James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              James Campbell
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Refuge Vision
The largest protected wetland in Hawai��i, James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge adorns O‘ahu’s
north shore, providing a haven for native Hawaiian waterbirds and migratory birds from around the
world. The coastal dunes offer sanctuary for nesting seabirds, honu, and ‘¯ılio-holo-i-ka-uaua. Long-legged
ae‘o dance on gentle breezes over the natural spring-fed Punamano¯ as the ‘alae ‘ula build their nests in
the native sedges below. Water ripples follow the ‘alae ke‘oke‘o and koloa maoli as they glide across the
marsh with their broods. Visitors discover, understand, and appreciate the rare fragile environments,
cultural resources, and open spaces. The wetland absorbs floodwaters as a natural function of a dynamic,
healthy ecosystem. Partners, neighbors, and community work together to protect and enhance these
unique resources.
Ka Nu‘ukia
Aia i ka hui ‘A¯
ina Ho ‘omalu Holoholona Lo¯hiu ‘o James Campbell i Hawai‘i ka ‘a¯ina pa¯lielie nui loa ma
ka ‘ao ‘ao ‘a¯kau ‘o O‘ahu, ko¯kua ho ‘i ke¯ia mau ‘a¯ina i na¯ manu kai Hawai‘i a me na¯ manu ne‘ekau mai ‘o¯
a ‘o¯ o ka honua. Ko¯kua ho ‘i a ha‘awi mai ho ‘i na¯ pu ‘e one ma na¯ lihi kahakai i kaianoho no na¯ manu e
ho‘opu¯nana nei, n¯a honu a me n¯a ‘¯ılio-holo-i-ka-uaua. ‘Olali ho‘i n¯a manu ae‘o w¯awae l¯o‘ihi i n¯a makani
aheahe e puhi ma¯lie ana ma luna o na¯ punawai ‘o Punamano¯ kahi a na¯ manu ‘alae ‘ula e ku¯kulu ana i ka¯
la¯kou mau pu¯nana ma na¯ mau ‘u wai ‘o¯iwi e ulu ana ma
na¯ lihi wai. ‘Ale‘ale ho‘i na wai i ka pahe‘e ‘ana aku o
ka manu ‘alae ke‘oke‘o a me ka manu koloa maoli
ma luna o ka ili wai o na¯ ‘a¯ina na¯ele me ko¯ la¯kou
mau ‘o¯hana manu. Mahalo no ho‘i na¯ malihini
i ka ho‘omaopopo ‘ana, ka ‘ike ‘ana i ka po¯hea
o na¯ ‘a¯ina ka¯ka ‘ikahi, na¯ waiwai ho‘oulu, a
me na¯ kula nui ‘a¯kea o ke¯ia mau pa¯lielie.
Ko¯kua ho‘i ke¯ia mau ‘a¯ina a me na¯ pa¯lielie
ma ke omo ‘ana i na¯ wai ha¯lana he nui e like
no me kekahi mea omo wai i loa‘a maoli no¯
me ke kukulu ‘ole ‘ia e kekahi, a e ‘ike pu¯ ho‘i
la¯kou i na¯ ‘a¯ina no¯hona holoholo ola maika‘i.
E hana like ho‘i na¯ hui ko¯kua, na¯ hoa noho, a
me ke kaia¯ulu ma ka ma¯lama ‘ana i ke¯ia mau
kumuwaiwai nui.
‘Alae ke‘oke‘o
©Caleb Slemmons
Comprehensive Conservation
Plans provide long-term guidance
for management decisions and set
forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes
and identify the Service’s best estimate
of future needs. These plans detail program
planning levels that are sometimes substantially
above current budget allocations and, as such,
are primarily for Service strategic planning and
program prioritization purposes. The plans do not
constitute a commitment for staffing increases,
operational and maintenance increases, or
funding for future land acquisition.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Prepared by:
O‘ahu National Wildlife Refuge Complex
66-590 Kamehameha Highway, Room 2C
Hale‘iwa, Hawai‘i 96712
and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pacific Islands Planning Team
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 5-231
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96850
June 2011
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Reader’s Guide .................................................................................................................................... v
Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2 Purpose and Need for the CCP ........................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Content and Scope of the CCP ........................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Planning and Management Guidance ................................................................................ 1-4
1.4.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ...................................................................... 1-4
1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................................... 1-4
1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals ................................................ 1-4
1.4.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act ............................................... 1-5
1.5 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans .......................................................... 1-6
1.5.1 Previous Plans ............................................................................................................. 1-6
1.5.2 Future Planning ........................................................................................................... 1-6
1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes .................................................................................. 1-7
1.6.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 1-7
1.6.2 James Campbell Establishment ................................................................................... 1-7
1.6.3 James Campbell Purpose ............................................................................................ 1-8
1.7 Refuge Goals ......................................................................................................................... 1-8
1.8 Relationship to Ecosystem Planning Efforts ................................................................... 1-10
1.9 Planning and Issue Identification ..................................................................................... 1-12
1.9.1 Issues to be Addressed in the Draft CCP .................................................................. 1-12
1.9.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the Draft CCP .............................................................. 1-12
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ......................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Development of Alternatives ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis ..................................... 2-1
2.3.1 Kahuku Airfield Restoration for Private Aircraft ....................................................... 2-1
2.3.2 Nonlethal Techniques to Remove Mammalian Predators ........................................... 2-2
2.3.3 Public Trapping and Hunting to Remove Non-native Mammalian Predators ............ 2-2
2.4 Elements Common to All Alternatives............................................................................... 2-2
2.4.1 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability ........................................................ 2-2
2.4.2 Interagency Coordination and Collaboration .............................................................. 2-2
2.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Protection and Recovery .................................. 2-2
2.4.4 Historic and Cultural Resource Protection ................................................................. 2-3
2.4.5 Fire Management ........................................................................................................ 2-4
2.4.6 Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities .............. 2-4
2.4.7 Adaptive Management ................................................................................................ 2-4
2.4.8 Integrated Pest Management ....................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.9 Law Enforcement ........................................................................................................ 2-5
2.5 Alternative Descriptions ...................................................................................................... 2-6
2.5.1 Alternative A: Continue Current Management ........................................................... 2-6
2.5.2 Alternative B: Partial Restoration and Management of Refuge Expansion Lands ..... 2-7
2.5.3 Alternative C: Full Restoration and Management of Refuge Expansion Lands ......... 2-7
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
ii Table of Contents
2.6 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale ................................................................... 2-10
2.6.1 Goal 1. Protect and manage seasonal wetland habitats to meet the life-history
needs of endangered waterbirds to promote their recovery ..................................... 2-11
2.6.2 Goal 2. Complete acquisition of the James Campbell NWR expansion to restore,
protect, and manage habitats according to Refuge purposes and to meet Refuge
staff facility needs .................................................................................................... 2-22
2.6.3 Goal 3. Restore and protect coastal strand/dune habitat and upland scrub/shrub to
provide safe refuge for endangered ‘􀀀lio-holo-i-ka-uaua and threatened honu,
as well as provide habitat for seabirds, shorebirds, and migratory birds ................. 2-24
2.6.4 Goal 4. Collect scientific information necessary to support adaptive
management decisions ............................................................................................. 2-29
2.6.5 Goal 5. Provide wildlife-dependent public use and educational opportunities
to enhance public understanding and appreciation of the natural resources of
James Campbell NWR and the Refuge System ....................................................... 2-31
2.6.6 Goal 6. Protect historic and cultural resources for the benefit of present and
future generations ..................................................................................................... 2-35
2.6.7 Goal 7. Assist partner agencies and local community with planning and
implementing flood damage control measures for the Town of Kahuku ................ 2-37
Chapter 3. Physical Environment ................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Refuge Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 3-13
3.4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... 3-14
3.5 Topography/Bathymetry ................................................................................................... 3-16
3.6 Environmental Contaminants .......................................................................................... 3-17
3.7 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 3-18
3.7.1 Historic Land Divisions ............................................................................................ 3-19
3.7.2 Ranching ................................................................................................................... 3-20
3.7.3 Sugar, Pineapples, and Trains ................................................................................... 3-20
3.7.4 Military Use .............................................................................................................. 3-21
3.7.5 Land Use Today ........................................................................................................ 3-21
3.8 Refuge Facilities ................................................................................................................. 3-22
Chapter 4: Refuge Biology and Habitat ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Conservation Targets .......................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3 Endangered Hawaiian Waterbirds .................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.1 Ae‘o (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) or Hawaiian Stilt ........................................ 4-5
4.3.2 ‘Alae ke‘oke’o (Fulica alai) or Hawaiian Coot .......................................................... 4-6
4.3.3 ‘Alae ‘ula (Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis) or Hawaiian Moorhen ....................... 4-8
4.3.4 Koloa maoli (Anas wyvilliana) or Hawaiian Duck ..................................................... 4-9
4.4 Other Hawaiian Waterbirds ............................................................................................. 4-10
4.4.1 ‘Auku‘u (Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli) or Black-crowned Night-heron ............... 4-10
4.5 Migratory Waterfowl ........................................................................................................ 4-10
4.6 Migratory Shorebirds ........................................................................................................ 4-11
4.7 Seabirds .............................................................................................................................. 4-12
4.8 Raptors ............................................................................................................................... 4-12
4.8.1 Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) or Hawaiian Short-eared Owl ...................... 4-12
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents iii
4.9 Endangered Mammals ...................................................................................................... 4-13
4.9.1 ‘􀀀pe‘ape‘a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) or Hawaiian Hoary Bat .............................. 4-13
4.9.2 ‘􀀀lio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Monachus schauinslandi) or Hawaiian Monk Seal ................ 4-13
4.10 Invertebrates .................................................................................................................... 4-14
4.10.1 ‘􀀀pae ‘ula (Halocaridina rubra) or Hawaiian Red Shrimp ..................................... 4-14
4.11 Marine Reptiles ................................................................................................................. 4-14
4.11.1 Honu (Chelonia mydas) or Hawaiian Green Turtle ................................................ 4-14
4.12 Native Plants ..................................................................................................................... 4-15
4.12.1 Naupaka Kahakai (Scaevola taccada) or Beach Naupaka ..................................... 4-16
4.12.2 ‘Ilima (Sida fallax) or Yellow Ilima ...................................................................... 4-16
4.12.3 Hala (Pandanus tectorius) or Screw-pine .............................................................. 4-16
4.13 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................ 4-17
4.13.1 Mammals ................................................................................................................. 4-18
4.13.2 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 4-20
4.13.3 Amphibians ............................................................................................................. 4-21
4.13.4 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................ 4-22
4.13.5 Plants ....................................................................................................................... 4-22
4.13.6 Diseases ................................................................................................................... 4-26
4.14 Habitats ............................................................................................................................. 4-27
4.14.1 Coastal Dune/Beach Strand .................................................................................... 4-27
4.14.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 4-28
4.14.3 Exposed Coral Shelf and Anchialine Pools ............................................................ 4-29
