Kilauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Land Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment 

Kaua‘i County, Hawai‘i 

Prepared By: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Michael “Mitch” Mitchell, Deputy Project Leader 

Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

P.O. Box 1128 

Kilauea, Hawai‘i 96754 

Phone: (808) 826-6641 

May 2007 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION...............................1 

1.1 Introduction............................................................................1 

1.2 Proposed Action.......................................................................1 

1.3 Need for Action........................................................................1 

1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action.....................................................2 

1.5 Study Area..............................................................................2 

1.6 Related Agency Actions................................................................3 

1.7 Decisions to be Made....................................................................3 

1.8 Public Involvement and Identification of Issues....................................4 

1.9 Legal and Policy Guidance............................................................4 

1.9.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System..................................4 

1.9.2 Purpose of the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion.............5 

1.9.3 Acquisition Policies....................................................................5 

1.9.4 Land Acquisition Process.............................................................6 

1.9.5 Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as Amended...............................6 

1.9.6 Compliance..............................................................................7 

1.9.7 Scope of the Environmental Assessment...........................................7 

CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES.........................................9 

2.1 Land Selection..........................................................................9 

2.2 Parcels Considered but Excluded from Detailed Study.........................10 

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail..................................................10 

2.3.1 Alternative A – No Action...........................................................10 

2.3.2 Alternative B – the Coastal Alternative............................................10 

2.3.3 Alternative C – the Riverine Alternative..........................................11 

2.3.4 Alternative D – Coastal and Riverine Alternative – Preferred Alternative...11 

2.4 Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives..........................................12 

2.5 Habitat Protection Methods.........................................................13 

2.6 Land Protection Priorities by Parcel...............................................14 

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.........................................17 

3.1 Overview of the Proposed Project Area...........................................17 

3.2 Physical Environment...............................................................17 

3.2.1 Topography...........................................................................17 

3.2.2 Soils....................................................................................18 

3.2.3 Geology................................................................................18 

3.2.4 Climate.................................................................................19 

3.2.5 Hydrology.............................................................................19 

3.3 Social and Economic Environment.................................................20 

3.3.1 Population and Local Community.................................................20 

3.3.2 Employment and Local Economy..................................................21 

3.3.3 Tax Revenues.........................................................................22 

3.4 Historic and Present Land Use, Development, and Public Use................22 

3.4.1 Historic Use...........................................................................22 

 i
3.4.2 Present Land Use, Development, and Public Uses................................23 

3.5 Archaeological and Historic Resources............................................25 

3.5.1 Previously Recorded Sites...........................................................25 

3.5.2 Archaeological and Historic Resources Preservation Recommendations.....27 

3.6 Biological Resources.................................................................27 

3.6.1 Natural Communities.................................................................27 

3.6.2 Endangered Species..................................................................29 

3.6.3 Other Species..........................................................................33 

CHAPTER 4. CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES.............................................................................35 

4.1 Alternative A (No Action)...........................................................35 

4.1.1 Effects on the Physical Environment................................................35 

4.1.1.1 Climate and Soils......................................................................35 

4.1.1.2 Hydrology and Water Resources....................................................35 

4.1.2 Effects on the Biological Environment.............................................36 

4.1.3 Effects on the Social and Economic Environment................................36 

4.2 Alternative D – Preferred Alternative...............................................36 

4.2.1 Effects on the Physical Environment................................................36 

4.2.1.1 Climate and Soils......................................................................36 

4.2.1.2 Hydrology and Water Resources....................................................37 

4.2.2 Effects on the Biological Environment.............................................37 

4.2.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species................................................37 

4.2.2.2 Other Native Species..................................................................41 

4.2.3 Habitat Protection and Open Space Preservation..................................42 

4.2.4 Effects on the Social and Economic Environment................................44 

4.2.4.1 Cultural Resources.....................................................................44 

4.2.4.2 Recreation and Tourism...............................................................44 

4.2.5 Other Effects...........................................................................46 

4.2.5.1 Long-term Conservation of Biological Productivity and Diversity..............46 

4.2.5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................46 

4.2.5.3 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................46 

4.3 Comparison of the Alternatives and Rationale for the Preferred Alternative.47 

4.3.1 Rationale for Selection of the Preferred Alternative..............................48 

CHAPTER 5. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, AND 

COMPLIANCE................................................................................51 

5.1 Public Involvement...................................................................51 

5.2 Environmental Review and Consultation..........................................51 

5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act................................................51 

5.2.2 National Historic Preservation Act.................................................52 

5.2.3 Endangered Species Act.............................................................52 

5.2.4 Other Federal laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders........................52 

5.2.5 Distribution and Availability........................................................52 

CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES.............................................................53 

 ii
FIGURES 

FIGURE 1. Kilauea Point NWR Legislated Expansion Area..........following page 1 

FIGURE 2. Kilauea Point NWR Refuge Expansion Study Area......following page 2 

FIGURE 3. Kilauea Point NWR Refuge Exclusion from All the 

Alternatives....................................................................following page 10 

FIGURE 4. Kilauea Point NWR Alternative B..........................following page 10 

FIGURE 5. Kilauea Point NWR Alternative C...........................following page 11 

FIGURE 6. Kilauea Point NWR Alternative D..........................following page 11 

FIGURE 7. Kilauea Point NWR Expansion Study Area...................following page 13 

TABLES 

TABLE 1. Summary Comparison of the Alternatives....................................12 

TABLE 2. Land Tract and Priority Information...........................................14 

TABLE 3. Demographics of the Kilauea Town Residents...............................21 

TABLE 4. 2006 Tax Rates for the County of Kaua’i.....................................22 

TABLE 5. Environmental Consequences Comparison...................................47 

APPENDIX A. Public Law 108-481.......................................................57 

APPENDIX B. Notification List for the Environmental Assessment...............59 

APPENDIX C. Botanical and Avifauna data............................................63 

 iii

1 

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

1.1 Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the primary Federal agency responsible 

for conserving and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. 

Although the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, state, tribal, local, and 

private entities, the Service has specific trust responsibilities for migratory birds, 

federally-listed threatened and endangered species, and certain anadromous fish and 

marine mammals. Service efforts over the last 100 years to protect wildlife and their 

habitat have resulted in a network of protected areas that form the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System). This network of protected areas is the largest and most 

diverse in the world. Refuge System lands provide essential habitat for numerous 

wildlife species, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public, and a 

variety of benefits to local communities. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

 

The Service proposes to expand the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), 

located in Kaua‘i County, Hawai‘i. In this draft Land Conservation Plan/Environmental 

Assessment (LCP/EA), the Service describes the purpose and need for protecting the 

wildlife and habitat associated with the proposed Refuge expansion, and analyzes the 

consequences of a range of alternatives for Refuge expansion. This document was 

prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

1.3 Need for Action 

Congress authorized the Service to expand the Refuge with up to 234 acres on five 

specific parcels by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange 

under the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (see Appendix 

A). The current approved Refuge boundary includes 203 acres. 

The Refuge expansion would protect high quality coastal and lowland areas (wetlands, 

coastal strand, aquatic habitats, and their associated uplands) in perpetuity. Protection 

and management of these areas would allow the Service to contribute to the recovery of 

endangered or threatened species and to support other native plants and animals. The 

lands identified for addition to the Refuge include sea bluffs to the east and west of the 

Refuge, coastal dunes, the Kilauea estuary located both to the east and south, wetlands, 

grasslands, and riparian woodlands associated with the Kilauea Stream and Kilauea Falls 

in the Kilauea River valley, near the town of Kilauea on the north shore of the Island of 

Kauai (see Figure 1). 
Kilauea

Kilauea

Road

Wailapa

Road

Kuhio Highway

!(56

N

Figure 1

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

LEGISLATED EXPANSION AREA

234 Acres

Kilauea River

File: EA-1.mxd

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, Division of Realty & Refuge Information

911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181

503-231-6221 10/2/06

Parcel 2

40 Acres

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Parcel 1

12 Acres

Parcel 4

5 Acres

Parcel 3

162 Acres

Parcel 5

15 Acres

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters
2 

1.4 Purpose for the Proposed Action 

The purpose of the proposed Refuge expansion, as stated in the Kilauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act (Public Law 108-481) is: 

(1) the protection and recovery of endangered Hawaiian water birds and other 

endangered birds, including the Nene (Hawaiian goose); and 

(2) the conservation and management of native coastal strand, riparian, and 

aquatic biological diversity. 

The purposes of the existing Refuge would apply to the expansion area as well. Refuge 

purposes were established when the Kilauea Point Lighthouse was transferred from the 

U.S. Coast Guard to the Service in 1985. In 1988, the Crater Hill area was donated to the 

Refuge, a small portion of which is located adjacent to the Kilauea River on its 

northeastern boundary. Mokolea Point was purchased by the Service in the same year. 

The Refuge’s original 1985 establishing purposes apply to these two additions as they 

would to the proposed expansion area: 

 

(1) Conserve migratory seabird and endangered Nene populations and habitat; 

(2) Preserve and maintain historical integrity of the Lighthouse; 

(3) Conduct environmental education activities on Hawaiian wildlife and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System; 

(4) Interpret and orient Refuge resources for visitors; and 

(5) Protect and enhance native coastal plant communities. 

The acquisition of lands for the Refuge would have additional benefits including: 

• Protection and enhancement of nesting areas for native species such as seabirds 

and wintering shorebirds; 

• Conservation and enhancement of aquatic resources; 

• Protection and restoration of native plant communities; and 

• Enhancement of opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent visitor uses. 

Conservation of lowland coastal habitats would also help maintain the rural character of 

Kaua‘i’s north shore by precluding subdivision and development of the lands that are 

ultimately purchased for inclusion in the Refuge. 

 

1.5 Study Area 

The Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Study Area (Study Area) 

encompasses the five parcels of land totaling 234 acres, identified in the Kilauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act (see Figure 2). However, a 3-acre portion of 

Parcel 2 (later named Parcel 6) was sold to the Kauai Public Land Trust with the goal of 

having the Service eventually manage the parcel as part of the expanded Refuge. 
Kilauea

Kilauea

Road

Wailapa

Road

Kuhio Highway

!(56

N

Figure 2

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

EXPANSION STUDY AREA

234 Acres

Kilauea River

File: EA-2.mxd

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, Division of Realty & Refuge Information

911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181

503-231-6221 10/2/06

Parcel 2

37 Acres

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Parcel 1

12 Acres

Parcel 4

5 Acres

Parcel 3

162 Acres

Parcel 5

15 Acres

0 495 990 1,980 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

Parcel 6

3 Acres
3 

• Parcel 1: 12.4-acre Kilauea Bay property owned by Kilauea Bay Consortium 

(TMK 4-5-1-05-12). 

• Parcel 2: 37-acre portion of Kilauea Vistas property owned by Kilauea Vistas 

Condominium (TMK 4-5-1-5-0-16). 

• Parcel 3: 162-acre parcel known as “Kilauea Falls Ranch” and owned by B&Z 

Properties (TMK 4-5-2-1-2-35). 

• Parcel 4: 5.25-acre parcel owned by Kaua‘i Public Land Trust (TMK 4-5-1-5-0-

16). 

• Parcel 5: 15-acre privately owned parcel northwest of the Refuge (TMK 4-5-2-0-

4-71). 

• Parcel 6: 3-acre parcel previously owned by Kilauea Vistas Condominium 

(formerly parcel 2) and sold to Kaua’i Public Land Trust in 2006 (TMK 4-5-1-5-

16). 

1.6 Related Agency Actions 

The Refuge Manager at Kilauea Point Refuge also administers the Hanalei and Hule‘ia 

National Wildlife Refuges, to the west and southwest of the Refuge, respectively. Both 

of these Refuges are managed primarily for the recovery of Hawai‘i’s endangered 

waterbirds. 

The Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources manages fisheries and aquatic 

resources in the Kilauea River and collaborates with the Service in managing federallylisted endangered species. Nongovernmental organizations active in the area include the 

Kaua‘i Public Land Trust and the Kilauea Point Natural History Association, both are 

supportive of this expansion project. 

1.7 Decisions to Be Made 

Based on the analysis documented in this LCP/EA, the Regional Director of the Service 

will determine which alternative to adopt for Refuge expansion and whether the selected 

alternative would have significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. 

The authorities for this habitat protection effort are the Kilauea Point National Wildlife 

Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act authorizes the acquisition and management of land for the Refuge System. 
4 

1.8 Public Involvement and Identification of Issues 

The Service worked closely with a number of government agencies, nongovernmental 

conservation organizations, affected landowners, Refuge neighbors, and other interested 

stakeholders and citizens to identify issues and develop this proposal. 

In May and November 2005, portions of two Refuge Planning Updates mailed to 

interested parties were covered in the local newspaper, the Garden Island News. The 

Planning Updates informed members of the public about the project and solicited 

comments early in the planning phase. The Planning Updates also provided a map of the 

area and described potential management actions. 

 

The refuge Manager presented information on the Refuge proposal at a Kilauea 

Neighborhood Association meeting held on June 7, 2005. Seventy-five community 

member attendees were presented the four proposed alternatives, and their comments 

were recorded. Public comments ranged from “fully supportive of the largest expansion” 

to “adamantly opposed to any Refuge expansion,” and a range of issues were raised. 

Specifically, public concerns were expressed regarding the effects of the acquisition on 

the following. 

• Beach access 

• Recreational use of beach, river, and falls 

• Expansion of ecotourism 

• Traditional Hawaiian cultural practices and resources 

• Opportunity to have input on a detailed proposal 

These issues and the effects of the land acquisition on other features of the affected 

environment including endangered species and other native wildlife, the local economy, 

and Refuge management are addressed in this LCP/EA. 

 

1.9 Legal and Policy Guidance 

The Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge is managed as part of the Refuge System 

within a legal and policy framework. The Refuge is guided by the mission and goals of 

the Refuge System and the purposes of the Refuge as described in its acquisition 

authorities. Management programs are developed and conducted in compliance with 

international treaties, applicable Federal laws and executive orders, and Service policy. 

1.9.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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. 
5 

1.9.2 Purpose of the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion 

By Refuge System policy, the lands acquired for an existing refuge must incorporate the 

primary purposes for which the parent refuge was established, which in this case are to: 

“....protect and enhance migratory seabird and endangered native Nene 

(Hawaiian goose) populations and their habitat; to preserve and maintain the 

historical integrity of the area, including the lighthouse and support facilities, 

which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979; conduct 

interpretation and environmental education activities on Hawaiian wildlife, site 

history, and the refuge system; and protect and enhance native coastal plant 

communities.” 

Thus, the purposes noted above would also apply to the lands identified in the Kilauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act (Public Law 108-481) which, if acquired 

by the Service, would become part of the existing Refuge. Two additional Refuge 

purposes would be added to the original Refuge purposes and be specifically applicable 

only to the expansion area: 

“to conserve, protect, and manage essential habitat of the endangered Hawaiian 

monk seal, threatened green sea turtle, and endangered Hawaiian hoary bat; 

conserve the native aquatic resources of Kilauea estuary and the portion of the 

Kilauea Stream and riparian areas within the Refuge; and conserve, protect, and 

manage other native plant and animals that rely on these areas as habitat.” 

1.9.3 Acquisition Policies

The Service’s land protection policy is to acquire land only when other protective means 

to achieve program goals (such as zoning or regulation) are not appropriate, available, or 

effective. When lands are to be acquired, the minimum interest necessary to reach 

management objectives is acquired or retained. The Service strives to reduce costs by 

acquiring land through donation, exchange, transfer, withdrawal, permit, and by 

cooperative agreements with landowners. When the Service determines it is necessary to 

acquire land, it acquires fee title (control of all property rights) only if acquisition of 

lesser property interest (such as easements or leases) is not available or would not achieve 

its conservation objectives. 

It is Service policy to acquire lands from willing sellers and to offer fair market value for 

the land. Public Law 91-646, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act, as amended, requires that the Service offer a landowner 100 

percent of fair market value of the property (as determined by an approved appraisal) and 

provide certain benefits and payments to persons displaced by the acquisition of land. 

It is Service policy to acquire lands that are not contaminated. The Environmental 

Protection Agency’s records indicate that no Superfund sites (CERCLIS database) are 
6 

identified in the County of Kaua’i. Five Superfund sites are identified on the Island of 

Oahu, approximately 100 miles from this proposed expansion area on Kaua’i. 

Site specific Pre-Acquisition Level I Contaminant Surveys would be conducted for each 

parcel prior to completion of acquisition. Other than an old community dump site 

identified on Parcel 3 (estimated maximum area of 90,000 sq. ft.), no contaminant or 

hazardous waste materials are known to exist on the property; and, considering the past 

and current land use of the property, the likelihood of contamination is low. 

