Gathering Gis Data to Inform Development and Planning in the Rainforest and Protect Natural and Historic Features

ABSTRACT

SUSTAINABLE COFFEE FARMING IN HAWAI’I: GATHERING GIS DATA TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING IN THE RAINFOREST AND PROTECT NATURAL AND HISTORIC FEATURES

by Connor Evan O’Hearn

Abstract: This report describes the internship experience in Kona, Hawai’i working with Monarch Coffee. This involved the collection of 81 soil samples, and geospatial data on the locations of natural and human made features. This data collection and analysis was for the purpose of building a Map Book. The 122 acres of land were sectioned into 27 individual rectangular segments to make the gathering of data more uniform. Soil samples and other spatial information was taken throughout each section. Due to the size of the property, it was important to divide it into more manageable focus areas that would allow for a high level of detail in the analysis. Ultimately, the resulting maps will help in sustainable and efficient land development while conserving the natural landmarks and ecosystem. This project took place in the summer of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. This limited the data collection team to one person and has caused various delays in the economy and industry in Hawai’i. Additionally, the spread of Coffee Leaf Rust to the state of Hawai’i and the Big Island in 2020 raises new concerns about the coffee industry and the plans for the development of this property.

SUSTAINABLE COFFEE FARMING IN HAWAI’I: GATHERING GIS DATA TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING IN THE RAINFOREST AND PROTECT NATURAL AND HISTORIC FEATURES

An Internship Report

Submitted to the

Faculty of Miami University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Connor Evan O’Hearn

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2021

Advisor: Dr. Jessica McCarty

Reader: Dr. Mary Henry

Reader: Robbyn Abbitt

This Internship Report titled

SUSTAINABLE COFFEE FARMING IN HAWAI’I: GATHERING GIS DATA TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING IN THE RAINFOREST AND PROTECT NATURAL AND HISTORIC FEATURES

Connor Evan O’Hearn

has been approved for publication by

The College of Arts and Sciences

and

Department of Geography

______Dr. Jessica McCarty

______Dr. Mary Henry

______Robbyn Abbitt

Table of Contents

Dedication ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi Introduction ...... 1 Research Questions ...... 5 Internship Background ...... 6 More on Monarch Coffee ...... 7 A Review of Relevant Literature Environmental Factors ...... 9 Biodiversity & Biocontrol ...... 9 GIS in Agriculture ...... 12 Project Goals ...... 13 Methods Study Area ...... 15 2012 Historical Survey ...... 17 Collection & Analysis ...... 19 Data ...... 19 Field Tools ...... 20 Data Collection & Analysis Tools ...... 21 Use of Smartphone ...... 23 Soil Sample Handling ...... 25 Map Book Creation ...... 26 Results Important Note ...... 26 Research Answers ...... 27 Map Book ...... 28 Discussion ...... 28 Conclusion ...... 29

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Arriving in Kona ...... v Figure 2: Coffee belt ...... 2 Figure 3: CBB ...... 4 Figure 4: CLR ...... 4 Figure 5: Study area location ...... 8 Figure 6: A. conyzoides ...... 10 Figure 7: S. nodiflora ...... 10 Figure 8: A. pintoi ...... 11 Figure 9: Grid reference system developed for Papa 122 ...... 14 Figure 10: Rainfall ...... 10 Figure 11: Papa 122 mapped roads ...... 16 Figure 12: Historical sites & lava flows ...... 18 Figure 13: Machete & cane axe ...... 21 Figure 14: 4x4 on the path ...... 22 Figure 15: Gear & pickaxe ...... 22 Figure 16: The truck named “Billy” ...... 23 Figure 17: Navigating to point ...... 24 Figure 18: Sections & waypoints ...... 24 Figure 19: Sampling route ...... 24 Figure 20: Soil samples drying ...... 25 Figure 21: Shipping samples ...... 26

Dedication

I would like to dedicate this project to my parents and my sister. Without them I would not be able to take part in a program like this. More than anyone in my life, they push me to achieve my goals by setting the bar extremely high in the goals that they achieve themselves. It is a blessing to have such talented and intelligent people in my corner.

Figure 1: Arriving in Kona.

Acknowledgements

I have many people to thank for making this project possible. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. McCarty, for trusting me and assisting me in my return to Miami University. I was not a typical student, but it all worked out well! Thank you to my committee members, Robbyn Abbitt and Dr. Mary Henry, who helped and encouraged me throughout this project. I would not have learned this much without you. Thank you to all the professors and fellow students at Miami who have helped me through this program and project. Thank you to my Monarch Coffee family for welcoming me into their lives. I am lucky to have you and am happy to have Hawai’i be another place I can call home. Thank you to Sigma Chi, the alumni, Dr. Bertz and the undergraduate chapter. While in graduate school I had the opportunity to serve the undergraduate chapter as their advisor. It has been a wonderful experience and I am lucky to have over 100 younger brothers to push me to succeed. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my family and friends for their support. I am fortunate to have a global network of people that I can always count on.

Introduction: Coffee has been grown in Hawai’i for over 200 years after first arriving on the islands in the 1800s. Various stories recount how explorers and royalty alike brought coffee to Hawai’i. Chief Boki delivered coffee plants from Brazil in 1825; these were the first successful plantings on the islands (Hawaii Coffee Association, 2020). The most common varietal, Kona Typica, arrived on the islands from Guatemala in the 1880s. However, it would take one-hundred years before coffee became a major crop. In the 1980s, as sugar farms were being removed from the Big Island due to the cost associated with labor, coffee would often take the place of sugar as the crop to grow. Coffee is now a major crop for Hawai’i ranking fourth in land devoted to it and fifth in overall value (Hawaii Coffee Association). Over 8,000 acres in Hawai’i are used for the cultivation and production of coffee, with about 95% of that located on the Big Island of Hawai’i (Steiman, 2019). Farms on the Big Island range from small, low acreage family farms to large, relatively high-tech operations that farm hundreds of acres. This all amounts to an annual total revenue of about $86 million dollars for the Hawai’ian coffee industry (Steiman, 2019). Growing conditions in Kona have proven to be an ideal mixture of nutrient dense volcanic rock, sunny mornings, and misty wet afternoons. This area is known as the ‘Kona Coffee Belt’, seen in Figure 2, and is located along the western coast of the Big Island between 500 and 3200 feet in elevation (Steiman, 2019). This is the sweet spot for coffee in the region. Despite this robust growing environment, coffee farmers in Kona have been faced with challenges. These farmers have worked through issues with engineering, cup quality, customer acquisition, and production, all while refining their craft over the years. Pests and disease have also presented challenges. Various beetles, moths and fungi have endangered the life of their coffee trees. Despite these challenges, with the help of scientists and agricultural extension at the University of Hawai’i, coffee farmers have been able to see the highest yields per acre in the world (Steiman, 2019).

