HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0258.040 1996-1998
Hawaii orestry and -mmunities Initiative
HFCI Executive Council Forestry Presentation
to the n ~ ~ , ~ ~
Hawaii County Council 1, .
August 18,19971:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Forestry in Hawaii -From the Ground Uv
The Hawaii Forestry and Communities Initiative -overview and insieht (15 mins.)
Mike Wilson, Director -Department of Land and Natural Resources
(HFCI Program, Best Management Practices, Forest Research, Sustainable Forestry)
Comni,uiity Based Economic Development and its Role in Forestry (5 mins.)
Brad Mossman, Deputy Director, Dept. of Business Economic Development and
Tourism
(the CBED program)
Hieh~
er r Wages and Employment Throug Forestry (5 rains.)
Lorraine Akiba, Director, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
(Workforce Development and Education)
International Tropical Forestry and Hawaii's Role (5 rains.)
Leonard Newell, Pacific Islands Forester, USDA Forest Service
(Demands on Tropical Forests, Groome Poyry Report, Hawaii s Opportunities)
BREAK FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
The Yast and Presence of Forestry in Hawaii
A Brief History of Forest Management on the ~g Island (5 rains.)
Mike Robinson, Coordinator, Hawaii Forestry and Communities Initiative
(Ahupua'a, Sandalwood, Feral Animals, Watershed Protection, Shifts in Value)
Planning for Modem Forestry -the 60's to the 90's (20 rains.)
Brad Mossman, Deputy Director, Dept. of Business Economic Development and
Tourism
(Plantations, Eucalyptus Research, Demise of Sugar, Hilo/Hamakua Coast analysis)
Earl Yamamoto, Planner, Department of Agriculture
(map presentation, land uses)
Trees as an Ascot -Technical Elements of Forestry (15 rains.)
Leonard Newell, Pacific Islands Forester, USDA Forest Service
(Soil Retention, Aquifer Recharge, Climate Moderation, Multiple Values)
Forestry for the Hilo/Hamakua Community (15 rains.)
Lorraine Akiba, Director, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
(New Companies/Employment, On-the-Job Training, Local Contractor Assistance)
Forestry Contractors in the Hamakua Coast area 2 S '~D
liuar Yu
lfb I~R /
~Prosentsd ySEp c
Drre AUG 18 t997
~ Hawaii F vestry and Communities _ nitiative
4. O• ry^ Department of Land and Natural Resources
Benjamin J. Cayetano . Depar[ment of Labor and Industrial Rela[ions
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
Governor of Hawaii Department of Business Economic
4 Development & Tourism
Department of Agriculture
~a..~,ps' USDA Fores[ Service
USDA Rural Development
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Hawaii Forestry and Communities Initiative (HFCI) is a coalition of people and
organizations interested in community-based economic development and
diversification. HFCI is built on four fundamental principles:
• healthy sustainable forests
• economic development and diversity through forestry
• land stewazdship that is responsive to people's values
• community partnerships
In 1991, the forest industry in Hawaii contributed $28.9 million and at least 803 jobs to Hawaii's economy while
using less than 1 million boazd feet of wood. Its payroll exceeded $21 million and the average wage was over
$14.00 per hotu. Over 75% of this industry is dependent on the sale and value-added processing of a single tree
species, the native koa (Acacia koa). Koa is a world class wood that has not yet reached its mazketing
potential, yet it is a limited resource that takes time to grow. Other high value, non-native hazdwoods found
throughout Hawaii aze more widely available. Finding ways to expand the successful koa industry while
developing mazkets for these high value, non-native hazdwoods ace two of HFCI's primary challenges.
Investment is needed for the koa tree to survive as a prime contributor to both Hawaii's environment and
economy. Science and policy which allows for the reforestation, management, protection, and continued use of
koa as a commercial species must be aggressively pursued. Other tree species commonly found in Hawaii need
similaz efforts if economic development and diversity is to occur. Educational curricula must be developed
which not only teach land managers about sustainable forestry practices, but which also educate Hawati's
youth and forest communities. Community values aze to be recognized and accommodated. Public input and
participation is needed to implement truly sustainable forestry initiatives. Hawaii should build upon the
strength of community interest in forestry by forging partnerships and leveraging assets to accomplish its goals.
The Hawaii Forestry and Communities Initiative (HFCI) outlines strategic management objectives that will be
used to complement the July 1994, Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Action Plan. This action plan stimulated a
large public outreach effort to address issues affecting Hawaii's Forest resources. Several hundred people
contributed time and effort to make the plan reflective of public values in Hawaii. A Governor s forestry
conference was concluded in January 1997 to develop projects for protecting and sustaining Hawati's forest
resources and industry.
From these and other efforts, sixteen projects have been funded for HFCI's first yeaz. Senator Daniel K. Inouye,
via the USDA Forest Service, has provided a $500,000 Rural Development grant to implement HFCI. Matched
by $250,000 from the Hawaii Legislature, and $400,000 from other sources such as government agencies, non-
profit organizations, and private businesses, HFCI has begun the process of developing the partnerships
necessary for success.
For more information please contact Mike Robinson, HFCI Coordinator at (808) 974-4221 Fax: (808) 974-4226 email: merobi®tulo.net
Hawaii Fo-~stry and Communities Initia+' •e (HFCI)
The Hawaii Forestry and Communities Initiative has the following first year goals:
1. Establish an extension forestry program in Hawaii.
2. Increase service forestry capabilities on the Big Island.
3. Provide for a Hawaii Forestry Newsletter, an Annual Forestry Symposium, and the
"Woods of Hawaii' marketing show.
4. Provide basic business skills training to entrepreneurs and contractors interested in
developing and servicing forestry projects.
5. Merge State School-To-Work efforts with the forest industry sector via youth pre-
apprenticeship training to expose students to forest industry career opportunities.
6. Establish demonstration forests that are managed under the best economic and
scientific principles, to refine and demonstrate methods of sustainable forest
management.
7. Establish a community forestry training center in Hawaii as a focal point for
involving communities in project activities.
8. Plan forestry and natural resource education programs to support the development
of a locally educated forestry workforce.
9. Inventory State forest lands on a priority basis to determine their condition,
resources, and needs for enhancement via management.
10. Review State policies for leasing state lands to stimulate value-added forestry.
11. Complete the development of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs).
12. Complete the Division of Forestry & Wildlife's management resource classification
of public forest reserve lands.
13. Expand marketing and promotion programs for value-added koa and other
hardwood products.
14. Contribute to the creation of apro-business climate by identifying and augmenting
positive assets of Hawaii which would encourage wood product manufacturers to
locate here. Simultaneously identify negative elements which deter businesses and,
if appropriate, mitigate them.
15. Identify and publicize sources of capital for forest-based businesses in Hawaii.
16. Co-fund research on the selection, improvement, and management of Acacia koa.
For more information please contact Mike Robinson, HFCI Coordinator at (808) 974221 Fax: (808) 974-4226 email: merobi®hilo.net
Hawaii's Forest Industry as a
Viable Agricultural Commodity
The 1991 value of Hawaii s forest industry was reported in the November, 1993
Governor's Agricultural Coordinating Committee Report (GACC) entitled "Hawaii s
Forests: An Inventory and Analysis of Economic Potential. When compared with
other diversified agricultural commodities listed in "Statistics of Hawaiian
Agriculture 1991", the forest industry raztks sixth (6) in the State. The value adding
capability of the industry is tremendous, as $800,000 of raw material is processed into
products with estimated annual revenues of $28.9 million. Over 800 workers are
employed, with a corresponding payroll of $23.2 million. This places the average
wage for industry employees at $13.82, or 51% higher than the average 1991 farm
labor rate of $9.15. Table 1 compazes the value of forest products to other agricultural
crops.
Table 1-Agricultural Crops in Hawaii -1991
Estimated Acres Value of Production
Crop for Annual Production Value per Acre
Production (thousand dollars) (dollars)
Su ar 181,100 $174,000 $961
Pinea les 361,000 $107,775 $299
Flowers/ ornamentals 2,555 $68,078 $26,645
Ve etables and melons 5,200 $38,660 $7,435
Macadamia nuts 22,500 $34,650 $1,540
Cattle >511,000 $32,667 $64
Milk N.A. $30,328 N.A.
Forestry - total: 600 $28,900 $48,167
to s onl $800 $1,333
Fruits 6,900 $24,330 $3,526
Poult N.A. $19,382 N.A.
A uaculture (1990) 489 $9,241 $18,898
Ho s N.A. $6,463 N.A.
Cof ee >2,300 $4,600 $2,000
It is clear that on a per acre basis, the production of forest products, and the value
which the current industry adds to those products, is highly competitive with other
agricultural industries. If forests were actively managed as farms, productivity per
acre could probably be doubled or tripled. The key to Hawaii s forest industry success
is its extensive networks and business linkages, combined with intense utilization
of the resource. Many businesses are small and adaptable to market conditions.
Personal relationships aid in the efficient transfer of technology, resources, and
marketing among industry people. Forestry is a viable agricultural alternative in
Hawaii.
rsesouxcE rouNwcvV+etvr September 4, 1994
' FORESTS CAN MEANT JOBS
Plannin /Mana in
Land Use planners Ecologists
Mapmaker/Cartographers Foresters
Landscape Architects Silviculturists
Plant Pathologists Zoologists
Fire Mgmt Specialists Soil Scientists
Horticulturists Hydrologists
Archaeologists Botanists
Recreation Specialists Geologists
Entomologists Ornithologists
Nursery Personnel Anthropologists
Forest Economists
Growin
Site Preparation Weed Control
Planting Seedlings Forest Analysis
Insect & Disease Control
Harvestin
Landing Personnel Timber Inventory
Truckers Bark Peelers
Fertilizing/Pruning Choker Setters
Machine Operators Fallers
Log Buckers
Processin
Fork Lift/Loader drivers Sawyers
Chipper Operators Trimmers
Truckers Edgers
Kiln Operators Graders
Bulldozer Operators Scalers
HAWAII FOREST INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (808) 959-9545 1 of 2
FORE`'TS CAN MEAT" JOBS
Industrial Su ort
Power Plant operators Engineers
Saw Sharpeners Electricians
Hydraulics Specialists Welders
DieseUGas mechanics Machinists
Office Su ort
Secretaries Accountants
Office Managers Lawyers
Community Relations Public Relations
Contracts Managers Sales Personnel
Marketing Specialists General Managers
Government Relations
Other Forest
Product Jobs
Hunting Guides Woodworkers
Educational Tours Bowl Turners
Horseback Rides Hiking Guides
Native Plant Gatherers Sculptors
Wildlife Artists Photographers
Consultants Retail Sales
Furniture Makers Fundraisers
Seed Collectors Beekeepers
HAWAII FOREST INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (808) 959-9545 2 of 2
FACTS ON FORESTRY IN HAWAII
The State of Hawaii would like to present some facts about forestry management in Hawaii
and the Hamalcua coast.
Whatu sustainable forest management? Sustainable forest management is the growing of
trees on a continued basis in a responsible way. It is environmentally friendly. It uses good
land stewardship methods.
Can sustainable forest management benefit the Hamakua region? Yes. Sustainable forest
management can offer immediate short-term employment. But more importantly, it can be a
long term solution of bringing economic stability while keeping the rural character of the
Hamakua Coast.
Why sustainable forest manaPement for the Hamakua region? Hamakua has some of the
most productive forest lands in the world for growing trees. Thera is a wide variety of forest
product options, ranging from short tetra (rotation) forest plantations for wood chips to high
value timber for furniture and craft items (value added processing). Private investors are
willing to finance commercial forestry Projects on former sugar lands. Hamalnra already has
large areas of existing forest reserves consisting of both native eruct introduced forests that
could provide a base for ecotourism and other forest uses.
What would sustainable forest management look like on the ground in Hsmakua? It would
combine a mix of forest lands uses that could include:
* A core tropical hardwood production area would be on former sugar land, consisting of
mixed species in both short and long term plantations.
* Agroforestry systems that combine tttxs and other crops such as food and made which
could produce some income before the tress are harvested.
* A native forest management area with selective harvesting of Kos (Acacia~ooa) and
other native species (e.g. made and akala).
* An area whose primary objective is protection of Hawaii's native flora and fauna.
* A nature tourism component that includes hiking, hunting, camping. horseback riding,
and scientific and cultural interpretation .
* A natural resource-industrial park that combines many of the wood-related small
businesses.
Can sustainable forest management produce new jobs and diversify Hawaii's economy?
Yes .
Sustainable forest management could employ a wide range of people, including tree planters,
nursery workers, heavy equipment operators, truck drivers, harvesters, sawmill workers,
supervisors, retail personnel, tour guides, and forest managers. Immediate short-term
employment opportunities could include nursery activities, land site preparation and tree
planting activities, on-site management activities for the natural and protected forest areas, and
development of related activities (e.g. trails, shelters) for the nature tourism component.
is sustainable forest management compatible with Hawaii's envirotment? Yes. Forests
are a renewable resource that can rtduce erosion, improve watershed, protect habitat for
Hawaii's native species, and provide recreational opportunities for Hawaii's people. Ia
comparison to sugar production, commercial forests can improve the environment if best
management practices are used. Wide buffer zones for public roadways and streams should be
established. Large clear cuts and heavy truck traffic along public roads should be avoided.
