DOCSLIB.ORG

For the CONNECTIONS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL MASTER PLAN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For the CONNECTIONS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL MASTER PLAN Revised Draft Environmental Assessment For the CONNECTIONS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL MASTER PLAN Kaumana, South Hilo, Hawai‘i Tax Map Key: (3)2-5-006:141 July 2010 Revised Draft Environmental Assessment For the CONNECTIONS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL MASTER PLAN Kaumana, South Hilo, Hawai‘i Tax Map Key: (3)2-5-006:141 Prepared for: Connections Public Charter School 174 Kamehameha Avenue Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Prepared by: Wil Chee – Planning & Environmental July 2010 REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Connections Public Charter School, Kaumana, South Hilo, Hawaii Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY......................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Revised Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) ..........................................................................................1 1.2 SCOPE AND AUTHORITY ..............................................................................................................................2 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION......................................................................................................................................2 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................2 1.5 PROJECT PROFILE ........................................................................................................................................3 1.6 DETERMINATION .........................................................................................................................................4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES............................................7 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE).........................................................................................7 2.1.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................................7 2.1.2 Project Features ....................................................................................................................................7 2.1.3 Project Phasing and Construction.......................................................................................................11 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ....................................................................................................................12 2.2.1 Alternative 1 (Linear Split Campus)....................................................................................................12 2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Centralized Split Campus) ............................................................................................13 2.2.3 Alternative 3 (Consolidated Campus)..................................................................................................14 2.2.4 Alternative 4 (No Action Alternative) ..................................................................................................14 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS .............................................15 2.3.1 Selection Criteria.................................................................................................................................15 2.3.2 Alternative Site Locations....................................................................................................................15 2.3.3 Deferred Action ...................................................................................................................................16 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION .............................................................................................................................................41 3.1. TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS........................................................................................................41 3.1.1. Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................................42 3.1.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................42 3.2 KAŪMANA CAVE.......................................................................................................................................43 3.2.1 Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................................46 3.2.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................47 3.3 HYDROLOGY, SURFACE WATER, AND GROUNDWATER .............................................................................47 3.3.1 Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................................48 3.3.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................49 3.4 NATURAL HAZARDS..................................................................................................................................49 3.4.1 Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................................51 3.4.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................52 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................................................53 3.5.1 Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................................55 3.5.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................56 3.6 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................57 3.6.1 Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................................57 3.6.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................58 3.7 ACOUSTICAL ENVIRONMENT.....................................................................................................................58 3.7.1 Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................................58 3.7.