Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Pearl Harbor
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ka Nu‘ukia
He lei momi. He pu‘uhonua a ka¯kou…
Ma ka lihikai o Pearl Harbor i nalo ai na¯ pa¯lielie o Honouliuli a me Wahiawa i na ho‘omohala ku¯kulu kaianoho no
na¯ kanaka, a he pu‘uhonua nui loa ho‘i e like no ho‘i me ka nui o ka nakilinaka o Alika. He waiwai nui ho‘i ke¯ia mau
wahi elua no na¯ manu leleaoa a me na manu wai ‘o Hawai‘i nei. Na¯na¯ no ho‘i na¯ i kanaka hoihoi loa i ke kilo manu in a¯
manu mai ka Wahi Kilo Manu o Betty Bliss mai, a e lilo pu ho‘i lakou i ho‘okahi me na¯ mea ola o ka aina. Ho‘ohui ho‘i
na¯ ha‘awina pilina nohona aina i na¯ haumana opio me na¯ aina pa¯lielie wai/kai, na¯ holoholona on ka aina, a me na ‘ike
nohona ho‘oilina.
He wahi lua‘ole o Kalaeloa no ko¯na mau meakanu aina malo‘o a me na¯ ‘a¯papa ako‘ako‘a i laha i ke kai malo‘o, a he
kumuwaiwai kulohelohe nui ho‘i no ka lawelawe like ‘ana no na oihana ma¯lama i na¯ mea ola ‘o ia ‘a¯ina. Moani ho‘i ke
‘ala o ka mai‘apilo ma luna o na kumu wiliwili. Nui a lehulehu ho‘i na ‘Opea��ula ma na¯ puna wai loko pa‘a. Ho‘okipa aku
ho‘i na¯ huihuina kala o na¯ hinahina o ‘Ewa i na¯ lima ko¯kua i ka ho‘omohala ha‘awina ma¯lama ‘a¯ina, ke ko¯kua ma¯lama
mo‘aukala, a me ka ho‘okumu i na¯ polokalamu ko¯kua ho‘opulapula ‘a¯ina no ka ho¯‘ike ‘ana aku i na¯ malihini i ka nani o
na kula kahakai o ‘Ewa nei e like no ho‘i ka na¯na¯ ‘ana o ia ‘a¯ina me ko ka wa¯ ma mua loa.
Vision Statement
“...a string of pearls offering refuge to nature...”
Hidden along the shoreline of Pearl Harbor, surrounded by urban development, the Honouliuli and Waiawa wetlands
offer oases for migratory birds from as far as the Arctic Tundra while providing all life requirements for Hawaiian
waterbirds. Avid birdwatchers gaze into the Refuge from the Betty Bliss Observation Deck, reconnecting with
nature. Environmental education links our youth to wetland ecology, native wildlife, and cultural heritage.
Kalaeloa, a unique coastal dryland plant and exposed coral reef community, serves as a model for a collaborative
approach to natural resource management. Night blooming maiapilo perfume the air among beautiful wiliwili trees.
‘O¯
pae‘ula flourish in the protective anchialine pools. A mosaic of silvery ‘Ewa hinahina greets volunteers who sustain
environmental education, historical preservation, and habitat restoration programs to allow visitors a glimpse of the
coastal ‘Ewa Plain as it was long ago.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Honouliuli wetland/©Laura Beauregard, USFWS
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
O‘ahu National Wildlife Refuge Complex
66-590 Kamehameha Highway, Room 2C
Hale‘iwa, Hawai‘i 96712
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pacific Islands Planning Team
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 5-231
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96850
August 2010
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
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.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Reader’s Guide ................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Need for the CCP ........................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Content and Scope of the CCP ........................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Planning and Management Guidance ................................................................................ 1-3
1.4.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ....................................................................... 1-3
1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................. 1-4
1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals .................................................. 1-4
1.4.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act ................................................. 1-4
1.5 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans .......................................................... 1-5
1.5.1 Previous Plans .............................................................................................................. 1-5
1.5.2 Future Planning ............................................................................................................ 1-6
1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes .................................................................................. 1-6
1.6.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 1-6
1.6.2 Pearl Harbor NWR Purposes Background ................................................................... 1-6
1.6.3 Refuge Purpose Statement ............................................................................................ 1-7
1.7 Refuge Goals ......................................................................................................................... 1-8
1.8 Relationship to Ecosystem Planning Efforts ..................................................................... 1-9
1.9 Planning and Issue Identification ..................................................................................... 1-10
1.9.1 Issues to be Addressed in the CCP ............................................................................. 1-10
1.9.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EA ................................................................... 1-11
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ......................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Development of Alternatives ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis ..................................... 2-1
2.3.1 Expansion of the Refuge .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.3.2 Expansion of Visitor Opportunities within the Fenced Areas of the Refuge ............... 2-2
2.3.3 No Mammalian Predator Removal ............................................................................... 2-2
2.3.4 Nonlethal Techniques to Remove Mammalian Predators ............................................ 2-2
2.3.5 Public Trapping and Hunting to Remove Mammalian Predators ................................. 2-2
2.4 Elements Common to All Alternatives .............................................................................. 2-3
2.4.1 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability ......................................................... 2-3
2.4.2 Interagency Coordination and Collaboration ............................................................... 2-3
2.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Protection and Recovery .................................... 2-3
2.4.4 Archaeological and Cultural Resource Protection........................................................ 2-3
2.4.5 Fire Management ......................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4.6 Volunteer Groups ......................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4.7 Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities ................ 2-4
2.4.8 Adaptive Management .................................................................................................. 2-4
2.4.9 Integrated Pest Management ........................................................................................ 2-5
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
ii Table of Contents
2.5 Alternative Descriptions ...................................................................................................... 2-6
2.5.1 Alternative A: Continue Current Management ........................................................... 2-6
2.5.2 Alternative B: Increase Native Habitat Restoration and Wetland Management ......... 2-7
2.6 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale ..................................................................... 2-8
2.6.1 Goal 1: Protect and Manage Seasonal Wetland Habitats to Meet the Life-History
Needs of Endangered Waterbirds to Promote Their Recovery and also for the Benefit
of Migratory Birds ................................................................................................... 2-10
2.6.2 Goal 2: Restore and Protect Coastal Coralline Plain Habitat at the Kalaeloa Unit ... 2-15
2.6.3 Goal 3: Collect Scientific Information Necessary to Support Adaptive Management
Decisions .................................................................................................................. 2-19
2.6.4 Goal 4: Provide Interpretive and Educational Opportunities to Enhance Public
Understanding of and Appreciation for the Natural and Cultural Resources of Pearl
Harbor NWR ............................................................................................................ 2-22
2.6.5 Goal 5. Protect Historic and Cultural Resources for the Benefit of Present and Future
Generations .............................................................................................................. 2-23
Chapter 3. Physical Environment................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Refuge Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 3-13
3.3.1 Waiawa Unit ............................................................................................................... 3-14
3.3.2 Honouliuli Unit ........................................................................................................... 3-14
3.3.3 Kalaeloa Unit .............................................................................................................. 3-15
3.4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... 3-15
3.4.1 Waiawa Unit ............................................................................................................... 3-16
3.4.2 Honouliuli Unit ........................................................................................................... 3-17
3.4.3 Kalaeloa Unit .............................................................................................................. 3-17
3.5 Topography/Bathymetry ................................................................................................... 3-18
3.6 Environmental Contaminants .......................................................................................... 3-19
3.6.1 Waiawa Unit ............................................................................................................... 3-19
3.6.2 Honouliuli Unit ........................................................................................................... 3-20
3.6.3 Kalaeloa Unit .............................................................................................................. 3-20
3.7 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 3-21
3.7.1 Waiawa Unit ............................................................................................................... 3-22
3.7.2 Honouliuli Unit ........................................................................................................... 3-23
3.7.3 Kalaeloa Unit .............................................................................................................. 3-23
Chapter 4: Refuge Biology and Habitat ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Endangered Hawaiian Waterbirds .................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Ae‘o or Hawaiian Stilt .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 ‘Alae ke‘oke’o or Hawaiian Coot ................................................................................. 4-2
4.1.3 ‘Alae ‘ula or Hawaiian Moorhen .................................................................................. 4-3
4.1.4 Koloa maoli or Hawaiian Duck .................................................................................... 4-5
4.2 Other Hawaiian Waterbirds ............................................................................................... 4-6
4.2.1 ‘Auku‘u or Black-crowned Night-heron ...................................................................... 4-6
4.3 Migratory Waterfowl .......................................................................................................... 4-7
4.4 Migratory Shorebirds .......................................................................................................... 4-7
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents iii
4.5 Native Invertebrates ............................................................................................................ 4-8
4.5.1 ‘Ōpae ‘ula or Orange-black Hawaiian Damselfly ........................................................ 4-8
4.5.2 Metabetaeus lohena ...................................................................................................... 4-9
4.5.3 Pinapinao or Hawaiian Red-shrimp .............................................................................. 4-9
4.6 Endangered Plants ............................................................................................................... 4-9
4.6.1 ‘Ewa hinahina ............................................................................................................. 4-10
4.6.2 ‘Akoko ........................................................................................................................ 4-11
4.6.3 Ko‘oloa‘ula ................................................................................................................. 4-12
4.7 Other Native Plants ........................................................................................................... 4-12
4.8 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................. 4-14
4.8.1 Mammals .................................................................................................................... 4-14
4.8.2 Birds ........................................................................................................................... 4-17
4.8.3 Amphibians................................................................................................................. 4-18
4.8.4 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................... 4-18
4.8.5 Plants .......................................................................................................................... 4-19
4.9 Habitats ............................................................................................................................... 4-22
4.9.1 Coastal Strand ............................................................................................................. 4-22
4.9.2 Freshwater Emergent Wetlands .................................................................................. 4-22
4.9.3 Anchialine Pools/Coastal Coralline Shelf .................................................................. 4-24
Chapter 5. Outdoor Recreation, Social, and Economic Factors .................................................. 5-1