Prompt reforestation, goad road design and maintenance, and low impact harvesting methods
should be used.
Will native forob be cleared for a commercial forest industry! No. DLNR has introduced
and supported legislation that specifically prohibits the clearing of any native forests for
httroduced tree plantations.
What is government's role in developing a sustainable forest industry in Hawaii? The
State supports the development of a forest industry that ma~dmizes local processing of high
quality wood products grown in Hawaii to create the greatebt number and quality of
jobs for the
people ofHawati. Aa a major landowner, it can use portions of its own Lind to help grow
trees. Incentives such as grants, lower lease rests, and reasonable property tax rates will also
help the growing of trees.
Does the State support the development of a pulp mill in Hawaii? ~[Q,i
What are some of the couditious that We State is putting into ib commercial forestry leases
on former sugar lands to assure that the environmmt and public interest are protected?
We are asking that all forest developers submit a forest management plan to the DINR for
approval by the Board of Land sad Natural Resources within six months of the start of the
lease. The plan will require best managemenn practices. The forest developer will also be required
to designate a community liaison . Public access will be maimained to mauka Forest Reserves
for hunting, hiking, and gatltairtg. In the case of the current negotiations, ten (10°/.) of the Lords
be planted in high value hardwoods which will be owned by the State and landscape buffers will
be plumed along all public highways within the project area.
How can smaller landowners participate in Hawaii's forest industry? The DLNR
Las an ongoing Forest Stewardship program, in cooperation with the US Forest Service that
provides 50°/. coat sharing grams to smaller private landowners. The State has also just received
a 5500,000 matching gram from the US Forest Service sad has developed aEawaii Forestry acrd
Communities Initiative with four other State Departments and three Fedetal agencies in the
Agriculture Departmem. The goal of the initiative is to plan and implemem a coaununity based
program of investments to renew the forest economy of Hawaii by enhancing the productive
capacity and environmental values of forest lands, and by creating jobs, providing training for
forest workers, and strengthening local communities that depend on the forest industry.
u
FORESTRY FACT SHEET
Forest Plantations
FOREST PLANTATIONS
What is a forest plantation? A forest plantation is defined as a "forest crop or stand of
trees created purposely, eithu by sowing or planting". The term afforestation is used when such
forests are created on land where there has been no forest for at least 50 years (e.g. sugar lands).
The term reforestation is used on lands that still have had forests in the past 50 years (e.g.
remnant forests on pasture lands). Forest plantatioru could alto be established through Hamra!
regeneration (e.g. koa seeds in the soil stimulated through sowing).
Why are forest plantations being established around the world? Cttrrently, the world's
forests are being cut and cleared at many times the rate they are being replaced. Forest
plantations represent ®3 pucent of the present forest area but comribute a much higher
proportion of the annual world production of wood. In several countries in the tropics, these
plantations are the primary source of wood products and in others have been seen as altentative
resources supplies to the natural forest. Forest plantations have been established to provide
shelter from livestock and to prevent erosion by wind or watu, and to provide a range of non-
wood forest products. Forest plantations also act as "carbon sinks" (trees absorb carbon dioxide
from the air and store it as carbon in solid wood form) that help reduce global warming caused by
the greenhouse effect.
Have there been any problems with forest plantation projects around the world?
Some forest plantation projects have attracted criticism, despite their potential benefits, especially
during the rapid expansion of industrial plantations in the last forty years. Ia most cases, these
forest plantation projects have been composed of only a few species, and generalty of a single,
even-age species in a specific planting area. Sometimes, in creating these plantations, the tights of
access of local people to the site has been lost, or species have been replaced on which they
depended on for some aspect of their daily lives; often the clearing of the land and the bunting of
debris have caused erosion. To many people the appearance of such plantations, even in maturity,
is artificial, caused by the perceived unnatural composition and structure of large, even-aged
blocks of one or a few species.
Are there forest plantations in Hawaii? The first forest plantations in Hawaii were
established ovu a century ago on Maui. Today, there are ovu 46,000 acres of forest plantations
throughout the State. These plantations wue established for a variety of purposes (wind breaks,
erosion control, limbo) and maay have become important recreational areas and State Parks (e.g.
Poll Poli, ICalopa) as well as protecting important watersheds (e.g. Nuuanu Valley) . There are Q
20,000 acres of Eucalyptus plantations throughout the State and certain stands have been already
harvested more than once.
What is the Eucalyptus controversy? The question of Eucalyptus forest plantations is one that
aroused especially strong feelings, both for and against; and the arguments used by both the
opponents and supporters of eucalyptus have often been based more on prejudice than on a
balanced consideration of the facts. Eucalyptus species has been a popular choice for
FORESTRY FACT SHEET
Forest Pfantatioru
introduction, especially in the warmer parts of the world, because of its rapid growth and the wide
range of conditions in which the over 600 species of Eucalyptus can grow. These plantations
have been criticized in some quarter because they are alleged to cause adverse effects on soil
(impoverishment and encouraging erosion), on hydrology (by drying up aquifers) and because
they provide a relatively poor habitat for wildlife. Some separate Eucalyptus &am other tree
crops and claim that they are more harmfiil. Some of the txititasms have been caused by
disappointed expectations rather than ecological effects. Ia many developing countries,
Eucalyptus have often been heralded as wonder species that will bring immediate solutions to
local wood and erosion problems. When this is followed by plantings which fail, because they
have frequently been of the wrong species or on the wrong sites, the blame then often falls on the
Eucalyptus rather than the real culprit, which is bad forestry practices.
What has been the e:perieace with Eucalyptus plantations is Hawaii? Many of the alleged
criticisms about Eucalyptus plantations in Iiawati are just not
true. Eucalyptus plantations have
not negatively affected water tables and there has been 8o evidence that eucalyptus trees have any
greater effect on water use than other fast-growing trees and shrubs. As a matter of fact,
eucalyptus plantations have been in some of Hawaii's most important watersheds on the island of
Oahu for over 80 years. There has been accusations that Eucalyptus trees in Hawau are
a!lelopathic, or have compounds that rrstrict the growth of atry other vegetation. Although
mature fotrost plantations can shade out grotmd vegetation when their canopy closes, there is no
evidence of any poisoning of the soil in Hawaii. Then aro tntmerous plantations where it is hard
to walk because of the prolific undergrowth of other vegetation.
REFERENCES
Water use by Epeatvprus plantarion. Forestry Newsletter No. 22 Ausaralian Cents for Luernational Agricultural
Research 1997
Fteatvpnrs~ water & s±~ainability - A dn...n~.v RTM+ Overseas DevNopment Adnlnisuation Forestry Series No. 6.
Bf' Ian R Caldc. 1994. 14 pg
The complex future of plantation fotespv. Oxford Forestry Iauitute. Universitq of Oxford Hy Peter Kaaowsld. 1993.
(0 PB•
Short-Rotation Management of Eecatvprus• Guidelines for Plantation in Hawaii Pacific Southwest Research Station.
U.S. D.A. Forest Service. ey Craig Whitneil a al., 1992. 30 pg.
Qlantation forestry in the tropics. Oxford Science Publicatioa~. Hy Julian Evans. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992.
403pg.
Mixed and pure forest plantation in the tropics and subtropics Food and Agriculture Organvation of the United
Nation Forestry Papa No. 103. By T.I. Wormald 1992. 152 pg.
The ecoloeical effeets of Euea(vprvs . Food and Agriculture Orgeaization of the United Nations Forestry Paper No. 59.
By M.E. D. Poore and C. Fries. 1985. 88 pg
HISTORY OF FOREST
11~lANAGEMENT IN HAWAII
1. pre-Kamehameha(pre-1 ~S9)
2. Kamehameha ~J'
(159 to 1519)
3. 2'he debt G,Jears(1519 to 1530)
4. ~L Wild 3rontier(1830 to 1S4S)
5. plantations(1845 to 1954)
6. Sharing the Wealth(1954 to
4 q
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to document the effect humans have had on the
natural resources of Hawaii island. Vegetation, soils, water, and wildlife are the
natural resources addressed. Much has been written about Hawaii on these subjects,
often in great detail. This paper, however, attempts to summarize the more
significant parts of those works. In doing so, it has occasionally been necessary to
describe social or political climates which resulted in significant environmental
change. It is not the intent of this paper to condemn or condone any particular
action or policy, for.the reasons behind an action are often well-founded in the eyes
of the responsible party. Instead, the author hopes that the historical knowledge
presented in this paper will help readers gain an understanding of how the
condition of Hawaii s natural resources has evolved from pre-human days to the
present. Because much change has occurred in the natural environment of Hawaii
as a result of human activity, "management eras" have been used to identify very
important changes. A management era, for the purposes of this paper, is defined as
a period of time in which land use philosophies or practices change, resulting in a
significant change to the environment.
Six management eras are defined. The discussion of each era includes a description
of the existing natural resources at that period of time, key players or institutions
who influenced the land management philosophy and practice, and the impacts of
that philosophy and practice on the natural environment.
The six eras are:
1. Pre-Kamehameha (Pre-1789)
2. Kamehameha I (1789 to 1819)
3. The Debt Years (1819 to 1830)
4. A Wild Frontier (1830 to 1848)
5. Plantations (1848 to 1954)
6. Sharing the Wealth (1954 to present)
Dates listed above for the beginning of an era represent the year in which a
particular event occurred, resulting in changes to the existing land management
philosophy. Often the process for change occurred over several years, and led up to
the single event. These events are described in detail for each eza.
page 1
Geographical Overview
The island of Hawaii is part of a group of volcanic islands stretching over sixteen-
hundred miles in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. As the largest, and southernmost
island, it is known as the Big Island. Its land mass of 2.5 million acres is slightly
more than 4,000 square miles, equaling that of the State of Connecticut. (Cole and
Cole,1987:2) Mauna Kea is the highest point on Hawaii at 13,796 feet above sea level.
When measured from the ocean floor it is the highest mass of land in the world.
Mauna Loa, its sister to the south, is slightly lower in elevation at 13,679 feet. The
island of Hawaii was formed approximately 1,000,000 years ago by lava flows from
five separate volcanoes. Three of these volcanoes are considered dormant, and two
are currently active. (Carlquist,1970:3-9) Hawaii is continuing to grow as eruptions
from the active volcanoes create land-producing lava flows.
The climate of the Big Island is as diverse as the ecosystems which are found there.
Prevailing winds drive moisture-laden clouds from east to west and up the slopes of
the high mountains. The mountains block the clouds, forcing them to deposit most
of their rain on the east side of the island. Annual precipitation can reach 300 inches
per year at about 4,000 feet above the County seat of Hilo. On the western end of the
island, the rain shadow of Mauna Kea limits annual precipitation to less than 10
inches per year near Kawaihae in South Kohala. (Cole and Cole,1987:2,13)
Temperatures remain relatively stable at sea level throughout the year, ranging in
the 70's to 80's (Fahrenheit). Elevation has profound effects on temperatures in
Hawaii, however. Mauna Kea is covered with sno~v during the winter months, and
temperatures frequently drop into the 20's. This range of rainfall patterns and
temperatures produces a diversity of vegetation. The warmer, wetter climates of east
Hawaii emulate sub-tropical conditions, while the higher and drier areas of west
Hawaii remain lava desert long after the flows have ceased. Sub-alpine areas are
found on the mountain tops.
There are currently about 100,000 residents on the island. Approximately 40,000 of
these live in the Hilo area, and another 40,000 live in the Kailua-Kona area on the
west coast. Development is most rapidly occurring in this latter area, with a more
steady growth taking place in Hilo. Vast tracts of land remain undeveloped on the
Big Island. Agriculture is the main economic activity, although tourism is on the
rise. Major crops include sugar, macadamia nuts, papaya, bananas, coffee, and
flowers. Viable animal industries are present as well. The island produces dairy
products, beef, pork, poultry, and eggs. (Cole and Cole,1987:2-6)
I. Pre-Kamehameha Era -Pre-1789
As the island of Hawaii rose out of the sea, it cooled and became increasingly
hospitable to colonizing forms of life. Isolated as Hawaii was from lands other than
neighboring islands, there were srill opportuniries for the island to evolve into a
page 2
~ A
life-sustaining ecosystem. All forms of life were introduced to the island at one time
or another. Agents or "vectors" responsible for introducing early forms of life
included the wind, ocean currents, migrating birds, and eventually, humans.
(Carlquist,1970:82-102) Before humans had arrived, species had developed in a
relatively uncompetitive environment (Carlquist,1970:i77). In the absence of many
predators, species lost or failed to develop protective attributes. Often plants evolved
without thorns, thick bark, or aggressive root systems. Animals such as birds built
their nests on the ground and became narrowly adapted to their native habitat.