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................59 3.8 LAND USE .................................................................................................................................................59 3.8.1 Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................................59 3.8.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................60 3.9 UTILITIES ..................................................................................................................................................60 3.9.1 Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................................61 3.9.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................63 i REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Connections Public Charter School, Kaumana, South Hilo, Hawaii 3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................63 3.10.1 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................................65 3.10.2 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................66 3.11 VISUAL, AESTHETIC AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES .............................................................................66 3.11.1 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................................66 3.11.2 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................67 3.12 CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC......................................................................................................................67 3.12.1 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................................68 3.12.2 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................70 3.13 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................72
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pu'u Wa'awa'a Biological Assessment
    PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A, NORTH KONA, HAWAII Prepared by: Jon G. Giffin Forestry & Wildlife Manager August 2003 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ii GENERAL SETTING...................................................................................................................1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 Land Use Practices...............................................................................................................1 Geology..................................................................................................................................3 Lava Flows............................................................................................................................5 Lava Tubes ...........................................................................................................................5 Cinder Cones ........................................................................................................................7 Soils .......................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of Cricket Genus Caconemobius (Grylloidea: Nemobiinae) from China with Description of a New Species
    Zootaxa 3914 (5): 585–590 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2015 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3914.5.7 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9A34CA4B-1CBA-4503-9A56-C8490B39A260 First record of cricket genus Caconemobius (Grylloidea: Nemobiinae) from China with description of a new species LIBIN MA1*, TAO ZHANG2 & TAO QI2 1College of Life Sciences, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, 710119, China. 2Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Resource Conservation and Utilization; Key Laboratory of Vegetation Ecology, Ministry of Education; School of Life Sciences, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China. *corresponding author: [email protected] Abstact Caconemobius are distributed on widely separated islands in the Pacific area. Wings are absent in these species. They live among the rocks along the seashore, including the Hawaii, Japan and Korea. This genus is presently represented by 14 species worldwide. We found the first species of Caconemobius from China on the coast of Guangzhou. One new species, Caconemobius dibrachiatus Ma and Zhang, sp. nov., is described and illustrated. Key words: Red List of Threatened Animals, Paranemobius, Orthoptera, Shenzhen Introduction For their involvement in coastal ecology and as an indicator of environment quality, species of Caconemobius are considered endangered and recorded in the Red List of Threatened Animals (Hoekstra, 1998). Caconemobius was established by Kirby (1906) with Paranemobius schauinslandi as type species. They are a small cricket species, but slightly larger than normal for members of the Nemobiinae. They possess rather elongate legs, but wings, tympanum on front tibiae, and sometimes, ocelli are absent (Figs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Non-Relictual Tropical Troglobites
    Int. J. Speleol. 16 (1987), pp. 1-16 The evolution of non-relictual tropical troglobites Francis G. Howarth. SUMMARY The discovery of terrestrial troglobites living in caves on young oceanic islands with closcl epigean relatives living in nearby surface habitats offers unique opportunities to develop and tclSthypotheses concerning their evolution. Studies comparing the physiological ecology of troglobites with their epigean relatives suggest that troglobites arcl highly specialized to exploit resources within the system of interconnected medium-sized voids (mesocaverns) and only colonize cave passages (macrocaverns) with a stable, water vapor- saturated atmosphercl. Few other animals can live in the mesocaverns. Rather than being relicts isolated in caves by the extinction of their epigean ancestral population, troglobites appear to evolve by a process called adaptive shift from specicls that are frequent accidentals in the mesocaverns. INTRODUCTION This symposium is timely, as within only the last two decades there has been a virtual revolution in our thinking on cave bi- ology. This radical change was precipitated by the discoveries of significant troglobitic faunas in tropical caves, in lava tubes, in the smaller voids within fractured subterranean substrates (Howarth, 1983b;Juberthie, 1983), and continues with the recent discoveries in bad air caves (Howarth & Stone, in prep.>. These discoveries open up whole new fields of biospeleological investigations and call into question the theories on cave animal evolution developed from the pioneering studies in temperate limestone caves. No longer can caves be considered a separate biotope from the voids in the surrounding rock. In fact, both an expanded conception of the subterranean biome and the formulation of a new synthesis on the evolution of cave species are now necessary (Howarth, 1983b).
