Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Kea¯lia Pond
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ka Nu‘ukia no ka Pu‘uhonua Holoholona
Ma na¯ lihikaha o ka ‘ao‘ao hema o na¯ kahakai o Maui kahi e ulu ahewa nei na¯ kaiaulu,
eia ho‘i ne¯ia wahi i ha¯mama wale i ka nui; ‘a¯ina a me ka wai e ko¯kua ana ho‘i me na¯ ‘a¯ina
kumu wai e ko¯kua ana pu ho‘i i na¯ ‘a¯papa a me na¯ kai i kapa ‘ia o Kea¯lia Pond National
Wildlife Refuge. Ma¯lama ho‘i na¯ ae‘o wa¯wae loloa i ka¯ la¯kou mau manu pepe kalakoa a
puhuluhulu i neia wahi nei, a e ‘imi no ho‘i na¯ manu pepe ‘alae ke‘oke‘o me ko la¯kou mai
lae ‘ula‘alani i na¯ ‘alae ke‘oke‘o ma¯kua ma na¯ pa¯leilei ‘a¯kea me na¯ meakanu ulu pa¯lialia.
E pahe‘e ma¯lie no ho‘i na¯ manuwai ho‘oma¯ka‘ika‘i li‘ili‘i ma ka wai a e lele kaha mai ho‘i
na¯ manu lihikai ma na¯ lihiwai e ‘ai ana ho‘i i na¯ mea’ai iwikuamo‘o ‘ole. E na¯nea
pu¯ a ho‘omana‘o ho‘i na¯ kama‘a¯ina a me na¯ malihini i ke¯ia wahi ma ka
pili pu¯ hou ‘ana me na¯ mea a ka ‘a¯ina i ho‘oma¯kaukau mua
ai no la¯kou ma ka pu‘uhona ma¯lama holoholona
‘oiwi a me ko la¯kou kaianoho.
A Vision of Conservation
Refuge Vision
Nestled along Maui’s southern
shore amidst growing communities,
Kea¯lia Pond National Wildlife Refuge is a
welcome stretch of open space and water serving
a vital watershed function to protect offshore reefs and
waters. Within its mosaic of native wetland vegetation and
open waters, thriving populations of long-legged ae‘o raise their
camouflaged fluff-ball chicks, while ‘alae ke‘oke‘o chicks with their red-orange
downy heads and bills vie for their parents’ attention. Vacationing
waterfowl peacefully glide through the waters, and shorebirds dart along the
water’s edge, dining on spineless cuisine. As a vibrant national wildlife refuge, local
residents and visitors alike find a means to reconnect with nature and play a significant
role in protecting native wildlife and their habitats.
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 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimates of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current
budget allocations, and as such, are primarily used for 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. Kea¯lia Pond Wetland
©Jamison Carter
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Maui National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Milepost 6 Mokulele Highway (Hwy. 311)
P.O. Box 1042
Kīhei, HI 96753
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pacific Islands Planning Team
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 5-231
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96850
August 2011
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Readers’ Guide .................................................................................................................................. vii
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 of 1966 ................................... 1-5
1.5 Refuge Establishment and Purposes .................................................................................. 1-6
1.5.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose ................................................................... 1-6
1.5.2 Refuge Establishment ................................................................................................... 1-6
1.5.3 Refuge Purpose ............................................................................................................. 1-7
1.6 Refuge Goals ......................................................................................................................... 1-7
1.7 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans .......................................................... 1-9
1.7.1 Future Planning ............................................................................................................ 1-9
1.8 Relationship to Ecosystem Planning Efforts ..................................................................... 1-9
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 ................................................................ 1-13
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ......................................................... 2-1
2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design ................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis ..................................... 2-1
2.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives............................................................................... 2-1
2.3.1 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability ......................................................... 2-1
2.3.2 Interagency Coordination and Collaboration ............................................................... 2-2
2.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Protection and Recovery .................................... 2-2
2.3.4 Historic and Cultural Resource Protection ................................................................... 2-2
2.3.5 Fire Management .......................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.6 Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities ................ 2-3
2.3.7 Adaptive Management .................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3.8 Integrated Pest Management ........................................................................................ 2-4
2.3.9 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance ........................................... 2-5
2.3.10 Law Enforcement ....................................................................................................... 2-5
2.4 Alternative Descriptions ...................................................................................................... 2-6
2.4.1 Alternative A: Continue Current Management Activities ........................................... 2-6
2.4.2 Alternative B: Restoration Focus ................................................................................ 2-8
2.4.3 Alternative C: Wetland Capacity Focus (Preferred Alternative) ................................. 2-9
2.5 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale ................................................................... 2-18
2.5.1 Goal 1 ......................................................................................................................... 2-19
2.5.2 Goal 2 ......................................................................................................................... 2-26
2.5.3 Goal 3 ......................................................................................................................... 2-28
2.5.4 Goal 4 ......................................................................................................................... 2-29
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
ii Table of Contents
2.5.5 Goal 5 ......................................................................................................................... 2-30
2.5.6 Goal 6 ......................................................................................................................... 2-34
2.5.7 Goal 7 ......................................................................................................................... 2-39
Chapter 3. Physical Environment .................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Refuge Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.1 Global Climate Changes and Projections ..................................................................... 3-4
3.2.2 Climate Change in Hawai‘i ............................................................................................ 3-5
3.2.3 Sea Level Rise .............................................................................................................. 3-7
3.2.4 Ecological Responses to Climate Change .................................................................... 3-8
3.2.5 Climate Change at Keālia Pond .................................................................................... 3-9
3.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 3-10
3.3.1 Keālia Pond ................................................................................................................. 3-10
3.3.2 Molokini ..................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... 3-12
3.4.1 Annual Hydrologic Cycle ........................................................................................... 3-12
3.4.2 Water Quality of the Pond .......................................................................................... 3-18
3.5 Topography/Bathymetry ................................................................................................... 3-26
3.6 Environmental Contaminants .......................................................................................... 3-30
3.6.1 Molokini Contaminants .............................................................................................. 3-31
3.7 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 3-31
3.7.1 Previous Land Uses .................................................................................................... 3-33
3.7.2 Molokini Land Use ..................................................................................................... 3-34
Chapter 4: Refuge Biology and Habitat ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Conservation Targets .......................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.1 Conservation Target Selection ..................................................................................... 4.4
4.3 Endangered Hawaiian Waterbirds .................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.1 Ae‘o (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) or Hawaiian Stilt .......................................... 4-7
4.3.2 ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o (Fulica alai) or Hawaiian Coot ......................................................... 4-13
4.3.3 Koloa maoli (Anas wyvilliana) or Hawaiian Duck .................................................... 4-14
4.3.4 Nēnē (Branta sandvicensis) or Hawaiian Goose ....................................................... 4-14
4.4 Other Hawaiian Waterbirds ............................................................................................. 4-15
4.5 Migratory Waterfowl ........................................................................................................ 4-16
4.6 Migratory Shorebirds ........................................................................................................ 4-16
4.7 Seabirds .............................................................................................................................. 4-19
4.7.1 ‘Ua‘u kani (Puffinus pacificus) or Wedge-tailed Shearwater ..................................... 4-19
4.7.2 ‘Ou (Bulweris bulwerii) or Bulwer’s Petrel .............................................................. 4-19
4.7.3 Noio kōhā (Anous stolidus) or Brown Noddy ........................................................... 4-20
4.7.4 Noio (Anous minutus) or Black Noddy ...................................................................... 4-20
4.7.5 ‘Iwa (Fregata minor) or Great Frigatebird ................................................................. 4-20
4.8 Raptors............................................................................................................................... 4-21
4.9 Endangered Mammals ...................................................................................................... 4-21
4.10 Terrestrial Invertebrates ................................................................................................. 4-22
4.11 Acquatic Invertebrates .................................................................................................... 4-22
4.12 Marine Reptiles ................................................................................................................ 4-23
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents iii
4.12.1 Honu (Eretmochelys imbricate) or Hawaiian Green Turtle ..................................... 4-23
4.12.2 Honu ‘ea (Chelonia mydas) or Hawksbill Turtle ........................................................ 4-23
4.13 Native Plants ..................................................................................................................... 4-24
4.14 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................ 4-25
4.14.1 Mammals .................................................................................................................. 4-26
4.14.2 Birds ......................................................................................................................... 4-28
4.14.3 Amphibians............................................................................................................... 4-28
4.14.4 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................. 4-29
4.14.5 Plants ........................................................................................................................ 4-30
4.14.6 Diseases .................................................................................................................... 4-33
4.15 Habitats ............................................................................................................................. 4-34
4.15.1 Coastal Dune/Beach Strand ...................................................................................... 4-34
4.15.2 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats ............................................................................ 4-35
4.15.3 Coastal Dry Forests .................................................................................................. 4-36
4.15.4 Offshore Islet (Molokini) ......................................................................................... 4-37
4.16 Ecological and Biological Research ................................................................................. 4-38