Figure 2: Coffee Belt. (Map from [Home to Kona Coffee, 2017], scale bar created in Google Earth Pro as original map did not indicate scale and should be considered approximate).

In 2010, a beetle made its way to Hawai’i and Kailua-Kona coffee farmers. It is uncertain how Coffee Berry Borer (Hypothenemus hampai; CBB) made it to the islands, but there are a few theories. The Hawai’ian Haplotype, or gene makeup, can be traced to CBB that is found in Africa (Chapman, et al., 2015). This African CBB is known to have made its way to South America. From there, it was either brought into Hawai’i illegally or was accidentally transported to Hawai’i via seeds that were on the clothes or luggage of workers coming to pick cherries on the islands (Chapman, et al., 2015). Whether this was a deliberate act of bringing in tainted coffee illegally, or a failure of the agriculture safeguards that are in place to keep these things from happening, CBB is now a problem that all the farmers in Hawai’i must face. The CBB bores holes into the coffee cherries to lay eggs (Figure 3). When unmitigated, CBB can

take over the entire coffee field and render the cherries useless. CBB is a beetle that has infested an average of 20% of coffee cherries in Hawai’i (Aristizábal, et al., 2017). A new threat to coffee production arrived in Hawai’i during this project. In November of 2020, the Department of Agriculture for the state of Hawai’i confirmed that Coffee Leaf Rust (Helilia vastatrix; CLR) had been found (HDOA 2020). While CLR (Figure 4) is not new to the coffee industry, it is new to Hawai’i and will only add to the complexity of managing a coffee farm. While CLR does not attack and make the coffee cherries its home, it will still devastate a coffee tree and cause the leaves to die, leaving the tree to produce little to no fruit. CLR is a pathogen that infects the tree and causes the process of photosynthesis to stop (Bladyka 2017). It does this by killing the leaves. This pathogen is also highly mobile, and its spores can travel in the air or on workers clothing (Bladyka 2017). Because it is so easily spread, it is best practice for farms to limit the amount of people that come in contact with the farms. This means limiting the vehicles and people that visit the property. Developing ways to sterilize vehicles, equipment, tools, and people is also an important step in limiting the spread. In the case of Monarch, and other coffee farms, this may mean diversifying the type of crops they plant and harvest or delaying development projects to wait for strategies and CLR resistant varieties of coffee to become available. CBB and CLR are threats to the health of the coffee trees and the industry in Hawai’i. Once again, coffee farmers must look to innovative solutions to their problems to manage the pests and pathogens.

Figure 3: CBB photos from (Manandhar, 2020).

Figure 4: CLR photo from Bladyka, 2017).

For this Master’s research, the focus is a farm owned by Kona-based, Monarch Coffee (https://monarchcoffee.com/). This farm (15 active acres and 122 acres in development; affectionately called Papa 122) emphasizes a healthy, sustainable environment for coffee trees and the other plants and animals. Monarch Coffee’s business ethos is that a healthy ecosystem lends itself to a natural, more sustainable production of coffee cherries. For this reason, Monarch Coffee will only use up to 50% of the 122 acres for the planting of coffee. The new piece of untouched Hawai’ian forest, one hour south of Kona along the winding Mamalahoa Highway near Captain Cook, Hawai’i, is where they plan to implement sustainable agriculture methods. These methods will combine with native vegetation, pollinators, and bird management to conserve the health of the land and resources. The goal of this research was to gather and analyze geospatial data to inform both coffee production and conservation efforts, promoting the presence of pollinators and birds on the new 122-acre farm. This tool will assist Monarch Coffee’s goal to minimize unexpected costs, increase the health of coffee trees, and maintain biodiversity of the land. It will also aid in the conservation of the native 'Ohi'a lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) that scatter the property - some over 500 years old. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was some concern that this research would not proceed as planned. The travel restrictions, nationwide lockdowns, and rate of transmission of the virus were all on the rise leading up to this field research. While there were some possible alternatives to make this a remote sensing project, it would have been lacking the valuable data that was gathered through time spent in the Hawai’ian rainforest. Being able to live and work in Hawai’i added tremendous value to this project. Despite the challenges presented, the project was able to move forward and maintain the original project’s intention. After a two-week quarantine at the farm in Kona, field work was able to begin on Papa 122.

Research Questions: 1. What geospatial information do Kailua-Kona coffee farmers need to manage farms more efficiently given environmental and business contexts? 2. What strategies can coffee farms implement to protect native plant species and promote the presence of pollinators?