1.9.4 Land Acquisition Process 

The Service acquires land for national wildlife refuges in a manner consistent with 

legislation or other congressional guidelines and Executive Orders. The Service can 

protect habitat through various means such as: (1) the purchase of fee title or 

conservation easements, (2) no-cost transfers, (3) donations, and, (4) exchanges. 

Acquisition funding may be made available through the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund or other sources to acquire lands, waters, or interest therein for fish and wildlife 

conservation purposes. The Federal monies used to acquire private lands through the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund are derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the 

outer continental shelf, excess motorboat fuel tax revenues, and the sale of surplus 

Federal property. 

The basic considerations in acquiring land are: (1) biological significance of the land, 

(2) existing and anticipated threats to wildlife resources, and (3) landowners’ willingness 

to sell or otherwise make property available to the project. The purchase of lands 

proceeds according to willingness of sellers and availability of funds. 

The Service has no authority to acquire land except within an approved refuge acquisition 

boundary. An approved refuge boundary authorizes the Service to purchase an interest in 

real property, such as fee title or a conservation easement, from landowners who are 

willing sellers. 

1.9.5 Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as Amended 

Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s), the Service 

would make an annual payment to Kaua‘i County to help offset property tax revenue lost 

as a result of acquisition of private property. This law states that the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) will pay to each county in which an area acquired in fee title is 

situated the greater of the following amounts: 

• An amount equal to 75 cents per acre for that portion of the fee area which is 

located within such county; 

• An amount equal to 3/4 of 1 percent of the fair market value, as determined by the 

Secretary, for that portion of the fee area that is located within such county; 
7 

• An amount equal to 25 percent of the net receipts collected by the Secretary in 

connection with the operation and management of Public Domain lands during 

each fiscal year. 

If these funds are insufficient to make full payments to the counties, Congress is 

authorized to appropriate funds to make up any shortfall. When Congress does not 

appropriate sufficient funds, counties receive a pro-rata reduction in their Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act disbursement. 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act also requires that Service lands be reappraised every 

five years to ensure that payments to local governments remain equitable. Payments 

under this Act would be made only on lands that the Service acquires in fee title. On 

lands where the Service acquires only partial interest through easement, all taxes would 

remain the responsibility of the individual landowner. 

1.9.6 Compliance

The proposed acquisition will be in compliance with Service policies and the following 

laws and regulations: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended; Executive 

Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs); Executive Orders 11988 

(Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended; Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for 

Federal and Federally Assisted Programs (Uniform Act of 1970), as amended; Executive 

Order 11593 (Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties) 

including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act; the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

of 1990; Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended; Executive Order 12996 

(Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System); 

Secretary’s Order 3127 (Contaminants and Hazardous Waste); and the National Wildlife 

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended; and other applicable laws. 

1.9.7 Scope of the Environmental Assessment 

This LCP/EA evaluates the environmental effects of adding and managing new Refuge 

lands. While this LCP/EA does not cover the details of future Refuge management for 

the proposed expanded Refuge, conceptual management actions are described to indicate 

potential management direction until such time as a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) is prepared for the Refuge. 

The Refuge’s CCP is scheduled to begin in 2007. The in-depth CCP planning process 

includes public involvement that will give the community and general public a number of 

opportunities to review and comment on new management plans for this expansion area 

and the existing Kilauea Point, Hanalei, and Hule‘ia National Wildlife Refuges. 
8 
9 

CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Land Selection

The 108th Congress passed legislation in December 2004 (Public Law 108-481) 

authorizing the expansion of the Refuge by up to 234 acres. The five parcels identified in 

PL 108-481 are described in more detail below. These parcels were included by sponsors 

of the legislation because they have value as wildlife habitat and therefore complement 

the Service’s mission and Refuge purposes, the lands are in close proximity to the 

existing Refuge, landowners expressed a willingness to consider an offer by the Service 

to purchase the lands, and some of the parcels contain habitat types not yet represented or 

protected within the Refuge System. The expansion would enhance the recovery of up to 

eight federally-listed endangered or threatened species and would create a contiguous 

unit of more than 400 acres of federally-protected Refuge land along Kaua‘i’s rapidly 

developing coast, for Hawai‘i’s endangered and native wildlife and for the enjoyment of 

the American people. 

Parcels 1, 2, 4, and 5 would add coastal dune and bluff habitats, along with areas of 

riparian and aquatic habitat of the Refuge. Parcel 1 consists of mainly shallow aquatic 

habitat located at the mouth of the Kilauea River, with a small area (<1 acre) of coastal 

dune and sand spit. Parcels 2 and 5 are both coastal bluffs that afford opportunity to 

increase native seabird nesting habitat that could be enhanced and protected from future 

encroachment and disturbance. The coastal dunes of parcel 4 provide an excellent 

opportunity to restore native coastal dune vegetation, protect and interpret valuable 

Native Hawaiian cultural resources, establish two additional monk seal pupping and 

resting areas, and protect additional green sea turtle resting and nesting habitat. 

Parcel 3, the largest portion of land in the proposed expansion, has a variety of habitats, 

some of which are especially valuable lowland wetland habitat that would, with proper 

management, aid in the recovery of four endangered Hawaiian waterbird species (the 

Hawaiian Duck, Hawaiian Moorhen, Hawaiian Coot, and Hawaiian Stilt). At least 15 

acres of existing wetland could be restored in order to support high quality feeding, 

roosting, and nesting habitat for all four of the endangered waterfowl species. 

Additionally, there is the potential to restore 20-35 acres of grassland habitat, ideal for 

Nene foraging, nesting, and roosting. If restored and managed, the grassland habitat 

could also provide nesting opportunity for native Laysan Albatross. 

Parcel 3 also contains approximately 20 acres of fresh and brackish aquatic habitat, 17 

acres of brackish marsh, 25 acres of coastal lowland riparian habitat, 50 acres of mainly 

nonnative lowland forest, and 5 acres of inland cliff face. The aquatic habitat supports an 

array of native aquatic species that have been negatively impacted by exotic species 

introduction, but have high restoration potential. The terrestrial environment is heavily 

impacted by invasive plant species, but also has a high restoration potential. 
10 

Service management of newly acquired parcels would be minimal until the CCP is 

completed for the Refuge. Routine, low-impact Refuge management activities that may 

occur on the Refuge in the interim could include boundary posting and installation of 

nominal Refuge signage; maintenance of existing unimproved roads and walking paths; 

installation of access control gates; routine law enforcement patrols; habitat protection; 

wildlife and habitat baseline studies and monitoring; and low levels of compatible 

wildlife-dependent public uses that could be authorized by permit. 

 

Potential interim Refuge management activities that involve ground clearing, work within 

a wetland or floodplain, and any management activity or project that is not considered 

minor or routine would undergo environmental review and public involvement in 

accordance with applicable laws. 

Access over and through Refuge lands would continue to be controlled by gates in the 

same manner that private landowners control access to the parcels now. Under all the 

alternatives being considered, the Service would not have jurisdiction to control public 

access to the coast along existing public right-of-ways. 

2.2 Parcels Considered but Excluded from Detailed Study 

During the scoping period, the Service determined that approximately 17 acres of Parcel 

2 included in the 2004 legislation should be excluded from further consideration, because 

of the area’s limited wildlife habitat value. Thus, the 17-acre portion of Parcel 2 was 

excluded from the draft alternatives (see Figure 3). 

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The following alternatives were developed using geographic and habitat type criteria. 

Alternatives include: A) No Action, B) Coastal, C) Riverine, and D) Coastal and 

Riverine. 

2.3.1 Alternative A - No Action

Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, no new acreage would be added to the 

Refuge. No public funds would be expended for the purchase of new property or for 

Refuge operations and maintenance of new property. Additionally, there would be no 

additional long-term commitments by the Service to recover endangered species in this 

area. 

2.3.2 Alternative B – the Coastal Alternative 

Alternative B would entail adding 55 acres of coastal habitat situated geographically 

adjacent to both the existing Refuge and the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 4). A small 

portion of the Kilauea River estuary is also included in Alternative B. This alternative 

includes Parcels 2, 5, and 6 (38 acres of coastal bluff to both the east and west of the 

existing boundary), Parcel 4 (5 acres of coastal dunes), and Parcel 1 (12 acres of river 
Kilauea

Kilauea

Road

Wailapa

Road

Kuhio Highway

!(56

N

Figure 3

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

EXCLUSION

FROM ALL ALTERNATIVES

(17 Acres of Parcel 2)

Kilauea River

File: EA-3.mxd

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, Division of Realty & Refuge Information

911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181

503-231-6221 10/2/06

Parcel 2

20 Acres

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Parcel 1

12 Acres

Parcel 4

5 Acres

Parcel 3

162 Acres

Exclusion

17 Acres

Parcel 5

15 Acres

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

Parcel 6

3 Acres
Kilauea

Kilauea

Road

Wailapa

Road

Kuhio Highway

!(56

N

Figure 4

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

ALTERNATIVE B

55 Acres

Kilauea River

File: EA-4.mxd

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, Division of Realty & Refuge Information

911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181

503-231-6221 10/2/06

Parcel 2

20 Acres

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Parcel 1

12 Acres

Parcel 4

5 Acres

Parcel 5

15 Acres

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

Parcel 6

3 Acres
11 

mouth property and a small portion of river estuary). Under this alternative, the Service 

would add potentially valuable seabird nesting areas (including the federally-listed 

threatened Newell’s Shearwater), coastal strand dune habitat with high restoration 

potential, and a small (approximately 1 acre) strip of riparian habitat within Parcel 1 for 

endangered Hawaiian waterbird foraging, resting, and reproduction. This acreage would 

be protected and managed in perpetuity as part of the Refuge System. 

The coastal bluff and dune habitats that comprise the bulk of Alternative B would provide 

the Service with the ability to protect and enhance native coastal biological diversity. 

This alternative would result in the protection and conservation of native Hawaiian 

seabirds; wintering shorebirds, ruddy turn stones, Pacific golden Plovers, and wandering 

tattlers on the shoreline; and two species protected under the Endangered Species Act – 

the endangered Hawaiian monk seal and threatened green sea turtle. 

2.3.3 Alternative C – the Riverine Alternative 

Under the Riverine Alternative, the Service would expand the Refuge by approximately 

179 acres (see Figure 5). Alternative C encompasses lands within the Kilauea River 

Valley from above the Kilauea Falls to the rivermouth at Kahili Bay (Parcels 1, 3, and 4). 

Under this alternative, the Service would acquire coastal lowlands that include wetlands, 

riparian, forest, grassland, marsh, stream, estuary, and dune habitats; some of which are 

vulnerable to development. This addition would preserve habitat for the four endangered 

Hawaiian waterbirds, the endangered Nene, and several species of estuary dependent fish, 

crustaceans, and invertebrates. It would also provide nesting habitat for the White-tailed 

Tropicbird and native and nonnative lowland forest birds. 

Alternative C (Riverine) would primarily, but not exclusively, focus on the recovery of 

endangered Hawaiian waterbirds and the endangered Nene. Alternative C would protect 

179 acres that include important wetlands capable of supporting new populations of 

endangered species, and grassy hillside that would support nesting by Nene. This 

alternative includes the protection of important aquatic habitat which would be managed 

in cooperation with Hawai‘i’s Department of Land and Natural Resources. 

2.3.4 Alternative D – Coastal and Riverine Alternative - Preferred Alternative 

Alternative D is a combination of a portion of Alternative B with Alternative C (see 

Figure 6). Under Alternative D, the Service would expand the Refuge by 202 acres. This 

is the Service’s preferred alternative. 

Under Alternative D, the Service would seek to acquire the following parcels and 

habitats: 12 acres of coastal river mouth (Parcel 1); 165 acres of brackish and freshwater 

wetlands, riparian, upland shrub, forest, and portions of the Kilauea River (Parcel 3, 162 

acres plus Parcel 6, 3 acres); 5 acres of coastal dune (Parcel 4); and 20 acres of coastal 

bluff on Parcel 2. 
Kilauea

Kilauea

Road

Wailapa

Road

Kuhio Highway

!(56

N

Figure 5

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

ALTERNATIVE C

179 Acres

Kilauea River

File: EA-5.mxd

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, Division of Realty & Refuge Information

911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181

503-231-6221 10/2/06

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Parcel 1

12 Acres

Parcel 4

5 Acres

Parcel 3

162 Acres

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters
Kilauea

Kilauea

Road

Wailapa

Road

Kuhio Highway

!(56

N

Figure 6

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

ALTERNATIVE D

202 Acres

Kilauea River

File: EA-6.mxd

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, Division of Realty & Refuge Information

911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181

503-231-6221 10/2/06

Parcel 2

20 Acres

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Parcel 1

12 Acres

Parcel 4

5 Acres

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters

Parcel 3

162 Acres

Parcel 6

3 Acres
12 

Parcel 5 is included in Alternative B, the Coastal Alternative, but not in Alternative D, 

the Preferred Alternative. Despite its location and current and potential wildlife habitat 

values, unresolved controversy and legal questions concerning public access through the 

parcel precluded the Service from including this parcel in the Preferred Alternative. 

Under Alternative D, the Service would protect important estuary and wetland 

environments to aid in the recovery of the endangered Hawaiian Duck, Hawaiian Coot, 

Hawaiian Moorhen, and Hawaiian Stilt, along with the Nene. With the addition of this 

property to the Refuge, the Service would protect from development a significant portion 

of the Kilauea River Valley (habitat for the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat) and, through 

the upcoming CCP planning process, seek to provide compatible public recreational 

opportunities. 

2.4 Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives

Table 1. Summary Comparison of the Alternatives

Issue 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B 

Coastal 

Alternative C 

Riverine 

Alternative D 

Riverine and Coastal 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Total future 

Refuge size: 

203 acres. 258 acres. 382 acres. 405 acres. 

Additional 

Acreage: 

0 acres. The 

Refuge would 

not be expanded. 

The Refuge would 

be expanded by an 

estimated 55 acres. 

The Refuge would be 

expanded by an 

estimated 179 acres 

The Refuge would be 

expanded by an estimated 202 

acres. 

Endangered 

Species 

Habitat: 

No additional 

protection. 

Endangered 

species 

management 

would continue 

on the Refuge. 

Endangered 

waterbirds would 

not be managed 

as part of the 

Refuge. 

* Add 38 acres of 

coastal bluff for 

potential nesting by 

the threatened 

Newell’s 

Shearwater. 

* Add 6 acres of 

aquatic and 

riparian habitat 

(mostly estuary) 

for endangered 

Hawaiian Coot, 

and Moorhen. 

*Add 15 acres of 

additional managed 

wetlands for four 

endangered waterbird 

species and 30 

additional acres for 

Nene habitat. 

*Add 30 acres of 

aquatic and riparian 

habitat (estuary and 

stream) for all four 

endangered 

waterbirds. 

*Add 15 acres of managed 

wetlands for endangered 

waterbirds, 30 acres of Nene 

habitat, 30 acres of aquatic 

and riparian habitat for four 

endangered waterbird species, 

and 20 acres of coastal bluff 

for potential nesting by 

threatened Newell’s 

Shearwater. 

Alternative D. includes coastal 

dunes and strand habitat for 

endangered monk seals and 

threatened green sea turtles. 

Cultural 

Resource 

Protection: 

No cultural sites 

or resources 

from the Kilauea 

River area would 

be included in 

the Refuge. 

Cultural resources 

in the dunes and 

coastal bluff would 

be included in the 

Refuge. 

Cultural resources in 

the Kilauea River 

Valley and in the 

dunes would be 

included in the 

Refuge. 

Cultural resources in the 

dunes, coastal bluffs, and in 

the Kilauea River Valley 

would be included in the 

Refuge. 
13 

Issue 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B 

Coastal 

Alternative C 

Riverine 

Alternative D 

Riverine and Coastal 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Public 

Access and 

Recreation: 

(Existing 

public 

access, see 

Figure 7) 

Access to the 

coast would 

continue through 

existing 

designated legal 

public access 

right of ways. 

Private 

landowners 

would continue 

to control access 

across and use of 

private lands. 

Access to the coast 

would continue 

through existing 

designated legal 

public access right 

of ways. 

Access to land not 

included in the 

Refuge would 

continue to be 

controlled by 

respective 

landowners. 

Public access to the 

Refuge would be 

through Refuge 

visitation programs 

Access to the coast 

would continue 

through existing 

designated legal 

public access right of 

ways. 

Access to land not 

included in the 

Refuge would 

continue to be 

controlled by 

respective 

landowners. 

Public access to the 

Refuge would be 

through Refuge 

visitation programs. 

Access to the coast would 

continue through existing 

designated legal public access 

right of ways. 

Access to land not included in 

the Refuge would continue to 

be controlled by respective 

landowners. 

Public access to the Refuge 

would be through Refuge 

visitation programs. 

