When you\u2019re swamped with work, is there such a thing as too much help? In the case of the U.S. Army\u2019s efforts to protect endangered species in state Natural Area Reserves and forest reserves, the answer to that question depends on whom you ask.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt seems like we\u2019re looking a gift horse in the mouth,\u201d said NARS commissioner Pat Conant at a recent meeting of the Natural Area Reserves System Commission where the Army proposed to dedicate staff and money to conduct endangered species work in O\u2018ahu Natural Area and forest reserves. But staff with the Department of Natural Resources\u2019 Division of Forestry and Wildlife, particu larly the NARS staff, worried they would not be able to manage the scope of work the Army was proposing to do in the NARS.<\/p>\n
Few would dispute that the state Natural Area Reserves program is understaffed. On O\u2018ahu, just three people (two permanent and one temporary) are charged with managing the Ka\u2018ala, Pahole, and Ka\u2018ena reserves, as well as the island\u2019s forest reserves. For the last four years, the Army\u2019s Environmental Pro gram crew has been weeding, collecting seeds, and outplanting endangered species in state reserves \u2013 actions required by the Army\u2019s Makua Implementation Plan, a condition of the Army\u2019s ongoing use of Makua Valley for training.<\/p>\n
At the outset of the plan, NARS staff assisted the Army, since much of the Army crew\u2019s work complemented the state\u2019s own efforts. But recently, unresolved concerns over conflicting goals and a lack of control over the Army\u2019s long-term plans for state lands have finally come to a head.<\/p>\n
Last October, the NARS Commission first became aware that the Army was conducting resource management activities in Natural Area Reserves without a required special use permit, despite efforts by NARS and Division of Forestry and Wildlife staff to get the Army to apply for one. With the Army\u2019s environ mental program staff there\u2019s no problem, says NARS executive secretary Betsy Gagn\u00e9, \u201cbut the decisions have gone up and down the chain of command and those people change.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the meantime, O\u2018ahu Natural Area Reserves program manager Brent Liesemeyer and staffer Talbert Takahama have been spending as much as a third of their time on the Army\u2019s endangered species projects.<\/p>\n
Last March, the Army finally submitted a permit application to the NARS Commission for review.<\/p>\n
The application, originally submitted by Colonel Floyd Quintana to DLNR director Peter Young, is for a DOFAW research\/T&E (threatened and endangered) Collection\/Access permit and covers work on all of the state lands where the Army plans to conduct en dangered species mitigation. Although the permit is meant to be year-to-year, the Army\u2019s Makua and O\u2018ahu Implementation Plans call for 33 years of resource management.<\/p>\n
In 1999, in response to a lawsuit by Malama Makua over training in Makua Valley, the Army consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wild life Service on its training effects on endan gered species in the valley. The service decided to issue a \u201cno jeopardy\u201d opinion contingent upon the Army developing and implement ing management plans to protect the dozens of endangered species in the area.<\/p>\n
Since then, the Army has finished a Makua Implementation Plan and has completed the bulk of the work for an O\u2018ahu Implementa tion Plan. NARS Commissioner Jim Jacobi has been part of the team of scientists and resource managers charged with developing a biologically based implementation plan for Makua and overseeing actions connected with it. The team also includes representa tives from Fish and Wildlife, the state De partment of Land and Natural Resources, botanic gardens, and the University of Hawai\u2018i. At the October 2004 NARS Com mission meeting, Jacobi briefed members on the Army\u2019s Makua plan.<\/p>\n
In its lawsuit, Malama Makua sought to stop the Army from conducting live-fire training in Makua Valley because of its history of causing fires in and outside of the valley and the threat those fires posed to the many en dangered plants and snails that live in the west Wai\u2018anae mountains. After consultations with the Army required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife determined that the Army should stabilize populations of those species that live within the area vulnerable to burning or other distur bances, called the \u201caction area.\u201d The Pahole NAR is within the action area; Ka\u2018ala NAR lies just outside it.<\/p>\n
The Fish and Wildlife Service review of the impacts of Army training activities in Makua focused on 28 plant species and one achatinella (tree snail) species, which occur mostly within the action area. There are about six to 12 other endangered species in the area, but the major ity of their numbers are outside the Makua action area. The service issued a biological opinion and a finding of \u201cno jeopardy\u201d to the listed species, provided the Army undertook specific actions.<\/p>\n
At the October NARS meeting, Jacobi noted that for the \u201cno jeopardy\u201d finding to stick, the Army needs to stabilize populations of the 29 endangered species within in the action area, as well as \u201cacross the entire range appropriate for their distribution.\u201d Only one of three populations of each species can be in the high-hazard area.<\/p>\n
\u201cGiven the worst-case scenario that some action could happen that could cause addi tional disturbance in those areas, there needs to be other backup populations and stabiliza tion of areas either inside or outside the action areas,\u201d he said. \u201cThe goal we came up with was a minimum of three active populations, well-established and functioning in the wild, not planting a bunch of individuals and saying \u2018We did it.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
The plan also requires the Army to identify and stabilize habitat for these endangered species through actions such as invasive spe cies control.<\/p>\n
\u201cEven though this is focused on individual T-and-E species, it\u2019s in the context of a func tioning habitat also,\u201d Jacobi said. \u201cThe spe cies are the hook that gets the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army together on the Endangered Species Act.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Army is in the process of developing an O\u2018ahu Implementation Plan that covers the rest of its training areas on O\u2018ahu. To date, it has identified actions necessary to stabilize 39 plant species, three tree snail species, and the O\u2018ahu elepaio.<\/p>\n
Under the Makua Implementation Plan, the Army needs to meet certain target numbers — ranging from 25 to 100, depending on the species — of mature reproducing in dividuals. Twenty-six of the 28 endangered plant species in the plan occur on state land and as a result, more than a third of the lands identified for management by the Army belong to the state.<\/p>\n
In October, Jacobi noted that the Army was expected to spend $8 million a year to meet the targets in the Makua Implementation Plan. To many, such an amount would be a boon for the state. But O\u2018ahu NARS staffer Talbert Takahama wasn\u2019t so sure.
\nTakahama told the commission he was concerned that the FWS and the Army were more interested in reaching population tar gets and protecting only certain species. While some of the plan\u2019s goals and activities were identical to those he might have for the NARs, \u201cit emphasizes reintroductions as opposed to rehabilitation. They want to use the NARS. Our mandate is not to meet targets\u2026 We emphasize ecological enhancement,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Although he was clearly not comfortable with the Army\u2019s use of Natural Area Reserves, Takahama said he had been working with the Army crew despite its lack of a special use permit. Gagn\u00e9 told the commission that she had tried repeatedly to get the Army to apply for a special use permit without success.<\/p>\n
At the NARS Commission\u2019s March meet ing, Army biologist Kapua Kawelo gave her own presentation to the NARS Commission on the implementation plans for Makua and O\u2018ahu. By then, the Army had applied for the NAR\/DOFAW permit, although the timing of the application is unclear. (The application date is given as January 20, 2004, with a specified term of February 2004 to February 2005. But within the section on term of activity, it states the application is for October 2004 to October 2005. The cover letter ac companying the application is undated.)<\/p>\n
Kawelo described the Army\u2019s goals for the NARS and forest reserves as identical to those of the state. In addition to seed collection and outplanting, the Army environmental crew planned to conduct weeding; small mammal, invertebrate, and erosion control, and build small fences. Kawelo said granting the applica tion would be a win-win situation for the state and the Army. Army natural resource manager Michelle Mansker added that the command had committed $3.3 million a year for the implementation plan.<\/p>\n
When asked by NARS Commissioner Lloyd Loope about the Army\u2019s long-term commit ment to the project, noting that the military has tried to exempt itself from the Endangered Species Act in the past, Mansker responded, \u201cIt\u2019s either we fund or we don\u2019t train.\u201d<\/p>\n
Aside from the matter of funds, the lack of a clear working relationship between the state and the Army, as well as state oversight, has already caused some friction between the two. At the March meeting, staff from both NARS and the Army expressed their respect for the work that each does and discussed how closely they have worked together until now. Still, both sides expressed the opinion that the status quo needed to change.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt became clear a couple of years ago we were being overwhelmed,\u201d said O\u2018ahu NARS manager Liesemeyer. He noted that his staff had decreased last year from five to three. \u201cIn some cases, we\u2019d like to have an escort for Army staff,\u201d he said, adding that already, Takahama spent 75 percent of his time last year dealing with the Army.<\/p>\n
He also said that some of the Army\u2019s outplanting projects may not coincide with NARS goals. For example, under the Makua Implementation Plan, introduced populations have to be a certain distance apart.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we wanted to plant a similar species close by, the Makua plan may preclude that,\u201d he said, adding that the Army\u2019s weeding near certain populations versus the whole NAR is a concern, as is the sheer number of people potentially working in the area (the Army has a field crew of about two dozen, seven of whom could be dedicated to working on state land, Kawelo said).<\/p>\n
The Army and the state have discussed entering into a Memorandum of Under standing and possible permit conditions to remedy these concerns, but so far, nothing has been formalized. DOFAW botanist Vicki Caraway says an MOU has been bounced back and forth a lot over the past year, but because the O\u2018ahu implementation plan is not yet complete, the MOU has not been as specific as DOFAW staff would like. And because the plan has grown and changed over time, Liesemeyer didn\u2019t seem comfortable at the March meeting agreeing to an MOU for a plan that\u2019s in flux.<\/p>\n
At that meeting, Liesemeyer told the Army and the NARS Commission, \u201cWe want veto power over certain projects; we want advance notice of a project and what staff will be involved, the term and extent of the project, and flexibility to bargain. If they help us, we\u2019ll help them.\u201d<\/p>\n
Upon hearing staff concerns, Jacobi said the military is \u201can invited guest in the house,\u201d and the state was clearly in the driver\u2019s seat. He said that with the subtractive work (weed, pest removal), there should be few problems, but acknowledged concerns over the outplanting: \u201cCreating a botanical garden to meet someone\u2019s goal, that is a potential prob lem.\u201d<\/p>\n
Because the NARS is so understaffed, it was suggested that a liaison or extra field person be hired, perhaps through the Re search Corporation of the University of Hawai\u2018i. \u201cI do hope it can be worked out,\u201d Caraway said. \u201cI think it can, but I think it will take some time.\u201d<\/p>\n
The NARS Commission did not approve the Army\u2019s application in March, given the unresolved issues among NARS, DOFAW, and Army staff. Whether the Army will cease working in the NARS until it gets a special use permit is unclear. The Army had not re sponded to questions by press time.<\/p>\n
NARS program manager Randy Kennedy reminded the commission that the Army\u2019s plans call for working on state lands for more than three decades. \u201cIt\u2019s a big deal,\u201d he noted. \u201cThat being said, a lot of what the Army wants to do, we want to do,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
— Teresa Dawson<\/p>\n
Volume 15, Number 10 April 2005<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When you’re swamped with work, is there such a thing as too much help? In the case of the U.S. Army’s efforts to protect endangered species in state Natural Area Reserves and forest reserves, the answer to that question depends … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[132],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-april-2005"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}