    [Show full text]
  • Albany, New York, 2005
    Cover Photo by Joe Levinson: Paul Woodell taken in the Entrance to Jack Patricks Cave in Schoharie County, New York. It took first place as a color print in the 1997 print salon at the NSS National Convention in Sullivan Missouri. The camera was a Nikonous V with a 35mm lens using natural light on Professional Kodachrome 200 2005 NCKMS Staff Chairman Michael Warner [email protected] NCC Event Coordinator Emily Davis [email protected] CCH Treasurer Joe Levinson [email protected] NCC Abstract Coordinator Vince Kappler [email protected] NCC Facilities Aubrey Golden [email protected] MKC Field Trip Thom Engel [email protected] NCC Audio–Visual Jeff Bray [email protected] WVCC Bob Simmons [email protected] NCC Registration Liaison Ken Nichols [email protected] NCC Onsite Registration Karen Kastning [email protected] VA Cave Board Publicity Paul Steward [email protected] NCC Restaurants & Offsite Activities Christa Hay [email protected] NCC Exhibits Bob Addis [email protected] NCC Program Editor Amy Cox [email protected] NCC Proceedings Coordinator Steve Stokowski [email protected] Boston Grotto Proceedings Editor Tom Rea [email protected] NSS NCKRI Workshop Louise Hose [email protected] NCKRI Pat Seiser [email protected] NCKRI Bat Conservation Workshop Jim Kennedy [email protected] BCI Project Underground Workshop Carol Zokaites [email protected] PU Proceedings of the 2005 National Cave and Karst Management Symposium Albany, New York October 31 – November 4, 2005 Symposium Organizers Northeastern Cave Conservancy, Inc. Proceedings Coordinator Steve Stokowski Proceeding Editor G. Thomas Rea Layout and Design by Published by The NCKMS Steering Committee Cheryl Jones, Chairman Host Organization Northeastern Cave Conservancy, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biology and Ecology of North American Cave Crickets
    Kathleen H Lavoie, Kurt L Helf, and Thomas L Poulson – The biology and ecology of North American cave crickets. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 69, no. 1, p. 114–134. THE BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY OF NORTH AMERICAN CAVE CRICKETS KATHLEEN H. LAVOIE1,KURT L. HELF2, AND THOMAS L. POULSON3 Abstract Cave and camel crickets are widely distributed in caves throughout the world, and in North America they make up the bulk of the biomass in many caves. Most caves do not have large populations of bats, so the guano, eggs, and carcasses of these cavernicolous crickets are dependable sources of fixed energy for troglobites (Mohr and Poulson, 1966; Barr, 1967; Barr and Kuehne, 1971; Richards, 1971; Harris, 1973). The crickets often are a true keystone species, maintaining cricket guano communities and specialized egg predators, as well as providing more dispersed energy inputs that increase overall ecosystem diversity. They are all commonly referred to as crickets, and are all in the same Order (Orthopterans) with grasshoppers, crickets, and katydids. Most cave crickets actually are grasshoppers. Cave crickets in Hawaii are true crickets (Gryllids). Because cave crickets are relatively large and abundant, they have received more study as a group than most other cavernicolous invertebrates, but there are still a lot of things we don’t know about cave crickets and some continuing mysteries. CLASSIFICATION AND GENETICS forest. The young crickets hatch, and many over-winter just inside cave entrances. They are clearly trogloxenes. Early researchers were fascinated by the bizarre life Hadenoecus subterraneus cave crickets in Mammoth Cave forms frequently encountered in caves, and spent a lot of and Ceuthophilus conicaudus in Carlsbad Cavern leave the effort looking for confirmation of their evolutionary ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Nemobiinae from China (Orthoptera: Trigonidiidae)
    International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies 2016; 3(4): 103-108 ISSN 2347-2677 IJFBS 2016; 3(4): 103-108 Checklist of Nemobiinae from China (Orthoptera: Received: 18-05-2016 Accepted: 19-06-2016 Trigonidiidae) Liu Hao-Yu The Key Laboratory of Liu Hao-Yu, Li Li-Mei and Shi Fu-Ming Zoological Systematics and Application, College of Life Sciences, Hebei University, Abstract Baoding 071002, Hebei Province, This study presents all known Chinese Nemobiinae from 1869 to 2015 as a summarized checklist that China. includes currently valid names and synonyms for the fauna with their distributions. A total of 35 species and 9 genera were to occur in Chinese fauna. Also, we correct a homonym, viz. Pteronemobius Li Li-Mei (Pteronemobius) ruficeps Liu & Shi, 2014, the proposed replacement name is P. (P.) jianfenglingensis The Key Laboratory of Liu & Shi, nom. nov. Zoological Systematics and Application, College of Life Sciences, Hebei University, Keywords: Orthoptera, Nemobiidae, Checklist, nom. nov., China Baoding 071002, Hebei Province, China. 1. Introduction First used as Nemobiinae by Hebard (1933) [24], priority for subfamily name based on Shi Fu-Ming Nemobius dates from Nemobiites Saussure, 1877. Up until now, it includes 54 valid genera The Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and and 326 valid species, and mostly distributed in tropics and subtropics (Eades, Otte, Cigliano [18] [61] Application, College of Life & Braun, 2016) . Yin & Liu (1995) published a comprehensive study “Synopsis on the Sciences, Hebei University, Classification of Grylloidea and Gryllotalpoidea from China”, included 3 genera and 18 Baoding 071002, Hebei Province, species of Chinese Nemobiinae. China.