5.1 Outdoor Recreation ............................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Federal, State, and County Recreational Parks............................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Historical/Cultural Sites ............................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Ocean Recreation .......................................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.4 Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education .... 5-4
5.1.5 Fishing .......................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.1.6 Hunting ......................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.2 Social and Economic Conditions ........................................................................................ 5-5
5.2.1 Population ..................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.2 Education ...................................................................................................................... 5-6
5.2.3 Economy ....................................................................................................................... 5-6
5.2.4 Refuge Contribution ..................................................................................................... 5-7
Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Analysis .................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Overview of Effects Analysis .............................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Terminology ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Summary of Effects for Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge .................................... 6-2
6.4 Effects Analysis .................................................................................................................... 6-7
6.4.1 Water Pulsing and Management ................................................................................... 6-7
6.4.2 Mangrove Removal and Associated Dike Stabilization ............................................... 6-8
6.4.3 Predator Control ........................................................................................................... 6-8
6.4.4 Increased Invasive Species Removal .......................................................................... 6-11
6.4.5 Additional Anchialine Pool Restoration ..................................................................... 6-11
6.4.6 Pinapinao Translocation ............................................................................................. 6-12
6.4.7 Avian Paleontological Study ...................................................................................... 6-13
6.4.8 Expanded Visitor Services and Environmental Education Program .......................... 6-13
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
iv Table of Contents
6.4.9 Develop and Install Foot Trail System ....................................................................... 6-14
6.4.10 Entrance Sign Installation ......................................................................................... 6-14
6.4.11 Construction of Overlook(s) and Maintenance Shed ............................................... 6-15
6.4.12 Economic Impacts .................................................................................................... 6-15
6.4.13 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................. 6-16
6.5 Cumulative Effects Assessment ........................................................................................ 6-16
6.5.1 Global Climate Changes and Projections ................................................................... 6-16
6.5.2 Climate Change in Hawai‘i ........................................................................................ 6-17
6.5.3 Sea Level Rise ............................................................................................................ 6-18
6.5.4 Climate Change Effects on Water Resources ............................................................. 6-19
6.5.5 Ecological Responses to Climate Change .................................................................. 6-21
Tables
Table 2.1 Management Alternatives Summary .................................................................................. 2-9
Table 4.1 Shorebirds of Primary Conservation Importance in the Pacific Region ............................ 4-8
Table 4.2 Native Plant Species ........................................................................................................ 4-13
Table 6.1 CCP Alternatives Summary of Effects for Pearl Harbor Refuge....................................... 6-2
Figures
Figure 2.1 Honouliuli Unit, Alternative B ....................................................................................... 2-25
Figure 2.2 Waiawa Unit, Alternative B ........................................................................................... 2-27
Figure 2.3 Kalaeloa Unit, Alternative B .......................................................................................... 2-29
Figure 3.1 The Main Hawaiian Islands .............................................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3.2 Refuge land status and unit boundaries ............................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3.3 Waiawa unit boundary ...................................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.4 Honouliuli unit boundary ................................................................................................. 3-9
Figure 3.5 Kalaeloa unit boundary ................................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 4.1 Monthly waterbird survey data for ae‘o March 1989 – July 2008 ................................... 4-2
Figure 4.2 Monthly survey data for ‘alae ke‘oke‘o March 1989 – July 2008 ................................... 4-3
Figure 4.3 Monthly survey data for ‘alae‘ula March 1989 – July 2008 ............................................ 4-4
Figure 4.4 Monthly survey data for mallard-koloa hybrids March 1989 – July 2008 ....................... 4-5
Figure 4.5 Monthly waterbird survey data for ‘auku‘u from March 1989 – July 2008 ..................... 4-6
Figure 4.6 Small Indian mongoose control ...................................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4.7 Cat control at Pearl Harbor NWR................................................................................... 4-17
Figure 4.8 Monthly survey data for cattle egrets 1989 - 2008 ......................................................... 4-18
Figure 6.1 Effect of sea level rise of selected elevations on the Island of O‘ahu ............................ 6-20
Appendices
Appendix A: Species Lists ................................................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Appropriate Uses and Compatibility Determinations ................................................. B-1
Appendix C: Plan Implementation and Costs ................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D: Wilderness Review ...................................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E: Integrated Pest Management Program ......................................................................... E-1
Appendix F: Statement of Compliance ............................................................................................. F-1
Appendix G: Literature Cited ........................................................................................................... G-1
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents v
Note to Reviewers: Throughout the CCP document, all attempts have been made
to use appropriate diacriticals related to the Native 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
(GIS) software used for the maps developed in the plan, diacriticals were unable
to be used where place names or legend text appear. For references identified, if
the title of the publication or original citation does not use diacriticals, references
were left as is.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
vi Table of Contents
Readers’ Guide
Native species discussed in this document are referred to by their Hawaiian names. Common English
names and scientifi c 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 offi cial 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 = fi nished, ended, all done
• pa‘u = soot, smudge, ink powder
• pa‘ū = moist, damp
• pā‘ū = skirt
Unit Names
Honouliuli (hoh-noh oo-lee-OO-lee) meaning: dark bay
Waiawa (why-AH-vah) meaning: milkfi sh water
Kalaeloa (ka-lye-LOH-ah) meaning: the long point
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
Ae‘o (EYE oh)
Hawaiian Stilt Himantopus mexicanus knudseni
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Alae ke‘oke‘o (ah-lye KAY oh KAY oh)
Hawaiian Coot Fulica alai
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Endemic
‘Alae ‘Ula (ah-lye OO-lah)
Hawaiian Moorhen Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Auku‘u (ow-KOO oo)
Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Koloa Maoli (ko-LOWah MAOW-lee)
Hawaiian Duck Anas wyvilliana
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Endemic
Waterbirds
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Brenda Zaun
USFWS
‘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-AYE-ah)
Bristle-thighed Curlew Numenius tahitiensis
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
IUCN Red List Ranking-Vulnerable
Kōlea (KOHH-lay-ah)
Pacifi c Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan - High Concern
‘Ūlili (OOO-lee-lee)
Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan - Moderate Concern
Migrant Shorebirds
Laura Beauregard
Michael Walther
Michael Walther
Michael Walther
Michael Walther
‘Ākulikuli (AAH-koo-lee-KOO-lee)
Sea Purslane Sesuvium portulacastrum
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Aki‘aki (AH-kee AH-kee)
Beach Dropseed Sporobolus virginicus
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
Hunakai (hoo-nah-KYE)
Beach Morning Glory Ipomoea imperati
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
This plant shares its name with the shorebird Hunakai.
‘Ilima (ee-LEE-mah)
Yellow Ilima Sida fallax
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Pā‘ūohi‘iaka (PAAH OOO-oh-hee ee-AH-kah)
Oval-leaf Clustervine Jacquemontia ovalifolia
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
Native Plants - Herbs
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Laura Beauregard
Forest & Kim Starr
‘Akoko (ah-KOH-koh)
Ewa Plains ‘Akoko Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. scottsbergii
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Endemic
‘Ewa hinahina (EH-vah HEE-nah-HEE-nah)
Round-leaved Chaff-fl ower Achyranthes splendens var.
rotundata
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State recognized as Endemic
Ko‘oloa‘ula (koh oh-lowah OO-la)
Red Ilima Abutilon menziesii
SPECIES STATUS:
Federally listed as Endangered
State listed as Endangered
State recognized as Endemic
Maiapilo (mye-ah-PEE-low)
Pilo Capparis sandwichiana
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
‘Ōhelo kai (OHH-heh-loh KYE)
Hawai‘i Desert-thorn Lycium sandwicense
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
Native Plants - Shrubs
Forest & Kim Starr
Laura Beauregard
Forest & Kim Starr
Mike Silbernagle
USBG
Naio (NYE-oh)
False Sandalwood Myoporum sandwicense
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Indigenous
‘Iliahialo‘e (ee-lee-AH-hee-ah-LOW ay)
Coastal Sandalwood Santalum ellipticum
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
Wiliwili (VEE-lee-VEE-lee)
Hawaiian Coral Tree Erythrina sandwicensis
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
Native Plants - Trees
Native Fauna
‘Ōpae‘ula (OHH-pye OO-lah)
Hawaiian Red Shrimp Halocaridina rubra
SPECIES STATUS:
State recognized as Endemic
Pinapinao (pee-nah-PEE-now)
Orange-black Hawaiian Damselfl y Megalagrion xanthomelas
SPECIES STATUS:
Federal Candidate species
State recognized as Endemic
Forest & Kim Starr
Forest & Kim Starr
DOFAW
D. J. Preston/Hawaii Biological Survey
Mike Yamamoto
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1
Chapter 1. Introduction
Pearl Harbor was once an extensive, shallow embayment called Wai Momi (water of pearl) in the
region of Pu‘uloa (long hill) by the Hawaiians. The first people to arrive on the island of O‘ahu
(around 100 to 300 BCE) would have seen verdant lands around the bay watered by streams running
down from the Ko‘olau Mountains, bordered by the arid ‘Ewa Plain with its abundance of flightless
land birds. Polynesian settlement, British arrival, sugarcane plantations, and U.S. military
development have drastically changed the landscape and decimated the native bird population.
Currently an active military base and the home of America's Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor was also the
site of the infamous Imperial Japanese Navy attack of December 7, 1941, which launched the United
States into World War II.
Amidst naval facilities and urban development, the Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or
Refuge) was established in 1972 as mitigation for construction of the Honolulu International
Airport’s reef runway. The Honouliuli and Waiawa Units on the West and Middle Lochs of the
harbor are managed under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Navy to provide wetland habitat for
four of Hawai‘i’s endangered waterbirds: a‘eo (Hawaiian stilt), ‘alae ke‘oke‘o (Hawaiian coot), ‘alae
‘ula (Hawaiian moorhen), and koloa maoli (Hawaiian duck). Located west of Honolulu on the 'Ewa
Plain, the Kalaeloa Unit was established during Barber’s Point Naval Air Station (NAS) base closure
proceedings in 2001 to protect and enhance the habitat for the endangered coastal dryland plants
‘Ewa hinahina and ‘akoko. Cooperative efforts between the Federal Aviation Administration, the
State of Hawai‘i, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) have made Pearl
Harbor NWR a valued asset of the O‘ahu National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) and a key
O‘ahu wetland for recovery of endangered Hawaiian waterbirds.
1.1 Proposed Action
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), manage the Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We propose to adopt and implement a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Refuge. This document is the Refuge’s Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA). 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 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) as amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. Law 105-57). The Administration Act requires CCPs
to identify and describe:
• The purposes of the Refuge;
• The fish, wildlife and plant populations, their habitats, and the archaeological and cultural
values found on the Refuge;
• Significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and ways to
correct or mitigate those problems;
• Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities; and
• Opportunities for fish and wildlife dependent recreation.
