DOCSLIB.ORG

Scanned Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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: Reviewed 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Issue 70 January - February - March
    Vol. 1 7 No.1 - Issue 70 January - February - March HIBISCUS INTERNATIONAL NNAATTIIVVEE HHAAWWAAIIIIAANN HHIIBBIISSCCUUSS Jill Coryell Oahu, Hawaii Jill Coryell lives in Waialua on the beautiful north shore of Oahu, Hawaii where she runs the Hibiscus Lady Nursery specialising in, of course, Hibiscus. Jill is well known in the international world of Hibiscus and has an in depth knowledge of the Hawaiian species. H. clayi / ©David Eickhoff H. kokio / ©Bill Schmidt Recent University of Hawai'i genetic DNA analysis of the various endemic (native) Hawaiian hibiscus has determined that there are four unique species of Hawaiian reds: H. clayi, H. kahilii, H. kokio, and H. saintjohnianus. Hawaiians refer to all of these as Koki'o 'ula'ula. H. kahilii / ©Rick Barboza H. saintjohnianus / ©David Eickhoff HIBISCUS INTERNATIONAL 1 H. arnottianus / ©Hawaii Horticulture H. immaculatus / ©kahaokaaina.org H. punaluuensis / ©Daviid Eiickhoff H. waimeae / ©Forest and Kiim Starr H. hannerae / ©Daviid Eiickhoff The various native white hibiscus are now recognized to be: H. arnottianus, H. immaculatus, Hibiscus waimeae, H. punaluuensis, and H. hannerae. Hawaiians call all of these Koki'o ke'oke'o. Many think that these have all evolved from a single seed brought by a bird. HIBISCUS INTERNATIONAL 2 H. brackenridgei / ©KarllM We have another endemic species of Hibiscus: H. brackenridgei, known in Hawaiian as Ma'o Hau Hele. It can sometimes become a small tree growing up to 30 feet tall. The fuzzy leaves have toothed edges, 3, 5, or 7 lobes, and are up to 6 inches long/wide. Most of these Hibiscus have become quite rare in the wild, and several are classified as endangered.
    [Show full text]
  • Metadata for Hawaii Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI)
    HYDRO Hawaii ESI: HYDRO (Hydrology Polygons and Lines) Metadata: Identification_Information Data_Quality_Information Spatial_Data_Organization_Information Spatial_Reference_Information Entity_and_Attribute_Information Distribution_Information Metadata_Reference_Information Identification_Information: Citation: Citation_Information: Originator: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, Washington Publication_Date: 200111 Title: Hawaii ESI: HYDRO (Hydrology Polygons and Lines) Edition: Second Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: Vector digital data Series_Information: Series_Name: None Issue_Identification: Hawaii Publication_Information: Publication_Place: Seattle, Washington Publisher: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, Washington Other_Citation_Details: Prepared by Research Planning, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, Washington Description: Abstract: This data set contains vector arcs and polygons representing coastal hydrography used in the creation of the Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) for Hawaii. The HYDRO data layer contains all annotation used in producing the atlas. The annotation features are categorized into
    [Show full text]
  • November 2009 an Analysis of Possible Risk To
    Project Title An Analysis of Possible Risk to Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Associated with Glyphosate Use in Alfalfa: A County-Level Analysis Authors Thomas Priester, Ph.D. Rick Kemman, M.S. Ashlea Rives Frank, M.Ent. Larry Turner, Ph.D. Bernalyn McGaughey David Howes, Ph.D. Jeffrey Giddings, Ph.D. Stephanie Dressel Data Requirements Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision E—Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms Guideline Number 70-1-SS: Special Studies—Effects on Endangered Species Date Completed August 22, 2007 Prepared by Compliance Services International 7501 Bridgeport Way West Lakewood, WA 98499-2423 (253) 473-9007 Sponsor Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63167 Project Identification Compliance Services International Study 06711 Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 RD 1695 Volume 3 of 18 Page 1 of 258 Threatened & Endangered Plant Species Analysis CSI 06711 Glyphosate/Alfalfa Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 Page 2 of 258 STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIMS The text below applies only to use of the data by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in connection with the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) No claim of confidentiality is made for any information contained in this study on the basis of its falling within the scope of FIFRA §10(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C). We submit this material to the United States Environmental Protection Agency specifically under the requirements set forth in FIFRA as amended, and consent to the use and disclosure of this material by EPA strictly in accordance with FIFRA. By submitting this material to EPA in accordance with the method and format requirements contained in PR Notice 86-5, we reserve and do not waive any rights involving this material that are or can be claimed by the company notwithstanding this submission to EPA.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (And 113 Non-Species Taxa) in Accordance with the 62Nd AOU Supplement (2021), Sorted Taxonomically
