DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix 1-3-3 Snail Enclosure Revegetation Summaries YER 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix 1-3-3 Snail Enclosure Revegetation Summaries YER 2014 Appendix 1-3-3 Snail Enclosure Revegetation Summaries YER 2014 Appendix 1-3-3. Snail Enclosure Re-vegetation Summaries 1.1 Palikea Snail Enclosure This year restoration activities inside the Palikea snail enclosure included aggressive grass control, minimal understory weed control, strategic Schinus terebinthifolius overstory removal, and outplanting of native snail host trees. As there were ample outplants this year, plantings were conducted throughout the enclosure, focusing on connecting existing native patches, filling in open areas, and establishing an understory of native canopy species ahead of non-native canopy removal. Weed Control Summary: Paspalum conjugatum control accounted for the greatest weeding effort inside the enclosure this year. This removal was done by hand clearing the grass while searching for Euglandina rosea in the understory. Other understory weeds, including Rubus rosifolius, Passiflora suberosa, Phytolacca octandra, and Clidemia hirta, were controlled during these searches as well. Anecdotally, it appears that native cover is filling in previously open areas, and both the abundance of understory weeds and time spent weeding have substantially declined since the construction of the enclosure. Blechnum appendiculatum (fern) growing near the Laminella sanguinea area has thickened and expanded in some areas. Control of this species must be conducted carefully and thoughtfully as L. sanguinea forage through leaf litter on the ground. This weed, however, remains a high priority target as it forms a dense mat in the understory and is only established locally inside the enclosure. A zero tolerance for Ehrharta stipoides will remain in the enclosure. Patches of this grass continually recruit inside. Non-native canopy removal was focused on thinning a stand of S. terebinthifolius trees below the largest density of L. sanguinea. Cover directly over the L. sanguinea area was maintained, but the majority of cover over areas without snails was removed. Outplants were planted on the same day as this removal, and within six months, many of the outplants in this area had more than doubled in height. Native understory has also filled in the light gap created by the S. terebinthifolius removal. At this point, no more aggressive overstory weed control is planned. This will be re-considered when the hundreds of outplants in the enclosure begin to reach canopy levels. The 1 m buffer outside of the enclosure is maintained as bare ground to prevent weeds from growing into or above the first barriers. This area is sprayed regularly with a glyphosate product and a pre-emergent herbicide when needed. Re-vegetation Summary: This year, a total of 212 plants were planted (Table 1). Outplantings were conducted in November 2013, and in January and March 2014. At this point, open spaces appear sufficiently planted, and no more plantings are planned for next year. The exception to this may be Freycenetia arborea, a woody climber that is an important snail host, and Cheirondendron trigynum, a significant canopy component in Palikea, both of which have been slow to grow. 1 Appendix 1-3-3 Snail Enclosure Revegetation Summaries YER 2014 Vegetation monitoring will be conducted in 2017 (five years since construction), to assess the need for additional outplantings in order to reach canopy cover goals of establishing over 80% native cover by the 10th year of existence. Monitoring protocols will be developed before 2017 to address vegetation monitoring objectives and identify triggers for management response. All species of outplants were most recently monitored in September 2014. Overall survival for all outplants (including Year 1) is 81% and is summarized in the table below. Table 1. Outplanting Summary: Species # # Total Survival Comments Planted Goal for Planted remaining Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 September 2014 Many individuals of this species looking Antidesma poor throughout Palikea MU. Hopeful that 20 50 52 67 93% platyphyllum outplant survivorship remains high and that these plants establish inside the enclosure. Coprosma Outplants of this species established and 6 50 40 44 96% longifolia grew quickly; good restoration species. Conducted fruit collection across MU this Cheirodendron 0 0 0 N/A N/A year. Propagation will begin this year. trigynum Unclear when plants will be ready to plant. Seedlings in growth chamber and less than a Freycenetia dozen in small communal pots in the 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A arborea greenhouse. May not be ready for outplanting for another year. These plants are easy to collect from, store, Kadua affinis 26 50 66 82 89% and propagate fairly well; good restoration species. Easy to collect cuttings for this species, but Metrosideros 6 15 10 13 81% has inconsistent propagation results. Need to polymorpha refine appropriate collection material. While generally known as an important snail host species, only a handful of known trees Myrsine from inside the Palikea fence, and none seen 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A lessertiana flowering/fruiting. Should look outside MU if want to work with this species in the future. The first planting of this species fared poorly Perrottetia 47 25 27 41 55% as may have been planted too young. sandwicensis Consequent plantings had sporadic death. Survival not as good as expected; however most of these plants were planted on open Pipturis albidis 50 0 0 31 62% slopes in areas formerly dominated by Psidium cattleianum. Seed sow may be best way to establish this plant in an area. Urera glabra 28 25 17 41 91% High survivorship of this species. 