DOCSLIB.ORG

Pōhakuloa Training Area (PTA) Real Property Master Plan (RPMP)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pōhakuloa Training Area (PTA) Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Pōhakuloa Training Area Real Property Master Plan Adoption for Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i AUTHORITY Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code 4321-4347) (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), and the Final Rule on Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (32 CFR Part 651), the United States Army Garrison Hawaii (USAG-HI) gives notice that a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) has been prepared for adoption of the Pōhakuloa Training Area Real Property Master Plan, Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i. PROPOSED ACTION The U.S. Army (Army) proposes to adopt the Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) for the Pōhakuloa Training Area (PTA). The adoption of the RPMP is an administrative action that would not involve new development, ground disturbance, alteration of any real estate, facility or infrastructure, or change in training activities at PTA. The adoption of the PTA RPMP involves senior mission commander endorsement, recommendation by the installation Real Property Planning Board, and approval by the designated staff of the Installation Management Command (a field-operating agency of the Office, Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management). The Proposed Action is independent of the types of training and tempo of range activities taking place at PTA. It is not expected to result in changes to training tempo and intensity at PTA because these conditions are driven by national security threat assessments and the ebb and flow of international affairs. The PEA evaluates the environmental impacts of the RPMP adoption and includes analyses of the no- action alternative. Programmatic NEPA documents are prepared for projects that occur under a program or may occur over time; additionally, each project may require an individual NEPA document. The PEA also evaluates, at a general programmatic level, potential impacts of implementation of RPMP projects, although they are not part of the current Proposed Action. This PEA does not relieve the burden from proponents to satisfy NEPA requirements for actions and projects not sufficiently addressed in this document. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Proposed Action (also the Preferred Alternative) and No-Action alternatives were evaluated in the PEA. Under the no‐action alternative, the RPMP would not be adopted and it is assumed that the Army would continue to manage facility and real estate projects at PTA in the way it has in the past, without the benefit of an overarching plan. The no‐action alternative would not meet the project purpose and need which is to ensure compliance with Army Regulation 210-20, which requires the adoption of an RPMP that provides PTA with strategies to ensure installation sustainability through the provision of mission readiness and installation integration in regional planning. Other alternatives were considered but eliminated because they did not meet screening criteria to be carried through the environmental analysis. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Based on the analysis contained in the PEA, USAG-HI has determined that the preferred alternative (i.e., RPMP adoption) would result in impacts that are less than significant. There would be less than significant, potentially beneficial impacts to land use compatibility, less than significant impacts to socioeconomics, and no impacts to cultural resources, biological resources, transportation systems, noise, air quality, water resources, natural hazards, geology and soils, visual resources, public facilities and infrastructure, and toxic and hazardous substances. When combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the preferred alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts on the environmental resource areas studied. In accordance with 15 CFR 930, subpart C, USAG-HI determined that the Proposed Action of adopting the RPMP would not affect any coastal use or resources. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT This Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) has been issued in conjunction with the PEA and incorporates it by reference. Notice of Availability of the PEA and Draft FNSI will be published in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald and West Hawaii Today newspapers, and in the April 23, 2020 edition of The Environmental Notice (Office of Environmental Quality Control [OEQC], State of Hawai‘i Department of Health). The PEA and Draft FNSI are available for download for 30 days from the publication of this notice at: https://home.army.mil/hawaii/index.php/garrison/dpw/nepa as well as via download from the OEQC website: http://health.hawaii.gov/oeqc. Paper copies of the PEA and Draft FNSI are also available for public review at the following public libraries: Hilo Public Library, Kailua-Kona Public Library, and Thelma Parker Memorial Public Library. Written comments on this Draft FNSI must be received within 30 calendar days after its initial publication. Comments can be emailed to [email protected] (reference “PTA RPMP PEA” in subject line) or mailed to the Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division (IMHW-PWE), Attn: Greg Wahl, 947 Wright Avenue, Bldg. 105 3rd Floor, Wheeler Army Airfield, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5013. FINDING After careful review of the PEA, I have concluded that implementation of the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment. Per 32 CFR Part 651, the PEA and Draft FNSI will be made available for a 30-day public review and comment period. Once any public comments have been addressed, and if a determination is made that the Proposed Action will have no significant impact, the FNSI will be signed and the action (i.e., RPMP adoption) will be NEPA Action EA/EIS Publication Form Project Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) Adoption, Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i Name: Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Island: Hawaii District: Hamakua, North Hilo, North Kona, South Kohala TMK: (3) 3-8-001; 4-4-015; 4-4-016; 6-1-003; 6-7-001; 7-1-004 (various parcels) Permits: N/A Applicant or Proposing Agency: U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii (USAG-HI) Greg Wahl, NEPA Program Manager, USAG-HI 947 Wright Avenue, Bldg. 105 Wheeler Army