The Hawai`i-Pacific Islands Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit &Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI`I AT MĀNOA
Dr. David C. Duffy, Unit Leader
Department of Botany3190 Maile Way, St. John #408
Honolulu, Hawai’i 96822

Technical Report 191

Maunakea Invasive Species Management Plan
February 2015

Casper Vanderwoude1, Frederick Klasner2, Jessica Kirkpatrick2, Springer Kaye3

1

Hawai‘i Ant Lab, Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawai’i, 16 E. Lanikaula St. Hilo, HI
96720. Email: casperv@hawaii.edu
2
Office of Mauna Kea Management 640 N. A‘ohōkū Place. Hilo, HI 96720
3
Big Island Invasive Species Committee 23 E. Kawili St. Hilo, HI 96720

PCSU is a cooperative program between the University of Hawai`i and U.S. National Park Service,
Cooperative Ecological Studies Unit.
Organization Contact Information:
Casper Vanderwoude, casperv@hawaii.edu
Recommended Citation:
Vanderwoude, C., F. Klasner, J. Kirkpatrick and S. Kaye. 2015. Maunakea Invasive Species Management
Plan. Technical Report No. 191. Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu,
Hawai‘i. 84 pp.
Key words:
Invasive species, IAS, management plan, weeds, prevention, response, monitoring
Place key words:
Hawaii, Mauna Kea, Maunakea Science Reserve, Halepōhaku, astronomy precinct, Office of Maunakea
Management

Editor: David C. Duffy, PCSU Unit Leader (Email: dduffy@hawaii.edu)
Series Editor: Clifford W. Morden, PCSU Deputy Director (Email: cmorden@hawaii.edu)
About this technical report series:
This technical report series began in 1973 with the formation of the Cooperative National Park Resources
Studies Unit at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa. In 2000, it continued under the Pacific Cooperative
Studies Unit (PCSU).
The Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa works to protect
cultural and natural biodiversity in the Pacific while encouraging a sustainable economy. PCSU works
cooperatively with private, state and federal land management organizations, allowing them to pool andcoordinate their efforts to address problems across the landscape.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................................... 4
Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Background................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Organization ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Geography of the Management Area ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Halepōhaku ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8Road Corridor .................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Astronomy Precinct ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Mauna Kea Science Reserve ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Natural Area Reserve (NAR) ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Policies for Management of Invasive Species on Maunakea .................................................................................................10

Section 2. Prevention .......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Potential Invasive Species: Threats and Impacts ......................................................................................................................11

Plants ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Vertebrates ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Traits of Invasive Ants ............................................................................................................................................... 14

Potential Threat Pathways ..................................................................................................................................................................18

Vehicles and Vessels ................................................................................................................................................... 19
Goods and Other Commodities .............................................................................................................................. 19
People ............................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Regulated Pathways ...............................................................................................................................................................................19

Vehicles and Vessels ................................................................................................................................................... 20
Commodities .................................................................................................................................................................. 20
People and Possessions ............................................................................................................................................. 20
Non‐Regulated Pathways .....................................................................................................................................................................21

Vehicles and Vessels ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Commodities .................................................................................................................................................................. 21
People and Possessions ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Analysis of Threat Pathways and Proposed Management Options ...................................................................................21
Recommended Prevention Strategy ................................................................................................................................................25

Section 3. Monitoring for New and Established Invasive Species .................................................................... 29
General Principles....................................................................................................................................................................................29
Analysis of Risk: Management Zones ..............................................................................................................................................29

Halepōhaku .................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Roadway Corridor ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Astronomy Precinct .................................................................................................................................................... 30
Mauna Kea Science Reserve .................................................................................................................................... 31

Analysis of Risk: Potential Threat Species ....................................................................................................................................33

Plants ................................................................................................................................................................................ 33
Vertebrates ..................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Arthropods ..................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Section 4. Control of Established Invasive Species .................................................................................................. 44

General Principles....................................................................................................................................................................................44
Legislation and Regulatory Requirements ...................................................................................................................................45

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ................................................................................................. 45
Hawai‘i Department of Agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 45
Hawai‘i Department of Health ................................................................................................................................ 46
Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources.................................................................................... 46
Other Considerations for Pesticide Use on Maunakea ................................................................................. 46
P a g e 2 | 84

Control Methods .......................................................................................................................................................................................46

Plants ................................................................................................................................................................................ 47
Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Site and Species Priorities ....................................................................................................................................................................50
Invasive Species Control Plans...........................................................................................................................................................53

Established Plant Species ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Established Arthropods ............................................................................................................................................ 57
High‐Priority Arthropod Threats .......................................................................................................................... 59
Section 5. Rapid Response ................................................................................................................................................. 62

Background.................................................................................................................................................................................................62
Outline...........................................................................................................................................................................................................62
Pre‐Incursion Planning .........................................................................................................................................................................63

Legislative Power to Act ........................................................................................................................................... 63
Registration and Permits to Apply Control Chemicals ................................................................................. 63
Availability of Chemicals and Application Equipment ................................................................................. 64
Access to Emergency Funds .................................................................................................................................... 64

Initial Detection and Response ..........................................................................................................................................................64

The Emergency Response Management Committee ..................................................................................... 64
Roles and Responsibilities ....................................................................................................................................... 68

Delimiting Survey ....................................................................................................................................................................................71
Draft Management Plan.........................................................................................................................................................................72

Surveillance Plan.......................................................................................................................................................... 73
Treatment ....................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Communications .......................................................................................................................................................... 74
Movement Controls..................................................................................................................................................... 74
Budget .............................................................................................................................................................................. 74
Research Priorities ...................................................................................................................................................... 75
Organizational Structure. .....................................................................................................................................................................75

The NRP Manager ........................................................................................................................................................ 76
Operations Manager ................................................................................................................................................... 76
The Field Controller .................................................................................................................................................... 77
The Finance Officer ..................................................................................................................................................... 77
Communication Officer ............................................................................................................................................. 78
The Technical Adviser: .............................................................................................................................................. 78
The Surveillance and Treatment Teams: ........................................................................................................... 78
Area Freedom/Pest Freedom .............................................................................................................................................................78

References ................................................................................................................................................................................ 80
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................... 83
List of Standard Operating Procedures ..........................................................................................................................................83

P a g e 3 | 84

Section 1. Introduction and Background
Foreword
The Maunakea Invasive Species Management Plan documents the objectives, policies andprocedures of the Office of Mauna Kea Management for the prevention, detection and managementof invasive plant and animal species on lands managed by the University of Hawai‘i on Maunakea.
The development and implementation of this plan supports the Office of Mauna Kea Management
mission to achieve harmony, balance, and trust in the sustainable management and stewardship of
UH managed lands (Mauna Kea Science Reserve and Halepōhaku) through community involvement
and programs that protect, preserve, and enhance the natural, cultural, and recreational resourcesof Maunakea while providing a world class center dedicated to education, research andastronomy(1).
This document has been developed with the following guiding principles:1.

The high elevation areas of Maunakea are unique in the world, and the evolutionary
processes, biodiversity and beauty of this area should be preserved in perpetuity,

2.

There are no firm boundaries between the natural, cultural, recreational, or scientificresources of Maunakea and that all may be negatively impacted by invasive species,

3.

Prevention and early detection is the most effective defense against the entry and spread ofinvasive species,

4.

Planning and implementation of invasive species prevention and control programs are
improved by input from, and participation by, the broader community and shouldincorporate the principles of adaptive management,

5.

Management actions should be selected after careful cultural and scientific consideration of
the risks and benefits of those actions against the survival and evolution in perpetuity, ofthe unique geology, flora, fauna and cultural values of Maunakea, at species, ecosystem andlandscape scales,6.

All organisms are potential invasive species. The emphasis of this plan is on plants,
invertebrates, and small mammals. Management of wildlife, such as game mammals andbirds, are addressed in keeping with State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural
Resources policies for Maunakea. These policies may conflict with those outlined in thisplan.

Background
The Mauna Kea Science Reserve and Halepōhaku are 11,288‐acre and 19‐acre (respectively) areasof land leased by the University of Hawai‘i from the State of Hawai‘i for use as a scientific complex.
In addition, the University has an easement for access between these two areas, referred to as theSummit Access Road Corridor. Management is guided by the 2009 Mauna Kea Comprehensive
P a g e 4 | 84

Management Plan(2) which provides the policy framework for the responsible stewardship and useof University‐managed lands on Maunakea through to 2020. The Comprehensive Management Planaddresses the overall management of cultural, natural, research and recreational values of the
precinct. It recognizes the threat posed by invasive species and mandates the development of an“invasive species prevention and control program” (p7‐15, Management Action NR2).
The management policies for the natural values of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve are outlined in
the Mauna Kea Natural Resources Management Plan(3) which forms a sub plan of theComprehensive Management Plan. This plan recognizes the threat and potential impact that non‐native plants, animals and diseases can have on the unique and delicate ecosystems of Maunakea. It
recommends the development of an invasive species management plan as a component of the“Threat Prevention and Control” strategy.
The five objectives listed in the Natural Resources Management Plan related to invasive species
management are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Prevent the introduction of new invasive species into the Mauna Kea Science Reserve,
Develop an early detection plan for invasive species within the management area,
Monitor established invasive species population and distribution,
Develop a rapid response program for incipient invasive species, andControl established invasive species in sensitive areas.

This invasive species management plan also fulfills some of the requirements of the Hawai‘iAdministrative Rules (HAR) and other statutes which either require or encourage consideration ofinvasive species concerns with other programs:
1. HAR 13‐5‐22 – Identified Land Uses in the Protective Subzone, P‐4 Removal of Invasive Species.
(While the University managed lands on Maunakea are in the resource subzone, all identified
land uses and their associated permit or site plan approval requirements listed for theprotective and limited subzones also apply to the resource subzone, unless otherwise noted.),2. State Historic Preservation – invasive species management activities are designed to minimize
impacts to historic resources, both by invasive species themselves and from control efforts, and3. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) requirements apply to any animal
activities (IACUCs are a self‐regulating entities that, according to U.S. federal law, must be
established by institutions that use laboratory animals for research or instructional purposes tooversee and evaluate all aspects of the institution's animal care and use program.

Organization
This plan forms a component plan of the Natural Resources Management Plan(3). It should be read
within the context of this plan, and the parent Comprehensive Management Plan(2). Unless deemednecessary for clarity, information already found within either parent plan shall not be duplicatedhere. This document is presented in two major parts:

P a g e 5 | 84

1. The invasive species plan, containing the Office of Mauna Kea Management policies andgeneral procedures as they apply to invasive species. As land zoned Conservation, Resource
subzone – affecting an area greater than one acre – this portion of the plan requires siteplan approval by the State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land & Natural Resources (Hawai‘iAdministrative Rules, Chapter 13‐5, August 2011), and
2. A series of appendices describing specific standards, activities and standard operatingprocedures required to fulfill the Office of Mauna Kea Management invasive species plan.
These may alter from time to time as new methodologies are developed through theadaptive management process. The Office of Mauna Kea Management proposes that thesechanges be endorsed by the Mauna Kea Management Board and then submitted to the Stateof Hawai‘i, Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands (OCCL) for review and approval before
formal adoption.
Education and outreach, addressing guiding principles such as obtaining input from, andparticipation by, the broader community (outside of cultural, recreation, and scientific users of
Maunakea) is not directly addressed here. The Office of Mauna Kea Management anticipates
preparing a programmatic document in the future which will include invasive species concerns as acommunity communication concern. A broad invasive species outreach strategy that engages theimmediate cultural, recreation, and scientific users of Maunakea is appended.
As a policy document, it is likely to be read by people from a variety of backgrounds. In order toimprove clarity for all readers, referencing and the use of scientific terms have been kept to aminimum.

Geography of the Management Area

For the purposes of this plan, the management area will be divided into five management zones,
determined by the degree of risk each area poses to the entry of invasive species and the level of
early detection or response activities required. These management zones are: 1) the Halepōhaku
Visitor Information Station, 2) the road corridor to the summit, 3) the Astronomy Precinct, 4)
Science Reserve, and 5) the Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve (NAR, managed by theDivision of Forestry & Wildlife). These are outlined in the Figures below.

P a g e 6 | 84

Figure 1.1. Map of the island of Hawai‘i showing location of theMaunakea Management area.

Figure1.2:

Aerial

view

of

the

Mauna

Kea

Science

Reserve.

P a g e 7 | 84

HALEPŌHAKU
Situated at 9,200 ft. elevation, the mid‐level facilities at Halepōhaku (TMK (3) 4‐4‐15:12) comprise19.3 adjacent to the Summit Access Road. The entire parcel will be referred to as “Halepōhaku” inthis document. The facilities include dormitories, a commons building, a construction camp,
maintenance facility, and the Visitor Information Station (VIS). Both Halepōhaku and the VIS serve
as a rest stop for staff and visitors, respectively, to acclimate before progressing to the summit. The
VIS offers a gift shop, restrooms, and stargazing to over 500 visitors per day, 365 nights per year.

ROAD CORRIDORThe Road Management Corridor as shown in Figure 1.2 extends from the top of the HP parcel to thebottom of the Science Reserve. While the actual Summit Access Road extends from the bottom of
the HP parcel 8.3 miles to the Maunakea Summit, the lower 4.6 miles of which are unpaved. A 400‐
yard wide easement on either side of the road is described in the 1995 Management Plan, excluding
portions inside the NAR. Acreage includes approximately 45‐acres of road bed and 700‐acres ofeasement.

ASTRONOMY PRECINCTThe 525‐acre Astronomy Precinct, situated at the summit, was designated for the consolidation ofastronomy facilities and support infrastructure in the University’s 2000 Master Plan. All but one
existing observatory (the VLBA) are found within its borders, including the sites designated for the
proposed Thirty‐Meter Telescope(4). The area is second only to Halepōhaku in human activity,
which includes commercial tours, hiking, sightseeing, cultural expression, research, and snow play.

MAUNA KEA SCIENCE RESERVE
The largest portion of the UH Managed Lands is the Mauna Kea Science Reserve (MKSR) (TMK: (3)4‐4‐15:09). The land is leased from the Department of Land and Natural Resource (DLNR) by the
University of Hawai‘i (UH). In its current form, the MKSR encompasses 11,288‐acre of state land
above approximately 11,500 ft elevation designated as a scientific complex. All MKSR lands outsideof the 525‐acre Astronomy Precinct are set aside as a Natural and Cultural Preservation Area.
The Summit Access Road is the only maintained road into the area, so that accessing much of the
MKSR requires an arduous hike across the stone desert. Hiking time from the Astronomy Precinct
to the outer edges of the Science Reserve is approximately four hours. Two unpaved hunting roads,
shown as Skyline Drive and Maunakea Hunters Road (R‐1) on state hunting maps provide access tothe outer boundary of much of the MKSR, which is also a state hunting area. Travel time to remoteareas via four wheel drive vehicle is not much improved over hiking from the Summit.
Cultural resources in the MKSR include at least 263 historic properties and several pu‘u (cindercones) which are designated Traditional Cultural Properties, including Kūkahau‘ula, the cinder cone
cluster that comprises the summit (2).

P a g e 8 | 84

NATURAL AREA RESERVE (NAR)
The 3,894‐acre Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve (NAR) is managed by the Hawai‘i Divisionof Forestry and Wildlife, Natural Area Reserve Commission. The NAR was established in 1981 toprotect an exemplary portion of invertebrate‐dominated aeolian desert and the state’s only alpine
lake, Lake Wai‘au. Prior to its establishment, the NAR had been part of the MKSR. The boundary
follows the west side of the Summit Access Road, creating a large wedge, extending fromapproximately 10,000 ft to 13,441 ft, just below the summit. A second 143.5‐acre square parcel isseparately located around Pu‘upōhaku, which also holds an ephemeral water source.
The Natural Area Reserves represent the highest level of habitat protection in the state land
management system. Human activity in the NAR is restricted to hiking and observation of nature,
permitted research, and staff management activities, which include monitoring and ungulate
control. Under a 2008 cooperative agreement between OMKM and the Natural Area Reserves
System (DLNR), OMKM provides visitor assistance using OMKM rangers, engages in joint researchand educational efforts, and reports violations occurring in the NAR.
Lake Wai‘au and its access trail (Maunakea‐Humu‘ula Trail) are of particular concern for invasive
species establishment, due to both high levels of visitation and the constant water source.
Introduced common dandelion (Taraxicum officinale) and two invasive carabid beetle (Agonum c.f.
muelleri and Trechus obtusus) are established near the lake. Management of weeds along Summit
Access Road requires coordination with the NAR, as OMKM jurisdiction ends at the road edge
adjacent to the NAR and much of the power line easement for Maunakea extends through the NAR.
The actions specified in this plan that occur in the NAR, require OMKM to obtain NAR permits andare otherwise conducted only with the explicit approval of NAR management.

P a g e 9 | 84

Policies for Management of Invasive Species on Maunakea
The areas covered by this management plan include the Mauna Kea Science Reserve,
Halepōhaku, the Astronomy precinct, the NAR and the Summit Access Road Corridor and shallbe referred to in this document collectively as the “Management Area”. Management of invasive
species within this area (whether established or potential threats), will be accomplished using arisk management approach. Risk management approaches recognize that the probability of an
unwanted event occurring is difficult to quantify and rarely possible to prevent absolutely. A
risk management approach attempts to balance the relative severity of a particular risk with thedegree of effort needed to reduce the probability of its occurrence to a desired orpredetermined level. One precept of this approach is that reduction of a particular risk to zerois not usually possible or practical. Further, the process should be transparent and inclusive,
based on the best available data, open to change as new information becomes available andguided by the principle of continuous improvement.
There are five logical steps in the risk management process:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Identify potential threats,
Assess the impacts of these threats,
Determine the relative probability of occurrence,
Identify management options that reduce these threats, andPrioritize management options based on return for effort and predetermined risk thresh‐holds.

P a g e 10 | 84

Section 2. Prevention
The keystone of this invasive species management plan is a strategy that prevents entry of newinvasive species to the Management Area. Investment in prevention activities offers the greatest
return for effort and should therefore take a high priority.

