Scanned Document

Inventory and Monitoring Plan Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge

August 2019

June 2019 1 | Page Kellia Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Inventory and Monitoring Plan

Signature Page

Action Signature /PriDted Name Date

Bethany Chagnon (WiJdlife Refuge Specialist) By: Prcn,arecl Rachel Rounds (Zone l&M Biologist)

Submitted By:

Reviewed By:

Approved By:

Table of Contents Signature Page Introduction Methods Results References Appendices Appendix A. Key Legal Mandates and Policies for Inventorying and Monitoring Activities on Units of the NWRS Appendix B. Criteria Appendix B. Criteria and Weights Used to Prioritize Surveys (SMART Tool Table) Appendix C. Results: Prioritization Scores and Status All Ranked Surveys Appendix D. Brief Description of Non-selected Surveys Appendix E. Research Projects IMP Revision Signature Page

June 2019 3 | Page

Introduction

A. Scope and rationale This inventory and monitoring plan (IMP) presents current and expected inventory and monitoring (I&M) activities (surveys) for Keālia Pond NWR (Keālia Pond NWR or Refuge). Most surveys in this IMP are refuge-specific; they evaluate and refine efficacy of resource management actions and measure progress toward achieving resource management objectives identified in refuge planning documents. Some surveys also gather baseline data to develop practical and measurable objectives for restoration projects, or provide baseline data on biological integrity of the Refuge. The IMP also includes cooperative surveys addressing resource issues of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) at larger landscape scales beyond the refuge boundary (e.g., archipelagic) or needs of other agencies and organizations. For cooperative surveys, refuge lands are one of multiple sites including other refuges to address broad-scale resource information needs.

Key components of this IMP include a comprehensive list of surveys, prioritization of these surveys, surveys selected for implementation, status of protocols for surveys, a rationale for each survey including its connection with management objectives, and a signature page documenting IMP review and approval. Although the IMP identifies many surveys that would need to be conducted on the Refuge, the number of surveys implemented on an annual basis is contingent upon a number of factors, including available refuge funding and staffing as well as support from partners.

B. Refuge Purpose(s) Keālia Pond NWR was established in 1992, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to preserve, restore, and manage essential habitat for two endangered Hawaiian waterbirds: the ae‘o (Hawaiian stilt) and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o (Hawaiian coot). The 704-acre Refuge is situated along the south-central shore of Maui in the isthmus separating the West Maui Mountains from the East Maui volcano, Haleakalā. Refuge habitats include open water (200 acres), vegetated flats (450 acres), and upland (54 acres). The Refuge is an important foraging and nesting area for Hawai‘i’s endangered wetland birds, and it supports hundreds of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl during winter months. In addition, the Refuge provides coastal beach strand habitat for native plant species, endangered ‘īlioholo- i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal), threatened honu (Hawaiian green turtle), and endangered honu‘ea (hawksbill turtle).

Keālia Pond NWR was established with the purpose “… to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species, or (B) plants …” (16 U.S.C. 1534, ESA). The Service acquired a perpetual conservation easement from the property owner, Alexander & Baldwin Inc. (A&B), in order to manage the property as a unit of the Refuge System. A conservation easement is defined as a transfer of usage rights from a property owner to the Service that creates a legally enforceable land preservation agreement for the purpose of conservation. The property owner retains partial ownership rights over the land but relinquishes rights to use the property for development. The Service holds interest in the property and is authorized, in accordance with the easement, to manage the property for Refuge purposes in perpetuity.

The Refuge was funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965. Prior to establishment as a national wildlife refuge, the Service and State of Hawai‘i periodically conducted avian surveys at Keālia Pond and consistently observed high numbers of ae‘o and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o, both of which were

June 2019 4 | Page

federally listed as endangered species in 1970. Their endangered status and need for suitable habitat was the impetus for protecting this large wetland from future development.

A discussion of the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, legal mandates, and policies relevant to I&M for refuges is provided in Appendix A.

Statutory authority for managing and associated resource management planning on refuges is derived from the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, which was significantly amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). Section 4(a)(3) of the Refuge Improvement Act states, “With respect to the System [NWRS], it is the policy of the United States that – (A) each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established…” As stated in 701 FW 2.8, surveys should be linked to refuge purpose(s), where applicable.

C. Relationship of IMP to other plans An IMP is one of many potential CCP step-down plans that can be prepared for a refuge, as applicable (see Exhibit 1, 602 FW 4). As with any CCP step-down plan, the Project Leader may modify an IMP at any time if new information suggests this plan is inadequate or refuge resources would benefit from changes. The Refuge’s CCP details its relationship to these ecosystem planning efforts. This IMP describes the prioritization and selection of surveys needed to meet objectives outlined in the CCP for Keālia Pond NWR (USFWS 2011a) and therefore by extension, certain objectives described in the related conservation plans. Current management plans for the Refuge include the following:

• Fire Management Plan (2004) • Integrated Pest Management Plan (2008) • Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan (2009) • Avian Botulism Disease Contingency Plan (2008) • Practices to Minimize the Introduction of Invasive Species by Service Activities, Oahu/Maui Complex (2017)

Other relevant Service and conservation partner plans are the following: • Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds (USFWS 2011b) • Hawai‘i State Wildlife Action Plan (2015) • PICCC Strategic Plan (2014-2019)

Methods A. Identify a Comprehensive List of Refuge Surveys The IMP team for Keālia Pond NWR includes Bethany Chagnon (Wildlife Refuge Specialist), Glenn Klingler (Project Leader), Suzanne Conlon (Biological Technician), and Rachel Rounds (I&M Zone Biologist). The IMP team met on May 29 - 30, 2019, to review PRIMR surveys, finalize the prioritization tool, and then prioritize and select surveys. The surveys documented in this IMP were identified as important to refuge management as defined by the CCP, step-down management plans, regional priorities, and unique refuge resources. Although this created a comprehensive list, the IMP is designed to be a flexible document that can be revised if additional surveys need to be added and selected in the future. A review of Refuge files revealed other surveys previously conducted in the past.

June 2019 5 | Page

The final list of current, expected, future, and historic surveys was created in the PRIMR application through discussion by the IMP team at the 2019 meeting. The IMP team defined a current survey as one conducted by current Refuge staff or conducted by a partner or cooperator. An expected survey is one that requires additional staff or expertise, but refuge staff believes funding will be available during the timeframe of the IMP (including from a Cooperative Recovery Initiative [CRI] grant). Future surveys are defined as surveys that will require additional resources to complete, or that may be required in the future for regulatory reasons. Historic surveys occurred in the past, but they will not occur again during the lifecycle of this IMP.

B. Prioritize Refuge Surveys The IMP team used the Simple Multi-Attribute Ranking Technique (SMART Tool) as a decision support mechanism to prioritize surveys. The IMP team chose and rated Smart Tool criteria and then evaluated and prioritized surveys. The IMP team selected 11 criteria in the SMART Tool to generate a score for each survey (Appendix B). The IMP team evaluated 15 current and expected surveys during prioritization. Once the final scores were generated from the SMART tool, the IMP team grouped all the surveys into high, medium, and low priority categories based upon their scores. The team also determined if surveys should remain current or expected, be archived as historic, or changed to a future status. Rounds facilitated the discussions, but she had no input in choice of evaluation criteria, prioritization, or selection of surveys.

C. Select Refuge Surveys In accordance with the I&M policy, the IMP team considered the following factors when selecting surveys:

Prioritization results. The team considered whether the survey ranked as high, medium, or low priority from the SMART Tool results.

Capacity to complete survey: The team estimated the number of FWS or partner staff hours needed to conduct each survey, and discussed the ability of current Refuge staff and volunteers to complete the full life cycle of each survey. The IMP team identified surveys that are conducted primarily by partners, which do not take much Refuge staff time. The team also identified surveys that were regional in scope.