    Four-letter (English Name) and Six-letter (Scientific Name) Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (and 113 Non-Species Taxa) in accordance with the 62nd AOU Supplement (2021), sorted taxonomically Prepared by Peter Pyle and David F. DeSante The Institute for Bird Populations www.birdpop.org ENGLISH NAME 4-LETTER CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME 6-LETTER CODE Highland Tinamou HITI Nothocercus bonapartei NOTBON Great Tinamou GRTI Tinamus major TINMAJ Little Tinamou LITI Crypturellus soui CRYSOU Thicket Tinamou THTI Crypturellus cinnamomeus CRYCIN Slaty-breasted Tinamou SBTI Crypturellus boucardi CRYBOU Choco Tinamou CHTI Crypturellus kerriae CRYKER White-faced Whistling-Duck WFWD Dendrocygna viduata DENVID Black-bellied Whistling-Duck BBWD Dendrocygna autumnalis DENAUT West Indian Whistling-Duck WIWD Dendrocygna arborea DENARB Fulvous Whistling-Duck FUWD Dendrocygna bicolor DENBIC Emperor Goose EMGO Anser canagicus ANSCAN Snow Goose SNGO Anser caerulescens ANSCAE + Lesser Snow Goose White-morph LSGW Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Intermediate-morph LSGI Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Blue-morph LSGB Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Greater Snow Goose White-morph GSGW Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Intermediate-morph GSGI Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Blue-morph GSGB Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Snow X Ross's Goose Hybrid SRGH Anser caerulescens x rossii ANSCAR + Snow/Ross's Goose SRGO Anser caerulescens/rossii ANSCRO Ross's Goose
    [Show full text]
  • 1 DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/04/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-17322, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2008–0063; 92300-1113-0000-9B] RIN 1018–AU62 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Amending the Formats of the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, amend the format of the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) to reflect current practices and standards that will make the regulations and Lists easier to understand. The Lists, in the new format, are included in their entirety and have been updated to correct identified errors. 1 DATES: This rule is effective [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Morgan, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA, 22041; telephone 703– 358–2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists), found in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 for wildlife and 50 CFR 17.12 for plants, contain the names of endangered species and threatened species officially listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Fringe Journal of the Native Plant Society of Northeastern Ohio
    On The Fringe Journal of the Native Plant Society of Northeastern Ohio RENEW NOW Our membership year runs from January to December. Please renew at the highest possible level. If you have not renewed by March 30, you will no longer receive On the Fringe. As you will note from the message at the top of this page, dues are due. Memberships run from 1 January to 31 December, and brings the Journal of the Native Plant Society to your front door. This year we are giving credit to anyone who joined the Society from October on. Please send in your dues in a timely manner because the Journal alone takes a lion’s share of our operating budget. It is expensive and time-consuming to When you complete your Ohio tax return, remember the have to call all the membership and remind them. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. Your donation will Look at the mailing label on the back of the make a difference. Check the box for “Nature Preserves, Journal: if there is an X, then your dues are due. Scenic Rivers and Endangered Species” and donate all or part of your tax refund to this important program. Please renew at the highest category possible for Since its inception in 1984, this program has you. significantly benefited the Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, the Ohio Department of Natural In this issue you will find the year’s schedule of Resources. Funds from this program can be used for field trips and lectures. In the past only a few land acquisition, new facility development, and special projects (biological inventories, research grants, and events have been well-attended.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Wildfire Protection Plan Kauaʻi Update 2016