4.14.4 Coastal Shrubland (Scrub/Shrub) ........................................................................... 4-30
Chapter 5. Outdoor Recreation, Social, and Economic Factors .................................................. 5-1
5.1 Outdoor Recreation ............................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Federal, State, and County Recreational Parks ........................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Historic/Cultural Sites ................................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.3 Ocean Recreation ........................................................................................................ 5-3
5.1.4 Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education ... 5-3
5.1.5 Fishing ......................................................................................................................... 5-4
5.1.6 Hunting ....................................................................................................................... 5-4
5.2 Social and Economic Conditions ........................................................................................ 5-5
5.2.1 Population ................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.2 Education .................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.3 Economy ..................................................................................................................... 5-6
5.2.4 Refuge Contribution .................................................................................................... 5-7
Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Analysis .................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Overview of Effects Analysis .............................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Terminology ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Summary of Management Action Effects at the Refuge .................................................. 6-2
6.4 Effects Analysis .................................................................................................................. 6-10
6.4.1 Effects of Management Actions to Protect Endangered Waterbirds ........................ 6-10
6.4.2 Effects of Management Actions to Intensively Manage Wetland Habitat ............... 6-14
6.4.3 Effects of Management Actions to Restore Remnant Wetland Habitat ................... 6-20
6.4.4 Effects of Management Actions to Restore Scrub/Shrub Habitat ............................ 6-20
6.4.5 Effects of Management Actions on Coastal Strand/Dune Habitat ............................ 6-21
6.4.6 Effects of Promoting Management-related Research and Scientific Assessments ... 6-22
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
iv Table of Contents
6.4.5 Effects of Management Actions on Coastal Strand/Dune Habitat ............................ 6-21
6.4.6 Effects of Promoting Management-related Research and Scientific Assessments ... 6-22
6.4.7 Effects of Offering More Visitor Opportunities ....................................................... 6-22
6.4.8 Effects of Increasing Awareness, Protection, and Appreciation of Cultural and
Historic Resources ................................................................................................... 6-24
6.4.9 Support Flood Damage Reduction Efforts for the Town of Kahuku ........................ 6-25
6.4.10 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................... 6-25
6.4.11 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................. 6-26
6.5 Global Climate Changes and Projections ........................................................................ 6-26
6.5.1 Climate Change in Hawai‘i ...................................................................................... 6-27
6.5.2 Sea Level Rise .......................................................................................................... 6-28
6.5.3 Climate Change Effects on Water Resources .......................................................... 6-29
6.5.4 Ecological Responses to Climate Change ................................................................ 6-30
6.6 Cumulative Effects Assessment ........................................................................................ 6-31
Tables
Table 2.1 Management Alternatives Summary .................................................................................. 2-8
Table 4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ............................................... 4-2
Table 4.2 Priority Resources of Concern ........................................................................................... 4-3
Table 4.3 Shorebirds of Primary Conservation Importance in the Pacific Region .......................... 4-11
Table 6.1 CCP Alternatives Summary of Effect to the Refuge ......................................................... 6-2
Figures
Figure 2-1a. Alternative A. Map (Ki‘i Unit) .................................................................................... 2-39
Figure 2-1b. Alternative A. Map (Punamanō Unit) ........................................................................ 2-41
Figure 2-2 Alternative B. Map ......................................................................................................... 2-43
Figure 2-3 Alternative C. Map ......................................................................................................... 2-45
Figure 3-1 The Main Hawaiian Islands .............................................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3-2 Refuge Land Status and Unit Boundaries ........................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-3 Soils ................................................................................................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-4 Flood Zone/Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-5 Historic Land Divisions ................................................................................................. 3-11
Figure 4-1 Ae‘o Survey Numbers on the Refuge .............................................................................. 4-6
Figure 4-2 ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o Survey Numbers on the Refuge .............................................................. 4-7
Figure 4-3 ‘Alae ‘ula Survey Numbers on the Refuge ...................................................................... 4-8
Appendices
Appendix A: Species Lists ................................................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Compatibility Determinations and Appropriate Use Findings .................................... B-1
Appendix C: Plan Implementation and Costs ................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D: Wilderness Review for James Campbell NWR .......................................................... D-1
Appendix E: Integrated Pest Management Program ......................................................................... E-1
Appendix F: Literature Cited ............................................................................................................ F-1
Appendix G: Statement of Compliance ............................................................................................ G-1
Readers’ Guide
Native species discussed in this document are referred to by their Hawaiian names. Common English
names and scientific nomenclature can also be found in the glossary in Appendix A. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service endeavors to be accurate in its use of the Hawaiian language and correctly spell
Hawaiian words, including the diacritical marks that affect the meaning and aid in pronunciation. This
guide is provided to simplify pronunciation for the reader.
When Captain Cook arrived in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, the Hawaiians had a totally oral tradition. In
1820, western missionaries standardized a written version of the Hawaiian language that features 8
consonants and 5 vowels.
Special Symbols
Two symbols appear frequently in Hawaiian words... the ‘okina and the kahakō. These two symbols change
how words are pronounced. The ‘okina itself looks like an upside-down apostrophe and is a glottal stop –
or a brief break in the word. An example of this in English is in the middle of the expression “uh-oh.” The
‘okina is an official consonant – just as any of the other consonants.
The kahakō is a stress mark (macron) that can appear over vowels only and serve to make the vowel sound
slightly longer. The vowels ā, ē, ī, ō, and ū sound just like their non-stress Hawaiian vowels with the
exception that the sound is held slightly longer. Missing the ‘okina or kahakō can greatly change not only
the how a word sounds, but also its basic meaning. A popular example of how an ‘okina and a kahakō can
change the meaning of a word is “pau”:
• pau = finished, ended, all done
• pa‘u = soot, smudge, ink powder
• pa‘ū = moist, damp
• pā‘ū = skirt
Unit Names
Punamanō  (POO-nah mah-NOHH)  meaning: shark spring
Ki‘i  (KEE-ee)  meaning: image
Consonants
H - as in English
K - as in English
L - as in English
M - as in English
N - as in English
P - as in English
W - after i and e pronounced v
- after u and o pronounced like w
- at the start of a word or after a,
pronounced like w or v
(‘) - ‘okina - a glottal stop
Vowels
A - pronounced like the a in far
E - pronounced like the e in bet
I - pronounced like the ee in beet
O - pronounced like the o in sole
U - pronounced like the oo in boot
Readers ’ Guide           v
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Ae‘o (EYE oh)
Hawaiian Stilt Himantopus mexicanus knudseni
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Alae ke‘oke‘o (ah-lye KAY oh KAY oh)
Hawaiian Coot Fulica alai
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Endemic
‘Alae ‘Ula (ah-lye OO-lah)
Hawaiian Moorhen Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Auku‘u (ow-KOO oo)
Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax
hoactli
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Koloa Maoli (ko-LOWah MAOW-lee)
Hawaiian Duck Anas wyvilliana
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Endemic
Waterbirds
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Brenda Zaun
USFWS
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
vi          Readers ’ Guide
‘Akekeke (ah-kay-KAY-kay)
Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan - High Concern
Hunakai (hoo-nah-KYE)
Sanderling Calidris alba
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Hunakai means “sea foam.” Their habit of running along
the receding waves on the shore in search of small sand
crabs apparently reminded early Hawaiians of the sea
foam or hunakai left behind by the waves. It shares the
name with a coastal plant.
Kioea (kee-oh-AY-ah)
Bristle-thighed Curlew Numenius tahitiensis
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
IUCN Red List Ranking-Vulnerable
Kōlea (KOHH-lay-ah)
Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan - High Concern
‘Ūlili (OOO-lee-lee)
Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan - Moderate Concern
Migrant Shorebirds
Laura Beauregard
Michael Walther
Michael Walther
Michael Walther
Michael Walther
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Readers ’ Guide           vii
‘Ka‘upu (kah OO-poo)
Black-footed Albatross Phoebastria nigripes
SPECIES STATUS:
State listed as Threatened
State recognized as Indigenous
IUCN Red List Ranking - Endangered
Mōlī (MOE-lee)
Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan - High
concern
‘Ua‘u Kani (OO-ah oo KAH-nee)
Wedge-tailed Shearwater Puffinus pacificus
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Koa‘e‘ula (KOH-ah ay OO-lah)
Red-tailed Tropicbird Phaethon rubricauda
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan - Moderate
concern
‘Ā (AHH)
Red-footed Booby Sula sula
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Seabirds
David Leonard
Linday Young
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
NPS
viii          Readers ’ Guide
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Honu (HO-noo)
Hawaiian Green Turtle Chelonia mydas
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Threatened
State recognized as Indigenous
IUCN Red List Ranking - Endangered
‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (EEE-lee-oh HO-loh EE kah
OO-ah OO-ah)
Hawaiian Monk Seal Monachus schauinslandi
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
‘Ōpae‘ula (OHH-pye OO-lah)
Hawaiian Red Shrimp Halocaridina rubra
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Ōpe‘ape‘a (OHH-pay ah-PAY ah)
Hawaiian Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus semotus
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
Pueo (poo-AY-oh)
Hawaiian Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus
sandwichensis
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endangered on O‘ahu
State recognized as Endemic
Native Animals
Laura Beauregard
NOAA
Tom DeGuiar
Tom Dove
Mike Yamamoto
Readers ’ Guide            ix
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
‘Ākulikuli (AAH-koo-lee-KOO-lee)
Sea Purslane Sesuvium portulacastrum
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Āki‘aki (AH-kee AH-kee)
Beach Dropseed Sporobolus virginicus
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
Pōhuehue (POHH-hoo-ay-HOO-ay)
Railroad Vine, Beach Morning Glory Ipomoea
pescaprae
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Native Plants - Herbs
‘Ilima (ee-LEE-mah)
Yellow Ilima Sida Fallax
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Pōhinahina (POHH-hee-nah HEE-nah)
Beach Vitex Vitex rotundifolia
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
x          Readers ’ Guide
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Hala (HAH-lah)
Beach Vitex Pandanus tectorius
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Iliahiao‘e (ee-lee-AH-hee-ah-LOW ay)
Coastal Sandalwood Santalum ellipticum
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
Naio (NYE-oh)
False Sandalwood Myoporum sandwicense
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Naupaka Kahakai (now-PAH-kah kah-HAH-kye)
Beach Naupaka Scaevola taccada
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Wiliwili (VEE-lee-VEE-lee)
Hawaiian Coral Tree Erythrina sandwicensis
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
Native Plants - Shrubs & Trees
Laura Beauregard
Forest & Kim Starr
DOFAW
Laura Beauregard
Forest & Kim Starr
Readers ’ Guide           xi
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
xii             Readers ’ Guide
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1
Ka„āina me ke wai, ka nohona i ka nāhelehele laha „ole o Hawai„i
“…land and water, home to Hawai„i‟s unique wildlife…”
Chapter 1. Introduction
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) is located in the Kahuku ahupua„a of
the Ko„olauloa district on the north shore of O„ahu. Drawn to the area by the rich ocean waters and
fertile lands dotted with natural springs, Native Hawaiians settled in Ko„olauloa around 1100 CE.
One of the few scattered remnants of natural wetlands that still exist on O„ahu, the Refuge was
established in 1976 for the purpose of providing habitat for endangered Hawaiian waterbirds.
