Despite the destruction of native forest and other resources that has occurred in Puna, and the potential for much more damage through land development in the extensive subdivisions, as described in Chapter 1, there remains a good opportunity not only to protect what is left, but even reverse some of the historical impacts.

Puna contains vast acreage of largely intact natural area that comes under the protection of Federal and State regulations; for example:

• The western portion of Puna is dominated by Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park and the adjoining upper east Hawai„i rainforest. The Park was designated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as an International Biosphere Reserve in 1980, reflecting its value for research and protection of evolutionary resources, and as a World Heritage Site in 1987, citing its geological resources.
• The State of Hawai„i designated two areas adjoining the Park as Natural Area Reserves -- Kahauale„a and Pu„u Maka„ala -- meeting the same standards of resource quality and protective management as the Biosphere Reserve.
• The State also manages several other forest reserves in Puna comprising 131,659 acres: Upper Waiākea Forest Reserve, Waiākea Forest Reserve, „Ōla„a Forest Reserve (Mountain View Section), Nānāwale Forest Reserve, Malama Kī Forest Reserve, Keau„ohana Forest Reserve, and the recently acquired Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve.
• The State Conservation District, which encompasses almost all of the above areas as well as some additional lands, is organized as a regulatory hierarchy under the jurisdiction of the Hawai„i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). There are five subzones of the Conservation District, each intended to provide a degree of regulatory protection that reflects the intactness or relative significance of the resources that are present in those subzones. About half of Puna‟s Conservation District is in the Protective Subzone, which is the most restrictive of the five subzones in terms of allowable uses. The remainder is in either the Limited Subzone, which is designated for areas with potential high risk of natural hazard, or the Resource Subzone, which is generally applied to less intact forest reserves.
• The Conservation District also includes the submerged lands beneath coastal waters. DLNR‟s Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands therefore addresses shoreline and near-shore issues and regulations. The Hawai„i Department of Health (DOH) is The Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve is owned by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs but managed by DLNR‟s Division of Forestry and Wildlife. responsible for monitoring and protecting the quality of the waters themselves under the authority of the Federal Clean Water Act.

The remainder of Puna – about 56% of the entire land area of the district – lies predominately within the State Agricultural District and, to a lesser extent, in the State Urban and Rural Districts. The County has primary jurisdiction over land use and development in these Districts and can take proactive measures to protect resources in these areas, which encompass former agricultural fields and pastures, early towns and villages, extensive partially developed subdivisions, and large tracts of native forest.

While much of the natural environment and some of the cultural heritage of these areas has been altered and compromised, effective and timely intervention can do much to prevent further degradation and possibly even restore some of what has been lost or undergoing change. The theme of Mālama I Ka „Āina encompasses all aspects of the natural and cultural environment, seeking to preserve and perpetuate not only the native forests and geological formations, but also pristine waters, unspoiled, star-lit skies, serene natural habitats, and vestiges of Puna‟s historic heritage. The following sections propose specific new regulatory, incentive, and educational programs to promote sustainable practices to preserve Puna‟s natural and cultural resources indefinitely. On a broader level, Chapter 3 will complement these proposals with measures to reshape Puna‟s development pattern and reduce the development potential of existing subdivisions.

Chapter 1 (Section 1.2) lists numerous reasons why unabated build-out of Puna‟s subdivisions would have very negative, if not potentially disastrous, consequences. Puna contains nearly 45% of the islands‟ total subdivided lots, a low build-out percentage, and the highest growth rate, all on a landscape that is exposed to the highest risk of volcanic and seismic activity. It would be prudent to reduce the risk to future residents and properties by discouraging development on vacant lots in high risk zones and encouraging growth at other, less hazardous locations elsewhere on the island.

Within Puna, the vision is to reshape the development pattern by moving away from the sprawl effects of the existing subdivisions and toward the formation of village and town centers. Over the long term, this will improve the feasibility of developing supporting infrastructure for populated areas, give residents better access to public and commercial services, stimulate local employment opportunities, and reduce dependence on the automobile for transportation. It will also help preserve natural and cultural resources by limiting the spread of the development, as noted in the previous chapter.

Some village and town centers already exist in the form of older settlements that were built prior to the creation of the extensive subdivisions a few decades ago. There are opportunities to create new village centers within existing subdivisions that are experiencing higher rates of development, primarily on lands that had been set aside by the subdivider for community or commercial purposes. Innovative land use tools need to be employed to facilitate the development of housing in the village centers in order to make them viable communities. In addition, amendments to zoning maps and the zoning code should be reviewed to address these goals and policies of Chapter 3, Managing Growth.