Internship Background: In January of 2020, I participated in a field research class that collected ecological data on coffee farms on the Big Island of Hawai’i. We gathered data on canopy cover of coffee farms and presence data of native and invasive birds. The intention was to determine if native or non- native birds could be considered a biocontrol for CBB. After considerable discussion, Monarch Coffee requested assistance in the next round of decisions for sustainably managing a recently purchased 122-acre parcel of mesic forest in southern Kailua-Kona. Its location on the Big Island can be seen in Figure 5. For this master’s internship, I interned with Monarch Coffee (monarchcoffee.com) via a farm-stay program that they have been conducting for many years for family friends and curious travelers that seek them out to learn more about the coffee industry. Monarch Coffee’s typical farm stay participant is hosted on site and works on the farm for two to several weeks at a time, learning the business and trade of the coffee industry. My stay with Monarch Coffee was slightly different. During this graduate internship, I filled the role of Farm Hand and GIS Consultant/Project Lead developing a land management geospatial tool while I lived and worked on the farm. Monarch Coffee has limited exposure to GIS and will be using the resulting map book to inform agriculture and land development decision-making. Monarch Coffee’s desire to sustainably manage their recently acquired parcel of Hawai’ian forest aligns with their need to find efficiencies in the management of coffee trees to help improve their bottom line while also preserving biodiversity. They will continue to promote native plants, birds, and pollinators as they already do on their existing farm. This makes up a critical component of their natural ecosystem approach. Efficiency, in this context, is defined as executing all necessary steps in the planting, growing, harvesting, and processing of the coffee in the most cost- and time-efficient manner, while eliminating waste and any non-value activities (Labs, 2011). The implementation of GIS and remote sensing technologies can help to eliminate the need to conduct various farmer-run, uncontrolled experiments, as often these experiments offer inconclusive results and result in resources and time wasted (Cock, et al., 2011). By managing the development of the new land from the start, Monarch Coffee is likely to find the best methods while reducing wasted effort and resources.

More on Monarch Coffee: Monarch Coffee is truly a family run business. As a family, the amount of effort, resources, and heart they pour into their coffee plants all comes through in the quality of the coffee they produce. After many years of traveling to Hawai’i from their home in California, Greg and Susy Stille decided it was time to go for their dream of growing coffee. They first started on a two-acre property in Maui in 2004. After learning more about the Hawai’ian Coffee industry, they decided to move their operation to the Big Island in 2013. There they developed more land and started with the Geisha variety of coffee. Geisha or Gesha, is a variety of Coffee Arabica. It is a fruit forward, cherry and citrus flavor, coffee that is consistently very high quality (Ryan, 2018). This has led it to be an expensive and relatively rare coffee. Monarch Coffee was the first farm on the Big Island to grow and produce a Gesha-Kona Coffee. As a result, they have won many awards for cupping quality and flavor profile across their range of Gesha and Kona Typica beans and roasts. In 2018 they swept the Hawai’ian Coffee Association’s annual coffee competition; winning with every coffee they entered. What they have managed to achieve in six years is remarkable. With the Papa 122 parcel, they are taking on a new challenge. Initially, the plan was to plant up to 50 acres of coffee on Papa 122. Due to the CBB and CLR issues on the island, they are not prepared to move forward at the time of this writing. This leaves room for them to explore the property and develop plans for alternative business ventures or other crops to farm. Regardless of what they ultimately decide to do with Papa 122, this project and the associated Map Book will give them a much better understanding of the property and will allow others they work to utilize the spatial information provided. This project will provide them a tool that will be a starting point for future, sustainable development.

Figure 5: Study area location.

A review of relevant literature: Environmental Factors: Much of the current research on the coffee industry has focused on sustainability of farms and how coffee farmers can prepare for climate change, pests, soil quality issues, and cost increases associated with a changing and degrading environment. For instance, near and long- term climate change will impact the coffee industry via more droughts, storms, and pest outbreaks in the years to come (Folmer, 2017). Increased temperatures promote pests like the CBB and put a strain on coffee trees’ ability to flower and produce healthy fruit, all of which lowers quality of the coffee produced and increases cost to the farm (Pham et al., 2019). Other studies have shown that coffee stands with mixed shade or coffee farms that are integrated with natural forests, especially in tropical areas, store large amounts of carbon in their soils (Schmitt- Harsh et al., 2012). This is also a good practice to combat climate change and promote biodiversity (Schmitt-Harsh et al., 2012). Biodiversity & Biocontrol: It is common throughout the scientific literature that biodiversity in plants and animals, including many species of pollinators, a presence of native vegetation and habitat for birds, and flowering plants are all elements that come together to make up a healthy and productive ecosystem for coffee (Folmer, 2017). The cost and quality implications associated with spraying fertilizer and pesticides for CBB has led to interest in birds, insects, weeds, and native vegetation as biocontrol agents and as pollinators to protect and improve the health of coffee trees and the surrounding ecosystem (Daniati et al., 2018). Examples of weeds include flowering weeds like Goatweed, Tramil, and Pinto Peanut (A. conyzoides, S. nodiflora, and A. pintoi). When implemented into a study of predators for CBB, they were shown to increase the presence of the pest predators, helping to control the CBB infestation (Daniati et al., 2018). While studies of weeds and insects suggest there are ways to improve the situation, there is no primary strategy to eliminate CBB (Aristizábal et al., 2017).

Figure 6: A. conyzoides (Lusweti et al. 2011).

Figure 7: S. nodiflora (Tillet, 2017).

Figure 8: A. pintoi (Hare, 2017).

Methods for eliminating damage from CBB are still unclear. Biocontrol agents, such as birds and ants, can successfully halt the spread of CBB. However, the effectiveness is not linked to one species. Pest control requires a mix of biocontrols to be successful (Escobar-Ramirez et al., 2019). Pest predators, like birds and ants, and a diverse set of pollinators have been shown to improve the weight and yield of coffee cherries. Quality of the coffee is also improved when increasing biodiversity and the mix of pollinators (Classen et al., 2014). Maintaining natural environments for birds and pollinators while controlling CBB is a primary issue in Hawai’i. To keep CBB infestation levels below 5%, pest management using biocontrol and other natural occurring methods is necessary (Folmer, 2017). Both native and migratory birds can reduce the incidence of CBB on coffee farms by up to 50% on shaded farms and 58% in sun coffee farms (Chain-Guadarrama et al., 2019). However, the birds must be close to their natural habitat to continue to develop as a predator of CBB. More studies need to be done to fully understand the ecosystem services that birds provide, however there is a known increase in the bird’s interaction with coffee trees the closer their natural habitat is to those coffee trees (Chain-Guadarrama et al., 2019). Coffee farmers should develop a mixed-use field where coffee trees are surrounded by vegetation suitable for bird habitat (Chain-Guadarrama et al., 2019). In addition, the inclusion of various native flowering plants can promote the presence of diverse pollinators, potentially