Potential Invasive Species: Threats and Impacts
PLANTS
Plants include grasses, herbs, vines, trees, fungi and legumes. Invasive plants can be spread via
natural dispersal such as seeds caught in ungulate coats, carried on the wind, or through watererosion. However, the risk of accidental introduction is greater when vectored by people travelingto and from the Management Area on foot or in vehicles, buses, or via earthmoving equipment.
Invasive plants tend to thrive in new locations due to a lack of the insects, diseases, and predatorsthat usually control the species in its native habitat (5). Without these natural inhibitors, the plants
are able to spread aggressively. Spread is facilitated by a high rate of seed production, rapid growth
to maturity, tolerance of different soil types and climate. Invasive plant species can create
environment‐altering impacts such as fire regime shifts, shade manipulation, lowering of thegroundwater table and overcrowding. When invasive species become established, the entire
ecosystem can potentially change as native plant species decline. Without native plant species, thenative fauna that rely on these plants for food, shelter and hosts of prey items may be unable tosurvive.
Traits of invasive plants
Invasive plant species tend to have no natural enemies that regulate them in their new environment
when compared with native plant species that are balanced by native viruses, insects, and/or
herbivores. Without these checks and balances, invasive species often thrive in new environments
to the detriment of the native species already present(6).
Invasive plants often have short life cycles, which allows them to mature and reproduce more
quickly than their native counterparts. This trait allows them to outnumber native plants in seedproduction, thus ensuring a competitive advantage. Invasive plant species also produce foliage andstay actively growing for longer periods. This allows for higher photosynthetic rates for longer
periods of time, which, in turn, contributes to earlier maturity and seed production.
Many invasive plant species have a greater production rate of seeds which allows newly invasiveplants to establish quickly with numerous offspring dispersed across large areas. Spread is aided byeffective seed dispersal methods. Some species reproduce by vegetative means, and disperse by
underground stems and cuttings that provide more opportunities for the plant to spread andmultiply. Invasive species tend to evade grazing, often due to a lack of palatability to herbivores,
while native species continue to be consumed yielding more room for the spread of introduced
plants. Some invasive plant species are allelopathic, releasing chemicals into the soil that suppress
growth of other plants(7). They can also produce more shade than competing native plants, which

P a g e 11 | 84

allows them to absorb sunlight more efficiently compared with native species in the understory.
Finally, invasive plants tend to have long seed dormancy and staggered germination that give these
species greater flexibility in germination and seasonality. These traits all contribute to the rapid
spread of many invasive plant species.
Without a natural checks and balances system for invasive plant species, these plants have moreenergy they can use for growth and reproduction that would have otherwise been used to fight off
diseases or heal from herbivores. Therefore, deep root systems can be developed relatively rapidly
and early, which allows for a larger amount of water uptake from the soil. Not only does thisprovide the plant with more resources for energy production, but it also allows the plant tooutcompete other natives trying to survive. These invasive plants produce dense root masses thatprevent other native root establishment while producing a high capacity for carbohydrate storage
in the roots. These dense root mats make control efforts difficult as their removal can be physicallydifficult and leave the area with highly erodible loose soils.
Target Species
The entry or establishment of any new plant species within the Management Area is undesirable.
For prevention purposes, it is often difficult to identify potential propagative material (seeds,
cuttings, seedlings etc.) at points of entry. Therefore, the most effective approach is to apply the“precautionary principle” to the entry of plant propagative material and assume all seeds, cuttings,
seedling etc. are to be excluded from the Management Area.

VERTEBRATES
Several vertebrate groups are potentially invasive within the Maunakea Management Area, and aredescribed below.
Cats.
A feral cat is a domesticated cat that has returned to the wild, or the descendants of such an animal.
It is distinguished from a stray cat, which is a pet cat that has been lost or abandoned, while feral
cats are born in the wild. The offspring of a stray cat can be considered feral if born in the wild. For
the purposes of this plan, there is no distinction between feral and stray cats as their impacts willbe identical. Cats introduced into areas in which they are not indigenous often cause harm to local
environments by preying on local species. This is particularly true on islands, where feral cats havesometimes had a substantial and deleterious effect on the local fauna, especially birds. With thepaucity of game animals and native birds within the Management Area, any cats present there arelikely to turn to smaller prey such as invertebrates. Currently, cats are sparse at ~9,200 ft andabove. They are occasionally observed, most commonly in late spring with green‐up.

Mongoose.
The small Asian mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) is a weasel‐like animal with a total body length ofapproximately 2 feet. It was introduced to Hawai‘i Island in the late 1800’s by sugar farmers in an
attempt to control rodents in cane plantations. Since that time, they have has spread throughout

P a g e 12 | 84the island, becoming a predator of birds and decimating native bird populations (8). They are very
rarely observed at high elevations and virtually absent above 10,000 ft.

Rabbits.
The common domestic rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is rarely seen on Hawai‘i Island, althoughoccasionally reported on land adjacent to the Management Area. While rabbits can be a devastating
pest in some locations, they are unlikely to survive within the Maunakea Management Area.
Mice and Rats.
Commensal rodents such as mice and rats are ubiquitous worldwide, often living in association
with humans. In the Maunakea Management Area, they are most commonly associated with foodpreparation and handling areas at Halepōhaku and the Astronomy Precinct.
Dogs.
No established groups of wild or feral dogs have been observed in the Management Area.
Occasionally hunting dogs become isolated from their handlers. These are usually returned to theirowners.
Reptiles, frogs and amphibians.
The climate within the Maunakea Management Area is not suited to the survival of these species.
Other than the occasional coqui frog sighting (which rapidly dessicates and dies), no reports of theirpresence are known.
Birds.
There are several invasive bird species on Hawai‘i Island. The most serious are the Indian orcommon myna (Acridotheres tristis). This species was introduced to Hawai‘i Island in 1875 and it
quickly spread to occupy most low‐elevation habitats. Indian mynas are not found above 7,500 ft
elevation and are therefore unlikely to establish within the Management Area. The Japanese white‐eye (Zosterops japonicus) is found within the Management Area however, and studies in the
Hakalau Forest National Refuge, have shown that the presence of this species in Hawaiian songbird
ecosystems stunts the growth of native bird species(9).
Feral Ungulates.
Ungulate (hooved) animals include pigs, donkeys, sheep and deer. The association of introduced
feral ungulates with the spread of invasive species and destruction of native flora on oceanic islands
is well documented in Hawai‘i and elsewhere. Ungulates graze on grasses and woody plants. The
soil disturbance caused by hooves leads to soil erosion and facilitates the establishment of invasiveplants. This management plan does not address management of feral ungulates within theManagement Area as management activities are conducted by another agency and firearms, rifles,
bows, and arrows are prohibited in the Halepōhaku area as part of the Conservation District Use
Permit (HA‐1430) for the site. However, The Office of Maunakea Management actively supports the
DLNR decision to complete the Maunakea Palila critical habitat fence in the near future (2015) andto remove all feral ungulates from the summit area promptly.

P a g e 13 | 84

INVERTEBRATES
Two invertebrate groups are potentially invasive in the Maunakea Management Area. Mollusks andarthropods are described below.
Mollusks
Terrestrial mollusks, include land snails and slugs, as there is no surface water on UH Managed
Lands aquatic mollusks are not considered in this plan. Surface waters of Lake Wai‘au andPu‘upōhaku are the responsibility of the Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve and any
observations of aquatic mollusks will be reported to the appropriate management agency. There
are no records of non‐native snails in the Management Area, although native partulid and succinea
snails are present in the Halepōhaku area. Any observations of terrestrial mollusks such as thegiant African snail (Achatina fulica) shall be reported and responded to in the same manner as
observations of invasive arthropods.
Arthropods
Arthropods include insects, spiders and related animals. Terrestrial arthropods are usually small
and often cryptic. Many species can easily travel from location to location when associated withhuman commerce and movement. Although any new arthropod would be an unwelcome addition
to the ecosystems in Maunakea, invasive ants pose one of the most serious risks.
Most arthropods are solitary creatures, only coming into meaningful contact with each other duringmating events. Therefore in order to establish in a new location, both a male and female must bepresent and they must find each other in order to mate. Ants, however, are social insects having
one or more queens and many sterile female workers per colony (10). The queen usually only matesonce in her reproductive life, and from that time onwards has the ability to produce new offspring:workers, new queens and males. Therefore, a colony or even a colony fragment with a single queen,
has everything needed to produce new colonies and maintain the original one if moved to a newlocation.
Ants tend to be small, and ant colonies are usually well‐hidden. For biosecurity purposes they form
an ideal focus group for prevention strategies(11). It is highly likely that a biosecurity program thatis able to successfully exclude invasive ants will also exclude most other crawling arthropods. For
this reason, we propose to develop the arthropod component of the Maunakea invasive species(prevention) program around the exclusion of invasive ants.

TRAITS OF INVASIVE ANTS
Of the 15,000 or so ant species known to science, only a small fraction are invasive (12). These
species share a group of behavioral adaptations that pre‐dispose them to successful relocation andestablishment (13).
Polygeny,
Polydomy and unicoloniality,
High inter‐specific aggression,
Relocation via human commerce,
P a g e 14 | 84Formation of mutualistic relationships.

Polygyny
Ants are typically monogynous. A monogynous colony consists of a single queen attended by many
worker ants. The queen is the only reproductive ant and the workers are her daughters ‐ sterile
females. At times through the year, new queens are produced along with males. These fly from thenest at pre‐determined times, mate in flight, and the newly mated queens land to form newcolonies. Workers do not tolerate more than one queen per colony. Should two or more queens bepresent, the worker ants will assassinate the weaker queens.
Many invasive ant species are polygynous. Colonies of these species can contain many queens, andworkers do not appear to distinguish between them or attempt to assassinate surplus queens. Thisfeature gives colonies two competitive advantages. First, the founding phase of a new colony
carries a high risk of failure. A newly mated queen needs to lay an initial clutch of eggs, care forthem until the larvae reach adulthood, before focusing exclusively on egg‐laying. New queens often
suffer from predation or fail to raise sufficient workers to form a colony. For many invasive ant
species, newly mated queens simply re‐enter the parental colony, or move a short distance withexisting workers to found a new colony. The probability of successful colony founding is muchgreater. As a result, most invasive ant species no longer need to take part in nuptial flights, insteadmating within the nest.
The second advantage of polygyny is that the task of egg laying is now shared between a number ofqueens. This bestows a degree of redundancy for colony survival. In single queen colonies, thedeath of the queen heralds the end of the colony. Without new workers, the colony will decline anddie. However, in multiple queen colonies, the death of one or more queens has no lasting effect on
egg production. Remaining queens simply increase their rate of egg laying to compensate. Thisfeature makes control of these species especially problematic. Many control methods focus on
killing the queen for success. When many queens are present, this task becomes much moredifficult.
Polydomy and Unicoloniality
Ant colonies, even from the same species, are highly competitive and expend great resources todefend their territory and resources. Large amounts of energy may be expended in this activity.
The importance of this battle for survival and territory should not be under‐estimated. Almost allinvasive ants share the traits of polydomy and unicoloniality which dramatically reduces the costsof survival.
Colonies of the same species of invasive ants, however, do not compete with each other. They work
cooperatively, share food, workers, brood and queens. In this way they form a network ofconnected colonies that together exclude all other ant species. Territorial defense is only needed at
the outer edges rather than around each individual colony. This network of interconnectedcolonies is often called a “super‐colony”. Resources no longer need to be defended, and the energy
previously used for defense is re‐allocated to colony expansion. This aspect of invasive ant
behavior is key to its invasive ability.

P a g e 15 | 84

Inter‐Specific Aggression
Coupled with the within‐species cooperation is an aggressive defense of the entire super‐colony.
Any ants from another species that happens to be within the supercolony is overcome by sheer
weight of numbers, and it is rare to find any other ant species within areas where an invasive ant
species has become established.
Dispersal Ability
Most ant species disperse after mating; newly mated winged queens fly to other locations andestablish new colonies. In contrast, most invasive ant species do not disperse by flight. Invasive
ants only need a small colony of a few workers and one reproductive queen to be able to establish
at a new location. Often, a complete colony is able to fit comfortably into an area smaller than amatch‐box. Increasing rates and volumes of human commerce provide the vector needed forinvasive ants to move from location to location with little effort. This feature allows them to spreadover long distances with little effort, or shorter distances through the movement of items such as
potted plants, produce or other risk items.
Mutualisms
Another vital key to the success of invasive ants is their ability to capture and redirect sources ofenergy to themselves. One very important method these species utilize is via the formation ofmutualistic relationships with homoptera (scales, mealybugs and other plant pests). Invasive ants
“farm” these animals, protect them from natural predators and consume the sugary exudates thesecreatures produce. The additional energy this provides the colony is the fuel needed for further
expansion and ecological dominance and one reason for their ability to form populations far more
numerous than the ants they displace. Without access to these additional resources, population
densities would be much lower.

Target Ant Species
Argentine Ants
The scientific name for the Argentine ant is Linepithema humile. Until recently it was known as
Iridomyrmex humilis. Worldwide it is known as the Argentine ant. As its name suggests, this species
was originally from South America with its native range centered on the Paraná river catchment
which spans Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina. Argentine ants have been widely distributed byhuman commerce during the early part of the 20th century and are now found worldwide,
including Europe, USA, South America, Australia, Africa and Asia as well as many islands in the
Pacific. It is a common species on all the islands of Hawai‘i and is usually found at mid‐highelevations, including sub‐alpine portions of Haleakalā National Park (~9,700 ft). Sites closest to the
Maunakea Management Area include: along the Saddle Road (including the Pu‘uhuluhulu parkinglot), Keanakolu‐Mana Road, and in Pōhakuloa Training Area. At lower elevations, it is out‐competedby big‐headed ants (Pheidole megacephala). This species prefers a Mediterranean climate withwarm dry summers and cool wet winters. However, in the absence of competition from other ant
species, it can establish and thrive in warmer and cooler climates. Argentine ants are a serious
ecological pest, disrupting native ecosystems and is also a structural pest – often invading homes
and urban buildings.
P a g e 16 | 84

Little Fire Ants
The scientific name for this species is Wasmannia auropunctata. Around the world it is also known
as the “cocoa tree ant” and the “electric ant”. Little fire ants (LFA) are originally from SouthAmerica, east of the Andes. It has been spreading throughout the tropics and sub‐tropics for over
100 years(14). USA (Florida), Caribbean islands, west Africa, Israel, Papua New Guinea, Solomon
Islands, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Hawai‘i (Big Island and Kaua‘i), Australia, Galapagos, andGuam.
On the island of Hawai‘i, it is common and widespread from Kalapana to Laupāhoehoe up to anelevation of 2,000 ft and more sparsely distributed along the west coast between Kailua‐Kona andNa‘alehu. Small populations have been found on Maui, Kaua‘i and O‘ahu. They prefer sites that are
shaded, warm and moist, and generally avoid full sunlight. The association between little fire ants
and homopteran plant pests can cause damage to the host plants and reduce productivity of fruiting
trees and reduced growth of ornamental plants. Additionally, Little Fire Ants have a painful sting,and infested sites often have many millions of these ants per acre. Ants foraging on vegetation often
fall to the ground and on people or pets. It is common for people in infested areas to suffer repeatedstings on the neck, shoulders and torso.
White‐Footed Ants
The scientific name for the white footed ant is Technomyrmex dificilis. This ant was previously
identified as Technomyrmex albipes until 2007. It is also known as the “black house” ant around theworld. Native to Southeast Asia, white footed ants have spread throughout the world mainly
through the transport of cargo and other commodities. USA (Florida, South Carolina, Georgia,
Louisiana, Hawai‘i), Antigua, Nevis, Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas. In Hawai‘i WFA is
currently known from Maui, O‘ahu and Kaho‘olawe. This species is a part of group of Technomyrmex
species that look almost identical to one another, so it is probable this species may be establishedon other Hawaiian Islands. White footed ants will nest in almost any location inside and outside of
the house including under roofs, cardboard boxes, compost piles, potted plants, outdoor furniture,
etc… but trees seem to be ideal. Colony sizes can range from 400,000 to 3 million individuals.
Because of the enormous size of the colonies, large amounts of food are essential to sustain the
populations. WFA will feed on a wide variety of food sources including sugary substances, trophic
eggs laid by worker ants and dead insects. White footed ants do not bite or sting. They are
considered a pest primarily due to their high population densities and are also known to tend
homopertan plant pests such as scale insects, aphids and mealy bugs and feeding on the sweet
sugary honeydew produced by these insects. It has been documented that this association has
contributed to the spread of several serious plant diseases around the world.
Singapore Ants
The scientific name for the Singapore ant is Monomorium destructor. It is also commonly known as
the “destructive trailing ant” and “mizo‐hime‐ari” (Japan) around the world. Singapore ants arenative to India, Japan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka and have spread to Australasia‐Pacific, North
America, South America, Africa, Laysan, French Frigate Shoals, and Hawai‘i. They are easily spreadthrough commerce and trade. In Hawai‘i it is currently known to be established on Hawai‘i, Kaua‘iand O‘ahu. Singapore Ants are more of a pest in urban environments and as a house pest. Although

P a g e 17 | 84

they will forage on sugars and proteins the biggest problem is the destruction of electrical andphone lines. Foragers gnaw holes in fabric and rubber goods, remove rubber insulation fromelectric and phone lines, and damage polyethylene cable. They can destroy or damage electricallines in houses and cars which can lead to electrical fires.
Big‐Headed Ants
The scientific name for the big headed ant is Pheidole megacephala. It is also known as the “brownhouse‐ant”, “coastal brown‐ant”, “lion ant”, and “grosskopfameise” (German) in other parts of theworld. The big headed ant is believed to be native to southern Africa. It is widely distributed
throughout the temperate sub‐tropical and tropical regions of the world. Big headed ants get theirname from the “major caste” of worker ants (often called soldiers) which have extremely large
heads compared to the rest of their bodies. The smaller “minor caste” (small foraging ants) will
forage on almost anything from sweet sugary liquids, dead insects, and plant seeds. They bring thefood back to the nest where it is shared throughout the colony.
In rural areas, BHA are known to displace much of the native fauna through aggression andcompetition. They can directly impact crops through seed harvesting and indirectly by harboring
plant sucking insects. BHA have also been known to chew through irrigation lines. They are a major
pest of pineapples where they tend pineapple mealy‐bug. In urban/residential areas they oftencause considerable damage to telephone and electrical installations in homes and buildings.
Pennant Ants
The scientific name for the pennant ant is Tetramorium bicarinatum. It is also known as the“bicolored pennant ant”, “Guinea ant”, or “penny Ant”. The name Guinea ant is also commonly used
for a close relative Tetramorium guineense. The genus Tetramorium contains several species
known for dispersal via human commerce. The pennant ant is native to the Indo‐Pacific region of
the world. This is a cosmopolitan species commonly found around the world and is one of the mostwidespread species of ants globally. In Hawai‘i it is most likely established on all of the majorislands. Colonies of pennant ants are usually small to moderate in size and occur in urban
environments, yards, gardens, green/shade houses. Nests can have multiple queens and workers
can vary in color and size. Although they are not considered to be a major pest, they can be a
nuisance around the home and garden because of their ability to sting if provoked.

Potential Threat Pathways
A biosecurity “pathway” is defined as a mechanism by which an exotic organism can travel to a newlocation, often as a hitchhiker. For arthropods and plants, these pathways have been categorized
into logical groups and further divided according to the level of control or regulation currently inforce. These groups are: vehicles, commodities, and people (with associated personal items they
may carry). A total of 28 different pathways have been identified.
Almost all inward movement of goods and people is via the road link which terminates at the
Astronomy Precinct. Arthropods and plant seeds are potentially able to hitch a ride on the means ofP a g e 18 | 84

transportation, the containers housing goods and other commodities, the goods or commodities
themselves, or associated with staff or visitors. Each pathway represents a different risk of being
the vector for introductions of exotic species.
There are also non‐anthropogenic pathways including organisms carried by wind, rain, fire or othernatural events. These have not been considered in this section of the risk assessment.

VEHICLES AND VESSELS
Vehicles of all descriptions can harbor many invasive pest species. Soil and other organic matter
can accumulate in cracks, crevices and on under‐bodies. Vehicles that travel to Maunakea originate
from residential and urban areas on the island of Hawai‘i. These locations harbor well‐establishedpopulations of weedy, invasive arthropods and plants. Arthropods could infest a vehicle parked
over‐night and nest in the voids and other internal spaces, or in soil and other organic matter that
accumulate in cracks, crevices and on under‐bodies. Plant seeds can also be deposited on truck
beds, under carriages or within a vehicle. These then fall off or leave when the vehicle is parked atanother location. Larger vehicles and those used for off‐road purposes usually have more soil andother matter attached to the underbodies and therefore present a greater risk. Passenger vehicles
such as those used by staff and visitors are generally cleaner, as they tend to stay on County andState roads.