Estimated 

cost to 

purchase 

land: 

No public funds 

expended 

Approximately 

$3,001,500 to 

purchase land from 

willing sellers 

Approximately 

$6,001,500 to 

purchase land from 

willing sellers 

Approximately $9,001,500 to 

purchase land from willing 

sellers 

Estimated 

annual 

operations 

and 

maintenance 

costs: 

$0 1 maintenance 

worker - $60K/yr. 

Operations/ maint. 

- $75,000/yr. 

Total - $135,000 

1 maintenance 

worker - $60K/yr. 1 

law enforcement 

officer - $75K/yr. 

Operations/maint. - 

$150,000/yr. 

Total - $285,000 

1 maintenance worker – 

$60k/yr. 

1 law enforcement officer – 

$75K/yr. 

Operations/maint. - 

$200,000/yr. 

Total - $335,000 

2.5 Habitat Protection Methods 

A variety of habitat protection methods could be used to conserve fish and wildlife 

habitat. The actual method selected for any individual parcel will depend on what the 

landowner and the Service agree upon. If a mutual agreement cannot be reached, the 

landowner retains full use, control, and responsibility for the property. 

Cooperative Agreements – The Service can enter into cooperative agreements with 

landowners to improve wildlife habitat management. Cooperative agreements may 

specify shared responsibilities, or a transfer of funds from the Service to another entity or 

vice-versa for management purposes. Cooperative agreements could be applied to land 

under any type of ownership in the study area. 

Conservation Easements – Conservation easements are a type of acquisition where the 

landowner permanently transfers some, but not all, property rights to the Service as 

specified by mutual agreement. Under a conservation easement, a landowner could 

manage the land for wildlife. The Service can acquire easements through purchase, 
Kilauea

Kilauea

Road

Wailapa

Road

Kuhio Highway

!(56

N

Figure 7

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

EXPANSION STUDY AREA

234 Acres

Public Access Routes

Kilauea River

File: 07_KilPoint_Fig7.mxd

Prepared by: Refuge Information Branch

Region 1, NWRS, Division of Realty & Refuge Information

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232-4181

503-231-6221 3/22/2007

Public pedestrian easement

to Kahili Beach

KILAUEA POINT

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Refuge owned portion

of Rock Quarry Road

Kauapea Beach

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

0 125 250 500 Meters
14 

donation, or exchange, depending on the terms of the easement. The property owner 

pays any applicable property taxes. 

Fee Title Acquisition – A fee title interest is normally acquired when: (1) the fish and 

wildlife resources on a piece of property require permanent protection that is not 

otherwise available; (2) the property is needed for development associated with public 

use; (3) a pending land use could otherwise harm wildlife habitats; or (4) purchase is the 

most practical and economical way to assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. Fee 

title acquisition transfers any property rights owned by the landowner, including mineral 

and water rights, to the Federal government. A fee title interest may be acquired by 

purchase, donation, or exchange. 

2.6 Land Protection Priorities by Parcel 

Of all the parcels being considered for the Refuge addition, Parcel 3 is the Service’s 

highest acquisition priority. This 162-acre parcel contains valuable coastal wetland 

habitat that is a priority for conservation efforts that will promote recovery of Hawai‘i’s 

endangered waterbird species. Parcel 3 contains the widest variety of valuable wildlife 

habitat types of the five parcels included in this project. 

Parcel 1 is rated second highest in priority because it ranks second in its wildlife habitat 

value and is situated adjacent to the current boundary and connects the current Refuge 

acreage with Parcel 4 of this project (a parcel planned for donation to the Refuge). 

Table 2. Land Tract and Priority Information

Priority Tract Owner Size Proposed Method of Protection 

#1 Parcel 3 TMK 

4-5-2-1-2-35 

Kilauea 

Farms Ranch 

162 

acres 

Acquisition of fee title through 

purchase from willing seller. 

#2 Parcel 1 TMK 

4-5-1-05-12 

Kaua‘i Public 

Land Trust 

 12 

acres 

Acquisition of fee title through 

purchase or donation from willing 

seller. 

#3 Parcel 2 

TMK 4-5-1-5-

0-16 

Kilauea 

Vistas 

Property 

 20 

acres 

Acquisition of fee title through 

purchase from willing seller. 

#4 Parcel 4 

TMK 4-5-1-5-

0-16 

Kaua‘i Public 

Land Trust 

 5 

acres 

Acquisition of fee title through 

donation by the landowner. 

#5 Parcel 6 

TMK 4-5-1-5-

0-16 

Kaua‘i Public 

Land Trust 

 3 

acres 

Cooperative agreement for 

wildlife management by the 

refuge. 

Parcel 2 is ranked third because of its wildlife habitat value and the fact that a portion of 

this property is under threat of development. The Hawai‘i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife is currently requesting $3 million 

from the Recovery Lands Acquisition Program to purchase this property. If acquired by 
15 

the State of Hawai‘i, this parcel will be administered by the Department of Land and 

Natural Resources for wildlife conservation but may become part of the Refuge at a later 

date. 

 

Parcel 4 and Parcel 6 are ranked fourth and fifth, respectively, because they have already 

been purchased by the Kaua‘i Public Land Trust for the purpose of conservation with 

intentions to donate these properties to the Service for inclusion in Refuge. 

Parcel 6 (formerly part of Parcel 2) changed ownership in 2006. It was sold by Kilauea 

Vistas Property to Kilauea Public Land Trust to be managed under cooperative agreement 

by Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge.
17 

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Overview of the Study Area 

The island of Kaua‘i is one of eight main islands in the Hawaiian Archipelago, located 

near the middle of the Pacific Ocean, just south of the Tropic of Cancer. The Hawaiian 

Archipelago is the world’s most isolated group of islands, lying approximately 2,400 

miles southwest of San Francisco. Kaua‘i is located on the western end of the main 

island chain. Its nickname is the “Garden Isle” due to the lush, green environment and 

high average rainfall. 

The Refuge is situated at the most northerly point on the island of Kaua‘i. The majority 

of the proposed project acreage lies adjacent to the southeastern portion of the Refuge 

along the Kilauea River estuary. An additional 38 acres of proposed expansion area 

includes ocean bluff acreage located directly to the east and west of the Refuge. 

The study area includes approximately 234 acres of coastal land encompassing 179 acres 

of the Kilauea River estuary with its associated rivermouth and dune system and 38 acres 

of coastal bluff located both east and west of the river. 

3.2 Physical Environment 

This section describes the physical setting including the topography, soils, geology, 

climate, and hydrology. 

3.2.1 Topography

 

Kaua‘i is a relatively small island with a land area of 553 square miles. It is the fourth 

largest of the eight main islands of the Hawaiian Archipelago and it is the oldest, at over 

5 million years. The island is 32 miles east to west and 22 miles from north to south with 

a perimeter of 111 miles. The island is characterized as having major topographic 

features such as the 2.5-mile wide, 13-mile long Waimea Canyon, with depths up to 

2,750 feet. Waimea Canyon slopes off to the low-lying western Mana Coastal Plains that 

are rimmed by 16 miles of contiguous beach. The 14-mile long Na Pali coast displays 

1,000- to 3,000-foot sea cliffs. 

Mount Kawaikini is the highest point on the island at 5,243 feet above sea level. Nearby 

Mount Wai‘ale‘ale is the second highest at 5,148 feet above sea level and may be the 

world’s best rainmaker. A nearly 3,200-foot relief on its windward-facing eastern flank 

captures the trade wind moisture and produces an annual average rainfall of 430 inches. 

The Alaka‘i Swamp sits on the Olokele Plateau, near Mount Wai‘ale‘ale, and forms a 

dense and wet ecosystem at the heart of Kaua‘i’s remaining endemic habitats. 
18 

The Kilauea River Valley, located in the northern portion of the island, provides drainage 

for the nearby mountains, mainly the Kamo‘okoa ridge. The Kilauea River is 

approximately 4 miles long and is classified as a small river by State standards with 

average flows of 8.21 cfs (Hawai‘i Stream Assessment 1990). 

3.2.2 Soils 

According to Soils Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai and Lanai, State 

of Hawaii (August 1972) prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service), the expansion 

project parcels are described as follows. 

Parcel 1 is 12 acres and contains approximately 3 acres of beach sand and loose 

windblown sand from the nearby beach, derived from coral and seashells. The remaining 

9 acres of the property are under the Kilauea River and the soils have not been examined. 

Parcels 2 and 5 are 20 and 15 acres, respectively. They are ocean bluffs classified 

entirely as “rough broken land” containing steep slopes of 40-70 percent. These slopes 

are broken by numerous intermittent drainage channels, with soils 20-60 inches deep over 

soft, weathered rock. 

Parcel 3 is 162 acres with the vast majority of its soils characterized as rough broken land 

with slopes less steep than the coastal bluffs but still within the 40-70 percent slope 

range. Approximately 10 percent of Parcel 3 is alluvial plain near the river’s mouth and 

contains soils of three different classifications. These soils are characterized as 

Mokule‘ia fine sand loam, Mokule‘ia clay loam, and Lihu‘e silty clay – the last being 

found near the river’s last major bend to the west before it empties into the sea. 

Approximately 2,000 feet up the west bank from the rivermouth, Hanalei silty clay is 

present on approximately 1 acre. 

Parcel 4 consists of 5 acres divided into two soil types. The first is ocean washed lightcolored sand derived from coral and seashells, gravel, and cobble beach. The second is 

dune land with low mounds, hills, and ridges of loose windblown sand (coral and 

seashell), actively shifting or stabilized by vegetation. 

Parcel 6 is much like the soils of Parcel 3, characterized by rough, steep land broken by 

numerous drainage channels. Slopes are 40 to 79 percent. The soils are 20 inches to 

more than 60 inches deep, covering soft weathered rock fragments mixed with the soil 

material. 

3.2.3 Geology

Kaua‘i consists of a single great shield volcano that is deeply eroded and partly veneered 

with much later volcanic activity. The shield volcano was built by the extrusion of lava 

of the Waimea Canyon Volcanic Series during the late Pliocene Epoch. Following the 

cessation of the main volcanic-building event, there was renewed volcanic activity with 
19 

the extrusion of the post-erosional Koloa Volcanic Series. Rocks of the Koloa Volcanic 

Series are generally characterized as thick flows of dense basalt extruded from dozens of 

vents and are associated with pyroclastic materials that form low cinder cones at the vent 

(Blay and Siemers 2004). 

Located on the north shore, Kilauea Point is a volcanic cone complex that was formed 

later during the vents of Koloa Volcanics (3.65-0.52 million years ago). Crater Hill is the 

highest peak, rising 560 feet from sea level. Due to coastal erosion, only about one-third 

of the Kilauea volcano complex still exists but at one time probably had a diameter of at 

least 1.2 miles (Blay and Siemers 2004). 

3.2.4 Climate

The dominant trade winds come off the Pacific Ocean from the northeast and help 

moderate the island’s temperature extremes. The trade winds occur approximately 70 

percent of the year, bringing warm tropical air containing large quantities of moisture to 

Kaua‘i where they encounter the steep mountainous slopes of Kaua‘i’s northern and 

eastern regions. These moisture-laden trade winds are forced by the topography to rise 

quickly and cool. Cooler air holds less water vapor therefore condensation occurs in the 

form of clouds and precipitation begins. 

The windward sides (northern and eastern) of Kaua‘i experience heavier rainfall than the 

relatively dry southern and western (leeward) sides of the island. Average annual rainfall 

in the town of Waimea is only 12-15 inches, while Kilauea experiences an average of 50-

60 inches. 

Temperatures during the winter months on Kaua‘i range from 65-81°F (18-27°C). 

Summer temperatures range from 72-88°F (22-31°C). 

3.2.5 Hydrology 

The Kilauea River is located in the Hanalei District of the north shore of Kaua‘i. It 

begins as two main streams coming off the nearby mountain ridge called Kamo‘okoa and 

from Mount Namahana. These streams are called the Halualani and the Pu‘u Ka Ele 

streams and converge southwest of the Refuge. In a similar manner on the east side of 

the Kamo‘okoa Ridge, small streams feed the Pohokuhonu Stream which converges with 

a portion of the Pu‘u Ka Ele stream. 

Approximately 1-mile “mauka” (to the mountain side) of Kuhio Highway, the Halaulani 

and Pohokuhonu Streams converge to form the Kilauea River that flows under the main 

highway toward the ocean at Kahili Bay. Two waterfalls exist along the Kilauea River, 

on the “makai” or ocean side of the highway. The first is called the Slippery Slide and is 

located about a quarter-mile north of the highway, out of the proposed acquisition area. 

This waterfall drops approximately 25 feet to a pool below that is a popular recreational 

attraction. Just downstream of the Slippery Slide, the proposed expansion acreage 

begins. 
20 

Kilauea Falls is one of the widest waterfalls on the island and drops 50 feet to a large 

pool below. This falls is located a quarter-mile downstream from the Slippery Slide. 

Below Kilauea Falls, the Kilauea River winds another 1.5 miles until it empties into 

Kahili Bay at Kahili Beach, also known as Rock Quarry beach. 

In addition to the two main streams that converge south of the main highway, the 

Kaluamakua and Wailapa are relatively small streams that join with Kilauea River from 

the eastern side. They both originate from near the Ka Loko reservoir, just outside the 

Moloa‘a Forest Reserve and feed into the river closer to its mouth, on the ocean side of 

Kuhio highway. 

3.3 Social and Economic Setting 

In this section, the social and economic setting is described including the local population 

and visitation in the community, employment and the local economy, and tax revenues. 

3.3.1 Population and Local Community 

The most recent U.S. Census Bureau census taken in the year 2000 showed a population 

of 58,463 full-time residents on the island of Kaua‘i, including 2,092 residents in the 

town of Kilauea. 

In 2003-2004, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a community survey of the 

town of Kilauea in conjunction with the Refuge’s alternative transportation study. There 

were 431 Kilauea residents, most of whom were full-time residents, who responded to 

this survey, headed by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance program (PASA) at 

the USGS Fort Collins Science Center (Sexton et al 2005) (see Table 3-1). Based on the 

2000 census population of 2,092 residents, the response rate was approximately 21 

percent. The detailed survey gives us more detail about the makeup of the Kilauea 

community. 

The Refuge, with its beautiful vistas, historical lighthouse, and large seabird nesting 

colonies, attracts approximately 500,000 visitors per year. According to the PASA 

community survey, visitors substantially affect the community both positively and 

negatively. Local residents recognize the Refuge as an important place for people of 

current and future generations to spend time but residents are also concerned about traffic 

patterns and the volume of traffic. 

Visitors passing through town stop to purchase a range of items including gas, food, and 

gifts, which helps to support many local businesses. However, the large volume of rental 

vehicles adds traffic congestion and lowers traffic safety in Kilauea. 
21 

Table 3. Demographics of Kilauea Town Residents (n=431 respondents) (Source: 

USGS 2005). 

Demographics Community Residents 

Male 40% 

Female 60% 

Average Age 50 

Worked Full or Part Time 81% 

Retired 16% 

Highest Education Level Some college or technical school 

Mean Household Income $50,000 – 74,999 per year 

Race 

 White 68.2% 

 American Indian 2.1% 

 Black or African American 0.7% 

 Asian 20.50% 

 Chinese (3.5%) 

 Japanese (7.9%) 

 Korean (0%) 

 Filipino (7.9%) 

 Vietnamese (0%) 

 Asian Indian (0%) 

 Other Asian (1.2%) 

 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 8.6% 

Years lived on Kaua‘i 22 

Generations lived on Kaua‘i 2.1 

Years lived in Kilauea 17 

Full-time residents 98% 

Part-time residents 2% 

1Race percentages reflect the number of responses not the number of respondents; respondents could check 

more than one race. 

3.3.2 Employment and Local Economy 

Table 3-1 illustrates 81 percent of Kilauea residents either work full or part-time and 16 

percent are retired. The average annual household income ranged from $50,000-74,999. 

Many of the local jobs are in businesses that purchase extra labor and supplies to meet the 

increase in demand for additional services desired by the island’s tourists. 

According to the USGS study, the jobs and income generated by the Refuge represents 

approximately 0.3 percent of the total income and 0.5 percent of the total employment on 

the island of Kaua‘i. These numbers represent roughly $8.9 million in income and 184 

jobs supporting the island of Kaua‘i that are directly attributable to Refuge visitors. 
22 

3.3.3 Tax Revenues 

The majority of the parcels considered in the Refuge expansion project are lands that are 

currently zoned either agricultural or conservation and are therefore assessed at $6.95 per 

$1,000 Net Assessed Valuation (see Table 4). 

Table 4. 2006 Tax Rates for the County of Kaua‘i

(Per $1,000 Net Assessed Valuation) Building Land

Homestead $3.44 $4.00 

Single Family Residential $4.30 $4.00 

Apartment $7.95 $6.95 

Commercial $7.95 $6.95 

Industrial $7.95 $6.95 

Agricultural $4.30 $6.95 

Conservation $4.30 $6.95 

Hotel And Resort $7.95 $6.95 

Source: www.kauai.gov (County of Kaua‘i, State of Hawai‘i tax rates) 

3.4 Historic and Present Land Use, Development, and Public Use Setting

Historic and present land use, development, and public use are covered in this section. 