Results

A. Comprehensive List of Refuge Surveys There are 26 surveys in PRIMR for the Refuge: 10 current, 3 expected, 8 future, and 5 historic surveys (Table 1). The team changed the status of two surveys during the prioritization process. The Blackburn's Sphinx moth and plant community inventory surveys were listed a current prior to the prioritization process; however, based on discussion and decisions made during prioritization, these two surveys were not selected and their survey status was changed.

June 2019 6 | Page

Table 1. Survey records in PRIMR for Keālia Pond NWR. Survey Name Survey Type Status Hawaii Biannual Waterbird Survey Coop Baseline Monitoring (CB) Current Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) Coop Baseline Monitoring (CB) Current Native Outplanting Survival and Reproduction Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Current Predator Control Effectiveness Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Current Vegetation Community Mapping Coop Monitoring to Inform Management Current Waterbird and Shorebird Abundance Monthly Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Current Waterbird and Shorebird Mortality Coop Monitoring to Inform Management Current Waterbirds (Endangered) - Reproductive Success Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Current Water Level in Keālia Pond Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Current Water Quantity: Monthly Well Water Use Coop Baseline Monitoring (CB) Current Habitat Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Expected Treatment Effectiveness: Invasive Plant Control Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Expected Ungulate Abundance and Take Monitoring Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Expected Blackburn's Sphinx Moth and host plants Coop Baseline Monitoring (CB) Future Climate Change Impacts Baseline Monitoring (BM) Future Impact of Public Use on Natural Resources Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Future Soil Characteristics Mapping Inventory (I) Future Soil Contaminants Monitoring Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Future Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects) Inventory (I) Future Water Quality: Abiotic Parameters in Wetlands Coop Monitoring to Inform Management Future Wetland Invertebrate Composition & Relative Abundance Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Future Endangered Waterbird Dispersal and Movement Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Historic Hawaiian Hoary Bat Presence/Absence and Seasonality Inventory (I) Historic Invasive Fish Abundance Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Historic Midge Abundance - Larval and Adult Monitoring to Inform Management (M) Historic Plant Community Inventory Inventory (I) Historic

B. Prioritized Refuge Surveys The IMP team prioritized 15 current and expected surveys using the SMART Tool (Appendix C). The IMP team changed the plant inventory to a historic survey because it was completed in 2013, and given its low priority ranking, is unlikely to be completed again during the lifespan of the IMP. The IMP team changed the Blackburn’s sphinx moth survey to future due to its low priority ranking and because its completion is dependent on regulatory requirements that may not be necessary in the immediate future. Of the remaining 13 current and expected surveys, four surveys are categorized as high priority, seven as medium priority, and four as low priority (Table 2). High priority surveys focus on waterbirds: population trends, breeding success, and mortality. Medium priority surveys include monitoring of management actions, vegetation mapping, and water-level monitoring. Low priority surveys were cooperative (e.g., monthly well water, RAWS) and baseline inventories.

June 2019 7 | Page

Table 2. Results of Survey Prioritization for Kealia Pond NWR. Survey Priority Status Waterbird and Shorebird Mortality High Current Monthly Waterbird Survey High Current Waterbirds (Endangered) - Reproductive Success High Current Hawaii Biannual Waterbird Survey High Current Water Level in Keālia Pond Medium Current Predator Control Effectiveness Medium Current Treatment Effectiveness: Invasive Plant Control Medium Expected Native Outplanting Survival and Reproduction Medium Current Habitat Restoration Effectiveness Medium Expected Vegetation Community Mapping Medium Current Ungulate Abundance and Take Monitoring Medium Expected Monthly Well Water Use Low Current Plant Community Inventory Low Historic Blackburn's Sphinx Moth Low Future Remote Automated Weather Station Low Current

C. Selected Refuge Surveys Following the prioritization process, the IMP team selected 10 current and 3 expected surveys for implementation in the IMP (Table 3). All high- and medium-priority surveys were selected. However, only two of four low-priority surveys were selected. The IMP team selected the RAWS survey (meteorological data), despite its low priority, because it is a cooperator survey that requires minimal FWS staff time to complete. Similarly, the IMP team selected the monthly well water survey because the Refuge is required to report the data from this survey to the State of Hawaii, and the survey requires minimal staff time.

The IMP team also considered the hours necessary to conduct a survey, and the capacity of Refuge staff to complete the survey during the lifespan of the IMP. Although the vegetation community mapping survey is the most labor intensive, it will be mostly be done by I&M staff. Similarly, the outplanting survival and reproduction survey requires a lot of staff time, but this work is done by Keālia Pond NWR volunteers, and so will not affect Refuge capacity to complete the work. Four medium priority, expected surveys, are linked to the CRI grant to build an ungulate fence, remove invasive plant species, and monitor habitat restoration. These surveys are expected to begin when a Term Biotech is hired in FY 2020. The IMP team identified the State Waterbird Survey as a Regional survey.

June 2019 8 | Page Table 3. Surveys Selected for Implementation at Kealia Pond NWR.

Mgmt. Staff Avg. Ann Protocol Survey Survey ID Survey Survey Objective Survey Time Cost Survey Timing Survey Survey Citation Protocol Priority1 Number2 Name/(Type)3 Status4 Id 5 Area 6 (FTE) 7 (OPR) 8 9 Length 10 Coord. 11 12 Status 13 High FF01RKLP00- Waterbird Current CCP / 1- Entire FWS: $300.00 Monthly/ 1994- Bethany (None) (None) 025 (Endangered 2., 5-1., station 0.06, Recurring -- Indefinite Chagnon, and Migratory) 1-1., 1-3., Other: every year Wildlife and Shorebird 5-2. 0.02 Refuge Abundance Specialist Monthly (M)

High FF01RKLP00- Hawaii Current CCP / 1- Statewide FWS: $300.00 Occurs the 1988- Bethany (None) Regional; 032 Biannual 4., 1-2., 0.01, third Indefinite Chagnon, draft ISI Waterbird 5-1., 1-1., Other: Wednesday of Wildlife Survey (CB) 1-3. 0.0 January and Refuge August/ Specialist Recurring -- every year High FF01RKLP00- Waterbirds Current CCP / 1- Entire FWS: $300.00 Year-round/ 1995- Bethany (None) (None) 003 (Endangered) - 2., 5-1., station 0.1 Recurring -- Indefinite Chagnon, Reproductive 1-3. every year Wildlife Success (M) Refuge Specialist High FF01RKLP00- Waterbird Current CCP / 1- Entire FWS: $0.00 Year Round/ 1992- Bethany (None) (None) 033 (Endangered 4., 1-2., station 0.03 Sporadic or Ad Indefinite Chagnon, and Migratory) 5-1., 1-1., Hoc Wildlife and Shorebird 1-3. Refuge Mortality (CM) Specialist

Medium FF01RKLP00- Native Current CCP / 3- Entire FWS: $0.00 As 2018- Bethany (None) (None) 039 Outplanting 1., 1-4., station 0.0, appropriate/ Indefinite Chagnon, Survival and 1-2., 5-1. Other: Recurring -- Wildlife Reproduction 0.1 every year Refuge (M) Specialist

June 2019 9 | Page Medium FF01RKLP00- Predator Current CCP / 1- Entire FWS: $500.00 Quarterly/ 2017- Bethany (None) (None) 005 Control 4., 1-2., station 0.06 Recurring -- Indefinite Chagnon, Effectiveness- 5-1., 1-1., every year Wildlife Non-Native 5-2. Refuge Rodent and Specialist Mongoose Relative Abundance (M)