GOODS AND OTHER COMMODITIESThe movement of items to Maunakea (goods, commodities, supplies, equipment and construction
activities) provide opportunities for arthropods and invasive plants to become established. The
risks and species associated with the movement of goods are more diverse because some goods
originate in other parts of the USA as well as internationally. Arthropods can hide in the goods
themselves, the packaging associated with the commodities or within the containers used totransport them. Plant seeds, some very small, can be incorporated with packaging or moved by thewind to settle on commodities (especially those stored outdoors). Larger, or heavier, commodities
typically have greater areas for species to settle and it can be more difficult to detect contamination.
The level of risk for this pathway is influenced by storage conditions prior to arrival, the cleanlinessof items, and the intrinsic properties of items as harbors for arthropods or plant seeds.

PEOPLE
People can inadvertently carry arthropods and seeds in their clothing or immediate possessions.
Items especially high‐risk would include packs, tents, camping equipment, shoes, and other items
that may have been in contact with soil or stored in areas where ants and other arthropods wereable to move into them prior to transport.

Regulated Pathways
Many of the vehicles, people and goods entering the Maunakea area require some form of permit inorder to gain access. Risk reduction strategies can be more easily developed and enforced within

P a g e 19 | 84the permit system so therefore their actual risk level and mitigation options differ from thosecategories where a permitting system is absent.

VEHICLES AND VESSELS
Nine categories of vehicles have been identified, classified according to the type of cargo theyusually carry:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

regular staff vehicles (daily),other staff (specific project, contractors),delivery vans (daily‐weekly supplies),delivery trucks (telescope components),
delivery trucks (construction),construction machinery,helicopters ,commercial tour vehicles,
film, scientific, educational, military.

COMMODITIESCommodities come in all shapes and sizes, some are locally supplied while others arrive fromoverseas points of origin.
10. fresh produce,
11. packaged goods (food, office supplies, souvenirs),
12. containerized scientific equipment,
13. containerized construction supplies,
14. open‐load construction supplies,
15. plants, seeds, plant parts, soil (outside ‐ restoration),
16. plants, seeds, plant parts, soil (inside ‐ staff decorations),
17. dunnage (the wrapping, packaging and pallet material associated with the goods beingtransported).

PEOPLE AND POSSESSIONS
People who are required to have a permit include regular employees, occasional employees, andthose primarily engaged in outdoor activities.
18. Outdoor activities regulated by permits: scientific, film, project staff, military,
19. Regular employees,
20. Occasional employees and contractors.

P a g e 20 | 84

Non‐Regulated Pathways
Not all vehicles or visitors require a permit in order to visit the Maunakea area. Therefore the levelof influence that can be applied to these pathways is less than that for regulated pathways. This
may increase the risk and also influence the selection of most appropriate risk reduction strategy.

VEHICLES AND VESSELS
21. tourist sight‐seeing vehicles,
22. off‐road and ATV (outside of University managed areas),
23. hunters/hikers, snowplay, cultural practitioners.

COMMODITIES
24. cultural offerings,
25. trash (outdoors).

PEOPLE AND POSSESSIONS
26. Tourist/sightseeing
27. off‐road operators (outside of University managed areas),
28. hunters/hikers, snowplay, cultural practitioners.

Analysis of Threat Pathways and Proposed Management Options
At present, most risk prevention measures are voluntary or suggested rather than being enforced.
However, some risk prevention actions for future construction of a new telescope (TMT) are
required conditions of their permit.
For the purpose of this document, proposed prevention actions focus on strategies for managing
invasive species prior to their establishment within the Management Area or at its borders andbelow the Saddle Road – Summit Access Road junction (off‐site risk reduction and interceptions).
These are separate from those actions or activities conducted to detect and manage invasive
species after their arrival (an “incursion”) which is outlined in Section 3; or management of invasive
species already established within the Management Area (Section 4). Not every risk can beprevented or eliminated. Additionally, there are often external factors that increase risks but
cannot be remedied. Therefore, any risk prevention strategy becomes a compromise limited byresources, external factors and practicality. Table 2.1a‐d lists each pathway identified in theprevious section along with prevention strategies requiring low, moderate and high inputs.
Logically a greater amount of input will provide a greater level of risk reduction, and not every
option (low, medium, or high) will be likely applied consistently across all pathways due to legal,
practical, or other constraints.

P a g e 21 | 84

Table 2.1a. Options for risk prevention (Regulated vehicles).
Regulated
pathways

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

regular staff
vehicles (daily)
other staff(specific project,contractors)delivery vans(daily‐weekly
supplies)delivery trucks(telescope
components)
delivery trucks(construction)
construction
machineryhelicopterscommercial tour
vehiclesfilm, scientific,
educational,
military

VehiclesLow cost

Moderate cost

High cost

Outreachand/ormandatory
awarenesstraining
Outreach may
include signage
in car parks
and staff breakrooms. And
displays ofnative and non‐native invasive
species
encounteredon regulated
pathways.
Training could
consist of one‐time orongoingawareness andinformation
sessions on
impacts ofinvasive
species and theneed tomaintain aclean vehicle topreventtransport ofinvasive
species.

Regular cleaning ofvehicles (interior andexterior).
Mandated regularwashing of vehicles
using a gas station car
wash or similar. Thisshould include under‐
body washing.
Frequency could bedetermined by risk – eg.
passenger vehicles
would be a lower risk
than construction
trucks.
This requirement could
be a part of relevant
permit provisions.

Supervised or inspected
power‐washing ofvehicles (especially
under‐bodies andchassis rails) along withinterior cleaning.
These provisions could
be mandated by theappropriate permit via arequirement to washand supplemented by
OMKM inspections.
Inspection/certificationof vehicle cleanlinessprior to arrival.

Inspection/certificationof vehicle cleanlinessprior to arrival.

P a g e 22 | 84

Table 2.1b. Options for risk prevention (Regulated commodities).

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

17

Regulated
pathwaysfresh produce
packaged goods(food, office,souvenirs)
containerized
scientificequipment
containerized
construction
supplies
open‐load
construction
supplies
plants, seeds, plantparts, soil
(outside)plants, seeds, plantparts, soil (inside)Goods

dunnageLow cost
Outreachand/or physicalinspection of
items atdestination.
Outreach could
includeappropriate
signage at
receiving
locations.
Goods arriving
at buildings
could beinspected by
the person
receiving them.
Any suspectitems orevidence ofarthropods tobe reported toappropriate
authority.
This could bevoluntary or
mandated.

Moderate cost

Inspection/certificationof goods and facilities
prior to shipping(internal).
This mitigation may
include requirements forfacility hygiene (eg, apest control programwith licensed pest
control company),storage of goods inappropriate conditions(off the ground, insideetc), and inspection of
goods by vendor prior to
shipment or at anintermediate transit site.
May also include
requirements for astatement of compliancefrom vendor with each
shipment or supply
contract and regularexternal compliance
audit.

High cost

Inspection/certificationof goods and facilities
prior to shipping(external).
Inspection of facility
hygiene and shipments
by an external agency or
OMKM. Vendor facilities
to undergo regularhygiene audits and goods
to be inspected andcertified free of pests
before shipping. This
could include
phytosanitaryinspections for plantmaterial, visualinspections or otherrequirements as part ofpermit or approvalconditions.

Table 2.1c. Options for risk prevention (Regulated persons).

Regulated
pathways
18
19

20

outdoor activities
regulated by permits
regular employees
occasional employees
and contractors

PeopleLow cost
Outreach and/or
mandatory
awareness training.
Provision ofoutreach material
highlighting risks

Moderate cost

High cost

Voluntary
guidelines forcleaning ofequipment (tents,
packs, shoes andclothing etc)

Mandatory
cleaning ofequipment (tents,
packs, shoes andclothing etc)
including spraying
personal
equipment withpesticides.

P a g e 23 | 84

Table 2.1d. Options for risk prevention (unregulated pathways)

Non‐regulated
pathways
21
22
23

vehiclestourist sight‐seeing
vehiclesoff‐road and ATV

Signage,pamphlets at
visitor center,other outreachhunters/hikers,
snowplay, cultural
practices.
goods

24

25

cultural offerings

Regular treatmentof waste bins andsurrounds withpesticides.

peopletourist/sightseeing
off‐road operators

28

hunters/hikers,
snowplay, cultural pract.

Low cost

Outreach andawareness activity
especially forcultural offeringsand practitioners.

trash (outdoors)26
27

Low cost

Low cost
Signage,pamphlets at
visitor center,other outreachModerate cost

Voluntary vehicle
cleaning for regular
visitors

Moderate cost
Promote theconcept that people
take all trash homewith them.
Voluntary
guidelines for
culturalpractitioners.
Regular treatmentof waste bins andsurrounds withpesticides.
Moderate cost
Voluntary
guidelines forregular visitors andoff‐road/snowplay
traffic.

High cost
Mandated washingof vehicles using agas station car
wash or similar.
This should
include under‐
body washing.
High cost
Strict “leavenothing behind”
policy.
Mandatory
provisions for
cultural offerings
including hygiene,
pretreatment withpesticides andlimits on what canbe brought.
High cost
Introduce permit
requirements forhigh‐risk
categories.

P a g e 24 | 84

Recommended Prevention Strategy
All prevention strategies will:
1. Mitigate biological, ecological, and human health risks on Maunakea and on the island of
Hawai‘i,
2. Prioritize preventative action prior to arrival at the Saddle Road Junction (i.e. at low
elevation prior to arrival on University managed lands),
3. Be adapted and updated based on invasive species monitoring and inspection data,
knowledge of pathways and species threats,
4. Apply the least intrusive means necessary (i.e. employ the lowest level efficacious
prevention strategy option: low, moderate, or high cost), and
5. Incorporate concerns of mountain users and landowner.
Appended portions of this plan provide detailed instructions to all mountain users as to therequired prevention strategies (summarized in Table 2.2). State and island of Hawai‘i invasive
species councils and committees will routinely be consulted, along with adjacent land‐owners,
to ensure practices are both ‘state‐of‐the‐art’ as well as practical and necessary. These
strategies are summarized below and in the following table.
Low‐cost measures, which enhance mountain user knowledge of invasive species concerns on
Maunakea, on the island of Hawai‘i, and elsewhere, will be applied at the first opportunity.
Examples of such low‐cost measures applicable to all pathways and users include:

Mountain user education and orientation,
Bringing up only what is needed,
Emphasis on cleanliness, andSelf‐inspection and self‐verification (no verification or documentation required).

Moderate‐cost measures incorporate low‐cost measures. In addition moderate‐cost measures
will typically emphasize verification of recommended practices, with an emphasis on increasing
understanding and user engagement including:Require practices of cleanliness and material minimization (rather than encouragethem),
Include verification of cleanliness by OMKM (or DLNR‐approved inspectors), andInclude documentation of inspections.

High‐cost measures will typically include low‐ and moderate‐cost practices as requirements,
with independent documentation that actions have been completed and efficacious:High‐cost measures will only be employed to prevent the greatest known or suspectedrisks.
Third party sanitation action (cleaning, fumigation, etc.) required at point of origin.
Independent documentation of sanitation conducted at point of origin.

P a g e 25 | 84



OMKM (DLNR‐approved) inspection of sanitation completeness prior to proceeding
above the Saddle Road Junction.

Prevention strategies for regulated pathways assume that OMKM has authority to require users
to engage in recommended or required actions, both on and off University managed lands.
These strategies are cumulative, such that a high‐cost strategy incorporates all low‐ andmoderate‐ cost elements unless stated otherwise. As identified elsewhere in this plan,
prevention emphasizes pathways and areas frequented by people. Invasive species incursions
by other ‘natural’ means such as wind or animal dispersion are addressed through early
detection and rapid response procedures. While these strategies incorporate concerns of allusers, ultimately all State of Hawai‘i laws, rules, policies, and permit requirements areincorporated.
Prevention strategies for non‐regulated pathways will be updated once Hawai‘i Administrative
Rules are approved and options for preventative actions are defined (i.e. actions can berequired rather than only voluntary). Policies and procedures for non‐regulated pathways are
anticipated to employ similar prevention strategies to regulated pathways. An initial emphasis
on outreach and education, voluntary at least until rules are in place, will allow opportunity torefine best communication practices.

P a g e 26 | 84

Table 2.2. Recommended prevention strategies for entry of invasive species into the Management
Area.

Regulated pathways
1
2
3
4
5

regular staff vehicles(daily)other staff (specificproject, contractors)delivery vans (daily‐
weekly supplies)
delivery trucks(telescope
components)
delivery trucks(construction)

recommended prevention strategy

Appendix
Reference

Vehicles
Vehicles
Vehicles

Moderate: outreach, training, regular cleaning,self‐inspection with every trip
Moderate: outreach, training, regular cleaning,self‐inspection with every trip
Moderate: outreach, training, regular cleaning,self‐inspection with every trip

SOP 1

Vehicles

Moderate: outreach, training, regular cleaning,self‐inspection with every trip

Vehicles
Vehicles

Moderate: outreach, training, cleaning, DLNR‐
approved biologist inspection
Moderate: outreach, training, cleaning, DLNR‐
approved biologist inspection
Moderate: outreach, training, cleaning, DLNR‐
approved biologist inspection (not explicitly
addressed due to limited occurrence)
Moderate: outreach, training, regular cleaning,self‐inspection with every trip
Moderate: outreach, training, regular cleaning,self‐inspection with every trip
Moderate: outreach, training, cleaning, self‐
inspection, facility hygiene, documentation

6

construction machinery7

helicopters

Vehiclescommercial tour
vehiclesfilm, scientific,
educational, military

Vehicles
Vehicles10

fresh produce

Goods

11

packaged goods (food,office, souvenirs)

Goods

12

containerized scientificequipment

Goods

13

containerized
construction supplies

Goods

14

open‐load construction
supplies

Goods

15

plants, seeds, plantparts, soil (outside)

Goods

16

plants, seeds, plantparts, soil (inside)

Goods

17

DunnageGoods

18

outdoor activities
regulated by permits

People19

regular employees

People20

occasional employees
and contractors

People89Low: outreach, training, self‐inspection
Moderate: outreach, training, cleaning, DLNR‐
approved inspectors, pre‐shipment inspection
per permit.
Moderate: outreach, training, cleaning, DLNR‐
approved inspectors, pre‐shipment inspection
per permit.
Moderate: outreach, training, cleaning, DLNR‐
approved inspectors, pre‐shipment inspection
per permit.
High: only approved with State‐recognized anddocumented efficacy of existing phytosanitary
treatment and DLNR‐approved inspector
High: only approved with State‐recognized anddocumented efficacy of existing phytosanitary
treatment and DLNR‐approved inspector
Moderate: outreach, training, minimize use,cleaning, DLNR‐approved inspectors, pre‐shipment inspection per permit.
Moderate: outreach, training, regular cleaning,self‐inspection with every trip.
Moderate: outreach, training, regular cleaning,self‐inspection with every trip.
Moderate: outreach, training, regular cleaning,self‐inspection with every trip.

SOP 1 & 2
SOP 1 & 2
SOP 1 & 2
SOP 1 & 2
SOP 1 & 2
SOP 1 & 2
SOP 1
SOP 1 & 2
SOP 1 & 3
SOP 1
SOP 1 & 2
SOP 1 & 2
SOP 1 & 2
SOP 4
SOP 4
SOP 1 & 2

SOP 1
SOP 1
SOP 1

P a g e 27 | 84

All: pending
Administrativ
e RulesNon‐regulated
pathways21

tourist sight‐seeing
vehicles

Vehicles
Vehicles

Moderate: outreach, orientation, voluntarycleaning.
Not allowed on University managed lands.
(Otherwise incorporate ‘moderate’ principles.)22

off‐road and ATV

23hunters/hikers,
snowplay, cultural
pract.

Vehicles

Moderate: outreach, orientation, voluntarycleaning.

24

cultural offerings

Goods

Moderate: outreach, orientation, pack‐it‐outemphasis, voluntary guidelines for cultural
practitioners.

25

trash (outdoors)

Goods

Moderate: outreach, orientation, pack‐it‐outemphasis, pesticide treatment.

26

tourist/sightseeing

People27

off‐road operators

People28

hunters/hikers,
snowplay, cultural
pract.

People+ Incorporate
Constitutional
protections+ Pesticide
use pending
DLNR
approval

Moderate: outreach, orientation, voluntary
guidelines.
Not allowed on University managed lands.
(Otherwise incorporate ‘moderate’ principles.)Moderate: outreach, orientation, voluntary
guidelines.

P a g e 28 | 84

Section 3. Monitoring for New and Established Invasive Species
General Principles
The prevention strategy outlined in section 2 is the first step in the continuum of invasive species
management. This prevention strategy will be supplemented by a comprehensive and ongoingearly detection and monitoring program that ensures new threats are quickly identified andmanaged according to pre‐determined protocols; and established invasive species are monitored todetermine spread and impacts. These activities allows for a rapid response with the highest
probability of a successful outcome should new species be detected or the status of existing specieschange. There is considerable overlap between activities designed to detect new species andmonitoring established populations. For this reason, these two aspects of the management plan
have been combined.
Early detection and monitoring activities are to be prioritized in a manner that addresses thegreatest risks; both in terms of invasive species with the greatest potential impacts and the sites
where these species might first become established. Invasive species threats are divided into three
categories for the purpose of this section (plants, arthropods and vertebrates). Monitoring
methodologies within these groups are essentially the same, but substantially different between
groups. The management zones within the entire UH‐managed area have been divided according totheir perceived risk and operational expediency. (For example, the road access between
Halepōhaku and the summit includes lands with different tenure but a common purpose.)

Analysis of Risk: Management Zones
The probability of new species entering and becoming established within the Management Area isdirectly related to the level of human activity experienced at a particular site and proximity toanthropogenic structures (buildings, roads, earthworks). Early detection activities should
therefore focus on sites with the greatest amount of human use. Below is a brief description of the
management zones in decreasing order of risk.

HALEPŌHAKU
The mid‐level Visitor Information Station and Onizuka Center for International Astronomy arelocated on a 19.3‐acre site at the entry to the Management Area at an altitude of 9,200 ft A.S.L.
These buildings mark the road entry to the Management Area. The Visitor Information Center is astaging point for public visitors and is comprised of a gift store, restrooms, picnic tables, andinformation center. The Astronomy Center houses scientists and technical staff. It is also used as astaging point for equipment, supplies and construction materials bound for the Astronomy Precinct
on the summit.
Together, these sites experience the heaviest visitor and employee usage of the entire Management
Area. The Office of Mauna Kea Management estimates that in 2014 over 40,000 vehicles visited the

P a g e 29 | 84

Management Area above Halepōhaku [Hunter pers comm]. Of these, approximately 76% ofvehicles were operated by members of the public (a non‐regulated pathway) and it is reasonable toassume that many of these stop at the Visitor Information Station to acclimatize before either
venturing further or returning.
Survey frequency and intensity needs to be greatest at these facilities. They receive more humanand vehicular traffic than any other zone within the Management Area and much of the larger
construction items bound for the summit are delivered here before transport to the summit.
Additionally, the structures provide a variety of micro‐climates, thus increasing the risk ofestablishment of non‐native species(15) and imply that control efforts around facilities which reduce
the potential risk of spreading or facilitating establishment of non‐native species are beneficial.

