D.C. Duff y and C. Martin Duff y, D.C. and C. Martin. Cooperative Natural Resource and Invasive Species Management in Hawaiʽi

Cooperative natural resource and invasive species management in Hawai'i

D.C. Duff y1 and C. Martin2

1Pacifi c Cooperative Studies Unit, Department of Botany, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, 3190 Maile Way, Honolulu HI 96822, USA. . 2Pacifi c Cooperative Studies Unit/Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, 3190 Maile Way, Honolulu HI 96822, USA.

Abstract From the arrival of Polynesians before 1200 AD until Western contact in 1778, Hawaiian land use and resource distribution were centred on the “ahupuaʻa” system of watershed-based management areas that made their inhabitants nearly self-suffi cient. Those units were grouped into larger regions, each called a “moku,” led by lower chiefs who were in turn governed by the high chief or king of each island. While societal and environmental taboo or “kapu” were enforced from above, day to day neighbourhood cooperation served to protect resources, produce food, and sustain up to one million people before Western contact. Following the arrival of Europeans, land and resource management, and governance based on native Hawaiian core beliefs, were replaced by a centralised Western market economy. Modern land ownership, agency mandates and legal jurisdictions provide artifi cial walls that keep people from moving, but do not constrain invasive species, nor are they eff ective for managing public trust resources such as water or native species. Over time government and conservation organisations have come to view decentralised cooperation as a key to protecting the 50% of Hawaiian terrestrial, native habitat that persists. Current cooperative eff orts serve to protect watersheds via watershed partnerships, and to detect and address invasive species through invasive species committees on each island. These and other projects are facilitated by the University of Hawaii’s Pacifi c Cooperative Studies Unit, which plays a unique role in coordinating the use of private and government grant dollars to hire and manage 460 conservation staff in cooperative conservation projects state-wide. Keywords: ahupuaʻa, invasive species, cooperative, watershed partnerships, invasive species committees

INTRODUCTION The state of Hawaiʻi comprises eight large islands, seven sources such as fl ightless birds and land crabs, agriculture of them inhabited. The island of Oʻahu, home to nearly became more important, requiring communal investment one million of the state’s 1.4 million residents, is the seat in infrastructure such as fi sh ponds and irrigation systems of the central state government (). Each of often divided into mountain-to-sea pie-shaped wedges the islands has diff erent land use and economic histories. (ahupua‘a) with larger units called moku on each island. While most islands have a few major land owners, almost Although trading occurred, ahupuaʻa tended to be internally all the islands are currently mosaics of federal, state, balanced systems (Andrade, 2008). Ahupua‘a were county, and private properties, making it diffi cult to mount administered by konohiki, resource managers appointed eff ective responses to invasive alien species (IAS), as these by the aliʻi (rulers) of large districts or entire islands recognise neither property boundaries nor jurisdictions, or (Gonschor & Beamer, 2014). There was also a division to manage public trust resources such as native species, between the realm of man (wao kanaka), the agricultural habitats, and water resources (Ikuma, et al., 2002; Rago and community areas, and the realm of gods (wao akua), & Sugano, 2015). This paper presents case studies that the upper forests where entry was granted only to specially explore how Hawaiʻi has responded to conservation trained individuals following strict protocols. While tenure challenges through cooperative eff orts by both institutions of the aliʻi was subject to the political winds of fortune, the and individuals. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive. residents (maka‘ainana) of the ahupuaʻa were permanent. Together with the konohiki, they made decisions about Natural history and the Hawaiian period use of local resources ranging from montane forests and irrigated uplands down to coastal ponds and inshore waters Hawaiʻi is one of the most isolated archipelagos on the and these decisions were regulated by social/religious planet. From still-forming Hawaiʻi Island, the archipelago strictures (kapu) (Mueller-Dombois, 2007). progresses in age through the main islands, to the islets and atolls of Papahānaumokuākea National Monument, The arrival of humans greatly increased the rate of and the submerged Emperor Seamounts, representing 70 species’ arrivals, either deliberately for food or other million years of passage over a tectonic hot spot (Heliker, economic or cultural advantages, or as accidentals, 1989). Before the arrival of humans, new species became incidental to travel and commerce. The fi rst settlers established every 175,000–15,000,000 years (Ziegler, traveling east from Polynesia brought about 30 plant 2002). Isolation and subsequent adaptation to a wide species and several animals, including Polynesian pigs (Sus variety of ecological zones and habitats over millions scrofa) and Pacifi c rats (Rattus exulans), some perhaps as of years produced a stunning biodiversity vulnerable to stowaways. outside perturbations (Carlquist, 1974; Duff y & Vargas, 2017). Despite the capacity of Hawaiian society to mobilise large numbers of people at the island or moku level to Polynesians settled in Hawaiʻi by 1200 AD (Kirch, engage in major community eff orts such as building heiau 2011; Wilmshurst, et al., 2011). Initial populations were (temples) and fi shponds (Kirch, 1985), we have no direct small and the fi rst Hawaiians subsisted as hunter-gathers information on how pre-contact Hawaiians reacted to the with limited agriculture. Even these initial actions had a impacts of invasive species. For example, archaeological massive eff ect on biodiversity in a terrestrial ecosystem evidence suggests that Pacifi c rats caused major changes that had not known mammalian predators. With increasing in lowland ecosystems by eating tremendous amounts of human populations and the extinction of terrestrial protein seeds, damaging or killing plants, and preying on ground-