Medium FF01RKLP00- Vegetation Current CCP / 1- Entire FWS: $1,000.00 Year round/ 2018- Bethany (None) (None) 034 Community 4., 1-2., station 0.14 Occurs one 2021 Chagnon, Mapping (CM) 5-1., 1-1., time only Wildlife 1-3., 5-2. Refuge Specialist Medium FF01RKLP00- Water Level in Current CCP / 1- Entire FWS: $0.00 January- 2001- Glenn (None) (None) 008 Kealia Pond 4., 1-2., station 0.03 December/ Indefinite Klingler, (M) 5-1., 1-1., Recurring -- Project 2-2., 1-3. every year Leader Medium FF01RKLP00- Habitat Expected CCP / 1- Entire FWS: $0.00 TBD/ 2021- Bethany (None) (None) 073 Restoration 4., 1-2., station 0.07 Recurring -- Indefinite Chagnon, Effectiveness 5-1., 1-1., every year Wildlife (M) 1-3., 5-2. Refuge Specialist Medium FF01RKLP00- Ungulate Expected CCP / 1- Entire FWS: $0.00 Monthly/ 2020- Bethany (None) (None) 072 Abundance 4., 1-2., station 0.1 Recurring -- Indefinite Chagnon, and Take 5-1., 1-1., every year Wildlife Monitoring 1-3. Refuge (M) Specialist Medium FF01RKLP00- Treatment Expected CCP / 2- Entire FWS: $0.00 To Be 2020- Bethany (None) (None) 011 Effectiveness: 1., 3-1., station 0.05 Developed/ Indefinite Chagnon, Invasive Plant 1-4., 1-2., Recurring -- Wildlife Control (M) 1-1. every year Refuge Specialist

June 2019 10 | Page Low FF01RKLP00- Meteorological Current CCP / 1- Entire N/A $0.00 Continuous 2001- Glenn (None) (None) 026 Monitoring: 3., 5-2. station monitoring of Indefinite Klingler, Remote meteorological Project Automated variables./ Leader Weather Recurring -- Station every year (RAWS) (CB)

Low FF01RKLP00- Water Current CCP / 1- Entire FWS: $0.00 Monthly/ 2001- Glenn (None) (None) 035 Quantity: 4., 1-2., station 0.01, Recurring -- Indefinite Klingler, Monthly Well 5-1., 1-1., Other: every year Project Water Use 1-3. 0.02 Leader (CB)

1. The rank for each survey listed in order of priority (e.g., high, medium, low). 2. A unique identification number consisting of refuge code-computer assigned sequential number. Refuge code comes from the FBMS cost center identifier. 3. Short titles for the survey name, preferably the same name used in refuge work plans. Also include the PRIMR code for survey type in parentheses. These are: Inventory (I), Cooperative Baseline Monitoring (CB), Monitoring to Inform Management (M), and Cooperative Monitoring to Inform Management (CM). 4. Surveys selected for the time period of this IMP (i.e., Current, Expected). 5. The management plan and objectives that justify the selected survey. 6. Refuge management unit names, entire refuge, or names of other landscape units included in survey. 7. Estimates of Service (FWS) and non-Service (Other) staff time needed to complete the survey (1 work year = 2080 hours = 1 FTE). 8. Estimates of average annual operations cost for conducting the survey during the years it is conducted (e.g., equipment, contracts, travel) but not including staff time. 9. Timing and frequency of survey field activities. 10. The years during which the survey is conducted. 11. The name and position of the survey coordinator (the Refuge Biologist or other designated Service employee) for each survey. 12. Title, author, and version of the survey protocol (if there is no protocol to cite, enter None). 13. Scale of intended use (Site-specific, Regional, or National) and stage of approval (Initial Survey Instructions, Complete Draft, In Review, or Approved) of the survey protocol

June 2019 11 | Page Narratives justifying each survey selected for implementation (Survey Profiles) Based upon 701 FW 2.8, “The IMP also includes a narrative for each selected survey that summarizes the refuge management objectives addressed by the survey and justifies why the refuge selected the survey for implementation.” These narratives are addressed by the detailed profiles of each survey (include management objectives addressed, reasons for conducting the survey, the population of interested, and cooperators) that are presented below, in alphabetical order by survey name. Survey profiles were outputted directly from PRIMR, using the report “IMP – Survey Profile Table”. This detailed text about each survey is from the “Rationale” tab in PRIMR.

Survey: Habitat Restoration Effectiveness (FF01RKLP00-073) Priority: Medium

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Conduct scientific assessments; Protect, maintain, and enhance coastal flats for ae‘o life history needs.; Protect , maintain, and enhance open water habitat for waterbird life history requirements.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives.

Refuges must collect site-specific information and conduct defensible research to provide information for devising, guiding and adapting management practices. Monitoring habitat conditions provides valuable support and sound decision-making as applied to Refuge resource management.

The control and eradication of pest plants has been the top priority of natural resource managers in Hawai‘i. In the wetland habitats of the Refuge, invasive plant species can drastically reduce the value of wetland habitat to native species. Pest species outcompete more desirable plant species here, as well as invade open water and mudflat habitats. In addition, the high biomass characteristic of invasive grasses produces a high amount of fuel for fire. A combination of IPM techniques are employed at Keālia Pond including chemical, mechanical (hand and tractor), prescribed burns, and water level manipulations. Restoration efforts are continuous. Pest plants on the Refuge include California grass, California bulrush, Indian marsh fleabane, kiawe, Mexican fan palms, red mangrove, and the large acreage of pickleweed covering the mudflats. The spread of ungulates across Keālia Pond has also caused substantial damage to upland and wetland vegetation, and this survey will monitor the response of ungulate removal.

June 2019 12 | Page What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; Other Biota; Plantae (plants); Solanum americanum (American black nightshade, smallflower nightshade, common purple nightshade); Cyperus polystachyos (manyspike flatsedge); Sporobolus virginicus (seashore dropseed); Heliotropium curassavicum var. curassavicum (salt heliotrope); Waltheria indica (basora-prieta, uhaloa); Bolboschoenus maritimus (cosmopolitan bulrush); Ipomoea pes-caprae (bayhops); Sesuvium portulacastrum (shoreline seapurslane, cencilla); Bacopa monnieri (herb of grace, coastal waterhyssop, herb-of-grace); Recurring -- every year; TBD.

Native vegetation will be monitored across the Refuge to determine if regeneration or expansion has occurred with removal of ungulates and invasive plants. Survey methods may include photo points, long-term monitoring plots, or measuring change through use of drone or aerial imagery.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? NO

Survey: Hawaii Biannual Waterbird Survey (FF01RKLP00-032) Priority: High

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Protect, maintain, and enhance coastal flats for ae‘o life history needs; Protect, maintain, and enhance open water habitat for waterbird life history requirements.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives. In addition, this survey supports recovery efforts outlined in Hawaiian Waterbird Recovery Plan.

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; At-risk Biota; Aves (Birds); Charadriiformes (Shore Birds, Plovers, Auks, Oystercatchers, Gulls, Alcids); Himantopus mexicanus knudseni (Hawaiian stilt) - E- Wherever found; Fulica americana alai (Hawaiian coot) - E- Wherever found; Anas wyvilliana (Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck) - E- Wherever found; Recurring -- every year; Occurs the third Wednesday of January and August. Population trends over time for endangered and migratory waterbirds. Numbers of individuals by species are counted, generating information on population and diversity.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey?

June 2019 13 | Page Coop Baseline Monitoring; Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Survey coordinated by State of Hawai'i DLNR- Stephanie Franklin: Maui Nui Program Manager

Survey: Meteorological Monitoring: Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) (FF01RKLP00-026) Priority: Low

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Conduct scientific assessments; Protect, maintain, and enhance open water habitat for waterbird life history requirements. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey also evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives.

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Air and Climate; Weather and Climate; Recurring -- every year; Continuous monitoring of meteorological variables. Hourly measurements of air temperature, rainfall, wind direction, wind speed, relative humidity, and solar radiation.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? Coop Baseline Monitoring; National Weather Service National Weather Service maintains data. Andrew Kikuta, Hawaii Fire Management Officer maintains equipment.