ROADWAY CORRIDOR
The road corridor connecting Halepōhaku with the summit and Astronomy Precinct comprises
approximately 45‐acres of road bed and 700‐acres of surrounding undisturbed landscape. There
are several small car parking areas along the road corridor between Halepōhaku and the Maunakea
Science Reserve. All traffic to the summit of Maunakea travels along this road.
Human disturbance, especially soil disturbance is often implicated in facilitating the establishment
and spread of invasive species(16). This, coupled with the heavy vehicular use on this road increases
the risk of entry, establishment and spread of new invasive species(17) as well as those species
already present within the Management Area.
The soil disturbed by road construction and regular grading provides a ready‐made site for seedgermination and plant establishment. Mean annual rainfall for this area ranges from 28" ‐ 16",decreasing with elevation (Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii, http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu/).
However, road construction results in the concentration of water in run‐off ditches and culverts.
This additional moisture will increase germination and survival especially for non‐native plants.
Therefore, road verges and nearby vegetation are to be surveyed on a regular basis.

ASTRONOMY PRECINCTThe 525‐acre astronomy precinct is home to thirteen observatories with associated outbuildings;
each staffed by scientific and technical personnel [Figure 3.1]. The structures at the summit eachprovide altered microclimates, potentially suitable for supporting invasive species not ordinarily
able to establish at high altitudes. Within this management zone, vehicular and human movement
is closely associated with structures (observatories, outbuildings and roads).
The Astronomy Precinct is situated at the summit of Maunakea, with most structures at elevations
between 13,300 and 13,700 ft above sea level. The extreme altitude is not generally a goodenvironment for plant establishment. However, the buildings can provide protection from extremesof wind and temperature and create a variety of microhabitats suitable for establishment of

P a g e 30 | 84

introduced plant and animal species. Mean annual rainfall for this area is approximately 8", which
increases with decreasing elevation into the Mauna Kea Science Reserve (Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii,
http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu/). Road verges, again, provide better conditions for seedgermination. Land not immediately adjacent to these structures is not as likely to provide adequate
germination conditions.

Figure 3.1 Aerial view of the Maunakea Astronomy Precinct with Maunakea Management Area (inset).
Image taken from Google Earth accessed August 2014.

MAUNA KEA SCIENCE RESERVEThe remainder of the Management Area, known as the science reserve, covers an area of 11,288‐
acres. Human visitation to this area is lower than other management zones and is largely
frequented by hunters, scientific staff and visitation to the various sites of cultural significance.
Access to much of this area is difficult. The greatest risk of entry and establishment of invasive

P a g e 31 | 84

species for this part of the Management Area is lateral movement of these species from neighboring
lands. This presents an operational problem in relation to early detection and monitoring activities
because the boundary between the Mauna Kea Science Reserve and neighboring lands is not
associated with a road, trail or other navigable means of border patrol.
Systematic surveys of the entire 11,288‐acre Science Reserve will be very resource‐intensive andlikely to be impractical. The nearest road to the lower boundary of this zone is the Maunakea
Skyline Road known as the “R1”; a 32 mile road that (with a portion of the Saddle Road)
circumnavigates Maunakea, running from immediately below the Visitor Information Station, andterminating at the Saddle Road (Figure 3.2). The R1 is a graded track suited to four wheel drive
vehicles and motorcycles only, and is used frequently by the off‐road community for scenic driving.
This road provides an opportunity to intercept invasive plant and animal species that might travel
through lateral spread to encroach on the Mauna Kea Science Reserve.

P a g e 32 | 84

Figure 3.2.
adjacent.

Aerial image showing the Maunakea Management Area and the roads immediately

Analysis of Risk: Potential Threat Species
PLANTSFor the purpose of this section of the management plan, invasive plant species are; 1) alreadypresent on the Management Area; 2) not present but growing near the Management Area; or 3) not
P a g e 33 | 84

present on Hawai‘i island but identified as serious threats [Table 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3]. High priority
species not present within the Management Area will be targeted in early detection surveys while
those that are already present will be targeted for monitoring and response activities according to
the level of threat they pose. These lists will change as new species are detected and new threats
identified. A full list has been appended and will be updated as changes occur.
The potential “invasiveness” of plant species can be difficult to predict a priori. The Hawai‘i Weed
Risk Assessment(18), based on earlier work in New Zealand(19) is considered by many to be thecurrent best‐practice method for predicting invasiveness. The level of threat posed by a particularspecies is based on responses to 49 questions about a plant’s biology, ecology & invasive tendencies
elsewhere. The answers result in a score (the WRA score) that predicts whether a plant is likely to
be invasive in Hawai‘i. Plants with higher scores pose a greater threat than those with lower scores.
The level of accuracy of this system is approximately 85%(18), thus there is some uncertainty of
results. The Hawai‘i Weed Risk Assessment database will be used to rank all potential and current
invasive plant species. Detection, monitoring and response actions will be based on the threatscores generated by this assessment method, supplemented by field observations of the species
that indicate an increased or decreased level of threat compared with the HWRA score on file, andinput from adjacent land‐owners, knowledge of affects of altitude, and regulatory agencies.
The prevailing method for survey and monitoring of invasive plants is by visual searches, often
conducted in association with physical removal of any exotic species that are encountered (whensuitably qualified or trained staff are able to identify non‐native species in the field). A complete listof mitigation methods is appended.
The Hawai‘i Weed Risk Assessment score shall be determined for all non‐native plants within theManagement Area and those at risk from becoming established. Species with a score of 7 or lesswill be categorized as “low” priority; those that score between 8 and 16 shall be categorized as“medium” priority and those scoring 17 or higher shall be “high” priority species. Priorities shall be
adjusted based on input from adjacent land‐owners and regulatory agencies, and reflect control
status of adjacent State land‐owner practices unless eradication (or meaningful control) is practicalexclusively on Management areas.
Low Priority Species
These plants are unlikely to degrade the Maunakea Management Area in an appreciable way. They
may be small, spread very slowly or only by vegetative means. They should be pulled or destroyed
if encountered in a destruction activity for other higher priority species.
Medium Priority Species
These species have characteristics that are undesirable, and may threaten or degrade the ecological,
cultural or aesthetic values of the area. The distribution of these species are to be mapped andpopulations monitored to determine whether the WRA score is an accurate reflection of thatspecies’ “weediness”. A control plan is to be prepared for each species or incorporated into
management area control plans, (although such a control plan may not necessarily include
treatment or destruction), and the invasive status be reported in annual reports.

P a g e 34 | 84

High Priority Species
High Priority species are very invasive, have the ability to spread quickly and over‐run theecosystems they invade. Often, these species have additional negative impacts to environments,
cultural and aesthetic values. For each high priority species present on UH‐managed lands at
Maunakea, a response plan will be prepared in accordance with the policies and procedures
outlined in Section 5 (Emergency Response Planning, see Figure 5.2). This response plan will detailthe level of response: eradication, aggressive control, long term management; after considering all
available data.
The typical decision making process for response to these species is detailed in Figure 3.3.

Introduced species
found on Management
Area

Obtain or calculate
HWRA score

Score = 1‐7
Low priority species

Score = 8‐16
Medium priority
species

Score = >16
High priority species

No specific action (adhoc destruction inassociation with otheroperations)Prepare andimplement a control
plan

Follow procedures in
section 5. Existing
species, refer to section
4.

Figure 3.3. Process for managing introduced plant species on Maunakea Management Area.

Introduced Plant Species Currently Growing on the Maunakea Management Area
Monitoring and control procedures will be developed for all species currently growing on theManagement Area. The complexity, level of involvement by oversight committees, and resources
allocated to each species will be determined by the level of threat (biological, cultural and aesthetic)

P a g e 35 | 84

they pose. Many species will see nominal control efforts, given their widespread presence on theisland and threat level.

Table 3.1. List of introduced plant species present on the Management Area and HWRA score (whereavailable).

speciesAchillea millefolium
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Bidens pilosa
Bromus catharticus
Bromus diandrus
Chamaecytisus prolifera var.
palmensis
Coreopsis lanceolata
Dactylis glomerata
Ehrharta calycina
Epilobium billardierianum
Erodium cicutarium
Eschscholzia californica
Eucalyptus spp.
Gaillardia pulchella
Geranium homeanum
Heterotheca grandiflora
Holcus lanatus
Hypochoeris radicata
Lepidium spp.
Lolium spp.
Marrubium vulgare
Mollugo cerviana
Nassella cernua
Oenothera stricta
Pennisetum clandestinum
Poa annua
Poa pratensis
Rumex acetosella
Rytidosperma semiannulare
Senecio madagascariensis
Senecio sylvaticus
Senecio vulgaris
Taraxacum officinale
Tragopogon porrifolius

common namecommon yarrow
sweet vernalgrass
spanish needle
rescue grass
ripgut grassbroom (tagasaste)Ko‘oko‘olau
haole,
lanceleaf tickseedorchard grass
perennial veldtgrass
willow herb
alifaria, pin clover
California poppy
eucalyptus
indian blanket
Australasian geranium
telegraph plantvelvet grassgosmorepeppergrassrye grasshorehoundcarpetweed
needlegrassevening primrose
kikuyu grass
annual bluegrass
Kentucky bluegrass
sheep sorrel
wallaby grass
fireweedwoodland ragwort
common groundsel
common dandelion
salsify

HWRA
19
11
23

Priorityhighmedium
high

18

high

14

medium23

high

P a g e 36 | 84

Trifolium arvense
Verbascum thapsus
Verbascum virgatum
Verbena litoralis
Vulpia bromoides

lance clover
mulleinwand mulleinōwībrome fescue

Introduced plant species currently growing near or adjacent to the Maunakea Management Area
Species not currently present on the Management Area, but known to be established on adjacentland (Table 3.2) are to be targeted in early detection/monitoring surveys (or on the island Table
3.3). These species could be transported to the Management Area by human‐assisted dispersal (asseeds or propagative material carried on people, goods or vehicles) or spread from establishedpopulations growing near the external boundary.
The Halepōhaku, road corridor and the Astronomy Precinct are the most likely locations forestablishment of new introduced plant species, so early detection surveys are to focus on thoseareas. The external boundary of the Management Area is not readily accessible for survey
purposes. As a surrogate, the R1 road shall be surveyed for introduced plant species. Thesesurveys are to record the identity and locations of any medium and high priority target species.
Surveys of the remainder of the Science Reserve shall be limited to areas experiencing regularhuman traffic or concurrent with other management activities: known walking trails and culturalsites, historic property monitoring, etc.
Table 3.2. List of introduced plants growing on lands immediately adjacent to, but not within, theMaunakea Management Area (identified in reports published by Hakalau NWR, Mauna Kea Forest
Reserve or NAR, or Department of Hawaiian Home Lands).

species
Agrostis alba
Andropogon virginicus
Anemone hupehensis
Axonopus fissifolius
Cerastium fontanum
Conyza bonariensis
Cryptomeria japonica
Delairea odorata
Ehrharta stipoides
Fuchsia spp.
Hedychium gardnerianum
Ilex aquifolium
Juncus effuses
Lonicera japonica
Paspalum dilatatumcommon nameredtopbroomsedge
Japanese anemone
narrow‐leaved
carpetgrassmouse‐ear chickweed
fleabanesugi pine
German ivy
weeping
grass,
meadow ricegrass
fuchsiakahili ginger
hollyJapanese mat rush,common rush
Japanese honeysuckle
dallis grass

HWRA

Priority

16

medium‐3
14

low
medium16

medium12
12

mediummedium
P a g e 37 | 84

Passiflora mollissima
Photinia davidiana
Pinus spp.
Psidium cattleianum
Rubus argutus
Rubus rosifolius
Stellaria media
Tibouchina herbacea
Ulex europaeus

banana poka
photinia
pine
strawberry guava
Florida blackberry
thimbleberrycommon chickweed
glorybushcommon gorse

‐2

low

18
21.5
10

high
high
medium

24
20

high
high

An abbreviated list of introduced plants growing on Hawai‘i Island is limited to: a) species
previously eradicated from the Management area, b) species identified as invasive by adjacent landowners (i.e. the Maunakea Watershed Alliance), c) other species that potentially can survive andreproduce in the high elevation environment.
Table 3.3. List of introduced plants already found on Hawai‘i Island, but not within the Maunakea
Management Area or immediately adjacent lands (identified in reports published for Pōhakuloa
Training Area).

speciesAngiopteris evecta
Asclepias physocarpa
Circium vulgare
Clidemia hirta
Coccinia grandis
Ficus rubiginosa
Fraxinus uhdei
Grevillea robusta
Kalanchoe tubiflora
Lophospermum erubescens
Melastoma candidum
Miconia calvescens
Morella faya
Nicotiana glauca
Passiflora tarminiana
Pennisetum setaceum
Ricinus communis
Rubus ellipticus
Salsola kali
Schinus terebinthifolius
Setaria palmifolia
Solanum Pseudocapsicum

common namemule's foot fernballoonplantbull thistle
Koster's curse
ivy gourd
Port Jackson fig
tropical white ash
silky oakmaternity plant
creeping gloxinia
Asianmelastome,
Malabar malastome
miconia
firetreetree tobacco
banana poka
fountain grasscastor bean
yellow
Himalayanraspberrytumbleweed
Christmas berrypalm grass
Jerusalem cherry

HWRA
8
8
18.5

Priority
mediummedium
high

7
11
5

low
medium
low

5
13

low
medium

14
8
15
24
26
21
18.0

mediummediummedium
high
high
high
high

18.5
19

high
high

P a g e 38 | 84

Sphaeropteris cooperi
Tibouchina urvilleana

Australian tree fern
princess‐flower

810mediummediumSurvey design and frequency: invasive plants
The frequency and scope of early detection and monitoring activities are determined by the level ofrisk that each management zone presents relative to other zones. The Halepōhaku and roadcorridor zones are the highest risk areas due to the high levels of human visitation and movementof commodities. The Astronomy Precinct receives lower visitation and the areas away from roads
and buildings are less amenable to germination and growth of introduced species. The Science
reserve has the lowest visitation, and human activity is limited to trails and cultural sites. Hunters,
hikers, scientific, and Office of Mauna Kea Management staff are the most frequent visitors for theremainder of this zone. These personnel possess an enhanced awareness of the dangers of invasive
species and more likely to take preventative actions prior to embarkation. Table 3.4 lists thefrequency, type and scope of surveys for introduced plants. Survey methods to be used for these
activities are appended.
Table 3.4. Survey frequency and scope for detection and monitoring introduced plant species.

Management Zone

Survey type

scope1

Surveyfrequency

Halepōhaku andRoad corridor

Established and potential
threat species

All land within 300ft ofstructures and within 60ft
of roads and parking lots

Twiceannually

Astronomy
precinct

Established and potential
threat species

All land within 150ft ofstructures and within 60ft
of roads and parking lots

annually

Science Reserve

Established and potential
threat species

Trails and cultural sites,
sites with establishedintroduced species

R1 roadPotential threat species only2

All land within 30ft ofroad verges

Minimum
every 2 years,
remote sites
less frequent
Minimum
every 2 years

VERTEBRATESAside from dogs and feral ungulates, cats, mongoose and rodents are the greatest vertebrate threat
to the Management Area. Mongoose are rarely encountered and are to be reported as‐seen.
Commensal rodents (mice and rats) are most prevalent in conjunction with human habitation.
Feral cats are occasionally encountered. Introduced birds, while common, have no known control
methods for an otherwise unbounded Management Area; and as mentioned previously
environmental conditions are not known to provide suitable habitat for reptiles and amphibians.
1 Once a high or moderate priority species is detected, survey to delimit the extent will continue beyond the

distances listed below.

2 Established introduced species may also be recorded as determined by Office of Mauna Kea Management.

P a g e 39 | 84

There is no existing consistent risk analysis for introduced vertebrates as there is for plants. Rather
priorities are set in consultation with Federal and State wildlife management agencies.
Survey design and frequency: invasive vertebrates
As outlined in the introduction, The Office of Mauna Kea Management has no legal authority for
managing feral ungulates and other game species. However, current practice at Maunakea is tosearch for scat (dung), on an ad hoc basis, collate and map the resulting data. The latest map,
prepared by OMKM (Figure 3.4) shows the majority of ungulate activity within the road accesscorridor, Visitor Information Center and the Astronomy precinct. This may reflect survey effort inthese areas as opposed to the density of target species.

Figure 3.4. Location of animal scat and survey method, Maunakea Management Area, 2004.

P a g e 40 | 84

The Office of Mauna Kea Management does not actively control vertebrate pests such as ungulates
and game animals. However, staff may observe these animals during normal duties and thesesightings should be reported in a manner that spatial data may be compiled to assist other agencies
with managing these species. Encounters with animal scat should also be documented.
Surveys and monitoring for commensal rodents (rats and mice) and feral cats will be conducted toInstitutional Animal Care and Use and Committee (IACUC) standards. All buildings and otherstructures will be kept free of mice and rats using a control system that conforms to current
standards. Additional sightings of mice, rats or harborage beyond these areas will be reported by
Office of Mauna Kea Management as they come to hand (see Table 3.5 for summary).

Table 3.5. Survey frequency and scope for detection and monitoring vertebrates.

Management Zone

Halepōhaku

Road corridor

Astronomy
precinct

Science Reserve

R1 roadSurvey type
Report sightings of dogs,
ungulates and mongoose as
encountered.
Ongoing rodent pest control
program in and aroundstructures
Report sightings of ungulates
and mongoose as encountered.
Report scat and evidence ofvertebrate use (grazing,harborage etc.)
Report sightings of ungulates
and mongoose as encountered
Ongoing rodent pest control
program in and aroundstructures
Report sightings of ungulates
and mongoose as encountered.
Report scat and evidence ofvertebrate use (grazing,harborage etc.)

scope

Surveyfrequency

ad hocannual report per IACUC
standards

ongoing

ad hoccoordinated with NAR
programongoing

ad hocannual report per IACUC
standards

ongoing

ad hocongoing

No survey

ARTHROPODS
Invertebrates (arthropods) have great potential to alter the ecological functioning of theManagement Area as well as impacting on the integrity of cultural resources and human health(20).
The greatest potential impacts are most likely to be caused by “social insects” (ants, wasps, bees
and termites). These insects live cooperatively and have the greatest potential to establish and
P a g e 41 | 84

spread. For example, the Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) has successfully invaded Haleakalā
National Park on Maui and spread to elevations above 9000 ft(21), reducing abundance of otherinvertebrates including pollinators of the Haleakalā silversword (Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp.
macrocephalum). Once established, social insects are very difficult to control or eradicate, often
requiring substantial human resources and materials.
The following groups of invertebrates are the high priority target species for both early detection
and ongoing monitoring (appended invertebrate identification guide will be updated more
frequently than this document):
1. Ants (Order: Hymenoptera, Suborder: Apocrita, Family: Formicidae) and other taxa that aremorphologically similar, i.e. look like ants,
2. Wasps (Order: Hymenoptera, Suborder: Apocrita, Families: Vespidae, Pompilidae, & Mutilidae)
and other taxa that are morphologically similar, i.e. look like large wasps. [Excluded are:Suborder Apocrita, Families: Bradynobeanidae, Falsiformicidae, Rhopalosomatidae, Sapygidae,
Scoliidae, Sierolomorphidae, Tiphiidae]),
3. Spiders (Order: Aranae),
4. Beetles (Order: Coleoptera) [Excluded are Suborder: Polyphaga, Family: Coccinellidae – i.e.
ladybugs),
5. Horn & Stable Flies (Order: Diptera, Suborder: Brachycera, Family: Muscidae, Subfamily:
Muscinae, Tribe: Stomoxyini)
6. Centipedes (Order: Scolopendromorpha, Family: Scolopendridae, Genus: Scolopendra), and
7. Mollusks (Phylum: Mollusca).

