PREFACE
Hawaii’s Attorney General Ms. Clare Connors opined in 2019 that the University of Hawaii West Oahu
Non-Campus Private Development Land (UHWO/herein property) was properly assessed for pueo
inhabitation in 2007 when the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the undeveloped
state-owned property was executed and the results affirmed no pueo or its habitat was present.
Subsequently, findings from recent survey(s) 2017/2018 by Project Pueo re-affirmed conditions
have not changed. Therefore, per Connors, the property has been correctly classified as being void
of pueo inhabitation and as such, no protective and or preservation measures are required to mitigate
for pueo in preparation for the development slated.
See letter dated February 26, 2019 by Attorney General Clare Connors
to State Representatives Rida Cabanilla and Bob McDermott
In contrast, Mr. Michael Kumukauoha Lee had advanced a narrative of the property that contradicted
the assessment by Ms. Connors. Ms. Connors formulated her assessment of the information provided to her
by Chair of Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Ms. Suzanne Case. Mr. Lee and I
provided hundreds of hours of video and photographic documentation to Ms. Case spanning the period
from September 2015 to December 2, 2019, that depicted multiple pairs of Pueo active in a courtship
breeding ecology on the property- especially during the Fall Season. Ms. Case rejected the evidence,
stating it carried “no weight, had no merit, and the claim Pueo were at UHWO, a baseless claim.”
Mr. Lee passed away on August 31, 2019, and provided the following message on my telephone
answering machine that I discovered after his passing. His message revolved around the DNLR &
Project Pueo not providing the data and specific details to how their Pueo studies (surveys) were
conducted that had concluded: “…no Pueo utilize the property.”
Video capture of call by Michael Lee August 2019:
REQUEST FOR APPEAL WITH OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES
on the grounds DLNR did not address all matters of importance that effects
the very viability and existence of the pueo at UHWO in the
taxpayer funded Project Pueo exercise that was used as
the vehicle to justify the extirpation of the species.
The response by DLNR to answer questions regarding survey protocol deployed to the property to assess
for pueo inhabitation are as follows:
- Provide illustration and or map of where observer in survey exercise was stationed on property.
Status: DLNR provided GPS coordinates. This satisfies this segment of the inquiry since Project Pueo did
not utilize any maps in their Reports.
Note: GPS coordinates provided in the EXCEL FILE of the Report substantiated the observer(s) not
only failed to cover the areas where five nesting sites were documented by Mr. Lee, but also reveal that
the observer(s) who were informed where to look for pueo by Mr. Lee, intentionally avoided those sites.
This is very disturbing and most alarming- a sign of malice.
Conclusion: After being sent over one hundred videos of where pueo are on the property and provided
with maps where to locate them, Project Pueo instead of taking heed, purposely shunned those sites and
per the Report, never walked around, near, or through the five nesting sites for any observation exercise
per the Report. Pueo feathers, germinating from both adult and fledgling, were often present at the five
nesting sites for quantification and left intact by Mr. Lee in situ for the observers to identify and record.
Mr. Lee, on January 1st of 2018, performed a Chant to Pueo exactly where the pueo have been witnessed
for years as engaging in courting activities. This was the site where in the early morning hours from
4 am to just before 7am, during the Fall Season, one could watch pairs of pueo chase each other and flap
their wings in mid-air as displays of courtship behavior.
Chant to Pueo @ Courting/Mating Site UHWO
The aforementioned video was provided to Project Pueo in January of 2018 – however, per the
GPS coordinates given by Project Pueo, it is clear, Project Pueo when on the property in 2018, ensured
they avoided that very spot 100% in every and all observation exercises. This too, is another sign of malice
as embraced by Project Pueo and its team of researchers that used our tax dollars to advance a false
narrative that Project Pueo executed a thorough, extensive, and methodical survey for pueo habitation
on the property…. when the truth is, they did not.
DLNR Chair Suzanne Case informed Attorney General Connors in the February 26, 2019 letter, that
the property was surveyed for nests as well as for a courting and breeding ecology. Mr. Li states here, that
is not accurate and as such, no survey to examine the property for nests and for a courting/breeding
ecology actually transpired on the property.
Email from Mr. Li (DLNR) illustrating a conflict in the validity of the Report:
From: Li, Bin C <bin.c.li@hawaii.gov>
To: Tom Berg <tomberg00@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020, 03:13:56 PM HST
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Your record request re UHWO Pueo project
Aloha Mr. Berg,
The survey protocol was the same for both studies
except for the second phase we were looking for signs
of breeding such as wing clapping or prey provisioning
to then hopefully find nests to monitor.
We never did find a nest or prey provisioning.
We also did some daily activity surveys where we surveyed
for longer periods of time to get an indication of pueo daily
activity, but these surveys did not occur on
UHWO lands.
Hope this info helps. Thank you.