Survey: Native Outplanting Survival and Reproduction (FF01RKLP00-039) Priority: Medium

June 2019 14 | Page AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; Other Biota; Sida fallax (yellow `ilima); Heliotropium curassavicum (quail plant, salt heliotrope, seaside heliotrope); Brighamia (No common name); Cyperus polystachyos (manyspike flatsedge); Acacia koaia (Koai'e, koaoha); Cyperus laevigatus (smooth nutgrass, smooth flatsedge); Diospyros sandwicensis (lama); Achyranthes splendens (Maui chaff flower); Sporobolus virginicus (seashore dropseed); Gossypium tomentosum (mao, Hawaiian cotton, Hawai'i cotton); Dodonaea viscosa (hopbush, Florida hopbush, hopseed bush); Scaevola (naupaka); Bacopa monnieri (coastal waterhyssop, herb-of-grace, herb of grace); Cordia subcordata (kou); Chenopodium oahuense (alaweo); Hibiscus waimeae (white Kauai rosemallow); Hibiscus kokio (red rosemallow, koki'o 'ula'ula); Pritchardia (pritchardia); Portulaca molokiniensis ('ihi); Colubrina asiatica (Asian nakedwood, Asian snakewood); Nototrichium sandwicense (Hawai'i rockwort); Santalum ellipticum (coastal sandalwood); Capparis sandwichiana (pus pilo, native caper); Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. molokaianus (ma'o hau hele); Plumbago zeylanica (wild leadwort); Pandanus tectorius (Tahitian screwpine, textile screwpine, pandan, thatch screwpine); Wikstroemia uva-ursi (hillside false ohelo); Hibiscus kokio ssp. saintjohnianus (St. John's rosemallow); Myoporum sandwicense (naio); Sesuvium portulacastrum (shoreline seapurslane, cencilla); Recurring -- every year; As appropriate.

A volunteer monitors the survival of outplanted individuals and their reproduction. Data is used to guide future outplanting efforts.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? NO

Survey: Predator Control Effectiveness- Non-Native Rodent and Mongoose Relative Abundance (FF01RKLP00-005) Priority: Medium

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Conduct scientific assessments; Protect, maintain, and enhance coastal flats for ae‘o life history needs.; Protect , maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds. Surveys support Statewide endangered waterbird trends, U.S. Pacific Island Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region, as well as multiple objectives in the CCP. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting

June 2019 15 | Page surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives.

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; Invasive Species; Mammalia (mammals); Rodentia (rodents); Herpestes auropunctatus (Indian mongoose); Rattus exulans (Polynesian rat); Rattus norvegicus (Norway rat); Rattus rattus (black rat); Recurring -- every year; Quarterly.

The small Indian mongoose was intentionally introduced to numerous island ecosystems during the 1800 and 1900s and has since expanded to large portions of Asia, Africa, Europe, Oceania, and the Americas. In 1883, the species was introduced to the main Hawaiian Islands as a biocontrol agent against rats in sugarcane fields. The mongoose inhabits all habitat types from 0-10,000 feet on the islands of Hawai‘i, Maui, O‘ahu, and Moloka‘i. In other areas of the world, mongooses appear to avoid wet areas; however, in Hawai‘i, dense populations of mongooses are concentrated in wet habitats.

The home range of a female mongoose in Hawai‘i is about 3.5 acres, and the main reproductive period occurs from February-August. The high density of mongooses in the Hawaiian Islands is due to abundant food and the lack of natural predators. They are voracious omnivores, consuming insects, reptiles, mammals, amphibians, crabs, plants, and birds. In Hawai‘i, the mongoose is a diurnal predator that primarily eat invertebrates and secondly small mammals. They are a major threat to any ground-dwelling and -nesting species in Hawai‘i. These mammals are known to eat eggs, young, and adults of endangered waterbirds, seabirds, and shorebirds.

Three pest rat species are found throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Polynesian rats arrived from the central Pacific 1,500 years ago with the Polynesians; Norway rats reached the Hawaiian Islands after the arrival of Captain Cook in the 1770s; and black rats most likely arrived in the 1870s. It is estimated that these three rat species have populated nearly 82 percent of the major islands.

Predator controls are implemented to reduce depredation of endangered waterbirds. Control measures will include non-lethal and lethal techniques in addition to prevention measures that will have minimal effects on the human environment.

Mammalian predator (mongoose, rats, and mice) diversity and relative abundance will be assessed through tracks left in ink in track tunnels conducted on a quarterly basis.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? NO

June 2019 16 | Page Survey: Treatment Effectiveness: Invasive Plant Control (FF01RKLP00-011) Priority: Medium

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Enhance shrub land habitat for endangered ‘ōka‘I ‘aiea (Blackburn’s sphinx moth); Protect, maintain, and enhance coastal flats for ae‘o life history needs.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds.; Restore and maintain coastal strand and dune habitat. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives.

California bulrush is a perennial sedge found in marshy areas from southern and western North America to South America. It has tall, thin, dark green stems which are usually triangular in cross-section and woolly, bristly tan or brown flowers in panicle inflorescence. It has characteristics common in the sedge family, such as creeping. It is intolerant of shade, but can spread rapidly by vegetative means.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an interdisciplinary approach utilizing methods to prevent, eliminate, contain, and/or control pest species in concert with other management activities on Refuge lands and waters to achieve wildlife and habitat management goals and objectives. The IPM is also scientifically based, adaptive management process where available scientific information and best professional judgment of the Refuge staff as well as other resource experts would be used to identify and implement appropriate management strategies that can be modified and/or changed over time to ensure effective, site-specific management of pest species to achieve desired outcomes. In accordance with 43 CFR 46.145, adaptive management would be particularly relevant where long term impacts may be uncertain and future monitoring would be needed to make adjustments in subsequent implementation decisions. After a tolerable pest population (threshold) is determined considering achievement of Refuge resource objectives and the ecology of pest species, one or more methods, or combinations thereof, are selected that are feasible, efficacious, and most protective of non-target resources, including native species (fish, wildlife, and plants), and Service personnel, Service authorized agents, volunteers, and the public. Staff time and available funding will be considered when determining feasibility/practicality of various treatments.

June 2019 17 | Page What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; Invasive Species; Salicornia (glasswort, pickleweed); Urochloa mutica (puakatau, para grass, Mauritius grass, California grass, buffalo grass); Schoenoplectus californicus (California bulrush); Pluchea odorata (sweetscent, marsh fleabane); Recurring -- every year; To Be Developed

The goal is to design post-IPM action monitoring so that the effectiveness of various treatments and techniques can be assessed. Pest plants on the Refuge include: California grass, California bulrush, Indian marsh fleabane, kiawe, Mexican fan palms, red mangrove, and the large acreage of pickleweed covering the mudflats.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? NO

Survey: Ungulate Abundance and Take Monitoring (FF01RKLP00-072) Priority: Medium

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Protect, maintain, and enhance coastal flats for ae‘o life history needs; Protect, maintain, and enhance open water habitat for waterbird life history requirements; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds. This survey supports the refuge purpose to protect, conserve, and recover endangered, threatened, and other rare wildlife, and to protect native biodiversity on the refuge. Fenced units are critical from keeping non- native, invasive ungulates out of Kealia NWR. Ungulates threaten native habitats (including forests, grasslands, wetlands, riparian areas), spread invasive plant species, trample or predate endangered waterbird nests, spread disease, and uproot native plants.

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; Invasive Species; Mammalia (mammals); Artiodactyla (artiodactyls, cloven-hoofed ungulates, even-toed ungulates); Axis (axis deer); Sus scrofa (Wild Boar, pig, pig (feral), wild boar); Recurring -- every year; Monthly The attribute of interest is the presence/absence of feral pigs and deer inside of the fenced area. Traps are set throughout management units to capture ungulates. Traps are checked on 2-3 month intervals. Data is recorded on the location, method of capture, species, number, and sex and age of the animal. Exact details of methods will be determined prior to the survey becoming current.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey?