Estimates of humans first appearing in the Hawaiian Island chain range from A.D.
300 to A.D. 400 (Kirch,1985:1). The first human colonizers were Polynesians from
the South Pacific. Much of the flora and fauna was recognizable to them, although
there were many species which were not. As a result of evolving under very
isolated circumstances, many forms of life developed into species found only in
Hawaii. On the Big Island, climatic, topographic, and geological factors maintained a
diversity of ecosystems as we have today, and eventually developed several unique
vegetative zones. Although botanists have classified these zones using a variety of
methods, Table I shows nomenclature and corresponding elevations of a more
recent method.
TABLEI
Vegetative Zones of Hawaii (elevations in feet above sea level)
Zone Elevation
Strand sea level
Coastal 0 - 900
Dryland Forest 750 - 2,700
Mixed Mesic Forest 2,250 - 3,750
Rain Forest 1,350 - 5,100
Subalpine woodland 6,000 - 13,000+
Source: Sotuner and Gustafson,1987:40,54
The influence of early Hawaiians on these zones was dependent on several factors,
including the zone's accessibility, the value of its resources to the Hawaiians, and
the adaptability or resiliency of its components to human-induced change. The
intensity of human activity was important too, for as populations grew, so did the
amount of change. Although human influence has substantially altered the
ecosystem, remnant forests provide some idea of what the flora of ancient Hawaii
may have looked like.
Strand areas were probably some of the first areas to be covered with vegetation, as
they were exposed to a multitude of vectors. Ocean currents could deposit strand
species with floating fruits such as Scaevola taccada, while nesting sea birds could
deposit plants with sticky fruits, such as those of the genus Boerhavia. Coastal areas
page 3
were most likely covered with dense jungles of hala (Pandanais odoratissimi~s), hau
(Hibiscus tiliaceus), and similar coastal species. (Handy,1972:12) The lowland dry
forest has virtually disappeared as of today, as this area vas, and is, consistently and
repeatedly developed and populated. It is currently represented, however, by species
such as lama (Diospyros ferrea) and wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis). A non-
fragrant sandalwood, ili'ahi (Santalum paniculatum) is also common in this zone.
In the mixed mesic or upland dry forests, koa (Acacia koa) was the dominant species
in this diverse vegetative zone, with Ohia (Metrosideros polymorpha) a close
associate. Strikingly unique, however, was the diversity of other tree and shrub
species also found in the zone. Kauila (Alphitonia ponderosa) and iliahi (Santaltim
freycinetiam~m) were probably much more prevalent components of early
Hawaiian forests than they are today. Kauila can be one of the tallest trees of the
forest. It's wood, however, is hard and workable, and was used for spears, daggers,
carrying poles, and many other items by the Hawaiians. It is quite possible that
extensive use of both mature and younger trees may have impacted its
regeneration, resulting in its infrequent occurrence today. Iliahi, the sandalwood of
copmerce, once was prevalent throughout the islands. In Eras II and III of this
paper, the demise of sandalwood is described in more detail.
The rain forest, while similarly diverse, consisted of less koa and more ohia. Tree
ferns (Cibotii~m sp.), olapa (Cheirodendron trigymim), and kanawao (Broiissaisin
arguta) were probably frequent associates, as they aze today. At the highest
elevations, subalpine vegetation evolved. The climate of this zone is more
temperate than tropical, and is partly covered with open woodland. Mamane
(Sophora chrysophyla) and naio (Myoporum sandwicense) are the dominant tree
components. Grasslands composed of Deschampsia australis, Panicurn tentiifoli~im,
and Trisetiim glomernti~m were most likely more prevalent than today. The
famous silversword (Agn~roxiphiiim sandwicense) and four species of the genus
Dubautia are found in the drier subalpine desert areas.(Sohmer and
Gus tafson,1987:40-51)
Early wildlife colonizers included birds and other flying species, as well as lighter,
more transportable animals such as spiders and insects. Shoreline creatures from
crabs to seals also found their way to the new land. Cuter time, unique wildlife
species evolved from these few original colonizers. This endemism, or divergent
change between members of the same species, occurred at the family level in bird
populations. Honeycreepers, for example, represent a unique family (Drepanidae),
and dominate the variety found in island bird populations. (Carlquist,1970:175-176)
Other species, without protective attributes, became easy prey for early humans. An
estimated 40 species of birds became extinct during the early contact years with man,
for they are known only from fossil remains.(Shallenberger,1986:4)
The arrival of man began to accelerate the island's evolution, as these first settlers
immediately began changing the landscape. Initially settling near coasts and relying
on ocean resources, the Hawaiians developed into a sophisticated gardening society
page 4 `
which developed interior lands as farms. New plants were introduced, including
taro, coconut, sweet potatoes and breadfruit. Animals were also brought to Hawaii
for the first time. These included the dog, the pig, and perhaps the greatest colonizer
of all mammals other than humans, the rat. (Handy,1972:8-18)
By the end of the 18th century, ownership of land in Hawaii generated a constant
struggle among warring chiefs or ali is. Only the most powerful chiefs owned land
in Hawaii. The Big Island, for example, was ruled by a single chief (Umi) around the
15th century, but was divided after his death until unification under Kamehameha
I. (Handy,1972:278) If an island was under one rule, it was by a supreme island chief
(ali i-'ai-moku) who had ruling chiefs (ali i-'okana) administer chiefdoms or
districts ('okana). Lesser chiefs were responsible for the basic area of taxation, the
ahupua'a. The typical ahupua'a ran like an inverted wedge from the mountains to
the sea. Each ahuptia'a had fixed boundaries and its own specific name. Ahupua'as
provided the responsible chief with valuable fishing rights, cultivable lands, upland
timber, and bird-catching privileges in the higher mountains.
Management of the ahupua'a was performed by the "konohiki" or overseer, which
was a critical position in Hawaiian society. Future rights to live and work on the
ahupua'a depended on its ability to produce goods and services for the higher
echelon ali is as a form of taxation, and failure to do so could mean death. The
konohiki was usually a responsible member of the Ali i s family, and was a person
who could manage both the land and the people living on it. (Apple,1979:13)
Perhaps the unit of land most under consistent management were sections of the
ahupua'as called 'ili-aina. 'Ili-aina's were managed by the head of the family or
haku. Sometimes these 'ili-aina conveyed permanent rights to work that piece of
land ('ili ku pono), but more often not. 'Ilis were allotted to extended families
('ohana) who lived on them and cultivated them. It was these people who worked
the land for the benefit of those above them. Every October taxes were collected
from each family, to which each chief in the hierarchy above them had certain
rights. A piece of land which was used as the individual's (maka'ainana) farm or
plantation (Kihapai) did not carry any rights of ownership with the individual.
(Handy,1972:46-49)
By the 1800's there were thousands of chiefs. The Hawaiian social hierarchy was
intricate, complicated, and very dynamic. As chiefs died or fell in dishonor, their
lands were reallocated in ways which sent ripple effects through the hierarchy. The
greater the chief, the greater the potential for change. (Kamakau,1961:222) For the
early Hawaiian, water was the "giver-of-life". Cooperation and conservation of
water were integral parts of Hawaiian culture. Complex irrigation systems were
developed to ensure each "ili' of adequate water, but water rights were extended
only if the land, and therefore water, was used. Different uses of water were
allocated to different areas of the water source. For example, bathing was permitted
only in lower portions of a stream, washing of cooking utensils higher up, and the
highest reaches were reserved for drinking water. (Handy,1972:57-67)
page 5
Because they were primarily agriculturists and not .fishermen (Handy,1972:77), the
Hawaiians introduced a variety of plants during this Era. Included were breadfruit,
coconut, sugar cane, sweet potato, and the staple of the Hawaiian diet; taro. Taro also
assumed a dominant mythological role in the culture, and was believed to be
descended from the first born of Kane; the ancient god and procreator of nature and
man. This first born status afforded to taro relegated man, believed to be descended
from the second born of Kane, into a subordinate position to taro. (Handy,1972:74)
Cultivation of food was the most prevalent activity in the daily life of Hawaiians.
Taro terraces were created wherever soils and water made it possible. Often soils
were improved with green manures such as hau and kukui leaves and branches.
(Handy,1972:89) In Keanae, Maui an entire area of lava was covered with soil to
create additional farming areas. (Handy,1972:262) The edges of stream courses were
the sights of taro plantings, as were stumps of fallen or cut fern trees.
(Handy,1972:110) Planted Kukui tree groves were eventually cleared and their
leaves and branches used as mulch for the taro plantations which replaced them.
Fields were bordered with plantings of bananas, wauke or paper mulberry, and
breadfruit. Sweet potatoes ('uala), second only to taro, were also widely cultivated.
Groves of bamboo and occasional coconuts were established. In essence, the
Hawaiian gradually created small farms throughout the island at various
elevations. Only in the more inaccessible highlands (wao) were extensive native
forests relatively untouched. (Handy,1972:55-67)
Harvestable introductions were not limited to plants. The dog was used primarily
for food, as were pigs, chickens, and jungle fowl. The dog, however, was usually
reserved for ali is and special occasions, and was not a daily staple for the average
Hawaiian. Native birds were also hunted, both for food and for their feathers. Small
birds such as the 'o'u (Psittirostra psittacea) were ensnared by means of a gummed
stick. O'o's (Moho braccatus), smaller still, were also hunted and eaten, but were
prized more for their feathers which were used in making feather capes and leis.
Ducks, herons, and geese were hunted with stones, while the migratory golden
plover (Pluvialus fs~lva) was lured by whistling, then catching them by hand.
(Handy,1972:243-258)
The actions of all levels of Hawaiian society was dictated through an elaborate
system of "kapus'", or laws. The Kapu system governed the behavior of ordinary
men and women in their daily lives. Men and women, for example, were forbidden
to eat together, and food was prepared separately for each sex. (Kirch,1985:7)
In January, 1778, the isolated life of the Hawaiian islands was interrupted by the
arrival of the first white man. Captain James Cook, on a voyage across the Pacific set
anchor at Waimea, on the island of Kauai. He was welcomed as the god Lono by the
natives, and used the occasion to refurbish his ship with supplies. Over the next 11
months, he explored the Bering Strait area, returning to Hawaii in November, 1778.
The next two months were spent exploring the coastlines of Maui and Hawaii.
Having circumnavigated the Big Island in a clockwise direction, he finally landing
page 6
at Kealakekula Bay on the west side of Hawaii on January 17, 1779. Again he was
welcomed as the god Lono, and spent his visit refitting and provisioning his ships.
As he put out to sea to resume his effort to discover a northwest passage between
the Pacific and the Atlantic, his ship encountered trouble, forcing him to return to
the Bay. The Hawaiian's welcome was not as profuse this time, for his status as a
deity had deteriorated as a result of his previous contacts. His visit was maned by
the stealing of a boat by an islander, and the death of another islander. Going ashore
to regain it, he became involved in a battle which ended in his death.
(Kamakau,1961:92-103 )
Cook had estimated the islands' population at 400,000 in 1779, (Smith,1883b:303) and
by 1789 there was probably little change. Thirteen ships had visited the islands since
Captain Cook's historic visits in 1778 and 1779, but life had not changed
appreciatively. (Kamakau,1961:144-145) The visiting ships were merely enroute to
Canton, China, laden with furs from the Pacific Northwest. They used the islands as
a place to refurbish their ships and to give their men a rest. (Shields,ND:1) A young
chief from the island of Hawaii, however, was warring constantly with other chiefs
both on and off the Big Island. His name was Kamehameha, and he cvas determined
to improve his position in the Hawaiian islands.
II. Kamehameha IEra - (1789-1819)
In 1789, an event took place which may have contributed greatly to the unification
of the Hawaiian islands under one ruler. Firearms had been used in Hawaii on
several occasions following Cook's first visits, but always by the foreigners who had
brought them. In 1789, however, Kamehameha convinced a ship's captain to give
him firearms. (Char,1975:41) A year later, his following was joined by two
foreigners; John Young and Isaac Davis. These westerners, two of the first to align
themselves with the Hawaiian chiefs, helped train Kamehameha and his warriors
in the use of guns. (Brennan,1974:22) At the time, Kamehameha was involved in
intense warfare between the chiefs on other islands and chief Keouakuahu'ula from
east Hawaii. This advantage over his rivals may have helped him realize his final
destiny, for by 1796, only seven years later, he managed to conquer all the other
chiefs, with the exception of Ka' eokulani on Kauai. (Kamakau,1961:174;
Apple,1979:41)
It was after this time that Kamehameha ordered his konohikis to plant sugarcane
throughout the islands, so that his chiefs with their large accompanying parties,
would have nourishment close at hand when visiting their constituents.