National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) planning policy (Service Manual 602 FW 3,
June 21, 2000) states that the purpose of CCPs is to: “describe the desired future conditions of a
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction
refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes; help
fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the
ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; . . . and meet other mandates.”
The Service has developed and examined alternatives for managing Pearl Harbor NWR through the
CCP planning process. The various alternatives address the major issues and relevant mandates
identified in the CCP process and are consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife
management. The Service has consolidated management options into two alternatives for Pearl
Harbor NWR and has identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative. The draft preferred
alternative appears to represent the best balanced approach for achieving the Refuge’s purposes,
vision, and goals; contributing to the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; and
addressing the relevant issues and mandates consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife
management. However, the preferred alternative may be modified between the draft and final
document depending upon comments received from the public or other agencies and organizations.
The Regional Director for the Service’s Pacific Region will be the final decisionmaker regarding the
alternative that will be adopted for implementation. For details on the specific components and
actions comprising the range of alternatives, see Chapter 2.
1.2 Purpose and Need for the CCP
The purpose of the CCP is to provide the Refuge System, the Service, partners, and citizens with a
management plan for improving fish and wildlife habitat conditions and infrastructure for wildlife,
staff, and Refuge visitors for 15 years. An approved CCP will help ensure that the Service manages
Pearl Harbor NWR to achieve its purposes, vision, goals, and objectives, and to help fulfill the
Refuge System mission. Another purpose of the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically
grounded guidance for improving the Refuge’s subterranean, coastal, and wetland habitats for the
long-term conservation of native plants, animals, and migratory birds. The CCP will identify
appropriate actions for protecting and sustaining the cultural and biological features of coastal
communities; endangered, threatened or rare species populations and habitats; and migratory
shorebirds. The CCP will also evaluate priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses on the Refuge.
The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these is the need to improve degraded
habitat conditions by removing pest plants and animals, such as kiawe shrubs, mongooses, and feral
cats. There is also a need to address Pearl Harbor NWR’s contributions to aid in the recovery of
endangered species, and assess and possibly mitigate potential impacts of global climate change on
the Refuge. The Service should continue to effectively work with current partners such as the Federal
Aviation Administration, the State of Hawai‘i, and the U.S. Navy, as well as seek new partnerships to
restore habitats, improve environmental education and interpretive opportunities and volunteer
programs, and recover endangered species populations.
1.3 Content and Scope of the CCP
This CCP provides guidance for managing Refuge habitats and wildlife, and administering public
uses on Refuge lands. The Pearl Harbor CCP/EA is intended to comply with the requirements set
forth in the Administration Act and the NEPA. Information included in the CCP includes:
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-3
• An overall vision for the Refuge, its establishment history and purposes, and its role in the
local ecosystem (Chapter 1).
• Goals and objectives for specific conservation targets and visitor programs, as well as
strategies for achieving the objectives (Chapter 2).
• A description of the Refuge’s physical environment (Chapter 3).
• A description of conservation targets, condition, and trends on the Refuge and within the
local ecosystem, a presentation of the key desired ecological conditions for sustaining the
targets, and a short analysis of the threats to each conservation target (Chapter 4).
• An overview of the Refuge’s visitor programs and facilities, a list of desired future conditions
for each program, and other management considerations (Chapter 5).
• An analysis of the environmental effects associated with implementing the various
management actions prescribed under the alternatives described in Chapter 2 (Chapter 6).
• A comprehensive list of species known or mentioned in the CCP/EA (Appendix A).
• Evaluations of existing and proposed appropriate public and economic uses for compatibility
with the Refuge’s purposes (Appendix B).
• An Implementation Plan needed to support the alternatives considered (Appendix C).
• Wilderness Review (Appendix D).
• Integrated Pest Management (Appendix E)
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 are the mission and goals of the Refuge System and the designated purposes of
the Refuge as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, or other documents
establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge.
Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System derive from the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), the Refuge Recreation Act of
1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and
the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act is
implemented through regulations covering the National Wildlife Refuge System, published in Title
50, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations govern general
administration of units of the Refuge System.
1.4.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
The mission of the Service is “working with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” National natural
resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and protection include migratory birds,
endangered and threatened species, interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals.
The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws and international
treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with State and Territorial fish and wildlife
programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction
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 552 national wildlife refuges in all 50 States, and waterfowl production
areas in 10 States, covering more than 150 million acres of public lands. More than 40 million
visitors annually fish, hunt, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental
education and interpretive activities on national wildlife refuges.
1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The mission of the Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans” (Administration Act).
Wildlife conservation is the fundamental mission of the Refuge System. The goals of the Refuge
System, as articulated in the Mission, Goals, and Refuge 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.
• 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 environmental education and
interpretation).
• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation).
1.4.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
Of all the laws governing activities on national wildlife refuges, the Administration Act exerts the
greatest influence. The Administration Act was amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). The Improvement Act included a unifying mission for
all national wildlife refuges, a new process for determining compatible uses on refuges, and a
requirement that each refuge will be managed under a CCP developed in an open public process. The
Administration Act states that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System, and ensure that the biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained. House Report 105–106
accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘…the fundamental mission of our System is wildlife
conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.’’ Biological integrity, diversity,
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-5
and environmental health are critical components of wildlife conservation. As later made clear in the
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy, “the highest measure of biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats
and wildlife populations that existed during historic conditions.”
Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System mission as well as the specific purposes
for which it was established. The Administration Act requires the Service to monitor the status and
trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on every refuge. Additionally, six priority 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 environmental education and interpretation. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific
basis, these six uses assume priority status among all uses of the refuge in question. The overarching
goal is to enhance wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities and access to quality visitor
experiences on refuges, while managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.
The Service is directed to make extra efforts to facilitate wildlife dependent visitor opportunities.
When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and
economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) proposed or
occurring on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. No refuge use may be allowed or
continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally, an appropriate use is
one that contributes to fulfilling refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, or goals and objectives
described in a refuge management plan. A compatible use is defined as a use that, in the sound
professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the
fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. Updated
Appropriateness Findings and Compatibility Determinations for existing and proposed uses for Pearl
Harbor NWR are in Appendix B of this Draft CCP/EA.
The Administration Act also requires that, in addition to formally established guidance, the CCP
must be developed with the participation of the public. Public comments play a role in identifying
issues, guiding alternatives considered during development of the CCP, and selecting a preferred
alternative. It is Service policy to develop CCPs in an open public process; the agency is committed
to securing public input throughout the process.
1.5 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans
Planning has been a part of refuge operations since establishing refuges began. However, not all
plans were completed in a comprehensive fashion, or with public participation considered adequate
today.
1.5.1 Previous Plans
• Master Plan for the Hawaiian Wetlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex (USFWS 1985).
• Conceptual Management Plan for the Barbers Point Unit of the Pearl Harbor National Wildlife
Refuge, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (USFWS 1999).
�� Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds, Second Draft of Second Revision
(USFWS 2005).
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction
1.5.2 Future Planning
The CCP will be revised every 15 years or earlier if monitoring and evaluation determine that
changes are needed to achieve refuge purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The CCP provides
guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for refuge program areas but may lack some
of the specifics needed for implementation. 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. Several step-down plans (including the Habitat
Management Plan, Visitor Services Plan, Inventory and Monitoring Plan, and Integrated Pest
Management Plan) are appropriate to develop and/or update following CCP completion. All of the
step-down plans should be based on the management goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the
CCP. The Integrated Pest Management Plan should address coordination with all other Federal,
State, and regional agencies.
1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes
1.6.1 General
The Improvement Act directs the Service to manage each refuge to fulfill the mission of the Refuge
System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established. Refuge purposes are
the driving force in developing refuge vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in the CCP.
Refuge purposes are also critical to determining the compatibility of all existing and proposed refuge
uses.
Lands within the Refuge System are acquired and managed under a variety of legislative acts,
administrative orders, and legal authorities. The official purpose or purposes for a refuge are
specified in or derived from the law, Presidential proclamation, Executive order, agreement, public
land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or
expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. The Service defines the purpose of a refuge when
it is established or when new land is added to an existing refuge. When an addition to a refuge is
acquired under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original refuge, the
addition takes on the purposes of the original refuge, but the original refuge does not take on the
purposes of the addition. Refuge managers must consider all of the purposes. However, purposes
dealing with the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration of a refuge.
1.6.2 Pearl Harbor NWR Purposes Background
Pearl Harbor was first identified for protection by the Service in Hawai‘i’s Endangered Waterbirds
(U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1970). This report recognized the ponds and tidal flats
at Pearl Harbor Naval Base as one of four areas of major importance for waterbirds on O‘ahu. The
Cooperative Agreements that established the Honouliuli and Waiawa units of the Pearl Harbor NWR
in 1972 (USBSFW 1972) identify the purpose of the units as being “…a wildlife refuge for rare and
endangered species.” The agreements further add, “The area shall be maintained and operated by the
U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, at its own expense, as part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.” [Note: In 1974, the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife became the
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-7
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2010, the Pearl Harbor Naval Base and Hickam Air Force Base
were realigned to become Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam.]
The Service’s purpose for acquiring the Kalaeloa Unit of the Refuge was first discussed in the
Preliminary Project Proposal (PPP) to Establish the Barbers Point Unit of the Pearl Harbor
National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 1994). [Note: This original proposal included four distinct
parcels of land, of which only one was eventually transferred to the Service. As such, only those
purposes that directly relate to the one parcel will be discussed herewith. The name Barbers Point
reverted to the original Hawaiian area designation, Kalaeloa, in 1999.] The PPP states that securing
habitat for the endangered ‘akoko and ‘Ewa hinahina is the highest priority. Additionally, the cover
memorandum for the PPP from the Deputy Director to the Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service recognizes the ‘ōpae ‘ula, an endemic shrimp, as benefiting from the
establishment of the Refuge.
The Conceptual Management Plan for the Barbers Point Unit of the Pearl Harbor National Wildlife
Refuge, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (USFWS 1999a) described the Refuge purposes:
• Protect habitats of endangered plants, endangered birds, and other native plants, aquatic
invertebrates, migratory birds and shorebirds, and other native animals;
• Restore and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practicable) all species of animals and
plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered that occur on the Refuge
Unit; and
• Conserve and enhance the natural diversity and abundance of native fauna and flora on the
Refuge Unit for the benefit of current and future generations.