Chapter 5. Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs ................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Refuge Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities ....................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Headquarters and Visitor Center .................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Maintenance Facilities .................................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.3 Trails ............................................................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.4 Roads and Parking Areas .............................................................................................. 5-3
5.1.5 Fences and Gates .......................................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.6 Wells, Pumps, Water Distribution Lines, and Water Control Structure ....................... 5-3
5.1.7 Visitor and Environmental Education Shelter .............................................................. 5-4
5.2 Visitor Services ..................................................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.1 Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs ........................................................... 5-7
5.2.2 Special Use Permits ...................................................................................................... 5-8
5.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................................................................. 5-8
5.3.1 Desired Future Conditions for Wildlife Observation and Photography ....................... 5-8
5.4 Interpretation ....................................................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.1 Desired Future Conditions for the Interpretation Program ......................................... 5-10
5.5 Environmental Education ................................................................................................. 5-10
5.5.1 Desired Future Conditions for the Environmental Education Program ..................... 5-10
5.6 Volunteers ........................................................................................................................... 5-11
5.6.1 Desired Future Conditions for the Volunteer Program .............................................. 5-11
5.7 Partnerships ....................................................................................................................... 5-11
5.8 Law Enforcement ............................................................................................................... 5-12
5.8.1 Desired Future Conditions for Law Enforcement ...................................................... 5-12
5.9 Outdoor Recreation Opportunities and Trends on Maui .............................................. 5-13
5.9.1 Federal, State, and County Recreational Parks .......................................................... 5-13
Chapter 6. Cultural Resources, Social, and Economic Environment ......................................... 6-1
6.1 Refuge Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Mythological and Traditional Accounts ........................................................................ 6-2
6.1.2 Pre-Contact History ....................................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.3 Euro-American Cultural History ................................................................................... 6-4
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
iv Table of Contents
6.1.4 The Mahele, 1848-1851 ................................................................................................. 6-5
6.1.5 Post-1850s History ........................................................................................................ 6-5
6.1.6 Refuge Archaeological/Cultural Surveys ...................................................................... 6-6
6.1.7 Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................. 6-7
6.1.8 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................ 6-7
6.2 Social and Economic Setting ............................................................................................... 6-8
6.2.1 Population ...................................................................................................................... 6-8
6.2.2 Housing ......................................................................................................................... 6-9
6.2.3 Education ....................................................................................................................... 6-9
6.2.4 Economics ..................................................................................................................... 6-9
Chapter 7. Environmental Effects Analysis .................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Overview of Effects Analysis .............................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Terminology ......................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Summary of Management Action Effects at Keālia Pond NWR ..................................... 7-2
7.4 Effects Analysis .................................................................................................................... 7-7
7.4.1 Water Level Management Effects to Endangered Waterbirds ..................................... 7-7
7.4.2 Effects of Management Actions to Migratory Birds .................................................... 7-8
7.4.3 Effects to Sea Turtles and ‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua ......................................................... 7-10
7.4.4 Effects to ‘Ōka‘i ‘aeia ................................................................................................ 7-10
7.4.5 Effects of Aquatic Invertebrates ................................................................................. 7-11
7.4.6 Control of Pest Plant Species and Native Plant Restoration ...................................... 7-11
7.4.7 Predator Control Effects ............................................................................................. 7-12
7.4.8 Effects of Management Actions to Restore Coastal Dry Forest Habitat .................... 7-14
7.4.9 Effects of Management Actions on Coastal Strand/Dune Habitat ............................. 7-14
7.4.10 Effects to Offshore Islet Habitat and Seabirds ............................................................ 7-14
7.4.11 Effects of Promoting Research and Scientific Assessments .................................... 7-15
7.4.12 Effects to Water, Soils, and Air Quality ................................................................... 7-16
7.4.13 Effects to Cultural and Historic Resources .............................................................. 7-16
7.4.14 Effects to Public Use and Access ............................................................................. 7-17
7.4.15 Economic Impacts ...................................................................................................... 7-18
7.4.16 Environmental Justice................................................................................................. 7-18
7.5 Cumulative Effects Assessment ........................................................................................ 7-19
7.5.1 Cumulative Climate Change Effects on Water Resources.............................................. 7-19
7.5.2 Cumulative Effects to Mā‘alaea Bay .......................................................................... 7-20
7.5.3 Cumulative Effects to Water Supply Quantity ............................................................... 7-21
7.5.4 Cumulative Effects to Local Traffic Density .................................................................. 7-21
7.5.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7-22
Tables
Table 2.1 Management Alternatives Summary ................................................................................ 2-17
Table 3.1 Rates of Water Level Decline for Periods with No Significant Inflow to Pond .................... 3-18
Table 4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Characteristics ...................... 4-3
Table 4.2 Priority Resources of Concern ........................................................................................... 4-4
Table 4.3 Conservation targets for the CCP ...................................................................................... 4-6
Table 4.4 Waterfowl Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters ........................ 4-16
Table 4.5 Shorebird Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters ......................... 4-17
Table 4.6 Shorebirds of Primary Conservation Importance in the Pacific Region .......................... 4-17
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents v
Table 6.1 Population figures for selected areas ................................................................................. 6-8
Table 6.2 Census Bureau estimated median and per capita income figures, 2009 ............................ 6-10
Table 7.1 CCP Alternatives Summary of Effects for Keālia Pond NWR .......................................... 7-2
Figures
Figure 1.1 Map of Main Hawaiian Islands ...................................................................................... 1-15
Figure 1.2 Map of Refuge Land Status & Boundary ....................................................................... 1-17
Figure 1.3 Map of Molokini Islet Unit ............................................................................................. 1-19
Figure 2.1 Map of Alternative A Habitat Management ................................................................... 2-11
Figure 2.2 Map of Alternative B Habitat Management ................................................................... 2-13
Figure 2.3 Map of Alternative C Habitat Management ................................................................... 2-15
Figure 3.1 Average monthly wind speeds at Keālia Pond NWR, 2002-2006.................................... 3-3
Figure 3.2 Annual cycle of average monthly precipitation (top) and total annual precipitation
with 5-year moving average (bottom) at Kīhei, HI, 1950-2008 ................................................. 3-4
Figure 3.3 Annual cycle of average monthly temperature (top) and mean annual temperature
with 5-year moving average (bottom) at Kahului airport, HI, 1955-2008 ............................. 3-6
Figure 3.4 Water level depths and monthly precipitation at Keālia Pond NWR, 1996-1999 .......... 3-14
Figure 3.5 Water level depths and monthly precipitation at Keālia Pond NWR, 2000-2003 ......... 3-15
Figure 3.6 Water level depths and monthly precipitation at Keālia Pond NWR, 2004-2007 .......... 3-16
Figure 3.7 Predicted and observed salinity concentration as a function of water level elevation ... 3-20
Figure 3.8 Hourly dissolved oxygen and water level data at Keālia Pond, 2002-2006 ................... 3-21
Figure 3.9 Hourly pH, turbidity, and water level data at Keālia Pond, 2002-2006 ......................... 3-23
Figure 3.10 Algal group biovolume as a percent of total biovolume at Keālia Pond, 2002-2005 ... 3-25
Figure 3.11 Elevation & Contours Map ........................................................................................... 3-27
Figure 3.12 Pond volume and area as a function of water level elevation, USFWS 2000 .............. 3-29
Figure 4.1 Peak counts of ae‘o at Keālia Pond, 1995-2010 ............................................................... 4-8
Figure 4.2 Ae‘o (Hawaiian Stilt) Nesting Areas Map ....................................................................... 4-9
Figure 4.3 ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o (Hawaiian Coot) Nesting Areas Map .................................................... 4-11
Figure 4.4 Peak counts of ‘alae ke‘oke‘o at Keālia Pond, 1995-2010 ............................................. 4-13
Figure 4.5 Peak counts of kōlea at Keālia Pond, 1994-2006 ........................................................... 4-18
Figure 4.6 Peak counts of ‘ūlili at Keālia Pond, 1994-2006 ............................................................ 4-18
Figure 5.1 Administrative & Public Use Facilities ............................................................................ 5-5
Appendices
Appendix A: Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge Species Lists .................................................. A-1
Appendix B: Compatibility Determinations and Appropriate Uses Findings .................................. B-1
Appendix C: Plan Implementation and Costs ................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D: Wilderness Review for Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge .................................. D-1
Appendix E: Integrated Pest Management Program ......................................................................... E-1
Appendix F: ESA Section 7 Consultation......................................................................................... F-1
Appendix G: Fire Management Plan 2004 ....................................................................................... G-1
Appendix H: Statement of Compliance ............................................................................................ H-1
Appendix I: Literature Cited ............................................................................................................ I-1
Appendix J: Common Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................... J-1
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
vi Table of Contents
Note to Reviewers: Throughout the CCP document, all attempts have been made
to use appropriate diacriticals related to the Hawaiian language (i.e., ‘okina and
kahakō). However, places where diacriticals may not appear occur in the maps
and literature cited. Due to limitations of the Geospatial Information System
software used for the maps developed in the plan, some diacriticals may be
missing where place names or legend text appear.