Land pooling may offer expanded opportunities for commercial agriculture in subdivisions with small lots by creating larger parcels for agricultural production. While small lots can be used by residents to produce food for their own consumption, larger lots tend to support a wider range of commercially viable agriculture production because of economies of scale, reduced potential for real or perceived nuisance effects on immediate residential neighbors, and lower real estate values per square foot, when compared to small parcels.

While more than half of its land area is zoned for agriculture, and Puna is a center for agricultural activity, current mapping systems present an unclear picture of the productivity potential of agricultural land in the district. There are three inconsistent mapping systems in effect. The only system that has regulatory effect is Land Study Bureau (LSB) soil classifications, which are referenced in the State Land Use Law, Chapter 205, Hawai„i Revised Statutes. This system is more than four decades old and reflects a pattern of plantation agricultural use that has dwindled to insignificance in Hawai„i. There are no “A” or “B” lands in the entire district of Puna, which implies incorrectly that Puna‟s lands have lesser agricultural value.

The State has not formally adopted a system to replace the LSB classifications, but the State Department of Agriculture has prepared maps depicting Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawai„i (ALISH) that reflect more accurately than the LSB maps the value of lands to support diversified agriculture. ALISH maps are therefore used more often than the LSB maps when evaluating agricultural lands. The County‟s LUPAG adopted a similar, but not identical, mapping system for areas deemed to be Important Agricultural Lands (IAL). While there is some correspondence between the ALISH and IAL maps, there is by no means an exact match (see Figure 3-1).

ALISH lands cover a total of approximately 75,596 acres in Puna, whereas IAL lands cover only about 51,653 acres. Moreover, the omission of ALISH lands from the IAL designation to create large “urban expansion” areas surrounding Kea„au and Pāhoa when there is still much unused development capacity in Puna‟s subdivisions is hard to justify. It would be helpful to have a mapping system for agricultural lands that is relevant to Puna‟s agricultural activities so that they can be adequately preserved and planned for future use.

The Puna Community Development Plan seeks to manage growth by: encouraging a more efficient, environmentally sustainable land use pattern; reducing the number of and rearranging previously-approved subdivision lots; requesting the County to change the zoning of lots now inappropriately zoned for present and future use and growth; promoting agricultural use and other “green” employment in the district; promoting the use of renewable energy; improving the delivery of social services and housing assistance; and providing the necessary public services, parks and recreation opportunities in a manner that supports community-building and an improved quality of life.

Sprawl development is increasingly evident in the travel patterns of Puna residents. At present, most of Puna‟s workforce commutes by personal vehicle to employment locations outside of the district, primarily to Hilo. Residents also make frequent trips to Hilo for shopping and services. About a quarter of the workforce carpools, but congestion is growing along Puna's principal corridors during peak commute periods.

State highways are the primary transportation routes. Highway 11 between Kurtistown and Hilo and Highway 130 between Pāhoa and Kea'au carry the greatest amount of traffic during peak commuting periods. Most roads in Puna's nonconforming subdivisions are privately owned, often in poor physical condition and not designed for through traffic. There are many missing connections between the road networks of adjacent subdivisions. The present circulation network, combined with the district‟s sprawl development pattern, results in a number of problems:

• There is a lack of alternative routes for emergency access, especially when highways are blocked by a traffic crash or downed utility pole, or when there is a natural disaster such as a hurricane, tsunami, lava flow or earthquake that requires evacuation;
• Highways become more congested during peak periods due to the lack of alternative roadways;
• Highway intersections with substandard private streets are dangerous due to anadequate lighting or intersection controls, combined with high traffic speed along the highway;
• It is difficult for the County's Mass Transit Agency (MTA) to operate an efficient Hele-On Bus service that offers a viable travel option for a large number of Puna residents, especially those in more remote areas;
• There are few facilities for walking or bicycling, even in more built-up areas; and
• It can be life-threatening to cross Highways 130 and 11 on foot. This is particularly true for youth, the elderly and the disabled.

The Puna Community Development Plan seeks to promote more efficient and environmentally responsible travel by limiting demand for commuting and other trips; promoting mass transit and alternative travel modes; and providing alternate routes to reduce trip lengths and travel time.