The Categorical Exclusion: Barbers Point Unit Addition of Parcel 2 (Achyranthes plant recovery
area) to the Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, City and County of Honolulu, Hawai‘i (USFWS
1999a) specifically states the purpose of Barbers Point Parcel 2 is, “… for the protection and
recovery of endangered Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata plants and the conservation and
enhancement of native coastal shrubland and dryland forest natural communities.” Additionally, the
document states that transfer of the property “… is recommended for the protection and recovery of
endangered species, and other management to protect natural and historic resources in a portion of
the ‘Ewa coastal plain.”
1.6.3 Refuge Purpose Summary
The following summary was developed by Refuge staff, based upon the purposes listed in the
administrative documents which established the Refuge.
The purpose of the Pearl Harbor NWR is to protect, provide habitat, and aid in recovery efforts for
four of Hawai‘i’s endangered waterbirds (a‘eo, ‘alae ke‘oke‘o, ‘alae ‘ula, and koloa maoli) in the
Honouliuli and Waiawa Units; and the endangered plants ‘Ewa hinahina and ‘akoko in the Kalaeloa
Unit.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction
1.7 Refuge Goals
Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and
focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and the
Refuge System mission. A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its
vision. A vision broadly reflects refuge purposes, Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory
requirements, and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Visitor services and wildlife/habitat management
goals then define general targets in support of the vision, followed by objectives that direct efforts
into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving those goals. Finally, strategies identify
specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives. The Pearl Harbor NWR vision statement is found
on the inside front cover of this document. The following are our goals; their order does not imply
any priority in this CCP.
Nā Pahuhopu o ka Pu‘uhonua
• Pahuhopu 1: E kīa‘i a mālama ho‘i i nā pāleilei i loa‘a ho‘i kekahi wahi e mahuahua ai a e
lilo ho‘i i wahi noho pa‘a ‘ole no nā manu ‘ane make loa.
• Goal 1: Protect and manage seasonal wetland habitats to meet the life-history needs of
endangered waterbirds to promote their recovery and also for the benefit of migratory birds.
• Pahuhopu 2: E kīa‘i a mālama ho‘i i nā ‘āpapa a ho‘omahuahua hou i nā lihikai ‘āko‘ako‘a
ma nā kahakai i lo‘a ai ho‘i nā wahi e ulu ai nā meakanu ‘ane make loa a me ke kaiaola
lua‘ole.
• Goal 2: Restore and protect coastal coralline plain habitat at the Kalaeloa Unit.
• Pahuhopu 3: E ‘ohi‘ohi ho‘i in ā mana‘o ‘epekema e pili ana i ia wahi no ka ho‘omākaukau
‘ana a e ho‘okupu ho‘i i ha‘awina e holomua ai na mana‘o mālama ‘āina.
• Goal 3: Collect scientific information necessary to support adaptive management decisions.
• Pahuhopu 4: E ho‘omākaukau ho‘i kumuwaiwai no ka wehewehe ‘ana a e ho‘oamopopo pu
ho‘i i nā kanaka e pili ana i ka waiwai o ia ‘āina, nā pilina mālama ‘āina, a me nā mo‘aukala
e pili ana ho‘i no ia wahi o Pearl Harbor NWR.
• Goal 4: Provide interpretive and educational opportunities to enhance public understanding
of and appreciation for the natural and cultural resources of Pearl Harbor NWR.
• Pahuhopu 5: E mālama ho‘i i nā mo‘aukala a me nā mo‘omeheu no ka pono o na kanaka
mai kēia au a ia au a‘e e hiki mai ana.
• Goal 5: Protect historic and cultural resources for the benefit of present and future
generations.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-9
1.8 Relationship to Ecosystem Planning Efforts
When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national,
regional, and ecosystem plans; State/Territorial fish and wildlife conservation plans; and other
landscape-scale plans developed for the same watershed or ecosystem in which the refuge is located.
To the extent possible, the CCP is expected to be consistent with these existing plans and assist in
meeting their conservation goals and objectives (Part 602 FW 3.3). This section summarizes some of
the key plans that were reviewed by members of the planning team during CCP development.
Hawai‘i’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2005. With passage of the Commerce,
Justice, and State Appropriations Act of 2001, Congress mandated each State and Territory to
develop its own comprehensive strategy. Hawai‘i’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
comprehensively 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), 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.
U.S. Navy, Naval Station Pearl Harbor (NAVSTA PH) Integrated Natural Resource Management
Plan (INRMP), December 2009. The purpose of the INRMP for Navy lands on O‘ahu is to provide
Navy planners and implementers of mission activities and natural resource managers sufficient
biological background and management guidance to ensure NAVSTA PH’s military mission goals
are met without compromising natural resources present on Navy lands. In accordance with the Sikes
Act of 1960, as amended, the Department of Defense (DOD) maintains a multipurpose, sustainable,
natural resources management program. The Act also requires that all DOD conservation programs
allow continued access to land, air, and water resources for realistic military training and testing,
while ensuring that the natural and cultural resources are sustained in a healthy condition for future
generations. This INRMP is a programmatic document intended to identify management objectives
for natural resources. The INRMP emphasizes habitat protection for federally and State of Hawai‘i
listed threatened and endangered species and associated educational programs, preventive measures,
and partnerships.
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 historical 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;
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction
• 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, removing the threat of hybridization with feral mallards.
Draft Recovery Plan for Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. skottsbergii and Achvranthes splendens var.
rotundata, 1994. On the ‘Ewa Plain, both species occur on limestone substrate characterized by
sinkholes and coralline rubble. Current threats are habitat loss due to development (including nearly
complete loss of native habitat in the ‘Ewa Plain), invasion of habitat by alien and parasitic native
plant species, fire, infestation by damaging insects, destruction by cattle and feral animals, trampling
by humans, over-utilization for commercial use (in the case of Achyranthes), and chemical spills and
pollutants. In order to consider downlisting for either taxon, there must be at least three self-reproducing
populations with a minimum of 1,000 reproductive plants per population in each of the
two geographically distinct regions in which they occur. Populations should be growing beyond or
stable at the minimum size and threats should be removed or controlled for at least 10 years prior to
downlisting. [Note: Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. skottsbergii and Achvranthes splendens var.
rotundata are referenced by their Hawaiian names, ‘akoko and ‘Ewa hinahina, respectively, in this
CCP.]
U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2004. Conservation and restoration of
shorebird habitats is essential for the protection of endangered and declining shorebird populations.
Wetlands, beach strand, coastal forests, and mangrove habitats are particularly vulnerable on Pacific
islands due to increasing development pressures and already limited acreage. Monitoring and
research needs include assessment of population sizes and trends; assessment of the timing and
abundance of birds at key wintering and migration stopover sites; assessment of habitat use and
requirements at wintering and migration areas; exploration of the geographic linkages between
wintering, stopover, and breeding areas; and evaluation of habitat restoration and management
techniques to meet the needs of resident and migratory species. Education and public outreach are
critical components of this plan. Resource management agencies of Federal, Territorial,
Commonwealth, and State governments will need to work together with military agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and the scientific community. On a larger scale, coordination at the
international level will be key to the conservation of vulnerable species, both migratory and resident.
1.9 Planning and Issue Identification
1.9.1 Issues to be Addressed in the CCP
The following issues are within the scope of the CCP/EA and are being addressed in the planning
process.
Wildlife and Habitat Resources: Endangered waterbirds and plants are the primary management
focus, but management also considers and includes migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, seabirds, and
native plant species. Unique microhabitat (anchialine pools – tidally influenced pockets of coastal
waters without direct physical connection to ocean that support unique flora and invertebrate fauna)
is found throughout the Kalaeloa Unit and is in need of restoration activities. Several pest plant,
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-11
animal, and insect species hinder staff from fulfilling the purposes for which the Refuge was
established. Invasive plants such as California grass directly affect the habitat while invasive (and
feral) animals such as mongooses and cats directly affect the species themselves. Endangered
waterbirds are the primary management focus for the wetland units of the Refuge. As such, much of
the existing Refuge acreage is excluded from visitor service opportunities to protect endangered
species during their nesting and brood rearing period.
Facilities and Facilities Maintenance: The maintenance of current facilities includes vehicles and
heavy equipment; boundary fencing; weather stations; ditches, dikes, and impoundments; water
control structures; and wells and pumps. Due to the environmental conditions (e.g., constant wind
containing salt spray, precipitation, warm temperatures, and 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. The establishment of
an onsite maintenance facility is needed. The current Refuge office is located in Hale‘iwa at a
General Services Administration rental location approximately 20 miles from the Refuge. The shared
maintenance facility is on the James Campbell NWR, 40 miles from the Pearl Harbor NWR. The
distance and logistics needed to transport supplies and equipment substantially adds to the cost of
conducting refuge management activities.
Visitor Services Activities: Environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife observation are
currently offered on a limited basis through special use permits and/or volunteer-docent lead tours.
The presence of nesting endangered species throughout much of the calendar year, along with limited
land base, restricts public access and refuge management activity. Maintaining access for shoreline
fishing at the Kalaeloa Unit, which is State-controlled below mean high water, is important to the
local community, and a condition of land acquisition.
Protection of Historical and Cultural Resources: Although there are no known cultural practice
sites on the Refuge, an ‘ulu maika (Hawaiian rolling stone) was found within an impoundment at the
Honouliuli Unit indicating use of the area by Native Hawaiians. World War II pillboxes located at
the Kalaeloa Unit have been vandalized. Protection of these sites from vandals and looters is a
management concern. Appreciation for cultural and historical resources should become an
interpretive and educational theme within the visitor services program.
1.9.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EA
The Betty Bliss Memorial Overlook at the Honouliuli Unit is part of a larger, multiagency
construction project that is outside the scope of this CCP. It is a component of the Pearl Harbor
Historic Trail project, an 18.5-mile multiuse recreational trail that will highlight historic sites from
the World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument’s USS Arizona Memorial to the west coast
O‘ahu town of Nānākuli. Under a previous agreement with the Hawai‘i Department of
Transportation (HDOT), NEPA compliance for the Betty Bliss Memorial Overlook will be included
as part of the revised HDOT environmental assessment (EA) being prepared for Phase 1 of the Pearl
Harbor Historic Recreation Trail improvement project. This EA is expected to be completed by early
2011. Construction of the overlook is anticipated to begin in late 2011 or 2012.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.1 Introduction
The Service proposes to adopt and implement a CCP to guide the management and administration of
the Refuge throughout the life of the CCP. This chapter presents and compares a range of reasonable
alternatives for this proposed action, including a preferred alternative. It also includes information on
the development of the alternatives, alternatives or components considered but dropped from further
analysis, and elements or actions common to all alternatives. Table 1 summarizes, compares, and
contrasts the alternatives.