Bin C. Li
Administrative Proceedings Coordinator
Department of Land & Natural Resources
1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 131
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel 808-587-1496, Fax 808-587-0390
Bin.C.Li@hawaii.gov
Administrative Proceedings Coordinator
Department of Land & Natural Resources
1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 131
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel 808-587-1496, Fax 808-587-0390
Bin.C.Li@hawaii.gov
Historical Context: In 1996, the State of Hawaii, after receiving an estimated 1,300 acres of fallow
farmland to be added to its inventory- acreage that included the UHWO property, ordered a Biological
Survey to see what plants and animals were present. This survey was conducted by Mr. Ken Nagata.
Nagata stated he found owl pellets and turned them over to DLNR, of whom DLNR had jurisdiction
of the entire 1,300 acres- DLNR was the property owner at that time.
FACT: DLNR refused to examine the pellets to determine if they were of Pueo or barn owl origin.
This negligence, or rather motive by DLNR to not give the Pueo standing and extend its rightful
protective measures on the property began in 1996 when Nagata concluded that the property “Would
make an excellent bird refuge.” Unfortunately, DLNR ignored those findings.
DLNR responded to Nagata’s calling to protect that habitat with approving its destruction in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the property. DLNR signed the FEIS in 2006 checking
off a box that reads: No endangered or threatened species use the property and therefore, with no
habitat present to serve any species of concern to the State on the property, DLNR approves the property
being fully developed.
From the beginning of time, to August of 2017, DLNR never set foot on the property to determine for
itself, if endangered plants and animals are on the property. When Nagata turned over the owl pellets to
DLNR in 1996 for DLNR to examine - with the purpose to determine if the endangered pueo were
active on the property, DLNR discarded the pellets and dissed any and all potential of the property
having worth to the endangered species.
To add injury, DLNR had signed off on the property in 2006 as being classified as “wasteland” in the
FEIS- claiming the property in totality, served no purpose for wildlife.
Comment/Summary: When the raw, fallow agricultural land on the property sat idle for over 20-years,
it blossomed into a haven for wildlife. Tall grasses and old growth trees lined the gulches and a 150-acre
patch of a dense foliage thicket had matured. Nagata quantified over 18 species of birds - including
the indigenous Black Crowned Night Heron using this dense foliage on the property where Kaloi
Gulch converges with Hunehune Gulch.
Nagata was prohibited from investigating pueo nests per his contract, and as such, when he found
the owl pellets, he was elated- ecstatic, and went to the trouble to collect the pellets, bag them, and turn
them over to DLNR for study to see if generated from the pueo. For DLNR to ignore that effort,
exhibits a pattern of deceit, fraud, and ill-will- nothing short of acting in bad faith.
This is why the request for where on the property did the survey by Project Pueo transpire is so
important- since such question has revealed an answer- the answer being that DLNR refused to examine
the Kaloi Gulch/Hunehune Gulch convergence area where DLNR was informed where to go…..and
per the OIP complaint, we now know Project Pueo failed to cover the areas where pueo were
historically witnessed via the GPS coordinates provided by Project Pueo.
- Identify participants permitted on property for survey- what were their credentials and why and or
- how were these individuals chosen to participate in the survey conducted?
Status: DLNR provided initials of those on the property that participated. Listing of complete names are
not necessary. However:
Lacking are listing the credentials of the participants for all survey exercises at UHWO. I still request
an answer to this inquiry.
Lacking are the explanations of the procedures that allowed pre-selected member(s) of the community to
be invited for the study.
Unanswered: How were participants from the public chosen for the study and what was the basis
for excluding me from the study- with myself having firsthand accounts of where the pueo are? Such
inquiry has gone unabated and I still request an answer.
I had obtained thousands of hours of time lapse photography of Pueo @ UHWO- with an example
In addition, I was constantly on the property- for both pre-sunrise and post-sunset periods, and was
on the property on the dates Project Pueo claims they were on the property. And from my experience,
no one from Project Pueo was actually on the property where the pueo were - maybe they sat in their
car, for the Report does not disclose if the observer walked the property, or stayed stationary in
one spot and I still request an answer.
Mr. Lee and I had positioned 20-trail cameras around the nesting sites- cameras with wide angle lenses
and with motion detectors taking a photo every ten-minutes, 24-hours a day, seven-days a week, for
roughly three years. No personnel with Project Pueo were ever recorded as anywhere near the five
known nesting sites. With this data, I honestly believe Project Pueo either acted with malice, or
negligence, since certainly, the cameras would have captured their presence, and they did not, ever.
Rather, the cameras picked up farmers and their tractors in motion besides wildlife.
What we do know, is Project Pueo never visited the five known nesting sites on the property per the GPS
data.
Comment/Summary: It appears DLNR does not want to answer the OIP complaint regarding why Project
Pueo refused to collaborate with me, and instead, chose to solicit KW who I contend, had no expertise
and no firsthand evidence to warrant KW be the chosen one to contribute to the survey. So why did
Project Pueo pick KW and not me to help Project Pueo find pueo on the property? I still request an
answer as to why I was not allowed to participate with Project Pueo in the survey exercises.
