DOCSLIB.ORG

Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Program Strategic Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Program Strategic Plan Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Program Strategic Plan July 2007 Table of Contents Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................2 How to Use This Plan ...............................................................................................................3 Summary of Stakeholder Input .................................................................................................3 Overview of Region..................................................................................................................4 Ecological Diversity......................................................................................................5 Land Ownership Patterns..............................................................................................7 Threats.......................................................................................................................................7 Pacific Northwest..........................................................................................................7 Pacific Islands ...............................................................................................................8 Region 1 Conservation Initiatives.......................................................................................................10 Cross Program Results............................................................................................................10 Candidate Conservation..........................................................................................................11 Organizational Structure of the Region 1 Partners and Coastal Team ...............................................12 Five Program Goals from the Service Vision Document ..................................................18 Goal 1. Conserve Habitat .........................................................................................................18 Focus Area Development........................................................................................................18 Conservation Objectives .........................................................................................................19 Habitat Improvement Targets .................................................................................................20 Monitoring and Adaptive Management..................................................................................23 Goal 2. Broaden and Strengthen Partnerships...........................................................................26 Goal 3. Improve Information Sharing and Communication ......................................................28 Goal 4. Enhance Our Workforce...............................................................................................29 Goal 5. Increase Accountability.................................................................................................30 Appendix A. Pacific Island Coastal and Partners Program Focus Areas ..........................................34 Appendix B. Oregon Focus Areas .....................................................................................................60 Appendix C. Western Washington Focus Areas................................................................................88 Appendix D. Upper Columbia Basin Focus Areas ..........................................................................106 Appendix E. Snake River Basin Focus Areas..................................................................................122 Appendix F. Stakeholders Contacts.................................................................................................136 Appendix G. Comparison of Strategic Plan and Operational Plan Targets.....................................146 Appendix H. Table of References....................................................................................................150 List of Tables Table 1. Region 1 Partners Program Focus Areas and Five-Year Performance Targets (FY 2007 - 2011) .............................................................................................................22 Table 2. Region 1 Coastal Program Focus Areas and Five-Year Performance Targets (FY 2007 -2011) ..............................................................................................................23 List of Figures Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Ecosystem ........................................4 Figure 2. U.S. EPA Level III Ecoregions .................................................................................. 6 Figure 3a. Locations of Region 1 Partners and Coastal Program Field Stations and Focus Areas in the Pacific Northwest.................................................................................13 Figure 3b Locations of Region 1 Field Stations and Focus Areas in the Pacific Islands ......... 14 Figure 4 General Organizational Structure of the Region 1 Partners and Coastal Team ....... 