June 2019 18 | Page NO

Survey: Vegetation Community Mapping (FF01RKLP00-034) Priority: Medium

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Conduct scientific assessments; Protect, maintain, and enhance coastal flats for ae‘o life history needs; Protect, maintain, and enhance open water habitat for waterbird life history requirements; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives.

Why is it important to conduct the survey? Describe how survey results will be used to make better informed refuge management decisions. If survey results are used to trigger a management response, identify the management response and threshold value for comparison to survey results. Monitoring vegetation communities on the Refuge improves understanding of the plant community composition, structure, and spatial distribution. Endangered waterbirds require specific types of habitats at different seasons of the year for foraging, loafing, and breeding. Ae'o require different loafing and foraging habitats during the breeding and nonbreeding seasons. Breeding ae'o require dry to unsaturated mudflat habitat for building nests. Recently hatched ae'o require shallow water of less than 2 inches to forage. During the remainder of the year fledging and adult ae'o can forage in water as deep as 6 inches. 'Alae ke'oke'o and 'alae 'ula likewise have specific water-level and vegetative requirements at different times of the year to address loafing, foraging, and breeding needs. Management techniques (e.g., mowing, prescribed fire, herbicide application, moist soil management) are used to create the desired mosaic of vegetation, open water, and mudflats to meet these life-history needs. Vegetative monitoring assesses the response of the habitat to these management applications, as well as ungulate removal, as well as the area of habitat that is suitable to the needs of waterbirds.

In addition, the control and eradication of pest plants has been the top priority of natural resource managers in Hawai‘i. Vegetation mapping also provides information about the spatial distribution and abundance of invasive plant species. In the wetland habitats of the Refuge, invasive plant species can drastically reduce the value of wetland habitat to native species. Pest plant species outcompete more desirable plant species here, as well as invade open water and mudflat habitats. The high biomass characteristic of invasive grasses also produces a high amount of fuel for fire.

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; Other Biota; Cyperus laevigatus (smooth nutgrass, smooth flatsedge); Pluchea indica (Indian pluchea, Indian camphorweed, Indian fleabane); Schoenoplectus californicus (California bulrush); Occurs one time only; Year round

The vegetation community mapping project will use a variety of tools to produce comprehensive vegetation maps of Keālia Pond NWR. Phase I of the mapping will focus on vegetation mapping within the ungulate fence. Phase II will map the rest of the Refuge. We are using drone imagery, satellite imagery, existing data, and on the ground plant surveys to complete this project.

June 2019 19 | Page Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? Coop Monitoring to Inform Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 NWRS, Branch of Refuge Biology Rachel Rounds, R1 Inventory & Monitoring Patrick Grady, R1 Inventory & Monitoring Elyse Sachs, PIRAMO Biology Kauaoa Fraiola, PIRAMO Biology

Survey: Waterbird (Endangered and Migratory) and Shorebird Abundance Monthly (FF01RKLP00-025) Priority: High

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Conduct scientific assessments.; Protect , maintain, and enhance open water habitat for waterbird life history requirements.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives. In addition, this survey supports recovery efforts outlined in Hawaiian Waterbird Recovery Plan.

The primary causes of Statewide population decline for endangered waterbirds include loss of wetland habitat, predation by introduced animals, altered hydrology, habitat alteration by pest plants, and disease. Environmental contaminants may threaten populations in certain areas. The general recovery objectives are: stabilize or increase species population to greater than 2,000 individuals; establish multiple self-sustaining breeding populations throughout their historical ranges; protect and manage core and supporting wetlands Statewide; eliminate or control the threat of introduced predators, diseases, and contaminants; and remove the threat of koloa maoli hybridizing with non-migratory mallards.

Other Hawaiian waterbirds (i.e., Black-crowned Night-heron ('auku'u) and migratory waterfowl (e.g., koloa mohā (northern shoveler), koloa māpu (northern pintail), mallard, lesser scaup, green-winged teal, and American wigeon also make use of the wetlands.

Monthly waterbird surveys provide quantitative data that: 1. Track endangered and migratory waterbird use and population trends over time; 2. Measure contribution to overall recovery for endangered species; 3. Track refuge use areas; 4. Measure response to habitat manipulation; and

June 2019 20 | Page 5. Guide management actions.

This survey in conjunction with the statewide surveys allows us to understand the effectiveness of refuge management activities for the endangered and migratory birds. Data from January and August surveys is shared with the State Waterbird Survey.

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; At-risk Biota; Aves (Birds); Anseriformes (Screamers, Ducks, Waterfowl, Geese, Swans); Charadriiformes (Alcids, Auks, Gulls, Plovers, Shore Birds, Oystercatchers); Himantopus mexicanus knudseni (Hawaiian stilt) - E- Wherever found; Fulica americana alai (Hawaiian coot) - E- Wherever found; Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard); Pluvialis fulva (Pacific Golden-Plover, Pacific Golden Plover); Calidris alba (Sanderling); Anas clypeata (Northern Shoveler); Anas acuta (Northern Pintail); Recurring -- every year; Monthly

Population trends over time for endangered and other migratory waterbirds found at the Refuge. Numbers of individuals by species are counted, generating information on population and diversity. Monthly census of all waterbirds on the Refuge is conducted the third week of the month.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? NO

Survey: Waterbird (Endangered and Migratory) and Shorebird Mortality (FF01RKLP00-033) Priority: High

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Protect, maintain, and enhance coastal flats for ae‘o life history needs; Protect, maintain, and enhance open water habitat for waterbird life history requirements; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding.; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds. Surveys support Statewide endangered waterbird trends and Pacific Island Shorebird Plan. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives.

Avian botulism is a paralytic disease caused by ingestion of a toxin produced by the bacteria, Clostridium botulinum. Decomposing vegetation and invertebrates combined with warm temperatures can provide ideal conditions for the botulism bacteria to activate and produce toxin. Birds either ingest the toxin directly or may eat invertebrates (e.g., chironomids, fly larvae) containing the toxin. Outbreaks can occur most anytime on the refuge, but typically occur during the summer months with warm to hot weather. Botulism is one of the few wildlife diseases we can actually respond to and manage effectively. Although we do not know all the environmental

June 2019 21 | Page triggers that cause Clostridium botulinum to start producing toxin, we do know that if mortalities are detected early enough and certain management techniques are implemented quickly, we can arrest the spread and mitigate the magnitude of waterfowl mortality. The Refuge uses carcass pick-up and removal as well as water level management in its efforts to minimize impacts of this disease. Because animal carcasses are an excellent source of protein, removing them reduces the resources the bacterium needs to produce toxin and can help reduce or eliminate toxin production. Draining or flooding the wetland can change the environmental conditions sufficiently so as to stop the production of toxin.

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; Infestations and Disease; Aves (Birds); Anseriformes (Swans, Waterfowl, Ducks, Geese, Screamers); Himantopus mexicanus knudseni (Hawaiian stilt) - E- Wherever found; Fulica americana alai (Hawaiian coot) - E- Wherever found; Anas wyvilliana (Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck) - E- Wherever found; Arenaria interpres (Ruddy Turnstone); Heteroscelus incanus (Wandering Tattler); Nycticorax nycticorax (Black-crowned Night-Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron); Pluvialis fulva (Pacific Golden-Plover, Pacific Golden Plover); Aythya affinis (Lesser Scaup); Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard); Anas acuta (Northern Pintail); Anas clypeata (Northern Shoveler); Calidris alba (Sanderling); Sporadic or Ad Hoc; Year Round

The number of carcasses, by species and location within the refuge are documented. The carcasses are submitted to National Wildlife Health Lab, Honolulu Station, for necropsy. The survey helps document depredation, vehicular strikes, and disease.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? Coop Monitoring to Inform Management; U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Lab, Honolulu Field Station, USGS

Survey: Waterbirds (Endangered) - Reproductive Success (FF01RKLP00-003) Priority: High

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other? CCP: Protect, maintain, and enhance open water habitat for waterbird life history requirements; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). This survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives. In addition, this survey supports recovery efforts outlined in Hawaiian Waterbird Recovery Plan.