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
Refuge Place Names
Keālia  (kay-AHH-LEE-ah)  meaning: salt encrusted
Mā‘alaea  (MAHH ah-la-AY-ah)  meaning: red colored earth
Molokini  (Mo-lo-KEE-nee)  meaning: many ties
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           vii
Keālia Pond 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
Nēnē (NAY-NAY)
Hawaiian Goose Branta sandvicensis
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Endemic
‘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
Laura Beauregard
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
viii          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
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Readers ’ Guide           ix
©Michael Walther
‘A‘o (AH-oh)
Newell’s Shearwater Puffinus auricularis newelli
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Threatened
State listed as Threatened
State recognized as Indigenous
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
‘Iwa (EE-vah)
Great Frigatebird Fregata minor palmerstoni
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Ou (OH-oo)
Bulwer’s Petrel Bulweria bulwerii
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Seabirds
Beth Flint
Lindsay Young
USFWS
USFWS
NPS
x          Readers ’ Guide
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
‘Ōka‘i ‘aiea (OHH-kah ee eye-AY-ah)
Blackburn’s Sphinx Moth Manduca blackburni
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Endemic
Honu ‘ea (HO-noo AY-ah)
Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
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
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
Ellen VanGelder
©Tom Dove
George Balazs
Readers ’ Guide           xi
Keālia Pond 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)
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
‘Ihi (EE-hee)
Ihi Portulaca molokiniensis
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Forest & Kim Starr
Laura Beauregard
xii          Readers ’ Guide
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Hala (HAH-lah)
Beach Vitex Pandanus tectorius
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Ōhelo kai (OHH-heh-loh KYE)
Hawai‘i Desert-thorn Lycium sandwicense
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
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
Pōhinahina (POHH-hee-nah HEE-nah)
Beach Vitex Vitex rotundifolia
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Native Plants - Shrubs & Trees
Laura Beauregard
Forest & Kim Starr
Laura Beauregard
Forest & Kim Starr
Readers ’ Guide           xiii
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Laura Beauregard
xiv           Readers ’ Guide
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1
Chapter 1. Introduction
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) was established in 1992 to preserve,
restore, and manage essential habitat for two endangered Hawaiian waterbirds: the ae‘o (Hawaiian
stilt) and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o (Hawaiian coot). The 704-acre Refuge is situated along the south-central
shore of Maui in the isthmus separating the West Maui Mountains from the East Maui volcano,
Haleakalā. Refuge habitats include open water (200 acres), vegetated flats (450 acres), and upland
(54 acres). Keālia Pond is a significant foraging and nesting area for Hawai‘i’s endangered wetland
birds, and is host to hundreds of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl during winter months. In
addition, the Refuge provides coastal beach strand habitat for native plant species, endangered ‘īlio-holo-
i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal), threatened honu (Hawaiian green turtle), and endangered honu
‘ea (hawksbill turtle).
The proposed 23-acre Molokini Unit (see page 1-7) of the Refuge encompasses a crescent-shaped
islet located between the Islands of Maui and Kaho‘olawe. It has a diameter of about 0.4 miles and
hosts a colony of ‘ua‘u kani (wedge-tailed shearwaters) that nest from March-December. Other
inhabitants include a smaller nesting population of ‘ou (Bulwer’s petrel), ‘iwa (great frigate), noio
(black noddy), and noio kōhā (brown noddy) that use the island for roosting. The ‘ihi plant
(Portulaca molokiniensis) is a rare Hawaiian endemic known from only two locations, one on
Molokini and one on Kaho‘olawe.
The Molokini Unit, Keālia Pond NWR, and Kakahai‘a NWR (located on the southeastern coast of
Moloka‘i) make up the Maui National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex). This Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) will focus on the Keālia Pond NWR and the Molokini Unit.
Ae‘o duo © Tony Temple
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
1.1 Proposed Action
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), manage the Keālia Pond NWR as part of the
National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). We propose to adopt and implement a 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 purpose(s) 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 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.”
We have developed and examined alternatives for managing Keālia Pond 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.
Management options are consolidated into three alternatives with alternative C identified as the
preferred alternative. This alternative represents 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 selected 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 decision maker 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 proposed CCP is to provide the Service, the Refuge System, partners, and citizens
with a management plan for improving fish and wildlife habitat conditions and Refuge infrastructure,
for wildlife and public use on Keālia Pond NWR over the next 15 years. An approved CCP will
ensure that the Service manages to achieve the Refuge purposes, vision, goals, and objectives to help
fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-3
The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these is the need to establish improved
habitat conditions on the Refuge‟s wetland habitats, which are degraded by invasive plants and
animals. The plan also recognizes and identifies threats to the endangered ae„o and „alae ke„oke„o,
including predation by non-native mammals, limited water supply, and human disturbance. There is
also a need to address public concern about the seasonal conditions within the wetland and the
associated biological processes.
There is also a need to analyze Refuge public use programs for Refuge System wildlife-dependent
priority public uses and to determine what improvements or alterations should be made in the pursuit
of higher quality programs (See Chapter 5 for more on priority public uses). This will include a
determination on whether and how the Refuge should consider other non-wildlife-dependent uses,
including commercial guiding activities. Finally, there is a need to describe the steps that should be
taken to better protect the habitats and wildlife through strategies to accomplish our goals.