16 Executive Summary Region 1 encompasses extraordinary ecological diversity with habitats ranging from tropical forest and coral reefs in Micronesia, to old-growth rainforests west of the Cascade mountain range of Oregon and Washington, to glacial lakes and streams in Washington's Northern Cascades, to arid shrub-steppe habitat in southern Idaho. These habitats support over 400 endangered and threatened species, many unique and endemic plant and animal communities, and a variety of economic and land-use considerations. Our partners are varied―agricultural and natural resource dependent communities, rural landowners, Native American tribal governments and indigenous island communities, watershed councils, coral reef advisory groups, universities, land trusts, State and Federal agencies, and many others. Our Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) and Coastal Program Team recognize that this diversity in habitats, landowner needs, and partnerships presents many opportunities for us. This abundance of opportunity in Region 1 requires program focus to ensure our limited staffing and project dollars are allocated to benefit the highest priority resources and achieve the highest quality results for our Federal trust species. The Region 1 Partners and Coastal Program Team has developed a reputation for having the ability to effectively deliver technical assistance and habitat restoration projects in a timely, efficient, and cooperative manner. In order to remain within our capacity and to meet our partners' expectations, Partners and Coastal Programs biologists carefully evaluate project proposals to assess which sites best meet the Focus Area objectives. We seek to leverage limited program funds by providing needed technical assistance to complementary restoration programs in a watershed or ecoregion. Ultimately, through collaborative partnerships with other agencies and programs, our Partners and Coastal Programs’ limited funds are leveraged to restore habitat and conserve our valued natural resources. In this Plan, we describe how we will improve the overall effectiveness of our Partners and Coastal Team to: • conserve habitat, • broaden and strengthen partnerships, We will improve our efficiency and increase results by • improve communication, focusing our partnership building and habitat • enhance our workforce, and improvement actions within 40 Partners Program and 14 Coastal Program Focus Areas. • increase accountability. Conserve Habitat Region 1's diversity in ecoregion and habitat types, their associated threats, and extensive partnership opportunities call for creative and energetic efforts to conserve habitat. To meet this challenge, our Partners and Coastal Team will improve our efficiency and increase results by focusing our partnership building and habitat improvement actions within 54 Focus Areas (40 Partners Program Focus Areas and 14 Coastal Program Focus Areas). The Focus Areas represent landscapes where broad fish and wildlife conservation goals could best be met, and are consistent with our program’s voluntary approach. Some question how voluntary conservation efforts can be strategic as they are by nature opportunistic and shaped by landowner interest and funding availability. However, opportunistic conservation is not necessarily random. By targeting our actions within the Focus Areas described in this Plan, our actions will strategically create conservation opportunities. The Partners and Coastal Team efforts in Region 1 will focus on the restoration of wetland, coral reef, grassland, savanna, tropical and temperate forest, upland bog, shrub-steppe, stream, and riparian habitats within these Focus Areas. These Focus Areas overlap with high concentrations of listed and candidate species, with key migratory bird corridors, National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) lands, and with priority State- led conservation efforts for species at risk. 1 Over the next 5 years, we anticipate our Partners Team will improve habitat on approximately 4,300 acres of wetland habitat, 7,960 acres of upland habitat, 114 miles of riparian habitat, 25 miles of instream habitat, and remove 83 fish passage barriers. We anticipate our Coastal Team will improve habitat on approximately 1,233 acres of wetland and coral reef habitat, 604 acres of upland
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Handbook Publication.Pub
    Table of Contents Maui County’s Landscape and Gardening Handbook Xeriscaping in Maui County ................................................................. 1 Planning and Design................................................................................................................. 1 Hydro-zones.............................................................................................................................. 1 Plant Selection and the Maui jkCounty Planting Zones............................................................ 2 Soil Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 4 Mulching.................................................................................................................................... 5 Irrigation .................................................................................................................................... 5 Maintenance ............................................................................................................................. 7 Other Interesting Techniques for the Ambitious ..................................... 8 Xeriscape Ponds....................................................................................................................... 8 Aquaponics in the Backyard ..................................................................................................... 9 Water Polymer Crystals ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • October 1983 Vol
    October 1983 Vol. VIII No. 10 Department of interior. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service Technical Bulletin Endangered Species Program, Washington, D.C. 20240 and announced its intention to propose Two Florida Mammals Listed as listing the two rodents. Endangered in Emergency Rule Reasons for Emergency Action An emergency rule listing as Endan- their range in southern peninsular Flor- In June 1983, the Rural Electrification gered two small mammals known only ida, have been lost to development, and Administration (REA) requested imme- from one area in the Florida Keys was this habitat type is now one of the most diate consultation with the Service on a published by the Service on September limited and jeopardized ecosystems in proposed loan to the Florida Keys Elec- 21 and took effect immediately (F.R. Florida. The hammocks of north Key tric Cooperative for construction of a 9/21/83). The Key Largo woodrat (A/eo- Largo represent some of the best remain- substation that would provide increased toma floridana smalli) and Key L^rgo ing tracts, but they are the proposed site delivery of electricity to northern Key cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus for a large number of residential tracts. A Largo. Such consultation is required allapaticola) are jeopardized by the loss section of new water pipeline now under Section 7 of the Endangered Spe- of their forest habitat to residential and extends into the area, and is expected to cies Act because the REA is a Federal commercial development. An emergency accelerate the pace of residential, com- Continued on page 4 determination was necessary to allow mercial, and recreational development.