2 Appendix 1-3-3 Snail Enclosure Revegetation Summaries YER 2014 In addition to out-plants, recruitment of native species was also observed within the enclosure; some passive, and some assisted by seed sows. Natural recruitment has been observed most abundantly for Kadua affinis inside the enclosure where seedling beds have formed under mature plants. The lack of rats inside the enclosure is credited as the main reason for this success. A species of Dryopteris glabra fern also recruited along the southern enclosure wall. Carex wahuensis recruited in open areas where broadcast sows were conducted. Coprosma longifolia germinated at almost all of 12 ‘plots’ where 20 fruit were broadcast over a 1ft square area. Nearly a year later, over half of the plots maintain at least one individual. Pisonia umbellifera are also germinating from seed sows throughout the enclosure, and will serve as a host tree for Achatinella concavospira moved into the enclosure from Pualii this year. Photopoints below show some of the native vegetation recovery over the last two years. Freycenetia arborea (IeIe) patches are thicker, Metrosideros polymorpha (Ohia) trees have filled in, and Microlepia strigosa (Palapalai) at the bottom northeast corner of the enclosure now completely covers what was once bare ground. Shot 1: March, 2012 Shot 1: October, 2014 Shot2: March, 2012 Shot 2: October, 2014 Above photos: Two different angles of an area previously dominated by bare ground now filling in with outplants, seed sows, and native fern recruits and expansion. 3 Appendix 1-3-3 Snail Enclosure Revegetation Summaries YER 2014 Shot 3: March, 2012 Shot 3: October, 2014 Above shot: March photo shows thin F.arborea that was previously growing in P. cattleianum stand. F. arborea has filled out, with many new IeIe ‘heads’. Outplants and recruits are connecting with this existing vegetation. Shot 4: March, 2012 Shot 4: October, 2014 Above shot: Bare corner of enclosure (formerly thimbleberry weed) filled in with expanded M. strigosa fern, transplanted Cibotium chamissoi, and outplants (C. longifolia visible). 1.2 Hapapa Snail Enclosure This year restoration activities inside the Hapapa snail enclosure included understory weed control as needed, and outplanting of native snail host trees. Most of this work is conducted by the snail management team. Weed Control Summary: The most dedicated weed effort this year focused on controlling fast-growing, sun-loving understory weeds that colonized during winter rains. One weed in particular, Drymaria cordata var. pacifica was persistent regardless of multiple control efforts. This low growing weed forms dense mats in disturbed areas and produces sticky fruits that disperse easily. Initial controls by handpulling were unsuccessful and mats would re-form quickly after rains. Now, dense areas are controlled using a glyphosate product at a 2% mix-rate, carefully applied to 4 Appendix 1-3-3 Snail Enclosure Revegetation Summaries YER 2014 minimize non-target impact to surrounding vegetation. This technique was successful in knocking back levels, and will be used this coming year if recruit levels are high after rains. Aside from the flushes of herbaceous weeds, most other understory weed control is conducted as needed by snail program staff during regular snail work inside the enclosure. Passiflora suberosa recruits are commonly targeted, along with the recruits of weedy tree species such as Toona ciliata, Spathodea campanulata, Schinus terebinthifolius and Grevillea robusta. Opportunistic weed control is sufficiently maintaining low levels of understory weed cover. New problematic weed infestations are not anticipated, and treatment of the suite of weeds that recruit in open areas is expected to reduce as native canopy cover levels continue to increase. Re-vegetation Summary: The number of individuals planted is much lower than goals set for this year. As planting began early in the year, staff most familiar with the area noted early on in the year that open areas, and corridors between snail habitats were well planted, and that outplant survivorship was high all around. At that point, no more cuttings were taken, or seeds sowed to meet previously set goals. However, plants in the greenhouse slated for the Hapapa enclosure were still planted at a later date. Vegetation monitoring will be conducted in 2017/2018 to assess the need for additional outplantings in order to reach canopy cover goals of establishing over 80% native cover across the core of the enclosure after 10 years of existence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Urera Kaalae