Expansion was authorized in 2005 for the purposes of providing additional habitat for endangered
waterbirds, migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, seabirds, endangered and native plant species,
endangered „īlio-holo-i- ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal), and threatened honu (Hawaiian green turtle);
providing increased wildlife-dependent public uses; and assisting with flood damage reduction in the
local area.
IMPORTANT NOTE TO READERS
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently has an agreement with the James Campbell
Company to purchase land from the company to expand the James Campbell NWR. At the time
of this draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Refuge, the process to complete
the purchase of these lands is still ongoing. Because this plan is intended to cover a 15-year
time period and the final purchase of these lands is anticipated in 2011 or 2012, the expansion
lands have been incorporated into this plan. All alternatives and strategies for Refuge
management described in this plan related to the expansion lands are contingent upon the
successful completion of the purchase of those lands and construction of new facilities.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Proposed Action
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), manage the James Campbell NWR as part of the
National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). We propose to adopt and implement a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Refuge. This document is the Refuge‟s Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) and includes all lands
within the approved boundary. A CCP sets forth management guidance for a refuge for a period of
15 years, as required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd et seq.) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub.
Law 105-57) (Administration Act). The Administration Act requires CCPs to identify and describe:
The purposes of the refuge;
The fish, wildlife, and plant populations, their habitats, and the archaeological and cultural
values found on the refuge;
Significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and ways to
correct or mitigate those problems;
Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities; and
Opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation.
The Refuge System planning policy (Service Manual 602 FW 3, June 21, 2000) states that the
purpose of CCPs is to: “describe the desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long-range
guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the National Wildlife
Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each
refuge and the Refuge System; . . . and meet other mandates.”
The Service has developed and examined alternatives for managing James Campbell NWR through
the CCP planning process. The various alternatives address the major issues and relevant mandates
identified in the CCP process and are consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife
management. The Service has consolidated management options into three alternatives for James
Campbell NWR and has identified Alternative C as the preferred alternative. The draft preferred
alternative appears to represent the best balanced approach for achieving the Refuge‟s purposes,
vision, and goals; contributing to the Refuge System mission; and addressing the relevant issues and
mandates consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management. However, the preferred
alternative may be modified between the draft and final document depending upon comments
received from the public or other agencies and organizations. The Regional Director for the Service‟s
Pacific Region will be the final decisionmaker regarding the alternative that will be adopted for
implementation. For details on the specific components and actions comprising the range of
alternatives, see Chapter 2.
1.2 Purpose and Need for the CCP
The purpose of the CCP is to provide the Refuge System, the Service, partners, and citizens with a
management plan for improving fish and wildlife habitat conditions and infrastructure for wildlife,
staff, and refuge visitors for 15 years. An approved CCP will help ensure that the Service manages
James Campbell NWR to achieve its purpose, vision, goals, and objectives, and to help fulfill the
Refuge System mission. Another purpose of the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically
grounded guidance for improving the Refuge‟s subterranean, upland, coastal, surface water and
wetland habitats for the long-term conservation of native plants and animals. The CCP will identify
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-3
appropriate actions for protecting and sustaining the cultural and biological features of coastal
communities; endangered, threatened, or rare species populations and habitats; and migratory
shorebirds. The CCP will also evaluate priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses on the Refuge.
The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these is the need to improve degraded
habitat conditions by removing pest plants and animals, such as kiawe shrubs, rats, and mongooses.
There is also a need to address James Campbell NWR‟s contributions to aid in the recovery of
endangered species, and assess and possibly mitigate potential impacts of global climate change to
Refuge resources. The Service should continue to effectively work with current partners such as the
State of Hawai„i and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as seek
new partnerships to restore habitats, improve environmental education (EE) and interpretive
opportunities and volunteer programs, and recover endangered species populations.
1.3 Content and Scope of the CCP
This CCP provides guidance for managing Refuge habitats and wildlife, and administering public
uses on Refuge lands. The James Campbell NWR Draft CCP/EA is intended to comply with the
requirements set forth in the Administration Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Information included in the CCP includes:
An overall vision for the Refuge, its establishment history and purpose, and its role in the
local ecosystem (Chapter 1);
Management alternatives, goals, and objectives for specific conservation targets and visitor
programs, as well as strategies for achieving the objectives (Chapter 2);
A description of the Refuge‟s physical environment (Chapter 3);
A description of conservation targets, condition, and trends on the Refuge and within the
local ecosystem; a presentation of the key desired ecological conditions for sustaining the
targets; and a short analysis of the threats to each conservation target (Chapter 4);
An overview of the Refuge‟s visitor programs and facilities, a list of desired future conditions
for each program, and other management considerations (Chapter 5);
An analysis of the environmental effects associated with implementing the various
management actions prescribed under the alternatives described in Chapter 2 (Chapter 6);
A comprehensive list of species known to occur on the Refuge or mentioned in the CCP/EA
(Appendix A);
Evaluations of existing and proposed appropriate public and economic uses for compatibility
with the Refuge‟s purposes (Appendix B);
An Implementation Plan needed to support the alternatives considered (Appendix C);
Wilderness Review (Appendix D);
Integrated Pest Management (Appendix E); and
Literature Cited (Appendix F).
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction
1.4 Planning and Management Guidance
The Service, an agency within the Department of the Interior, is the principal Federal agency
responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Refuge management is guided by Federal laws, Executive orders, Service policies, and international
treaties. Fundamental guidelines are found in the mission and goals of the Refuge System and the
designated purposes of the Refuge as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, or other
documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge.
Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System derive from the Administration Act, the Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended, Title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), and the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The Administration Act is
implemented through regulations covering the Refuge System, published in Title 50, subchapter C of
the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations govern general administration of units of the
Refuge System.
1.4.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
The mission of the Service is “working with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” National natural
resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and protection include migratory birds,
endangered and threatened species, interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals.
The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws and international
treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with State and Territorial fish and wildlife
programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System
The Refuge System is the world‟s largest network of public lands and waters set aside specifically
for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. From its inception in 1903, the Refuge System
has grown to encompass over 550 national wildlife refuges in all 50 States, and waterfowl production
areas in 10 States, covering more than 150 million acres of public lands and waters. More than
40 million visitors annually fish, hunt, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in EE and
interpretive activities on national wildlife refuges.
1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The mission of the Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans” (Administration Act). The goals of the Refuge System, as articulated in the Mission,
Goals, and Purposes policy (601 FW1), follow:
Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming endangered;
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-5
Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and
interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and
carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges;
Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international
significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or
underrepresented in existing protection efforts;
Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and EE and interpretation); and
Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
1.4.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
Of all the laws governing activities on national wildlife refuges, the Administration Act exerts the
greatest influence. The Administration Act was amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). The Improvement Act included a unifying mission for
all national wildlife refuges, a new process for determining compatible uses on refuges, and a
requirement that each refuge will be managed under a CCP developed in an open public process. The
Administration Act states that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System, and ensure that the biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained. House Report 105-106
accompanying the Improvement Act states “…the fundamental mission of our System is wildlife
conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” Biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health are critical components of wildlife conservation. As later made clear in the
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health policy, “the highest measure of biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats
and wildlife populations that existed during historic conditions.”
Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System mission as well as the specific purposes
for which it was established. The Administration Act requires the Service to monitor the status and
trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on every refuge. Additionally, six wildlife-dependent recreational
uses are granted special consideration in the
planning, management, establishment, and expansion
of units of the Refuge System: hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography, and EE and
interpretation. When determined compatible on a
refuge-specific basis, these six uses assume priority
status among all public uses of the refuge in
question. The overarching goal is to enhance
wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities and
access to quality visitor experiences on refuges,
while managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitats. The Service is directed to
make extra efforts to facilitate wildlife-dependent
visitor opportunities.
Ae‘o chick tests the water Laura Beauregard/USFWS
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction
When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and
economic uses proposed or occurring on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. No refuge
use may be allowed or continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally,
an appropriate use is one that contributes to fulfilling refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, or
goals and objectives described in a refuge management plan. A compatible use is defined as a use
that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or
detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.
Updated Appropriate Use Findings and Compatibility Determinations for existing and proposed uses
for James Campbell NWR are in Appendix B.
The Administration Act also requires that, in addition to formally established guidance, the CCP
must be developed with the participation of the public. Public comments play a role in identifying
issues, guiding alternatives considered during development of the CCP, and selecting a preferred
alternative. It is Service policy to develop CCPs in an open public process; the agency is committed
to securing public input throughout the process.
1.5 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans
Planning has been a part of refuge operations since establishing refuges began. However, not all
plans were completed in a comprehensive fashion or with public participation considered adequate
today.
1.5.1 Previous Plans
Previous plans that provided guidance for managing James Campbell NWR include:
Master Plan for the Hawaiian Wetlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex (USFWS 1985); and
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds, Second Draft of Second Revision
(USFWS 2005).
1.5.2 Future Planning
The CCP will be revised every 15 years or earlier if environmental conditions significantly change or
monitoring and evaluation determine that changes are needed to achieve refuge purposes, vision,
goals, or objectives. The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for
refuge program areas but may lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. Stepdown
management plans will therefore be developed for individual program areas, as needed, following
completion of the CCP. Stepdown plans require appropriate NEPA compliance. Several stepdown
plans (including the Visitor Services Plan, Transportation Plan, Land Protection Plan, and Inventory
and Monitoring Plan) are appropriate to develop and/or update following CCP completion. All of the
stepdown plans should be based on the management goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the
CCP. A list of proposed stepdown plans is available in Appendix C.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-7
1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes
1.6.1 General
The Administration Act directs the Service to manage each refuge to fulfill the mission of the Refuge
System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established. Refuge purposes are
the driving force in developing refuge vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in the CCP.
Refuge purposes are also critical to determining the compatibility of all existing and proposed refuge
uses. Lands within the Refuge System are acquired and managed under a variety of legislative acts,
administrative orders, and legal authorities. The official purpose or purposes for a refuge are
specified in or derived from the law, Presidential proclamation, Executive order, agreement, public
land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or
expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. The Service defines the purpose of a refuge when
it is established or when new land is added to an existing refuge. When an addition to a refuge is
acquired under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original refuge, the
addition takes on the purposes of the original refuge, but the original refuge does not take on the
purposes of the addition. Refuge managers must consider all of the purposes. However, purposes
dealing with the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration of a refuge.
1.6.2 James Campbell NWR Establishment
The earliest document identifying areas for
protection and management within the James
Campbell NWR boundary is Hawai„i‟s Endangered
Waterbirds (U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife 1970*). It identified three small ponds, Ki„i,
Punamanō, and Punaho„olapa, as well as adjacent
marshes, as being valuable to waterbirds. Shortly
thereafter, the area was identified and proposed for
acquisition as a Refuge with the purpose: “To
preserve habitat vital to the rare and endangered
species ae„o (Hawaiian stilt), „alae ke„oke„o
(Hawaiian coot), and provide habitat for other
shorebirds and waterfowl on the Island of O„ahu”
(U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1971*).
The Refuge was established in 1976 with approximately 150 acres under a $1 a year lease with the
Estate of James Campbell. Over the last several years, through the leadership of Senator Daniel
Inouye and Hawai„i‟s congressional delegation, Congress appropriated a total of $22 million to
acquire and expand the Refuge to a total of approximately 1,100 acres.