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Thursday, February 27, 2003 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation or Nondesignation of Critical Habitat for 95 Plant Species From the Islands of Kauai and Niihau, HI; Final Rule VerDate Jan<31>2003 13:12 Feb 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27FER2.SGM 27FER2 9116 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR units designated for the 83 species. This FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul critical habitat designation requires the Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific Fish and Wildlife Service Service to consult under section 7 of the Islands Office at the above address Act with regard to actions carried out, (telephone 808/541–3441; facsimile 50 CFR Part 17 funded, or authorized by a Federal 808/541–3470). agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RIN 1018–AG71 to consider economic and other relevant impacts when specifying any particular Background Endangered and Threatened Wildlife area as critical habitat. This rule also and Plants; Final Designation or In the Lists of Endangered and determines that designating critical Nondesignation of Critical Habitat for Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12), there habitat would not be prudent for seven 95 Plant Species From the Islands of are 95 plant species that, at the time of species. We solicited data and Kauai and Niihau, HI listing, were reported from the islands comments from the public on all aspects of Kauai and/or Niihau (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • A Landscape-Based Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability for All Native Hawaiian Plants
    Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDscape-bASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMatE CHANGE VULNEraBILITY FOR ALL NatIVE HAWAIIAN PLANts Lucas Fortini1,2, Jonathan Price3, James Jacobi2, Adam Vorsino4, Jeff Burgett1,4, Kevin Brinck5, Fred Amidon4, Steve Miller4, Sam `Ohukani`ohi`a Gon III6, Gregory Koob7, and Eben Paxton2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service —Ecological Services, Division of Climate Change and Strategic Habitat Management, Honolulu, HI 96850 5 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawai‘i National Park, HI 96718 6 The Nature Conservancy, Hawai‘i Chapter, Honolulu, HI 96817 7 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hawaii/Pacific Islands Area State Office, Honolulu, HI 96850 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit University of Hawai‘i at Hilo 200 W. Kawili St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 933-0706 November 2013 This product was prepared under Cooperative Agreement CAG09AC00070 for the Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey. Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDSCAPE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY FOR ALL NATIVE HAWAIIAN PLANTS LUCAS FORTINI1,2, JONATHAN PRICE3, JAMES JACOBI2, ADAM VORSINO4, JEFF BURGETT1,4, KEVIN BRINCK5, FRED AMIDON4, STEVE MILLER4, SAM ʽOHUKANIʽOHIʽA GON III 6, GREGORY KOOB7, AND EBEN PAXTON2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaiʽi National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawaiʽi at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeography of a Pantropical Plant with Sea-Drifted Seeds; Canavalia Rosea (Sw.) DC., (Fabaceae) 汎熱帯海流散布植
    （千葉大学学位申請論文） Phylogeography of a pantropical plant with sea‐drifted seeds; Canavalia rosea (Sw.) DC., (Fabaceae) 汎熱帯海流散布植物ナガミハマナタマメ (マメ科)の系統地理 2010 年７月 千葉大学大学院理学研究科 地球生命圏科学専攻 生物学コース Mohammad Vatanparast Phylogeography of a pantropical plant with sea‐drifted seeds; Canavalia rosea (Sw.) DC., (Fabaceae) July 2010 MOHAMMAD VATANPARAST Graduate School of Science CHIBA UNIVERSITY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES ABSTRACT 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 3 Pantropical plants with sea-drifted seeds species (PPSS) 5 A project on the phylogeography of the PPSS 6 A case study of PPSS: Hibiscus tiliaceus L. 7 Canavalia rosea: a genuine pantropical plant with sea-drifted seeds 8 Overview of this study 10 CHAPTER 1 12 PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CANAVALIA ROSEA AND ITS ALLIED SPECIES 12 1-1 Introduction 12 1-2 Materials and Methods 15 Taxon sampling 15 DNA extraction, PCR, and sequencing 16 Phylogenetic analyses based on cpDNA sequence data 18 Phylogenetic analyses based on ITS sequence data 19 1-3 Results 21 Phylogenetic analyses based on cpDNA sequence data 21 Phylogenetic analyses based on ITS sequence data 22 1-4 Discussion 24 Phylogenetic relationships among C. rosea and its related species 24 The phylogeographic break in the Atlantic Ocean 25 Origin of the Hawaiian endemic species 26 Future prospects for the evolutionary studies among C. rosea and its allied species 27 Tables and figures 29 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGES CHAPTER 2 40 GLOBAL GENETIC STRUCTURE OF CANAVALIA ROSEA; EVIDENCE FROM CHLOROPLAST DNA SEQUENCES 40 2-1 Introduction 40 2-2 Materials and Methods 44 Sampling 44 DNA extraction, PCR, and sequencing 44 Haplotype Composition and Network of C.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Using Community Group Monitoring Data to Measure The