Survey design and frequency: invasive arthropods
There are numerous methods to survey and monitor for non‐native arthropods, including mollusks.
In natural or outdoor areas, visual searching, pitfall trapping and deployment of vials baited withfood lures are the predominant methods. Sweep nets are an effective method to survey insects inshrubs and low vegetation. Larger trees can be surveyed by physically jolting the stem and catchingarthropods in trays as they fall. The most effective (and time‐consuming) survey method for taller
vegetation involves fogging the canopy with a non‐residual pesticide and collecting all insects thatfall with a sheet laid on the ground.
Of the methods listed above, visual searches and pitfall trapping are most likely to capture a varietyof species groups. Visual searching (with trained staff) is the most efficient. However, whenmonitoring for a single species, there may be superior species‐specific methods available.
Indoor sampling methods include visual surveys and baited glue boards. Glue boards shall be
deployed on an ongoing basis in areas near arthropod habitat (warm areas, close proximity towater, shelter or food). Boards can be inspected at pre‐determined intervals. Recommended
survey frequencies are listed in Table 3.6.

P a g e 42 | 84

Table 3.6. survey frequency and scope for detection of and monitoring for introduced arthropod
species.

Baited and un‐baited pitfall
traps supplemented by visual
searches as pitfall traps are
retrieved. Weed pull aroundfacilities.

distributed across entire
parcelSurveyfrequency
twice
annually

Baited glueboards indoors

indoors in facilities

monthlyoutside of facilities
entire road corridor,
emphasis on pull‐outs,
parking areas, trailheads,
etc.
roadway, facilities, andundeveloped areas

quarterlyManagement Zone Survey type

Halepōhaku

Baited glue boards, vials
outdoors
Road corridor

Astronomy
precinct

Science Reserve

R1 roadVisual searches and array ofbaited and unbaited traps
Visual searches and array ofbaited & unbaited traps
Baited glueboards and visual
searches
Quadrat surveys along paths
and walking trails. Thoroughvisual survey and baited vials
around cultural sites
Visual searches within
quadrats on high side ofroadway

scope

all facilities indoor andoutdoortrail survey to comprise
5% of trail length
total quadrats to comprise
1% of road length

annually
annually

quarterlyminimum
every 2 years,
remote sites
less frequent
minimum
every 2 years

P a g e 43 | 84

Section 4. Control of Established Invasive Species
General Principles
Non‐native plant and animal species established within the Management area have the potential toimpact the cultural, environmental and aesthetic values of the Maunakea landscape. However,management actions designed to mitigate these impacts also have the potential to affect the very
values they aim to protect. Control actions therefore, must be selected after careful considerationof all factors including cultural and social issues. Often, the course of action eventually selected will
be a compromise between ecological, aesthetic and cultural costs and benefits.
The selection of response methods is to be made after full consideration of the following questions:
1. Will the proposed response have a reasonable probability of achieving the desired
objective or outcome?
Often there are several possible response or control methods available to decision makers. It canbe difficult to determine the exact probability of a successful outcome when comparing methods,
however, it may be possible to determine (by Bayesian or group consensus) which methods arelikely to be effective. Those that are unlikely to be effective should not be selected withoutchanging the objective and acknowledging the reasons for changing objectives.
2. Does the proposed response adhere to best practice pest control principles of using theleast toxic method to achieve the desired objective or outcome?
The ideal of best‐practice pest control is to employ the least toxic method using the least amount ofpesticide necessary to achieve the desired level of control. Following this best‐practice guideline
ensures the lowest possible level of non‐target or environmental impact. This ideal includes
selection of methods that are more target‐specific than other options.
3. Are anticipated non‐target impacts an acceptable cultural, environmental or aesthetic
cost?
There may be instances where certain control options could potentially result in unwanted impacts
on the environmental values or to other organisms living in association with the non‐native species
being controlled. The costs (unwanted impacts) must be weighed against the benefits (removal of
the target species) in a way that allows an informed decision to be made. At times, non‐target
impacts may be an acceptable cost in order to prevent even larger impacts from the non‐native
species, and in other situations the unwanted impacts are not acceptable.
4. What are the consequences of taking no action or selecting a response method withlower efficacy?
There may be conflicts between a desire to use non‐pesticide methods (physical, cultural or
biological controls) rather than conventional use of pesticides to achieve a pest control objective.
These conflicts may be influenced by social or cultural desires to employ methods deemed more

P a g e 44 | 84

“natural”. While this document does not attempt to determine which course of action is mostappropriate, it is important to fully consider the costs (economic, environmental and cultural) when
making these decisions.

Legislation and Regulatory Requirements
The use of pesticides is subject to federal, state and sometimes county laws, statutes andregulations. Laws and regulations relating to the use of pesticides, herbicides, rodenticides andfungicides on the Management Area are administered by the following agencies:

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
All substances used for the control of plant and animal pests must be registered with theEnvironmental Protection Agency in accordance with the Federal Insecticide Fungicide andRodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. §136 et seq.) (1996). Also known as FIFRA, this act (and associatedlegislation) regulates pesticide use, distribution and sale.

HAWAI‘I DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The HDOA Pesticide Branch administers Hawai‘i Revised Statutes chapter 149 (Hawai‘i Pesticides
Law) and associated Hawai‘i Administrative Rules Chapter 66. Almost all pesticides used in thestate of Hawai‘i must have both EPA and Hawai‘i registration.
The use of pesticides in a manner that does not comply with the product label (off‐label use)requires a permit from HDOA Pesticides Branch. There are several permit types that may apply forcontrol activities within the Management Area:
Special Local Need Permit
A Special Local Need (SLN) permit may be issued by HDOA in order to allow the use of a currently
registered pesticide in a manner not in compliance with the official state product label. Under
normal circumstances, an SLN may be issued when there is no currently registered alternative
product available for the purpose. It is normal practice for the registrant to make the application,
provide additional label instructions and efficacy data to support the new use pattern.
Experimental Use Permit
Bona fide research personnel who have the appropriate pesticide applicator license may apply for
an Experimental Use Permit when wishing to test or research a new product or use an existingproduct in a new way. The aim of such a permit is to gather data rather than achieve a pest control
objective. The size of the area used for treatment must be less than ten acres. Experiments thatcover less than 0.25‐acres may be exempt. If an area larger than ten acres is required, a federal EUP
permit will be needed.
Manufacturer’s Recommendation 2E‐E
If a proposed use pattern is not specifically prohibited on the label of a pesticide, the registrant(manufacturer) may issue a 2E‐E recommendation allowing the proposed use pattern. These aresubmitted by the registrant, usually at the request of the agency that requires it.
P a g e 45 | 84

Commercial Applicator License
Some pesticides are classified as “restricted use”. In order to purchase and use restricted‐use
pesticides, an operator needs to possess a commercial applicator license issued in the state of
Hawai‘i. The tests and licenses are issued by the Hawai‘i Department of Agriculture.

HAWAI‘I DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) (1972) regulates the discharge or potential dischargeof pesticides into certain water bodies. Any application of pesticides or herbicides over, or nearsuch waters may require a permit issued by the state Department of Health Clean water Branch.
Potentially the Clean Water Act will apply to any pesticide use near Lake Wai‘au.
Hawai‘i Dept. of Health also administers Chapter 343 of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes “Environmental
Impact Statements”, which for the purpose of pesticide use on Maunakea regulates requirementsfor preparing Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Assessments Per the Statute,
The minimum requirement for use of pesticides in the Science Reserve requires is an
Environmental Assessment. Pesticide use within or adjacent to buildings and other structures does
not fall under these provisions.

HAWAI‘I DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCESThe UH Managed Lands are located within the state’s Conservation District, Resource Subzone.
Application of herbicides and pesticides to an area greater than one acre requires a DLNR‐approvedsite plan (H.A.R. Title 13‐5).

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR PESTICIDE USE ON MAUNAKEAThe UH Managed Lands are located within the state’s Conservation District, Resource Subzone.
Application of herbicides and pesticides to an area greater than one acre requires a DLNR‐approvedsite plan, contained as an appendix to this document (H.A.R. Title 13‐5).
Broadcast herbicide and pesticide use should be avoided in the alpine stone desert above 12,800 ft
elevation, within 15 feet of endangered plants, and within a 200‐foot buffer around historic
properties such as burials.
Pesticide baits in bait stations are generally highly specific and may be used throughout the UH
Managed Lands, when used according to label and in consultation with experienced professionals.
The cold, dry conditions of Maunakea slow the microbial breakdown of chemicals to inert
compounds. The least persistent formulation among effective options is preferred.

Control Methods
Current control of non‐native plants on University managed lands is addressed via managementzones. In the Astronomy Precinct and Maunakea Science Reserve, Ranger staff pull and report all
non‐native species observed. OMKM staff track and report on these activities. Along the roadP a g e 46 | 84

corridor, below the MKSR, non‐native plants are pulled in conjunction with volunteer groups;
although few volunteer groups are currently identified which are prepared to hike in the rugged
terrain. In Halepōhaku, OMKM staff and volunteer groups conduct semi‐monthly volunteer weed
pulls targeting all non‐native species except grasses. For arthropods, control within facilities is leftlargely to building owners. Outside of buildings, non‐native arthropod control decisions are
currently made in consultation with the State DLNR entomologist. Currently control efforts arelimited to spot treatment for ants at Halepōhaku and swarm traps for honeybees, all other known
non‐native species of concern are monitored.

PLANTS
The selection of a control technique is species‐ and situation‐specific, but can generally be predictedby taxa and by the density, size, and area of the plants. Treatment options described below arederived from common practices among conservation agencies in Hawai‘i, herbicide labels, and theliterature on weed control in Hawai‘i(22‐25).
Cultural Control
Cultural control includes maintaining or restoring undisturbed soil or a ground cover of desirable
plants to suppress the establishment of new weeds. As the natural vegetation in most of the MKSR
is sparse, cultural control options are limited to avoiding unnecessary disturbance of the naturalrock substrate. Controls and monitoring of construction sites, prohibition of off road vehicle use,
and requiring visitors to observe established trails and parking areas all support this objective.
Ungulates also contribute to soil disturbance and the removal or population control of these species
is recommended.
The restoration plan under development for the Halepōhaku area prescribes revegetation withnative shrubs and grasses. The “natural” density of vegetation cover for this area is unknown, due
to the long history of disturbance and grazing by non‐native ungulates. Comparison with otherhigh, dry habitats suggests that it will remain open woodland with sparse bunchgrass and shrub
understory. Encouraging native grass and shrubs to occupy prime locations, and limiting
disturbance through prevention measures described above, are components of cultural control forthis area. In keeping with Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR), restoration plans will be developed
for the Halepōhaku area and prescribe revegetation with native shrubs and grasses (and any otherareas as appropriate).
Mechanical or Manual Control
Mechanical methods include cutting, tilling, disking, or bulldozing with the aid of motorized
equipment. These methods all increase soil disturbance and erosion and are not suitable for theManagement Area. Manual control methods such as hand‐pulling, cutting, and digging or grubbing
are more suitable although these methods are slow, labor intensive, and may allow plants tosurvive and resprout. For many species, the entire plant, including the tap root and fruit or flowers
must be dug up and removed from the site for effective control. This limits the effectiveness ofmanual control to small areas and to plants small enough to be pulled and carried by the average
worker.
Weed densities in the Mauna Kea Science Reserve are low enough, at less than 0.1% cover(26), that
hand pulling is feasible for most species. The time required to pull the occasional weed is
P a g e 47 | 84

insignificant compared to the time required to travel throughout the MKSR. New species detectedin this area are likely to be controlled by hand‐pulling.
The nineteen‐acre Halepōhaku parcel is more densely vegetated. Monthly removal projects byvolunteers have been effective at reducing the cover of certain broadleaf weeds in a portion of thisarea. Herbicides are nevertheless likely to be required to achieve complete weed control.
Herbicides
Herbicides become necessary when manual/mechanical control is ineffective, or has become
inadequate or too costly to continue. The high cost of hauling water up the mountain increases therelative cost of herbicide spraying on UH Managed Lands. Nevertheless, herbicide use is expected
to complement manual control in the Halepōhaku area and the Maunakea Access Road from 9,200
ft to approximately 12,000 ft elevation. Herbicides will primarily be used to control established,widespread weeds. Incipient (new) weeds may be sprayed when large, dense, or mature patches ofplants are discovered. Treatment, follow‐up monitoring, and retreatments will be scheduled toachieve maximum efficacy and to prevent future generations from going to seed. Where continuous
vegetation cover must be removed, a restoration plan will be in place to systematically replace theweeds with native grasses and shrubs.
An extensive literature search identified little information regarding special considerations ofherbicide use at high elevation, and nothing to indicate that their use on Maunakea will be
unusually problematic. Roads and natural areas are maintained in other high elevation (5,000‐
10,000 ft) sites using the same suite of herbicides recommended in this plan(27). All recommended
herbicides in this document are low‐volatile formulations, designed to prevent rapid evaporationand drift of the active ingredients. Additives are available to further reduce volatilization and drift.
While it is recognized that the microbial breakdown of active ingredients is slowed by dry, cold
conditions, other herbicides are rapidly broken down through photolytic (sunlight) pathways. The
product labels, legal documents which detail use requirements, contain no warnings or prohibitions
for use in cold, dry, conditions or at high elevations.

INVERTEBRATES
Control methods for arthropods and mollusks vary depending on the species being controlled or
the habitat they occupy. Arthropods are often cryptic or difficult to locate and pest control
techniques have evolved to address the variety of life forms and situations that are commonly
encountered. Below is a general description of control options for the priority arthropods listed in
the previous section.

Ants
Ants can be controlled with baits (often species specific) or application of general purpose
insecticides. Baits have the advantage of low pesticide use and target‐specificity. In situations
where baits are unsuitable for a particular species, or ants are to be excluded from a particular areaor structure, residual pesticide “barriers” can be employed.
P a g e 48 | 84

Ant baits consist of an attractive food item (the bait matrix) laced with a small quantity of pesticide(the active ingredient). Only a portion of worker ants actively forage for food. These forager ants
retrieve the baits for consumption by the rest of the colony, either physically carrying the fooditems, or by carrying the liquid component of the bait in their crop3. As nest mates are encountered,foraging ants will share the contents of their crop, thus spreading the food (and the active
ingredient) throughout the colony.
Bait matrices are often different for different species and usually feature a carbohydrate, lipid orprotein‐based attractant depending on the feeding habits of the target species. Some attractants
require the use of an inert carrier to facilitate application. The degree of attraction to a bait matrix
determines the level of uptake of the active ingredient.
The active ingredient usually affects all ants in a similar manner regardless of the ant’s feeding
preferences. However, only a small group of pesticides are suitable for use in ant baits. They must
be non‐repellent, slow acting and remain toxic even after substantial serial dilution via foodsharing. Once an ant begins to become affected by the insecticide, she quarantines herself from therest of the colony and ceases to share food.
Residual and contact insecticides are less specific and affect all arthropods, including native andnon‐target species in a similar manner. These are useful for ant species that are not attracted tobaits as well as a barrier that prevents further lateral spread.
Wasps
Some wasp species are extremely invasive worldwide. The two most widespread are the German(Vespula germanica) and common (Vespula vulgaris) wasp. On Management lands the western(Vespula pensylvanica) wasp is occasionally observed. All three species are often called“yellowjackets”. Many wasp species are social insects, living together in a central nest and working
together for defense and food gathering. Unlike ants, a substantial portion of wasps in a single
colony are sexually reproductive. This increases the difficulty of controlling these species. A direct
treatment of the nest is often the most effective control method. Pesticides can be applied as a dust
or aerosol through nest entrances, effectively treating all colony members. Control or treatment of
wasp nests should be conducted in late afternoons when all adults have returned to the nest. Dueto the extremely aggressive nature of these species and the potential for serious injury to humans,
larger nests should be treated by professional pest controllers.
Baits have also been used against some wasp species (28), however, successful deployment is only
possible during periods of peak protein consumption and this may be difficult on Maunakea.
Spiders
Spiders are a diverse group of arthropods with over 40,000 species known to science. Almost all
spiders are predators of other arthropods and invertebrates. Not all spiders spin webs, but many
do so. Some species have the ability to survive for months without food as long as a source of wateris available (29). The effect of pesticides on spiders can be substantially different from the effects ofthe same compound on insects.
3 All ants are liquid feeders, solid particles are not eaten or digested.

P a g e 49 | 84

Control methods for spiders focus on treatment of webs and harbors with residual chemicals. Somemicro‐encapsulated synthetic pyrethroids (eg, lambda‐cyhalothrin) appear to be more effective
against spiders than flowable or emulsifiable synthetic pyrethroids.
Beetles
Coleoptera (beetles) are one of the most diverse insect groups known to science. Depending on
species, they can be detrivores, herbivores, predators, fungivores, parasites, dung‐feeders or
frugivores. Control methods for beetles are just as diverse as beetles themselves and will need to
be developed on a case‐by‐case basis as new species are encountered.
Horn and Stable Flies
Horn (Haematobia irritans) and stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans) (Family: Muscidae) and associatedspecies are usually found in close proximity to farm animals such as cows, horses and dogs. They
are also pests of people, adults feeding between 20 and 40 times a day on fresh manure or blood.
They bite humans and can be vectors for of diseases and parasites. The larval stages live in dung or
rotting material and the adults live in close proximity to their animal hosts. Control methods forhorn flies include treatment of the host animal, a visual attractant (box trap), contact pesticides andor insecticides such as synthetic pyrethroids.
Centipedes
The large centipede (Scolopendra subspinipes) is one of three centipedes in Hawai‘i and the only oneof medical importance (30). Although solitary creatures, the females guard any eggs they lay until
they hatch. The venom, carried in the jaws, is fast acting and used to suppress prey items. Whenhumans are bitten, the venom can cause a range of reactions from mild swelling of the immediatearea to substantial swelling of the entire limb. Large Centipedes prefer dark and moist places forharbor. Control of this species is generally accomplished by spraying potential harbors (cracks andcrevices) with a residual pesticide.
Mollusks
Terrestrial mollusks are great at adapting to their environment. The snails slime protects against
evaporation, and when the weather becomes too dry, they look for a suitable hiding place Most
slugs will eat detritus including leaves, earthworms, and invertebrates. They can also be carriers ofparasites such as Angiostrongylus cantenosis (Rat Lung Worm). Control methods for Mollusks
include biological control and molluscicide with metaldehyde as the active ingredient.

Site and Species Priorities
When operating within the constraints of resource limitations, decision makers will need toprioritize responses to account for availability of finite human and economic resources. Some sites
within the management area have greater cultural, aesthetic or environmental values than others.
Additionally, the impacts of some invasive species are likely to be greater than others. Prioritizing
which species to control on which site should therefore be determined by both factors. Relative
priorities could be assigned to site and species combinations using numerical or non‐parametricmeans (Table 4.1). Thus, a particular species may be a control priority in a high‐value habitat and
P a g e 50 | 84

not a control priority in a low‐value habitat. For invasive plants, the Hawai‘i Weed Risk Assessmentscore could be used in lieu of rank order scores.

Impact of invasive species
Site priority

Very high (5)High (4)Medium (3)Low (2)

Very low (1)very high (5)

25

20

15

10

5

high (4)

20

16

12

8

4

medium (3)

15

12

9

6

3

Low (2)

10

8

6

4

2

Very low (1)

5

4

3

2

1

Table 4.1. Notional representation of using rank‐orders of site priorities and invasive species impacts
to allocate resources. (a commitment to eradicate very high impact species or to preserve very highpriority sites might over‐ride scoring priorities).