increasing the amount of pollination of coffee plants that will drive higher yields (Ngo et al., 2011). Conservation of birds, insects, and natural vegetation are not the only variables the farmer must worry about when planting a new field. Carbon levels in the soil are known to be negatively impacted up to 50% and higher when converting from forest into agricultural land in Hawai’i (Bashkin & Binkley, 1998). Implementing an agroforest approach to the layout of the new farm may help balance carbon levels and improve soil quality while promoting natural ecosystems (Bashkin & Binkley, 1998; Schmitt-Harsh et al., 2012). The literature on biodiversity is complemented by the literature on soil quality, shade, land suitability, and the use of GIS, remote sensing, and analytics as agriculture force multipliers. GIS in Agriculture: Questions about soil quality have led to the application of sampling methods where technology, like GIS and remote sensing, have been employed with spatial data gathered on the farm. Farmers can manage how they water, fertilize, and harvest their crops while considering various resource allocation and crop conditions across spatiotemporal scales, including integrating topographic information. This maximizes efficiency, yield, and grows profits (Ferraz et al., 2019). Agriculture is a primary industry that can benefit from the implementation of GIS and remote sensing (Preimesberger, 2018). A common use of GIS is land evaluation, where identifying what land is best to purchase and cultivate has current and future impacts. The importance of land evaluation is highlighted in places like Hawai’i where agricultural land is limited. Some coffee farms in Hawai’i have already implemented practical technologies like water sensors in the soil and drones collecting infrared image data, both systems monitoring coffee tree health (Steiman, 2019). As part of the evaluation process, GIS analysis and modeling can establish spatial relationships and identify important variations in soil quality and the watershed. This spatial information allows the development of conservation plans that can be implemented early on (Bandyopadhyay, et al., 2009). Coffee farmers in Hawai’i can gain insights into their farms from the implementation of GIS and remote sensing tools. Gathering spatial data can maximize the efficient distribution of resources, monitor the health of soil and trees, and reduce cost while increasing yield (Preimesberger, 2018). Farmers can create maps of the spatial changes and variables like nitrogen, carbon, pH, and moisture in the soil, allowing them to make well-informed decisions and better forecast future yields (Technology Times,

2019). Lastly, GIS can lead to improved decision-making at the individual farm level and across the industry’s interconnected supply chain. Improved accuracy, resource allocation, and partnership accountability can all be improved through the implementation of GIS (Sharma et al., 2018).

Project Goals: The goal of this project was to help Monarch Coffee make informed decisions around the development of this property. Of particular concern was the goal to maintain the natural environment, such as large native 'Ohi'a trees, and support an efficient supply chain and development strategy. After discussions with Monarch about what would be the most useful outcome, we determined that a Map Book would work well. This project includes soil data, topographic data, archeological sites, caves, lava tubes, large 'Ohi'a locations, logging sites and roads, clearings, ravines, lava flows, sampling locations, off road vehicle paths, and the property entrance and boundary. The development of this Map Book met the project goals of coming up with a tangible tool they can use through the many stages of development of Papa 122.

Figure 9: Grid reference system developed for Papa 122.

Methods: Study Area: The focus of this project was the 122-acre property in the rainforest approximately two miles from the coast seen in Figure 9 above. As mentioned, this property is referred to as Papa 122. Papa 122 is on the slopes of Mauna Loa at an elevation of approximately 2,500-2,600 feet. While the annual rainfall varies greatly depending on location on the Big Island (one can go from the rainforest to the desert in a distance of a few miles), this region of the island is extremely wet and rainy. In this region of the Big Island, it rains daily and will accumulate 122 to 220 inches of rain annually. Figure 10 shows a graphic of rainfall and the approximate number of inches in any given year, with precipitation data from Hawai’i Weather and Rainfall (2020).

Figure 10: Rainfall (Map from [Hawai’i Weather and Rainfall, 2020], scale bar created in Google Earth Pro as original map did not indicate scale and should be considered approximate).

Figure 11: Papa 122 mapped roads.

From my experience on arriving at Papa 122, the property has a dense understory and is mostly made up of 1-3 inch 'Ohi'a lehua. The distance between these trees varies around the property. I found the uphill half of the property, everything East of the 4x4 and Logging roads (Figure 11), was much denser than the portion to the West. Based on some information from the neighbors who live directly West of the property, they told us to expect four inches of rain per week. The vegetation in the lower half of the property was extremely dense and there were noticeably more ancient trees. In addition to the natural wonders, there were also some historical sites on the property. 2012 Historical Survey: In 2012, the previous owner of the property commissioned an archeological service to conduct a survey of the property. Their goals were much different than mine, but they came away with some significant findings that I was able to work from. They identified historical sites and a logging road. Their narrative of the property and descriptions of the overall vegetation and species found, provided insight into what to expect. Based on the findings from a 2012 archaeological survey, there are three locations that must be protected (See Figure 12 for the locations). These historical sites are in the Northern half of Papa 122. The first site is labeled ‘29081, The Ranch Wall’. It is broken into various sections and they are mostly knocked down or otherwise disintegrated. However, there are enough remnants to see where the wall stood. Unfortunately, feral pigs have continued to topple sections of the wall. The second site, ‘29082’, is an ‘Agricultural Complex’. This was likely used for water catchment and for the storage of feed. The third site, ‘29083’, is a ‘historic Exclosure’. This was likely used for agricultural purposes. The archeological report also discussed the position of four lava flows that the property sits on. These can also be seen in figure 12. The four lava flows range from 300 to 3,000 years old, with the oldest being at the middle and bottom of the property. The historical sites and the lava flows were the only geospatial information from the archeological survey that I included in the GIS for Papa 122. While there is some more historical information that is interesting, this project required data to be gathered in person from extensive field work.