(Smith,1882c:227) Kamehameha was now King Kamehameha I, and by 1796 life in
the islands was beginning to change. Ships were visiting regularly on the Pacific
Northwest/China trade route. The influence of foreigners had been sought by all of
the ruling chiefs, and it was here too that Kamehameha was most adept. No less
than 11 foreigners served on Kamehameha's staff by 1794 (Apple,1979:34).
page 7
s
During this era of Kamehameha, there were three industries which began to
develop in Hawaii. All three would have significant impacts on the natural
resources of the Big Island. They were sandalwood, whaling, and ranching,
especially ranching of cattle. Scented sandalwood was a popular item in China,
where it had been used for hundreds of years for many things, including furniture,
incense, and perfumes. Around 1790, sandalwood was discovered in Hawaii by sea
captains heading west to the Orient. In 1791, British captain William Douglas left
two men behind on Maui to collect sandalwood for trade to the Orient.
(Char,1975:41)
For the next 40 years, sandalwood cutting would dominate the economy of the
islands. In the early 1800's Kamehameha, as the supreme ruling chief of all the
islands except Kauai, owned all of the land, and therefore all the sandalwood. As the
market with China and the western ships developed, he began to realize what an
asset he owned. Sandalwood was harvested from the ahupua'as as taxes by his
people. The unit of measurement was a picul, or approximately what one grown
man could carry on his back out of the mountains. One picul weighed 133.5 pounds.
The harvest of sandalwood went from 900 piculs in 1804 to 9,036 piculs in 1811 and
21,000 piculs in 1821. The impact on the Hawaiians and their traditional lifestyle was
tremendous. Bound by law to traditional taxes, their efforts to harvest sandalwood
resulted in their farms being neglected, and their ~vay of life changed. On July 12,
1812 Kamehameha signed the first official contract with Captains J. Winship, N.
Winship, and W.H. Davis, giving them export rights to sandalwood.
(Shields,ND:Appendix A)
Kamehameha himself tried to export sandalwood directly to China on his own ship.
His venture failed, however, because of "misconduct" by the ship's captain.
(Rock,1916:10) Kamehameha also tried to protect his sandalwood resources for
future generations by establishing kapus on cutting young seedlings and trees.
(Shields,ND:10) In 1793, Vancouver made another gift to Kamehameha which
would eventually impact the natural resources of Hawaii for many years to come.
He left the future king cattle, which he brought with him from South America.
(Smith,1882c:208) Kamehameha was so impressed with these large animals, that he
declared a kapu on cattle shortly thereafter. Cows were allowed to roam free and
unharmed. With no natural enemies and an abundance of forage, they rapidly
multiplied until by 1815 they had become a public nuisance. Reports of them
destroying farms, attacking people, and eating the thatch off of houses became
widespread. Their destruction of fragile Hawaiian vegetation increased dramatically.
It was in that year that King Kamehameha hired John Parker (who later founded
the Parker Ranch) to shoot cattle for him. Cattle meat and tanned hides were
becoming more in demand by the third industry which was developing in Hawaii at
this time. (Brennan,1974:40-45)
The last leg of the development triad which occurred during Kamehameha's reign
was whaling. Although whaling itself did not have a direct impact on the natural
resources discussed in this paper, it did have an indirect effect on them. Because
page $
over 100 whaling ships were visiting the islands by the mid 1820's (Lind,1938:177),
the demand for resources such as firewood and food began a trend that would carry
into the next two eras, and which would also impact Hawaii's culture and
environment. Unfortunately, Kamehameha's death in 1819 left his kingdom deeply
in debt from the sandalwood trade. Kamehameha's ne~vly learned habit of buying
goods on credit, and promising sandalwood as collateral, would haunt Hawaii for
years to come.
III. Kamehameha II Era (1819-1824)
Kamehameha I was succeeded by his son, Liholiho on May 21, 1819, but only with
approval by a council of chiefs. This established the precedent of succession to the
throne only by concurrence of the highest chiefs. (Apple,1979:13) Liholtho became
Kamehameha II, but in the process gave up his father's monopoly on the
sandalwood trade by giving other chiefs the rights to the sandalwood growing on
the land they were responsible for. The effect was devastating on both the
sandalwood, and the Hawaiian maka'ainana. (Kamakau,1961:220) Thousands of
workers were enlisted to harvest sandalwood for the chiefs. Little thought was
given to crops and fishing, farms and homes. "Many people suffered for food, died,
and were buried there" according to the Hawaiian historian Samuel Manaiakalani
Kamakau. (Apple,1979:49) By 1822, Kamehameha II's debt for foreign goods had
risen to 13,000 piculs or approximately $104,000; an immense sum of money at the
time. Concurrently, other lesser chiefs were reaping the trade benefits of
sandalwood.
By 1823, traders were becoming disillusioned with the mounting debt and the
Hawaiian's improved trading skills. Missionaries, first arriving in the islands in
1820, had been teaching the Hawaiians and making them more responsible in their
trading. Kamehameha II's reign was also a period when traditional Hawaiian ways
began to end. At the time of Kamehameha I's death, it was the custom during the
period of mourning to allow the people unusual freedoms. The kapu against men
and women eating together was lifted, for example. Women were allowed to eat
foods which were usually denied them, and they were allowed access to many
sacred places. Traditionally, the new ruling chief placed the land under a new kapu
which followed old lines when the period of mourning ended. The "free eating"
kapu was considered a kapu of the gods, and not of chiefs. By preserving this kapu,
it was believed that the chief would become like a god themselves, and lead a long
and prosperous life. For unknown reasons, Kamehameha II chose not to reimpose
the kapu banning free eating. Supported by his aunts, and shortly thereafter later by
his chiefs, Kamehameha II set a precedent that others would follow. Other kapus,
for example, were later ended by the influence of Kamehameha I's favorite wife
Ka'ahumanu, who had embraced Christianity. (Kamakau,1961:222-223,322)
When King Liholiho departed on his world tour in November, 1823, he designated
his nine-year son Kauikeaouli as heir in the event something happened to him on
page 9
his trip. (Apple,1979:13) Liholiho died in London in 1824 of measles, and the child
was made King Kamehameha III. For the next 7 years, a series of regents, including
Ka'ahumanu, were appointed legal guardian for the young King.
(Kamakau,1961:259-323) The kingdom must have been in disarray. King Liholiho
had been gone for almost a year, and he was succeeded by a child who relied on
others to make decisions for the Kingdom. Concurrently, huge debts had been
accumulated, the traditional lifestyle of the Hawaiians had been disrupted with the
emphasis on sandalwood and the ending of the kapu system, and missionaries were
preaching new ideas which further confused the population and their leaders. The
time was opportune for further influence by the growing numbers of foreigners
who were living and working in Hawaii at the time.
On December 12, 1826, a tax was levied to pay oft the sandalwood debt. Every male
Hawaiian was required to furnish 1/2 picul, and was allowed to sell up to 1/2
additional picul for himself. Sandalwood cutting became so intense that roots were
dug up to fulfill the obligation. (Shields,ND:25) Another fragrant species, Naio
(Myoporum sandwicense), was used as a substitute, but could not sustain the trade.
(Rock,1916:10) By the early 1830's the boom of sandalwood cutting was over. Almost
anywhere that sandalwood had grown had been accessed by many people, with a
few exceptions, such as the middle forest zone in Kona. (Rock,1913:43) Well-used
trails to carry the sandalwood out probably existed in many areas. Foot traffic on
these trails helped spread exotic plants throughout the former sandalwood azeas, as
seeds clung to the garments and equipment of the cutters. Use of the trails by feral
cattle and pigs most likely continued even after people stopped visiting the areas for
sandalwood. In effect, the sandalwood harvesting, if compared to modern harvest
impacts on newly accessed forests, opened up much of the interior of Hawaii to
many exotic plant and animal species, and most likely hastened the demise of the
fragile, virgin, pre-contact ecosystem.
IV. A Wild Frontier (1830 to 1848)
In 1830, a kapu was put on sandalwood which forbade its harvesting. Unfortunately
it was too late, for the sandalwood was almost entirely gone. (Brennan,1978:44)
Additional impacts continued in the forests, as large numbers of whalers
"wastefully" stripped thousands of acres of forest land for firewood. In later years,
early sugar cane growers also consumed large quantities of firewood to fuel their
mills. The loss of wildlife habitat was documented when the District Commissioner
for North Kohala at the time noted that birds which preferred the cool, moist
understory of the native forests were deserting the areas opened by cutting.
(Smith,1883c:241-242) Evidence in the 1840's indicated that fires had "destroyed large
extents of forest in former times on the western portion of the (North Kohala)
highlands, and extended far down on the western slope". (Smith,1884a:443)
The ever present cattle, now hunted extensively to provide meat and hides to
visiting ships, continued to impact the forest understory. The fern-covered lands of
page 10
~ N
West Kohala were denuded by cattle, resulting in localized droughts.
(Smith,1884a:444) Although the extent of impact from humans, cattle, and fire is not
well documented, what accounts do exist indicate their impact on the fragile
environment of the early 1800's was significant. Accounts of Waimea at this time
describe the plateau as covered primarily with an ohia lehua forest.
(Brennan,1974:65) The plain adjoining Hamakua had a "park-like" appearance,
while at higher elevations the timber (ohia, koa, naio) increased in size. Fern trees
easily grew 20 to 30 feet in height. The western part was rocky and grassy;
"untenanted and uncultivated". The Kohala mountains, and particularly the head
of Waipio Valley, formerly abounded with waterfowl, especially ducks.
(Brennan,1978:40)
This era was truly one of a wild frontier, as change swept over the island. The
Hawaiian population throughout the islands had steadily been decreasing, from
Cook's estimates of 400,000 to a census count of 142,050 in 1823, and another census
count of 130,315 in 1832. (Smith,1883b:303) Some formerly farmed areas had been
abandoned; "There are some fields of upland taro on both sides of the hills (in
Waimea), but numerous acres of cleared, unplanted ground show the former extent
of civilization". (Brennan,1978:41) Whaling ships continued to visit the islands in
ever increasing numbers. By the 1840's over 400 ships per year were recorded as
visiting Hawaii. (Lind,1938:12) Sailors who had spent long periods at sea were eager
to enjoy the pleasures of the Hawaiian ports, and were sometimes overzealous in
their drinking and fighting. The foreign resident population continued to rise, and
included many undesirables such as ex-convicts from Australia. (Apple,1979:33)
On July 12, 1835 the renowned botanist David Douglas met an untimely death on
the eastern slopes of Mauna Kea. Officially he had fallen in a cattle trap occupied by
a wild bull, and was gored to death. Associated with his death, however, was an
English convict who lived nearby in the wilderness to trap wild cattle for hides and
meat. Whether Douglas' death was accidental or not has never been totally proven.
A sum of money Douglas was carrying was never found, and there is some disbelief
that a wilderness traveler such as Douglas was could have fallen into a cattle
trap.(Cunningham,1984:2-3) Accounts of John Parker's early life further substantiate
the rough and dangerous life of living and working in the interior of the Big Island
at this time. Wild bulls were known to attack a person on sight, and the heavy
growth of mamane, ohia, and koa trees where they lived easily concealed
them. (Brennan,1974:58)
In 1835, the same year that Parker took up residence in Waimea, another new
concept was introduced to the islands. A lease to use land was granted by King
Kamehameha III to a foreign company, Ladd and Company, for the first time.
(Agard,1982:49) Land leasing was the first major change in land policy implemented
under Kamehameha III, but it would not be the last. In 1840, the King elected to
implement a Constitution for the Hawaiian Islands. In the interest of improving
the lives of the common people, many kapus were lifted. Some of them had direct
effects on the environment, as kapus on cutting koa, kauila, o'a, and koaia ended
page 11
w A
and those trees became available for indiscriminate harvesting. Forest birds were
also open to hunters with the lifting of kapus, and birds such as mano and o'o were
now hunted. (Kamakau,1961:428) By 1840 the cattle population was beginning to
show the effects of continued hunting. Because cattle meat and hides had replaced
sandalwood as the most viable economic industry of Hawaii, a kapu was put on
cattle from 1840 to 1844 to allow them to re propagate themselves. By 1846 there
were an estimated 10,000 tame and 25,000 wild cows on the Big
Island. (Brennan,1978:44-49)
On April 27, 1846, Kamehameha III signed into law the Second Act of Kamehameha
III. The focus was on agriculture and forests, as the preamble stated "The
development of the resources of the Islands depends essentially upon their
agriculture." (Smith,1882a:8) Addressing forests specifically, Kamehameha declared
that "the forests and timber growing therein shall be considered government
property". (LeBarron,1970:12) Land concepts continued to change as the King
granted Parker two acres of his own land on 1/14/1847. Although Parker was not the
first to receive land grants from Kamehameha III, this small apportionment was the
foundation for the world famous Parker Ranch known today. (Brennan,1978:80)
Other pioneers developed similar areas on the Big Island. Pressure was building on
the Hawaiian king to change the status of these early entrepreneurs. They wanted to
continue in the development of Hawaii, but without land guarantees, the risk was
almost too high. At the same time, there were 251 ali'is who also wanted guarantees
on the lands they had occupied and worked for years. Kamehameha's response to
this issue would set the stage for land use in Hawaii for the next 100 years.