- Explain why the survey/study ceased in April of 2018 for the property and why Project Pueo failed
- to conduct the courting /breeding ecology aspect for the property during the Fall Season of 2018?
Status: DLNR came to UHWO three times in 2017 during the Fall Season - with no exercise thereof
to examine the property for any nests, and or courting and or breeding ecology during that time. So why
did DLNR, having a 100% sighting rate of Pueo on the property in August of 2017, refrain
from returning to the property in the Fall of 2018 to conduct the more extensive research? Why
was UHWO excluded from the more detailed, in-depth survey? Who made that decision and on
what grounds when DLNR had exhibited a 100% sighting rate in August of 2017 to work with for
the next phase of the survey during the Fall of 2018?
On August 18, 2016, a town hall meeting was held on the Pueo @ UHWO. In attendance were DLNR
and USFWS that were shown evidence of pueo on the property by Mr. Lee. During the course
of the meeting, DLNR and USFWS stated they will not visit the property to observe for Pueo
unless they get funding to do so.
Michael Kumukauoha Lee informs DLNR/USFWS pueo at UHWO on 8/18/2016
DLNR responds by stating, “We will not send any personnel from DLNR to the property.”
USFWS states protocol/ inventory to be deployed needs to be YEAR-ROUND to be accurate- to cover all seasons.
At 3:42 in video, observation protocol is to be year-round and include ALL SEASONS-
yet, Project Pueo failed to adhere to this protocol, why?
With the aforementioned information, it was expected that DLNR would adhere to a protocol and
conduct observation exercises in equal fashion over the changing seasons- and not omit one season
over another from its study.
Lacking are the explanation as to why the property was not included in any survey protocol during the
Fall Season of 2018 and I still request an answer.
Lacking are the explanation as to why DLNR Chair Ms. Suzanne Case made the claim to Attorney
General Clare Connors that pueo were not observed as present on the property when per Project Pueo,
Project Pueo came to the property twice during the Fall Season in 2017 and on both visits, quantified
and confirmed Pueo are indeed on the property- a 100% sighting rate was substantiated for the property
over the Fall Season- yet, DLNR advanced a falsified, fraudulent narrative, that the property had been
void of any sightings as told to the Attorney General.
Lacking are an explanation as to when did funding for Project Pueo- or any Pueo surveys or research
efforts come to an end for the island of Oahu? I still request an answer.
Fact: Project Pueo came to the property only three times during the Fall Season in 2017- with two in
August, and one visit in November. Project Pueo refused to go to UHWO during the Fall months
of September and October in 2017, and avoided UHWO in totality for all of 2018 after April.
The schemata/chart below was not included in the Reports. It was through the OIP effort, that DLNR
finally disclosed how lopsided and flawed its protocol was:
Fact: Pueo rotate its habitation sites in accordance with the changing seasons. It was proven by Mr. Lee
and myself, that if an accurate and thorough inventory/observation exercise was to transpire for Pueo
on the property, it needed to be performed during the Fall Season when Mr. Lee and I had proven that is
the season the Pueo utilize the property for a courting and breeding ecology.
Mr. Lee and I proved the Pueo are absent on the property after mid-December- with the Pueo taking a
hiatus from UHWO for some five-months and return to find a mate in late June, and then engage in courting
in August, and then raise a brood through September, October. Beginning in late November, sightings
start to become less frequent and that is when activity slows down.
During late December through May months, Mr. Lee and I tracked the Pueo that used to be at UHWO
during the Fall Season, moving on to Ho’opili property to the north and east of UHWO- whereby the
Pueo would forage up Honouliuli Stream.
Predominately, the Pueo would only come to UHWO during the Winter/Spring season to “raid” the
nests of barn owls and my cameras picked that activity up- with the visits being short stints, and most
rare. Once fed, the Pueo would leave the property and not hang around during these months. Why
Project Pueo focused 40% of its time in the field on just one of the most unproductive months
in the calendar year, January, proves the protocol used was amateurish, and not fully thought
out/most incomplete.
Project Pueo relied upon the January month as the main thrust for the basis of their surveys. And
with that protocol, had demonstrated an inferior, flawed study methodology was used to improperly
conclude, “No Pueo use the property.”
Had Project Pueo exercised the same effort in the Fall Season as they had done for the month of January,
such as visit the property six times in either the August, September, October, November months
respectively, the observers would have recorded what I recorded- hundreds of hours of Pueo chasing
each other with multiple pairs on the property seen in every direction near the five nesting sites and
definitely engaged in a courting /breeding ecology.
Here is one of many examples of Pueo engaged in courting activity- with the chase, wing flaps, and
overhead displays/dancing in air- performed during the Fall Season of 2017- thus, why didn’t Project
Pueo, after seeing the Pueo in August of 2017, stick it out and remain on property for the complete
Fall Season of 2017? Instead, Project Pueo enacted a cease and desist policy to ensure no
further examination of pueo shall transpire in the Fall Season.