* The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 created the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and established two bureaus, Sport
Fish and Wildlife and Commercial Fisheries. In 1970, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries was transferred to the
Department of Commerce and renamed the National Marine Fisheries Service. The remaining Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife became today‟s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
‘Alae ‘ula Mike Silbernagle/USFWS
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction
In 2005, Public Law 109-225 authorized expansion of the James Campbell NWR and identified
management focus areas for the Refuge expansion lands as to:
Promote the recovery of four species of endangered Hawaiian waterbirds;
Permanently protect endangered species habitat;
Improve management of the Refuge;
Protect coastal dunes, coastal wetlands, and coastal strand habitats that promote biological
diversity, including the four species of endangered Hawaiian waterbirds, migratory
shorebirds, waterfowl, seabirds, endangered and native plant species, endangered Hawaiian
monk seals, and green turtles;
Provide increased opportunities for wildlife-dependent public uses, including wildlife
observation, photography, and EE and interpretation;
Create a single, large, manageable, and ecologically-intact unit that includes sufficient buffer
land to reduce impacts on the Refuge; and
Reduce flood damage following heavy rainfall to residences, businesses, and public buildings
in the town of Kahuku.
1.6.3 James Campbell NWR Purpose
The official purpose of the James Campbell NWR is “ to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are
listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) plants ...”.
1.7 Refuge Goals
Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and
focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and the
Refuge System mission. A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its
vision. A vision broadly reflects refuge purposes, Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory
requirements, and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Visitor services and wildlife/habitat management
goals then define general targets in support of the vision, followed by objectives that direct efforts
into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving those goals. Finally, strategies identify
specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives. The James Campbell NWR vision statement is
found on the inside front cover of this document. The following are our goals; their order does not
imply any priority in this CCP.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-9
Nā Pahuhopu o ka Pu‘uhonua
1. Kīa „i a mālama i nā „āina pālielie no ka holomua „ana o ka nohona a me ke ola „ana o na manu
wai a me nā manu kai i holo mua ho„i ko lākou ola „ana.
2. Ho„„opa„a inā lāwena „āina no ka hui ka Pu„uhonua „o James Campbell e hiki ai ke ho„ „onui aku i
ia „āina no ka ho„iho „ „i hou, kīa „i a e mālama ho „i i nā kaianoho a e like ho„i me ka makemake o
ka hui Ho„omalu holoholona a e loa „a pu ho „i nā makemake a nā limahana ho „omalu holoholona
kekahi.
3. Ho„iho„i hou a kīa „i i nā lihi kahakai„a me nā kaianoho pu„e one a e malama ho „i i wahi noho
maluhia no nā „ilio holo i ka uaua „ane make loa, a me nā Honu a e mālama pū hoi i wahi noho no nā
manu kai, nā manu lihikai, a me manu ne „ekau.
4. E „ohi„ohi ho„i i nā mana „o „epekema e pili ana i ia wahi no ka ho „omākaukau „ana a e ho„okupu
ho„i i ha„awina e holomua ai nā mana„o mālama „āina a e kōkua pū ho„i i ka pahu hopu 1 a me ka
pahu hopu 3.
5. E ho„omākaukau ho„i i kumuwaiwai no ka wehewehe „ana a e ho„omaopopo pū ho „i i nā kānaka e
pili ana i ka waiwai o ia „ āina, nā pilina mālama „āina, a me nā mo‟aukala e pili ana ho„i no ia wahi
„āina ho„omalu holoholona lōhiu Pu„uhonua „o James Campbell.
6. E mālama ho„i i nā mo„aukala a me nā mo„omeheu „o ia wahi no ka pono o nā kānaka mai kēia au
a ia au a„e e hiki mai ana.
7. E kōkua ho„i ma ke kōkua „ana e ho„emi i ka nui pilikia i ke kaiaulu ke loa„a mai ka wai hālana a i
„ole kekahi ino ua nui paha.
Refuge Goals
1. Protect and manage seasonal wetland habitats to meet the life-history needs of endangered
waterbirds to promote their recovery.
2. Complete acquisition of the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge expansion to restore,
protect, and manage habitats according to Refuge purposes and to meet Refuge staff facility needs.
3. Restore and protect coastal strand/dune and upland scrub/shrub habitats to provide safe refuge for
endangered „īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua and threatened honu, as well as provide habitat for seabirds,
shorebirds, and migratory birds.
4. Collect scientific information necessary to guide management decisions in support of Goals 1-3.
5. Provide wildlife-dependent public use and educational opportunities to enrich public appreciation
of the natural resources of James Campbell NWR and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
6. Protect historic and cultural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.
7. Assist partner agencies and the local community with planning and implementation of flood
damage control measures for the Town of Kahuku.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction
1.8 Relationship to Ecosystem Planning Efforts
When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national,
regional, and ecosystem plans; State/Territorial fish and wildlife conservation plans; and other
landscape-scale plans developed for the same watershed or ecosystem in which the refuge is located.
To the extent possible, the CCP is expected to be consistent with these existing plans and assist in
meeting their conservation goals and objectives (Part 602 FW 3.3). This section summarizes some of
the key plans that were reviewed by members of the planning team during CCP development.
Hawai��i‟s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2005. With passage of the Commerce,
Justice, and State Appropriations Act of 2001, Congress mandated each State and Territory to
develop its own comprehensive strategy. Hawai‘i’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
thoroughly reviews the status of the full range of the State‟s native terrestrial and aquatic species,
over 10,000 of which are found nowhere else on Earth. Hawai„i‟s Species of Greatest Conservation
Need include all native terrestrial animals, all endemic aquatic animals, additional indigenous aquatic
animals identified as in need of conservation attention, a range of native plants identified as in need
of conservation attention, and all identified endemic algae. This list includes: terrestrial mammal (1),
birds (77), terrestrial invertebrates (~5,000), freshwater fishes (5), freshwater invertebrates (12),
anchialine pond-associated fauna (20), marine mammals (26), marine reptiles (6), marine fishes
(154), marine invertebrates (197), and flora (over 600). Details on all the listed wildlife taxa are
provided in fact sheets that contain information for taxa, closely related groups of species, and
species facing similar threats.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds, Second Draft of Second Revision, May
2005. The ultimate goal of the recovery program is to restore and maintain multiple self-sustaining
populations of Hawaiian waterbirds within their historic ranges. The recovery of the endangered
waterbirds focuses on the following objectives:
Increasing population numbers to Statewide baseline levels (consistently stable or increasing
with a minimum of 2,000 birds for each species);
Establishing multiple, self-sustaining breeding populations throughout each species‟ historic
range;
Establishing and protecting a network of both core and supporting wetlands that are managed
as habitat suitable for waterbirds, including the maintenance of appropriate hydrological
conditions and control of invasive nonnative plants;
For all four species, eliminating or controlling the threats posed by introduced predators,
avian diseases, and contaminants; and
For the koloa maoli (Hawaiian duck), removing the threat of hybridization with feral
mallards.
U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2004. Conservation and restoration of
shorebird habitats is essential for the protection of endangered and declining shorebird populations.
Wetlands, beach strand, coastal forests, and mangrove habitats are particularly vulnerable on Pacific
islands due to increasing development pressures and already limited acreage. Monitoring and
research needs include assessment of population sizes and trends; assessment of the timing and
abundance of birds at key wintering and migration stopover sites; assessment of habitat use and
requirements at wintering and migration areas; exploration of the geographic linkages between
wintering, stopover, and breeding areas; and evaluation of habitat restoration and management
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-11
techniques to meet the needs of resident and migratory species. Education and public outreach are
critical components of this plan. Resource management agencies of Federal, Territorial,
Commonwealth, and State governments will need to work together with military agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and the scientific community. On a larger scale, coordination at the
international level will be key to the conservation of vulnerable species, both migratory and resident.
Ko„olau Loa Sustainable Communities Plan, 1999. This update reaffirms Ko„olau Loa‟s role in
O„ahu‟s development pattern as intended in the General Plan policies by establishing principles for
future land use and development:
Recognize traditional ahupua„a divisions and distinctions and incorporate the ahupua„a
concept as the primary basis for land use planning in Ko„olau Loa;
Maintain and, where possible, expand critical open space areas and shoreline views between
the existing pattern of community development so as to preserve a separation between the
natural and built environment within each ahupua„a;
Preserve the existing strong relationship between the natural landscape of the mountains to
the ocean, and the manmade landscape of agricultural fields and small rural communities;
Promote diversified agriculture and aquaculture on existing agricultural lands in accordance
with the General Plan policy to support agricultural diversification in all rural areas on
O„ahu;
Preserve continuous coastal views and scenic views of ridges, valley slopes, and prominent
land features;
Provide for new employment-based development that will offer quality jobs and be
compatible with the existing communities‟ rural fabric and the natural environment;
Limit future resort development to the existing zoned lands in secondary resort areas at
Kahuku Point-Kawela Bay area and Lā„ie; and
Support and encourage improvements at existing educational and recreational facilities.
The vision for Ko„olau Loa seeks to preserve the region‟s rural character and its natural, cultural,
scenic, and agricultural resources. The region will remain country, characterized by small towns and
villages with distinct identities that exist in harmony with the natural settings of mountain ridges and
winding coastline.
Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi), 2007. The „īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua
has the distinction of being the only endangered marine mammal whose entire species range –
historic and current – lies within the United States. The majority of the population of seals now lies
in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) with six main breeding subpopulations. The species is
also found in lower numbers in the main Hawaiian Islands where the population size and range both
appear to be expanding. The main terrestrial habitat requirements include haul-out areas for pupping,
nursing, molting, and resting. These are primarily sandy beaches, but virtually all substrates are used
at various islands. The goal of this revised recovery plan is to assure the long-term viability of the
„īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua in the wild, allowing initially for reclassification to threatened status and,
ultimately, removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), 1997. The honu
is listed as threatened throughout its Pacific Range, except for the endangered population nesting on
the Pacific coast of Mexico, which is covered under the Recovery Plan for the East Pacific green
turtle. By far, the most serious threat to these honu is from direct take of turtles and eggs, both within
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction
U.S. jurisdiction and on shared stocks that are killed when they migrate out of U.S. jurisdiction. In
Hawai„i, honu populations appear to have a somewhat less dire status, probably due to effective
protection at the primary nesting areas of the NWHI and better enforcement of regulations
prohibiting take of the species. However, an increase in the incidence of the tumorous disease,
fibropapillomatosis (FP), in the Hawaiian honu threatens to eliminate improvements in the status of
the stock. Another serious threat to honu populations throughout the Pacific is associated with
increasing human populations and development. In particular, human development is having an
increasingly serious impact on nesting beaches.
1.9 Planning and Issue Identification
1.9.1 Issues to be Addressed in the Draft CCP
The following issues are being addressed in the planning process:
Wildlife and Habitat Resources: Endangered waterbirds and plants are the primary management
focus, but management also considers and includes endangered „īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua, threatened honu,
migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, seabirds, and native plant species.
