For some reason or other known only to Providence, our rarer and interesting native trees have been concentrated in certain places where they form a veritable bonanza for the delight of the delving botanist.
– C.S. Judd
“Botanical Bonanzas” (1932)
Pu’uwa’awa’a’s “botanical mine” (as Judd phrased it) was not explored systematically until 1909. And what a rich vein it was. In 1932, Judd ticked off some of its treasures: the “Hibiscadelphus hualaiensis and the attractive red cotton, as well as the rubber-producing akoko, the heae and the alani. The fragrant-flowered alahe’e is the most abundant, with Colubrina kauila, ala’a, manele, ohe, wiliwili and koa On the Pu’u Anahulu ridge near by is the koaio, now becoming rather scarce The uhiuhi… is abundant here.”
In 1945, the botanical wealth of Pu’uwa’awa’awa’s again measured, this time by National Park Service agents. The tone of that report is more somber. Many of the trees and plants noted were in poor health and thought to be the last surviving members of their species. “In searching for the reproduction of native trees I found that only the mamani and the wiliwili were effectively reproducing,” Ranger A L Mitchell wrote. He concluded:
“If we are to be assured of success in preserving these tree species, it seems as if the only solution will be to protect these trees in their natural habitat until they can become established elsewhere or become re-established where they are.”
Following an expedition to Pu’uwa’awa’a in May 1945, the Park Service recommended to the Territorial Board of Agriculture and Forestry “that an area be selected of fifty to one hundred acres where a representative population of native trees exists and be turned into a ‘Sanctuary of Native Trees’ . It will afford a place where native species can be replanted or encouraged to propagate themselves.”
Enclosures were built around certain of the plants and trees, but the recommendation for a tree sanctuary did not trigger action.
Not until 1975 did the idea of a plant sanctuary at Pu’uwa’awa’a begin to gain political steam. Then state Senator Jean King introduced a resolution calling on the Department of Land and Natural Resources “to set aside a substantial area of land now leased to Pu’uwa’awa’a Ranch to be maintained as a native rare tree and native plant sanctuary.”
Worshipping The Golden Calf
The Natural Area Reserve System staff attempted over the next year to propose boundaries for a Pu’uwa’awa’a plant reserve, even as it took note of ongoing reduction in habitat. On August 6, 1975, Steve Montgomery, at the time a natural areas specialist with the DLNR, wrote Big Island forester Tom Tagawa that the “Dry Forest Section has been reduced in size on the western end by about 500 acres since last month’s Commission discussions.”
In response to a preliminary map for a reserve submitted to Bohnett in February 1976, Bohnett complimented the NARS staff “on your desire to preserve some of these endangered ‘trees’ for posterity.” “We share this desire with you,” he wrote, “however we feel that it is well to view this project with a broader perspective” that of the “beleaguered cattle industry.” The 3,000 acres proposed for withdrawal by NARS produced 450 calves each year a “sacrifice,” he said, “that is too great a price to pay for the pleasure of such a small interest group.”
In May of 1978 the Board of Land and Natural Resources held a hearing on the Pu’u’wa’awa’a sanctuary and nine other proposed Big Island reserves. Bohnett testified. “I have owned the ranch for over five years and have traveled it extensively I do not know what these plants look like, nor do I know their location. I am certain that the beauty of our area would not be effected kid in the least if these plants did not exist.”
That year, the Board of Land and Natural Resources approved all the Big Island NARS proposals except the one at Pu’uwa’awa’a. NARS was told to come back later, when the Board would consider withdrawal not just of a sanctuary for plants, but one for the ‘alala, too.
Forgotten Promises
P. Quentin Tomich, NARS Commission chairman, did not forget. In 1981, he wrote James Detor, administrator of the Division of Land Management, reminding him that in 1978, “the Commission acceded to a request. . for deferral pending a package arrangement in which lands would be dedicated not only for a reserve to protect dryland forest, but also to provide habitat for the endangered Hawaiian crow.” Tomich noted that the DLM had been approached by the Division of Forestry and Wildlife about setting aside 3,400 acres for ‘alala in the ongoing negotiations over renewal of the ranch lease. The DLM, Tomich said, should also include in its negotiations the proposal to withdraw “a suitable acreage” for the intended Natural Area Reserve and thus “complete the package proposed in 1978.”
In October 1984, at the same time that the Board approved the ‘alala sanctuary, it requested that the Natural Area Reserve System Commission resubmit a proposal for a reserve at Pu’uwa’awa’a. The move gave renewed hope to Tomich, who wrote afterward: “We have moved up a notch or two on the Pu’uwa’awa’a recommendation I felt comfortable and confident with the proceedings in Kona,” where the Board meeting was held NARS staff over the years had compiled “one basic information,” Tomich wrote, “more than we have had for any previous proposal.”
Up in Flames
The NARS Commission dusted off not only the 1978 proposal which called for setting aside several postage-stamp parcels as well as a dryland forest area of about 3,300 acres, but toyed with the idea of expanding the dryland forest reserve to 12,000 acres, almost all of which would lie within the area that was proposed for withdrawal from Bohnett’s lease in October 1984. The proposal submitted to the Land Board, however, was the less ambitious of the two Perhaps the idea was that by not as long the Board of Land and Natural Resources for much, the chance of getting it would be greater than if it asked for more. If so, that was a tactical error. On June 14, 1985, the Board turned thumbs down oil the NARS proposal, recommending only that the Division of Forestry and Wildlife “work with NARS to identify the critical areas” and urging the lessee to “give us his full cooperation” in constructing exclosures around certain individual trees.
That turned out to have been the last chance to set aside a Natural Area Reserve of relatively intact native dryland forest at Pu’uwa’awa’a. Between 3:30 and 4 a.m. on September 6, 1986, three separate fires started burning in the brush Just below the Maui scenic lookout on the Belt Road. Three days later, the fire was brought under control. The native dryland forest was devastated.
A survey conducted by DOFAW’s Carolyn Corn seven months after the fire concluded that “replacement of native trees and shrubs by germinating seed is negligible Regeneration of the native dry forest will require extensive help and management.”
Another survey of the same area two years later was just as disheartening. The survey was made by Wayne Takeuchi, a botanist under contract to the DLNR. “Perceptions of a stand comeback… are misleading” he wrote. “The visual images of a green foliage do not reflect the actual magnitude of the losses suffered by this forest The results regarding de novo reproduction of tree taxa are similarly dismal. Several sightings (less than 10) of Santalum, Erythrina, Canthium, and Diospyros saplings were registered. When set against the miles of transect which had to be walked in order to record these observations, it is clear that the survey forest 11 not going to regain its former status under the conditions now prevailing.”
Volume 1, Number 9 March 1991
Leave a Reply