Figure 12: Historical sites and lava flows.

Collection and Analysis: Before starting field work, I segmented the property into 27 rectangular sections. This allowed me to break Papa 122 into manageable sections (Figure 11). I could plan where I would be on the property. After realizing that the Garmin GPS unit would not work due to the dense canopy, I had to rely on the onX application and a compass. Field work on the 122 acres took a total of 16 days. I gathered between three and twelve soil samples on any given day. In total, I gathered 81 soil samples with three per section (Figure 11). I would gather approximately 1 cup of soil and carry it in labeled plastic bags. I double bagged the samples and labeled them based on the section of the property. While moving through the property from point to point, I was also on the lookout for other significant features. These included the archeological sites, caves, lava tubes, large 'Ohi'a locations, logging sites and roads, clearings, ravines and lava flows. After collecting all this data, I compiled the coordinates and any notes into an excel spreadsheet. I did this before leaving the island if something was lost in travel or if I needed to go back and double check anything. While surveying the new property it was important to gather as much information as I could while staying safe. Each day I would leave the home farm in Holualoa, in the hills above Kona, and drive South on the Mamalahoa Highway for one hour. I would arrive and park the truck just outside the gate to the property. This is where the road ends. I could not drive the truck beyond this point without worrying about becoming stuck in the thick and sticky volcanic mud. Luckily, the Monarch team had thought ahead and arranged a 4x4 vehicle for me to use. We kept this vehicle under a tarp, and I would carry in gasoline every few days to fill it up. I would then drive across a neighboring property to the gate of Papa 122. From here I had access to a narrow 4x4 path. This saved me a lot of time as hiking all that way in would have taken one hour each way. After arriving safely and organizing all my gear, I would set off into the rainforest.

Data: The data I gathered for this project were informed by conversations leading up to, and upon arrival in Hawai’i. After seeing the property for the first time, it was clear that this project was going to be a large undertaking for one person. We concluded that this project would include soil data, topographic data, archeological sites, caves, lava tubes, large 'Ohi'a locations, logging

sites and roads, clearings, ravines, lava flows, off road vehicle paths, and the property entrance and boundary. All data were collected using GPS locations, and compiled to ESRI ArcGIS Pro. While these maps are primarily for the Monarch Coffee family, they may be shared with other contractors, scientists, or visitors who need to be able to understand the maps and easily move throughout the property. These maps will be beneficial from a supply chain perspective once significant development or agriculture begins on the property. Soil data was the most important and due to its implications for this as an agriculture focused project. Fortunately, Monarch has an existing relationship with a third-party company that had previously conducted soil sampling on the farm in Kona. Monarch Coffee is familiar with what soil properties work for coffee production and what to look for in the data. This was something that I could not accomplish and was fortunate to be able to utilize their expertise to generate useful soil maps. The archeological sites, some caves and logging and vehicle paths were already known due to the previous survey in 2012. Additional lava tubes, large 'Ohi'a locations, clearings and ravines were all identified and marked while I navigated through the property.

Field Tools: The rainforest is a unique place to conduct fieldwork. It is easy to become lost and disoriented. Additionally, due to the dense canopy cover, some areas of the rainforest can be very dark. Due to these conditions, it was important that I always had the appropriate tools. The growth was dense to the point of being nearly impassable. I used a machete and a sugar cane axe to help me clear paths as I walked through the forest. This made moving through the forest much easier. Additionally, I used a pickaxe to dig and collect my soil samples. This was smaller than a shovel and was much better at clearing the volcanic rocks from the floor of the forest. While navigating from point to point, I would use a compass and flagging tape to mark my path out. This way, if something happened and I was injured or disoriented, I would have better success finding my way out, or someone else coming in and finding me. I used a metal notepad to hold and fill out my field data sheets. There I recorded GPS coordinates and other information from the waypoints. Most importantly, I had a flashlight and a medical kit. I

only needed to use this once, but I was happy to have the medical kit at that moment. All of this was carried in a backpack along with some other food, water, and safety items.

Figure 13: Machete and cane axe.

Data Collection & Analysis Tools: I also used software-based tools throughout this project. I utilized the onX HUNT (onxmaps.com/hunt/app) application while in the rainforest. This smartphone application (available on iOS, Android, and desktop) from onX allowed me to navigate the rainforest safely and efficiently. I plotted all my important waypoints using the application and was able to adapt its use to meet scientific needs. Primarily, ESRI ArcGIS Pro was used as the geoprocessing software. This is where I compiled all geospatial data for trees, lava tubes, etc., and the results from the soil sample analysis. I used the inverse distance weighted (IDW) technique to conduct spatial analysis on the nutrient data gathered from the soil samples. This technique was used because I had a uniform distribution of sampling locations. This allowed me to smooth the data and avoid any unrealistic peaks or valleys that would not make sense throughout the soil. This method also aligned with the third-party’s recommendations about how to view the soil and how adding nutrients would be calculated.

Figure 14: 4x4 on the path.

Figure 15: Gear and pickaxe.

Figure 16: The truck named “Billy”.

Use of Smartphone: The Garmin GPS was not tracking my location due to the dense canopy. Because of this, I had to adapt to solve this major problem. I was able to utilize my smartphone (which had a more accurate GPS due to cell tower triangulation) and a mobile app from onX (https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/app). This allowed me to plot my soil sample points before going into the field on a map of the property on my phone. GPS accuracy using my phone and onX was approximately 5 to 10 meters. Figures 17 and 18 show screenshots of the onX app in use during the project.

Figure 17: Navigating to point. Figure 18: 27 Sections and waypoints.

Figure 19: Sampling route.

Figure 20: Soil samples drying.

Soil Sample Handling: After gathering the samples, I opened the bags to allow the water to evaporate, making the final package lighter. This can be seen in Figure 20. This soil was then sent to a third-party laboratory where the samples were analyzed. The 81 samples were labeled by section. The 3 samples per section were mixed at the lab. This process resulted in 27 unique samples and nutrient profiles. This was how they had performed sampling in the past and was advised by the third-party company. Shipping the samples to the mainland was a unique process. Because the samples had to do with agriculture, they had to be examined by customs and the Department of Agriculture for Hawai’i. These officials had to give their approval to send the samples off island. This process took two days. Once the samples arrived on the mainland, the company performed their analysis and provided us with documentation on nutrients and recommendations for all 27 sections.

Figure 21: Shipping samples.

Map Book Creation: As mentioned, ArcGIS Pro was the geoprocessing tool that I used to create the Map Book. I created maps in the software to show natural features, human made features, my sampling locations, various nutrient maps and then section specific maps for all 27 rectangular sections. All these maps include useful spatial information and notes about specific findings. It is clear and easy to understand. This way, it can be used as a tool by a broad number of people and for a wide range of applications.

Results: Important Note: There were two significant events that happened during this project. The most recent, is the identification of CLR on the Big Island of Hawai’i in the fall of 2020. This complicates the plans for all coffee farming on the island and significantly alters the plans for Papa 122. The arrival of CLR to the Big Island has caused the project and expansion activities with any farm to come to a halt. Until there is CLR resistant coffee varieties, it would be futile to plant any addition trees. It is possible that coffee will no longer be the primary focus on the property due to this untimely development. The complications created by CLR do not however make the maps

useless. In fact, the Map Book retains all its utility for planning and accessing the property. This is a good example of the durability of spatial tools. The second significant event was the COVID-19 pandemic. While this project was being planned, COVID-19 became a major global health crisis. This jeopardized the project and threatened to cancel all field work. Fortunately, I was able to accomplish the work. However, due to the limitations of the pandemic and the complexities it caused, I was forced to conduct field work alone. Additionally, I was not able to have a full plan developed for the project until arriving to Hawai’i and meeting with the coffee farm. I was able to gain a better understanding of what information would be useful for Monarch Coffee. This planning step was critical in designing the project to be as useful and as productive as possible. Despite all the challenges and additional complications brought on by the pandemic and CLR, I was able to conduct research and provide a valuable service to my client.

Research Answers: My first research question stated, what geospatial information do Kailua-Kona coffee farmers need to manage farms more efficiently given environmental and business contexts? After arriving in Kona, I worked with Monarch Coffee to identify what information would be useful to them. This resulted in a sub question; how was I going to gather all the required data and analyze it? Gathering soil sample data, historical site locations, and data on the location of significant natural features (caves, lava tubes, large trees, roads) and combining this information into an easy-to-understand format, provides coffee farmers with a valuable tool. The geospatial information this tool contained will allow them to implement sustainable development strategies and will clarify the planning of Papa 122. Additionally, the maps produced can be repurposed to help in all aspects of the business, from tourism to logistics planning. While it was unclear from the beginning, after many conversations and hard days of field work, I was successful in answering this question. As for the second question, what strategies can coffee farms implement to protect native plant species and promote the presence of pollinators? I was not able to answer this question and cannot, likely for years. This question required active development of the property to be answered. While I was able to gather pertinent spatial data and valuable soil nutrient data, the

ability to answer what strategies are important during the implementation phase of a project requires that the project be at the point where strategies can be actively implemented. Currently, the implementation of those strategies is years away. Additionally, due to the complexities of the field work and the limitations, I could not reasonably gather all the required information to fully develop and test sustainable farming strategies. The limitations and timeline would not allow for any valuable insights to be gained. Finally, the current climate with the CLR pathogen and COVID-19 pandemic limit what work is possible on Papa 122. This has caused the development plan to shift, and this information is no longer directly applicable.

Map Book: After discussions with the Monarch Coffee clients, we determined that a Map Book would be the best way to go about sharing all the spatial information and findings. While they will have access to the raw data, the goal of the Map Book was to build a tool that they would be able to use themselves or be able to hand off to someone with little to no knowledge of Papa 122. This meant it was important for me to include as much information as possible in all the maps while making them easy to comprehend. I started the Map Book by providing an overview of the study area and the Big Island, the areas around Papa 122 and then diving into the specific features on the property. After mapping everything that can be used to navigate or is a physical feature like a tree or cave, I moved into creating maps for the soil sample data. This will be a tool that people will be able to carry with them and know where they are and what features are nearby. Additionally, this dovetails with Monarch Coffee’s desire to have a shareable product with visitors.

Discussion: By developing a tool that provides geospatial insights, we have managed to gain efficiencies in the development of the property that would not have been otherwise possible. Knowledge of the location of trees and natural features that need to be protected and maintained, provides valuable information for sustainable development. From a supply chain perspective, understanding ease or difficulty of access around the property and the soil nutrient distribution is critical for development planning.

This is a multi-year development project. Being able to come up with best practices and implement strategic planning from the start has the potential to save tens of thousands of dollars in development costs and weeks of valuable time. Regardless of what crops are planted, the soil nutrient maps will help them to arrange their stands efficiently and know from the start, what supplemental nutrients must be added. While the primary goal was to meet the needs of Monarch Coffee and their future planning of Papa 122, this Map Book will provide valuable information to other groups that need to do work on the property. These may include other researchers that are looking at the 'Ohi'a as well as other contractors that may deal with terracing or grinding of volcanic rock. The roads and access points to the property will help in planning what routes and fields will be good spots to develop or arrange large equipment. Finally, this report details all the successes and challenges that came with extensive field work, data collection, and geospatial analysis. This provides future researchers interested in conducting similar field work with a model to base their strategy and expectations from. This will serve as a guide and will result in more efficient and successful plans.

Conclusion: Despite the challenges faced by the pandemic, the field work was able to move forward, and everyone maintained their health. I was able to harvest a mountain of geospatial data and deliver valuable insights to the client. The data, analysis and resulting map book will allow them to plan more efficiently and implement strategies that can conserve the natural wonder of the rainforest. They can protect the historic 'Ohi'a trees and preserve the environment while developing a plan for the future. CBB and CLR are challenges that will impact how sustainable development of coffee farms takes shape in the coming years. It is unclear what strategies will be the best to move forward. While the geospatial data can help to solve the planning, development, and preservation issues, it cannot halt the spread of the pathogens or develop resistance varieties of coffee. These are the next important steps for Kona-Coffee Farmers as they adapt to their ever-changing environment and innovate to continue to produce some of the most coveted coffee in the world.

References

Anderson, Nicole P. Geospatial Analysis and Multivariate Classification of Soil Properties in Nicaraguan Sun and Shade Grown Coffee Systems. 2006.

Araújo e Silva Ferraz, Gabriel, et al. “Methodology to Determine the Soil Sampling Grid for Precision Agriculture in a Coffee Field.” Dyna, vol. 84, no. 200, Mar. 2017, pp. 316–325. EBSCOhost, doi:10.15446/dyna.v84n200.52740.

Aristizábal, Luis F., et al. “Integrated Pest Management of Coffee Berry Borer in Hawaii and Puerto Rico: Current Status and Prospects.” Insects (2075-4450), vol. 8, no. 4, Dec. 2017, p. 123. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3390/insects8040123.

Bandyopadhyay, S., et al. “Assessment of Land Suitability Potentials for Agriculture Using a Remote Sensing and GIS Based Approach.” International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 30, no. 4, Feb. 2009, pp. 879–895. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/01431160802395235.

Barrios, Edmundo, et al. “Contribution of Trees to the Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes.” International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, vol. 14, no. 1, Dec. 2018, pp. 1–16. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/21513732.2017.1399167.

Bashkin, Michael A., and Dan Binkley. “Changes in Soil Carbon Following Afforestation in Hawaii.” Ecology, vol. 79, no. 3, Apr. 1998, p. 828. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1890/0012- 9658(1998)079[0828:CISCFA]2.0.CO;2.

Bittenbender, H. C., and Virginia Easton. Smith. Growing Coffee in Hawaii. College of Tropical Agriculture & Human Resources, University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa, 2004.

Bladyka, Jesse. “Coffee Leaf Rust: A New Reality For Specialty Coffee.” Specialty Coffee Association News, SCA News, 10 Aug. 2017, scanews.coffee/2015/04/11/coffee-leaf-rust- a-new-reality-for-specialty-coffee/.

Caporaso, Nicola, et al. “Rapid Prediction of Single Green Coffee Bean Moisture and Lipid Content by Hyperspectral Imaging.” Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 227, June 2018, pp. 18–29. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2018.01.009.

Chapman, Eric G., et al. “Determining the Origin of the Coffee Berry Borer Invasion of Hawaii.” Annals of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 108, no. 4, July 2015, pp. 585–592. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1093/aesa/sav024.

Chain-Guadarrama, Adina, et al. “Ecosystem Services by Birds and Bees to Coffee in a Changing Climate: A Review of Coffee Berry Borer Control and Pollination.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 280, Aug. 2019, pp. 53–67. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2019.04.011.

Classen, Alice, et al. “Complementary Ecosystem Services Provided by Pest Predators and Pollinators Increase Quantity and Quality of Coffee Yields.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 281, no. 1779, Mar. 2014, pp. 1–7. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.3148.

Cock, James, et al. “Crop Management Based on Field Observations: Case Studies in Sugarcane and Coffee.” Agricultural Systems, vol. 104, no. 9, Nov. 2011, pp. 755–769. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.07.001.

Daniati, Cucu, et al. “Three Species of Weeds Enhance The Population of Predator and Parasitoid of Coffee Berry Borers.” Biosaintifika: Journal of Biology & Biology

“Download GIS Data.” Download GIS Data, planning.hawaii.gov/gis/download-gis-data/.

Education, vol. 10, no. 1, Apr. 2018, pp. 229–236. EBSCOhost, doi:10.15294/biosaintifika.v10i1.12076.

Eißner, Helmut. "Thomas Oberthür, Peter Läderach, H. A. Jürgen Pohlan & James H. Cock (2012): Specialty Coffee: Managing Quality." Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics (JARTS) [Online], 117.1 (2016): 187. Web. 3 Feb. 2020

Escobar-RamÃrez, Selene, et al. â€œBiological Control of the Coffee Berry Borer: Main Natural Enemies, Control Success, and Landscape Influence.â€ Biological Control, vol. 136, Sept. 2019, p. 103992. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.05.011.

Ferraz, G. A. S., et al. “Principal Components in the Study of Soil and Plant Properties in Precision Coffee Farming.” Agronomy Research, vol. 17, no. 2, Apr. 2019, pp. 418–429. EBSCOhost, doi:10.15159/AR.19.114.

Flaspohler, David J., et al. “Long-Term Effects of Fragmentation and Fragment Properties on Bird Species Richness in Hawaiian Forests.” Biological Conservation, vol. 143, no. 2, Feb. 2010, pp. 280–288. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.009.

Folmer, Britta, and Imre Blank. The Craft and Science of Coffee. Elsevier, 2017.

“GIS and Remote Sensing for Precision Agriculture.” Technology Times, 31 Mar. 2019. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=FCZ5TTN20190 331.00004&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Gustafson, Robert, et al. Hawaiian Plant Life: Vegetation and Flora. University of Hawai’i Press, 2014.

Hare, Michael. “Arachis Pintoi (Pinto Peanut) - Varieties Tropical Seeds.” Tropical Seeds, 9 Apr. 2018, www.tropseeds.com/arachis-pintoi/.

“Hawaii Weather and Rainfall.” Hawaii Weather Guide with Maui, Oahu, Big Island and Kauai Rainfall Maps, 2020, www.hawaiigaga.com/WeatherGuide.aspx.

“HAWAII COFFEE HISTORY.” Hawaii Coffee Association - History, hawaiicoffeeassoc.org/History.

“Home to Kona Coffee.” Angie's Kona Coffee, 2017, www.angieskonacoffee.com/.

HDOA - Coffee Leaf Rust Confirmed on Hawai`i Island, State of Hawaii, 10 Nov. 2020, hdoa.hawaii.gov/blog/main/nr20-17-clrconfirmedonhawaiiisland/.

Kiran, R., et al. “Effect of Gamma Radiation as a Post-Harvest Disinfestation Treatment against Life Stages of the Coffee Berry Borer, Hypothenemus Hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).” International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 95, no. 9, Sept. 2019, pp. 1301–1308. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09553002.2019.1619950.

Knowlton, Jessie L., et al. “Movements of Four Native Hawaiian Birds across a Naturally Fragmented Landscape.” Journal of Avian Biology, vol. 48, no. 7, July 2017, pp. 921–931. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/jav.00924.

Labs, Wayne. “Supply Chain Efficiency Starts at the Top.” Food Engineering RSS, Food Engineering, 28 Nov. 2011, www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/88161-supply-chain- efficiency-starts-at-the-top.

Lusweti, Agnes, et al. “Scientific Name.” Factsheet - Ageratum Conyzoides (Billygoat Weed), 2011, keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/eafrinet/weeds/key/weeds/Media/Html/Ageratum_conyzoid es_(Billygoat_Weed).htm#.

Maas, Bea, et al. “Bats and Birds Increase Crop Yield in Tropical Agroforestry Landscapes.” Ecology Letters, vol. 16, no. 12, Dec. 2013, pp. 1480–1487. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/ele.12194.

Manandhar, Roshan. “Coffee Berry Borer (CBB).” Kauai Invasive Species Committee (KISC), 31 Oct. 2020, www.kauaiisc.org/cbb/.

Ngo, H. T., et al. “Coffee Plant - Pollinator Interactions: A Review.” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 89, no. 8, Aug. 2011, pp. 647–660. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1139/z11-028.1

Nzeyimana, Innocent, et al. “Coffee Farming and Soil Management in Rwanda.” Outlook on Agriculture, vol. 42, no. 1, Mar. 2013, pp. 47–52. EBSCOhost, doi:10.5367/oa.2013.0118.

Pham, Yen, et al. “The Impact of Climate Change and Variability on Coffee Production: A Systematic Review.” Climatic Change, vol. 156, no. 4, Oct. 2019, pp. 609–630. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02538-y.

Preimesberger, Chris, and eWEEK. “Seven Industries Being Transformed by Geospatial Information Systems.” EWeek, Oct. 2018, pp. 2–3. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132373890&site=ehost- live&scope=site.

Ryan, Chris. “The Rise of Gesha: Getting to Know the Famed Coffee Variety.” Barista Magazine Online, Barista Magazine Online, 17 Feb. 2018, www.baristamagazine.com/rise-gesha/.

Schmid, Florian, et al. “Functional and Structural Microbial Diversity in Organic and Conventional Viticulture: Organic Farming Benefits Natural Biocontrol Agents.” Applied & Environmental Microbiology, vol. 77, no. 6, Mar. 2011, pp. 2188–2191. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1128/AEM.02187-10.

Schmitt-Harsh, Mikaela, et al. “Carbon Stocks in Coffee Agroforests and Mixed Dry Tropical Forests in the Western Highlands of Guatemala.” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 86, no. 2, 2012, pp. 141–157., doi:10.1007/s10457-012-9549-x.

Sharma, Rohit, et al. “Big GIS Analytics Framework for Agriculture Supply Chains: A Literature Review Identifying the Current Trends and Future Perspectives.” Computers & Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 155, Dec. 2018, pp. 103–120. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.compag.2018.10.001.

“Soil Nitrogen Test .” Jan. 2011, doi:10.2172/1025774.

Silva, Bruno Montoani, et al. “Soil Moisture Associated with Least Limiting Water Range, Leaf Water Potential, Initial Growth and Yield of Coffee as Affected by Soil Management System.” Soil & Tillage Research, vol. 189, June 2019, pp. 36–43. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.still.2018.12.016.

Steiman, Shawn. The Little Coffee Know-It-All: a Miscellany for Growing, Roasting, and Brewing, Uncompromising and Unapologetic. Quarry, 2015.

Strommer, Laurie, and Sheila Conant. “Conservation Value of Koa (Acacia Koa) Reforestation Areas on Hawaii Island.” Pacific Conservation Biology, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2018, pp. 35– 43. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1071/PC17046.

Talhinhas, Pedro, et al. “The Coffee Leaf Rust Pathogen Hemileia Vastatrix: One and a Half Centuries around the Tropics.” Molecular Plant Pathology, vol. 18, no. 8, Oct. 2017, pp. 1039–1051. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/mpp.12512.

Thurston, Robert W., et al. Coffee: a Comprehensive Guide to the Bean, the Beverage, and the Industry. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2018.

Tillet, S. “Synedrella Nodiflora.” TRAMIL, Tramil, 2017, www.tramil.net/en/plant/synedrella- nodiflora.

Velmourougane, Kulandaivelu. “Impact of Organic and Conventional Systems of Coffee Farming on Soil Properties and Culturable Microbial Diversity.” Scientifica, Mar. 2016, pp. 1–9. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1155/2016/3604026.

Verghese, Abraham, et al. “Pest Management Services through Conservation of Biological Control Agents: Review, Case Studies and Field Experiences.” Biocontrol Science & Technology, vol. 28, no. 10, Oct. 2018, pp. 961–969. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09583157.2018.1510900.

Wintgens, Jean N. Coffee: Growing, Processing, Sustainable Production: a Guidebook for Growers, Processors, Traders, and Researchers. Wiley-VCH-Verl., 2014.