Airfield Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5013 [email protected] Approving Agency: U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii (USAG-HI) Greg Wahl, NEPA Program Manager, USAG-HI 947 Wright Avenue, Bldg. 105 Wheeler Army Airfield Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5013 [email protected] Consultant: HHF Planners Pacific Guardian Center, Makai Tower 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 Honolulu, HI 96813 ATTN: Gail Renard [email protected] (808) 457-3167 Status: Comment Period: April 19, 2020 to May 19, 2020 Written comments must be received by May 19, 2020 to be considered. Comments may be provided via email to: [email protected] (reference “PTA RPMP PEA” in subject line) or mailed to: Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division (IMHW-PWE), Attn: Greg Wahl, 947 Wright Avenue, Bldg. 105, Wheeler Army Airfield, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5013. Summary (Provide proposed action and purpose/need in less than 200 words. Please keep the summary brief and on this one page): Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii provides notice that a Draft Finding of No Significant Impact has been prepared based on the findings of a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the adoption of the Pohakuloa Training Area Real Property Master Plan, Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i. Adoption of the PTA RPMP (proposed action) is in accordance with Army Regulation 210-20, Real Property Master Planning for Army Installations and reflects the Army’s mission requirements and future facility and infrastructure needs for PTA generally over a 20-year time frame. The adoption of the PTA RPMP is an administrative action that would not involve new development, ground disturbance, alteration of any real estate, facility or infrastructure, or changes to activities at PTA. Each individual project listed in the RPMP may be subject to NEPA review when and if adequate information is available for analysis. Copies of the PEA and Draft FNSI are available for public review at the Hilo Public Library, Kailua- Kona Public Library, and Thelma Parker Memorial Public Library. Copies can also be obtained by contacting the Army via email at [email protected] (reference “PTA RPMP PEA” in subject line) or online at https://home.army.mil/hawaii/index.php/garrison/dpw/nepa. Written comments on the Draft FNSI must be received no later than May 19, 2020 and should be directed to the email address above or mailed to: Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division (IMHW-PWE), Attn: Greg Wahl, 947 Wright Avenue, Bldg. 105 3rd Floor, Wheeler Army Airfield, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5013. Revised February 2012 PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PŌHAKULOA TRAINING AREA REAL PROPERTY MASTER PLAN ADOPTION HAWAI‘I ISLAND, HAWAI‘I FEBRUARY 2020 Prepared For: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Honolulu District and U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Prepared By: HHF Planners PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Pōhakuloa Training Area Real Property Master Plan Adoption for Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i AUTHORITY Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code 4321-4347) (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), and the Final Rule on Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (32 CFR Part 651), the United States Army Garrison Hawaii (USAG-HI) gives notice that a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) has been prepared for adoption of the Pōhakuloa Training Area Real Property Master Plan, Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • July I, 2007 Thru June 30, 2008
    December 5, 2008 Annual Report---- July I, 2007 thru June 30, 2008 Cultural Resources Management Projects Performed at the Pohakuloa Training Area, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. Prepared by Julie M. E. Taomia, Ph.D. Senior Cultural I<.csources Specialist Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawaii With sign~ficant contributions by James A. Head, Kelly Leialoha Luscomb, J. Cary Stine Cultural Resources Specialists Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawaii Prepared,for U.S. Artny Garrison, Hawai'i Pacific Studies Research Unit, University of Hawai'i (_'ontacl b{fonnation: P6hakuloa 'fraining Area Environmental Office, Bldg. T-93 Cultural Resources Section PO Box 4607 Hilo, HI 96720-0607 (808) 969-3340 December 5, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS , ...................................................................................... 11 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. .111 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ V LIST OF PLATES ................................................................................................ V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................1 Environ1nental and 1-listorical background ................................................................................................ 1 Cultural Resources Progran1 .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance Document Pohakuloa Training Area Plant Guide
    GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Recovery of Native Plant Communities and Ecological Processes Following Removal of Non-native, Invasive Ungulates from Pacific Island Forests Pohakuloa Training Area Plant Guide SERDP Project RC-2433 JULY 2018 Creighton Litton Rebecca Cole University of Hawaii at Manoa Distribution Statement A Page Intentionally Left Blank This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Page Intentionally Left Blank 47 Page Intentionally Left Blank 1. Ferns & Fern Allies Order: Polypodiales Family: Aspleniaceae (Spleenworts) Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare – fragile fern (Endangered) Delicate ENDEMIC plants usually growing in cracks or caves; largest pinnae usually <6mm long, tips blunt, uniform in shape, shallowly lobed, 2-5 lobes on acroscopic side. Fewer than 5 sori per pinna. Fronds with distal stipes, proximal rachises ocassionally proliferous . d b a Asplenium trichomanes subsp. densum – ‘oāli’i; maidenhair spleenwort Plants small, commonly growing in full sunlight. Rhizomes short, erect, retaining many dark brown, shiny old stipe bases.. Stipes wiry, dark brown – black, up to 10cm, shiny, glabrous, adaxial surface flat, with 2 greenish ridges on either side. Pinnae 15-45 pairs, almost sessile, alternate, ovate to round, basal pinnae smaller and more widely spaced.