3.4.1 Historic Use 

At the time of Captain Cook’s arrival to the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, Kaua‘i’s lowland 

ecosystem was significantly altered by well over 1,000 years of Polynesian/ Hawaiian 

settlement (Kane 1997). The Polynesians are believed to have discovered Hawai‘i during 

open water exploration from the Marquesas and Tahitian Islands sometime before 1,900 

years ago (Kane 1997). The Polynesians brought about 27 species of useful plants to 

Hawai‘i, which included taro (kalo) (Colocasia esculenta) – their most important crop, 

breadfruit (‘ulu) (Artocarpus altilis), ti (ki) (Cordyline fruticosa), paper mulberry 

(wauke) (Broussonetia papyrifera), coconut palms (Cocos nucifera), sweet potato (‘uala) 

(Ipomoea batatas), yams (uhi) (Dioscorea spp.), banana (mai‘a) (Musa acuminata

hybrids), turmeric (‘olena) (Curcuma domestica), sugar cane (ko) (Saccharum 

officinarum), shampoo ginger (‘awapuhi) (Zingiber zerumbet), candlenut tree (kukui) 

(Aleurites moluccana), kava (‘awa) (Piper methysticum), noni (Morinda citrifolia), and 

other edible and useful plant species. The People of Old (Ka Po‘e Kahiko) as they are 

sometimes called, preferred to cultivate fertile valleys with permanent water sources, 

such as the Kilauea River valley. They also used fire to encourage growth of thatching 

grasses and cut trees for firewood, commerce in sandalwood, and for construction 

purposes (Kirsh 1982). 
23 

Along with plants, the Polynesians brought pigs, dogs, and fowl. These animals, 

especially pigs, have had a very negative impact on the natural flora and fauna of the 

Hawaiian Islands. They introduced the relatively small (45 pounds) Polynesian pig (Sus 

scrofa) that was later completely replaced by hybrids of the smaller pig with larger 

European breeds introduced to the archipelago after Captain Cook’s arrival. Feral pigs 

have direct impacts by destroying understory vegetation, spreading alien weeds, eating 

ground-nesting birds and eggs (such as seabirds), and creating mosquito-breeding areas 

from their rooting and wallowing. They consume groundcover plants and significantly 

contribute to erosion, stream sedimentation, and sediment transfer to the ocean that can 

smother coral reefs. 

Accompanying the intentional introductions came stowaways such as the Polynesian rat 

(Rattus exulans), which did major damage by eating ground-nesting birds and their eggs 

(Finey 2003); geckos and skinks (families Geckonidae and Scincidae); land snails 

(Lamellaxis gracilis); and different arthropods such as rat parasites (Laelaps 

hawaiiensis). 

In 1826, the Southern house mosquito (Culex quinquefasciatus) was introduced to Hawaii 

from Mexico by the whaling vessel, Wellington, while replenishing their water barrels in 

freshwater streams on Maui. This introduction has had a devastating effect on endemic 

bird species by spreading avian malaria and avian pox (Henshaw 1902). 

The historic settlement of Kilauea is described in Kilauea Point Lighthouse: The Landfall 

Beacon on the Orient Run. In 1863, Charles Titcomb purchased over 3,000 acres of land 

in Kilauea from King Kamehameha IV and became one of the first foreigners to own 

land in the Hawaiian Islands. Charles Titcomb became the founder of the original 

Kilauea Sugar Plantation Company, where he orchestrated large-scale land clearing for 

the production of sugar cane. The plantation was in operation until 1971, but only the 

relatively flat areas went under cultivation. The Kilauea River Valley was not planted 

with sugar cane, but stone walls found in the valley indicate that taro and possibly rice 

were grown there in earlier times (Aiken 1988). 

3.4.2 Present Land Use, Development, and Public Uses 

Limited land use is currently taking place within the 234-acres study area (see Figure 2). 

Site visits by our staff revealed that there are no residential or commercial structures on 

any of the parcels. All the parcels except for Parcel 3 (zoned improved residential) are 

zoned agricultural with portions of Parcels 2 and 3 (the steep slopes) zoned conservation. 

Parcel 1 – The Kilauea River mouth parcel is privately owned and undeveloped. Most of 

the parcel is under water but this tract includes a portion of sandspit at the River mouth 

that is used by beach goers, picnickers, and occasional illegal campers. The River is 

frequently used by recreational fishermen, kayakers, and swimmers. 

Parcel 2 – This parcel is comprised of steep coastal bluffs. Approximately one acre has 

been impacted by off-road motorcycle use – an activity that occurs without the 
24 

landowner’s permission. People also trespass on this parcel to camp. It is common to see 

transient people camping on the upper elevations of the beaches for an extended time. 

Parcel 3 – The property contains no current structures or facilities. Portions of this parcel 

are mowed. This parcel contains Kilauea Falls, one of the largest waterfalls in the State. 

Trespassing on this parcel is common. People walk to the Falls and hike on other 

portions of the parcel to swim in the pool below. A limited number of kayakers (an 

estimated 5-10 per week) paddle the Kilauea River, with some of these people leaving 

their boats, where the Kilauea River becomes impassable, and hiking up to the Kilauea 

Falls, located approximately 1/4-mile upstream. This area is used occasionally with 

permission of the landowner for commercial video production including commercials and 

motion pictures. 

Numerous foot trails exist through this parcel from various points along the unimproved 

road to the Kilauea River. People without permission to enter the land often enter the 

property from above and below the Kilauea Falls. 

There are 35 home sites located in the town of Kilauea with property lines that abut 

Parcel 3. A majority of the private landowners have encroached on this parcel mainly by 

extending their backyards over time. Some of the encroachment is in the form of mowed 

grass areas, some encroachment is by the extension of home gardens, some is due to a 

combination of both mowing and gardening, and another source of encroachment has 

been through landowners’ efforts to create a better view. 

A previous landowner had erected a chain-link fence along this property line but, 

according to residents, the fence did not stand for long. Remnants of the fence can be 

seen today along the bluff top. 

 

Parcel 4 – No structures or facilities exist on this parcel. This area receives the most 

public use of all the parcels in the study area. Parcel 4 contains an existing public foot 

trail easement to the popular Kahili (Rock Quarry) beach. Parcel 4 is comprised of sand 

dunes mainly covered with invasive nonnative ironwood trees (Casuarina equisetifolia) 

and Christmasberry shrubs (Schinus terebinthifolius). Trespass is an issue on Parcel 4. 

The sand dunes and beaches are illegally used by off-road vehicle enthusiasts who enter 

the property to ride motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and trucks without the landowner’s 

permission. On a regular basis, new vehicle tracks are found throughout the majority of 

the 5.25-acre parcel despite ongoing efforts by the landowner to construct blockades, post 

no-trespass signs, and replace vandalized blockades. 

 

Kahili Beach is a popular beach for Kilauea residents and tourists. Surfers, beach-goers, 

picnickers, etc. access the area by two means. The first access is on the eastern side of 

Kilauea River, Wilapa Road leads to a County-maintained dirt road that terminates at a 

small parking lot. A designated County public easement provides foot access between 

the parking lot and the beach. At times (such as full moons), the dune area is illegally 

visited by partiers and campers. The second entrance is from the western side of the 

River on an unimproved road that leads to the beach from the town of Kilauea. Rain will 
25 

cause this road to be very slippery and riddled with gullies and potholes. This road is 

mainly used by resident surfers and anglers as it terminates near a local surf break and 

coastal fishing area on the Refuge. A terminal portion of this road is within the current 

Refuge boundary. Both these access points will remain open to the public and neither 

road is fully contained within the proposed acquisition parcels. 

Community stewardship projects are currently in progress on the 5 acres of Kahili dunes 

(Parcel 4). The Kaua‘i Public Land Trust, in cooperation with the Kilauea Neighborhood 

Association, currently conducts monthly beach and dune clean-up efforts and has 

expressed interest in conducting native dune restoration with the Service if this area were 

to become part of the Refuge System. 

 

Parcel 5 – This 15-acre parcel is located immediately west of the Refuge and consists of 

steep ocean bluffs. Surfers and beach-goers sometimes cross the parcel to reach the 

beach below. Transients have been known to illegally camp on the property for extended 

periods of time. Although some members of the community have expressed their belief 

that a public access easement (foot trail) to the beach exists across this parcel, this issue 

remains unresolved between the landowner and the County Planning Department. 

Parcel 6 – This parcel is approximately 3 acres, located on the eastern bank of the 

Kilauea River, and is predominantly covered with thick stands of nonnative hau bush 

(Hibiscus tiliaceus). There are no structures or facilities built on the property. Parcel 6 

was recently purchased by the Kilauea Public Land Trust to be transferred to the County 

of Kauai. The Service hopes to manage this parcel as part of the Refuge under a 

cooperative agreement with the County of Kauai. 

3.5 Archaeological and Historic Resources 

In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a records 

search was conducted at the State of Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Office located in 

Honolulu in May 2005. The search included a review of all recorded prehistoric and 

historic archaeological sites within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed expansion area. 

The file search shows that four cultural resource surveys have been completed within the 

vicinity of the proposed expansion area. These surveys were conducted in 1996, 1997, 

2000, and 2001, resulting in the recordation of nine cultural resources and notation of 

three sites recorded in 1928 and 1929. Of the 12 cultural resource sites, 1 site, a possible 

burial, is located within the expansion area. Three sites that are in closest proximity to, 

but outside of the expansion area, include a historic burial site and agricultural 

complexes. 

3.5.1 Previously Recorded Sites 

Previously recorded sites in closest proximity to the expansion area include a historic 

burial site, agricultural sites, and a heiau, as described below. 
26 

The earliest archaeological study was conducted by T.G. Thrum in 1906, it focused on 

Kaua‘i heiau sites. The Kipapa Heiau, was recorded in 1928-1929 by W.C. Bennett and 

is described as follows: 

“Kipapa Heiau was situated on the end of the first bluff east of Kilauea River in 

Kahili section. It was described by Thrum as “A large heiau of some 300 by over 

100 feet in size, paved, walls five feet high, standing in cane field in partial 

ruins.” Since that time, stones have been removed.” [Bennett 1931] 

This site is located outside of the proposed expansion area, to the east. According to 

information cited from personal communication in the cultural resource survey report by 

Burgett et al. (2000), the Kipapa Heiau was reportedly destroyed. 

Of the four cultural resource survey reports, the survey conducted by Burgett et al. (2000) 

recorded three sites that are also located outside of, but in close proximity to the proposed 

expansion area. These sites include: 

• A large, pre-contact and early post-contact dryland agricultural site located on the 

slopes above Kilauea River. Features were studied and described. Based on 

subsurface testing, no significant cultural deposits were observed, and thus no 

further work was deemed necessary. 

• A possible burial identified by the landowner. The exact location of the site is 

unknown, but is suggested by the landowner to be located near the base of a slope 

of a natural bench. 

• A late prehistoric/early historic agricultural site consisting of berms separating the 

remnants of pond fields that were once used for the cultivation of taro and rice. If 

development is to occur within this site, data recovery (i.e., subsurface auguring) 

to locate pond field deposits and surface mapping of extant features was 

recommended. 

A preliminary records search by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) found no 

sites currently listed in the National Register of Historic Sites in the project area. 

A site visit was conducted with the SHPO on May 11, 2005, on Parcel 3. According to 

the SHPO, very little is known about the historical uses of this parcel. No extensive 

archaeological surveys have been conducted in the study area because extensive 

development has never been proposed. 

One house site and adjacent taro lo‘i terraces were identified in a lowland portion of 

Parcel 3. An associated ditch may be present but no clear rock lining of a ditch was 

observed. Other lo‘i terraces most likely exist at higher elevations in the large valley on 

the southwestern end of the parcel, but no surveys have been performed to confirm. 
27 

3.5.2 Archaeological and Historical Resources Preservation Recommendations

Given that the proposed 234 acres of expansion area contain strata considered to have a 

high probability for locating cultural resources, it is recommended that an extensive field 

survey be completed by a professional archaeologist. All newly recorded significant sites 

would be protected through avoidance measures and/or preservation plans. 

3.6 Biological Resources 

This section describes the biological resources associated with the project. 

3.6.1 Natural Communities 

The ecology of Kaua‘i’s lowlands has been severely altered. The massive biotic 

transformation is apparent from the general lack of native plants and animals and the 

predominance of exotics in nearly all low-elevation areas except for a few relatively 

undisturbed beach strands. The proposed expansion area is no exception. The intentional 

and accidental introduction of alien plants and animals to Kaua‘i has been ongoing for 

over 1,000 years. Significant changes occurred from Polynesian settlement, but since the 

arrival of Europeans an estimated 12,000 plant species have been introduced to the 

Hawaiian Islands, compared with the 27 or so that the Polynesians brought with them. A 

botanical survey conducted in the Kilauea River Valley in 2005 identified 42 species of 

nonnative plants and 1 native species. 

 

Currently, feral and nonferal dogs and cats are having a highly negative impact on native 

ground-nesting birds throughout the island. The staff at the Refuge has documented 

numerous incidents of seabird and Nene kills that appear to be from both domestic dogs 

and feral cats. 

Accompanying the intentional faunal introductions were accidental species introductions 

such as the Polynesian rat, which due to its high reproductive rate, had a devastating 

effect on ground-nesting birds, native land snails, and some tree species (Burney 2001). 

Other stowaways included the black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), 

house mouse (Mus musculus), various geckos and skinks, land snails, various arthropods 

such as rat parasites, and mosquitoes (genus Culex, Aedes, and Wyeomyia). The 

introduction of avian malaria from mosquitoes has had an enormous detrimental impact 

on the Hawaiian endemic bird populations. 

It is in this context of “highly disturbed” that one must view the “natural” communities of 

the Kilauea River Valley and the other parcels in this proposed project area. The study 

area consists of six parcels containing habitats of the following types: sea bluffs, coastal 

dunes, tidally influenced riverine estuary, aquatic, riparian, and lowland forest. 

The sea bluffs are vegetated with mostly exotic plants, which include grasses, various 

weedy plants and trees such as false kamani (Terminalia catappa), coconut palms, and 
28 

ironwood. Native vegetation includes hala (Pandanus spp.), ‘akoko (Chamaeyce 

celastroides), and scattered milo trees (Thespesia populnea). 

These sea bluffs were probably once used by nesting seabirds, but human-related 

disturbance and the overgrowth of invasive vegetation have rendered these bluffs 

relatively unusable as nesting habitat. 

Cliff face seeps (a type of microhabitat where water seeps from the cliff) are home to 

sedges, crustaceans, and damselflies that are all endemic to this part of Kaua‘i. 

The coastal dunes are vegetated with exotic ironwood trees, Christmasberry, and hau 

bush, but also have some native species coverage by milo, kou (Cordia subcordata), and 

pohuehue (beach morning glory) (Ipomoea pescaprae). 

The riverine estuary habitat is covered almost exclusively by exotics; predominantly hau 

bush, Java plum (Syzgium cumini), avocado (Persea americana), mango (Mangifera 

indica), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), and many species of invasive grasses – mainly California 

grass (Brachiaria mutica). 

The lowland forest is heavily dominated by invasive plant species. A recent botanical 

survey documented 47 nonnative species and 1 native species (See Appendix B). The 

dominant types of invasive plants are Java plum, Christmasberry, rose apple (Syzygium 

jambos), African tulip (Spathodea campanulata), four or five varieties of bamboo 

(Bambusa spp.), and avocado. 

The native aquatic resources of the Kilauea River appear to be more intact than the 

terrestrial environment. The River supports a variety of native creatures such as fish, 

mollusks, and shrimp. Five species of native gobies are found here, they are: ‘o‘opu 

nakea (Awaous guamensis) which migrates through the area to spawn just above the 

Kilauea estuary, ‘o‘opu naniha (Stenogobius genivitattus), and the sleeper ‘o‘opu akupa 

(Eleotris sandwichensis) both of which are residents of the estuary and also spawn there. 

The gobies ‘o‘opu nopili (Sicyopterus stimpsoni) and ‘o‘opu alamo‘o (Lentipes concolor)

are known to migrate through the estuary. 

These ‘o‘opu species evolved from saltwater ancestors in the goby family. Although they 

live mainly in freshwater streams as adults, their fertilized eggs wash downstream, and 

young ‘o‘opu must spend the first several months of their lives in the ocean. Because of 

their need to migrate upstream, their pelvic fins are fused together to form a suction cup 

which helps them fasten to rocks, the stream bottom, and even climb waterfalls. 