V. Plantations (1848 to 1954)
This era consists of two "sub-eras". Although the general theme of "plantations", or
acquiring, holding, and managing large acreages for agricultural production is
consistent from 1848 to 1954, there were two distinct land management
philosophies which occurred during this era. The first philosophy dominated from
about 1848 to 1880. These were the development years, when land was first acquired
through purchases and leases. People who were successfully involved in the two
primary industries of this era, sugar and cattle, used this period to build their
businesses into viable, economically sound enterprises. Their land management
policy concentrated on relatively short term objectives such as acquiring and
clearing land, introducing exotic species which would enhance their business and
standard of living, and using existing natural resources as necessary to accomplish
their business objectives.
The second philosophy developed as hindsight to the first, and began acquiring a
following around 1880. At this time some prominent businessmen, specifically in
the sugar industry, realized that development which had occurred to date was
beginning to jeopardize the long term viability of their industries. An
environmental awareness materialized which sought protection for the natural
page 12
A
resource most essential to their industry; water. As a result, watershed protection
became a primary concern of plantation managers in the late 18th century.
The Plantation Era began in earnest in 1848. It was in that year that King
Kamehameha III agreed to the Great Mahele. All land had until this time belonged
entirely to the King, as part of his inheritance from Kamehameha I. From January
27 to March 7, 1848, he divided about one third of his lands among his ruling chiefs
and chiefesses. Granting a quitclaim to each of the ali'i, he authorized them to go
before the Land Commission and apply for title to their land. On March 8, 1848,
Kamehameha III gave up approximately half of his remaining two thirds to the
government of Hawaii. Hawaiian land was now divided into approximate thirds;
one for the crown (24%), one for the government (37%), and one for the ruling ali'i
(38%). The latter third eventually became the private lands of today as they were
sold or traded to others. An additional small amount (approximately 1%) was given
to the common people. Those kama'aina who had a long association with their
land, and had been granted the land by one of the kings ('ili ku pono), were allowed
to retain ownership. (Apple,1979:133-134)
Because lands were no longer under the control of a single individual, they were
subject to the whims of the many who owned or leased them. The harmonious
management of the ahupua'a began to break down as lands were divided in ways
which were advantageous to a particular industry, such as cattle or sugar, but not
always for a given watershed. The resulting impacts of this non-holistic
management style set the stage for the second philosophy mentioned above.
Concurrently, it was the sugar and cattle industries which began to flourish during
this era. Land was now available, and businesses could be expanded. Secure in their
ability to procure land for long term investments, businessmen began acquiring
large acreages in the years following the Great Mahele, and by 1890, 75% of the
private lands, or the lands originally granted by Kamehameha III to his chiefs, were
held by non-Hawaiians or non-Hawaiian corporations. (Agard,1982:49)
Several factors may have influenced their ability to accomplish this. There was a
relatively quick succession of Hawaiian kings during this period. While
Kamehameha III had been in power for almost 30 years, there were no less than
four kings and one queen in the 37 years following his death in 1854. All four of the
kings failed to designate a successor, and upon their death the House of Nobles was
required to make a decision. With the decision of who would gain the throne in the
hands of many it was quite possible, and perhaps highly probable, that compromises
were made which may have weakened the throne. A weak throne would not have
been able to resist the requests of land purchasers and lessees as well as a strong
throne. At the same time, viable businesses such as sugar were providing taxes and
other income to the kingdom. They most likely would have generated continued
support from the government, including expansion and growth. As the sugar
industry expanded, lands less than 2,000 feet above sea level were cleared for sugar
production. (Rock,1913:25) These lands were the most accessible, the soils were
page 13
« A
deepest, and the water flowing downhill at this point was often plentiful enough to
permit irrigation. Flumes could be used to deliver the cane to ocean-side processing
and shipping facilities. Table 2 shows the increase in lands used for sugar cane
plantations from 1850 to 1880.
Table 2
Acres in Sugar Production
(all Hawaiian Islands)
Year Acres
1850 600
1867 2,280
1880 30,000
Source: Lind,1938:70,72
Sugar plantations received an additional incentive to expand when the United
States government implemented the Reciprocity Treaty of January, 1875. This treaty
allowed the free import of sugar into the United States by Hawaiian growers. Sugar
production went from 12,788 short tons in 1877 to 46,696 short tons in 1881.
(Smith,1882b:188-192) Often the higher elevation land such as the Waimea area
became cattle country; both managed and unmanaged. By 1856 there were an
estimated 20,000 acres used for ranching on Hawaii; 8,000 in Waimea alone.
(Lind,1938:70) Formal ranching originated in the decade following the Great Mahele
for four basic reasons: (Martin,1987:21-22)
1. There was a growing beef market
2. There were an estimated 17,500 to 20,000 head of cattle present on the Big Island
3. The expertise for ranching had been imported by Kamehameha III.
4. The Mahele encouraged personal land use.
The impact on the native environment from both industries was significant. As
lands were cleared for fields of sugar cane, water was diverted for irrigation and
fluming of cane to the coastal mills. The effect on traditional streams, by removing
much of the water, may have destroyed riparian habitat. Wood cutting, for domestic
use by Asian workers and to supply the new technology of steam mills developed in
1858-59, decimated additional areas of forest. (Smith,1884a:443;Moe,1927:106) Large
numbers of laborers were imported to the islands to work the plantations,
displacing the native Hawaiians, whose numbers continued to drop. By 1872 there
were only 51,897 Hawaiians. Six years later, in 1878, the foreign population had
almost doubled. Foreigners represented about 18% of the island's total population.
(Smith,1883b:303)
page 14
s
As the public changed, so did the impact on native species. Not bound by tradition
and custom, and unfamiliar with the life cycles of forest species, the new forest user
most likely had a greater adverse impact than his Hawaiian predecessor. Forest fires
destroyed large areas of native forest above the sugar plantations in the Hamakua
area. (Rock,1913:25) Concurrently, cattle ranchers continued to clear land for pasture.
Koa forests, commonly occurring from 2,000 to 6,000 feet in elevation were
extensively harvested. John Parker established a koa mill at Makahalau, southeast
of Waimea, and utilized the koa forests of Hanaipoi. The Hawaiians called it
Palihooukapapa, or "the hill of piling lumber". The mill was known as a "great
center for koa work".
Mamane was cut and used for making charcoal. (Brennan,1974:82,85) Many exotic
species of grasses were introduced by cattlemen to improve their pastures.
(Rock,1913:83) These grasses competed successfully with native species, and in
combination with grazing resulted in vegetative type conversions from native
forests to pasture lands. (Rock,1913:25) Cattle continued to directly influence the
Hawaiian ecosystem. Although their populations fluctuated downward from 35,000
to 20,000 between 1846 and 1859, (Brennan,1974:49,56) their impact did not. E. Bond,
writing in 1884, stated that cattle and wood cutting were the most destructive forces
to the forests in the last 30 years. (Smith,1884a:443) Joseph Rock called cattle the
"archenemy of the Hawaiian Forests" in 1913, as he visited much of the island on
an extensive field trip. He attributed the demise of a huge koa forest in Kona, at the
3,000 to 5,000 foot elevation, to cattle; "..which have destroyed all the undershrubs
and also injured the trees, which are then readily attacked by insects." (Rock,1913:43)
In other areas where humans had harvested the mature trees and removed seed
sources for future regeneration, cattle browsed not only the remaining understory,
but also the young seedlings emerging from the soil. The genetic loss in important
commercial species such as koa may also have been significant. Certain phenotypes,
such as straight, tall, "canoe" koa logs, or those resistant to disease, were most likely
harvested first, as quality wood was the objective. Any recent regeneration of these
high quality trees was simultaneously subject to the uncontrolled cattle predation of
the times. The remaining, less desirable trees which were more susceptible to insect
and disease attack, and which did not grow quality wood, were left behind,
providing the seed source for future generations. When feral animal predation was
later controlled, these poor quality overstory trees, and their offspring, may have
dominated the existing genepool.
As the forest changed, so did the habitat of the native wildlife. Wild dog packs
roamed the interior. (Brennen,1978:44) Forest bird populations declined along with
their habitat. Introductions of competing, disease carrying birds and predators like
the cat helped to adversely impact native birds. (Shallenberger,1986:4) Despite a
cautionary warning published in January, 1883, (Smith,1883a:249) Mr. J. Tucker
arrived in Hilo with 72 mongooses imported from Jamaica on September 30, 1883.
His trip was sponsored by the Hilo Planter's Association, and the goal was to control
cane rats on the sugar plantations. (Kramer,1971:120) Unfortunately, the mongoose
page 15
A
proved to be an aggressive, efficient, opportunistic hunter which preyed on ground-
nesting birds as well. Populations of marine, water, and upland birds became subject
to heavy predation by the mongoose and the feral cat. (Shallenberger,1986:4,6,26,51)
On the Parker ranch, the death of John Parker in 1868 began several decades of
trouble for his cattle venture. Although more acres had been acquired through
grants to his wife who was a Hawaiian ali'i, the ranch remained unfenced in 1868.
Wild cattle were increasing in the forests once again, and the ranch was suffering
from poor management. (Brennen,1974:37,95,100) By 1880, some sugar plantation
owners were becoming concerned. The watersheds above their plantations, on
which they relied for water and wood, were slowly being destroyed. Although cane
bagasse was replacing wood as an energy source by the 1880's, wood cutting
continued on some plantations. (Smith,1884b:462-463) One planter complained,
"Cattle, goats, sheep, and hogs should be confined to pastures.. Our forests are being
slowly destroyed, ruining our water supply, drying our pastures, and obliging us to
import coal instead of using firewood." (Smith,1882b:209) Charles Bishop, the Chair
of the Senate Commission on Forestry in 1884, requested information from each Big
Island District Commissioner on the change in forest conditions which had
occurred from 1854 to 1884.
The responses ranged from specific to very non-committal. One commissioner,
addressing the same Kona area described by Rock in 1913 as "pitiable", described it as
"few changes except minor areas of understory loss from cattle". The representative
from Laupahoehoe mentioned that the water and soil are so good that they can
overcome the "impacts". At the same time, he states that "the koa, on the windward
slopes... save perhaps the Hilo jungles, is doomed, and is being replaced by dense
thickets of Ohia". (Smith,1884b:462-463) With the exception of the latter comments
on koa, however, the optimistic comments expressed above were in the minority at
this time. Efforts were begun to halt the continuing loss of valuable forest cover on
watersheds, and thus the second philosophy of the Plantation Era took root.
Reforestation efforts had begun as early as 1870 with eucalyptus plantings on Maui.
They were supported by the current King's (King Kalakaua) world tour in 1881
during which many tree seeds and cuttings were sent home to the islands to help in
reforestation efforts. A key incentive for protecting forested land was granted to
landowners in 1892, for at that time land managed for forest cover became exempt
from property taxes. (Dine11,1961:2) This exemption was renewable on an annual
basis, giving the land owner maximum flexibility in managing his land while
offering an economic incentive to allow land to "lay fallow" in the form of a forest.
Finally on January 4, 1893, the Kingdom's legislature created a Commission on
Agriculture and Forestry to assist in preserving and/or restoring forest cover.
(LeBarron,1970:12)
This was to be one of the final acts of the Hawaiian monarchy, for on January 17,
1893, the monarchy fell to a group of revolutionists led by prominent Hawaiian
businessmen. A Provisional government was set up, and negotiations for
page 16
s
annexation by the United States began. On July 4, 1894, the Republic of Hawaii was
proclaimed, after the Washington administration of Grover Cleveland objected to
the overthrow of the monarchy and refused annexation. Four years later, on August
12, 1898, under a different U.S. administration and during the Spanish-American
War, the United States agreed to annexation, and Hawaii became a U.S. Territory.
(App1e,1979:107-124) Land holdings in Hawaii changed during these events.
Although private land holdings were not affected, public land holdings were. Prior
to the revolution, the monarchy owned approximately 1 /3 of all land, as did the
government. This two thirds of all lands became the property of the United States as
part of the annexation treaty of 1898. (Apple,i979:124,131) Throughout Hawaii,
private land acquisition by a relative few continued, as did a concern for protecting
watersheds from further degradation. Table 3 shows how plantations consolidated
during the last decade of the 19th century.
Table 3 -Sugar Plantations: Number and Size
(all Hawaiian Islands)
Year Number of Average Planted
Plantations Acres
1870 20 425
1880 63 413
1890 73 1,192
1900 52 2,462
Source: Horwitz,1969:22
Following annexation, policies were implemented by the U.S. Government to
distribute private land ownership among more of the populace. The Organic Act of
1900, passed by the U.S. Congress out of concern for the "concentration of land
ownership", provided fora 1,000 acre limit law, where ownership of more than
1,000 acres was subject to forfeiture. Sanford Dole, the first governor of the new
Territorial government, initiated a policy of small farm land use to accomplish this
distribution objective. Once again the concern for watershed protection was raised as
additional land clearing was necessary under the small farm policy. Sugar growers
were able to circumvent the intent of the law by leasing land from company
employees who participated in the small farm plan and from neighboring
companies or plantations who owned larger acreages.