1.3 Content and Scope of the Plan
This draft CCP/EA provides guidance for management of Refuge habitats and wildlife and
administration of public uses on Refuge lands and waters. This CCP/EA is intended to comply with
both the Administration Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321-4347). 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 (Chapter 4);
An account of the Refuge‟s facilities and visitor programs (Chapter 5);
An overview of cultural resources, social, and economic environment (Chapter 6);
An analysis of the environmental effects associated with implementing the management
actions prescribed under the alternatives described in Chapter 2 (Chapter 7);
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 purpose (Appendix B);
An Implementation Plan needed to support the alternatives considered (Appendix C);
Wilderness Review (Appendix D);
Integrated Pest Management (Appendix E);
Endangered Species Act Section 7 S-Methoprene Evaluation (Appendix F);
Fire Management Plan (Appendix G);
Statement of Compliance (Appendix H);
Literature Cited (Appendix I); and
Common Acronyms and Abbreviations (Appendix J).
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
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 purpose 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 (FW). The Administration Act is
implemented through regulations covering the Refuge System, published in Title 50, subchapter C of
the CFR. 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
environmental education (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.” 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;
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 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 and 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 (601 FW 3), “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 purpose(s)
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 high-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.
When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must 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 an approved 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 purpose(s) of the
refuge. Current Appropriate Use Findings and Compatibility Determinations for existing and
proposed uses for Keālia Pond NWR are in Appendix B.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
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 Refuge Establishment and Purpose
1.5.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose
The purpose for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge planning.
Purposes must form the foundation for planning and management decisions. The purpose(s) of a
refuge are specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, Executive order, agreement, public
land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or
expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.
Unless the establishing law, order, or other document indicates otherwise, purposes dealing with the
conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which
they depend take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration of any unit.
Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more
specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. When an additional unit is acquired
under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original unit, the addition takes
on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the
newer addition.
By law, refuges are to be managed so as to achieve their purposes. When a conflict exists between
the Refuge System mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose supersedes
the Refuge System mission.
1.5.2 Refuge Establishment
Keālia Pond NWR was established in 1992 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (ESA). The Refuge was funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965. Prior
to establishment as a national wildlife refuge, the Service and State of Hawai‘i periodically
conducted avian surveys at Keālia Pond and consistently observed high numbers of ae‘o and ‘alae
ke‘oke‘o, both of which were Federally listed as endangered species in 1970. Such was the impetus
for protecting this large wetland from future development.
The Service is in the process of establishing Molokini islet as an “overlay refuge” attached to the
Keālia Pond NWR. The designation will protect Molokini’s large colony of nesting seabirds and help
with restoring native plant species. The islet, the crescent-shaped rim of a volcanic crater, remains
under U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) ownership, but its transfer to the Service is currently under
negotiation. A land-ownership transfer would create a permanent refuge in lieu of an overlay refuge.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7
The (overlay) refuge would include only the land
itself, and the State would continue to manage the
surrounding Molokini shoals as a State Marine Life
Conservation District.
1.5.3 Refuge Purpose
Refuge purposes are also the driving force in the
development of the refuge vision statements, goals,
objectives, and strategies in the CCP and are critical
to determining the appropriateness and compatibility
of all existing and proposed refuge uses. Keālia
Pond NWR was established with the purpose “… to
conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as
endangered species or threatened species, or (B)
plants …” (16 U.S.C. 1534, ESA).
1.6 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 purpose(s), 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. Wildlife, habitat, and visitor services
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 Refuge 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.
Molokini USFWS
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Nā Pahuhopu Pu‘uhonua Holoholona
1. Kīa‘i a mālama i nā ‘āina pālialia a me ālialia wai maoli nohokau a me nā pālialia noho manawa
no ka mālama ‘ana i ka mō‘aukala ola pono o nā manukai/wai Hawai‘i ‘ane make loa.
2. Ho‘onui aku i nā kaianoho o nā holoholona ‘ane make loa no ka ho‘omāhuahua hou ‘ana aku iā
lākou iho.
3. Kīa‘i, ho‘ōla hou, a mālama i nā kaianoho lihikai no ka pono no ka ho‘opunana ‘ana o nā honu
kai, manu kai, a me ka kūkahi o kēia mau kaiaola pio/pau wale.
4. Kīa‘i a mālama i ka ‘āina li‘ili‘i ma waho mai o Moloka‘i i kapa ‘ia o Molokini i kaianoho no nā
manu kai ho‘opūnana.
5. ‘Ohi‘ohi i nā waiwai ‘epekema (nānā, noi‘i, a me ka ho‘ā‘o ���ana) no ke kāko‘o ‘ana i nā
makemake o ka mālama ‘ia ‘ana ma ka pahuhopu helu 1 a helu 4 no ka pu‘uhonua holoholona.
6. Ho‘omākaukau i kumu waiwai nui no nā kaianoho mākaukau no na holoholona ‘āhiu, a e kokua
ho‘i i ka lehulehu ma ka ho‘onā‘auao a a‘o mai iā lākou e pili ana i nā i‘a, nā holoholona hihiu, a
me nā waiwai nohona ‘ōiwi o kēia wahi nei i kapa ‘ia o Keālia Pond NWR.
7. Ho‘omākaukau ho‘i i polokalamu waiwai loa no ke a‘o ‘ana i nā haumāna e pili ana i nā
kumuhana kūpono a me ka hana lima pu ma nā kaianoho holoholona hihiu.
Refuge Goals
1. Protect and maintain seasonal and semi-permanent wetland habitats to meet the life history needs
of endangered Hawaiian waterbirds.
2. Expand protected species’ habitat to promote their recovery.
3. Protect, restore, and manage coastal habitat for the benefit of nesting sea turtles, seabirds, and the
integrity of the fragile ecosystem.
4. Protect and maintain offshore Molokini islet habitat for seabird nesting.
5. Gather scientific information (survey, research, and assessments) in support of adaptive
management decisions on the Refuge under Goals 1-4.
6. Through quality wildlife-dependent recreation and learning opportunities, visitors understand and
appreciate the unique wildlife and habitats of Keālia Pond NWR.
7. Provide students and teachers high-quality hands-on environmental education programs that
foster a connection with nature and the Refuge.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9
1.7 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans
Planning has been a part of refuge operations since their beginning. Although not all were conducted
in a comprehensive fashion, or with public participation considered adequate today, a considerable
number of plans were completed over the years to guide managers. Additional smaller “step-down”
plans and management agreements (plans addressing one program or resource) will be developed for
the Refuge in conjunction with the CCP. Current management plans include:
 Fire Management Plan - 2004
 Integrated Pest Management Plan - 2008
 Station Safety Plan - 2010
 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan - 2009
 Avian Botulism Disease Contingency Plan - 2008
 Emergency Preparedness Response Plan - 2010
 Continuity of Operations Plan - 2010
 Station Hazardous Communications Plan - 2010
In progress Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)s include:
 U.S. Coast Guard - Molokini Islet Access
 Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) - Molokini Islet Management
1.7.1 Future Planning
The CCP will be revised every 15 years or earlier if monitoring and evaluation determine that
changes are needed to achieve the Refuge purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The CCP provides
guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for Refuge programs areas but may lack
some of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans will therefore be
developed for individual program areas, as needed, following completion of the CCP. Step-down
plans require appropriate NEPA compliance.
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 (602 FW 3.3). This section summarizes some of the
key plans that were reviewed by members of the planning team during CCP development.
Beach Management Plan for Maui. The Beach Management Plan is specific to Maui County and is
a guiding policy document to promote beach preservation and sustainable development of the coastal
zone. The Plan includes issues on coastal erosion and beach loss, and recommendations for more
efficient management of shoreline areas for resource conservation and erosion mitigation. Keālia
Pond NWR’s southern boundary does not include beachfront habitat at this time; however, protecting
the integrity of the shoreline habitat also protects the Refuge’s coastal flats habitat for endangered
waterbirds. The Refuge’s coastal habitat goal and strategies references this plan not only for the
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
habitat but also to establish collaborative efforts with Federal, State, and County agencies,
organizations, and landowners who have similar goals.
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 wildlife conservation 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.