Had Project Pueo observers remained on the property, they would have recorded this- and such
event as depicted here, would be the new narrative from DLNR to the Attorney General:
“What we have here, is proof pueo are using UHWO as a courting ecology.”
**September 16, 2017 /Courting Ecology Exhibit **
(I have dozens of videos covering the June through July months
as well, but such are examples within the Summer Season,
as well, but such are examples within the Summer Season,
and for purposes here, the scope of subject is to include the
Fall Season of 2017 to substantiate DLNR should have executed
Fall Season of 2017 to substantiate DLNR should have executed
the more in-depth courting and breeding ecology survey for this
property and done so in the Fall Season.)
property and done so in the Fall Season.)
Project Pueo, DLNR, USFWS, and UH Manoa were apprised by Mr. Lee and myself to evaluate the
property during the Fall Season for a courting and breeding ecology. In response, Project Pueo,
DLNR, USFWS, and UH Manoa took on a policy and directive (protocol) to purposely avoid the
property during the Fall Season of 2018, and do so in totality.
I still request an answer as to why protocol was breached. The very protocol USFWS Ms. Jenny
Hoskins had stated that in order for the survey/study to be accurate and be considered a thorough
assessment - it would need to involve a protocol that would include examination year-round
on the property, and this methodolgy- for the courting /breeding ecology study exercise, was not
conducted at UHWO- why?
Project Pueo came to UHWO only three times in total during the Fall Season – and all in 2017
when no courting and breeding ecology study was undertaken by the researchers.
Fact: Researches stayed in one spot, not investigating the site for any courting or breeding ecology, and
or to determine for the presence of nests, per the protocol, per the Reports. The population survey
count exercise, was all that was done at UHWO- and it was a 100% confirmation – Pueo are there.....
yet, Project Pueo sought a policy to NOT ever examine the property for any Pueo in the Fall Season
beyond the initial 2017 population exercise for the property, period.
Of grave concern, and of legal issue, is that DLNR Chair Suzanne Case relayed falsified information
to the Attorney General to sway the true narrative of the property with the egregious statement: “The
property was thoroughly examined for Pueo- extensive surveys were conducted - and no Pueo are
on the property- no Pueo use the property.” This is patently false, and opens DLNR up for a lawsuit –
by its fabricating and connecting a falsified narrative that no Pueo were observed on the property.
Project Pueo, when they were sent scores of evidence by Mr. Lee and I to work with proving that in
order to quantify the presence of a courting /breeding ecology at UHWO, the exercise needs to transpire
during the Fall Season- then why didnʻt it? I still await an answer.
Micheal Kumukauoha Lee performed a chant on the property January 1, 2018, at the location where Pueo
were seen for years during the Fall Season; courting, mating, and raising a brood:
Project Pueo refused to coordinate, correspond, and reciprocate with this data provided to them. Per
the Report, no observer was stationed near the known nesting sites as reflected in the GPS coordinates
by Project Pueo.
Why did Project Pueo avoid investigating any of the five nesting sites in its Report? I still request an answer.
Why did the exercise to determine if a courting and breeding ecology was present or not at UHWO,
not transpire at all during the Fall Season when Project Pueo was informed: “ThatÊ»s when you can see
pairs courting- chasing each other- feeding each other - and roosting/sleeping together- and frequenting
the same nesting areas like clockwork each Fall Season flying in and out of the same patches in the
tall grass.” I still await an answer.
Of importance to note, is that the following videos from the Fall Season of 2016 were provided to DLNR
and USFWS so as to prep them to set protocol for Project Pueo to conduct their survey(s) in the Fall
Season for UHWO specifically. Unfortunately, Project Pueo deployed the opposite protocol, and was on
the property the least during the Fall Season.
Maps of each sighting, including data as to where the sightings transpired and subsequently recorded,
was provide to DLNR- with DLNR refusing to respond and ignoring all the video/timelapse/
photographic evidence in its entirety….and I still await an answer as to why did DLNR act with
Malice of Aforethought, Institutional Bias, Administrative Prejudice, and Willful Indifference with its
flagrant disregard and discriminatory practice to shun the evidence of the endangered pueo under
siege, threatened with encroachment and DLNR violate the State’s Endangered Species Law knowingly
and willingly….why did DLNR dismiss this evidence?
Lacking are the dates for funding for the Reports- such as when did the funding start, and when did the
funding stop for the endeavor to quantify for a courting/breeding ecology at UHWO – or did such not
transpire at UHWO? I still request an answer --for DLNR Chair Ms. Suzanne Case stated to the
Attorney General, Ms. Clare Connors, in the letter dated February 26, 2019, that UHWO had
undergone extensive surveys- when per the Report, this is patently false.