In this manner sugar growers were able to maintain control over areas larger than
1,000 acres. Subsequent governors of Hawaii paid lip service to Dole's policy, but did
little to enforce it. When this law was abolished in the 1920's, many of the
neighboring companies which had leased lands to the larger growers were bought
out or consolidated. (Horwitz,l969:21-25) In 1903, Act 44 of the Territorial Laws took
steps to protect forests on public lands. The Board of Agriculture and Forestry was
page 17
created and its responsibilities defined. This included gathering and publishing
information on forestry, cooperating with other organizations, protecting sources of
water supplies, and managing forest reserves. The Hawaii Sugar Planters
Association was a leading influence in the adoption of this legislation and for
several decades continued to be an active supporter of forestry, especially on private
lands. (LeBarron,1970:12) For the native ecosystem, however, these efforts offered
little relief. Reforestation efforts focused primarily on exotic species, such as those
planted on Maui and those promoted by King Kalakaua's world tour. Replacing
indigenous species with exotics often failed to realize the objectives of reforesting
watersheds.
The planting of eucalyptus was an example. Eucalypts, with their inefficient use of
water and ability tQ suppress understory growth, did not enhance watersheds as well
as the native forest did. (Giffard and Rock,1913:18) They did, however, provide an
alternative forest use by the 1950's. Cattlemen continued to introduce exotic grasses
to improve their pastures, and often included undesirable weed species accidentally.
(Rock,1913:18) By the early 1900's, the Parker ranch was progressing under the
management of Alfred W. Carter after decades of neglect. Carter acquired huge
acreages at this time by buying and leasing land on the Big Island using a simple
policy of acquisition and expansion. By 1917 the ranch totaled 330,000 acres. With
each new parcel he applied an aggressive management style, resulting in forest
clearing and fencing of the property. Mamane from the higher elevation woodlands
was cut and used for fence posts.
Carter was a prime advocate of new exotics; often sharing his "good" grasses with
other ranchers. He also introduced several new species of birds, including pheasants
and the Chinese thrush (Garrulax canora~s). He purchased lands in Kahuka because
the area had lots of kipukas or isolated patches of native forest, which were
considered prime grazing areas. "Massive" amounts of poisons were used to control
plant and insect pests. Carter's aggressive management also included reforestation
efforts in the Kohala mountain watersheds, as well as others. He wanted laws to
protect nature, and supported a law in 1907 which protected native birds, including
the nene (Nesochen sandvicensis). (Brennen,1974:117-168) In short, his policies
resulted in a planned, controlled impact on native habitat compared to his
predecessors, and most likely his goals were to enhance the environment as he
perceived it. Exotic introductions and mamane harvesting, however, were
detrimental to the native ecosystem, although his reforestation efforts most likely
stabilized the watersheds to some extent. Native forest was lost in many areas, but
was retained in others as a result of fencing ranch stock and reducing wild cattle.
Concurrently, other development which impacted native forests continued. Acres
planted to sugar cane production more than doubled from 30,000 in 1880 to an
estimated 68,500 in 1900. (Lind,1938:Appendix A) Thousands of acres of forest were
cleared to grow coffee in the Olaa area. This venture failed because no efforts were
made to determine if the land was suitable for the crop; leaving a forest of dead and
dying trees and an understory of Hilo grass in place of a once impenetrable forest.
page 18
U
(Giffard and Rock,1913:16) Fires continued to plague the Big Island. A 30,000 acre fire
above the Hamakua coast in 1902 may have helped pass the 1903 law establishing
the Forestry Board. (LeBarron,1970:12)
The Territory hired Ralph S. Hosmer as its first Superintendent of Forestry in 1903.
He was recommended by Gifford Pinchot, then Chief of the U.S. Forest Service and
one of the nation's pioneers in forest conservation. Hosmer served Hawaii until
1914, and focused his efforts on establishing territorial forest reserves. By the time of
his resignation, designated forest reserve acreage had grown from zero to 800,000
acres. The territory had set aside 550,000 acres, and private lands had contributed
260,000 acres. Charles S. Judd, who succeeded Hosmer, was Hawaii bom and
descended from the early missionary, Gerrit P. Judd. He took over in 1914 and
followed Hosmer's lead in designating reserve areas. By 1930, more than 1,000,000
acres had been set aside. Management policy focused on the principles that water
was essential to the island's economy, and that heavy forest cover was essential in
maintaining that supply. Native forest was retained where possible, but exotics were
usually employed in reforestation efforts. Many members of the fig genus (Fict~s)
were introduced at this time because of their fast growth and large, rain-
intercepting, leaf crowns.
Unfortunately, some serious pests were also introduced as well, such as the black
wattle and the fire tree. Reforestation efforts from 1908 to 1933 averaged 400,000 trees
per year, with over half of them being eucalypts. In 1934, the federally sponsored
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) program arrived in Hawaii. By now the territory
had a Division of Forestry, with organizations on each major island. From 1935 to
1941 almost 2,000,000 trees were planted per year. Hundreds of miles of trails and
fences were built, as was an extensive infrastructure of nurseries, roads, buildings,
telephone lines, and signs. Tons of seeds were collected for reforestation efforts.
Aggressive actions in controlling feral animals resulted in approximately 40,000
animals being killed or removed from forest reserves in 1929 and 1930. The
majority (25,000) of these were goats. (LeBarron,1970:12-14)
Sugar cane acreage had increased to over 110,000 acres by 1929, and then began
dropping slightly in later years. In 1935 there were 109,000 acres in production.
(Lind,1938:Appendix A) The early 1900's, with the passage of the Organic Act of 1900
and its limitation on land ownership, had required land owners to become creative
in their methods of maintaining control over large areas. After the repeal of the
1,000 acre limitation provision in the 1921, a group of agricultural businesses
emerged to control vast holdings of land throughout Hawaii. Termed the Big Five,
they had roots which dated back well into the 19th century. They were Alexander &
Baldwin, American Factors, C. Brewer, Castle & Cooke, and Theo H. Davies. These
companies emulated the historic land ownership patterns of Hawaii, where lands
were owned by one or a few, and they contributed greatly to a centralized land
management system. (Horwitz,1967:4-5)
page 19
4
Land management decisions remained the prerogative of a relative few. By World
War II, at the height of the Plantation Era, almost half of the Islands total land area
was owned by less than 80 private owners. (Cooper and Daws,1985:3) About 100
landowners, along with the Federal and Territorial governments, controlled over
92% of all land in the Territory. (Horwitz,1969:45) Big Five companies all shared
officers and directors with each other, again centralizing to some extent decision
making. They controlled much of Hawaii's economy, and from their position of
wealth, much of the Republican political party. This was the dominant party in
Hawaii throughout the first half of the 20th century, with Republicans
outnumbering Democrats almost 5 to 1 in the Senate and almost 6 to 1 in the
House. (Cooper and Daws,1985:3-4)
From a land management perspective, the majority of the populace had little or no
control over policies affecting natural resources. Resource impacts from about 1915
to 1941 were relatively moderate, as a period of stability arose from the ownership
patterns. Sugar cane (and pineapple on other islands) had reached its full potential,
and additional clearing of forest lands was almost negligible. Watersheds, controlled
by either the Territory or the landowners, were being protected or enhanced to
maintain consistent water supplies to the agricultural economy of Hawaii. Feral
animal populations were being brought under- control by eradication and fencing
programs, and their impact was lessened. Some adverse impacts did continue to
occur on agricultural lands, however, as intensive land disturbance from repeated
crop harvests resulted in more soil compaction and an increase in erosion potential.
(Wood,i977:134,136) Exotic introductions increased their range during this clearing
and re-clearing. Less competitive native seed sources were gradually removed and
the regeneration of more aggressive, tenacious exotics was favored. Ranch lands
most likely suffered the most, as forest cover loss continued. The grazing of
domestic cattle continued to convert forests to woodlands and eventually to
grasslands, as exotics filled the niches of native plants decimated by grazing.
(Sohmer and Gustafson,1987:12)
In 1941, World War II disrupted the relative tranquillity of the islands. Work by the
Division of Forestry assumed a custodial role, and enhancement efforts ceased as
the CCC disbanded. (LeBarron,1970:14) The agricultural economy contributed
heavily to the war effort, and large amounts of land were ceded to the military for
training and other uses. On the Parker Ranch, 50,000 acres was used by the military
for practice bombing. Besides the obvious loss of tree cover, more subtle changes
occurred as fires plagued the area and cacti spread. (Brennen,1974:164) The first
rumblings of land reform were now being heard, as military rule displaced the
Republican plantation establishment during the War. (Cooper and Daws,1985:4) In
1943, a Land Laws Revision Commission was appointed. In an effort to regulate the
cattle industry on public lands, The Commission recommended that pastoral lands
be separated from agricultural lands via reclassification. They also proposed that
agricultural lands be withdrawn from grazing leases and that Territorial pastures be
brought up to standards by the responsible party; the Territory if unleased, or the
lessee if leased. (Kraemer,1949:20)
page 20
Beginning with Territorial Governor Stainback's administration in 1942, the first
governmental support for land revision was publicly heard in Hawaii since the
early 1900's. Stainback, and subsequent governors, publicly recognized the need for
homesteads, utilizing large blocks of both public and private land. In 1947, the
expiration of a major plantation lease on the island of Hawaii led to the designation
and development of the Waiakea subdivision near Hilo. (Horwitz,1969:45-54)
Between 1944 and 1947, a new force entered the arena. The International
Longshoreman's and Warehousemen's Union (1LWU) organized Hawaii's sugar
and pineapple plantation workers into a highly effective, close-knit group. Land
ownership of the Big Five had not changed, but with the ability to strike, the
ILWU's control over crop production and shipping tightened. (Cooper and
Daws,1985:167)
After World War II, the military continued to influence the island. Bases which
were expanded during the war were maintained or expanded. The dominant
agricultural economy was supplanted by a military economy. (Korte,1970:16) This
reduced reliance on agricultural industries may have contributed to land
management policies developed in the 1950's for activities such as grazing,
recreation, and forest utilization. The Territorial government resumed control and
continued to advocate changes which made leasing land more expensive and
responsible. In 1948 the Commission on Public Lands had its Grazing Land Leases
Committee review leases. The committee recommended that lease sizes be reduced,
forest reserve fences be maintained, and an inspection for erosion, ground cover,
and pests be conducted. Provisions for controlling noxious weeds and pests were
also presented. (Kraemer,1949:20)
As the desire for land reform continued, new institutions were developed to assist
in the management of natural resources. Soil Conservation Districts were allowed
by law in 1947. These Districts enabled landowners to participate in a variety of
Federal government programs aimed at maintaining and enhancing natural
resources. (Kraemer,1949:18) Following World War II, a policy shift in feral animal
management occurred. By now local hunters had more leisure time and more
access to the forests of the island. In 1950 they convinced the Territorial
Government to change their feral animal policy of eradication to one of
management for sustainable populations, allowing hunters to continue their sport
indefinitely. The Mauna Kea Forest Reserve, for example, was redesignated as both
a Forest Reserve and a Game Management Area. Closed hunting seasons allowed
feral populations to increase in some areas. (Juvik and Juvik,1984:195) The
disruptions that war had brought to the islands resulted in another, more subtle
effect on the natural resources of Hawaii, for a new era was again dawning for the
islands.
The change in the islands' economy, the unionization of plantation workers, and
the education of a new generation following the war were indirect effects that
World War II had on Hawaii. After more than 100 years of land consolidation by
agricultural businessmen and the effects that their policies had on the
page 21
environment, a change was once more taking place. Table 4 shows land uses on the
Big Island in 1949. The concept of Forest Reserves and National Parks was unheard
of only 80 years earlier in 1879. A generation later, these two uses would occupy
approximately 28% of the total land area on the Big Island. The politics of power
would shift into new hands, and new policies would once again affect the natural
resources of Hawaii.
Table 4 -Big Island Land Use
(1949)
Use Acres
A riculture 1,362,814
Forest Reserve 576,217
National Park 147,978
Urban 485,703
TOTAL 2,572,712
Source of Table N from Kraemer,1949:4-5
VI. Sharing the Wealth 1954 to present
Throughout the Plantation Era, people were needed to work the large sugar cane
plantations. Until World War II, the sugar industry was a labor intensive industry,
and plantation owners imported tens of thousands of laborers to meet their labor
needs. Japan and the Philippines provided the majority of the workers. By 1930, 32%
of all Hawaiian residents were Asians working on sugar plantations. (Lind,1938:323-
324) The number of people in Hawaii from Japanese parentage was substantial
when Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941. Often these residents were second and third
generation citizens who had strong ties to their country, the United States. Many of
these young people fought with considerable distinction in Europe during the War,
instilling their Japanese community at home in Hawaii with an immense spirit of
pride and determination to gain a greater say in the future of Hawaii. Those who
had survived the war returned home to Hawaii with a new confidence and a new
vision of their participation in the future of the islands.