Hawai‘i Nongame Management Program (Draft), 2000. The goal of the Hawai‘i Nongame
Management Program is to manage, preserve, and protect the native avifauna and their habitats for
their intrinsic, recreational, scientific, and educational values and to provide opportunities for the
residents and visitors to Hawai‘i to use and enjoy these resources. A major focus of the program is
on management and recovery of endangered species, including projects to monitor, manage habitat,
and recover populations and control of predators affecting endangered species. Other nongame
projects include increased surveillance of non-native pests, construction of facilities and
infrastructure to promote management or recreational opportunities to enjoy nongame resources, and
maintenance of those facilities.
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
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11
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
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, non-governmental
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.
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
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 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) and better
enforcement of regulations prohibiting take of the species. However, an increase in the incidence of
the tumorous disease, fibropapillomatosis, 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.
Pacific Coast Joint Venture, Hawai‘i, 2006. This strategic plan for waterbirds and wetlands
identifies management strategies for a diversity of resident and migratory species with varying life
history requirements across multiple sites to fulfill archipelago-wide conservation goals to “protect,
restore, increase, and enhance all types of wetlands, riparian habitats, and associated uplands
throughout the Pacific Coast region to benefit birds, fish and other wildlife” (Henry 2006). To
accomplish this goal, six strategies are employed: protection, restoration, enhancement and
management advocacy, outreach, and research. Habitat goals for the Pacific Coast Joint Venture
(PCJV) strategic conservation plan in Hawai‘i represent long ranging concepts that provide direction
for conservation objectives and actions. They are based on the strategies identified by the PCJV and
support goals identified by other avian conservation plans for Hawai‘i.
Draft Recovery Plan for the Blackburn’s Sphinx Moth (Manduca blackburni), 2003. The ‘ōka‘i
‘aiea (Blackburn’s sphinx moth) is federally listed as endangered. This taxon is currently known to
occur on three of the seven major Hawaiian Islands. No known ‘ōka‘i ‘aiea populations are entirely
protected from the numerous factors threatening the species’ recovery, and the moth is endangered
throughout its range. Needed conservation and recovery activities include protection, management,
and restoration of habitat; out-planting of native Nothocestrum spp. (‘aiea) host plants; and a captive
breeding or translocation program.
Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle, 1998. The honu ‘ea (hawksbill
turtle) is listed as endangered throughout its range. In the Pacific, this species is rapidly approaching
extinction due to a number of factors, but the intentional harvest of the species for meat, eggs, and
the tortoiseshell and stuffed curio trade is of greatest impact. Increasing human populations and the
concurrent destruction of the habitat are also of major concern for honu ‘ea. The status of this species
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
is clearly of highest concern for the Pacific and it is recommended that immediate actions be taken to
prevent its extinction.
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 are the primary management focus, but
management also considers and includes endangered ‘ōka‘i ‘aiea and honu ‘ea, threatened honu,
migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, seabirds, and native plant species. The Service is concerned with
threats posed to native habitats and wildlife at Keālia Pond from invasive plants like California
bulrush and pickleweed, and pest animals such as rats, mongooses, and cats.
Invasive aquatic insects and fish: Environmental conditions within the pond often times lead to
increased emergence of native and non-native midges (non-biting mosquito-like insects) and fish die-offs.
The occurrence of these events is reported as a nuisance by local communities. The CCP will
identify strategies to ameliorate midges and tilapia while adhering to the purpose of the Refuge.
Facilities and Facilities Maintenance: The maintenance of current facilities includes vehicles and
farm tractors; metal shipping containers that house shop maintenance and office storage; boundary
fencing; ditches, dikes, and impoundments; water control structures; and wells and pumps. Due to
the environmental conditions (e.g., constant wind containing salt spray and precipitation, warm
temperatures, high humidity) associated with this coastal marine environment, degradation of
equipment and facilities is accelerated and often exceeds normally acceptable mainland standards for
maintenance costs and schedules.
Visitor Services Activities: Keālia Pond NWR provides opportunities for EE and interpretation,
wildlife observation, and wildlife photography during much of the year. The Service must balance
visitor use and wildlife protection and will ensure public use is managed to keep visitors in areas
where visitor facilities can be constructed to prevent disturbance to wildlife and habitat.
Compatibility Determinations (CD) for EE, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography
were approved in 2004, but will be re-evaluated during the CCP planning process.
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.
Adaptive Management: More data on impacts of pest species; hydrology; seabird nesting on
Molokini; and inter-island dispersal patterns of endangered waterbirds is needed. This lack of data
hinders the Service’s ability to respond effectively to resource changes and to use adaptive
management to evaluate the effectiveness of its management practices. The CCP will examine these
inventory, monitoring and research needs and the public’s role in determining and meeting these
needs.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13
1.9.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the Draft CCP
Off-shore Fishing Activities: Fishing activities at Keālia Beach are not within the scope of this
CCP as much of the coastal property is privately owned by Alexander and Baldwin Properties, Inc.
(A&B, Inc.) and ocean-related opportunities and regulations fall within the jurisdiction of the State
DLNR Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) and Division of Conservation and Resource
Enforcement (DOCARE).
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15
Figure 1.1 – Main Hawaiian Islands
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
To preserve the quality of the map, this side was left blank intentionally.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17
Figure 1.2 – Refuge Land Status & Boundary
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
To preserve the quality of the map, this side was left blank intentionally.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19
Figure 1.3 – Molokini Islet Unit
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
To preserve the quality of the map, this side was left blank intentionally.
Keālia Pond 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 Considerations in Alternative Design
During development of the Draft CCP/EA alternatives presented in this chapter, the Service reviewed
and considered a variety of resources, social, economic, and organizational aspects important for
managing the Refuge. As is appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, resource considerations were
fundamental in designing alternatives. House Report 105-106 accompanying the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. Law 105-57) states “…the fundamental mission of
our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.”
The Service planning team reviewed and utilized available scientific information (reports and
studies) to better understand ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations for species
and habitats. The team also met with staff from local, State and Federal agencies, and elected
officials to ascertain priorities and problems as perceived by others. Refuge staff also met with
Refuge users, non-profit groups, and community organizations to ensure their comments and ideas
were considered during CCP development.
2.2 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis
This CCP for Keālia Pond NWR will not cover issues related to traffic and highway construction.
Recommendations made at the scoping meeting to construct a bypass road behind the Refuge and
close N. Kīhei Rd. to pedestrian access and controlling the speed of traffic on this same road are
beyond the Service’s jurisdiction. Construction of a bypass would require collaboration between
Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT), County of Maui, and Hawaiian Commercial and
Sugar Company (HC&S). The Service would discuss the feasibility of the project if the proposal is
initiated by the State or County agencies.
2.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives
All the alternatives contain some common features. To reduce the length and redundancy of the
individual alternative descriptions, common elements are presented below.
2.3.1 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. It is the intent of the Refuge that annual priorities would follow
the final CCP guidelines, although funding initiatives, unforeseen management issues, and budgets
may vary from year to year. The CCP will be reviewed every year and updated as necessary
throughout its life.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-2 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.3.2 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. Under all alternatives, the Service will continue to
maintain regular discussions and partnership with the DLNR. Topics for discussion continue to be
the endangered waterbirds at Keālia Pond NWR and surrounding private and public lands, and
wildlife monitoring. A cooperative agreement with DLNR will be established for Molokini to define
a collaborative effort for continuing the seabird monitoring program, plant native species, and
provide transportation to the islet.
2.3.3 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 Section 7 of
the ESA, 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 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.
Consultation is being conducted concurrent with development of the CCP and the resulting
documents will be included as an appendix in the final CCP.
2.3.4 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 (DOI) and the Service. 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 of 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 DOI 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
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3
historic properties and enter into consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
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.
2.3.5 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. The Fire
Management Plan (Appendix G) 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.
2.3.6 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.
2.3.7 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 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
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-4 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
same steps as this Draft CCP/EA including comprehensive review of management plans and
research; working closely with partners; and engaging the public.