The Kilauea estuary serves as a juvenile nursery ground for commercially important fish 

such as striped mullet (‘ama‘ama) (Mugil cephalus), bonefish (‘o‘io) (Albula vulpes), 

milk fish (‘ama) (Chanos chanos), and jack (papi‘o) (Caranx spp.). It also supports 

freshwater prawn ‘opae‘oeha‘a (Macrobrachium grandimanus), that live most of their 

life cycle in the estuary and shrimp ‘opae kala‘ole (Atyoida bisulcata), which migrate 
29 

through to freshwater. The freshwater mussel hihiwai (Neritina granosa) and the snail 

hapawai (Neritina vespertina) are also found in the Kilauea estuary. 

The Kilauea River is also home to various nonnative fish species such as koi, goldfish, 

swordtail, large- and small- mouthed bass, and tilapia. 

3.6.2 Endangered Species 

Hawaiian Duck – (Koloa) (Anas wyvilliana) 

The Koloa is a federally-listed endangered species endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and 

is closely related to the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Hawaiian ducks breed year-round, 

but mainly from March through June (Engilis 2002). In Kaua‘i lowlands, these ducks 

form pair bonds between November and May, and then disperse to a variety of nesting 

habitats ranging from montane streams to lowland wetlands, such as the Hanalei National 

Wildlife Refuge. They nest on the ground, near water, with a clutch size ranging from 2-

10 eggs that are incubated for approximately 30 days. Most clutches are hatched from 

April to June (USFWS 2005). 

Koloa historically use a wide variety of natural wetland habitats for nesting and feeding, 

including freshwater marshes, flooded grasslands, coastal ponds, streams, riverine pools, 

and forest swamplands. Artificial wetlands such as taro patches supplement natural 

habitats and can provide feeding opportunity for the Hawaiian Duck in the absence of 

human disturbance. Koloa are highly susceptible to human disturbance and will not 

tolerate human presence in close proximity, or even within the same wetland or field. 

Hawaiian Ducks exhibit interisland movement but dispersal tendencies are still unclear 

(Engilis 2002). They are opportunistic feeders and consume snails, insect larvae, 

earthworms, tadpoles, grass seed, green algae, and parts of wetland plants, seeds and 

leaves (Swedberg 1967). Feeding in wetlands and streams typically occurs in water less 

than 9 inches deep (Engilis 2002). 

The current Koloa population estimate is 2,000 on Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau with 

approximately 2,500 total in the Hawaiian Islands (Engilis 2005). Accurate population 

estimates are difficult for this species because it is estimated that 90 percent of Kaua‘i’s 

population has been displaced to the remaining undisturbed habitat – along extensive 

upland stream systems between 1,000 and 4,000 feet, the elevations of making everything 

but helicopter surveys impractical. 

The primary cause for the historical decline in Koloa numbers is loss of wetland habitat 

and illegal hunting. Other factors include predation by introduced animals (e.g., rats, 

dogs, cats), hybridization (mating with other duck species), and invasion of wetlands by 

alien plants, disease, and sometimes environmental contamination. Currently the major 

limiting factors affecting the recovery of this species are loss of habitat and hybridization 

with feral Mallards (USFWS 2005). 
30 

Hawaiian Ducks have been observed on numerous occasions along the Kilauea River, 

within the proposed acquisition area. 

Hawaiian Coot - (‘Alae ‘ke‘oke‘o) (Fulica alai) 

The Hawaiian Coot is a federally-listed endangered species endemic to the Hawaiian 

Islands. It was once considered a subspecies of the American Coot (Fulica americana) 

but is now regarded as a distinct species (AOU 1993). It is considered nonmigratory and 

presumably originated from stray migrants from continental North America (Brisbin et al. 

2002). It usually has a completely white frontal shield above the bill that is distinctly 

larger than that of the American coot but a small percentage have maroon frontal shields. 

Hawaiian Coots nest on open fresh water and brackish ponds, taro ponds, shallow 

reservoirs, irrigation ditches, and in small openings of marsh vegetation (Shallenberger 

1977). They construct floating nests of aquatic vegetation from buoyant stems. Nesting 

occurs primarily from March through September. Water levels are critical for nest 

initiation and success. Weedy taro ponds may provide good nesting habitat because they 

are shallow and have limited water fluctuation compared to other sites (VanderWerf 

2005). Clutch size ranges from 3-10 eggs with an incubation period of about 25 days 

(Shallenberger 1977). 

Coots are generalist feeders, obtaining food near the surface of the water, diving, or 

foraging in mud or sand. They also graze on upland grassy sites. Food items include 

seeds and leaves of aquatic plants, various invertebrates including snails, crustaceans, and 

aquatic or terrestrial insects, tadpoles, and small fish (Schwartz and Schwartz 1949). 

Over the last five years, Statewide data shows the coot population on Kaua‘i as having 

averaged 2,100 birds, fluctuating between 1,500 and 3,000 birds with some of this 

variation due to dispersal to Ni‘ihau in wet years (USFWS 2005). Hawaiian coots are 

common at the Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge. 

Hawaiian Coots have been observed in the Kilauea River and estuary on numerous 

occasions (Zaun 2005). 

Hawaiian Gallinule or Moorhen (‘Alae ‘ula) (Gallinula chloropus sandicensis) 

The Hawaiian Moorhen is a federally-listed threatened endemic subspecies of the 

Common Moorhen (AOU 1998). This subspecies is nonmigratory and presumably 

originated from stray migrant birds from continental North America (Nagata 1983). 

There is no evident plumage, soft body coloration, or measurement differences from 

forms in North America. They resemble the Hawaiian Coot, but are noticeably smaller, 

possess a red shield over their red and yellow bill, and have a white flank stripe 

(Schwartz and Schwartz 1949). 

The Hawaiian Moorhen is territorial with territory size ranging from 9,182 to 26,006 sq. 

feet (Smith and Polhemus 2003). Nesting occurs year-round but most activity occurs 

from March through August and is influenced by water levels and vegetation growth 

(Shallenberger 1977). Most nests are built inconspicuously within dense emergent 
31 

vegetation over shallow water, generally less than 24 inches deep. Nests are constructed 

of floating wetland vegetation folded over into a platform nest (Shallenberger 1977). 

Clutch size averages 4.9 eggs on Kaua‘i (n=87 nests) (Chang 1990) and incubation 

periods range from 19-22 days. Chicks are able to walk and swim soon after birth but are 

dependent on the parents for several weeks (Byrd and Zeillemaker 1981). 

Moorhens are secretive and prefer foraging in dense emergent vegetation. They are good 

swimmers and often cross open water to reach foraging sites. Their food items consist of 

algae, aquatic insects, and mollusks (Schwartz and Schwartz 1949). Grass seeds, various 

plant parts, and other invertebrates are probably included in the Moorhen’s diet. 

The population estimate for this subspecies is nebulous due to their highly secretive 

behavior and the inaccuracy of current survey methodology: more time-intensive point 

counts are needed to accurately assess the population (Chang 1990). The average 

Moorhen count on Kaua‘i over the last 5 years has been 314 birds (HDLNR 1976-2003). 

The Moorhen is known to use the Kilauea River in low numbers, with winter adult 

population counts ranging from 3-6 individuals over the last 5 years (USFWS 2005). 

Hawaiian Stilts (Ae‘o) (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) 

The Hawaiian Stilt is a distinct subspecies (AOU 1998) of stilt that is part of a 

superspecies complex of four other stilts (Robinson 1999). It is a slender black and white 

wading bird with distinctive long, pink legs. It is distinctive from its North American 

cousins by having black extending lower on the forehead was well as around to the sides 

of the neck, and it exhibits a longer bill, tarsus (lower leg), and tail (Coleman 1981; 

Robinson 1999). 

Stilt nesting season normally extends from mid-February through August, but varies 

among years, perhaps depending on water levels (USFWS 2005). Stilts usually lay 3-4 

eggs that are incubated for approximately 24 days (Chang 1990). Chicks leave the nest 

within 24 hours of hatching and may remain with the parents for several months 

(Coleman 1981). 

Hawaiian Stilts use a variety of aquatic habitats but are limited by water depth and 

vegetation cover. Stilts require early successional marshlands with water depths less than 

9 inches and favor exposed tidal flats or perennial vegetation that is limited and low 

growing such as nonnative grasses (USFWS 2005). 

Feeding typically occurs in shallow flooded wetlands with water depths of 5 inches or 

less for optimal foraging. They eat a wide variety of invertebrates and other aquatic 

organisms such as water boatmen, beetles, brine fly larvae, polychaete worms, small 

crabs, fish, and tadpoles (Shallenberger 1977). 

Current statewide population estimates of the Hawaiian Stilts are approximately 1,350 

(HDLNR 1976-2003). The current census methods appear to provide accurate counts of 

stilts at each site (Chang 1990). The Hawaiian Stilt has not been recently observed on 
32 

any of the parcels within this expansion project area. Suitable nesting and foraging 

habitat is most likely not currently available; however, with proposed wetland 

development and management regimens, suitable habitat would be available. 

The conservation goal of achieving long-term survival and recovery (and delisting from 

the Federal endangered species list) would be accomplished by maintaining minimum 

population numbers and self-sustaining breeding populations at multiple sites on multiple 

islands. All four species of waterbirds would most likely benefit from the addition of this 

federally protected and managed wetland to the Refuge. Water levels and vegetative 

cover can be manipulated in a manner to provide optimal conditions for feeding and 

nesting for each of the four Hawaiian waterbirds. In addition, protection of this area from 

threats such as predators and habitat destruction will aid in the recovery of these 

endangered species. 

 

Hawaiian Goose (Nene) (Branta sandvicensis) 

The Nene was listed by the Service as an endangered species in 1967 and had been 

extirpated from Kaua‘i due to habitat loss, illegal hunting, and predation by alien 

mammals. Nenes, once numbering fewer than 50 birds, have recovered to a population 

of approximately 1,300 today. They were reintroduced to Kaua‘i in 1991 with the aid of 

a State-sponsored captive propagation program. The first of three releases occurred on 

the Refuge in 1991. By 1994, 38 Nene had been released on the Refuge. The Refuge 

was the chosen reintroduction site because it is fenced with predator proof fencing and 

maintains an active predator control program. 

Currently, the Refuge hosts about one-fourth of the world’s population of Nene, and the 

population at the Refuge is over ten-fold what it was in 1994. Additional high quality 

Nene habitat is required to allow these birds to disperse from the existing Refuge 

boundary. 

This expansion project proposes to implement Refuge management activities to enhance 

Nene habitat, control invasive species, and minimize human-related disturbances by 

providing an additional 15-30 acres of suitable Nene foraging, roosting, and nesting sites 

to assist in Nene recovery. 

Newell’s Shearwater (‘A‘o) (Puffinus auricularis newelli) 

Endemic to the Hawaiian Islands, the Newell’s Shearwater breeds on the islands of 

Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i, and Moloka‘i. Newell’s Shearwater is a federally-listed threatened 

seabird species. It may be found in the open tropical seas and offshore waters near their 

island breeding grounds from April through November. It nests in excavated burrows on 

steep forested mountain slopes but at least two nests have been successfully established 

on the Refuge (Byrd 1984). 

Hawaiian Hoary Bat (‘Ope‘ape‘a) (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) 

The Hawaiian hoary bat is considered an endemic subspecies and is federally-listed as 

endangered. Their population status is not well understood but they are frequently 

observed on Kaua‘i. Hoary bats roost in the foliage of trees. They leave the roost around 
33 

dusk, moving to foraging sites in search of flying insects. Bats are most often seen 

foraging in open areas, near edges of native forests, and over open water and bays. 

Hawaiian hoary bats often give birth to twins (Beletsky 2000). Threats to this bat include 

habitat destruction, direct and indirect effects of pesticides, introduced insects, and 

disease. The Hawaiian hoary bat is the only existing native terrestrial mammal known 

from the Hawaiian Archipelago. It has been seen in the project area of Kilauea and quite 

likely uses the Kilauea River estuary and associated areas for foraging and roosting. 

3.6.3 Other Species 

 

The Laysan Albatross, a Service Bird of Conservation Concern species, only began to 

recolonize Kaua‘i in the 1970s and have had remarkable success on the Refuge. Each 

year, 75-80 nesting pairs come to the Refuge to raise their young. These birds attempt to 

nest at a few other locations along the north shore of Kaua‘i but have limited success due 

to attacks by dogs and other human related problems. The Refuge works cooperatively 

with the U.S. Navy in attempts to relocate Laysan Albatross from the Pacific Missile 

Range Facility to the Refuge in order to reduce collisions with Navy aircraft and increase 

the Laysan Albatross population. 

Proposed habitat restoration and management for Nene in the Kilauea valley would 

benefit Laysan Albatross by providing additional grasslands suitable for nesting. 

Other native seabirds found in the area include the Red-tailed Tropicbird (Koa‘e ‘ula), 

White-tailed Tropicbird (Koa‘e kea), Wedge-tailed Shearwater (‘Ua‘u kani), Bulwer’s 

Petrel (‘Ou) (Buleria bulwerii), Great Frigatebird (‘Iwa) (Fregata minor), Red-footed 

Booby (‘A), and Brown Booby (‘A) (Sula leucogaster). Boobies are commonly seen in 

Kahili Bay and sometimes fish in the estuary. The upper canyon walls of the Kilauea 

River Valley may provide crevices for nesting White-tailed Tropicbirds which have been 

observed flying along these cliffs and entering crevices during the nesting season. 

 

Shorebirds that are relatively common in the area during the non-breeding season include 

the Pacific Golden-Plover (Kolea) (Pluvialis fulva), Wandering Tattler (‘Ulili) 

(Heteroscelus incanus), Ruddy Turnstone (‘Akekeke) (Arenaria interpres), and 

Sanderling (Hunakai) (Calidris alba).

Black-crowned Night Herons (‘Auku‘u) (Nycticorax nycticorax) are often seen in the 

marsh and stream, along with the common, nonnative Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis). 

Migratory waterfowl have not been observed using the Kilauea River but it is expected 

that occasional visitors such as Mallard, Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca), Scaup 

(Anthya spp.), Ring-necked Duck (Anthya collaris), or Northern Pintail (Koloa mapu) 

(Anas acuta) would use the estuary. 

Raptors species that are common to the area are the Hawaiian Owl (Pueo) (Asio flammeus 

sandwichensis) and the nonnative Barn Owl (Tyto alba). An occasional Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) has been sighted in the Kilauea Valley. 
34 

The most common nonnative bird species include: Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus), Cattle 

Egret, Barn Owl, Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis), Ring-necked Pheasant 

(Phasianus colchicus), Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), White-rumped Shama 

(Copsychus malabaricus), Japanese Bush-warbler (Cettia diphone), Japanese White-eye 

(Zosterops japonicus), Melodious Laughing-thrush (Garrulax canorus), Spotted Dove 

(Streptopelia chinensis), Zebra Dove (Geopelia striata), Northern Mockingbird (Mimus 

polyglottos), Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Red-crested Cardinal (Paroaria 

coronata), Red-whiskered Bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus), House Sparrow (Passer 

domesticus), Java Sparrow (Padda oryzivora), Chestnut Mannikin (Lonchura malacca), 

and Nutmeg Mannikin (Lonchura punctulata). 

Nonnative rodents include three species of rats (Rattus spp.): Polynesian rat, black rat, 

Norway rat; and the house mouse. 

Introduced amphibians and reptiles include the cane toad (Bufo marinus), bullfrog (Rana 

catesbeiana), green anole (Anolis carolinenis), brown anole (Anolis sagrei), snake-eyed 

skink (Cryptoblepharus poecilopleurus), metallic skink (Lampropholis delicata), moth 

skink (Lipinia noctua), morning gecko (Lepidodactylus lugubris), stump-toed gecko 

(Gehyra mutilata), tree gecko (Hemiphyllodactylus typus), Indo-Pacific gecko 

(Hemidactylus garnotii), and the house gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus). 

Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and feral cats (Felis domesticus) are present in the area along with 

uncontrolled domestic dogs (Canis domesticus) that commonly enter the project area. 
35 

CHAPTER 4. CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter assesses the environmental effects that would be expected to occur with the 

implementation of each proposed alternative. A summary of the consequences of all four 

alternatives is presented in Table 4-1. The consequences of two alternatives – the No 

Action and the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D) – are described in the narrative 

using biological, social, and economic factors relevant to the issues described throughout 

this document. Since the same habitat types in Alternatives B and C are also within 

Alternative D, the Service relies on the analysis for Alternative D to evaluate the 

significance of effects of implementing Alternatives B and C. 

Included in this chapter are brief discussions of conceptual management actions. These 

conceptual management actions are presented to give the reader an idea of the types of 

management actions that may be employed by the Service should certain habitat types be 

acquired and managed as part of the Refuge. 

4.1 Alternative A (No Action) 

The physical, biological, social, and economic consequences of not adding new land to 

the Refuge are described in this section. 

4.1.1 Effects on the Physical Environment 

The climatic, soil, and hydrological effects of not adding new land to the Refuge are 

discussed below. 