The general recovery objectives for the endangered waterbirds, as described in the Draft Revised Recovery Plan

June 2019 22 | Page for Hawaiian Waterbirds, are the following: stabilize or increase species populations to greater than 2,000 individuals; establish multiple self-sustaining breeding populations throughout their historic ranges; protect and manage core and supporting wetlands Statewide; eliminate or control the threat of introduced predators, diseases, and contaminants; and remove the Statewide threat of the koloa maoli hybridizing with mallards.

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan considers the ‘alae ke‘oke‘o as a species of high concern. Nesting occurs year round depending on rainfall. ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o will construct floating nests of aquatic vegetation, semi-floating nests attached to emergent vegetation, or in clumps of wetland vegetation.

The ae‘o is an endemic subspecies in the Hawaiian Islands, which is part of a superspecies complex of stilts found in various parts of the world. The State population of this shorebird fluctuates between 1,200-1,500 birds with a 5- year average of 1,350 birds. Adult and juvenile dispersal has been observed both intra- and inter-island. As many as 1079 ae‘o have been observed at the Refuge at one time. The count of over 1,000 birds in 2003 was also 50 percent of the Statewide population criterion for delisting the ae‘o.

Ae‘o favor open wetland habitats with minimal vegetative cover and water depths less than 9.4 inches, as well as tidal mudflats. Ae‘o nest from April-July in simple scrapes on low relief islands or on exposed flats around the perimeter on the main pond after water has receded.

Endangered Hawaiian waterbird reproductive surveys seek to: 1. Track endangered waterbird reproduction over time; 2. Measure contribution to overall recovery for endangered species; 3. Track refuge use areas; 4. Measure response to habitat manipulation; and 5. Guide management actions.

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Biological Integrity; At-risk Biota; Aves (Birds); Gruiformes (Cranes, Rails); Charadriiformes (Oystercatchers, Plovers, Gulls, Auks, Shore Birds, Alcids); Fulica americana alai (Hawaiian coot) - E- Wherever found; Himantopus mexicanus knudseni (Hawaiian stilt) - E- Wherever found; Recurring -- every year; Year-round

Areas of known or possible stilt and coot breeding are searched for nests. Once nests are found they are monitored until hatch. The goal is to identify number of nest attempts and reproductive success. Observations are made of nests to determine nest location, nesting material, clutch size, initiation/hatch date, hatch success, chick age, plant community type, fledging success. Observations are recorded in a waterbird reproductive success app developed in 2019.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? NO Potential partners include: I&M Program

Survey: Water Level in Kealia Pond (FF01RKLP00-008) Priority: Medium

Which station management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived from the CCP, interim objectives, HMP, or other?

June 2019 23 | Page CCP: Expand Refuge boundary to maintain a buffer from upper watershed impacts; Protect, maintain, and enhance coastal flats for ae‘o life history needs; Protect, maintain, and enhance open water habitat for waterbird life history requirements; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and breeding; Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A). Water-level data for this survey evaluates the mentioned CCP objectives pertaining to managing seasonal wetland habitat for endangered waterbirds.

The hydrology of Keālia Pond is the primary factor that impacts the biological and ecological functions and determines endangered waterbird use of the wetland. It is logical to assume the conditions that existed before civilization were natural flooding and dewatering; however, with the changes in land use above the Refuge, it is now hard to determine when “natural” conditions are present. The variable water level can benefit endangered Hawaiian waterbirds but can also pose negative impacts if water delivery is unreliable or inconsistent in the timing.

Managing water levels in wetlands mimics the natural hydrological processes that historically supported wetland habitats on the refuge and surrounding landscape. Providing an adequate quantity and quality of water is essential to managing wetland habitat for endangered waterbirds. Vegetative communities conducive to supporting the life- history needs of federally endangered waterbirds are closely controlled by the dynamics of water levels. Thus, refuge staff need to regularly monitor water levels to determine the need for and extent of water level manipulations.

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Water; Hydrology; Recurring -- every year; January-December Monitor lake water level with a data logger that logs water level every hour. Monitor the discharge rate of water pumped into the pond.

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? NO In the past the Regional Hydrologist has been helpful in installing the water monitoring equipment.

Survey: Water Quantity: Monthly Well Water Use (FF01RKLP00-035) Priority: Medium

June 2019 24 | Page quality to fulfill the mission of the System and its purposes. In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management [AM] Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize AM for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. An AM approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives (522 DM 1.5A).

What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when? Water; Hydrology; Recurring -- every year; Monthly The amount of water pumped into the wetlands from the wells and the static water level of wells to assess groundwater availability/trends. This data is required to collected, and reported, to the DLNR Water Management Division (http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/cwrm/info/waterusereport/ and http://cwrm.dlnr.hawaii.gov/cwrmpublic/login.aspx).

Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey? Coop Baseline Monitoring DLNR Water Management Division (http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/cwrm/info/waterusereport/ and http://cwrm.dlnr.hawaii.gov/cwrmpublic/login.aspx)

References Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2015. Hawai‘i’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Prepared by H. T. Harvey and Associates, Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative (PICCC). 2014. Strategic Plan 2014-2019. Honolulu, HI.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Keālia Pond NWR Fire Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011b. Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds, Second Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 233 pp.

June 2019 25 | Page Appendices

June 2019 26 | Page Appendix A. Key Legal Mandates and Policies for Inventorying and Monitoring Activities on Units of the NWRS The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “…to administer a network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats…” Our mission statement recognizes the need to implement management actions, as necessary, to achieve resource management objectives from refuge planning documents (CCPs and HMPs) on units of the Refuge System as well as resource objectives for large landscapes (encompassing the refuge) identified in plans and reports developed by other FWS programs and/or in cooperation with our conservation partners (e.g., state wildlife action plans).

In accordance with 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management Implementation policy), refuges staffs shall utilize adaptive management for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, restoring refuge lands and resources. Specifically, an adaptive management approach requires conducting surveys to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving resource objectives (522 DM 1.5A). Adaptive management provides a structured process to consistently derive and implement effective decisions that increase scientific knowledge while reducing potential tensions among stakeholders (522 DM 1.3). I&M is required on units of the NWRS based upon the following legal mandates as well as DOI and Service policies: 1. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (PL 105-57) • “In administering the System, the Secretary shall -- (N) monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.” Sec 4 • “…identify the effects of each use on refuge resources and purposes of each refuge.” Sec 6

2. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; Final Rule (43 CFR § 46) • “Adaptive management is a system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes and monitoring to determine whether management actions are meeting desired outcomes; and, if not, facilitating management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management recognizes that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain.” 43 CFR § 46.30 • “Bureaus should use adaptive management, as appropriate, particularly in circumstances where long-term impacts may be uncertain and future monitoring will be needed to make adjustments in subsequent implementation decisions. The NEPA analysis conducted in the context of an adaptive management approach should identify the range of management options that may be taken in response to the results of monitoring and should analyze the effects of such options. The environmental effects of any adaptive management strategy must be evaluated in this or subsequent NEPA analysis.” 43 CFR § 46.145

3. NEPA and Agency Decisionmaking (40 CFR § 1505) • “[For agency decisions based on an EIS] A monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized where applicable for any mitigation.” 40 CFR § 1505.2(c) • “Agencies may provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried out and should do so in important cases [EA and mitigated FONSI]. Mitigation (§1505.2(c)) and other conditions established in the environmental impact statement or during its review and committed as part of the decision shall be implemented by the lead agency or other appropriate consenting agency.” 40 CFR § 1505.3