And furthermore, the email from Mr. Li, of DLNR, on January 9, 2019, confirms, all investigatory
measures deployed for UHWO came to a close well before any courting/breeding ecology exercise
was deployed- as in, it never transpired at UHWO….hence, Chair Case lied to Attorney General
Connors when Case stated, “The property was given a rigorous, extensive, detailed study using
professionals to gauge for pueo activity and found no Pueo at UHWO.”
DLNR stated that monies are needed to conduct any and all on-site visits. The question then to ask is,
who funded the taging of pueo in 2019 in the Nanakuli area- who sponsored and paid for this
exercise when the same effort was asked of DLNR/USFWS to do the same at UHWO?
I still request an answer- when did the Project Pueo study formally come to a close- terminate, and
why was the study aborted at UHWO (April 2018) ahead of other sites being evaluated for a
courting /breeding ecology?
When USFWS was apprised that if they came to UHWO and trapped a Pueo- that such event would
contradict the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the property that concluded, “No Pueo
inhabit the area,” USFWS then decided to change its tune and made certain it did not visit the property so
as to jeopardize the FEIS findings and create “a headache” for UH Systems by proving the Pueo was
indeed there.
Had USFWS come to the property, and then tagged a Pueo, it would have triggered a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) be executed for the property per HRS Chapter
343, Environmental Protection Law, and Administrative Rules Chapter 200, Title 11.
Prior to the Nanakuli tagging in 2019 of a Pueo- by DLNR, no Pueo had ever been tagged in Hawaii
and if such event had transpired at UHWO, the event would be a major, monumental exhibit that Pueo
are utilizing the property. UH Systems as the property owner, would then have to re-plan its
development schemes and properly execute a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Pueo and mitigate its
habitat destined to be destroyed. UH does not want this expense and therefore, did everything in its
power to ensure, no thorough examination of the property would actually transpire by USFWS, Project
Pueo, UH Manoa, and DLNR.
Per HRS, and as conveyed by the Hawaii State Senate Majority Research Office, a nesting site or active
nest with eggs and fledglings is not required in order for DLNR to deploy protective measures for Pueo.
Rather, the threshold, or directive by law, is that where Pueo are found, that is considered Pueo habitat. Per
the law, endangered species habitat shall and must be protected when such species is on undeveloped,
state-owned property, like UHWO non-campus, private development land.
See the link below that illustrates DLNR broke the law (illegal to destroy endangered species habitat)
when DLNR knowingly and willingly permitted to let UH Systems destroy the Pueo habitat confirmed
by Project Pueo in its August of 2017 sightings on the property:
OIP and the Ombudsman was provided with the documentation to substantiate UH Systems had acted
in bad faith and broke the law when UH defoliated the Pueo habitat after being apprised pueo are there
using the property. The Ombudsman responded, “We are prevented by law, from investigating the
Governor and his Cabinet /Administration – even if violating HRS Chapter 343.
Our hands are tied.”
Lacking are an explanation from the Report by Project Pueo/DLNR/USFWS/UH Manoa on the
encroachment of the study area to extirpate pueo from the property so that no Pueo could be
quantified in future, subsequent studies.
Evidence on UH Systems destroying Pueo habitat (2017-2018) was provided to DLNR and DOCARE,
and yet, no action to order a cease desist transpired- but rather, the Pueo habitat was destroyed during the
same time Project Pueo had commenced its research and stated it was on the property.
The following confirms, UH Systems in relation to Pueo habitation being quantified on the property,
had purposely, with intent, acted with Malice of Forethought, Administrative Bias, Institutional Prejudice
and Willful Indifference as described in detail by Mr. Lee in the two-part video. The imminent harm to
Pueo was ignored in totality by DLNR and no charges were brought by DLNR to bring UH Systems
into compliance:
Part One; Mike Lee Exposes DLNR
Part Two; Mike Lee Exposes DLNR
In August of 2016, the 150-acre Pueo preserve as established per HB2629 (2018) was completely intact.
To stop Pueo from being seen on the property, UH Systems reacted to Mr. Lee and my evidence of Pueo on the 150-acres by orchestrating a policy to destroy and defoliate the property use by the Pueo.
Starting with the appointment of UHWO Chancellor Maenette
Benham in January of 2017, Benham had deployed a practice to
take all fallow agricultural lands that house Pueo on the property,
and destroy it as quickly as possible by bringing that land back
into intensive ag production where trees and grasses once were.
Pueo don’t eat cash crops- they don’t eat farm food, and are
sickened by the farmer’s chemicals and rat bait poison strewed
about- and the farmer’s dogs allowed to roam untethered,
throughout the property.
Benham purposely, with full approval, allowed the dogs to remain
on the property for months on end in order that the dogs could
find, and kill/remove all evidence of any ground nesting Pueo that
could delay UHWO’s development plans for the non-campus,
private development land.
Benham defoliated the 150-acre Pueo habitat by design and with
intent. She was recorded taking personnel to known Pueo nesting
sites and demanding the area be completely cleared of all foliage
as seen in the photo at right- as was captured by a trail camera
hidden on the property. Just a few weeks earlier- now bulldozed
over clean, a nest used to exist 10-feet from where UHWO
personnel are seen in the photo.