4.1.1.1 Climate and Soils 

Under Alternative A, development is expected to occur at a low enough density that 

minimal adverse effects on climate and soils are anticipated. A relatively small degree of 

soil erosion is expected as vegetation cover is removed at building sites. 

4.1.1.2 Hydrology and Water Resources 

The No Action Alternative would most likely result in river sedimentation due to soil 

erosion from anticipated building sites. The steepness of the river valley suggests that 

soil runoff is likely unless stringent controls are employed. Best management practices 

are required for construction projects, so sedimentation is not expected to be significant 

under Alternative A. 

Native aquatic biota may be negatively affected by the development of additional homes. 

Increased fertilizer, pesticide, and household chemical use runoff has the potential to 

adversely affect water quality in the Kilauea River. However, non-point source pollution 

controls could be limited if residents minimize these inputs. 
36 

4.1.2 Effects on the Biological Environment

Under Alternative A, habitats that currently support limited numbers of native 

endangered species such as the Hawaiian Coot, Moorhen, and Goose would likely remain 

in private ownership. These lands in private ownership may receive varying degrees of 

protection but the largest tract within the study area (162 acres, Parcel 3) is currently 

being considered for development. Loss and degradation of habitat due to development 

is a likely result of this alternative. Illegal off-road vehicle use and camping would likely 

continue to negatively impact wildlife habitat in the area. 

Secondary effects of the No Action Alternative may include the following effects on 

native species from future development: (1) increased predation on native wildlife due to 

the lack of active predator control; (2) increased water pollution from septic leach field 

run off, and increased water pollution from fertilizer and pesticide runoff to the river and 

associated bay; and (3) increased human disturbance to wildlife due to normal 

homeowner activities and their pets. 

4.1.3 Effects on the Social and Economic Environment

Under Alternative A, there would be no change to current public use and public access. 

Cultural resources would continue to be located on private lands and vulnerable to harm 

from development or other activities. It is unlikely there would be public access 

established to Kilauea Falls. Public hiking, kayaking, fishing, photography, and wildlife 

observation within this project area would likely continue to be prohibited. 

No additional ecotourism and associated economic activity is likely to result from this 

alternative. Vehicular traffic would not be increased by this alternative. 

4.2 Alternative D – the Preferred Alternative 

Described in this section are the physical, biological, social, and economic consequences 

of adding 202 acres to the Refuge. 

4.2.1 Effects on the Physical Environment 

The climatic, soil, and hydrological effects of adding 202 acres to the Refuge are 

discussed below. 

4.2.1.1 Climate and Soils 

 

Habitat management actions under Alternative D that might be considered include 

removal of invasive plants and animals, and where possible, restore or enhance native 

wildlife habitat. Thus, implementation of Alternative D would likely result in long-term 

maintenance of the vegetative cover and minimal soil disturbance which would conserve 

local micro-climate patterns and soil processes. 
37 

4.2.1.2 Hydrology and Water Resources 

Implementing Alternative D would provide opportunities for native habitat restoration. 

Habitat restoration would be expected to maintain and/or improve water quality in the 

Kilauea River. Conceptual management actions would be to restore up to 15 acres of 

wetlands which would improve the natural flood control and filtration ability of the 

project area. Irrigation for these restored wetlands would minimally alter the River flow 

and drainage of the project area and would be conducted in a manner to minimize 

sediment transfer due to very low exit speeds. Best management practices would be used 

to minimize sedimentation and to comply with all State and Federal regulations to protect 

water quality. 

4.2.2 Effects on the Biological Environment

This section covers the potential effects of implementing Alternative D on endangered 

species, other native species, species’ habitats, and open space. 

4.2.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

Implementation of Alternative D (expansion by 202 acres) would have a modest positive 

impact on endangered species due to acquisition, development, and management of 

wetlands, uplands, and coastal habitats. Refuge expansion would protect important 

wetlands for endangered waterbirds and provide additional habitat for the endangered 

Hawaiian Goose. It could also make it possible in the future for the Service to consider 

enhancing nesting areas for the endangered Newell’s Shearwater and nesting and loafing 

areas for threatened sea turtles as well as creating additional haul-out and pupping areas 

for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Habitat protection would conserve roosting 

areas for the Hawaiian hoary bat. The protection of these endangered species and their 

habitat would likely be beneficial but not significant, resulting in maintaining or even 

slightly increasing the species’ populations. 

Conceptual management actions include the future management of public use programs 

to ensure the protection of all listed species. During CCP development, the Service 

would consider such tools as the establishment of use restrictions (time and space) and 

buffer zones around sensitive endangered species areas and the re-routing of trails to 

reduce impacts to species that may be sensitive to human activities. 

To minimize human disturbance to sensitive species, public recreation opportunities 

could also include staff guided and unguided public hiking trails and wildlife 

photography along suitable areas of the Kilauea River and the Falls. Trails would be 

designed to avoid sensitive endangered species habitats while affording opportunities for 

wildlife observation and interpretation. Additional plans could potentially allow other 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The Service’s experience in managing endangered species wetland and seabird habitats 

shows that the threat from nonnative predators to native wildlife can be mitigated using 
38 

various wildlife management methods. Controlling rats, bullfrogs, and cattle egrets 

would be a priority. In addition, public outreach efforts would be conducted to help raise 

awareness regarding the detrimental effects of feral and free-ranging cats and dogs on 

native wildlife, especially ground nesting birds. Bullfrogs are especially known to be 

voracious stilt chick predators (Robinson 1999). Trapping and controlling bullfrogs 

would likely be an ongoing management activity with surveys conducted to monitor and 

assess the effectiveness of control. Monitoring the presence of mongoose is an important 

Refuge management action as mongooses have become a serious threat to waterbirds on 

other Hawaiian islands. As of yet, Kaua‘i does not have an established mongoose 

population. Credible sightings of mongooses have occurred on Kaua‘i, therefore, 

vigilance is required to keep these harmful predators from establishing a population in 

this area. 

Hawaiian Duck or Koloa –The Service’s recovery goals for the Koloa make 

establishing additional self-sustaining populations on the north shore of Kaua‘i a high 

priority (USFWS 2005). Habitat management proposed in Alternative D would support 

the Service’s recovery plan goals for this species by adding important protected Koloa 

habitat – within a geographical area that contains perhaps the last stronghold of the pure 

strain of Koloa (Zaun 2005). 

Conceptual management actions include restoration and development of approximately 

15 acres of managed wetlands to provide the Koloa with additional foraging, loafing, and 

nesting habitat in the Kilauea River Valley. Protection and enhancement of fast moving 

streams and associated wetland habitat further upstream of these wetlands is also an 

important consideration associated with this proposed expansion to provide prime nesting 

and foraging habitat for the Koloa. 

 

The Service would consider rotating seasonal treatments of wetland management units to 

provide food resources and cover for Koloa on a year-round basis. Drying, mowing, 

discing, tilling, and flooding are treatments used to maximize the production of necessary 

invertebrate prey species and life cycle requirements for Koloa. These managed wetlands 

and uplands could provide increased production of plant material and invertebrates for 

foraging and the necessary vegetative cover for nesting and predator avoidance. 

 

Long-term population monitoring would be conducted by Refuge biologists to evaluate 

the recovery of the Hawaiian Duck in response to natural resource management actions. 

This monitoring would provide the basis for evaluating the effects of Refuge 

management actions such as habitat management, law enforcement, predator control 

efforts, and visitor use, on Refuge species and their habitats as well as the surrounding 

environment. These actions will be addressed in further detail when the Service initiates 

the Refuge’s CCP, scheduled to begin in 2007. 

The “Second Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds” (Recovery Plan) 

(USFWS, 2005) identifies hybridization with Mallards as a threat to the continued 

existence of the Hawaiian Duck. The Service would consider focusing Refuge 
39 

management on minimizing further genetic dilution of the pure Koloa strain by careful 

monitoring and removal of feral Mallards and hybrid ducks from the vicinity. 

Hawaiian Stilt or Ae‘o – The population recovery goal for this federally-listed 

threatened species has been set at 2,000 breeding birds on at least three different islands 

for at least 10 years. The Recovery Plan calls for the protection and restoration of 

additional wetlands such as those in the Kilauea River valley. Under Alternative D, the 

Service would consider restoring approximately 15 acres of wetlands to support the 

recovery of all four Hawaiian waterbirds, including the Hawaiian Stilt. Stilts have not 

been observed on the site, but as occurs with other restored and managed wetlands in the 

State, the restoration of this area is expected to attract this species as a breeding resident. 

Conceptual management actions being considered for this species include the 

development and management of least 5 acres of moist soil units maintained specifically 

for Stilt nesting and chick foraging habitat. These managed wetlands would provide the 

ability to control water levels to provide shallow flooded ponds with numerous nesting 

islands needed for predator avoidance. Optimal chick foraging areas could also be 

provided with water levels less than 4-5 inches and adequate mudflats for invertebrate 

feeding opportunity. 

Long-term population monitoring would be conducted by Refuge biologists to evaluate 

the recovery of the Hawaiian Stilt and the other endangered waterbirds in response to 

natural resource management actions. This monitoring would provide the basis for 

evaluating the effects of Refuge management actions such as habitat management, law 

enforcement, predator control efforts, and visitor use. These actions would be further 

addressed in the Refuge’s CCP scheduled to begin in 2007. 

Hawaiian Coot or ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o – The Hawaiian Coot is considered a full species and 

is listed as endangered on the Federal endangered species list. Hawaiian Coots have been 

seen in the open water of the Kilauea River mouth area. Conceptual management actions 

might entail protecting an additional 15 acres of open water and estuarine habitat for use 

by this species. The 15 acres of wetland proposed for development and management as 

moist soil management units would provide high quality nesting, foraging and roosting 

habitat for this species. 

Hawaiian Moorhen or ‘Alae ‘ula – Kaua‘i is one of only two main Hawaiian Islands 

that support Hawaiian Moorhen populations. This threatened species is generally 

sedentary in nature. Refuge expansion and management could establish a protected area 

to support a new or expanded population in the Kilauea River Valley. Approximately 15 

acres of restored wetlands (moist soil management units) could provide suitable habitat 

for Moorhen nesting, foraging, and predator cover. Management actions could also 

provide the Moorhen with dense emergent vegetation over shallow water less than 2 feet 

deep for optimal nesting habitat. 

The Recovery Plan calls for the protection and restoration of additional wetlands such as 

those in the Kilauea River Valley. Refuge expansion and management could potentially 
40 

allow for developing and managing approximately 15 acres of wetlands as moist soil 

management units to provide foraging and nesting areas for the benefit of moorhens. In 

addition to the managed wetlands, the Service would consider restoring approximately 10 

acres of riparian habitat between two wetland areas that will provide additional roosting 

habitat and a buffer from potential human disturbance. 

Hawaiian Goose or Nene – the Refuge and Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge are target 

areas for the recovery of the Nene. The Recovery Plan calls for a population goal of 500 

breeding adult birds. Currently, the population estimate for the Refuge and Hanalei 

National Wildlife Refuge is 250-300 breeding adults, over half the identified goal. The 

first priority of the Nene Recovery Plan for Kaua‘i is to create and maintain new 

populations. The second priority is to increase the population size throughout Kaua‘i’s 

north shore. Refuge expansion could support both these goals by managing 

approximately 30 additional acres of grassland habitat for Nene foraging and nesting. 

Conceptual management actions include maintaining 20-30 acres in short grass for 

foraging habitat interspersed with native shrubs for nesting and predator cover. 

The Service would also consider restoring nearby wetland habitat for the endangered 

waterbirds to provide the Nene with nesting habitat and foraging areas on the mowed 

perimeter dikes. Approximately 3 acres of riparian habitat, connecting the two restored 

wetland areas, would provide additional foraging and nesting habitat for Nene. 

An expanded Nene population in the Kilauea River Valley could be managed and 

protected by the Service to create a relatively safe haven for Nene by conducting routine 

population monitoring and predator management, as needed. 

Newell’s Shearwater or ‘A‘o – Although not currently using the proposed expansion 

area, Newell’s Shearwater may nominally benefit from restoration efforts for Wedgetailed Shearwaters. Native habitat restoration along coastal bluffs would provide some 

potential nesting areas for this species. Conceptual management actions include 

removing nonnative tall trees (along with other invasive plants) and restoring the area 

with native low lying shrubs, to create unfettered flyways to the upper bluff area for 

seabird nesting habitat. Predator control might help increase the likelihood that this 

species would stabilize and possibly even increase its breeding population in the area. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal or ‘Ilio holo i ka uaua –Refuge expansion would help protect 

haul out/resting areas for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal at both Kahili and Kauapea 

Beaches (adjacent to parcels 2, 4, and 5). Monk seals have been documented at both 

these beaches. At the Refuge, monk seals commonly use the cove located directly below 

the Refuge administrative area (referred to as East Cove). These animals may be the 

same ones that use these other nearby beaches, located only a couple of kilometers from 

the cove. 

Under Alternative D, the Service would protect endangered monk seals and their habitats 

via patrols by Refuge law enforcement officers. Increased presence of law enforcement 
41 

officers would help eliminate the illegal use of off-road vehicles on dunes and beaches. 

Also, the illegal camping that occurs on the lower slopes of Parcels 2 and 5, and 

throughout Parcel 4 would be eliminated and a no camping policy would be enforced. 

Beach goers would still be welcome to use the public beach, although they would be 

required to comply with laws that protect endangered and threatened species. 

Green Sea Turtles or Honu –Refuge expansion would help protect nesting and haul out 

areas for the threatened green sea turtles on both Kahili and Kauapea Beaches. There is 

documented nesting of green sea turtles on the beach adjacent to Parcel 5 and 

undocumented reports of nesting on Kahili Beach. Documented green sea turtle nesting 

has occurred within 2 kilometers to the east of Kahili Beach (D. Heacock DLNR pers. 

comm. 2006). 

The Service would consider employing the same law enforcement presence and 

restrictions of off-road vehicles and camping for nesting green sea turtles that the Service 

is using to protect monk seals, as discussed above. 

Hawaiian Hoary Bat or ‘Ope‘ape‘a – The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat has been 

commonly observed foraging over Kahili Bay and the Kilauea River. Threats to the 

recovery of the Hawaiian hoary bat include loss of habitat and effects from pesticide use. 

Refuge expansion would help protect roosting areas in the forested portions of Parcel 3. 

These bats are known to roost in untrimmed trees that provide suitable cover (such as the 

hanging dead branches of untrimmed coconut palms). Protection of the Kilauea River 

Valley as a national wildlife refuge would maintain suitable habitat and provide an insect 

prey base. 

 

4.2.2.2 Other Native Species 

Under Alternative D, the Service proposes to protect 202 acres of undeveloped habitat, in 

large part, to protect specific wildlife habitats. In addition to endangered species, 

Alternative D could also support the native seabird species of the Hawaiian archipelago. 

The coastal bluffs situated to the east of the current Refuge boundary, although not 

presently used for seabird nesting, have potential for use as nesting habitat for an array of 

native seabirds that nest at the adjacent Refuge. Species observed nesting or roosting at 

Kilauea Point include Laysan Albatross, Red and White-tailed Tropicbirds, Red-footed 

Boobies, and both Wedge-tailed and Newell’s Shearwaters. 

Maintenance of grasslands for use by Nene would provide Laysan Albatross with 

potential nesting areas. In developing the Refuge CCP, the Service would also consider 

management actions such as tree and brush removal, mowing, and predator protection, 

activities which would also benefit Laysan Albatross and Pacific golden Plover. 

Conceptual management includes enhancement of potential seabird nesting habitat by 

removing nonnative trees to provide clear access to cliff banks for nesting. Nonnative 

ironwood trees, common to these coastal bluffs, could be removed (with root systems left 
42 

for cliff stabilization) and replaced by native shrubs such as naupaka (Scaevola sericea), 

‘akoko, pohuehue, and ‘ilima (Sida fallax). 

In developing the Refuge CCP, the Service would also consider removing nonnative 

predators such as rats, mice, cats, and dogs to increase the likelihood of seabird nesting 

success. Public outreach efforts could be focused on educating the public about the 

negative effects free-ranging domestic pets can have on nesting seabirds. 

4.2.3 Habitat Protection and Open Space Preservation

Alternative D proposes to establish Federal protection for the widest array of natural 

habitats associated with the expansion area, many of which do not exist within the current 

Refuge boundary. If Alternative D were adopted, protected habitats would include: 

coastal dunes (5 acres), ocean bluff (20 acres), brackish wetlands/marsh (34 acres), 

riparian (21 acres), lowland forest including nonnative shrub (65 acres), inland cliff face 

(5 acres), grasslands (35 acres), and aquatic habitats (17 acres), including both estuary 

and river. 