2.2 Development of Alternatives
Initial alternatives were developed between fall 2009 and spring 2010 after initial scoping and public
involvement. These alternatives were “Continue Current Management” (no action) and “Increase
Native Habitat Restoration and Wetland Management” (preferred alternative). The two alternatives
are described in detail in Section 2.5. Under both alternatives, the wetlands at the Honouliuli and
Waiawa units are managed as core management areas as identified in the Recovery Plan for
Hawaiian Waterbirds (USFWS 2005) and the Kalaeloa Unit is managed for endangered plant
recovery. Also, under each alternative, the Betty Bliss Memorial Refuge Overlook will be
constructed at the Honouliuli Unit as planned before initiation of the CCP process. This overlook,
associated with the Pearl Harbor Historic Trail project, will provide new visitor opportunities for
compatible wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation on the Honouliuli Unit of the
Refuge.
2.3 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis
During scoping, public involvement, and the development of the objectives that make up each
alternative, a variety of ideas and solutions were presented, explored, and debated. The following
alternative components were considered but not selected for further analysis in this Draft CCP and
EA for the reason(s) described.
2.3.1 Expansion of the Refuge
Pearl Harbor NWR was established in 1972 as mitigation for construction of the Honolulu
International Airport Reef Runway. The Honouliuli and Waiawa units are managed under a
cooperative agreement with the Navy. The Kalaeloa Unit was established in 2001 as a result of lands
transferred from the Navy to the Service under the Department of Defense Base Realignment and
Closure program. Adjacent urban land uses and planned development on the ‘Ewa Plain precludes
expansion of the unit. Additional Navy lands in the Pearl Harbor area were also considered for
transfer to the Service, but due to legal liability concerns related to contaminant issues, these lands
were not accepted. The only remaining wetland habitat in Pearl Harbor is the 70-acre Pouhala Marsh
on the West Loch, which is managed by the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources’
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-2 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) as a wildlife sanctuary. Because no other wetlands exist
in the area, none of the alternatives include an expansion of the Refuge.
2.3.2 Expansion of Visitor Opportunities within the Fenced Areas
of the Refuge
This alternative component would open the Refuge for wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
and/or interpretation. Overlooks are planned for construction outside the fenced areas only. Public
access along the Kalaeloa Unit ocean coast for incidental fishing on adjacent State-owned shoreline
will continue under both alternatives. It was determined unfeasible and undesirable to open the
Refuge to any additional uses due to the need to limit disturbance to endangered species and the
units’ extremely small size. Logistical limitations such as the lack of safe, suitable, and legal access
also factored into the decision to keep the Refuge closed.
2.3.3 No Mammalian Predator Removal
No mammalian predator (mongoose, rat, mouse, cat, and dog) control would be conducted on the
Pearl Harbor Refuge. The lack of mammalian predator control would not protect adult and young
endangered waterbirds, their nests, and habitat on the Refuge. Other resident and migratory
waterbirds on the Refuge that are vulnerable to predation would also not be protected. Based upon
available scientific information (Refuge studies, monitoring, and the Hawai‘i Endangered Waterbird
Recovery Plan), no predator control would not achieve Refuge goals necessary to promote recovery
of Hawai‘i’s endangered waterbirds in the State.
2.3.4 Nonlethal Techniques to Remove Mammalian Predators
In accordance with 569 FW 1 (Integrated Pest Management), the Service chooses pest management
methods by considering the following four factors (listed in their order of importance): human
safety, environmental integrity, effectiveness, and cost. Live trapping and release of predators to
other locations on O‘ahu or the State is not a sound biological strategy. Transporting predators and
releasing them has the potential to exacerbate resource management at other State, private, and
Federal lands.
2.3.5 Public Trapping and Hunting to Remove Mammalian Predators
These actions are dismissed from consideration for this CCP for the following reasons: potential
disturbance to endangered species (plants and animals), lower effectiveness for removal of mammals,
safety of and potential conflicts with other Refuge users, potential conflicts with Refuge staff
implementing on-the-ground management actions, and the mammalian predators present are not
sought after species by the general hunting public.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3
2.4 Elements Common to All Alternatives
2.4.1 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability
Under each alternative, actions will be implemented over a period of 15 years as funding becomes
available. Routine maintenance, repair, replacement, and improvement of existing facilities will
continue, also dependent on funding.
2.4.2 Interagency Coordination and Collaboration
Ecosystem planning efforts discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.8 involve collaboration among Federal
and State agencies toward mutual goals.
2.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Protection and Recovery
The purpose of the Pearl Harbor NWR is to protect and provide habitat for four endangered
waterbirds and two endangered plants (‘Ewa hinahina and ‘akoko). Protection of threatened and
endangered species is common across all alternatives. The protection of federally listed species is
mandated through the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It is also Service policy to give priority
consideration to the protection, enhancement, and recovery of these species on national wildlife
refuges. To ensure adequate protection, the Refuge is required to review all activities, programs, and
projects occurring on lands and waters of the Refuge to determine if they may affect listed species. If
the determination is that an action may adversely affect an endangered species then the Refuge
conducts a formal review, known as a consultation, to identify those effects and means to mitigate
those effects.
To benefit and protect endangered waterbirds, the wetlands on the Honouliuli and Waiawa Units will
be managed as core wetland areas as designated in the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian
Waterbirds (USFWS 2005) throughout the 15-year span of the CCP.
2.4.4 Archaeological and Cultural Resource Protection
Cultural resources on Refuge lands receive protection and consideration in accordance with Federal
cultural resources laws, Executive orders, and regulations, as well as policies and procedures
established by the Department of the Interior and the Service. Although the presence of cultural
resources, including historic properties, does not preclude a Federal activity, the Refuge will seek to
protect cultural resources whenever possible. Refuge management actions will support the State of
Hawai‘i’s vision statement “to promote the use and conservation of historic and cultural resources for
the education, inspiration, pleasure and enrichment of the public in a spirit of stewardship and
trusteeship for future generations” (State Historic Preservation Plan 2010-2014).
During early planning of any projects, the Refuge will provide the Service Regional Historic
Preservation Officer (RHPO) a description and location of all projects and activities that affect
ground and structures, including project requests from third parties. Information will also include any
alternatives being considered. The RHPO will analyze these undertakings for potential to affect
historic properties and enter into consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division and other
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-4 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
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.
2.4.5 Fire Management
The suppression of wildfires and the use of prescribed or controlled fire are a long-standing part of
resource protection, public safety, and habitat management on national wildlife refuges. In 2003, a
Fire Management Plan which incorporated NEPA compliance was approved for the Refuge and
provides detailed guidance for the suppression and use of prescribed fire. The plan outlines wildfire
response and prescribed fire objectives, strategies, responsibilities, equipment and staffing; burn
units; implementation; monitoring; and evaluation. The complete Fire Management Plan is available
at the O‘ahu National Wildlife Refuge Complex Office.
2.4.6 Volunteer Groups
The Refuge currently has an active volunteer program involving about 200 individuals. These
volunteers contribute over 600 hours annually, assisting with environmental education, biological
monitoring, invasive species removal, native plant propagation, and anchialine pool restoration. The
recruitment and use of volunteers will continue and is a vital component of many of the objectives
outlined in the Draft CCP and EA.
2.4.7 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 environmental education as needed to raise awareness
of the Refuge’s resources.
2.4.8 Adaptive Management
The small acreage and multiendangered species management for this Refuge results in complex
wetland management strategies. Over time, wetlands naturally progress from open water to a more
vegetated condition. During this progression, types, distribution, density, structure, and number of
species change. These changes affect numbers, distribution, and use patterns of waterbirds.
Specifically, waterbird species require slightly different nesting, chick rearing, and foraging habitats.
As succession continues in a wetland, the vegetation response tends to favor one of more species life
history requirements until dense monotypic vegetation covers so much of the wetland that it becomes
less valuable to endangered waterbird species, which are present yearlong on the Refuge.
Water management strategies (pulsing, depth, duration of flooding, seasonality of flooding/drying)
affect the rate of plant succession. Optimal water management provides the longest period of use for
waterbirds before dewatering and vegetation management are needed to set back the successional
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5
stage to essentially an open water condition. After vegetation management (e.g., disking, mowing,
herbicide application), the wetland succession cycle begins. Consequently, different parts of a
wetland are used to meet the full range of life-history needs throughout the year. Areas of the
wetland used at one time by one species for foraging might be used by another species during a
different season or year for nesting or chick rearing. This management technique provides optimal
habitat conditions and maximum use by a greater variety of waterbirds both seasonally and over
time.
As a result of this seasonal rotational management strategy, acres of habitat presented for
Objectives 1.1 – 1.4) in Chapter 2 may sum to more acres of wetlands than are available on the
Refuge.
2.4.9 Integrated Pest Management
In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach would
be utilized, where practicable, to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein
collectively referred to as pests) on Refuge lands. 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
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in full compliance with the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by
USEPA may be applied on lands and waters under Refuge jurisdiction.
Environmental harm by pest species would refer to a biologically substantial decrease in
environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors, including declines in native
species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or altered
ecological processes. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on native species,
including preying and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing them from
reproducing or killing their young; outcompeting them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites or other
vital resources; or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations, few if any truly
native individuals remain. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of pest
species. For example, decreased waterfowl use may result from invasive plant infestations reducing
the availability and/or abundance of native wetland plants that provide forage during the winter.