2.3.8 Integrated Pest Management
In accordance with DOI 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 and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued
by EPA, that it is registered for use in the State of Hawai‘i, 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; 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 (BMP) 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 non-exceedance
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.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5
2.3.9 National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
Since this EA and CCP are programmatic in many issue areas, it may not contain the necessary detail
on every future action outlined to adequately present and evaluate all physical, biological and
socioeconomic impacts. For example, although the EA and CCP alternatives may show the proposed
number and location of features such as fences, overlooks, and roads; the exact location, size, design,
and other criteria related to these features would be determined at a later date depending on funding
and implementation schedules. Another example is the various sub or “step-down” plans required
for various management actions such as visitor services and transportation. Thus, before certain
objectives or actions are implemented, a decision will be made in coordination with the Regional
NEPA Coordinator on whether this EA was adequate for each specific construction, planning, or
other action, or whether separate step-down NEPA compliance (categorical exclusions,
environmental assessments, or an environmental impact statement) is needed.
2.3.10 Law Enforcement
Officers’ Responsibilities
Fish and wildlife law enforcement issues on lands and waters of the Keālia Pond 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 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 Resources 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 of
wildlife on Federal lands, and in some instances boating safety related to refuge lands and waters.
Service Officers work joint patrols and coordinate with DOCARE, Maui Police Department, and the
Sheriff Division of the State Department of Public Safety.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-6 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.4 Alternatives Descriptions
Each alternative describes a combination of habitat and visitor management prescriptions designed to
achieve the Refuge purpose, goals, and vision. These alternatives provide different ways to address
and respond to major public issues, management concerns, and opportunities identified during the
planning process. All of the major issues, activities, and management concerns were evaluated and
addressed for each alternative and are shown in the corresponding maps found in this chapter. A
summary of the key differences between the alternatives is presented in Table 2.1 on page 2-17.
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. 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 Keālia Pond NWR contribute to the mission of
the Refuge System; meet the purposes for which the Refuge was established, and help achieve the
Refuge vision, goals, and objectives. Step-down plans for Visitor Services, Transportation, and
Habitat Restoration would be developed under Alternatives B and C.
2.4.1 Alternative A: Continue Current Management Activities
This alternative assumes no change in current management programs and is considered the base from
which to compare the other alternatives. Under this alternative, Refuge management consistent with
available funding and staffing would continue. No significant changes would be initiated by the
Service (Figure 2.1, page 2-11).
Wildlife and Habitat. Current habitat management at Keālia Pond NWR is minimal given the large
acreage of wetland habitat and its reliance on natural conditions that vary each year. Differences in
weather patterns, surface and groundwater aquifers result in seasonal conditions that need to be
supplemented with active management to provide foraging, resting, and nesting habitat for
endangered waterbirds, to address nuisance issues, and to accomplish invasive plant control. The
capability to manage water in the wetlands varies between habitats. Kanuimanu and Baitfish Ponds
are constructed with levees and have independent water sources (well and sump, respectively) to
flood water into the ponds; however, the ability to dewater the ponds is limited (e.g., lack of water
control structures, varying pond bottom elevations). Water management in these ponds is performed
to replicate a wet/dry cycle focusing on endangered waterbirds life history requirements.
The seasonal, open-water main pond is subjected to the natural hydrological cycle represented by
high water in winter (December-March), water receding April-September, and in some years,
complete drying of the 200-acre open-water pond October-November. Current management of the
main pond includes: pumping water from brackish water wells (2) August-December or later; and
breaching the naturally-formed sand plug at the pond outlet when water exceeds 4.7 ft. mean lower
low water (MLLW) and floods N. Kīhei Rd. Water naturally enters into the pond by way of three
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7
West Maui Mountain streams (Pōhakea, Pale‘a‘ahu, and Waikapū), groundwater upwelling, and
precipitation, all of which varies each year. The open water pond is void of emergent vegetation
excluding the edge which is identified as vegetated mudflats within this CCP. Current management
is based on the natural flooding that occurs each year, however, in most years, the Service
supplements the wetlands from groundwater (brackish) wells.
The main pond is the subject of seasonal nuisance issues affecting neighboring residents as biological
and ecological processes result in large abundances of non-native insects (spotted-winged midges),
fish die-off, and windblown sediment. In some years when the pond receives an extended high-water
period, the invasive midge species undergo numerous generations that can result in high abundance.
The activity of the adult phase of this aquatic insect that becomes a nuisance is primarily during
dawn and dusk but also throughout the night. Their attraction to lights results in swarms around
condominiums located downwind from the Refuge. The Refuge’s current method of controlling
midges is by treating the main pond with methoprene (an insect growth inhibitor) during the peak
abundance. Midge density is monitored each year because the population levels vary from one year
to the next and treatment is not always necessary and can lead to resistance if used too frequently.
The treatment with methoprene is considered to be a short-term control method while ecological
solutions are developed.
The second nuisance issue results from an overabundance of non-native tilapia that occurs during
extended flood conditions in the main pond. If tilapia are not removed from the pond, when the
water recedes significantly they die and accumulate on the downwind, south side of the pond
producing an odor that blows to N. Kīhei Rd. and nearby condominiums. When the population is
high, fish traps and/or nets are set during periods of receding water or the decaying fish are raked out
of the mud to remove the biomass.
Water level in the pond recedes naturally during summer months, creating nesting habitat for ae‘o.
After ae‘o chicks have fledged, the pond is allowed to undergo a partial drying cycle to aerate the
soil, break down organic material, allow dispersal of native emergent vegetation, and allow access
for heavy equipment to perform invasive species control. Trade winds from the northeast tend to
disperse pond sediment to the south-southeast side of the Refuge, creating dust plumes which are
nuisance to Refuge neighbors. Control of windblown sediment is accomplished by pumping water to
target areas along the upper north edge and allowing it to sheetflow into the center of the pond.
Given the capabilities of water control, facilities, staffing, and funding, these methods are the extent
of our ability to ameliorate the nuisance issues while still providing for endangered waterbirds.
A majority of the pest species control (animal and plant) occurs within the seasonal flats located
north of the main pond. During the dry season, September-December, Refuge staff and volunteers
use chemical and mechanical IPM strategies to control aggressive pest plants such as: California
bulrush, California grass, pickleweed, and marsh fleabane. Due to the lack of timed dewatering
capabilities for the flats, mechanical treatment is limited to approximately 2 months when drying is
sufficient to allow access of equipment. In addition, control of pest species is not as efficient because
treated areas cannot be flooded to prevent regrowth.
The seasonal flats at Mā‘alaea are not actively managed. The variable wet/dry cycle and lack of an
independent water source makes it difficult to maintain water for ae‘o and shorebirds and to use IPM
techniques effectively. In most years Mā‘alaea Flats has shallow water during the winter and dries
out around mid-June.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-8 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Visitor Services. The Refuge is open year-round and visitors have access at the Kanuimanu Ponds
and Keālia Coastal Boardwalk for wildlife viewing opportunities. Environmental education
programs are provided by non-government organizations, Hawai‘i Nature Center and Maui Digital
Bus, operating under Special Use Permits (SUP). Refuge staff provide information as requested,
with emphasis on topics that supplements the teacher’s current studies. Interpretive tours are
provided upon request. During waterbird breeding season, the Kanuimanu levees are closed (partial
or full) to public access to eliminate disturbance to birds. To date, a closure to the coastal boardwalk
has not been necessary because the area is dry during ae‘o nesting season; however, it may be closed
when active nests or pre-fledgling chicks are present.
The new Headquarters/Visitor Center (HQ/VC) at Keālia Pond NWR (funded by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act) will be completed late summer/early fall 2011. There will be a
significant increase in the number of visitors and educational groups on the Refuge which will
require additional resources to ensure the increased wildlife-viewing remains compatible with the
Refuge’s purpose.
Management of Molokini, a future overlay refuge unit, would be a continuation of the previous
stewards, DLNR, as a seabird colony with no public access. Monitoring and banding of seabird
chicks would be maintained at the same level of 1-2 visits per year. Biological support will be a
collaborative effort with the DLNR.