Facilities and Maintenance: Facilities maintenance includes vehicles; heavy equipment; fencing;
weather stations; ditches, dikes, and impoundments; water control structures, wells and pumps. Due
to the coastal environmental conditions (e.g., constant wind containing salt spray, precipitation, warm
temperatures, and high humidity), degradation of equipment and facilities is accelerated and often
exceeds normally acceptable Mainland standards for maintenance costs and schedules. The Refuge
office is in Hale„iwa at a General Services Administration rental site roughly 20 miles from the
Refuge, which contributes to transportation costs.
Visitor Services Activities: Environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife observation are
currently offered on a limited basis through special use permits and/or volunteer docent-led tours.
The presence of nesting endangered species throughout much of the calendar year restricts public
access. Sensitive areas will be closed to the public as new lands are acquired.
Law Enforcement: Refuge officers are responsible for upholding Federal laws and regulations that
protect natural resources, the public, and employees. The sole Zone Officer is stationed in Honolulu
and has responsibilities that extend to all of the Hawaiian and Pacific Islands refuges.
1.9.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the Draft CCP
Neighboring Development: New construction proposed or associated with Turtle Bay Resort or
Kahuku First Wind turbine project adjacent to the Refuge is outside our jurisdiction. Cumulative
effects to air quality have been considered in the EA.
Fishing Regulations: State fishing regulations and access to the ocean (via the State‟s public beach
corridor on private lands) are outside of the Refuge‟s jurisdiction, and will not be addressed in the
CCP.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.1 Introduction
The Service proposes to adopt and implement a 15-year CCP to guide the management and
administration of the Refuge throughout the life of the CCP. This chapter presents and compares a
range of reasonable alternatives for this proposed action, including a preferred alternative. It also
includes information on the development of the alternatives, alternatives or components considered
but dropped from further analysis, and elements or actions common to all alternatives. Table 1
summarizes, compares, and contrasts the alternatives.
2.2 Development of Alternatives
Initial alternatives were developed between fall 2009 and spring 2010 after initial scoping and public
involvement. These alternatives are: A. Continue Current Management (no action); B. Partial
Restoration and Management of Refuge Expansion Lands; and C. Full Restoration and Management
of Refuge Expansion Lands (preferred alternative). The three alternatives are described in detail in
Section 2.5. Under all alternatives, the wetlands at the Ki„i and Punamanō units are managed as core
management areas as identified in the Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds (USFWS 2005).
2.3 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis
During scoping, public involvement, and the development of the objectives and strategies that make
up each alternative, a variety of ideas and solutions were presented, explored, and debated. The
following alternative components were considered but not selected for further analysis in this Draft
CCP/EA for the reason(s) described.
2.3.1 Kahuku Airfield Restoration for Private Aircraft
We received a suggestion that the Service should
preserve and reopen an old asphalt runway located
in the approved acquisition area. The commenter
recommended the runway be made available for:
1) an emergency landing site; 2) an auxiliary
landing field for short-field practice; and 3) a
recreation site for picnicking (accessible by air
only).
Under Federal regulations at 50 CFR 27.34, aircraft
are prohibited from operating over national wildlife
refuges at altitudes that result in harassment of
wildlife and specifically prohibits unauthorized
landings or take-offs. Refuge management plans
Eroded runway Laura Beauregard/ USFWS
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-2 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
include removing existing encroaching pest vegetation on the runway and aprons of the runway to
improve the site as potential seabird nesting habitat. The current remnant runway is frequently used
by migratory birds, including kioea and kolea. Due to the designated wildlife purposes of the James
Campbell NWR and planned habitat management on and around the runway to benefit birds, any
request for authorized use of the runway would not be an appropriate use. As provided for in 50
CFR 27.34, emergency aircraft operations (i.e., emergency landings) are permitted.
2.3.2 Nonlethal Techniques to Remove Mammalian Predators
In accordance with policy 569 FW 1 (Integrated Pest Management), the Service chooses pest
management methods by considering the following four factors (listed in their order of importance):
human safety, environmental integrity, effectiveness, and cost. Live trapping and release of predators
to other locations on O„ahu or the State is not a sound biological strategy. Transporting predators and
releasing them is not cost effective and has the potential to exacerbate resource management issues at
other Federal, State, County, and private lands.
2.3.3 Public Trapping and Hunting to Remove Nonnative Mammalian
Predators
These actions are dismissed from consideration for this CCP for the following reasons: potential
disturbance to endangered species, lower effectiveness for removal of mammals, safety of and
potential conflicts with other Refuge users, potential conflicts with Refuge staff implementing on-the-
ground management actions, and the primary mammalian predators present (mongooses and rats)
are generally not sought after species by the general hunting public. Pigs may occur on the Refuge in
low numbers but will be controlled by staff or contractors to avoid the conflicts described above
associated with public hunting.
2.4 Elements Common to All Alternatives
2.4.1 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability
Under each alternative, actions will be implemented over a period of 15 years as funding becomes
available. Routine maintenance, repair, replacement, and improvement of existing facilities will
continue, also dependent on funding.
2.4.2 Interagency Coordination and Collaboration
Ecosystem planning efforts discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.8 involve collaboration among Federal,
State, and local agencies toward mutual goals.
2.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Protection and Recovery
Protection of threatened and endangered species is common across all alternatives. It is Service
policy to give priority consideration to the protection, enhancement, and recovery of these species on
national wildlife refuges. The protection of federally listed species is mandated through the
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3
Endangered Species Act of 1973. Section 7 of the Act, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the
mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or
authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. To ensure adequate protection, the
Refuge is required to review all activities, programs, and projects occurring on lands and waters of
the Refuge to determine if they may affect listed species. If the determination is that an action may
adversely affect an endangered species, then the Refuge conducts a formal review, known as a
consultation, to identify those effects and means to mitigate those effects. Consultations are either
completed or will be conducted, as needed, concurrent with development of the CCP. The resulting
Section 7 documents will be included as an appendix in the final CCP.
2.4.4 Historic and Cultural Resource Protection
Cultural resources on Refuge lands receive protection and consideration in accordance with Federal
cultural resources laws, Executive orders, and regulations, as well as policies and procedures
established by the Department of the Interior and the Service. Although the presence of cultural
resources, including historic properties, does not preclude a Federal activity, the Refuge will seek to
identify and protect cultural resources whenever possible. Refuge management actions will support
the State of Hawai„i‟s vision statement “to promote the use and conservation of historic and cultural
resources for the education, inspiration, pleasure and enrichment of the public in a spirit of
stewardship and trusteeship for future generations” (State Historic Preservation Plan 2010-2014).
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a Federal law passed in
1990 that provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American
cultural items -- human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony to
lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. A
Native Hawaiian organization includes any organization that: (a) serves and represents the interests
of Native Hawaiians, (b) has as a primary and stated purpose the provision of services to Native
Hawaiians, and (c) has expertise in Native Hawaiian Affairs, and includes the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs and Hui Malama I Na Kupuna „O Hawai„i Nei. The Department of the Interior has interpreted
this definition to also include the Hawaiian island burial councils and various „ohana (extended
families).
During early planning of any projects, the Refuge will provide the Service Regional Historic
Preservation Officer (RHPO) a description and location of all projects and activities that affect
ground and structures, including project requests from third parties. Information will also include any
alternatives being considered. The RHPO will analyze these undertakings for potential to affect
historic properties and enter into consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division and other
parties as appropriate. The Refuge will also ask the public and local government officials to identify
any cultural resource impact concerns. This notification is generally done in conjunction with the
review required by NEPA or Service regulations on compatibility of uses.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-4 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.4.5 Fire Management
The suppression of wildfires and the use of prescribed or controlled fire are a long-standing part of
resource protection, public safety, and habitat management on national wildlife refuges. In 2003, a
Fire Management Plan that incorporated NEPA compliance was approved for the Refuge and
provides detailed guidance for the suppression and use of prescribed fire. That plan's actions and
effects are incorporated through reference in this CCP/EA. The plan outlines wildfire response and
prescribed fire objectives, strategies, responsibilities, equipment and staffing; burn units;
implementation; monitoring; and evaluation. The complete Fire Management Plan is available at the
Complex office in Hale„iwa (USFWS 2003).
2.4.6 Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development
Activities
The Service will actively participate in planning and studies for ongoing and future industrial and
urban development, contamination, and other potential concerns that may affect the Refuge‟s wildlife
resources and habitats. The Service will continue to cultivate working relationships with pertinent
State and Federal agencies to stay abreast of current and potential developments and will utilize
effective outreach tools and technologies and EE as needed to raise awareness of the Refuge‟s
resources. The Refuge will participate in local community initiatives to protect, steward, and enhance
natural landscapes and wildlife habitat. We will continue to identify and pursue new opportunities for
land acquisition that will benefit Refuge purposes.
2.4.7 Adaptive Management
Based upon 522 Departmental Manual (DM) 1 (Adaptive Management Implementation policy),
Refuge staff shall utilize adaptive management for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate,
restoring lands and resources. Within 43 CFR 46.30, adaptive management is defined as a system of
management practices based upon clearly identified outcomes, where monitoring evaluates whether
management actions are achieving desired results (objectives). The recently published Department of
the Interior (DOI) Adaptive Management Technical Guide also defines adaptive management as a
decision process that “promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of
uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood.”
Adaptive management accounts for the fact that complete knowledge about fish, wildlife, plants,
habitats, and the ecological processes supporting them may be lacking. The role of natural variability
contributing to ecological resilience also is recognized as an important principle of adaptive
management. It is not a “trial and error” process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing based
upon available scientific information and best professional judgment considering site-specific biotic
and abiotic factors on Refuge lands. Adaptive management results in effective monitoring and
evaluation of the CCP.
Part of measuring the success of and adaptively managing the Refuge also includes the formal 15-
year revision of the CCP. The revision will be initiated by the Service and will involve many of the
same steps as this Draft CCP including comprehensive review of management plans and research;
working closely with partners; and engaging the public.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5
2.4.8 Integrated Pest Management
In accordance with Department of the Interior policy 517 DM 1 and Service policy 569 FW 1, an
integrated pest management (IPM) approach will be utilized, where practicable, to eradicate, control,
or contain pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on Refuge lands. The
IPM would involve using methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological disruption,
which considers minimum potential effects to nontarget species and the refuge environment.
Pesticides may be used where physical, cultural, and biological methods or combinations thereof are
impractical or incapable of providing adequate control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide
would be needed on Refuge lands, the most specific (selective) chemical available for the target
species would be used unless considerations of persistence or other environmental and/or biotic
hazards would preclude it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide usage would be further restricted
because only pesticides registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in full
compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and as provided in
regulations, orders, or permits issued by EPA may be applied on lands and waters under Refuge
jurisdiction.
Environmental harm by pest species would refer to a biologically substantial decrease in
environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors, including declines in native
species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or altered
ecological processes. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on native species,
including preying and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing them from
reproducing or killing their young; outcompeting them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites, or other
vital resources; or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations, few if any truly
native individuals remain. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of pest
species. For example, decreased waterfowl use may result from pest plant infestations reducing the
availability and/or abundance of native wetland plants that provide forage during the winter.
