels over time.
Parcel #2: TMK: 1-2-10:2 Parcel #2 consisting of 8,890.275 acres was placed into
the Puna Forest Reserve by Governors Proclamation on December 22, 1928. On
January 11, 1977, a DLNR hearing was held in Hilo to propose the removal of
14
6,500 acres from the Puna Forest Reserve and placed into the Natural Area
Reserve System (NARS) which had been established by the State Legislature in
1970, under Act 139 (Chapter 195 Hawaii Revised Statutes). The purpose of the
NARS was to protect “irreplaceable examples of all aspects of the unique and
varied, original Hawaiian ecological system. Their undisturbed condition would be
perpetuated by protective measures against any exploitive use or
encroachment,that would modify the dominance of the natural process.”
(Environmental Assessment 1977 DLNR Natural Area Reserves Commission). On
November 2, 1981 by then Executive Order 3096 (EO 3096) removed the land
designation of Forest Reserve, and Executive Order 3103 dated October 16, 1981
placed 6,500 acres into the land designation of Natural Area Reserve System
(NARS) initially creating the Wao Kele O Puna Natural Area Reserve. Modified
boundaries to the Puna Forest Reserve added an additional 3.83 acres to the newly
named Wao Kele O Puna Natural Area Reserve. At some point the Natural Area
Reserve designation was lifted, but it is unclear if it was Executive Order 3359
dated March 9, 1987 succeeded in cancelling EO 3103 lifting the Natural Area
Reserve System designation. It remained in NARS until 1985 when the land
exchange with Campbell Estate took effect. However, once again, there is
uncertainty as to whether Executive Order 3358 dated March 9, 1987 actually lifted
the designation of forest reserve on Parcel #2, so the land designation between
1985 and 1987 for this parcel also remain unclear. Again Executive Order 3096
was to make the land transfer compliant with all associated State laws.
Land Exchange: At some point, discussions began between the Department of
Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) and the Estate of James Campbell
(hereinafter referred to as Campbell Estate) regarding the development of
geothermal energy along the Kilauea Middle East Rift Zone primarily located in the
newly designated Wao Kele O Puna Natural Area Reserve (note: this consisted
only of Parcel #1, Parcel #2 was never included into the NARS). A land exchange
was proposed so that Campbell Estate could develop geothermal energy on the
15
Wao Kele O Puna combined parcels of Parcel #1 and Parcel #2. In exchange
Campbell Estate proposed to exchange 25,807.055 acres of land situated at
Kahauale’a, Puna, Hawai’i. The State was interested in acquiring these lands for
the public purpose of “a Natural Area Reserve and for consolidation of holdings of
public lands.” On December 23, 1985 the State of Hawaii and Campbell Estate
signed an Exchange Deed effectively transferring 27,785.891 acres of State owned
lands, which included Parcel #1 (Puna Forest Reserve) and Parcel #2 (Wao Kele O
Puna Natural Area Reserve) to Campbell Estate for the sole exploration of
geothermal resources, in exchange for 25,807.055 of Campbell Estate land at
Kahau’ale’a, Puna, Hawaii which eventually became the Kahau’ale’a Natural Area
Reserve. Though it was clear that both parcels were removed from the Forest
Reserve System, and placed into the geothermal subzone, it is not clear when this
geothermal subzone was legally established since administrative rules for the
geothermal subzones were not created until 1991. DOFAW does not question the
transfer, but it unfortunately leaves a void in the aspect of specific land designations
for this time period. DOFAW needed to acquire this information in order to
formulate a BLNR submittal requesting the removal of both parcels from the
geothermal subzone as outline by the 1991 administrative rules governing
geothermal subzones. Removal of the parcels from the geothermal subzone was a
priority of the MOA between OHA and DLNR and under the administrative rules it is
upon the “owner” to prove that the sight is not viable for geothermal development.
Legal Challenge Following the land exchange, community protests and court
cases followed challenging the legality of the land exchange, Native Hawaiian
access rights, and the granting of a geothermal development permit for Wao Kele O
Puna (Dedman vs BLNR 1987 and Pele Defense Fund vs Paty 1988). These
challenges did not affect the land exchange or the land designation of either parcel.
It did however, lead to a ground-breaking ruling on Native Hawaiian access rights to
traditional gathering areas.
16
Purchase of Wao Kele O Puna In 2007, the Campbell Estate trust now the legal
private owners of Wao Kele O Puna, with combined parcels #1 and #2, was to
dissolve as outlined in the will of James E. Campbell following 20-years after the
death of his last direct heir. His last surviving daughter Beatrice Campbell Wrigley
died on January 21, 1987. The Campbell Estate held 55,400 acres in trust,
including Wao Kele O Puna. Concerned over the possibility of Wao Kele O Puna
being sold to a potential developer, the Pele Defense Fund approached the Trust
for Public Lands (TPL), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, in an effort
to thwart the potential sale of this prime piece of conservation land. TPL worked
with the State to secure environmentally important private forest lands that are
threatened with conversion to non-forest uses. The potential purchase of Wao Kele
O Puna fit this model ideally. TPL, utilizing FLP funds ($3.2 million), entered into an
“agreement of sale” in partnership with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) who
would be the new legal land owner, to purchase the Wao Kele O Puna site totaling
25,855.891acres.
Re-designated as State Forest Reserve In February 28, 2008 by Executive Order
#4128 signed by Governor Linda Lingle, Wao Kele O Puna was officially placed
back into the State Forest Reserve System. It will eventually be removed from the
State Forest Reserve System once OHA creates its own set of administrative rules
to manage the reserve independent of DLNR. In addition the Board of Land and
Natural Resources (BLNR) voted unanimously to remove Wao Kele O Puna from
the State geothermal subzone on August 12, 201.
The following is a general synopsis of Wao Kele O Puna’s history (courtesy of
Jonathan Scheuer):
17
History of WKOP
• 1893 – Republic of Hawaiʻi asserts
ownership of all crown and kingdom
lands, including WKOP
• 1898 – Republic “cedes” crown and
kingdom lands
• 1911 – Territory of Hawaiʻi sets aside
part of WKOP as a Forest Reserve.
• 1977 : Hawaiian Coalition of Native
Claims retain traditional gathering
rights
• 1981 – The State of Hawaiʻi sets aside
part of WKOP as Natural Area Reserve
(highest level of protection for state
lands)
Oli performed by Halau O Kekuhi at WKOP
18
Controversial Modern History
• 1982: Campbell Estate proposes
land swap for geothermal
• State owned WKOP (27,800 acres)
for neighboring Campbell owned
Kahauleʻa (25,800 acres)
• 1986 – The Hawaiʻi Board of Land
and Natural Resources (BLNR)
and State Legislature approve
land swap
• 1988: Geothermal Test holes
drilled
• Thousands rally in protest
• Decades-long legal battle occurs:
health concerns, development in
native forest, energy shipped to
Oʻahu, native gathering rights
• 1994: Pele Defense Fund (PDF) vs.
Estate of James Campbell
• 1994: Geothermal abandoned
• 2001: Land goes up for sale
19
OHA’s Acquisition of Waokeleopuna
Purchase Price $3.65M
• Partners:
• Trust for Public Land (TPL) –
Negotiates Purchase with Campbell
Estate
• U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye –
Secures Funding
• USDA Forest Legacy Program (FLP)
– Provides $3.35M in funding
• OHA provides $300,000 to
secure title
• July 2007 TPL transfers title to
OHA
II.B.2
Surrounding Communities
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is located on the southeastern slopes of Kilauea
Volcano in the district of Puna, Hawaii County. Wao Kele O Puna is surrounding
by, primarily privately held lands as well as State owned property (Fig. 1).
20
Fig. 1 Surrounding Communities
The northwestern boundary of the reserve traverses a number of private subdivisions which include, Fern Forest, Hawaiian Acres, Kopua Farm Lots and Eden
Rock. All of these sub-divisions including all of their access roads are privately
owned by their respective community associations and association members (e.g.
lot owners). There is no legal access into the reserve from this area without first
securing permission or negotiating access terms from either, a private-owner, the
community association or both. The southwest boundary buttresses the State
owned Kahau’ale’a Natural Area Reserve. The southeast boundary is a mix of
larger privately owned parcels such as the Kaimu-Makena Homesteads, Kauka
Homesteads, and the Upper Kaimu Homesteads. Along the eastern boundary are
21
State Lands (under the jurisdiction of the DLNR-Lands Division), Lee Ranch and
Kaohe Homesteads. The only legal public access to the reserve is through the
Kaohe Homestead lots along an unpaved road, known locally as “Middle Road” (no
legal County of Hawaii name exist), to the easement access owned by OHA,
commonly referred to as the “Geothermal Access Road”. Driving access is
restricted, blocked by a heavy-duty locked gate at the immediate entrance to the
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve. However walking access along this corridor is
unrestricted. Driving access to the public would need to be negotiated with OHA on
a case-by-case basis.
C. Physical Site Data
II.C.1 Hydrology
Near surface rocks and substrates in many volcanic islands including Hawaii are
highly permeable and infiltration rates can be extraordinary high. In the
southeastern part of the Island of Hawaii, which includes Wao Kele O Puna,
perennial surface water is nearly absent despite an average rainfall of 79 inches per
year at lower elevations, and 125 -150 inches at higher elevations (Scholl et.al).
There are areas in the reserve that appear quite swampy during rainy periods and
can remain that way during dry periods, but other than these areas there are no
large areas of standing water or any streams or creeks in the reserve. Most of the
reserve, given its soil type and crinkly-basalt-type lava is permeable and less likely
to hold surface water for long periods of time. The principal aquifers in Hawaii are
basaltic flows in which fresh water can accumulate in large lens-shaped bodies
(known as the Ghyben-Herzberg lens). This lens is maintained by direct recharge
of rain water and discharges from the high-level dike impounded water. A fresh
water lens develops as fresh water percolates down to the salt water and floats on
the underlying salt water. Since lava activity along the east rift zone, which runs
along the southwestern border of Wao Kele O Puna, tend to create dikes which are
poorly permeable, thin and nearly vertical sheets of volcanic rock, fresh water tends
22
to get trapped (UH Department of Geography). It is likely that some areas within
Wao Kele O Puna contain fresh water confined by these dikes and not floating on
salt water. In other more permeable areas in the reserve, basal water would be
floating on salt water. Basal water is predomintately sodium chloride. In the Puna
region, particularly around the east rift area, dissolved silica values two to three
times higher than the average for the rest of the Big Island (Druecher, Fan 1976).
In addition hydrologic and geologic conditions around Kilauea’s east rift zone
support the possibility of accumulations of superheated ground water.
Given the annual amount of rainfall in this area, it is unclear what the recharge rate
of fresh water in Wao Kele O Puna would be, and further studies would be
warranted.
II.C.2 Soils
Soils in the Reserve were formed in and on various aged volcanic substrates
including cinder, ash, pāhoehoe and a’a, and the age and type of lava substrate
greatly influences soil type. However, the majority of the soils in the reserve consist
of histosols, which are thin layers of organic material on geologically young lava
rock.
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) has soils classification for the
area that includes up to twenty-five different soil types, but being geologically
young, histosoils remain dominant particularly along the southeastern region of
the reserve. In 1973 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (now NRCS) created a
soil-series for the entire Hawaii Island. Though up to 25 soil types have been
identified in Wao Kele O Puna, the report indicates that four primary soil-series
make up the majority of the reserve (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). These
are the Manu-series, consisting of well drained silt-loams that formed in volcanic
ash, cinder and pumice. Though the majority of the Manu-series soil type is found
predominately within the higher elevational ranges of 3,000’ to 4,000’, the highest
23
northern elevational point of the reserve (1,900’) includes some of this soil type
and also includes the Hao-series of medial-loam which consist of deep to very
deep, moderately well drained soils that formed in volcanic ash. These series is
usually underlain by hard Pahoehoe lava at an average depth of 36”. The bulk of
the reserve is made up of the Ohi’a-series at elevations ranging from 900’ to
2,000’. Rainfall in this area is heaviest with an average rainfall of 125” to 200”
annually with anticipated dense cloud cover year round, making Wao Kele O Puna
Forest Reserve the largest lowland mesic rain forest in the nation. Soils in the
Ohi’a series are well drained silty clay loams that formed in volcanic ash with
annual soil temperatures averaging 65° to 69° F.
In addition to the deeper
volcanic ash areas of the series, a large portion of the reserve particularly within
the 900’ to 1,400’ elevation of the reserve is the Ohi’a extremely stoney silty-clay
regions, which anyone who has walked through Wao Kele O Puna will tell you,
makes for a very challenging hike. Soils are shallow averaging 20” to 36” deep
over extremely crumbly a’a lava which can make up to 20% of the overall ground
cover. Ground vegetation can be thick in areas, making finding your footing very
hazardous if not careful. Volcanic cracks and faults are strewn throughout this
area, and some are large enough to swallow large trucks, making this an
extremely hazardous region to work. Figure __ provides a map detailing some of
the known geological hazards.
This information is based on documents from
USGS-Hawaii Volcano Observatory, but also from LiDAR imaging of Wao Kele O
Puna. These series of cracks and crevices can be picked out from the imaging,
however there are many more that are likely there, but could not be determined
using this technology. In 2013 a professional field crew assisting DLNR from the
U.S. Forest Service using this hazard map attempted to locate a potential
research site from the old geothermal well head site into the forest approximately
one-mile in, through thick brush and uluhe. The team could not complete their
mission as they encountered numerous unmapped cracks and crevices which they
were unable to cross. After an entire day of bushwhacking in an attempt to reach
their research site, they later learned that they had traveled less than a quarter
24
mile from the well head site after hitting numerous cracks too large to cross. Each
time they attempted to go around or traverse a hazardous cracks, they would
encounter another one. It is known that one of the most hazardous areas in the
reserve is around the well head site since the majority of the large cracks and
faults run southwest to northeast on either side of the old geothermal well site.
Fig. Hazard map
Fig. 2 Hazard Map Detailing Cracks and Fault lines
.
Last of the soil series found in Wao Kele O Puna is the Ola’a series which are
areas of extremely cobbly, highly decomposed plant material which consists of
thin, well drained soils that formed in organic material and ash overlying a’a lava
and very cobbly slightly decomposed plant material formed over pāhoehoe. This
series makes up a very small fraction of the lowest elevational gradient (200’ to
900’) of the reserve. The area surrounding the old geothermal well-head site is an
25
example of this soil-series.
Fig. 3 Soil Types courtesy NRCS
II.C.3 Geology
In geological terms, Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is very young. The
western edge of the reserve is prone to intrusion of lava from the ongoing eruption
of the Pu’u O’o vent which is currently in its 30th year of continuous eruption (as of
Jan 2, 2012). Though the reserve lacks any significant cinder cone type
formations, the most outstanding geological aspects are a large parasitic shield
volcano, Pu’u Heiheiaulu and a series of lava tube structures, most notably the
26
“middle tube structure” which had been partially mapped by the State Historic
Preservation office.
There are three predominate lava tube systems that have been partially surveyed
by the State Historic Preservation. Though there are highly likely that numerous
other lava tubes exist’s on the property, two of the more prominent systems will be
discussed briefly in this section. The Northern Tube System runs diagonal of the
reserve approximately a mile south of the Hawaiian Acres subdivision at 1,100
feet elevation. The tube is fragmented with two entrance points. There are
significant cultural deposits, particularly in the lower section of the system at 1,160
foot elevation. Given the size of the tube and entry points a large volume of lava
fed the system. The system is believe to run nearly 8 miles, however
fragmentation and tube collapse made survey possible at only two sites, the
longest being some 2,200 feet long located at the lower section of the system and
had evidence of historic occupation and use. The second section was a 500 foot
narrow corridor at the 1,200 foot elevation and did not have any presence of
human occupation.
The longer, more prominent cave system known as the Middle Tube System runs
continuously for 10 miles from an elevation of 470 to 1,620 feet within the reserve
extending an additional four miles outside of the reserve. There are significant
archaeological and cultural deposits in this system, including human built rock
formations, decayed organic debris, charcoal from fires or torches and obvious
burial sites. More work needs to be done in this system to document in full the
archaeological aspects of this important cave systems, including protecting the
entrances from potential vandalism. In addition, an extremely rich diversity of
anthropodic fauna, including endangered anthropods identified by leading Bishop
Museum entomologist Dr. Frank Howarth, who is considered one of the few field
experts on native Hawaiian cave antrhopods. According to Dr. Howarth (per.com),
this area should be considered for critical habitat listing for endangered native
27
Hawaiian cave anthropods. The upper most section of the system is fairly large
with the tube being 40 foot wide and 30’ tall, but ends near the 1984 lava flow. It
is likely, given the largeness of the cave in this area, that it extends further
upslope, but no additonal surveys have been conducted since 1991.
Though DLNR would encourage OHA to conduct additional surveys, it should be
noted that the 1991 surveys were done prior to the evolvement of the State Burial
Council and its administrative rules. Any future work would need to adhere to
these rules.
Fig. 4 State Historic Preservation Map showing Northern and Middle Lava Tubes
28
The lava tube structures have caused some confusion as to aging portions of the
reserve. It is believed that some of the reserve share vegetation and magnetic
similarities to the Ailaau shield vent along the eastern slope of Kilauea (1987:300
Holcomb) similar to forest ecosystems found in the northern end of the reserve
indicating an older geological age by as much as 1500 years, possibly as old as
3000 years. However, the tube systems appear to be much younger, indicating
that tube fed systems came from somewhere closer to the east-rift zone which
runs along the southwestern boundary of the reserve. In any case, flows within
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve are from Kilauea with nearly one-third of the
northeastern section of the reserve underlain by extensive tube-fed Pahoehoe
flows erupted from the Ailaau shield (Holcomb 1987).
Kilauea is a vigorously
active shield-stage volcano composed primarily of theoliitic basalt, characterized
by relatively low levels of alkalis within its lava types (Wolf and Morris 2005).
Shield-stage volcanism is a period of voluminous growth due to repeated
eruptions of fluid theoliitic basalt making up as much as 98% of its overall volcanic
volume or growth rate during this period. Though it is unknown how long the
volcanic shield development stage may take, it is believed that it could be as long
as 500,000 years (Moore, Clague 1992). Since the bulk of shield volcanism takes
place at the summit or vents along the rift zone, Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve
will likely anticipate continuous intrusions of lava particularly along Kilauea’s east
rift zone for a significant period of time. The east-rift of Kilauea extends from the
Kilauea caldera located within the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, traverses the
southeastern boundary of Wao Kele O Puna for approximately 5-miles, making a
sharp bend extending east-northeast all the way to Cape Kumukahi along the
Puna coastline extending along the ocean floor at least another 110 kilometers
(Macdonald and Abbott 1970). Though a series of large pit craters lie along the
east rift zone, a smaller parasitic shield, Heiheiahulu Cone, is the only significant
geological structure within the reserve. Heiheiahulu Cone is an example of a
prehistoric shield remnant.
29
The majority of the lave flows in Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve are classified
as Puna Basalt or Holocene described as lava flows, vent deposits, littoral
deposits, and tephra deposits of tholeiitic basalt and rare transistional and alkali
basalt (Wolf and Morris 2006, Trusdell and Moore 2006). Flows are commonly
pahoehoe or a’a or a mixture of both. Fissure eruptions like those found along the
east-rift zone, have generally produced sheets of vesicular pahoehoe which
converted to a’a with increasing distance from the vent. Fissure vents like the
east-rift tend to become inactive in long continuous eruptions and lava discharge
tends to concentrate at localized points generally producing elongate a’a flows.
Such is the case with Pu’u O’o flows that have and will likely continue to impact
Wao Kele O Puna. Pu’u O’o produced a complex lava flow field. Between 1983
and 1986, numerous individual elongate type a’a flows were created, some of
which are clearly visible within Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve. There are two
primary tube systems feeding the current
30
Fig. 5 Lava Flows
eruption. Figure 5, shows the primary trajectory of the on-going flow. The system
that tends to flow into Wao Kele O Puna has been intermittently active with the
most recent intrusion taking place in May of 2013 (outlined in dark red).
Figure 6, simplifies the geological age structure into units for the Wao Kele O
Puna Forest Reserve with GIS metadata provided by Dr. Frank Trusdell of the
USGS Hawaii Volcanoes Observatory (per.com) from Morrison and Wolf data.
For more information and detailed age and type structure go to
“www.pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/144” (note: BP refers to Before Present).
The Kīlauea volcano consists of Puna basalt (Holocene) with predominantly
tholeiitic basalt.
31
Fig. 6 Geological Age Structure of Wao Kele O Puna
Wolf and Morrison data, courtesy Frank Trusdell
Elevation within the reserve ranges from 1380’ to 2,300’ with an average annual
rainfall of 125 to 150 inches per year. In the upper area of the reserve there are
some large open areas that are quite swampy. The amount of rainfall combined
with a fairly warm climate makes possible the relatively rapid comeback of plant
life on new lava flows. A quick survey on a new intrusion of lava into the reserve
on Thanksgiving Day 2010, shows indication of new growth of vegetation in cracks
and crevices. There have been numerous studies of plant succession on barren
flows, some well known ones dating back to 1912 (Forbes), with more recent
studies indicating a wide variety of succession rates due primarily to variety of
environmental factors. One thing is clear though, that available moisture plays an
32
important role in barren lava vegetation succession. The whitish grey lichen
(Stereocaulon vulcani) is usually one of the first to colonize barren rock, but ohi’a
and swordferns can often be found in cracks and fissures where moisture may
accumulate.
II.C.4 Climate
Trade winds dominate air flow patterns most of the year passing northeast to
southwest over the coastline, usually blowing up over the rift zone and back to the
ocean from the southeastern Puna coast (Juvik and Juvik 1998). This interaction
of cool offshore airflow with opposing trade winds tends to cause high rainfall,
particular at night and early morning. At anytime nocturnal cooling may reverse
the pattern causing warmer air flow or Kona winds (Burthchard, Moblo 1994)
The average rainfall in the area is between 120 and 160 inches during normal
years. In lower elevations annual rainfall is 60 – 80 inches. Temperatures are
comfortable year round with average temperatures between the sixties and eighty
degrees, Cooler temperatures and heavier rainfall is expected during the winter
months of October through April (Juvik and Juvik).
II. D
Forest Ecosystems
II.D.1 Native Forest Communities and Flora
Wao Kele O Puna can be broadly classified primarily as a lowland mesic rain forest
along with pioneer vegetation on newer lava flows. Mesic ecosystems can be best
categorized as a transitional area between dryland ecosystems and wet forest
ecosystems (areas typically found above 3,000’). Wao Kele O Puna is one of the
few remaining lowland mesic rain forest in the State and by far the largest (26,000
acres), making Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve a significant conservation area.
Though little is known of its hydrological value to the watershed within the Puna
district, given its continuity of its vast vegetational ecosystems, one can easily
33
assume that it plays a significant role. However, threats to both the native
ecosystems and potential hydrological resources from invasive species require
intense scrutiny. As an example, the invasive strawberry guava can easily displace
entire native ecosystems over time by forming monotypic stands, and water loss
due to surface runoff in areas of dense strawberry guava have been documented
(Gemballucca, Price, et.al.).
Earlier surveys done in 1985 (UH Dept. of Botany, U.S Fish and Widlife Service)
broadly define nine ecosystem types. However, these types are so broadly defined
and do not account for all of the different local variations throughout the reserve,
and are classified as follows:
1. Lava: Recent, barren flows as well as slightly older flows which support a pioneer
vegetation. These areas are important to successional stages of pioneer
vegetation. Moisture plays an important part in pioneer succession. In wetter areas
such as Wao Kele O Puna the development of vegetation is much more rapid as it
would be in drier hotter regions of barren lava flows. The whitish-gray lichen
(Sterecaulong culcani), will often appear first, however, higher plants such as ‘ohia
(Metrosideros polymorpha) and swordferns (Neprholepis multiflora) may appear at
the same time. ‘Ohi’a is the most common pioneer among the flowering plants and
may even appear before the lichens.
2. ‘Ohi’a Woodland: ‘Ohi’ a woodland is composed of widely spaced trees with an
almost continuous carpet of uluhe (Dicronopteris linearus), a matted fern between
the trees. In moist meophytic situations a grass-shrub association cooupies the
space between the trees. The area may vary in size fro low to tall stature trees in
different localities but in any one stand, the trees are fairly uniform in size. Two
sub-catagories appreas in the type.
a. ‘ohi’a woodland with uluhe: this ecosystem type tends to cover large
areas particularly on younger flows and lower elevations (especially
below 1,000 feet). This is especially true for the lower section of Wao
34
Kele O Puna where dense mats of uluhe are interspersed with ‘ohi’a of
the relatively same size. However, there can be vast areas of solid
uhuhe before seeing any trees. The dense fern cover prevents the
establishment of many seedlings and as a result only a few scattered
plants such as kopiko (Phychotria hawaiiensis), uki (Machaerina spp.),
and even invasive species like melastome’s (Melastomoma spp.), can be
found in the thick uluhe mats. Uluhe can be up to 3 meters (15 feet) tall
in some areas. This ecosystem type is difficult and dangerous to traverse
as matted ferns obscure large earth cracks, fissures, and even tree
molds.
b. ‘ohi’a woodland with grass: The total area of the ecosystem type is
typically not large, with the exception of areas that may have been
exposed to fire where invasive grass species such bush-beard grass
(Andropogon glomeratus) tend to do very well in colonizing disturbed
areas. Usually this ecosystem type will consist of scattered ‘ohi’a with
broomsedge (Andropongon virginicus). Bush-beard grass and smaller
native species like uki, and ‘ohelo (Vaccinium reticulatum), kukae-nene
(Coprosma ernodeoides), pukiawe (Styphellia tameiameiae) and ama’u
(Sadleria syatheoides) can also be found. There are usually a number of
other grasses associated with this ecosystem type, including velvetgrass
(Holcus lanatus), foxtail (Setaria spp.) and vaseygrass (Paspalum
urvillei), as well as some sedges such as tall fringe rush (Fimbristylis
dichotoma), kuolohia (Rhynchospora lavarum) and Pycreus polystachyos
(no common name). This ecosystem type is most common around areas
of newer lava flows where areas have been burnt by lava intrusions. As
mentioned, larger areas can also be found in areas that have been
disturbed usually by fire. In the case of Wao Kele O Puna in areas away
from the flow would likely be caused by lightning strikes or human
activity, however there have been no known fires caused by man or any
reports of areas showing areas exposed from lightening. However in the
35
near by Kahau’ale’a Natural Area Reserve there are areas that clearly
show lightning strike changes in the habitat. These can clearly be seen
from the air. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Resource’s Management
staff published an article on changes to ecosystems caused by lightning
strikes in 1990 documenting this phenomenon (Tunison and Leialoha
Hawaii Botanical Society).
3. ‘Ohi’a Forest: This ecosystem type covers extensive portions of the island of
Hawaii and is the principal ecosystem type found within Wao Kele O Puna. This is
the dominant tree species with typically three varieties of Metrosediros occurring.
In wetter areas older o’hi’a forest commonly develop a dense understory of tree
ferns (Cibotium spp.). There are other species of trees and often form a distinct
sub-canopy layer. In native tree species. In areas least disturbed, is the principal
habitat for large numbers and a variety of native bird species. However given that
Wao Kele O Puna is at lower elevations subjected to mosquitoes, bird species
richness is not as varied as at this ecosystem type at higher elevational gradients.
Many rare plants are also found in this ecosystem type. In Wao Kele O Puna, rare
plants in this ecosystem include the ‘ahakea (Bobea timiniodes), haha or aku’aku
(Cyanea tritomantha), ‘ohe (Joinvellea ascendens ssp. ascendens), nanu (Gardenia
remyil), a rare fern (Adenophorus periens) and two types of rare endemic mints
(Phylostegia floribunda and Phylostegia vestita).
There are also sub-categories in this ecosystem type and are as follows:
a. Wet ‘ohi’a with native species: Consist of extensive unbroken tracts of
wet ‘ohi’a forest principally found in the upper elevations. In lower
elevations they tend to be more fragmented by either recent lava flows or
forest which have been disturbed to some extent, including invasive
species. The canopy is usually closed (>60% cover) and are composed
of largely mature, tall statured (>10 meters or 30 feet plus) ‘ohi’a with
trucks 1 to 1.5 meters (3 -3.5 feet) in diameter are not uncommon. Subcanopy trees consist of ‘olapa (Cherodendron trigynum), kawa’u (Ilex
anomala), alani (Pelea clusaefolia) and kopiko (Psychotria hawaiiensis).
36
Other native trees include kolea (Myrsine lesertiana), hame (Antidesma
platyphyllum), alani (Melicope clusiifolia previously Pelea), ‘ohe and ‘ohe
mauka (Tetraplasandra hawaiiensis & Tetraplasandra oahuensis), opuhe
(Urera glabra), pilo (Coprosma species), olomea (Perrotetia
sandwicensis) and papala (Pisonia species). Recent surveys in 2011
also found very large plants of the endemic ‘olona (Touchardia latifolia) in
a kipuka within Wao Kele O Puna in an area with ti, wild banana and wild
taro. There are indications at this particular site that the area was
probably once used as a bird-catcher’s camp, but further archaeological
work would need to be done to be conclusive. It is only speculative at
this point. The tree ferns create a third layer sub-canopy dominated by a
hapu’u (Cybotium spp.) and other tree fern species (e.g. Sadleria spp.).
Patches of uluhe are scattered throughout this ecosystem type, while a
large number of terrestrial and epiphytic ferns can be found here.
Liverworts and mosses are abundant and form thick cushions on the
trunks of trees.
b. Wet ‘ohi’a forest with native species and exotic shrubs: This ecosystem
type covers a large portion of Wao Kele O Puna. The ‘ohi’a is more or
less smaller in composition and structure to the ecosystem discussed
previously. However, it is generally an open canopy forest (<60% cover).
Exotic or invasive shrubs, primarily strawberry guava and melastomes
are found throughout the forest and is most abundant in disturbed areas,
especially in areas were pig activity has occurred. Patches of uluhe and
exotic grasses are also more frequently found here. The tree fern layer,
is not as developed in this ecosystem type, and tend to be more
scattered across areas. There are more signs of pig activity here,
particularly in and around strawberry guava areas. The area closest to
the now closed geothermal well site is a good example of this ecosystem
type. In this area invasive melastomes, particularly the glory bush
37
(Tibouchina herbacea) and strawberry guava nearly dominate the subcanopy. It’s also an area with lots of pig activity.
c. Moderately moist ‘ohi’a forest: This ecosystem type occurs in areas
which recive slightly less rainfall (about 75 to 100 inches per year) than
the wet forest but do not suffer an actual moisture deficit and occur on
lava flows which have been rather well weathered. Forests are open
(rarely closed) with medium to tall stature trees. ‘Ohi’a is the
predominate tree but a number of native tree species including lama
(Diospyros sandwichensis) can be found. These other native tree
species could be as tall as the ‘ohi’a or they could form their own subcanopy. A number of dry forest tree species can also be found here such
as the rare endemic ‘ahakea (Bobea timonioides), the olopua
(Osmanthus sandwichesis), and ‘ohe (Tetratplasandra hawaiensis).
Unlike the wet ‘ohi’a forest, this type of mesic ecosystem does not
support a dense understory of tree ferns or shrubs. Instead shrubs
species such as alahe’e (Canthium odoratum), mamaki (Pipturus
hawaiensis), and kopiko are usually scattered and the understory is fairly
open. Exotic shrubs such as sourbush (Pluchea odorata) and lantana
(Lantana camara) are also common in this ecosystem type. More recent
invasions like the gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis) are creeping in from
the lower elevations into the boundaries of Wao Kele O Puna. Ground
cover may consist of various grasses and swordferns (Nephrolepis
multiflora).
d. ‘Ohi’a forest with exotic sub-canopy and shrub layers: In Wao Kele O
Puna this forest type can be dominated by the highly invasive strawberry
guava intermixed with ‘ohi’a and other native tree species. These forests
may consist of medium to tall stature trees with open or closed canopies.
The understory layers of this type of forest have at some time been
greatly disturbed. In Wao Kele O Puna it is primarily pig disturbance.
Tall strawberry guava forms a dense sub-canopy layer, 6 to 7 meters tall
38
(18 to 21 feet). However there are areas in Wao Kele O Puna where
strawberry guava exceeds 10 meters (30 feet). Meslastome species are
usually a common shrub component in the understory. The ground
beneath is usually heavily shaded and groundcover often consists of
grass, thimbleberry (Rubus rosaefolius) downy wood fern (Christella
dentata) and ginger (‘awapuhi-kua-hiwi), all considered invasive or exotic
species. The more open areas tend to be filled with uluhe. Though
strawberry guava is a serious threat to Wao Kele O Puna’s overall
ecosystem with nearly 5,000 established acres in the reserve, it serves to
note here, that only 10% of these 5,000 acres consists of densities of
90% or more. Most of the strawberry guava areas are interlaced with
multiple layers of native tree and shrub species.
4. Dry forest: Composed primarily of lama-‘ohi’a mixture with other dry forest species
on a’a flows. The dry forest is usually open, the trees of medium stature and
usually with rounded crowns. Alahe’e (Canthium odoratum), akia (Wikstroemia
phillyreaefolia) and a’ali’I (Dodonea sandwicensis) are the most commonly found
shrubs in this ecosystem type. The amount of ground cover in the dry forest will
vary depending on several factors such as open or closed canopy, amount of
moisture available, age of lava flow, elevation etc. At lower elevations with less
rainfall up to 40% of the ground is bare or lichen-covered. The lau’a’e fern
(Phymatosorus scolpendria), is usually the most common species, with
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) sword fern (Nephrolepis multiflora) and
partridge pea (Cassia lechenaultiana) are also found here. Under slightly wetter
conditions at higher elevations, gound cover may be 60% to nearly 100% cover.
Sword fern will usually dominate mixed with lau’a’e and seedlings of dry forest tree
and shrub species are also common. Other species encountered are Carex
wahuensis (no common name), moa (Psilotum nudum, Spanish clover (Desmodium
uncinatum) and Hilo grass (Paspalum conjugatum).
39
5. Dry scrub community: Usually a small area found primarily in much drier regions.
This makes up less than 1% over all in Wao Kele O Puna. Ulei (Osteomeles
anthyllidifolia), ilima (Sida cordifolia), hi’aloa (Waltheria indica) and pukiawe
(Styphellia tameiameae) can be found in this ecosystem type. This ecosystem type
is considered more xerophytic community type structure over rocky substrate areas
with sparse ground cover more common in the lower Kalapana area.
6. Dry grassland: This ecosystem type is found in areas of low to medium rainfall,
characterized by wide open grassy areas with rocky outcrops and scattered low
shrubs and trees. A mixed association of the two Andropogon species (glomoratus
and virginicus) along with natal redtop and pili grass (Heteropogon spp.) make up
the dominate grass cover, with localized patches of molassesgrass. Short to
medium-statured trees of the xerophytic form of ‘ohi’a can be found growing on
pahoehoe knolls scattered throughout the grassland. Again, this ecosystem type
make up less than 1% of Wao Kele O Puna and are confined primarily to older lava
flow areas.
7. Mixed lowland forest: An area of varied mosaic of plant associations rather than
integrated entity. Usually fragmented and not easily distinguishable from some of
the other areas since they tend to merge together. Species found in this area can
be xerophytic to moist mesophytic ‘ohi’a forest in addition to hala (Pandanus spp.),
kukui (Aleurites moluccana). Since this is one of the most commonly used areas of
man, given the numerous archaeological sites in Wao Kele O Puna, human
introductions can be found such as, ape (Alocasia macrorrhiza), noni (Morinda
ccitrigolia) as well as wild banana and wild taro. These tend to be closely
associated to old Hawaiian house sites or agricultural sites, even possibly
temporary camp sites for bird catchers as what seems to have been found in one of
the kipuka’s in Wao Kele O Puna. The mixed lowland forests are composed most
frequently of a mixture of native trees such as ‘ohi’a and lama as well as a multitude
of introduced species like the gun powder tree (Treme spp.) The height of the trees
here greatly vary from low stature, almost scrub-like, disturbed forest to medium or
tall stature older forest. Ground cover varies considerably depending on
40
disturbances and the amount of canopy cover. Ground cover does tend to be
sparse when the canopy is dense, and can be shrub thick when the canopy is open.
In Wao Kele O Puna, open areas tends to be occupied by thickets of medium
stature strawberry guava and glory bush (Melastoma herbacea) and maile pilau
(Paederia foetida) is common.
8. Scrub: Usually dominated by exotic and invasive species. The structure of this
exosystem type may vary from open, grassy areas with scattered shrubs and trees
to dense, closed scrub. Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), molassesgrass
(Melinis minutiflora), or Californiagrass (Brachiaria mutica) are usually the dominant
grass species in open scrub. Napiergrass (Pennisitum purpurum), bush beardgrass
(Andropogon glomeratus), and Hilo grass (Paspalum conjugatum) may be locally
common in some areas. Melastomes, strawberry guava and guava (Psidium
guajava) may also be abundant in scrub forest along with lantana. The herbaceous
layer is poorly developed where scrub is dense, especially in strawberry guava
thicket’s, however shade tolerant species such as basketgrass (Oplismenus
hirtellus) and downy woodfern (Christella dentate) are more common. In less dense
scrub areas Glenwoodgrass (Saccciolepis indica), swordfern (Nephrolepis
multiflora), thimbleberry (Rubus rosaefolius), honohono grass (Commelina diffusa),
and Stachytarpheta species are present. Few native plants are found here, but
‘ohi’a, akia (Wikstromia sandwicensis), lama (Diospyros sandwicensis) and uki
(Machaerina angustifolia) can still be found scattered throughout this type of
ecosystem.
9. Agricultural lands: Though the majority of Wao Kele O Puna has never been
cleared for agricultural use, sections were cleared for the development of
geothermal energy and a small section along the south boundary were cleared of
old growth ‘ohi’a in a injudicious effort to use as bio-fuel in the form of wood chips.
Both these areas have been highly disturbed, however have very different
outcomes. In the area cleared for geothermal, there are grass species and
strawberry guava coming in. Continuous clearing and mowing is required to keep
the grasses down in this area. Quite surprisingly, the opposite is true of the old
41
wood chipping site. Scientist in partnership with DLNR-Division of Forestry Hilo,
from the U.S. Forest Service, are finding incredible secondary ‘ohi’a growth in this
area and the tree stands are quite large and are clearly a dominate species in this
area. This was not expected since the area was nearly completely razed during
wood chipping efforts in the 1980’s. This is a one-of-a-kind area, there is no other
like in the State, and presents an unprecedented opportunity to study secondary
regeneration of ‘ohi’a. Also surprising is the number of native understory plants that
have recovered in this area. Strawberry guava is also present but is sparse enough
that with control, this area could be completely restored by utilizing standard
operating protocols to protect what is considered Special Ecological Areas or
SEA’s. Resource managers from DLNR-Division of Forestry and Wildlife-Hawaii
and the U.S. Forest Service rated the area using criteria established for identifying
SEA’s (Tunison and Stone 1992). Eight criteria values were used: 1)
representation and/or rarity of vegetation; 2) vegetation intactness; 3) plant species
diversity/richness; 4) manageability; 5) presence of rare flora and to the extent
known, rare fauna (the native Hawaiian hoary bat was found in this area, refer to
wildlife section); 6) Preserve design considerations; 7) degree of immediacy of
threats from alien biota; and 8) research and interpretive values. Most of the site
sits just outside of the Wao Kele O Puna boundary in what is known as the Ki’ula
Forest site, owned by DLNR’s Land Division. Efforts are underway to conduct
research by the U.S. Forest Service in partnership with DLNR’s Land Division-Hilo,
to gather enough data to 1) learn the intricacies of a secondary-growth ‘ohi’a forest,
2) to gather enough information to justify a restoration effort, and 3) establish
procedures for this effort in anticipation of securing additional funding sources to
support future operations. The site is approximately 900 acres, but approximately
only 100 acres actually sits within the Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve. It would
be of significant value for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to consider partnering with
the U.S. Forest Service in this venture.
42
Agricultural lands surround Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve and, with it comes
the possibility of additional introduced species into the reserve. In the upper Puna
area, there are multiple agri-business and plant nursery operations growing all
types of flora. As an example, Miconia, a highly invasive melastome, was
accidentally introduced into Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve from a now
abandoned nursery in the Kopua Farm Lot area. This is just one of a number of
agricultural communities that surround the reserve. The Big Island Invasive
Species Committee with support from OHA and the Hawaii Invasive Species
Council has since removed all large flowering Miconia plants including, the first
round of seedling recruitment from the area. After four-years the project has since
been terminated and it is important for OHA to consider long monitoring in
anticipation of seedling recruitment.
II.D.2 Hyperspectral Imaging (LIDAR) and Field Study of Vegetation
Composition
In 2007 DLNR initiated a study of vegetation composition utilizing airborne imagery
(LIDAR) and hyperspectral analysis to develop a vegetation description, including
species richness and canopy layering to provide reference to the airborne imagery.
Carnegie Airborne Observatory provided the preliminary hyperspectral and LIDAR
airborne data that had been collected in 2007. The Pacific Ecosystems
Assessment Services LLC was then contracted to set up vegetation monitoring
sites selected using the LIDAR images. With assistance from a top team of
botanist from seven (7) institutions, including DLNR-Division of Forestry and Wildlife
Honolulu Branch, U.S. Forest Service, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, UH-Hilo,
Carnegie Airborne Observatory, Hawaii Community College, Rick Warschueser and
Vanessa Joughin, a series of permanent sites were selected for survey. Surveys at
52 permanent plot sites conducted in 2007 and 2008 show a mixture of native and
non-native species, however these particular invasive species seem to dominate
areas within the 2-5 meter understory. The exception would be areas dominated by
43
staghorn fern or Uluhe (Dicronopteris linearis). A mixture of native species tends to
dominate areas above 5 meters (sub-canopy). In addition to ‘ohia, and those
mentioned above, other species include Cyrtandra spp (chiefly C. paladosa) and
Clermontia spp (mainly C. parvifolia). Other species of note were the native
hibiscus (Hibuscus brackenridgii), mamaki (Pipturus albidus), maile (Alexia
oliviformis) and olona (Touchardia latifolia). The following is an extraction of the
primary report completed by the team and put together by Pacific Ecosystems
Assessments Services LLC:
VEGETATION SURVEY
The objective of this vegetation study was to develop a vegetation description,
including species richness and canopy layering to provide reference to the airborne
imagery collected by the Carnegie Airborne Observatory.
44
Figure 7 P. calttleianum infestations detected from hyperspectral analysis. Courtesy of Carnegie
Airborne Observatory.
45
Site selection was guided by the preliminary hyperspectral and LIDAR airborne
data obtained collected in January 2007. Initial analysis of the hyperspectral data
revealed large infestations of Psidium cattleianum, Strawberry Guava (Figure 2).
These infestations were unambiguously verified by helicopter survey; therefore
these regions were not a priority for on the ground survey. Instead, 12 sites were
selected across the reserve to span a range of cover types distinguishable using a
combination of the hyperspectral and LIDAR data (Figure 3). The unique ability for
the CAO LIDAR data to penetrate the vegetation and map the terrain underneath
was used to ensure that field crews were not placed into areas with large crevasses
or hazardous holes or skylights which are hidden from view because of the dense
understory cover.
Portion of Wao Kele O Puna Reserve
Initially flown by the
Carnegie Airborne Observatory
January 2007
H
G
Wellhead
Site
E
D
I
K
C
B
A
A
L J
F
N
Figure 8: CAO imagery of WKOP with the vegetation survey sites are indicated by letters.
Due to hazardous terrain and dense vegetation, entry into the forest was limited to
areas reachable from safe helicopter landing zones, usually lava flows or boggy
46
areas with low stature vegetation, as well as the area surrounding the wellhead site
and the road leading to it. Additional acc northeast boundaries of the reserve were
not explored in this survey because the initial imagery was collected over the center
of the reserve.
On January 13-14 and March 12, 2008, volunteer scientists and botanists from 7
different institutions surveyed the vegetation at 12 sites in 57 plots (18 m radius
each) with site maps in hand.
Fig. 9: Hyperspectral Imaging of Vegetation Plots
Site D
Plot
D-LZ
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
Easting
281834
281930
281897
281870
281834
281801
Northing
2149565
2149567
2149536
2149500
2149462
2149423
Top right = true color image
Bottom Left = Tree Height (m)
Bottom Right = ground terrain (m)
Colored circles = plots (18m radius)
White circles = Landing zone
1
1
2
3
4
5
20m variation total in ground elevation
0
Tree Height
18m
47
The center point of each plot was marked with a single ribbon and the final GPS
location recorded using hand-held units. Pictures of the vegetation in four cardinal
directions as well as an image toward the sky and another toward the ground were
taken. Transect tapes were laid out to delineate the plot radii in four directions. For
reproducibility and rapidity, a modified Braun-Blanquet method of estimating
percent cover of plant species was used with vertical stratification of the canopy
(Appendix 1, sampling protocol). This method was developed with the help of
Jonathon Price, UH- Hilo and exploratory trips into WKOP, prior to the major
vegetation survey effort, to access vegetation heights and stratification. Species
abundance was estimated for each canopy layer, and the combined total cover
estimation for each canopy layer was also recorded. In addition, the approximate
range of trunk diameters and the modal trunk size were estimated for trees
reaching the tallest tree layer. The species abundance cover scale and height
classes for vertical canopy stratification utilized for sampling were:
Vegetation Layer
T1
T2
T3
T4
Shrub
Ground
Height Range (m)
>20
10-20
5-10
2-5
1-2
<1
Cover Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
48
Cover Range (%)
>1
1-5
5-10
10-25
25-50
50-75
75-100
Vegetation coverage of < 1% was recorded for abundance and species which were
rare, solitary or had a small area of plot coverage were indicated. Species with 1-5%
cover range indicate species with low cover area, but more than one individual.
However, these percentages should be used with caution for cover estimation
because below 5% cover it becomes difficult to estimate the true coverage of a plot
by an individual species.
RESULTS
General Description of Vegetation Composition Results
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is a low elevation forest system with relatively
intact native components. The reserve comprises 25,856 acres, and contains a wide
array of vegetation types and landscape features. Across the reserve, Metrosideros
polymorpha ('ohi'a lehua) was usually the only species growing taller than 20 m, and
was the dominant tree species found between 10-20 m. Other native tree species
reaching 10-20 m included Psychotria hawaiiensis (kopiko), Diospyros sandwicensis
(lama), Ilex anamola (kawau, aiea). Occasionally, Psidium cattleianum (strawberry
guava) was recorded in the 10-20 m height class such as north of the wellhead area
(site G).
However, P. cattleiaum was more prevalent in the 5-10 m range where it was
recorded at every plot. Large infestations of P. cattleianum, such as the middle
portion of the reserve, P. cattleianum (Figure 3) were easily mapped with the
hyperspectral data obtained from the CAO and often inaccessible even from
helicopter, therefore survey plots were not established in them. The data presented
in this report in P. cattleianum refers to plants recorded in the survey plots outside
these large infestations.
Between 5-10 m a greater variety of native species was found. Tree ferns began to
populate the canopy with Cibotium glaucum often in greater abundance than
49
Cibotium menzizii. Also distributed in small quantities (one individual to 1-5% cover)
throughout this canopy layer, in addition to shorter versions of the taller trees, were
a number of the less common or rare native tree species, Antidesma platyphyllum
(hame), Bobea elator, Cheirodendron trigynum ('olapa), Coprosma spp. (pilo),
Hedyotis terminalis (manono), Melicope clusifolia (alani), Myrsine lessertiana
(Kolea), Perrotetia sandwicensis (Olomea), Pisonia spp. (papala), Tetraplasandra
hawaiiensis (‘ohe ‘ohe), Urera glabra (opuhe). Patches of Dicranopterus linearus
were found growing over other vegetation and larger plants of Melastoma candidum
were found in some areas.
Invasive species Clidemia hirta and Melastoma candidum, became increasingly
abundant in the 2-5 m canopy layer, where they were co-dominant with the native
fern species (D. linearus, C. glaucum and C. menzizii). Large native Broussaisia
arguta as well as shorter versions of the native trees of the upper canopy layers
were found in lesser quantities.The shrub layer (1-2m) was dominated by invasive
shrubs
50
(C. hirta, M. candidum, and some Tibouchina herbacea), the only exception being
where there was thick D. linearis cover. The mixture of natives was still quite high
with new additions being Cyrtandra spp (chiefly C. paladosa) and Clermontia spp
(mainly C. parvifolia). Other species of note were Hibuscus brackenridgii, Pipturus
albidus (mamaki), Vaccinium calycinum ('ohelo), Wikstroemea spp. ('akia). One
Cyanea platyphylla (haha) plant was found in the southwestern side of the reserve
which became accessible in early January 2008 due to the new lava flows. There
were also a number of vines and epiphytes found throughout the canopy layers,
most notably, Alyxia olivaeformis (maile), a few Asplenium species, and Freycinetia
arborea (ei'ei).
Because the focus of the survey was on the overstory plants ground cover (0-1 m)
was assessed for the most part in terms of general cover of grasses, seedling, bare
ground and litter. When possible, the presence of pig damage was recorded.
Site Specific Vegetation Data
Detailed plot specific vegetation data for each site can be found in Appendix 3.
Presented here are summary descriptions of the site specific native and non-native
or invasive species composition presented as the richness, simply the number of
native or non-native/invasive species in a given canopy layer, and an abundance
for each native or non-naitve/invasive species in each canopy layer. Graphs of the
data are presented in Figure 4 a-d below the descriptions. The value 0.5 was used
for cover estimates recorded as <1 %. Species richness and abundance values
were calculated for the ground layer and are presented in the summary graphs.
However, these values are a mix of data and should be interpreted with caution.
Often species were grouped as described in the protocol (Appendix 1) as mixed
seedlings, grasses, mosses and ferns, but when a particular species appeared to
make up a larger proportion of the abundance in this layer it was often recorded on
51
its own. In addition, some sites which were sampled by botanists knowledgeable in
ferns and mosses may have been recorded in greater detail.
Rather than lose this detail, I have left it in the summary graphs (Figure 4 a-d).
52
(C. hirta, M. candidum, and some Tibouchina herbacea), the only exception being
where there was thick D. linearis cover. The mixture of natives was still quite high
with new additions being Cyrtandra spp (chiefly C. paladosa) and Clermontia spp
(mainly C. parvifolia). Other species of note were Hibuscus brackenridgii, Pipturus
albidus (mamaki), Vaccinium calycinum ('ohelo), Wikstroemea spp. ('akia). One
Cyanea platyphylla (haha) plant was found in the southwestern side of the reserve
which became accessible in early January 2008 due to the new lava flows. There
were also a number of vines and epiphytes found throughout the canopy layers,
most notably, Alyxia olivaeformis (maile), a few Asplenium species, and Freycinetia
arborea (ei'ei).
Because the focus of the survey was on the overstory plants ground cover (0-1 m)
was assessed for the most part in terms of general cover of grasses, seedling, bare
ground and litter. When possible, the presence of pig damage was recorded.
Site Specific Vegetation Data
Detailed plot specific vegetation data for each site can be found in Appendix 3.
Presented here are summary descriptions of the site specific native and non-native
or invasive species composition presented as the richness, simply the number of
native or non-native/invasive species in a given canopy layer, and an abundance
for each native or non-naitve/invasive species in each canopy layer. Graphs of the
data are presented in Figure 4 a-d below the descriptions. The value 0.5 was used
for cover estimates recorded as <1 %. Species richness and abundance values
were calculated for the ground layer and are presented in the summary graphs.
However, these values are a mix of data and should be interpreted with caution.
Often species were grouped as described in the protocol (Appendix 1) as mixed
seedlings, grasses, mosses and ferns, but when a particular species appeared to
make up a larger proportion of the abundance in this layer it was often recorded on
53
its own. In addition, some sites which were sampled by botanists knowledgeable in
ferns and mosses may have been recorded in greater detail.
54
Sites A, B, and I: Easy access, highly invaded
Sites A, B, and I were close to the wellhead access, and had the greatest relative
abundance of invasive species compared to natives. While the dominant top of
canopy (10-20 m) species was M. polymorpha with cover ranging from 5-50
percent across many of the sites. The other canopy layers were dominated mostly
by invasive species C. hirta,
M. candidum, and P. cattleianum except where thick D. linearus appeared to
prevent invasive species growth as at plots B-2 and I-1. These sites also had
generally lower species richness with total species numbers averaging around five
in canopy layers greater than 1 m.
Sites C, E, and K: More remote, newer flows, low native diversity
Sites C, E and K were located in more remote areas, but appear to be on younger
lava flows (200-400 y) near the tips of some of the young lava fingers toward the
western portion of the reserve. These sites were characterized by high M.
polymorpha cover (25- 75%) in the 10-20 m tree layer and dense D. linearis cover
between 1-5 m, reaching nearly 100% in some areas. C. glaucum also had a
significant presence (10-50%) in the 2-5 m range. C. hirta was the dominant
invasive species found at these sites with cover often between 25-25% in the 1-2 m
canopy layer. M. candidum was found in association with C. hirta, but in lower
abundance (1-5% on average). There was little P. cattleianum at most of the sites (
< 5%). Other native species were found at a few sites as singular plants or in very
low abundance (< 5%) included I. anamola, P. hawaiiensis and T. hawaiiensis.
Sites G, H, and L: Remote, older flows, higher native diversity
Sites G, H and L were similar to the previous three sites (C,E, and K), in that they
are remote, have a dominant cover of M. polymorpha and P. cattleianum is in fairly
low abundance. However, these sites have a taller M. polymopha canopy, with
55
trees greater than 20 m covering 25% of the plots on average and comprising 2575% of the canopy layer between 10-20 m. There is less D. linearis cover, 25%
maximum at one plot. As seen in the previous sites, C. glaucum was the dominant
species in the 2-4 m canopy layer, comprising 10-25% of the cover on average.
Again, C. hirta and M. candidum were the dominant invasive species. Generally, C.
hirta was found in greater abundance that M. candidum with cover ranging from 1075% and 10-25% on average respectively. Plots such as H-4 which possessed
high densities of D. linearis (75-100%) tended to have less invasive cover.
Sites D, F, and J: Remote, rough terrain, possibly older flows
Sites D, F, and J had the greatest species richness and comparable abundance of
all the locations sampled. These sites were located in remote areas of rougher
topography and often a’a lava compared to the more prevalent pahoehoe
substrate. Here, M. polymorpha remained the dominant top of canopy species and
was generally found in the 10-20 m canopy layer at 25-50% cover. Only at a few
plots did M. polymorpha reached above 20 m and then very few trees. P.
cattleianum was present in noticeable quantities in all plots at Site D, often
becoming the dominant species between 5-10 m (10-50% cover). At sites F and J,
C. glaucum, and to a lesser extent C. menzizii, formed the second canopy layer
growing between 2-10 m. These sites also tended to have a substantial cover (2575%) of C. hirta below 2 m. M. candidum was also present, but in
lesser quantities (10-25%) than C. hirta. T. herbacea was found in the understory at
sites D and L. A large number of native tree species were found in low abundance
at all these sites including, A. platyphyllum, Coprosma spp., C. trigynum, H.
terminalis, M. clusifolia, M. lessertiana, P. sandwicensis, T. hawaiiensis and C.
paladosa was found in the understory. B. elator, and U. glabra were found at Site J
as well as C. nanwaliensis. In addition, when returning to the landing zone from site
J, a C. platyphylla plant was found. Fortuitously, it was fruiting, so the location was
recorded and samples were collected for necessary species validation and possible
regeneration.
56
In 2013, DLNR-Division of Forestry and Wildlife secured an agreement with
Carnegie Airborne Observatory, Stanford University, and the U.S. Forest Service to
initiate additional hyperspectral analysis of Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve at no
cost to OHA or DLNR. This service is being offered in-kind in an agreed upon
partnership. However, DLNR has regrettably been removed from all management
aspects of Wao Kele O Puna and it is imperative that OHA continue this agreement
as it would benefit the program substantially in its efforts to manage the reserve.
57
II.E WILDLIFE
II.E.1 Native Wildlife
II.E.1.1 Passerines – Native Forest Birds and other bird species
Native forest birds in Hawaii have suffered significant losses since the arrival of
humans some 1,200 years ago with entire groups disappearing. A drop in native
forest bird populations in lowland-forest ecosystems have been particular
momentous for varying reasons. Endemic forest birds were historically found at all
elevations on each island with approximately 10% of native passerines found
below 1,000 meters (3,000’) with some native forest birds occurring in native
dominated forest as low as 120 meters (40’) (Perkins 1903, Scott et.al. 1983).
However, native habitat fragmentation, degradation and loss and/or competition
from introduced species have reduced forest bird populations to critical levels.
Mosquito borne avian diseases in particular have decimated passerine populations
below 1700 meters (roughly 5,000’). A few native forest birds, such as the
endemic ‘Apapane (Hemignathus virens)) and ‘Amakihi (Himatione sanguine
sanguinea), can still be found in lower elevations, but questions remain as to their
long-term survivability given a short live span and continuous environmental
pressures affecting habitat at lower elevations. But on a positive note, their
numbers are still quite significant, as in the ‘Apapane with populations in excess of
one-million strong Statewide (Pratt et.al.). The question then becomes, what are
‘Apapane doing right to survive and what are the environmental conditions that
allow them to thrive. Sadly however, for a large number of native forest bird, this is
not the case, especially in lowland-forest such as Wao Kele O Puna. Native
passerines found below 500 meters (150’), is now considered atypical.
58
‘Apapane and ‘Amakihi
Courtesy of Brooks Rownd photos
Lowland-rainforest are one of the most fragmented ecosystems in the State due to
human habitation, agricultural practices, introduced ungulates (goat, sheep, feral
pigs, deer) as well as invasive species have all contributed to the decline and
extinction of native forest birds State wide. In all appearances, native passerine
decline and extinction is due to “ecosystem collapse”, where combined forces have
led to low-elevation habitat loss and fragmentation (Reynolds, Camp et.al.) and no
single factor is responsible for the loss of Hawaiian endemics. Other less studied
factors to native passerine decline could include competition from introduced birds
(Mountainspring, Scott 1985) and a potential host of arthropods (e.g. parasitoid
wasps) as well as invasive ants. However, if we had to select one over all factor to
the decline of native forest birds for Hawaii in general, it would likely be the loss of
native dominated forest which native passerines require. Of the 52 known
endemic birds, 26 are considered extinct, and 18 are endangered. In fact in
Hawaii, humans have cleared so much native forest that roughly only 10% of
native forest-ecosystems remain (Pratt et.al.). As late as the 1950’s it was
common practice to clear huge swaths of native forest for cattle, agriculture,
agribusiness and infrastructure. Lowland native forest, have taken the brunt of
this, which is why Wao Kele O Puna is considered one of the most important
conservation areas in the State. For one, it is the largest single lowland-mesic
rainforest in the State with some 25,856 continuous acres. It runs parallel to the
Kahau’ale’a Natural Area Reserve with some 22,000 acres on its southwest
boundary, forming one of the largest contiguous conservation units in east Hawaii.
59
Wao Kele O Puna host a variety of endemic birds, plants and the only endemic
land mammal, the ‘Opea’pe’a, or Hawaiian Hoary Bat. All of the native forest birds
in Wao Kele O Puna are considered endangered or critically threatened by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are also numerous rare or endangered plant
species and in addition, recent studies of cave systems in Wao Kele O Puna have
found
rare
andendemic
arthropods
(Howarth,
Stone)
Fig. 10: Forest Bird Transects on East Rift
Courtesy USGS/BRD R. Camp
In 1979 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established 42 biological survey
transects across east Hawaii, three of which traversed Wao Kele O Puna as well
as a small portion of a fourth transect (refer to Fig.10) Bird survey data was first
collected in 1979 (Jacobi et.al.) and again between August of 1993 and February
of 1994 by the
60
U.S. Geological Survey/Biological Resources Division (henceforth known as
BRD*). Abundance and distribution of low-elevation forest birds were evaluated
including evidence of changes in species composition between 1979 and 1993.
Data from four transects and 117 stations from the 1993 survey, and 117 stations
of three transects from the 1979 survey were used for comparison. Unfortunately
most of the stations used in the analyses were located within the Kahau’ale’a
Natural Area Reserve with only a small fraction of stations located in Wao Kele O
Puna along Transect 39 (Fig. 10). However, the analysis provides the best
snapshot of bird activity in the area to date. Transects are approximately a
distance of 3 km (2 miles) apart with survey stations along transects located every
150 meters (approximately 50’). Though methodologies altered somewhat
between the 1979 and 1993 surveys to accommodate changes in landscape and
property ownership, observers remained systematic during each survey period
(Reynolds, Camp et.al.). Trained observers collected data at each station for a
period of 8-minutes during the first four hours after sunrise (0700-1100 hours),
peak hours for bird activity. All birds, including non-native species were recorded.
In the Kahau’ale’a Natural Area, a total of 14 species of birds were identified
between the 1979 and1993 surveys (Table 1).
*A section of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park in 1979 responsible for the
initial bird survey was later reorganized and integrated into the USGS/Biological Resources Division. The 1993 survey
included original members of the 1979 survey team.
Table 1
Species
% Occurrence 1979
% Occurrence 1993
‘Apapane*
99.1
94.9
‘Oma’o *
95.7
90.6
Japanese White-eye
94.9
100
‘Elepaio *
50.4
14.5
Hwamei
18.8
14.5
Northern Cardinal
17.9
3.4
61
I’iwi *
4.3
0
Hawai’i Amakihi *
1.7
0
Red-billed Leiothrix
0
4.3
‘Io *
0
1.3
Kalij Pheasant
0
1.7
Spotted dove
0
0.9
House Finch
1.7
0
‘Ou *
0.9
0
*Native
The most significant change would be the drop in occurrence of the endemic
‘Elepaio. This follows a pattern of decline in other parts of Hawaii Island
(Venderwerf 1998) as well as Oahu due to habitat degradation. The beautiful long
billed I’iwi remained elusive during both surveys and is most likely a passing visitor
at lower elevations. Surveys in other areas of windward Hawaii indicate that the
I’iwi’s range has contracted and likely rare in elevations below 1,500 meters
(3,000’). Though they can be occasionally found in lower elevations, they are
highly susceptible to avian diseases carried by mosquitoes, particularly avian
malaria which is nearly always fatal (Atkinson et.al. 1995). The same for the ‘O’u,
which is now believed to be extinct since it was last “seen” in 1987 (1979 data
reflects sound only) and an extensive search in 1994-1996 did not confirm its
existence on any of the Hawaiian islands (Snetsinger 1998, Reynolds and
Snetsinger 2001). Habitat contraction’s of endemic bird species is likely
contributed to habitat degradation and represent a significant change in lowelevation forest bird communities. Changes in populations of the native ‘Oma’o,
and the non-native Japanses White-eye, may be of some biological significance.