Environmental harm may involve detrimental changes in ecological processes. For example,
bufflegrass infestations can greatly alter fire return intervals, displacing native species and
communities of bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Environmental harm may also cause or be
associated with economic losses and damage to human, plant, and animal health. For example,
invasions by fire-promoting grasses that alter entire plant and animal communities, eliminating or
sharply reducing populations of many native plant and animal species, can also greatly increase fire-fighting
costs.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-6 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Throughout the life of the CCP, most proposed pesticide uses on Refuge lands would be evaluated
for potential effects to Refuge biological resources and environmental quality. Pesticide uses with
appropriate and practical best management practices (BMPs) for habitat management as well as
cropland/facilities maintenance would be approved for use on Refuge lands where there likely would
be only minor, temporary, and localized effects to species and environmental quality based upon
nonexceedance of threshold values in chemical profiles. However, pesticides may be used on Refuge
lands where substantial effects to species and the environment are possible (exceed threshold values)
in order to protect human health and safety (e.g., mosquito-borne disease).
2.5 Alternative Descriptions
2.5.1 Alternative A: Continue Current Management
Honouliuli and Waiawa Units
Alternative A is the “no change” alternative required by NEPA. Management of threatened and
endangered species would continue to focus on protection and production in the statewide effort to
implement the Recovery Plan for Hawaiian waterbirds. Inventory and monitoring would continue to
focus on waterbirds and aquatic invertebrate/vegetation, and water quality sampling. Waterbird
surveys to determine species composition and numbers of individuals present on the Refuge would
continue to be conducted once to twice monthly at each unit. Ground water quality (temperature,
salinity, and dissolved oxygen) and quantity (gallons used for management) required for monthly
State water use compliance will continue to be conducted and reported monthly. Water level
monitoring and manipulation would continue at current scheduled intervals to meet the life history
needs of endangered water birds. Water manipulation is used throughout the year to provide quality
wetland/waterbird habitat. See section 2.6 for detailed discussion of water management. Control of
invasive plant species would be modest, and intensive predator control would continue. Predator
control is aimed at minimizing predator entry to the Refuge using fences, and eradicating or reducing
and maintaining low numbers of mongooses, rats, mice, cats, and dogs that enter the Refuge. Live
trapping and use of bait stations containing 0.005% dipahacinone rodenticides bait would continue to
be used to control mongooses, rats, and mice. These species are euthanized when live-trapped. Live
traps are used to capture cats and dogs on the Refuge. Predator control would be conducted by
Refuge personnel or contracted control technicians. Prescribed fire, mechanical, and chemical
methods would continue to be used to provide high quality wetland habitat to support all aspects of
endangered waterbirds and seasonal habitat for migratory species on portions of the Refuge.
On the Honouliuli Unit, environmental education would continue in cooperation with the Hawai‘i
Nature Center on a seasonal basis, occurring from September into December. The Betty Bliss
observation deck will be constructed at Honouliuli for interpretation, wildlife viewing, and
photography.
Kalaeloa Unit
Management and protection would continue for the 14 existing anchialine pools. Cooperation with
Bishop Museum on cataloging avian and other fossil remains from the pools would continue. Entry
into the Refuge units would continue by special use permit (SUP) only. There would be no increase
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7
in facilities or programming for wildlife observation, photography, interpretation and environmental
education, with a focus on maintaining the status quo. No new offices or maintenance facilities
would be constructed. There will be no new programs and no new staff. The Refuge volunteer
program will continue at the current level, benefiting a variety of Refuge programs.
2.5.2 Alternative B: Increase Native Habitat Restoration and Wetland
Management
Under Alternative B, the Refuge staff would manage its resources to emphasize and increase native
habitat restoration of the coralline plain at Kalaeloa Unit and wetland management at the Honouliuli
and Waiawa units. This is the preferred alternative.
Kalaeloa Unit
At Kalaeloa, the existing restoration area of 25 acres would be expanded an additional 12 acres to
incorporate the full 37 acres of the unit. The Refuge staff would emphasize control and reduction of
invasive plants and propagation and planting of native plants, including two endangered species: the
‘akoko and ‘Ewa hinahina. A trail system would be developed to reduce ground disturbance, protect
plants, and improve visitor safety. An endangered plant restoration partnership with Leeward
Community College would continue.
Protection and management would continue for the 14 existing anchialine pools. Up to 30 additional
pool sites would be identified, evaluated, and restored. Viable anchialine pools would be surveyed to
determine if translocation of pinapinao listed as candidates for endangered status is feasible. The
Refuge staff would coordinate efforts with Service Ecological Services staff to facilitate
experimental translocation of these species.
Restoration of endangered and native plants and additional anchialine pools would increase, with
Kalaeloa functioning as a living classroom for both Hawai‘i’s residents and visitors. Onsite work
activities for volunteers that include such jobs as invasive plant removal, path clearing, and
replanting of native species would be developed. University of Hawai‘i students (undergraduate and
graduate levels) would design and conduct onsite research projects that correspond with Refuge
management goals and objectives while mentoring a Kapolei High School student during the entire
process. A University of Hawai‘i student would help local high school students develop learning
stations and an interpretive guided tour of Kalaeloa, thus creating a source of trained, local
interpreters available to provide guided tours to groups visiting Kalaeloa. Up to 1,500 students a year
could participate in the guided tour and learning stations.
Cooperation with Bishop Museum cataloging avian fossils would continue. Refuge staff, working
with Bishop Museum and the Smithsonian Institution, would pursue an indepth paleontological study
of the Kalaeloa Unit to confirm genetic identification of prehistoric bird remains.
Honouliuli and Waiawa Units
Under Alternative B, the Refuge would manage its resources to increase the level of effort on
wetland habitat management to potentially augment capacity for endangered waterbirds.
Management of threatened and endangered species would focus on protection and production in the
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-8 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
statewide effort to implement the Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds. Pond level manipulation
would continue at current scheduled intervals to meet the life-history needs of endangered
waterbirds. The Refuge would conduct mangrove removal on 5 acres at Honouliuli Unit with
associated dike protection and maintain previously cleared intertidal flat at Waiawa Unit.
Wildlife inventory and monitoring frequency would increase with continued focus on waterbirds and
aquatic invertebrate/vegetation response to habitat management. Current levels of control of invasive
plant species and intensive predator control would increase slightly. Installation and use of a
predator-proof fence at Honouliuli may be pursued if determined feasible. The Refuge would work
with partners and adjacent landowners to determine feasibility of developing a Refuge overlook at
Waiawa (along the Pearl Harbor Historic Trail).
All Units
These alternatives represent broad, thematic approaches to management and administration of the
Refuge, recognizing the latitude managers have in focusing human and fiscal resources within the
framework of Refuge System laws and policy (Table 1). The alternatives reflect direction in the
Administration Act, Service policy for administration and management of refuges, and a host of
ongoing conservation initiatives affecting the Hawaiian Islands. The alternatives were also 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 EA and CCP, 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 Pearl Harbor
NWR contribute to the mission of the Refuge System; meet the purposes for which the Refuge was
established in 1972 and expanded in 2001, and help achieve the Refuge vision, goals, and objectives.
A step-down plan to inventory and monitor climate change-related variables and trends on all units
would be developed. A maintenance shed would be constructed on one of the Units. All Refuge units
would continue to be closed to general public entry, except for year-round access at the Betty Bliss
Memorial Overlook. Entry into the Refuge would continue to be by SUP only.
2.6 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale
Goals and objectives are the unifying elements for successful, adaptive refuge management. They
identify and focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy,
and the Refuge System mission.
A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly
reflects the refuge purposes, Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory requirements, and
larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision, followed
by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving those goals.
Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives. Unless specifically
stated, all objectives are applicable throughout the life of this plan.
In the development of this CCP, the Service has prepared an EA. The EA evaluates alternative sets
of management actions derived from a variety of management goals, objectives, and implementation
strategies. The goals for the Pearl Harbor NWR throughout the life of the CCP are presented on the
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9
following pages. Each goal is followed by one or more objectives that pertain to it. The goal order
does not imply any priority in this CCP. Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply
been placed in the most reasonable spot. Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple objectives and
for clarity these strategies are listed under each relevant objective. Following the goals, objectives,
and strategies, a brief rationale is provided. This rationale generally describes how management
strategies will be implemented to achieve the intended objectives. The rationale may also, where
necessary, discuss means to minimize potential impacts to nontarget species and habitats. It also
provides further background information pertaining to the importance of an objective relative to
legal mandates for managing units of the Refuge System, including refuge purpose, trust resource
responsibilities (federally listed threatened and endangered species and migratory birds), and
maintaining/restoring biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.
Table 2.1: Management Alternatives Summary
Pearl Harbor NWR Management Alternatives Summary
Key Themes Objectives
Alt A
Continue Current
Management
Alt B
Increased Native
Habitat Restoration
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species
Waiawa and
Honouliuli Units
Seasonal wetland
habitats
1.1. Provide seasonal
wetland habitat for
ae‘o loafing/foraging
17 acres 22-35 acres
1.2. Manage seasonal
wetland habitat for
ae‘o breeding
5-8 acres 9-13 acres
1.3. Provide seasonal
wetland habitat for
‘alae ke‘oke‘o
and ‘alae ‘ula loafing
and foraging
5-8 acres 10-15 acres
1.4. Provide seasonal
wetland habitat for
‘alae ke‘oke‘o
and ‘alae ‘ula breeding
3-5 acres
5-8 acres
Kalaeloa Unit
Coastal coralline plain
habitats
2.1. Restore and
maintain dry coastal
shrubland
25 acres 37 acres
2.2. Protect and restore
anchialine pools 14 anchialine pools 14-44 anchialine pools
Inventory, Monitoring, and Research
Inventory 3.1. Conduct inventory
and monitoring to
document progress and
evaluate management
strategies
Continue existing
inventory and
monitoring.
Increase inventory and
monitoring frequency.
Monitoring
Work with Pacific Islands Climate Change
Cooperative to develop monitoring protocol to
understand effects of climate change on the Refuge.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-10 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Key Themes Objectives
Alt A
Continue Current
Management
Alt B
Increased Native Habitat
Restoration
Research
3.2. Facilitate research
and scientific
assessments at the
Refuge to guide
management decisions
Partner with Bishop
Museum to catalog
fossil bones.
Same as A plus pursue an
indepth avian
paleontological survey at
Kalaeloa Unit.
Public Use and Services
Outreach
4.1. Provide a quality
environmental
education program at
the Honouliuli and
Kalaeloa Units.
<2,500 students <5,500 students
Public Uses
4.2. Promote
understanding and
appreciation of natural
and cultural resources.
Overlook constructed at
Honouliuli Unit.
Same as A plus conduct
feasibility study for
overlook at Waiawa Unit.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic Remnants
5.1. Protect World
War II structures at the
Kalaeloa Unit.