Throughout the life of the CCP, most proposed pesticide uses on Refuge lands would be evaluated
for potential effects to Refuge biological resources and environmental quality. Pesticide uses with
appropriate and practical best management practices (BMPs) for habitat management as well as
facilities maintenance would be approved for use on Refuge lands where there likely would be only
minor, temporary, and localized effects to species and environmental quality based upon
nonexceedance of threshold values in chemical profiles. However, pesticides may be used on Refuge
lands where substantial effects to species and the environment are possible (exceed threshold values)
in order to protect human health and safety (e.g., mosquito-borne disease). For more information on
strategies related to control of pests, see Appendix E.
2.4.9 Law Enforcement
Officers’ Responsibilities
Fish and wildlife law enforcement issues on lands and waters of the James Campbell NWR are under
the jurisdiction of the Service Zone Officer based in Honolulu. The role of the Zone Officer is to
conduct and document law enforcement incidents and coordinate and/or meet with all refuge project
leaders, law enforcement supervisors, and refuge officers. The Hawaiian and Pacific Islands Zone
Officer is highly mobile and is frequently deployed temporarily to various areas throughout the State
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-6 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
of Hawai„i and across the Pacific Region. The need for a dedicated Refuge Officer for the Complex
has been identified in the Implementation Plan (Appendix C).
Officers’ Authority
The Zone and Refuge Officers are primarily responsible for enforcing refuge and wildlife laws,
including but not limited to:
Administration Act;
The Lacey Act;
Archaeological Resource Protection Act;
Endangered Species Act;
Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and
Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Zone and Refuge Officers are also empowered to enforce all criminal laws, including traffic
violations, drugs, and warrants for arrest as they relate to trespass, hunting, fishing, and the taking
wildlife on Federal lands, and in some instances boating safety related to refuge lands and waters.
Service Officers work joint patrols and coordinate with the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural
Resources-Division of Conservation and Enforcement (DLNR-DOCARE), Honolulu Police
Department (HPD), and the Sheriff Division of the State Department of Public Safety.
2.5 Alternative Descriptions
These alternatives represent broad, thematic approaches to management of the Refuge, recognizing
the latitude managers have within the framework of Refuge System laws and policy (Table 2-1). The
alternatives reflect direction in the Administration Act, Service policy for administration and
management of refuges, and a host of ongoing conservation initiatives affecting the Hawaiian
Islands. The alternatives were developed to address a suite of issues, and indeed are structured to
track the issues, challenges, and opportunities presented in Chapter 1.
As an integrated CCP and EA, the details of the alternatives are described in terms of the main
components of a CCP, namely measurable objectives and strategies to achieve those objectives. Most
importantly, these alternatives are designed to help James Campbell NWR contribute to the mission
of the Refuge System; meet the purpose for which the Refuge was established, and help achieve the
Refuge vision, goals, and objectives. Stepdown plans for Visitor Services, Transportation, and
Climate Change would be developed under Alternatives B and C. Except for scheduled docent tours
by special use permits, EE program activities, and year-round access along the shoreline; the Refuge
will be closed to general public entry until new visitor facilities are constructed and additional staff
members are acquired to manage them.
2.5.1 Alternative A: Continue Current Management
Intensive management of threatened and endangered waterbird species and their habitat at the Ki„i
and Punamanō Units of the Refuge would continue to focus on protection and successful nesting as
part of the Statewide effort to implement the Hawaiian Waterbird Recovery Plan. Public use
programs would remain virtually unchanged. Units would remain closed to the public except by SUP
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7
issued for EE, research, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography on a case-by-case basis.
Newly acquired expansion lands would receive custodial oversight only, no habitat restoration and
no additional visitor services. Both current aquaculture leases will remain in effect until 2023 at
which time, by prior agreement, they will expire.
2.5.2 Alternative B: Partial Restoration and Management of Refuge
Expansion Lands
In addition to waterbird management actions identified in Alternative A, highest priority wetlands
and coastal dunes on expansion lands would be restored and fenced to exclude large predators. By
2016, a Visitor Services Plan (VSP) would be developed to address a variety of wildlife-related
public use activities. This plan will identify, evaluate, and carefully select sites and locations for
infrastructure needed to fully implement a safe and meaningful program for the public. Infrastructure
needs identified by the plan would include safe and compatible roads, parking areas, trails, overlook,
etc. The VSP will identify new special regulations that may be needed to protect sensitive wildlife
resources, the fragile coastline, and the visiting public. Other considerations include: The Refuge will
cooperate with other agencies and the Kahuku community to develop, evaluate, and implement
feasible projects to reduce projected flooding impacts in the local area while enhancing or protecting
valuable natural resources on the Refuge; and both current aquaculture leases will remain in effect
until 2023 at which time, by prior agreement, they will expire.
2.5.3 Alternative C: Full Restoration and Management of Refuge Expansion
Lands
In addition to all of the management actions identified in Alternatives A and B, all wetlands, coastal
dunes/strand and scrub/shrub habitats would be restored and managed. Trial use of predator-proof
fencing would be initiated on selected dune or wetland sites to protect nesting seabirds and
waterbirds. Abandoned aquaculture facilities would be cleaned up and remnant wetland habitat
would be restored to natural conditions or other approved uses. If we determine that the Service does
not currently have management authority for the shoreline adjacent to the Refuge coastline, we will
pursue an Executive order from the Governor of Hawai„i for jurisdiction to help fulfill the Refuge
purpose and ensure compatibility of uses.
We see our work resulting in all visitors and local communities gaining a greater connection with
nature, sense of place, respect for their environment, and a lifelong interest in and participation in the
conservation, protection, and enhancement of wildlife, plants and their habitats. The Refuge is
considered by many to be one of the best areas in Hawai„i to view endangered waterbirds. High-quality
wildlife viewing will continue and be expanded on the Refuge through the development and
maintenance of trails, boardwalks, and observation sites.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-8 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Table 2.1
James Campbell NWR Management Alternatives Summary
Key Themes Objectives Alt A Alt B Alt C
HABITATS
Intensively
Managed
Wetland
Habitat
1.1 Ae„o loafing
& foraging
50-75 ac 50-75 ac 90-115 ac
1.2 Ae„o breeding 20 ac 20 ac 20 ac
1.3 „Alae
ke„oke„o & „alae
„ula loafing &
foraging
30-40 ac 30-40 ac <59 ac
1.4 „Alae
ke„oke„o & „alae
„ula breeding
15-20 ac 15-20 ac <30 ac
Natural
Wetland
Habitat
1.5 „Alae
ke„oke„o & „alae
„ula life-history
18-25 ac 25-32 ac 32-51 ac
Remnant
Wetland
Habitat
1.6 Waterbirds &
migratory birds
0 ac 10-25 ac 25-67 ac
Coastal
Strand
Dune
Habitat
3.1 Restore,
protect, and
manage
0 ac
50-100 ac
100-185 ac
3.2 Improve
seabird nesting
site on runway
0 ac <10 ac 20-28 ac
Scrub /
Shrub
Habitat
2.3 Restore
scrub/shrub
0 ac <20 ac <312 ac
Expansion
Lands
2.1 Complete
Land Acquisition
✓ ✓ ✓
2.2 Plan &
Construct Refuge
Facilities
Develop site
plans;
Design/build new
HQ/VC/EE
facility
Design/build new
HQ/VC/EE facility,
maintenance shop,
bunkhouse &
greenhouse
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9
Management Alternatives Summary (continued)
Key Themes Objectives Alt A Alt B Alt C
Scientific
Data
4.1 Conduct
inventory and
monitoring
Monitor
impacts of pest
plants &
animals; and
movements of
endangered
waterbirds
Track nesting
success; impacts
of pest plants &
animals; and
movements of
endangered
waterbirds
Track nesting success;
impacts of pest plants &
animals; and
movements of
endangered waterbirds
with GIS data layer
development.
Initiate data collection
volunteer program (i.e.,
bird surveys)
4.2 Facilitate
research &
scientific
assessments
Establish research
partnerships
Form research
partnerships; and
develop climate change
assessment protocols
Visitor
Services
5.1 Provide EE EE is provided
by SUP for
1,500 students
3,000 students
or up to 6,000
students with
construction &
staffing of EE
facility
Up to 6,000 students
with construction &
staffing of EE facility
5.2 Offer new
visitor
opportunities,
primarily wildlife
observation and
photography
Maintain
current level;
500-800
visitors
annually
5,000 visitors
annually along
coastline and
Ki„i; and up to
210,000 w/
construction &
staffing of VC
5,000 visitors annually
along coastline and
Ki„i; and up to 210,000
w/ construction &
staffing of VC
Cultural &
Historic
Resources
6.1 Enhance
awareness,
protection, &
appreciation
Consult Native
Hawaiian &
historical
societies to
develop
interpretive
materials;
NAGPRA
training for
staff
Consult Native
Hawaiian &
historical
societies to
develop
interpretive
materials;
NAGPRA
training for staff
Consult Native
Hawaiian & historical
societies to develop
interpretive materials;
NAGPRA training for
staff;
Develop GIS layer for
avoidance of known
sites
Flood
Damage
Reduction
for the Town
of Kahuku
7.1 Support
feasible flood
reduction efforts
for Kahuku
Cooperate in
planning
process
Cooperate in
planning process;
maintain
Walkerville Unit
as potential flood
reduction project
area
Cooperate in planning
process; maintain
Walkerville Unit as
potential flood
reduction project area
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-10 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.6 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale
Goals and objectives are the unifying elements for successful, adaptive refuge management. They
identify and focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy,
and the Refuge System mission.
A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly
reflects the refuge purposes, Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory requirements, and
larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision, followed
by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving those goals.
Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives. Unless specifically
stated, all objectives are applicable throughout the life of this plan.
In the development of this Draft CCP, the Service has prepared an effects analysis (Chapter 6) for
each of the alternative sets of management actions derived from management goals, objectives, and
implementation strategies. The goals for the James Campbell NWR are presented on the following
pages. Each goal is followed by one or more objectives that pertain to it. The goal order does not
imply any priority in this Draft CCP/EA. Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply
been placed in the most reasonable spot. Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple objectives and
for clarity these strategies are listed under each relevant objective. Following the goals, objectives,
and strategies, a brief rationale is provided. This rationale generally describes how management
strategies will be implemented to achieve the intended objectives. The rationale may also, where
necessary, discuss means to minimize potential impacts to nontarget species and habitats. It also
provides further background information pertaining to the importance of an objective relative to
legal mandates for managing units of the Refuge System, including refuge purpose, trust resource
responsibilities (federally listed threatened and endangered species and migratory birds), and
maintaining/restoring biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.
A honu hatchling scoots its way to the sea Mike Silbernagle/USFWS
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11
2.6.1 Goal 1. Protect and manage seasonal wetland habitats to meet the life-history
needs of endangered waterbirds to promote their recovery.
Objective 1.1. Intensively manage for ae‘o loafing and foraging habitat.