    25 Using Community Group Monitoring Data To Measure The Effectiveness Of Restoration Actions For Australia's Woodland Birds Michelle Gibson1, Jessica Walsh1,2, Nicki Taws5, Martine Maron1 1Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Queensland, Australia, 2School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, 3800, Victoria, Australia, 3Greening Australia, Aranda, Canberra, 2614 Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 4BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Melbourne, 3053, Victoria, Australia, 5Greening Australia, PO Box 538 Jamison Centre, Macquarie, Australian Capital Territory 2614, Australia Before conservation actions are implemented, they should be evaluated for their effectiveness to ensure the best possible outcomes. However, many conservation actions are not implemented under an experimental framework, making it difficult to measure their effectiveness. Ecological monitoring datasets provide useful opportunities for measuring the effect of conservation actions and a baseline upon which adaptive management can be built. We measure the effect of conservation actions on Australian woodland ecosystems using two community group-led bird monitoring datasets. Australia’s temperate woodlands have been largely cleared for agricultural production and their bird communities are in decline. To reverse these declines, a suite of conservation actions has been implemented by government and non- government agencies, and private landholders. We analysed the response of total woodland bird abundance, species richness, and community condition, to two widely-used actions — grazing exclusion and replanting. We recorded 139 species from 134 sites and 1,389 surveys over a 20-year period. Grazing exclusion and replanting combined had strong positive effects on all three bird community metrics over time relative to control sites, where no actions had occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Hibiscus Arnottianus Subsp. Immaculatus (Koki‘O Ke‘Oke‘O) Current Classification: Endangered
    5-YEAR REVIEW Short Form Summary Species Reviewed: Hibiscus arnottianus subsp. immaculatus (koki‘o ke‘oke‘o) Current Classification: Endangered Federal Register Notice announcing initiation of this review: [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; initiation of 5-year reviews of 103 species in Hawaii. Federal Register 74(49):11130-11133. Lead Region/Field Office: Region 1/Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (PIFWO), Honolulu, Hawaii Name of Reviewer(s): Marie Bruegmann, Plant Recovery Coordinator, PIFWO Jess Newton, Recovery Program Lead, PIFWO Assistant Field Supervisor for Endangered Species, PIFWO Methodology used to complete this 5-year review: This review was conducted by staff of the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), beginning on March 16, 2009. The review was based on final critical habitat designations for Hibiscus arnottianus subsp. immaculatus and other species from the island of Molokai (USFWS 2003) as well as a review of current, available information. The National Tropical Botanical Garden provided an initial draft of portions of the review and recommendations for conservation actions needed prior to the next five-year review. The evaluation of Samuel Aruch, biological consultant, was reviewed by the Plant Recovery Coordinator. The document was then reviewed by the Recovery Program Lead and the Assistant Field Supervisor for Endangered Species before submission to the Field Supervisor for approval. Background: For information regarding the species listing history and other facts, please refer to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Environmental Conservation On-line System (ECOS) database for threatened and endangered species (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public).
    [Show full text]
  • November 2009 an Analysis of Possible Risk To
    Project Title An Analysis of Possible Risk to Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Associated with Glyphosate Use in Alfalfa: A County-Level Analysis Authors Thomas Priester, Ph.D. Rick Kemman, M.S. Ashlea Rives Frank, M.Ent. Larry Turner, Ph.D. Bernalyn McGaughey David Howes, Ph.D. Jeffrey Giddings, Ph.D. Stephanie Dressel Data Requirements Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision E—Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms Guideline Number 70-1-SS: Special Studies—Effects on Endangered Species Date Completed August 22, 2007 Prepared by Compliance Services International 7501 Bridgeport Way West Lakewood, WA 98499-2423 (253) 473-9007 Sponsor Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63167 Project Identification Compliance Services International Study 06711 Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 RD 1695 Volume 3 of 18 Page 1 of 258 Threatened & Endangered Plant Species Analysis CSI 06711 Glyphosate/Alfalfa Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 Page 2 of 258 STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIMS The text below applies only to use of the data by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in connection with the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) No claim of confidentiality is made for any information contained in this study on the basis of its falling within the scope of FIFRA §10(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C). We submit this material to the United States Environmental Protection Agency specifically under the requirements set forth in FIFRA as amended, and consent to the use and disclosure of this material by EPA strictly in accordance with FIFRA. By submitting this material to EPA in accordance with the method and format requirements contained in PR Notice 86-5, we reserve and do not waive any rights involving this material that are or can be claimed by the company notwithstanding this submission to EPA.