But this is more hypothesis than conclusion (Reynolds, Camp et.al.). There is not
enough evidence to make any such conclusions at this time for either Kahau’ale’a
NAR or Wao Kele O Puna. What is certain however, is that the native ‘Amakihi
62
and ‘Apapane inhabit and persist in Kahau’ale’a and Wao Kele O Puna. In 2003
BRD biologist found breeding individuals of both species at similar, as well as
higher elevations including in Wao Kele O Puna. Both species in Wao Kele O Puna
were noted “outside the breeding season” making these low-elevation populations
definitely viable within the lowland rain forest (Richard Camp pers. comm.). In
addition, in 2005 BRD biologist found that the low-elevation ‘Amakihi populations
has gained a tolerance to avian malaria (2005 Woodworth, Atkinson unpublished,
2008 Atkinson). It is likely that ‘Apapane may also have a tolerance allowing them
to sustain populations at lower elevations. But it is very difficult to show that they
have a genetic resistance to malaria (Bethany Woodworth pers. comm.). A decline
in the ‘Oma’o population is likely to continue since they tend to be territorial and
sedentary endemic solitaire. They can be found in pairs, particularly during the
breeding season (April through August) but usually only for a single season.
More extensive surveys of bird communities and analyses of landscape factors
influencing bird distribution and abundance, particularly on transects located in
Wao Kele O Puna would be recommended to evaluate species status.
Considering the continuous decline of ‘Oma’o, in particular, within lowland
rainforest, it would be imperative to get an updated and accurate estimate of this
species as soon as possible. As of this writing, it has been 20-years since the last
thorough bird survey in Wao Kele O Puna and it is likely that substantial changes
have occurred. A partnership with USGS/BRD is highly recommended for this
effort to maintain field continuity and expertise for surveying and analytical efforts.
Regardless, it is imperative that the protection of native dominate forest particularly
in Wao Kele O Puna be the paramount priority to maintain habitat for native
passerines and other endemic species. Though Wao Kele O Puna and Kahau’ale’a
form one of the largest contiguous conservation areas, numerous threats, both
direct and in-direct, challenge forest bird conservation efforts. Direct threats
include, not surprisingly, invasive species, while indirect threats particularly
introduced ungulates, result in the loss of resources necessary for forest bird
survival and can cause long term even rapid declines in avian populations.
Arguably, the most dramatic and spatially widespread indirect impacts come from
63
ungulates, which modify vegetation, spread non-native plant species and promote
disease vectors (Cuddihy, Stone 1990). Since there are no current efforts to
curtail ungulates in Wao Kele O Puna other than individual pig hunting by private
citizens, this should be evaluated once additional abundance data of forest birds
can be obtained.
Japanese White-eye
(Zosterops japonicas)
Elepaio
(Chasiempis sandwichensis)
Christopher Taylor Photos
II.E.1.2 Procellariid - Seabirds
In addition to native passerines, Wao Kele O Puna has a frequent visitor, and more
than likely an established breeding colony, of the threatened Newell’s Sherawater,
or ‘A’o, (Puffinus auricularis newelli). This species of procellariid is known to breed
on both the Islands of Hawaii and Kauai and suspected to breed on the other main
64
islands as well. A seafaring bird, known to feed offshore for fish, plankton and
squid (Harrison 1990) to feed their young after sunset, and return to the sea before
dawn (Ainley and Podolsky). Research conducted by the USGS-Biologcial
Resources Division between August and September of 1993 recorded 99 total
detections of ‘A’o during 11 different dates in the Pu’u Heiheiahulu Crater area
within the Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve. Of these 99 detections visual
confirmation was made on 4 separate individuals (Reynolds and Ritchotte).
Though the research team was able to rapell into craters outside of Wao Kele O
Puna to conduct searches for burrows, this was not possible at Pu’u Heheiahulu.
All detections were done in the evening and night hours either visually (using night
vision goggles) or by auditory detection. A team returned in June of 1997, but
only spent one night at Pu’u Heiheiahulu and recorded 2 auditory detections of
‘A’o. This threatened nocturnal seabird is definitely present in Wao Kele O Puna at
Pu’u Heiheiahulu Crater and is likely co-habitating with the native Hawaiian hoary
bat, though none was detected during the 1993 or 1997 surveys. However, staff
from DLNR have visually confirmed their presence at Pu’u Heiheiahulu
(Bauchman, Wakida per.com.).
65
Photo courtesy Melody McFarland ‘A’o - Newell’s Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis)
II.E.1.3 Hawaiian Hoary Bat
The Hawaiian hoary bat or ope’ape’a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) is a mediumsized (14-22 grams), nocturnal, insectivorous bat. They are heavily furred and
possess a hair color that is a mixture of brown and gray inged with white,
producing a frosted or “hoary” appearance.
Their ears are short, thick and
rounded and edged with black. Females tend to be larger than males with a wing
span averaging 10.5 to 13.5. inches (Jacobi 1993a). The ope’ape’a is endemic to
Hawaii and the only native land mammal species. They are considered solitary in
nature, and roosts among foliage in trees. They tend to leave their roost shortly
before sunset and tend to return to the same roosting areas later in the night
(Jacobi 1993b).
Males may be fertile year round (Tomich 1986) but breeding
occurs most frequently in May or June. Bat activity apparently varies seasonally,
but the nature and the timing of this variation is unclear.
66
(Photo courtesy Jim Jacobi)
A one week pilot program was initiated in October 2009. Corinna Pinzari of the
USGS/Biological Resources Division set up four (4) array systems for recording
bat activity in the Southeast boundary of the reserve.
Access through private
property via the Lee Ranch was acquired from the landowner and random sites
were chosen along old logging trails or roadways in Kiula Forest and Wao Kele O
Puna. A preliminary report is attached. Additional sites will likely be added in
WKOP as activity was detected during the entire survey period (7 consecutive
nights at all 4 array stations).
The following is a report from USGS/
BRD in its entirety:
67
Hawaiian Hoary Bat Occupancy at Wao Kele 0 Puna Forest Reserve
Frank Bonaccorso & Corinna Pinzari- Hawaiian Hoary Bat Project
United States Geological Survey, P.O. Box 44, Hawaii National Park, HI, 96718
An ultrasound microphone and data logger array to record the vocalizations of Hawaiian
hoary bats (Lasiurus cine reus semotus) was deployed for a one-week pilot survey during
October 2009 on the southern edge of the Wao Kele 0 Puna Forest Reserve in Kalapana.
Another one-week pilot survey was conducted along the upper portion of the reserve
around a retired geo-thermal energy zone off of S.Kahoe Homestead Road in Pahoa
during January 2010. A pilot array consisted of 4 microphone/recording units (stations)
spaced at approximately 1 kilometer intervals alongside old logging trails or roadways
within the reserve (Table 1). A general elevation of 1,400 feet above sea level was
sampled in the lower portion and 1,200 ft at the upper portion.
Bat vocalizations were recorded for a total of 28 nights (4 stations monitoring for 7 nights
each). During the October survey, bat activity was detected every night of the survey,
with an overall detectability (p) of 0.52 ± 0.11, thus bats were present at 52% of the
microphone stations deployed over the week period (Figure 1). During the January
survey, bat activity was detected on only one night, resulting in a very low detectability
(p) of 0.03 ± 0.03. The range of detectability (p) is from 0 to 1, with 0 being no bats
detected and 1 representing bat recordings at every detector every night samples.
Table 1. List of coordinates for bat monitoring stations with general site descriptions
Station
Eastin2
Northin2
IS
288829
2146604
2S
3S
4S
288678
289257
289497
2146481
2145878
2145686
1N
289906
2150599
2N
289966
2150555
3N
291071
2151062
4N
215172
2151421
68
Station Notes
Open area before dense guava
forest
Open area in Ohia forest
Open area, trail intersect
Reserve edge, adjacent pasture
Cleared area by geo-thermal
Patch
Cleared area by geo-thermal
Patch
Along roadside
Along roadside, close to
entrance gate
Table 2. Results from the pilot survey sampling period - number of nights, recorded bat
passes and pulses of vocalizations, and detectability value. A bat 'pass' is the number of
times bats were detected and may include one or more pulses of sound. Starred (*)
columns represent data standardized to number of night detectors were recording.
Dates
Survey
Nights
Stations
Total
Nights
Sampled
Active
Nights
Total
Passes
Passes*
Total
Pulses
Pusles•
Detectability
(p)
SE
7
4
28
10
105
3.75
321
11.46
0.52
0.11
7
4
28
1
1
0.04
1
0.04
0.03
0.03
10/16 to
10/22/2009
1/08 to
1/15/2010
Figure 1. Nightly echolocation activity by bats, total pulses recorded by hour for entire
October survey.
Nightly Bat Activity
200
I
i
150
1!
0
100
:!
:;
a..
50
1-
1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 100
Time of Night (Hour)
69
200
300
400
500
600
700
Conclusions
A. The endangered Hawaiian Hoary Bat has an occupancy rate
bordering 50% of stations sampled, and is present during
October in the southern border of Wao Kele 0 Puna Forest
Reserve.
B. Bat echolocation recordings collected at the southern area of
WKOP contain feeding buzzes, meaning that bats forage for
insect prey arou nd this area.
C. Bats were not occupying the upper portion of Wao Kele 0 Pu na during the time
sampled in Januaury, however the one pulse docuemented during
the week
Bat echolocation survey station in
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve
Photo: Julie Leialoha
70
II.E.1.4 Native Antrhopods
Lava tube cave systems on the island of Hawaii support communities of rare and
highly specialized cave arthropods (Hoch, Howargh 1993). It is particularly true for
lava tube cave systems found in Wao Kele O Puna. In these cave ecosystems,
plant roots, both living and dead, provide the main energy source for cave animals.
Cave animals rely on these plant roots for food, shelter and cocoon-building
materials. Root patches provide resources for a wide variety of cave organisms,
including root-feeders, scavengers, as well as predators. In addition, cave cracks
and gaps between successive lava flow units, and volcanic gas vesicles provide
intermediate if not larger voids which assist in providing habitat to support diverse
communities of organisms. Leaf litter, organic debris and sedimentation provide
nutrients to many varieties of cave organisms. Many are highly specialized and
restricted to living permanently in subterranean habitats. Pale, blind, slow-moving
insects, spiders, and related arthropods comprise the dominant terrestrial animals in
Hawaiian caves (Howarth 1988, 1991). Over 25 cave species occur in the Wao
Kele O Puna caves (Stone, Howarth 2007) including the small-eyed and big-eyed
hunting spider (Lycosa howarthi) the Onopid cave spider (Oonops spp.), and a host
of cave moths (Schrankia spp.) of which there are some cave moths so specialized,
that they inhabit only the innermost troglobitic (completely darkened) regions of
these systems. Currently, no cave species on Hawai‘i Island is listed as endangered
or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the state of Hawaii,
however, several species are considered “species of concern” (SOC), an informal
category created for species considered rare but for which more information is needed
to determine their conservation status. Populations of SOC expected to occur within
Wao Kele O Puna caves include but are not limited to: Caconemobius and
Thaumatogryllus crickets, the terrestrial water treader Cavaticovelia aaa, and the cave
thread-legged bug, Nesidiolestes ana (Howart 2007). In addition, many Hawai‘i Island
cave animals have diverged into distinct geographic populations (or species) so that
each lava tube system may harbor a unique community of animals different from
relatives found in neighboring systems (Stone and Howarth, 2007); for example, the
Caconemobius crickets (Otte, 1994), Oliarus planthoppers Hoch and Howarth, 1993),
71
Schrankia moths (Medieros et al., 2009), and Nannolene millipedes. This
happenstance makes Hawaiian caves ideal natural laboratories for biological studies
and worthy of protection (Howarth, 1983).
It is recommended that additional surveys be conducted in these habitats, particularly
those in the middle-tube cave system. Dr. Frank Howarth of Bishop Museum has
specialized in Hawaiian cave organisms and is considered the leading expert of
troglobitic fauna in Hawaii. He and Dr. Fred Stone led surveys in the tube systems in
Wao Kele O Puna. It is likely that these types of habitat in Hawaii would be considered
as potential critical habitat as some of these highly specialized anthropods identified by
Dr. Howarth and Dr. Stone, are considered being listed on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s
endangered species list. At the moment they are only considered species of concern
(SOC), but OHA should anticipate potential listing of such species in the near future.
More importantly, the role of identifying critical habitat for cave organisms, which would
likely include the lava-tube cave systems in Wao Kele O Puna.
II.E.2 Non-Native Wildlife
II.E.2.1 Pigs
Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) are abundant in Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve. Feral pigs
damage native biota through rooting and wallowing, consuming tree ferns and other
favorite native plants species such as pa’iniu (Astelis spp.). Native plant-understory are
displaced creating mosquito breeding sites, and causing conditions favorable for the
spread and establishment of invasive plant species. It is well documented that the
removal of feral pigs will result in the recovery of native vegetation, increase native
diversity and reduce the spread of invasive plant species including reducing mosquito
breeding sites. This sort of continuous depredation is detrimental to the overall health
and longevity to sustain a native forest ecosystem. Depredation is defined here as,
“the eating or otherwise destroying of plants by animals. Consumption,
trampling, or uprooting of native plants (or plant parts) by alien mammals are
examples. Depredations on plants influence other animals through impacts on
their habitats” (Stone 1984).
72
In addition pig can have additional, subtle effects on native ecosystems and biota by
transmitting diseases to native species through alien vertebrate reservoirs. In this case
it would primarily be the transmission of avian diseases to native birds through
mosquitoes that breed in open pig wallows (Van Riper & Van Riper). Understory rooting
can sometimes enhance germination on introduced plants through seed scarification in
digestive tracts, or through digging up and or fertilization with feces of potential
seedbeds. This is particularly true for the spread of strawberry guava in Wao Kele O
Puna. Birds also play a role in the seed distribution of this species. Weather there is a
significant difference in the amount each animal may distribute is unknown, but it is
clear that pigs are certainly a vector. Long term disruption by pigs as well as other
ungulates can disrupt nutrient cycling, initiate and accelerate erosion, radically change
compositions of plant and animal communities, and alter evolution of other species
through disruption of natural selection (Stone 1984).
Though it is currently unknown what the population of pigs are in Wao Kele O Puna, in
lower rain forest pigs can apparently reach levels of anywhere from 19 to 79 animals
per square meter, unmatched anywhere else in any other forest ecosystem type (Singer
1981 and John Giffen per.comm.). Feral pigs are the dominate modifiers of Hawaiian
forest, where damage has reached extreme levels in this century, perhaps as a result of
increasing densities as well as expanding distributions. It has been postulated that
animal protein in the form of earthworms, and mutualistic relationships with certain
dominant alien plants, like strawberry guava, may have made conditions more favorable
for feral pigs (Diong 1983). This could be the case in Wao Kele O Puna, but at this
point is only speculative. However what is known is that the population in the reserve is
substantial.