Manage seasonal wetland habitat for loafing and foraging ae„o throughout the year on
approximately115 ac of the Ki„i Unit with the following characteristics:
Open water (1-6 in) and mudflat (saturated and dry) interspersed with 30-60% cover of
emergent vegetation (e.g., cattail), grasses (e.g., sprangletop, knot-grass, millet), and sedges
(e.g., saltmarsh bulrush, California bulrush, Fimbrystlis sp.) providing a mosaic;
Less than 25% cover of pest plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, California bulrush, and
California grass;
Sufficient benthic and nektonic macroinvertebrates and small fish to provide forage on a
rotational basis for up to 200 ae„o;
No cats or dogs; and
Documented predation below 10 individual ae„o per year.
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 50-75 50-75 90-115
Drawdown in specified impoundments from approximately March-
July (control fish and promote invertebrates/algal growth, plant
response)
✓ ✓ ✓
Flood after vegetation treatment (mowing, tilling, herbicide,
prescribed fire) to promote foraging ✓ ✓ ✓
Pulse water to promote abundance and availability of invertebrates Monthly Monthly 3 X
Monthly
Eliminate pest roost trees for cattle egrets ✓
Fencing, live-trapping, snap-traps and bait stations to reduce
predation ✓ ✓ ✓
Control pest plants using: herbicide application, prescribed fire,
mowing, rototilling, disking, and brush cutting ✓ ✓ ✓
Create openings (interspersion) in dense vegetation ✓
Monitor predator abundance (i.e., track tunnels) to evaluate
effectiveness of predator control efforts ✓
Rationale: Ae„o require different loafing and foraging habitats during the breeding (late February-
July) and nonbreeding seasons. Recently hatched ae„o (<14 days old) require shallow water of less
than 2 inches to forage. During the remainder of the year fledgling and adult ae„o can forage in
water as deep as 6 inches.
Seasonally regulating water depth stimulates germination of desirable and beneficial plant species,
controls undesirable plants, and provides a variety of macroinvertebrates for young and adult ae„o to
feed on, thereby creating and maintaining maximized production and carrying capacity of the
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-12 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
wetlands. In addition to providing forage, seasonally regulated water depths provide a mosaic of
open water and vegetation as microhabitat for ae„o thermoregulation and cover during inclement
weather.
Mowing, prescribed fire, herbicide application, rototilling, and disking are all suitable techniques for
creating the desired mosaic of vegetation, open water, and mudflats by opening dense contiguous
patches of Batis, California grass, marsh fleabane, California bulrush, water hyssop, or cattail. These
management techniques also benefit a variety of other wetland dependent species including koloa
maoli, „alae ke„oke„o, „alae „ula, wintering waterfowl (dabbling ducks), and shorebirds.
For more information on strategies related to control of pests, see Appendix E.
Objective 1.2. Intensively manage wetland habitat for ae‘o breeding.
Provide seasonal wetland habitat for breeding ae„o from February-July on 20 acres of the Ki„i Unit
with the following characteristics:
Open water (<3 in) and mudflat (saturated and unsaturated) with <25% cover of
emergents, grasses, and sedges providing a mosaic;
Undulating, irregular bottom topography creating unsaturated mudflats with gradual
slopes during drawdown for nesting adjacent to foraging habitat;
Predation limited to no more than 5 documented events per year;
Less than 25% cover of pest plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, water hyssop,
California bulrush, and California grass; and
Benthic and nektonic macro-invertebrates and small fish with densities of 400-600
invertebrates/yd2.
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 20 20 20
Flood for prebreeding (as a follow-up to mowing/rototilling, etc. to
create nesting habitat)
✓ ✓ ✓
Slow drawdown rate (control fish and promote invertebrates/algal
growth, plant response)
✓ ✓ ✓
Pulsing water to promote invertebrates for broods Twice
Monthly
Twice
Monthly Weekly
Control predators with fencing, live-trapping, snap-traps, and bait
stations
✓ ✓ ✓
Control pest plants using: herbicide application, prescribed fire,
mowing, rototilling, disking, and brush cutting
✓ ✓ ✓
Restricted public use (seasonal closures) and limited Refuge staff
presence only at a level necessary to conduct monitoring and water
management, under normal circumstance, 1-3 visits per week
✓ ✓ ✓
Monitor predator abundance to evaluate success of control efforts ✓
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13
Rationale: Breeding ae„o require dry to unsaturated mudflat habitat for building nests. Pre-breeding
water level drawdowns help establish drier mudflats. Although saturated mudflats can be used as nest
sites, adult ae„o expend more energy building nests robust enough to counter the excess moisture.
Initiation of the drawdown is timed to coincide with minimal or no „alae ke„oke„o nesting or chick
rearing. This timing method is part of an overall cycle of wetting and drying of habitat, making it
suitable to a greater number of birds throughout the year and increasing species diversity. Thus, ae„o
nesting habitat temporally follows where „alae ke„oke„o habitat existed previously.
Declining water levels increase areas of suitable nesting habitat. Ae„o breeding season water
drawdowns maximize the number of nests that an area can support. The target distance between nest
site to vegetation and water is 0-20 feet. Slow drawdown rates also stimulate ample numbers and
diversity of invertebrates throughout the brood rearing period, allowing adult ae„o with broods to
establish feeding territories and reduce inter-brood conflicts that can result in injury or death to
young chicks.
Ae„o are very easily disturbed during the nesting season. Since they nest in the open on exposed
mudflats they evolved behaviors to help protect nests and young. One behavior of the adult is to
depart the nest when perceived danger is detected, leaving the nest, eggs, or young exposed to
ground or avian predators and the weather. Eggs can also be destroyed by prolonged exposure to
high temperature, wind chill, and rain, all of which occur frequently in Hawai„i. Human disturbance
must be minimized during the nesting period to reduce the risk of nest abandonment. Thus, public
access is generally closed during this time.
Ae„o nests, eggs, and young are also vulnerable to a variety of predators including rats, mice,
mongooses, bullfrogs, dogs, cats, cattle egrets, and „auku„u. It is critical to control predators during
the nesting season, thereby increasing nesting and fledging success. These management techniques
also benefit a variety of other wetland dependent species including koloa maoli, „alae ke„oke„o , „alae
„ula, wintering waterfowl (dabbling ducks), and shorebirds.
Objective 1.3. Intensively manage seasonal wetland habitat for ‘alae ke‘oke‘o and ‘alae
‘ula loafing and foraging.
Provide seasonal wetland habitat for loafing/foraging „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula throughout the
year on approximately 50 ac of seasonal wetlands and 9 ac of associated dikes at Ki„i with the
following characteristics:
Mudflat (dry and saturated) and open water (<1-18 in) interspersed with 30-60% cover of tall
(3-8 ft.) emergent vegetation, grasses, and sedges that provide seed and green browse and a
mosaic of concealment cover, open water, and thermal cover;
<25% cover of pest plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, water hyssop, California bulrush,
and California grass;
Adjacent short (<4 in), grassy uplands (especially dikes) for foraging;
Interspersed vegetation with sufficient edge providing visual barriers to maximize territories
available for breeding;
Predation levels of no more than 5 individual „alae ke„oke„o and 1 „alae „ula per year;
Tilapia numbers maintained at a level promoting algal growth and other desirable plants such
as Ruppia maritima as forage; and
Abundant epiphytic invertebrates (i.e., dragonflies), crayfish, and aquatic benthic/nektonic
macroinvertebrates to support up to 200 „alae ke„oke„o and 100 „alae „ula on a seasonal basis.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-14 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 30-40 30-40 <59
Extended hydroperiod to promote epiphytic invertebrates ✓ ✓ ✓
Flood after vegetation treatment (mowing, tilling, etc.) to promote
foraging ✓ ✓ ✓
Slow drawdown rate (control fish and promote invertebrates/algal
growth, plant response) ✓ ✓ ✓
Fencing, live-trapping, snap-traps and bait stations to reduce predation ✓ ✓ ✓
Monitor predator abundance to evaluate effectiveness of predator
control efforts
✓
Control pest plants using: herbicide application, prescribed fire,
mowing, rototilling, disking, and brush cutting ✓ ✓ ✓
Rationale: While „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula occupy similar loafing and foraging habitat, there are
differences between the species‟ needs. „Alae ke„oke„o use earlier successional stages of wetland
habitat with a greater open water to vegetation ratio. They also typically occupy deeper water than
„alae „ula. „Alae „ula prefer late successional stages comprised of dense, robust vegetation with
greater seclusion. „Alae ke„oke„o spend more time loafing in a flock on open water and dikes,
whereas „alae „ula are more solitary and occupy areas around the base of robust emergent vegetation
or dikes. „Alae „ula use open water primarily as a corridor between areas of suitable habitat.
Ki„i ponds A and E contain a high percentage of Batis which provides habitat for „alae „ula, while
other ponds are managed for other species. The mosaic of open water and dense vegetation provides
areas for thermoregulation and cover and increases habitat diversity. Mowing, disking, prescribed
fire, herbicide application, and rototilling are all techniques suitable to open dense contiguous
patches of Batis, California grass, marsh fleabane, California bulrush, water hyssop, or cattail-dominated
areas. These techniques also return nutrients to the wetland ecosystem and benefit a
variety of other water-related species including koloa maoli, wintering waterfowl, and shorebirds.
On the Ki„i Unit, grass covered dikes are important habitat for „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula, as well
as other species such as kioea. One wide dike is utilized by many species and is known as the C/F
Dike. Mowing of this dike to maintain a grass height of less than 4 inches provides foraging areas
where „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula can graze on short grass and feed on associated invertebrates.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15
Objective 1.4. Intensively manage seasonal wetland habitat for ‘alae ‘ula and ‘alae
ke‘oke‘o breeding.
Provide seasonal wetland habitat for breeding „alae „ula and „alae ke„oke„o throughout the year on
approximately 30 ac on Ki„i with the following characteristics:
Mudflat (dry and saturated) and open water (<1-18 in) interspersed with 30-60% cover of tall
(3-8 ft.) emergent vegetation, grasses, and sedges that provide seed and green browse and a
mosaic of concealment cover, open water, and thermal cover;
Less than 25% cover of pest plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, water hyssop, California
bulrush, and California grass;
Interspersed vegetation with sufficient edge providing visual barriers to maximize territories
available for breeding;
Predation of no more than 5 individual „alae ke„oke„o and 1 „alae „ula per year;
Tilapia numbers constrained to a low level, promoting algal growth and other desirable
plants such as Ruppia maritima as forage;
Abundant epiphytic invertebrates (e.g., dragonflies), crayfish, and aquatic benthic/nektonic
macroinvertebrates to support up 200 „alae ke„oke„o and 100 „alae „ula on a seasonal basis;
Brood rearing in close proximity to nesting habitat; and
Stable water levels during laying and incubation.
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 15-20 15-20 <30
Extended hydro-period to promote epiphytic invertebrates ✓ ✓ ✓
Flood to sufficiently inundate emergent vegetation ✓ ✓ ✓
Slow drawdown rate (control fish and promote invertebrates/algal
growth, plant response) ✓ ✓ ✓
Fencing, live-trapping, snap-traps, and bait stations to reduce
predation ✓ ✓ ✓
Control pest plants using herbicide application, prescribed fire
mowing, rototilling, brush cutting, disking ✓ ✓ ✓
Mowing, rototilling, brush cutting, and/or prescribed fire to create
openings in dense vegetation ✓ ✓ ✓
Maintain stable water levels during laying and incubation ✓ ✓ ✓
Partial to complete public closure to minimize human disturbance ✓ ✓ ✓
Monitor predator abundance to evaluate effectiveness of predator
control efforts
✓
Rationale: „Alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula prefer stable water levels for nest building and nesting.