Existing fence and screening maintained. Public entry
limited by Special Use Permit.
2.6.1 Goal 1: Protect and manage seasonal wetland habitats to meet the life-history
needs of endangered waterbirds to promote their recovery and also for the
benefit of migratory birds.
Objective 1.1: Provide seasonal wetland habitat for ae‘o loafing and foraging.
Provide seasonal wetland habitat for loafing and foraging ae‘o year-round on 15 -20 acres of the
Honouliuli Unit and 10-20 acres of the Waiawa Unit. Habitat for ae‘o loafing and foraging has the
following characteristics:
• Open water (1-6”) and mudflat (saturated and dry) interspersed with 30-60% cover of emergent
vegetation (e.g., cattail), grasses (e.g., sprangletop, knot-grass, millet), and sedges (e.g.,
saltmarsh bulrush, California bulrush, Fimbrystlis sp.) providing a mosaic;
• <25% cover of pest plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, California bulrush, and California
grass;
• Documented predation (e.g., by mongooses, cats, and dogs below 10 individual ae‘o per year;
• Using water manipulation strategies throughout the year create soil and water condition
enhancing and perpetuating invertebrate production and diversity.
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 18-25 25-40
• Flooding after vegetation treatment (mowing, tilling,
herbicide) to promote foraging  
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11
Alt A Alt B
• Drawdown approximately April-June (control fish and
promote invertebrates/algal growth, plant response)  
• Pulse water to promote abundance and availability of
invertebrates Monthly Twice monthly
• Standard chain link fencing, live-trapping, and bait stations to
reduce predation (e.g., by mongooses, cats, dogs, rats, cattle
egrets)
 
• Construct predator-proof fence using new fence design and
materials generally along existing fence alignment 
• Control pest plants using IPM techniques including water
level control, herbicide application, mowing, and rototilling
(See attached regional IPM Appendix E)
 
Rationale:
Ae‘o require different loafing and foraging habitats during the breeding (late February through July) and
nonbreeding seasons. Recently hatched ae‘o (<14 days old) require shallow water of less than 2 in to
forage. During the remainder of the year, fledgling and adult ae‘o can forage in water as deep as 6 in.
Seasonally regulating water depth (pulsing) stimulates germination of desirable and beneficial plant
species, controls undesirable plants, and encourages the production of a variety of macro-invertebrates
that serve as an important food source for young and adult ae‘o. In addition to providing forage,
seasonally regulated water depths provide a mosaic of open water and vegetation as microhabitat for stilt
thermoregulation and cover during inclement weather.
Mowing, herbicide application, and rototilling are all techniques suitable for creating the mosaic of
desired vegetation, open water, and mudflats by controlling dense contiguous patches of Batis, California
grass, marsh fleabane, California bulrush, water hyssop, or cattail. These management techniques also
benefit a variety of other wetland-dependent species including koloa maoli, ‘alae ‘ula, ‘alae ke‘oke‘o,
wintering waterfowl, and shorebirds, primarily by providing valuable feeding and loafing habitat.
Vegetation control is accomplished to some degree all year. This yearlong control consists mainly of
mechanical treatment, such as mowing dikes to reduce and minimize predator concealment cover and
control invasive plants. To minimize potential predation by cattle egrets that follow mowing equipment
feeding on invertebrate prey, this type of control is terminated just prior to the time stilt nests begin
hatching and does not resume until hatching is over in critical areas of the Refuge. This period is
generally from April into June, depending on the nesting chronology that year. Seasonally, mainly during
the period of August through mid October, more intense habitat enhancement occurs. The exact timing is
dependent on endangered waterbird nesting cycles and arrival of winter migrants from their breeding
grounds on other continents. When young waterbirds are capable of flight and can move among wetland
impoundments or to other wetlands work is initiated.
Objective 1.2. Manage seasonal wetland habitat for ae‘o breeding.
Manage seasonal wetland habitat for breeding ae‘o from February through July on 3-5 acres of the
Waiawa Unit and 6-8 acres of the Honouliuli Unit with the following characteristics:
• Open water (<3 in) and mudflat (saturated and unsaturated) with <25% cover of cattail, grasses,
and sedges providing a mosaic;
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-12 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
• Undulating, irregular bottom topography creating unsaturated mudflats with gradual slopes
during drawdown for nesting adjacent to foraging habitat;
• Units remain closed to general public use to prevent disturbance, except for the new Betty Bliss
Memorial Overlook at Honouliuli which is located to minimize potential disturbance
• Management activities by refuge staff are timed and conducted to minimize disturbance;
• Predation by dogs, cats or mongooses limited to no more than 5 documented events per year, a
hatching rate of at least 3 eggs per nest, and at least 2 chicks fledged per nest;
• <25% cover of pest plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, water hyssop, California bulrush, and
California grass;
• Abundant macro-invertebrates for foraging with densities of 480-720 invertebrates/yd2.
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 5-8 9-13
• Flooding for prebreeding (as a follow-up to mowing/rototilling to
create nesting habitat)  
• Slow drawdown rate (control fish and promote invertebrates/algal
growth, plant response)  
• Pulsing water to promote invertebrates for broods annually twice
monthly
• Fencing, live-trapping, and bait stations to reduce predation by
mongooses, rats, cats, dogs and mice  
• Control invasive plants and create openings in rank vegetation
using IPM techniques including water level control, herbicide
applications, mowing, and rototilling


• Public use closures  
Rationale:
Breeding ae‘o require unsaturated mudflat habitat for building nests. Initial (prebreeding) water-level
drawdowns help establish unsaturated mudflats for nesting. Initiation of the drawdown is timed to
coincide with minimal or no ‘alae ke’oke’o nesting or chick rearing. This drawdown timing method is
part of an overall cycle of wetting and drying of habitat, making it suitable for a greater number of
individuals throughout the year and increasing species diversity. Thus, ae‘o nesting habitat temporally
follows where ‘alae ke‘oke‘o nesting habitat existed previously.
Declining water levels increase areas of suitable nesting habitat. The target distance between nest site to
vegetation and water is approximately 0-20 ft. These slow breeding season drawdown rates also stimulate
ample numbers and diversity of invertebrates throughout the brood rearing period, allowing adult ae‘o
with broods to establish feeding territories and reduce interbrood conflicts that can result in injury or
death to young chicks.
Ae‘o are very easily disturbed during the nesting season. Since they nest in the open on exposed mudflats
they evolved behaviors to help protect nests and young. One behavior of the adult is to depart the nest
when perceived danger is detected, leaving the nest, eggs, or young exposed to ground or avian predators
and the weather. Eggs can also be destroyed by prolonged exposure to high temperature, wind chill, and
rain, all of which occur frequently in Hawai‘i. Human disturbance must be minimized during the nesting
period to reduce the risk of nest abandonment. Thus, public access is closed during nesting season.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13
Ae‘o nests, eggs, and young are also vulnerable to a variety of predators including rats, mice, mongooses,
bullfrogs, dogs, cats, cattle egrets, and ‘auku‘u. It is critical to control predators during the nesting season,
thereby increasing nesting and fledging success.
Objective 1.3. Provide seasonal wetland habitat for ‘alaeke‘oke‘o and ‘alae ‘ula loafing and
foraging.
Manage seasonal wetland habitat for loafing/foraging ‘alae ‘ula and ‘alaeke‘oke‘o throughout the year on
5-7 acres of seasonal wetlands at Waiawa Unit, 7-10 acres of seasonal wetlands at Honouliuli Unit, and
associated dikes with the following characteristics:
• Mudflat (dry and saturated) and open water (<1-18 in) interspersed with 30-60% cover of tall
(3-8 ft) emergent vegetation, grasses, and sedges that provide seed and green browse and a
mosaic of concealment cover, open water, and thermal cover;
• <25% cover of invasive plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, water hyssop, California bulrush,
and California grass;
• Adjacent short (<4 in), grassy uplands (especially dikes) for foraging;
• Interspersed vegetation with sufficient edge providing visual barriers to maximize territories
available for breeding;
• Predation levels by dogs, cats or mongooses of no more than 5 individual ‘alae ke‘oke‘o and
1 ‘alae ‘ula per year;
• Tilapia numbers maintained at a low level promoting algal growth and other desirable plants such
as widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime) as forage;
• Abundant epiphytic invertebrates (e.g., dragonflies), crayfish, and aquatic benthic/nektonic
macroinvertebrates to provide an important source of forage.
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 7-11 12-17
• Extended hydro period November-March to promote epiphytic
invertebrates 
• Flood-up after vegetation treatment (mowing, tilling, etc) to
promote foraging  
• Slow drawdown rate (control fish and promote invertebrates/algal
growth, plant response)  
• Fencing, live-trapping, and bait stations to reduce vertebrate pest
predation  
• Control invasive plants and create openings in rank vegetation
using IPM techniques including: water level control, herbicide
application, mowing, brush cutting, excavation, and rototilling
 
• Pulsing water to promote young food plant growth for foraging 
• Mangrove removal on 5 acres at Honouliuli with associated dike
protection 
• Implement use of a predator proof fence at Honouliuli 
Rationale:
While ‘alaeke‘oke‘o and ‘alae ‘ula occupy similar loafing and foraging habitat, there are differences
between the two species. ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o use earlier succession stages of wetland habitat with greater open
water to vegetation ratio. They also typically occupy deeper water than ‘alae ‘ula, which prefer late
successional stages comprised of dense, robust vegetation. ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o spend more time loafing in a
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-14 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
flock on open water and dikes; whereas, ‘alae ‘ula are more solitary and use open water primarily as a
corridor between areas of suitable habitat.
Mowing, herbicide application, and rototilling are all techniques suitable to open dense contiguous
patches of Batis, California grass, marsh fleabane, California bulrush, water hyssop, or cattail dominated
areas in order to create a mosaic of vegetation, open water, and mudflats. These techniques also return
nutrients to the wetland ecosystem and benefit a variety of other waterbirds including koloa maoli,
wintering waterfowl, and shorebirds.
Mangrove is not native to the Hawaiian archipelago and was introduced to reduce sedimentation resulting
from agricultural practices, mainly sugarcane growing. Since introduction, it has spread along shorelines
of the main islands and into the lochs of Pearl Harbor on O‘ahu. The outward growth from the shoreline
reduces endangered and migratory waterbird foraging habitat and potential native fish species habitat.