2.4.2 Alternative B: Restoration Focus
Wildlife and Habitat. Under this alternative, the Refuge would increase the level of current
management for habitat restoration (Figure 2.2, page 2-13). The Service will concentrate efforts on
identifying and implementing more efficient IPM techniques to control the most aggressive invasive
species and prepare a comprehensive restoration plan and step-down management plan with
additional survey data, biological inventories, and identification of alternative water sources.
Developing a water source for Mā‘alaea Flats would be prioritized to manage the water levels needed
to accommodate ae‘o life history requirements (foraging, nesting, and breeding).
Methods to control nuisance issues (midges, fish, and windblown sediment) will be similar to
alternative A until the Refuge has additional capabilities to manipulate water level in the open-water
pond. Molokini will be managed as a seabird colony with a level of monitoring limited to 2-3 visits
per year for monitoring breeding pairs and banding chicks. Planting native species will be limited to
no more than twice per year during the non-nesting season (December-February). The Sea Level
Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) analyses will be evaluated for applicability to management
strategies.
Visitor Services. Management of Mā‘alaea Flats would also provide enhanced wildlife viewing
opportunities for visitors on the Keālia Coastal Boardwalk. Providing ae‘o habitat along the
boardwalk will require additional resources to monitor human activities throughout the year, even
when the boardwalk is closed for breeding season (i.e., law enforcement). Additional studies will be
implemented to evaluate the impacts of visitors on the boardwalk to endangered waterbirds. The EE
program would be enhanced through continued and expanded partnerships.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9
2.4.3 Alternative C: Wetland Capacity Focus (Preferred Alternative)
Wildlife and Habitat As the preferred alternative, restoration efforts and increased water
management capabilities would achieve the maximum potential for enhancing and maintaining
biological and ecological requirements for endangered waterbirds, and indirectly benefit wintering
migratory waterbirds (Figure 2.3, page 2-15). Under this alternative, the Refuge would plan and
implement the physical alterations needed to maximize the ability to control water in the main pond
and adjacent vegetated mudflats, significantly remove (or attain less than 10 percent cover) the most
aggressive pest plants, and control larger areas of pickleweed on the flats. Physical restoration
includes: construction of a water control structure at the N. Kīhei Rd. culvert, additional
groundwater sources (wells) to maintain water on the flats, and reconfiguration of topography to hold
water longer.
The increased capability to dewater and flood the
main pond will enable the Refuge to use water level
to control the three nuisance issues (spotted-winged
midges, invasive tilapia, and windblown sediment).
Maintaining water coverage at 20-30 percent in the
main pond December-February has resulted in the
absence of midges and lower abundance of tilapia.
Flooding into the adjacent sedges and flats in March
will provide habitat for breeding ‘alae ke‘oke‘o and a
shorter midge season. Water level would be
maintained until natural recession occurs for ae‘o
breeding activity.
Molokini, after establishment as an overlay refuge, will be managed as a seabird colony with periodic
visits to monitor the population and continue the long-term banding. The monitoring will include 3-6
visits during seabird nesting season (March-November). In addition to maintaining consistent data
collection for ‘ua‘u kani, the extra visits will allow us to begin an ‘ou monitoring program to
determine the population parameters. After 3 years, the Refuge will evaluate the necessity to
monitor annually and the potential to monitor every 2-3 years. In addition, we will initiate a native
plant restoration plan, particularly ‘ihi (Portulaca molokiniensis) and a few other species found only
on that islet, with a minimum of 2 additional visits per year during the non-nesting season
(December-February). Volunteers will assist with propagating plants in the Refuge’s greenhouse and
outplanting will be conducted by Federal and State biologists under a cooperative agreement with
DLNR.
The SLAMM analyses for Keālia Pond NWR will be evaluated for applicability to management
strategies. Refuge staff will participate in development of climate change assessment protocols.
Visitor Services. Visitor services would be similar to Alternatives A and B; however, under this
alternative the Refuge would be open on weekends and additional efforts would be made to provide
vegetated barriers and/or blinds to provide better viewing opportunities and increase areas for
wildlife viewing. Additional visitor services staff would provide educational programs and
materials. Recruitment and training of volunteers to provide additional programs will increase.
‘Alae ke‘oke‘o USFWS
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-10 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11
Figure 2.1 – Alternative A: Habitat Management
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-12 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
To preserve the quality of the map, this side was left blank intentionally.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13
Figure 2.2 – Alternative B: Habitat Management
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-14 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
To preserve the quality of the map, this side was left blank intentionally.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15
Figure 2.3 – Alternative C: Habitat Management
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-16 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
To preserve the quality of the map, this side was left blank intentionally.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17
Table 2.1 - Keālia Pond NWR Management Alternatives Summary
Keālia Pond NWR Management Alternatives Summary
Key Themes Objectives Alt A Alt B Alt C
HABITATS
Seasonal
& Semi-permanent
Wetland
Habitat
1.1 Protect
seasonal ponds 12 ac 19 ac 26 ac
1.2 Protect
vegetated flats 30 ac 45 ac 135 ac
1.3 Protect open
water 40 ac 60 ac 180 ac
1.4 Protect
coastal flats 0 ac 25 ac 60 ac
Upland
Habitat
2.1 Enhance
shrub land 0 ac <2 ac 5+ ac
2.2 Protect
buffer zone 75 ac 75 ac 79-128 ac
Coastal
Habitat
3.1 Protect
coastal strand 1 ac 2.3 ac 7 ac
Islet
Habitat
4.1 Protect
seabird nesting 5 ac 5 ac 19 ac
Scientific
Data
5.1 Conduct
inventory,
monitoring, and
research
Monitor impacts
of pest plants &
animals; water
quantity &
quality;
abundance of
endangered
waterbirds;
seabird nesting on
Molokini
Track nesting
success; impacts of
pest plants &
animals; water
quantity & quality;
abundance of
endangered
waterbirds; seabird
nesting on Molokini;
and study most
effective IPM
strategies
Track nesting success;
impacts of pest plants &
animals; water quantity
& quality; abundance of
endangered waterbirds;
monitor plants for ‘ōka‘i
‘aiea presence; monitor
seabird nesting on
Molokini; study most
effective IPM strategies;
and conduct research on
‘alae ke‘oke‘o intra- &
inter-island dispersal
patterns
5.2 Conduct
scientific
assessments
Assess watershed
volume that
should reach
Refuge; and
develop climate
change
assessment
protocols
Assess watershed
volume; assess water
resources; assess
bathymetric
configurations;
develop climate
change assessment
protocols; and
evaluate SLAMM
analyses
Assess watershed
volume; assess water
resources, assess
bathymetric
configurations; develop
climate change
assessment protocols;
and evaluate SLAMM
analyses
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-18 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.5 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/EA, the Service has prepared an “effects analysis” in Chapter 7
which evaluates alternative management actions derived from management goals, objectives, and
implementation strategies. The goals for Keālia Pond NWR are presented on the following pages,
followed by one or more objectives that pertain to it. The goal order does not imply any priority.
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 strategies, a brief 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 non-target 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.
Key Themes Objectives Alt A Alt B Alt C
Visitor
Services
6.1 Provide
opportunities for
wildlife
observation &
photography
10,000
visitors
12,000
visitors
>12,000
visitors
6.2 Evaluate
fishing program No program
Complete fishing
CD and develop
brochures
Complete fishing CD;
develop brochures;
analyze fish
6.3 Expand
interpretation and
outreach
3-5
programs
annually
6-10
programs
annually
>10
programs
annually
Volunteers
6.4 Expand
volunteer
program
35-50
volunteers
51-75
volunteers
>75
volunteers
Environmental
Education
7.1 Expand EE
partnerships
1-2
programs
annually
2-5
programs
annually
5-12
programs
annually
7.2 Expand
internship
program
1-2 interns 3-4 interns 4-5 interns
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19
2.5.1 GOAL 1. Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal and semi-permanent
wetland habitats to meet the life history needs of endangered Hawaiian
waterbirds.