When preparing an impoundment for „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula nesting, water levels are raised to
a depth of 8-15 inches and maintained at a constant level to provide adequate nest sites that are
secure from predation. Fluctuating water levels are not desirable, requiring nesting adults to
continually build the nest up or have it isolated on dry ground and subject to greater predation.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-16 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
During brood rearing periods, however, water levels are pulsed infrequently to provide physical
barriers between brood territories and provide greater access to macroinvertebrates that are eaten by
adults in breeding condition and also fed to developing chicks. These invertebrates are an important
protein source for proper development.
The amount of vegetative cover in an impoundment varies with the duration between habitat
management actions. As succession from open water to a more vegetation-dominated wetland
occurs, it favors different species. „Alae ke„oke„o are adept at nesting in a more open setting where
there is approximately 30 percent cover of emergent vegetation. „Alae „ula prefer a more vegetated
system with about 60 percent cover.
Because of rapid and year-long plant growth in
Hawai„i, habitat manipulation generally requires
removal of all or nearly all vegetation (generally
every 2-3 years) from a managed wetland
impoundment to increase the time before follow-up
management actions are needed. In the habitat
preparation phase, dewatering followed by
mowing, tilling, and herbicide application are used
to achieve the mosaic. During the managing phase
when water is in the impoundment, water level
manipulation helps to create the desired percentage
of vegetation and interspersion. Each impoundment
can be managed independently in this manner,
varying the habitat to meet wildlife needs.
Ample food supply is important to build and maintain a healthy breeding population at a given site.
Pest fish, such as Tilapia spp., are known to compete for food eaten by „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula.
They also degrade water quality, which can affect invertebrate densities and plant growth. During
habitat manipulation, slow drawdowns of water levels are used to concentrate undesirable fish and
ultimately remove them from the environment. Following their death during dewatering, the remains
are allowed to dry and decompose naturally or are tilled into the soil, increasing soil nutrients that aid
in promoting invertebrate and plant response. Botulism is a concern so evidence of botulism
poisoning is closely monitored for during decomposition.
„Alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula are less susceptible to disturbance during nesting compared with ae„o
and this relates to their nest location, nesting habitat, and response to disturbance. Since „alae
ke„oke„o and „alae „ula nest in open water or dense vegetation with concealment, their response to
disturbance is to remain motionless on the nest. As a result, public use is limited during the „alae
ke„oke„o and „alae „ula nesting season. Most of the time it is difficult to see a nest even at a relatively
close distance.
Recognizing public tours and educational programs are important, there is a need to restrict access
for such activities in areas where nesting and brood rearing is concentrated. The locations of nest are
monitored and visitors either directed away from the areas or led quickly through the area to
minimize human disturbance.
Habitat manipulation Mike Silbernagle/USFWS
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17
Objective 1.5: Manage natural wetland habitat for ‘alae ke‘oke‘o and ‘alae ‘ula.
Provide and manage up to 51 ac of natural wetland habitat of the Punamanō Unit to meet all life-history
needs of „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula throughout the year with the following characteristics:
Mudflat (dry and saturated) and open water (<1-18 in) interspersed with 30-60% cover of tall
(3-8 ft.) emergents, grasses, and sedges that provide a mosaic of concealment cover, open
water, and thermal cover;
Less than 40% cover of pest plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, water hyssop, California
bulrush, California grass, Christmas berry, and koa haole;
Adjacent short (<3 in), grassy uplands for foraging;
Predation levels of no more than 5 individual „alae ke„oke„o and 1 „alae „ula per year.
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 18-25 25-32 32-51
Fencing, live-trapping, snap-traps and bait stations to reduce predation ✓ ✓ ✓
Control pest plants using: herbicide application, prescribed fire,
mowing, rototilling, disking, and brush cutting ✓ ✓ ✓
In selected sites, investigate and implement, if feasible, installation of
small water control structures to partially restore water level
management capability and increase habitat diversity
✓ ✓
Monitor predator abundance to evaluate effectiveness of predator
control efforts ✓
Rationale: Currently, with no water control structures, intensive water management capabilities are
lacking at the Punamanō Unit. Therefore, the timing, duration, and water level cannot be managed.
Natural weather patterns and subsurface ground water movement control the hydrology of the unit.
Maintenance (nonbreeding) habitat is created, maintained, or enhanced mostly at the wetland/upland
interface because mowing, tilling, and other mechanisms can be undertaken to control vegetation.
Access to these areas is limited and most work here must be accomplished by hand. Mudflat habitat
is only available along portions of the wetland perimeter. Presence, absence, and amount of mudflat
are dependent on natural fluctuating water level. Natural undulating vegetation edges only create
limited areas for thermoregulation.
Breeding habitat for „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula is restricted to centrally located stands of emergent
vegetation. Vegetation control in the wetland occurs infrequently due to unavailability of adequate
equipment (e.g., aquatic weed cutters and excavators) on a regular basis. As a result, lower numbers
of „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula are supported here than in intensively managed wetland units.
Nesting is confined to bulrush stands on this unit. Macro- and other invertebrates are produced, but
competitive fish such as Tilapia are not controlled and likely reduce food availability for endangered
„alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula.
Mowing, prescribed fire, herbicide application, and rototilling are all tools that are available to open
wetland shoreline areas of Batis, California grass, marsh fleabane, Christmas berry, and koa haole.
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-18 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Chipping can reduce the removed material that cannot be disposed of by techniques identified above.
This will speed recovery of the area by reducing the time necessary for natural decomposition to
occur. Controlling these species promotes a mosaic of wetland fringe and upland vegetation, open
water, and mudflats as suitable habitat for „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula. Small pieces of herbaceous
plant material created from mowing and other techniques also become available to „alae ke„oke„o
and „alae „ula for nest construction.
A 16-acre wetland site (currently unmanaged) in the southeast corner of the Punamanō Unit, adjacent
to Nudist Camp Road, has been partially drained by small lateral surface ditches since the early
1900s. This area will be investigated to determine if the installation of small water control structures
in these lateral ditches may partially restore historic water levels and provide a minimal amount of
water management capability that will increase overall wetland habitat diversity in this unit,
benefitting both „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula.
Objective 1.6. Manage remnant wetland habitat within acquisition area for the benefit of
endangered waterbirds and migratory birds.
Once acquired, protect and maintain approximately 69 ac of remnant seasonal wetlands within the
acquisition boundary for James Campbell NWR expansion to meet these characteristics:
Mudflat (dry and saturated) and open water (<1-18 in) interspersed with 30-60% cover of tall
(3-8 ft.) emergent grasses and sedges that provide a mosaic of concealment cover, open
water, and thermal cover;
Less than 40% cover of pest plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, water hyssop, California
bulrush, California grass, Christmas berry, and koa haole;
No ironwood or kiawe;
Interspersed vegetation with sufficient edge providing visual barriers to maximize territories
available for breeding;
Documented predation of no more than 5 ae„o per year; and
Limited/controlled public use to minimize disturbance.
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 0 10-25 25-67
Fencing, live-trapping, snap-traps and bait stations to reduce
predation ✓ ✓
Control pest plants using: herbicide application, prescribed fire,
mowing, rototilling, disking, and brush cutting ✓ ✓
Create desirable mosaic of openings in vegetation by mowing,
rototilling, disking or prescribed fire ✓ ✓
Monitor predator abundance to evaluate effectiveness of predator
control efforts ✓
Rationale: Unmanaged semi-permanent and temporary wetlands within the approved acquisition
boundary provide habitat for a variety of species. Natural weather patterns, subsurface ground water
movement, and small surface ditches control the hydrology of the unit. No active water management
or water management facilities (e.g., pumps and water control structures) currently exist for the
purpose of managing these wetlands. Once acquired, Service management will mostly involve
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19
controlling undesirable vegetation and, where feasible, limited water level management. Major
alteration of the landscape is not required to enhance and maintain wetlands capable of supporting
waterbirds because in most areas soils and hydrology are still functioning in a relatively natural
manner.
Water levels, timing, and duration cannot be controlled as on Ki„i; where water control structures;
dedicated water supply; bottom topography; and confined impoundments allow detailed and specific
water regimes to be established and maintained. Maintenance (nonbreeding) habitat may be created,
maintained, or enhanced in suitable and accessible wetland/upland interface where mowing, tilling
and other mechanisms can be undertaken to control vegetation. Many areas will not be enhanced
because of the inaccessibility to equipment.
Lower numbers of „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula will be supported here than in an intensively
managed wetland. Nesting will be confined to emergent stands. Macro- and other invertebrates are
produced, but competitive fish such as Tilapia are not controlled and they likely reduce food for
endangered „alae ke„oke„o and „alae „ula. Life-history needs of endangered waterbirds will be met in
at least part of the area throughout the year under this objective. Other benefiting species include the
koloa maoli and a variety of migratory wintering waterfowl, primarily dabbling ducks such as koloa
māpu (northern pintail), koloa mohā (northern shoveler), and green-winged teal. Several shorebird
species will also benefit including, „akekeke, kolea, and „ū„lili.
There will be less of a mosaic of open water and vegetation to provide thermoregulation during
inclement weather. Mowing, prescribed fire, herbicide application, disking, and rototilling to open
Batis, California grass, marsh fleabane, Christmas berry, and koa haole dominated areas to create the
mosaic of vegetation, open water, and mudflats will be retained as management tools, but suitable
areas for implementing one or more of these techniques will be greatly reduced under this objective
because of access restrictions and the inability to effectively manage water.
Selected sites will be investigated for the feasibility of installing small water control structures to
partially provide water level management capability in these remnant degraded wetlands. In addition,
several existing groundwater wells on the acquisition area have been used in the past for commercial
aquaculture operations. These wells, as well as surface water runoff, may also be used to partially
provide water level management capabilities. This limited capability may improve the control of pest
species and increase habitat diversity.
Ae‘o ohana Laura Beauregard/USFWS
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-20 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Objective 1.7. Manage aquaculture ponds, in voluntary cooperation with lessees, for
waterbirds and shorebirds.
Enhance, protect and manage up to 242 ac. (currently under lease until 2023) to meet these
characteristics:
Mudflat (dry and saturated) and open water (<1-18 in) interspersed with 30-60% cover of tall
(3-8 ft.) emergent grasses and sedges that provide a mosaic of concealment cover, open
water, and thermal cover;
Less than 40% cover of pest plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, water hyssop, California
bulrush, California grass, Christmas berry, and koa haole;
No ironwood or kiawe;
Interspersed vegetation with sufficient edge providing visual barriers to maximize territories
available for breeding;
Documented predation level of no more than 10 „alae ke„oke„o and 4 „alae „ula per year; and
Limited/controlled public use to minimize disturbance.
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 0 <242 <242
Passively manage aquaculture ponds in voluntary cooperation with