In: C.R. Veitch, M.N. Clout, A.R. Martin, J.C. Russell and C.J. West (eds.) (2019). Island invasives: scaling 497 up to meet the challenge, pp. 497–502. Occasional Paper SSC no. 62. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge. Ch 3B Strategy: Collaboration nesting birds and other species (Athens, 2009). Kepelino More than 100 plant species arrived in the 60 years (1932: 86) reported oral traditions that rats were a major following Cook’s arrival (Nagata, 1985). More recently problem for sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) crops in Loope & Kraus (2009) reported that, during 1995–2003, the lowlands. The aliʻi organised rat hunting contests, 89 species per year became established. To date, over suggesting opportunity, if not necessity (Athens, 2009; 10,000 plant species have been introduced for cultivation Handy & Handy, 1972). in the islands (Imada, et al., 2005). Birds and mammals were introduced for hunting and for human entertainment Post-European arrival (Walker, 1967; Long, 1971). Accidental introduction and deliberate smuggling of herptiles have been a problem, The arrival of Captain Cook in 1778 led to rapid with some becoming invasive (McKeown, 1996; Kraus changes, including the introduction of diseases such as & Cravalho, 2001; Kraus, 2009). Aquatic species have smallpox to which Hawaiians had little resistance, and arrived as deliberate introductions for fi sheries, through the introduction of Western ideals and religion that muted the aquaculture/pet/aquarium trade, in ballast water and as Hawaiian language, culture, and beliefs (Busnell, 1993). biofouling (Eldredge & Smith, 2001; Brasher, et al., 2006; Just seventy years later, the Great Mahele (land division) of Carlton & Eldredge, 2009). Finally, pathogens have been 1848 placed two-thirds of the crown lands in private hands, a continuing problem for both humans and the rest of the the majority non-Hawaiian, as most Hawaiians could not biota since European contact (e.g. Wilbar, 1947; Warner, conceive of a world where they needed to claim rights to 1968; Bushnell, 1993). the land they had always lived on. This alienation of land further weakened the traditional societal structure and the Responding to alien invasive species kapu restrictions that controlled use of natural resources (Chinen, 1958; LaCroix & Roumasset, 1990). The Kingdom of Hawaiʻi enacted the fi rst biosecurity measure for the islands, banning the import of coff ee Land ownership and political power became beans to prevent alien disease from aff ecting the islands’ concentrated in the hands of the “Big Five” corporations own crops (Holt, 1996). Later, import of sugar cane and which were primarily involved in an export economy other grasses was restricted because they might bring centred on sugar production (Dorrance & Morgan, in new diseases and pests of the dominant agricultural 2000). These shifts eventually led to the overthrow of crop (Territory of Hawaiʻi, 1941). By 1975, deliberate the Monarchy (Kame‘eleihiwa, 1992) and the resulting introductions of organisms had to be approved by the “plantation system” came to dominate Hawaii’s social, Department of Agriculture. This rule remains in place; political and economic systems with a top-down political however, the vast majority of plants and plant parts are structure centred on the island of Oʻahu. still not eff ectively restricted from entry (Loope & Kraus, Extensive deforestation occurred as lands were 2009). converted to cane fi elds and streams were diverted for King Kalākaua (Kalākaua 1876) began a programme irrigation. The drive to export goods also led to further of fencing to exclude feral ungulates from watersheds to impacts on forests, with harvesting of sandalwood protect the water supply. By the turn of the century and the (Santalum paniculatum) and pulu, the fi bre from native fall of the monarchy, the territorial legislature recognised tree ferns (Cibotium menziesii), in the wao akua areas the continued impact on watershed forests by feral animals previously regarded as sacred and off -limits (Cuddihy & and the unregulated harvest of forest products. This led Stone, 1990). Land devoted to sugar production peaked to a massive re-planting of fast-growing non-native trees in the 1940s and economically viable production ceased with the hope that this would sustain watershed function. by 2015 (Dorrance & Morgan, 2000). The end of sugar However, several of the trees became invasive (; Cox, 1992; Woodcock, 2003; Kaiser, 2014). developments on the coasts. Sugar has been replaced by tourism and the military as drivers of the economy, but the During the territorial period and following statehood, state retains its Oʻahu-centric political orientation left over legislation created several state governmental agencies from plantation days (Kalapa, 1992). to address alien invasive species (AIS) and to protect or manage natural resources. With various name changes Polynesian pigs were initially barnyard animals, but over time, the Department of Health dealt with disease after 1778 they mixed with introduced European strains vectors such as rats and mosquitoes, while the Department and soon found their way into upper-elevation forests. of Land and Natural Resources dealt with establishing Captains Cook and Vancouver left cows (Bos taurus), forest reserves, managing aquatic and hunting resources, sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus) as gifts for and reducing the impact of invasive species on state- Hawaiians (Tomich, 1986). Cows were placed under royal owned watersheds and native ecosystems. The Department protection by King Kamehameha after their introduction of Agriculture dealt with invasive species of importance in 1794. Protection lasted until 1830 by which point the to agriculture, and the importation of agricultural goods population had greatly expanded and caused signifi cant and species. No agency was or is responsible for a deforestation (Tomich, 1986). Cats (Felis catus) were holistic assessment or response to the continued arrival of brought to the islands both as novelties and to curb rodent additional invasive species (Rago & Sugano, 2015). populations (Duff y & Capece, 2012). With the rise of the sugar plantations, species such as cane toads (Rhinella In the decades since these laws were created, there marina), mongoose (Urva auropunctata) and parasitic have been major changes in Hawaii’s economic drivers, wasps were introduced to reduce rats and insects that agricultural crops, frequency and quantities of imports, feed on the cane. While their eff ectiveness is debatable, and the rise of air cargo (2.72%/year from 1990 to 2016: their negative consequences are not (Doty, 1945; Peck, DBEDT, 2017), with a resulting increase in magnitude of et al., 2008). Accidental introductions included black and risk from invasive species. Unfortunately changes to the Norway rats (R. rattus and R. norvegicus) (Tomich, 1986), laws and policies that reduce or address invasive species and mosquitoes (Culicidae) that were stowaways on ships. risks or impacts have been piecemeal and insuffi cient, with Earthworms (Lumbricidae) and ants (Formicidae) were gaps within or between agency mandates (Miller & Holt, absent from pre-contact Hawaiʻi, but probably arrived 1992; Ikuma, et al., 2002; Loope & Kraus, 2009; Rago & in soil and plants, as did numerous other invertebrates Sugano, 2015). with largely undocumented but likely enormous impacts (Gillespie & Reimer, 1993).

498 Duffy & Martin: Cooperative species management in Hawai’i

At the federal level, the National Park Service and threats actually reached them, making parks legal but not the National Wildlife Refuge System, both under the ecologically sustainable islands. Following initial surveys Department of Interior, have broad mandates to manage documenting the native fl ora and fauna and threats to these invasive species and protect natural resources and habitats species, including from non-native species, UH scientists within their holdings, but their authority and actions built a small test ungulate exclosure, which produced rapid historically have been confi ned within their property recovery of native plants. NPS engaged the CPSU to build boundaries. The Department of Defense (DOD), another more fences, removing ungulates, and monitoring the large landowner, did not focus eff ort or attention on subsequent recovery. Based in part on this work, fencing as mitigating impacts on the natural environment or protecting a management tool was adopted by NPS, other federal and natural resources unless they interfered with military state agencies, and non-profi t organisations. In response to activities, as did a dengue outbreak during World War II increasing recognition of threats to Hawaii’s biodiversity when martial law allowed the agency to ignore property and perceived gaps caused by narrow agency mandates rights to deal with the outbreak (Wilbar, 1947). More and jurisdictions, CPSU morphed into what is now the recently, DOD has become more active and pre-emptive, Pacifi c Cooperative Studies Unit (PCSU) working with a in part because of federal laws such as the U.S. Endangered range of state and federal agencies, as well as non-profi ts Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and the National Environmental and private companies and individuals. PCSU provides Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), where actions that may have research, resource management and outreach expertise via an impact on Federally listed endangered species and non- collaborative projects, while also increasing employment compliance might restrict the military mission. opportunities in conservation. Over the last 20 years it For prevention of new alien invasive species, among has grown from 150 employees to more than 450 (Fig. 1), other mandates, the Department of Homeland Security mentoring and staffi ng a range of organisations dealing Customs and Border Protection is responsible for with invasive and endangered species (see below). regulating the importation of goods and conveyances from foreign sources into the U.S., while the U.S. Department Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species (CGAPS) of Agriculture focuses on foreign and domestic A second key development was the formation of the agricultural imports that may carry pests and diseases. Honolulu-based interagency Coordinating Group on Alien The U.S. Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Pest Species (CGAPS) in 1995. In 1992, The Nature Service) uses the Lacey Act and ESA to reduce the risk Conservancy of Hawaii (TNCH) and the Natural Resources of invasive species being imported into Hawaii in specifi c Defence Council published a report on Hawaii’s biosecurity circumstances (e.g. the Injurious Wildlife Provisions of the measures and the gaps that would likely lead to the arrival Lacey Act). and establishment of major new pests such as brown tree With the rise of rapid world trade, Hawaii’s borders snakes (Boiga irregularis) and red fi re ants (Solenopsis have become increasingly permeable to invasive species invicta) (Miller & Holt, 1992). The report concluded that, (Loope & Kraus, 2009). Responses to such species although there were funding and policy gaps, the most are diffi cult, as potentially invasive species are rarely serious problem was a lack of interagency, and sometimes discovered on a single property where the landowner has intra-agency, communication and cooperation, and that the knowledge, skills, interest, and funding to address the many such gaps could be addressed through a coordinated species before it spreads. Landowners can also be hesitant eff ort (Miller & Holt, 1992; Holt, 1996). These reports, to allow government offi cials onto their properties to search and other events, led to the crafting of the Hawaii Alien for or control invasive alien species, so government often Species Action Plan in 1993–94 with the help of more than fails to detect invasive alien species before they spread 80 agency and NGO leaders under a steering committee (Kraus & Duff y, 2010). Action against a new invasive that morphed into CGAPS (Nakatani & Wilson, 1995). alien species largely depends on its location and whether the species is perceived as falling within the mandate of a Today, CGAPS continues to facilitate interagency and particular agency. Further, the bureaucratic process for the NGO communication and cooperation through quarterly addition of new species to offi cial lists mandating control meetings, and its steering committee plans and conducts does not keep up with the pace of arrivals (Penniman, collaborative projects to catalyse action on invasive et al., 2011). Finally, cooperation between state, federal species. CGAPS was originally administered by the Hawaii and county authorities has at times been limited and Department of Agriculture with staff time contributed intermittent (Warren, 2006). In consequence in the last by TNCH and agencies, but it now has a rotating chair two decades, cooperative, often informal approaches have structure, and staff and logistics supported by PCSU. increasingly supplemented top-down formal eff orts. We One of its recent projects was the crafting of a Plant present four such cooperative models that range from the Health Emergency Response Plan, which laid out how the intergovernmental, to agreements between landowners, to US Department of Agriculture and Hawaiʻi Department of groups open to anyone sharing a common objective. Agriculture could engage other federal, state and county Pacifi c Cooperative Studies Unit (PCSU) One of the earliest natural resource management organisations in Hawaii to extend beyond top-down management was the Cooperative National Parks Studies Unit (CPSU), which formed in 1973 through an agreement between the National Park Service (NPS) and the University of Hawaii. CPSU initially provided collaborative research and technical support for Hawaiʻi Volcanoes and Haleakala National Parks. Following the passage of three key federal laws: the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the General Authorities Act of 1970 (), NPS lacked the internal capacity to conduct the research necessary to respond to these mandates. It also lacked a mandate to protect national parks before Fig. 1 Growth of the Pacifi c Cooperative Studies Unit.

499 Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge. Ch 3B Strategy: Collaboration agencies, and non-governmental organisations if a serious they redistributed funding to keep all the ISCs staff ed and plant pest were to arrive, requiring a response beyond active. Being local to each island, these committees enjoy what the two federal agencies could provide (Loope & strong county and legislative support, but funding remains Shluker Ryon, 2013). To test the plan, CGAPS conducted a persistent problem as new invasive species continue a discussion-based “tabletop” exercise in November to arrive while many of the old ones persist. As of 2010, 2013, using the then-fi ctitious discovery of the coconut 27 populations of emerging invasives had been removed rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros, CRB). The tabletop by the ISCs, but eff orts for others are likely to be drawn discussion included more than 40 participants and resulted out because of reinvasions, persistent seed-banks, or the in a report that outlined legal and procedural questions continued discovery of isolated individuals (Kraus & Duff y, that arose (Coordinating Group on Alien Species, 2013). 2010; Penniman, et al., 2011). In addition, the ISCs have Coincidentally, a month later, in December 2013, CRB worked with the Hawaii Ant Lab (another project of PCSU) were detected in a trap at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, and HDOA to survey for and control incipient populations triggering the fi rst use of the Plant Health Emergency of species such as little fi re ants (Wasmannia auropunctata) Response Plan. Although eradication has yet to be and coqui frogs (Eleutherodactylus coqui) on islands achieved, the emergency response has been successful in where they are not yet established. These early detection many ways, from the initial staffi ng of the response co- and rapid response functions have resulted in dozens of led by the two responsible agencies, and supplemented by local eradications of these pests before they could establish multiple federal, state, and non-government partners, to the populations. containment of the beetles to West Oʻahu. Watershed Partnerships Invasive Species Committees Isolated oceanic islands like the Hawaiian archipelago Invasive Species Committees (ISCs) are voluntary have limited freshwater supplies. Native forests in Hawaiʻi partnerships on each island that address incipient (new) retain water better than do island forests dominated by invasive plants and animals on an island-wide basis. The introduced species (Giambelluca, et al., 2009; Kagawa, et fi ve invasive species committees (Kauaʻi Invasive Species al., 2009; Cavaleri, et al., 2014), so protection of watersheds Committee, Oʻahu Invasive Species Committee, Maui is a prudent investment toward the persistence of human Invasive Species Committee, Molokaʻi Invasive Species populations in the islands, as well as for the maintenance Committee, and Big Island Invasive Species Committee), of the archipelago’s unique biota. represent perhaps the best collaborative eff orts in the islands. Their steering committees are essentially self- Maui has been the incubator of a number of innovations recruited, made up of interested private individuals and in Hawaii and so it is not surprising that the fi rst joint eff ort groups as well as representatives of county, state and federal to manage and improve watersheds across ownerships, the agencies. Together, each island’s steering committee East Maui Watershed Partnership (EMWP), was established provides strategic direction to a paid staff and fi eld crew in 1991 through the eff orts of The Nature Conservancy of for island-wide work on early detection and control or Hawaiʻi and the state Department of Land and Natural eradication of high-risk invasive species. A critical function Resources (Loope & Reeser, 2001). There are now ten of ISCs is to obtain right of entry to private lands through watershed partnerships or associations on fi ve islands, education and negotiation. The logistic, fi scal and staffi ng covering 2.2 million acres and involving 75 land-owning aspects of each ISC are handled by the Pacifi c Cooperative partners, ranging from state and federal agencies to NGOs Studies Unit. to private companies and individuals () (Fig. 2). These partners may have diff ering The fi rst committee sprang from a pioneer eff ort on objectives in land management so watershed partnerships Maui Island. A melastome tree (Miconia calvescens) had focus on those they hold in common, rather than imposing been identifi ed on Tahiti as a major threat to intact native the agendas of a minority of partners (cf. Ostrom, 1990). forests (Meyer, 1996). Biologists returning from a visit to Tahiti recognised that the species occurred on Maui and Like CGAPS and the ISCs, most of the watershed might represent a similar local threat to Hawaiʻi (Gagné, et partnerships are informal, with the landowners and al., 1992). This led to the formation of an ad hoc Melastome agencies functioning as steering committees to determine Action Committee in 1991 to address the problem on Maui objectives, and with a manager and staff to address (Conant, et al., 1997; Medeiros, et al., 1997). The eff ort the objectives. PCSU also provides the structure and subsequently expanded to Big Island (Tavares, 1998). administrative capacity for most of these partnerships. In recognition that there might be additional IAS threats (Miller & Holt, 1992), the MAC expanded to other species, and in 1997 the Maui Invasive Species Committee was formed, soon followed by Oʻahu, Kauaʻi, Big Island and Molokaʻi committees (Martin, 2003). The ISCs focus on early detection and rapid response leading to eradication of incipient invasive species, and they also conduct outreach and education to help the public reduce the impacts of established species. All species are chosen for their local, not state, importance, based on evaluation criteria that include risk to an island’s economy or ecology, and feasibility of control or eradication (Penniman, et al., 2011). The number of staff in each ISC varies, but generally each has a fi eld team, an outreach specialist, a GIS/data specialist, and an overall manager who is responsible for government relations, obtaining funding, and working with its steering committee and PCSU (Krauss & Duff y, 2010). Since formation, the ISC managers have worked together to develop standard Fig. 2 Extent of watershed partnerships in the Hawaiian methods, coordinate funding and reports, and even share archipelago in 2015 ().

500 Duffy & Martin: Cooperative species management in Hawai’i

The main task of the partnerships is the long-term In terms of logistics, partnerships can falter without protection of forests in watershed recharge areas, by a lead person and staff whose jobs are to move the removing alien plants and animals directly or through the partnership’s goals forward. Partnerships appear to be installation and upkeep of hundreds of miles of protective less eff ective when they are burdened with managing such fencing to exclude ungulates from sensitive areas. staff , as administrative concerns divert time and energy Watershed partnerships can do this at the landscape level away from the “big picture” and away from consensus without the constraints of political or property boundaries. building around common objectives (Lubell et al., 2002). Indirectly, by protecting native habitat across wide areas, In Hawaiʻi, the Pacifi c Cooperative Studies Unit has the watershed partnerships have also become critical for frequently supplied the stable logistics and organisational the conservation of endangered species. Working with underpinning for such partnerships, providing professional the ISCs, the partnerships are also key to locating and staffi ng, and the ability to handle fi nancial, legal and dispatching newly arrived potentially invasive species. regulatory requirements. This appears to provide a fl exibility not always present in government agencies DISCUSSION where funding can vary from year to year and priorities change from one political administration to the next. Before contact with Western culture and during the monarchy, environmental rules in Hawaiʻi were mandated Although partnerships and cooperative eff orts can at the island or moku level. The introduction of Western be powerful tools for conservation and we can generate concepts such as private property and land ownership, general rules about what works and what doesn’t, all such coupled with the abolition of the kapu system and transition eff orts are local, dependent on the local economy, local of the monarchs to Christianity, resulted in major changes politics and the local environment. It is important that in the management of natural resources. Major increases we better document what has worked and what hasn’t for in resource extraction and land clearance were permitted Hawaii, both for other areas that might wish to explore the and abetted by the republic and territorial governments use of cooperation in conservation, and as anthropogenic controlled by the sugar companies. After statehood, climate change brings new challenges to islands. strong federal laws dealing with pollution and wetlands functioned through command and control enforcement. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Most recently there has been a recognition that such top- down approaches are less eff ective for non-point problems Among many others, we thank J. Canfi eld, B. Harry, A. such as pollution, habitat destruction and managing Holt, L. Loope, T. Penniman, and C. Smith for discussions endangered and invasive species outside government over the years on the challenges and opportunities of lands (Lubell, et al., 2002). Wider involvement is needed collaborative eff orts in Hawaii. The views expressed here to ensure buy-in by “stake holders” who must be part of are our own and do not necessarily represent those of any solutions (John, 1994). Some of these more participatory institution or agency. We dedicate this paper to Lloyd approaches are mandated by U.S. law, such as interagency Loope who was seer, savant and sensei to our community. consultation over endangered species, habitat conservation plans for endangered species, and public comments REFERENCES on federal government actions under the National Andrade, C. (2008). Haena: Through the Eyes of the Ancestors. Honolulu: Environmental Policy Act. Within government, ad hoc University of Hawaiʻi Press. cooperation between agency partners through entities such Athens, J.S. (2009). ‘Rattus exulans and the catastrophic disappearance as CGAPS and PCSU has often proven more nimble than of Hawai’i’s native lowland forest’. Biological Invasions 11: 1489– statutory constructs. Outside formal government, limited- 1581. Brasher, A.M., Luton, C.D., Goodbred, S.L. and Wolff , R.H. (2006). access partnerships of landowners such as watersheds ‘Invasion patterns along elevation and urbanization gradients in partnerships and invasive species committees open to all Hawaiian streams’. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: have proven highly responsive to local conditions. 1109–1129. Bushnell, O.A. (1993). The Gifts of Civilization: Germs and Genocide in Overall, partnerships can yield multiple advantages. Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. They can help bring together resources such as outside Carlton, J.T. and Eldredge, L.G. (2009). Marine Bioinvasions of Hawaii. expertise (e.g. CPSU/PCSU) or undertake landscape-scale Bishop Museum Bulletins in Cultural and Environmental Studies. management by pooling resources and reducing artifi cial Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. boundaries (WPs and ISCs), or they can see “the big Cavaleri, M.A., Ostertag, R., Cordell, S. and Sack, L. (2014). ‘Native trees show conservative water use relative to invasive trees: results picture” with collaborators working together to identify from a removal experiment in a Hawaiian wet forest’. Conservation and address issues (CGAPS). Physiology 2: doi:10.1093/conphys/cou016. Chinen, J.J. (1958). The Great Mahele: Hawaii's Land Division of 1848. Partnerships are not automatic panaceas. Partnerships Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. require fl exibility and trust, and a recognition that they Conant, P., Medeiros, A.C. and Loope, L.L. (1997). ‘A Multi-agency may not be appropriate for every problem. Partnerships Containment Program for Miconia (Miconia calvescens), an Invasive also require a roughly equal distribution of power and Tree in Hawaiian Rain Forests’. In J.O. Luken and J.W. Thieret (eds.) Assessment and Management of Invasive Plants, pp. 249–254. Berlin: resources. If one partner is dominant, then the partnership Springer-Verlag. becomes merely an advisory group or rubber stamp. Cox, T. (1992). ‘The Birth of Hawaiian Forestry: The Web of Infl uences’. Partnerships require a working consensus on approaches. In: J. Dargavel and R. Tucker (eds.) Changing Pacifi c Forests: Islands have a limited spectrum of economic activity Historical Perspectives on the Forest Economy of the Pacifi c Basin. pp. compared to the mainland so people are more likely to 116–25. Durham, NC: Forest History Society. share a common perspective and recognition of the value Coordinating Group on Alien Species (2013). After Action Report/ Improvement Plan. . continental scale. However, even in Hawaiʻi, issues such Cuddihy, L.W. and Stone, C.P. (1990). Alteration of Native Hawaiian as air-dropped rodent control agents, genetically-modifi ed Vegetation – Eff ects of Humans, their Activities and Introductions. organisms, and biocontrol may remain too controversial Honolulu: Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, for partnership approaches. Feral cat management on the University of Hawaii at Manoa. DBEDT (Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism). islands of Oahu and Kauai is a particularly contentious (2017). Air Cargo in Hawaii’s Economy: Developments in Hawaii’s issue, but there is hope for an emerging consensus. Twenty Air Cargo Industry 1990–2016. Honolulu: Department of Business, years ago, fencing was similarly controversial but it has Economic Development & Tourism. now become an accepted approach to land protection. Dorrance, W.H. and Morgan, F. (2000). Sugar Islands: The 165-Year Story of Sugar in Hawaiʻi, Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.

501 Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge. Ch 3B Strategy: Collaboration

Doty, R.E. (1945). ‘Rat control on Hawaiian sugar cane plantations’. Loope, L. and Kraus, F. (2009). ‘Preventing Establishment and Spread of Hawaiian Planter’s Record 49: 71–239. Invasive Species in Hawaii: Current Status and Needs for the Future’. In: Duff y, D.C and Capece, P. (2012). ‘Biology and impacts of Pacifi c island T.K. Pratt, C.T. Atkinson, P.C. Banko, J.D. Jacobi and B.L. Woodworth invasive species. 7. The domestic cat (Felis catus)’. Pacifi c Science 66: (eds.) Conservation Biology of Hawaiian Forest Birds: Implications for 173–212. Island Birds, pp. 359–380. New Haven: Yale University Press. Duff y, D.C. and Vargas, H. (2017). ‘From the vagile to the sedentary: Loope, L. and Shluker Ryon, A.D. (2013). State of Hawai’i Collaborative disease implications and new host relationships on islands’. Chapter Plant Health Emergency Management Plan (PHERP) and Reference 5. In: P.G. Parker (ed.) Disease Ecology. Galapagos Birds and their Manual. . Eldredge, L.G and Smith, C.M. (2001). Guidebook of Introduced Marine Lubell, M., Schneider, M, Scholz, J.T. and Mete, M. (2002). ‘Watershed Species in Hawaii. Bishop Museum Technical Report 21. Honolulu: partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions’. Bishop Museum. American Journal of Political Science 46: 148–163. Gagné, B.H., Loope, L.L. Medeiros, A.C. and Anderson, S.J. (1992). Martin, C. (2003). Island-based Partnerships and Statewide Coordination ‘Miconia calvescens: A threat to native forests in the Hawaiian Islands’ to Protect Hawaii. . Giambelluca, T.W., Martin, R.E., Asner, G.P., Huang, M., Mudd, R.G., McKeown, S. (1996). A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians in the Nullet, M.A., DeLay, J.K and Foote, D. (2009). ‘Evapotranspiration Hawaiian Islands, Los Osos, California: Diamond Head Publishing. and energy balance of native wet montane cloud forest in Medeiros, A.C., Loope, L.L., Conant, P. and McElvaney, S. (1997). Hawai‘i’. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149: 230–243. ‘Status, Ecology, and Management of the Invasive Tree Miconia Gillespie, R.G. and Reimer, N.J. (1993). ‘The eff ect of alien predatory ants calvescens DC (Melastomataceae) in the Hawaiian Islands’. In: N.L. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on Hawaiian endemic spiders (Araneae: Evenhuis and S.E. Miller (eds.) Records of the Hawaii Biological Tetragnathidae)’. Pacifi c Science 47: 21–33. Survey for 1996. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers No. 48, pp. 23–36. Gonschor, L. and Beamer, K. (2014). ‘Toward an inventory of ahupua‘a Honolulu: Bernice Pahuahi Bishop Museum. in the Hawaiian kingdom: A survey of nineteenth- and early twentieth- Meyer, J.-Y. (1996). ‘Status of Miconia calvescens (Melastomataceae), century cartographic and archival records of the island of Hawai‘i’. a dominant invasive tree in the Society Islands (French Polynesia)’. Hawaiian Journal of History 48: 53–87. Pacifi c Science 50: 66–76. Handy, E.S.C. and Handy, E.G. (1972). ‘Native planters in old Hawaii: Miller, S. and Holt, A. (1992), The Alien Pest Species Invasion in Hawaii: Their life, lore and environment’. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin Background Study and Recommendations for Interagency Planning. 233: 1–641. Honolulu: The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the Natural Heliker, C. (1989). ‘Volcanic origins of the Hawaiian Islands.’ In: Resources Defense Council. C.P. Stone and D.B. Stone (eds.) Conservation Biology in Hawaii. pp. Mueller-Dombois, D. (2007). ‘The Hawaiian Ahupua‘a Land Use System: 11–15. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Its Biological Resource Zones and the Challenge for Silvicultural Holt, A. (1996). ‘An Alliance of Biodiversity, Agriculture, Health, and Restoration’. In: N.L. Evenhuis and J.M. Fitzsimons (eds.) Biology of Business Interests for Improved Alien Species Management in Hawaii.’ Hawaiian Streams and Estuaries. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Cultural In: O.T. Sandlund, P.J. Schei, and A. Viken (eds.) Proceedings of the and Environmental Studies 3, pp. 23–33. Honolulu: Bernice Pahuahi Norway/UN Conference on Alien Species, pp. 155–160. Trondheim: Bishop Museum. Directorate for Nature Management and Norwegian Institute for Nature Nagata, K.M. (1985). ‘Early plant introductions in Hawaii’. Research. Hawaiian Journal of History 19: 35–61. Ikuma, E.K., Sugano, D. and Mardfi n, J.K. (2002) Filling the Gaps in Nakatani, J. and Wilson, M. (1995). Hawaii Alien Species Action Plan. the Fight Against Invasive Species. Honolulu: Legislative Reference . implement-Hawaii-ASAP-1995.pdf>. Imada, C.T., Staples, G.W. and Herbst, D.R. (2005). Annotated Checklist Ostrom, E. (1990). The Logic of Collective Action. New York: Cambridge of Cultivated Plants of Hawai‘i. . Paulay, G. and Starmer, J. (2011) ‘Evolution, insular restriction, and John, D. (1994). Civic Environmentalism. Washington, D.C.: extinction of oceanic land crabs, exemplifi ed by the loss of an endemic Congressional Quarterly Press. Geograpsus in the Hawaiian islands’. PLOS ONE 6(5): e19916. Kagawa, A, Sack, L., Duarte, K. and James, S. (2009). ‘Hawaiian native Peck, R.W., Banko, P.C., Schwarzfeld, M., Euaparadorn, M. and Brinck, forest conserves water relative to timber plantation: Species and stand K.W. (2008). ‘Alien dominance of the parasitoid wasp community traits infl uence water use’. Ecological Applications 19: 1429–1443. along an elevation gradient on Hawaiʻi Island’. Biological Invasions Kaiser, B.A. (2014). ‘Watershed conservation in the long run’. Ecosystems 10: 1441–1455. 17: 698–719. Penniman, T.M., Buchanan, L. and Loope, L.L. (2011). ‘Recent plant Kalākaua, D. (1876). An Act for the Protection and Preservation of Woods eradications on the islands of Maui County, Hawaiʽi’. In: C.R. Veitch, and Forests. Honolulu: The Hawaiian Kingdom. M.N. Clout and D.R. Towns (eds.) Island invasives: eradication and management, pp. 325–331. Occassional Paper SSC no. 42. Gland, Kalapa, L.L. (1992). ‘Why is it that the State Seems to “Bully” the Switzerland: IUCN and Auckland, New Zealand: CBB. Counties?’ In: R.W. Ross (ed.) The Price of Paradise. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing. Rago, F. and Sugano, D. (2015). Can’t see the forest for the (albizia) trees: an invasive species update. Honolulu: Legislative Reference Bureau. Kame‘eleihiwa, L. (1992). Native Land and Foreign Desires. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Stone, C.P. and Stone, D.B. (eds.) (1989). Conservation Biology in Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Kepelino, K. (1932). M.W. Beckwith (ed.) Kepelino’s Traditions of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Bulletin 95. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Tavares, K. (1998). ‘Big Island Melastome Action Committee: Miconia calvescens control program overview’. Proceedings of the First Kirch, P.V. (1985). Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Regional Conference on Miconia Control (August 26–29, 1997): 52–64. Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Territory of Hawai’i (1941). Concerning the Introduction of Sugar Cane, Bamboo and Other Grasses or Parts Thereof into Hawaii from Any Kirch, P.V. (2011). ‘When did the Polynesians settle Hawai‘i? A review Other Part of the United States. Eff ective 12/12/41. Honolulu: Division of 150 years of scholarly inquiry and a tentative answer’. Hawaiian of Entomology, Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry. Archaeology 12: 3–26. To mich, P.Q. (1986). Mammals in Hawaiʻi. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Kraus, F. and Cravalho, D. (2001). ‘The risk to Hawaiʻi from snakes’. Press. Pacifi c Science 55: 409–417. Walker, R.L. (1967). ‘A brief history of exotic game bird and mammal Kraus, F. (2009). Alien Reptiles and Amphibians: A Scientifi c Compendium introductions into Hawaii with a look to the future’. ʻElepaio 28: 39–43. and Analysis. Invading Nature – Springer Series in Invasion Ecology, Vol 4. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Warner, R.E. (1968). ‘The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the endemic Hawaiian avifauna’. Condor 70: 101–120. Kraus, F. and Duff y, D.C. (2010). ‘A successful model from Hawaii for rapid response to invasive species’. Journal for Nature Conservation Warren, P. (2006). Biosecurity Systems of Hawaiʻi.: An Evaluation 18: 135–141 and Recommendations for Reform. Honolulu: Hawaiʻi Conservation Alliance. LaCroix, S.J. and Roumasset, J. (1990). ‘The evolution of private property in nineteenth-century Hawaii’. Journal of Economic History Wilbar, C.L. (1947). ‘Control of dengue in Hawaii’. American Journal of 50: 829–852. Public Health 37: 663–674. Long, J.L. (1971). Introduced Birds of the World: The Worldwide History, Woodcock, D. (2003). ‘To restore the watersheds: Early twentieth Distribution, and Infl uence of Birds Introduced to New Environments. century tree planting in Hawaii’. Annals of the Association of American New York: Universe Books. Geographers 93: 624–635. Loope, L. and Reeser, D. (2001). ‘Crossing Boundaries at Haleakala: Ziegler, A.C. (2002). Hawaiian Natural History, Ecology, and Evolution. Addressing Invasive Species through Partnerships’. In: D. Harmon Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (ed.) Crossing Boundaries in Park Management: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and Public Lands, pp. 29-34. Hancock, Michigan: George Wright Society.

502