I still request an answer to the question – why did DLNR/Project Pueo/UH Manoa and USFWS,
not comment, or send any notice to UH Systems that upon the very first attempt by DLNR/USFWS/UH
Manoa and Project Pueo setting foot on the property, the observer(s) saw the pueo? Why wasn’t
protective measures immediately provided to the habitat where Project Pueo first saw pueo, as
the law dictates?
And on the second visit, the observer(s) saw the Pueo again, and then for some strange unaccountable
reason, lacking any explanation, Project Pueo/DLNR/USFWS and UH Mano waited three months to return
to the property- why? Why the delay- why the refusal by Project Pueo to return to the property
in a timely fashion after having two imediate confirmed sightings of pueo on the property? Who
directed the study to purposely avoid going back to the property in the Fall? I still await an answer.
Could the answer be, that the destruction of Pueo habitat by UH Chancellor Benham/UH
Systems- would be witnessed by the observer(s) and that is why both parties conspired to
ensure, no observation takes place when trees and grasses are being removed from Pueo nesting sites?
In addition to the two videos on the previous page depicting Pueo habitat destroyed, the evidence is clear,
it was done knowingly and willingly:
September 11, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfgHnT03x5Y
June 6, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA1BAKu-FVQ
June 24, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI9SbUqIJ2M
January 7, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i12dFN05924
January 15, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYHhUpLyUxk
January 24, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRKXnBUvnDs
On May 23, 2018 -Michael Kumukauoha Lee revealed the destruction of Pueo habitat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfgHnT03x5Y
June 6, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA1BAKu-FVQ
June 24, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI9SbUqIJ2M
January 7, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i12dFN05924
January 15, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYHhUpLyUxk
January 24, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRKXnBUvnDs
On May 23, 2018 -Michael Kumukauoha Lee revealed the destruction of Pueo habitat
being orchestrated by UH Systems when Lee gave a presentation to the Kapolei Neighborhood Board.
The presentation illustrated when the known nesting sites were destroyed, by whom, and what known
nesting site remains and where it is:
AGENDA
http://www.honolulu.gov/cms-nco-menu/site-nco-sitearticles/31461-makakilo-kapolei-nb-may-agenda.html
POWER POINT PRESENTATION; MIKE LEE
Yet, UH Systems, Project Pueo, DLNR, UH Manoa and DOCARE, refused to act on the presentation made
by Mr. Lee. UH destroyed the last remaining habitat by design, with intent to extirpate the pueo from
the property- DEAD OR ALIVE. And on December 2, 2019, UHWO Chancellor Benham had ordered the
last nest, active it was, to be destroyed. As of today, not one inch remains of the original 150-acre
Pueo preserve as identified in HB2629. Benham cleared every bit of it.
Via this OIP complaint gone unanswered for the most part, I hereby still request an answer
from DLNR/Project Pueo as to what was the reasoning for not coming to UHWO in the Fall of 2018
when all were apprised in 2016, 2017, and 2018- “ThatÊ»s when the Pueo are here and most
abundant. You will be guaranteed a sighting if you go to the property in the Fall,” stated Mike Lee
and Tom Berg to authorities monitoring the study.
In response, Project Pueo ensured, absolutely no site visit by any Project Pueo personnel would transpire
on the property in the Fall of 2018. Who made this decision and why? When DLNR was given a vast
pool of video /trail camera photos and time lapse recordings of Pueo most active in the Fall Season
at UHWO, why did DLNR respond with:
“We are not coming back to UHWO to study Pueo that would include any Fall Season after our
three visits in the Fall of 2017 had confirmed on two of the visits, Pueo are there. We are not interested
in the property being abundant with Pueo during the Fall Season of 2018, for such confirmation
would prove the Pueo are indeed returning to the same property and this act would require UHWO
to execute a SEIS. For with such, a return of Pueo in two subsequent years over the same period
would qualify the property as serving Pueo and classify the property as Pueo habitat. And as such,
we donʻt want that made known and thereby, we will not return to the property as that would
jeopardize UHWO from making money on the property- by having to execute the SEIS.
Albeit Project Pueo, USFWS, UH Manoa and DLNR refused to examine the property during the Fall
Season of 2017 beyond just three visits- with all visits being executed in the evening, here is what
was present on the property during those five months of August, September, November, and
December of 2017 that Project Pueo missed by design- due to Project Pueo refusing to be
on the property in the morning hour period for the entire study when the study was performed
in the Fall Season.
With the survey only transpiring during the evening for all of 2017, the protocol again, was breached.
The protocol to detect Pueo was grossly incomplete and not thorough at all by any degree- as courting
displays were recorded during the sunrise period when Project Pueo, UH Manoa, DLNR, and USFWS
refused to set foot on the property in all of 2017 (in the morning). And donʻt forget, the same cast of
characters simply refused to visit the property in all of 2018 past April, ensuring the most abundant
display of Pueo behavior in the Fall Season, would be missed by those compiling the Report for Project
Pueo.