    [Show full text]
  • 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation
    Spermolepis hawaiiensis (no common name) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office Honolulu, Hawaii 5-YEAR REVIEW Species reviewed: Spermolepis hawaiiensis (no common name) TABLE OF CONTEN TS 1.0 GENERAL IN FORMATION .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Reviewers ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review:................................................................. 1 1.3 Background: .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS....................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy ......................... 3 2.2 Recovery Crite ria .......................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Updated Information and Current Species Status .................................................... 5 2.4 Synthesis......................................................................................................................... 8 3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.3 Recommended Classification: ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Palila Restoration Research, 1996−2012 Summary and Management Implications
    Technical Report HCSU-046A PALILA RESTOratION RESEarch, 1996−2012 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT IMPLIcatIONS Paul C. Banko1 and Chris Farmer2, Editors 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Kīlauea Field Station, P.O. Box 44, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 2 American Bird Conservancy, Kīlauea Field Station, P.O. Box 44, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit University of Hawai‘i at Hilo 200 W. Kawili St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 933-0706 October 2014 Citation: Banko, P. C., and C. Farmer, editors. 2014. Palila restoration research, 1996–2012: summary and management implications. Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSU-046A. University of Hawai‘i at Hilo. 70 pages. This product was prepared under Cooperative Agreements CA03WRAG0036-3036WS0012, CA03WRAG0036-3036WS0032, and CAG09AC00041 for the Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey. This article has been peer reviewed and approved for publication consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1367/). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. PALILA RESTORATION RESEARCH, 1996–2012: SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS A palila (Loxioides bailleui) selects a seedpod from a māmane (Sophora chrysophylla) tree high on the western slope of Mauna Kea, Hawai‘i. The palila’s ecology and existence are inextricably linked to green māmane seeds, their critically important food. Chronic shortfalls in the supply of māmane seedpods could lead to the extinction of the palila. Photo by Jack Jeffrey (http://www.jackjeffreyphoto.com/).
    [Show full text]
  • General Plan for the County of Hawai'i
    COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I GENERAL PLAN February 2005 Pursuant Ord. No. 05-025 (Amended December 2006 by Ord. No. 06-153, May 2007 by Ord. No. 07-070, December 2009 by Ord. No. 09-150 and 09-161, June 2012 by Ord. No. 12-089, and June 2014 by Ord. No. 14-087) Supp. 1 (Ord. No. 06-153) CONTENTS 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose Of The General Plan . 1-1 1.2. History Of The Plan . 1-1 1.3. General Plan Program . 1-3 1.4. The Current General Plan Comprehensive Review Program. 1-4 1.5. County Profile. 1-7 1.6. Statement Of Assumptions. 1-11 1.7. Employment And Population Projections . 1-12 1.7.1. Series A . 1-13 1.7.2. Series B . 1-14 1.7.3. Series C . 1-15 1.8. Population Distribution . 1-17 2: ECONOMIC 2.1. Introduction And Analysis. 2-1 2.2. Goals . .. 2-12 2.3. Policies . .. 2-13 2.4. Districts. 2-15 2.4.1. Puna . 2-15 2.4.2. South Hilo . 2-17 2.4.3. North Hilo. 2-19 2.4.4. Hamakua . 2-20 2.4.5. North Kohala . 2-22 2.4.6. South Kohala . 2-23 2.4.7. North Kona . 2-25 2.4.8. South Kona. 2-28 2.4.9. Ka'u. 2-29 3: ENERGY 3.1. Introduction And Analysis. 3-1 3.2. Goals . 3-8 3.3. Policies . 3-9 3.4. Standards . 3-9 4: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 4.1. Introduction And Analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Friday, April 5, 2002 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Determinations of Prudency and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat for Plant Species From the Island of Molokai, Hawaii; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<13>2002 12:44 Apr 04, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 05APP2 16492 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the threats from vandalism or collection materials concerning this proposal by of this species on Molokai. any one of several methods: Fish and Wildlife Service We propose critical habitat You may submit written