    [Show full text]
  • HAWAI'i the Island of Hawai'i Is the Largest, Highest, and Youngest In
    HAWAI‘I The island of Hawai‘i is the largest, highest, and youngest in the Hawaiian Archipelago. It has two mountains over 4,000 meters (13,000 feet), three active volcanoes, and twice the area of all the other islands combined. Hawai‘i is also climatically diverse: Kawaihae, on the leeward Kohala coast, averages less than 26 centimeters (10 inches) of rain each year, while mid- elevation forests on the windward side of the island receive over 700 centimeters (270 inches) of rain. The highest mountains are usually snow-capped through the winter. In spite of this, they are host to a suite of endemic arthropods in an aeolian ecosystem. Lava flows from the active volcanoes isolate patches of forest called kīpuka, leading to genetic divergence between isolated populations, and ultimately, speciation. Young lava flows are colonized quickly and become habitat for specialized arthropod fauna. Lava tubes in older flows host a diverse and unique cave fauna. Wet forests are home to a spectacular radiation of endemic birds as well as many unique invertebrates such as happy-face spiders and carnivorous caterpillars. Most of the original lowland habitat on the island has been transformed by human habitation, and whole suites of bird and snail species have been extirpated and are known only from fossils. In addition, honeycreeper and honeyeater species that were adapted to low-elevation forests have disappeared, both from the loss of forests and the introduction of alien insects and diseases such as avian pox and malaria. The extent of the missing native arthropod fauna can only be guessed, but one assumes it is extensive, and that the loss of arthropod pollinators and seed dispersers likely affects forest health in the remaining habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Leg Attenuation and Seasonal Femur Length: Mass Relationships in Cavernicolous Crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae and Rhaphidophoridae)
    Eugene H. Studier, Kathleen H. Lavoie, and Francis G. Howarth - Leg attenuation and seasonal femur length: Mass relationships in cavernicolous crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae and Rhaphidophoridae). Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 64(2): 126-131. LEG ATTENUATION AND SEASONAL FEMUR LENGTH: MASS RELATIONSHIPS IN CAVERNICOLOUS CRICKETS (ORTHOPTERA: GRYLLIDAE AND RHAPHIDOPHORIDAE) EUGENE H. STUDIER1, KATHLEEN H. LAVOIE1,3 1Department of Biology, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI 48502-2186 USA FRANCIS G. H OWARTH2 2Hawaii Biological Survey, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704 USA 3Current address: Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences; 101 Broad Street; State University of New York at Plattsburgh; Plattsburgh, NY 12901- 2681 USA We report here some factors that affect the relationship between hind femur length (HFL) to crop-empty live weight (CELW) and propose a quantitative, non-lethal measurement ratio that has potential as an index of extent of adaptation to a cavernicolous existence in “crickets”. Curvilinear relationships exist between HFL and CELW for camel crickets (Ceuthophilus stygius) and cave crickets (Hadenoecus sub- terraneus). The relationships differ significantly between the species and also by gender within both species and, in cave crickets, by season as well. In C. stygius, females of small HFL are slightly lighter, and those of large HFL slightly heavier than males. In H. subterraneus, females have progressively greater CELW than males as HFL increases. In adult H. subterraneus of identical HFLs, CELW is great- est in fall and least in spring, i.e., individuals are most robust in the fall in these long-lived crickets, prob- ably due to seasonal constraints on surface feeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropod Survey of the Waiäkea 1942 Lava Flow Natural Area Reserve and Selected Kïpuka Within the Mauna Loa Kïpuka Mosaic, Hawai‘I
    Arthropod Survey of the Waiäkea 1942 Lava Flow Natural Area Reserve and Selected Kïpuka Within the Mauna Loa Kïpuka Mosaic, Hawai‘i David J. Preston , Myra K. K. McShane , Neal L. Evenhuis , G. A. Samuelson, Keith T. Arakaki, and Dan A. Polhemus Hawaii Biological Survey, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817-2704, USA Submitted to Hawaii Department of Land And Natural Recourses Division Of Forestry And Wildlife Hawaii Natural Area Reserve System 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 325 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 June 2004 Contribution No. 2004-009 to the Hawaii Biological Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1 METHODS........................................................................................................................................................1 SURVEY AREA...............................................................................................................................................2 SITE DESCRIPTIONS.....................................................................................................................................2 Site 1 ..............................................................................................................................................................2 Site 2 ..............................................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Notes on the Cricket Subfamilies Nemobiinae And