The ocean bluff habitat is vegetated with mostly exotics including ironwood, false 

kamani, lantana, and nonnative grasses. The bluffs also contain scattered coconut palms 

and a few native hala and milo trees. Over time, the Service may consider converting the 

ocean bluffs to native species. Restoring low-stature coastal trees and shrubs would 

improve nesting habitat for seabirds by providing unimpeded landing areas on the bluffs. 

Restoration would be accomplished as Refuge staff, funding, and volunteers become 

available. 

 

These bluffs include a microhabitat called “cliff face seeps,” a type found only in this 

northern quadrant of Kaua‘i from Princeville to Moloa‘a. These seeps develop where 

naturally occurring water drains out through rock cliff. The seeps provide habitat for 

native sedges, crustaceans, and damselflies. Under Alternative D, the Service would be 

able to protect this rare habitat type and the native species that occupy them in perpetuity. 

The Service, under Alternative D, proposes to add approximately 5 acres of coastal dune 

habitat to the Refuge. This habitat currently exists in a degraded state, due to extensive 

coverage by exotic vegetation. Conceptual management for the area includes the 

possibility of removing invasive plants and restoring the area with native coastal dune 

vegetation using staff and volunteer time. Community volunteer efforts could range from 

native habitat restoration to environmental and cultural education, accomplished in 

partnership with the Kilauea Land Trust, the Kilauea Neighborhood Association, the 

Hanalei Hui, and other community organizations. 

Conceptual management for the dunes includes restoration of the habitat by removing 

nonnative trees and shrubs including ironwood, Christmasberry, and lantana. Habitat 

restoration could involve planting with native species such as naupaka, hala, ‘akia 

(Wikstroemia uvaursi), pohuehue, and ‘ilima. Consultation and assistance from local 

Hawaiian elders would be sought to ensure proposed projects reach their full potential 
43 

with regard to Hawaiian culture, native wildlife, and the community of Kilauea. The 

concept is to have these projects provide an area those local schools and community 

organizations could visit to conduct environmental and cultural education. 

Riparian habitat is restricted to the strip of land directly adjacent to Kilauea River. This 

area is covered with invasive vegetation, mainly hau bush. Conceptual management for 

the riparian zone includes removal of large monotypic stands of hau bush and restoration 

with native riparian species. 

The lowland forest of the Kilauea Valley is almost entirely composed of nonnative 

vegetation and inhabited by many nonnative species of birds and mammals. The Service 

is considering native lowland forest restoration in manageable sections, as staff and 

funding become available. Within the stands of nonnative vegetation are large 

conspicuous stands of invasive bamboo. Heavy equipment would be needed to remove 

bamboo. Native trees the Service would consider planting would be the lowland koai‘a 

(Acacia koaia), ‘ohi‘a (Metosideros polymorpha), lama (Diospyros sandwicensis), and 

pokalakala (Munroidendron racemosum). Shrubs such as alula (Brighamia insignis), 

koki‘o ke‘oke‘o or white hibiscus (Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae), and iliau (Wilkesia 

gymnoxiphium) could be interspersed with trees to replace these bamboo stands and other 

nonnative vegetation. 

Terrestrial habitat restoration would be conducted using best management practices to 

minimize soil erosion and sedimentation into the Kilauea River. The absence of 

development and the use of best management practices would maintain a high level of 

water quality in both the Kilauea River and Kahili Bay – a popular spot with beach goers. 

The Refuge would work with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources – 

Aquatic Resources to develop a management plan to protect and enhance the aquatic 

environment of this section of the River. 

Conceptual management actions for Kilauea River habitat restoration include removing 

exotic vegetation along the riparian edge where the stream is shaded from sunlight. The 

removal of shade trees would increase water temperature, invertebrate populations, and 

photosynthesis to benefit native species. 

Conceptual plans are to establish native wetlands along the Kilauea River, either by 

planting native plants or by natural recruitment by brackish water flooding, to help filter 

pesticides, fertilizers, and silt run-off into the River. 

Proposed management actions would entail working with the State to devise management 

plans to control nonnative predator fish species such as introduced small and largemouthed bass, swordtails, and koi to benefit native fish species. 

Stream surveys would be conducted for sensitive aquatic species such as gobies, snails, 

shrimp, and fresh water mollusks. Protection of habitat for sensitive species would also 
44 

be protective of other native aquatic species, such as commercially important fish species 

that use the estuary as a nursery. 

Restoration of the lowland, coastal, riparian and cliff areas to natural plant communities 

would be a priority to the Service for the Refuge expansion area. Because habitat 

restoration would be conducted on a relatively small scale over time and the adverse 

effects of habitat restoration would be minimized due to adoption of best management 

practices, it is not anticipated that effects of habitat restoration activities being considered 

would result in significant environmental changes. 

4.2.4 Effects on the Social and Economic Environment 

In this section, the Service examines the environmental consequences of implementing 

Alternative D for cultural resources and recreation and tourism. 

4.2.4.1 Cultural Resources

Implementation of Alternative D would result in Federal protection of cultural resources 

in the proposed expansion area through Service compliance with Federal cultural and 

historic resource laws and policy. The addition of the lands to the Refuge would allow 

the Service to include these areas in CCP planning which will address the treatment, 

protection, research, and interpretation of cultural and historic sites in coordination with 

the State Historic Preservation Office and members of the public. 

Habitat restoration, including the coastal dune project, would be planned and carried out 

in consultation with local Hawaiian elders (through assistance by the Kilauea 

Neighborhood Association or Office of Hawaiian Affairs) to ensure that cultural sites 

important to native Hawaiians are protected to the maximum extent possible. 

During CCP planning, the Service would work with members of the community to 

evaluate opportunities for native traditional gathering on the Refuge. Public uses would 

need to be compatible with Refuge purposes and consistent with all applicable laws. 

Because the Service would consult on activities with the potential to affect cultural 

resources and adopt protection measures to ensure cultural resources are not adversely 

affected, no significant effects to cultural resources are expected to occur. 

4.2.4.2 Recreation and Tourism

Under Alternative D, the Service could facilitate expanded opportunities for 

environmental education and community-based environmental stewardship. Conceptual 

management actions for public recreation include staff guided and unguided public 

access hiking trails and wildlife observation and photography along suitable areas of the 

Kilauea River and Kilauea Falls. Trails would be designed to avoid sensitive endangered 

species habitat while affording opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, and fishing on the lower estuarine portion of 

the River during daylight hours. To accommodate fishing, the Service would consider 
45 

allowing continued use of an existing gravel boat launch maintained for public use and 

developing a fishing access point for physically challenged people, as part of the CCP 

planning process. 

It is likely that guidebooks, trade publications, and word-of-mouth would result in 

increased visitation to newly acquired areas as Kilauea River Valley is well-known as a 

tourist destination. Refuge management would strive to manage the area for low impact, 

low volume public use. Parking and access roads are limited and would be the primary 

limiting factor to increased public use, therefore, the Service would likely conduct the 

minimal improvements required for public safety. During the CCP planning process, a 

range of alternative means of managing visitor use would be considered. Public use 

would need to be managed by the Service in a manner compatible with the proposed 

purposes for which the Refuge is being expanded. 

The Service would consider allowing guided tours that could include swimming in the 

pool below Kilauea Falls, as part of the tour. Unrestricted swimming in the pools 

(outside of the designated tours) would likely be prohibited due to safety and liability 

concerns. 

Allowing commercial activities on these newly acquired properties may not be feasible 

due to insufficient infrastructure of roads and parking areas to support commercial 

activities. Due to the need to minimize human disturbance for endangered species 

recovery efforts and to minimize the negative impacts to the local community from 

anticipated increased visitation, it may not be feasible for the Service to allow private 

enterprises to conduct activities such as kayaking or hiking tours. 

The consequences of increased Refuge visitation on the local community are likely to be 

minimal in terms of spending associated with Refuge visitation causing positive 

economic benefit, for the local community, and in terms of a negative increase in traffic 

congestion. 

 

As part of a separate project, the Service is taking part in an Alternative Transportation 

Study (ATS) for access to the Refuge, in order to meet the needs of the local community 

while providing the highest quality Refuge visitor experience. In planning an ATS, 

managers will consider the potential effects of a new transportation system on community 

residents, visitor access, visitor experience, visitor willingness to pay for specific services 

such as a shuttle, and net economic benefits resulting from visitation. As part of the ATS 

project, the Service contracted a study that was conducted by the U.S. Geological 

Survey’s Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA) in 2004 to study the 

above factors. 

One objective of the PASA study was to determine the impacts of visitor spending within 

the local area. This study found that for 56 percent of Refuge visitors, visiting the Refuge 

was either the primary reason for coming to Kaua‘i or equally important as other reasons 

for visiting Kaua‘i. This statistic agrees with the outcome of another visitor questionnaire 

where 56 percent of 1,346 respondents said that wildlife/plant viewing was their main 
46 

reason for coming to Kaua‘i. The PASA study found that Refuge visitors spent between 

$1,026 and 1,070 total per person per trip to Kaua‘i ($127-133 per day). Based on a 2004 

model, the PASA study concluded that both the direct (visitor spending within the 

economy) and indirect effects of Refuge visitors coming to Kaua‘i County (income and 

employment resulting from secondary purchases such as rooms, cars, gas, restaurants, 

groceries, etc.) equaled $8.9 million per year and 184 jobs (Sexton et al. 2005). 

Community responses to the PASA survey included concerns regarding increased 

tourism to Kilauea because of increased traffic with associated noise and traffic safety 

issues. Additional community concerns were voiced about increased Refuge tourism 

during a Kilauea Neighborhood Association meeting held in June 2005. 

Visitor use is expected to be managed at levels well below that which is permitted at the 

Kilauea Point lighthouse area. Thus, the Service expects that future visitor use programs 

at the Kilauea Stream area would not result in significant effects on traffic, noise, or 

economics of the local community. 

4.2.5 Other Effects 

This section covers long-term biological productivity and diversity, unavoidable adverse 

effects, cumulative impacts, and the rationale for identifying Alternative D as the 

preferred alternative. Also included is a table comparing the anticipated environmental 

consequences associated with each alternative. 

4.2.5.1 Long-term Conservation of Biological Productivity and Diversity 

Under the proposed expansion in Alternative D, the Service would protect and manage 

the wildlife habitat of the area as a permanent part of the Refuge System, restoring and 

conserving native biological diversity. Long-term productivity includes protection and 

restoration of federally-listed threatened and endangered species populations and other 

native terrestrial and aquatic species, including rare plant communities. 

4.2.5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Adoption of Alternative D would not result in unavoidable adverse effects but would 

instead protect the area from incremental adverse impacts from development such as 

degradation of water quality and loss of wildlife habitat. 

4.2.5.3 Cumulative Impacts 

The proposed action, Alternative D, would expand the Refuge by up to 202 acres and 

would result in additional habitat being protected, restored, and managed in perpetuity. 

The Service would manage the additional Refuge lands to provide for recovery of 

endangered Hawaiian waterbirds; long-term conservation of valuable coastal wildlife 

habitat; preservation of water quality in the lower reaches of the Kilauea River Valley 

and associated Kahili Bay; protection of cultural resources; and opportunities for 
47 

wildlife-dependent public recreation, community stewardship, and environmental 

education. The effects would generally be restricted to the project area. Some species of 

wildlife would migrate from the Refuge to other areas. The effects of the wildlife 

movements are not likely to be significant because the Service is not anticipating 

significant increases in wildlife populations. Furthermore, in the context of Kauai’s 

continuing population growth, island development and associated habitat degradation, 

expansion of the Refuge in an area that is currently undeveloped does not represent a 

significant cumulative impact on the human environment. 

4.3 Comparison of the Alternatives and Rationale for the Preferred Alternative 

In this section, a matrix provides a side by side comparison of the alternatives in Table 5 

followed by a discussion of the rationale for the preferred alternative, Alternative D. 

Table 5. Environmental Consequences Comparison

Environmental 

Factor: 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B 

Coastal 

Alternative C 

Riverine 

Alternative D 

Coastal and Riverine 

Federally listed 

endangered and 

threatened 

species 

No changes in 

habitat conditions 

for listed species. 

Limited additional 

roosting/foraging habitat 

for endangered Hawaiian 

hoary bat. 

Maximum potential 

nesting habitat for 

threatened Newell’s 

Shearwater protected in 

perpetuity. 

Additional protected 

habitat for endangered 

Hawaiian monk seal and 

threatened green sea 

turtle. 

Maximum additional 

managed wetlands for 

Hawaiian waterbirds 

Maximum protection of 

roosting/foraging habitat 

for Hawaiian hoary bat 

Maximum additional 

habitat for Nene 

No additional nesting 

habitat for Newell’s 

Shearwater 

Less protected habitat for 

monk seals and sea turtles 

compared to Alternative 

B 

Maximum additional 

managed wetlands for 

Hawaiian waterbirds 

Maximum protection of 

roosting/ foraging habitat 

for Hawaiian hoary bat 

Maximum additional 

habitat for Nene 

Additional potential for 

Newell’s Shearwater 

nesting habitat 

Maximum additional 

protected habitat for 

Hawaiian monk seal and 

green sea turtle 

Native Seabirds Potential 

degradation of cliff 

habitat due to land 

development 

Protection for majority of 

potential seabird nesting 

areas on both coastal 

bluffs 

Limited protection of 

seabird nesting 

Protection for seabird 

nesting areas on eastern 

coastal bluffs and inland 

cliff faces 

Native Plant 

communities 

Potential loss due 

to land 

development and 

invasive species 

Limited diversity of 

protection 

Protection of all native 

plant communities except 

for cliff face seeps on 

coastal bluffs 

Maximum protection 

of native plant 

communities 

Aquatic 

resources 

Possible 

degradation due to 

development 

Limited protection at 

basal cliff areas 

Maximum protection of 

riverine and estuary 

aquatic resources 

Maximum protection 

of aquatic resources 

Additional 

protected habitat 

(acres) 

0 55 179 202 
48 

Environmental 

Factor: 

Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B 

Coastal 

Alternative C 

Riverine 

Alternative D 

Coastal and Riverine 

Cultural 

Resources 

Potential loss due 

to land 

development 

Limited additional 

protection for cultural 

resources 

Protection for majority of 

cultural resources 

Maximum protection for 

cultural resources 

Public 

Recreation 

No changes in 

public recreation 

opportunities 

Limited additional 

wildlife-dependent public 

recreation opportunities 

Maximum additional 

wildlife-dependent public 

recreation opportunities 

Maximum additional 

wildlife-dependent public 

recreation opportunities 

Tourism No anticipated 

increase in the 

proposed 

expansion area 

Limited additional 

tourism opportunities 

Increase from guided 

hikes and Kilauea Falls 

visitation 

Increase from guided 

hikes and Kilauea Falls 

visitation 

4.3.1 Rationale for Selection of the Preferred Alternative

The No Action Alternative provides little likelihood important wildlife habitats would be 

protected, restored, and managed. 

Alternatives B (coastal) and C (riverine) each encompass important wildlife habitat 

identified for protection. Thus, with the selection of Alternative D as the Preferred 

Alternative, including the distinct and complementary habitats of both Alternatives B and 

C, the Service could protect the widest variety of habitats for endangered species, 

seabirds, shorebirds, raptors, aquatic resources, and other native wildlife. The Service 

could protect the most cultural resources under Alternative D as well. Additionally, the 

Service would have the greatest opportunity to offer wildlife-dependent public recreation 

to local residents and visitors under Alternative D. 

Parcel 5 (Alternative B) was excluded from Alternative D, the Preferred Alternative, due 

to unresolved controversy and legal questions concerning public access. 

More specifically, Alternative D has been identified as the Preferred Alternative because 

implementing it would provide the greatest opportunity to: 

• Contribute to the purpose and need for expanding the Refuge, protecting the 

widest diversity of wildlife habitat types associated with the study area and the 

adjacent Refuge. 

• Contribute to the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System to benefit present 

and future generations of Americans. 

• Support the goals of the 2005 Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds by 

providing foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for four endangered waterbird 

species: the Hawaiian Duck, Hawaiian Moorhen, Hawaiian Coot, and Hawaiian 

Stilt as well as grassland habitat for the federally-listed endangered Nene. 

• Protect nesting habitat for seabirds including the federally-listed threatened 

Newell’s Shearwater. 
49 

• Protect roosting and foraging habitat for the federally-listed endangered Hawaiian 

hoary bat and coastal habitat for the federally-listed endangered Hawaiian monk 

seal and federally-listed threatened green sea turtle. 

• Protect grassland habitat for the native Laysan Albatross and various raptor 

species. 

• Protect cliff face seeps that support sedges, crustaceans, and damselflies endemic 

to this part of the island of Kaua’i. 

• Protect coastal strand dune and the variety of native coastal dune vegetation. 