Objective 1.1: Protect, maintain, and enhance seasonal wetland habitat in constructed ponds.
Protect and maintain a mosaic of seasonal wetland habitat in Kanuimanu Ponds (20 acres) and
Baitfish Ponds (6 acres) for the life history needs of ae‘o and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o with the following
attributes:
 75% of pond bottom composed of undulating, irregular topography that creates exposed
small, low islands with 4:1 slopes April-July for breeding ae‘o;
 A mosaic of mudflat (dry and saturated) and open water (<12 in.) interspersed with 30-60%
cover of native emergent vegetation;
 Stable water level (1-2.5 ft. depth) in all ponds December-March for ‘alae ke‘oke‘o nesting;
 1-4 in. open water depth, 6 in. maximum by September;
 Predation of <5 adult ae‘o or ‘alae ke‘oke‘o documented events per year;
 No tilapia present;
 <25% cover of pest plants (marsh fleabane, California bulrush, and California grass);
 Levees and slopes covered with 10-50% native groundcover vegetation with <4 in. height;
 Abundant nektonic and benthic invertebrates with densities of 480-720 invertebrates/yd2;
 ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o brood rearing within 55 yds. of nesting habitat;
 Limited public access during ‘alae ke‘oke‘o nesting December-March; and
 Minimal human disturbance during ae‘o nesting season April-July.
Strategies for Achieving the Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C
Kanuimanu Ponds acreage meeting objective 10 ac 15 ac 20 ac
Baitfish Ponds acreage meeting objective 2 ac 4 ac 6 ac
Control pest plants using mowing, brush cutting, excavation, water
level management, prescribed fire, and herbicides (see IPM,
Appendix E)
  
Continue partial to complete closures to public access on levees to
minimize disturbance to waterbirds, particularly during breeding
season
  
Propagate and plant native species to establish natural vegetative
cover on pond levees and slopes   
Control tilapia by setting traps and nets, lowering water level,
and/or drying the ponds August-September   
Use IPM techniques to set back wetland succession and promote a
mosaic of vegetation/open water to maximize territories for ‘alae
ke‘oke‘o
 
Pulse water from brackish wells to inundate emergent vegetation
for ‘alae ke‘oke‘o nesting (November)  
Maintain water cover at 70-80% to control pest plants November-
December  
Maintain stable water level of 1-2.5 ft. for ‘alae ke‘oke‘o January-
April  
Pulse water during draw down to promote abundance and
availability of invertebrates  
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-20 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Strategies for Achieving the Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C
Slow drawdown of water to eliminate pest fish and promote
invertebrate/algal and plant response  
Allow water to recede in mid-April to trigger ae‘o nesting by May  
Maintain 60-70% water coverage for breeding ae‘o  
Allow periodic dewatering from August-October to recycle
nutrients and promote invertebrate abundance and diversity  
Maintain stable water level and/or pulse water slightly during ae‘o
nesting  
Control predators with live traps, snap-traps, bait stations, and
water level management  
Control cattle egret colonies by removing roosting trees, and/or
direct removal of individual birds  
Use heavy equipment to add fill and compact levees to maintain
integrity, prevent flooding and erosion 
Use heavy equipment to reconfigure topography to increase water
coverage 
Rationale
Ae‘o require different loafing and foraging habitats during the breeding (April-August) and non-breeding
seasons. Recently hatched ae‘o (less than 14 days old) require shallow water of less than 2
inches to forage. During the remainder of the year, fledglings, juveniles, and adults can forage in
water as deep as 6 inches. Seasonally regulating water depth stimulates germination of beneficial
plant species, controls pest plants, and provides a variety of macro-invertebrates for young and adult
ae‘o to feed upon, thereby creating and maintaining maximized production and carrying capacity of
the wetlands. In addition, a mosaic of open water and vegetation serves as microhabitat for ae‘o
thermoregulation. Dewatering the pond during non-breeding season is beneficial for recycling
nutrients, removing pest fish, and allowing staff to perform IPM (herbicide and mechanical)
treatments before flooding. This drying cycle enhances soil aeration and invertebrate productivity.
Breeding ae‘o require dry to unsaturated mudflat habitat for building nests. Initial (prebreeding)
water drawdowns help establish unsaturated mudflats for nesting. Saturated mudflats can be used as
nest sites, but results in ae‘o expending additional energy to build nests robust enough to counter the
excess moisture. The drawdown is timed to coincide with minimal or no ‘alae ke‘oke‘o nesting or
chick rearing, part of a cycle of wetting and drying of habitat to make it suitable to a greater number
of birds throughout the year and increasing species diversity. Thus, ae‘o nesting habitat temporarily
follows where ‘alae ke‘oke‘o habitat existed previously.
The target distance between nest site to vegetation and water is approximately 5-20 feet. These slow
breeding season drawdown rates also stimulate ample numbers and diversity of invertebrates
throughout the brood rearing period, allowing adults with broods to establish feeding territories and
reduce inter-brood conflicts that can result in injury or death to young chicks.
‘Alae ke‘oke‘o prefer stable water levels (1-2.5 ft depth) for nest building and brooding. When
preparing the pond for nesting, water levels are raised and maintained at a constant level to provide
adequate nest sites that are secure from predation. Longer, stable hydroperiods promote epiphytic
invertebrates (e.g., dragonflies, damselflies). In addition, fluctuating water levels would require
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-21
nesting adults to continually expend energy to build the nest up or have it isolated on dry ground and
subject to greater predation.
Ae‘o and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o are easily disturbed during their nesting seasons. Adults will 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.
Nests, eggs, and young are vulnerable to a variety of predators including rats, mongooses, dogs, cats,
cattle egrets, and ‘auku‘u (black-crowned night heron). Predator control success is defined, in part,
by an increase in ae‘o nest success. During periods of higher water level management for ‘alae
ke‘oke‘o habitat, nesting islands with surrounding water protect ae‘o eggs and chicks from cats,
mongooses, and rats. In addition, predator control and control of pest fish species (tilapia) also
improve habitat condition and increase nest success. Predator control during the non-breeding season
is reliant on available staff (permanent or contracted) to monitor the program; therefore, trapping
effort will be minimal (live traps and diphacinone bait stations) along the perimeter of the ponds.
Low vegetation on levees creates important habitat for ‘alae ke‘oke‘o as well as other species.
Maintaining vegetation height of less than 4 inches provides foraging areas where ‘alae ke‘oke‘o can
graze on short grass and feed on associated invertebrates. Levees are also used as loafing habitat by
shorebirds. Planting of native vegetation along slopes prevents erosion and also provides additional
habitat.
The target of removing all tilapia from the pond is attainable as no outside sources contribute directly
to the pond (e.g., streams, reservoirs). The pond would be flooded from a groundwater well,
precipitation, and possibly some upwelling and/or seepage from adjacent ponds.
Objective 1.2: Protect , maintain, and enhance seasonal vegetated flats for foraging, loafing, and
breeding.
Protect and maintain up to 135 acres of vegetated flats for all life history (foraging, loafing, breeding)
requirements of ae‘o and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o with the following characteristics:
 A mosaic of flats and open water (<7 in., 1-4 in. optimal) interspersed with 30-60% cover of
emergent vegetation and algae that provides seeds and green browse April-August;
 No marsh fleabane, California bulrush, mangrove, or California grass;
 Undulating, irregular bottom topography creating exposed non-saturated substrate (e.g.,
shoreline, islands) with gradual slopes;
 <50 ft. width of emergent vegetation along shorelines for nesting ‘alae ke‘oke‘o December-
March;
 Predation of less than 5 adult ae‘o or ‘alae ke‘oke‘o documented events per year;
 No human disturbance during breeding season, minimal disturbance remainder of year; and
 Abundant epiphytic invertebrates (e.g., dragonflies) and aquatic benthic/nektonic macro
invertebrates (density 480-720 invertebrates/yd2), crayfish, and small forage fish.
Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-22 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
St