    Community Wildfire Protection Plan Kauaʻi Update 2016 KAUAʻI COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN 2016 UPDATE DEVELOPED BY HAWAIʻI WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION © 2016 IN PARTNERSHIP WITH: KAUAʻI FIRE DEPARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES- DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE; AND KAUAʻI EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Project Developed and Coordinated by: Hawaiʻi Wildfire Management Organization (HWMO), a 501 (c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities and natural resources in Hawaiʻi and the Pacific from wildfire. hawaiiwildfire.org Plan written by: Elizabeth Pickett and Pablo Beimler, HWMO. Public Input Process Coordinated and Led by: Elizabeth Pickett and Ilene Grossman, HWMO, with assistance and participation from agency partners and community members. Maps Created by: Orlando Smith, HWMO. Special Thanks to: Chief Robert Westerman, Captain Daryl Date, and Lieutenant Kilipaki Vaughan of the Kauaʻi Fire Department; Patrick Porter of State Division of Forestry and Wildlife; Elton Ushio of the Kauaʻi Emergency Management Agency; and Dr. Clay Trauernicht of the University of Hawaiʻi Cooperative Extension, CTAHR. Completed using funds from: 2014-16 US Forest Service Competitive Western WUI Grant from the Cooperative Fire Program of the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Region. In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326 W. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Hawaiian Birds 1972*
    HAWAIIAN BIRDS 1972* ANDREW J. BERGER More kinds (species and subspecies) of birds have become extinct in Hawaii than on all continents’ of the world combined. These endemic Hawaiian birds have become ex- tinct since 1844l, and most of them have succumbed since the 1890s. Table 1 lists the endemic Hawaiian birds which are presumed to be extinct. Moreover, Hawaiian birds account for nearly one-half of the birds in the U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlifes’ Red Book of rare and endangered species. The follow- ing list contains 16 of the rare and endangered Hawaiian birds: Newells’ Manx Shear- water (Puffinus puffinus newel&), Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeo- pygia sandwichensis), Harcourt s’ Storm Petrel (Oceanodroma Castro cryptoleucura), Nene or Hawaiian Goose (Branta sandvicensis), Koloa or Hawaiian Duck (Anas wyvilliana) , Laysan Duck (Anus laysanensis) , Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius) , Hawaiian Gallinule (Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis) , Hawaiian Coot (Fulica ameri- cana alai), Hawaiian Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus himantopus knudseni), Hawaiian Crow (Corvus tropicus), Large Kauai Thrush (Phaeornis obscurus myadestina), Molo- kai Thrush (Phaeornis o. rutha), Small Kauai Thrush (Phaeornis palmeri), Nihoa Millerbird (Acrocephalus familiaris kingi), and the Kauai 00 (Moho braccetus). TO this list may be added the non-migratory Hawaiian population of the Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax n. hoactli). But, there are even more endangered Hawaiian birds! Because of their special interest to ornithologists,
    [Show full text]
  • Green & Healthy Hawaii: Identifying & Introducing Alternative Ornamental
    Final Report Green & Healthy Hawaii: Identifying & Introducing Alternative Ornamental Landscape Plants in Response to Invasive Species Issues By Dr. Andy Kaufman (PI) Dr. Richard Criley (CO-PI) Dr Linda Cox (CO-PI) Alberto H. Ricordi, M.Sc. (Graduate Assistant) Tropical Landscape and Human Interaction Lab Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences University of Hawaii at Manoa Funded by a grant from: Hawaii Invasive Species Council (HISC) Green & Healthy Hawaii: Identifying & Introducing Alternative Ornamental Landscape Plants in Response to Invasive Species Issues Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4 Problem statement .......................................................................................................... 6 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 6 Goals ............................................................................................................................... 7 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................... 7 Selection of Invasive Species ...................................................................................... 9 Selection of Alternative Species ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 In Reply Refer To: 20 lO-F -0190 Ms. Sharon Thomas MAY 13 2010 Environmental Protection Specialist Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Subject: Formal Endangered Species Section 7 Consultation on the U.S. Department of Energy Federal Loan Guarantee to Kahuku Wind Power, LLC, Oahu, Hawaii Dear Ms. Thomas: This transmits the biological opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the potential impacts of the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed issuance of a federal loan guarantee to Kahuku Wind Power, LLC, for the construction and operation of a 30 megawatt (MW) wind power generation facility in Kahuku, Oahu, Hawaii, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531, et seq.). The USFWS received your March 5, 2010, letter requesting initiation of consultation on March 9, 2010, with the attached Kahuku Wind Power Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §195D and the DOE draft Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-1726) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321, et seq.). The proposed project consists of twelve 2.5 MW wind turbine generators (WTGs), an operations and maintenance building, one permanent unguyed meteorological (met) tower, one on-site and two off-site microwave towers, an electrical substation, Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), re-configuration of overhead transmission lines, an underground collection system, and a network of unpaved service roadways.