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is not a defined “managed” hunting area/unit under
the State of Hawaii Title 13 Chapter123 that regulates game mammal hunting.
However, since Wao Kele O Puna was placed back into the State Forest Reserve
system by executive order E.O. #4218) on February 28, 2008 hunting is allowed legally.
Under the State Forest Reserve system, hunters can take pigs, wild sheep (no sheep
73
exists in the reserve), and wild goats. Bag limits are limited to 2-pigs, 1-goat and 1-wild
sheep per day. There is no season limit, and is open daily. Rifle, muzzleloader,
shotgun, handgun, bow and arrows, spears and knives are allowed as are dogs. Dogs
must be kept under control at all times except when actually hunting. When utilizing
bows, knives or spears, hunters are required to be dressed in bright-orange vest. All
hunters are required to be licensed by the State of Hawaii to hunt anywhere in Hawaii,
and must have a “valid” hunting license on their person while actively hunting. Firearms
must be legally registered. No permits are required to hunt in Wao Kele O Puna Forest
Reserve at this time.
Currently, DLNR’s Department of Conservation and Resource
Enforcement (DOCARE) routinely checks the area, and violators are subject to
regulatory hunting laws in the State of Hawaii.
Hunting is an important aspect of Hawaii, and many, particularly on the Big Island, do
subsistence hunting to supplement their food resources. The number of subsistence
hunters, in the reserve is unknown, but given its long history as a “localized” traditional
hunting area, and its proximity to numerous improvised communities, one can speculate
that it could be significant. Though hunters are regularly encountered here, there is only
one legal access point, open year round, near the lower end of the reserve through the
old geothermal access road. Access is currently limited to walking along the access
road. Driving access is restricted and requests would need to be considered and
approved by OHA to access the road by vehicle beyond the closed locked gate.
Vehicles are allowed to park outside the gate, but should not block the access road.
Limited access into Wao Kele O Puna has been a source of contention, particularly in
communities where individuals continuously trespass on private land to either access or
exit the reserve. Much of the reserve is landlocked and the majority of roads
surrounding the reserve are either privately owned by large owners (ranchers) or private
community associations. Poaching and illegal hunting in these areas is also a problem.
There are no public corridors in the upper areas of the reserve other than taking a daylong hike through the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park through the Kahau’ale’a Natural
Area Reserve before reaching Wao Kele O Puna (refer to surrounding community map).
74
Trespassing complaints are common and are addressed by DOCARE or by Hawaii
County Police. DOCARE can only respond on potential illegal actions taking place on
forest reserve lands under DLNR’s control, all other actions are handled by local police.
II.E.2.2 Goats
Though goats (Carpa hircus) are not as common as pigs in Wao Kele O Puna, but
likely there are goats that may intrude into the reserve from the open lava flows. Goats
were commonly found along the Kahau’ale’a Natural Area Reserve boundary with
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park in the 1980’s. Though the park has done a good job in
removing goats from their boundaries, it is likely that some migrated lower along the
barren flows as regular hunts by the Park Service forced them to move further down,
and are likely found along the barren flows along the southwestern boundary of Wao
Kele O Puna. Like pigs, large populations of goats will alter the forest ecosystems.
Large herds of goats numbering in the thousands completely altered the lowland dryforest ecosystems of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park before large eradication efforts
began in the 1920’s escalating in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Overall the Park Service
removed some 70,000 goats from the park between the 1920’s and 1980’s (Katahira
and Stone 1982). These herds could be easily spotted by large dust clouds created as
they moved across open plains. Browsing animals, goats will eat just about any
herbaceous species, including stripping the bark from larger trees. They will eat the
plants down to the roots leaving nothing but dust in their wake. Historically goats in
Hawaii have reduced or eliminated whole populations of native plants, leaving remnant
plant populations behind only on the steepest and most inaccessible cliffs. Kauai’s
Kalalau Valley is a classic example of this sort of depredation. There are whole areas
stripped of vegetation, causing massive erosion in Kalalau Valley.
The population of goats in Wao Kele O Puna is unknown, as is the number taken
annually by hunters. Goats have been spotted on the lava flows from recent aerial
reconnaissance of Wao Kele O Puna, either below the reserve or above in the
Kahau’alea Natural Area reserve region. These were small groups (< 10) or individuals.
No large herds were seen.
75
II.E.2.3 Black Rats and Mongoose
Black rats (Rattus rattus) have severely impacted native forest ecosystems as well as
native bird species since they were introduced to Hawaii in the late 1800’s and into the
mid 1900’s (Stone et.al.). Nesting seabirds were particularly venerable as are treenesting birds such as our honey-creepers (Drepanidinae) by this arboreal (treeclimbing) species. Black rats are now abundant in dry to very wet areas and range from
sea level to high elevations on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. Black rats are common in
Wao Kele O Puna and the author of this document has been subjected to rats falling
from trees on numerous occasions. They have the ability to limit native seed
distribution as they will eat native seeds and seedlings and will prey on eggs from nest.
Black rats can be very aggressive and will attack adult birds as well.
The small Indian Mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) also common in Wao Kele O
Puna first introduced from Jamaica to Hawaii around 1883 (Stone and Stone) to control
rat damage to sugar cane fields. Mongoose, do eat rats, but mongoose tend to be
active during the day, while rats are most active at night. The mongoose is not a good
tree climber but is an opportunistic and omnivorous feeder if given the chance.
Seabirds and the endangered nene ( Nesochen sandvicensis) are most vulnerable to
mongoose predation.
II.E.2.4 Introduced Birds
The Japanese White-eye Zosterops japonicas) is perhaps the most competitive bird to
native forest birds in Wao Kele O Puna. They will compete for food resources shared
by native passerines such as the ‘I’iwo and ‘oma’o. Along with the Japanese white-eye,
the red-billed leiothris (Leiothrix lutea), the barn owl (Tyto alba), the cattle egret
(Bubulcus ibis) and other various gallinaceous birds are among the alien species that
cause the most problems for native birds species (Stone and Stone). Barn owls will
also compete for food with the native short eared owl or pueo (Asio flammeus). The
common house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) and Myna (Acridotheres tristis) are
regulars in the lower elevations of the reserve.
76
III. Public Access and Recreation
As mentioned earlier, there is only one public access into Wao Kele O Puna. This is the
only legitimate and legal entrance for walking and driving (restricted to staff and
approved agents). There is a second roadway leading to the southern and western
boundaries of the reserve, but it passes through a private parcel owned by Lee Ranch
and requires approval from the owners to access. There are locked gates along the
ranch corridor. Once past the Lee Ranch, the road connects into Kiula Forest under the
management of DLNR’s Land Division and requires access permission from the Hilo
Land Division office. The roads in Kiula forest end at the Wao Kele O Puna boundary.
A recommendation would be for OHA to either create a long term access agreement
with surrounding communities, or managing entities, or purchase a private parcel,
especially in the upper mauka reserve area that abuts the reserve directly. However
this option will need exploring as not all community associations will allow a State
entities to utilize their private roads for public access into the reserve.
Each community association as their own set of covenant codes on how their private
roads are utilized. This can be complex and requires time and lots of patience to work
out access agreements. In the mauka communities in particular, expect to deal with a
wide range of eclectic individuals. Many choose to live here up against the forest
reserve in isolation to stay off the grid and off the social radar. It is prudent to work with
these communities to build trust or you will undoubtedly have problems, and the
program has had its share of issues. This has included having equipment tossed from
the back of trucks while parked, vehicle tires flattened, and one extreme incident
involving booby-traps set along a temporary trail access to a monitoring and invasive
species control site which required DOCARE and HPD involvement. Fortunately, the
issue was resolved amicably, but notably it shuttered operations for nearly 6-months
while resolving and alleviating community concerns. Public announcements tend to be
of no value in these areas as many do not have radios, televisions, phones or read the
paper. They literally want nothing to do with the outside world. It is one of the few
areas where the associations and HELCO (when utilizing their utility poles) will allow us
77
to post signs to get the word out. Identifying key respected individuals in each
community is crucial to assisting in this effort. Most people in these areas are armed
(legally or other) and avoiding any physical confrontation is a priority.
Other than hunting, the only other notable recreational activity in the reserve center on
gathering of plant material, especially around Merrie Monarch Hula Festival time in
April. DLNR does require a plant picking permit under Forest Reserve administrative
rules, however permits are free and can be acquired directly from the Hilo Division of
Forestry and Wildlife office in Hilo. How many people utilize the area for picking plant
material is unknown. Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners are known to utilize the area
for spiritual or other purposes associated to their practice.
IV Revenue
Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve would be difficult for OHA to implement revenue
generating sources, but not impossible. Regulatory constraints of the State Land use
Conservation District “protective” subzone and the DLNR Forest Reserve designation
would be the two largest hurdles, but site remoteness, natural hazards including the
current eruption of Pu’u O’o and Kilauea Craters, cracks and crevices and
inaccessibility to most of the reserve by land are other considerations. OHA would
either have to create their own administrative rules or work within the confines of the
existing statues to formulate a potential revenue generating program. In 2011 OHA
hired Townscape to conduct an economic feasibility study on potential revenue
generating opportunities. The study identified the statutes governing Wao Kele O Puna
as being the principal barriers to moving forward on most of the potential identified
projects. It suggests that OHA develop a master plan and its own set of rules for the
property, which would allow at least a “portion” of the site to be removed from the Forest
Reserve. In addition some potential on-site activities would also require changing the
Conservation District designation to a less restrictive subzone, a lengthy process
requiring Board of Land and Natural Resources approval.
78
Ten potential income/revenue opportunities were identified and analyzed for feasibility.
These included; 1) Hawaiian Culture and Wao Kele O Puna phone applications, 2)
Individual donor-based programs, 3) native and Hawaiian cultural plants cultivation, 4)
sustainable forestry, 5) Invasive species extraction, 6) overnight retreat destination, 7)
ecotourism and volun-tourism, 8) Wao Kele O Puna Makana/virtual shop, 9) movies and
documentaries, and 10) niche carbon credits. Six categories were identified rating
proposed opportunities, including 1) time for land use changes and permits, 2) time
period before revenue, 3) initial capital cost, 4) annual operating cost, 5) gross annual
revenue potential and 6) risk (low, moderate, high).
In short, none of the concepts analyzed offered easy solutions for providing potential
income to help support forest management activities primarily due to the designation of
the property as a Forest Reserve. Most of these identified potential opportunities would
require a land use change to move forward and also require land use permits which
would require several years to process. The study suggests that revenue generating
concepts would benefit by operating under a different entity other than a government
agency. Some of the concepts could be operated under a limited liability company or a
non-profit entity, such as the donor-based conservation program concept. However this
would not exclude such operators from any of the stated requirements. In addition, the
study points out other governing requirements that would need to be considered such
as the *Forest Legacy Program Implementation Guidelines that exclude non-compatible
uses, Federal regulations governing endangered species, as well as the Pele Defense
Fund State ruling.
Potentially revenues from these concepts would be relatively low and would require
operating cost kept very low to anticipate any sort of profit. Some were considered risky
due to a variety of reasons including unreliable and emerging markets (e.g. bio-fuels,
bio-char, carbon credits), environmental hazards, lack of local knowledge etc.
(*Forest Legacy Program Implementation Guidelines are mandated here since Forest Legacy Funds were
utilized in the purchase of the Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve.)
79
V Threats
V.1 Invasive Plant Species
Invasive species is a very serious problem in Wao Kele O Puna as in most conservation
areas State wide. A wide array of invasive species exists in the reserve, some
considered highly invasive with the known potential to displace and alter entire forest
ecosystems such as Miconia (Miconia calvenscens), Albezzia (Albezzia spp.) and
Strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum). Other invasive species are slower growing,
but still pose a threat in Wao Kele O Puna, such as the gunpowder tree (Trema
orientalis) , shrubby fleabane (Pluchea odorata) and java plum (Syzygium cumini).
Others will disrupt and displace ground cover and shrub species, including highly
invasive melastomes such as Melastoma candidum, Oxyspora paniculata, Melestoma
candidum, Tibouchina herbacea and Tibouchina urvileana (glorybush), and the ever
noxious kusters curse (Clidemia hirta).
All commonly found in Wao Kele O Puna,
especially at lower elevations closer, particularly thick around the geothermal well head
and access road areas. Awapuhi or shampoo ginger (Zingiber zerumbet) considered
invasive poses a threat as well, as thick spreading rhizomes will undermine native
species. Invasive grasses such as bushbeard grass (Andropogon glomeratus),
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) and guinea grass (Paspalum spp.) pose a fire
threat to the reserve.
It is likely that a multitude of other potential invasive species exists in Wao Kele O Puna
which may pose lesser threat to resources in the reserve, but never the less are a
potential threat to the over well being of a native ecosystem. Surveys conducted in
1985, 1993 and more recently 2007, document an array of invasive species. For a list
of current known invasive species refer to appendices. Keep in mind that this list is only
a small snapshot of invasive species given that 90% - 95% of the reserve has not been
systematically surveyed.
80
V.1.1 Miconia
For this purpose, the highly invasive Miconia and strawberry guava species will be the
primary focus of discussion. Miconia first introduced into Hawaii as an ornamental it is
now considered to be one of the top 100 most highly invasive plant species in the world
according to the Global Invasive Species Database (1993). A large shrub to tree
species with its distinctive large purple leaves, it has displaced entire plant communities
in Tahiti, where it was first introduced in 1937 and commonly referred to as the “purpleplague”. Tahiti’s forest has been completely altered with its canopy now covered by
nearly 70% Miconia and 30-40 endemic Tahitian plant species are near extinction solely
due to this species (USGS/BRD unpublished data). Its shallow root system has led to
enormous landslides in Tahiti where in areas dominated by Miconia.
These trees can grow up to 50 feet tall, has large oval-shaped leaves, green on top,
purple underneath, with three main midribs running from the steam to the tip of the leaf.
It is native to South and Central America, and believed to have been first introduced to
Hawaii in 1961 and spread across the State by plant enthusiasts. This species will form
dense thick stands that will shade out native plants and completely take over moist to
81
Large landslide on Moorea Island, Tahiti
Photo courtesy of Jean Yves-Meyer
82
Large stand of Miconia on Big Island
Photo courtesy of BIISC
The underside of a Miconia leaf with its distinct purple color
wet forest. A full sized tree can produce 50-200+ clusters of inflorescences (flowers)
each consisting of 1,000 to 3,000 pinkish-white flowers. This species can grow rapidly
up to 1-meter (3 feet) per-year. It can grow from seed to mature seedling tree in three
to four years (depending on climate) and a single mature tree can produce some
3 million sand-grained sized seeds, several times per year. Seed viability of this species
is incredibly long and there is no doubt that seedling recruitment in Wao Kele O Puna
will be challenging in the near future. On average, those controlling Miconia can expect
to return to treated sites to monitor seedling recruitment every 18-months for a period
no less than 10-years. It was thought that seed viability averaged 10 years, however,
recent research in Tahiti has since upped seed viability to 25 to if not more
(Unpublished data and per.com. Jean-Yves Meyer). Nutrient changes in its understory
83
prevent native species from establishing especially when a dense canopy of Miconia
blocks sunlight from reaching the forest floor.
Miconia was found in the Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve in September of 2006 when
helicopter pilot David Okita reported seeing a population fairly close to the Kopua Farm
Lot subdivision while conducting marijuana eradication efforts for the State. Upon
review, this population was found to be outside of the control area maintained by the Big
Island Invasive Species Committee (henceforth known as BIISC) and at least 1200
meters southwest of the containment perimeter. BIISC identified this population as a
priority control site, but due to difficult terrain, recalcitrant property owners along the
border limiting staff access to the site and the distance to the work site from the ground,
BIISC utilized aerial control methods with the intent to kill all adult and/or flowering
trees. Three (3) aerial and control operations were initiated in October of 2007 and
December of 2007. During this period BIISC worked on securing access into the area
through a private road access point owned by the Community Association of the Kopua
Farm Lot subdivision. As mentioned previously, this turned out to be a prolonged and
difficult task. Initial aerial surveys indicated a population of approximately 2 acres.