    ZOOSYSTEMATICA ROSSICA ISSN 2410-0226 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg ▪ https://www.zin.ru/journals/zsr/ (Online) 0320-9180 Vol. 27(2): 290–321 ▪ Published online 17 December 2018 ▪ DOI 10.31610/zsr/2018.27.2.290 (Print) RESEARCH ARTICLE Taxonomic notes on the cricket subfamilies Nemobiinae and Trigonidiinae (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) from islands and coasts of the Pacific and Indian Oceans Таксономические заметки о сверчках подсемейств Nemobiinae и Trigonidiinae (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) с островов и побережий Тихого и Индийского океанов A.V. Gorochov, M.K. Tan & Ch.Ya. Lee А.В. Горохов, М.К. Тан, Ч.Я. Ли Andrey V. Gorochov, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1 Universitetskaya Emb., St Petersburg 199034, Russia; e-mail: [email protected] Ming Kai Tan, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore; e-mail: [email protected] Chow Yang Lee, Urban Entomology Laboratory, Vector Control Research Unit, School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Several taxa of Nemobiinae and Trigonidiinae from some islands and coasts of Pacific Ocean and Andaman Sea (Indian Ocean) are considered. The tribes Marinemobiini Gorochov, 1985 and Burci- ni Gorochov, 1986 are briefly redescribed, and the tribes Nemobiini Saussure, 1877 and Pteronemobiini Vickery, 1973 are also discussed. Some genera of Marinemobiini (Marinemobius Gorochov, 1985, Aptero- nemobius Chopard, 1929 and Parapteronemobius Furukawa, 1970) as well as type species of Apteronemo- bius (A. longipes Chopard, 1929) are redescribed; Marinemobius and Parapteronemobius are restored from synonyms of Apteronemobius and Caconemobius Kirby, 1906, respectively (with the suggestion of three new combinations for the specific names);Eumarinemobius sundaicus gen.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CAVERNICOLOUS FAUNA of HAWAIIAN LAVA TUBES 10. Crickets (Orthoptera, Gryllidae)1
    Pacific Insects Vol. 18, no. 12: 85 103 25 August 1978 THE CAVERNICOLOUS FAUNA OF HAWAIIAN LAVA TUBES 10. Crickets (Orthoptera, Gryllidae)1 By Ashley B. Gurney2 and David C. Rentz3 Abstract: This paper is a report on the Systematics of 2 genera of flightless crickets which in part inhabit lava tube caves in the Hawaiian Islands. Thaumatogryllus, with short, lobelike tegmina, includes a surface-living species on Kauai and T. cavicola, n. sp. on Hawaii. The genus has long been placed in the Eneopterinae, but has some characters suggesting relationship to the Oecanthinae. Caconemobius, which has been overlooked previously by most entomologists, has a previously described species on Molokai and C. fori, n. sp. on Hawaii (both surface-dwelling), and 2 cave-dwellers, C. varius, n. sp. (Hawaii) and C. howarthi, n. sp. (Maui). Caconemobius (Nemobiinae) is entirely wingless and appears related to certain flightless nemobiine genera inhabiting other Pacific islands. Both Thaumatogryllus and Caconemobius are restricted to the Hawaiian Islands. Cave dwelling (presumably troglobitic) crickets discovered recently in the Hawaiian Islands and noted briefly by Howarth (1972) are of much scientific interest because they are part of a long-overlooked underground fauna. The 3 new species of cavernicolous crickets thus far discovered (Howarth 1973) belong to 2 genera, Thaumatogryllus Perkins and Caconemobius Kirby. Previous to these discoveries, affinities of both genera were poorly understood. For both Thaumatogryllus and Caconemobius, we suggest relationships to existing genera or higher groups either on their own part or through possible ancestral forms now unknown. Thaumatogryllus now consists of a surface dwelling species on Kauai Island and a cavernicole on Hawaii Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Biosecurity Implementation Plan
    KAHOʻOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE BIOSECURITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Little Fire Ant (Wasmannia auropunctata) G. Brilmyer Ship Rat (Rattus rattus) Prepared by LYMAN L. ABBOTT, JAMES C. BRUCH AND PAUL K. HIGASHINO VER. 7 FEBRUARY 2017 Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Biosecurity Implementation Plan Version Date Authors 1 February 15, 2016 Lyman L. Abbott and James C. Bruch 2 March 15, 2016 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 3 May 1, 2016 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 4 August 1, 2016 “ “ “ “ “ and Paul K. Higashino 5 September 15, 2016 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 6 January 15 2017 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 7 February 10, 2017 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ Recommended Citation; KIRBIP, 2017. Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Biosecurity Implementation Plan. February, 2017. Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission, 811 Kolu St Suite 201, Wailuku, HI 96793. 104pp. Contributors: Lyman L. Abbott, James C. Bruch, Paul K. Higashino, Dean Tokishi (KIRC), Chad Hanson (Island Conservation) and Pete McClelland (Pete McClelland Environmental Services), Forest and Kim Starr. Prepared for: Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission, Hawaiʻi Invasive Species Council, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Reviewed by: Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission, Island Conservation. Grant Funding: Hawaiʻi Invasive Species Council, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 2 Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Biosecurity Implementation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]