    [Show full text]
  • Onetouch 4.0 Scanned Documents
    26? ArcAhvj qf Mwwnd Hbfofy (1996) 23 (1): 1-42 The contribution of the voyage of H.M.S. Blonde (1825) to Hawaiian ornithology By STORRS L. OLSON Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, ua.A. The voyage of H.M.S. Mm* (1825) was the Ant after Cook': thnd voyage (1778-79) to bring back significant new knowledge of the ornithology of the Hawaiian Islands. Twenty-five existing Hawaiian specimens of birds from the voyage are traced and discussed, along with previously unpublished natural history notes by the expedition's naturalist, Andrew Bloxam. The B/om/f expedition is the only one known to have obtained a thrush (f Aoeon:ij=AfyadMff.i) on Oahu, and two specimens probably of Oahu origin, including the type of Tlwdw; wooAenju Bloxam, are identined. The name /Vecforina ./&n%i Bloxam (1827) is shown to have priority over ffimonomg cWork Cabanis (1850) for the Oahu Amakihi. INTRODUCTION After the European discovery of the Hawaiian archipelago in 1778-79, on James Cook's Anal voyage, which brought back numerous specimens of birds (Medway, 1981), the next expedition to the islands to make a significant contribution to ornithology was that of H.M.S. ZMonde, in 1825. The ornithological results of this voyage were very poorly documented, however. Although the literature does not well reflect the fact, most of the specimens of Hawaiian birds known to have been preserved on the voyage of the Blonde still exist, along with considerable unpublished natural history information compiled by the expedition's naturalist, Andrew Bloxam.
    [Show full text]
  • Focal Species: Hawaiian Water Birds: • Hawaiian Coot Or 'Alae
    Hawaiian Bird Conservation Action Plan Focal Species: Hawaiian Water birds: Hawaiian Coot or ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o (Fulica alai) Hawaiian Gallinule or ‘Alae ‘Ula (Gallinula galeata sandvicensis) Hawaiian Stilt or Ae‘o (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) Synopsis: These three waterbirds use a variety of wetlands, but habitat loss and degradation have reduced their range and abundance. The Hawaiian Coot is considered a full species, while the gallinule and stilt are subspecies of North American taxa. The coot and stilt are widespread and relatively numerous, but the more secretive gallinule is found on only two islands and is thought to have a smaller population. Habitat protection and management are keys to recovery of these species. They nest on the ground or in low wetland vegetation, where they are vulnerable to non-native predators, so predator control also is important to increase reproduction. Hawaiian Coot, Gallinule, and Stilt (left to right). Photos Eric VanderWerf Geographic region: Hawaiian Islands Group: Water birds Federal Status: Endangered (coot, gallinule, and stilt) State status: Endangered (coot, gallinule, and stilt) IUCN status: Vulnerable (coot only, gallinule and stilt NA) PIF/ABC score, rank: 17/20, 18/20, 18/20, At-risk Watch List 2007 Score: Red (coot, gallinule, and stilt) Climate Change Score: Moderate (coot, gallinule, and stilt) Status: The Hawaiian Coot, Hawaiian Gallinule, and Hawaiian Stilt are all listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and by the state of Hawaii. The Hawaiian Coot is considered vulnerable by the IUCN. The Hawaiian Gallinule and Hawaiian Stilt are subspecies of the Common Gallinule and Black-necked Stilt of North America, respectively, and thus are not specifically considered by the IUCN.
    [Show full text]