However, once staff was able to get on the ground, the population was found to much
more extensive with the primary population spread throughout an estimated 15.2 acres.
Staff was able to treat 396 mature plants, and 6 immature plants. By November of
2008, the primary population had been knocked back significantly. The initial 2007
control effort cost a little over $16,000 covered by funds from the Hawaii Invasive
Species Council (HISC) and Hilo’s Division of Forestry. However, standard operating
procedures, employed by BIISC to control this species requires that monitoring surveys
be expanded to no less than 500 meters beyond “each” flowering plant individual or
cluster of flowering plants. This is the estimated distance of seed dispersal by wind.
This tactic greatly increases the survey and control area as well as the cost to maintain
operations. Since control cost, were expected to increase BIISC requested and
received additional funding from OHA funds held within DLNR administrative offices in
Honolulu. At the time, the program was being administered by State Foresters in the
DLNR headquarters in Honolulu while OHA and the DLNR searched for a full-time Wao
84
Kele O Puna Coordinator. BIISC was able to conduct field operations in three phases
with additional funding.
Utilizing aerial control for large plants works well, but for smaller plants that could be
hiding in forest under-story or in dense thickets of uluhe, requires on the ground staffing
systematically surveying. Ground crews line up no more than three feet apart
(depending on the density of the area) and conduct survey sweeps back and forth
across a pre-determined area. This provides a buffer-zone to the primary infestation.
This tactic has proven extremely effective, not only for Miconia but for other invasive
species.
By 2009, the survey and control area expanded to 120 acres. Aerial surveys
during this period expanded the buffer-zone by an additional 85 acres. By 2011, the
survey and control area expanded to a total of 195 acres with a buffer-zone totaling 459
acres (Fig. 11).
Unfortunately, the project came to a screeching halt in late 2011 through early 2012
when BIISC encountered difficulties in accessing the control area. Funding was limited
to ground access by this time, and BIISC continued to encounter difficult and, at times,
recalcitrant community members in the access area, leading to damaged vehicles and a
more serious threat of booby-traps along the temporary trail leading to the work site.
Staff was immediately pulled out for safety reasons and DLNR initiated re-negotiation
for access with community members and its association while enforcement
investigations ensued by DOCARE and HPD. Though re-negotiating terms turned out
to be an unanticipated prolonged period of time (6 months), access terms were reached
amicably with all parties and the project did not encounter any further problems.
By the third phase in 2013, the project completed 95% of the anticipated survey area,
225 acres total, finding and treating an additional 2 mature and 15 immature plants.
This may sound minuscule compared to the amount of effort that went into finding these
17 plants, but considering that one adult plant can disperse up to 3 million seeds, 3 to 4
times per year, the effort is required to keep this species from spreading. Also during
Phase 3, BIISC monitored the core infestation area and found large areas of seedlings
85
carpeting the area, which they manually sprayed using back-pack sprayers. This was
anticipated given the number of adult trees initially treated in 2006 and 2007. As
mentioned, standard protocol for monitoring is to regularly return to the treatment site
every 18-months, if possible, to deal with the seed recruitment for a period of no less
than 10-years, again if possible. This would drastically reduce the possibility of reestablishment of the population in Wao Kele O Puna. It would be prudent of OHA to
revisit the site by March of 2014 to monitor for potential seedling recruitment. It is
highly recommended that OHA work with partners, particularly the invasive species
committees, who have the expertise in planning field operations, analyzing data that is
part of a State wide data initiative developed with assistance from the Hawaii Invasive
Species Council, DLNR, and the USGS/Pacific Basin Information Node (PBIN), and
utilizes standard protocols for any invasive species campaign. This is imperative to
maintaining efforts that began in 2007.
There are two primary recommendations provided here based on Fig. 11 showing the
map of the Miconia control area which outlines buffer zone areas. These are as follows:
1. Approximately 5% of the “core” infestation area (outlined in a red circle) has not been
completed, and should be completed as soon as possible. BIISC was initially
contracted to complete this section in fiscal 2014, but the project has since been
terminated by OHA, and DLNR would urge OHA to set this as a priority to complete the
surveys in the core infestation region. Given the large number of seedlings found within
the core area (purple dots) in early 2013, the strategy would be to determine if any
potential flowering plants might be found within this 5% un-surveyed area to limit the
spread outside of the primary contained buffer zone (red circle).
2. Surveys should be expanded in the buffer zone outlined in blue, prioritizing areas where
known adult flowing trees were removed (purple dots). The expanded surveys should
be no less than 500 meters in all directions of the last known flowing adult.
These recommendations will provide a defined large containment field of the known
population of Miconia in Wao Kele O Puna.
86
This particular population of Miconia in Wao Kele O Puna likely came from an
abandoned nursery in the Kopua Farm Lot area which is the closest known population
of Miconia in the area. The nursery is nearly a mile away. BIISC will continue to
monitor the nursery site for seedling recruitment (depending on funding), but unless
other wised agreed upon will not expand control to Wao Kele O Puna. There is also
evidence that indicated an old marijuana cultivation site in the core area, with old grow
bags (since destroyed). It could be speculated that the medium used in this cultivation
could have contained Miconia seeds, or unwittingly passed on in clothing or shoes worn
by individuals passing through the area and into the forest from an infested area, or bird
or pig dispersal from fecal droppings. Population establishment could have come from
multitude of scenarios.
87
Fig. 11: Miconia map of control area in Wao Kele O Puna courtesy of BIISC
Note: It is recommended that the remaining 5% of the un-surveyed area (red-circle) be completed
88
V.1.2 Strawberry Guava
Hyperspectral analysis of Wao Kele O Puna, indicate that approximately 5,000 acres of
dense strawberry guava are in the reserve. However, less than 10% of the total overall
population have densities of 95% cover or more. Most of the strawberry guava
populations are intermixed with native and non-native plant species as shown in Fig. 12,
from the State HI-GAP database in the State GIS system, cross referenced from LIDAR
imaging and hyperspectral analysis by Dr. Greg Asner (Carnegie Airborne Observatory
and Stanford University).
Fig. 12 Vegetation Data in Wao Kele O Puna (Courtesy Dr. Greg Asner 2013)
89
A highly invasive plant species, and habitat-altering pest, it poses a major threat to
native forest ecosystems. If forms shade-casting thickets with dense mats of surface
feeder roots that make it difficult for other species to coexist. It is a prolific fruiting and
aggressive vegetative growth species, which can displace entire plant communities in a
relatively short period of time. Erosion is a serious threat in dense thickest where
surface run off will diminish top soil. In addition, this run off prevents water from
draining into potential aquifers (Tom Giamballuca per.com.).
Stawberry guava in Wao Kele O Puna
Densities in this area near Lee Ranch are estimated at 30% - 40% cover
Strawberry Guava Fruit: A prolific
fruiting species spread by birds and
pigs in particular throughout Wao Kele
O Puna.
90
A hardy plant, it is very difficult and extremely expensive to control. Cost is a significant
factor in managing this species and in 2003 the Big Island Invasive Species Committee
worked with an economics team from the University of Florida to evaluate the cost of
controlling strawberry guava in east Hawaii conservation areas, including Wao Kele O
Puna. Data from various entities, including DLNR, BIISC, Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park Service, Kamehameha Schools (Forest Solutions LLC.), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the U.S. Forest Service were used in the analysis. The following is the
report in its entirety:
Estimating the Cost of Controlling Strawberry Guava in East Hawaii Conservation Areas
Assumptions
Labor costs are estimated at $15 per hour plus benefits for $200 per worker day
91
Based on consultation with various conservation agencies and organizations, we conservatively
estimate dense infestations to take about 50 worker days per acre and incipient invasions
(scattered trees) to take about one worker day per acre
Control methods include cutting all stems of Strawberry Guava and applying herbicide to
prevent resprouting. Control of the numerous seedlings and any subsequent growth would
occur during a secondary sweep of each control area.
Because only a few areas are easily accessible by road, we considered extra costs associated
with work in more remote areas. Away from roads, workers would need to carry equipment
through dense vegetation and over rugged terrain. Areas more than 0.5 km (0.3 miles) require
extra time for work crews to access and therefore a higher cost per acre. Areas more than 2.5
km (1.5 miles) are too remote to work on a day by day basis (too much time would be spent
getting to and from access points along roads); therefore these areas would require work crews
to camp and would likely involve helicopter transport for equipment and camping gear.
Costs were broken down according to the severity of the infestation and the distance from
roads (see Tables 1 and 2). Maps of these attributes were combined in a Geographic
Information System (GIS) in order to determine how much area has a given combination of
characteristics (see Maps 1, 2, and 3).
Estimated Costs
Incipient Invasions
Near roads: 31,600 acres × $250/acre = $7,900,000
Moderate Distance: 86,800 acres × $3,250/acre = $282,100,000
Remote: 61,300 acres × $4,250/acre = $260,525,000
Dense Infestations
Near roads: 9,200 acres × $10,500/acre = $96,000,000
Moderate Distance: 11,900 acres × $15,500/acre = $184,450,000
Remote: 2,700 acres × $16,500/acre = $44,550,000
Total Cost: $876,125,000
Additional Considerations
While removal of Strawberry Guava for biomass fuel or material uses has been proposed as a
way to defray the cost of control, this would only be feasible in areas close to roads (a small
fraction of the total area). Removal of large amounts of biomass from remote areas would only
be possible by helicopter which would add far more cost than any potential value gained.
92
Building of additional roads for access is not considered feasible due to added costs and the
legal limitations of road construction in areas zoned for conservation or designated as
endangered species habitat.
Because Strawberry Guava produces numerous seeds, a secondary sweep (after perhaps one
year) of each treated are would be necessary to control seedlings. This would likely incur a cost
similar to that for incipient invasion across the entire region (estimated at about $60,000,000
total for the secondary sweep). Continued dispersal from non-controlled areas may require
additional sweeps near the boundaries of controlled areas, adding an unknown cost.
Considering the costs outlined here, a more realistic scenario might involve selecting those
habitats harboring the largest concentrations of rare native species. Control of Strawberry
Guava in only 5% of conservation areas (about 10,000 acres) and only in areas with incipient
invasion would reduce the cost to about $30,000,000 not including secondary sweep cost.
Table 1. Cost per Acre for Control of Incipient Invasion
Close to roads
(within 0.3 mi or
0.5 km)
Walking distance
from roads (.5-2.5
km or 0.3-1.5 mi)
Remote/Helicopter
<2.5 km/1.5 mi
Labor
1 worker day * $200/day
= $200
Equipment
$50
Additional
0
Total
$250
16 worker days *
$200/day = $3,200
$50
0
$3,250
16 worker days *
$200/day = $3,200
$50
$1000
$4,250
Table 2. Cost per Acre for Control of Dense Infestation
Close to roads
(within 0.3 mi or
0.5 km)
Walking distance
from (.5-2.5 km or
0.3-1.5 mi)
Remote/Helicopter
<2.5 km/1.5 mi
Labor
50 worker days *
$200/day = $10,000
Equipment
$500
Additional
0
Total
$10,500
75 worker days *
$200/day = $15,000
$500
0
15,500
75 worker days *
$200/day = $15,000
$500
$1000
16,500
93
Map 1. Strawberry Guava in East Hawaii Conservation Areas. Dense infestations were mapped using
satellite imagery. Recorded locations include extensive fieldwork and indicate areas where the species
occurs but was not visible in satellite imagery. The entire area either partially or potentially invaded by
Strawberry Guava was estimated based on rainfall, elevation and lava flow age.
94
Map 2. Distance from Roads in East Hawaii Conservation Areas. A Geographic Information System (GIS)
was used to calculate the distance from each given location to the nearest road.
95
Map 3. Cost Zones for Control of Strawberry Guava within East Hawaii Conservation Areas. Control
cost is a function of both the severity of infestation and the distance from the nearest road. Costs given
in the legend reflect estimates outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
96
The report is only an estimation to manually control strawberry guava in east Hawaii
extrapolated from known data banks from multiple agencies and sources. Similar
estimations can be done directly for Wao Kele O Puna, but any way you look at it, the
cost to control this species will be significant. New chemical application treatments
appear to work and may help in reducing some cost, but dealing with remote
populations will be especially costly. Utilizing bio-control should be considered in this
case.
Bio-control has been suggested for Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve using a known
natural enemy of strawberry guava, the gall-forming scale insect (Tectococcus ovatus).
This is a recommendation to consider, and will be discussed later in this report under
management recommendations.
V.1.3 Albezzia spp.
The large umbrella like tree species, Albezzia is highly invasive. Populations in Wao
Kele O Puna are considered low enough for complete eradication efforts. BIISC, in its
efforts to control Miconia, simultaneously controlled Albezzia, using aerial control
girdling techniques by hand. By mid-2012 all of the large trees in the remote areas of
the reserve were killed. In 2013, BIISC crews with assistance from staff from U.S.
Forest Service began an intensive control effort on the exterior boundaries of the
reserve, particularly in the southwestern section of the reserve. This effort has since
been halted by OHA, and it is recommended that OHA continue the eradication effort to
limit the spread of Albezzia into the reserve. Controlling Albezzia on the perimeter of the
reserve is imperative to keep this species from re-establishing in the reserve.
97
Albezzia (light green) in Wao Kele O Puna
V.2 Wildfire and Disease
Wildfire is detrimental to most native species, since most do not recover from fires.
Ohi’a is extremely sensitive to intense heat generated by fires, but can regenerate from
its root base if the fire intensity is very low, but will likely die at higher intensities
(Tunison, Leialoha, Loh). Three native species in particular, Koa (Acacia koa), mamane
(Sophora chrysophylla), and a’ali’I (Dodonaea spp.), tend to recover better as seedlings
tend to reproduce shortly following a fire, especially a’ali’i (Tunison and Leialoha).
Ulehe can pose an extreme fire hazard to Wao Kele O Puna as will invasive grasses,
particularly bushbeard and molasses grass. Uluhe poses an additional threat as this
98
species can allow fire to run through its underground root system, allowing fires to pop
up outside of contained fire line.
Uluhe does not recover well and will likely be
displaced by invasive grasses. Based on fire documentation collected by the National
Park Service in 1987 for the east rift zone area (Leialoha and Loh unpublished) no
known fires have taken place historically in the Wao Kele O Puna area. However,
smaller fires usually spread out from the base of a tree hit by lightening have been
documented in the Kahau’ale’a Natural Area Reserve, but none reported in Wao Kele O
Puna. These are usually indicated by circular burn patterns in a small space around the
affected tree (Tunison and Leialoha). There have been fires caused by intruding lava
flows in the reserve, but these have never grown to become large uncontrollable fires.
They tend to be restricted to the immediate area of the flow site.
Disease however, is a different story. Certain rust species such as Puccinia psidii, are
known to severely impact members of the Myrtaceae, which include the native ‘ohi’a.
‘Ohi’a
(Metrosideros polymorpha) could be decimated by this infestation that has
recently also decimated rose-apple trees across lower Puna (albeit they are considered
invasive. Land managers have been watching for potential signs of outbreaks in ‘ohi’a
forest. There has been a recent die-back of ‘ohi’a across the lower section of Puna,
particularly around the Pahoa area, Nanawale and Leilani Sub-divisions just below Wao
Kele O Puna. Recent aerial surveys conducted by the U.S. Forest Service have found
large patches of dead or dying ‘ohi’a trees, but it is yet unclear if this is a naturally
occurring phenomenon (‘ohi’a die-back) or if this is caused by Puccinia or some other
unknown pathogen. OHA managers will need to be diligent here in keeping an eye for
any unusual die-back patterns and address them immediately and report occurrences
directly to the Hilo based U.S. Forestry office.
