DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Draft HCP Honuaula

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Draft HCP Honuaula DRAFT Habitat Conservation Plan for HONUA‘ULA (WAILEA 670) KI HEI, MAUI PREPARED FOR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources APPLICANT: Honua‘ula Partners, LLC 381 Huku Li‘i Place, Suite 202 Kīhei, Maui 96753 PREPARED BY: SWCA Environmental Consultants Honolulu Office Bishop Square: ASB Tower 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2800 Honolulu, HI. 96813 December 2012 DRAFT HCP for Honuaʻula / Wailea 670, Kīhei, Maui This page intentionally left blank © 2012 SWCA Environmental Consultants DRAFT HCP for Honuaʻula / Wailea 670, Kīhei, Maui TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW............................................................................. 1 1.1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Applicant ..................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Regulatory Context ....................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544)............................................... 5 1.3.2 Federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) ............................... 7 1.3.3 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) ................................................ 7 1.3.4 Federal National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n) .................. 7 1.3.5 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 195D ..................................................................... 8 1.3.6 Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, Chapter 343 ....................................................................... 9 1.4 Project Description .......................................................................................................10 1.4.1 Project History .......................................................................................................10 1.4.2 Project Design and Components ...............................................................................10 1.4.3 Covered Activities ...................................................................................................10 1.4.4 Purpose and Need for Honuaʻula Project ....................................................................13 1.5 List of Preparers ..........................................................................................................14 2 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN .................................................................15 2.1 Purpose of This HCP .....................................................................................................15 2.2 Scope and Term ..........................................................................................................15 2.3 Surveys and Resources .................................................................................................16 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................................17 3.1 Location, Vicinity, & Climate ..........................................................................................17 3.2 Topography and Geology ..............................................................................................17 3.3 Soils ...........................................................................................................................17 3.4 Hydrology, Drainage and Water Resources ......................................................................19 3.4.1 Surface Water ........................................................................................................19 3.4.2 Flooding ................................................................................................................19 3.4.3 Groundwater .........................................................................................................19 3.5 Environmental Contaminants .........................................................................................19 3.6 Land Use Designations .................................................................................................19 3.7 Vegetation Within the Property ......................................................................................19 3.7.1 Listed Plant Species ................................................................................................24 3.7.1.1 ʻĀwikiwiki .........................................................................................................24 3.8 Fauna .........................................................................................................................25 3.8.1 Surveys Conducted .................................................................................................25 3.8.2 Non-Listed Species .................................................................................................25 3.8.2.1 Birds ...............................................................................................................25 3.8.2.2 Hawaiian Short-eared Owl or Pueo ......................................................................26 3.8.2.3 Herpetofauna ...................................................................................................27 3.8.2.4 Mammals .........................................................................................................27 3.8.3 Listed Wildlife Species with no requested take ...........................................................28 3.8.3.1 Hawaiian Hoary Bat...........................................................................................28 3.8.3.2 Hawaiian Petrel ................................................................................................31 3.8.3.3 Newell’s Shearwater ..........................................................................................32 3.8.3.4 Hawaiian Stilt ...................................................................................................33 3.8.3.5 Hawaiian Coot ..................................................................................................34 3.8.3.6 Hawaiian Duck .................................................................................................35 3.8.4 Covered Species .....................................................................................................36 3.8.4.1 Blackburn’s Sphinx Moth ....................................................................................36 3.8.4.2 Nēnē ...............................................................................................................40 4 BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................42 5 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................43 i © 2012 SWCA Environmental Consultants DRAFT HCP for Honuaʻula / Wailea 670, Kīhei, Maui 5.1 No-Action (“No Build”) Alternative ..................................................................................43 5.2 Alternative Preserve Layout ...........................................................................................43 6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .........................................................................................................44 6.1 Estimating Project-Related Impacts ................................................................................44 6.1.1 Blackburn’s Sphinx Moth .........................................................................................44 6.1.2 Nēnē Direct Take ....................................................................................................47 6.1.3 Nēnē Indirect Take .................................................................................................48 6.1.4 Estimated Total Take for Nēnē .................................................................................49 6.2 Cumulative Impacts to Listed Species .............................................................................50 6.3 Assessment of Impact on Critical Habitat ........................................................................52 7 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................55 7.1 General Avoidance and Minimization Measures ................................................................55 7.1.1 Natural Resources Manager .....................................................................................55 7.1.2 Endangered Species Education Program ....................................................................56 7.1.3 Endangered Species Construction Contract Provisions (Including BMPs) ........................56 7.1.4 Pre-Construction Wildlife Surveys .............................................................................56 7.1.5 Fencing .................................................................................................................57 7.1.6 Best Management Practices .....................................................................................57 7.1.7 Roadways (Speed Limit) ..........................................................................................57 7.1.8 Seabirds: Lighting ..................................................................................................58 7.1.9 Management and Maintenance .................................................................................58 7.1.10
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Danaus Plexippus) in Milkweed Gardens and Conservation Areas
    Journal of Insect Conservation https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0102-8 ORIGINAL PAPER Recruitment, survival, and parasitism of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) in milkweed gardens and conservation areas Emily A. Geest1 · L. LaReesa Wolfenbarger1 · John P. McCarty1 Received: 10 July 2018 / Accepted: 24 October 2018 © The Author(s) 2018 Abstract Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) are suffering from declining populations and conservationists have encouraged planting milkweed gardens in urban and suburban landscapes to help offset habitat loss across the breeding range. The effectiveness of gardens as a conservation strategy depends on their ability to attract ovipositing adults and the survival of monarch larvae in these gardens. Larvae are susceptible to a variety of predators as well as to parasitism by a tachinid fly (Lespesia archippivora) and a protozoan parasite (Ophryocystis elektroscirrha) which cause lethal or sublethal effects, yet the severity of these risks in gardens is not well understood. We compared egg abundance and larval survival in traditional conservation areas to gardens that incorporated milkweed to attract monarchs. Additionally, we collected late instar larvae and reared them in the lab to compare parasitism rates between monarch gardens and conservation areas. Both gardens and conservations sites varied widely in recruitment and survival of monarchs and there were no significant differences between the garden and conservation sites. Tachinid fly parasitism ranged from 30% of larvae from conservation sites in 2016 to 55% of larvae from gardens in 2017, but did not differ between the two categories of sites. Parasitism byO. elektroscirrha was detected in fewer than 2% of larvae. The density of milkweed had no effect on the number of monarch eggs in conservation areas or gardens in either year.
    [Show full text]
  • Pu'u Wa'awa'a Biological Assessment
    PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A, NORTH KONA, HAWAII Prepared by: Jon G. Giffin Forestry & Wildlife Manager August 2003 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ii GENERAL SETTING...................................................................................................................1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 Land Use Practices...............................................................................................................1 Geology..................................................................................................................................3 Lava Flows............................................................................................................................5 Lava Tubes ...........................................................................................................................5 Cinder Cones ........................................................................................................................7 Soils .......................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • £Arasites Associated with Lepidopterous Pests of Alfalfa in .Qklahoma
    £ARASITES ASSOCIATED WITH LEPIDOPTEROUS PESTS OF ALFALFA IN .QKLAHOMA By KATHLEEN MARY SENST I' Bachelor of Arts Wartburg College Waverly, Iowa 1974 Master of Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1978 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 1982 PARASITES ASSOCIATED WITH LEPIDOPTEROUS PESTS OF ALFALFA IN OKLAHOMA Thesis Approved: . ~ \ . ii 1143730 j ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I w.isb. to expres.s. my deep appreciation to my major adviser, Dr. Ricb.ard Berberet, for hi:s willi.ngness. to advise and help, and for his friendsb.i.p duri.ng thi:s: s:tudy and preparation of this manuscript. Appreciation is. expressed to Ors. Ray Eikenbary, Jerry Young, Robert Burton, and John Caddel for serving as members of my graduate committee, and to Or. Ron McNeu for his help in analyzing the data. Thanks. are extended to Mary Hininger, Melinda Davis, Donna Ridge, Phoebe Courtney, and Debbie Lauchner for their assistance in the lab­ oratory, and to Doug Sander and Kevin Mussett for their assistance in the fi.el d. Special thanks goes to Ms. Anne Hunt for clerical review and typing of this manuscript. My most sincere appreciation is reserved for my husband, John (Soteres}, for his encouragement, understanding, and patience while I was completing this work. I share the credit for this work with my family, whose love and support have been a constant source of encourage­ ment in my life. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 II.
    [Show full text]
  • No Slide Title
    Tachinidae: The “other” parasitoids Diego Inclán University of Padova Outline • Briefly (re-) introduce parasitoids & the parasitoid lifestyle • Quick survey of dipteran parasitoids • Introduce you to tachinid flies • major groups • oviposition strategies • host associations • host range… • Discuss role of tachinids in biological control Parasite vs. parasitoid Parasite Life cycle of a parasitoid Alien (1979) Life cycle of a parasitoid Parasite vs. parasitoid Parasite Parasitoid does not kill the host kill its host Insects life cycles Life cycle of a parasitoid Some facts about parasitoids • Parasitoids are diverse (15-25% of all insect species) • Hosts of parasitoids = virtually all terrestrial insects • Parasitoids are among the dominant natural enemies of phytophagous insects (e.g., crop pests) • Offer model systems for understanding community structure, coevolution & evolutionary diversification Distribution/frequency of parasitoids among insect orders Primary groups of parasitoids Diptera (flies) ca. 20% of parasitoids Hymenoptera (wasps) ca. 70% of parasitoids Described Family Primary hosts Diptera parasitoid sp Sciomyzidae 200? Gastropods: (snails/slugs) Nemestrinidae 300 Orth.: Acrididae Bombyliidae 5000 primarily Hym., Col., Dip. Pipunculidae 1000 Hom.:Auchenorrycha Conopidae 800 Hym:Aculeata Lep., Orth., Hom., Col., Sarcophagidae 1250? Gastropoda + others Lep., Hym., Col., Hem., Tachinidae > 8500 Dip., + many others Pyrgotidae 350 Col:Scarabaeidae Acroceridae 500 Arach.:Aranea Hym., Dip., Col., Lep., Phoridae 400?? Isop.,Diplopoda
    [Show full text]
  • Monarch (Danaus Plexippus) in Canada
    Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series Management Plan for the Monarch (Danaus plexippus) in Canada Monarch 2016 Recommended citation: Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2016. Management Plan for the Monarch (Danaus plexippus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. iv + 45 pp. For copies of the management plan, or for additional information on species at risk, including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk (SAR) Public Registry1. Cover illustration: Monarch © Karine Bériault 2007 Également disponible en français sous le titre « Plan de gestion du monarque (Danaus plexippus) au Canada » © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-100-25735-8 Catalogue no. En3-5/71-2016E-PDF Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. 1 http://sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=24F7211B-1 Management Plan for the Monarch 2016 PREFACE The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996)2 agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) (SARA), the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of management plans for listed Special Concern species and are required to report on progress within five years after the publication of the final document on the SAR Public Registry.
    [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]
  • Karen Oberhauser (Presenter) and Wendy Caldwell
    CURRICULUM VITAE KAREN S. OBERHAUSER Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota Education B.A. Harvard University, 1979 Biology B.S. University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1981 Natural Science Education Ph.D. University of Minnesota, 1989 Ecology and Behavioral Biology, Genetics Minor [Advisors: P.A. Abrams and J.W. Curtsinger] Positions/Employment University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (1991-present) Professor, 2013-present Associate Professor, 2008-2013 Assistant Professor, 2003-2008 Outreach/Teaching Assistant Professor, 2002-2003 Research Associate and Adjunct Assistant Professor, 1991-2002 Onalaska High School, Wisconsin (Biology and Chemistry Teacher), 1981-1984 Brief Biography My students and I conduct research on several aspects of monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) ecology, including reproductive ecology, host-parasite interactions, factors affecting the distribution and abundance of immature monarch stages, habitat management and availability, and risks posed by global climate change and pest control practices to monarch butterflies. Our research employs traditional lab and field techniques, as well as contributions of a variety of other audiences through citizen science. I have a strong interest in engaging K-12 students and teachers in inquiry-based science and promoting a citizenry with a high degree of scientific and environmental literacy. To this end, I have developed a comprehensive science education program called Monarchs in the Classroom, which involves courses and workshops for teachers, opportunities for youth to engage in research and share their findings with broad audiences, a nationwide Citizen Science project called the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project, and curriculum development. I am passionate about the conservation of the world’s biodiversity, and believe that the connections my projects promote between monarchs, humans, and the natural world will help to promote conservation actions.
    [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]
  • *Wagner Et Al. --Intro
    NUMBER 60, 58 pages 15 September 1999 BISHOP MUSEUM OCCASIONAL PAPERS HAWAIIAN VASCULAR PLANTS AT RISK: 1999 WARREN L. WAGNER, MARIE M. BRUEGMANN, DERRAL M. HERBST, AND JOEL Q.C. LAU BISHOP MUSEUM PRESS HONOLULU Printed on recycled paper Cover illustration: Lobelia gloria-montis Rock, an endemic lobeliad from Maui. [From Wagner et al., 1990, Manual of flowering plants of Hawai‘i, pl. 57.] A SPECIAL PUBLICATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE HAWAII BIOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR 1998 Research publications of Bishop Museum are issued irregularly in the RESEARCH following active series: • Bishop Museum Occasional Papers. A series of short papers PUBLICATIONS OF describing original research in the natural and cultural sciences. Publications containing larger, monographic works are issued in BISHOP MUSEUM four areas: • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Anthropology • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Botany • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Entomology • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Zoology Numbering by volume of Occasional Papers ceased with volume 31. Each Occasional Paper now has its own individual number starting with Number 32. Each paper is separately paginated. The Museum also publishes Bishop Museum Technical Reports, a series containing information relative to scholarly research and collections activities. Issue is authorized by the Museum’s Scientific Publications Committee, but manuscripts do not necessarily receive peer review and are not intended as formal publications. Institutions and individuals may subscribe to any of the above or pur- chase separate publications from Bishop Museum Press, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817-0916, USA. Phone: (808) 848-4135; fax: (808) 841-8968; email: [email protected]. Institutional libraries interested in exchanging publications should write to: Library Exchange Program, Bishop Museum Library, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817-0916, USA; fax: (808) 848-4133; email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • 9:00 Am PLACE
    CARTY S. CHANG INTERIM CHAIRPERSON DAVID Y. IGE BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES GOVERNOR OF HAWAII COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT KEKOA KALUHIWA FIRST DEPUTY W. ROY HARDY ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR – WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STATE OF HAWAII CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION POST OFFICE BOX 621 KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 STATE PARKS NATURAL AREA RESERVES SYSTEM COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 27, 2015 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Department of Land and Natural Resources Boardroom, Kalanimoku Building, 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 132, Honolulu. AGENDA ITEM 1. Call to order, introductions, move-ups. ITEM 2. Approval of the Minutes of the June 9, 2014 N atural Area Reserves System Commission Meeting. ITEM 3. Natural Area Partnership Program (NAPP). ITEM 3.a. Recommendation to the Board of Land and Natural Resources approval for authorization of funding for The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii for $663,600 during FY 16-21 for continued enrollment in the natural area partnership program and acceptance and approval of the Kapunakea Preserve Long Range Management Plan, TMK 4-4-7:01, 4-4-7:03, Lahaina, Maui. ITEM 3.b. Recommendation to the Board of Land and Natural Resources approval for authorization of funding for The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii for $470,802 during FY 16-21 for continued enrollment in the natural area partnership program and acceptance and approval of the Pelekunu Long Range Management Plan, TMK 5-4- 3:32, 5-9-6:11, Molokai.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxa Names List 6-30-21
    Insects and Related Organisms Sorted by Taxa Updated 6/30/21 Order Family Scientific Name Common Name A ACARI Acaridae Acarus siro Linnaeus grain mite ACARI Acaridae Aleuroglyphus ovatus (Troupeau) brownlegged grain mite ACARI Acaridae Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Fumouze & Robin) bulb mite ACARI Acaridae Suidasia nesbitti Hughes scaly grain mite ACARI Acaridae Tyrolichus casei Oudemans cheese mite ACARI Acaridae Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) mold mite ACARI Analgidae Megninia cubitalis (Mégnin) Feather mite ACARI Argasidae Argas persicus (Oken) Fowl tick ACARI Argasidae Ornithodoros turicata (Dugès) relapsing Fever tick ACARI Argasidae Otobius megnini (Dugès) ear tick ACARI Carpoglyphidae Carpoglyphus lactis (Linnaeus) driedfruit mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex bovis Stiles cattle Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex brevis Bulanova lesser Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex canis Leydig dog Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex caprae Railliet goat Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex cati Mégnin cat Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex equi Railliet horse Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex folliculorum (Simon) Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex ovis Railliet sheep Follicle mite ACARI Demodicidae Demodex phylloides Csokor hog Follicle mite ACARI Dermanyssidae Dermanyssus gallinae (De Geer) chicken mite ACARI Eriophyidae Abacarus hystrix (Nalepa) grain rust mite ACARI Eriophyidae Acalitus essigi (Hassan) redberry mite ACARI Eriophyidae Acalitus gossypii (Banks) cotton blister mite ACARI Eriophyidae Acalitus vaccinii
    [Show full text]
  • Remnant Wiliwili Forest Habitat at Wailea 670, Maui, Hawai`I
    S P E C I A L R E P O R T Maui Ecosystems at Risk REMNANT WILIWILI FOREST HABITAT AT WAILEA 670, MAUI, HAWAI`I VERSION 2, JULY, 2007 Lee Altenberg, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Information and Computer Sciences University of Hawai`i at Manoa [email protected] K i h e i , M a u i , H a w a i ` i 9 6 7 5 3 - 7 11 8 • t e l e p h o n e : 8 0 8 . 8 7 5 . 0 7 4 5 • a l t e n b e r @ h a w a i i . e d u • d y n a m i c s . o r g / Wa i l e a 6 7 0 Wi l i w i l i F o r e s t a t Wa i l e a 6 7 0 L e e A l t e n b e r g Summary 1. Wailea 670 contains most of the 4th largest contiguous area of remaining wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis) habitat on Maui, approximately 110 acres in the southern 1/6 of the property. The oldest wiliwili trees are estimated to be hundreds of years old. 95% of the wiliwili ecosystem in Hawaii has already been destroyed, and survival of this ecosystem requires the preservation of the largest remaining vestiges. The de- veloper's current mitigation plan would set aside 6 - 20 of the 110 acres for preserva- tion (82%-95% destruction of the habitat area). The lower elevation portion of this habitat has already been destroyed by the development of the Makena Golf Course and Palauea.
    [Show full text]