Their experiences overseas had exposed them to different cultures and new ideas,
and they began to question social conditions in Hawaii. The War also afforded them
the opportunity to further their education under the GI Bill of Rights. Because their
ancestral heritage, and the events of plantation life, had bound them into a tightly
knit cooperative group, it became relatively easy for them to generate support
among their communities. When their U.S. born children became 21 years old, they
registered to vote. The federal McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 allowed many of their
parents to become naturalized citizens, and many of them registered to vote. By the
early 1950's, perhaps 40% of the electorate was of Japanese ancestry.
page 22
w
The local born Japanese of Hawaii were crucial to the change which was taking place
in Hawaii in the early 1950's. A shift of power was occurring in the islands, and a
new group was emerging via the Democratic political party. (Cooper and
Daws,1985:4-5) The elections of 1954 ushered in a Democratic legislature for the first
time in Hawaii's history. Except for the period of 1959 to 1962 when they lost the
Senate, the party continued its success into the 1980's. The party experienced similar
success at the local level, with many County mayors, boards of supervisors, and
councils having Democrats in office. (Cooper and Daws,1985:1) This new power
base, which included key members of the ILWU, was determined to socially
restructure Hawaii, via a more open government and the promotion of civil
liberties. Public education received generous appropriations, and college tuition in
the university system was kept low. Labor laws were passed which gave disabled
workers in the workman's compensation program one of the highest payout rates
of any in the nation.
Land reform was also a priority of the young government. In 1958, a survey on
Oahu was conducted by the Republican party. They found that only 13% opposed
breaking up the major estates, as against 56% in favor. When given a choice of
dividing up landholdings versus not, however, the legislatures of the 1950's chose
not to. The reasons are unclear, but may include the probable unconstitutionality of
directly seizing and redistributing large amounts of land in the United States and a
traditional respect for private property rights. Whatever the reasons, most
Democratics abandoned forced land distribution as an option and chose
development as an alternative means to broaden social and economic reform. This
compromise concluded that development would create new wealth for the middle
and working class people of Hawaii, while not intruding significantly on the rights
of the landed wealthy. (Cooper and Daws,1985:6-7) The people behind the Big Five
were responding to these changes in their own way. The 1950's saw each of these
companies repurchasing their stocks in a consolidation of representation, until the
majority of shares were owned by the company itself. (Horwitz,1969:145) In effect,
control over the land owned by these companies, and their other interests in
industries such as transportation, remained with a few owners, and not a mass of
individual stockholders.
On the ground, land uses were changing. As mentioned under the previous Era,
recreational use of the island's forests increased following World War II. In 1954 a
system of State parks was established. (Korte,1970:16) As more people accessed the
forests for hunting or hiking, an awareness grew of what the forests had to offer.
Development, meanwhile, did not occur only because the legislature wanted it.
Rather the development boom of Hawaii began because of two outside forces. The
first was the growing international Cold War in the 1950's and the Vietnam War in
the 1960's. Military spending replaced sugar and pineapple as the economy's leading
source of income in the late 50's. The second force influencing Hawaii's economy
was the wave of new commercial jet planes which allowed hundreds of thousands,
then millions, of visitors to come to "paradise". The tourist trade eventually
page 23
6
replaced agriculture, and then the military, as the number one source of revenue for
the islands. (Cooper and Daws,1985:9)
The Democrat's development concept impacted the natural resources in several
ways. To encourage further development, the Democratic tax policy had forced land
assessments upwards by employing a method termed "highest and best use".
Property values were calculated based on the property's highest potential monetary
return, irregardless of use. Often this forced landowners to do something with their
land, since they were now paying higher taxes on it. Forested areas which had
provided intangible benefits via watershed cover and wildlife habitat, were now
subject to development. According to 1988 County tax rates, the landowner who
wanted to minimize development expenses could do so by grazing their property.
By building a fence and releasing cattle into the forest, a relatively cheap form of
"use" was implemented, and tax rates could be minimized. Unfortunately, a
method such as this resulted in more destruction to existing forest cover by cattle, a
well documented concern since the 1800's.
In 1957, the Forest Reserve tax deferment policy, which had been in place since 1891,
was changed. The original legislation had been of prime benefit to the large
landholders, for by declaring a piece of land forest reserve, they did not have to pay
taxes on it. The natural resources had benefited to some extent because disturbances
were limited under this status, and the native forest had an opportunity to recover
from the early impacts of wood cutting and heavy feral animal populations. The
change which occurred in 1957 allowed landowners to avoid the "highest and best
use" concept by committing land to a given use for 10 years (later changed to twenty
years). This gave them a lower tax rate for that property than for a similarly used,
undeclared area. In addition, by guaranteeing them a constant rate over a long
period of time, it gave further encouragement to maintaining a given use and
provided stability to the management of the property.
In 1958; the real estate boom hit the Big Island, as 12,000 acres of land between
Kurtistown and Mountain View was subdivided into 4,000 lots and put on the
market. The project was called Hawaiian Acres, and prices were reasonable for the
time. Sales were very successful, and for the next nine years, new large-scale
subdivisions were approved time and time again by Hawaii County. Unfortunately,
much of these subdivisions were speculative in nature, and many lots were bought
sight unseen. Often the lots were on unproductive land which later became
uninsurable because of their proximity to the active volcanic rift zone of Kilauea.
(Cooper and Daws,1985:259, 262-264) In 1959, Hawaii became the nation's 50th State.
The first elected Governor of the new State was the last Territorial Governor;
William F. Quinn. As part of his successful race for State Governor, he advocated a
"Second Mahele", where close to 145,000 acres of State land would be sold in small
lots to the public.
In 1961, a milestone in public land policy was implemented in Hawaii, as the
"Greenbelt Law" was passed. Officially termed the Land Use Law of 1961, Act 187
page 24
e
originally intended to protect agricultural land. It classified all land in Hawaii into
one of three types of land use; agricultural, urban, and conservation.
(Horwitz,1969:55) Afourth land use classification, rural, was amended to the bill in
1963. (Korte,1970:17) In essence, the law was the first in the United States to regulate
public and private land use on a State-wide scale. Urbanization was confined to
limited, designated areas, thereby maintaining large, integral areas of little or no
development. As expected with the compromise policies adopted by the Democratic
controlled government, private ownership in the hands of relatively few continued
on the Big Island. In 1966, 41% of all land on Hawaii was owned by 35 individuals or
corporations. (Horwitz,1969:171-177) Statewide, 97.5% of all public land under lease
in 1966 was controlled by 20 lessees. (Horwitz,1969:144)
Impacts on the natural resources during this post-war period were significant. As
the population increased 22% from 1960 to 1970 (Cooper and Daws,1985:10) the
demand for water, land, housing, roads, and recreational opportunities increased as
well. A balance was sought, and the concept of multiple-use was promoted. On the
national scene, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 had recognized similar
demands needs on Federal forest lands, and had set forth direction for meeting
those needs on National Forests. Multiple Use advocated that forests were often
capable of providing a variety of resources or uses simultaneously, at the same time
recognizing the need for single use emphases in special cases such as scenic areas,
municipal watersheds, and natural area preserves.
The multiple-use theory meshed well with the philosophy that advocated the
creation of a timber industry to capitalize on the forest plantings of the past 80 years.
In the 1950's the government realized that the trees which had been planted over
the previous 8 decades for watershed protection were maturing, and represented a
resource of lumber for construction. (Korte,1970:16) This coincided with a similar
thought process on the mainland, which also needed raw materials to fuel the post-
war housing boom of the 1950's, and where National Forest harvesting was begun
in earnest. The U.S. Forest Service, long an ally of Hawaii's foresters since the
nomination of Ralph Hosmer in 1903, continued to influence forestry efforts in
Hawaii. In 1956, C. Eric Reppun, then the President of the Board of Agriculture and
Forestry, requested assistance from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in developing a
more progressive and positive program, and a USFS research station was set up. In
1957, the Territorial legislature made provisions in Act 234 to initiate a timber
resource survey. (Korte,1970:16) The first survey was conducted in 1963, and
subsequent surveys have been conducted periodically. (Nelson and
Hond a,1966: foreword )
Forest land, as classified by the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR),
increased by 18,900 acres between 1961 and 1970. (Nelson and Wheeler, 1961:36; State
of Hawaii,1976:7) As State land managers anticipated a new timber industry and
through reforestation sought to create a steady supply of timber products, acres
planted to commercial tree species rose to new levels. The period :om 1956 to 1965
saw a total of 5,815 acres planted, an area unmatched in size since the CCC plantings
page ?S
o
prior to World War R when 6,733 acres had been planted. Exotic tree species which
produced greater volume yields were heavily favored over native species. (Nelson
and Honda,1966:28,6) On the opposite end of the timber management process,
logging increased as well. In 10 years, total board foot production for various forest
products throughout the State rose from 915,000 board feet in 1958, to 4,121,000 board
feet in 1967. (Burgan and Wong,1971:2)
Hunting continued to be a popular sport following the War. With an end to the
eradication policies of the 20's and 30's, active management of the game resources
was undertaken by the DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife. A closed hunting
season on Mauna Kea feral sheep from 1950 to 1955 resulted in the herd increasing
to about 4,000 animals, and concern for the future of the Mamane forest found there
was expressed. Where hunters had access, regeneration occurred, but in the more
remote areas, regeneration was not occurring. Introductions of exotic game animals
continued, and the Mouflon sheep was released on Mauna Kea to improve the
quality of the feral sheep population. The axis deer was also proposed, but met
opposition from ranchers and farmers who feared the animal would cause more
harm than good to their respective industries. (Juvek and Juvek,1984:195-196)
Concurrently, the elimination of feral cattle in Forest Reserves was supported with
the passage of Hawaii's Land Reform Laws in 1962. Provisions for removing wild
cattle on forest reserve land was clearly outlined in Title 12, Subtitle 4, Section 183-
19 of the State Code. Recognition of other key components to a functioning
ecosystem is also contained in the 1962 law. Forest reserves are joined by, or include,
a variety of alternative use areas, including wildlife sanctuaries, game management
areas, State parks, watersheds, and natural reserves.
The environmental effect of some of these developments was to provide access to
large areas of previously unroaded areas. This increased access by both people and
machines hastened the introduction and establishment of exotic plants in areas of
native forests. Exotic plants and animals which have successfully outcompeted
Hawaii's native species, and direct loss of habitat through agricultural land clearing,
are primary reasons for the loss of wildlife habitat. In the last 200 years, more than
30% of Hawaii s endemic bird species have become extinct. (Ralph,1977:1)
Concurrently many native plants and invertebrates have also disappeared. Over
10% of the native plant species are presumed extinct, and approximately 50% have
been proposed as threatened or endangered. (State of Hawaii,1988b:1)
By 1968 another shift in natural resource management was occurring at the national
level as concern for species facing extinction was mounting. The passage of the
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 addressed many of these concerns, for the
law's objectives were to regulate impacts on species which faced extinction. (State of
Hawaii,1988b:6) The effect of the Endangered Species Act on the State's plans for
active forestry management was significant. Since Hawaii had so many species
which were considered threatened and endangered, the new guidelines made
aggressive management of the timber resource on State lands very difficult.
Commercial tree planting dropped from an average of 580 acres per year during the
page 26
period 1956 to 1965, to only 82 acres in 1985. (State of Hawaii,1985:31) Emphasis in
other areas continued, however. By 1985, 99,537 acres were set aside as Natural
Areas on the Big Island. Approximately 1600 acres were designated as State Parks or
historical areas. Statewide, over 81,000 acres of Wildlife Sanctuaries were under
management. (State of Hawaii,1985:6,33, 45,48)
Discussion and Conclusion:
Hawaii has seen significant changes since people first discovered this geographically
isolated chain of volcanic islands. In accelerating fashion, the environment has
been altered in both species composition and quantity, as unique Hawaiian species
have been unable to compete with more aggressive introductions. Exotic grass and
weed species are increasing the risk of wildfires as a lack of forest overstory results
in less shade, the drying of soils, and warmer average surface temperatures. Fire size
and intensity has increased in recent years, as indicated in 1969 by the largest fire on
record for the island of Hawaii. 39,000 acres burned in the North Kona district near
Puuanahulu Village, resulting in the loss of native forest and wildlife.
(Brennen,1974:184) In 1986 an additional 25,246 acres burned in Hawaii County.
(State of Hawaii,1988a:532)
Various new predators, unknown to ancient Hawaii, have impacted both flora and
fauna. Land clearing has increased the loss of soil via erosion, and repeated
agricultural activities have made soil productivity more dependent on technology
and fertilizers. A substantial increase in human populations has placed more
demands on natural resources such as water and land. These undesirable by-
products of development has generated the interest of a multitude of rzsearchers.