Established invasive plants and their known locations are presented in Table 3.1. Many of theestablished weeds are grasses and herbs, and are found in dense, mixed‐species patches in
disturbed areas. This makes a site‐specific approach to control more practical than an individual
species approach. The site plans that follow describe the general methods to be used to suppress
weeds in a defined area, and define the management goal for each area. Individuals or small groupsof plants found outside of these areas are considered satellite populations, and may be treated as
incipient species with their own control plan.
Some sites have greater environmental, aesthetic or cultural values, determined by their level of
ecological integrity, unique habitat type, by cultural significance or aesthetic value. This influences
the level and type of control that may be applied to invasive species as well as the control
objectives. As a general principle, higher priority sites should be managed to achieve greater levelsof cultural significance or values, environmental integrity, aesthetic appeal.

Very High Priority Sites
 Sites with Maunakea silversword (Argyroxiphium sandwicense spp. sandwicense )(31), Wēkiu bug (Nysius wekiuicola) habitat (32).
Maunakea silversword is an endangered species unique to the Maunakea area. The wēkiu bug,while it has been removed as a candidate for endangered species listing, is emblematic of Maunakea
environmental conditions. Any introduced plants or animals in proximity to these species or within
their habitat can potentially cause harm to their survival. Additionally, some control methods could
P a g e 51 | 84

also harm protected species. These sites must be carefully managed to ensure these species arepreserved. Selection of control methods must take account of any possible impact on the survivalof either Maunakea silversword or wēkiu bugs.

High Priority Sites
 Astronomy Precinct (Maunakea summit),
 Lake Wai‘au (not UH managed).
Both the summit and Lake Wai‘au are unique habitats with immense cultural, ecological andaesthetic values. Maintaining the integrity of these sites is a high priority. The virtual lack ofvegetation at the summit allows for increased use of herbicide control methods as the risk of non‐target impacts is very low, although cultural concerns over any management activities aresubstantial. However, the summit area and the wēkiu bug habitats over‐lap and extreme care must
be taken with insecticide use which should be restricted to non‐wēkiu areas and immediately
adjacent to buildings. Invasive species control efforts at Lake Wai‘au are conducted in collaboration
with the managing agency, however, the Office of Mauna Kea Management recognizes the cultural
importance, its attractiveness to invasive arthropods, and the unique ecological nature of thiswaterbody.

Medium Priority Sites Pu‘upōhaku crater (not UH‐managed), Science Reserve.
The broader Mauna Kea Science Reserve (11,228‐acres) represents the majority of the entire
Management Area and the management of this zone is a central part of the overall management
strategy. The Pu‘upōhaku crater contains an ephemeral lake that forms part of the Mauna Kea Ice
Age Natural Area Reserve, however it is surrounded by lands managed by the Office of Mauna Kea
Management. The Office will work in collaboration with the Hawai‘i Division of Forestry andWildlife in the management of invasive species on this site.

Low Priority Sites
 Access Road Corridor,
 Halepōhaku.
Both the Road Corridor and the Halepōhaku sites have lower cultural and ecological importancethan the remainder of the Management Area. Both sites experience heavy human use and are
impacted by a suite of common weedy introduced plant and animal species. The importance of
these sites are more strategic in nature – both being potential vectors for the spread of existing
introduced species to other parts of the Management Area. Invasive species management

P a g e 52 | 84

objectives at these sites are to prevent existing species from spreading rather than maintaining or
restoring ecological integrity.

Very Low Priority Sites
 Neighboring lands, access road between the Saddle Road (Daniel K. Inouye Hwy) andHalepōhaku.
The Office of Mauna Kea Management does not manage neighboring lands or the road leading fromthe Saddle Road to Halepōhaku. However, these areas are potential vectors for the introduction ofinvasive species. Due to this, the Office maintains an interest in collaborating with neighboring land
managers in order to reduce these risks.

Invasive Species Control Plans
Biological surveys conducted over the years have provided baseline inventories of introduced
plants and arthropods. The current inventory of plants is fairly complete, while that for arthropods,
due to their sheer diversity may never be completely understood.
The inventories show that a limited number of introduced species have been consistently recorded
over a number of years, and are therefore considered “established” species. They appear to havenaturalized, reproductive populations within the UH Managed Lands. As a community, the plants
are abundant, disrupt native plant regeneration, and provide food and habitat for non‐native
arthropods. Little is known about the life history of much of the arthropod community.
All of the plants, and many of the arthropod species are abundant at lower elevations on Maunakea,
and some are found island‐wide. Despite the appearance of a stable population, some of these may
only exist at high elevations through continuous re‐introduction from more a productive
population downslope, known as a “rescue effect.” The practical considerations are the same. Mostof these species will never be permanently eradicated and are likely to require regular control
effort for many years.

ESTABLISHED PLANT SPECIES
A written control plan will be prepared for each Management Zone within the Management Area.
Following is a general description of the state of invasive plant species in these zones andrecommendations for future control strategies.
Halepōhaku
Halepōhaku is situated just below the treeline, approximately 9,500 ft. in the māmane‐ (Sophorachrysophylla) dominated subalpine woodlands. The subalpine woodlands at Halepōhaku are
noticeably more densely vegetated, and more diverse, than the alpine zones. Ground cover isclustered at the base of māmane trees, with considerable bare soil and rock in between. Common
P a g e 53 | 84

native grasses include Hawai‘i bentgrass (Agrostis sandwicensis, lovegrass (Eragrostis spp), andalpine hairgrass (Deschampsia nubigena). None are as common as the invasive needlegrass(Nassella cernua) and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Common native shrubs include pūkiawe(Styphelia tameiameiae) and ‘āweoweo (Chenopodium oahuense). Many native plant species
historically recorded in the area are now rare (‘ōhelo, Vaccinium reticulatum; pilo, Coprosma
montana) or can no longer be found (makou, Ranunculus hawaiensis; ‘a‘ali‘i, Dodonea viscosa), while
the list of invasive species has steadily grown (2 ; 26).
Although the endangered palila (Loxioides bailleui) has not frequently been observed at Halepōhaku
for many years, the area is designated critical habitat for the recovery of the species. Replacementof invasive annual plants with native perennials is expected to support Māmane regeneration
through reduced competition for water and nutrients. Successful recovery of all species native tothe area may be dependent on the ungulate removal planned by DOFAW following fence
completion.
The first priority within the Halepōhaku parcel is to suppress invasive weeds in all high traffic
areas, to limit the transport of seeds to the summit by visitors and staff. This is accomplished bydesignating a weed control buffer around all buildings, walkways, and parking lots in the area.
Work will progress outward in stages until a 25‐yard buffer, approximately 12.5‐acres, is achieved.
Weed tolerance levels in the 25‐yard buffer are quite low. As this area becomes more manageable,
work will intensify in the remaining seven acres of the parcel. Weed removal will be balanced byrevegetation work described in the restoration plan, currently under development.
Complete eradication of all weeds at all times is unlikely to be achieved. Acceptable tolerance orthreshold levels are measured by plant cover in random plots at least once (ideally twice) per year.
Maintenance thereafter will be scheduled to keep weed cover below these tolerance levels. Zero
tolerance for mature weeds will be allowed immediately adjacent to thoroughfares. Weedtolerance for the 25‐yard buffer is less than 1% cover for mature broadleaf plants, and less than 5%
total invasive species cover. Grass cover, including invasive grasses, may be maintained at a higher
density to control dust and erosion at the site until alternative cover is established. The
management goal is to replace all invasive grasses with native species.
Techniques will include cutting, hand pulling, and applying herbicide, the latter by trained staff orcontractors. Work will progress incrementally to allow dense patches of vegetation to be searched
for native plants. Rare plants (including “common” native plants that are locally rare) will be
documented and visibly marked to prevent accidental impacts.
Herbicide use in the area is expected to be limited to foliar spray of glyphosate (Roundup ™) withan added surfactant. The additive is recommended to penetrate leaf surfaces covered with dense
trichomes (hairs) typical of weeds in the area. Triclopyr may be added for improved efficacy orused separately on certain weeds. Stubborn or rapidly regenerating weeds may require the use of
imazapyr or aminopyralid, formulations with some soil residual activity. Use of these herbicides
will be limited in scope and conducted primarily in the initial treatment phase. Herbicides will not
be used within five meters of endangered plants.

P a g e 54 | 84

In 2012, monthly volunteer weed control efforts were organized to begin to remove invasive
broadleaf herbs, including fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis), telegraph weed (Heterotheca
grandifolia), mullein (Verbascum spp.) from around parking lots and buildings. Grasses were left inplace to hold the soil, and to avoid impacts to native species growing amongst the invasive grasses.
Volunteer weed pulls will be moved into the seven‐acre, second priority area (areas beyond a 25‐
yard buffer surrounding facilities). This second priority area consists of approximately 4‐acres that
separate the Halepōhaku support facilities from the Visitor Information Station; and an additional
1.5‐acres due east of the Visitor Information Station. Progress will be gradual to allow time fornative species to gain a foothold in the cleared areas, a process which may be aided by broadcast
seeding and outplanting common native species, according to the restoration plan underdevelopment. OMKM also has concurrence with DOFAW to conduct manual weed control inside the
DOFAW managed 2.25‐acre silversword exclosure. The volunteer program provides a meaningful,hands‐on experience on the mountain for members of the Big Island community, builds
relationships, and increases awareness of the OMKM mission and program areas.
The 1.5‐acre construction staging area is outside of the 25‐yard buffer. This staging area is to betreated as a quarantine area with all introduced plants removed and the site treatedprophylactically with residual pesticides to prevent establishment of any arthropods that may
inadvertently be carried with construction supplies.

Summit Access Road
The lower portion of Summit Access Road traverses the alpine shrubland. Roadsides are dottedwith the native nohoanu (Geranium cuneatum ssp. hololeucum), pāwale (Rumex giganteus) andpūkiawe (Styphelia tameiameiae), and as well as introduced fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis),
sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Plant densities decline
rapidly with increasing elevation through the alpine grassland (grass desert) and alpine stonedesert. The upper portions of the road are barren, with occasional native na‘ena‘e (Dubautia spp.),pūkiawe, native grasses, or introduced species.
While OMKM has authority to manage only the road and the easement to the east side of the roadfor much of its length, management of weeds on only one side of the road is clearly impractical.
OMKM is to collaborate with the Natural Area Reserve management to jointly monitor and control
weeds throughout the shared length of road.
The purpose of weed control along the access road is to prevent establishment of new weeds, andto halt the progression of established weeds to higher elevations. The road and 400 yard easement
together comprise 700‐acres, an area that may be too large to keep weed free. The majority ofweeds are likely to be found close to the road. Roadsides are ideal weed establishment sites, due toregular disturbance from road grading and traffic. Propagule pressure is high, with weeds
hitchhiking on every variety of vehicle. Seeds that have successfully attached to vehicles may be
shaken off as the vehicle traverses the unpaved portion of road eg. attached to dried soil thatP a g e 55 | 84

becomes detached from vibration. Successfully established roadside weeds reproduce to become
hitchhikers once again and are transported upslope.
The primary objective for this Management Zone is the suppression of weeds within ten yards ofthe formed roadway. Work will progress from high to low elevation. As satisfactory control ofestablished weed species is achieved in this area, the control zone will be enlarged to include
additional lands further from the road. Increasing distance from the road is expected to provide adiminishing return on effort. Despite relatively low weed densities, it is unlikely that the entire
width can be regularly maintained.
Weeds will be hand pulled where feasible (at high elevation), and sprayed with herbicide as the sizeand density of patches increase (below the Science Reserve). Herbicide options are the same as
those presented for use in the Halepōhaku area. Glyphosate sprays with an added surfactant are
generally efficacious for the known weed species in the. Imazapyr and aminopyralid have someresidual action and may be used to decrease treatment frequency.
The Access Road has mostly been formed in a manner to reduce the grade to a level suitable forfour wheel drive vehicles. This results in a series of side‐cut and raised road sections. This
presents operational challenges to weed control. The steep, loose sides cannot be safely traversed
to cut, pull, or spot‐spray individual plants. At lower elevations, invasive and native species are
thickly interspersed, making broadcast spraying from a truck difficult. Weed control in these areas
will require resources to develop practical control techniques. OMKM will work with BIISC, theUniversity of Hawai‘i agricultural extension program (CTAHR), and the Hawai‘i Department ofTransportation to develop effective and appropriate procedures.

The Mauna Kea Science Reserve (MKSR)The MKSR includes one alpine plant community, the alpine stone desert from approximately 11,000ft to the summit, 13780 ft (33) . Perhaps due to historical grazing by introduced ungulates, little
distinction can currently be observed between the two alpine plant communities described by
Mueller‐Dumbois and Fosberg(34), alpine grass desert and alpine stone desert), other than anincrementally greater density of plants at the lower elevations (26). The entire MKSR is characterized
by very low densities of two native grasses, Hawaiian bentgrass (Agrostis sandwicensis) and pili uka(Trisetum glomeratum), the shrubs pūkiawe (Styphelia tameiameiae) and ‘ōhelo (Vaccinium
reticulatum), and occasional ferns, including Douglas’ bladderfern (Cystopteris douglasii, acandidate endangered species) and kalamoho (Pellaea ternifolia). Perhaps more common than any
vascular plants, are mosses, lichens, and algae growing in protected sites. ‘Āhinahina (theMaunakea silversword, Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. sandwicense), a federally endangered
species, is found within fenced units in this area.
A few established invasive plants are dispersed at low densities throughout the UH Managed Lands.
Hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata), for example, is likely to be found in sheltered sites
throughout the MKSR. Staff recently found approximately one plant for every mile hiked in the
MKSR. Regular surveys of the entire 11,288‐acre MKSR to remove plants at that density may be

P a g e 56 | 84

impractical. Control of widespread, low density species is therefore focused at sensitive sites,
which include historic properties and rare plant locations. These sites are regularly monitored bytrained archaeologists and biologists, respectively. Like any visitors, scientists may also
inadvertently introduce invasive species. By including weed control with their scheduled activities,
OMKM can detect and control weeds at more than 263 well‐distributed sites, traveling over a large
portion of the MKSR without adding a significant level of disturbance. This approach mimics theSpecial Ecological Area or Weed Control Area Buffer systems used by other conservation agencies
in Hawai‘i (4 ; 22 ; 35). It may be unique, however, in using historic properties, in addition to high value
natural resources, as foci for weed control.

The Astronomy Precinct
All of the Astronomy Precinct is within the alpine stone desert. Certain invasive plant species,
including hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata), fireweed (Senecio madagascariensis) and rescue
grass (Bromus catharticus), are found more commonly in cracks, drainage ditches, and roadsides
within the astronomy precinct than elsewhere in the MKSR(26). It is unknown whether thefrequency of invasive plants is due to higher rates of introductions or a greater variety of shelteredsites, or, likely, both.
Invasive plants in the vicinity of roads and observatories remain sufficiently sparse that they can beremoved by regular hand‐pulling. Ranger patrols already accomplish this task as part of theirroutine, and report the species, and number of invasive plants pulled in their daily ranger report.
Although the effort has so far been limited to fireweed, training is planned to increase competency
to distinguish the limited number of native and invasive species. Distinct work areas will be clearly
defined and named to improve staff ability to schedule and treat all developed areas known orlikely to have invasive weeds.

ESTABLISHED ARTHROPODS
Unlike invasive plants, control methods for invasive arthropods are often species‐specific and little
commonality exists between the management approaches for different species. For this reason,arthropod management plans must be prepared by species for the entire Management Area. Somecommonality between control methods for species found in and around structures may exist, andthese may be different from control methods in the natural environment. For this reason, themanagement plans may outline different approaches for these two habitat types.
A total of 209 arthropods have been detected within the Management Area as a result of various
invertebrate surveys (36‐45). Of these, many pose little or no threat to human health or theenvironment. However, fifteen species pose threats to human health and safety and are closely
associated with humans (Table 4.2). These species will be controlled within and near facilities(buildings and other structures) wherever possible. Thirty four arthropod species have beenclassified as low‐level threats to ecosystems (Table 4.3). Of these, seventeen species (mostly verysmall wasps) are dependent on host plants which themselves are introduced. As these host plants
P a g e 57 | 84are controlled, the associated arthropods will not be able to survive. The remaining species are
spiders (11 species) and beetles (6 species) – mostly common “weedy” species that are globallyubiquitous and widespread. Controlling these species in the environment is difficult and generally
the non‐target impacts of control methods are an unacceptable compromise. These species will becontrolled within and near facilities (buildings and other structures) wherever possible through ageneral pest control program.

Table 4.2. Arthropod species detected within the Management Area that pose a human health risk.

Common Name
German cockroach
American cockroach

scientific name
Blattella germanica
unknownnon‐ biting midge

Chironomus sp.

midge

unknown

mosquito
honey bee
European paper wasp
red brown paper wasp
western yellow jacket
hornet/wasps
blood feeding horn fly
blood feeding horn fly
house fly
fly
biting midge

unknown
Apis mellifera
Polistes dominus
Polistes olivaceus
Vespula pensylvanica
unknown
Haematobia irritans
Stomoxys calcitransunknown
unknown
Forcipomyia spp.

Control Typesanitation, pesticides or baits
sanitation, pesticides or baits
sanitation (remove water
sources)sanitation (remove water
sources)sanitation (remove water
sources)swarm traps
traps, pesticides
traps, pesticides
traps, pesticides
traps, pesticides
traps, pesticides
traps, pesticides
traps, pesticides
traps, pesticides
testicides

Feasibility ofcontrol
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low

Table 4.3. Arthropod species detected within the Management Area that pose an environmental
threat.

Common Namebraconid wasp
braconid wasp
braconid wasp
braconid wasp
braconid wasp
funnel weaver
sac spider

Scientific name
Apanteles spp.
Bracon spp.
Chelonus blackburni
Ontsira palliates
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown

Control Typeremove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
sanitation, pesticide
sanitation, pesticide

Feasibility ofcontrol
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
P a g e 58 | 84

sac spider
ground spider
stealthy ground spider
sheet web spider
sheet web spider

Meriola arcifera
Urozelotes rusticus
Unknown
Erigone spp.
Lepthyphantes tenuis

sanitation, pesticide
sanitation, pesticide
sanitation, pesticide
sanitation, pesticide
sanitation, pesticide

low
low
low
low
low

jumping spider
cobweb weavers
spiderdrugstore beetle
ground beetle
ground beetle
ground beetle
ground beetle
redlegged ham beetle
ichneumonid wasp
inchneumonid wasp
hover fly parasite
ichneumonid wasp
ichneumonid wasp
ichneumonid wasp
ichneumonid wasp
ichneumonid wasp
inchneumonid wasp
ichneumonid wasp
ichneumonid wasp
leaf cutting bee
ghost ant

Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Agonum muelleri
Laemostenus complanatus
Trechus obtusus
Unknown
Necrobia rufipes
Calliephialtes grapholithae
Diadegma blackburni
Diplazon laetatorius
Hyposoter exiguae
Ichneumon cupitus
Ichneumon laetus
Ichneumon spp.
Meteorus purpuripennis
Pristomerus hawaiiensis
Trathala flavoorbitalis
unknown
Megachile timberlakei
Tapinoma melanocephalum

sanitation, pesticide
sanitation, pesticide
sanitation, pesticide
pesticides
pesticides
pesticides
pesticides
pesticides
pesticides
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
remove host plants
baits

low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
high

white‐footed ant
plagiolepis ant
cardiocondyla ant

Technomyrmex albipes
Plagiolepis alluaudi
Cardiocondyla kagutsuchi

pesticide or baits
pesticide or baits
pesticide or baits

high
high
high

HIGH‐PRIORITY ARTHROPOD THREATS
Three high‐priority arthropod pest species (all ants) have been detected within the Management
Area: Tapinoma melanocephalum, Technomyrmex albipes, Plagiolepis alluaudi, and Cardiocondyla
kagutsuchi. The locations these species have been detected at are shown in Figure 4.2. T. albipes
has recently been reclassified, and most taxonomists now believe “albipes” is a group of four
distinct, closely related species (vitiensis, albipes, difficilus and pallipes). The most common of theseon Hawai‘i island is T. vitiensis. The only established ant in the Management Area is Cardiocondyla
kagutsuchi at Halepōhaku, all other ant species have only been detected in single instances and not
found in established populations.