    Plants Opuhe Urera kaalae SPECIES STATUS: Federally Listed as Endangered Genetic Safety Net Species J.K.Obata©Smithsonian Inst., 2005 IUCN Red List Ranking – Critically Endangered (CR D) Hawai‘i Natural Heritage Ranking ‐ Critically Imperiled (G1) Endemism – O‘ahu Critical Habitat ‐ Designated SPECIES INFORMATION: Urera kaalae, a long‐lived perennial member of the nettle family (Urticaceae), is a small tree or shrub 3 to 7 m (10 to 23 ft) tall. This species can be distinguished from the other Hawaiian species of the genus by its heart‐shaped leaves. DISTRIBUTION: Found in the central to southern parts of the Wai‘anae Mountains on O‘ahu. ABUNDANCE: The nine remaining subpopulations comprise approximately 40 plants. LOCATION AND CONDITION OF KEY HABITAT: Urera kaalae typically grows on slopes and in gulches in diverse mesic forest at elevations of 439 to 1,074 m (1,440 to 3,523 ft). The last 12 known occurrences are found on both state and privately owned land. Associated native species include Alyxia oliviformis, Antidesma platyphyllum, Asplenium kaulfusii, Athyrium sp., Canavalia sp., Charpentiera sp., Chamaesyce sp., Claoxylon sandwicense, Diospyros hillebrandii, Doryopteris sp., Freycinetia arborea, Hedyotis acuminata, Hibiscus sp., Nestegis sandwicensis, Pipturus albidus, Pleomele sp., Pouteria sandwicensis, Psychotria sp., Senna gaudichaudii (kolomona), Streblus pendulinus, Urera glabra, and Xylosma hawaiiense. THREATS: Habitat degradation by feral pigs; Competition from alien plant species; Stochastic extinction; Reduced reproductive vigor due to the small number of remaining individuals. CONSERVATION ACTIONS: The goals of conservation actions are not only to protect current populations, but also to establish new populations to reduce the risk of extinction.
    [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]
  • United States of America
    anran Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GLOBAL FOREST RESOURCES ASSESSMENT COUNTRY REPORTS NITED TATES OF MERICA U S A FRA2005/040 Rome, 2005 FRA 2005 – Country Report 040 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The Forest Resources Assessment Programme Sustainably managed forests have multiple environmental and socio-economic functions important at the global, national and local scales, and play a vital part in sustainable development. Reliable and up- to-date information on the state of forest resources - not only on area and area change, but also on such variables as growing stock, wood and non-wood products, carbon, protected areas, use of forests for recreation and other services, biological diversity and forests’ contribution to national economies - is crucial to support decision-making for policies and programmes in forestry and sustainable development at all levels. FAO, at the request of its member countries, regularly monitors the world’s forests and their management and uses through the Forest Resources Assessment Programme. This country report forms part of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 (FRA 2005), which is the most comprehensive assessment to date. More than 800 people have been involved, including 172 national correspondents and their colleagues, an Advisory Group, international experts, FAO staff, consultants and volunteers. Information has been collated from 229 countries and territories for three points in time: 1990, 2000 and 2005. The reporting framework for FRA 2005 is based on the thematic elements of sustainable forest management acknowledged in intergovernmental forest-related fora and includes more than 40 variables related to the extent, condition, uses and values of forest resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Recovery Outline For
    ______________________________________________________________________ U.S.Is Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Outline for the Island of Oʻahu July 2018 Scientific Name/ Common Name PLANTS ANIMALS Bidens amplectens/ Ko‘oko‘olau Hylaeus kuakea/ Hawaiian yellow-faced bee Cyanea calycina/ Hāhā Hylaeus mana/ Hawaiian yellow-faced bee Cyanea lanceolata/ Hāhā Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrolineatum/ Cyanea purpurellifolia/ Hāhā Blackline Hawaiian damselfly Cyrtandra gracilis/ Ha‘iwale Megalagrion leptodemas/ Crimson Hawaiian Cyrtandra kaulantha/ Ha‘iwale damselfly Cyrtandra sessilis/ Ha‘iwale Megalagrion oceanicum/ Oceanic Hawaiian Cyrtandra waiolani/ Ha‘iwale damselfly Doryopteris takeuchii/ No common name Korthalsella degeneri/ Hulumoa Melicope christophersenii/ Alani Melicope hiiakae/ Alani Melicope makahae/ Alani Platydesma cornuta var. cornuta/ No common name Platydesma cornuta var. decurrens/ No common name Pleomele forbesii/ Hala pepe Polyscias lydgatei/ No common name Pritchardia bakeri/ Baker’s Loulu Psychotria hexandra subsp. oahuensis/ Kōpiko Pteralyxia macrocarpa/ Kaulu Stenogyne kaalae subsp. sherffii/ No common name Zanthoxylum oahuense/ Mānele Recovery Outline for the Island of Oʻahu • 2018 Listing Status and Date Endangered; September 18, 2012 (77 FR 57648) and September 30, 2015 (80 FR 58820) Lead Agency/Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 Lead Field Office Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96850, (808) 792–9400 Purpose of the Recovery Outline: This document lays out a preliminary course of action for the survival and recovery of 20 plants and 3 damselflies endemic to the island of Oʻahu, all of which were listed endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2012; and 2 plants and 2 Hawaiian yellow-faced bees also endemic to the island of Oʻahu, listed as endangered under the ESA in 2016 (USFWS 2012b, 2016b).