Yet, the study, its resources used, and the personnel paid, had extended the project scope well beyond
April of 2018- so why then, is it that DLNR could not fund more than three visits to the property in all of
2017, and aborted going to UHWO after April 2018. Was this the intent- to cease and desist examining
the property at UHWO after April of 2018 while yet extending funding into 2019 for the same research
to be conducted elsewhere- anywhere but UHWO?
In 2018, while Project Pueo aborted returning to the property past April 2018, the Pueo came back as it did
for hundreds of years to make a nest in the Fall Season- its last nest on the property- due to
UHWO Chancellor Benham bulldozing the nest with a backhoe after being emailed to please protect
it.
All known Pueo habitat in existence at UHWO has been destroyed by Benham- and with video proof, I
caught her UHWO hire/farmer commissioned to bulldoze every tree along the embankment of both Kaloi
and Hunehune Gulch down- and they dumped the trees in the gulch itself, blocking the water drainage
route- another violation of the Clean Water Act…all caught on camera. The trees are still in the gulch
blocking the water/drainage for the entire southern portion of the property.
Benham was shown these videos, of which she then used
as the tool to locate the pueo and kill them on December
2, 2018, and wipe out their habitat in totality:
June 28, 2018- Pueo Pair Arrive Early in Season to Mate
September 4, 2018
September 5, 2018
September 11, 2018
September 15, 2018 /Timelapse of Nest Site
October 9, 2018
October 19, 2018
November 1, 2018
November 6, 2018
November 8-11/Timelapse 2018
November 22, 2018
ATTORNEY GENERAL/DLNR CHAIR MALICE
Attorney General Ms. Clare Connors, wants the public to believe, that Pueo were never quantified on
the property, either by DLNR, Project Pueo, USFWS, UH Manoa or by any other means. That
no documentation exists of substance that would exhibit otherwise to change that opinion.
Ms. Connors wants people to believe this narrative, that the property was void of any presence of
any endangered species habitat because she relied on the information regarding the property’s
characteristics from the FEIS of 2007, and the Reports by Project Pueo of 2018/2019.
Furthermore, Ms. Connors came to such findings on the narrative provided directly to her from DLNR’s
Chair, Ms. Suzanne Case- with Ms. Case claiming, “The property was extensively surveyed,” when we
now know, that is a not a truthful statement- no courting and or breeding ecology survey was ever
conducted on the property. As such, Ms. Case advanced a deceitful statement made in bad faith and with
intent to defraud the Attorney General of the truth. The truth being, the very minute Project Pueo came on
the property for the very first time in August of 2017, they had a 100% confirmed sighting of the Pueo on
the UHWO property. On the second visit- again, another confirmed sighting. Yet, Ms. Case wrote to
Ms. Connors, that no such identification on the property transpired.
When USFWS announced at the August 18, 2016 Town Hall Meeting held at UHWO on the subject of
Pueo on the property, USFWS stated that in order to properly assess if a property is being utilized by the
Pueo, the observer should conduct the observation exercise year-round, due to the Pueo being a “plot-
hopper,” using one patch of land for one activity during one season, and then moving to another
patch to engage in another activity during another seasonal period, otherwise, the observer is apt to
“miss that bird.”
For the FEIS, PBR Hawaii conducted the observation exercise to quantify if Pueo were present on the
property with an observation exercise that transpired in the month of April only----no other months were
used to observe---and with that, the observation only for a few hours, on just two mornings, and never
done at sunrise, and or the sunrise period.
Hence, with DLNR stating that it was a satisfactory FEIS exercise to look for Pueo for just 6 hours in total,
and done by driving in a car to look on just two mornings, very disturbing indeed when DLNR /USFWS
has stated, the inventory needs to be conducted year-round.
Yes, DLNR signed-off on the FEIS stating in writing, that this effort by PBR Hawaii was a perfect
inventory exercise- a model of great thoroughness, a model of extensive research deployed, and conclusive
at that.
When DLNR was apprised by Mr. Michael Kumukauoha Lee that DLNR should have intervened, and
ordered an amended FEIS to require PBR Hawaii to expand its inventory efforts and observe for
Pueo habitation in other seasons as well, DLNR ignored that plea, claiming the 6-hours done over
two-day’s time to look for Pueo on 500-acres of raw land, extremely thorough.
RECAP
The Office of Information Practices is being summoned to assist me have DLNR answer the three points
of inquiry included herein and delivered in previous emails asking for answers.
DLNR has thus far, not complied to the request to identify those on UHWO property doing the
observation exercise – such as who was chosen for the study, what were their qualifications to be chosen-
such as who is KW, and why was KW chosen to accompany Project Pueo on the property, and I was
rejected- denied participation? What justified DLNR/Project Pueo not allowing me to show them
directly, where the pueo are active and nesting on the property? To date, DLNR will not answer this,
and is withholding this information from the public.