Introduced diseases and pathogens threaten native animals and plants. Given the lack
of bio-security in Hawai‘i, the introduction of new diseases and pathogens is highly
likely.
99
V.3 Climate Change
Climate change may affect the reserve by altering rainfall patterns and amounts.
Changing climate may affect the abundance and seasonality of precipitation, thereby
altering forest composition, growth and structure. Rare ecosystems and species
may be negatively affected by relatively rapid changes in precipitation, temperature,
and humidity that result from a rapid and drastic change in regional or local climate
patterns (e.g. prolonged drought, higher temperatures). Detrimental invasive
species may change their distribution and abundance due to changes in the climate
(e.g. mosquitoes may be more frequently found at higher elevations due to warming
temperatures).
V.4 Volcanic Activity
The on-going Kilauea eruption poses a threat to the entire reserve. Fingers of lava
have intruded into the reserve since 1986, with the most recent being in 2012.
There is no end to the eruptive phases at either Pu’u O’o vent or the Kilauea caldera
summit regions and the reserve can anticipate being affected by volcanic activity as
well as high levels of sulpher-dioxide (SO2) which can cause breathing difficulties
among other ailments to those sensitive to SO2. DLNR maintains continuous
contact with the Hawaii Volcanoes Observatory (HVO) on any potential changes to
the eruption and the State Department of Health has a website in which anyone can
check on SO2 emissions across the Big Island. Field workers in the area will often
carry portable SO2 meters to monitor effects. HVO has requested to place
monitoring equipment in Wao Kele O Puna. It is recommended that OHA pursue
this with HVO Chief Scientist Jim Kauaikaua and allow a permit to place monitoring
equipment in the reserve. This will assist in monitoring current flow events as well
as assist in the protection of life and property in the lower Puna area.
100
V.5 Illegal Human Activity
The most prevalent of illegal human activity in Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is
marijuana cultivation, particularly along sub-division boundaries in the upper Puna
regions. It has not been as prolific recently as it was in the 1980’s and 1990’s when
large scale cultivation sites were found, but smaller planting sites still remains a
constant threat. Cultivation in natural areas can alter plant communities and the
potential for booby-traps to protect plants are always there. DOCARE continues to
monitor this area for potential cultivation and removes them when they can. Field
crews have come across plants, and are instructed to leave them alone. The use of
fertilizers can be problematic for seed feeding birds in particular. Nene geese have
been known to have died or sickened from ingesting fertilizer. Currently staff will
report any illegal cultivation directly to DOCARE as long as the reserve remains
under Forest Reserve Statutes. In 2013, DLNR received a report of a potential
cultivation site in the reserve, however it was determined to be an old abandoned
cultivation site located directly outside of the reserve on DLNR/Land Division leasehold property. No action was required.
The only other issue would be recreational hunting violations, usually from
unregistered firearms or expired hunting license. This is also currently monitored by
DOCARE, and no citations have been issued as of yet in 2013.
VI Management Goals and Objectives
Forest Reserves are multi-use areas that encompass and incorporate a variety of
public uses and benefits, from fresh water supply to recreation. Each Forest Reserve
within the system has differing goals depending on the nature of the resources found
within it. DOFAW manages the Forest Reserves individually for their unique
resources as well as provides an overall management philosophy for the entire Forest
Reserve System, in keeping with the rules it must abide by. OHA will need to
determine its strategy based on its own management philosophy for Wao Kele O
101
Puna. It is recommended that OHA develop a strategic plan specifically for Wao
Kele O Puna to identify management goals and objectives. As an example for
DLNR, categories of broad management action within the Forest Reserve System
include:
Watershed Values (aquifer recharge and erosion control)
Native Ecosystems (landscape level protection)
Invasive Species Control (incipient and established plants and animals)
Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species Management (Federally listed,
State listed, and rare plants and animals)
Public Activity (non-income generating uses, such as recreation, cultural
activities, personal gathering, educational or research activities, and events,
among others)
Resource Protection (fire, insects, and disease)
Game Animal Management (areas managed to enhance public access for
hunting game birds and mammals)
Commercial Activity (income generating activities such as timber, tours,
etc.)
From these broad management action categories, specific management goals
for Wao Kele O Puna should be determined. Creating specific guidelines
(examples can be found in any DLNR Forest Reserve Management Plan
accessible online), that guide management efforts.
VII Recommendations
The following is a recommended list of goals which are prioritized for Wao Kele
O Puna:
I. Create a coordinated strategic plan specifically for Wao Kele O Puna that
would encompass the long-term vision and philosophy of OHA to guide
management goals and objective.
II. Native Ecosystems: Maintain native ecosystems and rare and
endangered species. Expand surveys across the reserve to identify high
102
value natural resource sites that include rare and endangered species.
Consider fencing, pig and invasive species eradication (including black
rats) in these sites to maintain native habitat intactness, especially if rare
and endangered plant species are found. Work with partner agencies
like USGS/BRD to re-survey for forest bird richness, it has been 20 years
since the last surveys were conducted.
III. Invasive Species: Maintain management levels through 2017 to continue
monitoring and control efforts of Miconia and Albezzia. A huge effort
went into eradication of both of these species, but maintenance at this
point is a priority to prevent re-infestation. For strawberry guava,
consider if using bio-control by releasing Tectocaccus in area of dense
and remote strawberry guava areas, is an option to limit if not, contain
the continuous spread of this species in the reserve. The newly-hatched
nymphs of this scale insect, crawl to young strawberry guava leaves,
triggering the plant to form tissue around the nymph. These tissue lumps
are called “galls”, and they reduce plant vigor by diverting resources
normally used for plant growth and reproduction. Strawberry guava is the
only plant in Hawai‘i that this insect is able to feed and make galls on.
This is a cost consideration factor in addition to potential manual removal
at “selective” sites, especially extremely remote areas like those found in
Wao Kele O Puna. OHA should maintain or create partnerships with
agencies how have the expertise to assist in control operations of
invasive species (including Coordinating Groups on Alien Pest Species
(CGAPS), BIISC, HISC, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Park Service, UH-PCSU and DLNR et.al.). An
enormous amount of effort has already gone into many of these control
efforts so OHA will not have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to
invasive species.
IV. Public access: Work toward finding alternative access points into the
reserve, particularly in the upper Puna area. Consider purchasing a
parcel that butts up to the reserve. It is imperative to maintain a good
103
working relationship with surrounding communities.
V. Actions: There are no recommended actions at this time as OHA has yet
to develop administrative rules for Wao Kele O Puna. Additional actions
which could, and should include game management, fencing of identified
high priority areas to protect rare and endangered species, cave
management and the protection of cultural resources to name a few. It is
imperative that OHA maintain partnerships to assist in managing the
reserve. Collaborative initiatives such as the Three Mountain Alliance
Watershed Partnerships are crucial to maintain to assist in the
management of Wao Kele O Puna. OHA has yet to formalize this
inclusion into the partnership as of August 2013.
VI. Management Actions and Measures of Success: Once a strategic plan is
developed, management actions need to be determined to meet a direct
goal. Once initiated pre-determined measurements to gauge success of
these management actions/goals should be outlined. These could be
anything from acres cleared of a specific invasive plant species, to
number of pigs removed from a fenced unit. Basically any type of
measurement to determine program success rates.
VIII Bibliography
Ainley, D.G. and R. Podolsky 1993: Kauai Seabird Study Task 2 – Ecological Study,
Final Report prepared for Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, by PRBO
International Biological Research, Stintson Beach, CA. 35 pp.
Aplet, G. H., S.J. Anderson, and C.P. Stone. 1991. Association between feral
pig disturbance and the composition of some alien plant assemblages in Hawai‘i
Volcanoes National Park. Vegetation 95: 55-62.
Bonaccorso, Frank & Corinna Pinzari -Hawaiian Hoary Bat Project United States
Geological Survey, P.O. Box 44, Hawaii National Park, HI, 96718 Unpublished
Cuddihy, Linda and C.P. Stone. 1990. Alteration of native Hawaiian vegetation;
Effects of humans, their activities and introductions. University of Hawai‘i Cooperative
National Park Resources Studies Unit. Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 138 pp.
104
Conant, S 1980 Birds of the Kalapana Extension. CPSU/UH Tech. Rep. No. 36
Diong, G.H. 1983 Population Ecolocy and Mangement of the Feral Pig in Kipahulu
Valley, Maui PH.D Diss., University of Hawaii, Honolulu
Druecher, Michael, Pow-foong Fan 1976: Hydrology and Chemistry of Ground Water in
Puna, Hawaii
Forbes, C.N. 1912 New Hawaiian Plants III. Plant invasion on lava flows. B.P. Bishop
Museum Occasional Paper V (1). Honolulu
Giffen, John – Retired DLNR/DOFAW Hilo Manager
Giambelluca, T. W., M. A. Nullet, and T. A. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall Atlas of
Hawai‘i. Water Resources Research Center/Department of Meteorology,
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. State of Hawai‘i, DLNR, Division of Water and
Land Development, Report R76. Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Harrison, C.S. 1990 Seabirds of Hawaii: natural history and conservation. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, New York 249 pp.
Hoc H, Frank Howarth 1993 – Evolutionary dynamics of behavioral divergence among
populations of the Hawaiian cave dwelling planthopper Oliarus polyphemus. Pac. Sci.
Holcomb, R.T. 1987 Eruptive history and long term behavior of Kilauea Volcano: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1350, v.1., p. 261-350
Howarth, Frank G. 1983 Ecology of cave arthropods. Ann Rev Entomol 28:365-389
Howarth, Frank G. 1988 The evolution of non-relictual tropical troglobites. Intl J
Speleololgy 16:1-16
Howarth, Frank G. 1991 hawaiian cave faunas: macroevolution on oung islands. In:
Dudley EC (ed) The unity of evolutionary biology, vol. 1. Dioscorides Press, Portland,
OR. Pp 285-295
Howarth, Frank G., H. Hoch 2004 Adaptive shirts. In: Culver DC White WB (eds)
Encyclopedia of caves. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA. Pp 17-24
Howarth, Frank G., Shelley james, Wendy McDowell, David J. Preston and Clyde T.
Imada 2007 White paper – Identificatin of roots in lava tubes using molecular
techniques: implications for conservation of cave arthropod faunas
Judd, C.S. 1919 Report to the Governor on Forest Reserves
105
Lamoureux, Charles H., Winona P. Char, et.al. Department of Botany University of
Hawaii at Manoa April 1985 Final Report: “Puna Geothermal Area Biotic Assessment”
Leialoha, Julie – Historical Fires at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and Kilauea’s East
Rift – Hawaii Conservation Conference 1989
Macdonald, G.A and A.T. Abbott 1970 Volcanoes in the Sea. University Press of
Hawaii, Honolulu p. 441
Moore J.G. and Clague, D.A. 1992 Volcano growth and evolution of the island of
Hawaii: Geological Society of America Bulletin v.104 no. 11 p. 1471-1484
Office of the Governor December 22, 1928 Proclamation of Modification of Boundaries
of the Forest Reserve District of Puna Island (sic) and County of Hawaii Territory of
Hawaii. (Note: There is some discrepancy in the documentation as the Puna Forest
Reserve was considered a part of the Forest Reserve System in 1911, the proclamation
signed in 1928 included both Nanawale forest Reserve and Puna Forest Reserve which
actually expanded both reserves. Prior to 1928, both the Nanawale and Puna Forest
Reserve were identified as the “Puna Forest Reserve”, the 1928 proclamation appeared
to distinguish between two “separated” reserves. References to both can be found in
boundary descriptions in Executive Order 3358 and Executive Order 3069. [Jonathan
Likeke Scheuer from Davianna McGregor 2006])
Pratt, Thane K., Carter Atkinson, Paul C. Banko, James D. Jacobi, Bethany L.
Woodworth 2009 Conservation Biology of Hawaiian Forest Birds: Implications for Island
Avifauna
Proclamantion of Forest Reserve in The District of Puna Island and County of Hawaii
(Office of the Governor of Hawaii, June 29, 1911).
Proclamation of Modifications of Boundaries Of The Forest Reserve District of Punaa
Island and County of Hawaii Territory of Hawaii (Office of the Governor of Hawaii,
December 22, 1928)
Reynolds, Michelle H.; Richard J. Camp, Bonnie M.B. Nielson 2003 “Evidence of
change in a low-elevation forest bird community of Hawai’I since 1979” Bird
Conservation International 13:175-187 DOI: 10.1017/S0959270903003149
Reynolds, Michelle and George L. Ritthotte 1997: Evidence of Newell’s Shearwater
Breeding in Puna District, Hawaii
Scheuer, Jonathan Likeke 2006 Internal Memo Office of Hawaiian Affairs
“The Current Designation of Wao Kele O Puna parcels TMK: 1-2-10:02 and TMK: 1-210:3
106
Snetsinger, T.J., Michelle H. Reynolds, C.M. Herrmann 1998 ‘O’u (Psittirostra
psittaccea) and Lana;I Hookbill (Dysmorodrepepanis munroi). The birds of North
America Philadelphia, PA: The birds of North America
Scholl, Ingerbritsen, Janick, Kauahikaua 1995: An Isotope Hydrology Study of the
Kilauea Volcano Area, Hawaii
Singer, F.J. 1981 Wild pig poulations in the National Parks. Environmental
management 51 (3): 263-270
Stone, Charles P. 1984 Alien Animals in hawaii’e Native Exosystems: Toward
Controlling the Adverse Effects of Introduced Vertebrates - Hawaii’s Terrestrial
Ecosystems: Preservation and Management pp.251
Stone, Fred, Frank Howarth, H. Hoch, M Asche 2004 – Root communities in lava tubes.
In: Culver DC, White WB (eds) Encyclopedia of caves. Elsevier Academic Press,
Burlington, MA. Pp 477-484
Tunison, Tim J., Julie Leialoha – Lightening Strikes in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park,
Changes in Forest Ecosystems PCSU-Tech Report
Tunison, Tim J., Julie Leialoha, Rhonda Loh – Fire and Changes in Forest Ecosystems:
Hawaii Botanical Society
Tummons, Patricia Hawaii Environment August 2004
Vanderwerf, E.A. 1998 Elepaio (chsiempsis sandwichensis). The birds of North
America. Philadelphia, PA: The birds of North America
Wakida, Charlie – Retired DLNR/DOFAW Hilo Manager
Wolf, Edward G. and Jean Morris 2005 Geologic Map of Hawaii Island: U.S. Geological
Survey DS144 accompanying map 1-2524-A. On the web: pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/144
(note: Report accompanies both Map I-2525-A, but referenced here, in relationship to
Geologic Investigations Series I-2614 2006 by Frank A. Trusdell and Richard B. Moore).
U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973 – Soil Survey of Hawaii Island, Hawaii Series in
cooperation with the University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station (note: 2013
currently found in NRCS website at
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/manuscripts/HI801/0/hawaii.pdf)
Van Riper, Sandra and Charles van Riper III 1984 A summary of Known Parasites and
Diseased Recorded from the Avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands: Hawaii’s Terrestril
Ecosystems Preservation and management pp. 298
107
IX APPENDICES
A.
Internal OHA Memo of Wao Kele O Puna Land Designation
B.
Pacific Ecosystems Assessment Services LLC.: Interim Report on Field Study of
Vegetation Composition in Wao Kele O Puna Reserve, Puna District, Hawaii
C.
Ecomomic Analyis
108
109