The body of knowledge about Hawaii's ecosystem and interactions among its
components has increased as a result of the efforts of these people, and mechanisms
have been put in place to alleviate and mitigate some of the adverse effects which
accompanies development. Land use classification, zoning, and environmental
impact statements all contribute to achieving a proper mix of resource conservation
and development.
The balance between developing a viable society and maintaining those resources
upon which such a society is dependent, however, continues to demand decisions
from the State and its people. Clean and adequate water, open vistas and healthy
forests to recreate in, and quality air to breathe are desires of most people. Some
needs, such as water, are obvious necessities. Less obvious, but equally important,
are the components which contribute to clean, adequate supplies of water. Healthy,
sufficient amounts of forest cover, which depend on clean air and productive soils,
is an example of such a component.
At the same time, adequate employment opportunities for this and future
generations, an improved standard of living, and the material amenities of today's
affluent society are also goals of the average citizen. Hawaii is currently dependent
on its association with the world's economy. Continued participation requires
page 27
a
viable industries and an employable work force. Public surveys indicate the
changing priorities of people with regard to development versus land conservation.
In 1976, clean air and water were deemed the most "important" issues by 81% of the
people polled. Eight years later, in a similar survey, areas "needing most attention"
were led by jobs (18%). Aesthetics and natural resources were further down the list
with 6%, and clean air and water had a 3% following. (State of Hawaii,1986:22).
As the 21st century approaches, one thing remains clear. Hawaii will certainly look
different than it does now, and as it did 100 years ago, and as it did 1,000 years ago.
What it will look like has yet to be decided.
page 28
° DEPT OP aGFIi= HIIhIIhd ~,~-:^08-'~~'°~-a~l'~ Nug 14 1S~OS~ F. 01
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Honolulu, Hawaii
August 18, 1997
FACT SHEET
Hamakua Coast: Macadamia Nut and Coffee
Agronomic Suitability and Economic Viability on County of Hawaii
Parcels
Post•if Gar. dote '6i 1 ; : ~ ~ -
To '4!1 I,( i)~ ~n C'~ FIOm '7 ~ -___Il,. '.71
!y
- ---r ,--r , -
- _ . ~ - r
FACT SHEET
H~makua Coast; Macadamia Nuts and C '`ee
Agronotni~ .viability and Economic Viability on county Lands
1. DESCT2IpTION OF COUNTY LANDS
There aze 21 parcels totaling about 4,423 acres. Parcels range in size fron 1.050 to
1,040 acres. 'These parcels are found in three distinct areas.
Taz Map
Kev ~ •on
1. 3-4-04:6 10.208 Maulua Stream
2. 3-4-04: 16 1.150 Maulua Stream
3. 4-2-05:1 1040.0 Paauilo
4. 4-3-07: 1 57.0 py~~o
5. 4-3-07: por. 4 148.09 Paauilo
6. 4-3-09:2 51.10 Pauuilo
7. 4-3-09: 19 110.9 Paauilo
8. 4-3-09: 24 169.5 Paauilo
9. 4-3-11:1 56.73 Paauilo
10. 4-3-11:2 306.275 Paauilo
11. 4-3-12:6 77.4 panto
12. 4-7-05:1 777.94 Kapulcna
13. 4-7-05: 2 38.57 Kapulena
14. 4-7-05:3 1.43 Kapulena
15. 4-7-06: 1 214.0 ,Kapulena
16. 4-7-06:5 81.4 'Kapulena
17. 4-7-06; 6 167.7 Kapulena
18. 4-7-06:7 61.25 Kapulena
19. 4-7-06: 10 164.85 Kapulena
20. 4-7-06: 18 227.284 Kapulena
21. 4-8-03:5 660.80 Kapulena
Parcels 2 and 14 are remnants that provide access to adjacent larger parcels.
2-
DEPT =F C-4 __ r�I9
i1IN - . -- "'".I- t~uq 14 '?-,' 1c I1 F.
4
r
A
Y
7
E
Y
pp . 1
1g _
cri
T_
,_
N a. m•
al I
� � � lk.
z I: F x a. .
O \ 1 •r ,0 e\ • • A i`
j� \ Y
•
a. \ 4 0 - I : . i
4-, \ ._,_ ,.. - ' le ."x
cti p \ I I 8
W
co co \ a• _ G. 0, . x / •
J
043 ' ca k\4/ - - 9ah, 6
N...,.......
.'411 fr.,.`...
X \ cd 7 rZ - U
i
., '---.
k ')Ce4.- E 6 N c=bei
01.‘•4,4 • ` -\
"< I d
. / -..,s •
.. /
440 4C •.2 c; Q ./ Nom/ / \
4a O .. t. 'at ' p �� i g 0 1 --
a * CZ p 0 c F.
:.; •�lir,'
$ S0 •- 1 r * Z� _ I P BGG
NLL.44o _ 4 ,-11. _,..,—• 0 '
1 1 3 1• • • • - N
73
.o 7-\\J A
L Y
a orn
4 ."
li
0
Y
JEF? ~IF ~Gr IC -;Iil`I I"I F~~ ~ : ~~:~i~.rc~- ; ~ -_c,r.l3 iii ~.g 14 i 1S :11 P.
FACT SPIFFY
Aamakua Coast: Diaeadamia Nuts and Coffee
Agronomic Suitability and Economic Viability on County Lands
3. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AND
POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL USES FOR
MAULUA STREAM, PAAUILO, AND KAPULENA
SITES
Maulua Stream
Number of parcels: 2
Total area: about 11 acres
Soil series: Rough Broken Land
Elevation: 300 feet
Rainfall: 160" to 200" (approx.)
Basically unusable as parcels are located on steep cliffs adjacent to Belt Highway along
Maulua Stream,. Approximately 1/3 of area is cultivable but with steep slopes
approximately 30 - 35 degrees.
Appears to be mowed by adjacent landowners.
uil
Number of parcels: 9
Total area: about 2,017 acres
Soil Series: mostly Honokaa silty clay loam with 0 to 35 percent slopes;
also ICukaiau silty clay Loam (0-10 percent slopes) in Paauilo Homesteads area.
Elevation: 1,300 to 2,700 feet
Rainfall: 80" to 100"
Potential Uses: forestry (unirrigated)
coffee and truck crops may be grown if supplemental irrigation is
available
(macadamia normally grown below -1200 feet.)
-4-
IEF- _F ~~bPI_ ~~Df9Ihd ~~'--~r.- Hi.r~ 1~ 15:1 ;n,
FACT SHEET
c..unakua Coast: Macadamia Nuts and Coffee
Agronotruc Suitability and $conomic Viability on County Lands
Except for Paauilo Homesteads, no County water is available.
The Paauilo Homesteads area is widely used for pasture for cattle, sheep, and dairy cows.
Paauilo Homesteads also has history of commercial coffee production.
Some areas have rocky soil.
Terrain may limit total cultivable land azea.
WYtere sugarcane was planted, productivity was approximately 9 to 10 tons of sugar per acre
(TSA) (unirrigated). This is considered average fox the Hamakua area.
In
Number of parcels: 10
Total area: about 2,395 acres
Soil Seties: mostly Kukaiau silty clay loam (0-20 percent slopes)
Elevation: 900 to 1, 800 feet
Rainfall: 60" to 100"
Potential Uses: forestry (uturrigated)
macadamia (on lands under 1,200 feet elevation), coffee, and truck
crops may be grown if supplemental irrigation is available. Brassica
and other cool weather crops possible in elevations above 1,200 feet.
Terrain may limit total cultivable land area.
Prudential Timber crews are clearing some parcels in this area.
Where sugazcane was planted, productivity was approximately 8 to IO tons of sugar per acre
(TSA) (unirrigated). This is considered average for the Hamakua area.
One 38.5-acre parcel is adjacent to the Lower Hamakua bitch. All other parcels aze further
mauka of the Ditch.
Ironwood of 4" to S" grows on much of the land in this area. Bulldozing may be requued,
though costly.
-5-
DEFT OF HSRP= ~IiNII!'I ~e `a,;~~ '>'~r 1~•1J F'.i-5
. •
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Honolulu, Hawaii
August 18, 1997
FACT SHEET
Hamakua Coast: Diversified Agriculture and Forestry Land Use
_
_F I' l~~i r>>~~=~i. i'~=d-s-_i~_.j? HU?I 1~ j~:j~ = jj
f
L
9
J
E
Y
j U
~ 1
C
n
_ 1~~
~ a f" ~
a° i 'i
o
2 +rt o J ~ p ~aI
n _
a ~ x~ ~
~ p +y
o ~
• y
C N~ ~ ; YJ/~ ~ Z ~ R ~ /
~9 . ,n O r u
_ / S ~ ~ n
x ~ ~ x
4 \
n °onf A ~ \ ~ S V`41 C
r = 4~ ` \ G ` h
9 Z a ~ `
~ ~ < ~
/ ^ `x ~ i
~r
z ~ Y A L ~ E, \
asst ~ L
~ y " ` / i ~ Rte' ~ '1 ?
-t.
b a9~ b
I 1 i s~ - s 1 ' 'V
R ~ + ~ { ~ _ ~ 3
_
~ S z
~ p 9
n 9 a
,r
Y O
o
S
O
L
~ DEFT ~JF H[;F;1i_ i~DMShd Fa,<:c08-~±,--~?nl~~ Huy i4 ~']7 1515 F.1~
FACT SHEET
Hamakua Coast: Diversified Agriculture and Forestry Land Use
1. What lands along the Hamakua Coast (Ninole to
Waipio Valley) are best suited for diversified crop
production?
The Department of Agriculture's (DOA) r ill
Mao for Hamakua indicates that lands below the 1,500 foot
elevation which extends roughly 2 miles inland from the
coastline are suited to a variety of crops such as papaya,
macadamia nuts, ginger, dryland taro, flowers, foliage nursery
feedstock, onions, and dendrobiums. Most crops in this area
are irrigated solely by rainfall. However, dry spells do occur, so
the key to year-round production (especially vegetables and
melons) is the on-demand availability of irrigation water. The
only irrigation ditch in the area is the Lower Hamakua Ditch
(LHD) which services lands generally makai of the highway
from Waipio Valley to Paauilo, a distance of about 15 miles. It
is these irrigated lands, especially between Honokaa and
Paauilo, which yielded the best sugarcane production (13 to 14
tons of raw sugar per acre) for Hamakua Sugar Company.
Notes: The Waimea area contains about 550 acres of
vegetables, flowers, and nursery crops. The
Hamakua area, in particular the area below the LHD,
has the potential for at least 4,000 acres (public and
private lands) being put into diversified agriculture.
- 2-
DEF? OF R~F;I'~_ =~Lih1IhJ F~~_~ :~3U~c-_~~ Hi.LC : 1_
~ F
FACT SHEET
Hamakua Coast: Diversified agriculture and Forestry Land Use
2. Of the former sg_aarcane Iands~J,o~.g the Hama cud Coa~* yvhicfi
areas are planted or pinned for forestry?
The Division of Forestry and Wildlife/Department of Land and
Natural Resources (DLNR) is proposing forestry for 5,700 acres
of State-owned lands between Kukaiau and Laupahoehoe.
Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate tKSBE) is leasing 24,000
acres of their 29,000 acres of Hamakua land to Prudential for
forestry. This area extends from just north of Hakalau to the
edge of Waipio Valley and on both sides of Mamalahoa
Highway.
Hawaii County is considering leasing 4,270 acres of their lands
(received as a result of the property tax settlement) to New Oji
Paper Company (Japan) for forestry. These lands are located
mauka of the LWD.
-3-
`
FACT SHEET
Hamakua Coast: Diversified Agricuitura and Forestry Land Use
~ Of the former sugar ane lands, which are currently, set aside or
~,vaitabte fQr divert
fieL_d aaric lu furs?
State-owned lands:
- About 1,200 acres are presently under revocable
permit by t]LNR to the Namakua -North Hifa
Agricultural Cooperative. The Cooperative's (ands
are in three groups of parcels situated between
Paauilo and Honokaia.
- 509 acres (7MK: 4-3-05: 2) near Paauilo are within a
DOA State Agricultural Park. Current and proposed
uses include papaya, aquaculture, livestock, and a
slaughterhouse.
DHHL-owned lands:
- About 10,700 acres are in large-let pasture
homesteads mauka of Hanokaa (about 1,800-foot
elevation, same in Conservation District) and
Kapulena (about 2,500-foot elevations.
KSBE-awned lands:
- About 5,000 acres below the LHD are in large-lot
pastures on short-term tenancies. From this acreage,
2,000 acres may be made available for diversified
crops such as papaya and dryiand taro.
-a-
FACT SHEET
Hamakua Coast: Diversified Agriculture and Forestry Land Use
Other privately-held land:
- TMK: 4-4-05:1 (346 acres) mauka of Paauhau
village, owned by Kualoa Ranch
(There are many privately-held parcels in sizes up to
over a thousand acres whose owners may be
interested in leasing to farmers.)
hM,~ro.a?!
5