    [Show full text]
  • A Revision of the New World Plant-Mining Moths of the Family
    Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY • NUMBER 625 A Revision of the New World Plant-Mining Moths of the Family (Lepidoptera: Nepticuloidea) Donald R. Davis and Jonas R. Stonis SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Emphasis upon publication as a means of "diffusing knowledge" was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the following statement: "It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge." This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, com- mencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series: Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Smithsonian Contributions in History and Technology Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology Smithsonian Contributions from the United States National Herbarium Smithsonian Contributions in Visual and Material Culture Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology In these series, the Institution pubHshes small papers and full-scale monographs that report the research and collections of its various museums and bureaus. The Contributions Series are distributed by mailing lists to Ubraries, universities, and similar institutions through- out the world. Manuscripts submitted for series publication are received by the Smith- sonian Institution Scholarly Press from authors with direct affiliation with the various Smithsonian museums or bureaus and are subject to peer review and review for compliance with manuscript preparation guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • WORK PLAN BEAVERHEAD RIVER WATERSHED UPDATED: January 2009
    WORK PLAN BEAVERHEAD RIVER WATERSHED UPDATED: January 2009 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The purpose for this watershed plan is to: (1) Identify and document resource concerns within the watershed, both water and non- water related. (2) Prioritize those concerns (3) Outline objectives and methods of addressing those concerns (4) Provide guidance in the implementation of action plans and other associated watershed activities. This document will be maintained as a guide for watershed activities, and will be updated annually to reflect current circumstances in the watershed including reprioritization of concerns and addition of new areas of concentration. BEAVERHEAD RIVER WATERSHED COMMITTEE – MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Beaverhead Watershed Committee is to seek an understanding of the watershed – how it functions and supports the human communities dependent upon it – and to build agreement on watershed-related planning issues among stakeholders with diverse viewpoints. Goals: . Provide a mechanism and forum for landowners, citizens, and agencies to work together to: . Identify problems and concerns both riparian and non-riparian, urban and rural. Reach agreement upon the priority of and methods for addressing those concerns. Act as a conduit between local interests and agencies for purposes of procuring the funding and non-monetary assistance necessary to begin systematically addressing priority concerns. Foster a cooperative environment where conflict is avoided, and work to resolve conflict as necessary for the watershed effort to move forward. Stay abreast of opportunities, issues, and developments that could be either beneficial or detrimental to the watershed or segments of the watershed. Keep stakeholders appropriately informed. Objectives: . Continuous Improvement – Maintain a broad range of active improvement projects/programs relating to diverse attributes of the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Hawaiian Lobelioids — in Vitro and Molecular Studies
    CONSERVATION OF HAWAIIAN LOBELIOIDS — IN VITRO AND MOLECULAR STUDIES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAW ATI IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN HORTICULTURE MAY 1996 By Gregory A. Koob Dissertation Committee: Yoneo Sagawa, Co-Chairperson Sterling Keeley, Co-Chairperson Adelheid Kuehnle Fred Rauch Clifford Smith We certify that we have read this dissertation and that, in our opinion, it is satisfactory in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Horticulture. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE I (^Chairperson^ !^-Chairperson AkjJU^jA ■ UilU 11 © Copyright 1996 by Gregory A. Koob All Rights Reserved 111 Acknowledgments I would like to thank the staff and volunteers at the Harold L. Lyon Arboretum and the Lyon Arboretum Association for their support of the in vitro research. The staff of the National Tropical Botanical Garden, the State of Hawai'i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, the Nature Conservancy of Hawai'i, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, John Obata, and Rick Palmer are appreciated for supplying plant material. Partial funding was supplied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Hawai'i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, the Center for Plant Conservation, the University of Hawai'i Foundation, and Sigma Xi Grants-in-Aid of Research. Thank you to Dave Lorence, Kay Lynch, Loyal Mehrhoff, Carol Nakamura, John Obata, Rick Palmer, Joshlyn Sands, and Alvin Yoshinaga for information used in this report. Special thanks to Sterling Keeley for the use of her lab and supplies and support for the RAPDs work and to Yoneo Sagawa for his knowledgeable support of the in vitro research.
    [Show full text]