    [Show full text]
  • *Wagner Et Al. --Intro
    NUMBER 60, 58 pages 15 September 1999 BISHOP MUSEUM OCCASIONAL PAPERS HAWAIIAN VASCULAR PLANTS AT RISK: 1999 WARREN L. WAGNER, MARIE M. BRUEGMANN, DERRAL M. HERBST, AND JOEL Q.C. LAU BISHOP MUSEUM PRESS HONOLULU Printed on recycled paper Cover illustration: Lobelia gloria-montis Rock, an endemic lobeliad from Maui. [From Wagner et al., 1990, Manual of flowering plants of Hawai‘i, pl. 57.] A SPECIAL PUBLICATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE HAWAII BIOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR 1998 Research publications of Bishop Museum are issued irregularly in the RESEARCH following active series: • Bishop Museum Occasional Papers. A series of short papers PUBLICATIONS OF describing original research in the natural and cultural sciences. Publications containing larger, monographic works are issued in BISHOP MUSEUM four areas: • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Anthropology • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Botany • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Entomology • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Zoology Numbering by volume of Occasional Papers ceased with volume 31. Each Occasional Paper now has its own individual number starting with Number 32. Each paper is separately paginated. The Museum also publishes Bishop Museum Technical Reports, a series containing information relative to scholarly research and collections activities. Issue is authorized by the Museum’s Scientific Publications Committee, but manuscripts do not necessarily receive peer review and are not intended as formal publications. Institutions and individuals may subscribe to any of the above or pur- chase separate publications from Bishop Museum Press, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817-0916, USA. Phone: (808) 848-4135; fax: (808) 841-8968; email: [email protected]. Institutional libraries interested in exchanging publications should write to: Library Exchange Program, Bishop Museum Library, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817-0916, USA; fax: (808) 848-4133; email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Restoration Management Plan MIP Year 13-16, Oct. 2016- Sept
    Appendix 3-5 Pualii Ecosystem Restoration Management Unit Plan Ecosystem Restoration Management Plan MIP Year 13-16, Oct. 2016- Sept. 2021 MU: Pualii, PualiiNoMU Overall MIP Management Goals: • Form a stable, native-dominated matrix of plant communities which support stable populations of IP taxa. • Control ungulate, fire, rodent, invertebrate, and weed threats to support stable populations of IP taxa. Background Information Location: Southern Waianae Mountains Land Owner: State of Hawaii, DOFAW (Honouliuli Forest Reserve) Land Managers: DOFAW, OANRP, OPEPP, OSEPP Acreage: 25 acres Elevation Range: 1800-2775 ft. Description: Pualii MU is located in the Southern Windward Waianae Mountains and consists of two major drainages, North Pualii and South Pualii. Overall the area is characterized by steep vegetated slopes and cliff especially at higher elevations. Much of the MU is dominated by alien vegetation. There are only small pockets of native vegetation worthy of intensive management. The alien dominated areas were included in the MU boundary to capture the rare elements and unique native habitat at the heads of North and South Pualii as well as a native dry-mesic forest stand on the north face of North Pualii gulch. The fenced portion of North Pualii consists of a non-native dominated southern facing (Eucalyptus sp. and Schinus terebinthifolius mostly) and a mixed native and non-native north face. The lower slope and gulch bottom of the north face contains a fairly intact, diverse dry-mesic forest canopy (dominated by Sapindus oahuensis and Antidesma pulvinatum) and open talus/soil understory. The left fork of North Pualii contains an intact Planchonella sandwichensis stand and an adjacent draw used for various reintroductions.