4. Inventory and Monitoring in the National Wildlife Refuge System policy (701 FW 2) • “Guide and coordinate the inventory and monitoring of fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, ecological

June 2019 27 | Page communities, invasive species, abiotic components, and wilderness character on refuges to: (1) Gather baseline data and record benchmark conditions used to support refuge planning; (2) Estimate the status of, and trends in fish, wildlife, plant populations, and their habitats; (3) Assess trends in biological integrity, biological diversity, and environmental health (601 FW 3); (4) Evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in contributing to established goals for fish and wildlife conservation by using adaptive management (522 DM 1); (5) Provide surveillance to detect changes in the structure and function of ecological systems; (6) Establish baseline measures and monitor wilderness character of designated wilderness on refuges to evaluate the effects of refuge management activities and uses (610 FW 2); (7) Record impacts of environmental stressors, including climate change, on natural resources and ecological processes; and (8) Support the Service’s goal of landscape conservation by assessing similar management actions across refuges and with Service partners, including actions by multiple refuges, one or more Regions, Joint Ventures (JVs) and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).” 701 FW 2.3E • “An IMP: (1) Is an operational plan for one or more refuges that clearly states I&M priorities and clarifies operational commitments, depending on available capacity…(3) Provides the management rationale, timing and costs for conducting refuge surveys; (4) Lists the prioritized surveys, identifies the surveys selected for implementation, and documents the protocols that describe the survey objectives and methods;” 701 FW 2.4A • “(2) We address broad information needs that may reach beyond individual refuges, and support conservation with partners at the local, landscape, regional, national, and international scales. (3) We participate in surveys that support joint management information needs within the Service, or needs of other agencies or organizations. We may implement these cooperative surveys at individual refuges, multiple refuges, or outside Refuge System lands, as appropriate.” 701 FW 2.4C

5. Habitat Management Plans policy (620 FW 1)

• “Habitat Management Plan… Each plan incorporates the role of refuge habitat in international, national, regional, tribal, State, ecosystem, and refuge goals and objectives; guides analysis and selection of specific habitat management strategies to achieve those habitat goals and objectives; and utilizes key data, scientific literature, expert opinion, and staff expertise.” 620 FW 1.4D • “Refuge Managers will: (1) Develop, implement, monitor, evaluate, and revise HMPs.” 620 FW 1.6E • “Develop habitat inventory and monitoring essential to the HMP in accordance with the guidance provided in the Habitat and Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring chapter (701 FW 2). Habitat monitoring, in association with monitoring wildlife response to habitat manipulation, provides the best measure of achievement for HMP objectives. Monitoring wildlife population response to assess habitat manipulations is difficult and introduces more variability into the monitoring process. Monitoring wildlife populations as a sole indicator of wildlife habitat is not usually appropriate. Animal population changes may result from events other than habitat manipulations (e.g., biotic and abiotic conditions such as weather, disease, human intervention, and contaminants). Often these external factors can impact wildlife populations and mask benefits associated with improved habitat conditions. Thus, habitat monitoring is the primary basis for evaluating the effectiveness of management actions to achieve habitat objectives set forth in CCPs and HMPs.” 620 FW 1.14A

6. Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process policy (602 FW 3) • “Develop objectives for specific habitat types, management units, key species (e.g., migratory birds and threatened and endangered species), wildlife-dependent recreation, monitoring populations of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats...Objectives may deal with refuge information needs (for example, including the development of baseline data)…” 602 FW3.4(4)(d) • “Develop inventory and monitoring strategies to measure implementation of results in quantifiable and verifiable ways.” 602 FW3.4(4)(e)

June 2019 28 | Page 7. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health policy (601 FW 3) • “Assess the current status of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health through baseline vegetation, population surveys and studies, and any other necessary environmental studies.” 601 FW 3.9B • “Evaluate the effectiveness of our management by comparing results to desired outcomes. If the results of our management strategies are unsatisfactory, assess the causes of failure and adapt our strategies accordingly.” 601 FW 3.9H

8. Compatibility policy (603 FW 2) • “Monitoring costs (e.g., biological or visitor surveys, maintenance of control sites, etc.) to assess the impacts of uses over time on natural resources and the quality of visitors’ experience.” 602 FW 2.12A(7)(b)(iv) • “To support management decisions and their rationale by using a thorough assessment of available science derived from scientific literature, on-site refuge data, expert opinion, and sound professional judgment.” 602 FW 3.3D

9. Fire Management policy (621 FW 1) • “We use evaluations to monitor and determine the effectiveness of hazardous fuels reduction, emergency stabilization, and burned area rehabilitation treatments to accomplish objectives. The evaluations combine monitoring and analysis to determine whether we achieved treatment objectives and land management goals using the fire management treatments. Adaptive management techniques are used to determine if there is a need to change treatments or plans to achieve the desired effects.” 621 FW1.17

10. Integrated Pest Management policy (569 FW 1) • “Use appropriate monitoring techniques before, during, and after any IPM activity to determine whether we achieved pest management goals and objectives and if the activity caused any unanticipated impacts.” 569 FW 1.4J

11. Wilderness Administration and Resource Stewardship policy (610 FW 2) • “Long-term wilderness stewardship requires that we inventory and monitor wilderness character. Conditions prevailing within a wilderness area at the time of designation serve as a benchmark for the area’s wilderness character.” 610 FW2.28 • “We should conduct baseline inventories for key wilderness resources and identify the nature, magnitude, and source of any threats that originate both within and outside the wilderness area. Baseline data also provide a frame of reference for the limits, thresholds, and indicators identified in the WSP that may trigger refuge management activities, including limiting public use.” 610 FW2.28B • “Inventories also give us the information necessary to evaluate the effects of refuge management activities, refuge uses, and external threats on wilderness character. We will evaluate proposed inventory and monitoring protocols and activities in an MRA [minimum requirements analyses] and document inventory and monitoring activities in the refuge’s WSP [wilderness stewardship plan].” 610 FW2.28C

12. Documenting and Implementing Decisions policy (550 FW 3) • “…Mitigation and other conditions committed as part of the decision [ROD or FONSI] should be implemented. The Service may provide for monitoring to assure that decisions are carried out, and should do so in important cases (40 CFR § 1505.3).” 550 FW 3.4

13. Adaptive Management Implementation policy (522 DM 1) • “Conduct appropriate and applicable environmental monitoring to determine resource status, promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives whenever using adaptive management.” 522 DM 1.5B

June 2019 29 | Page 14. Integrated Pest Management Policy (517 DM 1) • “Conduct appropriate and applicable pest detection, environmental surveillance, and monitoring, before, during, and after any management activity to determine whether pest management goals are achieved and whether the activity caused any significant unanticipated effects.” 517 DM 1.5H

June 2019 30 | Page Appendix B. Criteria and Weights Used to Prioritize Surveys (SMART Tool Table) The following 11 criteria were used in the SMART tool to rank and prioritize surveys at Keālia Pond NWR. Along with identifying the criteria, the IMP Team assigned the ratings and weighs for the SMART Tool that was used to score surveys for the Refuge.