P a g e 59 | 84

Figure 4.2. Ant detections in the Management Area.

P a g e 60 | 84

Each established species will require a separate management plan as control methods differ
substantially between species. Tapinoma melanocephalum a tropical structural pest, attracted tobaits containing carbohydrate attractants, while C kagutsuchi and T “albipes” are not attracted to aparticular bait type.

P a g e 61 | 84

Section 5. Rapid Response
Background
The Mauna Kea Science Reserve and Halepōhaku are 11,288‐acre and 19‐acre (respectively) areasof land leased by the University of Hawai‘i from the State of Hawai‘i for use as a scientific complex.
Management is guided by the 2009 Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan (2009) which
provides the policy framework for the responsible stewardship and use of University‐managed
lands on Maunakea through to 2020. The Comprehensive Management Plan addresses the overallmanagement of cultural, natural, research and recreational values of the precinct. The management
policies for the natural values of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve are outlined in the Mauna Kea
Natural Resources Management Plan (2009) which forms a component plan of the Comprehensive
Management Plan.

The following agencies have jurisdiction, responsibility or roles relating to the detection andmanagement of invasive species in the Mauna Kea Science Reserve and Halepōhaku:









The Office of Mauna Kea Management has overall responsibility for managing the Mauna Kea
Science Reserve subject to approval by Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources,
The University of Hawai‘i leases the Management Areas from the State of Hawai‘i (or holds
easements), identifies policy through the Master Plan (2000), and provides institutional
support to OMKM,
The Department of Lands and Natural Resources is the land owner and reviews all land use
proposals to determine the appropriate level of permitting, approve plans or permits, or refer
the proposal to the Board of Land and Natural Resources for action,
Hawai‘i Division of Forests and Wildlife provides technical advice on issues, manages the
Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve, and has regulatory authority for wildlife,
The Mauna Kea Management Board is a volunteer, community‐based entity with a sustained
direct voice for the management, and approve OMKM projects and plans, andHawaiʻi Department of Agriculture Pesticides Branch administers the state pesticide
regulations which govern the use of pesticides in the state of Hawai‘i.

OutlineThis section contains a detailed emergency response plan (ERP) for incursions of invasive
arthropods or plants discovered in the Maunakea management area. The document is divided into
five parts which correspond to the different stages of a response:

Pre‐incursion planning – The general level of preparedness recommended for the Office of Mauna
Kea Management is described in this section. It includes the tasks that should be undertaken before
an incursion is detected.
P a g e 62 | 84

Initial detection and response – This section outlines the logical steps and lines of authority forthe initial investigation and the process for decision making.
Guidelines for the initial delimiting survey – Once an incursion has been detected, it is important
to determine how large the pest population is. Often a single detection is followed by discovery ofother populations of the same species. The extent of the invasion is an important factor in deciding
the best course of action and provides the basis for estimating budgets and resources needed to
manage the situation.
Elements of a management plan – This section describes the essential elements of a plan to
manage the new incursion.
Organizational structure and reporting – The organizational structure and reporting
relationships of staff engaged in a response are listed in this section.
This document should be reviewed before, during and after an incursion.

Pre‐Incursion Planning
There are four important issues that need to be addressed before an exotic species incursion is
discovered:

LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ACTThe DLNR‐approved Mauna Kea Master Plan (2000) and Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management
Plan (2009) identify the University’s responsibilities to address invasive species issues, as does the1968 General Lease.
Additional law and policy information is available at
http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/hisc/info/policy/ . In addition, Maunakea is specifically identified as notexempt
from
State
of
Hawai‘irequirements
topreparean
Environmental
Assessment.(http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Documents/Environmental_Council/Exempti
on_Lists_By_Department/State_Agencies/University‐of‐Hawaii‐2001‐03‐14.pdf).
Thisisinterpreted to mean the Science Reserve. Hawaii Administrative Rules for lands zoned asConservation identify requirements for obtaining plans or permits.
The Office of Mauna Kea Management should ensure that it has the powers needed to act promptly
on the discovery of a new invasive species, including use of appropriate pesticides or removal
methods, power to enter any infested area, and appropriate certifications for application personnel.

REGISTRATION AND PERMITS TO APPLY CONTROL CHEMICALSRegistration of pesticides and applicators is the responsibility of the Hawai‘i Department ofAgriculture (HDOA) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Any pesticide used in
the United States must be registered with the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide andRodenticide Act. Any EPA registered product must also be registered under state regulations
before it can be legally used in Hawai‘i. Office of Mauna Kea Management field staff should beproperly trained in the safe and effective use of any pesticide likely to be used in an emergency
P a g e 63 | 84

response. Per the Mauna Kea Natural Resource Management Plan, pesticide application will bedone by individuals possessing a pesticide applicator license issued by the Hawai‘i Department ofAgriculture Pesticides Branch.

AVAILABILITY OF CHEMICALS AND APPLICATION EQUIPMENT
Appropriate chemicals, application equipment and personal protective wear (gloves, masks etc.)
should be on‐hand in readiness for a rapid response. These items should be stored in appropriate
conditions and product expiry dates checked regularly to ensure they are ready for use. Sufficient
stocks should be on hand to treat a minimum of 1‐acre infested by any target species. Areas below
the Science Reserve boundary requiring treatment larger than 1‐acre require additional DLNR
approval, providing additional time to obtain resources (HAR §13‐5).

ACCESS TO EMERGENCY FUNDS
In many cases, the discovery of a new invasive species will require a response and resources notbudgeted for in normal operating funds. The Office of Mauna Kea Management will request, fromthe University of Hawai‘i, additional funds and human resources in the event of a new incursion.

Initial Detection and Response
When a suspected invasive species is reported, the generic response to this detection is outlined in
Figure 1. During this part of the response, the Natural Resource Program (NRP) manager of the
Office of Mauna Kea Management seeks to confirm the identity of the species and obtain an initialreport of the extent of the infestation. With this information, the NRP manager will decide whether
to involve the Emergency Response Management Committee (ERMC).
Before the ERMC meets to discuss the incursion the NRP manager should begin a delimiting survey
and restrict movement of for risk items leaving the infested area. These risk items include potted
plants, soil and aggregates, items that have been in contact with the ground, produce, hay or woodshavings (a common spill containment berm material), mulch and building supplies, earthmoving
equipment and other vehicles. The risk items list may need to be revised depending on the species
that has been detected and/or other site‐related factors such as activities being conducted in theinfested area.

THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEEThe ERMC is a standing committee with oversight of invasive species detections for Maunakea. The
committee advises and informs the Maunakea Management Board, has powers to authorize
temporary resources for immediate response activities and makes decisions on how to proceed. A
flowchart showing the flow of information on discovery of a new invasive species is shown in
Figure 5.1, and options that the ERMC will consider is shown in Figure 5.2. The ERMC shall becomprised of the following persons:
1. Chairperson, Mauna Kea Management Board
2. Members of the Maunakea Management Board as requiredP a g e 64 | 84

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Delegate, Office of Coastal Conservation Lands (Department of Lands and Natural Resources)
Branch Manager, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (or delegate)
Representative, Kahu Kū Mauna
Coordinator, Big Island Invasive Species Committee (or delegate)
Office of Mauna Kea Management Natural Resource Manager [non‐voting]A specialist or specialists of the new invasive organism [non‐voting]
Other persons or advisors as deemed necessary by the chair [non‐voting]P a g e 65 | 84

Detection in the field is reported bya field officer, member of public.
Information provided to NRP
manager

NRP manager, assigns appropriate staff
to gather more information, seeks advice
from a specialist.

NRP manager sends samples for expert(national and overseas) taxonomic
identification if deemed necessary.

Assigned staff return to site of detection for
preliminary survey, diagnosis of situation andcollection of samples. Secure the site and apply
local quarantine if required. Then report to NRP
manager.
No Action –No emergency response action
required. Mauna Kea Management
Board advised of incident in regular
reporting

NRP manager takes appropriate action
depending on species identity and if
required, informs ERMC chair.

Commence local quarantine, containment
activities, delimiting survey. Prepare reportfor ERMC
Action –NRP manager initiates initial response.
ERMC schedule to meet at earliest
opportunity.

ERMC decides on appropriate
response action after considering
technical advisor’s report.

Figure 5.1. Generic response to a suspected invasive species detection.

P a g e 66 | 84

ERMC meet to consider management options

Aggressive control/containment
High inputs (objectives determine
budget)eradication

Commence actions necessary
for immediate containment
and eradication. Conduct
feasibility study,

Develop management
plan and budget

Not feasible

Implement control plan

feasible

Develop eradication
plan and budget

implement eradication plan

Monitor outcomesagainst objectives

Successful

Not successful

Monitor outcomesagainst objectives

Not successful

Long‐term management. Low
inputs, (budget determines
objectives)

Develop long term management
plan and budget. Implement
plan

Monitor outcomesagainst objectives

Successful

Not successful

Do nothing

Monitor situation andreport any changes to
distribution or impacts

No change instatusSignificant change
in status

END
stand down emergency
response

Continue plan
stand down
emergency response

successful

Continue implementation

Figure 5.2. Decision flowchart used by ERMC to decide appropriate course of action and monitor outcomes
P a g e 67 | 84

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIESA brief outline of the functions and responsibilities of persons involved in an emergency response islisted in the table below.

Table 5.1. Roles and responsibilities of persons involved in the emergency response

POSITION

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

University of Hawai‘iProvides funding for the Emergency Response Plan.

Mauna Kea Management Board

Overall approval of the program.

Discusses recommendations from the TechnicalAdviser (TA) after delimiting survey and decides onfurther action;
Recommends overall strategy to the Mauna Kea
Management Board;
Appoints Operations Manager and Field Controller;

Natural Resource Program managerLiaison for Office of Mauna Kea Management;
Typically Initiates response actions

Specialist

appointed by and reporting to ERMC



Collects samples and organizes identification ofsamples;Collects information.

Emergency Response
Management Committee(ERMC)

Operations Manager
appointed by Mauna Kea Management
Board on recommendation of ERMC

Reports to ERMC ;Manages day‐to‐day finances;
Oversees field operations;
Checks resource requirements;
Selects and appoints the response team(s);Briefs and trains response team(s) and Field
Controller together with Technical Adviser.

Conducts delimiting survey;
Submits report including response options,recommendations and tentative budgets to ERMC;
Briefs and trains response team(s) and Field
Controller together with Operations Manager;
Provides technical advice to ERMC, Operations
Manager, Field Controller, operational teams;

Technical Adviser

appointed by ERMC;
reports to nobody to make sure that
advice remains objective;
located as required;
has to be a recognized expert on the

P a g e 68 | 84

particular species or taxon.
Finance Officer

appointed by ERMC on
recommendation of Operations
Manager;
located on site full time;reports to Operations Manager;

Field Teams

Periodically monitors operations.



Responsible for administration and finance.



Logistics;
Day‐to‐day control of field operations;
Liaises with district staff and stakeholders.



Field activities such as surveys.

reports to Operations Manager.

Field Controller

appointed by Operations Manager;
report to Field Controller.

The Specialist
OMKM rangers are usually the first to investigate a possible incursion after it is reported. It is therole of the specialist to collect specimens for identification, dispatch them to a recognized expert
and gather information on the incursion and the species detected for the NRP manager.
Before leaving to investigate the suspect incursion, the Specialist should seek confirmation of thepowers available to him or her, specifically when it pertains to site entry, quarantine directions andpreventing the movement of risk items.
Collecting Specimens
The first step in managing a possible invasive species incursion is to know exactly which species
has been detected. This means obtaining specimens and having them identified by an appropriate
taxonomist and confirmed by a reliable institution. Guides to collecting specimens are appended.
Secure the Scene/Containment
Invasive species can spread quickly from one site to another by human‐mediated means. Insects,
plant seeds etc. can be concealed in produce, potted plants and other risk items which aretransported by people to a new location. Preventing further spread at this stage of an incursion isvery important. If it can be established that only a small area is infested, preventing public access tothe entire site is a very good solution. If the infested site is larger, the Specialist should ensure thatpeople living or working within the infested area do not move risk items to other locations. Risk
items should include the following:

Soil, gravel, aggregates or other landscaping material,
Any item that has been in contact with soil for more than 24 hours,
Potted plants, mulch, hay, firewood, thatching and other building materials,
P a g e 69 | 84Earthmoving machinery.

The risk items list may need to be revised depending the species that has been detected and/or
other site‐related factors such as industries or activities being conducted in the infested area. For
example, ant colonies will disperse if the colony is disturbed. The Specialist should ensure thatpeople living or working in or near the infested area do not, disturb, interfere or attempt to treat
the insects or plants. If the infested area is small, it may be demarcated with “caution” or“quarantine” tape.

Gather Information
After returning from the initial investigation, the specialist should prepare a short situation reportfor the NRP Manager which should include the following information as a minimum:






the result of the identification,
picture(s) of the invasive species,
date and details of first report,
size and location coordinates of the infested area,
if possible, an indication as to how the organism may have reached the area,

Additionally, the specialist should compile available information (reports, journal articles, etc)
about the species including: potential impacts in terms of:o economic impacts,o social (including human health) impacts,o cultural impacts,o environmental impacts and biodiversity.
 expected cost of export treatments,
 known control measures and inadvertent impacts.
Once the species identity has been verified, a decision needs to be made on how to progress. The
final decision on further action lies with the ERMC. If the invasive species is likely to cause
unacceptable impacts, the Chairperson appoints a Technical Adviser to conduct a delimiting survey
and mobilizes the necessary funds. (Please note that the Specialist could fulfill this function if
sufficiently qualified).
The NRP Manager establishes quarantine restrictions as required, and in close collaboration with
the ERMC should brief the Mauna Kea Management Board on the incursion. Once all parties havebeen briefed, the ERMC should notify staff working within the Management Area of the occurrenceof the new invasive species and what to look for and how, who and where to report to. The ERMC
should also appoint a communication specialist to develop a communication strategy.

P a g e 70 | 84

The Technical Advisor
The NRP Manager, in consultation with the ERMC, may proceed with an emergency response or
decide to take no further action. If proceeding with a response, a Technical Advisor will be
appointed by the ERMC with advice from NRP Manager. The Technical Advisor’s role is to delimit
the infestation, advise the NRP Manager on trace‐forward and trace‐back activities, and prepare a
draft management plan. The Technical Advisor does not recommend a course of action as thisdecision is made by the ERMC. Rather he or she advises on the technical merits of proposedcourses of action.

Delimiting Survey
The immediate task of the Technical Advisor is to plan and implement a delimiting survey.
Standardized surveillance methods have been developed and are appended. The delimiting survey
is carried out by a survey team composed of the Technical Adviser, the Specialist, available field
officers from the Office of Mauna Kea Management and the Field Officer who initially reported thespecies. The size of the survey teams will depend on the expected area to be surveyed. Additionally,
one or more staff from the appropriate quarantine agency should be on hand specifically tocoordinate and implement trace‐forward and trace‐back activities. The communication specialist
should be involved in the delimiting survey and oversee media and public communication whennecessary.
The objectives of the delimiting survey are:
 Establish the borders of the infested area,
 Gather information for deciding what actions should follow,
 To advise staff on trace‐forward and trace‐back activities in order to determine if there are
more infested areas, and To determine resources needed.
The Technical Adviser ensures that all items required for the survey are available, such as: Emergency response plan, A map of the area, Notebooks, pens, pencils, markers,
 Digital camera, GPS units, radios with enough batteries, Field record sheets, Equipment: brush, pocket knife, spade, hand lens, specimen bottles, plastic bags in various
sizes, 70% alcohol solution, torch, gloves; aspirator, forceps, and First aid kit.
The survey starts from the area where the incursion was reported. Actions included are to: identify potential users of the site, inform them of the situation, discuss actions to take and seek
their cooperation,

P a g e 71 | 84













establish exactly how and when the new species reached the area,
monitor the speed of dispersal,
map boundaries and estimate size of the infested area,
identify soil, aggregates, machinery, plants, plant products, or other articles whose movementout of the infested area would need to be regulated in the containment of the species,
identify and notify the owners of these materials, machinery, plant products, or other articles,
assess the possibility of containing the new invasive species and prevent further spread,
identify how and where infested items and/or products could be treated or disposed of,take pictures of the new species, including affected plants and areas,through the communications specialist, inform appropriate authorities and stakeholders,
recommend local staff who would need to be part of further actions,assess the feasibility, costs and possible problems of containing, eradicating and managing the
new species.

As soon as practical, and in consultation with the other team members, the Technical Adviser
completes a survey report with the addresses of all stakeholders as an annex and distributes it toboth the survey team and the ERMC members. The survey report should include: names of areas
surveyed, area affected (extent of infestation), description of land use type, accessibility, include
maps, photographs, density of infestations and land tenure.
The survey report also includes response options, recommendations and tentative budgets. The
Report should not recommend a particular course of action but outline options available. The ERMC
makes the decision on what options to take.

The ERMC will, based on the Report decide the response actions:
1. If the species cannot be eradicated in the infested area: containment within the infested areaand surveillance in endangered areas,
2. If the species can potentially be eradicated in the infested area: containment within the infested
area and surveillance in endangered areas, followed by eradication in the infested area if thefirst step was successful.

Draft Management Plan
The Technical Adviser will develop a draft management plan and budget for the response decided
by the ERMC. The Chairperson convenes a meeting of the ERMC to discuss the Technical Adviser’sreport within a week of report submission when the committee decides on a course of action. Afterapproval by ERMC, the Technical Adviser finalizes the management plan and budget for approvalby the ERMC, in consultation with the Finance Officer and NRP Manager.
The management plan should include the following components:

P a g e 72 | 84

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

A surveillance plan,A plan for treatment and eradication including anticipated timeframe to eradication (if needed),
A communications strategy,Specifications for movement controls of risk items out of the infested area.
The methods to be used for monitoring progress and declaration of area freedom,
A budget,Recommendations for operational research (if needed); andAn organizational plan, suggested including time tables.

SURVEILLANCE PLAN
The Surveillance Plan should include the following












Specification of plants, plant products, and other risk items that could be hosts or carry theinvasive species,
A list of surveillance sites selected on the advice of the Technical Adviser,
Measures that achieve cooperation from users of the infested site,
Instructions on how to:o survey an area,o record data,
State who would do the actual surveillance,
List of required surveillance equipment (preferably locally available),
Instructions for collecting and preserving suspect specimens for identification by a local
specialist,
Define further action if suspicious specimens are found,A surveillance schedule, andStarting date for monthly reviews of the operation.

The surveillance plan should have an information file on the new species and the relevant part ofany legal provisions attached.