    [Show full text]
  • Federally Listed Species Occurring in the U.S
    Federally Listed Species Occurring in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Region Region 1, Recovery Permit TE-702631-29 Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status Mammals Rabbit, Columbia Basin pygmy Brachylagus idahoensis E Wolf, gray Canis lupus E Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed (Mariana Emballonura semicaudata rotensis E subspecies) Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed (South Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata E Pacific subspecies) Bat, Hawaiian hoary Lasiurus cinereus semotus E Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis T Deer, Columbian white-tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus T Bat, Mariana fruit (=Mariana flying Pteropus mariannus mariannus T fox) Bat, little Mariana fruit Pteropus tokudae E Caribou, woodland Rangifer tarandus caribou E Pocket gopher, Roy Prairie Thomomys mazama glacialis T Pocket gopher, Olympia Thomomys mazama pugetensis T Pocket gopher, Tenino Thomomys mazama tumuli T Pocket gopher, Yelm Thomomys mazama yelmensis T Squirrel, northern Idaho ground Urocitellus brunneus T Bear, grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis T Birds Millerbird, Nihoa (old world Acrocephalus familiaris kingi E warbler) Warbler, nightingale reed (old world Acrocephalus luscinia E warbler) Swiftlet, Mariana gray Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi E Akialoa, Kauai (honeycreeper) Akialoa stejnegeri E Duck, Laysan Anas laysanensis E Duck, Hawaiian (=koloa) Anas wyvilliana E Murrelet, marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus T Goose, Hawaiian Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis E Hawk, Hawaiian (='lo) Buteo solitarius E Plover, western snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T Elepaio,
    [Show full text]
  • From Phylogenetics to Host Plants: Molecular and Ecological Investigations Into the Native Urticaceae of Hawai‘I
    FROM PHYLOGENETICS TO HOST PLANTS: MOLECULAR AND ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE NATIVE URTICACEAE OF HAWAI‘I A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BOTANY (ECOLOGY, EVOLUTION, AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY) DECEMBER 2017 By Kari K. Bogner Thesis Committee Kasey Barton, Chairperson Donald Drake William Haines Clifford Morden Acknowledgements The following thesis would not have come to fruition without the assistance of many people. Above all, I thank my graduate advisor, Dr. Kasey Barton, for her incredible support, knowledge and patience throughout my graduate career. She has been a wonderful advisor, and I look forward to collaborating with her on future projects. I also thank my other committee members: Drs. Will Haines, Don Drake, and Cliff Morden. Thank you for being such a wonderful committee. I have learned so much from everyone. It has been an amazing journey. In addition, I am thankful to Mitsuko Yorkston for teaching me so much about DNA sequencing and phylogenetic analysis. I also want to thank Rina Carrillo and Dr. Morden’s graduate students for assisting me in his lab. I thank Tarja Sagar who collected Hesperocnide tenella in California for me. I am grateful to the National Tropical Botanical Garden and Bishop Museum for providing me plant material for DNA sequencing. I also thank Drs. Andrea Westerband and Orou Gauoe who helped me learn R and advance my statistical knowledge. I also thank the volunteers of the Mānoa Cliffs Forest Restoration Site. Thank you for allowing me to collect leaves from the site and for being the breath of fresh air throughout my graduate career.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the Oahu Plants
    Recovery Plan for the Oahu Plants Kaena Point RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE OAHIJ PLANTS Published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: Regional Director, U.S. Fish & dlife ice Date: I DISCLAIMER PAGE Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance ofrecovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Costs indicated for task implementation and/or time for achievement ofrecovery are only estimates and are subject to change. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval ofany individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, otherthan the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ~n1yafter they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion ofrecovery tasks. Literature Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Oahu Plants. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 207 pp., plus appendices. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Recovery Plan for the Oahu Plants was prepared by Scott M. Johnston and revised by Christina M. Crooker, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1-1-3 Palikea Ecosystem Restoration Management Plan Yerdate 2014 Written: 26 Feb 2009 Dates Updated: 16 Nov 2014
    Appendix 1-1-3 Palikea Ecosystem Restoration Management Plan YERDate 2014 Written: 26 Feb 2009 Dates Updated: 16 Nov 2014 Ecosystem Restoration Management Plan MIP Year 11-15, Oct. 2014 – Sept. 2019 MU: Palikea Subunit 1 and Palikea NoMU Overall MIP Management Goals: Form a stable, native-dominated matrix of plant communities which support stable populations of IP taxa. Control ungulate, rodent, arthropod, slug, snail, fire, and weed threats to support stable populations of IP taxa. Background Information Location: Southern Waianae Mountains Land Owner: State of Hawaii Land Manager: State of Hawaii/OANRP Acreage: 24.9 acres Elevation Range: 1900ft. -3100 ft. Description: Palikea MU is located at the southern end of the former Honouliuli Preserve. It is now a State of Hawaii Forest Reserve. The managed area includes the summit ridge and windward slopes of the southern parts of Palawai gulch. The western edge of the MU ends abruptly in cliffs which sweep down into Halona and Nanakuli on the leeward side of the mountains. The eastern edge is partially ringed by a series of cliffs. The crestline is the most native of the MU, while the southern corner is predominantly non-native overstory and understory. The MU includes several small ridges, one long major ridge, steep gulches, one large and shallow gulch, and one flat bowls. The MU is named after the Puu Palikea, the tallest peak in the area, located on the eastern edge of the exclosure. Access to Palikea is via Makakilo and Palehua to the south, and is facilitated by an agreement with the Gill and Olsen groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Management
    CHAPTER 1: ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Notable projects from the 2010-2011 reporting year are discussed in the Project Highlights section of this chapter. Note that this reporting year is 13 months (1 September 2010 through 30 September 2011), while previous reporting years were 12 months. In future, reporting years will return to 12 months (see the Executive summary for more information). Threat control efforts are summarized for each Management Unit (MU) or non-MU land division. Ungulate control, outreach program, and weed control data is presented with a minimum of discussion. For full explanations of project prioritization and field techniques, please refer to the 2007 Status Report for the MIP and OIP. In 2008-2009, Ecosystem Restoration Management Unit Plans (ERMUP) were written for eight MUs: Ekahanui, Helemano, Kaala, Kahanahaiki, Kaluakauila, Ohikilolo (Lower Makua), Ohikilolo (Upper), and Palikea,. In 2009-2010, six additional ERMUPs were written, for Kaena, Kahuku Training Area, Lower Ohikilolo, Makaha, Pahole, and Upper Kapuna. Please refer to the 2009 and 2010 Status Reports for the MIP and OIP for copies of these plans. The ERMUPs detail all relevant threat control in each MU over the next five years. The ERMUPs are working documents; OANRP has modified them slightly since last year, and can provide them on request. They will not be included in Status Reports until they are complete and need to be rewritten to include another five years. This year, three additional ERMUPs were written for the following MUs: Kaluaa and Waieli, Manuwai, and Koloa. These plans are included here, following the Weed Control Program highlights.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving North America's Threatened Plants
    Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants Progress report on Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants Progress report on Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation By Andrea Kramer, Abby Hird, Kirsty Shaw, Michael Dosmann, and Ray Mims January 2011 Recommended ciTaTion: Kramer, A., A. Hird, K. Shaw, M. Dosmann, and R. Mims. 2011. Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants: Progress report on Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation . BoTanic Gardens ConservaTion InTernaTional U.S. Published by BoTanic Gardens ConservaTion InTernaTional U.S. 1000 Lake Cook Road Glencoe, IL 60022 USA www.bgci.org/usa Design: John Morgan, [email protected] Contents Acknowledgements . .3 Foreword . .4 Executive Summary . .5 Chapter 1. The North American Flora . .6 1.1 North America’s plant diversity . .7 1.2 Threats to North America’s plant diversity . .7 1.3 Conservation status and protection of North America’s plants . .8 1.3.1 Regional conservaTion sTaTus and naTional proTecTion . .9 1.3.2 Global conservaTion sTaTus and proTecTion . .10 1.4 Integrated plant conservation . .11 1.4.1 In situ conservaTion . .11 1.4.2 Ex situ collecTions and conservaTion applicaTions . .12 1.4.3 ParameTers of ex situ collecTions for conservaTion . .16 1.5 Global perspective and work on ex situ conservation . .18 1.5.1 Global STraTegy for PlanT ConservaTion, TargeT 8 . .18 Chapter 2. North American Collections Assessment . .19 2.1 Background . .19 2.2 Methodology . .19 2.2.1 Compiling lisTs of ThreaTened NorTh American Taxa .
    [Show full text]