comments designations for 46 species within 10 and information to the Field Supervisor, 50 CFR Part 17 critical habitat units totaling U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific RIN 1018–AH08 approximately 17,614 hectares (ha) Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., (43,532 acres (ac)) on the island of Room 3–122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Molokai. HI 96850–0001. and Plants; Revised Determinations of If this proposal is made final, section Prudency and Proposed Designations 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to You may hand-deliver written of Critical Habitat for Plant Species ensure that actions they carry out, fund, comments to our Pacific Islands Office From the Island of Molokai, Hawaii or authorize do not destroy or adversely at the address given above. modify critical habitat to the extent that You may view comments and AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, the action appreciably diminishes the materials received, as well as supporting Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PACIFIC ISLANDS FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR 124 OAHU SPECIES Trematolobelia singularis Draft – February 2012 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND REPORT ORGANIZATION 5 PART I ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR 123 OAHU SPECIES 6 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND 6 CHAPTER 2 FRAMEWORK 6 CHAPTER 3 PREVIOUS ECONOMIC ANALYSES OF CRITICAL 7 HABITAT DESIGNATIONS ON OAHU 3(a): Methodology 7 3(b): Water Resources Considerations 7 CHAPTER 4 OAHU ELEPAIO CRITICAL HABITAT RULE 8 4(a): Proposed Critical Habitat 8 4(b): Draft Economic Analysis 8 4(c): Economic Analysis Addendum 10 4(d): Critical Habitat Designation 11 CHAPTER 5 2003 CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR 99 11 OAHU PLANTS 5(a): Proposed Critical Habitat 11 5(b): Draft Economic Analysis 11 5(c): Economic Analysis Addendum 13 5(d): Critical Habitat Designation 14 CHAPTER 6 12 HAWAIIAN PICTURE-WING FLY SPECIES CRITICAL 15 HABITAT 6(a): Proposed Critical Habitat 15 6(b): Draft Economic Analysis 15 6(c): Final Economic Analysis 16 6(d): Critical Habitat Designation 17 6(e): Economic Analysis Addendum 17 CHAPTER 7 ECONOMIC IMPACT IN OVERLAP AREAS 17 7(a): Percent Overlap 17 7(b): Primary Constituent Elements, Part I 18 CHAPTER 8 PREVIOUSLY PREDICTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS 19 8(a): Section 7 Consultation Costs 19 8(a)(i): Formal Section 7 Consultations on Critical Habitat 19 8(a)(ii): Informal Consultations on Critical Habitat 20 2 8(b): Land Reclassification 20 8(c): Preservation and Watershed Management
    [Show full text]
  • 174 Subpart C—Entry Regulations for Certain Army Training Areas In
    SUBCHAPTER D—MILITARY RESERVATIONS AND NATIONAL CEMETERIES PART 552—REGULATIONS AFFECT- 552.68 Minimum requirements for agents. 552.69 Application by companies to solicit ING MILITARY RESERVATIONS on military installations in the United States, its territories, or the Common- Subpart A [Reserved] wealth of Puerto Rico. 552.70 Applications by companies to solicit Subpart B—Post Commander on installations in foreign countries. 552.71 Associations—general. Sec. 552.72 Use of the allotment of pay system. 552.18 Administration. 552.73 Minimum requirements for auto- 552.19 Hunting and fishing permits. mobile insurance policies. 552.74 Grounds for suspension. Subpart C—Entry Regulations for Certain 552.75 Factors in suspending solicitation Army Training Areas in Hawaii privileges. 552.76 Preliminary investigation. 552.25 Entry regulations for certain Army 552.77 Suspension approval. training areas in Hawaii. 552.78 ‘‘Show cause’’ hearing. 552.79 Suspension action. Subpart D—Acquisition of Real Estate and 552.80 Suspension period. Interest Therein 552.81 Agents or companies with suspended 552.30 Purpose. solicitation privileges. 552.31 Definitions. 552.82 Exercise of ‘‘off limits’’ authority. 552.32 Authority to acquire real estate and 552.83 Standards of fairness. interests therein. 552.33 Estates and methods of acquisition. Subpart F—Fort Lewis Land Use Policy 552.34 Policies relative to new acquisition. 552.84 Purpose. 552.35 Rights-of-entry for survey and explo- 552.85 Applicability. ration. 552.86 References. 552.36 Rights-of-entry for construction. 552.87 General. 552.37 Acquisition by Chief of Engineers. 552.88 Responsibilities. 552.38 Acquisition of maneuver agreements 552.89 Activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report (Posted 10/19)
    FINAL REPORT Remote Sensing Technology for Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Recovery ESTCP Project RC-201203 OCTOBER 2018 Erin Questad California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Susan Cordell USDA Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry James Kellner Brown University Distribution Statement A This document has been cleared for public release Page Intentionally Left Blank This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Page Intentionally Left Blank REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Collection of Hawaiian Plants by David Nelson in 1779