Scoring Criteria Rating Weight Choices CCP or Other Management Plan Objectives scale 1-4 100 0.15 Management Utility (Decision Support) for the Refuge scale 1-4 90 0.14 FWS Partner Need No/Yes (1-2) 35 0.05 Refuge Processes scale 1-3 60 0.09 Survey Breadth scale 1-4 50 0.08 Listed Species or Vegetation Communities scale 1-4 95 0.15 Controversy scale 1-4 30 0.05 Threat scale 1-4 80 0.12 Baseline Data No/Yes (1-2) 5 0.01 Spatial Scale scale 1-4 40 0.06 Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting scale 1-4 70 0.11

Criteria and scoring choices from the SMART Tool:

CCP or Other Management Plan Objectives How many refuge CCP or other management plan objectives (e.g., HMP, NRMP, Fire Management Plan, Recovery Plan, Integrated Pest Management Plan) are met by the focus of this survey? 1. Does not address an objective 2. Addresses one objective 3. Addresses two objectives 4. Addresses three or more objectives

Management Utility (Decision Support) for the Refuge Does the survey provide data for recurring management decisions, especially as part of an existing decision framework that is implemented on a regular basis? 1. No set application for the refuge 2. May have management implications, but they are not explicitly defined 3. Has management implications, but no current decision framework 4. Part of an existing adaptive management decision framework

FWS Partners Does the survey data have applicability outside the Refuge? 1. No 2. Yes

Refuge Processes Does the survey focus on an ecological process (e.g., fire, water temperature, climate, water cycle, hydrology, natural disturbance, species interactions) that is changing at a rate that is important to the refuge? 1. No 2. Yes, one significant ecological process 3. Yes, two or more significant ecological processes

June 2019 31 | Page Survey Breadth The focus of the survey is: 1. A single species or abiotic parameter 2. Multi-species or multi-abiotic parameters 3. A community – multi-trophic levels or biota 4. An ecosystem – biotic community and abiotic parameters

Listed species or vegetation communities Is the objective of the survey a species or vegetation community federally listed under ESA, state listed (threatened or endangered only), ranked by the state’s natural heritage program (S1 or S2 rank only), globally ranked by NatureServe (G1 or G2 rank only), or globally listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable only)? 1. Not state, federally or globally ranked 2. Yes, state listed or ranked by state’s natural heritage program 3. Yes, globally listed by NatureServe or IUCN 4. Yes, federally listed under the ESA as threatened or endangered

Controversy Does the survey support decision-making to address an action or management decision related to refuge resources that is controversial to an external party? 1. Not controversial and little to no potential for controversy 2. Not currently controversial, but potentially or suspected of controversy 3. Known controversy, but data or immediate management action is not currently needed but may be in the near future 4. Pressing controversy; data required to support immediate management action

Threat Does the survey support decision-making to monitor and mitigate a known or suspected threat to refuge resources? 1. No existing threat or potential for a threat to Refuge resources 2. No known threat, but potential for a threat to Refuge resources 3. Known threat to Refuge resources, but immediate management action is not currently needed but may be in the near future 4. Urgent threat to Refuge resources; immediate data are needed to support management action

Baseline data Does the survey provide high-priority information that contributes to baseline data needs? 1. No 2. Yes

Spatial Scale What is the largest scale at which survey results will be applied for resource management? 1. Small scale: Applicable to only a single refuge or sites on a refuge 2. Medium scale: Applicable to a few refuges, a refuge complex, or includes the refuge and a small area beyond the refuge boundary 3. Large scale: Applicable to multiple refuges/complexes across an entire ecoregion, LCC, or region 4. Oceanic scale: Component of a large landscape level survey

June 2019 32 | Page Protocol development & data management, analysis, and reporting At what stage is the documentation of survey methods, data management, data analysis, and reporting? 1. Low: Survey has no (or sparse) written methodology, data management only as hard copy data forms, no data analysis, and no reporting 2. Medium-low: Survey is based on initial survey instructions OR data are stored in a database (e.g., Excel spreadsheet) without metadata OR data have been summarized in unpublished report. 3. Medium-high: Survey is based upon an approved framework or draft site-specific protocol AND data are stored in a database and metadata exist AND data have been summarized in final report. 4. High: Survey has an approved site-specific protocol AND data are stored in a database and metadata exist and data management plan is prepared AND data have been summarized in archived final report.

June 2019 33 | Page Appendix C. Results: Prioritization Scores and Status of All Ranked Surveys SMART tool scores, priority rankings, and status of 15 current and expected surveys listed in PRIMR for Keālia Pond NWR.

Survey Name Score Priority Status Selected Waterbird and Shorebird Mortality 0.735 High Current Yes Monthly Waterbird Survey 0.700 High Current Yes Waterbirds (Endangered) - Reproductive Success 0.700 High Current Yes Hawaii Biannual Waterbird Survey 0.606 High Current Yes Water Level in Kealia Pond 0.570 Medium Current Yes Predator Control Effectiveness 0.534 Medium Current Yes Treatment Effectiveness: Invasive Plant Control 0.524 Medium Expected Yes Native Outplanting Survival and Reproduction 0.522 Medium Current Yes Habitat Restoration Effectiveness 0.511 Medium Expected Yes Vegetation Community Mapping 0.509 Medium Current Yes Ungulate Abundance and Take Monitoring 0.481 Medium Expected Yes Monthly Well Water Use 0.468 Low Current Yes Plant Community Inventory 0.459 Low Current No Blackburn's Sphinx Moth 0.346 Low Current No Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) 0.338 Low Current Yes

Final Prioritization Scores 0.800

0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

June 2019 34 | Page Appendix D. Brief Description of Non-selected Surveys The IMP team did not select two surveys that were ranked using the SMART Tool. The IMP team changed the plant inventory survey to a historic survey because it was completed in 2013, and given its low priority ranking, is unlikely to be completed again during the lifespan of the IMP. The IMP team changed the Blackburn’s sphinx moth survey to future due to its low priority ranking and since its completion is dependent on regulatory requirements that may not be necessary in the immediate future. The IMP team did not select any surveys listed as historic or future in PRIMR for completion during the lifespan of this IMP. A full list of historic and future surveys is shown in Table 1 above.

June 2019 35 | Page Appendix E. Research Projects Three research projects are identified in PRIMR. Endangered Waterbird Dispersal and Movement- Telemetry, Soil and Topography of Mā‘alaea Flats, and Topography and Hydrology Study are all classified as future, and are projects that the Refuge do not currently have the capacity to complete. A partner would likely conduct this research and not refuge staff.

June 2019 36 | Page Appendix F. Environmental Action Statement

U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION STATEMENT

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record and determined the following for the proposed action described below:

Proposed Action and Alternatives

The proposed action is to implement an Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) for Keālia Pond Wildlife Refuge (KPNWR). This IMP is a refinement of the September 2011 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated EA for KPNWR. This IMP provides more specific guidance for surveys of KPNWR’s fish, wildlife, plant, habitat, and abiotic resources to fulfill KPNWR purposes and help achieve KPNWR goals and objectives.

The EA for the KPNWR’s CCP included refuge goals and objectives and assessed the impacts associated with a range of reasonable alternatives to those goals and objectives. The rationale for selection of one specific alternative for implementation is explained in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) accompanying the final CCP. The survey strategies included in this IMP fall within the bounds of those described and assessed in the CCP and its EA.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.9, no additional NEPA documentation is required to implement this IMP beyond the EA and FONSI prepared concurrently with the CCP. No substantial changes to the proposed action alternative that was identified, analyzed, and selected for implementation within the CCP, EA, and FONSI are proposed through this IMP. Similarly, no significant new information or circumstances exist relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.

Categorical Exclusion(s)

In accordance with 43 CFR § 46.205 and 40 CFR 1§ 508.4, all selected surveys presented in Table 3 for this IMP are covered by the following Departmental categorical exclusion because they would not have significant environmental effects.

“Research, inventory, and information collection activities directly related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources which involve negligible animal mortality or habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of organisms not indigenous to the affected ecosystem.” 516 DM 8.5B(1)

Permits/Approvals

At this time, no additional permits or approvals are required to implement this IMP.

June 2019 37 | Page

IMP Revision Signature Page

IMP Revisions Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Action Signature /Printed Name Date

Survey list and priority changed:

Submitted By: Refuge Manager/Project Leader

Reviewed By:

Regional I&M Coordinator

Approved By: Refuge Supervisor

June 2019 39 | Page