Also gone unabated, ignored by DLNR, is the answer as to why Project Pueo aborted expending resources
to do more in-depth surveys at UHWO, while yet expending resources past 2018, to even tag a Pueo
elsewhere in 2019?
What was the basis for a cease and desist – the termination of the survey for UHWO in April of 2018?
Why were other surveyed properties provided with more extensive research, studies past April of 2018,
and UHWO avoided?
Why did Project Pueo refuse to observe for pueo in the morning hours in the entire Fall Season of 2017,
and only conduct its survey in the evening hours, during the population survey count exercise? It is in
the morning hours I have evidence of the courting ecology- dozens of videos proving it- yet DLNR
refused to go to the property in the morning hours in the entire Fall Season of 2017, and refused to even
go to the property in the Fall of 2018 at all. And still, Project Pueo told the DLNR Case, who told the
Attorney General, the surveys executed at UHWO were exhaustive, in-depth, thorough, and most
extensive. This is patently false and DLNR’s email to me on January 7, 2020, reflects that- with DLNR
saying, “We did not do those more in-depth types of surveys at UHWO.”
Of grave concern, is I have commissioned other ornithologists from the mainland to observe my
videos depicting Pueo chasing each other and engaged in wing flapping displays and the mid-air
stationary flapping of wings over the head of a stationed Pueo on the ground- and after viewing these
videos, these ornithologists have concluded 100%, that was evidence of a courting ecology, period.
In contrast, Ms. Case of DLNR, Afsheen Siddiqi of DLNR, David Smith of DLNR, and all of Project
Pueo, and including USFWS Ms. Hoskins, have exclaimed that after watching the same videos–
saw no evidence of Pueo in chase, saw no Pueo in wing flapping activity. It appears Ms. Case, USFWS,
and UH Manoa/Project Pueo, has an agenda to do harm and violate the intent of HRS Chapter 343.
Hence, what we have here, as Mr. Michael Kumukauoha Lee has clearly demonstrated and proven
without a doubt, is that DLNR has acted with Malice of Aforethought, Willful Indifference,
Administrative Bias, and Institutional Prejudice to knowingly cause harm to an endangered species
that DLNR is by statute bound to protect.
CONCLUSION
Albeit Mr. Michael Kumukauoha Lee is deceased and cannot continue to expose DLNR for malice, all one
has to do, is look at the videos and decide for yourself- who is telling the truth, Mr. Lee, or DLNR’s
Project Pueo with Project Pueo concluding the property does not contain one inch of Pueo habitat.
Connect the dots- if Project Pueo were comprised of honest people, they would have conducted
observation exercises during the morning hours in 2017 and again in 2018 during the Fall Season when
the taxpayers of Hawaii have proved, the Pueo are there- with hundreds if not thousands of hours of
eye witness accounts and surveillance to back it up. Project Pueo, on purpose, avoided the property when
Lee and I proved, Pueo are thriving there. Why would Project Pueo screw the Pueo at UHWO- can
you say paid off? I got proof.
Mr. Lee, and many, many others have testified to various government entities for a decade plus, we got Pueo
in Ewa, and dammit, protect them.
In response, DLNR refused to go to the state-owned undeveloped property to confirm this- for years,
claiming, “We will only go to investigate that property if you (Legislature) give us money and fund
the exercise.” And when the funds came, DLNR ensured, the protocol used, was flawed, and incomplete.
In this closing example, I have thousands of hours of two-Pueo using this one tree cluster for
three solid years over the Fall Season- with one Pueo coming during the Spring /Summer
Season- waiting for its mate- and then around Fall Season, with its mate substantiated on the property,
they court/mate and raise their broods in the August, September, October, and November to early
December months- then leave – take a hiatus. I have the photo of its fledgling. Here is the loner
Pueo engaged at the property in a foraging ecology- all new videos- not included in any previous page.
Note, I have dozens of other videos showing Pueo feeding each other – but they are night shots and the
video is dark, but show them going in and out of same tree cluster where you see Pueo here to feed each
other:
This tree – where you see the Pueo fly out of, was ordered
cut down by UHWO Chancellor Benham December 2, 2018
after she was notified the Pueo live here at this spot-
cut down by UHWO Chancellor Benham December 2, 2018
after she was notified the Pueo live here at this spot-
Pueo leaving a tree ten yards from the very tree in the video
above- Benham defoliated this entire habitat:
above- Benham defoliated this entire habitat:
Pueo flying out of same cluster of trees Benham had ordered
cut down December 2, 2018:
cut down December 2, 2018:
Pueo leaves same tree cluster Benham had ordered cut down-
Pueo flees to rail structure:
Pueo flees to rail structure:
Same trees as in above videos Benham had ordered removed:
Pueo taking exit over Kaloi Gulch from same patch of tree
cluster- all trees removed by Benham:
cluster- all trees removed by Benham:
Pueo same patch of trees removed by Benham:
