|
The KSHCP compensatory habitat mitigation strategy is based on the best available scientific data and applicable conservation principles and recognizes a natural hierarchy of ecological scales: landscape, vegetation communities, and species. Resources that are essential to planning the KSHCP compensatory mitigation strategy include the following documents as well as extensive consultations with seabird biologists:
- 2011 draft population model for the Newell's shearwater (DLNR DOFAW-under review)
- 2010 Updated Five Year Plan for Newell's shearwater
- 2010 Ranking of Seabird nesting areas on Kaua'i
- 2005 Newell’s Shearwater Five Year Plan (available in the "Background" tab of this site)
- 2005 USFWS Seabird Conservation Plan
- 2005 DLNR Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan for Hawaii
- 1983 USFWS Recovery Plan
The HCP Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1996) and other federal and state HCP guidelines and requirements indicate minimum requirements for compensatory habitat-based mitigation.
- Adequate Funding: HCPs must provide a level of funding that is sufficient to meet all aspects of the plan.
- Biological Goals and Objectives: HCPs must include biological goals (broad guiding principles for the conservation program – the rationale behind the minimization and mitigation strategies), and biological objectives (the measurable targets for achieving the biological goals). These goals and objectives must be based on the best scientific information available and are used to guide conservation strategies for species covered by the plan.
- Monitoring: Monitoring is a mandatory element of all HCPs under the Five-Point Policy. As such, an HCP must provide for monitoring programs to gauge the effectiveness of the plan in meeting the biological goals and objectives, and to verify that the terms and conditions of the plan are being properly implemented.
- Adaptive Management: Federal and state policies encourage the development of adaptive management plans as part of the HCP process. Adaptive management is an integrated method for addressing biological uncertainty and devising alternative strategies for meeting biological goals and objectives. An adaptive management strategy is essential for HCPs that would otherwise pose a significant risk to the covered species due to significant information gaps.
An Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan (AMMP) will be developed as part of the HCP planning progresses. The AMMP will take into account the limitations of the current baseline data through “adaptive” management strategies and will detail the management principles and strategies to protect the Covered Species and their habitats.
Monitoring activities will be coordinated closely with ongoing KESRP (Kauai Endangered Seabird Recovery Project) activities to assess progress toward achieving the biological goals and objectives of the KSHCP. The AMMP will identify the most appropriate variables to be measured and appropriate timescales from which to measure success. The flow of biological data will be used to adjust or “adapt” the conservation program as necessary or useful to meet the overall goals and objectives.
The KSHCP Staff in consultation with DLNR, USFWS, and local and regional seabird experts, will identify and select appropriate measures to mitigate for potential takings of the three Covered Species. The following criteria have been established to develop preferred mitigation planning (not listed in order of priority):
- Mitigation levels of Applicants will be commensurate with the currently anticipated take and will be combined for all Applicants;
- Mitigation measures that serve to directly “replace” individuals that may be taken (e.g., by improving breeding success or adult and juvenile survival) are preferred, although efforts to improve the knowledge base for poorly documented species also have merit, particularly when the information to be gained can benefit future efforts to improve survival and productivity;
- Mitigation funds and planning resource can be combined and leveraged with other Seabird HCPs on Kauai to achieve the greatest combined benefit for the covered species and other native plants and animals;
- Mitigation efforts for the KSHCP will be tightly linked to and consistent with or otherwise advance the strategies of the respective species’ draft or approved recovery plans;
- Mitigation must be species-specific;
- Re-creation of defunct sites may be considered;
- Mitigation measures will have measurable goals and objectives that allow success to be assessed;
- Mitigation measures shall be practicable and capable of being done given currently available technology and information and within the biologically tied monitoring timeframes;
- Mitigation plans will seek to incorporate flexibility to adjust to changes in the level of take according to new information gained by KSHCP Applicants as they monitor success of avoidance and minimization efforts;
- Mitigation measures to protect breeding or nesting areas for birds through private partnerships are preferred, since the KSHCP mitigation funds cannot be used for mitigation efforts on federal lands;
- Measures to decrease the level of take resulting from a private activity are not preferred as mitigation (e.g., rescue/rehabilitation of downed seabirds); and
- Alternate or supplemental mitigation measures will be identified for future implementation if the level of take is found to be higher (or lower) as a result of monitoring.
Colony protection: This type of mitigation is defined here as the action of preserving and managing extremely high quality seabird colonies with intact (pristine) vegetation and animal communities. These areas are most likely to support all three covered species.
Colony restoration: This mitigation strategy targets areas of good to moderate habitat quality and with all or most of the covered species present.
Combination of Protection and Restoration: Some areas may offer opportunities to protect some core extremely pristine areas while also managing adjacent areas that have been degraded. Restoration of the degraded areas protects the pristine areas from degradation and increases seabird production in the overall area. This a common strategy in use around the world due to human encroachment into nesting areas and the high importance of preserving core habitats that are in relatively pristine condition.
Colony re-creation: This strategy involves finding a site that has supported seabirds in the past but presently has very few or no covered species nesting on site and engaging in long term management designed to re-colonize the area with the covered species. This strategy requires willing landowner partnerships, birds flying over the area, accessibility, and potential source population from which source birds can be obtained.
Seabird translocation: use of this strategy would require moving prefledging chicks to new burrows in a predator proof area so that a colony could be established and monitored in the new area.
Associated with habitat preservation and restoration are activities such as nest site protection, eradication or control of predators, eradication and control of non-native vegetation, restoration of native/preferred vegetation communities. The KSHCP-CP would use funds to accomplish the following actions to benefit nesting colonies of Covered Species with an additional goal of benefiting other rare and endemic plants and animals potentially occupying the habitat.
- Mammal eradication: not highly feasible, except perhaps on an islet;
- Mammal control: high priority action for Kauai sites;
- Invasive plant removal: not highly feasible, except perhaps on an islet;
- Invasive plant control: priority action for Kauai sites;
- Planting native plants: priority action for Kauai sites; and
- Fencing: biologically a desirable action, however, site-specific conditions affect feasibility.
The KSHCP-CP considers the following options as part of the spectrum of actions that may be taken to conserve covered species.
Research. Research questions regarding the Covered Species are high priorities for scientists, resource agencies and land management entities. Understanding basic seabird ecology is fundamental to management of conservation actions that effectively protect and restore target species such as Newell’s shearwater and Hawaiian petrel. It is possible that the following actions may be considered for the KSHCP:
- Funding key research questions with strong nexus to restoration/colony management ;
- Funding key research questions with strong nexus to population monitoring;
- Funding light attraction research; and
- Funding research of “at sea” threats.
Captive Propagation and Release. A strategy used as a last resort when population levels are perilously close to extinction. This option would be a last resort to save a species and would be among the most expensive to undertake.
It is first essential to link mitigation sites and actions directly to species recovery goals. The KESRP 2008 Work Plan, the 2005 Newell’s Shearwater Five-year Work Plan, and the 2005 USFWS Seabird Conservation Plan provide the best available science used to guide the KSHCP Mitigation. The recovery strategy for the Newell’s shearwater includes four components to reduce mortality and maintain or increase suitable nesting habitat: provide long-term protection for the known nesting colonies, develop effective predator control methods for use in and around nesting colonies, and prevent alien plant species from invading current nesting colonies and control alien plants already present.
As the aim of this document is to help initiate the discussion of mitigation priorities, KSHCP staff invite feedback from the coordination group. After reviewing feedback, the coordination group will meet for consensus on the KSHCP-CP goals and objectives. In addition to the review of feedback, KSHCP staff will develop a cost scheme for the mitigation plan.
The KSHCP staff suggests formulating a process to evaluate, compare, and rank mitigation strategies for the KSHCP-CP using criteria that account for the following parameters:
- Biological value (presence of target species, relative population size of target species, size of land area, location relative to risk sources/stresses on populations, integrity and condition of the native vegetation, absence of invasive species)
- Biological obstacles (abundance of predators and ungulates, moderate to severe degradation of plant communities and the larger watershed, extent of invasive plant establishment and species involved)
- Political feasibility/value (partners, existing management plan)
- Political obstacles (time, money, other priorities, confusion, differing priorities)
- Costs (high, med, low)
- Existing Habitat or Ecosystem Management Programs (may benefit implementation if they exist, may slow mitigation if they do not exist)
|