TREATMENTThe treatment plan should contain the following:







A definition of the infested area: which plants, plant products, or other articles need to betreated, destroyed or disinfested,
Measures that achieve cooperation from site users and owners of possibly infested plants, plant
products or other articles in the infested area,
A list of required equipment (preferably locally available). Stockpiles of pesticides fortreatments that can be used and replaced,
Consideration should be given at an early stage to the registration of any pesticides that are notalready registered or use patterns not covered by existing labels,
Contain instructions on how to treat, disinfest or destroy risk items,
Action if suspicious specimen are found,P a g e 73 | 84









Specify under what conditions restitution may need to be paid for destruction of infested items
Establish work schedules,
Indicate the duration of treatments,
Specify the period of time without new detections that has to elapse before the species can be
declared eradicated. (Usually this is two years, but may be longer for plants with long‐lived
seed banks),
Establishment of an operational control center or use an already established facility; andStarting date for monthly reviews of the operation.

The eradication plan has the file on the new species and the relevant part of the legal provisions
attached.

COMMUNICATIONS
A communications strategy will need to be developed by a communications specialist and should
address the following issues:






Lines of communication for operational staff, the Mauna Kea Management Board, University of
Hawai‘i, site users and other key stakeholders,
Reporting to appropriate agencies,
A plan to engage all site users potentially affected by the new invasive species,
Dissemination of movement controls as they apply to risk items,
A public awareness program.

MOVEMENT CONTROLSThe movement control plan should specify which items can or cannot be moved from the infestedarea(s) as well as prescribed approved treatment for disinfestations where this is possible. The
costs of disinfestations and responsibility for meeting these costs also needs to be established.

BUDGET
Points to consider in the budget are, broadly speaking, expenses for human resources, transport,material and awareness measures or, in more detail:

Human resourceso salaries and wages,o overtime payments,o meal allowances,o costs of accommodation and per diems.
Transporto hire of transport,o fuel,o spare parts, servicing and upkeep.
Materials
o Pesticides,
P a g e 74 | 84

o inspection equipment,o treatment equipment,o first aid kit,o stationery.
Public Awarenesso radio or television announcements,o leaflets ‐ design costs, number of leaflets.
Restitution
o Appropriate restitution for destruction of risk items and possible loss of access toinfested sites.

RESEARCH PRIORITIESThe plan should address any gaps in knowledge that might impact on the success of surveillance or
eradication. It is possible there may be unique issues that may need to be dealt with. Where
knowledge gaps, or the need for more research or trial work exists, these should be identified in theplan.

Organizational Structure.
The control center should report to the ERMC, through the NRP Manager. The complexity of theorganizational structure should be consistent with the size of the response. An organizational chart(Figure 5.3) shows the reporting relationships.

P a g e 75 | 84

ERMC

OMKM

NRP manager

technical advisor
operations manager

field controller

survey teams

finance officer

communication
officertreatment teams

Figure 5.3. Organizational chart of the response team showing lines of authority (solid) andcommunication (dashed).

The duties and responsibilities of key staff are as follows:

THE NRP MANAGER
provides monthly reports to the ERMC and answers queries.

OPERATIONS MANAGER

Reports to the NRP manager,
Is responsible for the overall implementation of the surveillance and eradication plans,
Is responsible for the purchase of all the required equipment,

P a g e 76 | 84














Ensures that equipment is available when and where needed,
Maintains an inventory of issued equipment,
Organizes transport and accommodation,
Selects and appoints a surveillance team and eradication team of qualified staff,
Together with the Technical Adviser, briefs and trains the surveillance and eradication teams
for their tasks. The trainers need to make sure that everybody knows their positions andunderstands their responsibilities,
Supplies the surveillance team with:o surveillance plan and attachments,o surveillance equipment,o appropriate inspection and treatment documentation,o safety equipment and first aid kit,o datasheets, notebooks, pens, markers.
Decides on improvements to the operation that are suggested by the Technical Adviser or Field
Controller,
Manages operational funds on a day‐to‐day basis,
Reports expenses to the Finance Officer, andRequests new funds from the Finance Officer.

THE FIELD CONTROLLER
In a large response, this could become two positions: one managing surveillance and one managing
treatment. For a smaller response, this position could be combined with that of the Operations
Manager.







Organizes surveillance and treatment schedules,
Is responsible for day to day implementation of the operation,
Ensures that:o appropriate procedures are followed,
o infested products are disposed of or treated in the most appropriate way,o treatments are applied correctly.
Decides on improvements to the operation suggested by the surveillance team, andSuggests improvements to the Operations Manager and Technical Adviser.

THE FINANCE OFFICER
In smaller operations, the finance officer may be a person working as an administrator in the leaddepartment and have additional responsibilities not related to the response. In a larger operation,
the Financial Controller will be a dedicated position.






Reports to the Operations manager and ERMC,
Is in charge of administration and finance,
Establishes procedures that allow fast processing of payments,
Ensures all appropriate governance requirements are followed, andMobilizes new funds requested by the Operations Manager.

P a g e 77 | 84

COMMUNICATION OFFICER









Reports to the Operations Manager and ERMC,Manages the flow of information,
Prepares briefing notes to senior management, other political entities, and ensures appropriate
persons are informed of developments. This includes communication with site users and the
media,
Prepares briefing notes and reports to ERMC,
Designs and implements public outreach strategy including contact with the media,
Designs and implements outreach and engagement strategy to site users and other relevant
stakeholders likely to visit or work within the areas being treated and surveyed, andIs the first point of contact for external agencies regarding progress and developments.

THE TECHNICAL ADVISER:
Briefs and trains the surveillance team and, in the case of an eradication, also the Field Controller,
on their tasks and targets. The briefing is conducted together with the Operations Manager. The
trainers need to make sure that everybody knows their positions and understands their
responsibilities;Periodically monitors the operation to assess progress,
Suggests improvements to the Operations Manager,
Sources additional technical information for the ERMC, andSuggests research priorities if required.

THE SURVEILLANCE AND TREATMENT TEAMS:







Report to the Field Controller,
Follow the procedures outlined in the surveillance and treatment plans,
Treat and if necessary destroy host materials,
Keep records of inspected, treated, destroyed or released risk items,
Collect suspected samples and forwards them for identification, andSuggest improvements to the Field Controller and Technical Adviser.

Area Freedom/Pest Freedom
The accepted standard for declaring area freedom in an eradication is the absence of the invasive
species for two lifecycles of the organism using accepted surveillance methods. For most insects,
this period is two years, but for plants with long‐lived seed banks, this period may be much longer.
The frequency and extent of surveillance needs to be sufficiently rigorous to ensure the species istruly eradicated and new discoveries treated before they are able to reproduce and disperse.
The suggested frequency for post‐eradication surveillance varies with the species in question. For
insects, this should be a minimum of twice per year. For plants, the frequency should be at least
twice within the period the species is known to grow from a propagule to reproductive stages. The

P a g e 78 | 84

surveillance needs to cover all previously infested areas and the survey should be designed
following methods accepted by the scientific community.

P a g e 79 | 84

References
1. Office of Mauna Kea Management. What is OMKM? In: Hilo OoMMUoHia, editor.
http://www.malamamaunakea.org/uploads/OMKMBrochure_rev_20130923_web.pdf(accessed 9‐29‐2014). Hilo, 2013.
2. Ho‘akea LLC. Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan: UH management Areas: University of
Hawaii, 2009:178.
3. Sustainable Resources Group. Natural Resources Management Plan for the UH Management
Areas on Mauna Kea: Office of Mauna Kea Management, University of Hawaii, 2009:508.
4. Rubenstein T, Berkowitz P. Three Mountain Alliance Weed Management Plan June 2009: The
Three Mountain Alliance, 2009:91.
5. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA. Biotic invasions: causes,
epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecological Applications 2000;10(3):689‐
710.
6. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ. Is invasion success explained by the enemy
release hypothesis? . Ecology Letters 2004;7:721–33.
7. Mangla S, Inderjit, Callaway RM. Exotic invasive plant accumulates native soil pathogens which
inhibit native plants. Journal of Ecology 2008;96(58‐67).
8. Baldwyn PH, Schwartz CW, Schwartz ER. Life history and economic status of the mongoose in
Hawaii. Journal of Mammalogy 1952;33(3):335‐56.
9. Freed LA, Cann RL. Increase of an introduced bird competitor in old‐growth forest associatedwith restoration. Neobiota 2012;13:43‐60.
10. Holldobler B, Wilson EO. The Ants. USA: Springer‐Verlag, 1990.
11. Nendick D, Sarty M. Pacific off‐shore container management programme reduces biosecurity
risks and industry compliance costs. 2006;70:4‐6.
12. McGlynn TP. The worldwide transfer of ants: geographical distribution and ecological invasions.
Journal of Biogeography 1999;26.
13. Passera L. Characteristics of tramp ants. In: Williams DF, editor. Exotic Ants: Biology, Impact andControl of Introduced Species. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1994:22‐43.
14. Wetterer JK, Porter SD. The Little Fire Ant, Wasmannia auropunctata: distribution, impact andcontrol. Sociobiology 2003;41(3):1‐41.
15. Gomez‐Aparicio L, Gomez JM, Zamora R. Microhabitats shift rank in suitability for seedlingestablishment depending on habitat type and climate. Journal of Ecology 2005;93:1194–
202.
16. Larson DL. Native weeds and exotic plants: relationships to disturbance in mixed‐grass prairie.
Plant Ecology 2003;169:317–33.
17. Gelbard JL, Belnap J. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape.
Conservation Biology 2003;17(2):420–32.

P a g e 80 | 84

18. Daehler CC, Denslow JS, Ansari S, Kuo H. A Risk‐assessment system for screening out invasive
pest plants from Hawai‘i and other Pacific islands. Conservation Biology 2004;18(2):360‐68.
19. Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR. A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity toolevaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management 1999;57:239‐51.
20. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associatedwith alien‐invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 2005;52(3):273‐88.
21. Krushelnycky P, Gillespie RG, Loope L, Liebherr JK. Rediscovery and uncertain future of high‐elevation Haleakala Carabid beetles (Coleoptera). Pacific Science 2005;59(3):399‐410.
22. Hawaii. USAG. Integrated natural resources management plan, 2010‐2014, Island of Hawaii,
Pohakuloa. Honolulu (HI): United States Army Garrison Hawaii, 2010:211.
23. Mootooka P. Herbicidal Weed Control Methods for Pastures and Natural Areas of Hawai‘i,.
CTAHR Extension Bulletin WC‐8. University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. P. 36.
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/WC‐8.pdf 2002.
24. Motooka P, Nagai G, Ching L, Powley J, Teves G, Arakaki A. Woody Plant Control for the Home,
Pasture, and Forest CTAHR Extension Bulletin WC‐8. University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. p. 4.
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/WC‐4.pdf 1999.
25. Leary J, Beachy J, Hardman A. Practitioner’s Guide for Effective Non‐Restricted Herbicide
Techniques to Control and Suppress Invasive Woody Species in Hawai‘i: College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2012:8.
26. Gerrish G. Botanical Baseline Survey (2011) of the University of Hawaii’s Managed Lands On
Mauna Kea: Biology Department. University of Hawaii at Hilo 200 W. Kawili St. Hilo, Hawaii
96764, 2013.
27. Beck K. Biology and Management of the toadflaxes Fort Collins (CO): : Colorado State University
Extension Service. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/natres/03114.pdf 2009.
28. Sackmann P, Rabonovich M, Corley JC. Successful removal of German yellowjackets(Hymenoptera: Vespidae) by toxic baiting. Journal of Economic Entomology 2001;94(4):811‐
16.
29. Ramires EN, Navarro‐Silva MA, de Assis Marques F. Chemical control of spiders and scorpions inurban areas. In: Stoytcheva M, editor. Pesticides in the Modern World, 2011:553‐600.
30. Yates III JR. Scolopendra subspinipes (Leach): University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2014.
31. Robichaux RH, Friar EA, Mount DW. Molecular genetic consequences of a population bottleneckassociated with reintroduction of the Mauna Kea Silversword (Argyroxiphium sandwicensessp. sandwicense [Asteraceae]). Conservation Biology 2003;11(5):1140‐46.
32. Eiben JA, Rubinoff D. Life history and captive rearing of the Wekiu bug (Nysius wekiuicola,
Lygaeidae), an alpine carnivore endemic to the Mauna Kea volcano of Hawaii. Journal of
Insect Conservation 2010;14(6):701‐09.
33. Gerrish G. Botanical Survey for UH Manged Lands on Mauna Kea, 2011.
34. Mueller‐Dombois D, Fosberg R. Vegetation of the Tropical Pacific Islands: Springer‐Verlag, New
York, 1998.
35. Tunison JT, Stone CP. Special Ecological Areas: An approach to alien plant control in Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park. In: Stone C.P. SCW, and Tunison J.T. , editor. Alien plant invasions in

P a g e 81 | 84

native ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and research. : Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit,
University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1992:781‐98.
36. Englund RA, Preston DJ, Myers S, Englund LL, Imada C, Evenhuis NL, et al. Results of the 2009
alien species and Wekiu bug (Nysius Wekiuicola) surveys on the summit of Mauna Kea,
Hawaii Island. Final report. Honolulu: Bishop museum, 2010.
37. Englund RA, Preston DJ, Myers S, Imada C, Englund LL, Hawaii Biological Survey, et al. Results ofthe 2010 alien species and Wekiu bug (Nysius Wekiuicola) surveys on the summit of MaunaKea, Hawaii Island. Final report. Honolulu: Hawaii Biological Survey, 2012.
38. Englund RA, Preston DJ, Vorsino AE, Evenhuis NL, Myers S, Englund LL. Results of the 2007‐2008 alien species and wekiu bug (Nysius Wekiuicola) surveys on the summit of MaunaKea, Hawaii Island, final report, 2009.
39. Englund RA, Ramsdale A, McShane M, Preston DJ, Miller S, Montgomery SL. Results of 2004
Wekiu bug (Nysius Wekiuicola) surveys on Mauna Kea, Hawaii island: Final report, 2005.
40. Englund RA, Vorsino AE, Laederich HM. Results of the 2006 Wekiu bug (Nysius wekiuicola)
surveys on Mauna Kea, Hawaii island: final report, 2007.
41. Englund RA, Vorsino AE, Laederich HM, Ramsdale A, McShane M, Hawaii Biological Survey.
Results of 2005 Wekiu bug (Nysius Wekiuicola) surveys on Mauna Kea, Hawaii Island. Finalreport. Honolulu: Bishop museum, 2006.
42. Howarth FG, Brenner GJ, Preston DJ. An arthropod assessment within selected areas of theMauna Kea Science Reserve: Final report, 1999:59 p.
43. Howarth FG, Stone FD. An assessment of the arthropod fauna and aeolian ecosystem near thesummit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii: Bishop Museum, 1982:18 p.
44. Medieros M. Moth Species at Hale Pohaku. In: Garrison J, editor, 2008.
45. Montgomery SL. A Report on the Invertebrate Fauna found on the proposed NRAO VLBA
antennae facility site, Mauna Kea Science Reserve, Mauna Kea, Hamakua, Hawaii.
Amendment to the Mauna Kea Science Reserve Complex Development Plan: The National
Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro, Mexico, 1988:4.

P a g e 82 | 84

Appendices
List of Standard Operating ProceduresStandard Operating Procedures (SOPs) will be updated per the adaptive management principles ofthis document. SOPs will take effect once approved by the Mauna Kea Management Board and (asrequired) by the DLNR Office of Coastal & Conservation Lands (OCCL); with the status field below
updated to reflect the date of acceptance. This list of appendices is subject to change, the topics
listed will all be addressed.
PlanStandard Operating Procedure (SOP)
Category
Introductory Material (Intro)
Intro
SOP‐A
Intro
SOP‐B Maunakea Vertebrate Threats,
Identification, Collection, & Processing
Guide
Intro
SOP‐C Maunakea Invertebrate Threats,
Identification, Collection, & Processing
Guide
Intro
SOP‐D Maunakea Plant Threats,
Identification, Collection & Processing
Guide
Prevention (Prevent)
Prevent
SOP01 Cleaning of Vehicles and Personal
Belongings
Prevent
SOP02 Inspection of Vehicles,
Construction Materials, Scientific
Equipment, & Supplies
Prevent
SOP03 Cafeteria Food Shipments(Receiving)
Prevent
SOP04 Nursery Plant Treatment &Inspection
Prevent
SOP05 Prophylactic Pesticide Use

Early Detection (EarlyD)
EarlyD
SOP10 Invasive Invertebrate Early
Detection Surveys of Facilities
EarlyD

SOP11 Annual Alien Invertebrate Early
Detection & Wēkiu Bug Monitoring

EarlyD

SOP12 Maunakea Science Reserve Early
Detection of Arthropod & Vegetation
Surveys
SOP13 Roads, Trails, & HP Early
Detection of Arthropod & Vegetation
Surveys

EarlyD

Content Notes

StatusReserved
ID guide for vertebrates

not started

ID guide for arthropods,
spiders

Submitted Jan. 2015

ID guide for plants

Internal review
draft

Cleaning procedures

Submitted Jan. 2015

Inspection procedures

Submitted Jan. 2015

Cleaning & Inspection
Procedures
Adopt proven State
methods
Preventative site
treatment

Submitted Jan. 2015a) Locationsb) Methodsc) Analysis/Reporta) Locationsb) Methodsc) Analysis/Reporta) Locationsb) Methodsc) Analysis/Reporta) Locationsb) Methodsc) Analysis/Report

Submitted Jan. 2015

Adopt existing
standard
Not started

Internal review
draftInternal review
draft
Not started

P a g e 83 | 84

Rapid Response (RapidR)
RapidR
SOP20 Arthropod Emergency Response

RapidR
RapidR
RapidR

SOP21 Emergency Response for Two
Types of Woody Plants
SOP22 Emergency Response Plan for
Two Types of Grasses
SOP23 Emergency Response Plan for
Two Types of Herbaceous Plants

Control (Control)
Control
SOP30 Vertebrate Monitoring & Control,
IACUC
Control
SOP31
Control
SOP32 Control Plans for High‐Priority
Invertebrates Species
Control
SOP 33 Control Plans for High‐Priority
Plant Species
Control
SOP34 Pesticide Use on Established Plant& Arthropod Species
Control

SOP35 Control Plan for Halepōhaku, Road
Corridor, Maunakea Science Reserve, &Astronomy Precinct

Monitoring (Mon)Mon
SOP40 Plant MonitoringMon

SOP41 Vertebrate Monitoring

Mon

Invertebrate Monitoring

Education / Outreach (Edu)
Edu
SOP50
SOP51 Staff Training & Implementation

Other SOPs (Other)
Other
SOP‐Z Revising the Invasive Species
Management Plan
Other
SOP‐Y TMT‐Specific Instructions

Rapid Response for
Arthropods. (incl.
Argentine Ant specificchapter as example)
Rapid Response for
Woody plants
Rapid Response forgrasses
Rapid Response forherbaceous plants

Internal review
draft

Methods & IACUC
approval
reserved
Priority Arthropod
species control methods
PlantsNot Started

Pesticide use for Plant &Arthropod control indesignated areas
All taxa

Not startedPlant Monitoring. Maybe
cross‐reference withother SOPs
Emphasis on‘uncontrolled’ species
such as birds. Other
species monitored via‘control’ SOP.
See SOP10 & SOP11

Not started

TBD
Staff training andprocedures forinspection, species
observations, etc.

Process to follow
Excerpts & Summaries

Not started
Not started
Not started

Not started
Not started

Not started

Not started

Cross‐reference

In preparation

Internal review
draft
Updated as needed
P a g e 84 | 84