Removal will increase intertidal mudflat foraging area for endangered, other resident, and migratory
waterbirds and increase food availability. Expanding foraging areas for these species will help meet
recovery goals. Native fish species might also benefit from the more open accessible shoreline for various
life-history needs during the year.
Installation of a predator-proof, boundary fence is planned for the Honouliuli Unit of the Refuge.
Vertebrate pests (dogs, cats, mongooses, rats, and mice) kill birds and destroy nests, not only on the
Refuge but throughout the State of Hawai‘i. Site-specific ongoing and intensive predator control
programs are necessary and common throughout the State where efforts are being made to manage and
protect populations of ground nesting birds. These programs are an essential component for the recovery
of the populations of many endangered species, including the a’eo, ‘alaeke‘oke‘o, ‘alae ‘ula, and
potentially the koloa maoli.
Predator-proof fences are now being used successfully and on very large scales (tens and hundreds of
thousands of acres) in New Zealand and other countries, but they have not yet been used in Hawai‘i. The
current standard chain-link fence that surrounds most of the Honouliuli Unit is not effective at keeping
dogs (and people) outside of the Refuge. Cats are known to climb over the fence and smaller mammals
easily pass through the fence; therefore, the need exists for the current year-round predator control
program within the fence line. Some predators such as feral and trespass dogs and cats and exotic
mongooses are known to kill adult birds as well as destroy nests and kill young birds. The terrain and
current alignment of a fence around the Honouliuli Unit make it the most practical and feasible unit to
initially install a predator-proof fence. Although the initial installation costs would be high, a predator-proof
fence, properly installed and maintained, would greatly reduce the need for and cost of the current
ongoing intensive predator control program. This could result in a long-term savings of cost and effort,
and most importantly, the further reduction of predators within the Refuge would increase the success of
nesting endangered waterbirds and the survival of both adult and young birds.
Ongoing monitoring would be needed to determine the full extent of the effect of the fence on both
predator and endangered waterbird populations. Lessons learned and experience gained from the
installation and use of this fence will benefit future management decisions on this and other wetland
refuges. Note: predator-proof fence refers to the ability of the fence to restrict movement of terrestrial
predators (in this case, mammals) and does not include avian predators.
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15
Objective 1.4. Provide seasonal wetland habitat for ‘alae ‘ula and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o breeding.
Provide and intensively manage seasonal wetland habitat for breeding ‘alae ‘ula and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o
throughout the year on 1-3 acres on Waiawa Unit and 3-5 acres on Honouliuli Unit on a rotational basis
to meet the following characteristics:
• Mudflat (dry and saturated) and open water (<1-18 in) interspersed with 30-60% cover of tall (3-
8 ft) emergent vegetation, grasses, and sedges that provide seed and green browse and a mosaic
of concealment cover, open water, and thermal cover;
• <25% cover of invasive plants including marsh fleabane, Batis, water hyssop, California bulrush,
and California grass;
• Predation levels by dogs, cats or mongooses of no more than 5 individual ‘alae ke‘oke‘o and
1 ‘alae ‘ula per year;
• Interspersed vegetation with sufficient edge providing visual barriers to maximize territories
available for breeding;
• Brood rearing habitat in close proximity to nesting habitat; and stable water levels during nesting
period
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 3-6 4-8
• Extended hydroperiod to promote epiphytic invertebrates 
• Flooding to sufficiently inundate emergent vegetation  
• Slow drawdown rate (control Tilapia and promote invertebrates
and plant response)  
• Fencing, live-trapping, and bait stations to reduce predation by
vertebrate pests  
• Control pest plants using IPM techniques including herbicide
application, mowing, and rototilling  
• Mowing, rototilling, and brush cutting to create openings in Batis,
California grass, marsh fleabane, and California bulrush-dominated
areas and promote a mosaic of vegetation/open water to maximize
territories for ‘alae ke‘oke‘o
 
• Maintain stable water levels during laying and incubation  
• Partial to complete public closure to minimize human disturbance  
Rationale:
‘Alae ‘ula and ‘alaeke‘oke‘o prefer stable water levels for nest building and nesting. When preparing an
impoundment for ‘alae ‘ula and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o nesting, water levels are raised to a depth of 8-15 in and
maintained at a constant level to provide adequate nest sites that are secure from mammalian predation.
Fluctuating water levels are not desirable, requiring nesting adults to continually build the nest up or have
it isolated on dry ground vulnerable to mammalian predation.
During brood-rearing periods, water levels are pulsed infrequently to provide physical barriers between
brood territories and provide greater availability of macroinvertebrates that are eaten by adults in
breeding condition and also fed to developing chicks. These invertebrates are an important protein source
necessary for survival and proper development.
Part of the Statewide recovery effort for endangered waterbirds involves producing adequate numbers of
offspring to increase populations to a sustainable level and then maintaining that level. Providing a
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-16 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
mosaic of open water and desirable plant species promotes the greatest number of nesting and brood
rearing territories, while minimizing strife between family units.
The amount of vegetative cover in a managed wetland varies with the duration between habitat
management actions. The succession from open water to a more vegetation-dominated wetland favors
different species. ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o are adept at nesting in a more open setting, where there is approximately
30% cover of emergent vegetation. ‘Alae ‘ula prefer more vegetated cover for nest concealment with
around 60% cover. Because of rapid and yearlong plant growth in Hawai‘i, habitat manipulation
generally requires removal of all or nearly all vegetation (generally every 2-3 years) from a managed
wetland to increase the time before follow-up actions. In the habitat preparation phase, dewatering
followed by mowing, tilling, and herbicide application are used to setback emergent succession, control
invasive plants, and achieve the open water-emergent cover mosaic. During the managing phase when
water is in the impoundment, water level manipulation (raising, lowering, or maintaining a constant level)
is used to create the desired percentage of short and tall emergent plants and open-water interspersion.
Each impoundment can be managed independently in this manner varying the habitat to meet life-history
needs of waterbirds and other native wildlife.
Ample food supply is important to build and maintain a healthy breeding population at a given site.
Exotic fish, particularly tilapia, are known to compete for food eaten by ‘alae ‘ula and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o.
They also degrade water quality, which can affect invertebrate densities and plant growth. During habitat
manipulation, slow draw-downs of water levels are used to concentrate undesirable fish and ultimately
remove them from the environment. Following their death during dewatering, the remains are allowed to
dry and decompose naturally or are tilled into the soil increasing soil nutrients that aid in promoting
invertebrate and plant response. Botulism is a concern and evidence of botulism poisoning is closely
monitored during periods when decomposition is occurring.
‘Alae ‘ula and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o are less susceptible to disturbance during nesting compared with ae‘o, and
this relates to their nest location, nesting habitat, and response to disturbance. Since ‘alae ‘ula and ‘alae
ke‘oke‘o nest in open water or dense vegetation with concealment, their response to disturbance is to
remain motionless on the nest. As a result, limited and controlled public use occurs during the nesting
season. It is difficult to see a nest even at a relatively close distance.
Rotational management, including water manipulation, is needed to accommodate the multiendangered
species management on a yearlong basis. This technique of having different habitat conditions on that
same area of land but in a different season enhances the ability to recover endangered waterbird
production and maintenance habitat.
Recognizing public tours and educational programs are important, access for such activities is restricted
in areas where nesting and brood rearing is concentrated. The locations of nests are monitored and
visitors either directed away from the areas or led quickly through the area to minimize human
disturbance.
2.6.2 Goal 2: Restore and protect coastal coralline plain habitat at the
Kalaeloa Unit.
Objective 2.1: Restore and manage dry coastal shrubland habitat.
Manage 25 - 37 acres of dry coastal shrubland habitat characterized by the following:
• Coral limestone substrate with pockets containing sandy organic humus soil;
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17
• < 20 stems per acre of woody invasive species including marsh fleabane, kiawe, and koa haole;
no mature kiawe
• <25% cover of herbaceous invasive plants (e.g., bufflegrass, khaki weed);
• Patchy distribution of low growing (2-8 in), native woody species (e.g., kou, ‘ilima, beach
naupaka, pilo, wiliwili, naio) as a mosaic;
• Endangered plants (‘Ewa hinahina, ‘akoko) distributed in appropriate microhabitat (e.g., suitable
moisture-retentive soils with wind/sun protection).
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B
Total acreage meeting objective characteristics 25 37
• Unit is closed to general public access to minimize human
disturbance
 
• Fence boundary to prevent trampling of endangered plants 
• Develop formal trail system for guided tours to reduce ground
disturbance, protect plants, and improve visitor safety 
• Control pest plants and animals using IPM techniques including
herbicide application, mowing, rototilling, trapping, and rodenticides
bait stations.
 
• Harvest seed with subsequent propagation and outplanting of
endangered and native plant species
 
Rationale: The rare coastal coralline environment that occurs on the Kalaeloa Unit is a small remnant of
this unique habitat that once occurred across much of the ‘Ewa Plain along the south shore of O‘ahu.
This natural plant community has almost been lost due to urban, industrial, and agricultural development
and severe invasion by many pest species of plants and animals. The remaining and partially restored
habitat on the Refuge is home to small and isolated populations of endangered and rare native plant
species. Dominant pest plants (e.g., kiawe, koa haole and others) have been greatly reduced on much of
the area but where they still occur their presence can result in poor or inadequate germination and
survival conditions for many sensitive or endangered native plants. Continual control of these pest plants
will be required to prevent them from once again expanding their presence on the Refuge and
outcompeting the remaining native plants. This Refuge unit provides a small area where this rare, unique
habitat can be protected. Restoring and protecting this habitat is vital to maintaining the biological
integrity of the Refuge. The Refuge also provides a critical site where the genetic integrity of endangered
plants can be maintained and where seed reserves can be harvested for future propagation and restoration.
Presently mammals have not been considered a serious limiting factor to recovery and perpetuation of
endangered plants at the Kalaeloa Unit. While rodents known to eat seeds and seedling plants are known
to occur, they have not been documented inhibiting natural germination and expansion of native plants.
This is not to say that could not change in the future and control of these species become necessary.
Currently approximately 25 acres on the Unit are under active management, with no management
occurring on the remaining 7 acres of the Unit. Under Alternative A, management would continue to
reduce/remove invasive species, restore native plants (including endangered species) and protect the
existing anchialine pools on the current 25 acres of managed land