• Protect riverine habitats along the Kilauea River Valley from Kilauea Falls to the 

rivermouth at Kahili Bay including wetlands, riparian woodlands, forest, marshes, 

streams, and estuary. These habitats support estuary–dependent fish, mollusks, 

crustaceans, and invertebrates; nesting habitat for the White-tailed Tropicbird; and 

native lowland forest birds. 

• Contribute to protecting water quality within the Kilauea River Valley to improve 

watershed health and function by protecting and restoring patches of native 

habitat. 

• Provide high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education 

to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of the Refuge’s 

fish, wildlife, and plant habitats. 

• Collaborate in the protection of Native Hawaiian cultural resources and provide 

public cultural resource education. 

• Prevent further encroachment and disturbance to existing Refuge wildlife. 
50 
51 

CHAPTER 5. COORDINATION, CONSULTATION, 

AND COMPLIANCE

5.1 Public Involvement 

The proposed expansion of the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge has been 

discussed with landowners; neighbors; conservation organizations; Federal, State, 

County, and city governments; local organizations and interested groups; and individuals. 

The Service has invited and continues to encourage public participation throughout the 

public involvement process consisting of public notices and meetings with potentially 

affected landowners, government agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The 

Refuge Manager gave a presentation on June 7, 2005, at a Kilauea Neighborhood 

Association meeting. Planning updates were distributed in May and November of 2005. 

As part of the public notice and review process, the Kilauea Point National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment will be available 

for a minimum 30-day review and comment period from the date of public release. A 

public open house will be held during the 30-day comment period in the town of Kilauea, 

Hawaii, where Service employees will be available to discuss the project, answer 

questions and receive public comments. A notice for the meeting can be found in 

Planning Update 3. 

 

5.2 Environmental Review and Consultation

In expanding the Refuge, the Service would comply with Federal laws, regulations, and 

executive orders. The following section describes specifically how expanding the Refuge 

is in compliance with the NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species 

Act, and other relevant Federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. 

5.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

As a Federal agency, the Service must comply with provisions of the 1969 National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). An 

environmental analysis is required under NEPA to evaluate reasonable alternatives that 

will meet stated objectives, and to assess the possible environmental, social, and 

economic impacts to the human environment. The environmental assessment serves as 

the basis for determining whether implementation of the proposed action would 

constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment. The environmental assessment facilitates the involvement of government 

agencies and the public in the decision making process. 
52 

5.2.2 National Historic Preservation Act

The Service would follow established procedures for protecting cultural resources if the 

Refuge is expanded. This includes complying with the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 469) and other cultural resource preservation laws, and consulting 

with the State Historic Preservation Office and appropriate Native American 

governments for any future restoration and management actions which may have the 

potential to affect historic properties. 

5.2.3 Endangered Species Act 

Expanding an approved refuge boundary does not represent a Federal action which would 

affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531-1544). The Service would conduct consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act for any Refuge management program actions which have the potential to 

affect listed species. 

5.2.4 Other Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

In implementing the proposed action, the Service would comply with the following 

Federal laws, executive orders, and legislative acts: Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs (Executive Order 12372); Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and 

Scientific Properties (Executive Order 11593); Floodplain Management (Executive Order 

11988); Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990); Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 

U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Executive Order 12996); Departmental Policy on Environmental Justice 

(Executive Order 3127); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policy Act of 1970, as amended; Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended; National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended; and Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175). 

5.2.5 Distribution and Availability 

Copies of this LCP/EA have been distributed to Federal and State elected officials, 

Native groups, County and city governments, affected landowners, private groups, and 

other interested individuals (see Appendix B, Notification List). Copies of the document 

are available by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Planning and 

Visitor Services, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232, (503) 231-2235. The 

documents can also be viewed on the Service’s website at 

http://pacific.fws.gov/pacific/planning. 
53 

CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES 

Aiken, R.R. 1988. Kilauea Point Lighthouse, The Landfall Beacon on the Orient Run. 

Kilauea Point Natural History Association. Kauai, HI, pgs. 14-19. 

American Ornithologist’s Union. 1993. Checklist of North American Birds. 7th edition. 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Beletsky, L. 2000. Ecotravellers’ Wildlife Guide to Hawaii, Natural World Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA, pgs. 166-169. 

Bennett, W.C. 1931. Archaeology of Kaua‘i. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 80. Bishop 

Museum Press. Honolulu, HI, pg. 16. 

Blay, C. and Siemers, R. 2004. Kauai’s Geologic History, A Simplified Guide (Updated 

Edition), The Edge of Kauai Investigations, Honolulu, HI, pg. 51-54. 

Brisbin, I.L., H.D. Pratt, and T.B. Mowbray. 2002. American Coot and Hawaiian Coot. 

In the Birds of North America, No. 697 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Burgett, B., McGerty, L., and Spear, R. L. 2000. An Archaeological Inventory Survey 

of an approximately 27.56 acre parcel, Kahili Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olau District, Island of 

Kaua‘i, Hawaii [TMK 5-2-21-:6]. Prepared for Cheryl Schenck. 

Burney, D.B. 2001. Fossil Evidence for a Diverse Biota from Kauai and Its 

Transformation since Human Arrival. Ecological Monographs 71: 615-641. 

Byrd, G.V., J.L. Sincock, T.C. Telfer, D.I. Moriarity, and B.G. Brady. 1984. A crossfostering experiment with Newell’s race of Manx shearwater. J. Wildl. Manage. 

48(1):163-168. 

Byrd, G.V. and Zeillemaker, C.F. 1981. Ecology of nesting Hawaiian common 

gallinules at Hanalei, Hawaii. Western Birds 12:105-116. 

Chang, P.R. 1990. Strategies for managing endangered waterbirds on Hawaiian National 

Wildlife Refuges. M.S. Thesis, University Massachusetts, Department of Forestry and 

Wildlife Management, Amherst MA. 87 pp. 

Coleman, R.A. 1981. The reproductive biology of the Hawaiian subspecies of the blacknecked stilt, Himantopus mexicanus knudseni. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State 

University, PA. 106 pp. 

Engilis, A., Jr., Uyehara K.J., and Giffin, J.G. 2002. Hawaiian Duck (Anas wyvilliana). 

In The Birds of North America, N. 694 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) The Birds of North 

America, Inc. Philadephia, PA. 
54 

Finney, B. 2003. Sailing in the Wake of the Ancestors, Reviving Polynesian Voyaging. 

Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI. 124 pp. 

Heacock, D. 2006. District Biologist, Hawai‘i State Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, Kaua‘i, HI. Personal communication 

regarding green sea turtle nesting east of Kahili Beach. 

Hawai‘i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1976-2003. Biannual Hawaiian waterbird 

survey data. Summarized by Hawaii. Natural Heritage Program and Pacific Islands Fish 

and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, HI. 

Henshaw, H.W. 1902. Birds of the Hawaiian Possessions. T.G. Thrum Publisher, 

Honolulu, HI. pp.146. 

Kane, H.K. 1997. Ancient Hawaii. Kawainui Press, Captain Cook, HI. 10 pp. 

Kirsh, P.V. 1982. The Impact of Prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian Ecosystem. 

Pacific Science 36(1):1-14. 

Nagata, S.E. 1983. Status of the Hawaiian Gallinule on lotus farms and a marsh on 

Oahu, Hawaii. M.S. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Pratt, H.D., et al. 1987. The Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific, Princeton 

University Press, Princeton, NJ, pg. 56-57. 

Robinson, J.A., Reed J.M., Skorupa J.P., and Oring, L.W. 1999. Black-necked stilt 

(Himantopus mexicanus). In The Birds of North America. No. 449 (A. Poole and F. Gill, 

eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32pp. 

Schwartz, C.W. and Schwartz E.R. 1949. The Game Birds of Hawai‘i. Division of Fish 

and Game and Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry, Honolulu, HI. pg. 

168. 

Sexton, N., S.C. Gillete, L. Koontz, S.C. Stewart, J. Loomis, and K. Wundrock. 2005. 

Visitor and Community Survey Results for Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge and 

Lighthouse: Completion Report, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey. 3-1 thru 3-5 pgs. 

Shallenberger, R.J. 1977. Ornithological survey of Hawaiian wetlands. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Contract DACW 84-77-C-0036, Honolulu, HI 406 pp. 

Smith, D.G., and J.T. Polhemus. 2003. Habitat use and nesting activity by the Hawaiian 

stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) and Hawaiian moorhen (Gallinulla chloropus 

sandvicensis) at the Hamakua Marsh State Wildlife Sanctuary, Kailua, Oahu. ‘Elepaio 

63:59-62. 
55 

State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources. 1990. Hawaii Stream 

Assessment, A Preliminary Appraisal of Hawaii’s Stream Resources. Commission on 

Water Resource Management. Honolulu, HI. 

Swedberg, G.E. 1967. The Koloa, a preliminary report on the life history and status of 

the Hawaiian duck (Anas wyvilliana). Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act Report 

(W-5-R), Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Game, 

Honolulu, HI. 56 pp. 

Thrum, Thomas G. 1907. Heiau and Heiau Sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands. 

Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1907. Honolulu, HI. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1972. Soils Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, 

Maui, Molokai and Lanai, State of Hawaii. Soil Conservation Service. Honolulu, HI. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian 

Waterbirds, Second Draft of Second Revision. Portland, OR. 

 

Zaun, B., Refuge Biologist, Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Kaua‘i, HI. 2005 and 2006. Personal communication regarding 

recovery of the Hawaiian Koloa and Hawaiian Coot observations in the Kilauea River. 
56 
57 

Appendix A. 

Public Law 108-481 

One Hundred Eighth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twentieth day of January, two 

thousand and four 

An Act 

To provide for the expansion of Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion 

Act of 2004.’ 

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF KILAUEA POINT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. 

(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of the Interior may acquire by donation, 

purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, all or a portion of the 

land or interests in land described in subsection (b), as depicted on a map on file 

with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service entitled `Kilauea Point Wildlife 

Refuge Expansion Area' and dated April 22, 2004. 

(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND- The land referred to in subsection (a) is the 

following: 

(1) Parcel 1, consisting of approximately 12 acres known as the Kilauea 

Bay property. 

(2) Parcel 2, consisting of approximately 40 acres known as the Kilauea 

Vistas property. 

(3) Parcel 3, consisting of approximately 162 acres known as the Kilauea 

Falls Ranch. 

(4) Parcel 4, consisting of approximately 5 acres known as the Kauai 

Public Land Trust Kahili Beach property. 

(5) Parcel 5, comprised of lot 10c of the parcel known as Kilauea Garden 

Farms, and consisting of approximately 15 acres. 

(c) BOUNDARY REVISIONS- The Secretary may make such minor revisions in 

the boundaries of any of the parcels described in subsection (b) as may be 

appropriate to facilitate the acquisition of land or interests under subsection (a). 
58 

(d) INCLUSION IN REFUGE- Land and interests acquired under this section 

shall become part of the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. 

(e) MANNER OF ACQUISITION- All acquisitions of land or waters under this 

Act shall be made in a voluntary manner and shall not be the result of forced 

takings. 

(f) ADDITIONAL PURPOSES- In addition to the purposes of the Refuge under 

other laws, regulations, Executive orders, and comprehensive conservation plans, 

the Refuge shall be managed for-- 

(1) the protection and recovery of endangered Hawaiian water birds and 

other endangered birds, including the Nene (Hawaiian goose); and 

(2) the conservation and management of native coastal strand, riparian, 

and aquatic biological diversity. 

(g) PRIORITY GENERAL PUBLIC USES- Nothing in this Act shall be 

considered to affect any policy or requirement, under paragraph (3) or (4), 

respectively, of section 4(a) of the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act 

of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)), to treat compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses as priority general public uses of the Refuge. 

SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall administer all federally owned land, 

water, and interests in land and water that are located within the boundaries of the 

Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with-- 

(1) the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 

U.S.C. 668dd et seq.); and 

(2) this Act. 

(b) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- The Secretary may, in the administration of 

the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, use such additional statutory 

authority available to the Secretary for the conservation of fish and wildlife, and 

the provision of opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation, as the 

Secretary determines to be appropriate to carry out this Act. 

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary-- 

(1) to acquire land and water within the Refuge under section 2(a); and 

(2) to develop, operate, and maintain the Refuge. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and 

President of the Senate. 
59 

Appendix B. 

Notification List for the Environmental Assessment

Federal and State Congressional Offices 

U.S. Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka 

U.S. Congressman Neil Abercrombie and U.S. Congresswoman Mazie Hirono 

Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle 

State Senators Gary L. Hooser, Hermina Morita, and Bertha C. Kawakami 

Federal Agencies 

Marine Mammal Commission

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U. S. Department of the Army 

Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

Pacific Islands Regional Office 

National Marine Sanctuary Program 

Hawaii Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 U.S. Geological Survey 

Biological Research Division 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Native American Governments 

Department of Hawaiian Homelands 

Office of Hawaiian Affairs 

State of Hawaii Agencies 

Department of Land and Natural Resources 

Aquatic Resources Division 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife 

State of Hawaii Department of Health 

Office of Environmental Quality Control 

Hawaii Department of Agriculture 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Hawaii Natural Heritage Program 
60 

University of Hawaii 

Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 

Local Government 

County of Kauai - Mayor Bryan Baptiste 

County of Kauai Council Services - Bill “Kaipo” Asing, Council Chair 

Organizations 

Kilauea Point Natural History Association

Kilauea Neighborhood Association 

Kilauea Point Historical Preservation Committee 

Kauai Public Land Trust 

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii 

Pacific Coast Joint Venture 

The Hanalei Watershed Hui 

Conservation Council for Hawaii 

Ducks Unlimited 

Earthjustice 

Hawaii Audubon Society 

Hawaiian Trail & Mountain Club 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

Hawaii Conservation Alliance 

Sierra Club Hawaii Chapter 

The Wildlife Society, Hawaii Chapter 

Kauai Invasive Species Committee 

Save Our Seas 

Media contacts 

Kong Radio Group - KQNG 

KFMN 

KKCR/KKCU 

KUAI 

KHET – Hawaii Public Television 

KGMB-TV 

KHNL 

KHON-TV 

KITV 

Associated Press 

Hawaii Public Radio

hawaiinews.com 

Garden Island News 

Honolulu Advertiser 

Kauai Beach Press/Kauai Business Report 

Environment Hawaii 
61 

Private Individuals 

Landowners 

Private Citizens 
62 
63 

Appendix C. 

Botanical and Avifauna

Survey of Parcel 3 by Refuge staff and volunteer botanist on 4/21/05 

NONNATIVE 

Java plum (Syzgium cumini) 

Guava (Psidium guajava) 

African tuliptree (Spathodea campanulata) 

Mango (Mangifera indica) 

Roseapple (Syzygium jambos) 

White shrimp plant (Justicia betonica) 

False kamani (Terminalia catappa) 

Banana (Musa spp.) 

Bamboo (Bambusa spp.) 

Jobe’s tears (Coix lachrymal-jobi) 

Octopus tree or Schefflera (Schefflera actinophylla) 

Catsclaw (Caesalpinia decapetala) 

Morning glory 

Pluchea (Pluchea spp.) 

Avocado (Persea americana) 

Tropic ageratum (Ageratum conyzoides) 

Basketgrass (Oplismenus hirtellus) 

Pothos vine (Epipremnum pinnatum) 

California grass (Brachiaria mutica) 

Guineagrass (Panicum maximum) 

Honohono (Commelina diffusa) 

Bulrush (Scirpus spp.) 

Water purslane (Ludwigia octovalvis) 

Heliconia 

White ginger (Hedychium coronarium) 

Umbrella plant (Cyperus alternifolius) 

Coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) 

Elephant-ear (Alocasia microrrhiza) 

Ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia) 

Mexican elder (Sambucus mexicanus) 

Arrowleaf sida (Sida rhombifolia) 

Hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) 

Joee (Stachytarpheta dichotoma) 

Koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala) 

Raspberry (Rubus sieboldii) 

Satin leaf tree (Chrysophyllum oliviforme) 

Golden fern (Pityogramma calomelanos) 

Noni (Morinda citrifolia) 

Christmasberry (Schinus terebinthifolius) 

Lantana (Lantana camara) 
64 

NATIVE 

Hala (Pandanus spp.) 

Kulu‘i (Nototrichium sandwicense) 

Avifauna Survey by Refuge staff on 4/21/05 

NATIVE 

Hawaiian Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) 

Pacific Golden-plover (Pluvialis fulva) 

Wandering Tattler (Heteroscelus incanus) 

Red-tailed Tropicbird (Phaethon rubricauda rothschildi) 

Great Frigatebird (Fregata minor) 

NONNATIVE 

Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) 

Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) 

Domestic Chicken (Gallus domesticus) 

Hwamei (Garrulax canorus) 

Japanese White-eye (Zosterops japonicus) 

Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) 

Spotted Dove (Streptopelia chinensis) 

White-rumped Shama (Copsychus malabaricus) 

Zebra Dove (Geopelia striata)