    Pacific Science (1978), vol. 32, no. 3 © 1979 by The University Press of Hawaii. All rights reserved The First Collection of Hawaiian Plants by David Nelson in 1779. Hawaiian Plant Studies 55 1 HAROLD ST. JOHN 2 CAPTAIN JAMES COOK initiated modern sci­ On this mountain trip Nelson collected entific exploratory expeditions. He made good specimens and then dried them. On possible discoveries in distant lands in as­ return to England, they were delivered to Sir tronomy, botany, and in many other sciences. Joseph Banks, who deposited them in the On his first world voyage (1768-1771), Sir British Museum of Natural History, where Joseph Banks and Dr. Daniel Solander they were studied by Dr. Daniel Solander. gathered plant specimens, and Sydney Par­ Solander classified and named some ofthem; kinson made plant portraits so numerous many were new genera and all but II were that most of them are still unpublished. On new species. After Solander's death, his the second voyage, Johann Reinhold Forster successor, Robert Brown, studied the residue and Georg Adam Forster made good col­ of Nelson's collections. The generic names lections, and published them in two books. given were mostly like Ilicoides for Pelea, On the third voyage, there were two natu­ Hydrangeoides for Perrottetia, Cestroides for rabsts, William Anderson (surgeon's mate Bohea, Coffeoides for Gouldia, Tachitoides _on the_Resolution) and young_David Nelson, for--Myrsine, -lresinoides- for (;har-pentiera, gardener and botanist (on the second ship, Moroides for Neraudia, etc. That is, their the Discovery). Anderson made little pretense !licoides was like !lex, Hydrangeoides was at collecting plants, became sickly, and died like Hydrangea, etc., since the Greek suffix halfway through the voyage.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Only Found in One State
    ENDANGERED SPECIES FOUND ONLY WITHIN ONE STATE (INTRASTATE SPECIES) State Found Federal Common Name Scientific Name Within Species Group Listing Status Polar bear Ursus maritimus Alaska Mammals Threatened Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri Alaska Birds Threatened Northern Sea Otter Enhydra lutris kenyoni Alaska Mammals Threatened Wood Bison Bison bison athabascae Alaska Mammals Threatened Steller's Eider Polysticta stelleri Alaska Birds Threatened Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Alaska Mammals Endangered Aleutian shield fern Polystichum aleuticum Alaska Ferns and Allies Endangered Spring pygmy sunfish Elassoma alabamae Alabama Fishes Threatened Fleshy‐fruit gladecress Leavenworthia crassa Alabama Flowering Plants Endangered Flattened musk turtle Sternotherus depressus Alabama Reptiles Threatened Slender campeloma Campeloma decampi Alabama Snails Endangered Pygmy Sculpin Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus) Alabama Fishes Threatened Lacy elimia (snail) Elimia crenatella Alabama Snails Threatened Vermilion darter Etheostoma chermocki Alabama Fishes Endangered Watercress darter Etheostoma nuchale Alabama Fishes Endangered Rush Darter Etheostoma phytophilum Alabama Fishes Endangered Round rocksnail Leptoxis ampla Alabama Snails Threatened Plicate rocksnail Leptoxis plicata Alabama Snails Endangered Painted rocksnail Leptoxis taeniata Alabama Snails Threatened Flat pebblesnail Lepyrium showalteri Alabama Snails Endangered Lyrate bladderpod Lesquerella lyrata Alabama Flowering Plants Threatened Alabama pearlshell Margaritifera marrianae Alabama Clams
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Fire History and Management Concerns at Pohakuloa Training Area
    Analysis of Fire History and Management Concerns at Pohakuloa Training Area Andrew M. Beavers Robert E. Burgan Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1490 CEMML TPS 02-02 April 2002 Analysis of Fire History and Management Concerns At Pohakuloa Training Area December 19, 2000 Submitted by Andrew M. Beavers Fire Ecologist/Behaviorist Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO Reviewed by Robert E. Burgan USDA Forest Service (Retired) Intermountain Fire Science Lab, Missoula, MT TPS 02-02 Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 1 General Description .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Fire Effects on Hawaiian Ecosystems........................................................................................................................ 5 Fire History of Pohakuloa Training Area............................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Fire History Methods ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]